### From: Nizich, Sharon Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2015 12:57 PM To: 'Aaron_L_Szabo@omb.eop.gov' Cc: Jordan, Scott; Eck, Janet; Barnett, Keith; VanLare, Paula Subject: EO 12866_Brick Clay 2060_AP69 Final Submittal

Hello Aaron
Please find attached the final submittal for ROCIS along with the compare version between 08/24/2015 version and today, for subject rule. Also note I am sending you the compare version of the RIA, between the 08/24/2015 submittal to you, and the final we completed to day. Thank you. Sharon Nizich Environmental Engineer U.S. EPA/OAR/OAQPS Sector Policies and Programs Division (SPPD) 109 TW Alexander Dr. (D243

- 04) RTP, NC 27711 (919) 541

- 2825

<< E O 12866_Brick Clay 2060

- AP69 RIA Final_Compare_2015 09 23.docx >> < < E O 12866_Brick Clay 2060

- AP69 Compare_20150923.docx >> << E O 12866_Brick Clay 2060

- AP69_ROCIS Clean Copy 9 23 2015.docx >>E.O. 12866_Brick & C lay 2060

- AP69 RIA Final_ 20150812 20150923



# Regulatory Impact Analysis: Final 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 201 5 Docket ID No. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2013

- 0291***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***
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.***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

iii CONTENTS
Section Page Executive Summary

................................ ................................ ................................ .... ES

- 1
1 Introduction

................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 1

- 1 1.1 Background for the Final Rule

................................ ................................ ............. 1

- 1 1.2 Statement of Need for Policy Action

................................ ................................ ... 1

- 1 1.2.1 Need for Regulatory Intervention Because of Market Failure

................. 1

- 1 1.3 Organization of the Report

................................ ................................ ................... 1

- 2
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 Definition

................................ ................................ ..................... 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 2.6 References

................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 2

- 21***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

iv 3 Engineering Cost Analy sis

................................ ................................ ............................ 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
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

- 9 4.1.5 Characterization of Uncertainty in the Monetized PM 2.5 Co

benefits

................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 4

- 9 4.2 Energy Disbenefits

................................ ................................ ............................. 4

- 18 4.2.1 Social Cost of Carbon and Greenhouse Gas Disbenefits

....................... 4

- 19 4.3 Unquantified Benefits

................................ ................................ ........................ 4

- 22 4.3.1 HAP Benefits

................................ ................................ ......................... 4

- 24 4.3.2 Additional SO 2 Health Co

- benefits

................................ ....................... 4

- 35 4.3.3 Visibility Impairment Co

- benefits

................................ ......................... 4

- 36 4.4 References

................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 4

- 37
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 Final Rule

................................ ............................... 5

- 6 5.2.1 Theory

................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 5

- 6 5.2.2 Current State of Knowledge Based on the Peer

- Reviewed Literature

................................ ................................ ................................ 5

- 11 5.2.3 Regulated Sector

................................ ................................ .................... 5

- 12 5.2.4 Environmental Protection Sector

................................ ........................... 5

- 13 5.2.5 Labor Supply Impacts

................................ ................................ ............ 5

- 13 5.2.6 Macroeconomic Net Employment Effects

................................ ............. 5

- 14***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

v 5.2.7 Information Specific to this Regulation

................................ ................. 5

- 14 5.2.8 Conclusion

................................ ................................ ............................. 5

- 15 5.3 Impacts on Small Entities

................................ ................................ .................. 5

- 16 5.3.1 Small Business Impact Screening Analysis

................................ ........... 5

- 16 5.3.2 Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

................................ .................... 5

- 18 5.4 References

................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 5

- 24
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 Revie w ............................. 6

- 1 6.3 Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

................................ ................................ ......... 6

- 2 6.4 Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

................................ ................................ ........ 6

- 5 6.4.1 Need for the Rule

................................ ................................ ..................... 6

- 5 6.4. 2 Objectives and Legal Basis for the Rule

................................ .................. 6

- 5 6.4.3 Significant Issues Raised

................................ ................................ ......... 6

- 6 6.4.4 Small Business Administration Comments

................................ ............. 6

- 8 6.4.5 Affected Small Entities

................................ ................................ ............ 6

- 9 6.4.6 Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance Requirements

.......... 6

- 9 6.4.7 Significant Alternatives

................................ ................................ ......... 6

- 10 6.5 Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

................................ ................................ ....... 6

- 10 6.6 Executive Order 13132: Federalism

................................ ................................ .. 6

- 11 6.7 Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments

................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 6

- 11 6.8 Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks

................................ ................................ ........... 6

- 11 6.9 Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution or Use

................................ .. 6

- 11 6.10 National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTAA) and ICFR Part 51

................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 6

- 11 6.10.1 Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low

- Income Populations

............. 6

- 12***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

vi 6.11 Congr essional Review Act (CRA)

................................ ................................ ..... 6

- 13
7 Comparison of Benefits and Costs

................................ ................................ ................ 7

- 1 7.1 Introduction

................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 7

- 1 7.2 Net Benefits of the Final Standards

................................ ................................ ..... 7

- 1

Appendix A Economic Model

................................ ................................ ................................ . A

- 1***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

vii LIST OF FIGURES

Number Page 2

- 1 Capacity Utilization for Nonmetallic Mineral Products (NAICS 327)

........................ 2

- 2 2

- 2 Real Price Trends fo r Brick and Structural Clay Products

................................ ......... 2

- 21
4

- 1 Total Monetized PM 2.5 Co

- benefits of Final Brick and Structural Clay Rule in 2018

................................ ................................ ................................ ............................. 4

- 13 4

- 2 Percentage of Adult Population by Annual Mean PM 2.5 Exposure in the Baseline

................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... 4

- 18 4

- 3 Cumulative Distribution of Adult Population by Annual Mean PM 2.5 Exposure in the Baseline

................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 4

- 23 4

- 4 2005 NATA Model Estimated Census Tract Carcinogenic Risk from HAP Exposure from Emissions of All Outdoor Sources (inclusive of other nonpoint sources) based on the 2005 National Toxic Inventory

................................ ................ 4

- 26 4

- 5 2005 NATA Model Estimated Census Tract Noncancer Risk from HAP Exposure from Emissions of All Outdoor Sources (inclusive of other nonpoint sources) based on the 2005 National Toxic Inventory

................................ ................ 4

- 28***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

viii LIST OF TABLES

Number Page 2

- 1. Distance Shipped Statistics: NAIC 327 (Nonmetallic Mineral Product Manufacturing)

................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 2

- 7 2

- 2. Mar ket 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) (10 3 bricks): 1993

– 2010

................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 2

- 12 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): 1 993

– 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 million 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

- 8
4

- 1. Human Health Effects of Ambient PM 2.5 ................................ ................................ ..... 4

- 3 4

- 2. Summary of Monetized PM 2.5 and its Precursor SO 2 - Related Health Co

benefits Estimates for the Brick and Structural Clay Rule in 2018 (2011$)

.............. 4

- 10 4

- 3. Summary of Reductions in Health Incidences from PM 2.5 and its Precursor SO 2 - Related Co

- benefits for Brick and Structural Clay Rul e in 2018

...................... 4

- 11 4

- 4. All PM 2.5 Benefits Estimates for the Brick and Structural Clay Rule in 2018 at Discount Rates of 3% and 7% Av eraged ($2011 millions)

................................ ........ 4

- 14 4

- 5. Population Exposure in the Baseline Above and Below Various Concentration Benchmarks in the Und erlying Epidemiology Studies

................................ ............... 4

- 17 4

- 6. Emission Increases Associated with Secondary Energy Disbenefits (short tons per year)

................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... 4

- 18 4

- 7. Estimated Global Disbenefits of CO 2 Increases in 2018 (million 2011$)

.................. 4

- 22
5

- 1. Estimated Market Impacts of Final BSCP NESHAP

................................ .................. 5

- 3 5

- 2. Estimated Additional Labor Requirements

................................ ................................ . 5

- 15 5

- 3. Small Business Impact Screening Assessment Results and Closure Estimates

......... 5

- 17***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

ix 7

- 1. Summary of the Monetized Benefits, Social Costs, and Net Benefits (million 2011$)

................................ ................................ ................................ ........................... 7

- 1***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

ES

- 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES.1 Background T he U.S. Environment Protection Agency ( EPA ) is proposing requiring 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 t echnology standards for mercury and non - mercury metal hazardous air pollutant s (or particulate matter surrogate); and work practice standards, where applicable. The final 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 par t 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 final rule

. ES.2 Results For the final rule, the key results of the RIA follow:

■ Engineering Cost Anal ysis : EPA estimates the total annualized costs (2011$) for t he final rule will be approximately $ 2 8 million.

■ Benefits Analysis: The EPA monetized human health benefits of reducing cases of morbidity and premature mortality among populations exposed to PM 2. 5 . In addition, EPA estimated the energy disbenefits associated with emissions from the control devices’ increas ed electricity usage . Using a 3% discount rate, we estimate the total monetized benefits of the final standards to be $ 8 3 million to $1 9 0 million. Using a 7% discount rate, we estimate the total monetized benefits to be $ 7 5 million to $1 70 million. Data, resource, and methodological limitations prevented EPA from monetizing the benefits from several important benefit categories, including be nefits from reducing exposure to 375 tons of HAPs each year for the final standards and exposure, as well as ecosystem effects and visibility impairment . In addition to reducing emissions of PM precursors such as SO 2 , this rule would reduce several non - mer cury HAP metals emissions (i.e., antimony, arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, cobalt, lead, manganese, mercury, nickel, and selenium) each year.

■ Market Analysis and Closure Estimates : Market

- level impacts include the price and production adjustments fo r bricks. T he average national price under the final standards increases by 1. 8 %, or $ 4.37 per 1,000 SBE, while overall domestic production falls by 1. 5 %, or 52 million bricks per year. Under the final standards, EPA estimated that two to four brick manufacturing facilities are at significant risk of closure.

■ Social Cost Analysis : Under the final standards , the economic model suggests that industries are able to pass on $ 15.1 million (2011$) of the rule ’ s costs to U.S.***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

ES

- 2 household s in the form of higher prices. Existing U.S. industries ’ surplus falls by $ 1 2.1 million, and the total U.S. economic surplus loss is $2 7.2 million.

■ Comparison of Benefits and Costs : The estimated monetized human health benefits outweigh the social costs
. For the final standards , t he net benefits are $ 5 6 million to $ 160 million at a 3% discount rate for the benefits and $ 48 million to $ 150 m illion at a 7% discount rate.

■ Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis : As required by section 604 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act ( RFA ) , the EPA prepared a final regulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA) for this action. The FRFA addresses the issues raised by public comments on the IRFA for the proposed rule. The complete FRFA is in cluded in Section 5 of this report
. ES.3 Organization o f this Report The remainder of this report details the methodology and the results of the RIA. Section 1 provides an introduction, and Section 2 presents the industry profile

. Section 3 describes engineering cost analysis, and Section 4 presents the benefi ts analysis

. Section 5 presents market, employment impact, social cost, and small business impact analyses

. Section 6 address es statutory and Executive Order requirements, and Section 7 provides a summary of benefits and
c ost s.***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

1

- 1 SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background for the Final Rule T he Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is finalizing national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) for Brick and Structural Clay Products Manufacturing. A ll major sources in these categories must meet maximum achievable control technology (MACT) standards for mercury (Hg) and nonmercury (non

- Hg) metal hazardous air pollutants (HAP s ) (or particu late matter [ PM ] surrogate s ); health

- based standards for acid gas HAP s ; and work practice standards, where applicable. The final rule , which has been informed by input from industry and other stakeholders including small businesses, protect s air quality an d promote s public health by reducing emissions of HAP s listed in section 112 of the Clean Air Act (CAA)

. This Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) examines the estimated costs, benefits, and economic impacts of the final rule. 1.2 Statement of Need for Policy Action 1.2.1 Need for Regulatory 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 acc ess to full information 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 situations, 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 neit her buyers nor sellers 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 these 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 loca ted near BSCP facilities who are exposed to the HAP emitted by the processes. Because these costs are borne by exposed individuals rather***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

1

- 2 than by the BSCP manufacturers, they are not considered by manufacturers in their production decisions. As a result, B SCP manufacturers produce 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 manufactur ers, a market failure 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 struct ural clay products industry.

■ Section 3 describes the final rule and the estimated costs of complying with it.

■ Section 4 presents a qualitative discussion of the benefits of the final rule.

■ Section 5 describes the estimated economic impacts of the final rul e.

■ Section 6 describes analyses EPA conducted to assess requirements of statutes and Executive Orders.

■ Section 7 presents EPA ’ s summary of benefits and c ost s.***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

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 applications. Because over 80% of brick sales are associated with residential construction (Brick Industry Association, 2013a ), trends in the industry are influenced by tre nds 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 final 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 dat a and industry surveys suggest the capacity utilization rate 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 are influenced by the recent steep declines in the residential

1 In 2012, these industries were classified under NAICS 32710 Clay Building Material and Refractories

Manuf acturing

. 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 ′′.***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

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 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 Types 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 fa ce);

■ structural facing tile and ceramic glazed brick, including glazed and unglazed;

■ vitrified clay sewer pipe and fittings; and***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

2

- 3 ■ structural clay tile (except facing)

. Bricks are the primary good produced in terms of value and physical quantities and includ e 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, g rinding, 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 prod uct ’ 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 ho urly 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 c lay 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 ma terials 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 purcha sing other companies. For example, 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 manufac turers 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 rise s, 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

3 The measure is computed as the percentage change in quantity supplied divided by the percentage change in price.***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

2

- 4 adjust inputs and increase p roduction. 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 Ela sticity = 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 where we lac k 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 a ssume 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 may underest imate 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 residentia l 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 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.

4 The fixed factor generally includes plant and capital equipment; factors that vary with production could include materials or labor.***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

2

- 5 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 building uses (Brick Industry Associa tion, 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 the other half is sold directly t o 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 , brick ’ 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 foun d 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 materia ls. 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 th at “ 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 thir d place ” (NAHB, 2013 ). This suggests demand for brick exterior is likely influence d by income levels.***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

2

- 6 2.3.3 What Factors Influence the Relationship Between Prices and the Quantity Demanded? All other things equal, consumers will likely buy few er 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 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 versus years). Currently, EPA ha s 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% decline 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 o f 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 define 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 divided by the percentage change in price.***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

2

- 7 nonmetallic mineral products were shipped l ess 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 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 regiona l markets for brick. 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 cla y products face the same transportation and shipment patterns as cement products.***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

2

- 8 When markets have a small number of firms selling identical products, firms may not necessarily be price 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 i s low (about 16%). 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 conce ntrated (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 pare nt company accounts 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 50 % New England 2 NA Pacific 4 40% South Atlantic 17 2 7 % West North Central 9 31% West South Central 5 52% Source: U.S. EPA estimates and 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***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

2

- 9 identified 44 ultimate parent companies with facilities that will need new or modified c ontrol devices to meet new emission standards. The companies own 8 5 facilities and operate 1 68 kilns (see Table 2

- 3) . The South Atlantic region accounts for a significant share of existing production capacity; 2 3 facilities and 5 3 kilns are operated in thi s region. Table 2 - 3. Production Statistics by Census Region

Census Region Total 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 1 1 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 5 3 2 3 92% West North Central 183,247 15 11 100% West South Central 891,232 25 14 100% United States 3, 495,607 1 68 8 5 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
nu mber of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, 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 ha s available to comply with the rule. Affected parent companies fall under the Clay Building Material and Refractories Manufacturing (NAICS 327120) industry , and the Small Business Administration (SBA) (2013 ) defines a small business as h aving fewer than 750 employees. There are 36 parent companies that are small businesses (see Table 2

- 4).***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

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 Brampton Brick, Ltd. 327121 1 NA NA <750 Yes 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 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 7 16 285.4 1,900 No Glen Gery 327121 6 10 83.3 N/A No Hanson Brick East, LLC 327121 8 1 2 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)***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

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 structu ral clay tile (except facing), and Table 2

- 8 is for clay floor and wall tile.

7 The source reports 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 production numbers is that shipment quantity is the number that is relevant for final consumption. In fact, when the data source reports calculate “apparent consump tion,” they use shipment numbers, not production numbers.***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

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 o f value of shipments can be found on the “ definitions ” Web page

for Current 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 o f 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, allowances, freight charges, and retu rns. 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.

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. However, because we lack reliable data on export prices for those years, we do not estimate the quantities of exports for 200 9 and 2010 fr om the values data. (continued)***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

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 impor t

numbers do not seem to be correlated with shipment numbers. For example, during 2001

– 2002 and 2007

– 2008 when brick shipment numbers were low, brick import numbers were not that low. In fact, plotting the numbers suggests that imports show an increasing t rend 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 unusual ly high 2008 number is only an outlier outside this trend. 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. 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 impor t 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 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 systematic differences in the unit price for shipments, the unit price for expo rts, and the unit price for imports. We looked at industrial repo rts before 2009 to find out whether the unit prices are systematically different and adjusted for those differences. We then divided the export and import values for 2009 and 2010 by the export an d import unit prices to obtain the export and import quantit ies. 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 re gression 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. 20 11. 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. Current Industrial Reports for Clay Construction Products

— Summary 2002. U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau . 2000

. Current In dustrial 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 R eports 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 exami nation of the data during the time period 1993 to 2010 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 declin e starting in 2006.***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

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)***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

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 selec t structural clay products. The definition of value of shipments can be found on the

“ 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, transferred to other establishments of the s ame 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, allowances, fre ight charges, and returns. Sh ipments 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 export 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 numbers 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 n ot 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 th ey 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 including 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

2009 and 2010 are estimates for vitrified c lay 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 low, 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 linear trend beginning in the year 1993. Anoth er 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 data on export prices, we do not estimate q uantities 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 sa me 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 si mply 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, t he 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 me thod 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 both quantities and values for shipment. So w ith 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 expo rts, and the unit pric e for imports. We looked at industrial reports before 2009 to find out whether the unit prices are systematically different and adjusted for those differences. We then divided the export and import values for 2009 and 2010 by the export an d import unit pri ces to obtain the export and import quantities. However, the export quantities (725 for 2009 and 1,346 for 2010) and import quantities (206 for 2009 and 206 for 2010) we obtained as a result of this method seemed to be quite different fro m 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. 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. (continued)***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

2

- 16 Table 2 - 6. Historical Data for Facing Tile and C eramic 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 Clay Construction Products

— Summary 200 4. 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. D epartment 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 of Commerce, Census Bureau. 1998. Current Industrial Reports for Clay Construction Products

— Summary 1997. U.S. Department of Commerc e, 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 clay 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 and jumped to 98 million by 2010, with sig nificant 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 ship ments 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 percentage 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 im ports, but Mexico represented 40% and Germany accounted for 24%.***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

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 2 008 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. De partment 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, Ce nsus 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 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.***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

2

- 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% o f 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 2003, rose bet ween 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 growth 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 we re 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 thousand short t ons 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 structu ral 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 annual 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 y ear 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 due to the 20 07

– 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, when 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. For example, the annual reports of large companies such as Boral Limited and Saint

- Gobain show them recovering after exhibiting declines during the recession.***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

2

- 19 Boral Limited is an international building and construction materials group headquartered in Australia, and i ts 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 bef ore 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 provi de 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 sal es 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 come back to pr erecession 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 Institute, 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 sales 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 manufactu rer 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.***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

2

- 20 analysis, the factors supporting the growth are the increases in housing starts and construction spending for commercial buildings similar to what is evident fro m 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 sq uare 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 for 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.***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

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/default.as px ( ac cessed 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. ht tp://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 08

- 37

. http://www.rff.org/documents/RFF

- DP

- 08

- 37.pdf

. Midwest Research Institute. 2001. Industry Characterization for Brick and Structural Clay Products Manufacturing

.***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

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, 2013. Rutherford, T.F. 2002. Lecture Notes on Constan t Elasticity Functions. http://www.gamsworld.eu/mpsge/debreu/ces.pdf

. Saint

- Gobain. 2003 Annual Report 2002 . http://www.saint

gobain.com/files/Rapport_annuel_2002_EN.pdf

. Saint

- Gobain. 2013. Regi stration 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 Industries: 2011 and 2010; generated by RTI Internatio nal; 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 America n Factfinder. http://factfinder2.census.gov . ( September 12, 2013). 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.***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

2

- 23 U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau

. 2007: Current Industrial Reports for Clay Construction Products

— Summary 2006. U.S. Department of Commerce, Ce nsus 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: Curre nt 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 Industria l 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 Prote ction 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/bgdoc s/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

.***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

2

- 24 U.S. International Trade Commission. Interactive Trade and DataWeb. U.S. Impor ts 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

.***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

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 expl ains 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 an alysis and presents the annual cost for each of the compliance options and the various 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 cost s were obtained.

■ Section 3.2, Summary of Costs by Control Device: There are various APCD implementation options to meet the compliance requirements. This section presents the overall capital and annual costs for those implementation options. It also provid es 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 three regulatory approaches:

■ Option 1 (Proposed Rule) :

– Acid gases : Meet HBS for acid gases, choice

.

– Hg: C hoice of MACT limit for Hg in lb/ton or , concentration, and a choice or lb/hr

. ■ – PM/total non

- Hg HAP metals: C hoice of MACT limits for PM in lb/ton or gr/dscf (calculated based on data from kilns with fabric filter

- based APCD, up to 12 percent of the kilns in the industry) or non - Hg HAP metals in lb/hr for all kilns.

■ Option 2 Final Rule :

– Acid gases: Meet HBS for acid gases, choice

.

– Hg: C hoice of MACT limit , with consideration of raw material variability, for Hg in lb/ton or , conc entration, and a choice or lb/hr

. ■ – PM/total non

- Hg HAP metals: C hoice of MACT limits for PM in lb/ton or gr/dscf or non - Hg HAP metals lb/hr for small and large kilns

. (calculated based on 12 percent of the data in the subcategory)

. Formatted: bullets-2nd level

Formatted: bullets-2nd level***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

3

- 2 ■ Option 3 (Final Rule but without size subcategories for PM/total non - Hg HAP metals) :

– Acid gases : Meet HBS for acid gases, choice

.

– Hg: C hoice of MACT limit, with consideration of raw material variability, for Hg in lb/ton or , concentration, and a choice or lb/hr.

■ – P M/total non

- Hg HAP metals: C hoice of MACT limits for PM in lb/ton or gr/dscf or non - Hg HAP metals lb/hr for all kilns

. (calculated based on 12 percent of the data in the industry)

. All 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. All 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. All approaches have separate Hg numeric limits for large and small kilns, and the HBS applies to all kilns at the faci lity for all compliance options. These costs include the implementation of various APCDs. The following are the APCDs considered:

■ Dry injection fabric filter (DIFF). DIFFs are used to remove HF, HCl, Cl 2 , sulfur dioxide ( SO 2 ), and PM. They work by injectin g 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 s crubber/ fabric filter (DLS/FF). DLS/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 takes 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 and is drawn through the bags, and PM accumulates in layers on the surface of the Formatted: bullets-2nd level***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

3

- 3 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 wil l 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 v aporized 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 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. 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. Formatted: Indent: Left: 0", Hanging: 0.88", No page break before, Keep lines together

Formatted: Don't keep lines together***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

3

- 4 ■ If an uncontrolled kiln or a kiln with a DLA is locate d 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 facili ty

- wide basis, the owner or operator 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 “ ac tions needed ” based on a review 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 “ Development of Cost and Emission Reduction Impacts for the Final BSCP NESHAP ” included in the docket. Table 3

- 2 presents the annual cost for each of the regulatory approaches. Table 3 - 2 . National Annual Costs of Compliance (2011 million USD)

Regions Option 1 Option 2 Final Ru le Option 3 NEG New England $0 $0 $0 MID Middle Atlantic $2 $2 $2 ENC East North Central $3 $3 $6 WNC West North Central $1 $1 $3 SAC South Atlantic $8 $9 $16 ESC East South Central $4 $4 $7 WSC West South Central $6 $5 $9 MTN Mountain $0 $0 $1 PAC Pacific $0 $0 $2 USA United States $24 $25 $47 USA United States , with recordkeeping and reporting $2 7 $2 8 $ 50

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 provided in the Formatted: Don't keep lines together***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

3

- 5 memorandum “ Development of Cost and Emission Reduction Impacts for the Final BSCP NESHAP ” 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 FF

■ Install new ACI

■ Install new FF and ACI

■ Retrofit with DIFF

■ Retrofit with DIFF and ACI

■ No action
T able 3

- 3 presents the capital and annual costs of each implementation option. Table 3 - 3. Capital and Annual Costs of APCD Implementation Scenarios (2011 USD)

Control Option s Capital Costs Annual Costs Small APCD Large APCD Small APCD Large APCD Install new DLA $1,096,473 $1,489,548 $358,556 $459,886 Install new FF $1,200,000 $1,500,000 $503,144 $579,541 Install new ACI $102,224 $146,697 $81,307 $105,763 Install new FF and ACI $2,800,000 $3,820,000 $804,907 $1,017,978 Retrofit with DIFF $2,902,224 $3,966,697 $886,214 $1,123,741 Retrofit with DIFF and ACI $1,096,473 $1,489,548 $358,556 $459,886

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 Collection Request (ICR) and supplemented with information from literature sources.***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

3

- 6 The estimates of annual cost include

■ operation and maintenance (O&M) labor;

■ materials ;

■ electricity;

■ waste disposal ;

■ overhead ; and

■ property taxes, insurance, and administration

. Information 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 Final Model Costs and Impacts of BSCP Air Pollution Control Devices. ” Annualization of the capital c o sts involves establi s hing an annual “ pay ment ” sufficient to finance the invest m ent over the expected lifeti me of the equip ment or loan period. This pay m ent is typicall y 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 section 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 :

■ Option 1 : approximately $ 2 7 million

■ Option 2 Final Rule : approximately $ 2 8 million

■ Option 3: approximately $ 50 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 ha ve testing and monitoring costs 1

.

1 Recordkeeping and reporting costs reflect the annualized present value of the stream of recordkeeping and

reporting labor costs (reported in Section 6.3). between 2015 and 2038 ($3 million).***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

3

- 7 The consideration of raw material variability in the Hg limits in Options 2 and 3 results in less stringent limits compared to Option 1, but the difference i s not great enough to have a significant impact on the nationwide costs. In addition, compared to Option 1, Option 2 has more stringent PM/total non

- Hg HAP metals limits for large kilns but less stringent PM/total non

- Hg HAP metals limits for small kilns. Therefore, more small kilns would be expected to meet the PM/total non

- Hg HAP metals limits under Option 2, but fewer large kilns would be expected to meet the PM/total non

- Hg HAP metals limits under Option 2. As a result, the overall costs are slightly hi gher under Option 2 because more of the APCD being installed are larger, more expensive units. The only difference between Option 2 and Option 3 is that Option 3 does not have size subcategories for PM/total non

- Hg HAP metals limits. The PM/total non

- Hg HA P metals limits for all kilns under Option 3 are either equivalent or very close to the large kiln PM/total non

- Hg HAP metals limits for large kilns under Option 2. This has the effect of requiring all small kilns to meet a significantly more stringent lim it under Option 3, and as shown in Table 3

- 4, more than twice the number of APCD would be needed to meet Option 3 compared to Options 1 or 2. Over half of the APCD expected to be installed would be DLA installed on uncontrolled kilns for purposes of becomi ng SA facilities. When looking 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. Retrofitting with DIFF and ACI is the option that exhibit s the highest cost and installing a new ACI system 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 existin g baseline control devices is presented in the memorandum “ Development of Cost and Emission Reduction Impacts for the Final BSCP NESHAP ” included in the docket.***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

3

- 8 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 Option 1 Number of Stacks 1 5 9 1 5 5 1 45 Capital Cost $1 9.6 $ 13.2 $2 4.7 $0. 733 $3.82 $ 62.0 Annual Cost $ 6.19 $ 5.14 $10. 3 $0. 529 $ 1.02 $ 23.2 Option 2 Number of Stacks 8 13 16 5 1 43 Capital Cost $ 11.9 $ 19.5 $2 6.3 $0. 733 $3.82 $ 62.3 Annual Cost $ 3.68 $7. 53 $ 11.0 $0. 52 9 $ 1.02 $2 3.7 Option 3 Number of Stacks 54 24 14 4 1 98 Capital Cost $63.5 $33.6 $23.1 $0.587 $3.82 $128 Annual Cost $20.5 $13.3 $9.59 $0.423 $1.02 $45.8 Formatted: Keep with next

Formatted: Keep with next Formatted: Keep with next
Formatted: Keep with next Formatted: Keep with next***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

4

- 1 SECTION 4 HUMAN HEALTH BENEFIT S OF EMISSIONS REDUC TIONS Synopsis Implementation of emissions controls required by the Brick and Structural Clay NESHAP is expected to reduce direct emissions of p articulate m atter (including PM 2.5 ) and sulfur d ioxide ( SO 2 ) that are the result of emissions limits that are being tightened f or 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 design changes to the affected manufacturing plants needed in order to meet the multiple limits. We estimate the total monetized co

- benefits of the final rule to be $83 mill ion to $190 million at a 3% discount rate and $ 7 5 million to $170 million at a 7% discount rate in 2018 , including consideration of energy disbenefits

. All estimates are in 2011$ as they are summarized in Table 4

- 1 . These estimates reflect the monetized hu man 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 cat egories, including benefits from reducing exposure up to 375 tons of HAP (acid gases and metals) each year, as well as reducing ecosystem effects and visibility impairment. 4.1 PM 2.5 - Related Human Health Co - b enefits This rule is expected to reduce direct emis sions 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. In this section, we provide an ov erview 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 d esign and analytical objectives 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 unkn own controls, incremental to***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

4

- 2 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 revise d NAAQS. The setting of a NAAQS 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 control 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 illustrati ve PM NAAQS RIA. By contrast, 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 i mplementation rules. As such, 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 a ttaining revised future NAAQS. 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 promulg ated after a NAAQS RIA outside 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 Hea lth 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 exposures. 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 NO 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 c ategories is not exhaustive, nor is quantification of each effect complete.***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

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.***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

4

- 4 We follow a “ damage

- function ” approach in calculating benefits, which e stimates changes in individual health 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 research to 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 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 othe r air pollutants. We use the environmental 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, and valuation functio ns (Abt Associates, 2012). For this assessment, the HIA is limited to those health effects that are directly linked to ambient PM 2.5 concentrations. 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 th e 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 epidemiolo gical 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 endpoint quantified in this analysis. Considering a substantial body of published scie ntific 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, 2009 c), concluded that 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

- t hreshold log

- linear model most adequately portrays the PM

- mortality concentration

- response relationship while recognizing potential uncertainty about the exact shape of the concentration

- response function.***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

4

- 5 For mortality, we use the effect coefficients fro m the most recent 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 Subco mmittee (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 annual 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 functions, 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 o f PM 2.5 on mortality, 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 ’ quantitative 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 ambient concentrations of air pollution generally lower the risk of future adverse health effects by a small amount for a large p opulation. Therefore, the 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 mi tigating the effect. These cost

- of

- illness (COI) estimates***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

4

- 6 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 developing. 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 Advisory 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 valu e 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
a vailable, 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 Preparin g Economic Analyses (U.S. EPA, 2000) 11 while the Agency continues its efforts to update its guidance on this issue. This approach calculates a mean value across VSL estimates derived from 26 labor market and contingent valuation studies published between 19 74 and 1991. The mean VSL across these studies is $6.3 million (2000$). 12 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. The adjusted value for VSL is $ 9

. 7 million ($201 1 ). Further details on the methodology are available in section 5.6.8 of the PM RIA (U.S.EPA, 2012a).

11 In the updated Guidelines for Preparing Economic Analyses (U.S. EPA, 2010e), EPA retained the VSL endorsed

by the SAB with the understand ing that further updates to the mortality risk valuation guidance would be forthcoming in the near future. 12 In 1990$, this VSL is $4.8 million.***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

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 M ortality 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 “ ces sation ” lag between changes in PM exposures and the total realization of changes in health effects. The distributed lag accounts for the expected distribution of avoided deaths according to the cause of death. The lag assumes that the initial proportion of deaths is due to cardiovascular outcomes, while the latter proportion is due to lung cancer. 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 re ductions in the first 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 - per - T on 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 pre mature 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 13 , 14 by the correspondin g 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 from 17 sectors (U.S. EPA,

13 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. 14 [Data from year 2016 was used as closest to full implementation year 2018 for this rule, and the sector was

matched with Non EGU Others category]***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

4

- 8 2013). One limitation of using the bene fit

- per - ton approach is an inability to provide estimates of the health benefits associated with exposure to HAP, CO, NO 2 , or ozone. 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. EPA, 2012a). The approach in Fann et al. (2012) is similar to the work previously published by Fann et al. (2009), but the newer study inc ludes improvements that EPA believes would provide more reliable estimates of PM 2.5 - related health benefits for emissions reductions in specific sectors. Specifically, the air quality modeling data reflect sectors that are more narrowly defined. In additio n, the updated air quality modeling data reflects more recent emissions data (2005 rather than 2001) and has higher spatial resolution (12km rather than 36 km grid cells). The benefit

- per - ton of reducing directly emitted PM 2.5 from this sector represented by the above mentioned category is close to the median of the distribution of all 17 BPT values (TSD Table 7). For example, the sector ’ s BPT for directly emitted PM 2.5 is close t o the value for the Cement Kilns sector and smaller than the Ferroalloys sector , but greater than the value for the Coke Ovens or the Iron and Steel sectors. The size of the benefit

- per - ton estimate is influenced in part by factors including: proximity of sources to population receptors; the baseline health status of the popula tion receptors; and, dispersion characteristics of the emitting source. 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 distribution 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 lo cal factors for any specific location . The photochemical modeled emissions of the bricks sector

- attributable PM 2.5 concentrations used to derive the BPT values may not match well the change in air quality resulting from the emissions controls described in Section 3 . For this reason, the health benefits reported here may be larger, or smaller, than those realized by this rule. Even though we assume that all fine particles have equivalent health effects, the benefit

per - ton estimates vary between precursors d epending on the location and magnitude of their impact on PM 2.5 levels, which drive population exposure. The sector

- specific modeling does not provide estimates of the PM 2.5 - related benefits associated with reducing VOC emissions, but these unquantified be nefits are generally small compared to other PM 2.5 precursors (U.S. EPA, 2012a).***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

4

- 9 4.1.4 PM 2.5 Co - b enefits Results 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 incidences associated with these pollution reductions. Figure 4

- 1 provides a visual representation of the range of PM 2.5 - related benefits estimates using concentra tion

- response functions from Krewski et al. (2009) and Lepeule et al. (2012) as well as the 12 functions 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 experts ’ elicitation on PM mortality. 4.1.5 Characterization of Uncertainty in the Monetized PM 2.5 Co - b enefits In any complex analysis using estimated parameters and inputs from numerous 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 estim ates, 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 inputs may be uncertain and would aff ect 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 benefits should be viewed as representati ve of the magnitude of benefits expected, rather than the actual benefits that would occur every year. This RIA does not include the type of detailed uncertainty assessment found in the PM NAAQS RIA (U.S. EPA, 2012a) because we lack the necessary air quali ty 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 results presented in this analysis. Sensi tivity 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%.***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

4

- 10 Table 4 - 2. Summary of Monetized PM 2.5 and its Precursor SO 2 - Related Health Co b enefits Estimates for the Brick and Structural Clay Rule in 2018 (2011$) a , bOptions Pollutant Emissions Reductions

(tons) Benefit per - ton (Krewski,

3%) Benefit per - ton (Lepeule,

3%) Benefit per - ton (Krewski,

7%) Benefit per - ton (Lepeule,

7%) Monetized Benefits (millions

2011$ at 3%) Monetized Benefits (millions 2011$ at 7%)Option1 Direct ly emitted PM 2.5 235 $260,000 $600,000 $240,000 $540,000 $62 to $140 $56 to $130 PM 2.5 Precursors

SO 2 168 $41,000 $92,000 $37,000 $83,000 $6.8 to $15 $6.1 to $14 NO x - 41 $6,300 $14,000 $5,700 $13,000

- $0. 26 to

- $0. 59

- $0. 23 to

- $0 .53 Total $69 to $160 $62 to $14 0Final Rule: Option 2 Direct ly emitted PM 2.5 308 $260,000 $600,000 $240,000 $540,000 $8 2 to $180 $74 to $170 PM 2.5 Precursors

SO 2 72 $41,000 $92,000 $37,000 $83,000 $2.9 to $6.6 $2.6 to $6.0 NO x - 46 $6,300 $14,000 $5,700 $13,000

- $0. 29 to

- $0. 66

- $0. 26 to

- $0. 59 Total $84 to $1 90 $7 6 to $1 70Option3 Direct ly emitted PM 2.5 415 $260,000 $600,000 $240,000 $540,000 $110 to $250 $100 to $220 PM 2.5 Precursors

SO 2 568 $41,000 $92,000 $37,000 $83,000 $ 23 to $ 52 $ 21 to $ 47 NO x - 77 $6,300 $14,000 $5,700 $13,000

- $0. 49 to

- $ 1.1

- $0. 44 to

- $0. 99 Total $1 30 to $ 300 $1 20 to $2 70

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, ecosystem 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. The monetized benefits incorporat e the conversion from precursor emissions to ambient fine particles. Confidence intervals are unavailable for this analysis because of the benefit

per - ton methodology. b These estimates reflect the net emissions impact after consideration of electricity di sbenefits. These estimates do

not include monetized CO 2 disbenefits, which range from $0.3 to $5 million depending on the option and discount rate.***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

4

- 11 Table 4 - 3. Summary of Reductions in Health Incidences from PM 2.5 and its Precursor SO 2 - Related Co - b enefits for Brick and Structural Clay Rule in 2018 a
Option 1 Final Rule : Option 2 Option 3 Avoided Premature Mortality Krewski et al. (2009) (adult) 8 10 15 Lepeule et al. (2012) (adult) 18 22 34 Avoided Morbidity Emergency department visits for asthma (all ages) 4 5 8 Acute bronchitis (age 8

– 12) 12 15 23 Lower respiratory symptoms (age 7

– 14) 150 190 290 Upper respiratory symptoms (asthmatics age 9

– 11) 220 270 420 Minor restricted

- activity days (age 18

– 65) 6 , 100 7,500 12,000 Lost work days (age 18

– 65) 1 , 000 1 , 300 2,000 Asthma exacerbation (age 6

– 18) 230 280 430 Hospital admissions

— respiratory (all ages) 2 3 4 Hospital admissions

— cardiovascular (age > 18) 3 3 5 Non

- Fatal Heart Attacks (age >18) Peters et al. (2001) 8 10 16 Pooled estimate of 4 studies 1 1 2

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. These estimates reflect the net impact after consideration of electricity disbenefits.***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

4

- 12 $0 $50 $100 $150 $200 $250 $300 Benefits Estimates from Two epidemiology Studies and 12 other expert functions for the Final Rule

— Option 2

3% 7%

Experts

$0 $50 $100 $150 $200 $250 $300 Benefits Estimates from Two epidemiology Studies and 12 other expert functions for the Final Rule

— Option 2

3% 7%

Experts***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

4

- 13 Figure 4 - 1. Total Monetized PM 2.5 Co - b enefits of Final Brick and Structural Clay Rule in 2018 a ,b

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 s hown are not the direct results from the studies or expert elicitation; rather, the estimates are based in part on the concentration

- response functions provided in those studies. b These estimates reflect the net emissions impact after consideration of el ectricity disbenefits. These estimates do

not include monetized CO 2 disbenefits, which range from $0.3 to $5 million depending on the option and discount rate.***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

4

- 14 Table 4 - 4. All PM 2.5 Benefits Estimates for the Brick and Structural Clay Rule in 2018 at Di scount Rates of 3% and 7% Averaged ($2011 millions) a , b Option 1 Final Rule: Option 2 Option 3 3% 7% 3% 7% 3% 7% Benefit - per - ton Coefficients Derived from Epidemiology Literature

Krewski $69 $62 $84 $76 $130 $120 Lepeule $160 $140 $190 $170 $300 $270 Benefit - per - ton Coefficients Derived from Expert Elicitation

Expert A $180 $160 $220 $200 $340 $310 Expert B $140 $130 $180 $160 $280 $250 Expert C $140 $130 $170 $160 $270 $240 Expert D $99 $90 $120 $110 $190 $170 Expert E $230 $210 $280 $250 $440 $400 Expert F $130 $120 $160 $150 $260 $230 Expert G $83 $75 $100 $92 $160 $140 Expert H $100 $93 $130 $110 $200 $180 Expert I $140 $130 $170 $150 $270 $240 Expert J $110 $100 $140 $130 $220 $200 Expert K $17 $16 $21 $19 $33 $30 Expert L $96 $87 $120 $110 $180 $170

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. b These estimates reflect the net e missions impact after consideration of electricity disbenefits. These estimates do

not include monetized CO 2 disbenefits, which range from $0.3 to $5 million depending on the option and discount rate. Unlike the PM NAAQS RIA, we do not have data on the sp ecific 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 est imates, which reflect specific geographic patterns of emissions reductions and specific air quality and benefits modeling assumptions for each sector (U.S. EPA, 2013) . For example, these estimates do not reflect local variability in population density, met eorology, exposure, baseline health incidence rates, or other local factors that might lead to an over

- estimate or under

- estimate of the actual benefits of controlling PM precursors. Use of these $/ton values to estimate benefits may lead to higher or lowe r benefit estimates than if benefits were calculated based on direct air quality modeling. Great care should be taken in***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

4

- 15 applying these estimates to emission emissions reductions occurring in any specific location, as these reflect on national or regional emission changes and therefore represent average benefits

per - ton over the entire United States (U.S. EPA, 2013). The benefits

- per - ton for emission reductions in specific locations may be very different than the estimates presented here , and the approach a bove did not yield benefit per

- ton estimates at a sub

- national level for this sector

. 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, because PM 2.5 varies considerably in composition across sources, but the scientific evidence is not yet sufficient to allow differentiation of effect estimates by particle type. The PM ISA concluded that “ many constituents of PM 2.5 can be linked with multi ple 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 lo g - linear 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 attainment, 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 pre mature mortality 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 gen eral, 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***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

4

- 16 observed data in these studies. Concentration benchmark analyses (e.g., lowest measured level [LML] or one standard deviation below the mean of the a ir 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
conc entration benchmarks as a concentration threshold below which we would not quantify health benefits of air quality improvements. 15 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 le ss confidence in the magnitude of the risk at 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 due to time or resource limitations. For t his rule, 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
c alculate 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 perce ntage 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 quantify f or 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 from rules that had air quality modeling.

15 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).***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

4

- 17 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 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 Exposur e 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.***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

4

- 18 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 Energy Disbenefits In this section, we provide an estimate of the energy disbenefits associated with the increased emissions from additional energy usage. We estimate that electricity usage associated with operation of the control devices would increase

. This electricity usage is anticipated to increase emissions of pollutants from electri c utility boilers (EGU boilers) that supply electricity to these facilities . In the calculation of health benefits presented above , we have already subtracted the PM, SO 2 , and NOx emission increases associated with increased electricity usage 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***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

4

- 19 from the e mission reductions associated with the regulatory requirements. Table 4

- 6 provides the estimated emission increases for each of the regulatory options analyzed in this RIA. Table 4 - 6 . Emission Increases Associated with Secondary Energy Disbenefits (short t ons per year) a Option Energy Impacts , MMBtu/yr PM 2.5 NOx SO 2 CO 2 1 419,022 1 41 121 25,337 2 461,329 1 46 133 27,896 3 783,978 2 78 226 47,406

a Emission increases for PM 2.5 , NOx, and SO 2 have already been reflected in the monetized PM 2.5 co - benefits above. 4.2.1 Social Cost of Carbon and Greenhouse Gas Dis benefits We estimate the global social dis

- benefits of CO 2 emission increases expected from the final rulemaking using the SC

- CO 2 estimates presented in the Technical Support Document: Technical Update of the Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis Under Executive Order 12866 (May 2013, Revised Ju ly 2015) ( “ current TSD ” )

. 16 We refer to these estimates, which were developed by the U.S. government, as “ SC

- CO 2 estimates. ” The SC

- CO 2 is a metric that estimates the monetary value of impacts associated with marginal changes in CO 2 emissions in a given year. It includes a wide range of anticipated climate impacts, such as net changes in agricultural productivity and human health, propert y damage from increased flood risk, and changes in energy system costs , such as reduced costs for heating and increased costs for air conditioning. It is typically used to assess the avoided damages as a result of regulatory actions ( i.e. , benefits of rule makings that lead to an incremental reduction in cumulative global CO 2 emissions ) but is also used to assess increases in damages expected to result from rulemakings leading to an incremental increase in cumulative global CO 2 emissions

. The SC

- CO 2 estimat es used in this analysis were developed over many years, using the best science available, and with input from the public. Specifically, an interagency working group (IWG) that included the EPA and other executive branch agencies and offices used three

16 Docket ID EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2013

- 0495, Technical Support Document: Technical Update of the Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis Under Executive Order 12866 , Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Carbon, with participation by Council of Economic Advisers, Council on Environmental Quality, Department of Agriculture, Department of Commerce, Department of Energy, Department of Transportation, Environ mental Protection Agency, National Economic Council, Office of Energy and Climate Change, Office of Management and Budget, Office of Science and Technology Policy, and Department of Treasury (May 2013, Revised July 201 5 ). Available at: < https://www.whiteho use.gov/sites/default/files/omb/inforeg/scc

- tsd

- final

july

- 2015.pdf > Accessed 7/11/2015.***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

4

- 20 int egrated assessment models (IAMs) to develop the SC

- CO 2 estimates and recommended four global values for use in regulatory analyses. The SC

- CO 2 estimates were first released in February 2010 and updated in 2013 using new versions of each IAM. As discussed f urther below, the IWG published two minor corrections to the SC

- CO 2 estimates in July 2015. The SC

- CO 2 estimates were developed using an ensemble of the three most widely cited integrated assessment models in the economics literature with the ability to e stimate the SC

- CO 2 . A key objective of the IWG was to draw from the insights of the three models while respecting the different approaches to linking GHG emissions and monetized damages taken by modelers in the published literature. After conducting an ext ensive literature review, the interagency group selected three sets of input parameters (climate sensitivity, socioeconomic and emissions trajectories, and discount rates) to use consistently in each model. All other model features were left unchanged, rel ying on the model developers ’ best estimates and judgments, as informed by the literature. Specifically, a common probability distribution for the equilibrium climate sensitivity parameter, which informs the strength of climate ’ s response to atmospheric GH G concentrations, was used across all three models. In addition, a common range of scenarios for the socioeconomic parameters and emissions forecasts were used in all three models. Finally, the marginal damage estimates from the three models were estimated using a consistent range of discount rates, 2.5, 3.0, and 5.0 % . See the 2010 TSD for a complete discussion of the methods used to develop the estimates and the key uncertainties, and the current TSD for the latest estimates. 17 The 2010 TSD noted a number of limitations to the SC

- CO 2 analysis, including the incomplete way in which the integrated assessment models capture catastrophic and non

catastrophic impacts, their incomplete treatment of adaptation and technological change, uncertainty in the extrapola tion of damages to high temperatures, and assumptions regarding risk aversion. Currently integrated assessment models do not assign value to all of the important physical, ecological, and economic impacts of climate change recognized in the climate change literature due to a lack of precise information on the nature of damages and because the science incorporated into these models understandably lags behind the most recent research. 18 The limited amount of research linking climate impacts to economic damages makes the modeling exercise even more difficult. These individual limitations do not all work in the same direction in

17 See https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/oira/social

- cost

- of

- carbon for both TSDs. 18 Climate cha nge impacts and SCC modeling is an area of active research. For example, see: (1) Howard, Peter, “Omitted Damages: What’s Missing from the Social Cost of Carbon.” March 13, 2014, http://costofcarbon.org/files/Omitted_Damages_Whats_Missing_From_the_Social_Cost_of_Carbon.pdf ; and (2) Electric Power Research Institute, “Understanding the Social Cost of carbon: A Technical Assessment,” October 2014, www.epri.com

.***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

4

- 21 terms of their influence on the SC

- CO 2 estimates, though taken together they suggest that the SC

- CO 2 estimates are likely conservative. In particular, the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (2007), which was the most current IPCC assessment available at the time of the IWG ’ s 2009

- 2010 review, concluded that “ It is very likely that [SC

- CO 2 estimates] underestimate the damage costs because they c annot include many non

- quantifiable impacts. ” Since then, the peer

reviewed literature has continued to support this conclusion. For example, the IPCC Fifth Assessment report observed that SC

- CO 2 estimates continue to omit various impacts that would likely increase damages. The 95th percentile estimate was included in the recommended range for regulatory impact analysis to address these concerns. Accordingly, EPA and other agencies continue to engage in research on modeling and valuation of climate impacts with the goal to improve these estimates. The EPA and other agencies also continue to consider feedback on the SC

- CO 2 estimates from stakeholders through a range of channels, including public comments on Agency rulemakings that use the SC

- CO 2 in supporting analyses and through regular interactions with stakeholders and research analysts implementing the SC

- CO 2 methodology used by the interagency working group. In addition, OMB ’ s Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs sought public comment on the appro ach used to develop the SC

- CO 2 estimates through a separate comment period that ended on February 26, 2014. 19 After careful evaluation of the full range of comments, the interagency working group continues to recommend the use of the SC

- CO 2 estimates in re gulatory impact analysis. 20 With the release of the response to comments, the interagency working group announced plans to obtain expert independent advice from the National Academ ies of Sciences , Engineering, and Medicine to ensure that the SC

- CO 2 estimate s continue to reflect the best available scientific and economic information on climate change. The Academies review will be informed by the public comments received and focus on the technical merits and challenges of potential approaches to improving the SC

- CO 2 estimates in future updates. Concurrent with OMB ’ s publication of the response to comments on SC

- CO 2 and announcement of the Academies process, OMB posted a revised TSD that includes two minor technical corrections to the current estimates. 21 One technical correction addressed an inadvertent omission of climate change damages in the last year of analysis (2300) in one model

19 See https://www.federalregister .gov/articles/2013/11/26/2013

- 28242/technical

- support

- document

- technical

update

- of

- the

- social

- cost

- of

- carbon

- for

- regulatory

- impact 20 See htt ps://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2015/07/02/estimating

- benefits

- carbon

- dioxide

- emissions

- reductions 21 See https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/oira/social

- cost

- of

- carbon for the response to c omments, the blog post announcing the Academies’ process, and the current TSD.***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

4

- 22 and the second addressed a minor indexing error in another model. On average the revised SC

CO 2 estimates are one dollar less than the mean SC

- CO 2 estimates reported in the November 2013 TSD. The change in the estimates associated with the 95th percentile estimates when using a 3% discount rate is slightly larger, as those estimates are heavily influenced by the results from the model that was affected by the indexing error. The four SC

- CO 2 estimates are: $13 , $ 43 , $ 64 , and $1 20 per metric ton of CO 2 emissions in the year 20 18 (201 1 dollars). 22 The first three values are based on the average SC

- CO 2 from the three IAMs, at discount rates of 5, 3, and 2.5 % , respectively. Estimates of the SC

- CO 2 for several discount rates are included because the literature shows that the SC

- CO 2 is sensitive to assumptions about the discount rate, and because no consensus exists on the appropriate rat e to use in an intergenerational context (where costs and benefits are incurred by different generations). The fourth value is the 95 th percentile of the SC

- CO 2 across all three models at a 3 % discount rate. It is included to represent higher

- than

- expected impacts from temperature change further out in the tails of the SC

- CO 2 distribution. The SC

- CO 2 increases over time because future emissions are expected to produce larger incremental damages as economies grow and physical and economic systems become more stressed in response to greater climate change. Table 4 - 7 . Estimated Global Disb enefits of CO 2 Increases in 2018 (million 2011$)

Discount Rate and Statistic Option Metric Tonnes of CO 2 Reduced 5% (average) 3% (average) 2.5% (average) 3% (95 th percentile) 1 22,985 $0.29 $1.0 $1.5 $2.8 2 25,307 $0.32 $1.1 $1.6 $3.1 3 43,006 $0.55 $1.8 $2.7 $5.3
After incorporating the CO 2 electricity disbenefits, the total monetized benefits of the final rule (Option 2) are $83 to $190 million at a 3 % discount rate. 4.3 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 f rom quantifying the impacts to, or monetizing the benefits from

22 The TSDs present SC

- CO2 in $2007. The estimates were adjusted to 2012$ using the GDP Implicit Price Deflator. Also available at: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/ECONI

- 2013

- 02/pdf/ECONI

- 2013

- 02

- Pg3.pdf

. The SC

- C O 2 values have been rounded to two significant digits. Unrounded numbers from the 2013 SCC TSD were adjusted to 2012$ and used to calculate the CO 2 benefits.***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

4

- 23 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 hea lth 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).

Figure 4 - 3. Cumulative Distribution of Adult Populati on 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

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***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

4

- 24 4.3.1 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) 23 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). 24 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 e ngage. 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 utilizing dispersion models 3. Estimating pop ulation exposures across the United States utilizing exposure models 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 tr acts 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. 25 Secondary f ormation (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.

23 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 framewo rk 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/nata2005/ 24 The 2005 NATA is available on the Internet at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/nata2005/. 25 Details about the overall confidence of certainty ranking of the individual pieces of NATA assessments including b oth 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.***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

4

- 25 Noncancer health effects can res ult from chronic, 26 subchronic, 27 or acute 28 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 thre e - 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
re spiratory risk. Figures 4

- 4 and 4

- 5 depict the 2005 NATA 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 into significant reductions in health risk because toxicity varies by pollutant, and exposures may or may not exceed levels of concern. Thus, it is important to account for the toxicity and exposure, as well as the mass of the targeted emissions.

26 Chronic exposure is defined in the glossary of the Integrat ed 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). 27 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 laborato ry animal species). 28 Defined in the IRIS database as exposure by the oral, dermal, or inhalation route for 24 hours or less.***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

4

- 2 6 Figure 4 - 4. 2005 NATA Model Estimated Census Tract Carcinogenic Risk from HAP Exposure from Emissions of All Outdoor Sources (inclusive of other nonpoint sources) based on the 2005 National Toxic Inventory Because of methodology limitations, we were unable to estimate the benefits associated with the hazardous air pollutants that would be reduced as a result of this rule. 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) and reference concentrations (RfC) developed through risk assessment procedures. The URF 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/m3 of a pollutant. 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. An RfC is an estimate (with uncertainty spanning perhaps an order of magnitude) of a continuous inhalati on exposure to the human population (including sensitive subgroups) that is likely to be without an appreciable risk of deleterious non

- cancer health effects during a lifetime.***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

4

- 27 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 tha t 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 reducing exposure to benzene in Houston from implementation of the Clean Air Act (IEc, 2009 ). While 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 t o 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 l atency periods ” (U.S. EPA

- SAB, 2008 ).***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

4

- 28 Figure 4 - 5. 2005 NATA Model Estimated Census Tract Noncancer Risk from HAP Exposure from Emissions of All Outdoor Sources (inclusive of other nonpoint sources) based on the 2005 National Toxic Inventory 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 workshop 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 cancer incidences requires several important inputs, i ncluding 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 attem pt 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. EPA remains committed to improving methods for esti mating HAP benefits by continuing to explore additional concepts of benefits, including changes in the distribution of risk.***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

4

- 29 Below we describe the health effects associated with the HAP that would be reduced by this rulemaking , including 2 tons of chlorin e, 22 tons of hydrogen chloride, 344 tons of hydrogen fluoride , 147 pounds of mercury, and 7 tons of other metal HAP (e.g., arsenic, cadmium, chromium, lead, manganese, nickel, and selenium). 4.3.1.1 Arsenic Arsenic, a naturally occurring element, is found through out 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 gastrointestin al hemorrhage); central and peripheral nervous system disorders have occurred in workers acutely exposed to inorganic As. Chronic (long

- term) inhalation exposure to inorganic As in humans is associated with irritation of the skin and mucous membranes. Chro nic inhalation can also lead to conjunctivitis, irritation of the throat and respiratory tract and perforation of the nasal septum. 29 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 a ssociated 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. EPA has classified inorganic As a Group A, human carcinogen. 30 4.3.1.2 Cadmium (Cd) 31 Breathing air with lowe r 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 determined 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.

29 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> 30 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 1998. Integrated Risk Information System File for Arsenic. Research and Development, Nation al Center for Environmental Assessment, Washington, DC. This material is available electronically at: http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0278.htm. 31 Agency 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/PHS.asp?id=46&tid=15 >.***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

4

- 30 4.3.1.3 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. 32 Chronic inhalation exposure to low
conce ntrations 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, wheezin g, Rales , or hemoptysis (coughing up blood or blood

- stain 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. 4.3.1.4 Chromium (Cr) 33 Chromium may be emitted in two forms, trivalent Cr (Cr+3) or hexavalent Cr (Cr+6). The respiratory tra ct 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, 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 supporti ng 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 lung cancer. EPA ha s 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.

32 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. 33 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.***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

4

- 31 4.3.1.5 Hydrogen 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. 34 The gr eatest 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 na rrowing 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. Children may also b e more vulnerable to gas exposure because of increased minute ventilation per kg and failure to evacuate an area promptly when exposed. Hydrogen chloride has not been classified for carcinogenic effects. 35 4.3.1.6 Hydrogen Cyanide (HCN) 36 Hydrogen cyanide 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, headac he, 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. 4.3.1.7 Hydrogen Fluoride (HF) 37 Acute (short

- term) inhalation exposure to gaseous HF can cause severe respiratory damage in humans, including severe irritation and pulmonary edema. C hronic (long

- term) oral

34 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 onl ine at http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/mmg/mmg.asp?id=758&tid=147#bookmark02. 35 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 material is available electronically at .http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0396.htm. 36 All health effects language for this section came from: Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). 2007. Medical Management Gu idelines 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.c dc.gov/Mhmi/mmg8.html#bookmark02

. 37 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, Of fice of Health and Environmental Assessment, Office of Research and Development, Cincinnati, OH. 1989.***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

4

- 32 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 me nstrual irregularities in women occupationally exposed to fluoride via inhalation. The EPA has not classified HF for carcinogenicity. 4.3.1.8 Lead (Pb) 38 The main target for Pb toxicity is the nervous system, both in adults and children. Long

term exposure of adult s 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 pressure, particularly in middle

- aged and older people. Lead exposure may also cause anemia. 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 antici pated 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. 4.3.1.9 Manganese (Mn) 39 Health effects in humans have been associated wi th 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 affected in chronically

- exposed workers. Manganism, 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 male

38 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 >. 39 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.***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

4

- 33 workers afflic ted with Manganism attributed to inhalation exposures. The EPA has classified Mn in Group D, not classifiable as to carcinogenicity in humans. 4.3.1.10 Mercury (Hg) Mercury in the environment is transformed into a more toxic form, methylmercury (MeHg). Because Hg i s 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

. 40 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. 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 ; 39 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 summ arized 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 cardiova scular 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 stag es 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 do se - 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

40 National Research Council (NRC). 2000 . Toxicological Effects of Methylmercury . Washington, DC: National Academies Press.***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

4

- 34 some of the exposure measures (such as toena il 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 41 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 p otential confounders. One study of adults living in the Tapajós River region in Brazil reported a direct relationship between MeHg concentration in hair and DNA damage in lymphocytes; as well as effects on chromosomes

. 42 Long

- term MeHg exposures in this pop ulation were believed to occur through consumption of fish, 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. Althou gh exposure to some forms of Hg can result in a decrease in immune activity or an
a utoimmune response , 43 evidence for immunotoxic effects of MeHg is limited

. 39 Based on limited human and animal data, MeHg is classified as a “ possible ” human carcinogen by t he International Agency for Research on Cancer 44 and in IRIS

. 45 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
as sociation 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). 39

41 U.S. Environmental Protection Agen cy (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>. 42 Amorim, M.I.M., D. Mergler, M.O. Bahia, H. Dubeau, D. Miranda, J. Lebel, R.R. Burbano, and M. Luco tte. 2000. Cytogenetic damage related to low levels of methyl mercury contamination in the Brazilian Amazon. An. Acad. Bras. Ciênc. 72(4): 497

- 507. 43 Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). 1999. Toxicological Profile for Mercury. U.S. Dep artment of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Atlanta, GA. 44 International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). 1994. IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans and their Supplements: Beryllium, Cadmium, Mercury, and E xposures 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). 45 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2002. I ntegrated Risk Information System (IRIS) on Methylmercury. National Center for Environmental Assessment. Office of Research and Development. Available online at http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0073.htm***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

4

- 35 There is also some evidence of reproductive a nd 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 and Japan or a nimal data, rather than epidemiological studies of chronic exposures at the levels of interest in this analysis. 4.3.1.11 Nickel (Ni) 46 Respiratory effects have been reported in humans from inhalation exposure to Ni. No information is available regarding the reprod uctive or developmental effects of Ni in humans, but 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 classif ied nickel subsulfide as a human carcinogen and nickel carbonyl as a probable human carcinogen

. 47 , 48 The IARC has classified Ni compounds as carcinogenic to humans. 4.3.1.12 Selenium (Se) 49 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 cla ssified elemental Se as a Group D, not classifiable as to human carcinogenicity, and selenium sulfide as a Group B2, probable human carcinogen. 4.3.2 Additional SO 2 Health Co - b enefits 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, t his analysis only quantifies and monetizes the PM 2.5 co - benefits associated with the reductions in SO 2 emissions.

46 Nickel (IARC Summary & Evaluation , Volume 49, 1990), Please check if there are relevant to this sectorhttp://www.inchem.org/documents/iarc/vol49/nickel.html 47 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) on Nickel Subsulfide. National Center for Environmental Assessment, Of fice of Research and Development, Washington, DC. 1999. 48 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. 49 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.***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

4

- 36 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 between respiratory health effects and short

- term exposure to SO 2 . 50 The immediate effect of SO 2 on the respiratory system in humans is bronchoconstriction. Asthmatics are mor e sensitive to the effects of SO 2 likely resulting from preexisting 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 a nd 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 ” : a sthma exacerbation, respiratory

- related emergency department visits, and 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 als o 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 g enerally consistent in reporting a relationship between SO 2 exposure 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. 4.3.3 Visibility Impairment Co - b enefits 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

- exti nction efficiencies include sulfates, nitrates, organic carbon, elemental carbon, and soil. 51 Visibility has direct significance to people ’ s enjoyment of daily activities and their overall sense of well

- being. Good visibility increases the quality of life w here individuals live and work, and where they engage in recreational 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

50 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?dei d=198843>. 51 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.***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

4

- 37 U.S., particularly during winter (U.S. EPA, 2009). Previous analyses 52 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 impact on visibility in urban areas or Class I areas. 4.4 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. Hubb ell. 2009. “ The influence of location, source, 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 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 B

. Sonawane. 2011. “ Meeting report: Estimating the benefits of reducing hazardous air pollutants

— summary of 2009 workshop and fu ture 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_Ben zene_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 Internet at <http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/regdata/Uncertainty/pm_ee_tsd_expert_interview_summari es.pdf>.

52 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.***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

4

- 38 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. 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. Hubbell, and Patrick L. Kinney. 2008. “ Expert Judgment Assessment of the Mortality Impact of Changes in Ambient Fine Particulate Matter in the U.S. ” Enviro n. 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 Int ernet at < http://envinfo.com/caain/mact/petro r ia. html >. 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 Innova tion. 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 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

- 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>.***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

4

- 39 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 Nit rogen - Health Criteria (Final Report). National Center for Environmental Assessment, Research 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. Inte grated 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/recor display.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 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?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 Con centration

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>. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2010c. Valuing Mortality Ri sk Reductions for Environmental Policy: A White Paper: SAB Review Draft . National Center for 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://yosem ite.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.e pa.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>.***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

4

- 40 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 Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional Boilers and Proce ss 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. Office 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 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 Reducing PM 2.5 Precursors from 17 sectors . Office of Air Quality Pl anning 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. Avai lable on the Internet at <http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/0/43B91173651AED9E85257487004EA6C B/$File/EPA

- COUNCIL

- 08

- 002

- unsigned.pdf>. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

— Science Advisory Board (U.S. EPA

- SAB). 200 0. An SAB Report on EPA ’ s White P aper 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

— Scien ce 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/0/39F44B098DB49F3C85257170005293E0/ $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. Available at <http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/D4D7EC9DAEDA8A548525748600728A8 3/$File/EPA

- COUNCIL

- 08

- 001

- unsigned.pdf>.***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

4

- 41 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 <htt p://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/SABPRODUCT.NSF/81e39f4c09954fcb85256ead006be86 e/73ACCA834AB44A10852575BD0064346B/$File/EPA

- CASAC

- 09

- 008

- unsigned.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

- CA SAC

- 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 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!OpenDocument&TableRow=2.3#2.>. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

— Science Advisory Board (U.S. EPA

- SAB). 2011. Review of Valuing Mor tality 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>.***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

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 estimate social costs and range from simple direct compliance cost methods to the de velopment 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 marke t

- 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 pre

- policy 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 their distribution between producers and consumers

. We also assessed the impacts on e mployment 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 Analys is 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 th at 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., oligop oly). If market power exists, the use of a perfectly competitive model may understate the social costs of the final rule. Appendix A provides additional details about the economic model equations and parameters.***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

5

- 2 5.1.1 Market - Level Results Market

- level impacts in clude the price and production adjustments for bricks. As shown in Table 5

- 1, the average national price under the final standards increases by 1. 8 %, or $ 4.37 per 1,000 SBE, while overall domestic production falls by 1. 5 %, or 52 million bricks per year. Th ese values are slightly higher than the Option 1 approach: the average national price increase for the Option 1 standards is 1. 8 % , or $4.27 per 1,000 SBE and U.S. brick production falls by about 50 million bricks. These values are lower than t he Option 3 a pproach: the average national price increase for the Option 3 standards is 3

. 2 % and U.S. brick production falls by about 90 million bricks. Price increases are the highest in regions with high unit compliance costs. For example, the East North Central mar ket price increase ($ 7.45 per 1,000 SBE) is associated with higher per - unit compliance costs ($1 6.56 per 1,000 SBE). Under the final standards, one region does not include any facilities with incremental compliance costs (New England). As a result, there a re no market

- level changes. For all of the census regions, the average regional price increases between 0% and 3. 7 %. Regional domestic production falls between 0% and 2. 9 % and 0 to 20 million bricks per year. Under the Option 1 standards, the average regional price increases between 0% and 3. 8 %. Regional domestic production falls between 0% and 3.0 %, or 0 to 1 6 million bricks per year. Under the Option 3 standards, the average regional price increases between 0% and 5. 8 %. Region al domestic production falls between 0% and 4. 6 %, or 0 to 3 3 million bricks per year. 5.1.2 Social Cost Estimates Under the final standards, the economic model suggests that industries are able to pass on $ 1 5.1 million (2011$) of the rule ’ s costs to U.S. households in the form of higher prices (Table 5

- 1). Existing U.S. industries ’ surplus falls by $ 1 2.1 million, and the total U.S. economic surplus loss is $2 7.2 million. Under the Option 1 standards, total U.S. economic surplus loss i s $ 0.6 million lower ($ 2 6.6 million) , and under the Option 3 standards , total U.S economic surplus loss is $ 21.4 million higher ( $ 4 8.6 million). Because higher brick 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%).

### ***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***5-3 

### Table 5 - 1. Estimated Market Impacts of Final 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 Option 2: Final Rule New England $0.00 $0.00 0.0% 0 0.0% $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 Middle Atlantic $14.37 $5.51 1.7%

− 2,847

− 1.3%

− $1.2

− $0.9

− $2.1 East North Central $16.56 $7.45 2.5%

− 5,629

− 2.0%

− $2.1

− $1.7

− $3.8 West North Central $4.73 $2.63 0.9%

− 1,389

− 0.8%

− $0.5

− $0.4

− $0.9 South Atlantic $8.49 $4.34 1.9%

− 19,586

− 1.5%

− $5.6

− $4.5

− $10.1 East South Central $12.34 $6.85 3.7%

− 11,442

− 2.9%

− $2.6

− $2.1

− $4.7 West South Central $5.97 $3.32 1.4%

− 10,315

− 1.2%

− $2.9

− $2.4

− $5.3 Mountain $1.93 $0.54 0.1%

− 135

− 0.1%

− $0.1 $0.0

− $0.1 Pacific $3.51 $1.66 0.3%

− 179

− 0.2%

− $0.1

− $0.1

− $0.2 U.S. Average/Total $8.68 $4.37 1.8%

− 51,521

− 1.5%

− $15.1

− $12.1

− $27.2 ( continued)

### ***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***5-4 

### Table 5 - 1. Estimated Market Impacts of Final 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 Option 1 New England $0.00 $0.00 0.0% 0 0.0% $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 Middle Atlantic $11.28 $4.33 1.3%

− 2,236

− 1.0%

− $0.9

− $0.7

− $1.6 East North Central $16.56 $7.45 2.5%

− 5,628

− 2.0%

− $2.1

− $1.7

− $3.8 West North Central $4.73 $2.63 0.9%

− 1,389

− 0.8%

− $0.5

− $0.4

− $0.9 South Atlantic $7.09 $3.62 1.6%

− 16,347

− 1.3%

− $4.7

− $3.8

− $8.5 East South Central $12.67 $7.04 3.8%

− 11,755

− 3.0%

− $2.7

− $2.2

− $4.9 West South Central $7.16 $3.98 1.7%

− 12,382

− 1.4%

− $3.5

− $2.8

− $6.3 Mountain $8.16 $2.27 0.6%

− 572

− 0.5%

− $0.3

− $0.2

− $0.5 Pacific $3.51 $1.66 0.3%

− 179

− 0.2%

− $0.1

− $0.1

− $0.2 U.S. Average/Total $8.49 $4.27 1.8%

− 50,487

− 1.4%

− $14.8

− $11.8

− $26.6 (continued)

### ***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***5-5 

### Table 5 - 1. Estimated Market Impacts of Final 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 Option 3 New England $0.00 $0.00 0.0% 0 0.0% $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 Middle Atlantic $16.04 $6.15 1.9%

− 3,179

− 1.5%

− $1.3

− $1.0

− $2.3 East North Central $28.31 $12.74 4.2%

− 9,623

− 3.4%

− $3.6

− $2.8

− $6.4 West North Central $19.12 $10.62 3.8%

− 5,613

− 3.1%

− $1.9

− $1.5

− $3.4 South Atlantic $14.15 $7.23 3.1%

− 32,635

− 2.5%

− $9.3

− $7.4

− $16.8 East South Central $19.48 $10.82 5.8%

− 18,072

− 4.6%

− $4.1

− $3.3

− $7.4 West South Central $10.37 $5.76 2.5%

− 17,926

− 2.0%

− $5.1

− $4.1

− $9.1 Mountain $14.39 $4.00 1.1%

− 1,008

− 0.9%

− $0.5

− $0.4

− $0.8 Pacific $37.17 $17.55 3.2%

− 1,899

− 2.5%

− $1.3

− $1.0

− $2.3 U.S. Average/Total $15.62 $7.86 3.2%

− 89,954

− 2.6%

− $27.1

− $21.5

− $48.6***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

5

- 6 5.2 Employment Impacts of the Final Rule 53 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 w hile promoting economic 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 typically included a separate analysis of regulation

- induced employment impacts, 54 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 f or 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 proces s of seeking input from an independent expert panel on economy

- wide impacts, including employment effects. Section 5.2.4 addresses the particular influence of this final rule on employment. Finally, Section 5

. 2.5 offer s several conclusions. 5.2.1 Theory The effe cts of environmental regulation 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 res ponse depends on the elasticities 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 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

53 The employm ent analysis in this RIA is part of EPA ’ s ongoing effort to “ conduct continuing evaluations of potential loss or shifts of employment which may result from the administration or enforcement of [the Act] ” pursuant to CAA section 321(a). 54 L abor expenses do, however, contribute toward total costs in EPA’s standard benefit

- cost analys e s.***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

5

- 7 sectors, and the pollution abatement sector) and o ver 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 t o 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 i n a subsequent section. Neoclassical microeconomic theory describes how profit

- maximizing firms adjust their use of productive inputs in response to changes in their economic conditions. 55 In this framework, labor is one of many inputs to production, along with capital, energy, and materials. 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. 56 , 57 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 affe ct labor demand decisions. 58 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. 59 For the output effect, by affecting the marginal cost of produc tion, 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

55 See Layard and Walters (1978) , a standard microeconomic theory textbook, for a discussion. 56 See Hamermesh (1993) , Chapter 2, for a derivation of the firm’s labor demand function from cost

- minimization. 57 In this framework, labor demand is a function of quantity of output and prices (of both output s and input s )

. 58 Berman and Bui (2001) a nd Morgenstern, Pizer, and Shih (2002) used a cost

- minimization framework, which is a special case of profit

- maximization with fixed output quantities. 59 The authors also discuss a third component, the impact of r egulation 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.***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

5

- 8 lowers marginal production costs, for example. In such a case, output 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 ut ilization 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 technologi es that alter the 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 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 requirements for landfill line r 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 a nalyze 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 definitive net effect of regulation on labor demand at regulated firms. Operating withi n 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 literat ure 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 describes a conceptual framework for anal yzing 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 industry; therefore, the theoretic approac h requires some adjustment when applied at the industry level.***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

5

- 9 As stated, the responsiveness of industry labor demand depends on how the output and substitution effects interact. 60 At the industry level, labor demand will be more responsive when (1) the pr ice 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. 61 So, for exampl e, if all firms in the industry are 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. 62 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 unabl e 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 elas ticity; 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 imp acts encompass changes within the environmental protection sector and, potentially, in other related sectors, as well. Environmental regulations often create increased demand for pollution control equipment and services needed for compliance. This increase d 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 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 emplo yment. 63

60 On Marshall’s laws of derived demand, see Ehrenberg and Smith (2000), Chapter 4. 61 See Ehrenberg and Smith (2000), p. 108. 62 This discussion draws from Berman and Bui (2001) , p. 293. 63 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 actively employed.***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

5

- 10 Instead, labor would primarily be reallocated from one productive use to another (e.g., from producing electricity or steel to producing pollution abatement equipment ). Theory supports the argument that, in the case of full employment, the net nati onal employment effects from environmental regulation are likely to be small and transitory (e.g., as workers move from one job to another)

. 64 On the other hand, if the economy is operating at less than full employment , economic theory does not clearly indi cate 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 fundam ental 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 wor kers. 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 individu als 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 af fect labor productivity 65 or employees ’ ability to work. Although there is an accompanying, and parallel, theoretical approach to examining impacts on labor supply, similar to labor demand, it is even more difficult and complex to study labor supply empiric ally. 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 environmen tal protection sector, and other relevant sectors. Using economic theory, labor demand impacts for regulated firms, and also for the regulated industry, can be decomposed into

64 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. 65 For example, Graff Zivin and Neidell (2012)

.***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

5

- 11 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 protection sector and other relevant sectors when data and methods of sufficient detail and qu ality 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 Current 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. 66 This work focuses p rimarily on the effects of employment policies , for example, labor taxes and minimum wag e. 67 In contrast, the peer - reviewed empirical literature specifically estimating employment effects of environmental regulations is very limited

. In this section, w e present an overview of the latter. As discussed in the preceding section on theory, determi ning 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 alte r the relative proportions of labor and capital used by regulated firms (and firms in other relevant industries) in their production processes. S everal empirical studies , 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 suggests 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 geographic relocation may be occurring. Overall , the peer

- reviewed literature does not contain evid ence that environmental regulation has a large impact on net employment (either negative or positive) in the long run across the whole economy. Environmental regulations 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 process changes to meet the new requirements. When a regulation is promulgated, the initial response of

66 Again, see Hamermesh (1993) for a detailed treatment. 67 See Ehrenberg and Smith (2000) , Chapter 4: “ Employment Effects: Empirical Estimates ” for a concise overview.***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

5

- 12 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 increase in labor demand for specialized workers within the environmental protection sec tor , particularly workers involved in the design, construction, testing, installation, and operation of the new pollution control equipment required by the regulation (see Schmalansee and Stavins, 2011 ; Bezdek, Wendlin g, and Diperna, 2008 ). Estimates 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 Mercur y 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 employment of environmental regulations in California. Their model empirically examines how an increase in local air quality regulation affects manufacturing employment in the South Coast A ir 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 r egulations, Berman and Bui identif ied the effect of environmental regulations on net employment in the regulated industries. 68 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 local regulations. 69 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 dissuade d entry effects are included ” (Berman and Bui, 2001, p. 269 ). 70 In their view, the limited effects likely arose because 1) the regulations applied disproportionately to capital

- intensive plants with relatively little emp loyment, 2) the plants sold

68 Note, like Morgenstern, Pizer, and Shih (2002) , this study does not estimate the number of jobs created in the environmental protection sector. 69 Berman and Bui include over 40 4

- digit SIC industries in their sam ple. 70 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).***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

5

- 13 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. 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 em ployment effects in four highly regulated sectors (pulp and paper, plastics, steel, and petroleum refining). Thus, in contrast to Berman and Bui (2001) , this study identifie d employment effects by examining differences in abat ement 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 servic es is likely to increase with the increased demand from the regulated industry for increased pollution control. 71 A report by the U.S. International Trade Commission (2013) shows that domestic environmenta l 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 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 on labor supply, even at pollution levels below mandated regulatory thresholds. Many

71 See Bezdek, Wendling, and Diperna (2008) , for example, and U.S. Department of Commerce (2010)

.***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

5

- 14 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 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 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 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 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 vari ation in monitored ozone levels on productivity. They f ou nd “ that 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 b y 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, 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:***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

5

- 15 ■ additional labor requirements (full

- time equivalents [FTEs]) associated with meeting the new regulation

■ 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 1 8 1,000 labor hours per year to operate control devices

. This is equivalent to about 87 additional FTEs. The total estimated cost of these additional labor requirements to operate control devices is $ 4

. 24 million per year. For Option 2, the recordkeeping an d reporting labor hours are approximately 49 ,000 hours (see section 6.3) , or 23 additional FTE. 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 Option 1 $ 4.13 1 76,000 Option 2 Final $ 4.24 181,000 a Option 3 8.12 347,000

a Excludes record keeping and reporting labor hours (49 ,000) (see section 6.3). In Section 5.3, EPA estimates that the regulation may lead to two to four 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 74 to 148 employees may need to retrain or relocate in anti cipation 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 negative, have been small and have not affected employment in the n ational 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 improve labor supply and productivity.***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

5

- 16 5.3 Impacts on Small Entit ies As mentioned above, EPA was particularly concerned about the final 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) criteri on for a small business 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 th at 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 (I RFA). 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 t he 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 busine sses. 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 c ompany ’ s (i) total annualized compliance costs by its reported revenue:
Sales Test i = TTTTTTTTTT AAAAAAAA AAAAAAAA CC CCCC CC CC CC ii TTTTTTTTTT RR RR ii (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 58 % of all businesses and 59 % of small businesses affected by the final standards have CSRs of under 1%. EPA estimated the range o f 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%

.

### ***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***5-17 

### Table 5 - 3. Small Business Impact Screening Assessment Results and Closure Estimates

Capital 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) Option 1 $64 $27 53 % 30 % 10 % 5 % 3 % 3

– 8 1

– 3 Option 2 Final $65 $27 58 % 28 % 3 % 8 % 5 % 5

– 9 2

– 4 Option 3 $131 $49 35 % 15 % 13 % 15 % 23 % 23

– 33 9

– 13 Small Businesses (n=32) Option 1 $16 $7 53 % 31 % 9 % 3 % 3 % 3

– 7 1

– 2 Option 2 Final Rule $14 $7 59 % 28 % 3 % 3 % 6 % 6

– 9 2

– 3 Option 3 $50 $19 34 % 9 % 16 % 13 % 28 % 28

– 38 9

– 12

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 bound: All ultimate parent companies with CSR > 10%.; Upper bound: All ultimate parent

companies with CS R > 10%, 50 % of ultimate parent companies with CSRs between 5% and 10%, and 25 % of ultimate parent companies with CSRs between 3% and 5%.***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

5

- 18 Under the final standards, EPA estimated that two to four brick manufacturing facilities
are at significant risk of closure. Under the Option 1 standards, one to three brick manufacturing facilities are at significant risk of closure, and under the Option 3 standards, nine to thirteen brick manufacturing facilities are at significant risk of closure. 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 final standard s, EPA estimated that two to three small brick manufacturing facilities are at significant risk of closure. Under the Option 1 standards, one to two small brick manufacturing facilities , and under Option 3 standards, nine to t welve small brick manufacturin g 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 difficulty obtaining longer

- term financing needed to buy the control equipment and make process changes needed to comply with the final 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 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 % interest rate used to annualize the capital cost s 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 % interest rate. The esti mates 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 net effects on revenue due to price increases or reductions in sales attributable to the regulation. 5.3.2 Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Pursuant to sections 603 and 609(b) of the RFA, the EPA prepared an initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) for the proposed rule and convened a Small Business Advocacy Review (SBAR) Panel to obtain advice and recom mendations from small entity representatives that potentially would be subject to the rule ’ s requirements. Summaries of the IRFA and Panel recommendations are included at 79 FR 75669

- 75671.***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

5

- 19 As required by section 604 of the RFA, the EPA prepared a final re gulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA) for this action. The FRFA addresses the issues raised by public comments on the IRFA for the proposed rule . The complete FRFA is included in Section 5 of “ Regulatory Impact Analysis: Final Brick and Structural Clay Prod ucts NESHAP, ” available for review in the docket (Docket ID No. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2013

- 0291), and is summarized here.

.. 5.3.2.1 Need for the Rule The EPA is required under CAA section 112(d) to establish emission standards for each category or subcategory of major and a rea sources of HAP s listed for regulation in Section 112(b). These standards are applicable to new or existing sources of HAP s and require the maximum degree of emission reduction. In the Administrator ’ s judgment, the pollutants emitted from BSCP manufactu ring facilities cause or contribute significantly to air pollution that may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health. Consequently, a NESHAP for the BSCP source category is being finalized. 5.3.2.2 Objectives and Legal Basis for the Rule Section 112(d) of the CAA requires the EPA to set emissions standards for HAP s 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 % of existing sources (for which the Administrator has emissions information) or the best performing five sources for source categories with fewer than 30 sources (CAA section 112(d)(3)(A) and (B)). For new sources, MACT standards mus t be at least as stringent as the control level achieved in practice by the best controlled similar source (CAA section 112(d)(3)). The EPA also must consider more stringent “ beyond

- the

- floor ” control options. When considering beyond

- the

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

- air environmental impacts when doing so. This rule is being proposed to comply with CAA section 112(d). 5.3.2.3 Significant Issu es Raised The EPA received comments on the proposed standards and requests for comment that were included based on the SBAR Panel recommendations. See sections V and VI of this rule’s preamble and “ National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants f or Brick and Structural Clay Products Manufacturing: Background Information for Final Rule

- Summary of Public Comments and Responses ” in Docket ID No. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2013

- 0291 for more detailed comment summaries and responses.***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

5

- 20 Work practices for dioxin/furan: One commenter stated that work practices for dioxin/furan emissions from BSCP tunnel kilns are not lawful under the CAA, and even if they were, the work practices proposed are not sufficient to minimize dioxin/furan emissio ns. Other commenters supported the proposed work practices for dioxin/furan. Response: The EPA is finalizing work practices for dioxin/furan as proposed. Work practices for Hg and other metals: Several commenters responded to the EPA ’ s request for comment on work practices for Hg and non

- Hg HAP metals. Numerous commenters stated that the EPA should finalize work practices instead of numeric limits and provided support for their assertion that the numeric limits are technically and economically impracticable to enforce. Commenters also noted that the emissions reduced by these numeric standards are not justified by the high cost that would be incurred to meet the standards. Response: Emissions of Hg and non

- Hg HAP metals were detected using standard EPA test methods; therefore, the Hg and non

- Hg HAP metals data sets do not meet the criteria for setting work practice standards under CAA section 112(h). The EPA is finalizing numeric standards for Hg and non

- Hg HAP metals under CAA section rather than work practi ces. The final numeric standards are revised from proposal to account for new data from the industry (including data on the Hg content of raw materials), removal of test data found not to meet the requirements of the applicable data, and changes in the EPA ’ s approach to selecting the MACT floor pools (see section V.A of this rule’s preamble for additional details). Health

- based standard for acid gases: Several commenters asserted that the EPA may not legally set CAA section 112(d)(4) health

- based standards for acid gases for BSCP facilities. Other commenters supported the EPA ’ s decision to propose health

- based standards for acid gases but noted that the EPA ’ s approach was overly conservative and requested that the EPA consider setting multiple limits based o n site characteristics. Response: The EPA is finalizing the health

- based standards for acid gases as proposed. The EPA ’ s response to the legal arguments made against health

- based standards is presented in section V.B of this rule’s preamble. The EPA is not changing the numeric limit from proposal, because the proposed limit provides low potential for both chronic and acute health effects. Size subcategories for MACT floors: Several commenters requested that the EPA subcategorize by size for the non

- Hg HAP m etal/PM MACT floor limits, as was proposed for Hg.***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

5

- 21 Response: As part of recalculating the MACT floor limits based on the final data set, the EPA is finalizing separate limits for small and large kilns for non

- Hg HAP metals/PM as well as Hg. The EPA is also finalizing limits in three different formats for both pollutants to provide additional flexibility for small tunnel kilns and tunnel kilns with a low metals content in the PM emissions. Sawdust dryers: Several commenters requested that the EPA finalize a subcategory of sawdust

- fired kilns venting to sawdust dryers. Commenters provided general descriptions of how the operation of these kilns is different than tunnel kilns and stated that there are only two operating that would be subject to the BSCP NESHAP. Response: Although one commenter noted that stack testing of a sawdust dryer is being considered, commenters did not provide test data to demonstrate that emissions from sawdust dryers are different than other tunnel kilns. Therefore, the EPA is not final izing a subcategory of sawdust

- fired kilns venting to sawdust dryers. Periods of startup and shutdown: One commenter stated that work practices for periods of startup and shutdown of BSCP tunnel kilns are not lawful under the CAA. Other commenters supporte d the proposal to provide work practices for periods of startup and shutdown but suggested improvements to the standards to make them feasible for all tunnel kilns. Response: The EPA evaluated the comments and is finalizing work practice standards for peri ods of startup and shutdown that reflect best practices for minimizing emissions during these periods (see section V.C of this rule’s preamble for additional information). MACT floor pool: Several commenters supported the EPA ’ s proposal to calculate MACT f loor standards for PM based on the top 12 % of the kilns in the industry (i.e., the best

- performing sources with a n FF

- based APCD). One commenter asserted that the EPA ’ s proposal is unlawful and the EPA must consider other factors than the APCD type when se tting MACT standards. Response: The EPA reviewed all the data used for the MACT floor for PM as a surrogate for non

- Hg HAP metals and found that some of the test data did not meet the requirements of EPA Method 5. When these data were removed, the EPA coul d no longer confirm that the data available to the agency represented all the best

- performing sources. Therefore, the final PM and
non - Hg HAP metals are based on the top 12 % of sources for which we had test data, regardless of APCD type (see section V.A of this rule’s preamble for additional details).***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

5

- 22 5.3.2.4 Small Business Administration Comments The U.S. Small Business Administration ’ s Office of Advocacy supported the EPA ’ s proposals to set work practice standards and health

- based emission standards in all instan ces allowed by statute and suggested other areas of improvement. The comments on areas of improvement and the EPA ’ s responses are summarized below: Hg standards: The EPA should pursue subcategorization by input (raw material) type, delaying promulgation of a n Hg standard to gather more information if needed. Standards may need to be combined with a significantly longer averaging time to allow for continuous compliance. Response: Following proposal, the EPA received additional information on the Hg content o f raw materials from facilities in the BSCP industry. This information did not provide the EPA with the information needed to establish subcategories based on the class or type of raw materials. However, it did allow the EPA to finalize Hg standards that a ccount for the variability of Hg content in raw materials. As an initial point, it is doubtful that EPA had the option of delaying the promulgation of an Hg standard. Under CAA 112(e), EPA was scheduled to complete standards for all source categories by 2 000. EPA’s 2003 Brick MACT rule was vacated, and that vacatur re

- created EPA’s obligation to set standards for the Brick source category. Sierra Club v. EPA, 850 F.Supp.2d 300, 303

- 304 (D.D.C. 2012). Under the consent decree in that case, as amended in A ugust 2014, EPA was obligated to sign a notice of final rulemaking to set standards for the Brick source category by September 24, 2015. In any event, delay is not warranted. Following proposal, the EPA received additional information on the Hg conte nt of raw materials from facilities in the BSCP industry. This information did not provide the EPA with the information needed to establish subcategories based on the class or type of raw materials. However, EPA has concluded that it has sufficient informa tion to allow it to finalize Hg standards that account for the variability of Hg content in raw materials. Thus, EPA’s conclusion is that there is no need to delay promulgation of the Hg standards in order to gather more information. Economic analysis: The economic impact of the proposed rule on small entities is significantly underestimated. Specifically, the EPA should not annualize costs at 7 % over 20 years because that does not reflect the financing options available to small entities, the EPA underesti mated the cost for a facility to become a synthetic area source, and the EPA has underestimated the cost to comply with the Hg standards given the limited information the agency has on the performance of Hg controls in this industry.***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

5

- 23 Response: EPA standard engineering cost practice is to annualize over the expected life of the control equipment at 7%. EPA does not have the data available to model the way a firm pays for a control device because each firm has a different set of potential options for financin g including debt financing, equity financing, and financing through re t ained earnings. EPA acknowledges that some firms may not be able to borrow the money and some may close. EPA's closure analysis is quite uncertain but we do not have the detailed firm specific information necessary to refine the analysis. The EPA agrees that the costs to become a synthetic area source at proposal were underestimated, and the final rule impacts include testing costs for all facilities, because potential synthetic area so urces would have to demonstrate that their emissions qualify them to apply for synthetic area status. Finally, the EPA must use the best information available to the agency to estimate the impact of the standards on all entities. The final Hg standards inc orporate variability in the Hg content of raw materials, which is expected to ease the burdens on some small entities. 5.3.2.5 Affected Small Entities Of 44 parent companies owning BSCP facilities, 36 parent companies are small businesses. The EPA computed the rat io of estimated compliance costs to company sales (cost

to

- sales ratio) to measure the magnitude of potential impacts on small companies. Under the final standards, the EPA estimated that two to three small BSCP manufacturing facilities are at significant risk of closure. 5.3.2.6 Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance Requirements Respondents would be required to provide one

- time and periodic notifications, including initial notification, notification of performance tests, and notification of compliance sta tus. 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 requ ired to keep documentation supporting information included in these notifications and reports, as well as records of the operation and maintenance of affected sources and APCD at the facility. 5.3.2.7 Significant Alternatives The EPA considered three major options for this final rule ; see “ Regulatory Impact Analysis: Final Brick and Structural Clay Products NESHAP, ” in Docket ID No. EPA

- HQ

OAR

- 2013

- 0291), for more information about the alternatives. Finalizing the proposed changes without revision is expected to ha ve similar cost and emission reduction impacts to the standards the EPA is finalizing, with a similar number of closures (one to two small BSCP manufacturing***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

5

- 24 facilities rather than two to three). However, for the various legal and technical reasons outline d in this rule’s preamble and “ National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Brick and Structural Clay Products Manufacturing: Background Information for Final Rule

- Summary of Public Comments and Responses ” in Docket ID No. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2013

- 0291, the EPA determined that the PM/non

- Hg HAP metals and Hg standards should not be finalized as proposed. The other alternative considered included the same standards for acid gases and Hg that are being finalized but only provided one set of limits PM /non

- Hg HAP metals (i.e., did not provide separate sets of limits for small and large tunnel kilns). This alternative is expected to have significantly higher cost impacts than the standards the EPA is finalizing, along with a significantly higher number o f closures (five to ten small BSCP manufacturing facilities rather than two to three). Therefore, the EPA determined that it is necessary to exercise its discretion to subcategorize by kiln size to minimize the significant economic impact on small entities

. In addition, the EPA is preparing a Small Entity Compliance Guide to help small entities comply with this rule. The guide will be available on the World Wide Web approximately 1 year after promulgation of the rule. 5.4 References 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. ” Ameri can 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): 265

- 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 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. ” Add ison 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.***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

5

- 25 Graff Zivin, J

. , and M

. Neidell. 2012. “ The Impact of Pollut ion 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 Demand. ” Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ. Internal Revenue Service. SOI Tax Stats

— Corporation Tax Statistics. Last updated April 2014. http://www.irs.gov/uac/SOI

- Tax

- Stats

- Corporation

- Tax

- Statistics

. Layard, P.R.G., a nd 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 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 8ac6d85256883006c452c?OpenDocument

. U.S. Environmental Prote ction 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. Environmental Protection Agency

. http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/regdata/RIAs/matsriafinal.pdf

.***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

5

- 26 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).***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

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 final 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 Ord er 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review This action is an economically significant regulatory action that was submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review. Any changes made in response to OMB recommendations have been docu mented in the dockets for this action. The EPA prepared an analysis of the potential costs and benefits associated with this action . This analysis is contained in “ Regulatory Impact Analysis: Final Brick and Structural Clay Products NESHAP. ” A copy of the analysis is available in the docket for the BSCP 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 $24.6 million (2011 doll ars) under the BSCP rule, including costs of emission controls, testing and monitoring, along with recordkeeping and reporting costs for facilities that have testing and monitoring. The EPA gathered information on firm sales and overall industry profitabil ity for firms owning affected BSCP facilities. The EPA estimated that two to four BSCP manufacturing facilities are at significant risk of closure under the final standards. The EPA also conducted an assessment of the benefits of the final rule, as descri bed in section VII of this rule’s 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 limit ations prevented the EPA from monetizing the benefits from several important benefit categories, including benefits from reducing exposure to 375 tons of HAP s each year for the promulgated standards, as well as ecosystem effects and visibility impairment. In addition to reducing emissions of PM precursors such as SO 2 , this rule will reduce several non

- Hg HAP metals emissions (i.e., arsenic, cadmium, chromium, lead, manganese, nickel, and selenium) each year. The EPA estimates the total monetized co

- benefits to be $83 million to $190 million (2011 dollars) at a 3 % discount rate and***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

6

- 2 $75 million to $170 million (2011 dollars) at a 7 % discount rate on a yearly average in 2018 for the promulgated standards. Based on the EPA ’ s examination of costs and benefits of the final BSCP rule, the EPA believes that the benefits of the BSCP rule will exceed the costs. 6.3 Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) The information collection requirements in the BSCP rule have been submitted for approval to OMB under the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The Information Collection Request (ICR) document that the EPA prepared for the BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP has been assigned EPA ICR number 2509.01. You can find copies of the ICR in the docket for the BSCP rule , and they are briefly summarized here.

. The information collection requirements are not enforceable until OMB approves them. The information collected from respondents will be used by EPA enforcement personnel to: (1) identify new, modified, reconstructed and existing sources subject to the sta ndards; (2) ensure that MACT is being properly applied; and (3) ensure that the emission control devices are being properly operated and maintained on a continuous basis. In addition, records and reports are necessary to enable the EPA to identify faciliti es that may not be in compliance with the standards. Based on the reported information, the EPA can decide which facilities should be inspected and what records or processes should be inspected at these facilities. The records that facilities maintain will indicate to the EPA whether the owners or operators are in compliance with the emission limitations (including emission limits, operating limits) and work practice standards. Much of the information the EPA would need to determine compliance would be
reco rded and retained onsite at the facility. Such information would be reviewed by enforcement personnel during an inspection and would not need to be routinely reported to the EPA. All information submitted to the EPA for which a claim of confidentiality is made will be safeguarded according to EPA policies set forth in title 40, chapter 1, part 2, subpart B

- Confidentiality of Business Information. (See 40 CFR 2; 41 FR 36902, September 1, 1976; amended by 43 FR 39999, September 28, 1978; 43 FR 42251, Septem ber 28, 1978; and 44 FR 17674, March 23, 1979.) Potential respondents to the information collection requirements in the BSCP rule are owners or operators of new and existing sources at BSCP manufacturing facilities. A BSCP facility manufactures brick, incl uding face brick, structural brick, brick pavers, or other brick and/or structural clay products including clay pipe; roof tile; extruded floor and wall tile; or other***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

6

- 3 extruded, dimensional clay products. The BSCP facilities typically form, dry and fire br icks and shapes that are composed primarily of clay and shale. Kilns are used to fire BSCP. The rule applies to all new and existing tunnel and periodic kilns at BSCP facilities. The information requirements are based on notification, recordkeeping and rep orting requirements in the NESHAP General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A), which are mandatory for all operators subject to national emissions standards. These recordkeeping and reporting requirements are specifically authorized by CAA section 114 ( 42 U.S.C. 7414). All information submitted to the EPA pursuant to the recordkeeping and reporting requirements for which a claim of confidentiality is made is safeguarded according to the EPA policies set forth in 40 CFR part 2, subpart B. In addition to t he notification, recordkeeping and reporting requirements in the NESHAP General Provisions, the final rule includes paperwork requirements associated with initial and 5

- year repeat testing for selected process equipment, electronic reporting of performance test results, parameter monitoring, preparation of an OM&M plan, maintenance and inspection of process and control equipment, compliance with work practice standards and periods of malfunction. Collection of data will begin after the effective date of the final BSCP manufacturing NESHAP. The compliance date for existing sources is 3 years after the effective date. The compliance date for new or reconstructed sources is the effective date if the source startup date is before the effective date, or upon star tup if the startup date is on or after the effective date. The schedule for notifications and reports required by the rule is summarized below. For BSCP facilities with existing affected sources, the initial notification stating that the facility is subjec t to the rule must be submitted no later than 120 calendar days after the effective date of the rule. Facilities with new or reconstructed affected sources for which startup occurs on or after the effective date must submit the initial notification no late r than 120 calendar days after the source becomes subject to the rule (although we are projecting no new affected sources in the short term). Facilities may choose to submit a request for a routine control device maintenance exemption 30 calendar days prio r to the compliance date. Facilities required to conduct a performance test must submit a notification of intent to conduct a performance test at least 60 calendar days before the performance test is scheduled to begin. For each initial compliance demonstr ation that includes a performance test, facilities must submit an initial notification of compliance status no later than 60 calendar days following the completion of the performance test. For each initial compliance demonstration that does not involve a p erformance test, facilities***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

6

- 4 must submit an initial notification within 30 calendar days of completing the initial compliance demonstration. Records necessary to determine compliance with the emission limitations and work practice standards must be compiled on a daily basis, and compliance reports must be submitted to the Administrator on a semiannual basis. Repeat performance tests are to be conducted every 5 years to ensure ongoing compliance. There are 91 9 0 BSCP facilities that are currently major sources of HAP, 85 8 4 of which have at least one tunnel kiln. An estimated 22 2 1 of these facilities are projected to become synthetic area sources by promulgation rather than comply with the BSCP standards. The remaining 69 facilities (63 of which have a tunnel ki ln) are expected to be subject to the BSCP rule. For these 69 facilities, the annual recordkeeping and reporting burden associated with the BSCP standards (averaged over the first 3 years after the effective date of the standards) is estimated to be 20,963 labor hours per year, at a cost of $1,113,105 per year (yr). Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). No capital costs associated with monitoring, testing, recordkeeping or reporting are expected to be incurred during this period. The annual operation and ma intenance costs are estimated to be $682/yr. The total burden for the federal government (averaged over the first 3 years after the effective date of the standards) is estimated to be 71 labor hours per year, at a total labor cost of $3,698/yr. (All costs are in 2011 dollars.) 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, compli ance report, records of compliance data and malfunctions) does not occur until the fourth year following promulgation. For the BSCP rule, we estimate an average annual recordkeeping and reporting burden of 48,674 labor hours per year, at a cost of $2,702,4 47/yr, for years 4 through 6. We also estimate annualized capital costs of $606,760/yr and annual operating and maintenance costs of $206,872/yr over this period, for a total annualized cost of $813,632/yr. The average annual burden for the federal governm ent for years 4 through 6 is estimated to be 3,891 labor hours per year, at a total labor cost of $204,550/yr. (All costs are in 2011 dollars.) An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information un less it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for the EPA’s regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. When OMB***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

6

- 5 approves this ICR, the agency will announce that approval in the Federal Register and publish a technic al amendment to 40 CFR part 9 to display the OMB control number for the approved information collection activities contained in this final rule. 6.4 Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) Pursuant to sections 603 and 609(b) of the RFA, the EPA prepared an initial re gulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) for the proposed rule and convened a Small Business Advocacy Review (SBAR) Panel to obtain advice and recommendations from small entity representatives that potentially would be subject to the rule ’ s requirements. Summa ries of the IRFA and Panel recommendations are included at 79 FR 75669

- 75671. As required by section 604 of the RFA, the EPA prepared a final regulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA) for this action. The FRFA addresses the issues raised by public comments on the IRFA for the proposed rule. The complete FRFA is included in Section 5 of “ Regulatory Impact Analysis: Final Brick and Structural Clay Products NESHAP, ” available for review in the docket (Docket ID No. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2013

- 0291), and is summarized here. 6.4.1 Need for the Rule The EPA is required under CAA section 112(d) to establish em ission standards for each category or subcategory of major and area sources of HAPs listed for regulation in Section 112(b). These standards are applicable to new or existing sources of HAPs and require the maximum degree of emission reduction. In the Admi nistrator’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, a NESHAP for the BSCP source category is being fi nalized. 6.4.2 Objectives and Legal Basis for the Rule Section 112(d) of the CAA requires the EPA to set emissions standards for HAPs emitted by major stationary sources based on the performance of the MACT. The MACT standards for existing sources must be at lea st as stringent as the average emissions limitation achieved by the best performing 12% of existing sources (for which the Administrator has emissions information) or the best performing five sources for source categories with fewer than 30 sources (CAA se ction 112(d)(3)(A) and (B)). For new sources, MACT standards must be at least as stringent as the control level achieved in practice by the best controlled similar source (CAA section 112(d)(3)). The EPA also must consider more stringent “beyond

- the

- floor” control options. When considering beyond

- the

- floor options, the EPA must consider not only the maximum degree of reduction in emissions of HAPs but must also take into account costs,***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

6

- 6 energy, and non

- air environmental impacts when doing so. This rule is be ing proposed to comply with CAA section 112(d). 6.4.3 Significant Issues Raised The EPA received comments on the proposed standards and requests for comment that were included based on the SBAR Panel recommendations. See sections V and VI of this rule’s preamble and “National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Brick and Structural Clay Products Manufacturing: Background Information for Final Rule

- Summary of Public Comments and Responses” in Docket ID No. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2013

- 0291 for more detailed c omment summaries and responses. Work practices for dioxin/furan: One commenter stated that work practices for dioxin/furan emissions from BSCP tunnel kilns are not lawful under the CAA, and even if they were, the work practices proposed are not sufficient to minimize dioxin/furan emissions. Other commenters supported the proposed work practices for dioxin/furan. Response: The EPA is finalizing work practices for dioxin/furan as proposed. Work practices for Hg and other metals: Several commenters responded t o the EPA’s request for comment on work practices for Hg and non

- Hg HAP metals. Numerous commenters stated that the EPA should finalize work practices instead of numeric limits and provided support for their assertion that the numeric limits are technicall y and economically impracticable to enforce. Commenters also noted that the emissions reduced by these numeric standards are not justified by the high cost that would be incurred to meet the standards. Response: Emissions of Hg and non

- Hg HAP metals were d etected using standard EPA test methods; therefore, the Hg and non

- Hg HAP metals data sets do not meet the criteria for setting work practice standards under CAA section 112(h). The EPA is finalizing numeric standards for Hg and non

- Hg HAP metals under CAA section rather than work practices. The final numeric standards are revised from proposal to account for new data from the industry (including data on the Hg content of raw materials), removal of test data found not to meet the requirements of the applica ble data, and changes in the EPA’s approach to selecting the MACT floor pools (see section V.A of this rule’s preamble for additional details). Health

- based standard for acid gases: Several commenters asserted that the EPA may not legally set CAA section 1 12(d)(4) health

- based standards for acid gases for BSCP facilities. Other commenters supported the EPA’s decision to propose health

- based standards for acid***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

6

- 7 gases but noted that the EPA’s approach was overly conservative and requested that the EPA consider setting multiple limits based on site characteristics. Response: The EPA is finalizing the health

- based standards for acid gases as proposed. The EPA’s response to the legal arguments made against health

- based standards is presented in section V.B of this rule’s preamble. The EPA is not changing the numeric limit from proposal, because the proposed limit provides low potential for both chronic and acute health effects. Size subcategories for MACT floors: Several commenters requested that the EPA subcategor ize by size for the non

- Hg HAP metal/PM MACT floor limits, as was proposed for Hg. Response: As part of recalculating the MACT floor limits based on the final data set, the EPA is finalizing separate limits for small and large kilns for non

- Hg HAP metals/P M as well as Hg. The EPA is also finalizing limits in three different formats for both pollutants to provide additional flexibility for small tunnel kilns and tunnel kilns with a low metals content in the PM emissions. Sawdust dryers: Several commenters re quested that the EPA finalize a subcategory of sawdust

- fired kilns venting to sawdust dryers. Commenters provided general descriptions of how the operation of these kilns is different than tunnel kilns and stated that there are only two operating that woul d be subject to the BSCP NESHAP. Response: Although one commenter noted that stack testing of a sawdust dryer is being considered, commenters did not provide test data to demonstrate that emissions from sawdust dryers are different than other tunnel kilns. Therefore, the EPA is not finalizing a subcategory of sawdust

- fired kilns venting to sawdust dryers. Periods of startup and shutdown: One commenter stated that work practices for periods of startup and shutdown of BSCP tunnel kilns are not lawful under th e CAA. Other commenters supported the proposal to provide work practices for periods of startup and shutdown but suggested improvements to the standards to make them feasible for all tunnel kilns. Response: The EPA evaluated the comments and is finalizing work practice standards for periods of startup and shutdown that reflect best practices for minimizing emissions during these periods (see section V.C of this rule’s preamble for additional information).***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

6

- 8 MACT floor pool: Several commenters supported the EP A’s proposal to calculate MACT floor standards for PM based on the top 12% of the kilns in the industry (i.e., the best

- performing sources with an FF

- based APCD). One commenter asserted that the EPA’s proposal is unlawful and the EPA must consider other fa ctors than the APCD type when setting MACT standards. Response: The EPA reviewed all the data used for the MACT floor for PM as a surrogate for non

- Hg HAP metals and found that some of the test data did not meet the requirements of EPA Method 5. When these data were removed, the EPA could no longer confirm that the data available to the agency represented all the best

- performing sources. Therefore, the final PM and
non - Hg HAP metals are based on the top 12% of sources for which we had test data, regardless of APCD type (see section V.A of this preamble for additional details). 6.4.4 Small Business Administration Comments The U.S. Small Business Administration’s Office of Advocacy supported the EPA’s proposals to set work practice standards and health

- based emissio n standards in all instances allowed by statute and suggested other areas of improvement. The comments on areas of improvement and the EPA’s responses are summarized below: Hg standards: The EPA should pursue subcategorization by input (raw material) type, delaying promulgation of an Hg standard to gather more information if needed. Standards may need to be combined with a significantly longer averaging time to allow for continuous compliance. Response: Following proposal, the EPA received additional information on the Hg content of raw materials from facilities in the BSCP industry. This information did not provide the EPA with the information needed to establish subcategories based on the clas s or type of raw materials. However, it did allow the EPA to finalize Hg standards that account for the variability of Hg content in raw materials. As an initial point, it is doubtful that EPA had the option of delaying the promulgation of an Hg standard. Under CAA 112(e), EPA was scheduled to complete standards for all source categories by 2000. EPA’s 2003 Brick MACT rule was vacated, and that vacatur re

- created EPA’s obligation to set standards for the Brick source category. Sierra Club v. EPA, 850 F.Su pp.2d 300, 303

- 304 (D.D.C. 2012). Under the consent decree in that case, as amended in August 2014, EPA was obligated to sign a notice of final rulemaking to set standards for the Brick source category by September 24, 2015. In any event, delay is n ot warranted. Following proposal, the EPA received additional information on the Hg content of raw materials from facilities in the BSCP industry. This***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

6

- 9 information did not provide the EPA with the information needed to establish subcategories based on the class or type of raw materials. However, EPA has concluded that it has sufficient information to allow it to finalize Hg standards that account for the variability of Hg content in raw materials. Thus, EPA’s conclusion is that there is no need to delay pr omulgation of the Hg standards in order to gather more information. Economic analysis: The economic impact of the proposed rule on small entities is significantly underestimated. Specifically, the EPA should not annualize costs at 7% over 20 years because that does not reflect the financing options available to small entities, the EPA underestimated the cost for a facility to become a synthetic area source, and the EPA has underestimated the cost to comply with the Hg standards given the limited information the agency has on the performance of Hg controls in this industry. Response : EPA standard engineering cost practice is to annualize over the expected life of the control equipment at 7%. EPA does not have the data available to model the way a firm pays for a control device because each firm has a different set of potential options for financing including debt financing, eq u ity financing, and financing through retained earnings. EPA acknowledges that some firms may not be able to borrow the money and som e may close. EPA's closure analysis is quite uncertain but we do not have the detailed firm specific information necessary to refine the analysis. The EPA agrees that the costs to become a synthetic area source at proposal were underestimated, and the fina l rule impacts include testing costs for all facilities, because potential synthetic area sources would have to demonstrate that their emissions qualify them to apply for synthetic area status. Finally, the EPA must use the best information available to th e agency to estimate the impact of the standards on all entities. The final Hg standards incorporate variability in the Hg content of raw materials, which is expected to ease the burdens on some small entities. 6.4.5 Affected Small Entities Of 44 parent companie s owning BSCP facilities, 36 parent companies are small businesses. The EPA computed the ratio of estimated compliance costs to company sales (cost

to

- sales ratio) to measure the magnitude of potential impacts on small companies. Under the final standards, the EPA estimated that two to three small BSCP manufacturing facilities are at significant risk of closure. 6.4.6 Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance Requirements Respondents would be required to provide one

- time and periodic notifications, including initial notification, notification of performance tests, and notification of compliance status.***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

6

- 10 Respondents would also be required to submit semiannual reports documenting compliance with the rule and detailing any compliance issues, and they would be req uired to submit the results of performance tests to the EPA’s ERT. Respondents would be required to keep documentation supporting information included in these notifications and reports, as well as records of the operation and maintenance of affected sourc es and APCD at the facility. 6.4.7 Significant Alternatives The EPA considered three major options for this final rule ; see “Regulatory Impact Analysis: Final Brick and Structural Clay Products NESHAP,” in Docket ID No. EPA

- HQ

OAR

- 2013

- 0291), for more informatio n about the alternatives.

. Finalizing the proposed changes without revision is expected to have similar cost and emission reduction impacts to the standards the EPA is finalizing, with a similar number of closures (one to two small BSCP manufacturing facil ities rather than two to three). However, for the various legal and technical reasons outlined in this rule’s preamble and “National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Brick and Structural Clay Products Manufacturing: Background Informatio n for Final Rule

- Summary of Public Comments and Responses” in Docket ID No. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2013

- 0291, the EPA determined that the PM/non

- Hg HAP metals and Hg standards should not be finalized as proposed. The other alternative considered included the same st andards for acid gases and Hg that are being finalized but only provided one set of limits PM/non

- Hg HAP metals (i.e., did not provide separate sets of limits for small and large tunnel kilns). This alternative is expected to have significantly higher cost impacts than the standards the EPA is finalizing, along with a significantly higher number of closures (five to ten small BSCP manufacturing facilities rather than two to three). Therefore, the EPA determined that it is necessary to exercise its discretio n to subcategorize by kiln size to minimize the significant economic impact on small entities. In addition, the EPA is preparing a Small Entity Compliance Guide to help small entities comply with this rule. The guide will be available on the World Wide Web approximately 1 year after promulgation of the rule

. 6.5 Unfunded Mandates Reform Act This action does not contain an unfunded mandate of $100 million or more as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 1531

- 1538, and does not significan tly or uniquely affect small governments. This action imposes no enforceable duty on any state, local, or tribal government or the private sector.***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

6

- 11 6.6 Executive Order 13132: Federalism This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have substa ntial 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. 6.7 Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with I ndian Tribal Governments This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. It will not have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the relationship between the federal government and Indian tribes, or on th e distribution of power and responsibilities between the federal government and Indian tribes, as specified in Executive Order 13175. The action imposes requirements on owners and operators of BSCP manufacturing facilities and not tribal governments. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action. 6.8 Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because the EPA does not believe the environmental heal th or safety risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to children. This action ’ s health and risk assessment s are contained in the memorandum “ Risk Assessment to Determine a Health

- Based Emission Limitation for Acid Gases for the Brick and Structural Clay Products Manufacturing Source Category, ” Docket Item No. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

2013

- 0291

- 0132. 6.9 Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution or Use This action is not a “ significant en ergy action ” because it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. This action will not adversely directly affect productivity, competition, or prices in the energy sector. 6.10 National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act ( NTAA) and ICFR Part 51 NT T AA) This action involves technical standards. The EPA has decided to use the following four voluntary consensus standards as acceptable alternatives to the EPA test methods for the purpose of this rule. ANSI/A SME PTC 19

- 10

- 1981, Part 10, “ Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses, ” is acceptable as an alternative to Method 3A and 3B for the manual procedures only and not the instrumental procedures.***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

6

- 12 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 D6784

- 02 (Reapproved 2008), “ Standard Test Method for Elemental, Oxidized, Particle

- Bound and Total Mercur y Gas Generated from Coal

- Fired Stationary 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 Dire ct Interface Fourier Transform Infrared (FTIR) Spectroscopy, ” is acceptable as an alternative to Method 320 with the following conditions: (1) the test plan preparation and implementation in the Annexes to ASTM D 6348

- 03, Sections A1 through A8 are mandato ry and (2) in ASTM D6348

- 03 Annex A5 (Analyte Spiking Technique), the percent recovery (%R) must be determined for each target analyte (Equation A5.5). For the test data to be acceptable for a compound, %R must be greater than or equal to 70 % and less than or equal to 130 % . If the %R value does not meet this criterion for a target compound, the test data are not acceptable for that compound and the test must be repeated for that analyte (i.e., the sampling and/or analytical procedure should be adjusted before a retest). The %R value for each compound must be reported in the test report , and all field measurements must be corrected with the calculated %R value for that compound by using the following equation: Reported Result = (Measured Concent ration in the Stack x 100)/%R. 6.10.1 6.11 Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low - Income Populations The EPA believes the human health or environmental risk addressed by this action will not have potenti al disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority, low

- income, or indigenous populations because it does not affect the level of protection provided to human health or the environment. As explained in the December 201 4 proposal (79 FR 75672), the EPA determined that this final rule will not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or low

- income populations, because it increases the level of environmental protection for all affected populations without having any disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on any population, including any minority or low

- income population. Additionally, the agency has conducted a proximity analysis for this r ulemaking, which is located in the docket. (See “ EJ Screening Report for Brick and Structural Clay, ” Docket Item No. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2013

- 0291

- 0102

. ) Formatted: Heading 2,l2***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

6

- 13 6.11 6.12 Congressional Review Act (CRA) This action is subject to the CRA, and the EPA will submit a rule report to each ho u se of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. This action is not a “ major rule ” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

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 final rule outweigh the costs. The net benefits are likely higher since EPA was not able to monetize other environmental benefits from reducing exposure to 375 tons of HAPs each year and ecosystem effects and visibility impairment associated with PM emissions. 7.2 Net Benefits of the Final Standards Using a 3% discount rate, we estimate the total monetized benefits of the final standards to be $ 83 million to $1 9 0 m illion (Table 7

- 1). Using a 7% discount rate, we estimate the total monetized benefits to be $ 75 million to $1 7 0 million. The annualized costs ar e $2 7 million at a 7% interest rate. The net benefits are $ 5 6 million to $ 160 million at a 3% discount rate for the benefits and $ 48 million to $ 150 m illion at a 7% discount rate. Table 7 - 1. Summary of the Monetized Benefits, Socia l Costs, and Net Benefits (million 2011$) Total (3% Discount Rate) Total (7% Discount Rate) Final Standards

Total Monetized Benefits $ 83 to $1 90 $ 75 to $1 70 Total Social Costs a $2 7 Net Benefits $ 5 6 to $ 16 0 $ 48 to $ 150

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. All estimates are independently rounded to two significant figures, so estimates may not appear to sum in this table.***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

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.***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

A

- 2 Table A - 2 . Average Prices of Brick, Bui lding 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 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 regi ons 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 wer e shipped less than 100 miles (U.S. Department of Transportation, 2010 ). 72 Approximately 75% of the total tons shipped are shipped in NAICS is less than 50 miles. A comparison of Census region average prices f or 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 perf ectly competitive partial equilibrium model with nine regional brick markets (defined by census region). The market demand (D) in region (r) with regulation is : QQ DDDD

′ = QQ DDDD × � 1 + � PP ′

− 1 � × ηη � (A.1 )
The affected market supply (SA) in region (r) with regulati on is :

72 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.***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

A

- 3 QQ SS

′ = QQ SS × � 1 + � � PP ′

− �

− 1 � × εε � (A.2 )
The unaffected market supply (SU) in region (r) with regulation is : QQ SSSS

′ = QQ SSSS × � 1 + � PP ′

− 1 � × εε � (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) : QQ DDDD

′ = QQ SS ′ + QQ SSSS ′ (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 models of pricing behavior (i.e., oligopoly)

. If market power exists, the use of a perfectly competitive model may understate the social costs of the final r ule. A.3 Model Parameters A.3.1 Demand All other things equal, consumers will likely buy fewer brick and structural clay products (BSCP) when the price of the product rises. The price elasticity of demand measures the size of the price response. 73 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 versus years). Currently, EPA has not identified statistically estimated price elasticities for BSCP

. However, economy

- wide simulation models have su ggested 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 BSCP is likely more elastic than this value

.

73 The measure is computed as the percentage change in quantity demanded divided by the percentage change in price.***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

A

- 4 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 elasti city of supply measures how much the quantity of bricks supplied responds to changes in the brick price. 74 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 el astic. 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 pr oduct 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. Ruth erford ( 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 inpu ts, one input that is fixed during a short time period 75 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 varia ble 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 ro se 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

74 The measure is co mputed as the percentage change in quantity supplied divided by the percentage change in price. 75 The fixed factor generally includes plant and capital equipment; factors that vary with production could include materials or labor.***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

A

- 5 responsive the brick industry would be to change s 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 a re 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).

Figure A - 1. Partial Equilibrium Measures of Social Cost: Changes Consumer and Producer Surplu s 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 ) 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***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

A

- 6 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.E.O. 12866_Brick & Clay 2060

- AP69 Final_ 201508 2 4 20150 9 2 3 6560

- 50

- P

**ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 63**  **[EPA -**  **HQ -**  **OAR -**  **2013 -**  **029 0**  **and EPA -**  **HQ -**  **OAR -**  **2013 -**  **029 1**  **; FRL -**  **9933 -**  **13 -**  **OAR ]** 
**RIN 2060**  **- AP69**  **NESHAP for Brick and Structural Clay Products Manufacturing; and NESHAP for Clay Ceramics Manufacturing** 
**AGENCY:** Environmental Protection Agency (EP A)
. **ACTION:** Final rule.
**SUMMARY:** T he Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is finalizing national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP ) for Brick and Structural Clay Products (BSCP) Manufacturing and NE SHAP for Clay Ceramics Manufacturing. A ll major sources in these categories must meet maximum achievable control technology (MACT) standards for mercury (Hg) , non mercury (non

- Hg) metal hazardous air pollutants (HAP) (or particulate matter (PM) surrogate) and dioxins/furans (Clay Ceramics only) ; health

- based standards for acid gas HAP ; and work practice standards , where applicable
. T h e final rule , which has been informed by input from industry and other stakeholders ( including small businesses ), environmental groups, and other stakeholders , p rotect s air quality and promote s public health by Style Definition: List Bullet 2 Indent: Indent: Left: 0.75", Hanging: 0.25", No bullets or numbering Style Definition: Number Under Bullet: Indent: Left: 0.75", Hanging: 0.25", No bullets or numbering Style Definition: Bullet: Indent: Left: 0.25", Hanging: 0.25", No bullets or numbering Style Definition: Bullets: Indent: Left: 0.25", Hanging: 0.25", No bullets or numbering Style Definition: List Bullet: Indent: Left: 0.25", Hanging: 0.25", No bullets or numbering, Tab stops: 0.25", List tab Style Definition: List Bullet 4: Indent: Left: 0.75", Hanging: 0.25", No bullets or numbering Style Definition: Heading Level 3: No underline***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 2 of 454 reducing emissions of HAP liste d in section 112 of the C lean A ir
A ct (CAA)
. **DATES:** This action is effective on **[insert date 60 days from**  **date of publication**  **in the Federal Register ]**  . The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this rule is approved by the Director of the **Federal Register** as of **[insert date**  **60 days from date of publication**  **in the Federal Register ]** 
. **ADDRESSES:** The EPA has established dockets for th is rulemaking under Docket ID No. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2013

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

- HQ

- OAR

- 2013

- 0290 for Clay Ceramics Manufacturing. All documents in the dockets are listed in the regulations.gov index. Al though listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g. , confidential business information ( CBI ) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in regulations.gov or in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center, EPA WJC West Building , Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 3 of 454 Reading Room is (202) 566

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

- 1742.
**FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT** : For question s about the final rule for Brick and Structural Clay Products BSCP M anufacturing and Clay Ceramics Manufacturing , contact M s . Sharon Nizich , Minerals and Manufactur ing 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
. T his 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:
A CI activated carbon injection AEGL Acute Exposure Guideline Level AERMOD air dispersion model used by the HEM

– 3 model APCD air pollution control device ASOS Automated Surface Observing Systems ATSDR Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry BIA Brick Industry Association BLD bag leak detection BSCP B rick and S tructural C lay P roducts CAA Clean Air Act***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 4 of 454 CalEPA California E nvironmental P rotection A gency CAS RN Chemical Abstract Services Registry Number CBI Confidential Business Information CDX Central Data Exchange CEDRI Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface CFR Code of Federal Regulations Cl 2 chlorine CO carbon monoxide CO 2 carbon dioxide CPMS continuous parameter monitoring system CRA Congressional Review Act DHHS Department of Health and Human Services DIFF dry lime injection fabric filter DLA dry limestone adsorber DLS /FF dry lime scrubber /fabric filter DOD De partment of Defense ECHO Enforcement and Compliance History Online EPA Environmental Protection Agency ERPG Emergency Response Planning Guideline ERT Electronic Reporting Tool °F degrees Fahrenheit FAA Federal Aviation Administration FF fabric filter FQPA Food Quality Protection Act FRFA final regulatory flexibility analysis FTIR Fourier transform infrared gr / dscf grain s per dry standard cubic foot HAP hazardous air pollutant HBEL health

- based emission limit HCl hydrogen chloride HEM

- 3 Human Exposure Model (Community and Sector version 1.3.1) HF hydrogen fluoride Hg mercury HI hazard index HQ hazard quotient IARC International Agency for Research on Cancer ICR information collection request IRFA initial regulatory flexibility analysis IRIS Integrated Risk Information System lb /hr pound s per hour lb /ton pound s per ton LML lowest measured level LOAEL lowest observed adverse effects level LOEL lowest observed effects level MACT maximum achievable control technology***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 5 of 454
mg / m 3 milligram s per cubic meter μg /dscm microgram s per dry standard cubic 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 NAS National Ac ademy of Sciences NATA National Air Toxics Assessment NEI National Emissions Inventory NESHAP national emissions standards for hazardous air pollutants ng/ kg nanograms per kilogram NIOSH National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health No. number NO 2 n itrogen dioxide NOAEL no observ ed adverse effect level N on - Hg non - mercury NO X nitrogen oxides NTTAA National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act NWS National Weather Service O 2 oxygen OECD Organisation for Economic Co

- operation and Development OEHHA O ffice of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment OM&M operation, maintenance and monitoring OMB Office of Management and Budget %R percent recovery PM particulate matter PM 2.5 particulate matter with particles less than 2.5 micrometers in diameter ppm parts per million PRA Paperwork Reduction Act REL reference exposure level RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act RfC reference concentration RfD reference dose RIA Regulatory Impact Analysis RTR residual risk and technology review SAB Science Advisory Board SBA Small Business Administration SBAR Small Business Advocacy Review SBE Standard Brick Equivalent SBREFA Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act SO 2 sulfur dioxide SSM startup, shutdown and malfunction***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 6 of 454 TEQ 2,3,7,8

- tetrachlorodibenzo

- p - dioxin toxic equiv alents TOSHI target

- organ - specific hazard index tph tons per hour tpy tons per year TTN Technology Transfer Network μg /dscm microgram s per dry standard cubic meter μg / m 3 microgram s per cubic meter UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act UPL Upper Prediction Limi t VE visible emissions yr year Background Information Document s . On December 18, 2014, the EPA proposed NESHAP for B rick and Structural Clay P roducts BSCP
M anufacturing and NESHAP for Clay Ceramics M anufacturing (79 FR 75622) . In this action, we are finalizing the rule s . D ocument s summarizing the public comments on the proposal and presenting the EPA responses to those comments are available in Docket ID
N o. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2013

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

– HQ

– OAR

– 2013

– 0290 for Clay Ceramics Manufacturing
. Organization of This Document . The information in this preamble is organized as follows:
I. General Information A. Executive Summary B. Does this action apply to me? C. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related information? D. Judicial Review I I. Background Information A. What is the statutory authority for the final rule? B
. What actions preceded this final rule? C. What are the health effects of pollutants emitted from the Brick and S tructural Clay Products BSCP and Clay Ceramics Manufacturing source categories?***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 7 of 454
III. Summary of the Final Rule A. What are the final rule requirements for BSCP M anufacturing ? B. What are the final rule requirements for C lay C eramics M anufacturing? C
. What are the requirements during periods of startup, shutdown , and m alfunction ? D
. What are the effective and compliance dates of the standards ? E
. What are the requirements for submission of performance test data to the EPA ? F. What materials are being in corporated by reference under 1 CFR part 51 ? I V
. Summary of Significant Changes Following Proposal and Rationale A. What are the significant changes since proposal for the BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP ? B. What are the significant changes since proposal for th e Clay Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP? C. What are the changes to monitoring requirements since proposal? V. Summary of Significant Comments and Responses A. Health

- Based Standards B. BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP C. Clay Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP V I
. Summary of the Cost, Environmental, Energy and Economic Impacts A. What are the cost and emission reduction impacts ? B. What are the secondary impacts ? C. What are the economic impacts? D
. What are the benefits? VI I
. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) E
. Executive Order 13132: Federalism F
. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments G
. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulati ons That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution or Use***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 8 of 454
I
. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (N T TAA) and 1 CFR part 51 J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low

Income Populations K. Congressional Review Act (CRA) **I. General Information**
A. Executive Summary 1. Purpose of the Regulatory Action Section 112(d) of the CAA requires the EPA to set emissions standards for HAP emitted by major stationary sources based on the performance of the MACT
. in each source category and subcategory listed under section 112(c). We issued the NESHAP for BSCP Manufacturing and the NESHAP for Clay Ceramics Manufacturing on May 16, 2003. The two NESHAP were vacated and remanded b y the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on March 13, 2007. To address the vacatur and remand of the original NESHAP, we are issuing new standards for BSCP manufacturing facilities and clay ceramics manufacturing facilitie s located at major sources
. 2. Summary of the Major Provisions

a. BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP The EPA is finalizing MACT emission limits for non - Hg HAP metals (or PM surrogate) and Hg, and a health

- based emission limit (HBEL) for acid gases ( hydrogen fluoride ( HF ) , hydrogen chloride ( HCl ) and chlorine ( Cl 2 ) ) , ) ) for BSCP tunnel kilns. In***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 9 of 454 addition, the EPA is finalizing work practice standards for periodic kilns , dioxin s /furan s from tunnel kilns , and periods of startup and shutdown for tunnel kilns . To d emonstrate compliance with the emission limits , the EPA is requiring initial and repeat 5

- year performance testing for the regulated pollutants , parameter monitoring , and daily visible emissions ( VE ) checks. Owners/operators whose BSCP tunnel kilns are equ ipped 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 or daily VE checks. b. Clay Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP The EPA is finalizing MACT emission limits for Hg , PM (surrogate for non

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

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

- Hg HAP metals) for sanitaryware glaze spray booths. T he EPA is also finalizing work practice standards for shuttle kilns and periods of startup and shutdown . To demonstrate compliance with the***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 10 of 454 emission limits , the EPA is requiring initial and repeat 5

- year performance testing for the regulated pollutants , parameter monitoring , and daily VE checks. Owners/operators whose affected

sources are equipped with a a n FF ( e.g. , DIFF, DLS/FF) have the option of demonstrat ing compliance using a BLD system instead of or daily VE checks. 3
. Costs and Benefits Table 1 of this preamble summarizes the costs and benefits of th is action for 40 CFR part 63, subpart JJJJJ (BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP) , while Table 2 of this preamble summarizes the costs of th is action for 40 CFR part 63, subpart KKKKK (Clay Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP) . See section VI of this preamble for further discussion of the costs and benefits for the BSCP
M anufacturing NESHAP and the costs for the Clay C erami cs
M anufacturing NESHAP. See section VI I .B of this preamble for discussion of the recordkeeping and reporting costs.

**T ABLE**  **1 .**  **S UMMARY OF THE**  **C OSTS AND**  **B ENEFITS OF**  **40 CFR**  **P ART**  **63, S**  **UBPART JJJJJ**  **( MILLIONS OF**  **2011 DOLLARS**  **)**

**Requirement Capital**  **cost Annual cost**  **Net benefit (**  **7 percent d**  **iscount )**  **a** Emission controls $ 62.3 $23.7 $48 to 150 Emissions testing $ 2.26 $0. 552 Monitoring

-- $0.3 52

a Net benefit is the annual cost subtracted from the total monetized benefits (at a 7

- percent discount rate). For more information, see section 7 of

“ Regulatory Impact Analysis: Final Brick and Structural Clay Products NESHAP ” in Docket ID N o. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2013

– 0291.***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 11 of 454

**T ABLE**  **2 .**  **S UMMARY OF THE**  **C OSTS OF**  **40 CFR**  **P ART**  **63, S**  **UBPART KKKKK**  **( MILLIONS OF**  **2011 DOLLARS**  **) Requirement**  **Capital cost Annual cost**  Emission controls $ 0 $ 0 Emissions testing $0. 2 67 $ 0. 0 655 Monitoring

-- $ 0.02 6 9

B
. Does this action apply to me? The regulat ed c ategories and entitie s potentially affected by th is action are shown in Table 3 of this preamble :
**T ABLE**  **3 .**  **NESHAP AND**  **I NDUSTRIAL**  **S OURCE**  **C ATEGORIES**  **A FFECTED BY THIS**  **A CTION** 
**Category NAICS**  **code a**  **,b Examples of**  **potentially regulated entities**  Industry.... 327120 Brick, s tructural clay , and e xtruded tile manufacturing facilities ( BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP ) ; and c eramic wall and floor tile manufacturing facilities (Clay Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP )
. 32711 0 Vitreous plumbing fixtures (sanitaryware) manufacturing facilities (Clay Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP ). Federal government...
... Not affected
. State/local/tribal government... ... Not affected
.

a North American Industry Classification System b Refractories manufacturing is not included in the source categories affected by this action.

This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be Formatted Table

Formatted: Table Footnote***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 12 of 454 regulated by this action. To determine whether your facility , company, business, organization, etc. , is regulated by this action, you should examine the applicability criteria in 40 CFR 63.8385 of subpart JJJJJ (BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP) or 40 CFR 6 3
. 8535 of subpart KKKKK (Clay Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP)
. If you have any questions rega rding the applica bility of this action to a particular entity, contact either the delegated authority for the entity or your EPA regional representative as listed in 40 CFR 63.13 of subpart A (General Provisions)
. C. Where can I get a copy of this document and other relate d 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 ai r pollution control. Following signature by the EPA Administrator, the EPA will post a copy of this action
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 final rule and key technical documents at this same W eb site
.***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 13 of 454
D
. Judicial Review Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, judicial review of this final action is available only by filing a petition for review in the United States Court of Appeal s for the District of Columbia Circuit by **[ insert date 60 days**  **from date of**  **publication in the Federal Register**  **]** . Under section 307(b)(2) of the CAA, the requirements established by these final rules may not be challenged separately in any civil or crimina l proceedings brought by the EPA to enforce the requirements. Section 307(d)(7)(B) of t he CAA further provides that

“ [o ]nly an objection to a rule or procedure which was raised with reasonable specificity during the period for public comment (including any public hearing) may be raised during judicial review. ” This section also provides a mechanism for us to convene a proceeding for reconsideration, “ [i]f the person raising an objection can demonstrate to the EPA that it was impracticable to raise such obje ction within [the period for public comment] or if the grounds for such objection arose after the period for public comment (but within the time specified for judicial review) and if such objection is of central relevance to the outcome of the rule. ” Any p erson seeking to make such a demonstration to us should submit a Petition for Reconsideration to the Office of the Administrator, U.S. EPA, Room 3000, William***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 14 of 454 Jefferson Clinton EPA WJC North Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20460, with a copy to both the person(s) listed in the preceding **FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT** section and the Associate General Counsel for the Air and Radiation Law Office, Office of General Counsel (Mail Code 2344A), U.S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washingto n, DC 20460.
**I I. Background Information** 
A. What is the statutory authority for the final rule ? Section 112(d) of the CAA requires the EPA to set emissions standards for HAP emitted by major stationary sources based on the performance of the MACT. sources in each source category and subcategory listed under section 112(c). The MACT standards for existing sources must be at least as stringent as the average emissions limitation achieved by the best performing 12 percent of existing sources (for which the Admin istrator 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 a t least as stringent as the control level achieved in practice by the best controlled similar source (CAA section 112(d)(3)). The EPA also must consider more stringent “ beyond

- the

- floor ” control options. When considering beyond

- the

- floor options, the EPA m ust not only***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 15 of 454 consider the maximum degree of reduction in emissions of HAP, but must also take into account costs, energy and nonair environmental impacts when doing so.
B . What actions preceded this final rule? Pursuant to CAA section 112(c)(5), the EPA was originally required to promulgate standards for the BSCP Manufacturing and
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 st andards were challenged and subsequently vacated by the United States Court of A ppeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in 2007. See Sierra Club v. EPA , 479 F.3d 875, 876 (D.C. Cir. 2007). In 2008, Sierra Club filed suit in the United States
Court of A ppeals for the District of Columbia Circuit under CAA section 304(a)(2), alleging that the EPA had a continuing mandatory duty to promulgate standards for these categories under CAA section 112 based on the 2000 deadline under CAA section 112(c)(5). The EP A 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. Ultimatel y, the District Court found that the vacatur of the 2003 rule recreated the mandatory duty***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 16 of 454 to set standards by 2000 and h e ld that Sierra Club ’ s claims could continue. See Sierra Club v. EPA , 850 F.Supp.2d 300 (D.D.C. 2012). The EPA and Sierra Club then neg otiated 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 ne w standards for the BSCP and clay ceramics industries. The EPA conducted an initial information collection effort in 2008 to update information on the inventory of affected units, hereafter referred to as “ the 2008 EPA survey. ” The EPA conducted a second i nformation collection effort in 2010 to obtain additional emissions data and information on each facility ’ s startup, shutdown, and malfunction ( SSM ) procedures, hereafter referred
to as “ the 2010 EPA survey. ” The information collected as part of these surv eys , and not claimed as CBI by respondents , is available in Docket ID Nos. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2013

- 0290 and EPA

- HQ

- OAR

2013

- 0291. In addition, the dockets A

– 99

– 30 and OAR

- 2002

- 0054 are incorporated by reference for BSCP. The dockets A

- 2000

- 48,
OAR

- 2002

- 0055 , and EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0424 are incorporated by reference for clay ceramics.***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 17 of 454 On December 18, 2014, the EPA proposed NESHAP for BSCP
M anufacturing and NESHAP for Clay Ceramics M anufacturing. See 79 FR 75622 (Dec ember 18, 2014). In response to a request from i ndustry, t he EPA extended the public comment period for the proposed action from February 17, 2015 , to March 19, 2015. See 79 FR 78768 (Dec ember 31, 2014). In this action, the EPA is finalizing the rule. C. What are the health effects of pollutants emitted from the Brick and Structural Clay Products BSCP Manufacturing and Clay Ceramics Manufacturing source categories? The final rule protects air quality and promotes the public health by reducing emissions of HAP emitted from BSCP and clay ceramics kilns. Emi ssions data collected during development of the final rule show 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 Hg , nickel and selenium. Exposure to these HAP, depending on exposure duration and levels of exposures, can be associated with a variety of adverse health effects. These***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 18 of 454 adverse health effects could include chronic health disorders ( e.g. , irritation of the lung, ski n and mucus membranes, effects

on the central nervous system and damage to the kidneys) and acute health disorders ( e.g. , lung irritation and congestion, alimentary effects such as nausea and vomiting , and effects on the kidney and central nervous system). We have classified two of the HAP as human carcinogens (arsenic and chromium VI) and four as probable human carcinogens (cadmium, lead, dioxins/furans and nickel).
**I II**  **. Summary of the Final**  **Rule** Th e following section s summarize the final requirements for the BSCP M anufacturing source category and Clay Ceramics Manufacturing source category . Section I V of this preamble summarizes the major changes since proposal
. A. What are the final rule requirements for BSCP M anufacturing ? 1. What source category is affected by the final rule?
T he final NESHAP for BSCP Manufacturing applies to BSCP manufacturing facilities that are located at or are part of a major source of HAP emissions. The BSCP Manufacturing source category includes those facilities t hat 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.***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 19 of 454 2. What are the affected sources? The affected sources, which are the portions of each source in the category for which we are setting standards, are (1) a ll tunnel kilns at a BSCP manufacturing facility and (2) each periodic kiln. For purposes of th e final BSCP Manufacturing
NESHAP , tunnel kilns are defined to include any t ype of continuous kiln used at BSCP manufacturing facilities, including roller kilns. Tunnel kilns are fired by natural gas or other fuels, including sawdust. Sawdust firing typically involves the use of a sawdust dryer because sawdust typically is purchas ed wet and needs to be dried before it can be used as fuel. Consequently, some sawdust

- fired tunnel kilns have two process streams, including (1) a process stream that exhausts directly to the atmosphere or to an air pollution control device ( APCD ) ) , and (2) a process stream in which the kiln exhaust is ducted to a sawdust dryer where it is used to dry sawdust before being emitted to the atmosphere. Both process streams are subject to the requirements of the final BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP
. The follow ing BSCP process units are not subject to the requirements of the final rule: (1) k ilns that are used exclusively for setting glazes on previously fired products , (2) raw material processing and handling , and ( 3 ) dryers . S ources***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 20 of 454 regulated under the C la y C e ramics M anufacturing NESHAP or the
R efractories M anufact uring NESHAP are not subject t o the requirements of the BSCP M anufacturing NESHAP
. 3. Does the final rule apply to me? This final BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP applies to own ers and or operators of an affected source at a major source meeting the requirements discussed previously in this preamble. A major source of HAP emissions is any stationary source or group of stationary sources located within a contiguous area and under common control that emi ts or has the potential to emit , considering controls , 10 tons per year (tpy) or more of any HAP or 25 tpy or more of any combination of HAP. 4. What emission limitations and work practice standards must I
meet? Emission l imitations
. We are providing a cho ice of emission limits for total non

- Hg HAP metals and Hg for new and existing tunnel kilns in two subcategories based on kiln size
. In this final BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP , a large tunnel kiln is defined as a new or existing tunnel kiln with a design capa city of 10 tons per hour (tph) or greater , and a small tunnel kiln is defined as a new or existing tunnel kiln with a desig n capacity of less than 10 tph. The options for total non

- Hg HAP metals include total non

- Hg HAP metals limit s in units of pounds per***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 21 of 454 hour ( lb/hr ) and options for limiting PM as a surrogate for non

Hg HAP metals in units of pounds per ton ( lb/ton ) or grains per dry standard cubic foot ( gr/dscf ) at 1 7

- percent oxygen ( O 2 )
. The options for Hg include emission limits in units of lb/ton, lb/hr or micrograms per dry standard cubic meter (μg/dscm) at 1 7

- percent O 2 . We are also issuing an emission limit for HCl

equivalent for all existing and new tunnel kilns at the facility to reduce the acid gases HF, HCl and Cl 2 . The emission limi ts for acid gases, Hg , and non

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

**T ABLE**  **4 .**  **A CID**  **G ASES**  **, T**  **OTAL N**  **ON -**  **M ERCURY**  **HAP M**  **ETALS AND M**  **ERCURY E**  **MISSION L**  **IMITS FOR**  **B RICK AND**  **S TRUCTURAL**  **C LAY**  **P RODUCTS**  **T UNNEL**  **K ILNS** 
**Subcategory Acid gases**  **Total non**  **- Hg**  **HAP metals**  **Hg** Limits for existing sources Large tunnel kilns (≥ 10 tph) -- 0. 03 6 lb/ton PM OR 0.0 029 gr/dscf PM at 1 7

- percent O 2 OR 0. 0057 lb/hr non

- Hg HAP metals for each existing tunnel kiln at facility 4. 0 1 E

- 05 lb/ton OR 5. 4 5 E

- 04 lb/hr OR 7. 6 7 μg/dscm at 1 7

- percent O 2 for each existing large tunnel kiln at facility
Small tunnel kilns (< 10 tph) -- 0. 3 7 lb/ton PM OR 0.0 0 21 gr/dscf PM at 1 7

- percent O 2

OR 0. 1 1 lb/hr non - Hg HAP metals for each existing

tunnel kiln at facility 3. 3 E

- 04 lb/ton OR 0.001 9 lb/hr OR 88 91 μg/dscm at 1 7

- percent O 2 for each existing small tunnel kiln at facility
All tunnel kilns 57 lb/hr HCl

equivalent for collection of all tunnel kiln s at facility -- --

Limits for new sources***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 22 of 454

**Subcategory Acid gases**  **Total non**  **- Hg**  **HAP metals**  **Hg** Large tunnel kilns (≥ 10 tph) -- 0. 03 2 018 lb/ton PM OR 0. 00 24 0014 gr/dscf PM at 1 7

- percent O 2 OR 0.00 57 lb/hr non

Hg HAP metals for

each new tunnel kiln at facility 2. 8 E

- 05 lb/ton OR 3. 4 E

- 04 lb/hr OR

6. 1 2 μg/dscm at 1 7

- percent O 2 for

each new large tunnel kiln at facility

Small tunnel kilns (< 10 tph) -- 0. 0 3 2 0 3 0 lb/ton PM OR 0.00 2 1 gr/dscf PM at 1 7

- percent O 2 OR 0. 1 1 lb/hr non

- Hg

HAP metals for each new tunnel kiln at facility 3. 3 E

- 04 lb/ton OR 0.001 9 lb/hr OR 88 91 μg/dscm at 17

- percent O 2 for

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

equivalent for collection of all tunnel kiln s at facility -- --

Work p ractice s tandards
. We are issuing work practice standards for BSCP periodic kilns in lieu of HAP emission limits. The work practice standards require developing and using a designed firing time and temperature cycle for each periodic kiln; labeling each periodic kiln with the maximum load (in tons) of product that can be fired in the kiln during a single firing cycle; documenting the total tonnage placed in the kiln for each load to ensure that it is not greater than the maximum load; developing and implementing maintenance procedures for each kiln that specify the frequency of inspection and maintenance; and developing and maintaining records for each***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 23 of 454 periodic kiln, including logs to document the proper operation and maintenance procedures of the periodic kilns. We are also issuing work pr actice standards for BSCP tunnel kilns in lieu of dioxin/furan emission limits. The work practice standards require maintaining and inspecting the burners and associated combustion controls (as applicable); tuning the specific burner type to optimize combu stion; keeping records of each burner tune

- up; and submitting a report for each tune

- up conducted. As discussed in section III.C.1.a of this preamble, we are also issuing work practice standards for periods of startup and shutdown.
5 . What are the testing and initial compliance requirements?
We are requir ing that owners and or operators of all affected sources subject to emission limits conduct an initial performance test using specified EPA test methods to demonstrate initial compliance with all applicable emission limits. A performance test must be conducted before renewing the facility ’ s 40 CFR part 70 operating permit or at least every 5 years following the initial performance test, as well as when an operating limit parameter value is being revised. Unde r the final BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP , the owner or operator is required to measure emissions of HF, HCl, Cl 2 , Hg and PM (or non - Hg HAP metals). We are requiring that the owner or***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 24 of 454 operator measure HF, HCl and Cl 2 using one of the following methods:

• EPA Met hod 26A, “ Determination of Hydrogen Halide and Halogen Emissions from Stationary Sources

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

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

- 8, when no acid particulate ( e.g. , HF, HCl or 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, appendix 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 alterna tive method that has been approved by the Administrator under 40 CFR 63.7(f) of the General Provisions. Following the performance test, the owner or operator must calculate the HCl

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

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

- equivalent and compare this value to the HBEL for acid gas es . As noted above, with respect to non

- Hg HAP metals, the owner or operator of a source can choose to meet either a non

- Hg HAP metals limit or one of two alternative PM limits. If the owner or operator chooses to comply with one of the two PM emission limits rather than the non - Hg HAP metals limit , we are***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 25 of 454 requiring that the owner or operator measure PM emissions using one of the following methods:

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

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

- 8; or
• Any other alternative method that has been approved by the Administrator under 40 CFR 63.7(f) of the General Provisions. If the owner or operator 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 must measure non - Hg HAP metals emissions using EPA Method 29 cited above or any other alternative method that has been approved by the Admi nistrator under 40 CFR 63.7(f) of the General Provisions. The owner or operator may also use Method 29 or any other approved alternative method to measure Hg emissions. The following paragraphs discuss the initial compliance requirements. Prior to the init ial performance test, the owner or operator is required to install the continuous parameter monitoring system ( CPMS ) equipment (as discussed in section III.A.6 of this preamble ) to be used to demonstrate continuous compliance with the operating limits. Dur ing the initial test, the owner or operator must use the CPMS to establish site

specific operating parameter values that represent the operating limits.***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 26 of 454
For a DIFF or DLS/FF, we are requiring that the o wner or operator ensure that lime in the feed hopper o r 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 is required to deter mine the average feed rate from the three test runs. The average of the three test runs establishes the minimum site

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

- Hg HAP metals and HF/HCl/Cl 2 tests, t he highest of the average values becomes the site

- specific operating limit. If a BLD system is present , the owner or operator is required to submit analyses and supporting documentation demonstrating conformance with EPA guidance and specifications for BLD systems.
For a stand

- alone FF ( i.e. , no dry sorbent injection or DLS) and a BLD system, we are requiring that the owner or operator submit analyses and supporting documentation demonstrating conformance with EPA guidance and specifications for BLD systems.
For a dry limestone adsorber ( DLA ) , we are requiring that the owner or operator continuously measure the pressure drop across the DLA during the HF/HCl/Cl 2 performance test and***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 27 of 454 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 m onitor the bypass stack damper position at least once every 15 minutes during the performance
test. The owner or operator also must maintain an adequate amount of limestone in the limestone hopper, storage bin (located at the top of the DLA) and DLA at all times. In addition, the owner or operator is required to establish the limestone feeder setting (on a per ton of fired product basis) 1 week prior to the performance test and maintain the feeder setting for the 1

- week period that precedes the performance test and during the performance test. Finally, the owner or operator
must document the source and grade of the limestone used during the performance test.
For a wet scrubber, we are requiring that the owner or operator continuously measure the scrubber pre ssure drop during the PM/non

- Hg HAP metals performance test, the scrubber liquid pH and chemical addition rate (if applicable) liquid pH 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 operator is required to determine and record the average values for the***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 28 of 454 three test runs and the 3

- hour block average value. The average of the three test runs establishes the minimum sit e - specific pressure drop, liquid pH , and liquid flow rate and chemical addition 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

v alues become the site

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

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

- specific activated carbon flow rate operating limit. For a source with no APCD installed, we are requiring that the owner or operator calculate the maximum potential HCl

equivalent using Equation 4 in 40 CFR 63.8445(g)( 1)(i ). The owner or operator must use the results from the performance test to determine the emissions at th e 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 represent 90 percent of the maximum potential emissions. If there are multiple k ilns at a facility, the owner or operator must sum the maximum potential HCl

- equivalent for***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 29 of 454 each kiln to get the total facility maximum potential HCl

equivalent and compare this value to the HBEL for acid gases . If the total facility maximum potential HCl

- equivalent is greater than the HBEL , we are requiring that the owner or operator determine the maximum process rate for which the total facility maximum potential HCl

- equivalent remains at or below the HBEL
. If there are multiple kilns, the owner or operat or must determine one or more combinations of maximum process rates that result in a total facility maximum potential HCl

- equivalent that remains at or below the HBEL . The maximum process rate(s) become s the operating limit(s) for process rate. 6 . What are the continuous compliance requirements? The final BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP requires that the owner or operator demonstrate continuous compliance with each emission limitation that applies. The owner or operator must follow the requirements in the operation, maintenance and monitoring ( OM&M ) plan and document conformance with the OM&M plan. The owner or operator must also operate a CPMS to monitor the operating parameters established during the initial performance test as described in the following paragraphs. The CPMS must collect data at least every 15 minutes , including at least three of four equally spaced data values (or at least 75 percent if there are more than four data values per hour) per hour to have a valid***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 30 of 454 hour of data. The owner or ope rator must operate the CPMS at all times when the process is operating. The owner or operator must also conduct proper maintenance of the CPMS (including inspections, calibrations and validation checks) and maintain an inventory of necessary parts for rout ine repairs of the CPMS. Using the recorded readings, the owner or operator must calculate and record the 3

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

- hour averaging period, the owner or operator must have at least 75 percent of the recorded readings for that period.
For a DIFF or DLS/FF, we are requiring that the owner or operator demonstrate compliance with the acid gas (HF/HCl/Cl 2 )
HBEL by maintaining free

- flowing lime in the feed hopper or silo and to the APCD at all times. If lime is not flowing freely, according to l oad cell output , carrier gas/lime flow indicator, carrier gas pressure drop measurement system or other system, the owner or operator must promptly initiate and complete corrective actions acc ording to the OM&M plan. The owner or operator must also maintain the feeder setting (on a per ton of fired product basis) at or above the level established during the HF/HCl/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 31 of 454 The final rule provide s the option to use either a BLD system or VE monitoring to demonstrate p arametric compliance
. For the option of a BLD system, we are requiring that the owner or operator initiate corrective action within 1 hour of a BLD system alarm and compl ete corrective actions according to the OM&M plan. The owner or operator must also operate and maintain the FF such that the alarm is not engaged for more than 5 percent of the total operating time in a 6

- month block reporting period. In calculating this o perating time fraction, the owner or operator must not count any alarm time if inspection of the FF demonstrates that no corrective action is required. If corrective action is required, the owner or operator must count each alarm as a minimum of 1 hour
. 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 requiring that the owner or operator perf orm if VE are observed during any daily , 15

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

- 7 . During the VE observations, the kiln must be operating under normal Formatted: Paragraph (1,2,3)***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 32 of 454 conditions. If VE are observed , the owner or operator must promptly conduct a n opacity test , according to the procedures of Method 9 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 4. If opacity greater than 10 percent if observed , the owner or operator must initiate and complete corrective actions according to the OM&M plan. If no VE are observed in 30 consecutive daily EPA Method 22 tests

or no opacity greater than 10 percent is observed during any of the Method 9 tests for any kiln stack , the owner or operator may decrease the frequency of EPA Method 22 testing from daily to weekly for that kiln stack. If VE are observed during any weekly
test and opacity greater than 10 percent is obser ved in the subsequent Method 9 test , the owner or operator must promptly initiate and complete corrective actions according to the OM&M plan and the owner or operator must , resume EPA Method 22 testing of that kiln stack following Method 22 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 7, on a daily basis , and maintain that schedule until no VE are observed in 30 consecutive daily tests or no opacity greater than 10 percent is observed during any of the Method 9 tests , at which time the owner or operator may again decrease the frequency of EPA Method 22 testing to a weekly basis. If greater than 10 percent opacity is observed during any test conducted using Method 9 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 4,***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 33 of 454 the owner or operator must report these deviations by following the requirements in 40 CFR 63.8485. In lieu of conducting VE tests as described above, the owner or operator may conduct a PM test at least once every year following the initial performance test, according to the procedures of Method 5 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 3 , and the provisions of 40 CFR 63.8445(e) and (f)(1)
. For a stand

- alone FF, we are requiring that the owner or operator use a BLD system or monitor VE as described above to demonstrate parametric compli ance . For a DLA, we are requiring that the owner or operator demonstrate compliance with the acid gas (HF/HCl/Cl 2 ) HBEL by collecting and recording data documenting the DLA pressure drop and reducing the data to 3

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

- hour block period at or above the average pressure drop established during the HF/HCl/Cl 2 performance test. Alternatively, the owner or operator may continuously monitor the bypass stack da mper 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 trigger s corrective actions according to the OM&M plan. The owner or operator also mu st verify that the limestone hopper,***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 34 of 454 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 f ollowing: (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) con firming that load level indicators in the hopper are not indicating the need for additional limestone. If the hopper or storage bin does not contain adequate limestone , the owner or operator must promptly initiate and complete corrective actions according to the OM&M plan. The owner or operator also must r ecord 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. The owner or operator also must 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 must monitor VE, as described in the previous paragraph.
For a wet scrubber, we are requiring that the owner or operator continuously maintain the 3

- hour block averages for***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 35 of 454 scrubber pressure drop, scrubber liquid pH , and scr ubber 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 liquid pH at or above the minimum value est ablished during the PM/non

- Hg HAP metals p erformance test demonstrate s 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 min imum values established during the HF/HCl/Cl 2 performance test demonstrate s compliance with the acid gas (HF/HCl/Cl 2 ) HBEL
. Maintaining the 3

- hour block average for scrubber liquid flow rate at or above the lowest minimum value established during the PM/no n - Hg HAP metals and HF/HCl/Cl 2 performance tests demonstrate s compliance with all applicable emission limits by showing that the scrubber is in proper working order.
For an ACI system , we are requiring that the owner or operator demonstrate compliance with the Hg emission limit by continuously monitoring the activated carbon flow rate and maintaining it at or above the operating limit established during the Hg performance test.
For sources with no APCD , we are requiring that the owner or operator monitor VE as described above to demonstrate***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 36 of 454 compliance with the PM/non

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

- equivalent was not at or below the HBEL for acid
gases , then we are requiring that the owner or operator collect and record data documenting the process rate of the kiln and reduce the data to 3

- hour block averages. The owner or operator
must maintain the kiln process rate (s) at or below the kiln process rate operatin g limit(s) that enable s the total facility maximum potential HCl

- equivalent to remain at or below the HBEL
. 7 . What are the notification, recordkeeping and reporting requirements? All new and existing sources are required to comply with certain requirement s of the General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A), which are identified in Table 10 of subpart JJJJJ. The General Provisions include specific requirements for notifications, recordkeeping and reporting. Each owner or operator is required to submit a notification of compliance status report, as required by 40 CFR 63.9(h) of the General Provisions. Th e final BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP require s the owner or operator to include in the notification of compliance status report certifications of compliance wi th rule requirements. Semiannual compliance reports, as required by 40***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 37 of 454 CFR 63.10(e)(3) of subpart A, are also required for each semiannual reporting period. Th e final BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP require s records to demonstrate compliance with each emission l imit and work practice standard. These recordkeeping requirements are specified directly in the General Provisions to 40 CFR part 63 and are identified in Table 8 of subpart JJJJJ. Specifically, w e are requiring that the owner or operator keep the following records:

• All reports and notifications submitted to comply with th e final BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP
. • Records of performance tests.
• Records relating to APCD maintenance and documentation of approved routine control device maintenance exe mption
. • Continuous monitoring data as required in th e final BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP
. • Records of BLD system alarms and corrective actions taken.
• Records of each instance in which the owner or operator did not meet each emission limit ( i.e. , deviations fro m 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 t he 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 w ith the startup and shutdown work practice standards.
• Records of each malfunction and the corrective action taken.***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 38 of 454

• Records of parameters and procedures followed for work practice standards. We are also requiring that the owner or operator submit the follow ing 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 that includes a p erformance test.
• Notification of Compliance Status 30 calendar days following completion of a compliance demonstration that does not include a performance test ( i.e. , compliance demonstrations for the work practice standards).
• Compliance reports semi

- annua lly, including a report of the most recent burner tune

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

- to

- computer electronic transfer via EPA

- provided software for data collected using supported test methods (see section III.E of this preamble for more information)
. B. What ar e the final rule requirements for C lay C eramics
M anufacturing?
1 . What source category is affected by the final rule?
T his final rule for Clay Ceramics Manufacturing applies to clay ceramics manufacturing facilities that are located at or are part of a major source of HAP emissions. The Clay Ceramics Manufacturing source category includes those facilities that***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 39 of 454 manufacture pressed floor tile, pressed wall tile and other pressed tile; or sanitaryware ( e.g. , toilets and sinks).
2 . What are th e 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 ceramic tile spray dryer; ( 4 ) each ceramic tile glaze line using glaze spraying ; ( 5 ) each sanitaryware tunnel kiln; ( 6 ) each sanitaryware shuttle kiln; and ( 7 ) each sanitaryware glaze spray booth. The following clay ceramics process units are not subject to the requirements of the final rule: (1) t unnel, roller or shuttle k ilns that are used exclusively for refiring ; (2) tunnel, roller or shuttle k ilns that are used exclusively for setting glazes on previously fired products; ( 3 ) glaze spray operations that are used exclusively with those kilns list ed in item s 1 and 2 above; ( 4 ) process units listed in items 1 through 3 above that are permitted to, but do not, process first

- fire ware, until such time as they begin to process first

- fire ware; (5) refire shuttle kilns that fire no more than four batche s per year of first

- fire ware; (6) glaze spray operations that on
average use wet glazes containing less than 0.1 (weight) percent metal HAP (dry weight basis) per spray booth over an entire***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 40 of 454 calendar year ; (7) raw material processing and handling; (8) wall tile press dryers; and ( 9 ) sanitaryware ware dryers. Sources regulated under the BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP or the Refractories Manufacturing NESHAP are not subject to the requirements of the Clay Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP
. 3 . Does the final rule a pply to me? This final Clay Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP applies to

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

- Hg HAP metals ( in units of lb/ton) for all new and existing ceramic tile roller kilns, sanitaryware tunnel kilns and ceramic tile and sanitaryware glazing operations
. We are issuing emission limits for Hg (lb/ton) for all new and existing ceramic tile roller kilns, ceramic tile glaze lines and sanitaryware tunnel kilns . We are issu ing***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 41 of 454 emission limits for dioxin/fura n (nanograms of 2,3,7,8

- tetrachlorodibenzo

- p - dioxin toxic equivalents ( TEQ ) per kilogram (ng/ kg )) for all new and existing ceramic tile roller kilns, sanitaryware tunnel kilns , floor tile press dryers and ceramic tile spray dryers. We are also issu ing an e mission limit for HCl

- equivalent for all existing and new roller and tunnel kilns at each facility to reduce the acid gases HF and HCl. The emission limits are presented in Table 5 of this preamble.

**T ABLE**  **5 .**  **E MISSION**  **L IMITS FOR**  **C LAY**  **C ERAMICS**  **S OURCES** 

**Subcat egory**  **Acid gases (**  **lb/hr HCl**  **** **equivalent )**  **a Hg**  **(lb/ton) PM**  **b PM**  **b (lb/ton)**  **Dioxins/furans (ng/**  **kg )**  **c** Limits for existing sources Floor tile roller kilns 140 1. 3 E

- 04 0. 1 3 2. 8 Floor tile press dryers

-- -- -- 0. 0 2 4 Floor tile spray dryers

-- -- -- 1 9 Wall tile roller kilns 140 2. 1 E

- 04 0. 3 7 0. 22 Wall tile spray dryers

-- -- -- 0. 0 5 8 Tile glaze lines

-- 1.6 E

- 0 4 1.9

-- First

- fire sanitaryware tunnel kilns 140 2.6 E

- 04 0. 3 4 3.3 Sanitaryware manual glaze application -- -- 3 5

-- Sanitaryware spray machine glaze application -- -- 1 3

-- Sanitaryware robot glaze application -- -- 8. 9

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

- 05 0.0 3 7 1.3 Floor tile press dryers

-- -- -- 0. 0 2 4 Floor tile spray dryers

-- -- -- 0. 07 1 Wall tile roller kilns 140 2. 1 E

- 0 4 0. 3 7 0. 22 Wall tile spray dryers

-- -- -- 0. 0 5 8 Tile glaze lines

-- 1.6 E

- 0 4 0.61

--***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 42 of 454

**Subcat egory**  **Acid gases (**  **lb/hr HCl**  **** **equivalent )**  **a Hg**  **(lb/ton) PM**  **b PM**  **b (lb/ton)**  **Dioxins/furans (ng/**  **kg )**  **c** First

- fire sanitaryware tunnel kilns 140 1. 3 E

- 04 0.095 0. 99 Sanitaryware manual glaze application -- -- 3. 9

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

-- Sanitaryware robot glaze application -- -- 2. 4 3

--

a Limit applies to collection of all kilns at facility. b PM is a surrogate for non

- Hg HAP metals.
c n g/ kg = nanograms per kilogram
.
Work practice s tandards
. We are issuing work practice standards in lieu of emission limits for acid gases (HF and HCl), Hg and non

- Hg HAP metals for sanitaryware shuttle kilns. The work practice standards require using natural gas (or equivalent) as kiln fuel except during periods of natural ga s curtailment or supply interruption; developing and using a designed firing time and temperature cycle for each shuttle kiln; labeling each shuttle kiln with the maximum load (in tons) of throughput ( greenware ) that can be fired in the kiln during a singl e firing cycle; documenting the total tonnage of greenware placed in the kiln for each load to ensure that it is not greater than the maximum load; developing and implementing maintenance procedures for each kiln that specify the frequency of inspection an d maintenance; and developing and maintaining records for each shuttle kiln, including logs to document the***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 43 of 454 proper operation and maintenance procedures of the shuttle kilns. As discussed in section III. c C .1.b of this preamble, we are also issuing work prac tice standards for periods of startup and shutdown.
5 . What are the testing and initial compliance requirements?
We are requiring that owners and or operators of all affected sources subject to emission limits conduct an initial performance test using speci fied EPA test methods to demonstrate initial compliance with all applicable emission limits. A performance test must be conducted before renewing the facility ’ s 40 CFR part 70 operating permit or at least every 5 years following the initial performance tes t, as well as when an operating limit parameter value is being revised. Under the final Clay Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP , the owner or operator is required to measure emissions of HF, HCl, Hg, PM (as a surrogate for non

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

- fire tunnel kilns using one of the following methods:

• EPA Method 26A, “ Determination of Hydrogen Halide and Halogen Emissions from Stationa ry 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***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 44 of 454 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 Method 320, unless the owner or operator can demonstrate that the complete spiking procedure has been conducted at a similar source; or
• Any other alternative method that has been approved by the Administrator under 40 CFR 63.7(f) of the General Provisions. Following the performance test, the owner or operator must calculate the HCl

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

- equivalent for each kiln usi ng 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 HBEL
. We are requiring that the owner or operator measure PM emissions from ceramic tile roller kilns and sanitaryware first

fire tunnel kilns using one of the following methods:

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

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

- 8; or
• A ny 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.***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 45 of 454
We are requiring that the owner or operator measure PM emissions from ceramic tile and sanitaryware glaze spray booths using EPA Method 5 or any other alternative method that has been approved by the A dministrator under 40 CFR 63.7(f) of the General Provisions. We are also requiring that the owner or operator measure dioxin/furan emissions from ceramic tile roller kilns and spray dryers, floor tile press dryers and sanitaryware first

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

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

- 7 or any other alternative method that has been approved by the Administrator under 40 CFR 63.7(f ) of the General Provisions. The following paragraphs discuss the initial compliance requirements. Prior to the initial performance test, the owner or operator is required to install the CPMS equipment (as discussed in section III.B.6 of this preamble) to be used to demonstrate continuous compliance with the operating limits. During the initial test, the owner or operator must use the CPMS to establish site

- specific operating parameter values that represent the operating limits.***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 46 of 454
For a DIFF or DLS/FF, we are requiring that the owner or operator ensure that lime in the feed hopper or silo and to the APCD is free

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

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

- specific operating limit. If a BLD system is present , the owner or operator is required to submit analyses and supporting documentation demonstrating conf ormance with EPA guidance and specifications for BLD systems.
For a stand

- alone FF ( i.e. , no dry sorbent injection or DLS) and a BLD system, we are requiring that the owner or operator submit analyses and supporting documentation demonstrating conformance with EPA guidance and specifications for BLD systems.
For a wet scrubber, we are requiring that the owner or operator continuously measure the scrubber pressure drop during the PM performance test, the scrubber liquid pH and the chemical addition rate (if applicable) liquid pH during the HF/HCl***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 47 of 454 performance test and the scrubber liquid flow rate during both the PM and HF/HCl performance tests. For each wet scrubber parameter, the owner or operator is required to determine and record the average values for the three test runs and the 3

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

- specific pressure drop, liquid pH , and 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 become the site

- specific operating limits.
For an ACI system , we are requiring that the owner or
oper ator 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 lim it. If different average activated carbon flow rate values are measured during the Hg and dioxin/furan tests, the highest of the average values becomes the site

- specific operating limit. If the owner or operator intends to comply with the dioxin/furan emis sion limit without an ACI system, we are requiring that the owner or operator measure the peak stack temperature of the tunnel or roller kiln and the operating***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 48 of 454 during the dioxin/furan performance test . The highest 4

- hour
average stack temperature of the thr ee test runs establishes the maximum site

- specific o perating limit. The owner or operator must also measure the operating temperature s of the ceramic tile spray dryer and floor tile press dryer during the dioxin/furan performance test and determine the 3

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

- specific operating limit. For sources with no APCD installed, we are requiring that the owner or operator c alculate the maximum potential HCl

equivalent using Equation 6 in 40 CFR 63.8595( g )( 1 )(i). The owner or operator must use the results from the performance test to determine the emissions at the maximum possible process rate. For example, if the design capa city 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 owner or operator must sum the maximum potential HCl

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

- equivalent and compare this value to the HBEL for acid gases . If the total facility maximum potential HCl

equivalent is greater than the HBEL , we are req uiring that the owner or operator determine the maximum process rate for which***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 49 of 454 the total facility maximum potential HCl

- equivalent remains at or below the HBEL . If there are multiple kilns, the owner or operator must determine one or more combinations of m aximum process rates that result in a total facility maximum potential HCl

- equivalent that remains at or below the HBEL . The maximum process rate(s) become s the operating limit(s) for process rate.
W e are also requiring that the owner or operator measure the peak stack temperature of the tunnel or roller kiln and operating during the dioxin/furan performance test
. The highest
4

- hour average stack temperature of the three test runs establishes the maximum site

- specific o perating limit. The owner

or o perator must also measure the operating temperature s of the ceramic tile spray dryer and floor tile press dryer during the dioxin/furan performance test and determine the 3

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

- specific operating limit for temperature
. 6 . What are the continuous compliance requirements? The final Clay Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP requires that the owner or operator demonstrate continuous compliance with each emission limitation that applies. The owner or operator
must follow the requirements in the OM&M plan and document conformance with the OM&M plan. The owner or operator must also operate a CPMS to monitor the operating parameters established***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 50 of 454 during th e initial performance test as described in the following paragraphs. The CPMS must collect data at least every 15 minutes , including at least three of four equally spaced data values (or at least 75 percent if there are more than four data values per hour) per hour to have a valid hour of data. The owner or operator must operate the CPMS at all times when the process is operating. The owner or operator must also c onduct proper maintenance of the CPMS, including inspections, calibrations and validation check s, and maintain an inventory of necessary parts for routine repairs of the CPMS. Using the recorded readings, the owner or operator must calculate and record the 3

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

- h our averaging period, the owner or operator must have at least 75 percent of the recorded readings for that period.
For a DIFF or DLS/FF, we are requiring that the owner or operator demonstrate compliance with the acid gas (HF/HCl) HBEL by maintaining free

- flowing lime in the feed hopper or silo and to the APCD at all times. If lime is found not to be free flowing via the output of a load cell, carrier gas/lime flow indicator, carrier gas pressure drop measurement system or other system, the owner or operat or must promptly initiate and complete corrective actions according to the OM&M plan. The***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 51 of 454 owner or operator must also maintain the feeder setting (on a per ton of throughput basis) at or above the level established during the performance test and record the feeder setting once each shift. For a DIFF or DLS/FF, the final rule provide s the option to use either a BLD system or VE monitoring to demonstrate parametric compliance
. For the option of a BLD system, we are requiring tha t the owner or operator initiate corrective action within 1 hour of a BLD system alarm and complete corrective actions according to the OM&M plan. The owner or operator must also operate and maintain the FF such that the alarm is not engaged for more than 5 percent of the total operating time in a 6

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

- minute VE observations in accordance with the procedures of EPA Method 22, “Visual***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 52 of 454 Determination of Fugitive Emissions from Material Sources and Smoke Emissions from Flares,” 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

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

- alone FF, we are requiring that the owner or operator use a BLD system or monitor VE as described above to demonstrate parametric compliance
. For a wet scrubber on a tunnel or roller kiln , we are requiring that t he owner or operator continuously maintain the 3

- hour block averages for scrubber pressure drop, scrubber liquid pH , and scrubber liquid flow rate and chemical addition rate (if applicable) at or above the minimum values established***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 53 of 454 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 demonstrate s 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 demonstrate s compliance with the acid gas (HF/HCl) HB EL . Maintaining the 3

- hour block average for scrubber liquid flow rate at or above the lowest minimum value established during the PM an d HF/HCl performance tests demonstrate s compliance with all applicable emission limits by showing that the scrubber is i n proper working order.
For an ACI system , we are requiring that the owner or operator demonstrate compliance with the Hg and dioxin/furan emission limit s by continuously monitoring the activated carbon flow rate and maintaining it at or above the lowest minimum value established during the Hg and dioxin/furan performance
test s . If the owner or operator intends to comply with the dioxin/furan emission limit without an ACI system, we are requiring that the owner or operator demonstrate compliance by continuously monitoring the peak stack temperature of the tunnel***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 54 of 454 or roller kiln and the operating temperature of the ceramic tile spray dryer and floor tile press dryer and maintaining it at or below the highest 4

- hour average temperature during the dioxin/furan performance test for the tunnel or roller kiln , at

or above the average temperature during the dioxin/furan performance test for the tunnel or roller kiln and ceramic tile spray dryer , and at or below the average temperature during the dioxin/ furan performance test for the floor tile press dryer
. For a wet scrubber on a spray glazing operation, we are requiring that the owner or operator continuously maintain the 3

- hour block averages for scrubber pressure drop and scrubber liquid flow rate at or above the minimum values established during the applicable performance test. Maintaining the 3

- hour block average for scrubber pressure drop at or above the minimum value established during the PM performance test demonstrate s compliance with the PM emi ssion limit. Maintaining the 3

- hour block average for scrubber liquid flow rate at or above the minimum value established during the PM performance test demonstrate s compliance with the PM emission limit by showing that the scrubber is in proper working or der.
For a water curtain on a spray glazing operation , we are requiring that the owner or operator demonstrate compliance with the PM emission limit by conducting a daily inspection to verify***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 55 of 454 the presence of water flow to the wet control system, conducting weekly visual inspections of the system ductwork and control equipment for leaks and conducting annual inspections of the interior of the control equipment (if applicable) to determine the structural integrity and condition of the control equipment.
For baffles on a spray glazing operation , we are requiring that the owner or operator demonstrate compliance with the PM emission limit by conducting an annual visual inspection of the baffles to confirm the baffles are in place.
For a source with no APCD, we are requiring that , to demonstrate compliance with the PM emission limit , the owner or operator monitor VE as described above . We are also requiring that , to demonstrate compliance with the dioxin/furan emission limit, the owner or operator continuously m onitor the peak stack temperature of the tunnel or roller kiln and operating temperature of the ceramic tile spray dryer and floor tile press dryer ; determin e and record 3

- hour block averages ; and maintain it at or below the 3 highest 4

- hour block averages at or above the average stack temperature during the dioxin/furan performance test for the tunnel or roller kiln and , at or above the average operating temperature during the dioxin/furan performance test for the ceramic tile spray dryer , a nd at or below the average operating temperature during the dioxin/furan***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 56 of 454 performance test for the floor tile press dryer . In addition, if the last calculated total facility maximum potential HCl

equivalent was not at or below the HBEL for acid gases , then we

are requiring that the owner or operator collect and record data documenting the process rate of the tunnel or roller kiln and reduce the data to 3

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

- equivalent to remain at or below the HBEL
. 7 . What are th e notification, recordkeeping and reporting requirements? All new and existing sources are required to comply with certain requirements of the General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A), which are identified in Table 11 of subpart KKKKK. The General Provisions include specific requirements for notifications, recordkeeping and reporting.
Eac h owner or operator is required to submit a notification of compliance status report, as required by 40 CFR 63.9(h) of the General Provisions. This final Clay Ceramics Manufacturing
NESHAP require s the owner or operator to include in the notification of co mpliance status report certifications of compliance with rule requirements. Semiannual compliance***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 57 of 454 reports, as required by 40 CFR 63.10(e)(3) of subpart A, are also required for each semiannual reporting period. This final Clay Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP require s records to demonstrate compliance with each emission limit and work practice standard. These recordkeeping requirements are specified directly in the General Provisions to 40 CFR part 63 and are identified in Table 9 of subpart KKKKK. Specificall y, w e are requiring that the owner or operator must keep the following records:

• All reports and notifications submitted to comply with this final Clay Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP
. • Records of performance tests.
• Records relating to APCD maintenance and doc umentation of approved routine control device maintenance exemption
. • Continuous monitoring data as required in this final Clay Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP
. • Records of BLD system alarms and corrective actions taken.
• Each instance in which the owner or ope rator did not meet each emission limit ( i.e. , deviations from operating limits).
• Records of production rates.
• Records of approved alternative monitoring or testing procedures.
• Records of maintenance and inspections performed on the APCD
. • Current copies of the OM&M plan and records documenting conformance.
• Logs of the information required to document compliance with the shuttle kiln work practice standard.
• Logs of the information required to document compliance with the startup and shutdown work practice sta ndards.
• Records of each malfunction and the corrective action taken.
• Records of parameters and procedures followed for work practice standards.***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 58 of 454

We are also requiring that the owner or operator submit the following reports and notifications:

• Notifications required by the General Provisions.
• Initial Notification no later than 120 calendar days after the affected source become s subject to this subpart.
• Notification of Intent to conduct performance tests and/or other compliance demonstration at least 60 calend ar days before the performance test and/or other compliance demonstration is scheduled.
• Notification of Compliance Status 60 calendar days following completion of a compliance demonstration that includes a performance test.
• Notification of Compliance Statu s 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 resulti ng in an exceedance and the corrective action taken
. • Report of alternative fuel use within 10 working days after terminating use of the alternative fuel.
• Results of each performance test within 60 calendar days of completing the test, submitted to the EPA by direct computer

- to

- computer electronic transfer via EPA

- provided software for data collected using supported test methods (see section III.E of this preamble for more information)
. C . What are the requirements during periods of startup, shutdown , and ma lfunction? 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 emissio ns of HAP during periods of SSM. Specifically, the Court vacated the SSM exemption contained in 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) and 40 CFR Formatted: Single Space***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 59 of 454 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. 1. Periods of Startup or Shutdown Consistent with Sierra Club v. EPA , the EPA has established standards in this rule that apply at all times. In establishing the standards in this rule, the EPA has taken into account startup and shutdown periods and, for the reasons explained in the preamble to the proposed rule and in sections I V. A
. 4 and
I V. B
. 2 of this preamble , has established alternate standards for those periods.

a. BSCP M anufacturing The EPA is issuing the work practice standards described in this paragraph for periods of startup and shutdown for BSCP tunnel kilns with APCD. As a first step, the owner or operator is required to determine the APCD minimum inlet temperature and the startup kiln car push rate of the product. For startup, the owner or operator is required to vent the exhaust from the kiln through the APCD at all times when the exhaust temperature is at or above the minimum inlet temperature. In addition, the owner or operator may not exceed the startup kiln car push rate until the kiln exhaust is vented to the APCD. For shutdown, the owner***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 60 of 454
or oper ator is required to vent the exhaust from the kiln through the APCD until the kiln exhaust temperature falls below the APCD minimum inlet temperature. In addition, the kiln car push rate is to be steadily decreased to zero as the kiln cools. No additional loaded kiln cars may be introduced into the kiln once the kiln exhaust temperature falls below the APCD minimum inlet temperature. When the kiln exhaust is being vented through the APCD, the owner or operator is required to comply with the applicable conti nuous compliance requirements described in section III.A.6 of this preamble
. The EPA is issuing similar work practice standards for periods of startup and shutdown for BSCP tunnel kilns without an APCD as well. As a first step, the owner or operator is req uired to determine the product

- specific kiln temperature profile and the startup kiln car push rate of the product. For startup, the startup kiln car push rate may not be exceeded until the kiln reaches the product

- specific kiln temperature profile. For sh utdown, the kiln car push rate is to be steadily decreased to zero as the kiln cools. No additional loaded kiln cars may be introduced into the kiln once the kiln falls below the product

specific kiln temperature profile. When the kiln production rate is g reater than the startup kiln car push rate, the owner or operator is required to comply with the applicable continuous***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 61 of 454 compliance requirements described in section III.A.6 of this preamble
. b. Clay C eramics M anufacturing The EPA is issuing the work practic e standards described in this paragraph for periods of startup and shutdown for ceramic tile roller kilns, floor tile press dryers, ceramic tile spray dryers and sanit aryware tunnel kilns with APCD. As a first step, the owner or operator is required to det ermine the APCD minimum inlet temperature and the startup production rate of the product. For startup, the owner or operator is required to vent the exhaust from t he kiln or dryer through the APCD at all times when the exhaust temperature is at or above the minimum inlet temperature . In addition, the owner or operator may not exceed the startup production rate of the product until the kiln or dryer exhaust is being vented th rough the APCD. For shutdown, the owner or operator is required to vent the exhaus t from the kiln or dryer through the APCD until the exhaust temperature falls below the APCD minimum inlet temperature . In addition, the production rate is to be steadily decreased to zero as the kiln or dryer cools. N o additional throughput may be introdu ced to the kiln , press dryer and spray dryer o nce the exhaust temperature falls below the APCD minimum inlet temperature
. When the exhaust is being vented through the APCD, the owner or***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 62 of 454 operator is required to comply with the applicable continuous complian ce requirements described in section III.B .6 of this preamble
. The EPA is also issuing work practice standards for periods of startup and shutdown for ceramic tile roller kilns, floor tile press dryers, ceramic tile spray dryers and sanitarywar e tunnel kilns without an APCD. As a first step, the owner or operator is required to determine the product

- specific kiln or dryer temperature profile and the startup production rate of the product. For startup, the startup production rate may not be exceeded until the kiln or dryer exhaust temperature reaches the product

- specific temperature profile
. For shutdown, the production rate is to be steadily decreased to zero as the kiln

or dryer cools. N o additional throughput may be introduced to the kiln , press dryer and spray dryer once the kiln , press dryer

or spray dryer falls below the product

- specific temperature profile
. When the kiln or dryer production rate is greater than the startup production rate , the owner or operator is required
to comply with the applica ble continuous compliance requirements described in section III.B .6 of this preamble
. 2. Periods of Malfunction Periods of startup, normal operations , and shutdown are all predictable and routine aspects of a source ’ s operations.***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 63 of 454 Malfunctions, in contrast, are neither predictable nor routine. Instead they are by definition sudden, infrequent and not reasonably preventable failures of emissions control, process or monitoring equipment
. (40 CFR 63.2) (Definition of malfunction). The EPA interprets CAA section 112 as not requiring emissions that occur during periods of malfunction to be factored into development of CAA section 112 standards. Under section 112, emissions standards for new sources must be no less stringent than the level “ achieved ” by the best co ntrolled similar source and for existing sources generally must be no less stringent than the average emission limitation “ achieved ” by the best performing 12 percent of sources in the category. There is nothing in CAA section 112 that directs the agency to consider malfunctions in determining the level “ achieved ” by the best performing sources when setting emission standards. As the D .C. Circuit has recognized, the phrase “ average emissions limitation achieved by the best performing 12 percent of ” sources “ says nothing about how the performance of the best units is to be calculated. ” Nat ’ l Ass ’ n of Clean Water Agencies v. EPA , 734 F.3d 1115, 1141 (D.C. Cir. 2013). While the EPA accounts for variability in setting emissions standards, nothing in CAA section 112 requires the agency to consider malfunctions as part of that analysis. A malfunction should not be treated in the***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 64 of 454

same manner as the type of variation in performance that occurs during routine operations of a source. A malfunction is a failure of the source to perform in a “ normal or usual manner ” and no statutory language compels the EPA to consider such events in setting section CAA 112 standards. Further, accounting for malfunctions in setting emission standards would be difficult, if not impossible, given the myriad different types of malfunctions that can occur across all sources in the category and given the difficulties assoc iated with predicting or accounting for the frequency, degree , and duration of various malfunctions that might occur. As such , the performance of units that are malfunctioning is not “ reasonably ” foreseeable
. See, e.g. , Sierra Club v. EPA , 167 F.3d 658, 66 2 (D.C. Cir. 1999) ( “ The EPA typically has wide latitude in determining the extent of data

- gathering necessary to solve a problem. We generally defer to an agency ’ s decision to proceed on the basis of imperfect scientific information, rather than to

‘ inves t the resources to conduct the perfect study. ’” ) See also , Weyerhaeuser v. Costle , 5 90 F.2d 1011, 1058 (D.C. Cir. 1978) ( “ In the nature of things, no general limit, individual permit, or even any upset provision can anticipate all upset situations. After a certain point, the transgression of regulatory limits caused by ‘ uncontrollable acts of third***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 65 of 454 parties, ’ such as strikes, sabotage, operator intoxication or insanity, and a variety of other eventualities, must be a matter for the administrative exercise of case - by

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

- per cent removal goes off

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

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

- day malfunction period would exceed the annual emissions of the

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

- performing non

- malfunctioning source. It is rea sonable to interpret CAA section 112 to avoid such a result. The EPA ’ s approach to malfunctions is consistent with CAA section 112 and is a reasonable interpretation of the
statute.***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 66 of 454 In the event that a source fails to comply with the applicable CAA section 112 (d) standards as a result of a malfunction event, the EPA would determine an appropriate response based on, among other things, the good faith efforts of the source to minimize emissions during malfunction periods, including preventative and corrective actions, as well as root cause analyses to ascertain and rectify excess emissions. The EPA would also consider whether the source ’ s failure to comply with the CAA section 112(d) standard was, in fact, sudden, infrequent, not reasonably preventable and was not instead caused in part by poor maintenance or careless operation. 40 CFR 63.2 (definition of malfunction). If the EPA determines in a particular case that an enforcement action against a source for violation of an emission standard is warranted, the s ource 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 proce eding can consider any defense raised and determine whether administrative penalties are appropriate. In summary, the EPA interpretation of the CAA and , in particular, section 112 is reasonable and encourages practices***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 67 of 454 that will avoid malfunctions
. Adminis trative and judicial procedures for addressing exceedances of the standards fully recognize that violations may occur despite good faith efforts to comply and can accommodate those situations.
D . What are the effective and compliance dates of the standards ? The NESHAP for BSCP Manufacturing and Clay Ceramics Manufacturing are effective on **[insert 60 days from**  **date of**  **publication in the Federal Register**  **]**
. If the initial startup of the affected source is after December 18, 2014 , but before **[insert date 60 days from date**  **of publication**  **in the Federal Register ]**  , then the compliance date is no later than **[insert date 60 days from date**  **of publication in the Federal Register**  **]** . If the initial startup of the affected source is after **[insert date 60 days from da**  **te of publication**  **in the Federal Register**  **]** , then the compliance date is immediately upon initial startup of the affected source. The compliance date for existing affected sources is no later than **[insert date 3**
**years and 60 days**  **from date of publication**  **in the Federal**  **Register ]** 
. The initial performance test must be conducted within 180 calendar days after the compliance date specified in 40 CFR 63.8395 for BSCP affected sources of BSCP manufacturing and 40
CFR 63.8545 for clay ceramics affected sources of c lay ceramics***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 68 of 454 manufacturing , according to the provisions in 40 CFR 60.7(a)(2). The first of the 5

- year repeat tests must be conducted no later than 5 years following the initial performance test, and thereafter within 5 years from the date of the previous
p erformance test. The date to submit performance test data through the Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) is within 60 calendar days after the date of completing each performance
test.
E . What are the requirements for submission of performance test data to the EPA? As stated in the proposed rule preamble, the EPA is taking a step to increase the ease and efficiency of data submittal and data accessibility. Specifically, the The EPA is requiring

owners and or operators of BSCP and clay ceramics manufacturing faci lities to submit electronic copies of certain required performance test reports
. As mentioned in the preamble of the proposal, d ata will be collected by direct computer

- to

- computer electronic transfer using EPA

- provided software. As discussed in the propos al, the
EPA

- provided software is an electronic performance test report tool called the ERT. The ERT will generate an electronic report package that will be submitted to through the EPA’s Central Data Exchange (CDX) using the Compliance and Emissions Data***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 69 of 454 Reporting Interface (CEDRI ) and then archived to the EPA ’ s Central Data Exchange (CDX). A description and instructions for use of the ERT can be found
at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/index.html , and CEDRI can be accessed through the CDX Web site at www.epa.gov/cdx
. The requirement to submit performance test data electronically to the EPA does not create any additional performance testing and will appl y only to those performance tests conducted using test methods that are supported by the ERT. A listi ng of the pollutants and test methods supported by the ERT is available at the ERT Web site
. The EPA ). As stated in the proposed preamble, the EPA believes , through this approach, industry will save time in the performance test submittal process. Addition ally, this rulemaking benefits industry by cutting back on recordkeeping costs as the performance test that the electronic submittal of the reports that are submitted to the EPA using CEDRI are no longer required to be kept addressed in this rulemaking wil l increase the usefulness of the data contained in those reports, is in keeping with current trends in hard copy. As mentioned data availability, will further assist in the proposed preamble protection of public health and the environment and will ultimately result in less burden on the regulated***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 70 of 454 community. Electronic reporting can also eliminate paper

- based, manual processes, thereby saving time and resources, simplifying data entry, eliminating redundancies, minimizing data reporting errors and providing da ta quickly and accurately to the affected facilities , air agencies , the EPA and the public. As mentioned in the preamble of the proposal, the EPA Web site that stores the submitted electronic data, WebFIRE, will be easily accessible to everyone and will pr ovide a user

- friendly interface that any stakeholder could access. By making the records, data and reports addressed in this rulemaking readily available, the EPA, the regulated community and the public will benefit when the EPA conducts its CAA

- required t echnology and risk

- based reviews. As a result of having reports readily accessible, our ability to carry out comprehensive reviews will be increased and achieved within a shorter period of time
. We anticipate fewer or less substantial information collection requests (ICRs) in conjunction with prospective CAA

required technology and risk

- based reviews may be needed. We expect this to result in a decrease in time spent by industry to respond to data collection requests. We also expect the ICRs to contain less extensive stack testing provisions, as we will already have stack test data electronically. Reduced testing requirements would be a cost savings to industry. The EPA should***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 71 of 454 also be able to condu ct these required reviews more quickly. While the regulated community may benefit from a reduced burden of ICRs, the general public benefits from the agency’s ability to provide these required reviews more quickly, resulting in increased public health and environmental protection
. Air agencies could benefit from more streamlined and
accurate automated review of performance test data that will be available on the EPA WebFIRE database. The public will also benefit. the electronically submitted data. Having thes e data publicly available enhances transparency and accountability. reports and associated data in electronic format will facilitate review through the use of software “search” options, as well as the downloading and analyzing of data in spreadsheet format . The ability to access and review air emission report information electronically will assist air agencies to more quickly and accurately determine compliance with the applicable regulations, potentially allowing a faster response to violations which could minimize harmful air emissions. This benefits both air agencies and the general public
. For a more thorough discussion of electronic reporting of performance tests using direct computer

- to

- computer electronic transfer and using EPA

- provided software requir ed by this rule , see the discussion in the preamble of the proposal.***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 72 of 454 In summary , in addition to supporting regulation development, control strategy development and other air pollution control activities, having an electronic database populated with perfor mance test data will save industry, air agencies , and the EPA significant time, money , and effort while improving the quality of emission inventories , air quality regulations , and enhancing the public’s access to this important information
. F. What materia ls are being incorporated by reference under 1 CFR part 51 ? In this final rule, the EPA is including regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is incorporating by reference the following documents described in the amendments to 40 CFR 63.14 :

• ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10

– 1981, Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses [Part 10, Instruments and Apparatus], (Issued August 31, 1981 )
. ) , IBR approved for Table 4 to subpart JJJJJ and Table 4 to subpart KKKKK
. To correct an earlier, inadvertent error that exists in the CFR, we are also adding back in the IBR approval for Table 4 to subpart JJJJJJ.
• ASTM D6348

- 03 (Reapproved 2010), Standard Test Method for Determination of Gaseous Compounds by Extractive Di rect Interface Fourier Transform Infrared (FTIR) Spectroscopy, including Annexes A1 through A8, (Approved October 1, 2010 )
. ) , IBR approved for Tables 4 and 5 to subpart JJJJJ and Tables 4 and 6 to subpart KKKKK
. • ASTM D6784

- 02 (Reapproved 2008), Standard Te st Method for Elemental, Oxidized, Particle

- Bound and Total Mercury in***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 73 of 454 Flue Gas Generated from Coal

- Fired Stationary Sources (Ontario Hydro Method), (Approved April 1, 2008 )
. ) , IBR approved for Tables 4 and 5 to subpart JJJJJ and Tables 4 and 6 to subpart KKKKK
. • ASTM D6735

- 01 (Reapproved 2009), Standard Test Method for Measurement of Gaseous Chlorides and Fluorides from Mineral Calcining Exhaust Sources

— Impinger Method , IBR approved for Tables 4 and 5 to subpart JJJJJ and Tables 4 and 6 to subpart KKKKK
. • EP A

- 454/R

- 98

- 015, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS), Fabric Filter Bag Leak Detection Guidance, September 1997
. , IBR approved for 40 CFR 63.8450(e) (1), (9), and (10) and 40 CFR 63.8600(e) (1), (9), and (10)
. The EPA has made, and will conti nue to make, these documents generally available electronically through www.regulations.gov and/or in hard copy at the appropriate EPA office (see the **ADDRESSES** section of this preamble for more information).
**I V.**  **Summary of Significant Changes Following Pr oposal**  **and Rationale**  The following sections summarize the signifi cant changes made to the proposed BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP and Clay Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP , including the rationale for those changes, to respond to public comments and to correct technical inconsistencies or editorial errors in the proposal. A detailed discussion of these and other public comments , as well as other changes not discussed in this section, can be found in the
response - to

- comments document s , available in Docket ID No. EPA

HQ

- OAR

- 2013

- 0291 for BSCP Manufacturing and Docket ID No. EPA

Formatted: Underline

Formatted: Bold***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 74 of 454 HQ

- OAR

- 2013

- 0290 for Clay Ceramics Manufacturing. All changes to the final rules, including the signifi cant changes discussed in this section and all other changes not discussed in this
sect ion , can also be found in the redline comparison of the proposed and final regulatory text , available in Docket ID No.
EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2013

- 0291 for BSCP Manufacturing and Docket ID No.
EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2013

- 0290 for Clay Ceramics Manufacturing
. A. What are the significant changes since proposal for the BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP ? 1. Changes to the Data Set Following proposal, the EPA learned that two of the facilities in the inventory at proposal were closed and the kilns were demolished. In addition, the EPA learned that two of the synthetic area sources in the inventory at proposal were actually true area sources. These facilities were removed from the master inventory, and the test data from kilns at two of these facilities were also removed from the data s et. The EPA learned that a new tunnel kiln had been constructed at a new facility, and that new facility was added to the inventory. The EPA also received additional HF, HCl, and PM test data for three kilns , which was added into the data set
. In addition, the EPA examined the PM test data more closely and found that a number of the EPA Method 5 test runs had probe***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 75 of 454 or filter temperatures outside of the range of acceptable values. EPA Method 5 specifies that the temperature should be maintained at 248 ± 25 d egrees Fahrenheit (° F ) ( i.e. , between 223 and 273 ° F) . Test runs with temperatures outside that range

were removed from the data set. (See the memorandum “ Test Data Used in BSCP Manufacturing Final Rule ” in Docket ID No. EPA

- HQ

OAR

- 2013

- 0291 for more information on this analysis.) Several public commenters stated that the concentration limits for PM and Hg should not be corrected to 7

- percent O 2 because BSCP kilns operate with a higher oxygen O 2 content; one commenter suggested that the EPA use data co rrected to 17

- percent O 2 instead. The EPA evaluated this co mment and agrees that 17

- percent O 2 is more representative of BSCP kiln operations
. Specifically, the EPA evaluated the oxygen O 2 content of the run

- by

- run datasets of PM and Hg for BSCP tunnel ki lns and found that for the PM data set, the oxygen content ranged from 9.5 to 20.5 percent, with an average of 16.8 and a mode of 1 7 when evaluating the run

- by

- run O 2 values rounded to whole numbers. For the H g data set , the oxygen content ranged from 13.1 to 19. 5 percent , with an average of 17. 2 and a mode of 17 when evaluating the run

- by

- run O 2 values rounded to whole numbers. The EPA agrees that correcting concentration data to 17

- percent O 2 rather than 7

- percent, as proposed, provides more***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 76 of 454 representative values of kilns’ operating conditions and would not artificially inflate the values
. Therefore, the EPA

re calculated the oxygen

- corrected PM and Hg test runs to be corrected to 17

- percent instead of 7

- percent O 2 . 2 . Changes to the MACT Floor Pool and Calculations At proposal , the MACT floors for PM as a surrogate for total non

- Hg HAP metals w ere based on kilns with FF

- ba sed APCD , as the EPA considered those to be the best performing sources in the industry. However, as noted in section IV.A.1 of this preamble, the EPA after proposal examined the PM test data more closely following proposal and found that in an effort to insure that the data were valid. We found a number of the EPA Method 5 test runs had probe or filter temperatures outside of the range of acceptable values. These out

- of

- range temperatures invalidated the test runs, and in some cases, invalidated entire PM tests, reducing the set of valid, available test data. Some of the PM test data removed fr om the data set were for kilns controlled with a DIFF. As a result, the EPA no longer has data on all the kilns with a FF

- based APCD in the industry, which undercuts one of the bases for EPA’s proposal to use the best performing FF

- based kilns for which to set a MA CT floor based on 12 percent of the kilns in the entire category.***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 77 of 454 In addition , at proposal the EPA requested more data to further substantiate that kilns with FF

- ba sed APCD actually represented the best performing sources in terms of PM emissions . For example, there w ere some data in the record at the time of the proposal suggesting that in some cases , uncontrolled kilns actually had emissions below the PM emissions of some kiln s with FF

- ba sed APCD , which is contrary to what we would expect. The EPA requested information to explain these anomalies. However , information was not received during the comment period sufficient to explain why some kiln s without FF

based APCD emitted at levels as low as or lower than some kilns with FF

- based APCD
. For th is reason, and because some of the emissions data on
DIFF

- controlled kilns had to be removed from the data pool as discussed above, the record does not support the conclusion that we have PM emissions data on all the best performing kilns in the industry. Given that, we are instead basing the PM MACT floor on 12 percent of the kilns for which we have emissions data. Therefore, the final MACT floor pools for PM as a surrogate for total non

- Hg HAP metals are not based on the top 12 percent of the kilns in the industry ( i.e. , the 27 best performing sources). Instead, the final MACT floor limits are based on the top 12 percent of the sources for which we have***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 78 of 454 emissions data available in each of the kiln size subcategories, consistent with the approach described for the proposed alternate non

- Hg HAP metals standards in section IV.Q.1 of the preamble to the proposed rule (79 FR 75649). In addition, i n response to public comments received on the proposed rule, and consistent with the proposed alternate approach in s ection IV.Q.1 of the preamble to the proposed rule , the EPA has decided to exercise its discretion to subcategorize for emissions of PM based on kiln size in the final rule. Section 112(d)(1) of the CAA allows the EPA to promulgate emission standards for either categories or subcategories of

sources . Section IV.C of the preamble to the proposed rule (79 FR 75633) described the EPA’s assessment of tunnel kiln size subcategories. When the EPA recalculated the MACT floor pools for PM as a surrogate for total non - Hg HAP metals as described in the previous paragraph, the EPA evaluated subcategorizing by kiln size and determined it is appropriate to exercise its discretion to subcategorize in this case. This subcategorization provides additional flexibility for s mall tunnel kilns, many of which are operated by small businesses. Therefore, t he final MACT floor limits for PM as a surrogate for total non

- Hg HAP metals are based on the best performing 12 percent of the***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 79 of 454 sources in each of the kiln size subcategories wi th valid test data ( i.e. , 12 percent of the data available). The EPA also proposed two alternat ive equivalent limits , calculated based on the same best performing sources ranked by lb/ton, then using those units ’ concentration or lb/hr data to calculate th e floor. During the public comment period, the EPA received comments that each alternative limit should be calculated according to a separate ranking based on the specific unit of measure. Upon further analysis of the data sets for each unit of measure, th e EPA has found that there are some differences in the top ranked sources between each unit of measure data set and thus finds the alternative limits expressed on their own unit of measure data set ranking to be the most indicative of that data set’s MACT floor. Therefore, the EPA re

rank ed the data for each unit of measurement in each kiln size subcategory separately
. T he final alternative equivalent limits are based on the top 12 percent of the data available in each subcategory according to these revised ranking s . In other words , the concentration floor is based on the ranking of the concentration data , and the lb/hr floor is based on the ranking of the lb/hr data. Each floor is based on the best performing units for that unit of measurement. In addition, the final lb/hr

n on - Hg HA P metals alternative limit is based on a ranking of the***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 80 of 454

n on - Hg HA P metals data rather than the use of conversion factors applied to the PM lb/ton floor limit, as was done at proposal. 3. Variability Calculation Based on Hg Raw Ma terial Data At proposal, the EPA developed Hg MACT floors based on the best performing 12 percent of sources ( i.e. , the lowest emitting sources of Hg emissions from test data ) . However, c ommenters identified that the Hg comes from the raw materials used and the Hg content can vary by location, even within the same quarry. The EPA did not account for this inherent variability at proposal. The Brick Industry Association ( BIA ) coordinated with several BSCP facilities to test the Hg content of the raw materials used and provided the data to the EPA. The EPA mapped the facilities and quarry locations provided by BIA to identify two distinct quarry locations , an OK Oklahoma deposit and an
OH Ohio deposit , for us e in the development of a Hg raw material variability factor. The data from these two deposit locations were incorporated into the upper prediction limit ( UPL ) equation. Please see “Mercury Content of Oklahoma and Ohio Shale Deposits Supplying the Brick In dustry ” and “Final Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) Floor Analysis for Brick and Structural Clay Products ” in Docket ID No. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2013

- 0291 for more information about the data and variability factor.***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 81 of 454 4. Startup and Shutdown Procedures The EPA proposed work practice standards during periods of startup and shutdown for tunnel kilns with and without APCD. These standards set a minimum temperature above which the exhaust must be vented through an APCD (if applicable) and below which no prod uct could be introduced to the kiln (400 °F for startup and 300 °F for shutdown). Industry commenters indicated that the exhaust of some kilns never reaches the specific temperatures proposed by the EPA, and that some product must be introduced to the kiln during startup to heat the kiln enough for full production. The EPA evaluated these comments and agrees that the proposed standards do not actually represent the work practices representative of the best performing kilns
. The intent of the proposed standa rds was to represent work practices of the best performing kilns to minimize emissions by limiting the amount of brick being fired before the kiln reaches full production and limiting the amount of time the exhaust is not being routed to the APCD, if appli cable. As noted at proposal, the standards were based on information received through the 2010 EPA survey
. The EPA received additional information following proposal on the procedures used during periods of startup and shutdown for BSCP tunnel kilns that a re more representative of the best performing kilns.***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 82 of 454 Therefore, the EPA is finalizing work practice standards for periods of startup and shutdown that are based upon the same principles as the proposed standards but are representative of how kilns actually perform during startup. Instead of defining the minimum inlet APCD temperature as 400 °F, the EPA is requiring the owner or operator to determine the minimum inlet temperature for each APCD. If a kiln does not have an APCD, the owner or operator is requir ed to determine the product

- specific kiln temperature profile that must be achieved before the kiln can reach full production. In addition, instead of specifying that no product can be introduced to the kiln during startup , the EPA is requiring the owner o r operator to determine the production rate needed to start up the kiln. The final startup standards specify that this startup production rate cannot be exceeded until the kiln exhaust reaches the APCD minimum inlet temperature or the product

- specific kiln temperature profile. The final shutdown standards specify that no additional product can be introduced once the kiln exhaust falls below the APCD minimum inlet temperature or the product

- specific kiln temperature profile.***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 83 of 454
B. What are the significant chang es since proposal for the Clay Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP ? 1. Changes to the Data Set After proposal, a public commenter identified a transcription error in the production rate for the PM and Hg stack test s for one floor t ile roller kiln. The production rate

was corrected , and the PM and Hg lb/ton values were recalculated. In addition, the EPA examined the PM test data more closely and found that a number of the EPA Method 5 test runs had probe or filter temperatures outside of the range of acceptable values. EPA Method 5 specifies that the temperature should be maintained at 248 ± 25 ° F ( i.e. , between 223 and 273

° F) . Test runs with temperatures outside that range were removed from the data set. (See the memorandum “ Test Data Used in Clay
C eramics Manufacturing Final Rule ” in Docket ID No. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

2013

- 029 0 for more information on this analysis.) During the public comment period, the sanitaryware manufacturing company that provided all of the data used for the sanitaryware tunnel kiln MAC T floors clarified that the production rates they provided in their CAA section 114 survey response are in terms of “greenware fired” into the kiln rather than “fired product” coming out of the kiln (as requested in the section 114 survey)
. Therefore, to b e consistent with the data,***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 84 of 454 the final emission limits for PM as a surrogate for non

- Hg HAP metals and Hg from sanitaryware tunnel kilns are in terms of lb/ton of greenware fired rather than lb/ton of product fired (as proposed). Finally, in response to com ments requesting a change in the format of the emission limits for dioxins/furans, the EPA recalculated the emissions for each test run in units of ng/kg of throughput (specifically, “fired product” for ceramic tile roller kilns, “ greenware fired” for sani taryware tunnel kilns , and “throughput processed” for ceramic tile press dryers and spray dryers ) . The MACT floors were then recalculated using those data, and the final emission limits for dioxins/furans for clay ceramics sources are in units of ng/kg rather than concentration as proposed. 2. Startup and Shutdown Procedures The EPA proposed work practice standards during periods of startup and shutdown for ceramic tile roller kilns, floor tile press dryers, ceramic tile spray dryers and sanitaryware tun nel kilns with and without APCD. These standards set a minimum temperature above which the exhaust must be vented through an
APCD (if applicable) and below which no product could be introduced to the kiln or dryer (400 °F for startup and 300 °F for shutdow n). One industry commenter indicated that the exhaust***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 85 of 454 of some dryers never reach the specific temperatures proposed by the EPA. The EPA evaluated the comment and agrees that the proposed standards are not actually representative of the best performing drye rs . Therefore, the EPA is finalizing work practice standards for periods of startup and shutdown that are based upon the same principles as the proposed standards but more accurately reflect the best performing sources. Instead of defining the minimum inle t APCD temperature as 400 °F, the EPA is requiring the owner or operator to determine the minimum inlet temperature for each APCD. If a kiln or dryer does not have an APCD, the owner or operator is required to determine the product

- specific kiln or dryer t emperature profile that must be achieved before the kiln or dryer can reach full production. In addition, instead of specifying that no product can be introduced to the kiln or dryer, the EPA is requiring the owner or operator to determine the production r ate needed to start up the kiln or dryer. The final startup standards specify that this startup production rate cannot be exceeded until the kiln or dryer exhaust reaches the APCD minimum inlet temperature or the product

- specific kiln or dryer temperature profile. The final shutdown standards specify that no additional throughput can be introduced once the kiln or dryer exhaust falls below the APCD minimum inlet***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 86 of 454 temperature or the product

- specific kiln or dryer temperature profile. C. What are the changes t o monitoring requirements since proposal? A number of c hanges have been made to the monitoring requirements for the BSCP and Clay Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP in response to comments on the proposed rule
. These changes are summarized in Table 6 of this pr eamble . Further details about the basis for these changes are provided in the response

- to

comments documents for the BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP and the Clay Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP, available in Docket Nos.
EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2013

- 0290 (Clay Ceramics Manufacturing) and EPA

- HQ

OAR

- 2013

- 0291 (BSCP Manufacturing)
.
**T ABLE**  **6. S**  **UMMARY OF C**  **HANGES TO M**  **ONITORING R**  **EQUIREMENTS S**  **INCE P**  **ROPOSAL**

**Sources Monitoring Requirements**  **Proposal Promulgation**  BSCP or clay ceramics k iln s equipped with a wet scrubber To demonstrate compliance with acid gas standard:

• Monitor s crubber liquid pH
• Monitor scrubber chemical feed rate (if applicable)
• Maintain at or above average pH/feed rate during acid gas test To demonstrate compliance with non

- Hg HAP metals standard :
• Monitor s crubber pressure drop
• Maintain at or above average pressure drop To demonstrate compliance with acid gas standard:

• Monitor s crubber liquid pH
• Maintain at or above average pH during acid gas test To demonstrate compliance with non

- Hg HAP metals and acid gas standard s :
• M onit or s crubber liquid flow rate
• Maintain at or above highest average flow rate during PM/non

- Hg HAP metals and acid gas test s***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 87 of 454 during PM/non

- Hg HAP metals test To demonstrate compliance with non - Hg HAP metals and acid gas standards:

• Monitor scrubber liquid flow rate
• Maintain at or above highest average flow rate during PM/non

- Hg HAP metals and acid gas tests BSCP k iln s with no add

- on control To demonstrate compliance with non - Hg HAP metals standard:

• Perform daily, 15

- minute VE observations
• If VE are observed, initiate and compl ete corrective actions To demonstrate compliance with non

- Hg HAP metal s standard:

• Perform daily, 15

- minute VE observations
• If VE are observed, promptly conduct an opacity test
• If opacity greater than 10% are observed, initiate and compl ete corrective actions Clay ceramics kiln s with no add

- on control , or in tending to comply with dioxin/furan standard without an ACI system To demonstrate compliance with dioxins/furans standard :
• Monitor kiln operating tempe rature
• Maintain at or above average operating temperature during dioxin/furan test To demonstrate compliance with dioxins/furans standard :
• Monitor kiln stack temperature
• Maintain at or below highest stack temperature during dioxin/furan test

**V. Summary of Significant Comments and Responses**  The EPA received a total of 52 public comment letters on the proposed BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP
. ( See D ocket ID N o. EPA

– HQ

– OAR

– 20 13

– 0291 for the complete public comments.) The EPA received a total of seven public comment letters on the proposed Clay Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP
. ( See D ocket ID N o. EPA

– HQ

– Formatted: Keep with next***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 88 of 454
OAR

– 20 13

– 0290 for the complete public comments.) The following sections summarize the major public comments received on the proposal and present the EPA ’ s responses to those comments.
A
. Health

- Based Standards
**Comment:** Two c ommenter s disagreed with setting standards under CAA section 1 12(d)(4) for emissions of HCl, HF, and Cl 2 from new and existing BSCP and clay ceramics sources. One
commenter questioned whether the EPA has the authority to set CAA section 1 12(d)(4) standards for these acid gases
. The

c ommenter asserted that it would be arbitrary and capricious for the EPA to set risk

- based standards for these pollutants when the EPA previously decided not to set CAA section 1 12(d)(4) standards for HCl, HF, and Cl 2 in air toxics rulemakings for industrial boilers and power plants
. For power plants , the EPA stated that the agency “ does not have sufficient information to establish CAA section 112( d)(4) health

- based emission standards and we did not receive such data during the comment period .” 1 The
commenter noted that the EPA reached a similar conclusion with respect to industrial boilers, declining to set risk

- based standards because of a lack of information on emissions. 2 The

1 “ Responses to Public Comments on National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants from Coal

- and Oil

- Fired Electric Utility Steam Generating Units .” Docket Item No. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2009

- 0234

- 20126
. 2 National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Major Sources: Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional Boilers and Process Heaters, 75 FR 32006, 32031 (June 4, 2010)
.***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 89 of 454 commenter asserted that the health and scientific data regarding emissions of acid gases from BSCP and clay ceramics plants similarly fail to provide justification for setting HBEL for these pollutants. The commenter asserte d the EPA must instead set MACT standards. Similarly, the second c ommenter expressed concern over using CAA section 112(d)(4) and health

- based risk assessment for setting the HCl, HF and Cl 2 standards for BSCP Manufacturing and Clay Ceramics Manufacturing
. The commenter noted that this would be the first time the EPA use d the health

- based risk assessment approach under CAA section 112(d)(4) to set emission standards for HF and Cl 2 ; although the EPA has used this approach in the past to establish health

- base d standards for other source categories, it was restricted to “ HCl emissions for discrete units within the facility ” (79 FR 75639)
. T he commenter supported focusing on pollutants that pose the greatest risks but expressed concern that the EPA has not adequ ately established that the approaches used are appropriate. The c ommenter asserted that the EPA’s approach represented a far

- reaching and significant change in the manner in which MACT standards are established under CAA section 112(d) and th a t it was inap propriate for the EPA to propose such changes in a rulemaking for individual source categories instead of***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 90 of 454 discuss ing the approach with all affected parties. The c ommenter noted that Congress established section 112 of the CAA to rely on a technology

- based approach to avoid the gridlock of the unsuccessful risk

- based methods used before the adoption of the 1990 CAA Amendments. Accordingly, while the CAA includes language under section 112(d)(4) allowing the use of risk in the establishment of MACT, it should be used only under limited and very specific circumstances , and t he commenter stated that the
EPA ’ s proposal did not adequately make the case for the use of
CAA section 112(d)(4). Conversely, two other c ommenters stated that the EPA has clear legal authority to set HBEL and ample justification to do so for th e BSCP source category. The commenters stated that under the terms of this provision, the EPA may set an emission standard at a level higher than would be req uired by CAA section 112(d)(4) , provided that : (1) the pollutant(s) being reg ulated is a threshold pollutant and (2) the standard provides an ample margin of safety. The commenters stated that b oth of these criteria are met in this case. The c ommenters ass erted that the proposed standard is consistent with Congress ’ s expectations regard ing the implementation of CAA section 112(d)(4)
. According to the Senate report accompanying the legislation , “ For some pollutants a MACT***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 91 of 454 emission limitation may be far more stringent than is necessary to protect public health and the environment ” and i n such situations, “ [t]o avoid expenditures by regulated entities which secure no public health or environmental benefit, the Administrator is given discretionary authority to c onsider the evidence for a health threshold higher than MACT at the time the standard is under review. ” 3 The commenters stated that for this rulemaking, MACT would result in emission standards that are far more stringent than are needed to protect health a nd the environment and asserted that Congress enacted CAA s ection 112(d)(4) to allow emission standards to be tailored to protect public health without imposing unreasonable and unnecessary standards on affected sources. **Response:** The EPA disagrees with th e commenters that we do not have the authority to establish CAA section 112(d)(4) standards in this rulemaking. The EPA also disagrees that the decision to establish CAA section 112(d)(4) standards is inconsistent with our decisions on other rulemakings. T he commenters’ more detailed arguments and the EPA’s responses are provided in the remainder of this section.

3 S. Rep. No. 101

- 228, 101st Cong. 1st sess. at 171.***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 92 of 454 1. Health Thresholds
**Comment** : One commenter stated that a pollutant is not a threshold pollutant under CAA section 1 12(d)(4) unless the EPA establishes that it cannot cause cancer at any level of exposure. The commenter asserted that HCl, HF, and Cl 2 do not have already

- established safe health thresholds and the EPA ’ s proposed standards would not provide “ an ample margi n of safety. ” Conversely, two commenters agree d with the EPA that the available health data indicate that HCl, HF, and Cl 2 are all threshold pollutants. The commenter s stated that the data show that each of these pollutants has a discernible exposure thres hold below which adverse human health effects are not expected to occur; in addition, none of the available data suggest that these pollutants reasonably should be expected to act as a carcinogen or mutagen, or exhibit a mode of action that would result in non - threshold effects. **Response:** The EPA disagrees with the first commenter regarding HCl, HF and Cl 2 not having thresholds accepted by the scientific community , and we acknowledge the support of the other two commenter s . The EPA ’ s conclusion that HCl, HF and Cl 2 are threshold pollutants is based on the best available toxicity database considered in hazard identification and dose response***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 93 of 454
assessments . There is agreement on using a similar threshold approach for these chemicals across agencies, i. e . , the EPA ’ s Integrated Risk Information System ( IRIS ) Program, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry ( ATSDR ) and the California Environmental Protection Agency ( CalEPA )
. The toxicity
assessments , which include noncancer and/or cancer toxicity

assessme nts, provided by these authoritative bodies are widely vetted through the scientific community and undergo rigorous peer review proce s ses before they are published. In addition, the Science Advisory Board (SAB) has endorsed the use of the reference values derived by these sources to support the EPA ’ s risk assessments in the residual risk and technology review ( RTR ) p rogram. Specifically , none of the compounds discussed here has been classified as a carcinogen or as “ suggestive of the potential to be carcino genic, ” individually or in combination , by existing authorit ative bodies , including EPA, Cal EPA, International Agency for Research on Cancer ( IARC ) , Organisation for Economic
Co

- operation and Development ( OECD ) , and the European Community
. In light of the absence of evidence of carcinogenic risk for any of these pollutants, and the evidence of an existing threshold below which HCl, HF and Cl 2 are not expected to cause adverse effects, the EPA considers it appropriate to set health***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 94 of 454 threshol d standards under CAA section 112(d)(4) for these pollutants . The existing health effects evidence on HCl, HF and Cl 2 that provide support for this determination is described below. Potential health effects of HCl:

• There is equivocal evidence of are limited studies on the carcinogenic potential of HCl in humans. The occupational data are limited to a couple of studies (Steenland et
. al. , 1988, Beaumont et
. al. , 1986) 4 , 5 where the subjects were exposed to a mixture of acid gases (mainly sulfuric acid) and oth er chemicals (including metals) that may have contained HCl
. These studies failed to separate potential exposure of HCl from exposure to other substances shown to have carcinogenic activity and are t herefore not appropr iate to evaluate the carcinogenic potential of HCl. A nother occupational study failed to show evidence of association between exposure to HCl and lung cancer among chemical manufacturing plant employees showing that there is no evidence that HCl is a human carcinogen
. 6
• Chronic Consistent wi th the human data, c hronic inhalation studies in animals have reported no carcinogenic responses after chronic exposure to HCl (Albert et al , . , 1982; Sellakumar et al. , 1985). 7 , 8
• Hydrogen chloride has not been demonstrated to be genotoxic. The genotoxicity database is largely negative

4 Steenland, K., T. Schnorr, J. Beaumont, W. Halperin, T. Bloom. 1988. Incidence of laryngeal cancer and exposure to acid mists. Br. J. of Ind. Med. 45: 766

- 77 6. 5 Beaumont, J.J., J. Leveton, K. Knox, T. Bloom, T. McQuiston, M Young, R. Goldsmith, N.K. Steenland, D. Brown, W.E. Halperin. 1987. Lung cancer mortality in workers exposed to sulfuric acid mist and other acid mists. JNCI. 79: 911

- 921
. 6 Bond G.G., Flo res G.H., Stafford B.A., Olsen G.W. Lung cancer and hydrogen chloride exposure: results from a nested case

- control study of chemical workers. 1991. J Occup Med; 33(9), 958

- 61. 7 Albert, R.E., A.R. Sellakumar, S. Laskin, M. Kuschner, N. Nelson and C.A. Snyd er. 1982. Gaseous formaldehyde and hydrogen chloride induction of nasal cancer in rats. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 68(4): 597

- 603. 8 Sellakumar, A.R., C.A. Snyder, J.J. Solomon and R.E. Albert. 1985. Carcinogenicity for formaldehyde and hydrogen chloride in rat s. Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol. 81: 401

- 406. Formatted: Underline Formatted: Underline Formatted: Underline Formatted: Underline***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 95 of 454 including consists of two studies of the effects of pH on in vitro genetic test assays that reported showing false positive results potentially associated with low pH in the test system (Morita et
. al., 1992; Cifone et al. , 1987). 9 , 10
• Chronic exposure to HCl at concentrations below the current IRIS reference concentration ( RfC ) are not expected to cause adverse effects. Potential health effects of HF:

• There are a limited number of studies investigating the carcinogenic potenti al of HF. These studies are of questionable relevance to unreliable on the issue of possible carcinogenicity of HF and/or fluor ides, in general, because there are of many confounding factors ( e.g. , exposure to multiple unknown chemicals and smoking habits no t accounted for) and because no breakdown was done by type of fluoride exposure. 11
• Respiratory tract effects of HF are likely similar to those observed after exposure to hydrogen bromide and HCl (Stavert et al. , 1991). 12
• Chronic exposure at or below the current CalEPA reference exposure level ( REL ) is not expected to cause adverse effects. Potential health effects of Cl 2 :

• The existing studies of workers in the chemical industry have not found any evidence that Cl 2 is carcinogenic.
• Chronic bioassays in rodents and long

- term studies in non

human primates have shown no evidence for carcinogenicity in respiratory tract as target tissue or other tissues.

9 Morita, T., T. Nagaki., I. Fukuda, K. Okumura. 1992. Clastogenicity of low pH to various cultured mammalian cells. Mutat. Res. 268: 297

- 305. 10 Cifone, M.A., B. Myhr, A. Eiche, G. Bolcsfoldi. 1987. Effect of pH sh ifts on the mutant frequency at the thymidine kinase locus in mouse lymphoma L5178Y TK=/

- cells. Mutat. Res. 189: 39

- 46
. 11 US Department of Health and Human Services, Agency for Toxic Sunstances Substances and Disease Registry. Toxicological Profile for Flu orides, Hydrogen Fluoride and Fluorine. 2003. Available at http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp11.pdf
. 12 Stavert, D.M., Archuleta D.C., Behr M.J., Lehnert, B.E. Relative acute toxicities of hydrogen fluoride, hydrogen chloride, and hydrogen bromide in n ose - and pseudo

- mouth

- breathing rats. Fundam Appl Toxicol. 16: 636

- 655.***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 96 of 454

• Chronic exposure to Cl 2 at concentrations below the current ATSDR minimal risk leve l ( MRL ) are not expected to cause adverse effects.
We disagree with the comment that the EPA’s proposed HBEL does not provide an ample margin of safety , for the following

reasons . The First, t he limit is based on the facility in the source category with the highest potential exposure to nearby residents. The HBEL at this single facility reflects a ratio of exposure concentration over the reference value of up to 1
. (at an exposure concentration b elow the RfC is considered to be health protective)
. As such, exposures will not exceed the established health threshold at this facility . In addition, the exposure estimate used to set the limit is very health protective in that it assumes constant exposu re for 70 years. Actual exposures from emissions from this facility are expected to be lower , ( i.e. , because persons will spend time away from home). This conservative exposure scenario is consistent with the ‘ “ ample margin of safety’ safety ” requirement in CAA section 112(d)(4). Further Second , the ratios at most the other facilities (not the highest facility noted above) from this source category are lower and in most cases significantly lower , with approximately 90 percent of these facilities having a ratio of 0.5 or less, Formatted: Paragraph + 0 indent***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 97 of 454 which provides an a further increased margin of safety
. beyond the ample margin of safety established at the facility with the highest potential exposure
. **Comment:** One c ommenter stated that, according to the EPA, an RfC is merely “ an estimate (with uncertainty spanning perhaps an order of magnitude) ” of an exposure that is “ likely to be ” without health risks. 13 B y definition, this “ estimate ” is not by itself a “ safe threshold ” of exposure that “ presents no risk ” of adverse health effect s. The commenter stated the EPA cannot lawfully use a pollutant ’ s RfC as a default “ safe threshold ” under CAA section 1 12(d)(4) because an RfC does not pose “ no ” health risks, as the commenter asserted the CA A requires. The commenter stated that the EPA is authorized to set risk

- based standards only where it has direct evidence of the level at which there are no adverse effects observed and that proceeding with HBEL without a no observed adverse effect level ( NOAEL ) is unlawful. Another c ommenter stated the use of health

based standards should only be considered for HAP that have been thoroughly evaluated by the EPA and are contained in the IRIS database with a high level of confidence in the RfC. W ith respect to HCl, the IRIS confidence levels ar e “L ow ” for the

13 U.S. EPA, Glossary, http://www.epa.gov/risk_assessment/glossary.htm (last updated Apr. 28, 2014 ) )
.***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 98 of 454 inhalation RfC. In “ Carcinogenicity Assessment for Lifetime Exposure, ” IRIS states, “ This substance/agent has not undergone a complete evaluation and determination under the EPA ’ s IRIS program for evidence of human carcinogenic potential. ” 14 I n the proposal, the EPA acknowledged that “ [t] he EPA has not classified HCl for carcinogenicity ” and “ [l]ittle research has been conducted on its carcinogenicity ” (79 FR 75639). The commenter also stated that IARC concluded that “ [t]here is inadequate ev idence for the carcinogenicity in humans of hydrochloric acid, ” that “ [t]here is inadequate evidence for the carcinogenicity in experimental animals of hydrochloric acid , ” and that HCl “ is not classifiable as to its carcinogenicity to humans. ” 15 The c omment er stated that the EPA did not identify any evidence that HCl is not carcinogenic and noted that the only study the EPA referenced is “ one occupational study ” that “ found no evidence of carcinogenicity ” ( 79 FR 75639 )
. Because t he EPA did not provide a cita tion for the study or otherwise identify it or discuss it, the public are unable to adequately comment on it.

14 http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0396.htm#coninhal U.S. EPA, Integrated Risk Information System

- Hydrogen chloride
. http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0396.htm#coninhal
. 15 IARC, Hydrochloric Acid (Monograph), available at http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Monographs/vol54 /mono54

- 8.pdf
.***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 99 of 454 **Response:** The EPA’s risk assessments are supported by the best available toxicity assessments from authoritative bodies including the EPA ’ s IRIS P rogram, ATSDR and CalEPA. The SAB has endorsed the use of the reference values derived by these sources to support EPA ’ s risk assessments in the RTR p rogram. These authoritative bodies derive health protective reference values at or below which no adverse effects are expected to occur. As mentioned previously in this section, the toxicity assessments, which include noncancer and/or cancer toxicity assessments, provided by these authoritative bodies are widely vetted through the scientific community and unde rgo rigorous peer review processes before they are published. The commenter state d that there is n o t a NOAEL and that based on that , the EPA cannot set a HBEL for HCl. The EPA toxicity assessments consider the entire toxicity database for specific chemical s and are conducted following well

- established EPA guidance on how to assess potential hazard of a chemical and conduct dose response assessments. These assessments include the derivation of a a n RfC , which is likely to be without appreciable risk of advers e health effects to the human population (including susceptible subgroups and all life stages) over a lifetime. According to EPA guidelines, RfC s can be derived from a NOAEL, lowest observed adverse effect level ( LOAEL ) or***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 100 of 454 benchmark dose, with uncertainty factors applied to reflect the limitations of the data used. In particular for HCl, t he point of departure for the RfC (15 milligrams per cubic meter ( mg/m 3 ) ) was selected from chronic inhalation studies in rodents and was adjusted to reflect a lifetime of exposure (2.7 mg/m 3 ) and extrapolated to a human equivalent concentration (6.1 mg/m 3 ) based on differences in the effects of a gas in the respiratory system between rats and humans. Uncertainty factors (total of 300, yielding an RfC of 0.02 mg/m 3 ) were ap plied to account for interspecies differences, intraspecies extrapolation and extrapolation from a LOAEL to NOAEL. It is important to note that in the IRIS assessment for HCl it is stated that a reasonable estimate of the NOAEL in humans is in the range of 0.3

- 3 mg/m 3
. This estimate resulted from an expert review workshop and is based on examination of the HCl literature, a comparison with sulfuric acid toxicity, and the judgment of those in attendance at the review workshop. In addition, this value is gene rally consistent with identified NOAELs in subchronic animal studies (OECD, 200 2 ) . Based on this information , we are confident that the IRIS HCl RfC represents a conservative health protective benchmark below which adverse health effects are not expected t o occur.***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 101 of 45 4 As part of the risk analysis conducted to support this rule, the EPA thoroughly evaluated all the available and relevant scientific evidence on HCl (discussed previously in this section) and concluded that there is no evidence that HCl is a carcin ogen and that this information is sufficient for this regulatory determination. The 2002 OECD assessment of HCl drew similar conclusions: For genetic toxicity, a negative result has been shown in the Ames test. A positive result in a chromosome aberration test using Hamster ovary cells is considered to be an artifact due to the low pH. For carcinogenicity, no pre

neoplastic or neoplastic nasal lesions were observed in a 128

- week inhalation study with SD male rats at 10 ppm hydrogen chloride gas. No evidence of treatment related carcinogenicity was observed in other animal studies performed by inhalation, oral or dermal administration. In humans, no association between hydrogen chloride exposure and tumor incidence was observed. 16 Additionally, the EPA conducted a screening level literature review in 2003 and did not identify any critical studies that would change the conclusions in the 1995 HCl IRIS assessment. Based on the information available, the EPA concludes that th is informa tion is sufficient to support setting a a n HBEL under CAA section 112(d)(4) for HCl.

16 UNEP United Nations Environment Programme 2002, Organisation for Economic Co

- operation and Development (OECD), Screening Information Dataset (SIDS) Initial Assessment Report for SIAM 15, Hydrogen Chloride: CAS N°: 7647

- 01

- 0. October 25, 2002. http://www.inchem.org/documents/sids/sids/7647010.pdf
. Formatted: Normal Formatted: Font: Courier New, 10 pt Formatted: Font: Courier New, 10 pt***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 102 of 454
**Comment:** One c ommenter stated that the EPA proposed to base the HCl emission standards on the HCl RfC and argued it is unlawful to do so where the EPA has “ low confidence ” in the RfC
. The commenter stated that it is arbitrary to claim there is an established, safe health threshold based on a reference value in which the EPA has low confidence. According to t he commenter , having low confidence in the Rf C is the same as admitt ing that the EPA has “ low confidence ” in the proposed emission standards.
T he fact that the EPA was unable to determine a no

- effect level in a robust and reliable scientific study demonstrates concern that chronic exposure to even very low levels of HCl ca n compromise health, especially in sensitive subpopulations. The refore, the EPA cannot state that HCl presents no risk of adverse health effects. The c ommenter stated that the EPA used a non - cancer health threshold for HCl based on a chronic inhalation stu dy on rats. 17 The EPA has determined the RfC to be 0.02 mg/m 3 (0.0134 part per million ( ppm ) ), based on rat studies by Albert, et al
. . , demonstrating hyperplasia of the nasal mucosa (the protective cell lining of the nasal tract and cavities), larynx, and trachea. 18 The commenter asserted that because these rat studies

17 EPA, Integrated Risk Information System: Hydrogen Chloride
. 18 Alber t, R.E., et al. , Gaseous formaldehyde and hydrogen chloride induction of nasal cancer in rats, 68(4) J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 597 (1982).***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 103 of 454 failed to identify a NOAEL, the EPA based the RfC on a LOAEL ( i.e. , the lowest dose in the study that induced a measurable adverse health effect in treated animals )
. The c ommenter asserted tha t CAA section 1 12(d)(4) does not permit risk

- based standards where a NOAEL has not been determined ; at a minimum, Congress required that a threshold be based on the “‘ no observable [adverse] effects level ’ (NOAEL) below which human exposure is presumably ‘ safe. ’” 19 The EPA has similarly recognize d that “ the legislative history of CAA section 112(d)(4) indicates that a health

- based emission limit under CAA section 112(d)(4) should be set at the level at which no observable effects occur ” ( 79 FR 75642). The commenter stated that, if there is no established non

- zero threshold level at which it has been shown that the pollutant has no deleterious health effects, then the EPA cannot be certain that exposure to the pollutant at a given level pre sents no harm. The commenter stated that without a NOAEL, no established threshold can exist , and the EPA does not have the authority under CAA section
1 12(d)(4) to set a a n HBEL for HCl. **Response:** The EPA’s chemical

- specific toxicity assessments are derive d using the EPA’s risk assessment guidelines and approaches that are well established and vetted through the

19 S. Rep. No. 101

- 228, at 171, 176.***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 104 of 454 scientific community, and follow rigorous peer review
processes. 20 The RTR program gives preference to EPA values ( i.e. , RfCs for noncancer assessme nts) for use in risk assessments and uses other values, as appropriate, when those values are derived with methods and peer review processes consistent with those followed by the EPA. The approach for selecting appropriate toxicity values for use in the RT R Program has been endorsed by the SAB. 21 The EPA’s RfCs are assigned confidence levels of high, medium and low based on the completeness of the supporting database. High confidence RfCs are considered less likely to change substantially with the collection of additional information, while low confidence RfCs are recognized as being based on less complete data and so may be vulnerable subject to change if additional data is developed
. 22 It is important to note that , for a “low confidence” label does not indicate that the

20 Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS). IRIS Guidance documents available at http://www.epa.gov/iris/backgrd.html
. 21 http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/nata1999/99pdfs/healtheffectsinfo.pdf
. S cience A dvisory B oard. Memorandum to Lisa Jackson, Administrator, U.S. EPA. R eview of EPA’s draft entitled, “Risk and Technology Review ( RTR ) Risk Assessment Methodologies : For Review by the EPA’s Science Advisory Board with Case Studies

– MACT I Petroleum Refining Sources and Portland Cement Manufacturing
. ” May 7, 2010. A vailable at: http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/4AB3966E263D943A8525771F00668381/$ File/EPA

- SAB

- 10

- 007

- unsigned.pdf
. 22 US U.S. EPA Air: Fate, Exposure, and Risk Analysis Website. Air Toxics Assessment Reference Library , Volume 1 . 2004. Available at http://www2 .epa.gov/sites/production/files/2013

- 08/documents/volume_1_reflibrary.pdf
.***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 105 of 454 EPA believes that the RfC is unreliable. F or a given chemical, if there are not adequate or appropriate data with which to derive an RfC, one is not calculated. All RfCs, even those with low confidence, are appropriate for regulatory use. We disagree with the comment that without a NOAEL, no established threshold can exist. The EPA toxicity assessments for specific chemicals are conducted using well

- established EPA guidance on how to assess potential haza rd of chemicals and how to conduct dose response assessments to arrive at a chemical concentration below which we do n o t expect adverse effects to occur ( i.e. , threshold). These assessments include the derivation of a RfC which is likely to be without appr eciable risk of adverse health effects to the human population (including susceptible subgroups and all life stages [ e.g. , children]) over a lifetime . According to EPA guidelines, RfC s can be derived from a NOAEL, LOAEL or benchmark dose, with uncertainty factors applied to account for relevant extrapolations, including extrapolation from LOAEL to NOAEL, and to reflect additional limitations of the data used. 23 , 24

23 U.S. EPA. 1994. Methods for Derivation of Inhalation Reference Concentrations and Application of Inhalati on Dosimetry . EPA/600/8

- 90/066F, Oct 1994. Docket Item No. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2013

- 0291

- 0160
. 24 U.S. EPA. 2002. A Review of the Reference Dose and Reference Concentration Processes . EPA/ 630/P

- 02/002F, Dec 2002.***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 106 of 454
**Comment:** One c ommenter stated that the studies the EPA relied upon only investigated respiratory effects and did not consider other ways HCl could cause harm. The commenter noted the EPA has acknowledged that the RfC is an “ inhalation RfC ” and represents the health risk and toxicity associated with the inhalation pathway of exposure only ( 75 FR 32031 ) . The commenter stated that the EPA identified no studies that indicate whether exposure to HCl

- at 0.02 mg/m 3 or any other concentration

- harms other bodily systems. **Response :**  The EPA disagrees with the comment that the agency investigated only respira tory effects and that it did not consider other ways in which HCl can cause harm. In the princip a l studies upon which the RfC is based, a complete necropsy was performed on all animals. Histologic sections were prepared from the nasal cavity, lung, trachea , larynx, liver, kidneys, testes, and other organs where gross pathological signs were present. Due to the reactive nature of HCl, however, portal of entry effects are anticipated to occur first and at lower exposure concentrations. The IRIS assessment 25 fo r HCl included a comprehensive review of all the available toxicity data for HCl.

25 IRIS Summary for Hydrogen Chloride. http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0396.htm (Accessed on July 24, 2015)***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 107 of 454 No effects are expected to occur at exposures of HCl at or below the level of the RfC.
**Comment:** One c ommenter stated that the RfC is an inadequate basis for establishing a th reshold because it “ did not reflect any potential cumulative or synergistic effects of an individual ’ s exposure to multiple HAP or to a combination of HAP and criteria pollutants ” and noted that the EPA recognized the potential for cumulative and synergist ic effects was important in its consideration of risk

- based standards in two recent rulemakings (s ee 75 FR 32031 and 76 FR 25050 )
. The c ommenter stated that there is no “ established ” threshold at the RfC for HCl , because the Cal EPA has determined a lower a nd more health

- protective value than the RfC. T he EPA’s chronic inhalation RfC is 0.02 mg/m 3 , while California ’ s chronic inhalation reference exposure level ( REL ) REL is 0.009 mg/m 3
. 26 The commenter stated that Cal EPA ’ s REL is based on the same science as the IRIS RfC but was developed more recently than the
EPA’s RfC, which was last revised in 1995. 27 The REL is “ the concentration level at or below which no health effects are

26 Cal ifornia Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment ( OEHHA ) , OEHHA Acute, 8

- Hour and Chronic Reference Exposure Levels (REL)s, http://www.oehha.ca.gov/air/Allrels.html (last accessed Mar. 12, 201 5). 27 California OEHHA, Chronic RELs and Toxicity Summaries Using the Previous Version of the Hot Spots Risk Assessment Guidelines at 311 (1999), available at http://oehha.ca.gov/air/hot_spots/2008/AppendixD3_final.pdf.***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 108 of 454 anticipated in the general human population , ” and t he EPA ’s process for developing RELs “ is similar to that used by EPA to develop IRIS values and incorporates significant external scientific peer review. ” 28 The commenter asserted that the EPA and Cal EPA disagree about the concentration of HCl exposu re at which no health effects are expected and that the disagreement stems from how to account for uncertainty and variability in interpreting the study results. The fact that two agencies have determined significantly different “ safe ” levels , the commente r contend ed , demonstrates as a matter of law that there is no “ established ” health threshold for HCl and precludes the EPA from lawfully setting
CAA section 1 12(d)(4) standards for HCl. The commenter stated that the statute requires that a health threshold “ has been established ” and argue d the legislative history indicates Congress intended for CAA section 1 12(d)(4) limits to be used only where there was a “ well

- established ” level that presents

“ no risk ” of adverse effects and about which there was no

“ dispute. ” 29 The commenter asserted that Congress did not grant the Administrator the authority to establish the threshold

28 EPA, Risk Assessment to Determine a Health

- Based Emission Limitation for Acid Gases for the Brick and Structural Clay Products Manufacturing Source Categ ory, May 19, 201 4, Docket Item No. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2013

- 0291

- 0132
. 29 S. Rep. No. 101

- 228, at 171
.***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 109 of 454 itself and that the EPA does not have authority to set CAA section 112(d)(4) standards in situations where there is disag reement among expert agencies as to what the correct health threshold should be. The commenter asserted t hat by failing to address the Cal EPA REL , the EPA contravened its obligation under administrative law to address significant evidence that detracts fro m the agency’s conclusion. The commenter stated that for the EPA to rely solely on the IRIS RfC, the EPA wo uld need to explain why the Cal EPA REL is incorrect and why the IRIS RfC reflects the best available science and risk assessment practices, particul a rly whe n the IRIS RfC and Cal EPA REL thresholds are based on the same science and whe n the EPA relied upon Cal EPA RELs at several other points in its proposal ( e.g. , the EPA used the Cal EPA REL for acute inhalation exposure to HCl as the basis for its CAA section 1 12(d)(4) standards )
. I f the EPA considers Cal EPA ’ s acute REL for HCl to reflect a reliable value, then the commenter stated it is arbitrar y to disregard Cal EPA ’ s chronic REL for HCl
. T he commenter further noted the EPA relied upon the Cal EPA chron ic REL for HF in order to determine a threshold for HF and argued that using the Cal EPA REL for HF but not for HCl is arbitrary.***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 110 of 454 **Response:** At an initial point, with respect to the comment that different agencies have identified different thresholds and

so “as a matter of law” there is no “established” health threshold for HCl, the EPA disagrees that the phrase “ has been established ” in CAA section 112(d)(4) means that there is universal agreement on the health threshold level and that differences between Ca lEPA and the EPA demonstrate that no health threshold “ has been established. ” The statute does not clearly identify who must establish the health threshold or how such threshold should be established. In the absence of such specificity in the statute, the EPA reads CAA section 112(d)(4) to authorize the EPA to set health

- based limits where, in the EPA's expert judgment, there is a health threshold for the pollutant below which no adverse health effects are expected to

occur. Further, w e disagree with the comment that there is no established threshold at the RfC because CalEPA developed a reference value at a lower concentration than the RfC. The approaches used by both agencies are similar and assume a threshold below which adverse heal th effects would not be expected; however, there are some differences between agencies in methods for deriving the estimate for a threshold that may affect the final resulting values. Both agencies use the best***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 111 of 454 available science to support their risk asses sments. The EPA has an approach for selecting appropriate health benchmark values and , in general, this approach places greater weight on the EPA derived health benchmarks than those from other agencies. 30 The approach favoring EPA benchmarks (when they exi st) has been endorsed by the SAB 31 and ensures use of values most consistent with well

- established and scientifically

- based EPA science policy. 32 Specifically for HCl, we selected the IRIS RfC for HCl as the most appropriate chronic noncancer health threshold to use for this rule. In the case of HF, there is not an EPA RfC available and the only chronic reference value from an authoritative source and appropriate for use in this rule is the California REL.
**Comment:** Several commenters disagre ed with th e EPA’s decision to set a HBEL for HF . These commenters contend ed the EPA does not have the authority to set HF standards under CAA section 112(d)(4) because the scientific data supporting the

30 http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/nata1999/99pdfs/healtheffectsinfo.pdf 31 The SAB peer review of RTR Risk Assessment Methodologies is available at: http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/4AB3966E263D943A8525771F0066 8381/$ File/EPA

- SAB

- 10

- 007

- unsigned.pdf 32 S cience A dvisory B oard. Memorandum to Lisa Jackson, Administrator, U.S. EPA. R eview of EPA’s draft entitled, “Risk and Technology Review ( RTR ) Risk Assessment Methodologies : For Review by the EPA’s Science Advisory Board with Case Studies

– MACT I Petroleum Refining Sources and Portland Cement Manufacturing
. ” May 7, 2010. A vailable at: h ttp://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/4AB3966E263D943A8525771F00668381/$ File/EPA

- SAB

- 10

- 007

- unsigned.pdf
.***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 112 of 454 EPA’s findings regarding the carcinogenic potential of HF are i nsufficient and unreliable
. Three commenters asserted that the EPA should not adopt HBEL for HF due to uncertainty about the vulnerabilities of children, infants, and fetuses to HF exposures at the REL concentration used by the EPA to set the HF emissions standards
. Two c ommenter s noted that the proposal states, “ There is limited/equivocal evidence of the carcinogenic potential of HF ” (79 FR 75641) and “ [t]he EPA has not classified HF for carcinogenicity ” (79 FR 75640) and questioned how the agency could be confident that HF is eligible to be a threshold pollutant if its status as a non

- carcinogen is uncertain.
One c ommenter noted that the EPA failed to identify a n established, well

- defined health

- based threshold , below which HF does not cause cancer, that i s based on reliable science and has a high level of certainty
. The EPA has state d that

“ carcinogenicity via inhalation of fluoride is not considered to be likely by most investigators reporting in the existing literature ” ( 79 FR 75641) and that t he EPA “ ha s not classified HF for carcinogenicity ” (79 FR 75640 )
. The c ommenter stated that it is possible that HF causes cancer because increased rates of cancer have been observed in workers exposed to a mixture of***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 113 of 454 chemicals that included fluoride 33 and noted that the EPA acknowledged data suggesting that those with occupational exposure to HF have greater than normal occurrences of cancer. 34 The commenter stated that, because of the data showing possible carcinogenic effect, as well as the data showing mutagenic ef fect in animals, the EPA does not have enough evidence to classify HF as a threshold pollutant with any level of confidence. The commenter stated that the EPA fail ed to explain how it weighed the conflicting evidence of HF ’ s carcinogenicity and considered EPA’s conclusion to be arbitrary and capricious. Three commenters noted that the EPA does not consider HF in its IRIS database but noted that HF break s down into fluorine , which is included in IRIS
. 35 One c ommenter stated that IRIS indicates

no data are ava ilable to determine an RfC for chronic inhalation exposure to fluorine. 36 This commenter further noted that IARC

“ has determined that the carcinogenicity of fluoride to humans is not classifiable. ” 37 Another c ommenter stated that health

-

33 Gallerani, M., et al. , Systemic and topical effects of intradermal hydrofluoric acid, 16 Am. J. Emer. Med. 521, 522 (1998). 34 EPA, Technology Transfer Network Air Toxics Web site: Hydrogen Flu o ride, http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/hlthef/hydrogen.html (last updated Oct. 18, 2013). 35 EPA, Integrated Risk Information System: Fluorine (Soluble Fluoride) (CASRN 7782

- 41

- 4), http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/ 0053.htm (last updated Oct. 31, 2014)
. 36 EPA, Integrated Risk Information System: Fluorine, http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0053.htm (last updated Oct. 31, 2014). Id
. 37 ATSDR, Toxicological Profile for Fluorides, Hydrogen Fluoride, and Fluorine at 8. Formatted: Hyperlink Preamble***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 114 of 454 based standards shoul d be considered only for HAP that are contained in IRIS with a high level of confidence in the RfC.
One commenter noted that although the National Air Toxics Assessment ( NATA ) database does not contain HF , 38 the database does provide evidence that HF has a mutagenic effect in animals
. This conclusion was supported by other scientific reviews 39 and by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) , which states that

“ the overall evidence from human animal studies is mixed ” on the question of whether fluoride is carcin ogenic when inhaled. 40
Four commenters questioned the EPA’s reli ance on a Cal EPA risk assessment , noting that the Cal EPA REL is based on a study of adults exposed to HF in the workplace 41 and therefore, did not include any children
. Two commenters stated tha t a 10X

“ intraspecies ” factor was applied to account for variability among humans , but noted that Cal EPA expressed concern about “ the potentially greater susceptibility of children to the effects of inhaled fluorides, considering the rapid bone growth in e arly

38 EPA, National Scale Air Toxics Assessment Overview: The 33 Pollutants, http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/nata/34poll.html (last updated Jan. 6, 2015). 39 See, ( e.g. , National Research Council of the National Academies, Emergency and Continuous Exposure Guidance Le vels for Selected Submarine Contaminants vol.3 at 91

- 92, available at http://www.ncbi.n lm.nih.gov/books/n/nap12741/pdf
. 40 National Research Council of the National Academies, Emergency and Continuous Exposure Guidance Levels for Selected Submarine Contamin ants vol.3 at 91

- 92, available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/n/nap12741/pdf
. 41 Derryberry O.M., et al. , Fluoride exposure and worker health

- The health status of workers in a fertilizer manufacturing plant in relation to fluoride exposure, 6 Arch. En viron. Health. 503 (1963).***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 115 of 454
years. ” 42 One c ommenter recommended the EPA use an additional default factor of at least 10X to account for uncertainty regarding health risks to children, infants, and fetuses. The
commenter stated that a 10X factor would be consistent with the
NAS re commendation 43 and with the 10X factor enacted by Congress in the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA)
. 44 Another c om menter stated that recent science not considered at the time Cal EPA adopted the REL provides further support for prior research showing that HF has neurodevelopmental effects on children and that children living in high

- fluoride areas have been observed to have lower IQ scores than those living in low

- fluoride

areas. 45 The commenter asserted that the adverse effects of fluoride on children are lik ely to be more severe, and long

lasting, compared with effects on adults.

42 OEHHA Chronic RELs and Toxicity Summaries, at 280. 43 National Research Council of the National Academies, Science and Decisions: Advancing Risk Assessment, at 190

- 93 (2009 ) (hereinafter “ NA S, Science and Decisions”) )
. 44 21 U.S. C. 346a(b)(2)(C) (requiring that, in establishing, modifying, leaving in effect, or revoking a tolerance or exemption for a pesticide chemical residue, “ for purposes of clause (ii)(I) an additional tenfold margin of safety for the pesticide chemical residue and other sources of exposure shall be applied ” to protect infants and children). 45 See Choi, A.L., et al. , Developmental Fluoride Neurotoxicity: A Systematic Review and Meta

- Analysis, 120 Envtl. Health Perspect. 1362 (Oct. 2012), http://ehp.niehs. nih.gov/1104912/ (reviewing and discussing findings from over 20 studies); Choi, A.L., et al. , Association of Lifetime Exposure to Fluoride and Cognitive Functions in Chinese Children: A Pilot Study, 47 Neurotox. & Teratology 96 (Jan.

- Feb. 2015).***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 116 of 454
One commenter stated that the Cal EPA REL is based on a study that only examined the increased bone density (sk eletal fluorosis) endpoint and noted that Cal EPA stated that “ [t]he prim ary uncertainty in the study was the lack of a comprehensive health effects examination. ” 46 The commenter stated that the EPA does not know whether neurodevelopmental harm, or other health effects, are more sensitive than skeletal harm ; therefore, the
EPA c annot lawfully set a “ safe ” threshold at a concentration that poses “ no risk ” of health effects with “ an ample margin of safety ” based on a study that lacks “ a comprehensive health effects examination. ” Another c ommenter asserted that the EPA has insuffici ent data showing exposure to HF at the REL value “ presents no risk ” of harm to other bodily systems
. The commenter noted that HF is a possible reproductive toxin , 47 that o ccupational studies of women exposed to fluoride identified increased rates of menstrual irregularities , 48 and that a nimal studies have found that fluoride impairs reproduction and increases the rates of

46 OEHHA, Chronic RELs and Toxicity Summaries, at 280. 47 Massachusetts Toxics Use Reduction Institute, Massachusetts Chemical Fact Sheet: Hydrofluoric Acid, at 1, available at http://www.turi.org/content/download/3663/44840/file/Fact Sheet Hydrofluoric Acid.pdf
. 48 EPA, Health Issue Assessment: Summary Review of Health Effects Associated with Hydrogen Fluoride and Related Compounds, EPA/600/8

- 89/002F (1988).***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 117 of 454 fetal bone and teeth malformation. 49 I n addition, chronic inhalation of hydrofluoric acid can cause irritation and congestion of the nose and throat and bronchitis , 50 and a nimal studies f ound increased rates of kidney and liver damage from hydrofluoric acid inhalation. 51 F urther , HF readily penetrates the skin, causing deep tissue layer destruction , 52 and i ngestion of HF may result in vomi ting and abdominal pain , with painful necrotic lesions, hemorrhagic gastritis, and pancreatitis reported after significant exposure. 53 The commenter stated the CalEPA REL was developed by Cal EPA

u sing an outdated version of Cal EPA ’ s Hot Spots Risk Assessmen t Guidelines (1999) that has been “ supers eded” by the more recent guidelines released in February 2015. 54 The commenter noted the 1999 version required updating in part because it did not

49 ATSDR, Toxicological Profile for Fluorides, Hydrogen Fluoride and Fluorine; EPA, Health Issue Assessment: Su mmary Review of Health Effects Associated with Hydrogen Fluoride and Related Compounds. 50 Cal EPA, Technical Support Document for the Determination of Noncancer Chronic Reference Exposure Levels. 51 EPA, Health Issue Assessment: Summary Review of Health Effe cts Associated with Hydrogen Fluoride and Related Compounds. 52 Burgher, Francois, et al. , Experimental 70% hydrofluoric acid burns: histological observations in an established human skin explants ex vivo model, 30.2 Cutaneous & Ocular Toxicology 100 (2011)
. 53 CDC, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH): Hydrogen Fluoride/ Hydrofluoric Acid, http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/ershdb/emergencyresponsecard_29750030.html
. 54 OEHHA Chronic RELs a nd Toxicity Summaries at 1; Cal EPA, OEHHA, Air Toxics H ot Spots Program: Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments (Feb. 2015), available at http://oehha.ca.gov/air/hot_sp ots/2015/2015GuidanceManual.pdf
.***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 118 of 454 include sufficient consideration of “ infants and children in assessin g risks from air toxics. ” **Response:** The EPA has not reviewed HF in the IRIS program. However, we concur with the two recent authoritative assessments by ATSDR (2003) 55 and the European Union (2002) 56 that the available evidence does not support classifying HF as

55 Agency for Toxic Substance Substance s and Disease Registry (2003)

- “Although elevated cancer rates have been reported in some occupational groups exposed to hydrogen fluoride and fluoride dusts, these studies were not controlled for the multiple substance exposures to which industrial worker s are generally exposed. Because of these multiple exposures and the problem inherent in all occupational studies in identifying appropriate reference populations, only limited evidence from such studies is specifically relevant to the investigation of pos sible carcinogenic effects of long

- term dermal exposure to hydrofluoric acid and inhalation exposure to hydrogen fluoride and/or fluoride dusts in human beings. As noted previously, IARC has determined that the carcinogenicity of fluoride to humans is not classifiable.” 56 European Union Risk Assessment Report (2001)

- “Carcinogenicity studies, in which HF has been tested, are not available. Studies with NaF may provide insight in the carcinogenicity of HF, especially for systemic tumours. With the latter su bstance 4 animal studies have been performed, 2 in which NaF was supplied in the drinking water to rats and mice, and two in which NaF was administered via the diet, again to rats and mice....In the rat drinking water study, equivocal indications for osteosa rcomas in males were obtained, but the rat diet study was negative, despite clear indications of fluoride intoxication. The mouse drinking water study was also negative. The mouse diet study was confounded by the presence of a retrovirus which may have (co )

- induced the growth of benign osteomas thus thwarting the interpretation of the study. In the diet studies (Maurer et al. 1990; Maurer et al. 1993) bone fluoride levels were higher than in the drinking water studies (NTP 1990), while in the diet studies n o indications for osteosarcomas were obtained. Furthermore, the osteomas were considered to be reminiscent of hyperplasias rather than true bone neoplasms. It was concluded that the available data is sufficient to suggest that fluoride is not a carcinogeni c substance in animals (Janssen and Knaap 1994)...Based on epidemiological data IARC (1982) concluded that the evidence for carcinogenicity of orally taken fluoride in humans is inadequate. Recent studies (cited in CEPA 1993; Janssen and Knaap 1994) did not supply evidence of a relationship between fluoride in drinking water and cancer mortality, either. US

- EPA, reviewing the epidemiological data for fluoride, stated that no conclusion can be drawn as to the carcinogenicity of fluoride after inhalatory exposu re, because in all studies available, humans were exposed to other substances as well (Thiessen 1988).”***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 119 of 454

“ Carcinogenic to Humans , ” “ Likely to Be Carcinogenic to Humans ” or as having “ Suggestive Evidence of Carcinogenic Potential ” ( US U
. S
. EPA Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment (2005)). All of the studies cited by the commenter are from exposure to fluoride and not from inhalation exposures to HF.
N eurodevelopmental effects may be releva nt to high fluoride
exposures , but the existing evidence shows these effects may occur at fluoride expo sure levels beyond those that would cause respiratory effects if HF were the sole source of exposure. In the study of Lund (1997), 57 plasma fluoride concentrations were shown to increase in the nanogram per milliliter (ng/ml) range from exposures to HF in t he mg/m 3 level ( e.g. , elevations of approximately 20 nanograms fluoride per milliliter in plasma resulted from 1

- hour exposure to 2 mg/m 3 HF, with notable respiratory and eye irritation effects). Reproductive and developmental effects in rats have been not ed from experiments 58 with plasma F levels in the 150 ng/ml range maintained for over 4 months. The primary issue in causing neurodevelopmental effects (which have yet to be quantified) is likely associated

57 Lund K , Ekstrand J , Boe J , Søstrand P , and Kongerud J . (1997) Exposure to hydrogen fluoride : an experimental study in humans of concentrations of fluoride in plasma, symptoms, and lung function. Occup Environ Med. 54(1):32

- 37. 58 Oencue, M ; , Kocak, A ; , Karaoz, E; Darici, H; Savilk, E; and Gultekin, F (2007) Effect of long

- term fluoride exposure o n lipid peroxidation and histology of testes in first

- and second

- generation rats
. Biological Trace Element Research 118:260

- 268.***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 120 of 454 with aggregate and cumulative exposure from multip le sources of fluorides ( e.g. , water, food, toothpaste) which are greater contributors to total fluoride body burden and uncontrollable variables in establishing this rule , which deals with exposures to HF only
. The EPA also disagrees with the comment that a children ’ s default safety factor of 10 should be added to the CalEPA REL for HF . In response to t he 10X factor enacted by Congress in the FQPA (1996) 59 to the EPA non

- cancer reference value derivation, the a gency evaluated its methods for considering children ’ s risk in the development of reference values. As part of its response, the EPA ( i.e. , the Science Policy Council and Risk Assessment Forum) established the RfD/RfC Technical Panel to develop a strategy for implementing the FQPA and examine the is sues relative to protecting children ’ s health and application of the 10X safety factor. One of the outcomes of the Technical Panel ’ s efforts was an in depth review of a number of issues related to the RfD/RfC process (U.S. EPA 2002). The most critical aspe ct in the derivation of a reference value pertaining to the FQPA has to do with variation between individual humans and is accounted for by a default uncertainty factor when no chemical

- specific

59 US Environmental Protection Agency, Pesticide: Regulating Pesticides. The Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA). 1996. Availabl e at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/regulating/laws/fqpa/backgrnd.htm
.***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 121 of 454 data are available. The EPA reviewed the default UF for inter

human variability and found the EPA ’ s default value of 10 adequate for all susceptible populations and lifestages , including children and infants. The EPA also recommends the use of chemical

- specific data in preference to default uncertainty factors when available ( US U
. S
. EPA, 1994, 2011) 60 and is developing Agency guidance to facilitate consistency in the development and use of data

- derived extrapolation factors for RfCs and reference doses ( RfDs ) (U.S
. EPA, 2011). 61 , 62 In agreement with the recommendations of the RfC review, CalEPA chronic REL for HF was derived using a n inter

- individual uncertainty factor of 10, which is considered adequate by the EPA for accounting for all susceptible populations and lifestages, including children and infants. Regarding th e comment that CalEPA ’ s Hot Spots Risk Assessment Guidelines (1999) have been “ superseded ” by the more recent guidelines released in February 2015 , t he EPA reviewed

60 U.S. EPA (1994). Methods for derivation of inhalation reference concentrations and application of inhalation dosimetry. (EPA/600/8

- 90/066F). Research Triangle Park, NC. http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=71993 61 U.S. EPA (2011) External Review Draft of Guidance for Applying Quantitative Data to Develop Data

- Derived Extrapolation Factors for Interspecies and Intraspecies Extrapolation http://www.epa.gov/ra f/DDEF/index.htm U.S. EPA (1994). Methods for derivation of inhalation reference concentrations and application of inhalation dosimetry . (EPA/600/8

- 90/066F). Research Triangle Park, NC. Docket Item No. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2013

- 0291

- 0160
. 62 U.S. EPA (2011). Office o f the Science Advisor, Risk Assessment Forum. Recommended Use of Body Weight 3/4 as the Default Method in Derivation of the Oral Reference Dose
. February 2011. EPA/100/R11/0001
.***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 122 of 454 the February 2015 Guidelines information provided by the commenter and concluded that this information does not include methods for conducting hazard identification and dose response assessments, which are the analyses that preclude the derivation of a reference value. Therefore, the information provided by the commenter does not apply to the Ca lEPA REL derivation methods. The commenter’s assertion that the NATA database does not contain HF is incorrect ; NATA 2005 (cited above by the commenter) does include noncancer risk estimates for HF. The HF cancer risks are not included in NATA because a qu antitative cancer analysis for HF does not exist.
**Comment:** Several commenters disagree d with the EPA’s decision to set a HBEL for Cl 2 and stated the EPA does not have the authority to set Cl 2 standards under CAA section 112(d)(4) because the EPA does not have reliable scientific data demonstrating a “safe” threshold for Cl 2 and has not demonstrated Cl 2 presents no cancer risk. Two co mmenter s noted that in the proposal, the EPA stated that, “ th e agency presumptively considers Cl 2 to be a threshold pollutant .” The commenter s asserted that a presumption is not adequate for EPA to justify setting a health

- based standard for Cl 2 under CAA section 112(d)(4)
.***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 123 of 454
One c ommenter stated that it is possible t hat Cl 2 is carcinogenic and noted that Cl 2 has not undergone a complete evaluation and determination of human carcinogenic potential under the IRIS program. 63 The IARC and the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) have not classified Cl 2 gas for hu man carcinogenicity. The commenter stated that the absence of data showing carcinogenicity is not the same as data demonstrating that a substance is not carcinogenic
. According to t he commenter , Congress authorized CAA section
1 12(d)(4) standards only where a threshold “ has been established .” In other words, there must be an already

established threshold for which there is direct evidence that the pollutant presents “ no ” harm at the threshold level of
exposure , and the law requires “ well

- established ” fa ctual evidence. 64 The commenter asserted that the EPA is not authorized to set risk

- based standards based on a “ presumption ” of the existence of a safe level of exposure and that by doing so , the
EPA would violate the law and fail to ensure adequate protect ion from the health risks of hazardous pollution. The c ommenter stated that the EPA can not set a health threshold for Cl 2 based on a chronic inhalation study on monkeys

63 EPA, Integrated Risk Information System: Chlorine, http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0405.htm (last updated Oct. 31, 2014). 64 S. Rep. No. 101

- 228, at 171.***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 124 of 454 because that study did not determine a NOAEL. The commenter asserted that CAA section 1 12(d)(4) does not permit risk

- based standards where a NOAEL has not been determined
. The commenter stated that, at a minimum, Congress required that a threshold be based on the “‘ no observable [adverse] effects level ’ (NOAEL) below which human exposure is presumably ‘ safe. ’” 65 I f there is no established non

- zero “ threshold ” level at which it has been shown that the pollutant has no deleterious health effects, then the commenter asserted that the EPA cannot be certain that
exposu re to the pollutant at a given level presents “ no ” harm.
T wo c ommenter s stated that IRIS contains “ no data ” on a a n RfC for chronic inhalation exposure. 66 The ATSDR MRL on which the proposed Cl 2 threshold is based is a “ screening value[] only ” and

“ [is] not [an] indicator[] of health effects. ” 67 According to the ATSDR, “ Exposures to substances at doses above MRLs will not necessarily cause adverse health effects and should be further evaluated , ” “ MRLs are intended to serve only as a screening tool to help you decide if you should more closely evaluate exposures

65 S. Rep. No. 101

- 228, at 171, 176. 66 EPA, Integrated Risk Information System: Chlorine. 67 ATSDR, Public Health Assessment Guidance Manual (2005 Update): Ap pendix F, http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/hac/PHAManual/appf.html (last updated Nov. 30, 2005).***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 125 of 454 to a substance found at a site , ” and “ uncertainties are associated with [the] techniques ” used to derive MRLs
. 68
One c ommenter stated that the MRL does not account for the potentially greater susceptibil ity of children, infants, and fetuses to Cl 2 exposures 69 and note d that Cal EPA has recognized that Cl 2 is a toxic air contaminant “ that may disproportionately impact infants and children ” becaus e it can exacerbate asthma. 70 Therefore , the commenter assert ed the MRL does not reflect an

“ established ” safe health threshold at which exposure presents

“ no ” adverse effects and that it is unlawful for the EPA to set
CAA section 1 12(d)(4) standards for Cl 2 . **Response:** The EPA disagrees with the comment. As part of the risk analysis conducted to support this rule, the EPA thoroughly evaluated all the available and relevant scientific evidence on Cl 2 ( as discussed in detail previously in this section) and concluded that t here is no evidence that Cl 2 is a carcinogen and that this information is sufficient to support this regulatory decision. The MRL for Cl 2 was developed using the benchmark dose analysis method , which has been widely adopted

68 ATSDR, Toxicological Profile for Chlorine, at 14
. 69 ATSDR, Toxicological Profile for Chlorine at 20

- 21 (observing that a value similar to the MRL could be calculated using the lowest observed adverse effect level ( LOAEL ) approach if an uncertainty factor of only 3 for human variability is used and no child

- safety uncertainty factor is use d ) ). 70 Cal EPA, Prioritization of Toxic Air Contaminants Under the Children ’ s Environmental Health Protection Act, at 27

- 28.***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 126 of 454 across the risk assessment commu nity and by the EPA’s Risk
Assessment Forum 71 as a more reliable estimate of a threshold for an effect than a NOAEL or LOAEL. As a result , the REL for Cl 2 does define a threshold
. Regarding the assertion that the MRL does not take into consideration the pot ential for greater potential effects in children, in the development of the Toxicological Profile for Chlorine, 72 ATSDR performed an exhaustive review of all of the relevant health effects data available at the time. Until new information becomes available, the Cl 2 MRL is the most credible, scientifically grounded toxicity assessment for Cl 2 and the most appropriate reference value to use in this regulatory action. In the light of the absence of evidence of carcinogenic risk from Cl 2 exposure and the evidenc e of an existing threshold below which Cl 2 is not expected to cause adverse effects, the EPA considers it appropriate to set health threshold standards under CAA section 112(d)(4) for Cl 2 .

71 US U.S. EPA (2012) Benchmark Dose Technical Guidance. Risk Assessment Forum, Washington, DC 20460. EPA/100/R

- 12/001 , June 2012. Available online at http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015

- 01/documents /benchmark_dose_guidance.pdf
. 72 Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). 2010. Toxicological profile for Chlorine. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service.***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 127 of 454
**Comment:** One c ommenter referenced an NAS review of chemical health evaluations in the United States that concluded improvements in both chemical testing and risk assessment are needed to assure current risk evaluations protect people from toxic chemicals
. 73 T he NAS recommended the EPA use “ A consi stent, unified approach for dose

- response modeling that includes formal, systematic assessment of background disease processes and exposures, possible vulnerable populations, and modes of action that may affect a chemical ’ s dose

- response relationship in hu mans; that approach redefines the RfD or RfC as a risk

specific dose that provides information on the percentage of the population that can be expected to be above or below a defined acceptable risk with a specific degree of confidence. ” The NAS also obser ved that “ [n]oncancer effects do not necessarily have a threshold, or low

- dose nonlinearity ” and found that “ [b]ecause the RfD and RfC do not quantify risk for different magnitudes of exposure but rather provide a bright line between possible harm and safe ty, their use in risk

- risk and risk

- benefit comparisons and in risk

- management decision

- making is limited. ” 74

73 See National Research Council of the National Academies, Toxicity Testing in the Twenty

- First Century: A Vision and a Strategy (2007); National Research Council of the National Academies, Phthalates and Cumulative Risk Assessment: The Tasks Ahead (2008); NAS, Science and Decisions. 74 Janssen, S., et al. , Strengthening Toxic Chemical Risk Assessments to Protect Human Health (2012), available at http://www.nrdc.org/health/files/strengthening

- toxic

- chemical

riskassessments

- report.pdf (citing NAS, Science and Decisions).***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 128 of 454 The c ommenter stated that there may be no safe threshold in the human population for many chemicals and that newer studies show many chemicals incr ease the risk of various noncancer health effects

- such as reproductive harm and neurological effects

- at low doses, without any scientifically identifiable threshold. 75 The commenter noted that even if a threshold is established for an individual, when r isk is assessed across a diverse population, it is unlikely the same threshold applies to all individuals because some people are more vulnerable than others. The c ommenter stated that, to address the fact that very low levels of non

- carcinogen exposures c an pose health risks, NAS recommended that cancer and chronic non

- cancer risk assessment use the same approach. 76 The commenter noted that the use of RfCs for dose

- response risk assessment of chronic non

cancer health effects may significantly underestimate risk: “ For these health effects, risk assessments focus on defining the reference dose (RfD) or reference concentration (RfC), which is defined as a dose ‘ likely to be without an appreciable risk of

75 Janssen et al. , Strength ening Toxic Chemical Risk Assessments to Protect Human Health
. 76 NAS, Science and Decisions, at 8

- 9, 265

- 66.***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 129 of 454 deleterious effects ’ over a lifetime of exposure. In actual fact, these levels may pose appreciable risks. ” 77 The c ommenter asserted that the EPA ignored the best available, current science showing that pollutants have health effects at low doses in its evaluation of health th resholds for HCl, HF, and Cl 2 and ignored NAS ’ s recommendation that the EPA use similar approaches for chronic non

- cancer as for cancer risk assessment, which presumes deleterious health effects for any amount of exposure
. According to t he commenter , the E PA lacked sufficient data to demonstrate that these pollutants do not cause harm at low levels of exposure over time and cannot be certain that there exists an established, safe health threshold at the proposed threshold s . The commenter also stated that, b ecause it must be assumed that these pollutants cause harm at low doses, it is impossible for the EPA to meet the CAA ’ s requirement for an “ ample margin of safety
. ” The commenter concluded the EPA ’ s use of CAA section 1 12(d)(4) standards for HCl, HF, and C l 2 is indefensible because the EPA determined the thresholds based on studies that did not identify a level at which no health effects were observed ( i.e. , a NOAEL) and the EPA itself has low confidence in the proposed thresholds
.

77 Janssen, S., et al. , Strengthening Toxic Chemical Risk Assessments to Protect Human Health at 10.***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 130 of 454 **Response:** The NAS has recognized that many of the recommended changes for the IRIS Program will need to be incorporated over a number of years and further recommen ded that
assessments continue to be developed as the recommendations are implemented ( i.e. , the regulatory process should not be halted until all recommendations can be enacted). I mprovements will thus be made over time and the best science available will be used in the interim. Further, the EPA has a legal obligation to proceed with regulatory action based on the best , currently available tools. The EPA ’ s conclusion that HCl, HF and Cl 2 are threshold pollutants is based on the best available toxicity database considered in hazard identification and dose response assessments. There is agreement on using a similar thresh old approach for these chemicals across agencies , e.g. , the EPA ’ s IRIS Program, ATSDR and CalEPA. The toxicity assessments ( which
may include noncancer and/or cancer toxicity assessments ) provided by these authoritative bodies are widely vetted through the scientific community and undergo rigorous peer review processes before they are published. In addition, the SAB has endorsed the use of the reference values derived by these sources to support EPA ’ s risk assessments in the RTR p rogram.***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 131 of 454 Specifically, none of the compounds discussed here has been classified as carcinogenic or suggestive of the potential to be carcinogenic, individually or in combination by existing authoritative bodies including the EPA, CalEPA, IARC, OECD, and the European Community. In lig ht of the absence of evidence of carcinogenic risk for any of these pollutants, and the evidence of an existing threshold below which HCl, HF and Cl 2 are not expected to cause adverse effects, the EPA considers it appropriate to set health threshold standa rds under CAA 112(d)(4) for these pollutants. 2. Co

- Benefits
**Comment:** One commenter stated that the EPA’s proposal not to set MACT standards for acid gases did not fully consider the

co - benefits of controlling criteria pollutants. The commenter noted that t he legislative history makes clear that employing a
CAA section 1 12(d)(4) standard rather than a conventional MACT standard “ shall not result in adverse environmental effect which would otherwise be reduced or eliminated
. ” 78 The EPA asserted that where there is an established health threshold, the agency may weigh additional factors in making a judgment as to whether
to set CAA section 1 12(d)(4) standards or MACT standards, including “ [c]o

- benefits that would be achieved via the MACT

78 S. Rep. No. 101

- 228, at 171
.***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 132 of 454 standard, such as reductions in emissions of other HAP and/or criteria pollutants ” ( 79 FR 75622 ) . The commenter asserted that it is impossible to make this assessment without evaluating the full collateral benefits of a MACT standard. The c ommente r noted that the EPA has recognized that MACT standards for HCl in other source categories result ed in reductions in emissions of PM , hydrogen cyanide, and other criteria and HAP pollutants and has relied upon the co

- benefits of these reductions as a basis for not set ting risk

- based standards for those other source categories. 79 However, for BSCP and clay ceramics plants, the EPA only consider ed the co

benefits of reductions in sulfur dioxide ( SO 2 ). The commenter argued the EPA should have consider ed the significant reductions

79 See, e.g. , Nat ional Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants from the Portland Cement Manufacturing Industry and Standards of Performance for Portland Cement Plants, 75 FR 54970, 54984 (Sept. 9, 2010) ( “ Setting technology

- based MACT standards for HCl ... would li kely also result in additional reductions in emissions of mercury, along with condensable PM, ammonia, and semi

- volatile compounds. ” ); id . at 54,985 ( “ Setting an HCl standard under 112(d)(2) and (3) allows the Agency to also address ” HCN, ammonia, and other pollutants.); National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants from the Portland Cement Manufacturing Industry, 74 FR 21136, 21160 (May 6, 2009) ( “ [S]etting a MACT standard for HCl is anticipated to result in a significant amount of control for other pollutants emitted by cement kilns, most notably SO 2 and other acid gases, along with condensable PM, ammonia, and semi

- volatile compounds. ” ); 75 FR 32030 ( “ [S]etting conventional MACT standards for HCl as well as PM ... would r esult in significant reductions in emissions of other pollutants, most notably SO 2 , non - condensable PM, and other non

- HAP acid gases ( e.g. , hydrogen bromide) and would likely also result in additional reductions in emissions of mercury and other HAP metals ( e.g. , selenium). ” ); 76 FR 25051 ( “ [S]etting conventional MACT standards for HCl as well as PM ... would result in significant reductions in emissions of other pollutants, most notably SO 2 , PM, and other non - HAP acid gases ( e.g. , hydrogen bromide) and wou ld likely also result in additional reductions in emissions of Hg and other HAP metals ( e.g. , Se). ” ).***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 133 of 454 in PM , hydrogen cyanide, and other pollutants that would likely result from MACT standards for HCl, HF, and Cl 2 , as these are the same reductions that the EPA considered in its past rulemakings. The commenter stated that these r eductions will provide enormous health and environmental benefits that would not occur if CAA section 1 12(d)(4) standards are finalized instead. **Response:** Although not explicitly stated in the preamble to the proposed rule, the EPA agrees with the commente r that MACT standards for acid gases for BSCP manufacturing facilities are associated with additional reductions of PM emissions (approximately 460 tpy in the third year following promulgation of the standards ) and non

- Hg HAP metals emissions
. No additiona l
PM or non

- Hg HAP metals emission reductions would be expected from sanitaryware tunnel kilns because i t is anticipated that all sanitaryware tunnel kilns could meet the MACT floor emission limits for HF and HCl without additional APCD. The EPA has no information suggesting that HCN is emitted from BSCP or clay ceramics manufacturing facilities, so no reduction in HCN would be expected from MACT standards for HF, HCl, and Cl 2 . For the past rulemakings in which the EPA considered co

benefi ts as part of a CAA section 114(d)(4) evaluation, the EPA did not quantify the PM emissions reductions associated with MACT standards (see 79 FR 75641, footnote 27) , so a direct***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 134 of 454 comparison of the co

- benefits of the BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP and the Clay Ce ramics Manufacturing NESHAP with the co

- benefits of these other rules for PM is not possible. The only pollutant with quantified emissions reductions in the co

- benefits analyses for these other rulemakings was SO 2 , so that was the pollutant highlighted in the co

- benefits analysis for BSCP and clay ceramics at proposal. The additional nationwide reductions of SO 2 that would be attributable to MACT standards for acid gases in the BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP are estimated to be only 4, 7 00 tpy i n the third year f ollowing promulgation of the standards. No additional nationwide reductions of SO 2 would be attributable to MACT standards for acid gases in the Clay Ceramics Manufacturing
NESHAP because i t is anticipated that all sanitaryware tunnel kilns could meet the MACT floor emission limits without additional APCD
. As noted at proposal, t h e s e reduction s are substantially lower than the co

- benefits from MACT standards for other industries for which the EPA has decided not to set a
HBEL , and it would not be expected to provide a significant public health benefit. 3. Ecosystem Impacts
**Comment:** One c ommenter expressed concern about the ecological impacts of the proposed HBEL for acid gases. The commenter stated that federal, state and local agencies have***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 135 of 454 struggled for y ears to reduce emissions of SO 2 and other acid gases to prevent the devastating effects of acid rain on large ecosystems and noted the proposed standards would likely result in the acidification of the ecosystems in close proximity to BSCP and clay ceramic s manufacturing sources. The commenter asserted the ecological impact analysis of the emissions standards for this proposal is inadequate
. **Response:** The EPA disagrees with the commenter that the ecological analysis is inadequate. The environmental screenin g analysis evaluated potential damage and reduced productivity of plants due to chronic direct exposure to HCl and HF emitted by Clay Ceramics Manufacturing c lay c eramics m anufacturing facilities and BSCP Manufacturing m anufacturing facilities into the air. The chronic 90

- day benchmarks used in the environmental risk screen for the acid gases are shown in T able 6 7 of this preamble and discussed in the following section.

**T ABLE**  **6 7**  **. A**  **CID G**  **AS B**  **ENCHMARKS I**  **NCLUDED IN THE E**  **NVIRONMENTAL R**  **ISK S**  **CREEN**

a Micrograms per cubic meter. b Note that the human health RfC is 20 μg/m 3 , which is lower than the ecological benchmark. For HCl, the EPA identified chronic benchmark concentrations as described in a 2009 EPA document on RTR risk **Acid Gas Chronic**  **90 -**  **day Benchmark in μg/m 3**  **a** Hydrochloric acid

- LO EL 50 b Hydrofluoric acid

– Plant Community LOEL 0.5 Hydrofluoric acid

– Plant Community LOEL 0.4 Formatted Table***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 136 of 454 assessment methodologies. 80 The chronic benchmark for HCl was based on a lowest observed effects level (LO E L) from a short

term exposure (20 minutes) that related HCl concentration to

“ changes ” in the leaves of 7 out of 8 plant species as reported by Lerman et al. 81 It was the lowest exposure concentration at which effects of any type were seen (visible injury to some proportion of leaves). Haber ’ s law was used to extrapolate the 1.5 mg/m 3 LOEL concentration (20

- minute exposure) to a 0.5 mg/m 3 concentration expected to produce the same effect after 1 hour. The 1

- hr h our estimated LOEL was extrapolated to a chronic benchmark by dividing by a factor of ten to yield 0.050 mg/m 3 , or 50 μg/m 3
. For HF, the EPA used two chronic benchmark concentrations for plants in the envir onmental screening analysis. The value of 0.5 μg HF/m 3 is based on the Washington State criterion for gaseous HF and represents a LOEL. The value of 0.4 μg HF/m 3 is based on the Environment Canada criteria and also represents a
LOEL.

80 US U
. S
. EPA, 2009. Risk and Technology Review (RTR) Risk Assessment Methodologies: For Review by the EPA ’ s Science Advisory Board with Case Studies

– MAC T I Petroleum Refining Sources and Portland Cement Manufacturing. EPA

- 452/R

- 09

- 006. http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html
. Docket Item No. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2013

- 0291

- 0044
. 81 Lerman, S., O.C. Taylor, and E.F. Darley, 1976. Phytotoxicity of Hydrogen Chloride Gas with a

Short

- Term Exposure. Atmospheric Environment, Vol.10, pp. 873

- 878.***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 137 of 454 To protect vegetation from adverse effects resulting from HF exposure, the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment 82 recommends that HF concentrations not exceed 0.4 μg/m 3 over a 30

- to 90

- day period; HF concentrations can be higher for shorter exposures). Environment C anada 83 defined the effect represented by the level of 0.4 μg HF/m 3 as:

“ The level above which there are demonstrated effects on human health and/or the environment. It is scientifically based and defines the boundary between the lowest observed adverse eff ect level (LOAEL) and the no observed adverse effect level (NOAEL). It is considered to be the level of exposure just below that most likely to result in a defined and identifiable but minimal effect. The reference levels have no safety factors applied to them, as they are related directly to the LOAEL, and are the most conservative estimates of the effect level. ” High concentrations of HF in the air have also been linked to fluorosis in livestock. However, the HF concentrations at which fluorosis in lives tock occur are higher than those at which plant damage begins. Therefore, the benchmarks for plants are protective of both plants and livestock.

82 CCME. 1999b. Canadian National Ambient Air Quality Objectives: Process and Status. In: Canadian Environmental Quality Guidelines, 1999, Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment, Winnipeg. Publication No. 1299, ISBN 1

- 896997

- 34

- 1. Available at http://ceqg

- rcqe.ccme.ca/download/en/133/
. 83 EC. (Environment Canada). 1996. National Ambient Air Quality Objectives for Hydrogen Fluoride (HF). Science Assessment Document. A Re port by the CEPA/FPAC Working Group on Air Quality Objectives and Guidelines. July. ISBN 0

- 662

- 25641

- 7, Catalogue En42

- 17/6

- 1997. Available online at: http://www.bape.gouv.qc.ca/sections/mandats/ap50_rio_tinto_alcan/documents/DQ 3.1.1.pdf
.***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 138 of 454 For Clay Ceramics Manufacturing facilities, the environmental risk screen indicated that the area

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

- weighted average concentration of all offsite data points in the modeling domain) did not exceed the ecological benchmark. In addition, the ecological benchmark was not exceeded at a ny offsite receptor location for any facility. For HF, the environmental risk screen indicated that the area

weighted average modeled concentration of HF around each Clay Ceramics Manufacturing facility did not exceed the ecological benchmark. There were m ultiple facilities with modeled concentrations of HF at offsite receptor locations that exceeded the ecological benchmark, but the area over which the value was exceeded was no greater than 1 percent of the offsite modeling domain for each facility, indica ting that there would not be any significant or widespread environmental effects.
For BSCP Manufacturing facilities, the environmental risk screen indicated that the area

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

area - weighted average concentration of all offsite data points in the modeling domain) did not exceed the ecological benchmarks. In addition, the area over which the HCl or HF benchmarks were exceeded was less than 1 percent of the offsite***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 139 of 454 modeling domain for each facility in the category, indicating that there would not be any significant or widespread environmental effects. The EPA did not conduct an assessment of the potential for emissions of HCl to cause acidification in close proximity to the sources in this category. Acid deposition, more commonly known as acid rain, primarily occurs when emissions of SO 2 and nitrogen oxides ( NO X ) react in the atmosphere (with water, oxygen, and oxidants) to form various acidic compounds. 84 Although some studies indicate that HCl emissions could contribute to acidification around emission sources in certain environments, 85 its overall effect relative to NO X and SO 2 emissions would be small. In addition, the commenter did not provide any data to support their assertion that the proposed standards would result in the acidification of the ecosystems in close proximity to BSCP and structural clay products manufacturing facilities. 4. Cumulative Effects
**Comment:** One c ommenter expressed concern that the EPA did
not fully consider the cumulative effects of exposure to HAP

84 National Acid P recipitation Assessment Program Report to Congress, 2005. Also see

- http://www.epa.gov/acidrain/reducing/index.html
. 85 Hydrochloric Acid: An Overlooked Driver of Environmental Change. Environmental Science and Technology 2011, 45, 1187

- 1894.***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 140 of 454 when proposing the health

- based standard under CAA section 112(d)(4)
. The commenter asserted that the agency assum ed there are no cumulative health and environmental impacts of conce rn and argued the EPA can not ensure that its proposed standards include an ample margin of safety without properly accounting for the additive and/or synergistic effects of multiple pollutants and the cumulative effects of nearby emissions. Another c omment er stated that the EPA made no adjustments to the HBEL it selected to account for the potential for harm from exposures other than to the amounts of HCl, HF, and Cl 2 it proposed to allow. Specifically, the EPA must consider emissions of HCl, HF, and Cl 2 and other pollutants with biologically similar endpoints ( i.e. , that cause respiratory harm) from sources in the source category as well as from any co

- located sources and other stationary or mobile sources located such that their emissions affect people who are also exposed to the emissions subject to the NESHAP. The commenter asserted that the EPA cannot lawfully set limits “ with an ample margin of safety ” when it ignores other sources of exposure and cumulative health effects
. The commenter asserted tha t, to protect exposed populations, the regulated sources must reduce their emissions to a level that ensures the total concentration of pollutants will remain below the pollutants ’ respective health thresholds. Formatted: Underline***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 141 of 454 The commenter asserted that the EPA’s decisio n to ignore the impact of other emissions and background concentrations in the implementation of the HBEL is therefore arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, and otherwise not in accordance with law. If the ambient concentration of a particular pol lutant is already at or near the health threshold, the commenter asserted that an additional source of that pollutant or another pollutant with a biologically similar endpoint can push the exposure over the threshold, even if the additional source emits th e pollutant at low concentrations. The total risk that is unacceptable for the most

- exposed person in each source category must be reduced to consider the cumulative effect of these additional exposures and to create a total risk from all regulated source categories.
T he commenter stated that EPA ’s assessment of cumulative risks posed by HCl, HF, and Cl 2 emissions ignored emissions from

co - located sources (for BSCP kilns) , nearby sources and all other potential sources that could contribute to background levels
. The c ommenter noted that the EPA has emissions information about co

- located and nearby sources in its own databases but failed to evaluate whether cumulative exposures would exceed the health thresholds and to consider combined
exposures . The comme nter reviewed reports from the EPA’s***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 142 of 454 Enforcement and Compliance History Online (ECHO) Web site for a number of BSCP and clay ceramics facilities and provided note s

on o ther major source facilities in close proximity. The

c ommenter stated that the EPA’s jus tifications regarding cumulative nearby emissions are legally inadequate and factually inaccurate
. The commenter stated that general assertions that other operations are not “commonly” co

- located with BSCP and clay ceramics facilities, that such facilities are “typically” located on large tracts of land, and that facilities are set back from property lines in rural areas are insufficient to set the emissions standard at a level that protects all people living near such facilities. The c ommenter stated that information in the EPA’s own databases demonstrate s that BSCP and clay ceramics facilities are not predominantly located in rural, sparsely populated
areas, as the EPA assumes. M any of the BSCP facilities are located in urban areas, including Boral Bricks in Terre Haute,
IN I ndiana ; Hanson Brick in Columbia, SC S outh C arolina ; General Shale Brick in Denver, CO C olorado ; and Cherokee Brick & Tile in Macon, GA G eorgia
. 86 Similarly, i n the clay ceramics source category, only two of the sources are located in areas

86 U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Census Urban and Rural Classification and Urban Area Criteria: Lists of 2010 Census Urban Areas, http://www2.census.gov/geo/docs/reference/ua/ua_list_all.xls
.***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 143 of 454 considered “ rural ” by the United States Census Bureau : American Marazzi Tile in Sunnyvale, TX T exas , and the Kohler Wisconsin Plant outside of Sheboygan, WI W isconsin
. 87 The c ommenter stated that the EPA’s assessment of cumulative risks does not meet generally accepted good practices in risk assessment. The SAB recommended in May 2010 that the EPA incorporate “ aggregate and cumulative risks, including background concentrations an d contributions from other sources in the area ” into its risk analysis. 88 The commenter stated that the EPA must assess the total and cumulative risk burden, rather than only looking at each type of risk in a discrete, separate
way , and the EPA should be integrating its assessments and performing a “ comprehensive risk assessment ” as the NAS has emphasized. A fter first assessing the total cancer, chronic non

cancer, and acute risks, for both inhalation and multipathway
exposure, the EPA also must assess the total risks. 89 The EPA must aggregate health risk for each pollutant, and each type of health risk, to create a cumulative risk determination for an

87 U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Census Urban and Rural Classification and Urban Area Criteria, https://www.census.gov/geo/reference/ua/urban

- rural

- 2010.html (revised Feb. 9, 2015) (searching plant location by city listed in address)
. 88 Memorandum from Science Advisor y Board, U.S. EPA, to Lisa Jackson, Adm ’ r, U.S. EPA re: Review of EPA ’ s Draft, EPA

- SAB

- 10

- 007 at 6 (May 07 7 , 2010). 89 Cal EPA, OEHHA, Cumulative Impacts at 19

- 21, 25 (describing total “ pollution burden ” as sum of exposures, public health effects, and enviro nmental effects); EPA, Concepts, Methods and Data Sources for Cumulative Health Risk Assessment of Multiple Chemicals, Exposures and Effects, at 4

- 42 to 4

- 46 (Aug. 2007)***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 1 44 of 454 individual with maximum exposure. W ithout a combined health risk metric, the EPA cannot make an ample margin of safety determination that is based on the full picture of health risk for these source categories. Finally, the commenter stated that this proposal is contrary to the EPA’s recent conclusion in its regulation of power plant electric gen erating units that “the potential cumulative public health and environmental effects of acid gas emissions” did not allow for CAA section 112(d)(4) standards. 90 In that rulemaking, the EPA did not receive facility

- specific emissions information for all the acid gases from units in the source category, co

- located sources, and all nearby sources. The EPA concluded that “cumulative impacts of acid gases on public health were not assuaged by the comments received.” The commenter stated that the EPA did not consi der that information in this rulemaking either, and just as in the power plant rulemaking, HBEL are not lawful. **Response:** The EPA disagrees with the commenter that the EPA did not consider the potential impacts of nearby BSCP and clay ceramics facilities o r other nearby facilities on i n the determination of the HBEL for each source category . The limit

90 Responses to Public Comments on EPA ’ s National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants from Coal

- and Oil

- Fired Electric Utility Steam Generating Units, vol. 1
. 1 . Docket Item No. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2009

- 0234

- 20126
.***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 145 of 454 reflects the impacts of all facilities in the source category
. While the risk assessment did not perform a detailed modeling analysis of other nearby facilitie s, based on a proximity analysis of sources emitting acid gases, the EPA concludes that the emissions from these facilities would not have significantly impacted the analysis for several reasons. First, the limit reflects a hazard index (HI) less than or e qual to one at the highest impacted receptor at each facility. For source categories like BSCP and clay ceramics where emission release heights are low, the highest impacted receptor is always very near ( e.g. , share s a common fenceline) the facility, and a mbient concentrations fall quickly with distance from the source. Because of this, other facilities would have to be very near a
BSCP or clay ceramics facility and have relatively high emissions to have any significant impact on the receptor with the highest estimated concentration from the BSCP or clay ceramics emissions. As in risk assessments performed under the Risk and Technology Review program, the EPA did not model the nearby sources in the National Emissions Inventory ( NEI ) because that inventory has not received the same level of review and quality assurance that the BSCP emissions have for the purposes of this rulemaking
.***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 146 of 454 Although the EPA did no t model the other nearby facilities, the EPA did compare the location of all sources emitt ing acid gases with the location s of the BSCP and clay ceramics facilities
. The EPA found that only four facilities emitted acid gases within 1 kilometer of any B S CP facility
. Beyond 1 kilometer , we would expect very little coincidental impacts from multiple low level sources emitting the same pollutants. The largest of these facilities emitted less than 12 tpy of HC l

equivalent emission s, or less than 5 percent of the emissions limit. T he estimated HI for this BSCP facility was 0.6, so an increase of 5 percent in emissions would result in an increase in HI of at most 5 percent and , thus , not increase the HI above

a value of 1. There are no other sources emitting acid g ases within 1 kilometer of any clay ceramics facility. Also , for the BSCP plant with the highest estimated HI , there are no other acid gas emissions indicated in the NEI within 5 kilometers of the facility
. For the clay ceramics plant with the highest estimated HI, there are no other acid gas emissions indicated in the NEI within 10 kilometers of the facility
. Thus, we would not expect emissions of acid gases from other sources to contribute significantly at the receptors where the maximum HI oc curs due to BSCP or clay ceramic emissions, and the HI at these receptors would not exceed one 1
.***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 147 of 454

5. Risk Assessment
**Comment:** One c ommenter stated that the Human Exposure Model ( HEM

- 3 ) meteorological data used for dispersion calculations was insufficient b ecause it included data for only 1 year (2011) from only 824 meteorological stations. The commenter asserted that this provides a very limited snapshot of air quality data and , therefore, is insufficient to determine with confidence that exposures at the p roposed emission s standards pose “ no risk ” of adverse health effects. T he commenter stated that it is unlawful and arbitrary to set CAA section 1 12(d)(4) standards without more extensive air quality information
. **Response:** The EPA disagrees with the commenter that the meteorological data were insufficient to perform the risk assessment. Although 5 years of meteorological data are preferred for assessing chronic exposures and risks, we use a single year (2011) of meteorologi cal data in our risk assessments because of model run times for the Human Exposure Model ( HEM

- 3 ) air dispersion model ( AERMOD ) . Because we frequently run AERMOD for an entire source category with many individual emissions points and for many receptors, usi ng 5 years of meteorological data would increase already significant model run times by a factor of five compared to a single year.***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 148 of 454 In a sensitivity analysis of the impact of using a single year of meteorological data compared to 5 years, 91 we found that

mo deled concentrations differed by less than 10 percent on average and, thus, the use of 1 year of meteorological data is not likely to appreciably affect the results of the risk
assessment. The meteorological data we used were obtained from the Automated Su rface Observing Systems (ASOS) program, which is a joint effort of the National Weather Service (NWS), the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), and the Department of Defense (DOD). The ASOS serves as the nation ’ s primary surface weather observing network and is designed to support weather forecast activities and aviation operations and, at the same time, support the needs of the meteorological, hydrological, and climatological research communities. With the largest and most modern complement of weather se nsors, ASOS has significantly expanded the amount of available meteorological information. The ASOS works non

- stop, updating observations every minute, 24 hours a day, every day of the year. The ASOS is installed at more than 900 airports across the countr y, and our

91 US U
. S
. EPA, 2009. Risk and Technology Review (RTR) Risk Assessment Methodologies: For Review by the EPA ’ s Science Advisory Board with Case Studies

– MACT I Petroleum Refining Sources and Portland Cement Manufacturing. EPA

- 452/R

- 09

- 006. http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html
. Docket Item No. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2013

- 0291

- 0044
.***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 149 of 454 meteorological library for the year 2011 includes all of these that are without a significant number of missing hours (824 stations).
**Comment:** Two c ommenter s stated that the EPA’s modeling understates chronic health risk by assuming that chronic exposure to HAP from BSCP and clay ceramic manufacturing sources

occur s at the census block centroid and not at the facility fence or property line. The commenter s stated that exposures are likely to be higher for people living closest to the plants,
espe cially because census blocks can cover a large area and the center of a census block is almost always f a rther away from the facility than the facility’s property line
. One commenter noted that even if the area near the property line is not developed,

over time homes and businesses could locate closer to the facility . W hile it is possible that population distribution is homogenous over a census block, the commenter stated this assumption is not necessarily accurate in considering the predicted impacts from t he location of a source
. One commenter stated that no effort was made to move receptor points closer to the facility to assess chronic or cancer risk, even in those instances where local residents live nearer to a facility than the geographic centroid of the census block. T his conflicts with the recommendation of the SAB , which***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 150 of 454 has urged the EPA to consider “ specific locations of residences. ” 92 The c ommenter stated that the EPA fail ed to adjust receptor points for residents living on the fence

- line even tho ugh the HEM

- AERMOD system allows for such an adjustment, and that such an adjustment was appropriately made for the estimation of acute health risks (s ee, e.g. , 79 FR 75644 ) . The
commenter stated that the EPA cannot justify failing to analyze chronic healt h effects in a similar manner. Another c ommenter agreed and stated that the EPA can use
HEM

- 3 to identify the maximum individual risk at any point in a census block that is within a 50

- kilometer radius from the center of the modeled facility. The commenter recommended the
EPA not use the predicted chronic exposures at the census block centroid as a surrogate for the exposure concentrations for all people living in that block ; instead , the EPA should use the maximum individual risk in its risk a ssessments , irrespective of its location in the census block. **Response:** The EPA disagrees with the commenter s’ assertion that we relied solely on the census block centroids as receptors for human exposure. As we have noted in the development of RTR

92 Memorandum from Scientific Scien ce Advisory Board , U.S. EPA, to Lisa Jackson, Adm inistrato r, U.S. EPA re: Review of EPA ’ s Draft entitled, “Risk and Technology Review (RTR) Risk Assessment Methodologies: For Review by the EPA’s Science Advisory Board with Case Studies

– MACT I Petroleum Refining Sources and Por tland Cement Manufacturing” at 4. May 7, 2010
.***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 151 of 454 regulat ions, in a national

- scale assessment of lifetime inhalation exposures and health risks from facilities in a source category, it is appropriate to identify exposure locations where it may be reasonably expected that an individual will spend a majority of hi s or her lifetime. Further, in determining chronic risks, it is appropriate to use census block information on where people actually reside, rather than points on a fenceline, to locate the estimation of exposures and risks to individuals living near such facilities. Census blocks are the finest resolution available as part of the nationwide population data (as developed by the U.S. Census Bureau); each is typically comprised of approximately 50 people, or about 20 households. In the EPA risk assessments, the geographic centroid of each census block containing at least one person is used to represent the location where all the people in that census block live. The census block centroid with the highest estimated exposure then becomes the location of maximum exposure, and the entire population of that census block is assumed to experience the maximum individual risk. In some cases, because actual residence locations may be closer to or farther from facility emission points, this may result in an overestimate or underestimate of the actual annual concentrations (although there is no systematic bias for average***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 152 of 454 levels). Given the relatively small dimensions of census blocks in densely populated areas, there is little uncertainty introduced by using the census bl ock centroids in lieu of actual residence locations. There is the potential for more uncertainty when census blocks are larger, although there is still no systematic bias. The EPA concludes that the most appropriate locations at which to estimate chronic e xposures and risks are the census block centroids because: ( 1) census blocks are the finest resolution available in the national census data, ( 2) facility fencelines do not usually represent locations where chronic exposures are likely and ( 3) there is no bias introduced into the estimate of the MIR by using census block centroid locations. In addition, in its peer review of the methodologies used to estimate risks as part of the RTR rulemaking efforts, the EPA ’ s SAB endorsed this approach. In addition to t he approach described above, the EPA recognizes that where a census block centroid is located on industrial property or is large and the centroid is less likely to be representative of the block ’ s residential locations, the block centroid may not be the ap propriate surrogate. For BSCP facilities, in cases where a census block centroid was within 300 meters of any emission source (and therefore possibly on facility property), we viewed aerial images of the facility to***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 153 of 454 determine whether the block centroid was likely located on facility property. Likewise, we examined aerial images of all large census blocks within 1 kilometer of any emission source. If the block centroid did not represent the residential locations within that block, we relocated it to better r epresent them and/or we added additional receptors for residences nearer to the facility than the centroid. For this source category, we relocated 14 census blocks that appeared to be on facility property or were otherwise not representative of the populat ion within the block, and we modeled an additional 15 receptors in cases where the single block centroid was inadequate to characterize the population within the census blocks.
**Comment:** One c ommenter stated that the EPA ’s risk
assessment did not account fo r the synergistic health e ffects from the potential exposure to multiple acid gas pollutants Specifically, t he EPA did not demonstrate that no health effects would occur if a person is chronically exposed to a combination of HCl, HF, and Cl 2 , even if the sum of the exposures (converted into “ equivalent ” units) does not exceed the “ HCl

- equivalent ” limit . The commenter also argued the EPA failed to provide evidence showing that the acid gases would not have synergistic effects that could cause harm at a chronic exposure concentration that is lower than the RfC , REL , or MRL of each***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 154 of 454 pollutant. The c ommenter asserted the EPA did not seek outside peer review by the S AB or other body or request public comment

on its us e of dose

- response values to exc hange exposures of one acid gas pollutant for another prior to proposing use of “ HCl

equivalents ” standards
. The c ommenter s tated that since the EPA based the ratio for comparing HF and Cl 2 emissions to HCl emissions on the RfC , REL

or MRL values, and thos e values are uncertain and flawed (see previous comments in this section V.A , explaining that values were not based on a NOAEL, and the EPA has “ low ” confidence in the HCl Rf C ), the HCl

- equivalent method cannot assure “ an ample margin of safety. ” The commenter asserted that CAA section 112(d)(4) requires the EPA to set separate standards for HCl and HF, and the EPA’s decision to set a HCl

- equivalent emission s standard is unlawful and arbitrary. **Response:** The EPA believes that groups of chemicals can be have antagonistically or synergistically, such that combined exposure can either cause less or more harm, depending on the chemicals. However, the information needed to perform such an analysis is generally not available. To address pollutant mixtures in t he determination of the HBEL, the EPA generally used the same methodology used in RTR assessments, which is to***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 155 of 454 follow the EPA’s mixture guidelines. 93 , 94 This methodology has been formally peer reviewed by the SAB
. 95 Following the mixture guidelines, the EPA a ggregated noncancer hazard quotients ( HQs ) of HAP that act by similar toxic modes of action or that affect the same target organ. This process creates, for each target
organ, a TOSHI, target

- organ - specific hazard index ( TOSHI ) , defined as the sum of HQs for individual HAP that affect the same organ or organ system. All TOSHI calculations were based exclusively on effects occurring at the “ critical dose ” ( i.e. , the lowest dose that produces adverse health effects). The EPA actually calculated the HBEL conservatively by including HF in the calculation of equivalent emissions even though it affects a different target organ than HCl and Cl 2 , thereby allowing the d evelopment of a single emissions limit for all acid gases. The conservatism in the limit due to the inclusion of pollutants with different target organ systems would have the effect of ameliorating potential synergism of the acid gases.

93 US EPA, 1986. Guidelines for the Health Risk Assessment of Chemical Mixtures. EPA

- 630

- R

- 98

- 002. September 1986. 94 US EPA, 2000. Supplementary Guidance for Conducting Health Risk Assessment of Chemical Mixtur es. August 2000. 95 US EPA S cience A dvisory B oard , 2010. SAB’s Response to R eview of EPA’s draft entitled, “Risk and Technology Review ( RTR ) Risk Assessment Methodologies
. : For Review by the EPA’s Science Advisory Board with Case Studies

– MACT I Petroleum R efining Sources and Portland Cement Manufacturing .” May 7, 2010. Available at: http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/4AB3966E263D943A8525771F00668381/$ File/EPA

- SAB

- 10

- 007

- unsigned.pdf
.***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 156 of 454 6 . Ample Margin of Safety
**Comment:** One c ommenter disagreed with the EPA’s decision to
set an HCl

- equivalent HBEL , rather than set separate HBEL for HCl, HF, and Cl 2 . The commenter stated that, by setting one “ HCl

equivalent emissions ” limit at 250 tpy (57 lb/hr) for BSCP
tun nel kilns and 600 tpy (140 lb/hr) for clay ceramics sources, each source is free to emit whatever combination of HCl, HF, and Cl 2 it would like, provided the aggregate of the “ HCl

- equivalent emissions ” does not exceed the limit. The commenter also noted th at the HCl

- equivalent HBEL for clay ceramics does not include Cl 2 and requested that the EPA explain how it converted Cl 2 into HCl

- equivalent emissions. The c ommenter stated that CAA section 112(d)(2) mandates that the EPA “ shall require the maximum degree of reduction in emissions of the hazardous air pollutants subject to this section. ” The commenter asserted that it is unlawful for the EPA

no t to set an emissions limit for a CAA section 1 12

- listed pollutant ( Nat’l Lime Ass ’n , 233 F.3d at 634 ) and concluded that even if the EPA believes the health risks posed by HF and Cl 2 emissions can be translated into HCl

- equivalent units, the proposed “ HCl

- equivalent ” limit contravenes the EPA’s obligation
to set CAA section 1 12(d) stan dards for each pollutant.***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 157 of 454 The commenter also stated that the EPA’s approach raises questions about whether the use of “ HCl

- equivalents ” results in limits that protect people against all of a pollutant ’ s health risks with “ an ample margin of safety, ” as req uired by CAA section 1 12(d)(4). The commenter argued that because pollutants cause different adverse health effects , they are not

“ equivalent ” pollutants that cause “ equivalent ” health effects
at “ equivalent ” concentrations of exposure. The commenter further argued the RfC for HCl is based on a study of respiratory toxicity and is meant to protect individuals against respiratory harms from chronic exposures , while t he REL used for HF is based on a study of skeletal fluorosis (increased bone d ensity) and is meant to protect individuals against skeletal harm from chronic exposures. 96 T he commenter noted that t he EPA focus ed only on the respiratory harm caused by the pollutants, when skeletal harm is the most sensitive effect for HF , and the EPA f ailed to expla i n why skeletal harm caused by a certain quantity of HF can be converted into respiratory harm caused by HCl.

96 OEHHA, Chronic RELs and Toxicity Summaries, at 278. CalEPA made it clear that its REL is for “[i]ncreased bone density (skeletal fluorosis),” that the NOAEL was for “chronic skeletal fluorosis,” and that “[c]hanges in bone density ... appear[s] to be the most sensitive health effect for chronic exposure.” OEHHA, Chronic RELs and Toxicity Summaries at 272, 278

- 79. The principal study on which the REL is based did observe an increase in the incidence of acute respiratory disease, too, id . at 271, but the REL was not primarily based on that health effect.***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 158 of 454 The commenter also noted that the EPA does not claim to be using HCl as a surrogate for HF or Cl 2 . The c ommenter stated that the EPA previously stated that HCl cannot act as a surrogate for the other acid gases because pollutants that act on humans in different manners, at different doses, cannot stand in for one another (see 76 FR 25049 and 75 FR 32031 )
. Another c ommenter expressed co ncern the HCl

- equivalent emissions limit could mask exposures or emissions of concern for the most toxic gas because the comparison would be dominated by a higher concentration pertinent to the less toxic gases. The
commenter asserted that the re is no anal ysis that justifies this combined metric and noted it would be more justifiable if the substances were in the same order of magnitude for potential potency. The commenter recommended that the EPA consider whether these gases could contribute to the acid co mponent of ambient air that is thought to potentially contribute to cancer and other effects because th ese impacts appear not to have been considered by the EPA
. **Response:** The EPA disagrees with the commenters ’ assertion that the HBEL cannot be based on equivalent emissions of a single pollutant. For th e BSCP Manufacturing rulemaking, the EPA used an approach specific for this NESHAP to set health

protective emissions limits that would account for the multiple***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 159 of 454 acid gas pollutants emitt ed by the BSCP facilities. By converting the emissions of each acid gas or combination of acid gases (HC l , C l 2 and HF) to an HC l

- equivalent emission , the EPA can estimate a single exposure concentrations for comparison with the HC l reference value (RfC). I f the ratio of HC l exposure concentration to the HC l RfC value remains at or below 1 , the
HBEL (HC l

- e quivalent emissions) would ensure that the threshold values for any individual or combination of acid gases would not be exceeded ( i.e
. , remain at or below 1)
. The EPA used the same approach to convert emissions of HF to and an HCl

- equivalent and determine the HBEL for the Clay Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP; the only difference is that there are no valid Cl 2 emissions data for clay ceramics facilities, so Cl 2 is not included in the HBEL.
**Comment:** Two c ommenters generally supported the proposed
HBEL and stated that the EPA has conclusively demonstrated that the proposed HBEL would provide an ample margin of safety for HCl, HF, and Cl 2 emissions from affected fa cilities. A s the EPA explained in the proposal, the analysis was based on site specific data from each tunnel kiln , and t he proposed HBEL was developed at a level that would result in an HQ of 1 at the
worst

- case facility. Because the potential risks at fa cilities other than the worst

- case facility are predicted to be well below 1 , t he commenters stated that this analysis assures that***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 160 of 454 an ample margin of safety will be provided for the “ worst case ” facility in the industry and more than an ample margin will be provided for all other affected facilities. Conversely, another c ommenter contended that the EPA ’s proposed HBEL under CAA section 112(d)(4) does not include “ an ample margin of safety
. ” The commenter disagreed with the approach the EPA used to determin e the CAA section 1 12(d)(4) limits . Specifically, t he commenter stated that by setting the limits at precisely the same level as the threshold value, the EPA proposed to allow plants to emit acid gas pollution that would expose people to amounts of pollution that reach threshold levels
. The commenter stated that these limits do not include any

“ margin of safety, ” let alone an “ ample ” one, as the EPA is required to include for CAA section 1 12(d)(4) standards. The
commenter expressed concern that under the EPA’s approach , even the slightest uncertainty in the EPA’s estimates or low background levels of pollution can place health at risk because plants can emit at the health threshold . The commenter stated that the EPA did not explain how these limits wo uld protect public health with “ an ample margin of safety. ” 97 The commenter

97 Mo untain Commc ’ ns v. FCC , 355 F.3d 644, 648

- 49 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (agency must “ explain how its position can be reconciled ” with statutory requirements).***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 161 of 454 asserted that a margin of safety is supposed to provide additional safety and account for uncertainty and variability that might result in harm to individuals below the threshold
. T he commenter further stated that an “ ample ” margin of safety must assure not only extra room for safety, but a “ generous ” margin for safety. 98 The c ommenter noted that a TOSHI (which is the sum of the HQs) of “ one ” does not necessarily represent a safe level of
exposure . The commenter assert ed the EPA characterizes a TOSHI or HQ of “ one ” or less as exposures that “ are not likely to cause adverse health effects ” ( 79 FR 75643 ) ) , but did not provide any explanation why this level would meet the statutory standard. According to t he commenter , Congress intended the standard to be set at a level at which there is “ no risk ” of

“ adverse health effects, ” plus “ an ample margin of safety (and not considering cost). ” 99 For these reasons, the commenter concluded that the proposed limits do not comply with the CA A and could put public health at risk. The c ommenter also expressed concern that the EPA did not take steps to adjust the limits to reflect the uncertainties

98 Webster ’ s Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary (1971) defines “ margin ” as “ a spare amount or measure or deg ree allowed or given for contingencies or special situations ” and “ ample ” as “ generous or more than adequate in size, scope, or capacity .” 99 S. Rep. No. 101

- 228, at 171
.***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 162 of 454 regarding healt h exposures and effects. The EPA has factored in uncertainties and vulnerability factors in other rulemakings, such as when determining a Target Margin of Exposure under the FQPA , where the EPA considered whether risks below the Target Margin of Exposure warrant ed increased scrutiny and changes to allowable exposures. 100 The commenter also stated that the EPA’s proposed limits would allow hu man exposures to exceed the level that Cal EPA has identified is the safety minimum. A llowing human
exposure to HCl conc entrations above a threshold a state agency determined may cause respiratory harm , the commenter contend ed , would not provide the ample margin of safety required by law. The c ommenter further stated that the “ ample margin of safety ” language in CAA section 1 12(d)(4) requires that any standard that is set under this authority must be sufficient to protect against significant unforeseen consequences. 101 The
commenter stated that because the “ ample margin of safety ” requirement is meant to protect against risks that have not yet been identified in research, a CAA section 1 12(d)(4) standard cannot be justified on grounds that the EPA does not have

100 See, e.g. , EPA, Sulfuryl Fluoride; Proposed Order Granting Objections to Tolerances and Denying Request for a Stay, Proposed Rule, 76 FR 3422, 3427 (Jan. 19, 2011) (explaining use of MOE). 101 See, e.g. , Envtl. Def. Fund v. EPA , 598 F.2d 62, 81 (D.C. Cir. 1978) (holding that the phrase ‘ ample margin of safety ’ in the Clean Water Act ’ s toxic provisions required the EPA to protect against as yet unidentified risks to human health, including those “ which research has not yet identified ” ).***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 163 of 454 sufficient evidence about the health risks posed by a HAP or does not have the time or inclination to review the evide nce that is available. **Response:** For several reasons, the EPA disagrees with the commenter who stated that the HBEL does not include an ample margin of safety. First, the limit is based on the single facility in the source category with the worst

- case combination of meteorology and distance to nearest residential receptor that leads to the highest ambient concentration s. While the EPA estimates that the limit reflects a n HI of one at this facility, th e HI at most other facilities would be significantly lower, with approximately 90 percent of the facilities having an estimated HI less than or equal to 0.5. Further as the standard is based on a 1

- hour emission limit, in determining chronic impacts, the analysis conservatively assumes that each plant emits at the 1

- hour HBEL for an entire year (8 , 760 hours). Also, the limit is based on es timated ambient concentrations and n ot exposure concentrations. Exposure concentrations are typically lower than ambient concentrations because they reflect that people ’ s activities ( e.g. , work, school) remove them from their residential exposure locations for significant amounts of time.
Fo r these reasons, the EPA concludes that the emission limit is health protective ( i.e. , exposures will remain below the***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 164 of 454 RfC threshold values) and t h is conservative exposure scenario is consistent with the an “ ample margin of safety ” requirement in
CAA sectio n 112(d)(4)
. **Comment:** One c ommenter expressed concern that the EPA underestimated acute health risks in the evaluation of the risk of acute harm from short

- term exposures by ignor ing variability in short

- term emissions. The commenter noted that t he EPA calculated the 1

- hour emissions estimates for its modeling of
acute harm by dividing the annual emissions level by 8 , 760 hours
per year instead of using a default factor or emissions multiplier to account for higher

- than

- average short

- term emissions . The c ommenter noted actual emissions over a 1

- hour period will at times exceed the average hourly emissions level used in the modeling . The commenter asserted the EPA did not explain how this approach captures peak short

- term emissions levels or adequately prot ects people from short

- term exposures at levels above the average. The c ommenter stated that the EPA has used emissions multiplier s to scale up average hourly emissions in air dispersion modeling for other risk assessments. 102 T he commenter

102 See, e.g. , National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutant Emissions: Group IV Polymers and Resin s; Pesticide Ingredient Production; and Polyether Polyols Production; Proposed Rule, 77 FR 1268, 1279 (Jan. 9, 2012) (finalized at 79 FR 17340 (Mar. 27, 2014); see also National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Ferroalloys Production, 79 FR 60238,***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 165 of 45 4 asserted that alt hough emission multipliers in risk assessments still underestimate risk, these assessments show the EPA recognizes the need to use multipliers in assessing health risks from short

- term emissions . The commenter stated that it is unlawful and arbitrary for t he EPA not to use a n emissions multiplier for estimating risk for this rulemaking
. The c ommenter also stated that the EPA ’ s calculation of 1

- hour emissions assumed plants are operating (and generating emissions) 24 hours per day, 365 days per year. The commenter noted that averaging hourly emissions over the full calendar year produces lower hourly emissions than if the EPA had used each plant ’ s actual operating hours. The EPA has information about each plant ’ s operating hours and these data s how many units are not operating over the full calendar year. By calculating the 1

- hour emissions based on 8 , 760 operating hours, the commenter asserted the EPA underestimated the risks of acute exposures over shorter spans of time.

60252 (Oct. 6, 2014) (applying “ an emission adjustment factor ” to “ average annual hourly emission rates ... to account for emission fluctuations due to normal facility operations ” ); National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants Residual Risk and Technology Review for Flexible Polyurethane Foam Production, 78 FR 66108, 66122 (Nov. 4, 2013) (applying “ a conservative default emissions multiplier of 10 to estimate the peak hourly emission rates from the average rates ” as part of EPA ’ s screening of “ worst

- case acute impacts ” ); National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Mineral Wool Production and Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing, 76 FR 72770, 72785 (Nov. 25, 2011 ) (applying an “ emissions multiplier of 3 to estimate the peak hourly emission rates from the average rates ” ).***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 166 of 454 The commenter stated th at because the EPA used short

- term emissions that are neither conservative nor realistic, the EPA cannot conclude the standard assures “ an ample margin of safety
. ” The c ommenter stated that in two other recent rulemakings, the EPA found information on shor t

- term HCl emissions was insufficient to allow the EPA to evaluate “ whether a chronic health

- based emission standard for HCl would ensure that acute exposures will not pose any health concerns
. ” ( 75 FR 32031; 76 FR 25050 )
. In these rulemakings , the comment er stated , the EPA did not proceed with risk

- based standards due to the lack of this information
. The commenter stated that the EPA is incorrectly proceed ing with the proposed health

- based standards without account ing for or quantify ing peak short

- term emi ssions. **Response:** The use of an emissions multiplier to convert annual emissions to peak 1

- hour emissions (determination of peak emissions for comparison with 1

- hr h ou r health benchmarks ) for acute (short

- term) risk calculations was not necessary for this analysis , because the HBEL determined for the category is being promulgated as a mass of HCl

- equivalent emitted per hour. Similarly, plant h our s of operation need not be considered because the HBEL determined for the category is an hourly limit
. As noted i n the preamble to the proposed rule for BSCP, “ To assure that no source emits more than the 250 tpy HCl

- equivalent***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 167 of 454 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)” (7 9 FR 75644)
. Similarly, for clay ceramics manufacturing, “to assure that no source emits more than the 600 tpy HCl

- equivalent limit in a single hour, we propose setting the emissions limit at the hourly equivalent of 600 tpy (140 lb/hr of HCl

- equivalent em issions)” (79 FR 75661). The EPA concludes the risk analysis and subsequent standard
meet an “ ample margin of safety ” in accordance with the CAA. The proposed HBEL for the entire source category is based on an emission s level corresponding to a maximum non cancer HI of one at the highest impacted facility. All other facilities would have a lower risk than the highest risk facility. Further , as the standard is based on a 1

- hour emission limit, in determining chronic impacts, the analysis conservatively assumes that each plant emits at the 1

- hour HBEL for an entire year (8 , 760 hours).
**Comment:** One c ommenter disagreed with the EPA’s evaluation of acute health risks , stating that the approach is inadequate and does not assure standards are based on a safe health threshold and include “ an ample margin of safety. ” Specifically, the commenter expressed concern that the proposed HBEL are based on the chronic dose

- response information and not on thresholds for acute health risks. T he commenter noted the EPA approximated***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 168 of 454
exposures , used those estimates to develop H Q values , and concluded “ there is low potential for acute risk ” when the HQ values are les s than or equal to one
. I f values above one were identified, then the EPA examined additional information to determine whether there was a potential for “ significant acute risks ” for those living near the facility. The commenter noted that the EPA did not explain why this method satisfies the CAA section 112(d)(4) requirement that health

- based standard s be set
at a level that ensure s “an amply margin of safety” for people living near th e facility
. The EPA’s evaluation is designed to determine whether any facilities pose “ significant acute risks ” ; however, the commenter stated that this is not the statutory standard, and such a determination would not signify that an

“ ample margin of safety ” is included. The c ommenter stated that for H F, the EPA’s evaluation identified numerous plants at which there were potential acute health risks. Specifically, t he EPA found 23 BSCP facilities exceeded the H Q value for HF, with nearly half of those facilities exceeding the value by four

- or five

- fold
. F or the clay ceramics category, the EPA found that eight facilities exceeded the H Q value for HF. T he additional analysis the EPA performed to determine whether these facilities posed

“ significant acute risks ” did not rule out the possibility of***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 169 of 454 such “ si gnificant acute risks .” F or these facilities, the EPA focused its analysis on maximum offsite H Q values ; however, the commenter noted that many of the maximum offsite HQ values exceed one, thereby indicating the potential for “ significant acute risks ” rema ined. The commenter asserted that the EPA provided no support for why value s above one means there is no potential for “ significant acute risks
. ” The c ommenter disagreed with the EPA’s assertion that there is no potential for “ significant acute risks ” because the risk assessment assumes there is a person present at the location and time where the maximum HQ value occurs and stated that relaxing conservative assumptions about exposure in individual instances is arbitrary and defeats the purpose of the e valuation. The EPA cannot pretend that the person is n o t present and ignore the potential for harm
. The EPA’s statement that a facility is not likely to emit only HF similarly provides no assurance of safety. According to t he commenter , the EPA relax ed an assumption in the model because the model predicted an outcome the EPA did n o t like . The commenter stated the EPA provided no basis for its assertion that a facility is unlikely to emit only
HF or explain why a combination of HF (for which the EPA found a potential for “ significant acute risks ” ), HCl, and Cl 2 emissions would not still pose “ significant acute risks. ”***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 170 of 454 The c ommenter stated that the EPA’s use of acute exposure guideline levels (AEGLs) and emergency response planning guidelines ( ERPGs) to assess acute risks cannot assure that exposure present s “ no risk ” of health effects at those concentrations. The AEGL and ERPG values were created for emergency exposure scenarios . The commenter stated that levels defined for “ once - in

- a - lifetime, short

- term exposures ” and

“ emergency ” chemical releases or accidents are not appropriate for measur ing acute exposure risk . According to the SAB , indicated “ AEGL

- 2 and ERPG

- 2 values should never be used in residual risk assessments because they represent levels that if exceeded could cause serious or irreversible health effects. ” 103 The c ommenter stated that because the AEGL and ERPG numbers would underestimate risk to the maximum exposed individual , AEGL and ERPG values do not indicate “ safe ” thresholds that protect he alth with “ an ample margin of safety
. ” For these reasons, the commenter contends AEGL and ERPG values should not be used to
set CAA section 1 12(d)(4) standards. **Response:** The EPA disagrees with the commenter that the
EPA ’ s acute assessment includes arbitra ry decision

- making and does not reflect an ample margin of safety. The EPA is not required to regulate based solely on the results of a

103 Memorandum from Science Advisory Board re: Review of EPA ’ s Draft at 6.***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 171 of 454 conservative acute screening scenario which assumes that a person will be present at a specific location and during wors t

case meteorological conditions. Rather, this initial screening scenario is used as a starting point in the assessment of the potential for acute effects. For HCl and Cl 2 , the acute REL values for the pollutants are not estimated to be exceeded even when using the screening scenario, and the acute REL for HF is estimated to be exceeded only by a factor of two for seven facilities using the screening scenario. The other cases of higher exceedances mentioned by the commenter are situations where the location s of the exceedances are on facility property and, therefore, not considered for public health. The acute REL is defined by CalEPA as “ the concentration level at or below which no adverse health effects are anticipated for a specified exposure duration. RE Ls are based on the most sensitive, relevant, adverse health effect reported in the medical and toxicological literature. RELs are designed to protect the most sensitive individuals in the population by the inclusion of uncertainty factors which are incorp orated to address data gaps and uncertainties
. Regarding the use of AEGL and ERPG values, the EPA does not rely exclusively upon these values for assessment of acute exposures. Rather, the EPA ’ s approach is to consider various***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 172 of 454 acute health effect reference values, including the California REL, in assessing the potential for risks from acute exposures. To better characterize the potential health risks associated with estimated acute exposures to HAP, and in response to a key recommendation from the SAB ’ s peer review of the EPA ’ s RTR risk assessment methodologies, we generally examine a wider range of available acute health metrics ( e.g. , RELs, AEGLs) than we do for our chronic risk assessments. This is in response to the
SAB ’ s acknowledgement that th ere are generally more data gaps and inconsistencies in acute reference values than there are in chronic reference values. In some cases, when Reference Value Arrays 104 for HAP have been developed, we consider additional acute values ( i.e. , occupational and international values) to provide a more complete risk characterization. Because HCl, HF, and Cl 2 all have 1

- hour REL values, the maximum estimated 1

- hour concentrations were compared to these values to assess the potential for acute health effects.
**Comment :**  One c ommenter expressed concern that the EPA’s risk analysis ignored exposures from emissions of HCl, HF, Cl 2 , and other pollutants with similar biological endpoints from

104 U.S. EPA. (2009) Chapter 2.9 Chemical Specific Reference Values for Fo rmaldehyde in Graphical Arrays of Chemical

- Specific Health Effect Reference Values for Inhalation Exposures (Final Report). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R

– 09/061, and available on

- line at http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recor display.cfm?deid=211003
.***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 173 of 454 units subject to the proposed work practice standards , including emissions during s tartup and shutdown, and emissions from BSCP periodic kilns and sanitaryware shuttle kilns. The commenter asserted that even though the EPA stated that the work practice standards are intended to minimize emissions, these sources are not included in the ca lculation of the CAA section 1 12(d)(4) standards , and exposures to emissions from these other sources will contribute to an individual ’ s cumulative health risks
. The commenter asserted that the EPA does not know whether the proposed HBEL will provide “ an ample margin of safety ” once emissions from periods of startup and shutdown and emissions from BSCP periodic kilns and sanitaryware shuttle kilns are added to the levels of pollution permitted by the proposed standards
. For this reason, the c ommenter state d that the proposed CAA section 1 12(d)(4) standards are unlawful and arbitrary
. The c ommenter also stated that emissions during startup and shutdown are expected to be uncontrolled , because the EPA did not propose to require that BSCP and clay ceramics pla nts use APCD or other methods to reduce emissions (such as mandating the use of clean fuels) during these periods
. T he proposed work practice standards for periodic and shuttle kilns do not require***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 174 of 454 control technology and , according to the commenter , are no t anticipated to reduce emissions. Finally, the c ommenter stated that the only reason startup and shutdown periods and periodic and shuttle kilns are not subject to the proposed CAA section 1 12(d)(4) limits is because the EPA exempted them from CAA section 1 12(d). The commenter stated that it is arbitrary to exclude those emissions from the health analysis solely because the EPA proposed to regulate those sources of emissions under a different subsection of the
CAA . The commenter argued all exposures contribute to the risk of harm, regardless of whether they are CAA section 1 12(d)

- regulated emissions or section CAA 1 12(h)

- regulated emissions. **Response:** The EPA disagrees that emissions during periods of startup and shutdown and emissions from BSCP peri odic kilns and sanitaryware shuttle kilns will exceed the numerical HBEL
. Regarding the standards for periods of startup and shutdown, as noted in the preamble to the proposed rule and further documented in Docket ID No. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2013

- 0291 , 105 temperature is the main factor affecting full production at BSCP plants
. T he kiln cars should be introduced into the kiln at a steadily increasing push rate to facilitate development of that specific

105 Email from Susan Miller, BIA, to Sharon Nizich and Keith Barnett, EPA. “Additional documents.” Dated June 25, 2015.***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 175 of 454 kiln ’ s firing temperature profile. Since emissions are generated fro m the firing of the bricks and the fuel combusted, the EPA has concluded that the m aximum magnitude of emi ssions will occur when all kiln cars have been loaded with the maximum number of bricks and the maximum amount of fuel is used. During startup, kiln o perators will limit production until the kiln has heated enough to begin normal operation. This is the point whereby the standard transitions from a wor k practice to a numeric limit. The opposite process occurs during shutdown. Fuel use will decrease signi ficantly so as to cool the kiln, and kiln operators will slow production to a stop. Since emissions will be lower below this point of maximum loading and fuel use , emissions will not rise above the emission limit for all pollutants, including the acid gas limits. The owner or operator of each kiln will be required to determine the startup production rate for the kiln. For kilns with an APCD, the owner or operator will determine the minimum inlet temperature for the APCD
. For kilns that , through compliance testing once the compliance date has been reached , have shown they are emitting under the emission limits and thus do not have an APCD, the owner or operator will determine the product

- specific kiln temperature profile that must be achi eved before the kiln can reach full production. The startup standards***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 176 of 454 will be tied to the startup production rate never being exceeded until the kiln reaches the minimum inlet temperature for the
APCD or the product

- specific kiln temperature profile , which ever is applicable
. During shutdown, once the kiln falls below the minimum inlet temperature for the APCD or the product

- specific kiln temperature profile , whichever is applicable, no additional product can be introduced. These temperature limits will be

r equired to be included in the facility ’ s records and kept on site
. Thus, for periods of startup and shutdown, the HBEL set for HCl, HF, and Cl 2 will not be surpas sed during startup and shutdown. In the case of sanitaryware shuttle kilns, the commenter is

m istaken that we did not mandate the use of clean fuels. The rule does limit the fuels used to natural gas or equivalent, and also outlines work practice standards relative to temperature cycles and maintenance procedures designed to minimize HAP emissions (see Table 3 to s ubpart KKKKK)
. The use of clean fuels applies for all times the kiln is running , not just startup and shutdown. Therefore, the commenter is incorrect that we are not requiring the use of clean fuels for startup and shutdown relative to the operation of shuttle kilns. The EPA also disagrees that just because the proposed work practice standards for periodic and shuttle kilns do not reflect***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 177 of 454 the use of any control technology , they are not anticipated to reduce emissions. As the commenter has s tated elsewhere , control technologies are not the only means of limiting emissions. Control of parameters such as fuel, operating temperature, combustion conditions, and throughput are also effective means of limiting emissions , and these are the types of parameters the EPA considered when finalizing the work practice standards for periodic and shuttle kilns
. As discussed in the proposal at 79 FR 75662, CAA section 112(h)(1) states that the Administrator may prescribe a work practice standard or other requi rements, consistent with the provisions of CAA sections 112(d) or (f), in those cases where, in the judgment of the Administrator, it is not feasible to enforce an emission standard. Section 112(h)(2)(B) of the CAA further defines the term “not feasible” i n this context to apply when “the application of measurement technology to a particular class of sources is not practicable due to technological and economic limitations,” which is the case here. There are fewer BSCP periodic kilns and first

- fire sanitaryware shuttle kilns compared to tunnel kilns , and they tend to be low

- emitting sources compared to tunnel kilns, 106 so their emissions will not

106 For example, even assuming that lb/ton emissions are similar for BSCP periodic and tunnel kilns, a comparison o f annual kiln design capacities (ton***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 178 of 454 cause an exceedance of the health threshold. The work practice standards we are finalizing will serve to e nsure that emissions from these sources continue to remain low.
**Comment:** One c ommenter stated that, to create standards that assure “ an ample margin of safety, ” the EPA is required to build a margin into the HBEL for exposures to HCl, HF, Cl 2 , and other po llutants with similar biological endpoints resulting from (a) exceedances of the HCl, HF, and Cl 2 standards, (b) violations of the work practice standards applicable during startup and shutdown, and (c) exceedances of other standards ( e.g. , MACT standards for non

- Hg HAP metals ) that restrict pollutants with similar biological endpoints. The commenter also stated that estimating short

- term emissions by averaging annual emissions does not reflect emissions spikes that occur during plant malfunctions or upsets . The commenter stated that malfunctions and upsets increase emissions and thereby pose increased health risks that the EPA must consider.

product/yr) for model BSCP periodic kilns and tunnel kilns indicates that annual capacities for periodic kilns are on average only 5 percent of annual capacities for tunnel kilns. ( For the basis of this calculation, s ee the memorandum “ Updated Inventory Database and Documentation for Brick and Structural Clay Products Manufacturing Final Rule ” in Docket ID No. EPA

- HQ

OAR

- 2013

- 0291 and the memorandum “ Final Rule: Documentation of Database and Responses to the 1997 Informa tion Collection Request for Brick and Structural Cl ay Products” in Docket ID No. A

- 99

- 30.) In addition, in the BSCP industry, there are currently 120 periodic kilns located at 15 facilities, compared to 169 168 tunnel kilns at 85 84 facilities. In the sanita ryware industry sector, there are currently 5 five first

- fire shuttle kilns, compared to 11 first

- fire tunnel kilns.***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 179 of 454 The commenter stated that relevant chronic exposures include exposures from exceedances and violations and noted that many exceedances, such as those from malfunctions and upsets, are likely to contribute significant emissions that can elevate an individual ’ s total exposures over time
. The commenter also stated that the EPA explains malfunction events can be significantl y higher than emissions at any other time of source operation ( 79 FR 75626 )
. The commenter stated that t hese emissions pose much higher short

- term risks and can accumulate and combine to increase public health impacts and risk and th at guarding against the health risks of releases of large amounts of HF ( for example ) must be built into the HBEL through the margin of safety. The commenter stated that HF exhibits characteristics in some circumstances that can make it uniquely hazardous ove r large areas . For example, HF molecules may associate with one another ( i.e. , form larger molecules like
H 4 F 4 , H 6 F 6 , H 8 F 8 ) via hydrogen bonding and such molecules may form a cloud that is heavier than air, therefore less likely to disperse. The c ommenter s tated that, by not accounting for exposures from exceedances, the EPA assum ed that such exceedances will be zero and buil t in no additional protections in case exceedances do occur
. The commenter claimed that t here is no factual basis***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 180 of 454 for assuming that 10 0 percent of BSCP and clay ceramics facilities will comply with each of the relevant emissions limits 100 percent of the time. O ver the long term and across the population of regulated facilities, the commenter noted that it is predictable that a number of exceedances will occur a t facilities . The commenter stated i t is unlawful to ignore emissions and the resulting health risks from those exceedances and argued the additional risk from exceedances should not be ignored in risk assessments
. The commenter stated that EPA regularly uses statistical methods and probability factors to assess health risk due to exceedances and to set clean air standards , and the EPA has data available to calculate representative factors to assess the health risk from malfunctio ns or can collect information on major sources ’ malfunction and violation histories. 107 I f the EPA needs more refined data regarding these emissions, the commenter suggested the EPA may request additional data from sources. The c ommenter stated that it is ir relevant that exceedances are a result of a failure to comply with the law when the EPA is setting CAA section 1 12(d)(4) standards, which must be set at a level that protects health. I t does not matter to a person

107 See, e.g. , EPA, Enforcement and Compliance History Online (ECHO), www.epa.gov/echo
. Formatted: Indent: Left: 0"***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 181 of 454 whether the pollution he or she is breathi ng is a result of a permitted or unpermitted release; the commenter argued the EPA cannot turn a blind eye to the reality that compliance with its standards is n o t perfect. **Response:** T he HBEL was determined based on the assessment of acute affects at the w orst

- case facility with respect to meteorology and distance to receptor and is protective of most facilities even if they had SSM event emissions. Even for the
worst

- case facility, the SSM emissions event would need to be coincident with the worst

- case met eorological conditions, which is not likely if SSM events are not frequent. For chronic risk, SSM emissions are not significant compared to the HBEL level, and most facilities are well below a n HI of one with emissions at the HBEL level
. The commenter is c orrect that the EPA did not include malfunctions and upsets emissions in setting emissions limits. As noted in the preamble to the proposed rule (79 FR 75626), malfunctions “are, by definition sudden, infrequent and not reasonably preventable failures of emissio ns control, process or monitoring equipment.” The preamble also stated that “accounting for malfunctions in setting emission standards would be difficult, if not impossible, given the myriad different types of malfunctions that can occur across all sources in the***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 182 of 454 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’ fo reseeable.” It should also be noted that sources cannot conduct performance tests during periods of malfunction (40 CFR 63. 8445 (e) and 40 CFR 63.8595 ( d ) ) and there are no
CEMS continuous emissions monitoring systems ( CEMS ) in place in the BSCP industry
. The EPA disagrees that it is required to evaluate the ample margin of safety provided by a CAA section 112(d)(4) standard based on the level of emissions that could occur during an exceedance of the standard caused by a malfunction or any other

c ause. When th e EPA establishes a standard under CAA section 112(d)(4), the EPA evaluates the ample margin of safety based on what sources will emit when they are meeting the standard (which applies at all times including periods of malfunction) and does not include som e additional margin of safety to compensate for periods of time that sources may violate the standard. This is consistent with how the EPA evaluates standards under CAA section 112(f)(2) (in that the EPA’s evaluation of the ample margin of safety under tha t review looks at the emissions***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 183 of 454 allowed under the standard, not emissions that might occur when the standard is exceeded). Regarding t he comment that the standard is not health protective for emissions of HF , t he proposed rule determined the HCl equivalent emissions for HF by the ratio of the RfC value for each pollutant, such that a 250 tpy emission of HCl is equivalent to 175 tpy emissions of HF. By performing a risk analysis for each facility/kiln, the EPA demonstrated that these emissions limits are pro tective of both chronic and acute risks. Regarding t he comment that HF exhibits release characteristics that may make it uniquely hazardous over large

areas , the EPA notes that in our analysis, emissions were treated as gases for dispersion modeling purpose s. A t ambient concentrations the emissions of these acid gases exhibit dispersion behavior equivalent to ambient air. Further, this modeling approach is health protective by not allowing mass to be removed from the plume from direct contact with the ground and biota the commenter did not include data or information supporting their assertion that plumes of acid gases from BSCP facilities could become heavier than air. The commenter’s example case of the formation of dense clouds of acid gases is from studies performed on the vaporization of liquefied gaseous fuels from spills, and the commenter did not explain how this***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 184 of 454 scenario is relevant to the emission of acid gases formed in
BSCP kilns. In the absence of evidence suggesting that cloud s of dense gas es are formed from BSCP facilities, and without a suggested alternate modeling methodology, the EPA used its preferred model AERMOD for dispersion for BSCP facilities
. 7. Other Issues
**Comment:** One c ommenter stated that the EPA must account for the variability in emissions measured by compliance testing to measure whether each plant ’ s emissions meet the HBEL because that testing does not capture a source’s variance in emissions performance over time . The commenter noted that the EPA already recognize s this fact for stack tests for technology

- based standards. The EPA has stated that it lacks a high degree of confidence that stack tests capture variation in emissions over time , and the commenter noted that as a result of this variance, it can be expecte d that the compliance tests would not be accurate. The commenter asserted that if the EPA believes that measurement variability needs to be corrected for, then it is irrational and arbitrary to correct for it with one set of standards (MACT standards) and not another (health

- based standards), when they both rely upon emissions data from stack
tests. The c ommenter noted that the EPA’s proposal to account for variability for MACT standards but not for compliance with Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font:***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 185 of 454 the HBEL would result in weaker and less

- p rotective standards in both cases . **Response:** Variability in emissions would not have a significant impact on the estimated risks associated with the
HBEL
. For chronic exposures and risks, the estimates are based on long

- term (annual) emissions, so short

- te rm emissions variability would not impact the estimates of chronic risks as long as the annual emissions, on average, do not exceed the limit. For acute exposures and risks, short

- term emissions variability that causes emissions to exceed the 1

- hour HBEL

w ould increase the potential for acute health effects, but the likelihood of such effects is low because the emissions variability would have to occur at the small number of facilities we estimated as having the highest acute H Q s based on the emissions limi ts, and the emissions variability would have to coincide with worst

- case meteorological conditions even at those facilities to result in acute H Q s higher than those we estimated based on the HBEL . Most facilities have acute H Q estimates significantly below one, so short

- term emissions variability would have to be high (approximately 60 percent higher for the median facility) for the estimated H Q s to approach a value of one.***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 186 of 454 The EPA also notes that the HBEL was not established using emissions data from stack tests. Therefore, there was no need to account for variability in setting the HBEL as was done for the Hg and non

- Hg HAP metals standards. Instead, the standard was established at a conservative level to ensure that the H Q s remain below one for all facilities. The EPA agrees that there would be variability in the test results used to demonstrate compliance with the rule, but as already noted in this response, short

- term emissions variability would have to be high for the estimated H Q s to approach a value of one. In addition, variability is not considered when comparing compliance testing results to any other emissions limit, so it would be inconsistent for the EPA to require owners and operators to adjust their test results before comparing those results to the
HBEL
. **Comment:** One c ommenter suggested that the EPA should require fence

- line ambient air quality monitoring that measures multiple pollutants in real

- time or near real

- time to ensure that people are not being exposed to ambient pollutant concentrations that exceed the proposed HBEL
. The commenter recommended the EPA also require real

- time public reporting of the monitoring data.***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 187 of 454
I n addition, the commenter suggested that the EPA should require facilit ies to submit monitoring plans, data, and corrective action plans for agency review and public comment
. T he se requirements would ensure concerned community members have the ability to review and recommend improvements to monitoring plans before they are im plemented and would enable the EPA to consider community concerns when deciding whether to approve a plan. **Response:** The EPA disagrees with the commenter. Because stack emissions can travel for long distances and are at heights above where a fence

- line mo nitors would measure, it is inappropriate to use fence

- line monitoring for stack emissions.
Fence

- line monitoring is performed for fugitive emissions (see discussion of fence

- line monitoring use on fugitive emissions at 79 FR 36919, Petroleum Refinery Sect or Risk and Technology Review and New Source Performance Standards; Proposed Rule). In response to the comment that the EPA should require all facilities to submit monitoring plans, data, and corrective action plans for agency review and public comment , the EPA notes that t hese requirements are indeed in the rule, as facilities are required to submit monitoring plans, data and corrective actions for the regulatory agency review. However, in most cases, these submissions are required to be sent to the***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 188 of 454 dele gated authority, and the follow

- up to that review, is left to the discretion of the delegated authority. B. BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP
1
. MACT Floors

a . Sources in MACT Floor Pool
One c ommenter stated that the D.C. Circuit held that the
BSCP Manufacturing N ESHAP published on May 16, 2003 ( 68 FR 26690) violated the CAA in a number of ways ( Sierra Club v. EPA , 479 F.3d 875 (D.C. Cir. 2007) ) . The court held that , in setting MACT floors for brick tunnel kilns, the EPA ’s exc lu sion of kilns employing non

- DLA contr ols from its ranking and identification of the best performing sources was unlawful because CAA section
1 12(d)(3) “ requires floors based on the emission level actually achieved by the best performers (those with the lowest emission levels). ” Id
. In addition, the court recognized that factors other than pollution control technology affect performance ( e.g. , clay type), and the EPA cannot ignore such factors, even where the EPA finds that floors based on those factors would be unachievable. The comment er noted that the EPA is once again exclud ing best performing sources from its floor analysis and bas ing floors on a group of kilns using the EPA’s preferred control technologies, in contravention of the holding of Sierra Club ,***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 189 of 454 which is the decision to whi ch this rulemaking is intended to be
a response. In the proposed rule , prior to ranking the best performing sources for the BSCP tunnel kiln floors for PM (as a surrogate for non - Hg HAP metals ) for existing and new sources, the EPA removed all kilns withou t a FF

- based APCD
. O nce removed, those kilns were not included in the ranking of best performing sources, and hence they were not considered for inclusion among the best performing 12 percent of sources (for the existing source floor) or the best controlle d similar source (for the new source floor). The commenter asserted that the agency ’ s reprisal of a floor approach that the D.C. Circuit has already rejected repeatedly is not just unlawful, but amounts to contempt for the
court ’ s authority. **Response:** The EPA disagrees with the c ommenter ’s assertion that the EPA’s proposed approach to calculating PM surrogate MACT floors for kilns was illegal in that it impermissibly excluded certain kilns. However, at proposal , we asked for comment on this approach and req uested additional data to support this approach , and w e did not receive any such additional data
. In addition, some of the test data for sources with FF

- based APCD could not be used in the final rulemaking because it was discovered that the testing was not carried out in accordance with the appropriate test method. Therefore, we***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 190 of 454 can no longer assert that we have emissions data for all BSCP kilns with FF

- based APCD
. Thus, the EPA did not use the approach challenged by the commenter to establish the MACT floo rs in the final rule. The EPA has amended the approach to developing PM surrogate MACT floors for reasons explained in section IV .A.1 of this preamble , so these comments are now moot. However, the EPA still believes the approach to identify the best performing sources has merit. When the EPA has data on every single controlled source in the category, and these data support that these sources are the best performing , then basing the MACT floor on the top 12 percent of the total number of sources is appropriate. b . Equivalent L imits
**Comment :**  One c ommenter stated that , in addition to the lb/ton MACT floors for emissions of Hg and PM (as a surrogate for non - Hg HAP metals ) , the EPA developed two “ equivalent limits
. ” The EPA used its ranking o f the sources based on their

“ average ” lb/ton emissions to identify the best performing source or sources for the floor pool. To develop the PM and Hg

“ equivalent ” limits, the EPA took the best performing source or sources the EPA had selected and retrieve d data on those

sources ’ emission performance as measured by gr/dscf at 7

-***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 191 of 454 percent O 2 for PM and Hg and lb/hr for Hg. F or non - Hg HAP metals , the EPA proposed to set an additional standard that would limit the pounds of non

- Hg HAP metals emitted per hour. For this additional limit, the EPA again used the ranking of the sources based on their “ average ” lb/ton emissions and also (without any explanation) no longer used PM as a surrogate for non

- Hg HAP metals, but instead set the limit in terms of total non

- Hg HAP metals. The commenter stated that the EPA acknowledged that the available data on non

- Hg HAP metals is incomplete , so to develop this proposed limit , the EPA simply took the final pounds of PM per ton of fired product floor limit that it had derived a nd applied a set of “ conversion factors ” it invented to put that standard in terms of pounds of non

- Hg HAP metal emissions per hour. The commenter stated the EPA used completely different

“ conversion ” methodologies for the new and existing standards becaus e the EPA lacks even the limited data it used for the existing source methodology on new sources. The co mmenter stated the “ equivalent ” limits the EPA proposed are not “ equivalent ” and Congress did not give the EPA the authority to set multiple limits and allow sources to comply with whichever limit they choose. The commenter stated the EPA ’ s use of different measures of performance to identify the top sources on the one hand and to evaluate their performance on the***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 192 of 454 other is inconsistent, irrational, and un explained; the same metric should apply for purposes of identifying the best performers and identifying those sources ’ actual performance. The commenter also stated the EPA did not use the best performing 12 percent of existing sources “ for which the Admin istrator has emissions information ” for the non

- Hg HAP metals lb/hr limit. Another c ommenter supported the EPA ’ s inclusion of multiple formats for both PM/non

- Hg HAP metals and Hg . The commenter stated that the inclusion of each of these formats, as well as the inclusion of small and large kiln subcategories, provides needed flexibility to numerous BSCP facilities, including a large number of small businesses, to find that standard that best suits their opera tions while still ensuring that the CAA requirements are met. The commenter asserted that the inclusion of three alternate compliance formats is so critical to the development of this standard that the EPA must re

- propose this rule if it maintains numeric limits but deletes any of these alternative formats for the final rule
. **Response:** The EPA appreciates all comments regarding t he alternat iv e limits. The EPA is retaining the alternat iv e limits in the final rule but is revising the ranking methodology as de scribed in section IV.A.2 of this preamble . For the final***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 193 of 454 rule, the concentration floor is based on the ranking of the concentration data , and the lb/hr floor is based on the ranking of the lb/hr data. Each floor is based on the best performing units for t hat unit of measurement.

c . O xygen C orrectio n **Comment :**  One c ommenter stated, regarding the concentration compliance limits, that the use of the equation to correct measured concentrations to 7

- percent O 2 could be problematic when used to correct concentrations measured in stacks with high
oxygen O 2 content, which is typical of the brick industry. The

c ommenter stated because the correction term is in the denominator of the equation for the correction to 7

- percent O 2 , the overall correction factor increases exponentially as O 2 concentrations approach 20.9 percent . As a result, any variances in the oxygen O 2 measurement are greatly magnified in the correction factor for kilns with high stack oxygen O 2 content. The commenter suggested that the correction factor should be the
average oxygen O 2 content represent ed in the respective floors,
17

- percent O 2 (based on a range of oxygen O 2 stack content s for
BSCP kilns from 13 to 20 percent ). The commenter assert ed that the correction to an average of 17

- percent will minimize the artificial inflation of the results for the industry.***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 194 of 454 **Response:** The EPA evaluated the oxygen O 2 content of the run by

- run datasets of PM and Hg for BSCP tunnel kilns as described in section IV.A.1 of this preamble and agrees that correcting concentration data to 17

- percent O 2 rather than 7

- percent, as proposed, provides more representative values of kilns’ operating conditions and would not artificially inflate the values
. For the final rule, t he EPA has taken the O 2 percent analysis into consideration and revised the equivalent concentration based limits to be developed from 17

- percent O 2 - corrected concentrat ion data
. 2 . Startup and Shutdown
**Comment:** Numerous comme nters supported the use of work practice standards for periods of startup and shutdown but asserted that the startup and shutdown procedures listed in the proposed rule cannot be met by all BSCP kilns an d must be modified. Commenters requested that the fin al language allow a more basic construct for the work practice requirements in the final rule and require facilities to develop site

- specific temperatures as part of their permitting process. Multiple commenters specifically stated that the requirement for an exhaust temperature of 400 °F at startup is not workable because the kiln exhaust temperature in some kilns never reaches 400 °F. C ommenters also noted that kilns must have***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 195 of 454
pro duct at startup. Therefore, commenter s requested that the startup provisions apply to the introduction, or charging, of new brick or structural clay product through a kiln and not impact the initial staging of kiln cars in a kiln b efore start

up. C ommenters suggested revisions to the pr oposed language to

“ not put any bricks into the kiln ” below specifi ed temperatures. Multiple commenters agreed with the language that requires a kiln to vent to an APCD before the exhaust gas reaches 400 ° F, because it can vent at any time up to that te mpe rature. Multiple
commenters stated that for a controlled kiln, it is acceptable to require that no new product is allowed to be introduced to the controlled kiln until the kiln is vented to an APCD. One
commenter stated that a feasible work practice standa rd would be for the exhaust gases to be vented through the APCD during the startup process, with the reagent feed started on an intermittent basis during this period and then brought up to full feed rate once the exhaust temperature has reached the normal operating temperature range. A few commenters also requested specific revisions to the production requirements for peri ods of shutdown. One commenter stated that during shutdown, a kiln operator would not be pushing any cars in the kiln after reaching a ra nge of 250 to 300 °F in the exhaust stack (depending on the type of kiln and***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 196 of 454 its operating parameters). The commenter asked that a minimum operating range be allowed during a shut down cycle. Another
commenter noted that a limitation for a kiln to cease cha rging in new product before a kiln stops venting to an APCD may be a reasonable alternative to temperature requirements. **Response:** The EPA evaluated the comments and additional information received following proposal as described in section IV.A.4 of this preamble. As a result , the EPA has revised the work practice standards for periods of startup and shutdown for BSCP tunnel kilns to provide requirements that are more representative of the best performing kilns. Specifically, instead of defining the minimu m inlet APCD temperature as 400 °F, the EPA is requiring the owner or operator to determine the minimum inlet temperature for each APCD. If a kiln does not have an APCD, the owner or operator is required to determine the product

- specific kiln temperature p rofile that must be achieved before the kiln can reach full production. In addition, instead of specifying that no product can be introduced to the kiln during startup, the EPA is requiring the owner or operator to determine the production rate needed to s tart up the kiln. The final startup standards specify that this startup production rate cannot be exceeded until the kiln exhaust reaches the APCD minimum inlet temperature or the product

- specific kiln***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 197 of 454 temperature profile, whichever is applicable. The fina l shutdown standards specify that no additional product can be introduced once the kiln exhaust falls below the APCD minimum inlet temperature or the product

- specific kiln temperature profile, whichever is applicable.
C
. Clay Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP
1
. Authority
**Comment:** Two c ommenters argued that the EPA has no legal authority to finalize major source NESHAP for the ceramic tile manufacturing industry 108 because there are currently no existing major sources in that industry sector that will be subject to the standards. Specifically, they argue d that CAA s ection 112(d)(1) only provides the EPA authority to regulate a category or subcategory if it has major sources. Commenters contend ed that, here, c eramic tile manufacturing faciliti es that emit HAP have all become synthetic area sources and so are subject to the

“ area source ” NESHAP regulation. Thus, they argue, the l aw does
not a llow the EPA to proceed with a major source standard for these subcategories. Both c ommenters also stated that the CAA does not give the EPA the authority to regulate “ just

- in

- case ”

108 There are three distinct sectors within the clay ceramics manufacturing industry: ceramic floor tile manufacturing, ceramic wall tile manufacturing, and sanitaryware manufacturing
. These comments address the regulation of hazardous air pollutant HAP emissions from ceramic floor tile manufacturing and cera mic wall tile manufacturing.***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 198 of 454 there is a major source in the future , and th e EPA may only regulate categories and subcategories that currently have major sources in them.
One c ommenter stated that the EPA should not devote resources to finalizing these regulations when those regulations would apply to no one , and , thus , will have no environmental benefits. The commenter stated that it is the EPA ’ s duty to responsibly steward the public resources with which it has been entrusted to use in fulfillment of its mission , and using t hese resources to issu e regulations that will regulate no one fails to satisfy that responsibility. Issuing such regulations is expensive for the regulated community and has the real po tential to create unintended, inaccurate impressions of the industry, its emissions and its products. It serves no public purpose, and will impose short and long term costs on the EPA, and long term costs on delegated states as an unfunded mandate and on t he tile manufacturing industry, 79 FR 75671 (Dec. 18, 2014). The c ommenter argued that , because the EPA ’ s promulgation of standards for the ceramic tile industry is not authorized by the CAA , finalizing such standards would violate Articles I and II of the U.S. Constitution because it is an attempt by the EPA to rewrite portions of the CAA when the power to enact laws is reserved to Congress
. The commenter stated that Congress***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 199 of 454 provided clear instructions to the EPA, in the unambiguous numerical definition o f “ major source, ” as to which industry categories or subcategories could be regulated by major source NESHAP standards. The commenter noted that the Supreme Court very recently stated: “ An agency may not rewrite clear statutory terms to suit its own sense of how the statute should operate. ” Util. Air Regulatory Grp. v. EPA , 134 S.Ct. 2427 , 2446 (2014). Further, the Court stated : “ We are not willing to stand on the dock and wave goodbye as EPA embarks on a multiyear voyage of discovery. ” 134 S.Ct. at 2446
. T he commenter asserted that t he Supreme Court ’ s concerns in the U ARG case are instructive here because, as in the UARG case, the statute creates unambiguous numeric thresholds defining a major source : the emission of 10 tpy any one HAP or the emission of 25 tpy in the aggregate of all HAP , 42 U.S.C. 9612(a)(l)
. The commenter contend ed that the Supreme Court supported the commenter ’ s position when it stated that “ [i]t is hard to imagine a statutory term less ambiguous than th e pr ecise numerical thresholds...” Id . at 2445. The c ommenter argued that the Sierra Club Consent
Decree c onsent d ecree is irrelevant to the EPA ’ s statutory authority and its limitations. The Consent Decree c onsent d ecree entered in the case of Sierra Club v. EPA , 850 F.2d 300 (D.D.C.***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 200 of 454 2012) (hereafter the “ Consent Decree c onsent d ecree ” ) is germane to the timing of this rulemaking, but it does not, and legally could not, expand CAA section 112(d) to grant the EPA legal authority to regulate on the just

- in

- cas e basis the EPA has proposed. The withdrawal of the proposed NESHAP does not preclude the EPA from meeting its statutory obligations, fulfilling the requirements of the Consent Decree c onsent d ecree , and continuing its existing precedent. The EPA may issue final NESHAP for those subcategories within this category in which a major source exists. The ceramic tile manufacturing industry is not among them. The c ommenter argued that the proposed NESHAP would, if finalized as proposed, be arbitrary and capricious because t he proposed NESHAP is based on hypothetical or imaginary manufacturing and air emissions control strategies, flawed data from an unvalidated i nvalidated stack test method, and on statistically created emissions data. The EPA even proposed in places not to use actual emissions data. According to the commenter, the EPA ’ s proposal, if finalized, would create an economic hurdle so high that no one in the industry would expand their business to the point of becoming a NESHAP major source. Further, a subs tantial number of these entities meet the definition of a “ small business ” as***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 201 of 454 defined by the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) . The result of this regulation, if finalized, would be to hand non

market

- based economic advantages to foreign producers t o grow their presence in the U.S. market by importing their competing ceramic tile. Financing of capital projects will be adversely affected by the costs imposed by the NESHAP, further raising the economic hurdle. Major source domestic manufacturing capaci ty will not be built, and the jobs and tax base that go along with that capacity will not be created. **Response:** Under CAA section 112(c)(1), the EPA first lists all categories and subcategories of major sources. It is at this first step that the EPA determines that a given category or subcategory contains major sources of HAP. Then, the EPA sets standards for those listed categories and source categories. Both CAA section 112(c)(2) and CAA section 112(d)(1) make clear that the EPA is to regulate a ll listed categories and subcategories. As CAA section 112(c)(2) states: “ For the categories and subcategories the Administrator lists, the Administrator shall establish standards
... ” As CAA section 112(d)(1) states: “ The Administrator shall promulgate
reg ulations establishing emissions standards for each category and subcategory of major sources and area sources of hazardous air pollutants listed for regulation pursuant to subsection (c)***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 202 of 454 of this section
.. . ” In short, once a category or subcategory of major sources is listed under CAA section 112(c), it must be regulated. If commenters believe that the major source ceramic tile subcategories should not be regulated, they may seek to delete these subcategories from the list, which is a process that Congress e stablished in CAA section 112(c)(9) and which the D.C. Circuit has held is the EPA ’ s sole authority for removing a listed category or subcategory from the list. New Jersey v. EPA , 517 F.3d 574, 581

- 583 ( D.C. Cir. 2008)
. In interpreting the relevant provisi ons here, the EPA is mindful of the recent and longstanding instructions from the Supreme Court that statutory provisions must be read to further rather than undermine Congress ’ s statutory intent
. King v Burwell , 2015 U.S. Lexis 4248, *29 (2015)( “ We cannot interpret federal statutes to negate their own stated purposes. ” )(citing and quoting New York State Dept. of Social Servs. v. Dublino , 413 U. S. 405, 419

- 420, 93 S. Ct. 2507, 37 L. Ed. 2d 688 (1973) ); E.I. Du Pont De Nemours v. Train , 430 U.S. 112, 132 (1977) ( “ We cannot, in these circumstances, conclude that Congress has given authority inadequate to achieve with reasonable effectiveness the purposes for which it has acted. ” ) (quoting Permian Basin Area Rate Cases, 390 U.S. 747, 777 (1968)). In this conte xt, it is unreasonable to read CAA***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 203 of 454 section 112(d)(1) as limiting the EPA ’ s authority to set standards that will be applicable to the highest emitting sources in a category or subcategory and creating a loophole by which major sources can evade regulation. Without suggesting that the following is the commenters ’ intent, the effect of the
comment e rs ’ interpretation of CAA section 112 would be that major sources would be able to evade regulation by, first, becoming synthetic area sources during the rulemaking process (which, under the commenters ’ view, would preclude the EPA from finalizing standards for major sources) and then, after the EPA withdraws the proposed standards, reconverting to be major sources and thus not subject to any standard. Consideration o f this scenario is particularly appropriate in the circumstances here, because there are standards in place for area sources in the ceramic tile subcategories. It is not reasonable to interpret CAA section 112 to create a structure where an area source (wh ether a natural area source or a synthetic area source) has an incentive to increase emissions to become a major source, and by doing so is no longer subject to emissions limitations. Further, the issue of whether there are major sources in the ceramic til e subcategories is not as clear as the commenters presume. Even if, as the commenters contend, all of the existing***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 204 of 454 major sources in these subcategories have successfully completed the process of becoming synthetic area sources, then these
sources are not s ubject to the requirements imposed on major sources but that does not equate to a conclusion that they are no longer major sources in any respect. The EPA ’ s view is that synthetic area sources, though subject to area source requirements rather than major s ource requirements, are still major sources in certain respects. For example, synthetic area sources are considered to be major sources when the EPA identifies the best performing major sources as part of a MACT floor calculation under CAA section 112(d)
. Further, CAA s ection 112(a) (1) defines a major source as “ any stationary source or group of stationary sources located within a contiguous area and under common control that emits or has the potential to emit considering controls, in the aggregate, 10 tons per year or more of any hazardous air pollutant or 25 tons per year or more of any combination of hazardous air pollutants .” T he reference to a
source's “ potential to emit considering controls ” in this definition allows the interpretation that a source's potential to emit before and after controls is relevant, such that synthetic area sources may be considered within the meaning of this definition
.***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 205 of 454 With respect to the commenter ’ s argument that CAA section 112 does no t authorize “ just in case ” regulation, that is both not correct and off point. First, CAA section 112 clearly provides that the EPA will set standards for new sources in the listed categories and subcategories notwithstanding that the EPA can never know whether there will actually be any new sources. As required under CAA section 112, the EPA establishes new source standards “ just in case ” (to use commenter ’ s phrasing) new sources come into existence. Second, as discussed above, it is reasonable for the EPA to promulgate major sourc e standards whe re, as here, there are synthetic area sources that could revert to major sources just in case that happens. With respect to the commenters ’ argument that it is a poor use of agency resources for the EPA to finalize standards for the ceramic tile subcategories, the EPA has considered whether it is better to complete the current rulemaking with respect to the ceramic tile subcategories (and have them in place in the event that there are new major sources or a synthetic area
source reverts to ma jor source status) or to take no action now and re

- do this rulemaking with respect to these subcategories in the event that there are major sources in the future. The EPA ’ s conclusion is that, having gotten this far along in the rulemaking process, it is a better use of agency resources to***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 206 of 454 finalize requirements for the ceramic tile subcategories now. Given the options, finalizing these requirements in this rulemaking requires only a modest amount of additional resources, and is a much more efficient use of agency resources than restarting and repeating the rulemaking process at some point in the future. Even if one considers that there may not be any major sources that become subject to these requirements and that such a rulemaking might not ever be done, th e EPA ’ s judgment is still that it is more efficient and a more cost

effective use of agency resources to finalize these requirements now. Finally, on the issue of how likely it is that major sources will be built in the future, the EPA notes that the

comme nters ’ own arguments suggest they will be. Specifically, the commenters state d that having a major source standard in place will dissuade companies from expanding small facilities into major sources and will impede financing for new major

sources . T he prem ise of such a comment is that, in the absence of a standard, there will be such expansions and new major

sources. The document “National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Clay Ceramics Manufacturing: Background Information for Final Rule

- Summary of Public Comments and***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 207 of 454 Responses” in Docket ID No. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2013

- 0290 addresses additional comments on this topic.
**Comment:** According to one commenter, the EPA failed to demonstrate that the benefits of this proposed arbitrary and capricious NE SHAP justify the costs. As stated in Executive Order 13563, “ Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, ” issued by President Obama on January 18, 2011 to reaffirm Executive Order 12866, “ [e]ach agency must ... propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination that its benefits justify its costs
. ” The preamble to the proposed NESHAP provides cost information (which the commenter noted elsewhere is erroneous) but did not discuss the benefits. T he EPA only articulate d the benefits of the BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP. With respect to costs, the EPA ’ s cost analysis fail ed to account for costs to the a gency and delegated states to promulgat e and implement the regulations. There are no benefits to justi fy any of these costs. Further, “ [i]n deciding whether and how to regulate, agencies should assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives, including the alternative of not regulating
. ” The EPA did not assess the alternative of not
regu lating

– a path that would have exactly the same result, as there are no major sources to be regulated or not regulated. Therefore, the commenter stated that the EPA failed to meet its***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 2 08 of 454 burden ; the proposed NESHAP does not have benefits justifying its costs , and therefore such a regulation cannot be adopted. **Response:** We disagree with the commenter. First, CAA section 112 clearly states that the EPA is obligated to regulate emissions of HAP from listed source categories . There is no benefits test in the stat utory requirement. The language in Executive Order 12866 does not supersede a clear legal requirement in the CAA. Second, because there are no major

sources that will be regulated by this rule at the present time, there will be no implementation costs for the rule. If at a later date a major source is constructed, or a non

- major source becomes major, then there will be implementation costs, but this rule will result in emission reduction requirements compared to the emissions that would be expected to occur in the absence of a rule. Therefore, at the point where this rule actually results in costs, it will also have corresponding benefits. In the absence of any current major sources that will be covered by this rule , we simply cannot calculate the benefits.
2 . MACT Floors
**Comment:** One c ommenter disagreed with the inclusion of emissions data from Kohler’s South Carolina facility tunnel kiln with the wet scrubber in the sanitaryware tunnel kiln existing source data pool for MACT floor determination. The commenter***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 209 of 454 stated that Kohler installed a new tunnel kiln at the South Carolina facility in 2005 under the Clay Ceramics Manufacturing
NESHAP promulgated in 2003 , which , according to the commenter , required the installation of APCD on any new first

- fire tunnel kilns to meet the HF and HCl emission limitations. The APCD that Kohler installed , a wet scrubber , was written into the facility ’ s air permit at the time, and so its use at that time

was federally enforceable . The court vacated the Clay Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP in 2007, and t he South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control revised the facility ’ s air permit in March 2009, removing any reference to the Clay Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP and any requirement to operate the scrubber. Kohler then permanently shut down the scrubber in March 2009, though they continued to operate the tunnel kiln per permit requirements. Due to cost considerations, the scrubber

was abandoned in place and not demolished/removed. The co mmenter noted that, when the EPA issued the
ICR information collection request ( ICR ) for clay ceramics emissions test data in 2010, the EPA required that Kohler make operational that wet scrubber for emissions testing of that tunnel kiln, even though the APCD was not listed in any permit nor required under any rule and had n o t been operated in 17 months. Initially, Kohler agreed to test the kiln as an existing***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 210 of 454 source per operational requirements in the facility ’ s air permit ( i.e. , without the wet scrubber)
. However, the EPA demanded that Kohler restart and operate the abandoned scrubber during the kiln ’ s emissions testing. The commenter noted that Kohler cooperated with the EPA and tested emissions with the scrubber operating, but the scrubber was immediate ly shut down after testing. This scrubber has operated for a total of 1 week in the past 6 years, and that short period of operation was only to comply with the EPA ’ s ICR testing demand. The c ommenter acknowledged that the EPA has the authority require op eration of any permitted source for emissions testing under rulemaking and ICR protocol. The commenter agreed with the EPA that the “ kiln ” in question is an existing source but disagreed that the non - operating wet scrubber qualifies as part of an existing source. The commenter contended that the EPA is arbitrarily penalizing Kohler for not spending the money to demolish and remove the wet scrubber back in 2009 when it was removed from the facility ’s air permit. T he commenter asserted that t he test data from the wet scrubber are not representative of any existing source and were not actually achieved in practice over time
. The refore, using the test data in the MACT floor analysis is inconsistent with the EPA’s expressed intent to determine MACT floors for exi sting sources based on the***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 211 of 454 average emissions actually achieved in practice by the best performing sources with consideration for variability in emissions over time. T he commenter asserted that all emissions data from the wet scrubber should be excluded fro m the existing source data pool for MACT floor analysis, and the existing source floors should be recalculated for the remaining existing

sources. **Response:** Data from th e APCD the commenter refers to was considered in developing both the new and existing M ACT floors for sanitaryware kilns. As stated by the commenter, the APCD was installed to comply with the previously promulgated C lay
C eramics Manufacturing NESHAP and thus was an available data point for collection through the CAA section 114 data collecti on process for this rulemaking. Because this source had an operational APCD (even though it was not being operated) , we believe that testing with the APCD operating would be most representative of the source’s best performance as defined in the CAA. Having collected the emissions data for the source with the APCD operating, the EPA consider ed the data consistent with section 112(d)(3)(B) of the CAA, under which the Administrator is required to calculate “the average emission limitation achieved by the best performing 5 sources (for which the Administrator has or could reasonably obtain emissions***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 212 of 454 information) in the category or subcategory for categories or subcategories with fewer than 30 sources.” Since it is appropriate to include the data in the database available to determine MACT floors, it is appropriate to use these data in floor calculations, if it is actually part of the best performing facilities. We note, h owever, that the data from this device was only significant for the existing source dioxin /furan MACT floor, for reasons that are dependent on each regulated pollutant and discussed as follows. For both new and existing PM MACT floors, the final limit was unaffected by use of these data, since the data from the
APCD was not ranked in the top 5 f ive sources with data. For both new and existing Hg MACT floors, the data from the
APCD were not ranked because the data w ere invalidated. The data

were removed from the dataset because of errors in the analytical procedures surrounding the digestion proce ss as dictated by Method 29. See Section 4.1: Analytical discrepancy of the Test Report “Kohler Co., Spartanburg, SC: Tunnel Kilns and Glaze Spray Booths 08/11

- 17/2010 Stack Test,” Doc ket Item
No. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2013

- 0290

- 0069. For dioxin/furan, the data from the APCD are in the top
5 five but is not the best performing unit based on the dioxin/furan ng/kg ranking. (Note the units of measure for***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 213 of 454 dioxin/furan ranking have changed from the proposed ng/dscm at 7

- percent O 2 to ng/kg.) For the existing source floor, the result of the calculation of the best performing 5 five sources is 3.3 ng/kg with the data point, and would have been 4.0 ng/kg without the data point, which we consider a nominal difference. The difference does not result in any source having to add

c ontrols. The calculation of the new source floor was not affected by the data from the APCD because, as stated above, the source was not the best performing unit, and the new source floor is based on the best performing unit.
**Comment:** Three commenters questioned EPA's decision to propose the dioxin/furan emission limits for ceramic tile manufacturing and sanitaryware manufacturing in concentration format only. Two commenters stated that the final dioxin/furan standards should provide the opt ion to comply with a limitation expressed in units of ng/Mg nanograms per milligram of tile produced, in addition to or in lieu of the proposed standard stated in ng/dscm. A mass

- based production

- related standard effectively removed the issues around oxygen O 2 correction created by use of a standard based only on concentration . Further, the commenters asserted that it is a more universally appropriate adjustment for comparison of emissions from large kilns having high air flow rates to emissions from small ki lns with low air***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 214 of 454 volumes. The third commenter agreed and noted that the proposed limits for PM and Hg are expressed as lb/ton fired product. The commenter asked EPA to explain how the concentration format for the emission limit is more appropriate for diox ins/furans than a mass throughput limit
. If it is not, the commenter suggested using a mass throughput format for the dioxin/furan emission limit. **Response:** The dioxin/furan limits provided in the final rule for clay ceramics are in units of ng TEQ /kg of t hroughput fired or processed. The EPA agrees that this change in format eliminates the questions surrounding the oxygen O 2 correction for concentration values and is more consistent with the other units of measure provided in the Clay Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP
. To demonstrate compliance with the limits, the owner or operator will determine the mass TEQ for each test run (using the
TEFs toxic equivalency factors in Table 5 to s ubpart KKKKK ), divide the mass TEQ by the production rate during the test run, and average the test runs. The production

- based dioxin/furan limits are provided in lieu of the proposed concentration limits. The compliance flexibility provided to the BSCP Manufacturing source category (including alternative compliance options for PM and Hg ) was solely related to concerns under the Small Business Regulatory***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 215 of 454 Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) , specifically reducing the regulatory burden of the numerous small entities in the BSCP category . There are no small businesses expected to be subject to the C lay Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP , so the EPA determined that no additional compliance flexibility was necessary or warranted for the c lay c eramics C lay C eramics Manufacturing

s our ce category
. 3 . Startup and Shutdown
**Comment:** One c ommenter challenged the proposed startup and shutdown regulations for ceramic tile manufacturing. The
commenter asserted that these standards are based conceptually on the desire to minimize the time during which ceramic tile manufacturing process units operate in a temperature range that is “ conducive ” to the formation of new dioxins/furans ( i.e. , 200

- 450 ° C degrees Celsius ) . The commenter stated th at this concern is moot because there are no new dioxins/furans formed in th e ceramic tile industry sector , based on the emissions data the EPA proposed to use to set MACT floors for ceramic tile

sources and on the fact that ceramic tile dioxin/furan conge ner profile s are different from the profile of the dioxins/furans created as a product of combustion
. The c ommenter also challenged the EPA ’ s startup and shutdown proposal for spray dryers relative to dioxins/furans
.***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 216 of 454 The input to the spray dryer experience s no more than 212 ° F because the operational purpose of the spray dryer is to cause the excess moisture suspended or attached to the ball clay matrix to evaporate. If any spray dryer operating temperature is relevant to the EPA ’ s concern about temperature s in a spray dryer conducive to dioxin/furan formation, this is the correct focus
. F or ceramic tile floor tile and wall tile roller kilns , the commenter stated that t he proposed temperature requirements for startup and shutdown reflect good kiln production practices ; therefore, t he propos ed startup and shutdown standards are
unnecessary. The commenter noted that the standards are based only on data from the BSCP subcategory , and the proposed temperatures are not appropriate for all sources
. For example, cer amic t ile dryers uniformly operate below 400 ° F, so product could never be introduced to a tile dryer . The commenter also noted that the startup provisions require startup of APCD at 400 ° F. However,

c eramic tile dryers do not have APCD because they burn o nly natural gas, their normal operating temperature is less than 400

° F, and their resulting emissions are minimal . For these reasons, t he proposal effectively constitutes a ban on the operation of tile dryers. If tile dryers are not an available***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 217 of 454 manufactu ring process, ceramic tile manufacturing as it is currently conducted in the United States would effectively cease at major sources. The commenter stated that the EPA lacks the legal authority to implement a de facto shut down of major sources, or to bar t he possibility of the proposal of a major source, in this industry
. For all the above reasons, the c ommenter asserted that the
EPA must withdraw the startup and shutdown proposal from any final NESHAP for this subcategory. The commenter contended that,

as proposed , these standards are arbitrary and capricious
. **Response:** The CAA requires that NESHAP emissions limitations under section 112 must apply continuously, including during periods of startup and shutdown. As noted in the preamble to the proposed rule, we recognize that it is not feasible to conduct emission testing during periods of startup and shutdown ; therefore, owners and operators would be unable to demonstrate compliance with the final numeric MACT standards during those periods. Therefore, the E PA is finalizing work practice standards for periods of startup or shutdown to ensure that the Clay Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP includes continuous CAA section 112

- compliant standards. The commenter is correct that the specific startup and shutdown work practice standards proposed were based on***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 218 of 454 information from the BSCP industry. In absence of any data on specific startup and shutdown procedures from the clay ceramics
CAA section 114 sur vey, the EPA used the only data available for a similar industry. The EPA has not received any additional information from clay ceramics manufacturers on specific procedures, and in light of that lack of data, the EPA maintains that the less prescriptive s tartup and shutdown work practices being finalized for the BSCP industry are appropriate for the clay ceramics industry. First, one of the commenter ’ s main points is that the specific temperatures that were proposed are not appropriate for all the types of units to which the standards were proposed to apply, which is consistent with comments received on the BSCP proposal. Second, the commenter did note that the proposed standards reflect good kiln production practices for one type of process unit for which the specific temperature was appropriate . Therefore, the EPA is finalizing work practice standards that are based on best practices but are less prescriptive than the proposed standards. As a final note, the EPA is clarifying in this response that the star tup and shutdown standards are not intended to minimize only emissions of dioxins/furans. Instead, the standards are intended to minimize emissions of all pollutants by limiting the amount of throughput being processed before the***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 219 of 454 unit reaches full producti on and limiting the amount of time the exhaust is not being routed to the APCD, if applicable. In addition, the proposed startup and shutdown work practice requirements did not require the use of an APCD, nor do the final standards. The standards only spec ify the requirements for routing exhaust to an APCD if one is present. The EPA has reviewed the language in the final rule to ensure the standards are clear. **VI. Summary of the Cost,**  **Environmental, Energy and**  **Economic Impacts** 
A. What are the cost and emiss ion s reduction impacts? Table 7 8 of this preamble illustrates the costs and emissions reductions for existing sources under the final BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP and final Clay Ceramics Manufacturing
NESHAP
. The costs include the cost s of installing APCD as well as the costs for the testing and monitoring needed to demonstrate compliance.

**T ABLE**  **7 8**  **. S**  **UMMARY OF C**  **OSTS AND E**  **MISSIONS R**  **EDUCTIONS FOR BSCP**  **AND C**  **LAY C**  **ERAMICS E**  **XISTING S**  **OURCES A**  **(2011 DOLLARS**  **) Cost (**  **million )**  **Emissions reductions (tpy)**

**Industry Capital**  **Annual HF**  **HCl Cl**  **2 Non**  **- Hg**  **HAP metals**  **b Hg**  **PM PM**  **2.5 c**  **SO 2**  BSCP $ 64
. 6 $ 24
. 6 344 2 2
. 1 2.0 4 7
. 08 0.0 733 643 309 2 0 5 Clay Ceramics $0. 2 67 $0.0 924 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

a Includes costs for APCD, testing and monitoring.***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 220 of 454

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 APCD , testing, and monitoring needed to comply with the final BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP are expected to total $ 64
. 6 million and $ 24
. 6 million, respectively (2011 dollars) . The nationwi de HAP emissions reductions achieved under the final BSCP Manufacturing
NESHAP are expected to total 375 tpy. The methodology used to estimate the nationwide costs and emissions reductions of the final BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP is presented in the technical memorand a titled “ Development of Cost and Emission Reduction Impacts for the Final BSCP M anufacturing NESHAP ” and “ Monitoring and Testing Requirements and Costs for the Final BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP ” in D ocket I D No. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2013

- 029 1
. It is anticipated that all sanitaryware emission points will meet the MACT floor emission limits in the final Clay Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP , so no emission control costs or emissions reductions are expected for these sources. However, these facilities are expected to incur $92,400 annually in monitoring and testing costs to demonstrate compliance with t he final Clay Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP
. These costs are documented in the technical memorandum titled , “ Monitoring and***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 221 of 454 Testing Requirements and Costs for the Final Clay Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP ” in Docket I D No. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2013

- 0290
. There are no major sources producing ceramic floor tile or ceramic wall tile. The five facilities that were major 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 , no ne of the known tile facilities will be subject to the provisions of the Clay Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP , which means that no costs or emissions reductions are expected for tile affected sources under the final Clay Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP
. B. What are the secondary impacts? Table 8 9 of this preamble illustrates the secondary impacts for existing sources under the BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP and Clay Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP
.

**T ABLE**  **8 9**  **. S**  **UMMARY OF S**  **ECONDARY I**  **MPACTS FOR BSCP**  **AND C**  **LAY C**  **ERAMICS E**  **XISTING S**  **OURCES a** 

**Industry Secondary air emissions (tpy)**  **Energy impacts**  **(MMBtu/yr) Solid waste**  **impacts**

**(tpy) PM**  **PM 2.5**  **CO NO**  **X SO**  **2 CO**  **2** BSCP 3.40 1.14 5.74 45.6 133 27,900 461 ,000 5,210 Clay Ceramics 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

a CO = carbon monoxide ; CO 2 = carbon dioxide; MMBtu/yr = million British thermal units per year .
The relevant secondary impacts that were evaluated for the
BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP and Clay Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 222 of 454 include secondary air emissions, energy impacts and solid waste impacts. Indirect or secondary air emissions are impacts that result from the increased electricity usage associated with the operation of APCD to meet the promulga t ed limits ( i.e. , increased secondary emissions of criteria pollutants from pow er plants). Energy impacts consist of the electricity needed to operate the APCD , and solid waste impacts consist of the particulate captured by the APCD that is disposed of as waste (not reused or recycled). Under the final BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP , the n ationwide secondary emissions of the criteria pollutants PM, CO, NO X and
SO 2 are expected to total 188 tpy , and secondary emissions of the greenhouse gas pollutant CO 2 are expected to total 27,900 tpy, with energy impacts of 461 ,000 MM Btu/yr and solid waste impacts of 5 , 21 0 tpy
. T he methodology used to estimate the nationwide secondary impacts of the final BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP is presented in the technical memorandum , “ Development of Cost and Emission Reduction Impacts for the Final BSCP Manu facturing
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 Clay Ceramics Manufacturing final rule, so there are no secondary impacts expected for these sources.***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 223 of 454 There are no major sources producing ceramic floor tile or ceramic wall tile. The f ive facilities that were major source s at the time of the 2008 and 2010 EPA survey s have already taken th e necessary steps to become synthetic area sources
. Consequently, none of the known ceramic tile facilities are expected to be subject to the provisions of the Clay Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP , which means that no secondary impacts are expected for ceram ic tile affected sources under the final Clay Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP
. C. What are the economic impacts? For the BSCP Manufacturing source category , t he average national brick price under the promulgated standards increases by 1. 8 percent or $ 4.37 per 1,000 S tandard Brick Equivalent (S BE ) (2011 dollars) , while overall domestic production falls by 1. 5 percent or 52 million bricks per year. Under the promulgated standards, the EPA estimated that two to four BSCP manufacturing facilities are at signifi cant risk of closure. Based on the results of the small entity screening analysis for BSCP Manufacturing , the EPA concluded that it is not able to certify that the BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of smal l entities . As a result, the EPA initiated a Small Business Advocacy Review***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 224 of 454 ( 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 (for testing, monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting)
. That affected company is not a small business. The compliance costs are less than 0. 00 2 percent of sales for the affected company . Hence, the economic impact for compliance is minimal. As noted above , there are no major sources producing ceramic floor tile or ceramic wall tile. Because no small firms face significant control costs, there is no significant impact on small entities. Thus , the Clay Ceramics Manufacturing regulation is not expected to have significant impact on a substantial number of small entities
. For more information on the benefits analysis and market analyses , please refer to the Regulatory Impact Analysis ( RIA ) for th e BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP , “ Regulatory Impact Analysis: Final Brick and Structural Clay Products NESHAP , ” which is available in D ocket ID No. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2013

- 0291
. D. What are the benefits? Emission controls installed to meet the requirements of this rule will generate benefits by reducing emissions of HAP as well as criteria pollutants and their precursors, NO X and SO 2 .***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 225 of 454 Sulfur dioxide and NO X are precursors to PM 2.5 , and NO X is a precursor to ozo ne. The criteria pollutant benefits are considered co

- benefits for this rule. For this rule, we were only able to quantif y the health co

- benefits associated with reduced exposure to PM 2.5 from changes in emission s directly emitted PM 2.5 , SO 2 , and NO X . We estimate the monetized co

- benefits of the BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP in 2018 to be $ 8 3 million to $1 9 0 million (2011 dollars) at a 3

- percent discount rate and $ 7 5 million to $1 7 0 million (2011 dollars) at a 7

- percent discount
rate , not including consideration of energy disbenefits . Using alternate relationships between PM 2.5 and premature mortality supplied by experts, h igher and lower co

- benefits estimates are plausible, but most of the expert

- based estimates fall between these two estimates. 109 A summary of the emission reduction and monetized co

- benefits estimates for this BSCP Manufacturing
NESHAP at discount rates of 3 percent and 7 percent is illustrated in Table 9 10 of this preamble.

**T ABLE**  **9 10**  **. S**  **UMMARY OF THE M**  **ONETIZED PM**  **2.5 C**  **O -**  **B ENEFITS FOR**  **THE BSCP**  **M**

**ANUFACTURING NESHAP**  **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 2.5 308 $8 3 to $ 1 9 0 $7 5 to $1 7 0

109 Roman, et al. , 2008. “ Expert Judgment Assessment of the Mortality Impact of Changes in Ambient Fine Particulate Matter in the U.S., ” Environ. Sci. Technol. , 42, 7, 2268

– 2274.***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 226 of 454

PM 2.5 precursors SO 2 72 $2.9 to $6.6 $2.6 to $6.0 NO X c

- 46

- $0. 29 to

- $0. 66

- $0. 26 to

- $0. 59 Total monetized benefits $84 to $190 $76 to $170

a All estimates are for the analysis year and are rounded to two significant figures so numbers may not sum across rows. The total monetized co

- benefits reflect the human health benefits associated with reducing exposure to PM 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 co

- benefits are shown as a range from Krewski, et al. (2009) to Lepeule, et al. (2012). These models assume that all fine particles, regardless of their chemical composition, are equally potent in causing premature mortality because the scientific evidence is not yet sufficient to allow differentiation of effects estimates by particle type.
c These emission reductions are the net emission reductions from the rule after subtracting out secondary emission inc reases due to additional energy requirements to run the control equipment. These estimates do not include monetized CO 2 disbenefits, which range from $0.3 to $ 3 million depending on the discount rate. See the RIA for more information about how the E P A monetized these disben e fits.

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 rule. Due to analytical limitations, it was not possible to conduct air quality modeling for this rule. Instead, we used a

“ benefit

- per - ton ” approach to estimate the benefits of this rulemaking. To create the benefit

- per - ton estimates, this approach uses a model to convert emissions of 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 emissions in specific sectors. These benefit

- per - ton estimates were derived***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 227 of 454 using the approach published in Fann , et al. (2012) , 110 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. 111 Specifically, we multiplied the benefit

- per - ton estimates from the “ Non

- EGU Point other ” category by the corresponding emission reductions. 112 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 rule making and , thus , they may not reflect the local variability in population density, meteorology, exposure, baseline health incidence rates or other local factors for any specific location. More information regarding the derivation of the benefit

- per - ton estimates for this category is available in the technical support document, which is available

as D ocket Item No. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2013

- 0291

- 0089
. Th ese models assume that all fine particles, regardless of their chemical composition, are equally potent in causing

110 Fann, N., K.R. Bakerand C.M. Fulcher. 2012. “ C haracterizing 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. 111 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2012. Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Final Revisions to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter . EPA

- 452/R

- 12

- 003. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Health and Environmental Impacts Division. December. Available at http://www.epa.gov/pm/2 012/finalria.pdf
. 112 U.S. Environmental 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. Formatted: Font: 10 pt***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 228 of 454 premature mortality because the scientific evidence is not yet sufficient to allow differentiation of effects estimates by particle type. Eve n 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 no te 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 113 and the extended Six Cities cohort st udy. 114 In the RIA for th e final rule, which is available in Docket ID No. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2013

- 0291 , we also include benefits estim ates derived from expert judgments (Roman , et al. , 2008) as a characterization of uncertainty regarding the PM 2.5 - mortality relatio nship. Considering a substantial body of published scientific literature, reflecting thousands of epidemiology, toxicology and clinical studies, the EPA ’ s Integrated Science Assessment for

113 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
. 114 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
.***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 229 of 45 4 Particulate Matter 115 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 SAB , concluded that the scientific literature consistently finds that a no

- threshold model most adequ ately portrays the PM

- mortality concentration

response relationship. Therefore, in this analysis, the EPA assumes that the health impact function for fine particles is without a threshold. In general, we are more confident in the magnitude of the risks we estimate from simulated 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 c oncentrations 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

115 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2009. Integrated Science As sessment 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 230 of 454 provides some insight into the level of uncertainty in the estimated PM 2.5 mortality benefits. There are uncertainties inherent in identifying any particu lar point at which our confidence in reported associations becomes appreciably less and the scientific evidence provides no clear dividing line. However, the EPA does not view these concentration benchmarks as a concentration threshold below which we would not quantify health benefits of air quality improvements. For this analysis, policy

- specific air quality data are not available due to time or and resource limitations and , thus, we are unable to estimate the percentage of premature mortality associated wi th 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, et 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 , population and change in air quality. Therefore, caution is***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 231 of 454 warranted when interpreting the LML assessment for this rule because these results are not consistent with results from rules that had model changes in 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 geographic coverage) and uncertainties in the underlying scientific and economic studies used to configure the benefit and cost models. D espite these uncertainties, we believe the benefit analysis for this rule provides a reasonable indication of the expected health benefits of the rulemaking under a set of reasonable assumptions. This analysis does not include the type of detailed uncertai nty assessment found in the 2012 PM 2.5 NAAQS
RIA 116 because we lack the necessary air quality input and monitoring data to run the benefits model. In addition, we have not conducted air quality modeling for this rule , and using a benefit

- per - ton approach add s 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.

116 U.S. Environmental Protecti on Agency (U.S. EPA). 2012. Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Final Revisions to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter . EPA

- 452/R

- 12

- 003. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Health and Environmental Impacts Division. December. Available at http://www.epa.gov/pm/2012/finalria.pdf
. Docket Item No. EPA

- HQ

OAR

- 2013

- 0291

- 0087
.***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 232 of 454
It should be noted that the monetized co

- benefits estimates provide d 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 pr ovide monetized estimates for this rule, we include a qualitative assessment of these unquantified benefits in the RIA for these promulgated standards
. The specific control technologies for this rule are anticipated to have minor secondary disbenefits, including an increase of 41 tons of NO X , about 3 tons of PM , less than 6 tons of CO and 121 tons of SO 2 each year. Because we do not currently have methods to monetize emission changes of CO , only secondary effects of PM , SO 2 , and NO X were included in the monetary evaluation of the actual benefits.
For more information on the benefits analysis, please refer to the RIA for this rule, “ Regulatory Impact Analysis: Final Brick and Structural Clay Products NESHAP, ” which is available in D ocket ID No. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2013

- 0291
. **VI I**  **. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews** Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders can be found at http://www2.epa.gov/laws

regulations/laws

- and

- executive

- orders
.***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 233 of 454 A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
T his action is a n economically significant regulatory action that was submitted to the Office of Management and Budget ( OMB ) for review . A ny changes made in response to OMB recommendations have been documented in the docket s for this action. The EPA prepared an analysis of the potential costs and benefits associated with this action . This analysis is contained in “ Regulatory Impact Analysis: Fi nal Brick and Structural Clay Products NESHAP
. ” A copy of the analysis is available in the docket for the BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP (Docket ID No. EPA

- HQ

OAR

- 2013

- 0291 ) and the analysis is briefly summarized here
. The EPA ’ s study estimates that affected BSCP facilities will incur total annualized costs of $2 4.6 million (2011 dollars) under the BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP , including costs of emission controls, testing and monitoring, along with recordkeeping and reporting costs for facilities that have
test ing and monitoring. The EPA gathered information on firm sales and overall industry profitability for firms owning affected BSCP facilities. T he EPA estimated that two to four
BSCP manufacturing facilities are at significant risk of closure under the final standards
.***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 234 of 454 The EPA also conducted an assessment of the benefits of the final rule , as described in section VI of this preamble. These estimates reflect the monetized human health benefits of reducing cases of morbidity and premature mortality among popul ations 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 375 tons of HAP each year for the promulgated standards , as well as ecosystem effects and visibility impairment. In addition to reducing emissions of PM precursors such as SO 2 , this rule will reduce several non

- Hg HAP metals emissions ( i.e. , arsenic, cadmium, chromium, lead, manganese, nickel , and selenium) each year. The EPA estimate s the total monetized co

- benefits to be $ 83 million to $ 190 million (2011 dollars) at a 3

- percent discount rate and $ 75 million to $ 170 million (2011 dollars) at a 7

- percent disco unt rate on a yearly average in 2018 for the promulgated standards
. Based on the EPA ’ s examination of costs and benefits of the final BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP , the EPA believes that the benefits of the BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP will exceed the costs. The EPA also examined the costs and economic impacts associated with the Clay Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP. The***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 235 of 454 remaining firm with major sources is estimated to incur costs as a result of the Clay Ceramics Manufacturing final rule and the firm only incur s costs associated with testing, monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting. Total annualized costs are only $92,400 (2011 dollars) and the firm ’ s estimated costs of complying with the Clay Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP are less than 0.002 percent of sales.
B . Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) The information collection requirements activities in the
BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP and Clay Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP have been submitted for approval to OMB under the PRA , 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq
. The Information Collection Request ( ICR )
. The ICR document that the EPA prepared for the BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP has been assigned EPA ICR number 2509.01 . The ICR document that the EPA prepared for the Clay Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP has been assigned EPA ICR number 2510.01
. You can find copies of the ICRs in the dockets for the BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP and Clay Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP , and they are briefly summarized here. The information collection requirements are not enforceable until OMB approves them. The information collected from respondents will be used by EPA enforcement personnel to: (1) identify new, modified, reconstructed and existing sources subject to the standards;***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 236 of 454 (2) ensure that MACT is being properly applied; and (3) ensure that the APCD are being properly operated and maintained on a continuous basis. In addition, records and reports are necessary to enable the EPA to identify facilities that may not be in compliance with the standards. Based on the reported information, the EPA can decide wh ich facilities should be inspected and what records or processes should be inspected at these facilities. The records that facilities maintain will indicate to the EPA whether the owners and operators are in compliance with the emission limitations (includ ing emission limits, operating limits ) and work practice standards
. Much of the information the EPA would need to determine compliance would be recorded and retained onsite at the facility. Such information would be reviewed by enforcement personnel during an inspection and would not need to be routinely reported to the
EPA. All information submitted to the EPA for which a claim of confidentiality is made will be safeguarded according to EPA policies set forth in t itle 40, c hapter 1, p art 2, s ubpart B

- Confidentiality of Business Information. (See 40 CFR 2; 41 FR 36902, September 1, 1976; amended by 43 FR 39999, September 28, 1978; 43 FR 42251, September 28, 1978; and 44 FR 17674, March 23, 1 979.)***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 237 of 454 Potential respondents to the information collection requirements in the BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP are owners and operators of new and existing sources at BSCP manufacturing facilities. A BSCP facility manufactures brick, including face brick, structu ral brick, brick pavers, or other brick and/or structural clay products including clay pipe; roof tile; extruded floor and wall tile; or other extruded, dimensional clay products. The BSCP facilities typically form, dry and fire bricks and shapes that are composed primarily of clay and shale. Kilns are used to fire BSCP. The rule applies to all new and existing tunnel and periodic kilns at BSCP facilities. Potential respondents to the information collection requirements in the Clay Ceramics Manufacturing NE SHAP are owners and operators of new and existing sources at clay ceramic s manufacturing facilities. A clay ceramics facility manufactures pressed floor tile, pressed wall tile, or sanitaryware ( e.g. , sinks and toilets). Clay ceramics facilities typically form, dry and fire tile or sanitaryware products that are composed of clay, shale and various additives. Spray dryers are used during the forming process at tile facilities to process the ceramic mix into a powder to allow tile pressing. Dryers are used to reduce the moisture content of the ceramic products prior to firing. Glazes are applied to some tile and***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 238 of 454 sanitaryware products, with glaze spraying accounting for all glazing emissions. Kilns are used to fire the ceramic products and include ceramic tile roller kilns and sanitaryware tunnel and shuttle kilns. The rule applies to all existing, new and reconstructed affected sources, which include the kilns, glaze spray operations, ceramic tile spray dryers and floor tile press dryers. (Wall tile press dryer s and sanitaryware ware dryers, with no measurable emissions, are not covered.) The information requirements are based on notification, recordkeeping and reporting requirements in the NESHAP General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A), which are mandato ry 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

r equirements 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 fin al rule include s paperwork requirements associated with initial and 5

- year repeat testing for selected process equipment, electronic reporting of performance test results,***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 239 of 454 parameter monitoring, preparation of an OM&M plan, maintenance and inspection of process and control equipment, compliance with work practice standards and periods of malfunction
. Collection of data will begin after the effective date of the final BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP and Clay Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP. The compliance date for existing sources is 3 years after the effective date. The compliance date for new or reconstructed sources is the effective date if the source startup date is before the effective date, or upon startup if the startup date is on or after the effective date . The schedule for notifications and reports required by the rule is summarized below. For BSCP and clay ceramics facilities with existing affected sources, the initial notification stating that the facility is subject to the rule must be submitted no late r than 120 calendar days after the effective date of the rule. Facilities with new or reconstructed affected sources for which startup occurs on or after the effective date must submit the initial notification no later than 120 calendar days after the

sour ce becomes subject to the rule (although we are projecting no new affected sources in the short term). Facilities may choose to submit a request for a to use the routine control device maintenance exemption 30 alternative standard 120 calendar***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 240 of 454 days prior to the compliance date. Facilities required to conduct a performance test must submit a notification of intent to conduct a performance test at least 60 calendar days before the performance test is scheduled to begin. For each initial compliance demonstration that includes a performance test, facilities must submit an initial notification of compliance status no later than 60 calendar days following the completion of the performance test. For each initial compliance demonstration that does not involve a perfor mance test, facilities must submit an initial notification within 30 calendar days of completing the initial compliance demonstration. Records necessary to determine compliance with the emission limitations and work practice standards must be compiled on a daily basis, and compliance reports must be submitted to the Administrator on a semiannual basis. Repeat performance tests are to be conducted every 5 years to ensure ongoing compliance. There are 9 1 9 0 BSCP facilities that are currently major sources of H AP , 85 8 4 of which have at least one tunnel kiln . An estimated 22 2 1 of these facilities are projected to become synthetic area sources by promulgation rather than comply with the BSCP standards. The remaining 6 9 facilities (63 of which have a tunnel kiln) are expected to be subject to the BSCP***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 241 of 454 Manufacturing NESHAP . For these 6 9 facilities, t he annual recordkeeping and reporting burden associated with th e BSCP standards ( averaged over the first 3 years after the effective date of the standards) is estimated to be 20,963 labor hours per
year , at a cost of $ 1,113,105 per year ( yr )
. Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
N o capital costs associated with monitoring, testing, recordkeeping or reporting are expected to be incurred during this period . The annual operati o n and maintenance costs are estimated to be $ 682 /yr. The total burden for the federal government (averaged over the first 3 years after the effective date of the standards) is estimated to be 71 labor hours per year , at a total labor cost of $ 3,698 /yr
. (All costs are in 2011 dollars.) There are three clay ceramics facilities that are currently major sources of HAP and are expected to be subject to the Clay Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP . For these three facilities, t he annual recordkeeping and repor ting burden associated with the Clay Ceramics standards (averaged over the first 3 years after the effective date of the standards) is estimated to total 996 labor hours per year at a cost of $ 52,674 /yr. As with the BSCP standards, n o capital costs associa ted with monitoring, testing, recordkeeping or reporting are***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 242 of 454 expected to be incurred during this period . The annual operati o n and maintenance costs are estimated to be $44 /yr. The total burden for the federal government (averaged over the first 3 years after the effective date of the standards) is estimated to be 4.6 labor hours per year , at a total labor cost of $239 /yr
. (All costs are in 2011 dollars.) Because BSCP and clay ce ramics 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 report s , records o f compliance data and malfunctions) does not occur until the fourth year following promulgation. For the BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP , we estimate an average annual recordkeeping and reporting burden of 48,674 labor hours
per year , at a cost of $ 2,702,447 /yr, for years 4 through 6. We also estimate annualized capital costs of $ 606,760 /yr and annual operating and maintenance costs of $ 206,872 /yr over this period, for a total annualized cost of $ 813,632 /yr. The average annual burden for the federal government fo r years 4 through 6 is estimated to be 3, 891 labor hours per year , at a total labor cost of $20 4,550 /yr
. (All costs are in 2011 dollars.)***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 243 of 454 For the Clay Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP , we estimate an average annual recordkeeping and reporting burden of 2,323 labor hours per year, at a cost of $ 122,786 /yr, for years 4 through 6. We also estimate annualized capital costs of $ 72,050 /yr and annual operating and maintenance costs of $ 27,069 /yr over this period, for a total annualized cost of $ 99,119 /yr. The average annual burden for the federal government for years 4 through 6 is estimated to be 180 labor hours per year, at a total labor cost of $9,448 per year. (All costs are in 2011 dollars.) An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is no t required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for the EPA ’ s regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. When OMB approves this ICR, the a gency will announce tha t approval in the **Federal Register** and publish a technical amendment to 40 CFR part 9 to display the OMB control number for the approved information collection activities contained in this final rule. C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) Pursuant to section s 603 and 609(b) of the RFA, the EPA prepared an IRFA for the proposed rule and that examines the impact of the proposed rule on small entities along with regulatory alternatives that could minimize that impact. The Formatted: Bold***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 244 of 454 complete IRFA is available for review in the docket and is summarized here. We convened a SBAR Panel to obtain advice and recommendations from small entity representatives that potentially would be subject to the rule ’ s requirements. Summaries of the IRFA and Panel recommendations are included a t 79 FR 75669

- 75671
. As required by section 604 of the RFA, the EPA prepared a final regulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA) for this action. The FRFA addresses the issues raised by public comments on the IRFA for the proposed rule. The complete FRFA is in c luded in Section 5 of “ Regulatory Impact Analysis: Final Brick and Structural Clay Products NESHAP , ” available for review in the docket ( Docket ID No. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2013

- 0291 ), and is summarized here. 1. Need for the Rule The EPA is required under CAA sectio n 112(d) to establish emission standards for each category or subcategory of major and area sources of HAP listed for regulation in s ection 112(b). These standards are applicable to new or existing sources of HAP and shall require the maximum degree of emi ssion reduction. In the Administrator ’ s judgment, the pollutants emitted from BSCP manufacturing facilities cause or contribute significantly to air pollution that may reasonably be anticipated to endanger***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 245 of 454 public health. Consequently, NESHAP for the BSCP s ource category are being finalized
. 2. Objectives and Legal Basis for the Rule Section 112(d) of the CAA requires the EPA to set emissions standards for HAP emitted by major stationary sources based on the performance of the MACT. The MACT standards for existing sources must be at least as stringent as the average emissions limitation achieved by the best performing 12 percent of existing sources (for which the Administrator has emissions information) or the best performing five sources for source categor ies 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 consi der more stringent “ beyond

- the

- floor ” control options. When considering beyond

- the

- floor options, the EPA must consider not only the maximum degree of reduction in emissions of HAP, but must take into account costs, energy and non - air environmental impacts when doing so. This rule is being proposed
to comply with CAA section 112(d). 3. Significant Issues Raised The EPA received comments on the proposed standards and requests for comment that were included based on SBAR Panel***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 246 of 454 recommendations
. See section V of this preamble and “ National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Brick and Structural Clay Products Manufacturing: Background Information for Final Rule

- Summary of Public Comments and Responses ” in Docket ID No. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2013

- 0291 for more detailed comment summaries and responses.

• Work practices for dioxin/furan : One commenter stated that work practices for dioxin/furan emissions from BSCP tunnel kilns are not lawful under the CAA , and , even if they were, the work practic es proposed are not sufficient to minimize dioxin/furan emissions . Other commenters supported the
p ropos ed work practices for dioxin/furan. Response : The EPA is finalizing work practices for dioxin/furan as proposed. The EPA’s response to the legal
argumen ts made against work practice standards is presented in “National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Brick and Structural Clay Products Manufacturing: Background Information for Final Rule

- Summary of Public Comments and Responses” found in the docket ( Docket ID No. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2013

- 0291 )
.

• Work practices for Hg and other metals : Several commenters responded to the EPA ’ s request for comment on work practices for Hg and non

- Hg HAP metals. Numerous commenters***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 247 of 454 stated that the EPA should finaliz e work practices instead of numeric limits and provided support for their assertion that the numeric limits are technically and economically impracticable to enforce. Commenters also noted that the emissions reduced by these numeric standards are not justi fied by the high cost that would be incurred to meet the standards. Response : Emissions of Hg and non

- Hg HAP metals were detected using standard EPA test methods; therefore, t he Hg and non

- Hg HAP metals data sets do not meet the criteria for setting work practice standards under CAA section 112(h). The EPA is finalizing numeric standards for Hg and

non - Hg HAP metals under CAA section rather than work practices
. The final numeric s tandards are have been revised from since the proposal to account for new data from the industry (including data on the Hg content of raw materials) , removal of test data found not to meet the requirements of the applicable data, and changes in the
EPA ’ s approach to selecting the MACT floor pools (see section V. B.1 of this preamble for additional details).

• H ealth

- based standard for acid gases : Several commenters asserted that the EPA may not legally set CAA section 112(d)(4) health

- based standards for acid gases for BSCP***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 248 of 454 facilities . Other commenters supported the EPA ’ s decision to propose health

- based standards for acid gases but noted that the EPA ’ s approach was overly conservative and requested that the EPA consider setting multiple limits based on site c haracteristics. Response : The EPA is finalizing the health

- based standards for acid gases as proposed. The EPA ’ s response to the legal arguments made against health

- based standards is presented in section V. A of this preamble. The EPA is not changing the H BEL from proposal, as the proposed HBEL provides low potential for both chronic and acute health effects.

• Size subcategories for MACT floors : Several commenters requested that the EPA subcategorize by size for the non

- Hg HAP metal/PM MACT floor limits, as was proposed for Hg. Response : As part of recalculating the MACT floor limits based on the final data set, the EPA is finalizing separate limits for small and large kilns for non

- Hg HAP metals/PM as well as Hg. The EPA is also finalizing limits in three di fferent formats for both pollutants to provide additional flexibility for small tunnel kilns and tunnel kilns with a low metals content in the PM emissions
.

• Sawdust dryers : Several commenters requested that the EPA finalize a subcategory of sawdust

- fired k ilns venting to***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 249 of 454 sawdust dryers. Commenters provided general descriptions of how the operation of these kilns is different than tunnel kilns and stated that there are only two operating that would be subject to the BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP
. Response : Although one commenter noted that stack testing of a sawdust dryer is being considered, commenters did not provide test data to demonstrate that emissions from sawdust dryers are different than other tunnel kilns. Therefore, the EPA is not finalizing a sub category of sawdust

- fired kilns venting to sawdust dryers.

• Periods of startup and shutdown : One commenter stated that work practices for periods of startup and shutdown of BSCP tunnel kilns are not lawful under the CAA. Other commenters supported the propo sal to provide work practices for periods of startup and shutdown , but suggested improvements to the standards to make them feasible for all tunnel kilns. Response : The EPA evaluated the comments and is finalizing work practice s tandards for periods of sta rtup and shutdown that reflect best practices for minimizing emissions during these periods (see section V. B.2 of this preamble for additional information).***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 250 of 454

• MACT floor pool : Several commenters supported the EPA ’ s proposal to calculate MACT floor standards for PM based on the top 12 percent of the kilns in the industry ( i.e. , the best

- performing sources with a FF

- based APCD) . One commenter asserted that the EPA ’ s proposal is unlawful and the EPA must consider other factors than the APCD type when setting MAC T standards. Response : The EPA reviewed all the data used for the MACT floor for PM as a surrogate for non

- Hg HAP metals and found that some of the test data did not meet the requirements of EPA Method 5. When these data were removed, the EPA could no long er confirm that the data available to the agency represented all the best

- performing sources . Therefore, the final PM and non - Hg HAP metals are based on the top 12 percent of sources for which we had test data , regardless of APCD type (see section V. B.1 of this preamble for additional details). 4. Small Business Administration (SBA) SBA Comments The SBA ’ s Office of Advocacy supported the EPA ’ s proposals to set work practice standards and health

- based emission standards in all instances allowed by statute and suggested other areas of improvement. The comments on areas of improvement and the EPA ’ s responses are summarized below:***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 251 of 454

• Hg standards : The EPA should pursue subcategorization by input (raw material) type and dela y promulgation of a Hg standard to gathe r more information if needed. Standards may need to be combined with a significantly longer averaging time to allow for continuous compliance. Response : As an initial point, it is doubtful The EPA maintains that the EPA ha d the option of delaying the a delay in promulgation of an Hg standard . Under is not appropriate for two reasons. First, u nder CAA section 112(e), the EPA was scheduled to complete standards for all source categories by 2000. The EPA’s 2003 B SCP Manufacturing NESHAP was vacated, and that va catur re

created the EPA’s obligation to set standards for the BSCP source category. Sierra Club v. EPA , 850 F.Supp.2d 300, 303

- 304 (D.D.C. 2012) . Under the consent decree in that case, as amended in August 2014 , the EPA was obligated to sign a notice of f inal rulemaking to set standards for the
B SCP source category by September 24, 2015
. In any event, delay is not warranted. Following Second, the EPA notes that f ollowing proposal, the
EPA it received additional information on the Hg content of raw materials from facilities in the BSCP industry. This information did not provide the EPA with the information Formatted: Indent: First line: 0.5"***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 252 of 454 needed to establish subcategories based on the class or type of raw materials. However, the EPA has concluded that it has sufficient information to allow it to finalize Hg standards that account for the variability of Hg content in raw materials. Thus, the EPA’s conclusion is that there is

no need basis to delay promulgation of the Hg standard s in order to gather more information.

• Economic analysis : The economic impact of the proposed rule on small entities is significantly underestimated. Specifically, the EPA should not annualize costs at 7 percent over 20 years because that does not reflect the financing options available to small entities, the EPA underestimated the cost for a facility to become a synthetic area source, and the EPA has underestimated the cost to comply with the Hg standards given the limited information the agency has on the performance of Hg controls in this industry. Response : The EPA standard engineering cost practice is to annualize over the expected life of the control equipment at 7 percent. The EPA does not have the data available to model the way a firm pays for a n AP CD because each firm has a different set of potential options for financing including debt financing, equity financing, and financing***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 253 of 454 through retained earnings. The EPA acknowledges that some firms may not be able to borrow the money and some may close. Th e EPA’s closure analysis is quite uncertain, but we do not have the detailed firm

- specific information necessary to refine the analysis. The EPA agrees that the costs to become a synthetic area source at proposal were underestimated, and the final rule im pacts include testing costs for all facilities, as potential synthetic area sources would have to demonstrate that their emissions qualify them to apply for synthetic area status. Finally, the EPA must use the best information available to the agency to es timate the impact of the standards on all entities. The final Hg standards incorporate variability in the Hg content of raw materials, which is expected to ease the burdens on some small entities.
5 . Affected Small Entities Of 44 parent companies owning BS CP facilities, 36 parent companies are small businesses. The EPA computed the ratio of estimated compliance costs to company sales (cost

- to

- sales ratio) to measure the magnitude of potential impacts on small companies. Under the final standards, the EPA estimated that two
to three small BSCP manufacturing facilit ies (two to four BSCP***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 254 of 454 manufacturing facilities overall) are at significant risk of closur e . 6. Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance Requirements Respondents would be required to provide one - time and periodic notifications, including initial notification,

n otification of performance tests, and notification of

c ompliance status. Respondents would also be required to submit semiannual reports documenting compliance with the rule and detailin g any compliance issues, and they would be required to submit the results of performance tests to the EPA ’ s ERT. Respondents would be required to keep documentation supporting information included in these notifications and reports, as well as records of the operation and maintenance of affected sources and APCD at the facility. 7. Significant Alternatives The EPA considered three major options for this final rule ;

see “ Regulatory Impact Analysis: Final Brick and Structural Clay Products NESHAP , ” in Docket ID No. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2013

- 0291 ), for more information about the alternatives
. Finalizing the proposed changes without revision is expected to have similar cost and emission reduction impacts to the standards the EPA is finalizing, with a similar number of cl osures (one to two small
BSCP manufacturing facilit ies rather than two to three).***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 255 of 454 However, for the various legal and technical reasons outlined in this preamble and “ National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Brick and Structural Clay Pro ducts Manufacturing: Background Information for Final Rule

- Summary of Public Comments and Responses ” in Docket ID No. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2013

- 0291, the EPA determined that the PM/non

- Hg HAP metals and Hg standards should not be finalized as proposed. The other

a lternative considered included the same standards for acid gases and Hg that are being finalized but only provided one set of limits PM/non

- Hg HAP metals ( i.e. , did not provide separate sets of limits for small and large tunnel kilns). This alternative is expected to have significantly higher cost impacts than the standards the EPA is finalizing, along with a significantly higher number of closures (five to 10 small BSCP manufacturing facilit ies rather than two to three small BSCP manufacturing facilities ). Therefore, the EPA determined that it is necessary to exercise its discretion to subcategorize by kiln size to minimize the significant economic impact on small entities. In addition, the EPA is preparing a Small Entity Compliance Guide to help small entities comply with this rule. The guide will be available on the world wide web W orld W ide W eb***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 256 of 454 approximately 1 year after promulgation of the rule , at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/a tw/brick/brickpg.html
. D . Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) This action does not contain a n unfunded mandate of $100 million or more as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act ( UMRA ) , UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531

- 1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments
. This action imposes no enforceable duty on any state, local , or tribal governments or the private sector.
E . Executive Order 13132 : Federalism This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states , or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government
. F
. Executiv e Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. It will not have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the relationship between the federal government and Indian tribes , or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the federal government and Indian tribes, as specified in Executive Order 13175. The action***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 257 of 454 impose s requirements on owners and operators of BSCP and clay ceramics manufacturing facilities and not tribal governments. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action. G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks This action is not subject to Ex ecutive Order 13045 because the EPA does not believe the environmental health risks or safety risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to children. This action ’ s health and risk assessments are contained in the memoranda “ Risk Assessm ent to Determine a Health

- Based Emission Limitation for Acid Gases for the Brick and Structural Clay Products Manufacturing Source Category, ” Docket Item No. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2013

- 0291

- 0132 and “ Risk Assessment to Determine a Health

- Based Emission Limitation for Acid Gases for the Clay Ceramics Manufacturing Source Category, ” Docket
Item No. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2013

- 0290

- 0213. H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution or Use This action is not a “ significant energy action ” because it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution , or use of energy. This action will not adversely directly affect productivity, competition , or prices in the energy sector.***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 258 of 454
I . National Te chnology Transfer and Advancement Act (NT T AA) and 1 CFR part 51 This action involves technical standards
. The EPA has decided to use the following four voluntary consensus standards as acceptable alternatives to the EPA test methods for the purpose of this rule. The EPA has decided to use ANSI/ASME PTC 19

- . 10

- 1981 , Part 10 , “ Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses , ” for its manual methods of measuring the oxygen or carbon dioxide content of the exhaust gas. This standard is acceptable as an al ternative to Method 3A and 3B for the manual procedures only and not the instrumental procedures. and is available from the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) at http://www.asme.org ; by mail at Three Park Avenue, New York, NY 10016

- 5990 ; or by telephone at (800) 843

- 2763
. The EPA has also decided to use ASTM D6735

- 01 (Reapproved 2009) , “ Standard Test Method for Measurement of Gaseous Chlorides and Fluorides from Mineral Calcining Exhaust Sources

— Impinger Method , ” for its measurement of the conce ntration of gaseous HCl and HF and other gaseous chlorides and fluorides. This standard is acceptable as an alternative to Methods 26 and 26A.***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 259 of 454 In addition, the EPA has decided to use ASTM D6784

- 02 (Reapproved 2008) , “ Standard Test Method for Elemental, Oxidized, Particle

- Bound and Total Mercury Gas Generated from Coal

- Fired Stationary Sources (Ontario Hydro Method) , ” for its determination of elemental, oxidized, particle

- bound, and total Hg emissions. This standard is acceptable as an alternative to Meth od 29 (portion for Hg only). Finally, the EPA has decided to use ASTM D6348

- 03 ( Reapproved 2010), “ Standard Test Method for Determination of Gaseous Compounds by Extractive Direct Interface Fourier Transform Infrared (FTIR) Spectroscopy , ” for its use of an extractive sampling system to direct stationary source effluent to an FTIR spectrometer for the identification and quantification of gaseous compounds. This standard is acceptable as an alternative to Method 320 with the following conditions: (1) 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 recovery (%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 are not***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 260 of 454 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 standards ASTM D6735

- 01, ASTM D6784

- 02, and ASTM D6348

- 03 are available from the American Society o f Testing and Materials (ASTM) at http://www.astm.org ; by mail at 100 Barr Harbor Drive, Post Office Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428

- 2959 ; or by t elephone at (610) 832

- 9585. While the EPA identified ASTM D7520

– 13, “ Standard Test Method for Determinin g the Opacity in a Plume in an Outdoor Ambient Atmosphere ” as being potentially applicable as an alternative to Method 9 for measuring opacity from BSCP tunnel kilns , the a gency decided not to use it. The use of this voluntary consensus standard would be i mpractical. T he five provisions for the use of this standard appear to be based on the assumption that the optical camera will be used on a daily basis. However, this rulemaking does not include daily Method 9
tests. The rule requirements are such that a Method 9 observation would need to be made unexpectedly and only when the***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 261 of 454 Method 22 test failed. It would be unreasonable to expect that a source would be making daily calibrations of the camera when its use would be s o infrequent. Given that, it is unlikely that the camera could be made ready in the time specified for the Method 9 readings. Therefore, this standard is not usable based on the current requirements in this rulemaking
. J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low

- Income Populations The EPA believes the human health or environmental risk addressed by this action will **not** have potential disproportionately high and adverse human health or environ mental effects on minority, low

- income, or indigenous populations because it does not affect the level of protection provided to human health or the environment. As explained in the December 2014 proposal (79 FR 75672 ), the EPA determined that this final r ule will not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or low

- income populations, because it increases the level of environmental protection for all affected populations without having any disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on any population, including any minority or low

- income population. Additionally, the agency has conducted Formatted: Bold***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 262 of 454 a proximity analysis for this rulemaking , which is located in the docket. (See “ EJ Screening Report for Brick and Structural Clay , ” Docket Item No. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2013

- 0291

- 0102, and “ EJ Screening Report for Clay Ceramics, ” Docket Item No. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

2013

- 0290

- 0241
. ) K. Congressional Review Act (CRA) This action is subject to the CRA , and the EPA will submit a rule report to each ho u se of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. Th is action is a

“ major rule ” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).***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**  Page 263 of 454 **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 264 of 454
F or the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Environmental Protection Agency amends 40 CFR part 63 as follows: **PART 63 --**  **NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR** 
**POLLUTANTS FOR SOURCE CATEGORIES**  1. The authority citation for pa rt 63 continues to read as follows: **Authority:** 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq
. 2. Section 63.14 is amended by:

a . Revising paragraph s (f)( 1); paragraph ( g )( 74), newly redesignated (g)(85) and (l)(2 1 ); b. Revising paragraph (h)(75);

c. Redesignating paragraphs ( g)(83 h)(85 ) through ( 95 97 ) as paragraphs ( g)(84 h)(86 ) through ( 96 98 ), respectively;

c d . Adding new paragraph ( g)(83 h)(85 ); e. Revising newly redesignated paragraph (h)( 87); and f. Revising paragraph (m)(2). The revisions and additions read as follows: **§63.14 Incorporations by reference.** 
* * * * * ( f g ) * * * (1) ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10

– 1981, Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses [P art 10, Instruments and Apparatus], issued August 31, 1981,***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 265 of 454 IBR approved for §§63.309 (k) , 63.457(k), 63. 772(e) and (h), 63.865 (b) , 63.1282 (d) and (g), 63. 1 6 25(b), 63.3166 (a) , 63.3360 (e) , 63.3545 (a) , 63.3555 (a) , 63.4166 (a) , 63.4362 (a) , 63.4766 (a) , 63.4965 (a) , 63.5160 (d) , table 4 to subpart UUUU, 63.9307 (c) , 63.9323 (a) , 63.11148 (e) , 63.11155 (e) , 63.11162 (f) , 63.11163 (g) , 63.11410 (j) , 63.11551 (a) , 63.11646(a), and 63.11945, table 5 to subpart DDDDD, table 4 to subpart JJJJJ, table 4 to subpart KKKKK, tables 4 and 5 of subpart UUUUU, and table 1 to subpart ZZZZZ , and table 4 to subpart JJJJJJ
. * * * * * ( g h ) * * * ( 74 75 ) ASTM D6348

- 03 (Rea pproved 2010), Standard Test Method for Determination of Gaseous Compounds by Extractive Direct Interface Fourier Transform Infrared (FTIR) Spectroscopy, including Annexes A1 through A8, (Approved October 1, 2010), IBR approved for tables 4 and 5 to subpar t JJJJJ, tables 4 and 6 to subpart KKKKK, tables 1, 2, and 5 to subpart UUUUU , and appendix B to subpart UUUUU.
* * * * * (83 * * * * * (8 5 ) ASTM D6735

- 01 (Reapproved 2009), Standard Test Method for Measurement of Gaseous Chlorides and Fluorides fro m Mineral Calcining Exhaust Sources

— Impinger Method , IBR approved for***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 266 of 454 tables 4 and 5 to subpart JJJJJ and tables 4 and 6 to subpart
KKKKK. * * * * * (8 7 * * * * * (8 5 ) ASTM D6784

- 02 (Reapproved 2008), Standard Test Method for Elemental, Oxidized, Particle

- Bound and Total Mercury in Flue Gas Generated from Coal

- Fired Stationary Sources (Ontario Hydro Method), (Approved April 1, 2008), IBR approved for §§63.11646(a), 63. 11647(a) and (d), tables 1, 2, 5, 11, 12t, and 13 to subpart DDDDD, tables 4 and 5 to subpart JJJJJ, tables 4 and 6 to subpart KKKKK, table 4 to subpart JJJJJJ, table 5 to subpart UUUUU, and appendix A to subpart UUUUU.
* * * * * ( l m ) * * * (2) EPA

- 4 54/R

- 98

- 015, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS), Fabric Filter Bag Leak Detection Guidance, September 1997, IBR approved for §§63.548(e), 63.7525(j), 63.8450(e), 63.8600(e), and 63.11224(f).
* * * * * 3. Part 63 is amended by revising subpart JJJJJ to read as follows: **Subpart JJJJJ --**  **National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Brick and Structural Clay Products Manufacturing** 
Sec.***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 267 of 454
**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 mee t? 63.8410 What are my options for meeting the emission limitations and work practice standards? **General Compliance Requirements** 63.8420 What are my general requirements for complying with this subpart? 63.8425 What do I need to know about operation, main tenance, and monitoring plans? **Testing and Initial Compliance Requirements** 63.8435 By what date must I conduct performance tests? 63.8440 When must I conduct subsequent performance tests? 63.8445 How do I conduct performance tests and establish operating limits? 63.8450 What are my monitoring installation, operation, and maintenance requirements? 63.8455 How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the emission limitations and work practice standards? **Continuous Compliance Requirements** 63.8465 How do I mo nitor and collect data to demonstrate continuous compliance? 63.8470 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the emission limitations and work practice standards? **Notifications, Reports, and Records** 63.8480 What notifications must I submit and when? 63.8485 What reports must I submit and when? 63.8490 What records must I keep? 63.8495 In what form and for how long must I keep my records?***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 268 of 454 **Other Requirements and Information** 63.8505 What parts of the General Provisions apply to me? 63.8510 Who imp lements 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 Pa rt 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

-- Contin uous Compliance with Emission Limitations and Work Practice Standards Table 7 to Subpart JJJJJ of Part 63

-- Compliance Dates Table 8 to Subpart JJJJJ of Part 63

-- Requirements for Notifications Table 9 to Subpart JJJJJ of Part 63

-- Requirements for Reports Ta ble 10 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 pollutants (HAP) emit ted from brick and structural clay products (BSCP) manufacturing facilities. This subpart also establishes requirements to demonstrate initial and continuous compliance with the emission limitations. **§63.8385 Am I subject to this subpart?**
You are subject to this subpart if you own or operate a BSCP manufacturing facility that is, is located at, or is part***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 269 of 454 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 sit e that manufactures brick (including, but not limited to, face brick, structural brick, and brick pavers); clay pipe; roof tile; extruded floor and wall tile; and/or other extruded, dimensional clay products. Brick and structural clay products manufacturin g facilities typically process raw clay and shale, form the processed materials into bricks or shapes, and dry and fire the bricks or shapes. A plant site that manufactures refractory product s, as defined in 40 CFR 63.9824 , or clay ceramics, as defined in 40 CFR 63.8665, is not a BSCP manufacturing facility. (b) A major source of HAP emissions is any stationary source or group of stationary sources within a contiguous area under common control that emits or has the potential to emit any single HAP at a rate of 9.07 megagrams (10 tons) or more per year or any combination of HAP at a rate of 22.68 megagrams (25 tons) or more per year. **§63.8390 What parts of my plant does this subpart cover?** (a) This subpart applies to each existing, new, or reconstructed affe cted 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).***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 270 of 454 (1) All tunnel kilns at a BSCP manufacturing facility are an affected source. For the remainder of this subp art, a tunnel kiln with a design capacity equal to or greater than 9.07 megagrams per hour (Mg/hr) (10 tons per hour (tph)) of fired product will be called a large tunnel kiln, and a tunnel kiln with a design capacity less than 9.07 Mg/hr (10 tph) of fired product will be called a small tunnel kiln. (2) Each periodic kiln is an affected source. (c) Process units not subject to the requirements of this subpart are listed in paragraphs (c)(1) through (4) of this section. (1) Kilns that are used exclusively fo r setting glazes on previously fired products are not subject to the requirements of this subpart. (2) Raw material processing and handling. (3) Dryers. (4) Sources covered by subparts KKKKK and SSSSS of this part. (d) A source is a new affected source if construction of the affected source began after December 18, 2014, and you met the applicability criteria at the time you began construction. (e) An affected source is reconstructed if you meet the criteria as defined in §63.2.***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 271 of 454 (f) An affected source is ex isting if it is not new or reconstructed. **§63.8395 When do I have to comply with this subpart?** (a) Y ou must comply with this subpart no later than the compliance dates in Table 7 to this subpart
. ( b ) You must meet the notification requirements in §63.8480 according to the schedule in §63.8480 and in subpart A of this part. Some of the notifications must be submitted before you are required to comply with the emission limitations in this subpart. **Emission Limitations and Work Practice Standards §63.8405 Wha**  **t 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 e ach work practice standard in Table 3 to this subpart that applies to you.***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 2 72 of 454 **§63.8410 What are my options for meeting the emission limitations and work practice standards?**  (a) To meet the emission limitations in Tables 1 and 2 to this subpart, you must use one or more of the options listed in paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this section. (1) Emissions control system
. Use an emissions capture and collection system and an air pollution control device (APCD) and demonstrate that the resulting emissions meet the em ission limits in Table 1 to this subpart, and that the capture and collection system and APCD meet the applicable operating limits in Table 2 to this subpart. (2) Process changes
. Use low

- HAP raw materials or implement manufacturing process changes and dem onstrate that the resulting emissions or emissions reductions meet the emission limits in Table 1 to this subpart. (b) To meet the work practice standards for affected periodic kilns, you must comply with the requirements listed in Table 3 to this subpart
. (c) To meet the work practice standards for dioxins/furans for affected tunnel kilns, you must comply with the requirements listed in Table 3 to this subpart
.***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 273 of 454 (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 Requirements §63.8420 What are my general requirements for complying with**  **this subpart?** (a) You must be in compliance with the emission limitations (incl uding operating limits) in this subpart at all times, except during periods of that you are approved for and in compliance with the alternative standard for routine control device maintenance as specified in paragraph (d) of this section , and except during periods of start

- up and shutdown, at which time you must comply with the applicable work practice standard specified in Table 3 to this subpart
. (b) A t all times, you must operate and maintain any affected source, including associated air pollution control equipment and monitoring equipment, in a manner consistent with safety and good air pollution control practices for minimizing emissions. The general duty to minimize emissions does not require you to make any further efforts to reduce emissions if levels required by the applicable standard have been achieved. Determination of whether a source is operating in compliance with operation and maintenance requirements will be based on***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 274 of 454 information available to the Administrator which may include, but is not limi ted 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 proce ss 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 require ments in §63.8425. (d) If you own or operate an affected kiln that is subject to the emission limits specified in Table 1 to this subpart and must perform routine maintenance on the control device for that kiln, you may bypass the kiln control device and c ontinue operating the kiln subject to the alternative standard established in this paragraph upon approval by the Administrator and provided you satisfy the conditions listed in paragraphs (d)(1) through (5) of this section.***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 275 of 454 (1) You must request a to use th e routine control device maintenance exemption alternative standard from the Administrator no later than 120 calendar days before the compliance date specified in §63.8395 . Your request must justify the need for the routine maintenance on the control device and the time required to accomplish the maintenance activities, describe the maintenance activities and the frequency of the maintenance activities, explain why the maintenance cannot be accomplished during kiln shutdowns, provide information stating whet her the continued operation of the affected source will result in fewer emissions than shutting the source down while the maintenance is performed, describe how you plan to comply with paragraph (b) of this section during the maintenance, and provide any other documentation required by the Administrator. (2) The routine control device maintenance exemption must not exceed 4 percent of the annual operating uptime for each kiln. (3) The request for the routine control device maintenance exemption alternative standard , if approved by the Administrator, must be incorporated by reference in and attached to the affected source ’ s title V permit. (4) You must minimize HAP emissions during the period when the kiln is operating and th e control device is offline by***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 276 of 454 complying with the applicable work practice standard in Table 3 to this subpart
. (5) You must minimize the time period during which the kiln is operating and the control device is offline. (e) You must be in compliance with t he work practice standards in this subpart at all times. (f) You must be in compliance with the provisions of subpart A of this part, except as noted in Table 10 to this subpart. **§63.8425 What do I need to know about operation, maintenance, and monitoring**  **plans?** (a) For each affected kiln that is subject to the emission limits specified in Table 1 to this subpart, you must prepare, implement, and revise as necessary an OM&M plan that includes the information in paragraph (b) of this section. Your OM&M plan must be available for inspection by the delegated authority upon request. (b) Your OM&M plan must include, as a minimum, the information in paragraphs (b)(1) through (13) of this section. (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 277 of 454 (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

com pliance with the emission limitations in §63.8405. The limits must be based on values of the monitored parameters recorded during performance tests. (4) Procedures for the proper operation and routine and long

- term maintenance of each APCD, including a mai ntenance and inspection schedule that is consistent with the manufacturer ’ s recommendations. (5) Procedures for installing the CMS sampling probe or other interface at a measurement location relative to each affected process unit such that the measurement is representative of control of the exhaust emissions ( e.g. , on or downstream of the last APCD). (6) Performance and equipment specifications for the sample interface, the pollutant concentration or parametric signal analyzer, and the data collection and r eduction 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)
.***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 278 of 454 (9) Continuous monitoring system data quality assurance procedures consistent with the requirements in §63.8(d) (1) and (2)
. The owner or operator shall keep these written procedures on record for the life of the affected source or until the affected source is no longer subject to the provisions of this part, to be made available for inspection, upon request, by the Administrator. If the performance evaluation plan in §63.8(d) (2) is revised, the owner or operator shall keep previous ( i.e. , superseded) versions of the performance evaluation plan on record to be made available for inspection, upon request, by the Administrator, for a period of 5 years after each revision to the plan. The program of corrective action should be included in the plan required under §63.8(d)(2). (10) Continuous monitoring system recordkeeping and reporting procedures consistent with the requirements in §§63.8485 and 63.8490. (11) Procedures for responding to operating parameter deviations, 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.***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 279 of 454 (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, 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***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 280 of 454
per formance 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 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 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.***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 281 of 454 **§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) Bef ore 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 t ests shall be conducted under such conditions as the Administrator specifies to you based on representative performance of the affected source for the period being tested. Representative conditions exclude periods of startup and shutdown. You may not condu ct performance tests during periods of malfunction. You must record the process information that is necessary to document operating conditions during the test and include in such record an explanation to support that such conditions represent normal operat ion. Upon request, you 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 282 of 454 (e) You must conduct at least three separate test runs for each performance test required in this section, a s specified in §63.7(e)(3). Each test run must last at least 1 hour. (f) You must use the data gathered during the performance test and the equations in paragraphs (f)(1) and (2) of this section to determine compliance with the emission limitations. (1) To determine compliance with the production

- based particulate matter (PM) and mercury (Hg) emission limits in Table 1 to this subpart, you must calculate your mass emissions per unit of production for each test run using Equation 1:

P ER MP = 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 = prod uction 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: Field Code Changed***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 283 of 454
                +               + =
2 2 Cl HCl Cl HF HCl HF HCl i RfC RfC E RfC RfC E E E                 +               + =
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 hour
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 Cl 2 , 0.15 micrograms per cubic meter (ii) If you have multiple tunnel kilns at your facility, sum the HCl

- equivalent values for all tunnel kilns at the facility using Equation 3: 

# ∑

= 

### = n

i i total 

### E E 1 

# ∑

= 

### = 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 facility Field Code Changed

Field Code Changed***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 284 of 454 (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 th is 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


## ( ) ( ) ( ) 

# ( )                 +         + =
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) o f 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, kilograms (pounds) of Cl 2 per megagram (ton ) of fired product Field Code Changed***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 285 of 454 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: 

# ∑

= 

### = n

i i total 

### E E 1 max

max 

# ∑

= 

### = 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 tota l 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. Field Code Changed***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 286 of 454


## ( ) ( ) 

# ( )                 +         + =

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 (t on) 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 Rf C 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 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***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 287 of 454 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 t he requirements in §63.8(f) and paragraphs (h)(1) and (2) of this section. (1) Submit a request for approval of alternative monitoring procedures to the Administrator no later than the notification of intent to conduct a performance test. The request must contain the information specified in paragraphs (h)(1)(i) through (iv) of this section. (i) A description of the alternative APCD or process changes. (ii) The type of monitoring device or procedure that will be used. (iii) The operating parameters that wil l 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 288 of 454 (2) Establish site

- specific operating limits during the performance test based on the infor mation 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, an d 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 operati on for each successive 15

- minute period. To have a valid hour of data, you must have at least three of four equally spaced data values (or at least 75 percent if you collect more than four data values per hour) for that hour (not including startup, shutdow n, malfunction, out

- of

- control periods, or periods of routine control device maintenance covered by a the routine control device maintenance exemption alternative standard

as specified in §63. 8420( d)). (3) Determine and record the 3

- hour block averages of all recorded readings, calculated after every 3 hours of operation as the average of the previous 3 operating hours. To calculate***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 289 of 454 the average for each 3

- hour average period, you must have at least 75 pe rcent 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 the routine control device maintenance exemption alternative standard as speci fi ed in §63. 8420( d)). (4) Record the results of each inspection, calibration, and validation check. (5) At all times, maintain the monitoring equipment including, but not limited to, maintaining necessary parts for routine repairs of the monitoring equipme nt. (b) For each liquid flow measurement device, you must meet the requirements in paragraphs (a)(1) through (5) and paragraphs (b)(1) through (3) of this section. (1) Locate the flow sensor in a position that provides a representative flowrate. (2) Use a flow sensor with a minimum measurement sensitivity of 2 percent of the liquid flowrate. (3) At least semiannually, conduct a flow sensor calibration check. (c) For each pressure measurement device, you must meet the requirements in paragraphs (a)(1) throug h (5) and paragraphs (c)(1) through (7) of this section.***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 290 of 454 (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 ex ternal corrosion. (3) Use a gauge with a minimum measurement sensitivity of 0.5 inch of water or a transducer with a minimum measurement sensitivity of 1 percent of the pressure range. (4) Check the pressure tap daily to ensure that it is not plugged. (5) Using a manometer, check gauge calibration quarterly and transducer calibration monthly. (6) Any time the sensor exceeds the manufacturer ’ s specified maximum operating pressure range, conduct calibration checks or install a new pressure sensor. (7) At leas t monthly, inspect all components for integrity, all electrical connections for continuity, and all mechanical connections for leakage. (d) For each pH measurement device, you must meet the requirements in paragraphs (a)(1) through (5) and paragraphs (d)(1 ) through (4) of this section. (1) Locate the pH sensor in a position that provides a representative measurement of pH.***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 291 of 454 (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 at o ne point daily
. (4) At least monthly, inspect all components for integrity and all electrical connections for continuity. (e) For each bag leak detection system, you must meet the requirements in paragraphs (e)(1) through (11) of this section. (1) Each triboelectric bag leak detection system must be installed, calibrated, operated, and maintained according to the
EPA

- 454/R

- 98

- 015, “ 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 detecti on 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.***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 292 of 454 (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 automatical ly 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 ba ghouse compartment or cell. (7) For negative pressure or induced air fabric filters, the bag leak detector must be installed downstream of the fabric filter. (8) Where multiple detectors are required, the system ’ s instrumentation and alarm may be shared among detectors. (9) The baseline output must be established by adjusting the range and the averaging period of the device and establishing the alarm set points and the alarm delay time according to section 5.0 of the “ Fabric Filter Bag Leak Detection Guid ance, ” (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***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 293 of 45 4 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
g ood 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, calibrati on, 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 th at 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 sect ion 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.***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 294 of 454 (h ( h ) For each temperature measurement device, you must meet the requirements in paragraphs (a)( 1) throug h (5) and paragraphs (h )(1) through (3) of this section. (1) Locate the measurement device in a position that provides a representative temperature. (2) Use a measurement device with a minimum sensitivity of 1 percent of the temperature being measured. (3) At least semiannually, conduct a calibration check. ( i ) Requests for approval of alternate monitoring procedures must meet the requirements in §§63.8445(h) and 63.8(f). **§63.8455 How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the emission limitations and**  **work practice standards?** (a) You must demonstrate initial compliance with each emission limitation and work practice standard that applies to you according to Table 5 to this subpart. (b) You must establish each site

- specific operating limit in Table 2 to this subpart that applies to you according to the requirements in §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 i n §63.8480( c ).***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 295 of 454 **Continuous Compliance Requirements §63.8465 How do I monitor and collect data to demonstrate**  **continuous compliance?** (a) You must monitor and collect data according to this section. (b) Except for periods of monitor malfunctions, associated repairs, and required quality assurance or control activities (including, as applicable, calibration checks and required zero and span adjustments), you must monitor continuously (or collect data at all required intervals) at all times that the affected

so urce 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, associat ed repairs, out

- of

- control periods, or required quality assurance or control activities for purposes of calculating data averages. You must use all the valid data collected during all other periods in assessing compliance. Any averaging period for which yo u do not have valid monitoring data and such data are required constitutes a deviation from the monitoring requirements.***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 296 of 454 **§63.8470 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the emission limitations and work practice standards?**  (a) You must demonstrat e 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 subjec t 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 dem onstrate continuous compliance with each emission limit in Table 1 to this subpart, and each operating limit established as required in §63.8445(h)(2) according to the methods specified in your approved alternative monitoring procedures request, as describ ed in §§63.8445(h)(1) and 63.8(f). (c) You must report each instance in which you did not meet each emission limit and each operating limit in this subpart that applies to you. These instances are deviations from the emission limitations in this subpart. These deviations must be reported according to the requirements in §63.8485 (c)(9)
. (d) [Reserved]***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 297 of 454 (e ) ) (1) VE testing
. You must demonstrate continuous compliance with the operating limits in Table 2 to this subpart for visible emissions (VE) from tunnel ki lns that are uncontrolled or equipped with DLA, dry lime injection fabric filter (DIFF), dry lime scrubber/fabric filter (DLS/FF), or other dry control device by monitoring VE at each kiln stack according to the requirements in paragraphs (e)(1 ) (i ) through ( 3 v ) of this section. ( 1 i ) Perform daily VE observations of each kiln stack according to the procedures of Method 22 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 7. You must conduct the Method 22 test while the affected source is operating under normal conditions. The duration of each Method 22 test must be at least 15 minutes. ( 2 ii ) If VE are observed during any daily test conducted using Method 22 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 7, you must promptly conduct a n opacity test , according to the procedures of Method 9 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 4. If opacity greater than 10 percent is observed , you must initiate and complete corrective actions according to your OM&M plan. If no (iii) You may decrease the frequency of Method 22 testing from daily to weekly for a kiln sta ck if one of the conditions in paragraph (e)(1)(iii)(A) or (B) of this section is met. Formatted: Paragraph (i,ii,iii)***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 298 of 454 (A) N o 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 ; or (B) No opacity greater than 10 percent is observed during
any of the Method 9 tests for any kiln stack. (iv) If VE are observed during any weekly test and opacity greater than 10 percent is observed in the subsequent Method 9
test , yo u must promptly initiate and complete corrective actions according to your OM&M plan, resume Method 22 testing of that kiln stack following Method 22 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 7 , on a daily basis, as described in paragraph (e)(1)(i) of this section, an d maintain that schedule until no VE are observed in 30 consecutive daily tests one of the conditions in paragraph (e)(1)(iii)(A) or (B) of this section is met , at which time you may again decrease the frequency of Method 22 testing to a weekly basis. ( 3 v ) If VE are greater than 10 percent opacity is observed during any test conducted using Method 22 9 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 7 4 , you must report these deviations by following the requirements in §63.8485. ( 2 ) Alternative to VE testing . In lieu of meetin g the requirements under paragraph (e)(1) above, you may conduct a PM Formatted: Paragraph (i,ii,iii)***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 299 of 454
test at least once every year following the initial performance
test , according to the procedures of Method 5 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 3 , and the provisions of § 63.8445(e) and (f)(1)
. **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 specifi ed. (b) You must submit all of the notifications specified in Table 8 to this subpart that apply to you, by the dates specified
. ( c ) If you are required to conduct a performance test or other initial compliance demonstration as specified in Tables 4 and 5 to this subpart, you r Notification of Compliance Status as specified in Table 8 to this subpart must include the information in paragraphs ( c )( 1 ) through ( 3 ) of this section. (1) The requirements in §63.9(h)(2)(i). ( 2 ) The operating limit parameter values established for each affected source with supporting documentation and a description of the procedure used to establish the values. ( 3 ) For each APCD that includes a fabric filter, if a bag leak detection system is used, analysis and supporting***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 300 of 454 documentati on demonstrating conformance with EPA guidance and specifications for bag leak detection systems in §63.8450(e). **§63.8485 What reports must I submit and when?** (a) You must submit each report in Table 9 to this subpart that applies to you. (b) Unless the Administrator has approved a different schedule for submission of reports under §63.10(a), you must submit each report by the date in Table 9 to this subpart and as specified in paragraphs (b)(1) through (5) of this section. (1) The first co mpliance report must cover the period beginning on the compliance date that is specified for your affected source in §63.8395 and ending on either June 30 or December 31. The first reporting period must be at least 6 months, but less than 12 months. For ex ample, 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.***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 301 of 454 (4) Each subsequent complia nce 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 C FR 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 permit ting authority has established instead of the dates in paragraphs (b)(1) through (4) of this section. (c) The compliance report must contain the information in paragraphs (c)(1) through (8) of this section. (1) Company name and address. (2) Statement by a responsible official with that official ’ s name, title, and signature, certifying that, based on information and belief formed after reasonable inquiry, the statements and information in the report are true, accurate, and complete. (3) Date of report and be ginning 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***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 302 of 454 the control device was operating, including the information specified in paragraphs (c)(4)(i) through (iii) of this section. (i) The date and time when the control device was shut down and restarted. (ii) Identification of the kiln that was operating and the number of hours that the kiln operated while the control device was offline. (iii ) A statement of whether or not the control device maintenance was included in your approved routine control device maintenance exemption request developed as specified in §63. 8420( d). If the control device maintenance was included in your approved routine control device maintenance exemption request , then you must report the information in paragraphs (c)(4)(iii)(A) through (C) of this section. ( A ) The total amount of time that the kiln controlled by the control device operated during the current semiannual compliance period and during the previous semiannual compliance period. (B) The amount of time that each kiln controlled by the control device operated while the control device was off line for maintenance covered under the routine control device maintenance exemption alternative standard during the current semiannual***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 303 of 454 compliance period and during the previous semiannual compliance period. (C) Based on the information recorded under paragr aphs (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 + +
= 

## ( ) 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 alternative standard for the previous semiannual compliance period
DT c = Control device downtime claimed under the routine control device maintenance exemption alternative standard 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 conducted to comply with the dioxin/furan work practice standard in Table 3 to this subpart. (6) If there are no deviations from any emission limitations (emission limits or operating limits) that apply to you, the compliance report must contain a statement that there Field Code Changed***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 304 of 454 were no deviations from the emission limitations during the reporting period. (7) If there were no periods during w hich 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. (8) The first compliance report must contain the startup push rate for each kiln, the minimum APCD inlet temperature for each APCD, and the temperature profile for each kiln without an
APCD. ( 9 ) For each deviation that occurs at an affected source, report such events in the compliance report by including the information in paragraphs ( c )( 9 ) (i) through ( iii ) of this section. ( i ) The date, time, and duration of the deviation
. (ii) A list of the affected sources or equipment for which the deviation occurred. ( iii ) A n estimate of the quantity of each regulate d pollutant emitted over any emission limit , and a description of the method used to estimate the emissions
. ( d ) For each deviation from an emission limitation (emission limit or operating limit) occurring at an affected source where you are using a CMS to comply with the emission***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 305 of 454 limitations in this subpart, you must include the information in paragraphs (c)(1) through (4) and (c)(9), and paragraphs ( d )(1) through (1 1 ) of this section. This includes periods of startup, shutdown, and routine control device maintenance. (1) The total operating time of each affected source during the reporting period. (2) The date and time that each CMS was inoperative, except for zero (low

- level) and high

- level checks. (3) The date, time, and duration that each CMS was out

- of

control, including the pertinent information in your OM&M plan. (4 ) W hether each deviation occurred during routine control device maintenance covered in your approved routine control device maintenance exemption alternative standard or during another period, and the cause of each deviation (including unknown cause, if applicable). ( 5 ) A description of any corrective action ta ken to return the affected unit to its normal or usual manner of operation
. ( 6 ) A breakdown of the total dura tion of the deviations during the reporting period into those that were due to startup, shutdown, control equipment problems, process problems, other known causes, and other unknown causes. ( 7 ) A summary of the total duration of CMS downtime during the rep orting period and the total duration of CMS downtime as a***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 306 of 454 percent of the total source operating time during that reporting period. ( 8 ) A brief description of the process units. ( 9 ) A brief description of the CMS. (1 0 ) The date of the latest CMS certificati on or audit. (1 1 ) A description of any changes in CMS, processes, or control equipment since the last reporting period. ( e ) If you have obtained a title V operating permit according to 40 CFR part 70 or 40 CFR part 71, you must report all deviations as defined in this subpart in the semiannual monitoring report required by 40 CFR 70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A) or 40 CFR 71.6(a)(3)(iii)(A ). If you submit a compliance report according to Table 9 to this subpart along with, or as part of, the semiannual monitoring report required by 40 CFR 70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A) or 40 CFR 71.6(a)(3)(iii)(A), and the compliance report includes all required inform ation 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.***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 307 of 454 ( f ) Within 60 calendar days after the date of completing each performance test (as defined in §63.2) required by this

su bpart, you must submit the results of the performance
test s test following the procedure specified in either paragraph ( f )(1) or ( f )(2) of this section. (1) For data collected using test methods supported by the
EPA ’ s Electronic Reporting Tool ( ERT ) as listed on the EPA ’ s ERT
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 ac cessed 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
. Alternatively , you may submit performance test data in an or an a lternate electronic file format consistent with the extensible markup language (XML) schema listed on the
EPA ’ s ERT Web site once the XML schema is available
. If you claim that some of the performance test information being submitted is confidential busi ness information (CBI), you must submit a complete file generated through the use of the EPA ’ s
ERT or an alternate electronic file consistent with the XML schema listed on the EPA ’ s ERT Web site , including information***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 308 of 454 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 C404

- 02, 4930 Old Page Rd., Durh am, NC 27703. The same ERT or alternate file with the CBI omitted must be submitted to the EPA via the EPA ’ s CDX as described earlier in this paragraph. (2) For data collected using test methods that are not supported by the EPA ’ s ERT as listed on the EPA ’ s ERT 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) throu gh (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 req uirements in §63.10(b)(2)(xiv). (2) Records of performance tests as required in §63.10(b)(2)(viii).***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 309 of 454 (3) Records relating to control device maintenance and documentation of your approved routine control device maintenance exemption request , if you request su ch an exemption to use the alternative standard under §63. 8420(d). (b) You must keep the records required in Table 6 to this subpart to show continuous compliance with each emission limitation and work practice standard that applies to you. (c) You must als o maintain the records listed in paragraphs (c)(1) through (11) of this section. (1) For each bag leak detection system, records of each alarm, the time of the alarm, the time corrective action was initiated and completed, and a brief description of the ca use of the alarm and the corrective action taken. (2) For each deviation, record the information in paragraphs (c)(2)(i) through (i v ) of this section. (i) T he date, time, and duration of the deviation
. (ii) A list of the affected sources or equipment
. (iii ) A n estimate of the quantity of each regulated pollutant emitted over any emission limit and a description of the method used to estimate the emissions. (iv) Actions taken to minimize emissions in accordance with §63.8420(b) and any corrective action s tak en to return the affected unit to its normal or usual manner of operation.***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 310 of 454 (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 maintenanc e and inspections 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
oper ation of your periodic kiln. (i) Records of the firing time and temperature cycle for each product produced in each periodic kiln. If all periodic kilns use the same time and temperature cycles, one copy may be maintained for each kiln. Reference numbers must be assigned to use in log sheets
. (ii) For each periodic kiln, a log that details the type of product fired in each batch, the corresponding time and temperature protocol reference number, and an indication of whether the appropriate time and temperature cycle was fired. (iii ) For each periodic kiln, a log of the actual tonnage of product fired in the periodic kiln and an indication of***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 311 of 454 whether the tonnage was below the maximum tonnage for that
spec ific kiln. (8) L ogs of the maintenance procedures used to demonstrate compliance with the maintenance requirements of the periodic kiln work practice standard s specified in Table 3 to this subpart
. (9) R ecords of burner tune

- ups used to comply with the dio xin/furan work practice standard for tunnel kilns. (10) For periods of startup and shutdown , records of the following information: (i) T he date, time, and duration of each startup and/or shutdown period , recording the periods when the affected source

was s ubject to the standard applicable to startup and shutdown
. (ii) For periods of startup, the kiln push rate and kiln exhaust temperature prior to the time the kiln exhaust reaches the minimum APCD inlet temperature ( for a kiln with an APCD ) or the kiln temp erature profile is attained ( for a kiln with no
APCD ). (iii) For periods of shutdown, the kiln push rate and kiln exhaust temperature after the time the kiln exhaust falls below the minimum APCD inlet temperature (for a kiln with an APCD) or the kiln temp erature profile is no longer maintained (for a kiln with no APCD)
.***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 312 of 454 ( 11 ) All site

- specific parameters, temperature profiles, and procedures required to be established or developed according to the applicable work practice standards in Table 3 to this subpar t
. **§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 reco rd, according to §63.10(b)(1). You may keep the records offsite for the remaining 3 years. **Other Requirements and Information §63.8505 What parts of the General Provisions apply to me?**  Table 10 to this subpart shows which parts of the General Provisions i n §§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***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 313 of 454 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 O ffice to find out if implementation and enforcement of this subpart is delegated to your state , local, or tribal agency. (b) In delegating implementation and enforcement authority of this subpart to a state , local, or tribal agency under subpart E of this part, the authorities contained in paragraph (c) of this section are retained by the Administrator of the U.S. EPA and are not transferred to the state , local, or tribal
agency. (c) The authorities that cannot be delegated to state , local, or tribal agenci es are as specified in paragraphs (c)(1) through ( 6 ) of this section. (1) Approval of alternatives to the applicability requirements in §§63.8385 and 63.8390, the compliance date requirements in §63.8395, and the non

- opacity emission limitations in §63.840 5. (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.***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 314 of 454 (4) Approval of major changes to recordkeeping and reporting under §63.10(f) and as defined in §63.90. (5) Approval of an alternative to any electronic reporting to the EPA required by this subpart. (6) Approval of a routine control device maintenance

exem ption request under §63.8420(d). **§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 follows: Air pollution control device (APCD) means any equipment that reduces th e 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 no t limited to, an instrument that operates 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, 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***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 315 of 454 structural clay products manufacturing facilities typically
pr ocess raw clay and shale, form the processed materials into bricks or shapes, and dry and fire the bricks or shapes. A plant site that manufactures refractory product s , as defined in 40 CFR 63.9824, or clay ceramics, as defined in 40 CFR 63.8665, is not

a BSCP manufacturing facility. Deviation means any instance in which an affected source subject to this subpart, or an owner or operator of such a

source: (1) Fails to meet any requirement or obligation established by this subpart including, but not limited to, any emission limitation (including any operating limit) or work practice standard; or (2) Fails to meet any term or condition that is adopted to implement an applicable requirement in this subpart for any affected source required to obtain such a permi t
. Dry lime injection fabric filter (DIFF) means an APCD that includes continuous injection of hydrated lime or other sorbent into a duct or reaction chamber followed by a fabric filter. Dry lime scrubber/fabric filter (DLS/FF) means an APCD that includes continuous injection of humidified hydrated lime or other sorbent into a reaction chamber followed by a fabric***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 316 of 454 filter. These systems typically include recirculation of some of the sorbent. Dry limestone adsorber (DLA) means an APCD that includes a limeston e storage bin, a reaction chamber that is essentially a packed tower filled with limestone, and may or may not include a peeling drum that mechanically scrapes reacted limestone to regenerate the stone for reuse. Emission limitation means any emission limi t or operating limit. Fabric filter means an APCD used to capture PM by filtering a gas stream through filter media; also known as a baghouse. Initial startup means: (1) for a new or reconstructed tunnel kiln controlled with a DLA, the time at which the te mperature 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 equa l to 75 percent of the kiln design capacity or 12 months after the affected source begins firing BSCP, whichever is earlier. Fired product means brick or structural clay products that have gone through the firing process via kilns.***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 317 of 454 Kiln exhaust process stream means the portion of the exhaust from a tunnel kiln that exhausts directly to the atmosphere (or to an APCD), rather than to a sawdust dryer. Large tunnel kiln means a tunnel kiln (existing, new, or reconstructed) with a design capacity equal to or greater than 9.07 Mg/hr (10 tph) of fired product. Minimum APCD inlet temperature means the minimum temperature that kiln exhaust can be vented to the APCD that ensures the long

- term integrity of the APCD
. Particulate matter (PM) means, for purposes of thi s subpart, emissions of PM that serve as a measure of total particulate emissions, as measured by Method 5 (40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 3) or Method 29 (40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 8), and as a surrogate for non - mercury metal HAP contained in the particulate s including, but not limited to, antimony, arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, cobalt, lead, manganese, nickel, and selenium. Periodic kiln means a batch firing kiln. Plant site means all contiguous or adjoining property that is under common control, including properties that are separated only by a road or other public right

- of

- way. Common control includes properties that are owned, leased, or operated by the***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 318 of 454 same entity, parent entity, subsidiary, or any combination thereof. Responsible official means responsible official as defined in 40 CFR 70.2. Small tunnel kiln means a tunnel kiln (existing, new, or reconstructed) with a design capacity less than 9.07 Mg/hr (10 tph) of fire d product. Startup means the setting in operation of an affected source and starting the production process. Startup push rate means the kiln push rate required to bring the kiln to the proper operating temperature during startup. Tunnel kiln means any con tinuous 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 u sed to dry sawdust before being emitted to the atmosphere. Tunnel kiln design capacity means the maximum amount of brick, in Mg (tons), that a kiln is designed to produce in one year divided by the number of hours in a year (8,760 hours), taking into accou nt the void space in the brick, the push rate for the kiln, and the stacking pattern, if applicable. If a kiln***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 319 of 454 is modified to increase the capacity, the design capacity is considered to be the capacity following modifications. Wet scrubber (WS) means an AP CD 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, equip ment, work practice, operational standard, or combination thereof, that is promulgated pursuant to section 112(h) of the Clean Air Act. **Tables to Subpart JJJJJ of Part 63** As stated in §63.8405, you must meet each emission limit in the following table that applies to you: **Table 1 to Subpart JJJJJ of Part 63 --**  **Emission Limits**

**For each... You must meet the**  **following emission limits...**  **Or you must comply with the**  **following...** 1. Collection of all tunnel kilns at facility, including all process streams. HF, HCl, and 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 large tunnel kiln (design capacity ≥ 10 tons per hour ( tph ) of fired product) , in cluding all process streams. a. PM emissions must not exceed 0.0 1 8 kg /Mg (0.03 6 lb/ton) of fired product. i . PM emissions must not exceed 6.6 mg/dscm (0.0029 gr/dscf) at 17% O 2 ; or ii. Non

- Hg HAP metals emissions must not exceed 0.0026 kg/hr (0.0057 lb/hr).***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 320 of 454

**For each... You must meet the**  **following emission limits...**  **Or you must comply with the**  **following...** b. Hg emissions must not exceed 2. 0 1 E

- 05 kilogram per megagram (kg/Mg) (4. 0 1 E

- 05 pound per ton (lb/ton)) of fired product. i. Hg emissions must not exceed 7. 6 7 micrograms per dry standard cubic meter (μg/dscm) at 17% O 2 ; or ii. Hg emissions must not exceed 2.5 E

- 04 kg/hr (5. 4 5 E

04 lb/hr). 3 . Existing small tunnel kiln (design capacity <10 tph of fired product), including all process streams a. PM emissions must not exceed 0. 1 9 kg/Mg (0.3 7 lb/ton) of fired product. i . PM emissions must not e xceed 4.8 mg/dscm (0.00 21 gr/dscf) at 17% O 2 ; or ii. Non

- Hg HAP metals emissions must not exceed 0.0 4 7 kg/hr (0.1 1 lb/hr). b . Hg emissions must not exceed 1. 7 E

- 04 kg/Mg (3. 3 E

- 04 lb/ton) of fired product. i. Hg emissions must not exceed 88 91 μg/dscm at 17% O 2 ; or ii. Hg emissions must not exceed 8. 4 5 E

- 04 kg/hr (0.001 9 lb/hr). 4 . New or reconstructed large tunnel kiln (design capacity ≥ 10 tph of fired product) , including all process streams a. PM emissions must not exceed 0. 016 0089 kg/Mg ( 0. 032 018 lb/ton) of fired product. i . PM emissions must not exceed 5.5 3.2 mg/dscm ( 0. 0024 0014 gr/dscf) at 17% O 2 ; or ii. Non

- Hg HAP metals emissions must not exceed 0.0026 kg/hr (0.0057 lb/hr) of fired product. b. Hg emissions must not exceed 1.4 E

- 05 kg/Mg (2. 8 E

- 05 lb/ton) of fired product. i. Hg emissions must not exceed 6. 1 2 μg/dscm at 17% O 2 . ii. Hg emissions must not exceed 1. 6 E

- 04 kg/hr (3. 4 E

- 04 lb/hr).***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 321 of 454

**For each... You must meet the**  **following emission limits...**  **Or you must comply with the**  **following...** 5. New or reconstructed small tunnel kiln (design capacity <10 tph of fired product), including all process streams. a. PM emissions must not exceed 0. 01 6 015 kg/Mg ( 0. 0 3 2 030 lb/ton) of fired product. i . PM emissions must not exceed 4. 7 mg/dscm (0.002 1 gr/dscf) at 17% O 2 ; or ii. Non

- Hg HAP metals emissions must not exceed 0.04 7 kg/hr (0.1 1 lb/hr) of fired product. b. Hg emissions must not exceed 1. 7 E

- 04 kg/Mg (3. 3 E

- 04 lb/ton) of fired product. i. Hg emissions must not exceed 88 91 μg/dscm at 17% O 2 . ii. Hg emissions must not exceed 8. 4 5 E

- 04 kg/hr (0.001 9 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 damper is opened allowing the kiln exhaust gas to bypass the DLA and complete corrective action in accordance with your OM&M plan ; and b. Maintain an adequate amount of limestone in the limestone hopper, storage bin (located at the top of the DLA), and DLA at all times; maintain the limestone feeder setting (on a per ton of fired product basis) at or above the level established during the HF/HCl/Cl 2 performance test ; and in which compliance was demonstrated ; and c. Use the same grade of limestone from the same source as was used during the HF/HCl/Cl 2 performance test in which compliance was demonstrated ; maintain records of the source and grade of limestone; and Formatted Table***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 322 of 454

**For each...**  **You must...** 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 alar m is not engaged for more than 5 percent of the total operating time in a 6

- month block reporting period; or maintain no VE from the DIFF or DLS/FF stack; and b. Maintain free

- flowing lime in the feed hopper or silo and to the APCD at all times for continuous injection systems; maintain the feeder setting (on a per ton of fired product basis) at or above the level established during the HF/HCl/Cl 2 performance test for continuous injection systems
. in which compliance was demonstrated
. 3. Tunnel kiln equipped with a WS. a. Maintain the average scrubber pressure drop liquid pH for each 3

- hour block period at or above the average pressure drop scrubber liquid pH established during the PM/non

- Hg HAP metals HF/HCl/Cl 2 performance test in which compliance was demonstrated ; 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 b . Maintain the average scrubber liquid flow rate for each 3

- hour block period at or above the highest average scrubber liquid flow rate established during the HF/HCl/Cl 2 and PM/non

- Hg HAP metals performance tests ; and in which compliance was demonstrated. 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 f low rate for each 3

- hour block period at or above the average carbon flow rate established during the Hg performance test
. in which compliance was demonstrated
.

5. Tunnel kiln with no add

- on 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). Formatted Table

Merged Cells***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 323 of 454 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 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 freq uency 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. Establish the start up push rate for each kiln, the minimum APCD inlet temperature for each APCD, and temperature profile for each kiln without an APCD and include them in you r first compliance report, as specified in §63.8485(c)(8); and ii. After initial charging of the kiln with loaded kiln cars, remain at or below the startup push rate for the kiln until the kiln exhaust reaches the minimum APCD inlet temperature for a kiln with an APCD or until the kiln temperature profile is attained for a kiln with no APCD ; and Formatted Table***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 324 of 454

**For each**  **... You must...**  **According to the following requirements...** iii. 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 the minimum APCD inlet temperature
. 4. Existing, new or reconstructed tunnel kiln during periods of shutdown a. Minimize HAP emissions. i. Do not push loaded kiln cars into the kiln once the kiln exhau st temperature falls below the minimum APCD inlet temperature if the kiln is controlled by an APCD or when the kiln temperature profile is no longer maintained for an uncontrolled kiln ; and ii. If your kiln has an APCD, continue to vent the exhaust from the kiln through the APCD until the kiln exhaust temperature falls below the minimum inlet temperature for the APCD. 5. Existing, new or reconstructed tunnel kiln during periods of routine control device maintenance a. Minimize HAP emissions. i. Develop and us e a temperature profile for each kiln ; and

ii. Develop and follow maintenance procedures for each kiln that, at a minimum, specify the frequency of inspection and maintenance of temperature monitoring devices and controls that regulate air

- to

- fuel ratios ; and i i i . Develop and maintain records for each kiln, as specified in §63.8490 ( a )( 3 )
. As stated in §63.8445, you must conduct each performance test in the following table that applies to you: **Table 4 to Subpart JJJJJ of Part 63**  **-- Requirements for**  **Performance Tests*****E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 325 of 454

**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 par t 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 manual procedures (but not the instrumental procedures) in Method s 3A and 3B. d. Measure moisture content of the stack gas. Method 4 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 3.***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 326 of 454

**For each... You must...**  **Using... According to the**  **following requirements...**  e. Measure HF, HCl and Cl 2 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 p resent. ASTM D6735

- 01 (Reapproved 2009) (incorporated 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 b e 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 or non - Hg HAP metals. i. For PM only: Method 5 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 3; or***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 327 of 454

**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. 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), 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)
. 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 run s.***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 328 of 454

**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 feeder 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 performance test. You must establish your limestone feeder setting, on a per ton of fi red 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.***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 329 of 454

**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.***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 330 of 454

**For each... You must...**  **Using... According to the**  **following requirements...**  6. Tunnel kiln equipped with a WS. b a . 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 b . 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
. Formatted Table Merged Cells Merged Cells Merged Cells***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 331 of 454

**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 7 . 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 v alues 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 ope rating 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 332 of 454

**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 large tunnel kiln (design capacity ≥10 tph of fired product), including all process streams. a. PM emissions must not exceed 0.018 kg/Mg (0.03 6 lb/ton) of fired product or 6.6 mg/dscm (0.0029 gr/dscf) at 17% 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 0.018 kg/Mg (0.03 6 lb/ton) of fired product or 6.6 mg/dscm (0.0029 gr/dscf) at 17% 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 0.018 kg/Mg (0.03 6 lb/ton) of fired product or 6.6 mg/dscm (0.0029 gr/dscf) at 17% O 2 . b. Non

- Hg HAP metals emissions must not exceed 0.0026 kg/hr ( 0.0057 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 0.0026 kg/hr ( 0.0057 lb/hr) ; and Formatted Table***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 333 of 454

**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 non

- Hg HAP metals emissions did not exceed 0.0026 kg/hr ( 0.0057 lb/hr)
. c. Hg emissions must not exceed 2. 0 1 E

- 05 kg/Mg (4. 0 1 E

- 05 lb/ton) of fired product or 7. 6 7 μg/dscm at 17% O 2 or 2. 5 E

- 04 kg/hr (5. 4 5 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 2. 0 1 E

- 05 kg/Mg (4. 0 1 E

- 05 lb/ton) of fired product or 7. 6 7 μg/dscm at 17% O 2 or 2.5 E

- 04 kg/hr (5. 4 5 E

- 04 lb/hr ); and ii. You esta blish and have a record of the applicable operating limits listed in Table 2 to this subpart over the 3

- hour performance test during which Hg emissions did not exceed 2. 0 1 E

- 05 kg/Mg (4. 0 1 E

- 05 lb/ton) of fired product or 7. 6 7 μg/dscm at 17% O 2 or 2.5 E

- 04 kg/hr (5. 4 5 E

- 04 lb/hr ). 3. Existing small tunnel kiln (design capacity < 10 tph of fired product), including all process streams. a. PM emissions must not exceed 0.1 9 kg/Mg (0.3 7 lb/ton) of fired product or 4.8 mg/dscm (0.00 21 gr/dscf) at 17% 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 0.1 9 kg/Mg (0.3 7 lb/ton) of fired product or 4. 5 8 mg/dscm (0.00 21 gr/dscf) at 17% 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 0.1 9 kg/Mg (0.3 7 lb/ton) of fired product or 4. 5 8 mg/dscm (0.00 21 gr/dscf) at 17% O 2 . Formatted Table***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 334 of 454

**For each... For the**  **following... You have demonstrated initial**  **compliance if...** b. Non

- Hg HAP metals emissions must not exceed 0.0 4 7 kg/hr ( 0.1 1 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 4 7 kg/hr ( 0.1 1 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 4 7 kg/hr ( 0.1 1 lb/hr)
. c . Hg emissions must not exceed 1. 7 E

- 04 kg/Mg (3. 3 E

04 lb/ton) of fired product or 88 91 μg/dscm at 17% O 2 or 8. 4 5 E

- 04 kg/hr (0.001 9 lb/hr). i. The Hg emissions measured using Method 29 of 40 CF R 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 1.7 E

- 04 kg/Mg (3.3 E

- 04 lb/ton) of fired product or 88 91 μg/dscm at 17% O 2 or 8. 4 5 E

- 04 kg/hr (0.0019 lb/hr); and ii. You establish and have a record of the applicable operating limits listed in Table 2 to this subpart over the 3

- hour performance test during which Hg emissions did not exceed 1.7 E

- 04 kg/Mg (3.3 E

- 04 lb/ton) of fired product or 88 91 μg/dscm at 17% O 2 or 8. 4 5 E

- 04 kg/hr (0.0019 lb/hr). 4 . New or reconstructed large tunnel kiln (design capacity ≥10 tph of fired product), including all process streams. a. PM emissions must not exceed 0. 016 0089 kg/Mg ( 0. 032 018 lb/ton) of fired product or 5.5 3.2 mg/dscm ( 0. 0024 0014 gr/dscf) at 17% 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. 016 0089 kg/Mg ( 0. 032 018 lb/ton) of fired product or 5.5 3.2 mg/dscm ( 0. 0024 0014 gr/dscf) at 17% O 2 ; and Formatted Table***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 335 of 454

**For each... For the**  **following... You have demonstrated initial**  **compliance if...** ii. You establish and have a record of the applicable operating limits listed i n Table 2 to this subpart over the 3

- hour performance test during which PM emissions did not exceed 0. 016 0089 kg/Mg ( 0. 032 018 lb/ton) of fired product or 5.5 3.2 mg/dscm ( 0. 0024 0014 gr/dscf) at 17% O 2 . b. Non

- Hg HAP metals emissions must not exceed 0.0026 kg/hr ( 0.0057 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 0.0026 kg/hr (0.0057 lb/hr) ; and ii. You establish and have a record of the applicable operating limits listed in Table 2 to this subpart over the 3

- hour performance test during which non

- Hg HAP metals emissions did not exceed 0.0026 kg/hr (0.0057 lb/hr)
. c. Hg emissions must not exceed 1.4 E

- 05 kg/Mg (2. 8 E

05 lb/ton) of fired product or 6. 1 2 μg/dscm at 17% O 2 or 1. 6 E

- 04 kg/hr (3. 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 1.4 E

- 05 kg/Mg (2.8 E

- 05 lb/ton) of fired product or 6. 1 2 μg/dscm at 17% O 2 or 1.6 E

- 04 kg/hr (3.4 E

- 04 lb/hr); and ii. You establish and have a record of the applicable operating limits listed in Table 2 to this subpart over the 3

- hour performance test during which Hg emissions did not exceed 1.4 E

- 05 kg/Mg (2.8 E

- 05 lb/ton) of fired product or 6. 1 2 μg/dscm at 17% O 2 o r 1.6 E

- 04 kg/hr (3.4 E

- 04 lb/hr). Formatted Table***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 3 36 of 454

**For each... For the**  **following... You have demonstrated initial**  **compliance if...** 5. New or reconstructed small tunnel kiln (design capacity <10 tph of fired product), including all process streams. a. PM emissions must not exceed 0. 01 6 015 kg/Mg ( 0. 0 3 2 030 lb/ton) of fired product or 4. 7 mg/dscm (0.002 1 gr/dscf) at 17% 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. 01 6 015 kg/Mg ( 0. 03 2 030 lb/ton) of fired product or 4. 7 mg/dscm (0.002 1 gr/dscf) at 17% 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. 01 6 015 kg/Mg ( 0. 03 2 030 lb/ton) of fired product or 4. 7 mg/dscm (0.002 1 gr/dscf) at 17% O 2 . b. Non

- Hg HAP metals emissions must not exceed 0.04 7 kg/hr (0.1 1 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 0.047 kg/hr (0.11 lb/hr); and ii. You establish and have a record of the applicable operating limits listed in Table 2 to this subpart over the 3

- hour performance test during which non

- Hg HAP metals emissions did not exceed 0.047 kg/hr (0.11 lb/hr). c. Hg emissions must not exceed 1. 7 E

- 04 kg/Mg (3. 3 E

04 lb/ton) of fired product or 88 91 μg/dscm at 17% O 2 or 8. 4 5 E

- 04 kg/hr (0.001 9 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 r eference, see §63.14) , over the period of the initial performance test, do not exceed 1.7 E

- 04 kg/Mg (3.3 E

- 04 lb/ton) of fired product or 88 91 μg/dscm at 17% O 2 or 8. 4 5 E

- 04 kg/hr (0.0019 lb/hr); and Formatted Table***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 337 of 454

**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 1.7 E

- 04 kg/Mg (3.3 E

- 04 lb/ton) of fired product or 88 91 μg/dscm at 17% O 2 o r 8. 4 5 E

- 04 kg/hr (0.0019 lb/hr). 6. Existing, new or reconstructed periodic kiln. a. Minimize HAP emissions. i. Develop a designed firing time and temperature cycle for each periodic kiln . You must either program the time and temperature cycle into your kiln or track each step on a log sheet; and ii. Label each periodic kiln with the maximum load (in tons) of product that can be fired in the kiln during a single firing cycle ; and iii. 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. 7. 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**  Formatted Table***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 338 of 454

**For each...**  **For the following...**  **You must demonstra te 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 in which compliance was demonstrated ; or continuously monitor ing the bypass stack damper position at least once every 15 minutes during normal kiln operation, and initiating correctiv e action within 1 hour after the bypass damper is opened allowing the kiln exhaust gas to bypass the DLA and completing corrective action in accordance with your OM&M plan ; and ii. Verifying that the limestone hopper and storage bin (located at the top of the DLA) contain adequate limestone by performing a daily visual check, which could include one of the following: (1) conducting a physical check of the hopper; (2) creating a 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 in which compliance was demonstrated ; 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 th e 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. Formatted Table***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 339 of 454

**For each...**  **For the following...**  **You must demonstra te 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, as prescribed in 63.8450(e), initiating corrective action within 1 hour of a bag leak detection system alarm and completing corrective actions in accordance with your OM&M plan; operating and maintaining the fabric filter such that the alarm is not engaged for more than 5 percent of the total operating time in a 6

- month block reporting period; in calculating this ope rating 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 initiat e corrective action, the alarm time is counted as the actual amount of time taken by you to initiate corrective action; or performing VE observations of the DIFF or DLS/FF stack at the frequency specified in §63.8470(e) using Method 22 of 40 CFR part 60, a ppendix A

- 7; and maintaining no VE from the DIFF or DLS/FF stack; and ii. Verifying that lime is free

- flowing via a load cell, carrier gas/lime flow indicator, carrier gas pressure drop measurement system, or other system; recording all monitor or sensor output, and if lime is found not to be free flowing, promptly initiating and completing corrective actions in accordance with your OM&M plan; recording the feeder setting once during each shift of operation to verify that the feeder setting is being maintained at or above the level established during the HF/HCl/Cl 2 performance test
. in which compliance was demonstrated
. 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 liquid pH data according to §63.8450(a); reducing the scrubber pressure drop liquid pH data to 3

- hour block averages according to §63.8450(a); maintaining the average scrubber pressure drop liquid pH for each 3

- hour block period at or above the average pressure drop scrubber liquid pH established during the PM/non

- Hg HAP metals HF/HCl/Cl 2 performance test in which compliance was demonstrated ; and Formatted Table

Merged Cells***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 340 of 454

**For each...**  **For the following...**  **You must demonstra te 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 scr ubber liquid pH established during the HF/HCl/Cl 2 performance test; and iii ii . Collecting the scrubber liquid flow rate data according to §63.8450(a); reducing the scrubber liquid flow rate data to 3

- hour block averages according to §63.8450(a); maintaining the average scrubber liquid flow rate for each 3

- hour block period at or above the highest average scrubber liquid flow rate established during the HF/HCl/Cl 2 and PM/non

- Hg HAP metals performance tests ; and in which compliance was demonstrated
. 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 scrubbe r 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
. in which compliance was demonstrated
. Formatted Table***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 341 of 454

**For each...**  **For the following...**  **You must demonstra te 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 Table 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); redu cing the kiln process rate data to 3

- hour block averages according to §63.8450(a); maintaining the average kiln process rate for each 3

- hour block period at or below the kiln process rate determined according to §63.8445(g)(1). 6. Periodic kiln a. Minimize HAP emissions. i. Using a designed firing time and temperature cycle for each 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 identi fied 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 iii. Submitting a report of most recent tune

up conducted with compliance report. Formatted Table***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 342 of 454 As stated in §63.8395, you must meet each compliance date in the following table that applies to you: **Table 7 to Subpart JJJJJ of Part 63 --**  **Compliance Dates**
**If you have a(n) ...**  **Then you must ...**  **No later than ...**  1. N ew or reconstructed affected source and the initial startup of your affected source is after December 18, 2014, but before **[insert date**  **60 days from date**  **of publication ]**  **in the Federal Register**  **]** C omply with the applicable emission limitations and work prac tice standards in Tables 1, 2, and 3 to this subpart **[I nsert**  **date 60**  **days from date of publication**  **in the Federal Register**  **] .** 

2. N ew or reconstructed affected source and the initial startup of your affected source is after **[insert date**  **60 days from date**  **of publication**  **] in**  **the Federal Register ]**  C omply with the applicable emission limitations and work practice standards in Tables 1, 2, and 3 to this subpart I nitial startup of your affected source .

3. E xisting affected source C omply with the applicable emissi on limitations and work practice standards in Tables 1, 2, and 3 to this subpart **[I nsert date 3**  **years and 60**  **days from**  **date of publication**  **in the Federal Register**  **] .**  4. E xisting 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 B e in compliance with this subpart I nitial startup of your affected source as a major source
.

5. N ew area source ( i.e. , an area source for which construction or reconstruc tion commenced after December 18, 2014) that increases its emissions or its potential to emit such that it becomes a major source of HAP B e in compliance with this subpart I nitial startup of your affected source as a major source
.

As stated in §63.8480, you must submit each notification that applies to you according to the following table: **Table 8 to Subpart JJJJJ of Part 63 --**  **Deadlines for Submitting Notifications**  Formatted Table***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 343 of 454

**If you... You must...**  **No later than ...**  **As specified in...**  1. Start up your affected source before **[insert date**  **60 days from date**  **of publication**  **in the Federal Register**  **]** Submit an Initial Notification **[ I**  **nsert date 240**  **days from**  **date of publication**  **in the Federal**  **Register ]**  §63.9(b)( 2)
.

2. Start up your new or reconstructed affected source on or after **[insert date**  **60 days from date**  **of publication**  **] in the**  **Federal Register ]**  Submit an Initial Notification 120 calendar days after you become subject to this subpart §63.9( b)(2)
.

3. Are required to conduct a performance test Submit a notification of int ent to conduct a performance test 60 calendar days before the performance test is scheduled to begin §63.7(b)(1).

4. Are required to conduct a compliance demonstration that includes a performance test according to the requirements in Table 4 to this subpa rt Submit a Notification of Compliance Status, including the performance test results 60 calendar days following the completion of the performance test, by the close of business §63.9(h) and §63.10(d)(2).

5. Are required to conduct a compliance demonstrat ion required in Table 5 to this subpart that does not include a performance test ( i.e. , compliance demonstrations for the work practice standards) Submit a Notification of Compliance Status 30 calendar days following the completion of the compliance demonstrations, by the close of business §63.9(h)
.

6. Request a to use the routine control device maintenance exemption alternative standard according to §63.8420( d) Submit your request for the exemption 30 120 calendar days before the compliance date specif ied in §63.8395.

As stated in §63.8485, you must submit each report that applies to you according to the following table: **Table 9**  **to Subpart JJJJJ of Part 63 --**  **Requirements for Reports*****E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 344 of 454

**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 th ere 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 §63.8485(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( c ) (9) . If there were periods during which the CMS was out

- of

- control, as specified in your OM&M plan, the report must contain the information in §63.8485( d ). Semiannually according to the requirements in §63.8485(b).

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

**Table 10**  **to Subpart JJJJJ of Part 63 --**  **Applicability of General Provisions to Subpart JJJJJ** 

**Citation Subject**  **Brief Description Applies to**  **Subpart JJJJJ?** §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. Formatted Table

Formatted Table***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 345 of 454

**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.

§6 3.6(b)(5) Notification. Must notify if commenced construction or reconstruction 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 lat er than 3 years after effective date; for section 112(f) standards, comply within 90 calendar days of effective date unless compliance extension. Yes.

§63.6(c)(3)

- (4) [Reserved]. No. Formatted Table***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 346 of 454

**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 inde pendent 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. Formatted Table***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 347 of 454

**Citation Subject**  **Brief Description Applies to**  **Subpart JJJJJ?** §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 wo rk practice standards; must conduct 180 calendar 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 calendar days before the test. Yes.

§63.7(b)(2) Noti fication of Rescheduling. Must notify Administrator 5 calendar 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. Formatted Table***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 348 of 454

**Citation Subject**  **Brief Description Applies to**  **Subpart JJJJJ?** §63.7(e)(1) Conditions for Conducting Performance Tests. Cannot conduct performance tests during SSM; not a violation to exceed standard durin g 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 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 calendar 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 requir ements 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. Formatted Table***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 349 of 454

**Citation Subject**  **Brief Description Applies to**  **Subpart JJJJJ?** §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. Reporting requirements for SSM when action is described i n 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. 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. Formatted Table***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 350 of 454

**Citation Subject**  **Brief Description Applies to**  **Subpart JJJJJ?** §63.8(c)(7)

- (8) CMS Requirement s. Out

- of

- control periods. Yes.
§63.8(d) (1) and (2) CMS Quality Control. Requirements for CMS quality control. Yes. §63.8(d)(3) CMS Quality Control. Written procedures for CMS
. No, §63.84 25(b)(9) specifies requirements §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 calendar days prior. Yes.

§63.9(f) Notification of VE/Opacity Test. Notify Administrator 30 calendar days prior. No, not applicable. Formatted Table***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 351 of 454

**Citation Subject**  **Brief Description Applies to**  **Subpart JJJJJ?** §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 requireme nts. 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 calendar 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. Formatted Table***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 352 of 454

**Citation Subject**  **Brief Description Applies to**  **Subpart JJJJJ?** §63.10(b)(2)(ii) Records Related to SSM. Recordkeeping of failures to meet a standard
. No. See §63.8490(c)(2) for recordkeeping of (1) date, time and duration; (2) listing of affected source or equipment, and an estimate of the volume of ea ch 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.

§63.10(d)(3) Reporting Opacity or VE Observations. Requirements for reporting opacity and VE. No, not applicable. Formatted Table***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 353 of 454

**Citation Subject**  **Brief Description Applies to**  **Subpart JJJJJ?** §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( c ) (9) 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: Formatted Table***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 354 of 454 **Subpart KKKKK**  **-- National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air**  **Pollutants for Clay Ceramics Manufacturing**
Sec. **What This Subpart Covers** 63.8530 What is the purpose of this subpart? 63.8535 Am I subject to this subpart? 63.8540 What parts of my plant does this subpart cover? 63.8545 When do I have to comply with this subpart? **Emission Limitations and Work Practice Standards** 63.8555 What emission limitations and work practice standards must I meet? 63.8560 What are my options for meeting the emission limita tions and work practice standards? **General Compliance Requirements** 63.8570 What are my general requirements for complying with this subpart? 63.8575 What do I need to know about operation, maintenance, and monitoring plans? **Testing and Initial Compliance Requirements**  63.8585 By what date must I conduct performance tests? 63.8590 When must I conduct subsequent performance tests? 63.8595 How do I conduct performance tests and establish operating limits? 63.8600 What are my monitoring installation, operation , and maintenance requirements? 63.8605 How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the emission limitations and work practice standards? **Continuous Compliance Requirements** 63.8615 How do I monitor and collect data to demonstrate continuous compliance? 6 3.8620 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?***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 355 of 454 63.8635 What reports must I submit and when? 63.8640 What r ecords must I keep? 63.8645 In what form and for how long must I keep my records? **Other Requirements and Information** 63.8655 What parts of the General Provisions apply to me? 63.8660 Who implements and enforces this subpart? 63.8665 What definitions apply to this subpart? **Tables to Subpart KKKKK of Part 63** Table 1 to Subpart KKKKK of Part 63

-- Emission Limits 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 6 3

-- Requirements for Performance Tests Table 5 to Subpart KKKKK of Part 63

-- Toxic Equivalency Factors Table 6 to Subpart KKKKK of Part 63

-- Initial Compliance with Emission Limitations and Work Practice Standards Table 7 to Subpart KKKKK of Part 63

-- Continuo us Compliance with Emission Limitations and Work Practice Standards Table 8 to Subpart KKKKK of Part 63

-- Compliance Dates Table 9 to Subpart KKKKK of Part 63

-- Requirements for Notifications Table 10 to Subpart KKKKK of Part 63

-- Requirements for Reports Tab le 11 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 em ission limitations and work practice standards for hazardous air pollutants (HAP) emitted from clay ceramics manufacturing facilities. This subpart also establishes requirements to demonstrate initial and continuous compliance with the emission limitations and work practice standards.***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 356 of 454 **§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 m ajor source of HAP emissions according to the criteria in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section. (a) A clay ceramics manufacturing facility is a plant site that manufactures pressed floor tile, pressed wall tile, other pressed tile, or sanitaryware ( e.g. , sinks and toilets). Clay ceramics manufacturing facilities typically process clay, shale, and various additives; form the processed materials into tile or sanitaryware shapes; and dry and fire the ceramic products. Glazes are applied to many tile and sani taryware products. A plant site that manufactures refractory product s , as defined in 40 CFR 63.9824, or brick and structural clay products (BSCP), as defined in 40 CFR 63.8515, is not a clay ceramics manufacturing facility. (b) A major source of HAP emissi ons 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 2 2.68 megagrams (25 tons) or more per year.***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 357 of 45 4 **§63.8540 What parts of my plant does this subpart cover?** (a) This subpart applies to each existing, new, or reconstructed affected source at a clay ceramics manufacturing facility. (b) Each existing, new, or reconstructed ceramic tile roller kiln , sanitaryware tunnel kiln , sanitaryware shuttle kiln , ceramic tile glaze line using glaze spraying , sanitaryware glaze spray booth , ceramic tile spray dryer , and floor tile press dryer is an affected source. (c) Process units not subject to the requirements of this subpart are listed in paragraphs (c)(1) through ( 9 ) of this section. (1) Tunnel, roller or shuttle kilns that are used exclusively for refiring. (2) Tunnel, roller or shuttle kilns that are used exclusively for setting glazes on previously fired products. (3) Glaze spray operations that are used exclusively with those kilns listed in paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of this section. (4) Process units listed in paragraphs (c)(1) through (3) of this section that are permitted to, but do not, process first

- fire ware, until such time as they begin to process first

fire ware.***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 358 of 454 ( 5 ) G laze spray operations that on average use wet glazes containing less than 0.1 (weight) percent metal HAP (dry weight basis) per spray booth over an entire calendar year. ( 6 ) Raw material processing and handling. ( 7 ) Wall tile press dryers. ( 8 ) Sanitaryware ware dryers. ( 9 ) Sources covered by subparts JJJJJ and SSSSS of this part. (d) A source is a new affected source if construction of the affected source began after December 18, 2014, and you met the applicability criteria at the time you began construction. (e) An affected source is reconstructed if you meet the criteria as defined in §63.2. ( f) An affected source is e xisting if it is not new or reconstructed. **§63.8545 When do I have to comply with this subpart?** (a) Y ou must comply with this subpart no later than the compliance dates in Table 8 to this subpart. ( b ) You must meet the notification requirements in §63.86 30 according to the schedule in §63.8630 and in subpart A of this part. Some of the notifications must be submitted before you are required to comply with the emission limitations in this subpart.***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 359 of 454 **Emission Limitations and Work Practice Standards §63.8555 What emission limitations and work practice standards** 
**must I meet?** (a) You must meet each emission limit in Table 1 to this subpart that applies to you. (b) You must meet each operating limit in Table 2 to this subpart that applies to you. (c) You must meet each work practice standard in Table 3 to this subpart that applies to you. **§63.8560 What are my options for meeting the emission limitations and work practice standards?**  (a) To meet the emission li mitations 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 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 360 of 454 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**  **this subpa rt?**  (a) You must be in compliance with the emission limitations (including operating limits) in this subpart at all times, except during periods of that you are approved for and in compliance with the alternative standard for routine control device mainten ance as specified in paragraph (d) of this section , and except during periods of start

- up and shutdown, at which time you must comply with the applicable work practice standard specified in Table 3 to this subpart
. (b) A t all times, you must operate and ma intain any affected source, including associated air pollution control equipment and monitoring equipment, in a manner consistent with safety and good air pollution control practices for minimizing***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 361 of 454 emissions. The general duty to minimize emissions does not require you to make any further efforts to reduce emissions if levels required by the applicable standard have been achieved. Determination of whether a source is operating in compliance with operation and maintenance requirements will be based on informa tion 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 compl iance 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 mu st 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 ope ration, 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***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 362 of 454 device for that affected source, you may bypass the source control device and continue operating the affected source subject to the alternative standard established in this paragraph upon approval by the Administrator and provided you satisfy the c onditions listed in paragraphs (d)(1) through (5) of this section. (1) You must request a to use the routine control device maintenance exemption alternative standard from the Administrator no later than 120 calendar days before the compliance date specified in §63.8545 . Your request must justify the need for the routine maintenance on the control device and the time required to accomplish the maintenance activities, describe the maintenance activities and the frequency of the maintenance activities, explain why the maintenance cannot be accomplished during source shutdowns, provide information stating whether the continued operation of the affected source will result in fewer emissions than shutting the source down while the maintenance is performed, describe how you plan to comply with paragraph (b) of this section du ring 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 upt ime for each affected source.***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 363 of 454 (3) The request for the routine control device maintenance exemption alternative standard , if approved by the Administrator, must be incorporated by reference in and attached to the affected source ’ s title V permit. (4) You mus t minimize HAP emissions during the period when the affected source is operating and the control device is offline by complying with the applicable work practice standard in Table 3 to this subpart
. (5) You must minimize the time period during which the af fected source is operating and the control device is offline. ( e ) If you own or operate an affected kiln that is subject to the work practice standard specified in Table 3 to this subpart, you must be in compliance with that work practice standard at all t imes, 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***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 364 of 454 includes the informati on in paragraph (b) of this section. Your OM&M plan must be available for inspection by the delegated authority upon request. (b) Your OM&M plan must include, as a minimum, the information in paragraphs (b)(1) through (13) of this section. (1) Each process and APCD to be monitored, the type of monitoring device that will be used, and the operating parameters that will be monitored. (2) A monitoring schedule that specifies the frequency that the parameter values will be determined and recorded. (3) The limit s 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 l ong - term maintenance of each APCD, including a maintenance and inspection schedule that is consistent with the manufacturer ’ s recommendations. (5) Procedures for installing the CMS sampling probe or other interface at a measurement location relative to each affected process unit such that the measurement is representative of control of the exhaust emissions ( e.g. , on or downstream of the last APCD).***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 365 of 454 (6) Performance and equipment specifications for the sample interface, the pollutant concentration or para metric 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 equ ipment consistent with the requirements in §§63.8600 and 63.8(c)(1), (3), (7), and (8). (9) Continuous monitoring system data quality assurance procedures consistent with the requirements in §63.8(d) (1) and (2)
. The owner or operator shall keep these writt en procedures on record for the life of the affected source or until the affected source is no longer subject to the provisions of this part, to be made available for inspection, upon request, by the Administrator. If the performance evaluation plan in §63 .8(d) (2) is revised, the owner or operator shall keep previous ( i.e. , superseded) versions of the performance evaluation plan on record to be made available for inspection, upon request, by the Administrator, for a period of 5 years after each revision to the plan. The program of corrective action should be included in the plan required under §63.8(d)(2).***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 366 of 454 (10) Continuous monitoring system recordkeeping and reporting procedures consistent with the requirements in §§63.8635 and 63.8640
. (11) Procedures for responding to operating parameter deviations, including the procedures in paragraphs (b)(11)(i) through (iii) of this section. (i) Procedures for determining the cause of the operating parameter deviation. (ii) Actions necessary for correcting the deviation and returning the operating parameters to the allowable limits. (iii ) Procedures for recording the times that the deviation began and ended, and corrective actions were initiated and completed. (12) Procedures for keeping records to document compliance. (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.***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 367 of 454 (ii) Procedures for minimizing the duration of any period of routine maintenance on the source control device when the affected source is oper ating 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 secti on. (1) Submit a notification of performance test to the Administrator as specified in §63.7(b). (2) After completing the performance test to demonstrate that compliance with the emission limits can be achieved at the revised operating limit parameter valu e, 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 source that is subject to the emission limits specif ied in Table 1 to this subpart, you must conduct performance tests within 180 calendar days after the compliance***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 368 of 454 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 per formance 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 initi al performance test. (b) You must conduct a performance test when you want to change the parameter value for any operating limit specified in your OM&M plan. **§63.8595 How do I conduct performance tests and establish operating limits?**  (a) You must conduct each performance test in Table 4 to this subpart that applies to you. (b) Before conducting the performance test, you must install and calibrate all monitoring equipment. (c) Each performance test must be conducted according to the requirements in §63.7 and under the specific conditions in Table 4 to this subpart. Stacks to be tested at sanitaryware manufacturing facilities shall be limited to products of combust ion (POC) stacks and those cooling stacks with an oxygen content at or below 20.5 percent.***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 369 of 454 (d) Performance tests shall be conducted under such conditions as the Administrator specifies to you based on representative performance of the affected source for t he period being tested. Representative conditions exclude periods of startup and shutdown
. You may not conduct performance tests during periods of malfunction. You must record the process information that is necessary to document operating conditions durin g the test and include in such record an explanation to support that such conditions represent normal operation. Upon request, you shall make available to the Administrator such records as may be necessary to determine the conditions of performance tests. (e) You must conduct at least three separate test runs for each performance test required in this section, as specified in §63.7(e)(3). Each test run must last at least 1 hour. (f) You must use the data gathered during the performance test and the equation s 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 sanit aryware tunnel kilns in Table 1 to this subpart, you must calculate your mass emissions per unit of production for each test run using Equation 1:***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 370 of 454

P ER MP = P ER MP = (Eq. 1)

Where:
MP = mass per unit of production, kilograms (pounds) of pollutant per megagram (ton) of throughput
ER = mass emission rate of pollutant (PM or Hg) during each performance test run, kilograms (pounds) per hour
P = production rate during each performance test run , megagrams (tons) of throughput per hour. (2) To determine compliance with the PM emission limits for ceramic tile glaze lines with glaze spraying and sanitaryware glaze spray booths in Table 1 to this subpart, you must calculate your mass emissions per u nit of first

- fire glaze sprayed (dry weight basis) for each test run using Equation 2:

G ER MG = G ER MG = (Eq. 2 )

Where:
MG = mass per unit of glaze application, kilograms (pounds) of PM per megagram (ton) of first

- fire glaze spr ayed (dry weight basis)
ER = mass emission rate of PM during each performance test run, kilograms (pounds) per hour
G = glaze application rate during each performance test run, megagrams (tons) of first

- fire glaze sprayed per hour (dry weight basis). (3) T o 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 Field Code Changed

Field Code Changed***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 371 of 454 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: 

## ( )
P T TEF M TEQ

r n

i i i


### ×

×

= 

# ∑

= 1 

## ( )
P T TEF M TEQ

r n

i i i


### ×

×

= 

# ∑

= 1 (Eq. 3)

Where: TEQ = sum of the 2,3,7,8

- TCDD TEQs, nanograms per kilogram of throughput processed
. M i = mass of dioxin or furan congener i during performance test run , nanograms 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
T r = time of performance test run, hours
P = production rate during performance test run, kilograms of throughput processed per hour. (4) To determine compliance with the health

- based standard for acid gas HAP for clay ceramics manufacturing facilities in Table 1 to this subpart, you must: (i) 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               + = HF HCl HF HCl i 

### RfC RfC E E E (Eq. 4) Field Code Changed

Field Code Changed***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 372 of 454 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: 

# ∑

= 

### = n

i i total 

### E E 1 

# ∑

= 

### = 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 e stablish 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. Field Code Changed***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 373 of 454 (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 

## ( ) ( ) ( )               + = 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 throughput per hour
MP iH Cl = mass of HCl per unit of production for kiln i, kilograms (pounds) of HCl per megagram (ton) of throughput
MP iH F = mass of HF per unit of production for kiln i, kilograms (pounds) of HF per megagram (ton) of throughput 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 yo u 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 

# ∑

= 

### = n

i i total 

### E E 1 max

max (Eq. 7 ) Field Code Changed

Field Code Changed***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 374 of 454 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 kilns at facility (iii) If you have a singl e 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 (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, kilo grams (pounds) of HCl per megagram (ton) of throughput
MP iH F = mass of HF per unit of production for kiln i, kilograms***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 375 of 454 (pounds) of HF per megagram (ton) of throughput RfC HCl = r eference concentration for HCl , 20 micrograms per cubic meter 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 th is 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 pr ocess 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 proce ss 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 Adminis trator no later than the notification of intent to conduct a performance test. The request must***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 376 of 454 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 t ype of monitoring device or procedure that will be used. (iii) The operating parameters that will be monitored. (iv) The frequency that the operating parameter values will be determined and recorded to establish continuous compliance with the operating limits. (2) Establish site

- specific operating limits during the performance test based on the information included in the approved alternative monitoring procedures request and, as applicable, as specified in Table 4 to this subpart. **§63.8600 What are my monitoring installation, operation, and**  **maintenance requirements?** (a) You must install, operate, and maintain each CMS according to your OM&M plan and the r equirements in paragraphs (a)(1) through (5) of this section. (1) Conduct a performance evaluation of each CMS according to your OM&M plan. (2) The CMS must complete a minimum of one cycle of operation for each successive 15

- minute period. To have a valid***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 377 of 454 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 rou tine control device maintenance covered by a the routine control device maintenance exemption alternative standard as specified in §63.8570( d )). (3) Determine and record the 3

- hour block averages of all recorded readings, calculated after every 3 hours of op eration 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 peri ods, or periods of routine control device maintenance covered by a the routine control device maintenance exemption alternative standard as specified in §63.8570( d )). (4) Record the results of each inspection, calibration, and validation check. (5) At all ti mes, maintain the monitoring equipment including, but not limited to, maintaining necessary parts for routine repairs of the monitoring equipment.***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 378 of 454 (b) For each liquid flow measurement device, you must meet the requirements in paragraphs (a)(1) through (5) and paragraphs (b)(1) through (3) of this section. (1) Locate the flow sensor in a position that provides a representative flowrate. (2) Use a flow sensor with a minimum measurement sensitivity of 2 percent of the liquid flowrate. (3) At least semiannually , conduct a flow sensor calibration check. (c) For each pressure measurement device, you must meet the requirements in paragraphs (a)(1) through (5) and paragraphs (c)(1) through (7) of this section. (1) Locate the pressure sensor(s) in or as close to a
po sition 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 wit h a minimum measurement sensitivity of 1 percent of the pressure range. (4) Check the pressure tap daily to ensure that it is not plugged.***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 379 of 454 (5) Using a manometer, check gauge calibration quarterly and transducer calibration monthly. (6) Any time the sensor exceeds the manufacturer ’ s specified maximum operating pressure range, conduct calibration checks or install a new pressure sensor. (7) At least monthly, inspect all components for integrity, all electrical connections for continuity, and all mechanical connections for leakage. (d) For each pH measurement device, you must meet the requirements in paragraphs (a)(1) through (5) and paragraphs (d)(1) through (4) of this section. (1) Locate the pH sensor in a position that provides a representative measuremen t 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 at o ne point daily
. (4) At least monthly, inspect all components for integrity and all electrical connections for continuity. (e) For each bag leak detection system, you must meet the requirements in paragraphs (e)(1) through (11) of this section. (1) Each triboelectric bag leak detection system must be installed, calibrated, operated, and maintained according to the***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 380 of 454
EPA

- 454/R

- 98

- 015, “ 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

man ufacturer 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 emi ssions 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.***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 381 of 454 (7) For ne gative pressure or induced air fabric filters, the bag leak detector must be installed downstream of the fabric filter. (8) Where multiple detectors are required, the system ’ s instrumentation and alarm may be shared among detectors. (9) The baseline output must be established by adjusting the range and the averaging period of the device and establishing the alarm set points and the alarm delay time according to section 5.0 of the “ Fabric Filter Bag Leak Detection Guidance, ” ( 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 sensi tivity be increased by more than 100 percent or decreased more than 50 percent over a 365

- day period unless such adjustment follows a complete fabric filter inspection which demonstrates that the fabric filter is in good operating condition, as defined in section 5.2 of the

“ Fabric Filter Bag Leak Detection Guidance, ” ( EPA

- 454/R

- 98

- 015, September 1997) ( incorporated by reference, see §63.14) . Record each adjustment.***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 382 of 454 (11) Record the results of each inspection, calibration, and validation check. (f) For each lime, chemical, or carbon feed rate measurement device, you must meet the requirements in paragraphs (a)(1) through (5) and paragraphs (f)(1) and (2) of this section. (1) Locate the measurement device in a position that provides a representative feed rate measurement. (2) At least semiannually, conduct a calibration check. (g) For each temperature measurement device, you must meet the requirements in paragraphs (a)(1) through (5) and paragraphs (g)(1) through (3) of this section. (1) Locate the measurement device in a position that provides a representative temperature. (2) Use a measurement device with a minimum sensitivity of 1 percent of the temperature being measured. (3) At least semiannually, conduct a calibration check. (h) Requests for approval of alternate monitoring procedures must meet the requirements in §§63.8595(h) and 63.8(f).***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 383 of 454 **§63.8605 How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the emission limitations and work practice standards?**  (a) You must demonstrate initial compliance with each emission limitation and work practice standard that applies to you according to Table 6 to this subpart. (b) You must establish each site

- specific operating limit in Table 2 to this subpart that applies to you according to the requirem ents in §63.8595 and Table 4 to this subpart. (c) You must submit the Notification of Compliance Status containing the results of the initial compliance demonstration according to the requirements in §63.8630(e). **Continuous Compliance Requirements §63.8615 How do I monitor and collect data to demonstrate**  **continuous compliance?** (a) You must monitor and collect data according to this section. (b) Except for periods of monitor malfunctions, associated repairs, and required quality assurance or control activities (including, as applicable, calibration checks and required zero and span adjustments), you must 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,***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 384 of 454 malfunction, and routine control device maintenance as specified in §63.8570( d ) when the affected source is operating. (c) You may not use data recorded during monitoring malfunctions, associated repairs, out

- of

- control periods, or required quality assurance or control activities for purposes of calculating data averages. You must use all the valid data collected during all other periods in assessing compliance. Any averaging period for which you do not have valid monitoring data and such data are required constitutes a deviation from the monitoring requirements. **§63.8620 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the emission limit**  **ations and work practice standards?** (a) You must demonstrate continuous compliance with each emission limit, operating limit, and work practice standard in Tables 1, 2, and 3 to this subpart that applies to you according to the methods specified in Table 7 to this subpart. (b) For each affected source that is subject to the emission limits specified in Table 1 to this subpart and is equipped with an APCD that is not addressed in Table 2 to this subpart, or that is using process changes as a means of meeting the emission limits in Table 1 to this subpart, you must demonstrate continuous compliance with each emission limit in Table 1 to this subpart, and each operating limit established as***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 385 of 454 required in §63.8595( h )(2) according to the methods specified in
your a pproved alternative monitoring procedures request, as described in §§63.8595( h )(1) and 63.8(f). (c) You must report each instance in which you did not meet each emission limit and operating limit in this subpart that applies to you. These instances are dev iations from the emission limitations in this subpart. These deviations must be reported according to the requirements in §63.8635 (c)(8)
. ( d) [Reserved] (e) You must demonstrate continuous compliance with the operating limits in Table 2 to this subpart for visible emissions (VE) from tunnel or roller kilns that are uncontrolled or equipped with DIFF, DLS/FF, or other dry control device by monitoring VE at each kiln stack according to the requirements in paragraphs (e)(1) through (3) of this section. (1) Per form 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 Formatted: Paragraph (1,2,3)***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 386 of 454 your OM&M plan. If no VE are observed in 30 consecu tive daily Method 22 tests for any kiln stack, you may decrease the frequency of Method 22 testing from daily to weekly for that kiln stack. If VE are observed during any weekly test, you must promptly initiate and complete corrective actions according to your OM&M plan, resume Method 22 testing of that kiln stack on a daily basis, and maintain that schedule until no VE are observed in 30 consecutive daily tests, at which time you may again decrease the frequency of Method 22 testing to a weekly basis. (3) If VE are observed during any test conducted using Method 22 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 7, you must report these deviations by following the requirements in §63.8635. **Notifications, Reports, and Records §63.8630**  **What notifications must I submit and when?** (a) You must submit all of the notifications in §§63.7(b) and (c), 63.8(f)(4), and 63.9 (b) through (e), (g)(1), and (h) that apply to you, by the dates specified. (b) You must submit all of the notifications sp ecified in Table 9 to this subpart that apply to you, by the dates specified. (c) If you are required to conduct a performance test or other initial compliance demonstration as specified in Tables 4 and 6 to this subpart, you r Notification of Compliance St atus as***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 387 of 454 specified in Table 9 to this subpart must include the information in paragraphs ( c )(1) through (3) of this section. (1) T he requirements in §63.9(h)(2)(i)
. ( 2 ) The operating limit parameter values established for each affected source with supportin g documentation and a description of the procedure used to establish the values. ( 3 ) For each APCD that includes a fabric filter, if a bag leak detection system is used, analysis and supporting documentation demonstrating conformance with EPA guidance and specifications for bag leak detection systems in §63.8600(e). ( d ) If you own or operate an affected kiln that is subject to the work practice standard specified in Item 1 of Table 3 to this subpart, and you intend to use a fuel other than natural
gas or eq uivalent to fire the affected kiln, you r notification of alternative fuel use must include the information specified in paragraphs ( d )(1) through (5) of this section. (1) Company name and address. (2) Identification of the affected kiln. (3) Reason you are unable to use natural gas or equivalent fuel, including the date when the natural gas curtailment was declared or the natural gas supply interruption began. (4) Type of alternative fuel that you intend to use.***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 388 of 454 (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 10 to this subpart that applies to you. (b) Unless the Administrator has approved a different schedule for submission of reports under §63.10 (a), you must submit each report by the date in Table 10 to this subpart and as specified in paragraphs (b)(1) through (5) of this section. (1) The first compliance report must cover the period beginning on the compliance date that is specified for your af fected source in §63.8545 and ending on either June 30 or December 31. This reporting period must be at least 6 months, but less than 12 months. For example, if your compliance date is March 1, then the first semiannual reporting period would begin
on Marc h 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

sem iannual 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 389 of 454 (4) Each subsequent compliance report must be postmarked or delivered no later than July 31 or January 31 for compliance periods end ing 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 pursu ant to 40 CFR 70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A) or 40 CFR 71.6(a)(3)(iii)(A), you may submit the first and subsequent compliance reports according to the dates the permitting authority has established instead of the dates in paragraphs (b)(1) through (4) of this section. (c) The compliance report must contain the information in paragraphs (c)(1) through ( 8 ) of this section. (1) Company name and address. (2) Statement by a responsible official with that official ’ s name, title, and signature, certifying that, based on infor mation 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***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 390 of 454 controlled by the control device was operating, including the information specified in paragraphs (c)(4)(i) through (iii) of this section. (i) The date and time when the control device was shut down and restarted. (ii) Identification of the affected source that was operating and the number of hours that the affected source operated while the control device was offline. (iii) A statement of w hether or not the control device maintenance was included in your approved routine control device maintenance exemption request developed as specified in §63.8570( d ). If the control device maintenance was included in your approved routine control device mai ntenance exemption request , then you must report the information in paragraphs (c)(4)(iii)(A) through (C) of this section. (A) The total amount of time that the affected source controlled by the control device operated during the current semiannual complian ce 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 mainten ance exemption alternative standard during the current***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 391 of 454 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
perce nt 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= 

## ( ) 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 maintenance
DT p = Control device downtime claimed under the routine control device maintenance exemption alternative standard for the previous semiannual compliance period
DT c = Control device downtime claimed under the routine control device maintenance exemption alternative standard 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 limitations (emission limits or operating limits) or work practice standards that apply to you, the compliance report must contain a statement that there were n o deviations from the Field Code Changed***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 392 of 454 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 ther e were no periods during which the CMS was out

- of

- control during the reporting period. (7) The first compliance report must contain the startup production rate for each ceramic tile roller kiln, floor tile press dryer, ceramic tile spray dryer, and sanitar yware tunnel kiln; the minimum APCD inlet temperature for each APCD; and the temperature profile for each ceramic tile roller kiln, floor tile press dryer, ceramic tile spray dryer, and sanitaryware tunnel kiln without an APCD. ( 8 ) For each deviation that occurs at an affected source, report such events in the compliance report by including the information in paragraphs (c)(8)(i) through (iii) of this section
. (i) The date, time, and duration of the deviation. (ii) A list of the affected sources or equipmen t for which the deviation occurred. (iii) A n estimate of the quantity of each regulated pollutant emitted over any emission limit , and a description of the method used to estimate the emissions
.***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 393 of 454 ( d ) For each deviation from an emission limitation (emission limit or operating limit) occurring at an affected source where you are using a CMS to comply with the emission limitations in this subpart, you must include the information in paragraphs (c)(1) through (4) and (c)(8), and paragraphs ( d )(1) through (1 1 ) of this section. This includes periods of startup, shutdown, and routine control device maintenance. (1) The total operating time of each affected source during the reporting period. (2) The date and time that each CMS was inoperative, except for zero (low

- le vel) 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 ) W hether each deviation occurred during routine control device maintenance covered in your approved rou tine control device maintenance exemption alternative standard or during another period, and the cause of each deviation (including unknown cause, if applicable). ( 5 ) A description of any corrective action taken to return the affected unit to its normal or usual manner of operation
. ( 6 ) A breakdown of the total duration of the deviations during the reporting period into those that are due to startup,***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 394 of 454 shutdown, control equipment problems, process problems, other known causes, and other unknown causes. ( 7 ) A s ummary of the total duration of CMS downtime during the reporting period and the total duration of CMS downtime as a percent of the total source operating time during that reporting period. ( 8 ) A brief description of the process units. ( 9 ) A brief descript ion of the CMS. (1 0 ) The date of the latest CMS certification or audit. (1 1 ) A description of any changes in CMS, processes, or control equipment since the last reporting period. ( e ) If you have obtained a title V operating permit according to 40 CFR part 70 or 40 CFR part 71, you must report all deviations as defined in this subpart in the semiannual monitoring report required by 40 CFR 70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A) or 40 CFR 71.6(a)(3)(iii)(A ). If you submit a compliance report according to Table 8 to this subpart along with, or as part of, the semiannual monitoring report required by 40 CFR 70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A) or 40 CFR 71.6(a)(3)(iii)(A), and the compliance report includes all required inform ation 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***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 395 of 454 monitoring report. However, submitting a compliance report will not otherwise affect any obligation you may have to report deviations from permit requirements to the permitting authority. ( f ) If you own or operate an affected kiln that is subject to the work practice standard specified in Item 1 of Table 3 to this subpart, and you use a fuel other than natural gas or equivalent to fire the affected kiln, you must submit a report of alternativ e fuel use within 10 working days after terminating the use of the alternative fuel. The report must include the information in paragraphs ( f )(1) through (6) of this section. (1) Company name and address. (2) Identification of the affected kiln. (3) Reason for using the alternative fuel. (4) Type of alternative fuel used to fire the affected kiln. (5) Dates that the use of the alternative fuel started and ended. (6) Amount of alternative fuel used. ( g ) Within 60 calendar days after the date of completing

ea ch performance test (as defined in §63.2) required by this subpart, you must submit the results of the performance
test s test following the procedure specified in either paragraph ( g )(1) or ( g )(2) of this section.***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 396 of 454 (1) For data collected using test methods s upported 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://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
. Alt ernatively , you may submit performance test data in or an alternate electronic file format consistent with the extensible markup language (XML) schema listed on the EPA ’ s ERT Web site once the 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 , 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 C404

- 02, 4930 Old Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703. The same ERT or***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 397 of 454 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. (1) A copy of each notification and report that you submitted to comply with this subpart, including all documentation supporting any Initial Notification or Noti fication of Compliance Status that you submitted, according to the requirements in §63.10(b)(2)(xiv). (2) Records of performance tests as required in §63.10(b)(2)(viii). (3) Records relating to control device maintenance and documentation of your approved routine control device maintenance exemption request , if you request such an exemption to use the alternative standard under §63.8570( d ).***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 398 of 454 (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 dev iation, record the information in paragraphs (c)(2)(i) through (iv) of this section. (i) T he date, time, and duration of the deviation
. (ii) A list of the affected sources or equipment
. (iii) A n estimate of the quantity of each regulated pollutant emitted over any emission limit and a description of the method used to estimate the emissions. (iv) Actions taken to minimize emissions in accordance with §63. 8570 (b) and any corrective action s taken to return the affected unit to its normal or usual manner of operation. (3) For each affected source, records of production rates

on a ton throughput processed basis. (4) Records for any approved alternative monitoring or test procedures.***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 399 of 454 (5) Record s 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 docum ent proper operation of your sanitaryware shuttle kiln. (i) Records of the firing time and temperature cycle for each sanitaryware shuttle kiln. If all shuttle kilns use the same time and temperature cycles, one copy may be maintained for each kiln. Refere nce numbers must be assigned to use in log sheets. (ii) For each sanitaryware shuttle kiln, a log that details the time and temperature protocol reference number, and an indication of whether the appropriate time and temperature cycle was fired. (iii) For each sanitaryware shuttle kiln, a log of the actual tonnage of greenware fired in the shuttle kiln and an indication of whether the tonnage was below the maximum tonnage for that specific kiln. ( 8 ) Logs of the maintenance procedures used to demonstrate

com pliance with the maintenance requirements of the sanitaryware***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 4 00 of 454 shuttle kiln work practice standard s specified in Table 3 to this subpart. ( 9 ) For periods of startup and shutdown, records of the following information: (i) T he date, time, and duration of each startup and/or shutdown period , recording the periods when the affected source was subject to the standard applicable to startup and shutdown
. (ii) For periods of startup, the production rate and exhaust temperature prior to the time the exhaust reaches the minimum APCD inlet temperature (for ceramic tile roller kilns, floor tile press dryers, ceramic tile spray dryers, and sanitaryware tunnel kilns with an APCD ) or the temperature profile is attained ( for ceramic tile roller kilns, f loor tile press dryers, ceramic tile spray dryers, and sanitaryware tunnel kilns with no APCD ). (iii) For periods of shutdown, the production rate and exhaust temperature after the time the exhaust falls below the minimum APCD inlet temperature (for ceram ic tile roller kilns, floor tile press dryers, ceramic tile spray dryers, and sanitaryware tunnel kilns with an APCD) or the temperature profile is no longer maintained (for ceramic tile roller kilns, floor tile press dryers, ceramic tile spray dryers, and sanitaryware tunnel kilns with no APCD)
.***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 401 of 454 ( 10 ) All site

- specific parameters, temperature profiles, and procedures required to be established or developed according to the applicable work practice standards in Table 3 to this subpart
. **§63.8645 In what form and for how long must I keep my records?**  (a) Your records must be in a form suitable and readily available for expeditious review, according to §63.10(b)(1). (b) As specified in §63.10(b)(1), you must keep each record for 5 years following the date of eac h occurrence, measurement, maintenance, corrective action, report, or record. (c) You must keep each record onsite for at least 2 years after the date of each occurrence, measurement, maintenance, corrective action, report, or record, according to §63.10(b )(1). You may keep the records offsite for the remaining 3 years. **Other Requirements and Information §63.8655 What parts of the General Provisions apply to me?**  Table 11 to this subpart shows which parts of the Gene ral 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 s tate, local, or tribal agency. If the U.S. EPA Administrator has delegated authority to your state , local, or tribal agency, then that***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 402 of 454 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

su bpart E of this part, the authorities contained in paragraph (c) of this section are retained by the Administrator of the U.S. EPA and are not transferred to the state , local, or tribal
agency. (c) The authorities that cannot be delegated to state , local, or tribal agencies are as specified in paragraphs (c)(1) through ( 6 ) of this section. (1) Approval of alternatives to the applicability requirements in §§63.8535 and 63.8540, the compliance date requirements in §63.8545, and the non

- opacity emission limita tions in §63.8555. (2) Approval of major changes to test methods under §63.7(e)(2)(ii) and (f) and as defined in §63.90. (3) Approval of major changes to monitoring under §63.8(f) and as defined in in §63.90.***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 403 of 454 (4) Approval of major changes to recordkeeping and reporting under §63.10(f) and as defined in §63.90. (5) Approval of an alternative to any electronic reporting to the EPA required by this subpart. (6) Approval of a routine control device maintenance exemption request under §63.8570(d). **§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 of a pollutant that is emitted to th e air. Bag leak detection system means an instrument that is capable of monitoring PM loadings in the exhaust of a fabric filter in order to detect bag failures. A bag leak detection system includes, but is not limited to, an instrument that operates on tr iboelectric, light

- scattering, light

transmittance, or other effects to monitor relative PM loadings. Clay ceramics manufacturing facility means a plant site that manufactures pressed floor tile, pressed wall tile, other pressed tile, or sanitaryware ( e.g. , sinks and toilets). Clay ceramics manufacturing facilities typically process clay, shale, and various additives, form the processed materials into tile or***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 404 of 454 sanitaryware shapes, and dry and fire the ceramic products. Glazes are applied to many tile and san itaryware products. A plant site that manufactures refractory product s , as defined in 40 CFR 63.9824, or brick and structural clay products (BSCP), as defined in 40 CFR 63.8515, is not a clay ceramics manufacturing facility. Deviation means any instance in which an affected source subject to this subpart, or an owner or operator of such a

source: (1) Fails to meet any requirement or obligation established by this subpart including, but not limited to, any emission limitation (including any operating limit) or work practice standard; or (2) Fails to meet any term or condition that is adopted to implement an applicable requirement in this subpart for any affected source required to obtain such a permit. Dioxin/furan means, for purposes of this subpart, the sum of the 2,3,7,8

- TCDD toxic equivalents calculated using Equation 3 of this subpart
. Dry lime injection fabric filter (DIFF) means an APCD that includes continuous injection of hydrated lime or other sorbent into a duct or reaction chamber followed by a fab ric filter.***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 405 of 454 Dry lime scrubber/fabric filter (DLS/FF) means an APCD that includes continuous injection of humidified hydrated lime or other sorbent into a reaction chamber followed by a fabric filter. These systems typically include recirculation of some of the sorbent. Emission 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. Fired product means clay ceramic or sanitaryware product s that have gone through the firing process via kilns. Glaze means a coating of colored, opaque, or transparent material applied to ceramic products before firing. Glaze line means a production line for glazing ceramic products, which includes glaze spray ing (typically comprised of one or more glaze spray booths) and other types of glazing operations ( e.g. , dipping, flooding, centrifugal disc glazing , curtain coating). Glaze spray booth means a type of equipment used for spraying glaze on ceramic products. Glaze spray operation means any type of glaze application that uses glaze spraying, including glaze lines and glaze spray booths.***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 406 of 454
Greenware means clay ceramic or sanitaryware products that have not gone through the firing process via kilns. Initial startup means the time at which the kiln first reaches a level of production that is equal to 75 percent of the kiln design capacity or 12 months after the affected source begins firing clay ceramics, whichever is earlier. Kiln design capacity means the ma ximum amount of clay ceramics, in Mg (tons), that a kiln is designed to produce in one year divided by the number of hours in a year (8,760 hours), taking into account the void space in the product , the push rate for the kiln, and the stacking pattern, if applicable. If a kiln is modified to increase the capacity, the design capacity is considered to be the capacity following modifications. Minimum APCD inlet temperature means the minimum temperature that kiln exhaust can be vented to the APCD that

ensures the long

- term integrity of the APCD
. Particulate matter (PM) means, for purposes of this subpart, emissions of filterable PM that serve as a measure of total particulate emissions, as measured by Method 5 (40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 3) or Method 29 (40 CFR part 60, appendix A

8), and as a surrogate for non - mercury metal HAP contained in the particulates including, but not limited to, antimony,***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 407 of 454 arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, cobalt, lead, manganese, nickel, and selenium. Period of natural gas curtail ment 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 tha t are owned, leased, or operated by the same entity, parent entity, subsidiary, or any combination thereof. Responsible official means responsible official as defined in 40 CFR 70.2. Roller kiln means a continuous kiln similar to a tunnel kiln except that the unfired ceramic product 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 that is designed with a removable su perstructure that is tilted or raised using***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 408 of 454 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 pow der from a slurry of ceramic mix and water, to improve handling and compaction. In the clay ceramics source category, spray dryers are used at ceramic tile manufacturing plants. Startup means the setting in operation of an affected source and starting the production process. Startup production rate means the kiln, press dryer or spray dryer production rate required to bring the process unit to the proper operating temperature during startup. Tunnel kiln means any continuous kiln that is not a roller kiln th at 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 409 of 454 Work practice standard means any design, equipment, work practice, operational standard, or combination thereof, that is promulgated pursuant to section 112(h) of the Clean Air Act. **Tables to Subpart KKKKK of Part 63** As stated in §63.8555, you must meet each emission limit in the following table that applies to you: **Table 1 to Subpart KKKKK of Part 63 --**  **Emission Limits**
**For each... You must meet**  **the following emission limits...** 1. Collection of all tunnel or roller kilns at facility 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 0.0 63 kilogram per megagram (kg/Mg) (0.1 3 pound per ton (lb/ton)) of fired product
. b. Hg emissions must not exceed 6.3 E

- 05 kg/Mg (1.3 E

- 04 lb/ton) of fired product
. c. Dioxin/furan emissions must not exceed 2. 8 nanograms per kilogram (n g/ kg ) of fired product
. 3. Existing wall tile roller kiln a. PM emissions must not exceed 0.1 9 kg/Mg (0.3 7 lb/ton) of fired product
. b. Hg emissions must not exceed 1. 1 E

- 04 kg/Mg (2. 1 E

- 04 lb/ton) of fired product
. c. Dioxin/furan emissions must not exceed 0. 22 ng/ kg of fired product
. 4. Existing first

fire sanitaryware tunnel kiln a. PM emissions must not exceed 0.17 kg/Mg (0.3 4 lb/ton) of greenware fired. b. Hg emissions must not exceed 1.3 E

- 04 kg/Mg (2.6 E

- 04 lb/ton) of greenware fired. c. Dioxin/furan emissions must not exceed 3.3 ng/ kg of greenware fired
. 5. Existing tile glaze line with glaze spraying a. PM emissions must not exceed 0.93 kg/Mg (1.9 lb/ton) of first

- fire glaze sprayed (dry weight basis). b. Hg emissions must not exceed 8.0 E

- 05 kg/Mg ( 1.6 E

- 0 4 lb/ton) of first

- fire glaze sprayed (dry weight basis). Formatted Table***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 410 of 454 6. Existing sanitaryware manual glaze application PM emissions must not exceed 18 kg/Mg (35 lb/ton) of first

- fire glaze sprayed (dry weight basis). 7. Existing sanitaryware spray machine glaze application PM emissions must not exceed 6.2 kg/Mg (1 3 lb/ton) of first

- fire glaze sprayed (dry weight basis).

8. Existing sanitaryware robo t glaze application PM emissions must not exceed 4. 5 kg/Mg (8. 9 lb/ton) of first

- fire glaze sprayed (dry weight basis). 9. Existing floor tile spray dryer Dioxin/furan emissions must not exceed 1 9 ng/ kg of throughput processed
. 10. Existing wall tile spray dryer Dioxin/furan emissions must not exceed 0.0 5 8 ng/ kg of throughput processed
. 11. Existing floor tile press dryer Dioxin/furan emissions must not exceed 0.0 2 4 ng/ kg of throughput processed
. 12. New or reconstructed floor tile roller kiln a. PM emissions must not exceed 0.01 9 kg/Mg (0.0 37 lb/ton) of fired product
. b. Hg emissions must not exceed 2.0 E

- 05 kg/Mg (3.9 E

- 05 lb/ton) of fired product
. c. Dioxin/furan emissions must not exceed 1.3 ng/ kg of fired product
. 13. New or reconstructed wall tile roller kiln a. PM emissions must not exceed 0.1 9 kg/Mg (0.3 7 lb/ton) of fired product
. b. Hg emissions must not exceed 1. 1 E

- 04 kg/Mg (2. 1 E

- 04 lb/ton) of fired product
. c. Dioxin/furan emissions must not exceed 0. 22 ng/ kg of fired product
. 14. New or reconstructed first

fire sanitaryware tunnel kiln a. PM emissions must not exceed 0.04 8 kg/Mg (0.095 lb/ton) of greenware fired. b. Hg emissions must not exceed 6. 1 E

- 05 kg/Mg (1. 3 E

- 04 lb/ton) of greenware fired. c. Dioxin/furan emissions must not exceed 0. 99 ng/ kg of greenware fired
. 15. New or reconstructed tile glaze line with glaze spraying a. PM emissions must not exceed 0.3 1 kg/Mg (0.61 lb/ton) of first

- fire glaze sprayed (dry weight basis). b. Hg emissions must not exceed 6.1 8.0 E

- 0 5 kg/Mg ( 1. 3 6 E

- 0 4 lb/ton) of first

- fire glaze sprayed (dry weight basis). 16. New or reconstructed sanitaryware m anual glaze application PM emissions must not exceed 2.0 kg/Mg (3. 9 lb/ton) of first

- fire glaze sprayed (dry weight basis).***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 411 of 454

17. New or r econstructed sanitaryware s pray machine glaze application PM emissions must not exceed 1.6 kg/Mg (3.2 lb/ton) of first

- fire glaze sprayed (dry weight basis).

18. New or reconstructed sanitaryware r obot glaze application PM emissions must not exceed 1. 2 kg/Mg (2. 4 3 lb/ton) of first

- fire glaze sprayed (dry weight basis).

19. New or reconstructed f loor tile spray dryer Dioxin/furan emissions must not exceed 0.07 1 ng/ kg of throughput processed
. 20. New or reconstructed wall tile spray dryer Dioxin/furan e missions must not exceed 0.0 5 8 ng/ kg of throughput processed
. 21. New or reconstructed f loor tile press dryer Dioxin/furan emissions must not exceed 0.0 2 4 ng/ kg of throughput processed
.

As stated in §63.8555, you must meet each operating limit in the fo llowing 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 reporti ng period; or maintain no VE from the DIFF or DLS/FF stack; and b. Maintain free

- flowing lime in the feed hopper or silo and to the APCD at all times for continuous injection systems; maintain the feeder setting (on a per ton of throughput basis) at or above the level established during the performance test for continuous injection systems
. in which compliance was demonstrated
. 2. Tunnel or roller kiln equipped with a WS. a. Maintain the average scrubber pressure drop liquid pH for each 3

- h our block period at or above the average pressure drop scrubber liquid pH established during the PM HF/HCl performance test in which compliance was demonstrated ; and b. Maintain the average scrubber liquid pH for each 3

- hour block period at or above the av erage scrubber liquid pH established during the HF/HCl performance test; and Formatted Table

Merged Cells***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 412 of 454

c b . Maintain the average scrubber liquid flow rate for each 3

- hour block period at or above the highest average scrubber liquid flow rate established during the HF/HCl and PM performance tests ; and in which compliance was demonstrated
. 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 du ring 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 rate established during the Hg and dioxin/furan performa nce tests
. in which compliance was demonstrated
. 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 peak stack temperature for each 3

- hour block period at or above below the highest 4

- hour average kiln peak stack temperature established during the dioxin/furan performance test ; an average kiln peak temperature variation of

- 10% or less is allowed, as l ong as the temperature does not fall below 1,850 °F. in which compliance was demonstrated.
5. Tunnel 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) if your total facility maximum potential HCl

- equivalent emissions are greater than the HCl

- equivalent limit in Table 1 to this subpart ; and c. Maintain the average kiln peak stack te mperature for each 3

- hour block period at or above below the highest 4

- hour average kiln peak stack temperature established during the dioxin/furan performance test ; an average kiln peak temperature variation of

- 10% or less is allowed, as long as the temper ature does not fall below 1,850 °F in which compliance was demonstrated
. 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; an d 7. Glaze spray operation 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 in which compliance was demonstrated ; and***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 413 of 454 equipped with a WS. b. Maintain the average scrubber liquid flow rate for each 3

- hour block period at or above the average scrubber liquid flow rate established during the PM performance test
. in which compliance was demonstrated
. 8. Glaze spray operation equipped 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
. in which compliance was demonstrated
. 11. Floor tile press dryer. Maintain the average operating temperature for each 3

- hour block period at or below the average temperature established during the dioxin/furan performance test
. in which compliance was demonstrated
.
As stated in §63.8555, you must comply with each work practice standard in the following table that applies to you: **Table 3 to Subpart KKKKK of Part 63 --**  **Work Practice Standards**

**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 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 loa d (in tons) of greenware that can be fired in the kiln during a single firing cycle ; and Formatted Table***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 414 of 454 iv. For each firing load, d ocument the total tonnage of greenware placed in the kiln to ensure that it is not greater than the maximum load identified in item 1.a.i ii; and v. 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 cy cles; and vi. Develop and maintain records for each sanitaryware shuttle kiln, as specified in §63.8640. 2. Existing, new or reconstructed ceramic tile roller kiln, sanitaryware tunnel kiln, floor tile press dryer or ceramic tile spray dryer during periods of startup a. Minimize HAP emissions. i. Establish the start up production rate for each kiln or dryer; the minimum APCD inlet temperature for each APCD; and temperature profile for each kiln or dryer with no APCD and include them in your first com pliance report, as specified in §63.8635(c)(7); and

ii. After initial loading of the kiln or dryer , remain at or below the startup production rate for the kiln or dryer until the kiln or dryer exhaust reaches the minimum APCD inlet temperature for a kiln or dryer with an APCD or until the kiln or dryer temperature profile is attained for a kiln or dryer with no APCD ; and iii. If your kiln or dryer has an APCD, begin v ent ing the exhaust from the kiln or dryer through the APCD by the time the kiln or dryer exhaust temperature reaches the minimum APCD inlet temperature
. 3. Existing, new or reconstructed ceramic tile roller kiln, sanitaryware tunnel kiln, floor tile press dryer or ceramic tile spray dryer during periods of shutdown a. Minimize HAP emissions. i. Do not load the kiln or dryer once the kiln or dryer exhaust temperature falls below the minimum APCD inlet temperature if the kiln or dryer is controlled by an APCD or when the kiln or dryer temperature profile is no longer maintained for an uncontrolled kiln or dryer; and Formatted Table***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 415 of 454 ii. If your kiln or dryer has an APCD, continue to vent the exhaust from the kiln or dryer through the APCD until the kiln or dryer exhaust temperature falls below the minimum inlet temperature for the APCD. 4. Existing, new or reconstructed ceramic tile roller kiln, sanitaryware tunnel kiln, floor tile press dryer or ceramic tile spray dryer during periods of routine control device maintenance a. Minimize HAP emissions. i. Develop and use a temperature profil e for each kiln or dryer ; and

ii . Develop and follow maintenance procedures for each kiln that, at a minimum, specify the frequency of inspection and maintenance of temperature monitoring devices and controls that regulate air

- to

- fuel ratios ; and i ii . Develop and maintain records for each kiln or dryer , as specified in §63.8640 ( a )( 3 )
.
As stated in §63.8595, you must conduct each performance test in the following table that applies to you: **Table 4 to Subpart KKKKK of Part 63 --**  **Requirements for 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. Formatted Table***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 416 of 454
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) (incorporated 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 417 of 454
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 Met hod 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 i f 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. g. Measure Hg emissions. Method 29 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 8. ASTM D6784

- 02 (Reapproved 2008) (incorporated by reference, see §63.14) may be used as 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 AP CD 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 418 of 454
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 th e 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, appendix 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 atmosphere for all affected sources.***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 419 of 454
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 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 and production data from the HF/HCl/Cl 2 performance test
. Using the proc edures 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 proces s 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 420 of 454
b. Establish the stack temperature operating limit for kiln peak temperature.
. Data from the temperature measurement device during the dioxin/furan performance test. You must continuously measure the kiln peak stack temperature , and determine and record the block average temperature values for the three test runs , and determine and record the 3 . The highest 4

- hour block average of the recorded stack temperature measurements for the three test runs. The average of the three test runs establishes your minimum maximum site

- specific stack temperature operating limit. 5. Tunnel or roller kiln that is complying with PM and/or Hg production

based emission limits. Determine the production rate during each PM/Hg test run in order to determine compliance with PM and/or Hg production

- based emission limits. Production data collected during the PM/Hg performance tests ( e.g. , the number of ceramic pieces and weight per pi ece 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 ton of throughput processed basis, of the affected kiln for each of the three test runs.***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 421 of 45 4
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 throughput basis, for the three test runs. If the feed rate setting varies during the three test runs, determine and record the average feed rate f rom the three test runs. The average of the three test runs establishes your minimum site

- specific feed rate operating limit. 7. Tunnel or roller kiln equipped with a WS. a. Establish the operating limit for the average scrubber pressure drop. Data from t he 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 ave rage of the recorded pressure drop measurements for the three test runs. The average of the three test runs establishes your minimum site

specific pressure drop operating limit.***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 422 of 454

7. Tunnel or roller kiln equipped with a WS. b a . 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 b . Establish the operating limit for the average scrubber liquid flow rate. Data from the flow rate measurement device during the HF/HCl and PM performance tests. 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
. Formatted Table Merged Cells
Merged Cells Merged Cells

Formatted Table***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 423 of 454

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 chemi cal feed rate values for the three test runs, and determine and record the 3

- hour block 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 addi tion rate operating limit. 9 8 . Tunnel or roller kiln equipped with an ACI system Establish the operating limit for the average carbon flow rate. Data from the carbon flow rate measurement conducted during the Hg performance test. You must measure the carbon flow rate during each test run, determine and record the block average carbon flow rate values for the three test runs, and determine and record the 3

- hour block average of the recorded carbon flow rate measurements for the thre e test runs. The average of the three test runs establishes your minimum site

specific activated carbon flow rate operating limit. Formatted Table***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 424 of 454

10 9 . Tunnel or roller kiln intending to comply with dioxin/furan emission limit without an ACI system. Establish the stack t emperature operating limit for kiln peak temperature.
. Data from the temperature measurement device during the dioxin/furan performance test. You must continuously measure the kiln peak stack temperature , and determine and record the block average temperat ure values for the three test runs , and determine and record the 3 . The highest 4

- hour block average of the recorded stack temperature measurements for the three test runs. The average of the three test runs establishes your minimum maximum site

- specific stack temperature operating limit. 11 1 0 . 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 r uns. The average of the three test runs establishes your minimum site

specific pressure drop operating limit.***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 425 of 454
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 measurements for the three test runs. The average of the three test runs establishes your minimum site

- specific liquid flow rate operating limit
. 12 1 1 . Spray dryer. Establish the operating limit for operating temperature. Data from the temperature measurement device during the dioxin/furan performance test. You must continuously measure the 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 measure ments for the three test runs. The average of the three test runs establishes your minimum site

specific operating limit. 13 1 2 . Floor tile press dryer. Establish the operating limit for operating temperature. Data from the temperature measurement device during the dioxin/furan performance test. You must continuously measure the 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 temperat ure measurements for the three test runs. The average of the three test runs establishes your maximum site

specific operating limit.***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 426 of 454

As stated in §63.8595(f)(3), you must demonstrate initial compliance with each dioxin/furan emission limit that applies t o 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 1,2,3,7,8

- pentachlor o dibenzofuran 0.03 2,3,4,7,8

- pentachlor o dibenzofuran 0.3 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** ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 427 of 454

**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 u sing Method 26 or 26A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 8 or its alternative, ASTM D6735

- 01 (Reapproved 2009) (incorporated by reference, see §63.14) ; or Method 320 of appendix A of this part or its alternative, ASTM D6348

- 03 (Reapproved 2010) (incorporated by reference, see §63.14); and 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 0.0 63 kg/Mg (0.1 3 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 0.063 kg/Mg (0.13 lb/t on) of fired product ; and ii. You establish and have a record of the applicable operating limits listed in Table 2 to this subpart over the 3

- hour performance test during which PM emissions did not exceed 0.063 kg/Mg (0.13 lb/ton) of fired product
. b. Hg emissions 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) , over the period of the initial performance test, do not exceed 6.3 E

- 05 kg/Mg (1.3 E

- 04 lb/ton) of fired product ; and ii. You establish and have a record of the operating limits listed in Table 2 to this subpart over the 3

- hour performance test during which Hg emissions did not exceed 6.3 E

- 05 kg/Mg (1.3 E

- 04 lb/ton) of fired product
. Formatted Table***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 428 of 454
c. Dioxin/furan emissions must not exceed 2. 8 ng/ kg of fired product
. i. The dioxin/furan emissions measured using Method 23 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 7, over the period of the initial performance test, do not exceed 2. 8 ng/kg of fired product ; and ii. You establish and have a record of the operating limits listed in Table 2 to this subpart over the 3

- hour performance test during which dioxin/furan emissions did not exceed 2. 8 ng/kg of fired product
. 3. Existing wall tile roller kiln a. PM emissions must not exceed 0.1 9 kg/Mg (0.3 7 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 0.19 kg/Mg (0.37 lb/ton) of fired product ; and ii. You establish and have a record of the operating limits listed in Table 2 to this subpart over the 3

- hour performance test during which PM emissions did no t exceed 0.19 kg/Mg (0.37 lb/ton) of fired producvt
. b. Hg emissions must not exceed 1. 1 E

- 04 kg/Mg (2. 1 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 1.1 E

- 04 kg/Mg (2.1 E

- 04 lb/ton) of fired product ; and ii. You establish and have a record of the operating limits listed in Table 2 to this subpart over the 3

- hour performance test during which Hg emissions did not exceed 1.1 E

- 04 kg/Mg (2.1 E

- 04 lb/ton) of fired product
. c. Dioxin/furan emissions must not exceed 0. 22 ng/ kg of fired product
. i. The dioxin/furan emissions measured using Method 23 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 7, over the period of the initial performance test, do not exceed 0.22 ng/kg of fired product ; and ii. You establish and have a record of the operating limits listed in Table 2 to this subpart over the 3

- hour performance test during which dioxin/furan emissions did not exceed 0.22 ng/kg of fired product
.***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 429 of 454 4. Existing first

- fire sanitaryware tunnel kiln a. PM emissions must not exceed 0.17 kg/Mg (0.3 4 lb/ton) of greenware fired. 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, accordi ng to the calculations in §63.8595(f)(1), do not exceed 0.17 kg/Mg (0.3 4 lb/ton) of greenware fired; and ii. You establish and have a record of the operating limits listed in Table 2 to this subpart over the 3

- hour performance test during which PM emiss ions did not exceed 0.17 kg/Mg (0.3 4 lb/ton) of greenware fired. b. Hg emissions must not exceed 1.3 E

- 04 kg/Mg (2.6 E

- 04 lb/ton) of greenware fired. 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 greenware fired; and ii. You establish and have a record of the operating limits listed in Table 2 to this subpart over the 3

- hour performance test during which Hg emissions did not exceed 1.3 E

- 04 kg/Mg (2.6 E

- 04 lb/ton) of greenware fired. c. Dioxin/furan emissions must not exceed 3.3 ng/ kg of greenware fired
. i. The dioxin/furan e missions measured using Method 23 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 7, over the period of the initial performance test, do not exceed 3.3 ng/kg of greenware fired ; and ii. You establish and have a record of the operating limits listed in Table 2 to this subpart over the 3

- hour performance test during which dioxin/furan emissions did not exceed 3.3 ng/kg of greenware fired
. 5. Existing tile glaze line with glaze spraying a. PM emissions must not exceed 0.93 kg/Mg (1.9 lb/ton) of first

- fire glaze sprayed (dry weight basis). 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 calculat ions in §63.8595(f)(2), do not exceed 0.93 kg/Mg (1.9 lb/ton) of first

fire glaze sprayed (dry weight basis); and***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 430 of 454
ii. You establish and have a record of the operating limits listed in Table 2 to this subpart over the 3

- hour performance test during which PM emissions did not exceed 0.93 kg/Mg (1.9 lb/ton) of first

fire glaze sprayed (dry weight basis). b. Hg emissions must not exceed 8.0 E

- 05 kg/Mg ( 1.6 E

- 0 4 lb/ton) of first

- fire glaze sprayed (dry weight basis). 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 8.0 E

- 05 kg/Mg (1.6 E

- 0 4 lb/ton) of first

- fire glaze sprayed (dry weight basis); and ii. You establish and have a record of the operating limits listed in Table 2 to this subpart over the 3

- hour performance test during which Hg emissions did not exceed 8.0 E

- 05 kg/Mg (1.6 E

- 04 lb/ton) of first

- fire glaze sprayed (dry weight basis). 6. Existing sanitaryware m anual glaze application a. PM emissions must not exceed 18 kg/Mg (35 lb/ton) of first

- fire glaze sprayed (dry weight basis). 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 18 kg/Mg (35 lb/ton) of first

- fire glaze sprayed (dry weight basis); and ii. You est ablish and have a record of the operating limits listed in Table 2 to this subpart over the 3

- hour performance test during which PM emissions did not exceed 18 kg/Mg (35 lb/ton) of first

- fire glaze sprayed (dry weight basis). 7. Existing sanitaryware s pray machine glaze application a. PM emissions must not exceed 6.2 kg/Mg (1 3 lb/ton) of first

- fire glaze sprayed (dry weight basis). i. The PM emissions measured using Method 5 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 3, over the period of the initial performance tes t, according to the calculations in §63.8595(f)(2), do not exceed 6.2 kg/Mg (1 3 lb/ton) of first

fire glaze sprayed (dry weight basis); and ii. You establish and have a record of the operating limits listed in Table 2 to this subpart over the 3

- hour performance test during which PM emissions did not exceed 6.2 kg/Mg (1 3 lb/ton) of first

fire glaze sprayed (dry weight basis).***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 431 of 454 8. Existing sanitaryware r obot glaze application a. PM emissions must not exceed 4. 5 kg/Mg (8. 9 lb/ton) of first

- fire glaze spr ayed (dry weight basis). 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 4.5 kg/Mg (8.9 lb/ton) of first

fire glaze sprayed (dry weight basis); and ii. You establish and have a record of the operating limits listed in Table 2 to this subpart over the 3

- hour performance test during which PM emissions did not exceed 4.5 kg/Mg (8.9 lb/ton) of first

fire glaze sprayed (dry weight basis). 9. Existing f loor tile spray dryer a. Dioxin/furan emissions must not exceed 1 9 ng/ kg of throughput processed
. 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 19 ng/kg of throughput processed ; and
ii. You establish and have a record of the operating limits list ed in Table 2 to this subpart over the 3

- hour performance test during which dioxin/furan emissions did not exceed 19 ng/kg of throughput processed
. 10. Existing wall tile spray dryer a. Dioxin/furan emissions must not exceed 0.0 5 8 ng/ kg of throughput processed
. 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 0.05 8 ng/kg of throughput processed ; and
ii. You establish and have a record of the operating limits listed in Table 2 to this subpart over the 3

- hour performance test during which dioxin/furan emissions did not exceed 0.05 8 ng/kg of throughput processed
. 11. Existing f loor tile press dryer a. D ioxin/furan emissions must not exceed 0.0 2 4 ng/ kg of throughput processed
. 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 0.02 4 ng/kg of throughput processed ; and
ii. You establish and have a record of the operating limits listed in Table 2 to this subpart over the 3

- hour performance test during which dioxin/furan emissions did not exceed 0.02 4 ng/kg of throughput processed
.***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 432 of 454

12. New or reconstructed floor tile roller kiln. a. PM emissions must not exceed 0.01 9 kg/Mg (0.0 3 7 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 0.019 kg/Mg (0.037 lb/ton) of fired product ; and ii. You establish and have a record of the operating limits listed in Table 2 to this subpart over the 3

- hour p erformance test during which PM emissions did not exceed 0.019 kg/Mg (0.037 lb/ton) of fired product
. b. Hg emissions must not exceed 2.0 E

- 05 kg/Mg (3.9 E

05 lb/ton) of fired product
. 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 2.0 E

- 05 kg/Mg (3.9 E

- 0 5 lb/ton) of fired product ; and ii. You establish and have a record of the operating limits listed in Table 2 to this subpart over the 3

- hour performance test during which Hg emissions did not exceed 2.0 E

- 05 kg/Mg (3.9 E

- 05 lb/ton) of fired product
. c. Dioxin/furan emissions must not exceed 1.3 ng/ kg of fired product
. i. The dioxin/furan emissions measured using Method 23 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 7, over the period of the initial performance test, do not exceed 1.3 ng/ kg of fired product ; and ii. You establish and have a record of the operating limits listed in Table 2 to this subpart over the 3

- hour performance test during which dioxin/furan emissions did not exceed 1.3 ng/ kg of fired product
. 13. New or reconstructed wall tile roller kiln. a. PM emissions must not exceed 0.1 9 kg/Mg (0.3 7 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 0.19 kg/Mg (0.37 lb/ton) of fired product ; and***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 433 of 454
ii. You establish and have a record of the operating limits listed in Table 2 to this subpart over the 3

- hour performance test during which PM emissions did not exceed 0.19 kg/Mg (0.37 lb/ton) of fired product
. b. Hg emissions must not exceed 1. 1 E

- 04 kg/Mg (2. 1 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 1.1 E

- 04 kg/Mg (2.1 E

- 04 lb/ton) of fired product ; and ii. You establish and have a record of the operating limits listed in Table 2 to this subpart over the 3

- hour performance test during which Hg emissions did not exceed 1.1 E

- 04 kg/Mg (2.1 E

- 04 lb/ton) of fired product
. c. Dioxin/furan emissions must not exceed 0. 22 ng/ kg of fired product
. i. The dioxin/furan emissions measured using Method 23 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 7, over the period of the initial performance test, do not exceed 0.22 ng/kg of fired product ; and ii. You establish and have a reco rd of the operating limits listed in Table 2 to this subpart over the 3

- hour performance test during which dioxin/furan emissions did not exceed 0.22 ng/kg of fired product
. 14. New or reconstructed first

- fire sanitaryware tunnel kiln a. PM emissions must not exceed 0.04 8 kg/Mg (0.095 lb/ton) of greenware fired. 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 calcu lations in §63.8595(f)(1), do not exceed 0.04 8 kg/Mg (0.095 lb/ton) of greenware fired; and ii. You establish and have a record of the operating limits listed in Table 2 to this subpart over the 3

- hour performance test during which PM emissions did not exceed 0.04 8 kg/Mg (0.095 lb/ton) of greenware fired.***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 434 of 454 b. Hg emissions must not exceed 6. 1 E

- 05 kg/Mg (1. 3 E

04 lb/ton) of greenware fired. i. The Hg emissions measured using Method 29 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 8 or its alternative, AS T M D6784

- 02 (Rea pproved 2008) (incorporated by reference, see §63.14) , over the period of the initial performance test, do not exceed 6.1 E

- 05 kg/Mg (1.3 E

- 04 lb/ton) of greenware fired; and ii. You establish and have a record of the operating limits listed in Table 2 to this subpart over the 3

- hour performance test during which Hg emissions did not exceed 6.1 E

- 05 kg/Mg (1.3 E

- 04 lb/ton) of greenware fired. c. Dioxin/furan emissions must not exceed 0. 99 ng/ kg of greenware fired
. 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 0.99 ng/kg of greenware fired ; and ii. You establish and hav e a record of the operating limits listed in Table 2 to this subpart over the 3

- hour performance test during which dioxin/furan emissions did not exceed 0.99 ng/kg of greenware fired
. 15. New or reconstructed tile glaze line with glaze spraying a. PM emissions must not exceed 0.3 1 kg/Mg (0.61 lb/ton) of first

- fire glaze sprayed (dry weight basis). 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 i n §63.8595(f)(2), do not exceed 0.3 1 kg/Mg (0.61 lb/ton) of first

fire glaze sprayed (dry weight basis); and ii. You establish and have a record of the operating limits listed in Table 2 to this subpart over the 3

- hour performance test during which PM emissions did not exceed 0.3 1 kg/Mg (0.61 lb/ton) of first

fire glaze sprayed (dry weight basis). b. Hg emissions must not exceed 8.0 E

- 05 kg/Mg ( 1.6 E

- 0 4 lb/ton) of first

- fire glaze sprayed (dry weight basis). i. The Hg emissions measured using Method 2 9 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 8.0 E

- 05 kg/Mg (1.6 E

- 04 lb/ton) of first

- fire glaze sprayed (dry weight basis); and***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 435 of 454
ii. You establish and have a record of the operating limits listed in Table 2 to this subpart over the 3

- hour performance test during which Hg emissions did not exceed 8.0 E

- 05 kg/Mg (1.6 E

- 04 lb/ton) of first

- fire glaze sprayed (dry weight basis). 16. New or reconstructed sanitaryware m anual glaze application a. PM emissions must not exceed 2.0 kg/Mg (3. 9 lb/ton) of first

- fire glaze sprayed (dry weight basis). 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 2.0 kg/Mg (3.9 lb/ton) of first

fire glaze sprayed (dry weight basis); and ii. You establish and have a record of the operating limits listed in Table 2 to this subpart over the 3

- hour performance test during which PM emissions did not exceed 2.0 kg/Mg (3.9 lb/ton) of first

fire glaze sprayed (dry weight basis). 17. New or reconstructed sanitaryware s pray machine glaze application a. PM emissions must not exceed 1.6 kg/Mg (3.2 lb/ton) of first

- fire glaze sprayed (dry weight basis). i. The PM emissions measured using Method 5 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 3, over t he 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 first

fire glaze sprayed (dry weight basis); and ii. You establish and have a record of the operating limits listed in Table 2 to this subpart over the 3

- hour performance test during which PM emissions did not exceed 1.6 kg/Mg (3.2 lb/ton) of first

fire glaze sprayed (dry weight basis). 18. New or reconstructed sanitaryware r obot glaze application a. PM emissions must not exceed 1. 2 kg/Mg (2. 4 3 lb/ton) of first

- fire glaze sprayed (dry weight basis). 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), d o not exceed 1.2 kg/Mg (2. 4 3 lb/ton) of first

fire glaze sprayed (dry weight basis); and ii. You establish and have a record of the operating limits listed in Table 2 to this subpart over the 3

- hour performance test during which PM emissions did not exc eed 1.2 kg/Mg (2. 4 3 lb/ton) of first

fire glaze sprayed (dry weight basis).***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 436 of 454

19. New or reconstructed f loor tile spray dryer a. Dioxin/furan emissions must not exceed 0.07 1 ng/ kg of throughput processed
. 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 0.07 1 ng/kg of throughput processed ; and
ii. You establish and have a record of the operating limits listed in Table 2 to this subpart over the 3

- hour performance test during which dioxin/furan emissions did not exceed 0.07 1 ng/kg of throughput processed
. 20. New or reconstructed wall tile spray dryer a. Dioxin/furan emissions must not exceed 0.0 5 8 ng/ kg of throughput processed
. 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 0.05 8 ng/kg of thro ughput processed ; and
ii. You establish and have a record of the operating limits listed in Table 2 to this subpart over the 3

- hour performance test during which dioxin/furan emissions did not exceed 0.05 8 ng/kg of throughput processed
. 21. New or reconstructed f loor tile press dryer a. Dioxin/furan emissions must not exceed 0.0 2 4 ng/ kg of throughput processed
. 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 0.02 4 ng/kg of throughput processed ; and
ii. You establish and have a record of the operating limits listed in Table 2 to this subpart over the 3

- hour performance test during which dioxin/furan emissions did not exceed 0.02 4 ng/kg of throughp ut processed
. 22. Existing, new, or reconstructed sanitaryware shuttle 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 the sanitaryware shuttle kiln
. You must either program the time and temperature cycle into your kiln or track each step on a log sheet; and iii. Label each sanitaryware shuttle kiln with the maximum load (in tons) of greenware that can be fired in the kiln during a single firing cyc le ; and***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 437 of 454
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 demonstrate continuous compliance with each emission limitation and work practice standard that applies to you according to the following table:

**Table 7 to Subpart KKKKK of Part 63 --**  **Continuous Compliance with Emission Limitati**  **ons 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 kilns equipped with DIFF or DLS/FF. i. If you use a bag leak detection system , as prescribed in 63.8450(e) , initiating corrective action within 1 hour of a bag leak detection system alarm and completing corrective actions in accordance with your OM&M plan; operating and maintaining the fabric filter such that the alarm is not engaged for more than 5 percent of the total operating time in a 6

- month block reporting period; in calculating this operating time fraction, if inspect ion 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 t ime is counted as the actual amount of time taken by you to initiate corrective action; or performing VE observations of the DIFF or DLS/FF stack at the frequency specified in §63.8620(e) using Method 22 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 7; and maintaining no VE from the DIFF or DLS/FF stack; and Formatted Table***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 438 of 454 ii. Verifying that lime is free

flowing via a load cell, carrier gas/lime flow indicator, carrier gas pressure drop measurement system, or other system; recording all monitor or sensor output, and if lime is found not to be free flowing, promptly initiating and completing corrective actions in accordance with your OM&M plan; recording the feeder setting once each shift of operation to verify that the feeder setting is being maintained at or above the level establish ed during the HF/HCl performance test
. in which compliance was demonstrated
. 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 wi th WS. i. Collecting the scrubber pressure drop liquid pH data according to §63.8600(a); reducing the scrubber pressure drop liquid pH data to 3

- hour block averages according to §63.8600(a); maintaining the average scrubber pressure drop liquid pH for each 3

- hour block period at or above the average pressure drop scrubber liquid pH established during the PM HF/HCl performance test in which compliance was demonstrated ; 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 established during the HF/HCl performance test; and iii. ii Collecting the scrubber liquid flow rate data according to §63.8600(a); reducing the scrubber liquid flow rate data to 3

- hour block averages according to §63.8600(a); maintaining the average scrubber liquid flow rate for each 3

- hour block period at or abo ve the highest average scrubber liquid flow rate established during the HF/HCl and PM performance tests ; and in which compliance was demonstrated
. iv. If chemicals are added to the scrubber water, collecting the scrubber chemical feed rate data Merged Cells***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 439 of 454 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 scrubber 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 with 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 highest average carbo n flow rate established during the Hg and dioxin/furan performance tests
. in which compliance was demonstrated
. 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 peak stack temperature data according to §63.8600(a); reducing the kiln peak temp erature data to 3

- hour block averages according to §63.8600(a); and maintaining the average kiln peak stack temperature for each 3

- hour block period at or below the average peak highest stack temperature established during the dioxin/furan performance test in which compliance was demonstrated
. 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. Perfo rming 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 block averages according to §63.8600(a); maintaining the average kiln process rate for each 3

- hour block period at***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 440 of 454 or below the kiln process rate determined according to §63.8595(g)(1). iii. Collecting the kiln operating stack temperature data according to §63.8600(a); reducing the kiln operating temperature data to 3

- hour block averages according to §63.8600(a); and maintaining the average kiln operating stack temperature for each 3

- hour block period at or above below the average operating highest stack temperature established during the dioxin/furan performance test in which compliance was demonstrated
. 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 operations equipped with a FF. If you use a bag leak detection system, initiating corrective action within 1 hour of a bag leak de tection 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 long er 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 C FR 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 av erage pressure drop established during the***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 441 of 454 PM performance test ; and in which compliance was demonstrated ; 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
. in which compliance was demonstrated
. 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 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 §6 3.8600(a); maintaining the average operating temperature for each 3

- hour block period at or above the average operating temperature established during the dioxin/furan performance test
. in which compliance was demonstrated
.***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 442 of 454
11. Floor tile press dryer Each emission limit in Table 1 to this subpart and each operating limit in Item 11 of Table 2 to this subpart for floor tile press dryers. Collecting the operating temperature data according to §63.8600(a); reducing the operating temperature data to 3

- hour blo ck averages according to §63.8600(a); maintaining the average operating temperature for each 3

- hour block period at or below the average operating temperature established during the dioxin/furan performance test
. in which compliance was demonstrated
. 12. 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 sanitaryware shuttle kiln ; and v. For each firing load, d ocument ing the total tonnage of greenware placed in the kiln to ensure that it is not greater than the maximum load identified in Item 1.a.iii of Table 3 to this subpart; and vi. Following maintenance procedures for each kiln that , at a minimum, specify the frequency of inspection and maintenance of temperature monitoring devices, controls that regulate air

- to

- fuel ratios, and controls that regulate firing cycles; and vii. Developing and maintaining records for each sanitaryware shuttle kiln, as specified in §63.8640.***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 443 of 454

As stated in §63.8545, you must meet each compliance date in the following table that applies to you: **Table 8 to Subpart KKKKK of Part 63 --**  **Compliance Dates**
**If you have a(n)...**  **Then you must... No later than...**  1. New or reconstructed affected source and the initial startup of your affected source is after December 18, 2014, but before **[insert da**  **te 60 days**  **from date of publication**  **] in**  **the Federal Register ]**  Comply with the applicable emission limitations and work practice standards in Tables 1, 2, and 3 to this subpart **[I nsert**  **date 60**  **days from date of publication**  **in the Federal Register**  **] .** 

2. New or reconstructed affected source and the initial startup of your affected source is after **[insert da**  **te 60 days**  **from date of publication**  **] in**  **the Federal Register ]**  Comply with the applicable emission limitations and work practice standards in Tables 1, 2, and 3 to this subpart Initial startup of your affected source.

3. Existing affected source Comply with the applicable emission limitations and work practice standards in Tables 1, 2, and 3 to this subpart **[I nsert date 3**  **years and 60**  **days f**  **rom da te**  **of publication in the Federal**  **Register ]**  **.** 4. Existing area source that increases its emissions or its potential to emit such that it becomes a major source of HAP by adding a new affected source or by reconstructing Be in compliance with this subpart Initial startup of your affected source as a major source.

5. New area source ( i.e. , an area source for which construction or reconstruction commenced after December 18, 2014) that increases its emissions or its potential to emit such that it becomes a major source of HAP Be in compliance with this subpa rt Initial startup of your affected source as a major source.

As stated in §63.8630, you must submit each notification that applies to you according to the following table: Formatted Table***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 444 of 454 **Table 9**  **to Subpart KKKKK of Part 63 --**  **Deadlines for Submitting Notifications** 

**If you...**  **You must... No later than**  **... As specified**  **in...** 1. Start up your affected source before **[insert da**  **te 60**  **days from date of**  **publication in the**  **Federal Register ]**  Submit an Initial Notification **[ I**  **nsert date 240**  **days f**  **rom da te of**  **publication in**  **the Federal Register**  **]** §63.9(b)( 2)
.

2. Start up your new or reconstructed affected source on or after **[insert da**  **te 60**  **days from date of**  **publication ]**  **in the Federal Register**  **]** Submit an Initial Notification 120 calendar days after you become subject to this subpart §63.9( b)(2)
.

3. Are required to conduct a performance test Submit a notification of intent to conduct a performance test 60 calendar days before the performance test is scheduled to begin §63.7(b)(1).

4. Are required to conduct a compliance demonstration that includes a performance test according to the requirements in Table 4 to this subpart Submit a Notification of Compliance Status, including the performance test results 60 calendar days following the completion of the performance test, by the close of business §63.9(h) and §63.10(d)(2).

5. Are required to conduct a compliance demonstration required in Table 6 to this subpart that does not include a performance test ( i.e. , compliance demonstrations for the work practice standards) Submit a Notification of Compliance Status 30 calendar days following the completion of the compliance demonstrations, by the close of business §63.9(h)
.

6. Request a to use the routine control device maintenance exemption alternative standard according to §63.8 570 ( d) Submit your request for the exemption 30 120 calendar days before the compliance date specified in §63.8545.
7. O wn or operate an affected kiln that is subject to the work practice standard specified in Item 1 of Table 3 to this subpart, S ubmit a notification of alternative fuel use 48 hours following the declaration of a period of natural gas curtailment or supply***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 445 of 454 and you inten d to use a fuel other than natural gas or equivalent to fire the affected kiln interruption, as defined in §63.8665.

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

**Table 10**  **to Subpart KKKKK of Part 63 --**  **Requirements for Reports**

**You must submit...**  **The report must contain... You must submit the**  **report...** 1. A compliance report. a. If there are no deviations from any emission limitations or work practice standards that apply to you, a statement that there were no deviations from the emission limitations or work practice standards during the reporting period. If there were no periods during which the CMS was out

- of

control as specified in your OM&M plan, a statement that there were no periods during which the CMS was out

- of

- control during the reporting period. 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( c )( 8 ). If there were periods during which the CMS was out

- of

- control, as specified in your OM&M plan, the report must contain the information in §63.8635( d ). 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 st andards 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. Formatted Table***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 446 of 454 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 11**  **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; 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 co mmences for section 112(f). Yes.

§63.6(b)(5) Notification. Must notify if commenced construction or reconstruction after proposal. Yes.

§63.6(b)(6) [Reserved]. Formatted Table***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 447 of 454
§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 §63.8570(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.***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 448 of 454
§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.

§63.7(b)(1) Notification of Performance Test. Must notify Administrator 60 days before the test. Yes.

§63.7(b)(2) Notificat ion of Rescheduling. Must notify Administrator 5 days before scheduled date of rescheduled date. Yes.***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 449 of 454
§63.7(c) Quality Assurance (QA)/ Test Plan. Requirements; test plan approval procedures; performance audit requirements; internal and external QA procedu res 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.***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 450 of 454
§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 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
.***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 451 of 454
§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) (1) and (2) CMS Quality Control. Requirements for CMS quality control. Yes. §63.8(d)(3) CMS Quality Control. Written procedures for CMS
. No, §63.8 575(b)(9) specifies requirements
. §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.***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 452 of 454
§63.9(e) Notification of Per formance 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.

§63.10(b)(2)(i) Records Related to SSM. Recordkeeping of occurrence and duration of startups and shutdowns. No.***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 453 of 454
§63.10(b)(2)(ii) Records Related to SSM. Recordkeeping of failures to meet a standard. No. See §63.8640(c)(2) for recordkeeping of (1) date, time and duration; (2) listing of affected source or equipment, and an estimate of the volume of each regulated pollutant emitted over the standard; and (3) actions to minimize emissions and correct the failure. §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 emiss ions 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.

§63.10(d)(3) Reporting Opacity or VE Observations. Requirements for reporting opacity and VE. No, not applicable.***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 454 of 454
§63.10(d)(4) Progress Reports. Must submit progress reports on schedule if under compliance extension. Yes.

§6 3.10(d)(5) SSM Reports. Contents and submission. No. See §63.8635( c ) (8) 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.

## E.O. 12866_Brick & Clay 2060

- AP69 Final_201508 2 3 6560

- 50

- P

**ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 63**  **[EPA -**  **HQ -**  **OAR -**  **2013 -**  **029 0**  **and EPA -**  **HQ -**  **OAR -**  **2013 -**  **029 1**  **; FRL -**  **9933 -**  **13 -**  **OAR ]** 
**RIN 2060**  **- AP69**  **NESHAP for Brick and Structural Clay Products Manufacturing; and NESHAP for Clay Ceramics Manufacturing** 
**AGENCY:** Environmental Protection Agency (EP A)
. **ACTION:** Final rule.
**SUMMARY:** T he Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is finalizing national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP ) for Brick and Structural Clay Products (BSCP) Manufacturing and NE SHAP for Clay Ceramics Manufacturing. A ll major sources in these categories must meet maximum achievable control technology (MACT) standards for mercury (Hg) , non mercury (non

- Hg) metal hazardous air pollutants (HAP) (or particulate matter (PM) surrogate) and dioxins/furans (Clay Ceramics only) ; health

- based standards for acid gas HAP ; and work practice standards , where applica ble
. T h e final rule , which has been informed by input from industry (including small businesses), environmental groups, and other stakeholders , p rotect s air quality and promote s public health by reducing

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 2 of 445 emissions of HAP listed in section 112 of the C lean A ir A ct (CAA)
. **DATES:** This action is effective on **[insert date 60 days from**  **date of publication**  **in the Federal Register ]**  . The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this rule is approved by the Director of the **Federal Register** as of **[ insert**  **date 60 days from date**  **of publication in the Federal Register**  **]**
. **ADDRESSES:** The EPA has established dockets for this rulemaking under Docket ID No. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2013

- 0291 for BSCP Manufacturing and Docket ID No. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2013

- 0290 for Clay Ceramics Manufacturing. All documents in the dockets are listed in the regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g. , confidential business information ( CBI ) or other inf ormation whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronicall y 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 t elephone number

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 3 of 445 for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566

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

- 1742.
**FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT** : For question s about the final rule for BSCP 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
. T his 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:
A CI activated carbon injection AEGL Acute Exposure Guideline Level AERMOD air dis persion model used by the HEM

– 3 model APCD air pollution control device ASOS Automated Surface Observing Systems ATSDR Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry BIA Brick Industry Association BLD bag leak detection BSCP B rick and S tructural C lay P ro ducts CAA Clean Air Act CalEPA California E nvironmental P rotection A gency CAS RN Chemical Abstract Services Registry Number

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 4 of 445
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 CO 2 

## carbon dioxide CPMS continuous parameter monitoring system CRA Congressional Review Act DHHS Department of Health and Human Services DIFF dry lime injection fabric filter DLA dry limestone adsorber DLS /FF dry lime scrubber /fabric filter DOD Department of Defense ECHO Enforcement and Compliance History Online EPA Environmental Protection Agency ERPG Emergency Response Planning Guideline ERT Electronic Reporting Tool °F degrees Fahrenheit FAA Federal A viation Administration FF fabric filter FQPA Food Quality Protection Act FRFA final regulatory flexibility analysis FTIR Fourier transform infrared gr / dscf grain s per dry standard cubic foot HAP hazardous air pollutant HBEL health

- based emission limit HCl hydrogen chloride HEM

- 3 Human Exposure Model (Community and Sector version 1.3.1) HF hydrogen fluoride Hg mercury HI hazard index HQ hazard quotient IARC International Agency for Research on Cancer ICR information collection request IRFA initial regulatory flexibility analysis IRIS Integrated Risk Information System lb /hr pound s per hour lb /ton pound s per ton LML lowest measured level LOAEL lowest observed adverse effects level LOEL lowest observed effects level MACT maximum achievable control technology mg / m 3 

## milligram s per cubic meter MMBtu /yr million British thermal units per year

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 5 of 445
MRL Minim al Risk Level NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards NAICS North American Industry Classification System NAS National Academy of Sciences NATA National Air Toxics Assessment NEI National Emissions Inventory NESHAP national emissions standards for hazardous air pollutants ng/ kg nanograms per kilogram NIOSH National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health No. number NO 2 

## n itrogen dioxide NOAEL no observ ed adverse effect level N on - Hg non - mercury NO X 

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

## oxygen OECD Organisation for Economic Co

- operation and Development OEHHA Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment OM&M operation, maintenance and monitoring OMB Office of Management and Budget %R percent recovery PM particulate matter PM 2.5 

## particulate matter with particles less than 2.5 micrometers in diameter ppm parts per million PRA Paperwork Red uction Act REL reference exposure level RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act RfC reference concentration RfD reference dose RIA Regulatory Impact Analysis RTR residual risk and technology review SAB Science Advisory Board SBA Small Business Administration SBAR Small Business Advocacy Review SBE Standard Brick Equivalent SBREFA Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act SO 2 

## sulfur dioxide SSM startup, shutdown and malfunction TEQ 2,3,7,8

- tetrachlorodibenzo

- p - dioxin toxic equivalents TOSHI target

- organ - specific hazard index tph tons per hour tpy tons per year

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 6 of 445
TTN Technology Transfer Network μg /dscm microgram s per dry standard cubic meter μg / m 3 

## microgram s per cubic meter UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act UPL Upper Prediction Limit VE visible emissio ns yr year Background Information Document s . On December 18, 2014, the EPA proposed NESHAP for BSCP M anufacturing and NESHAP for Clay Ceramics M anufacturing (79 FR 75622) . In this action, we are finalizing the rule s . D ocument s summarizing the public comments on the proposal and presenting the EPA responses to those
comments are available in Docket ID N o. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2013

– 0291 for
BSCP Manufacturing and Docket ID No. EPA

– HQ

– OAR

– 2013

– 0290 for Clay Ceramics Manufacturing
. Organizat ion of This Document . The information in this preamble is organized as follows:
I. General Information A. Executive Summary B. Does this action apply to me? C. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related information? D. Judicial Review I I. Background Information A. What is the statutory authority for the final rule? B
. What actions preceded this final rule? C. What are the health effects of pollutants emitted from the BSCP and Clay Ceramics Manufacturing source categories? III. Summary of the Final Rule A. What are the final rule requirements for BSCP M anufacturing ? B. What are the final rule requirements for C lay C eramics M anufacturing? C
. What are the requirements during periods of startup,

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 7 of 445 shutdown , and m alfunction ? D
. What are the effec tive and compliance dates of the standards ? E
. What are the requirements for submission of performance test data to the EPA ? F. What materials are being incorporated by reference under 1 CFR part 51 ? I V
. Summary of Significant Changes Following Proposal and Rationale A. What are the significant changes since proposal for the BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP ? B. What are the significant changes since proposal for the Clay Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP? C. What are the changes to monitoring requirements since pro posal? V. Summary of Significant Comments and Responses A. Health

- Based Standards B. BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP C. Clay Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP V I
. Summary of the Cost, Environmental, Energy and Economic Impacts A. What are the cost and emission reduc tion impacts ? B. What are the secondary impacts ? C. What are the economic impacts? D
. What are the benefits? VI I
. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) E
. Executive Order 13132: Federalism F
. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments G
. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution or Use I
. National Technology Transfer and Advan cement Act (N T TAA) and 1 CFR part 51 J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low

Income Populations K. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 8 of 445

**I. General Information**
A. Executive Summary 1. Purpose of the Regulatory Action Section 112(d) of the CAA requires the EPA to set emissions standards for HAP emitted by sources in each source category and subcategory listed under section 112(c). We issued the NESHAP for BSCP Manufacturing and the NESHAP for Clay Ceramics Manufacturing on May 16, 2003. The two NESHAP were vacated and remanded by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on March 13, 2007. To address the vacatur and remand of the original NESHAP, we are issuing standard s for BSCP manufacturing facilities and clay ceramics manufacturing facilities located at major sources. 2. Summary of the Major Provisions

a. BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP The EPA is finalizing MACT emission limits for non - Hg HAP metals (or PM surrogate) and Hg, and a health

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

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

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 9 of 445 repeat 5

- year performance testing for the regulated pollutants , parameter monitoring , and daily visible emissions ( VE ) checks. Owners/operators whose BSCP tunnel kilns are equipped with a fabric filter (FF) ( e.g. , dry lime injection fabric filter ( DIFF ) , dry lime scrubber/fabric filter ( DLS/FF ) ) have the option of demonstrating compliance using a bag leak d etect i o n ( BLD ) system or daily VE checks. b. Clay Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP The EPA is finalizing MACT emission limits for Hg , PM (surrogate for non

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

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

- Hg HAP metals) for sanitaryware glaze spray booths. T he EPA is also finalizing work practice standards for shuttle kilns and periods of startup and shutdown . To demonstrate compliance with the emis sion limits , the EPA is requiring initial and repeat 5

- year performance testing for the regulated pollutants , parameter monitoring , and daily VE checks. Owners/operators whose affected

sources are equipped with a n FF ( e.g. , DIFF, DLS/FF) have the

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 10 of 445 option of demonstrating compliance using a BLD system or daily VE checks. 3
. Costs and Benefits Table 1 of this preamble summarizes the costs and benefits of th is action for 40 CFR part 63, subpart JJJJJ (BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP) , while Table 2 of this preamble summarizes the costs of th is action for 40 CFR part 63, subpart KKKKK (Clay Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP) . See section VI of this preamble for further discussion of the costs and benefits for the BSCP
M anufacturing NESHAP and the costs fo r the Clay C eramics
M anufacturing NESHAP. See section VI I .B of this preamble for discussion of the recordkeeping and reporting costs.

**T ABLE**  

## 1 **. S**  **UMMARY OF THE** 

## C **OSTS AND** 

## B **ENEFITS OF** 

## 40 **CFR P**  **ART** 

## 63, **S UBPART**  

## JJJJJ **( MILLIONS OF**  

## 2011 **DOLLARS** 

## )

**Requirement Capital**  **cost Annual cost**  **Net benefit (**  **7 percent d**  **iscount )**  **a** 

## Emission controls $ 62.3 $23.7 $48 to 150 Emissions testing $ 2.26 $0. 552 Monitoring

-- $0.3 52

a 

### Net benefit is the annual cost subtracted from the total monetized benefits (at a 7

- percent discount rate). For more information, see section 7 of

“ Regulatory Impact Analysis: Final Brick and Structural Clay Products NESHAP ” in Docket ID N o. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2013

– 0291.



## T **ABLE** 

## 2 **. S**  **UMMARY OF THE** 

## C **OSTS OF** 

## 40 **CFR P**  **ART** 

## 63, **S UBPART**  

## KKKKK **( MILLIONS OF**  

## 2011 **DOLLARS** 

## ) **Requirement Capital cost**  **Annual cost** Emission controls $ 0 $ 0 Emissions testing $0. 2 67 $ 0. 0 655

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 11 of 445 **Requirement Capital cost**  **Annual cost** Monitoring

-- $ 0.02 6 9

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

## 3 **. NESHAP**  **AND** 

## I **NDUSTRIAL** 

## S **OURCE** 

## C **ATEGORIES** 

## A **FFECTED BY THIS** 

## A **CTION**


## Category **NAICS code**  **a ,b**  

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

a 

### North American Industry Classification System b 

### Refractories manufacturing is not included in the source categories affected by this action.



## This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this action. To determine whether your facility , company, business, organization, etc. , is regulated by this action, you should examine the applicability criteria in 40 CFR 63.8385 of subpart JJJJJ (BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP) or 40 CFR

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 12 of 445 6 3
. 8535 of subpart KKKKK (Clay Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP)
. If you have any questions rega rding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, contact either th e delegated authority for the entity or your EPA regional representative as listed in 40 CFR 63.13 of subpart A (General Provisions)
. C. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related information? In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of this action is available on the Internet through the
EPA ’ s Technology Transfer Network (TTN) W eb site, a forum for information and technology exchange in various areas of air pollution control. Following signature by the EPA Administrat or, the EPA will post a copy of this action
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 final rule and key technical documents at this same W eb site
. D
. Judicial Review Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, judicial review of this final action is available only by filing a petition for review in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit by **[ insert date 60 days**  **from date of**  **publication in the Federal Register**  **]** . Under section 307(b)(2) of

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 13 of 445 the CAA, the requirements established by these final rules may not be challenged separately in any civil or criminal proceedings brought by the EPA to enforce the requirements.
S ection 307(d)(7)(B) of t he CAA further provides that

“ [o ]nly an objection to a rule or procedure which was raised with reasonable specificity during the period for public comment (including any public hearing) may be raised during judicial review. ” This se ction also provides a mechanism for us to convene a proceeding for reconsideration, “ [i]f the person raising an objection can demonstrate to the EPA that it was impracticable to raise such objection within [the period for public comment] or if the grounds for such objection arose after the period for public comment (but within the time specified for judicial review) and if such objection is of central relevance to the outcome of the rule. ” Any person seeking to make such a demonstration to us should submit a Petition for Reconsideration to the Office of the Administrator, U.S. EPA, Room 3000, EPA WJC North Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20460, with a copy to both the person(s) listed in the preceding **FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT** sect ion and the Associate General Counsel for the Air and Radiation Law Office, Office of General Counsel (Mail Code 2344A), U.S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20460.

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 14 of 445
**I I. Background Information** 
A. What is the statutory authority for the final rule ? Section 112(d) of the CAA requires the EPA to set emissions standards for HAP emitted by sources in each source category and subcategory listed under section 112(c). The MACT standards for existing sources must be at least as stringent as the averag e emissions limitation achieved by the best performing 12 percent of existing sources (for which the Administrator has emissions information) or the best performing five sources for source categories with less than 30 sources (CAA section 112(d)(3)(A) and (B)). This level of minimum stringency is called the MACT floor. For new sources, MACT standards must be at least as stringent as the control level achieved in practice by the best controlled similar source (CAA section 112(d)(3)). The EPA also must consid er more stringent “ beyond

- the

- floor ” control options. When considering beyond

- the

- floor options, the EPA must not only consider the maximum degree of reduction in emissions of HAP, but must also take into account costs, energy and nonair environmental impa cts when doing so.
B . What actions preceded this final rule? Pursuant to CAA section 112(c)(5), the EPA was originally required to promulgate standards for the BSCP Manufacturing and
C lay C eramics Manufacturing source categories by November 2000.

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 15 of 445 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 United States Court of A ppeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in 2007. See Sierra Club v. EPA , 479 F.3d 875, 876 (D.C. Cir. 2007). In 2008, Sierra Club filed suit in the United States
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit under CAA section 304(a)(2), alleging that the EPA had a continuing mandatory duty to promulgate standar ds for these categories under CAA section 112 based on the 2000 deadline under CAA section 112(c)(5). The EPA challenged that claim in a motion to dismiss, arguing that the mandatory duty to act by the 2000 deadline was satisfied by the 2003 rule and that the 2007 vacatur of the 2003 rule did not recreate the statutory duty to act by the 2000 deadline. Ultimately, the Court found that the vacatur of the 2003 rule recreated the mandatory duty to set standards by 2000 and h e ld that Sierra Club ’ s claims could continue. See Sierra Club v. EPA , 850 F.Supp.2d 300 (D.D.C. 2012). The EPA and Sierra Club then negotiated a consent decree to settle the litigation and establish proposal and promulgation deadlines for establishing standards for these categories. Followin g the 2007 vacatur of the 2003 rule, the EPA began efforts to collect additional data to support new standards for

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 16 of 445 the BSCP and clay ceramics industries. The EPA conducted an initial information collection effort in 2008 to update information on the invent ory of affected units, hereafter referred to as “ the 2008 EPA survey. ” The EPA conducted a second information collection effort in 2010 to obtain additional emissions data and information on each facility ’ s startup, shutdown, and malfunction ( SSM ) procedur es, hereafter referred
to as “ the 2010 EPA survey. ” The information collected as part of these surveys , and not claimed as CBI by respondents , is available in Docket ID Nos. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2013

- 0290 and EPA

- HQ

- OAR

2013

- 0291. In addition, the dockets A

– 99

– 30 an d OAR

- 2002

- 0054 are incorporated by reference for BSCP. The dockets A

- 2000

- 48,
OAR

- 2002

- 0055 , and EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0424 are incorporated by reference for clay ceramics. On December 18, 2014, the EPA proposed NESHAP for BSCP
M anufacturing and NESHAP for Clay Ceramics M anufacturing. See 79 FR 75622 (Dec ember 18, 2014). In response to a request from industry, t he EPA extended the public comment period for the proposed action from February 17, 2015 , to March 19, 2015. See 79 FR 78768 (Dec ember 31, 2014). In this action, the EPA is finalizing the rule.

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 17 of 445 C. What are the health effects of pollutants emitted from the BSCP Manufacturing and Clay Ceramics Manufacturing source categories? The final rule protects air quality and promotes the public health by reduci ng emissions of HAP emitted from BSCP and clay ceramics kilns. Emissions data collected during development of the final rule show that acid gases such as HF, HCl , and 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, berylliu m, cadmium, chromium, cobalt, lead,
manganese, Hg , nickel and selenium. Exposure to these HAP, depending on exposure duration and levels of exposures, can be associated with a variety of adverse health effects. These adverse health effects could include ch ronic health disorders ( e.g. , irritation of the lung, skin and mucus membranes, effects

on the central nervous system and damage to the kidneys) and acute health disorders ( e.g. , lung irritation and congestion, alimentary effects such as nausea and vomiting , and effects on the kidney and central nervous system). We have classified two of the HAP as human carcinogens (arsenic and chromium VI) and

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 18 of 445 four as probable human carcinogens (cadmium, lead, dioxins/furans and nickel).
**I II**  **. Summary of the Final**  **R ule**  Th e following section s summarize the final requirements for the BSCP M anufacturing source category and Clay Ceramics Manufacturing source category . Section I V of this preamble summarizes the major changes since proposal
. A. What are the final rule requ irements for BSCP M anufacturing ? 1. What source category is affected by the final rule?
T he final NESHAP for BSCP Manufacturing applies to BSCP manufacturing facilities that are located at or are part of a major source of HAP emissions. The BSCP Manufacturing source category includes those facilities that manufacture brick (face brick, structural brick, brick pavers and other brick); clay pipe; roof tile; extruded floor and wall tile; and/or o ther extruded, dimensional clay products. 2. What are the affected sources? The affected sources, which are the portions of each source in the category for which we are setting standards, are (1) a ll tunnel kilns at a BSCP manufacturing facility and (2) ea ch periodic kiln. For purposes of th e final BSCP Manufacturing
NESHAP , tunnel kilns are defined to include any type of

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 19 of 445 continuous kiln used at BSCP manufacturing facilities, including roller kilns. Tunnel kilns are fired by natural gas or other fuels, incl uding sawdust. Sawdust firing typically involves the use of a sawdust dryer because sawdust typically is purchased wet and needs to be dried before it can be used as fuel. Consequently, some sawdust

- fired tunnel kilns have two process streams, including (1 ) a process stream that exhausts directly to the atmosphere or to an air pollution control device ( APCD ) , and (2) a process stream in which the kiln exhaust is ducted to a sawdust dryer where it is used to dry sawdust before being emitted to the atmosphere . Both process streams are subject to the requirements of the final BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP
. The following BSCP process units are not subject to the requirements of the final rule: (1) k ilns that are used exclusively for setting glazes on previously fire d products , (2) raw material processing and handling , and ( 3 ) dryers . S ources regulated under the C la y C eramics M anufacturing NESHAP or the
R efractories M anufact uring NESHAP are not subject t o the requirements of the BSCP M anufacturing NESHAP
. 3. Does the final rule apply to me? This final BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP applies to own ers or operators of an affected source at a major source meeting the

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 20 of 445 requirements discussed previously in this preamble. A major source of HAP emissions is any stationary source or group of stationary sources located within a contiguous area and under common control that emits or has the potential to emit , considering controls , 10 tons per year (tpy) or more of any HAP or 25 tpy or more of any combination of HAP. 4. What emission lim itations and work practice standards must I
meet? Emission l imitations
. We are providing a choice of emission limits for total non

- Hg HAP metals and Hg for new and existing tunnel kilns in two subcategories based on kiln size
. In this final BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP , a large tunnel kiln is defined as a new or existing tunnel kiln with a design capacity of 10 tons per hour (tph) or greater , and a small tunnel kiln is defined as a new or existing tunnel kiln with a desig n capacity of less than 10 tp h. The options for total non

- Hg HAP metals include total non

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

Hg HAP metals in units of pounds per ton ( lb/ton ) or grains per dry standard cubic foot ( gr/dscf ) at 1 7

- percent oxygen ( O 2 

## )
. The options for Hg include emission limits in units of lb/ton, lb/hr or micrograms per dry standard cubic meter (μg/dscm) at 1 7

- percent O 2 

## . We are also issuing an emission limit for HCl

-

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 21 of 445 equivalent for all existing and new tunnel kilns at the facility to reduce the acid gases HF, HCl and Cl 2 

## . The emission limits for acid gases, Hg , and non

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

**T ABLE**  

## 4 **. A**  **CID** 

## G **ASES** 

## , **T OTAL**  

## N **ON** 

## - **M ERCURY**  

## HAP **M ETALS AND**  

## M **ERCURY** 

## E **MISSION** 

## L **IMITS FOR**  

## B **RICK AND** 

## S **TRUCTURAL** 

## C **LAY** 

## P **RODUCTS** 

## T **UNNEL** 

## K **ILNS**


### Subcategory **Acid gases Total**  **non -**  **Hg HAP metals**  **Hg** Limits for existing sources Large tunnel kilns (≥ 10 tph) -- 0. 03 6 lb/ton PM OR 0.0 029 gr/dscf PM at 1 7

- percent O 2 

### OR 0. 0057 lb/hr non - Hg HAP metals for each existing tunnel kiln at facility 4. 1 E

- 05 lb/ton OR 5. 5 E

- 04 lb/hr OR 7. 7 μg/dscm at 1 7

- percent O 2 

### for each existing large tunnel kiln at facility
Small tunnel kilns (< 10 tph) -- 0. 3 7 lb/ton PM OR 0.0 0 21 gr/dscf PM at 1 7

- per cent O 2



### OR 0. 1 1 lb/hr non - Hg HAP metals for each existing

tunnel kiln at facility 3. 3 E

- 04 lb/ton OR 0.001 9 lb/hr OR 91 μg/dscm at 1 7

- percent O 2 

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

equivalent for collection of all tunnel kiln s at facility -- --

Limits for new sources Large tunnel kilns (≥ 10 tph) -- 0.018 lb/ton PM OR 0.0014 gr/dscf PM at 1 7

- percent O 2 

### OR 0.00 57 lb/hr non

- Hg HAP metals for each new tunnel kiln at facility 2. 8 E

- 05 lb/ton OR 3. 4 E

- 04 lb/hr OR 6. 2 μg/dscm at 1 7

- percent O 2 

### for each new large tunnel kiln at facility

Small tunnel kilns (< 10 tph) -- 0.0 3 0 lb/ton PM OR 0.00 2 1 gr/dscf PM at 1 7

- percent O 2 

### OR 0. 1 1 lb/hr non - Hg HAP metals 3. 3 E

- 04 lb/ton OR 0.001 9 lb/hr OR 91 μg/dscm at 17

- percent O 2 

### for each new small

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 22 of 445

**Subcategory Acid gases**  **Total non**  **- Hg HAP**  **metals Hg**  for each new tunnel kiln at facility tunnel kiln at facility
All tunnel kilns 57 lb/hr HCl

equivalent for collection of all tunnel kiln s at facility -- --



## Work p ractice s tandards
. We are issuing work practice standards for BSCP periodic kilns in lieu of HAP emission limits. The work practice standards require developing and using a designed firing time and temperature cycle for each periodic kiln; labeling each periodic kiln with the maximum load (in tons) of product that can be fired in the kiln during a single firing cycle; documenting the total tonnage placed in the kiln for each load to ensure that it is not greater than the maximum load; developing and implementing maintenance procedures for each kiln that specify the frequency of inspection and maintenance; and developing and maintaining records for each periodic kiln, including logs to document the proper operation and maintenance procedures of the periodic kilns. We are also issuing work pr actice standards for BSCP tunnel kilns in lieu of dioxin/furan emission limits. The work practice standards require maintaining and inspecting the burners and associated combustion controls (as applicable); tuning the

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 23 of 445 specific burner type to optimize combu stion; keeping records of each burner tune

- up; and submitting a report for each tune

- up conducted. As discussed in section III.C.1.a of this preamble, we are also issuing work practice standards for periods of startup and shutdown.
5 . What are the testing and initial compliance requirements?
We are requir ing 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 emi ssion limits. A performance test must be conducted before renewing the facility ’ s 40 CFR part 70 operating permit or at least every 5 years following the initial performance test, as well as when an operating limit parameter value is being revised. Under t he final BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP , the owner or operator is required to measure emissions of HF, HCl, Cl 2 

## , Hg and PM (or non - Hg HAP metals). We are requiring 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 Stationary Sources

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

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

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

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 24 of 445 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 Method 320, unless the owner or operator can demonstrate that the complete spiking procedure has been conducted at a similar source; or
• Any other alterna tive method that has been approved by the Administrator under 40 CFR 63.7(f) of the General Provisions. Following the performance test, the owner or operator must calculate the HCl

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

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

- equivalent and compare this value to the HBEL for acid gas es . As noted above, with respect to non

- Hg HAP metals, the owner or operator of a source can choose to meet either a non

- Hg HAP metals limit or one of two alternative PM limits. If the owner or operator chooses to comply with one of the two PM emission limits rather than the non - Hg HAP metals limit, we are requiring that the owner or operator measure PM emissions using one of the following methods:

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

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

- 8; or

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 25 of 445

• 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 wit h the non

- Hg HAP metals emission limit instead of one of the PM emission limit s , the owner or operator must measure non - Hg HAP metals emissions using EPA Method 29 cited above or any other alternative method that has been approved by the Administrator under 40 CFR 63.7(f) of the General Provisions. The owner or operator may also use Method 29 or any other appro ved alternative method to measure Hg emissions. The following paragraphs discuss the initial compliance requirements. Prior to the initial performance test, the owner or operator is required to install the continuous parameter monitoring system ( CPMS ) equi pment (as discussed in section III.A.6 of this preamble ) to be used to demonstrate continuous compliance with the operating limits. During the initial test, the owner or operator must use the CPMS to establish site

specific operating parameter values that represent the operating limits.
For a DIFF or DLS/FF, we are requiring that the o wner 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 26 of 445 fired product basis) for the three test runs. If the lime feed rate varies, the owner or operator is required to determine the average feed rate from the three test runs. The average of the three test runs establishes the minimum site

- spec ific feed rate operating limit. 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 oper ator is required to submit analyses and supporting documentation demonstrating conformance with EPA guidance and specifications for BLD systems.
For a stand

- alone FF ( i.e. , no dry sorbent injection or DLS) and a BLD system, we are requiring that the owner or operator submit analyses and supporting documentation demonstrating conformance with EPA guidance and specifications for BLD systems.
For a dry limestone adsorber ( DLA ) , we are requiring that the owner or operator continuously measure the pressure drop across the DLA during the HF/HCl/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. Alte rnatively, 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 27 of 445 position at least once every 15 minutes during the performance
test. The owner or operator also must maintain an adequate amount of limestone in the limestone hopper, storage bin (located at the top of the DLA) and DLA at all times. In addition, the owner or operator is required to establish the limestone feeder setting (on a per ton of fired product basis) 1 week prior to the performance test and maintain the feeder setting f or the 1

- week period that precedes the performance test and during the performance test. Finally, the owner or operator
must document the source and grade of the limestone used during the performance test.
For a wet scrubber, we are requiring that the owne r or operator continuously measure the scrubber liquid pH 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 operator is required to determine and record the average values for the three test runs and the 3

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

- specific liquid pH and liquid flow rate operating limits. If different

avera ge 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.

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 28 of 445
For an activated carbon injection (ACI) system , we are requiring that the owner or operator measure the activated carbon flow rate during the Hg performance test and determine the 3

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

- specific activated carbon flow rate operating limit. For a source with no APCD installed, we are requiring that the owner or operator calculate the maximum potential HCl

equivalent using Equation 4 in 40 CFR 63.8445(g)( 1)(i ). The owner or operator must use the results from the performance test to determine t he 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 represent 90 percent of the maximum potential emissions. If there are multiple kilns at a facility, the owner or operator must sum the maximum potential HCl

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

equivalent and compare this value to the HBEL for acid gases . If the total facility ma ximum potential HCl

- equivalent is greater than the HBEL , we are requiring that the owner or operator determine the maximum process rate for which the total facility maximum potential HCl

- equivalent remains at or below the HBEL
. If there are multiple kilns, the owner or operator must

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 29 of 445 determine one or more combinations of maximum process rates that result in a total facility maximum potential HCl

- equivalent that remains at or below the HBEL . The maximum process rate(s) become s the operating limit(s) for proce ss rate. 6 . What are the continuous compliance requirements? The final BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP requires that the owner or operator demonstrate continuous compliance with each emission limitation that applies. The owner or operator must follow the require ments in the operation, maintenance and monitoring ( OM&M ) plan and document conformance with the OM&M plan. The owner or operator must also operate a CPMS to monitor the operating parameters established during the initial performance test as described in t he following paragraphs. The CPMS must collect data at least every 15 minutes , including at least three of four equally spaced data values (or at least 75 percent if there are more than four data values per hour) per hour to have a valid hour of data. The owner or operator must operate the CPMS at all times when the process is operating. The owner or operator must also conduct proper maintenance of the CPMS (including inspections, calibrations and validation checks) and maintain an inventory of necessary pa rts for routine repairs of the CPMS. Using the recorded readings, the owner or operator must calculate and record the 3

- hour block average values of each

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 30 of 445 operating parameter. To calculate the average for each 3

- hour averaging period, the owner or operator must have at least 75 percent of the recorded readings for that period.
For a DIFF or DLS/FF, we are requiring that the owner or operator demonstrate compliance with the acid gas (HF/HCl/Cl 2 

## )
HBEL by maintaining free

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

## performance test and record the feeder setting once each shift.
T he final rule provide s the option to use either a BLD system or VE monitoring to demonstrate p arametric compliance
. For the option of a BLD system, we are requiring that the owner or operator initiate corrective action within 1 hour of a BLD system alarm a nd complete corrective actions according to the OM&M plan. The owner or operator must also operate and maintain the FF such that the alarm is not engaged for more than 5 percent of the total operating time in a 6

- month block

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 31 of 445 reporting period. In calculating this operating time fraction, the owner or operator must not count any alarm time if inspection of the FF demonstrates that no corrective action is required. If corrective action is required, the owner or operator must coun t 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 re quiring that if VE are observed during any daily test conducted using Method 22 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 7, the owner or operator must promptly conduct a n opacity test , according to the procedures of Method 9 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 4. If opacit y greater than 10 percent if observed , the owner or operator must initiate and complete corrective actions according to the OM&M plan. If no VE are observed in 30 consecutive daily Method 22 tests or no opacity greater than 10 percent is observed during an y of the Method 9 tests for any kiln stack, the owner or operator may decrease the frequency of Method 22 testing from daily to weekly for that kiln stack. If VE are observed during any weekly test and opacity greater than 10 percent is observed in the sub sequent Method 9 test , the owner or operator must promptly initiate and complete corrective actions according to the OM&M

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 32 of 445 plan, resume testing of that kiln stack following Method 22 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 7, on a daily basis, and maintain that sched ule until no VE are observed in 30 consecutive daily
tests or no opacity greater than 10 percent is observed during any of the Method 9 tests , at which time the owner or operator may again decrease the frequency of Method 22 testing to a weekly basis. If g reater than 10 percent opacity is observed during any test conducted using Method 9 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 4, the owner or operator must report these deviations by following the requirements in 40 CFR 63.8485. In lieu of conducting VE tests as descr ibed above, the owner or operator may conduct a PM test at least once every year following the initial performance test, according to the procedures of Method 5 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 3 , and the provisions of 40 CFR 63.8445(e) and (f)(1)
. For a stan d

- alone FF, we are requiring that the owner or operator use a BLD system or monitor VE as described above to demonstrate parametric compliance
. For a DLA, we are requiring that the owner or operator demonstrate compliance with the acid gas (HF/HCl/Cl 2 

## ) HBEL by collecting and recording data documenting the DLA pressure drop and reducing the data to 3

- hour block averages. The owner or

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 33 of 445 operator must maintain the average pressure drop across the DLA for each 3

- hour block period at or above the average pressu re drop established during 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 trigger s corrective actions according to the OM&M plan. The owner or operator also must verify that the limestone hopper, storage bin (located at the top of the DLA) and DLA contain an adequate amount of limestone by performing a daily visual check of the limestone hopper and the storage bin. A daily visual check could include one of the following: (1) c onducting a physical check of the hopper; (2) creating a visual access point, such as a window, on t he side of the hopper; (3) installing a camera in the hopper that provides continuous feed to a video monitor in the control room; or (4) confirming that load level indicators in the hopper are not indicating the need for additional limestone. If the hoppe r or storage bin does not contain adequate limestone , the owner or operator must promptly initiate and complete corrective actions according to the OM&M plan. The owner or operator also must r ecord the limestone feeder setting daily (on a per ton of fired product basis) to

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 34 of 445 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 must use the same grade of limestone from the same source as was used during the HF/HC l/Cl 2 

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

- hour block averages for scrubber liquid pH and scrubber liquid flow rate at or above the minimum values established during the applicable performance test. Maintaining the 3

- hour block average for scrubber liquid pH at or above the minimum value estab lished during the HF/HCl/Cl 2 

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

## ) HBEL . Maintaining the 3

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

- Hg HAP metals a nd HF/HCl/Cl 2 

## performance tests demonstrate s compliance with all applicable emission limits by showing that the scrubber is in proper working order.
For an ACI system , we are requiring that the owner or operator demonstrate compliance with the Hg emission limit by continuously monitoring the activated carbon flow rate and

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 35 of 445 maintaining it at or above the operating limit established during the Hg performance test.
For sources with no APCD , we are requiring that the owner or operator monitor VE as described above to demonstrate compliance with the PM/non

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

- equivalent was not at or below the HBEL for acid
gases , then we are requiring that the owner or operator collect and record data documenting the process rate of the kiln and reduce the data to 3

- hour block averages. The owner or operator
must maintain the kiln process rate (s) at or below the kiln process rate operatin g limit(s) that enable s the total facility maximum potential HCl

- equivalent to remain at or below the HBEL
. 7 . What are the notification, recordkeeping and reporting requirements? All new and existing sources are required to comply with certain requirement s of the General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A), which are identified in Table 10 of subpart JJJJJ. The General Provisions include specific requirements for notifications, recordkeeping and reporting. Each owner or operator is required to submit a notification of compliance status report, as required by 40 CFR 63.9(h) of the General Provisions. Th e final BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 36 of 445 require s the owner or operator to include in the notification of compliance status report certifications of compliance wi th rule requirements. Semiannual compliance reports, as required by 40 CFR 63.10(e)(3) of subpart A, are also required for each semiannual reporting period. Th e final BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP require s records to demonstrate compliance with each emission l imit and work practice standard. These recordkeeping requirements are specified directly in the General Provisions to 40 CFR part 63 and are identified in Table 8 of subpart JJJJJ. Specifically, w e are requiring that the owner or operator keep the following records:

• All reports and notifications submitted to comply with th e final BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP
. • Records of performance tests.
• Records relating to APCD maintenance and documentation of approved routine control device maintenance.
• Co ntinuous monitoring data as required in th e final BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP
. • Records of BLD system alarms and corrective actions taken.
• Records of each instance in which the owner or operator did not meet each emission limit ( i.e. , deviations from operatin g 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 informa tion required to document compliance with the periodic kiln work practice standard.

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 37 of 445

• 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 st artup and shutdown work practice standards.
• Records of each malfunction and the corrective action taken.
• Records of parameters and procedures followed for work practice standards. We are also requiring that the owner or operator submit the following report s 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 that includes a perform ance test.
• Notification of Compliance Status 30 calendar days following completion of a compliance demonstration that does not include a performance test ( i.e. , compliance demonstrations for the work practice standards).
• Compliance reports semi

- annually, i ncluding a report of the most recent burner tune

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

- to

- computer electronic transfer via EPA

- provided software for data collected using supported test methods (see section III.E of this preamble for more information)
. B. What are the final rule requirements for C lay C eramics
M anufacturing?

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 38 of 445 1 . What source category is affected by the final rule?
T his final rule for Clay Ceramics Manufacturing applies to clay ceramics manufacturing facilities that are located at or are part of a major source of HAP emissions. The Clay Ceramics Manufacturing source category includes those facilities that manufacture pressed floor tile, pressed wall tile and other pressed tile; or sanitaryware ( e.g. , toilets and sinks).
2 . What are th e 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 ceramic tile spray dryer; ( 4 ) each ceramic tile glaze line using glaze spraying ; ( 5 ) each sanitaryware tunnel kiln; ( 6 ) each sanitaryware shuttle kiln; and ( 7 ) each sanitaryware glaze spray booth. The following clay ceramics process units are not subject to the requirements of the final rule: (1) t unnel, roller or shuttle k ilns that are used exclusively for refiring ; (2) tunnel, roller or shuttle k ilns that are used exclusively for setting glazes on previously fired products; ( 3 ) glaze spray operations that are used exclusively with those kilns list ed in item s 1 and 2 above; ( 4 ) process units listed in items 1 through 3 above that are permitted to, but do not, process first

- fire

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 39 of 445 ware, until such time as they begin to process first

- fire ware; (5) refire shuttle kilns that fire no more than four batche s per year of first

- fire ware; (6) glaze spray operations that on
average use wet glazes containing less than 0.1 (weight) percent metal HAP (dry weight basis) per spray booth over an entire calendar year ; (7) raw material processing and handling; (8) wall tile press dryers; and ( 9 ) sanitaryware ware dryers. Sources regulated under the BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP or the Refractories Manufacturing NESHAP are not subject to the requirements of the Clay Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP
. 3 . Does the final rule apply to me? This final Clay Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP applies to

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

- Hg HAP metals ( in units of lb/ton)

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 40 of 445 for all new and existing ceramic tile roller kilns, sanitaryware tunnel kilns and ceramic tile and sanitaryware glazing operations
. We are issuing emission limits for Hg (lb/ton) for all new and existing ceramic tile roller kilns, ceramic tile glaze lines and sanitaryware tunnel kilns . We are issu ing emission limits for dioxin/fura n (nanograms of 2,3,7,8

- tetrachlorodibenzo

- p - dioxin toxic equivalents ( TEQ ) per kilogram (ng/ kg )) for all new and existing ceramic tile roller kilns, sanitaryware tunnel kilns , floor tile press dryers and ceramic tile spray dryers. We are also issu ing an e mission limit for HCl

- equivalent for all existing and new roller and tunnel kilns at each facility to reduce the acid gases HF and HCl. The emission limits are presented in Table 5 of this preamble.

**T ABLE**  

## 5 **. E**  **MISSION** 

## L **IMITS FOR** 

## C **LAY** 

## C **ERAMICS** 

## S **OURCES**



### Subcat **egory Acid gases**  **( lb/hr**  **HCl**   ** equivalent** **) a**  

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

### (lb/ton) **Dioxins/furans (ng/**  **kg )**  **c** 

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

- 04 0. 1 3 2. 8 Floor tile press dryers

-- -- -- 0. 0 2 4 Floor tile spray dryers

-- -- -- 1 9 Wall tile roller kilns 140 2. 1 E

- 04 0. 3 7 0. 22 Wall tile spray dryers

-- -- -- 0. 0 5 8 Tile glaze lines

-- 1.6 E

- 0 4 1.9

-- First

- fire sanitaryware tunnel kilns 140 2.6 E

- 04 0. 3 4 3.3 Sanitaryware manual glaze application -- -- 3 5

-- Sanitaryware spray machine glaze application -- -- 1 3

--

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 41 of 445

**Subcat egory**  **Acid gases (**  **lb/hr HCl**  **** **equivalent )**  **a** 

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

### (lb/ton) **Dioxins/furans (ng/**  **kg )**  **c** 

### Sanitaryware robot glaze application -- -- 8. 9

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

- 05 0.0 3 7 1.3 Floor tile press dryers

-- -- -- 0. 0 2 4 Floor tile spray dryers

-- -- -- 0. 07 1 Wall tile roller kilns 140 2. 1 E

- 0 4 0. 3 7 0. 22 Wall tile spray dryers

-- -- -- 0. 0 5 8 Tile glaze lines

-- 1.6 E

- 0 4 0.61

-- First

- fire sanitaryware tunnel kilns 140 1. 3 E

- 04 0.095 0. 99 Sanitaryware manual glaze application -- -- 3. 9

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

-- Sanitaryware robot glaze application -- -- 2. 3

--

a 

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

### PM is a surrogate for non

- Hg HAP metals.
c 

### n g/ kg = nanograms per kilogram
.


## Work practice s tandards
. We are issuing work practice standards in lieu of emission limits for acid gases (HF and HCl), Hg and non

- Hg HAP metals for sanitaryware shuttle kilns. The work practice standards require using natural gas (or equivalent) as kiln fuel except during period s of natural gas curtailment or supply interruption; developing and using a designed firing time and temperature cycle for each shuttle kiln; labeling each shuttle kiln with the maximum load (in tons) of throughput ( greenware ) that can be fired in the kiln during a single firing cycle; documenting the total tonnage of greenware

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 42 of 445 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

o f inspection and maintenance; and developing and maintaining records for each shuttle kiln, including logs to document the proper operation and maintenance procedures of the shuttle kilns. As discussed in section III. C .1.b of this preamble, we are also iss uing work practice standards for periods of startup and shutdown.
5 . What are the testing and initial compliance requirements?
We are requiring that owners or operators of all affected sources subject to emission limits conduct an initial performance test using specified EPA test methods to demonstrate initial compliance with all applicable emission limits. A performance test must be conducted before renewing the facilit y ’ s 40 CFR part 70 operating permit or at least every 5 years following the initial performance test, as well as when an operating limit parameter value is being revised. Under the final Clay Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP , the owner or operator is required to measure emissions of HF, HCl, Hg, PM (as a surrogate for non

- Hg HAP metals) and dioxins/furans. The owner or operator must measure HF and HCl

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 43 of 445 from ceramic tile roller kilns and sanitaryware first

- fire tunnel kilns using one of the following methods:

• EP A Method 26A, “ Determination of Hydrogen Halide and Halogen Emissions from Stationary Sources

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

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

- 8, when no acid particulate ( e.g. , HF or HCl dissolved in water droplets emitted by sources controlled by a wet scrubber) is present;
• EPA Method 320, “ Measurement of Vapor Phase Organic and Inorganic Emission by Extractive FTIR ” 40 CFR part 63, appendix A, provided the test 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 has been approved by the Administrator under 40 CFR 63.7(f) of the General Provisions. Following the performance test, the owner or operator must calculate the HCl

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

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

- equivalent and compare this value to the HBEL
. We are requiring that the owner or operator measure PM emissions from ceramic tile roller kilns and sanitaryware first

fire tunnel kilns using one of the following methods:

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

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

- 8; or

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 44 of 445

• 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 alternativ e method may also be used to measure Hg emissions from ceramic tile roller kilns , ceramic tile glaze lines and sanitaryware first

- fire tunnel kilns.
We are requiring that the owner or operator measure PM emissions from ceramic tile and sanitaryware glaze s pray booths using EPA Method 5 or any other alternative method that has been approved by the Administrator under 40 CFR 63.7(f) of the General Provisions. We are also requiring that the owner or operator measure dioxin/furan emissions from ceramic tile rol ler 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 o r any other alternative method that has been approved by the Administrator under 40 CFR 63.7(f) of the General Provisions. The following paragraphs discuss the initial compliance requirements. Prior to the initial performance test, the owner or operator is required to install the CPMS equipment (as

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 45 of 445 discussed in section III.B.6 of this preamble) to be used to demonstrate continuous compliance with the operating limits. During the initial test, the owner or operator must use the CPMS to establish site

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

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

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

- specific operating limit. If a BLD system is present , the owner or operator is required to submit analyses and supporting documentation demonstrating conformance with EPA guidance and specifications for BLD systems.
For a stand

- alone FF ( i.e. , no dry sorbent injection or DLS) and a BLD system, we are requiring that the owner or operator submit analyses and supporting documentation

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 46 of 445 demonstrating conformance with EPA guidance and specifications for BLD systems.
For a wet scrubber, we are requiring that the owner or operator continuously measure the scrubber liquid pH d uring the HF/HCl performance test and the scrubber liquid flow rate during both the PM and HF/HCl performance tests. For each wet scrubber parameter, the owner or operator is required to determine and record the average values for the three test runs and t he 3

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

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

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

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

- specific activated carbon flow rate operating limit. If different average activated carbon flow rate values are measured during the Hg and dioxin/furan tests, the highest of the average values becomes the site

- specific operating limit.

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 47 of 445 If the owner or operator intends to comply with the dioxin/furan emission limit without an ACI system, we are requiring that the owner or operator measure the stack temperature of the tunnel or roller kiln during the dioxin/furan performance test . The highest 4

- hour average stack temperature of the three test runs establishes the maximum site

- specific

o perating limit. The owner or operator must also measure the operating temperature s of the c eramic tile spray dryer and floor tile press dryer during the dioxin/furan performance test and determine the 3

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

- specific operating limit. For sources with no APCD insta lled, we are requiring that the owner or operator calculate the maximum potential HCl

equivalent using Equation 6 in 40 CFR 63.8595( g )( 1 )(i). The owner or operator must use the results from the performance test to determine the emissions at the maximum possible process rate. For example, if the design capacity of the tunnel or roller kiln is 10 tph and the production rate during the performance test

was 9 tph, then the test results represent 90 percent of the maximum potential emissions. If ther e are multiple kilns at a facility, the owner or operator must sum the maximum potential HCl

- equivalent for each kiln to get the total facility maximum

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 48 of 445 potential HCl

- equivalent and compare this value to the HBEL for acid gases . If the total facility maximu m potential HCl

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

- equivalent remains at or below the HBEL . If there are multiple kilns, the owner or operator must determine one or more combinations of maximum process rates that result in a total facility maximum potential HCl

- equivalent that remains at or below the HBEL . The maximum process rate(s) become s the operating limit(s) for process r ate.
W e are also requiring that the owner or operator measure the stack temperature of the tunnel or roller kiln during the dioxin/furan performance test
. The highest 4

- hour average stack temperature of the three test runs establishes the maximum site

specific o perating limit. The owner or operator must also measure the operating temperature s of the ceramic tile spray dryer and floor tile press dryer during the dioxin/furan performance test and determine the 3

- hour block average temperatur e. The average of the three test runs establishes the site

- specific operating limit. 6 . What are the continuous compliance requirements? The final Clay Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP requires that the owner or operator demonstrate continuous compliance with

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 49 of 445 each emission limitation that applies. The owner or operator
must follow the requirements in the OM&M plan and document conformance with the OM&M plan. The owner or operator must also operate a CPMS to monitor the operating parameters established during t he initial performance test as described in the following paragraphs. The CPMS must collect data at least every 15 minutes , including at least three of four equally spaced data values (or at least 75 percent if there are more than four data values per hour ) per hour to have a valid hour of data. The owner or operator must operate the CPMS at all times when the process is operating. The owner or operator must also c onduct proper maintenance of the CPMS, including inspections, calibrations and validation chec ks, and maintain an inventory of necessary parts for routine repairs of the CPMS. Using the recorded readings, the owner or operator must calculate and record the 3

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

- hour averaging period, the owner or operator must have at least 75 percent of the recorded readings for that period.
For a DIFF or DLS/FF, we are requiring that the owner or operator demonstrate compliance with the acid gas (HF/HCl) HBEL by maintaining free

- flowing lime in the feed hopper or silo and to the APCD at all times. If lime is found not to be free

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 50 of 445 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 op erator must promptly initiate and complete corrective actions according to the OM&M plan. The owner or operator must also maintain the feeder setting (on a per ton of throughput basis) at or above the level established during the performance test and recor d the feeder setting once each shift. For a DIFF or DLS/FF, the final rule provide s the option to use either a BLD system or VE monitoring to demonstrate parametric compliance
. For the option of a BLD system, we are requiring that the owner or operator ini tiate corrective action within 1 hour of a BLD system alarm and complete corrective actions according to the OM&M plan. The owner or operator must also operate and maintain the FF such that the alarm is not engaged for more than 5 percent of the total oper ating time in a 6

- month block reporting period. In calculating this operating time fraction, if inspection of the FF demonstrates that no corrective action is required, no alarm time is counted. If corrective action is required, each alarm must be counted as a minimum of 1 hour and if corrective action is initiated more than 1 hour after an

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 51 of 445 alarm , the alarm time must be counted as the actual amount of time taken to initiate corrective action. For the option of monitoring VE, we are requiring that the

owner or operator perform daily, 15

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

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

- alone FF, we are requiring that the owner or operator use a BLD system or monitor VE as described above to demonstrate parametric compliance
.

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 52 of 445
For a wet scrubber on a tunnel or roller kiln , we are requiring that the owner or operator continuously maintain the 3

- hour block averages for scrubber liquid pH and scrubber liquid flow rate at or above the minimum values established during the applicable performance test. Maintaining the 3

- hour block average for scrubber liquid pH at or above the minimum values established during the HF/HCl performance test demonstrate s compliance with the acid gas (HF/HCl) HBEL . Maintaining the 3

- hour block average for scrubber liquid flow rate at or above the lowest minimum value established during the PM an d HF/HCl performance tests demonstrate s compliance with all applicable emission limits by showing that the scrubber is in proper working order.
For an ACI system , we are requiring that the owner or operator demonstrate compliance with the Hg and dioxin/furan emission limit s by continuously monitoring the activated carbon flow rate and maintaining it at or above the lowest minimum value established during the Hg and dioxin/furan performance
test s . If the owner or operator intends to comply with the dioxin/furan emission limit without an ACI system, we are requiring that the owner or operator demonstrate compliance by continuously monitoring the stack temperature of the tunnel or

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 53 of 445 roller kiln and the operating temperature of the ceramic tile
spray dryer and floor tile press dryer and maintaining it at or below the highest 4

- hour average temperature during the dioxin/furan performance test for the tunnel or roller kiln , at or above the average temperature during the dioxin/furan performance test for the ceramic tile spray dryer , and at or below the average temperature during the dioxin/furan performance test for the floor tile press dryer
. For a wet scrubber on a spray glazing operation, we are requiring that the owner or operator continuously mainta in the 3

- hour block averages for scrubber pressure drop and scrubber liquid flow rate at or above the minimum values established during the applicable performance test. Maintaining the 3

- hour block average for scrubber pressure drop at or above the minimum value established during the PM performance test demonstrate s compliance with the PM emission limit. Maintaining the 3

- hour block average for scrubber liquid flow rate at or above the minimum value established during the PM performance test demonstrate s c ompliance with the PM emission limit by showing that the scrubber is in proper working order.
For a water curtain on a spray glazing operation , we are requiring that the owner or operator demonstrate compliance with the PM emission limit by conducting a daily inspection to verify

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 54 of 445 the presence of water flow to the wet control system, conducting weekly visual inspections of the system ductwork and control equipment for leaks and conducting a nnual inspections of the interior of the control equipment (if applicable) to determine the structural integrity and condition of the control equipment.
For baffles on a spray glazing operation , we are requiring that the owner or operator demonstrate compl iance with the PM emission limit by conducting an annual visual inspection of the baffles to confirm the baffles are in place.
For a source with no APCD, we are requiring that , to demonstrate compliance with the PM emission limit , the owner or operator mon itor VE as described above . We are also requiring that , to demonstrate compliance with the dioxin/furan emission limit, the owner or operator continuously monitor the stack temperature of the tunnel or roller kiln and operating temperature of the ceramic t ile spray dryer and floor tile press dryer and maintain it at or below the highest 4

- hour average stack temperature during the dioxin/furan performance test for the tunnel or roller kiln , at or above the average operating temperature during the dioxin/fura n performance test for the ceramic tile spray dryer , and at or below the average operating temperature during the dioxin/furan performance test for the floor tile press dryer . In addition, if the last calculated

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 55 of 445 total facility maximum potential HCl

- equival ent was not at or below the HBEL for acid gases , then we are requiring that the owner or operator collect and record data documenting the process rate of the tunnel or roller kiln and reduce the data to 3

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

equivalent to remain at or below the HBEL
. 7 . What are th e notification, recordkeeping and reporting requirements? All new and existing sources are required to comply with certain requirements of the General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A), which are identified in Table 11 of subpart KKKKK. The General Provisions include specific requirements for notifications, recordkeeping and reporting. Each owner or operator is required to submit a notification of compliance status report, as required by 40 CFR 63.9(h) of the General Provisions. This final Clay Ceramics Manufacturing
NESHAP require s the owner or operator to i nclude in the notification of compliance status report certifications of compliance with rule requirements. Semiannual compliance reports, as required by 40 CFR 63.10(e)(3) of subpart A, are also required for each semiannual reporting period.

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 56 of 445 This final Cl ay Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP require s records to demonstrate compliance with each emission limit and work practice standard. These recordkeeping requirements are specified directly in the General Provisions to 40 CFR part 63 and are identified in Table 9 of subpart KKKKK. Specifically, w e are requiring that the owner or operator must keep the following records:

• All reports and notifications submitted to comply with this final Clay Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP
. • Records of performance tests.
• Records rela ting to APCD maintenance and documentation of approved routine control device maintenance.
• Continuous monitoring data as required in this final Clay Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP
. • Records of BLD system alarms and corrective actions taken.
• Each instance in which the owner or operator did not meet each emission limit ( i.e. , deviations from operating limits).
• Records of production rates.
• Records of approved alternative monitoring or testing procedures.
• Records of maintenance and inspections pe rformed on the APCD
. • Current copies of the OM&M plan and records documenting conformance.
• Logs of the information required to document compliance with the shuttle kiln work practice standard.
• Logs of the information required to document compliance with the startup and shutdown work practice standards.
• Records of each malfunction and the corrective action taken.
• Records of parameters and procedures followed for work practice standards.

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 57 of 445 We are also requiring that the owner or operator submit the following reports and notifications:

• Notifications required by the General Provisions.
• Initial Notification no later than 120 calendar days after the affected source 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 calendar days of completing the test, submitted to the EPA by direct computer

- to

- computer electronic transfer via EPA

- provided software for data collected using supported test methods (see section III.E of this preamble for more information)
. C . What a re the requirements during periods of startup, shutdown , and malfunction? In its 2008 decision in Sierra Club v. EPA , 551 F.3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008), the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit vacated portions of two provisions in the EPA’s CAA section 112 regulations governing the emissions of HAP during periods of SSM. Specifically, the Court vacated the SSM exemption contained in 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) and 40 CFR

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 58 of 445 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 continuo usly. 1. Periods of Startup or Shutdown Consistent with Sierra Club v. EPA , the EPA has established standards in this rule that apply at all times. In establishing the standards in this rule, the EPA has taken into account startup and shutdown periods and, for the reasons explained in the preamble to the proposed rule and in sections I V. A
. 4 and
I V. B
. 2 of this preamble , has established alternate standards for those periods.

a. BSCP M anufacturing The EPA is issuing the work practice standards described in thi s paragraph for periods of startup and shutdown for BSCP tunnel kilns with APCD. As a first step, the owner or operator is required to determine the APCD minimum inlet temperature and the startup kiln car push rate of the product. For startup, the

owner or operator is required to vent the exhaust from the kiln through the APCD at all times when the exhaust temperature is at or above the minimum inlet temperature. In addition, the owner or operator may not exceed the startup kiln car push rate until the kiln exhaust is vented to the APCD. For shutdown, the owner

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 59 of 445 or operator is required to vent the exhaust from the kiln through the APCD until the kiln exhaust temperature falls below the APCD minimum inlet temperature. In addition, the kiln car push rate is to be steadily decreased to zero as the kiln cools. No additional loaded kiln cars may be introduced into the kiln once the kiln exhaust temperature falls below the APCD minimum inlet temperature. When the kiln exhaust is being vented through the APCD, the ow ner or operator is required to comply with the applicable continuous compliance requirements described in section III.A.6 of this preamble
. The EPA is issuing similar work practice standards for periods of startup and shutdown for BSCP tunnel kilns without an APCD as well. As a first step, the owner or operator is required to determine the product

- specific kiln temperature profile and the startup kiln car push rate of the product. For startup, the startup kiln car push rate may not be exceeded until the kil n reaches the product

- specific kiln temperature profile. For shutdown, the kiln car push rate is to be steadily decreased to zero as the kiln cools. No additional loaded kiln cars may be introduced into the kiln once the kiln falls below the product

specif ic kiln temperature profile. When the kiln production rate is greater than the startup kiln car push rate, the owner or operator is required to comply with the applicable continuous

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 60 of 445 compliance requirements described in section III.A.6 of this preamble
. b. Clay C eramics M anufacturing The EPA is issuing the work practice standards described in this paragraph for periods of startup and shutdown for ceramic tile roller kilns, floor tile press dryers, ceramic tile spray dryers and sanit aryware tunnel kilns with APCD. As a first step, the owner or operator is required to determine the APCD minimum inlet temperature and the startup production rate of the product. For startup, the owner or operator is required to vent the exhaust from t he kiln or dryer through the APCD at all times when the exhaust temperature is at or above the minimum inlet temperature . In addition, the owner or operator may not exceed the startup production rate of the product until the kiln or dryer exhaust is being vented th ro ugh the APCD. For shutdown, the owner or operator is required to vent the exhaust from the kiln or dryer through the APCD until the exhaust temperature falls below the APCD minimum inlet temperature . In addition, the production rate is to be steadily decre ased to zero as the kiln or dryer cools. N o additional throughput may be introduced to the kiln , press dryer and spray dryer o nce the exhaust temperature falls below the APCD minimum inlet temperature
. When the exhaust is being vented through the APCD, the owner or

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 61 of 445 operator is required to comply with the applicable continuous compliance requirements described in section III.B .6 of this preamble
. The EPA is also issuing work practice standards for periods of startup and shutdown for ceramic tile roller kilns, floor tile press dryers, ceramic tile spray dryers and sanitarywar e tunnel kilns without an APCD. As a first step, the owner or operator is r equired to determine the product

- specific kiln or dryer temperature profile and the startup production rate of the product. For startup, the startup production rate may not be exceeded until the kiln or dryer exhaust temperature reaches the product

- specific temperature profile
. For shutdown, the production rate is to be steadily decreased to zero as the kiln

or dryer cools. N o additional throughput may be introduced to the kiln , press dryer and spray dryer once the kiln , press dryer

or sp ray dryer falls below the product

- specific temperature profile
. When the kiln or dryer production rate is greater than the startup production rate , the owner or operator is required
to comply with the applicable continuous compliance requirements described in section III.B .6 of this preamble
. 2. Periods of Malfunction Periods of startup, normal operations , and shutdown are all predictable and routine aspects of a source ’ s operations.

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 62 of 445 Malfunctions, in contrast, are neither predictable nor routine. Instead th ey are by definition sudden, infrequent and not reasonably preventable failures of emissions control, process or monitoring equipment (40 CFR 63.2) (Definition of malfunction). The EPA interprets CAA section 112 as not requiring emissions that occur during periods of malfunction to be factored into development of CAA section 112 standards. Under section 112, emissions standards for new sources must be no less stringent than the level “ achieved ” by the best controlled similar source and for existing sources generally must be no less stringent than the average emission limitation “ achieved ” by the best performing 12 percent of sources in the category. There is nothing in CAA section 112 that directs the agency to consider malfunctions in d etermining the level “ achieved ” by the best performing sources when setting emission standards. As the D .C. Circuit has recognized, the phrase “ average emissions limitation achieved by the best performing 12 percent of ” sources “ says nothing about how the performance of the best units is to be calculated. ” Nat ’ l Ass ’ n of Clean Water Agencies v. EPA , 734 F.3d 1115, 1141 (D.C. Cir. 2013). While the EPA accounts for variability in setting emissions standards, nothing in CAA section 112 requires the agency to c onsider malfunctions as part of that analysis. A malfunction should not be treated in the

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 63 of 445 same manner as the type of variation in performance that occurs during routine operations of a source. A malfunction is a failure of the source to perform in a “ norma l or usual manner ” and no statutory language compels the EPA to consider such events in setting section CAA 112 standards. Further, accounting for malfunctions in setting emission standards would be difficult, if not impossible, given the myriad different types of malfunctions that can occur across all sources in the category and given the difficulties associated with predicting or accounting for the frequency, degree , and duration of various malfunctions that might occur. As such , the performance of units that are malfunctioning is not “ reasonably ” foreseeable
. See, e.g. , Sierra Club v. EPA , 167 F.3d 658, 662 (D.C. Cir. 1999) ( “ The EPA typically has wide latitude in determining the extent of data

- gathering necessary to solve a 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 , 5 90 F.2d 1011, 1058 (D.C. Cir. 1978) ( “ In the nature of things, no ge neral limit, individual permit, or even any upset provision can anticipate all upset situations. After a certain point, the transgression of regulatory limits caused by ‘ uncontrollable acts of third

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 64 of 445 parties, ’ such as strikes, sabotage, operator intoxicatio n or insanity, and a variety of other eventualities, must be a matter for the administrative exercise of case

- by

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

- percent removal goes off

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

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

- day malfunction period would exceed the annual emissions of the source during normal operations. As this example illustrates, accounting for malfunctions could lead to standards that are not reflective of (and significantly l ess stringent than) levels that are achieved by a well

- performing non

- malfunctioning source. It is reasonable to interpret CAA section 112 to avoid such a result. The EPA ’ s approach to malfunctions is consistent with CAA section 112 and is a reasonable int erpretation of the
statute.

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 65 of 445 In the event that a source fails to comply with the applicable CAA section 112 (d) standards as a result of a malfunction event, the EPA would determine an appropriate response based on, among other things, the good faith efforts of the source to minimize emissions during malfunction periods, including preventative and corrective actions, as well as root cause analyses to ascertain and rectify excess emissions. The EPA would also consider whether the source ’ s failure to comply wit h the CAA section 112(d) standard was, in fact, sudden, infrequent, not reasonably preventable and was not instead caused in part by poor maintenance or careless operation. 40 CFR 63.2 (definition of malfunction). If the EPA determines in a particular case that an enforcement action against a source for violation of an emission standard is warranted, the source can raise any and all defenses in that enforcement action and the federal district court will determine what, if any, relief is appropriate. The sam e 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 , i n particular, section 112 is reasonable and encourages practices

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 66 of 445 that will avoid malfunctions
. Administrative and judicial procedures for addressing exceedances of the standards fully recognize that violations may occur despite good faith efforts to comply and can accommodate those situations.
D . What are the effective and compliance dates of the standards? The NESHAP for BSCP Manufacturing and Clay Ceramics Manufacturing are effective on **[insert 60 days from**  **date of**  **publication in the Federal Register**  **]**
. If the initial startup of the affected source is after December 18, 2014 , but before **[insert date 60 days from date**  **of publication**  **in the Federal Register ]**  , then the compliance date is no later than **[insert date 60 days from date**  **of publication in the Federal Register**  **]** . If the initial startup of the affected source is after **[insert date 60 days from date**  **of publication in**  **the Federal Register ]**  , then the compliance date is immediately upon initial startup of the affected source. The compliance da te for existing affected sources is no later than **[insert date 3**
**years and 60 days**  **from date of publication**  **in the Federal Register**  **]**
. The initial performance test must be conducted within 180 calendar days after the compliance date specified in 40 CFR 63.8 395 for affected sources of BSCP manufacturing and 40 CFR 63.8545 for affected sources of clay ceramics manufacturing ,

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 67 of 445 according to the provisions in 40 CFR 60.7(a)(2). The first of the 5

- year repeat tests must be conducted no later than 5 years following the initial performance test, and thereafter within 5 years from the date of the previous performance test. The date to submit performance test data through the Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) is within 60 calendar days after the date of completing each pe rformance test.
E . What are the requirements for submission of performance test data to the EPA? The EPA is requiring owners or operators of BSCP and clay ceramics facilities to submit electronic copies of certain required performance test reports through the EPA’s Central Data Exchange (CDX) using the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI). As stated in the proposed preamble, the EPA believes that the electronic submittal of the reports addressed in this rulemaking will increase the usef ulness of the data contained in those reports, is in keeping with current trends in data availability, will further assist in the protection of public health and the environment and will ultimately result in less burden on the regulated community. Electron ic reporting can also eliminate paper

- based, manual processes, thereby saving time and resources, simplifying data entry, eliminating redundancies, minimizing data reporting errors and providing

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 68 of 445 data quickly and accurately to the affected facilities, air

a gencies, the EPA and the public. As mentioned in the preamble of the proposal, the EPA Web site that stores the submitted electronic data, WebFIRE, will be easily accessible to everyone and will provide a user

- friendly interface that any stakeholder could access. By making the records, data and reports addressed in this rulemaking readily available, the EPA, the regulated community and the public will benefit when the EPA conducts its CAA

- required technology and risk

- based reviews. As a result of having rep orts readily accessible, our ability to carry out comprehensive reviews will be increased and achieved within a shorter period of time
. We anticipate fewer or less substantial information collection requests (ICRs) in conjunction with prospective CAA

requi red technology and risk

- based reviews may be needed. We expect this to result in a decrease in time spent by industry to respond to data collection requests. We also expect the ICRs to contain less extensive stack testing provisions, as we will already hav e stack test data electronically. Reduced testing requirements would be a cost savings to industry. The EPA should also be able to conduct these required reviews more quickly. While the regulated community may benefit from a reduced burden of ICRs, the gen eral public benefits from the agency’s ability

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 69 of 445 to provide these required reviews more quickly, resulting in increased public health and environmental protection
. Air agencies could benefit from more streamlined and automated review of the electronically su bmitted data. Having reports and associated data in electronic format will facilitate review through the use of software “search” options, as well as the downloading and analyzing of data in spreadsheet format. The ability to access and review air emission report information electronically will assist air agencies to more quickly and accurately determine compliance with the applicable regulations, potentially allowing a faster response to violations which could minimize harmful air emissions. This benefits both air agencies and the general public
. For a more thorough discussion of electronic reporting required by this rule , see the discussion in the preamble of the proposal. In summary , in addition to supporting regulation development, control strategy devel opment and other air pollution control activities, having an electronic database populated with performance test data will save industry, air agencies , and the EPA significant time, money , and effort while improving the quality of emission inventories , air quality regulations , and enhancing the public’s access to this important information
.

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 70 of 445 F. What materials are being incorporated by reference under 1 CFR part 51 ? In this final rule, the EPA is including regulatory text that includes incorporation by refere nce. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is incorporating by reference the following documents described in the amendments to 40 CFR 63.14 :

• ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10

– 1981, Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses [Part 10, Instruments and Apparatus], (Is sued August 31, 1981) , IBR approved for Table 4 to subpart JJJJJ and Table 4 to subpart KKKKK
. To correct an earlier, inadvertent error that exists in the CFR, we are also adding back in the IBR approval for Table 4 to subpart JJJJJJ.
• ASTM D6348

- 03 (Reappr oved 2010), Standard Test Method for Determination of Gaseous Compounds by Extractive Direct Interface Fourier Transform Infrared (FTIR) Spectroscopy, including Annexes A1 through A8, (Approved October 1, 2010) , IBR approved for Tables 4 and 5 to subpart J JJJJ and Tables 4 and 6 to subpart KKKKK
. • ASTM D6784

- 02 (Reapproved 2008), Standard Test Method for Elemental, Oxidized, Particle

- Bound and Total Mercury in Flue Gas Generated from Coal

- Fired Stationary Sources (Ontario Hydro Method), (Approved April 1, 2008) , IBR approved for Tables 4 and 5 to subpart JJJJJ and Tables 4 and 6 to subpart KKKKK
. • ASTM D6735

- 01 (Reapproved 2009), Standard Test Method for Measurement of Gaseous Chlorides and Fluorides from Mineral Calcining Exhaust Sources

— Impinger Method , IB R approved for Tables 4 and 5 to subpart JJJJJ and Tables 4 and 6 to subpart KKKKK
. • EPA

- 454/R

- 98

- 015, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS), Fabric Filter Bag Leak Detection Guidance, September 1997 , IBR approved for 40 CFR 63.8450(e) (1), (9 ), and (10) and 40 CFR 63.8600(e) (1), (9), and (10)
.

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 71 of 445 The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents generally available electronically through www.regulations.gov and/or in hard copy at the appropriate EPA office (see the **ADDRESSES** section of this preamble for more information).
**I V.**  **Summary of Significant Changes Following Proposal and**  **Rationale** The following sections summarize the signifi cant changes made to the proposed BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP and Clay Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP , including the rationale for those changes, to respond to public comments and to correct technical inconsistencies or editorial errors in the proposal. A detailed discussion of these and other public comments , as well as other changes not discussed in this section, can be found in the
response - to

- comments document s , available in Docket ID No. EPA

HQ

- OAR

- 2013

- 0291 for BSCP Manufacturing and Docket ID No. EPA

HQ

- OAR

- 2013

- 0290 for Clay Ceramics Manufacturing. All changes to the final rules, including the signif i cant changes discussed in this section and all other changes not discussed in this section , can also be found in the redline comparison of the proposed and final regulatory text , available in Docket ID No.
EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2013

- 0291 for BSCP Manufacturing and D ocket ID No.
EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2013

- 0290 for Clay Ceramics Manufacturing
.

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 72 of 445
A. What are the significant changes since proposal for the BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP ? 1. Changes to the Data Set Following proposal, the EPA learned that two of the facilities in the inventory at proposal were closed and the kilns were demolished. In addition, the EPA learned that two of the synthetic area sources in the inventory at proposal were actually true area sources. These facilities were removed fr om the master inventory, and the test data from kilns at two of these facilities were also removed from the data set. The EPA learned that a new tunnel kiln had been constructed at a new facility, and that new facility was added to the inventory. The
EPA a lso received additional HF, HCl, and PM test data for three kilns , which was added into the data set
. In addition, the EPA examined the PM test data more closely and found that a number of the EPA Method 5 test runs had probe or filter temperatures outside of the range of acceptable values. EPA Method 5 specifies that the temperature should be maintained at 248 ± 25 degrees Fahrenheit (° F ) ( i.e. , between 223 and 273 ° F) . Test runs with temperatures outside that range

were removed from the data set. (See the memorandum “ Test Data Used in BSCP Manufacturing Final Rule ” in Docket ID No. EPA

- HQ

OAR

- 2013

- 0291 for more information on this analysis.)

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 73 of 445 Several public commenters stated that the concentration limits for PM and Hg should not be corrected to 7

- percent O 2 

## because BSCP kilns operate with a higher O 2 

## content; one commenter suggested that the EPA use data corrected to 17

- percent O 2 

## instead. The EPA evaluated this co mment and agrees that 17

- percent O 2 

## is more representative of BSCP kiln operations
. Specifically, the EPA evaluated the O 2 

## content of the

run - by

- run datasets of PM and Hg for BSCP tunnel kilns and found that for the PM data set, the oxygen content ranged from 9.5 to 20.5 percent, with an average of 16.8 and a mode of 1 7 when evaluating th e run - by

- run O 2 

## values rounded to whole numbers. For the H g data set , the oxygen content ranged from 13.1 to 19. 5 percent , with an average of 17. 2 and a mode of 17 when evaluating the run

- by

- run O 2 

## values rounded to whole numbers. The EPA agrees that corre cting concentration data to 17

- percent O 2 

## rather than 7

- percent, as proposed, provides more representative values of kilns’ operating conditions and would not artificially inflate the values
. Therefore, the EPA re calculated the oxygen

corrected PM and Hg t est runs to be corrected to 17

- percent instead of 7

- percent O 2 

## . 2. Changes to the MACT Floor Pool and Calculations At proposal , the MACT floors for PM as a surrogate for total non

- Hg HAP metals w ere based on kilns with FF

- ba sed APCD ,

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 74 of 445 as the EPA considered those to be the best performing sources in the industry. However, as noted in section IV.A.1 of this preamble, the EPA after proposal examined the PM test data in an effort to insure that the data were valid. We found a number of th e EPA Method 5 test runs had probe or filter temperatures outside of the range of acceptable values. These out

- of

- range temperatures invalidated the test runs, and in some cases, invalidated entire PM tests, reducing the set of valid, available test data. Some of the PM test data removed from the data set were for kilns controlled with a DIFF. As a result, the EPA no longer has data on all the kilns with a FF

- based APCD in the industry, which undercuts one of the bases for EPA’s proposal to use the best per forming FF

- based kilns to set a MA CT floor based on 12 percent of the kilns in the entire category. In addition , at proposal the EPA requested more data to further substantiate that kilns with FF

- ba sed APCD actually represented the best performing sources in terms of PM emissions. For example, there w ere some data in the record at the time of the proposal suggesting that in some cases , uncontrolled kilns actually had emissions below the PM emissions of some kiln s with FF

- ba sed APCD , which is contrary to wh at we would expect. The EPA requested information to explain these anomalies. However , information was not received during the

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 75 of 445 comment period sufficient to explain why some kiln s without FF

based APCD emitted at levels as low as or lower than some kilns with FF

- based APCD
. For this reason, and because some of the emissions data on
DIFF

- controlled kilns had to be removed from the data pool as discussed above, the record does not support the conclusion that we have PM emissions data on all the best pe rforming kilns in the industry. Given that, we are instead basing the PM MACT floor on 12 percent of the kilns for which we have emissions data. Therefore, the final MACT floor pools for PM as a surrogate for total non

- Hg HAP metals are not based on the to p 12 percent of the kilns in the industry ( i.e. , the 27 best performing sources). Instead, the final MACT floor limits are based on the top 12 percent of the sources for which we have emissions data available in each of the kiln size subcategories, consist ent with the approach described for the proposed alternate non

- Hg HAP metals standards in section IV.Q.1 of the preamble to the proposed rule (79 FR 75649). In addition, i n response to public comments received on the proposed rule, and consistent with the proposed alternate approach in section IV.Q.1 of the preamble to the proposed rule , the EPA has decided to exercise its discretion to subcategorize for emissions of PM based on kiln size in the final rule.

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 76 of 445 Section 112(d)(1) of the CAA allows the EPA to pro mulgate emission standards for either categories or subcategories of

sources . Section IV.C of the preamble to the proposed rule (79 FR 75633) described the EPA’s assessment of tunnel kiln size subcategories. When the EPA recalculated the MACT floor pools f or PM as a surrogate for total non

- Hg HAP metals as described in the previous paragraph, the EPA evaluated subcategorizing by kiln size and determined it is appropriate to exercise its discretion to subcategorize in this case. This subcategorization provid es additional flexibility for small tunnel kilns, many of which are operated by small businesses. Therefore, t he final MACT floor limits for PM as a surrogate for total non

- Hg HAP metals are based on the best performing 12 percent of the sources in each of the kiln size subcategories with valid test data ( i.e. , 12 percent of the data available). The EPA also proposed two alternat ive equivalent limits , calculated based on the same best performing sources ranked by lb/ton, then using those units ’ concentration or lb/hr data to calculate the floor. During the public comment period, the EPA received comments that each alternative limit should be calculated according to a separate ranking based on the specific unit of measure. Upon further analysis o f the data sets for each unit of measure, the EPA has found that there are some

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 77 of 445 differences in the top ranked sources between each unit of measure data set and thus finds the alternative limits expressed on their own unit of measure data set ranking to be the most indicative of that data set’s MACT floor. Therefore, the EPA re

rank ed the data for each unit of measurement in each kiln size subcategory separately
. T he final alternative equivalent limits are based on the top 12 percent of the data available in each subcategory according to these revised ranking s . In other words , the concentration floor is based on the ranking of the concentration data , and the lb/hr floor is based on the ranking of the lb/hr data. Each floor is based on the best performing unit s for that unit of measurement. In addition, the final lb/hr

n on - Hg HA P metals alternative limit is based on a ranking of the

n on - Hg HA P metals data rather than the use of conversion factors applied to the PM lb/ton floor limit, as was done at proposal. 3. Variability Calculation Based on Hg Raw Material Data At proposal, the EPA developed Hg MACT floors based on the best performing 12 percent of sources ( i.e. , the lowest emitting sources of Hg emissions from test data ) . However, c ommenters identified tha t the Hg comes from the raw materials used and the Hg content can vary by location, even within the same quarry. The EPA did not account for this inherent variability at proposal. The Brick Industry Association ( BIA ) coordinated with

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 78 of 445 several BSCP facilitie s to test the Hg content of the raw materials used and provided the data to the EPA. The EPA mapped the facilities and quarry locations provided by BIA to identify two distinct quarry locations , an Oklahoma deposit and an Ohio deposit , for use in the devel opment of a Hg raw material variability factor. The data from these two deposit locations were incorporated into the upper prediction limit ( UPL ) equation. Please see “Mercury Content of Oklahoma and Ohio Shale Deposits Supplying the Brick Industry ” and “Final Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) Floor Analysis for Brick and Structural Clay Products ” in Docket ID No. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2013

- 0291 for more information about the data and variability factor. 4. Startup and Shutdown Procedures The EPA proposed work practice standards during periods of startup and shutdown for tunnel kilns with and without APCD. These standards set a minimum temperature above which the exhaust must be vented through an APCD (if applicable) and below which no prod uct could be introduced to the kiln (400 °F for startup and 300 °F for shutdown). Industry commenters indicated that the exhaust of some kilns never reaches the specific temperatures proposed by the EPA, and that some product must be introduced to the kiln during startup to heat the kiln enough for full production. The EPA evaluated these comments and agrees

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 79 of 445 that the proposed standards do not actually represent the work practices representative of the best performing kilns
. The intent of the proposed standa rds was to represent work practices of the best performing kilns to minimize emissions by limiting the amount of brick being fired before the kiln reaches full production and limiting the amount of time the exhaust is not being routed to the APCD, if appli cable. As noted at proposal, the standards were based on information received through the 2010 EPA survey
. The EPA received additional information following proposal on the procedures used during periods of startup and shutdown for BSCP tunnel kilns that a re more representative of the best performing kilns. Therefore, the EPA is finalizing work practice standards for periods of startup and shutdown that are based upon the same principles as the proposed standards but are representative of how kilns actually perform during startup. Instead of defining the minimum inlet APCD temperature as 400 °F, the EPA is requiring the owner or operator to determine the minimum inlet temperature for each APCD. If a kiln does not have an APCD, the owner or operator is requir ed to determine the product

- specific kiln temperature profile that must be achieved before the kiln can reach full production. In addition, instead of specifying that no product can be introduced to the kiln during startup ,

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 80 of 445 the EPA is requiring the owner o r operator to determine the production rate needed to start up the kiln. The final startup standards specify that this startup production rate cannot be exceeded until the kiln exhaust reaches the APCD minimum inlet temperature or the product

- specific kiln temperature profile. The final shutdown standards specify that no additional product can be introduced once the kiln exhaust falls below the APCD minimum inlet temperature or the product

- specific kiln temperature profile.
B. What are the significant chang es since proposal for the Clay Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP ? 1. Changes to the Data Set After proposal, a public commenter identified a transcription error in the production rate for the PM and Hg stack test s for one floor t ile roller kiln. The production rate

was corrected , and the PM and Hg lb/ton values were recalculated. In addition, the EPA examined the PM test data more closely and found that a number of the EPA Method 5 test runs had probe or filter temperatures outside of the range of acceptable values. EPA Method 5 specifies that the temperature should be maintained at 248 ± 25 ° F ( i.e. , between 223 and 273

° F) . Test runs with temperatures outside that range were removed from the data set. (See the memorandum “ Test Data Used in Clay

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 81 of 445
C eramics Manufacturing Final Rule ” in Docket ID No. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

2013

- 029 0 for more information on this analysis.) During the public comment period, the sanitaryware manufacturing company that provided all of the data used for the sanitaryware tunnel kiln MACT floors clarified that the production rates they provided in their CAA section 114 survey response are in terms of “greenware fired” into the kiln rather than “fired product” coming out of the kiln (as requested in the section 114 survey)
. Therefore, to be consistent with the data, the final emission limits for PM as a surrogate for non

- Hg HAP metals and Hg from sanitaryware tunnel kilns are in terms of lb/ton of greenware fired rather than lb/ton of product fired (as proposed). Finally, in response to comments requesting a change in the format of the emission limits for dioxins/furans, the EPA recalculated the emissions for each test run in units of ng/kg of throughput (specifically, “fired product” for ceramic tile roller kilns, “ greenware fired” for sanitaryware tunnel kilns , and “throughput processed” for ceramic tile press dryers and spray dryers ) . The MACT floors were then recalculated using those data, and the final emission limits for dioxins/furans for clay ceramics sources are in un its of ng/kg rather than concentration as proposed.

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 82 of 445 2. Startup and Shutdown Procedures The EPA proposed work practice standards during periods of startup and shutdown for ceramic tile roller kilns, floor tile press dryers, ceramic tile spray dryers and san itaryware tunnel kilns with and without APCD. These standards set a minimum temperature above which the exhaust must be vented through an
APCD (if applicable) and below which no product could be introduced to the kiln or dryer (400 °F for startup and 300 ° F for shutdown). One industry commenter indicated that the exhaust of some dryers never reach the specific temperatures proposed by the EPA. The EPA evaluated the comment and agrees that the proposed standards are not actually representative of the best
pe rforming dryers
. Therefore, the EPA is finalizing work practice standards for periods of startup and shutdown that are based upon the same principles as the proposed standards but more accurately reflect the best performing sources. Instead of defining the minimum inlet APCD temperature as 400 °F, the EPA is requiring the owner or operator to determine the minimum inlet temperature for each APCD. If a kiln or dryer does not have an APCD, the owner or operator is required to determine the product

- specific ki ln or dryer temperature profile that must be achieved before the kiln or dryer can reach full production. In addition, instead of

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 83 of 445 specifying that no product can be introduced to the kiln or dryer, the EPA is requiring the owner or operator to determine the production rate needed to start up the kiln or dryer. The final startup standards specify that this startup production rate cannot be exceeded until the kiln or dryer exhaust reaches the APCD minimum inlet temperature or the product

- specific kiln or dryer temperature profile. The final shutdown standards specify that no additional throughput can be introduced once the kiln or dryer exhaust falls below the APCD minimum inlet temperature or the product

- specific kiln or dryer temperature profile. C. What are the changes to monitoring requirements since proposal? A number of c hanges have been made to the monitoring requirements for the BSCP and Clay Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP in response to comments on the proposed rule
. These changes are summarized in Table 6 of this preamble . Further details about the basis for these changes are provided in the response

- to

comments documents for the BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP and the Clay Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP, available in Docket Nos.
EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2013

- 0290 (Clay Ceramics Manufacturing) and EPA

- HQ

OAR

- 2013

- 0291 (BSCP Manufacturing)
.

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 84 of 445
**T ABLE**  

## 6. **S UMMARY OF**  

## C **HANGES TO** 

## M **ONITORING** 

## R **EQUIREMENTS** 

## S **INCE** 

## P **ROPOSAL**



### Sources **Monitoring Requirements Proposal**  **Promulgation** BSCP or clay ceramics k iln s equipped with a wet scrubber To demonstrate compliance with acid gas standard:

• Monitor s crubber liquid pH
• Monitor scrubber chemical feed rate (if applicable)
• Maintain at or above average pH/feed rate during acid gas test To demonstrate compliance with non

- Hg HAP metals standard :
• Monit or s crubber pressure drop
• Maintain at or above average pressure drop during PM/non

- Hg HAP metals test To demonstrate compliance with non - Hg HAP metals and acid gas standards:

• Monitor scrubber liquid flow rate
• Maintain at or above highest average flow rate during PM/non

- Hg HAP metals and acid gas tests To demonstrate compliance with acid gas standard:

• Monitor s crubber liquid pH
• Maintain at or above average pH during acid gas test To demonstrate compliance with non

- Hg HAP metals and acid gas standard s :
• M onit or s crubber liquid flow rate
• Maintain at or above highest average flow rate during PM/non

- Hg HAP metals and acid gas test s

BSCP k iln s with no add

- on control To demonstrate compliance with non - Hg HAP metals standard:

• Perform daily, 15

- minute VE observations
• If VE are observed, initiate and compl ete corrective actions To demonstrate compliance with non

- Hg HAP metal s standard:

• Perform daily, 15

- minute VE observations
• If VE are observed, promptly conduct an opacity test
• If opacity greater than 10% are observed, initiate and compl ete corrective actions Clay ceramics kiln s with no add

- on control , or To demonstrate compliance with dioxins/furans standard : To demonstrate compliance with dioxins/furans standard :

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 85 of 445
in tending to comply with dioxin/furan standard without an ACI system • Monitor kiln operating tempe rature
• Maintain at or above average operating temperature during dioxin/furan test • Monitor kiln stack temperature
• Maintain at or below highest stack temperature during dioxin/furan test



## V. Summary of **Significant Comments and Responses** The EPA received a total of 52 public comment letters on the proposed BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP
. ( See D ocket ID N o. EPA

– HQ

– OAR

– 20 13

– 0291 for the complete public comments.) The EPA received a total of seven public comment letters on the proposed Clay Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP
. ( See D ocket ID N o. EPA

– HQ

– OAR

– 20 13

– 0290 for the complete public comments.) The following sections summarize the major public comments received on the proposal and present the EPA ’ s responses to those comments.
A
. Health

- Based Standards
**Comment:** Two c ommenter s disagreed with setting standards under CAA section 1 12(d)(4) for emissions of HCl, HF, and Cl 2 

## from new and existing BSCP and clay ceramics sources. One
commenter questioned whether the EPA has the authority to set CAA section 1 12(d)(4) standards for these acid gases
. The

c ommenter asserted that it would be arbitrary and capricious for the EPA to set risk

- based standards for these pollutants when the EPA previously decided not to set CAA section 1 12(d)(4) standards for HCl, HF, and Cl 2 

## in air toxics rulemakings for

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 86 of 445 industrial boilers and power plants
. For power plants , the EPA stated that the agency “ does not have sufficient information to establish CAA section 112( d)(4) health

- based emission standards and we did not receive such data during the comment period .” 1 

## The
commenter noted that the EPA reached a similar conclusion with respect to industrial boilers, declining to set risk

- based standards because of a lack of information on emissions. 2 

## The commenter asserted that the health and scientific data regarding emissions of acid gases from BSCP and clay ceramics plants similarly fail to provide justification for setting HBEL for these pollutants. The commenter asserte d the EPA must instead set MACT standards. Similarly, the second c ommenter expressed concern over using CAA section 112(d)(4) and health

- based risk assessment for setting the HCl, HF and Cl 2 

## standards for BSCP Manufacturing and Clay Ceramics Manufacturing
. The commenter noted that this would be the first time the EPA use d the health

- based risk assessment approach under CAA section 112(d)(4) to set emission standards for HF and Cl 2 

## ; although the EPA has used this approach in the past to establish health

- base d standards for other source

1 

### “ Responses to Public Comments on National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants from Coal

- and Oil

- Fired Electric Utility Steam Generating Units .” Docket Item No. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2009

- 0234

- 20126
. 2 

### National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Major Sources: Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional Boilers and Process Heaters, 75 FR 32006, 32031 (June 4, 2010)
.

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 87 of 445 categories, it was restricted to “ HCl emissions for discrete units within the facility ” (79 FR 75639)
. T he commenter supported focusing on pollutants that pose the greatest risks but expressed concern that the EPA has not adequ ately established that the approaches used are appropriate. The c ommenter asserted that the EPA’s approach represented a far

- reaching and significant change in the manner in which MACT standards are established under CAA section 112(d) and th a t it was inap propriate for the EPA to propose such changes in a rulemaking for individual source categories instead of discuss ing the approach with all affected parties. The c ommenter noted that Congress established section 112 of the CAA to rely on a technology

- based approach to avoid the gridlock of the unsuccessful risk

- based methods used before the adoption of the 1990 CAA Amendments. Accordingly, while the CAA includes language under section 112(d)(4) allowing the use of risk in the establishment of MACT, it should be used only under limited and very specific circumstances , and t he commenter stated that the
EPA ’ s proposal did not adequately make the case for the use of
CAA section 112(d)(4). Conversely, two other c ommenters stated that the EPA has clear legal authority to set HBEL and ample justification to do so for th e BSCP source category. The commenters stated that

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 88 of 445 under the terms of this provision, the EPA may set an emission standard at a level higher than would be req uired by CAA section 112(d)(4) , provided that : (1) the pollutant(s) being reg ulated is a threshold pollutant and (2) the standard provides an ample margin of safety. The commenters stated that b oth of these criteria are met in this case. The c ommenters ass erted that the proposed standard is consistent with Congress ’ s expectations regard ing the implementation of CAA section 112(d)(4)
. According to the Senate report accompanying the legislation , “ For some pollutants a MACT emission limitation may be far more stringent than is necessary to protect public health and the environment ” and i n such situations, “ [t]o avoid expenditures by regulated entities which secure no public health or environmental benefit, the Administrator is given discretionary authority to c onsider the evidence for a health threshold higher than MACT at the time the standard is under review. ” 3 

## The commenters stated that for this rulemaking, MACT would result in emission standards that are far more stringent than are needed to protect health a nd the environment and asserted that Congress enacted CAA s ection 112(d)(4) to allow emission standards to be tailored to protect

3 

### S. Rep. No. 101

- 228, 101st Cong. 1st sess. at 171.

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 89 of 44 5 public health without imposing unreasonable and unnecessary standards on affected sources. **Response:** The EPA disagrees with the commenters that we do not have the authority to establish CAA section 112(d)(4) standards in this rulemaking. The EPA also disagrees that the decision to establish CAA section 112(d)(4) standards is inconsistent with our decisions on other rulemakings. The commenters’ more detailed arguments and the EPA’s responses are provided in the remainder of this section. 1. Health Thresholds
**Comment** : One commenter stated that a pollutant is not a threshold pollutant under CAA section 1 12(d)( 4) unless the EPA establishes that it cannot cause cancer at any level of exposure. The commenter asserted that HCl, HF, and Cl 2 

## do not have already

- established safe health thresholds and the EPA ’ s proposed standards would not provide “ an ample margin of

s afety. ” Conversely, two commenters agree d with the EPA that the available health data indicate that HCl, HF, and Cl 2 

## are all threshold pollutants. The commenter s stated that the data show that each of these pollutants has a discernible exposure threshold b elow which adverse human health effects are not expected to occur; in addition, none of the available data

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 90 of 445 suggest that these pollutants reasonably should be expected to act as a carcinogen or mutagen, or exhibit a mode of action that would result in non

- t hreshold effects. **Response:** The EPA disagrees with the first commenter regarding HCl, HF and Cl 2 

## not having thresholds accepted by the scientific community , and we acknowledge the support of the other two commenter s . The EPA ’ s conclusion that HCl, HF and Cl 2 

## are threshold pollutants is based on the best available toxicity database considered in hazard identification and dose response
assessments . There is agreement on using a similar threshold approach for these chemicals across agencies, i. e . , the EPA ’ s
I ntegrated Risk Information System ( IRIS ) Program, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry ( ATSDR ) and the California Environmental Protection Agency ( CalEPA )
. The toxicity
assessments , which include noncancer and/or cancer toxicity assessments, pr ovided by these authoritative bodies are widely vetted through the scientific community and undergo rigorous peer review proce s ses before they are published. In addition, the Science Advisory Board (SAB) has endorsed the use of the reference values derived by these sources to support the EPA ’ s risk assessments in the residual risk and technology review ( RTR ) p rogram.

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 91 of 445 Specifically , none of the compounds discussed here has been classified as a carcinogen or as “ suggestive of the potential to be carcinogenic, ” individually or in combination , by existing authorit ative bodies , including EPA, Cal EPA, International Agency for Research on Cancer ( IARC ) , Organisation for Economic
Co

- operation and Development ( OECD ) , and the European Community
. In light of the absence of evidence of carcinogenic risk for any of these pollutants, and the evidence of an existing threshold below which HCl, HF and Cl 2 

## are not expected to cause adverse effects, the EPA considers it appropriate to set health threshol d standards under CAA section 112(d)(4) for these pollutants . The existing health effects evidence on HCl, HF and Cl 2 

## that provide support for this determination is described below. Potential health effects of HCl:

• There are limited studies on the carcinog enic potential of HCl in humans. The occupational data are limited to a couple of studies (Steenland et al. , 1988, Beaumont et al. , 1986) 4 , 5 

## where the subjects were exposed to a mixture of acid gases (mainly sulfuric acid)and other chemicals (including met als) that may have contained HCl
. These studies failed to separate potential exposure of HCl from exposure to other substances shown to have carcinogenic

4 

### Steenland, K., T. Schnorr, J. Beaumont, W. Halperin, T. Bloom. 1988. Incidence of laryngeal cancer and exposure to acid mists. Br. J. of Ind. Med. 45: 766

- 776. 5 

### Beaumont, J.J., J. Leveton, K. Knox, T. Bloom, T. McQuiston, M Young, R. Goldsmith, N.K. Steenland, D. Brown, W.E. Halperin. 1987. Lung cancer mortality in workers exposed to sulfuric acid mist and other acid mists. JNCI. 79: 911

- 921.

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 92 of 445 activity and are t herefore not appropr iate to evaluate the carcinogenic potential of HCl. A nother occu pational study failed to show evidence of association between exposure to HCl and lung cancer among chemical manufacturing plant employees showing that there is no evidence that HCl is a human carcinogen
. 6


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


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


## • Chronic exposure to HCl at concentrations below the current IRIS reference concentration ( RfC ) are not expected to cause adverse effects. Potential health effects of HF:

• There are a limited number of studies investigating the carcinogenic potential of HF. These studies are unreliable on the issue of possible carcinogenicity of HF and/or fluor ides, in general, because of many confou nding factors ( e.g. , exposure to multiple unknown chemicals and smoking habits not accounted for) and because no breakdown was done by type of fluoride exposure. 11

6 

### Bond G.G., Flores G.H., Stafford B.A., Olsen G.W. Lung cancer and hydrogen chloride exposure: results from a nested case

- control study of chemical workers. 1991. J Occup Med; 33(9), 958

- 61. 7 

### Albert, R.E., A.R. Sellakumar, S. Laskin, M. Kuschner, N. Nelson and C.A. Snyder. 1982. Gaseous formaldehyde and hydrogen chloride induction of nasal cancer in rats. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 68(4): 597

- 603. 8 

### Sellakumar, A.R., C.A. Snyder, J.J. Solomon and R.E. Albert. 1985. Carcinogenicity for formaldehyde and hydrogen chloride in rats. Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol. 81: 401

- 406. 9 

### Morita, T., T. Nagaki., I. Fukuda, K. Okumur a. 1992. Clastogenicity of low pH to various cultured mammalian cells. Mutat. Res. 268: 297

- 305. 10 

### Cifone, M.A., B. Myhr, A. Eiche, G. Bolcsfoldi. 1987. Effect of pH shifts on the mutant frequency at the thymidine kinase locus in mouse lymphoma L5178Y TK=/

- cells. Mutat. Res. 189: 39

- 46. 11 

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

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 93 of 445

• Chronic exposure at or below the current CalEPA reference exposure level ( REL ) is not expected to cause adverse effects. Potential health effects of Cl 2 

## :

• The existing studies of workers in the chemical industry have not found any evidence that Cl 2 

## is carcinogenic.
• Chronic bioassays in rodents and long

- term studies in non

human primates have shown no evidence for carcinogenicity in respiratory tract as target tissue or other tissues.
• Chronic exposure to Cl 2 

## at concentrations below the current ATSDR minimal risk level ( MRL ) are not expected to cause adverse effects. We disagree with the commen t that the EPA’s proposed HBEL does not provide an ample margin of safety , for the following

reasons . First, t he limit is based on the facility in the source category with the highest potential exposure to nearby residents. The HBEL at this single facilit y reflects a ratio of exposure concentration over the reference value of up to 1 (at an exposure concentration below the RfC is considered to be health protective)
. As such, exposures will not exceed the established health threshold at this facility . In ad dition, the exposure estimate used to set the limit is very health protective in that it assumes constant exposure for 70 years. Actual exposures from emissions from this facility are expected to be lower ( i.e. , because persons will spend time away from ho me). This conservative exposure scenario is consistent with

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 94 of 445 the “ ample margin of safety ” requirement in CAA section 112(d)(4). Second , the ratios at the other facilities (not the highest facility noted above) from this source category are lower and in most cases significantly lower , with approximately 90 percent of these facilities having a ratio of 0.5 or less, which provides a further increased margin of safety beyond the ample margin of safety established at the facility with the highest pote ntial
exposure . **Comment:** One c ommenter stated that, according to the EPA, an RfC is merely “ an estimate (with uncertainty spanning perhaps an order of magnitude) ” of an exposure that is “ likely to be ” without health risks. 12 

## B y definition, this “ estimate ” i s not by itself a “ safe threshold ” of exposure that “ presents no risk ” of adverse health effects. The commenter stated the EPA cannot lawfully use a pollutant ’ s RfC as a default “ safe threshold ” under CAA section 1 12(d)(4) because an RfC does not pose “ no ” health risks, as the commenter asserted the CA A requires. The commenter stated that the EPA is authorized to set risk

- based standards only where it has direct evidence of the level at which there are no adverse effects observed and that

12 

### U.S. EPA, Glossary, http://www.epa.gov/risk_assessment/glossary.htm (last updated Apr. 28, 2014)
.

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 95 of 445 proceeding with HB EL without a no observed adverse effect level ( NOAEL ) is unlawful. Another c ommenter stated the use of health

based standards should only be considered for HAP that have been thoroughly evaluated by the EPA and are contained in the IRIS database with a hig h level of confidence in the RfC. W ith respect to HCl, the IRIS confidence levels are “L ow ” for the inhalation RfC. In “ Carcinogenicity Assessment for Lifetime Exposure, ” IRIS states, “ This substance/agent has not undergone a complete evaluation and determ ination under the EPA ’ s IRIS program for evidence of human carcinogenic potential. ” 13 

## I n the proposal, the EPA acknowledged that “ [t] he EPA has not classified HCl for carcinogenicity ” and “ [l]ittle research has been conducted on its carcinogenicity ” (79 FR 75639). The commenter also stated that IARC concluded that “ [t]here is inadequate evidence for the carcinogenicity in humans of hydrochloric acid, ” that “ [t]here is inadequate evidence for the carcinogenicity in experimental animals of hydrochloric acid , ” and that HCl “ is not classifiable as to its carcinogenicity to humans. ” 14 

## The c ommenter stated that the EPA did not identify any evidence that HCl is not carcinogenic and noted that the only

13 

### U.S. EPA, Integrated Risk Information System

- Hydrogen chloride
. http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0396.htm#coninhal
. 14 

### IARC, Hydrochloric Acid (Monograph), available at http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Monographs/vol54/mono54

- 8.pdf
.

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 96 of 445 study the EPA referenced is “ one occupational study ” that “ found

n o evidence of carcinogenicity ” ( 79 FR 75639 )
. Because t he EPA did not provide a citation for the study or otherwise identify it or discuss it, the public are unable to adequately comment on it. **Response:** The EPA’s risk assessments are supported by the best available toxicity assessments from authoritative bodies including the EPA ’ s IRIS Program, ATSDR and CalEPA. The SAB has endorsed the use of the reference values derived by these sources to support EPA ’ s risk assessments in the RTR p rogram. These authorit ative bodies derive health protective reference values at or below which no adverse effects are expected to occur. As mentioned previously in this section, the toxicity assessments, which include noncancer and/or cancer toxicity assessments, provided by th ese authoritative bodies are widely vetted through the scientific community and undergo rigorous peer review processes before they are published. The commenter state d that there is n o t a NOAEL and that based on that , the EPA cannot set a HBEL for HCl. The EPA toxicity assessments consider the entire toxicity database for specific chemicals and are conducted following well

- established EPA guidance on how to assess potential hazard of a chemical and conduct dose response assessments. These assessments include the

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 97 of 445 derivation of a n RfC , which is likely to be without appreciable risk of adverse health effects to the human population (including susceptible subgroups and all life stages) over a lifetime. According to EPA guidelines, RfC s can be derived from a NOAEL, lowest observed adverse effect level ( LOAEL ) or benchmark dose, with uncertainty factors applied to reflect the limitations of the data used. In particular for HCl, t he point of departure for the RfC (15 milligrams per cubic m eter ( mg/m 3 

## ) ) was selected from chronic inhalation studies in rodents and was adjusted to reflect a lifetime of exposure (2.7 mg/m 3 

## ) and extrapolated to a human equivalent concentration (6.1 mg/m 3 

## ) based on differences in the effects of a gas in the respir atory system between rats and humans. Uncertainty factors (total of 300, yielding an RfC of 0.02 mg/m 3 

## ) were applied to account for interspecies differences, intraspecies extrapolation and extrapolation from a LOAEL to NOAEL. It is important to note that i n the IRIS assessment for HCl it is stated that a reasonable estimate of the NOAEL in humans is in the range of 0.3

- 3 mg/m 3


## . This estimate resulted from an expert review workshop and is based on examination of the HCl literature, a comparison with sulfuric acid toxicity, and the judgment of those in attendance at the review workshop. In addition, this value is generally consistent with identified NOAELs in

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 98 of 445 subchronic animal studies (OECD, 200 2 ) . Based on this information , we are confident that the IRIS HCl RfC represents a conservative health protective benchmark below which adverse health effects are not expected to occur. As part of the risk analysis conducted to support this rule, the EPA thoroughly evaluated all the available and relevant scientific evid ence on HCl (discussed previously in this section) and concluded that there is no evidence that HCl is a carcinogen and that this information is sufficient for this regulatory determination. The 2002 OECD assessment of HCl drew similar conclusions: For gen etic toxicity, a negative result has been shown in the Ames test. A positive result in a chromosome aberration test using Hamster ovary cells is considered to be an artifact due to the low pH. For carcinogenicity, no pre

neoplastic or neoplastic nasal lesi ons were observed in a 128

- week inhalation study with SD male rats at 10 ppm hydrogen chloride gas. No evidence of treatment related carcinogenicity was observed in other animal studies performed by inhalation, oral or dermal administration. In humans, no association between hydrogen chloride exposure and tumor incidence was observed. 15 

## Additionally, the EPA conducted a screening level literature review in 2003 and did not identify any critical studies that would change the conclusions in the 1995 HCl IRIS assessment.

15 

### United Nations Environment Programme 2002, Organisation for Economic Co

operation and Development (OECD), Screening Information Dataset (SIDS) Initial Assessment Report for SIAM 15, Hydrogen Chloride: CAS N°: 7647

- 01

- 0. October 25, 2002. http://www.inchem.org/documents/sids/sids/7647010.pdf
.

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 99 of 445 Based on the information available, the EPA concludes that th is information is sufficient to support setting a n HBEL under CAA section 112(d)(4) for HCl.
**Comment:** One c ommenter stated that the EPA proposed to base the HCl emission standards on the HCl RfC and argued it is unlawful to do so where the EPA has “ low confidence ” in the RfC
. The commenter stated that it is arbitrary to claim there is an established, safe health threshold based on a reference value in which the EPA has low confidence. According to t he commenter , having low confidence in the Rf C is the same as admitting that the EPA has “ low confidence ” in the proposed emission standards.
T he fact that the EPA was unable to determine a no

- effect level in a robust and reliable scientific study demonstrates concern that chronic exposure to even very low levels of HCl can compromise health, especially in sensitive subpopulations. The refore, the EPA cannot state that HCl presents no risk of adverse health effects. The c ommenter stated that t he EPA used a non - cancer health threshold for HCl based on a chronic inhalation study on rats. 16 

## The EPA has determined the RfC to be 0.02 mg/m 3 

## (0.0134 part per million ( ppm ) ), based on rat studies by Albert, et al. , demonstrating hyperplasia of the nasal mucosa (the protective

16 

### EPA, Integrated Risk Information System: Hydrogen Chloride
.

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 100 of 445 cell lining of the nasal tract and cavities), larynx, and trachea. 17 

## The commenter asserted that because these rat studies failed to identify a NOAEL, the EPA based the RfC on a LOAEL ( i.e. , the lowest dose in the study that induced a measurable adverse health effect in treated animals )
. The c ommenter asserted that CAA section 1 12(d)(4) does not permit risk

- based standards where a NOAEL has not been determined ; at a minimum, Congress required that a threshold be based on the “‘ no observable [adverse] effects level ’ (NOAEL) below which human exposure is presumably ‘ safe. ’” 18 

## The EPA has similarly recognize d that “ the legislative history of CAA section 112(d)(4) indicates that a health

- based emis sion limit under CAA section 112(d)(4) should be set at the level at which no observable effects occur ” ( 79 FR 75642). The commenter stated that, if there is no established non

- zero threshold level at which it has been shown that the pollutant has no delet erious health effects, then the EPA cannot be certain that exposure to the pollutant at a given level presents no harm. The commenter stated that without a NOAEL, no established threshold can exist , and the EPA does not have the authority under CAA section
1 12(d)(4) to set a n HBEL for HCl.

17 

### Albert, R.E., et al. , Gaseous formaldehyde and hydrogen chloride induction of nasal cancer in rats, 68(4) J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 597 (1982). 18 

### S. Rep. No. 101

- 228, at 171, 176.

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 101 of 445 **Response:** The EPA’s chemical

- specific toxicity assessments are derived using the EPA’s risk assessment guidelines and approaches that are well established and vetted through the scientific community, and follow rigorous p eer review
processes. 19 

## The RTR program gives preference to EPA values ( i.e. , RfCs for noncancer assessments) for use in risk assessments and uses other values, as appropriate, when those values are derived with methods and peer review processes consistent with those followed by the EPA. The approach for selecting appropriate toxicity v alues for use in the RTR Program has been endorsed by the SAB. 20 

## The EPA’s RfCs are assigned confidence levels of high, medium and low based on the completeness of the supporting database. High confidence RfCs are considered less likely to change substantia lly with the collection of additional information, while low confidence RfCs are recognized as being based on less complete data and so may be subject to change if

19 

### Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS). IRIS Guidance documents available at http://www.epa.gov/iris/backgrd.html
. 20 

### S cience A dvisory B oard. Memorandum to Lisa Jackson, Administrator, U.S. EPA. R evie w of EPA’s draft entitled, “Risk and Technology Review ( RTR ) Risk Assessment Methodologies : For Review by the EPA’s Science Advisory Board with Case Studies

– MACT I Petroleum Refining Sources and Portland Cement Manufacturing
. ” May 7, 2010. A vailable at: http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/4AB3966E263D943A8525771F00668381/$ File/EPA

- SAB

- 10

- 007

- unsigned.pdf
.

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 102 of 445 additional data is developed
. 21 

## It is important to note that a “low confidence” label does no t indicate that the EPA believes that the RfC is unreliable. F or a given chemical, if there are not adequate or appropriate data with which to derive an RfC, one is not calculated. All RfCs, even those with low confidence, are appropriate for regulatory us e. We disagree with the comment that without a NOAEL, no established threshold can exist. The EPA toxicity assessments for specific chemicals are conducted using well

- established EPA guidance on how to assess potential hazard of chemicals and how to conduc t dose response assessments to arrive at a chemical concentration below which we do n o t expect adverse effects to occur ( i.e. , threshold). These assessments include the derivation of a RfC which is likely to be without appreciable risk of adverse health ef fects to the human population (including susceptible subgroups and all life stages [ e.g. , children]) over a lifetime . According to EPA guidelines, RfC s can be derived from a NOAEL, LOAEL or benchmark dose, with uncertainty factors applied to account for re levant

21 

### U.S. EPA Air: Fat e, Exposure, and Risk Analysis Website. Air Toxics Assessment Reference Library, Volume 1. 2004. Available at http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2013

- 08/documents/volume_1_reflibrary.pdf
.

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 103 of 445 extrapolations, including extrapolation from LOAEL to NOAEL, and to reflect additional limitations of the data used. 22 , 23


## Comment: One c ommenter stated that the studies the EPA relied upon only investigated respiratory effects and did not consider oth er ways HCl could cause harm. The commenter noted the EPA has acknowledged that the RfC is an “ inhalation RfC ” and represents the health risk and toxicity associated with the inhalation pathway of exposure only ( 75 FR 32031 ) . The commenter stated that the EPA identified no studies that indicate whether exposure to HCl

- at 0.02 mg/m 3 

## or any other concentration

- harms other bodily systems. **Response :**  The EPA disagrees with the comment that the agency investigated only respiratory effects and that it did not consider other ways in which HCl can cause harm. In the princip a l studies upon which the RfC is based, a complete necropsy was performed on all animals. Histologic sections were prepared from the nasal cavity, lung, trachea, larynx, liver, kidneys, testes , and other organs where gross pathological signs were present. Due to the reactive nature of HCl, however, portal of entry effects are anticipated to occur first and at lower

22 

### U.S. EPA. 1994. Methods for Derivation of Inhalation Reference Concentrations and Application of Inhalation Dosimetry . EPA/600/8

- 90/066F, Oct 1994. Docket Item No. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2013

- 0291

- 0160
. 23 

### U.S. EPA. 2002. A Review of the Reference Dose and Reference Concentration Processes . EPA/630/P

- 02/002F, Dec 2002.

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 104 of 445 exposure concentrations. The IRIS assessment 24 

## for HCl included a comprehensive r eview of all the available toxicity data for HCl. No effects are expected to occur at exposures of HCl at or below the level of the RfC.
**Comment:** One c ommenter stated that the RfC is an inadequate basis for establishing a threshold because it “ did not refl ect any potential cumulative or synergistic effects of an individual ’ s exposure to multiple HAP or to a combination of HAP and criteria pollutants ” and noted that the EPA recognized the potential for cumulative and synergistic effects was important in its consideration of risk

- based standards in two recent rulemakings (s ee 75 FR 32031 and 76 FR 25050 )
. The c ommenter stated that there is no “ established ” threshold at the RfC for HCl , because the Cal EPA has determined a lower and more health

- protective value than the RfC. T he EPA’s chronic inhalation RfC is 0.02 mg/m 3 

## , while California ’ s chronic inhalation REL is 0.009 mg/m 3


## . 25 

## The commenter stated that Cal EPA ’ s REL is based on the same science as the IRIS RfC but was developed more recently than the EPA’s RfC, which was last

24 

### IRIS Summary for Hydrogen Chloride. http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0396.htm (Accessed on July 24, 2015) 25 

### Cal ifornia Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment ( OEHHA ) , OEHHA Acute, 8

- Hour and Chronic Reference Exposure Levels (REL)s, http://www.oehha.ca.gov/air/Allrels.html (last accessed Mar. 12, 201 5).

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 105 of 445 revised in 1995. 26 

## The REL is “ the concentration level at or below which no health effects are anticipated in the general human population , ” and t he EPA ’s process for developing RELs “ is similar to that used by EPA to develop IRIS value s and incorporates significant external scientific peer review. ” 27 

## The
commenter asserted that the EPA and Cal EPA disagree about the concentration of HCl exposure at which no health effects are expected and that the disagreement stems from how to account fo r uncertainty and variability in interpreting the study results. The fact that two agencies have determined significantly different “ safe ” levels , the commenter contend ed , demonstrates as a matter of law that there is no “ established ” health threshold for HCl and precludes the EPA from lawfully setting
CAA section 1 12(d)(4) standards for HCl. The commenter stated that the statute requires that a health threshold “ has been established ” and argue d the legislative history indicates Congress intended for CAA section 1 12(d)(4) limits to be used only where there was a “ well

- established ” level that presents

“ no risk ” of adverse effects and about which there was no

26 

### California OEHHA, Chronic RELs and Toxicity Summa ries Using the Previous Version of the Hot Spots Risk Assessment Guidelines at 311 (1999), available at http://oehha.ca.gov/air/hot_spots/2008/AppendixD3_final.pdf. 27 

### EPA, Risk Assessment to Determine a Health

- Based Emission Limitation for Acid Gases for t he Brick and Structural Clay Products Manufacturing Source Category, May 19, 201 4, Docket Item No. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2013

- 0291

- 0132
.

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 106 of 445

“ dispute. ” 28 

## The commenter asserted that Congress did not grant the Administrator the authority to es tablish the threshold itself and that the EPA does not have authority to set CAA section 112(d)(4) standards in situations where there is disagreement among expert agencies as to what the correct health threshold should be. The commenter asserted t hat by f ailing to address the Cal EPA REL , the EPA contravened its obligation under administrative law to address significant evidence that detracts from the agency’s conclusion. The commenter stated that for the EPA to rely solely on the IRIS RfC, the EPA wo uld ne ed to explain why the Cal EPA REL is incorrect and why the IRIS RfC reflects the best available science and risk assessment practices, particul arly whe n the IRIS RfC and Cal EPA REL thresholds are based on the same science and whe n the EPA relied upon Cal EPA RELs at several other points in its proposal ( e.g. , the EPA used the Cal EPA REL for acute inhalation exposure to HCl as the basis for its CAA section 1 12(d)(4) standards )
. I f the EPA considers Cal EPA ’ s acute REL for HCl to reflect a reliable value, then t he commenter stated it is arbitrar y to disregard Cal EPA ’ s chronic REL for HCl
. T he commenter further noted the EPA relied upon the Cal EPA chronic REL for HF in order to

28 

### S. Rep. No. 101

- 228, at 171
.

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 107 of 445 determine a threshold for HF and argued that using the Cal EPA REL for HF but not for HCl is arbitrary. **Response:** At an initial point, with respect to the comment that different agencies have identified different thresholds and so “as a matter of law” there is no “established” health threshold for HCl, the EPA disagr ees that the phrase “ has been established ” in CAA section 112(d)(4) means that there is universal agreement on the health threshold level and that differences between CalEPA and the EPA demonstrate that no health threshold “ has been established. ” The statu te does not clearly identify who must establish the health threshold or how such threshold should be established. In the absence of such specificity in the statute, the EPA reads CAA section 112(d)(4) to authorize the EPA to set health

- based limits where, in the EPA's expert judgment, there is a health threshold for the pollutant below which no adverse health effects are expected to

occur. Further, w e disagree with the comment that there is no established threshold at the RfC because CalEPA developed a refe rence value at a lower concentration than the RfC. The approaches used by both agencies are similar and assume a threshold below which adverse health effects would not be expected; however, there are some differences between agencies

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 108 of 445 in methods for derivin g the estimate for a threshold that may affect the final resulting values. Both agencies use the best available science to support their risk assessments. The EPA has an approach for selecting appropriate health benchmark values and , in general, this appro ach places greater weight on the EPA derived health benchmarks than those from other agencies. The approach favoring EPA benchmarks (when they exist) has been endorsed by the SAB and ensures use of values most consistent with well

- established and scientifi cally

- based EPA science policy. 29 

## Specifically for HCl, we selected the IRIS RfC for HCl as the most appropriate chronic noncancer health threshold to use for this rule. In the case of HF, there is not an EPA RfC available and the only chronic reference val ue from an authoritative source and appropriate for use in this rule is the California REL.
**Comment:** Several commenters disagre ed with the EPA’s decision to set a HBEL for HF . These commenters contend ed the EPA does not have the authority to set HF standards under CAA

29 

### S cience A dvisory B oard. Memorandum to Lisa Jackson, Administrator, U.S. EPA. R eview of EPA’s draf t entitled, “Risk and Technology Review ( RTR ) Risk Assessment Methodologies : For Review by the EPA’s Science Advisory Board with Case Studies

– MACT I Petroleum Refining Sources and Portland Cement Manufacturing
. ” May 7, 2010. A vailable at: http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/4AB3966E263D943A8525771F00668381/$ File/EPA

- SAB

- 10

- 007

- unsigned.pdf
.

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 109 of 445 section 112(d)(4) because the scientific data supporting the EPA’s findings regarding the carcinogenic potential of HF are insufficient and unreliable
. Three commenters asserted that the
EP A should not adopt HBEL for HF due to uncertainty about the vulnerabilities of children, infants, and fetuses to HF exposures at the REL concentration used by the EPA to set the HF emissions standards
. Two c ommenter s noted that the proposal states, “ There is limited/equivocal evidence of the carcinogenic potential of HF ” (79 FR 75641) and “ [t]he EPA has not classified HF for carcinogenicity ” (79 FR 75640) and questioned how the agency could be confident that HF is eligible to be a threshold pollutant if its status as a non

- carcinogen is uncertain.
One c ommenter noted that the EPA failed to identify a n established, well

- defined health

- based threshold , below which HF does not cause cancer, that is based on reliable science and has a high level of certainty
. The EPA has state d that

“ carcinogenicity via inhalation of fluoride is not considered to be likely by most investigators reporting in the existing literature ” ( 79 FR 75641) and that t he EPA “ has not classified HF for carcinogenicity ” (79 FR 75640 )
. The c om menter stated that it is possible that HF causes cancer because increased rates of cancer have been observed in workers exposed to a mixture of

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 110 of 445 chemicals that included fluoride 30 

## and noted that the EPA acknowledged data suggesting that those with occupation al exposure to HF have greater than normal occurrences of cancer. 31 

## The commenter stated that, because of the data showing possible carcinogenic effect, as well as the data showing mutagenic effect in animals, the EPA does not have enough evidence to classi fy HF as a threshold pollutant with any level of confidence. The commenter stated that the EPA fail ed to explain how it weighed the conflicting evidence of HF ’ s carcinogenicity and considered EPA’s conclusion to be arbitrary and capricious. Three commenters noted that the EPA does not consider HF in its IRIS database but noted that HF break s down into fluorine , which is included in IRIS
. 32 

## One c ommenter stated that IRIS indicates

no data are available to determine an RfC for chronic inhalation exposure to fluorine. 33 

## This commenter further noted that IARC

“ has determined that the carcinogenicity of fluoride to humans is not classifiable. ” 34 

## Another c ommenter stated that health

-

30 

### Gallerani, M., et al. , Systemic and topical effects of intradermal hydrofluoric acid, 16 Am. J. Emer. Med. 521, 522 (1998). 31 

### EPA, Technology Transfer Network Air Toxics Web site: Hydrogen Flu o ride, http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/hlthef/hydrogen.html (last updated Oct. 18, 2013). 32 

### EPA, Integrated Risk Information System: Fluorine (Soluble Fluoride) (CASRN 7782

- 41

- 4), http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0053.htm (last updated Oct. 31, 2014)
. 33 

### Id
. 34 

### ATSDR, Toxicological Profile for Fluorides, Hydrogen Fluoride, and Fluorine at 8.

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 111 of 445 based standards should be considered only for HAP that are contained i n IRIS with a high level of confidence in the RfC.
One commenter noted that although the National Air Toxics Assessment ( NATA ) database does not contain HF , 35 

## the database does provide evidence that HF has a mutagenic effect in animals
. This conclusion was supported by other scientific reviews 36 

## and by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) , which states that

“ the overall evidence from human animal studies is mixed ” on the question of whether fluoride is carcinogenic when inhaled. 37


## Four commenters questioned the EPA’s reli ance on a Cal EPA risk assessment , noting that the Cal EPA REL is based on a study of adults exposed to HF in the workplace 38 

## and therefore, did not include any children
. Two commenters stated that a 10X

“ intraspecies ” factor was applied to acc ount for variability among humans , but noted that Cal EPA expressed concern about “ the potentially greater susceptibility of children to the effects of inhaled fluorides, considering the rapid bone growth in early

35 

### EPA, National Scale Air Toxics Assessment Overview: The 33 Pollutants, http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/nata/34poll.html (last updated Jan. 6, 2015). 36 

### See, e.g. , National Research Council of the National Academies, Emergency and Continuous Exposure Guidance Lev els for Selected Submarine Contaminants vol.3 at 91

- 92, available at http://www.ncbi.n lm.nih.gov/books/n/nap12741/pdf
. 37 

### National Research Council of the National Academies, Emergency and Continuous Exposure Guidance Levels for Selected Submarine Contamina nts vol.3 at 91

- 92, available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/n/nap12741/pdf
. 38 

### Derryberry O.M., et al. , Fluoride exposure and worker health

- The health status of workers in a fertilizer manufacturing plant in relation to fluoride exposure, 6 Arch. Env iron. Health. 503 (1963).

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 112 of 44 5
years. ” 39 

## One c ommenter recommended the EPA use an additional default factor of at least 10X to account for uncertainty regarding health risks to children, infants, and fetuses. The
commenter stated that a 10X factor would be consistent with the NAS recommendation 40 

## and with the 10X factor enacted by Congress in the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA)
. 41 

## Another c ommenter stated that recent science not considered at the time Cal EPA adopted the REL provides further support for prior research showing that HF has neurodevelopmental effects on children and that children living in high

- fluoride areas have been observed to have lower IQ scores than those living in low

- fluoride

areas. 42 

## The commenter asserted that the adverse effects of fluoride on children are likely to be more severe, and long

lasting, compare d with effects on adults.
One commenter stated that the Cal EPA REL is based on a study that only examined the increased bone density (sk eletal

39 

### OEHHA Chronic RELs and Toxicity Summaries, at 280. 40 

### National Research Council of the National Academies, Science and Decisions: Advancing Risk Assessment, at 190

- 93 (2009)
. 41 

### 21 U.S.C. 346a(b)(2)(C) (requiring that, in establis hing, modifying, leaving in effect, or revoking a tolerance or exemption for a pesticide chemical residue, “ for purposes of clause (ii)(I) an additional tenfold margin of safety for the pesticide chemical residue and other sources of exposure shall be appl ied ” to protect infants and children). 42 

### See Choi, A.L., et al. , Developmental Fluoride Neurotoxicity: A Systematic Review and Meta

- Analysis, 120 Envtl. Health Perspect. 1362 (Oct. 2012), http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/1104912/ (reviewing and discussing findings from over 20 studies); Choi, A.L., et al. , Association of Lifetime Exposure to Fluoride and Cognitive Functions in Chinese Children: A Pilot Study, 47 Neurotox. & Teratology 96 (Jan.

- Feb. 2015).

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 113 of 445 fluorosis) endpoint and noted that Cal EPA stated that “ [t]he primary uncertainty in the study was the lack of a c omprehensive health effects examination. ” 43 

## The commenter stated that the EPA does not know whether neurodevelopmental harm, or other health effects, are more sensitive than skeletal harm ; therefore, the EPA cannot lawfully set a “ safe ” threshold at a concentration that poses “ no risk ” of health effects with “ an ample margin of safety ” based on a study that lacks “ a comprehensive health effects examination. ” Another c ommenter asserted that the EPA has insufficient data showing exposure t o HF at the REL value “ presents no risk ” of harm to other bodily systems
. The commenter noted that HF is a possible reproductive toxin , 44 

## that o ccupational studies of women exposed to fluoride identified increased rates of menstrual irregularities , 45 

## and tha t a nimal studies have found that fluoride impairs reproduction and increases the rates of fetal bone and teeth malformation. 46 

## I n addition, chronic

43 

### OEHHA, Chronic RELs and Toxicity Summaries, at 280. 44 

### Massachusetts Toxics Use Reduction Institute, Massachusetts Chemical Fact Sheet: Hydrofluoric Acid, at 1, available at http://www.turi.org/content/download/3663/44840/file/Fact Sheet Hydrofluoric Acid.pdf
. 45 

### EPA, Health Issue Assessment: Summary Review of Health Effects Associated with Hydrogen Fluoride and Related Compounds, EPA/600/8

- 89/002F (1988). 46 

### ATSDR, Toxicological Profile for Fluorides, Hydrogen Fluoride and Fluorine; EPA, Health Issue Assessment: Summary Review of Health Effects Associated with H ydrogen Fluoride and Related Compounds.

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 114 of 445 inhalation of hydrofluoric acid can cause irritation and congestion of the nose and throat and bronchitis , 47 

## a nd a nimal studies f ound increased rates of kidney and liver damage from hydrofluoric acid inhalation. 48 

## F urther , HF readily penetrates the skin, causing deep tissue layer destruction , 49 

## and i ngestion of HF may result in vomiting and abdominal pain , with pain ful necrotic lesions, hemorrhagic gastritis, and pancreatitis reported after significant exposure. 50 

## The commenter stated the CalEPA REL was developed by Cal EPA

u sing an outdated version of Cal EPA ’ s Hot Spots Risk Assessment Guidelines (1999) that has been “ supers eded” by the more recent guidelines released in February 2015. 51 

## The commenter noted the 1999 version required updating in part because it did not include sufficient consideration of “ infants and children in assessing risks from air toxics. ”

47 

### Cal EPA, Technical Support Document for the Determination of Noncancer Chronic Reference Exposure Levels. 48 

### EPA, Health Issue Assessment: Summary Review of Health Effects Associated with Hydrogen Fluoride and Relate d Compounds. 49 

### Burgher, Francois, et al. , Experimental 70% hydrofluoric acid burns: histological observations in an established human skin explants ex vivo model, 30.2 Cutaneous & Ocular Toxicology 100 (2011). 50 

### CDC, National Institute for Occupational Saf ety and Health (NIOSH): Hydrogen Fluoride/ Hydrofluoric Acid, http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/ershdb/emergencyresponsecard_29750030.html
. 51 

### OEHHA Chronic RELs a nd Toxicity Summaries at 1; Cal EPA, OEHHA, Air Toxics Hot Spots Program: Guidance Manual for Preparatio n of Health Risk Assessments (Feb. 2015), available at http://oehha.ca.gov/air/hot_sp ots/2015/2015GuidanceManual.pdf
.

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 115 of 445 **Respons e:**  The EPA has not reviewed HF in the IRIS program. However, we concur with the two recent authoritative assessments by ATSDR (2003) 52 

## and the European Union (2002) 53 

## that the available evidence does not support classifying HF as

“ Carcinogenic to Humans , ” “ L ikely to Be Carcinogenic to Humans ”

52 

### Agency for Toxic Substance s and Disease Registry (2003)

- “Although elevated cancer rates have been reported in some occupational groups exposed to hydrogen fluoride and fluoride dusts, these studies were not controlled for the multiple substance exposures to which industrial workers are generally exposed. Because of these multiple exposures and the problem inherent in all occupational stu dies in identifying appropriate reference populations, only limited evidence from such studies is specifically relevant to the investigation of possible carcinogenic effects of long

- term dermal exposure to hydrofluoric acid and inhalation exposure to hydro gen fluoride and/or fluoride dusts in human beings. As noted previously, IARC has determined that the carcinogenicity of fluoride to humans is not classifiable.” 53 

### European Union Risk Assessment Report (2001)

- “Carcinogenicity studies, in which HF has bee n tested, are not available. Studies with NaF may provide insight in the carcinogenicity of HF, especially for systemic tumours. With the latter substance 4 animal studies have been performed, 2 in which NaF was supplied in the drinking water to rats and m ice, and two in which NaF was administered via the diet, again to rats and mice....In the rat drinking water study, equivocal indications for osteosarcomas in males were obtained, but the rat diet study was negative, despite clear indications of fluoride int oxication. The mouse drinking water study was also negative. The mouse diet study was confounded by the presence of a retrovirus which may have (co)

- induced the growth of benign osteomas thus thwarting the interpretation of the study. In the diet studies ( Maurer et al. 1990; Maurer et al. 1993) bone fluoride levels were higher than in the drinking water studies (NTP 1990), while in the diet studies no indications for osteosarcomas were obtained. Furthermore, the osteomas were considered to be reminiscent of hyperplasias rather than true bone neoplasms. It was concluded that the available data is sufficient to suggest that fluoride is not a carcinogenic substance in animals (Janssen and Knaap 1994)...Based on epidemiological data IARC (1982) concluded that the evidence for carcinogenicity of orally taken fluoride in humans is inadequate. Recent studies (cited in CEPA 1993; Janssen and Knaap 1994) did not supply evidence of a relationship between fluoride in drinking water and cancer mortality, either. US

- EPA, re viewing the epidemiological data for fluoride, stated that no conclusion can be drawn as to the carcinogenicity of fluoride after inhalatory exposure, because in all studies available, humans were exposed to other substances as well (Thiessen 1988).”

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 116 of 445 or as having “ Suggestive Evidence of Carcinogenic Potential ” (U
. S
. EPA Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment (2005)). All of the studies cited by the commenter are from exposure to fluoride and not from inhalation ex posures to HF.
N eurodevelopmental effects may be releva nt to high fluoride
exposures , but the existing evidence shows these effects may occur at fluoride exposure levels beyond those that would cause respiratory effects if HF were the sole source of exposu re. In the study of Lund (1997), 54 

## plasma fluoride concentrations were shown to increase in the nanogram per milliliter (ng/ml) range from exposures to HF in the mg/m 3 

## level ( e.g. , elevations of approximately 20 nanograms fluoride per milliliter in plasma resulted from 1

- hour exposure to 2 mg/m 3 

## HF, with notable respiratory and eye irritation effects). Reproductive and developmental effects in rats have been noted from experiments 55 

## with plasma F levels in the 150 ng/ml range mainta ined for over 4 months. The primary issue in causing neurodevelopmental effects (which have yet to be quantified) is likely associated with aggregate and cumulative exposure from multiple sources of

54 

### Lund K , Ekstrand J , Boe J , Søstrand P , and Kongerud J . (1997) Exposure to hydrogen fluoride: an experimental study in humans of concentrations of fluoride in plasma, symptoms, and lung function. Occup Environ Med. 54(1):32

- 37. 55 

### Oencue, M , Kocak, A, Karaoz, E; Darici, H; Savilk, E; and Gultekin, F (2007) Effect of long

- term fluoride exposure on lipid peroxidation and histology of testes in first

- and second

- generation rats
. Biological T race Element Research 118:260

- 268.

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 117 of 445 fluorides ( e.g. , water, food, toothpaste) which are great er contributors to total fluoride body burden and uncontrollable variables in establishing this rule , which deals with exposures to HF only
. The EPA also disagrees with the comment that a children ’ s default safety factor of 10 should be added to the CalEPA REL for HF . In response to t he 10X factor enacted by Congress in the FQPA (1996) 56 

## to the EPA non

- cancer reference value derivation, the a gency evaluated its methods for considering children ’ s risk in the development of reference values. As part of its res ponse, the EPA ( i.e. , the Science Policy Council and Risk Assessment Forum) established the RfD/RfC Technical Panel to develop a strategy for implementing the FQPA and examine the issues relative to protecting children ’ s health and application of the 10X s afety factor. One of the outcomes of the Technical Panel ’ s efforts was an in depth review of a number of issues related to the RfD/RfC process (U.S. EPA 2002). The most critical aspect in the derivation of a reference value pertaining to the FQPA has to do with variation between individual humans and is accounted for by a default uncertainty factor when no chemical

- specific data are available. The EPA reviewed the default UF for inter

-

56 

### US Environmental Protection Agency, Pesticide: Regulating Pesticides. The Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA). 1996. Available at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/regulating/laws/fqpa/backgrnd.htm
.

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 118 of 445 human variability and found the EPA ’ s default value of 10 adequate for al l susceptible populations and lifestages , including children and infants. The EPA also recommends the use of chemical

- specific data in preference to default uncertainty factors when available (U
. S
. EPA, 1994, 2011) and is developing Agency guidance to facilitate consistency in the development and use of data

- derived extrapolation factors for RfCs and reference doses ( RfDs ) (U.S
. EPA, 2011). 57 , 58 

## In agreement with the recommendations of the RfC review, CalEPA chronic REL for HF was derived using a n inter

- individual uncertainty factor of 10, which is considered adequate by the EPA for accounting for all susceptible populations and lifestages, including children and infants. Regarding the comment that Cal EPA ’ s Hot Spots Risk Assessment Guidelines (1999) have been “ superseded ” by the more recent guidelines released in February 2015 , t he EPA reviewed the February 2015 Guidelines information provided by the commenter and concluded that this information does n ot include methods for conducting hazard identification and dose response assessments, which are the analyses that preclude the derivation

57 

### U.S. EPA (1994). Method s for derivation of inhalation reference concentrations and application of inhalation dosimetry . (EPA/600/8

- 90/066F). Research Triangle Park, NC. Docket Item No. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2013

- 0291

- 0160
. 58 

### U.S. EPA (2011). Office of the Science Advisor, Risk Assessment Forum. Recommended Use of Body Weight 3/4 

### as the Default Method in Derivation of the Oral Reference Dose
. February 2011. EPA/100/R11/0001
.

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 119 of 445 of a reference value. Therefore, the information provided by the commenter does not apply to the CalEPA REL derivatio n methods. The commenter’s assertion that the NATA database does not contain HF is incorrect ; NATA 2005 (cited above by the commenter) does include noncancer risk estimates for HF. The HF cancer risks are not included in NATA because a quantitative

cancer analysis for HF does not exist.
**Comment:** Several commenters disagree d with the EPA’s decision to set a HBEL for Cl 2 

## and stated the EPA does not have the authority to set Cl 2 

## standards under CAA section 112(d)(4) because the EPA does not have reliable scientific data demonstrating a “safe” threshold for Cl 2 

## and has not demonstrated Cl 2 

## presents no cancer risk. Two co mmenter s noted that in the proposal, the EPA stated that, “ th e agency presumptively considers Cl 2 

## to be a threshold pollutant .” The commenter s asserted that a presumption is not adequate for EPA to justify setting a health

- based standard for Cl 2 

## under CAA section 112(d)(4)
. One c ommenter stated that it is possible t hat Cl 2 

## is carcinogenic and noted that Cl 2 

## has not undergone a complete evaluation and determination of human carcinogenic potential

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 120 of 445 under the IRIS program. 59 

## The IARC and the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) have not classified Cl 2 

## gas for human carcinogenicity. The commenter stated that the absence of data showing carcinogenicity is not the same as data demonstrating that a substance is not carcinogenic
. According to t he commenter , Congress authorized CAA section
1 12(d)(4) standard s only where a threshold “ has been established .” In other words, there must be an already

established threshold for which there is direct evidence that the pollutant presents “ no ” harm at the threshold level of
exposure , and the law requires “ well

- establis hed ” factual evidence. 60 

## The commenter asserted that the EPA is not authorized to set risk

- based standards based on a “ presumption ” of the existence of a safe level of exposure and that by doing so , the
EPA would violate the law and fail to ensure adequate protect ion from the health risks of hazardous pollution. The c ommenter stated that the EPA can not set a health threshold for Cl 2 

## based on a chronic inhalation study on monkeys because that study did not determine a NOAEL. The commenter asserted that CAA section 1 12(d)(4) does not permit risk

- based standards where a NOAEL has not been determined
. The commenter

59 

### EPA, Integrated Risk Information System: Chlorine, http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0405.htm (last updated Oct. 31, 2014). 60 

### S. Rep. No. 101

- 228, at 171.

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 121 of 445 stated that, at a minimum, Congress required that a threshold be based on the “‘ no observable [adverse] effects level ’ (NOAEL) below which human exp osure is presumably ‘ safe. ’” 61 

## I f there is no established non

- zero “ threshold ” level at which it has been shown that the pollutant has no deleterious health effects, then the commenter asserted that the EPA cannot be certain that exposure to the pollutant a t a given level presents “ no ” harm.
T wo c ommenter s stated that IRIS contains “ no data ” on a n RfC for chronic inhalation exposure. 62 

## The ATSDR MRL on which the proposed Cl 2 

## threshold is based is a “ screening value[] only ” and

“ [is] not [an] indicator[] of he alth effects. ” 63 

## According to the ATSDR, “ Exposures to substances at doses above MRLs will not necessarily cause adverse health effects and should be further evaluated , ” “ MRLs are intended to serve only as a screening tool to help you decide if you should more closely evaluate exposures to a substance found at a site , ” and “ uncertainties are associated with [the] techniques ” used to derive MRLs
. 64


## One c ommenter stated that the MRL does not account for the potentially greater susceptibility of children, infa nts, and

61 

### S. Rep. No. 101

- 228, at 171, 176. 62 

### EPA, Integrated Risk Information System: Chlorine. 63 

### ATSDR, Public Health Assessment Guidance Manual (2005 Update): Ap pendix F, http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/hac/PHAManual/appf.html (last updated Nov. 30, 2005). 64 

### ATSDR, Toxicological Profile for Chlorine, at 14
.

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 122 of 445 fetuses to Cl 2 

## exposures 65 

## and note d that Cal EPA has recognized that Cl 2 

## is a toxic air contaminant “ that may disproportionately impact infants and children ” becaus e it can exacerbate asthma. 66 

## Therefore , the commenter assert ed the MRL does not refl ect an

“ established ” safe health threshold at which exposure presents

“ no ” adverse effects and that it is unlawful for the EPA to set
CAA section 1 12(d)(4) standards for Cl 2 

## . **Response:** The EPA disagrees with the comment. As part of the risk analysis conducted to support this rule, the EPA thoroughly evaluated all the available and relevant scientific evidence on Cl 2 

## ( as discussed in detail previously in this section) and concluded that t here is no evidence that Cl 2 

## is a carcinogen and that this information is sufficient to support this regulatory decision. The MRL for Cl 2 

## was developed using the benchmark dose analysis method , which has been widely adopted across the risk assessment commu nity and by the EPA’s Risk
Assessment Forum 67 

## as a more reliable estimate of a threshold for

65 

### ATSDR, Toxicological Profile for Chlorine at 20

- 21 (observing that a value similar to the MRL could be calculated using the lowest observed adverse effect level ( LOAEL ) approach if an uncertainty factor of only 3 for human variability is used and no child

- safety uncertainty factor is use d). 66 

### Cal EPA, Prioritization of Toxic Air Contaminants Under the Children ’ s Envir onmental Health Protection Act, at 27

- 28. 67 

### U.S. EPA (2012) Benchmark Dose Technical Guidance. Risk Assessment Forum, Washington, DC 20460. EPA/100/R

- 12/001 , June 2012. Available online at http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015

- 01/documents/benchm ark_dose_guidance.pdf
.

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 123 of 445 an effect than a NOAEL or LOAEL. As a result , the REL for Cl 2 

## does define a threshold
. Regarding the assertion that the MRL does not take into consideration the pot ential for greater potential effects in children, in the development of the Toxicological Profile for Chlorine, 68 

## ATSDR performed an exhaustive review of all of the relevant health effects data available at the time. Until new information becomes available, the Cl 2 

## MRL is the most credible, scientifically grounded toxicity assessment for Cl 2 

## and the most appropriate reference value to use in this regulatory action. In the light of the absence of evidence of carcinogenic risk from Cl 2 

## exposure and the evidenc e of an existing threshold below which Cl 2 

## is not expected to cause adverse effects, the EPA considers it appropriate to set health threshold standards under CAA section 112(d)(4) for Cl 2 

## . **Comment:** One c ommenter referenced an NAS review of chemical health evaluations in the United States that concluded improvements in both chemical testing and risk assessment are needed to assure current risk evaluations protect people from toxic chemicals
. 69 

## T he NAS recommended the EPA use “ A consi stent,

68 

### Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). 2010. Toxicological profile for Chlorine. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service. 69 

### See National Research Council of the National Academies, Toxicity Testing in the Twenty

- First Century: A Vision and a Strategy (2007); National

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 124 of 445 unified approach for dose

- response modeling that includes formal, systematic assessment of background disease processes and exposures, possible vulnerable populations, and modes of action that may affect a chemical ’ s dose

- response relationship in hu mans; that approach redefines the RfD or RfC as a risk

specific dose that provides information on the percentage of the population that can be expected to be above or below a defined acceptable risk with a specific degree of confidence. ” The NAS also obser ved that “ [n]oncancer effects do not necessarily have a threshold, or low

- dose nonlinearity ” and found that “ [b]ecause the RfD and RfC do not quantify risk for different magnitudes of exposure but rather provide a bright line between possible harm and safe ty, their use in risk

- risk and risk

- benefit comparisons and in risk

- management decision

- making is limited. ” 70 

## The c ommenter stated that there may be no safe threshold in the human population for many chemicals and that newer studies show many chemicals incr ease the risk of various noncancer health effects

- such as reproductive harm and neurological effects

- at low doses, without any scientifically identifiable

Research Council of the National Academies, Phthalates and Cumulative Risk Assessment: The Tasks Ahead (2008); NAS, Science and Decisions. 70 

### Janssen, S., et al. , Strengthening Toxic Chemical Risk Assessments to Protect Human Health (2012), available at http://www.nrdc.org/health/files/strengthening

- toxic

- chemical

riskassessments

- report.pdf (citing NAS, Science and Decisions).

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 125 of 445 threshold. 71 

## The commenter noted that even if a threshold is established for an individual, when r isk is assessed across a diverse population, it is unlikely the same threshold applies to all individuals because some people are more vulnerable than others. The c ommenter stated that, to address the fact that very low levels of non

- carcinogen exposures c an pose health risks, NAS recommended that cancer and chronic non

- cancer risk assessment use the same approach. 72 

## The commenter noted that the use of RfCs for dose

- response risk assessment of chronic non

cancer health effects may significantly underestimate risk: “ For these health effects, risk assessments focus on defining the reference dose (RfD) or reference concentration (RfC), which is defined as a dose ‘ likely to be without an appreciable risk of deleterious effects ’ over a lifetime of exposure. In actual fact, these levels may pose appreciable risks. ” 73 

## The c ommenter asserted that the EPA ignored the best available, current science showing that pollutants have health effects at low doses in its evaluation of health thresholds for HCl, HF, and Cl 2 

## and ignored NAS ’ s recommendation that the EPA

71 

### Janssen et al. , Strengthening To xic Chemical Risk Assessments to Protect Human Health
. 72 

### NAS, Science and Decisions, at 8

- 9, 265

- 66. 73 

### Janssen, S., et al. , Strengthening Toxic Chemical Risk Assessments to Protect Human Health at 10.

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 126 of 445 use similar approaches for chronic non

- cancer as for cancer risk assessment, which presumes deleterious health effects for any amount of exposure
. According to t he commenter , the EPA lacked sufficient data to demonstrate that these pollutants do not cause harm at low levels of exposure over time and cannot be certain that there exists an established, safe health threshold at the proposed threshold s . The commenter also stated that, because it must be assumed that these pollutants cause harm at low doses, it is impossible for the EPA to meet the CAA ’ s

r equirement for an “ ample margin of safety
. ” The commenter concluded the EPA ’ s use of CAA section 1 12(d)(4) standards for HCl, HF, and Cl 2 

## is indefensible because the EPA determined the thresholds based on studies that did not identify a level at which no h ealth effects were observed ( i.e. , a NOAEL) and the EPA itself has low confidence in the proposed thresholds
. **Response:** The NAS has recognized that many of the recommended changes for the IRIS Program will need to be incorporated over a number of years and further recommen ded that
assessments continue to be developed as the recommendations are implemented ( i.e. , the regulatory process should not be halted until all recommendations can be enacted). I mprovements will thus be made over time and the best scienc e available will be used in the interim. Further, the EPA has a legal obligation to

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 127 of 445 proceed with regulatory action based on the best, currently available tools. The EPA ’ s conclusion that HCl, HF and Cl 2 

## are threshold pollutants is based on the best availab le toxicity database considered in hazard identification and dose response assessments. There is agreement on using a similar threshold approach for these chemicals across agencies , e.g. , the EPA ’ s IRIS Program, ATSDR and CalEPA. The toxicity assessments ( which
may include noncancer and/or cancer toxicity assessments ) provided by these authoritative bodies are widely vetted through the scientific community and undergo rigorous peer review processes before they are published. In addition, the SAB has endorse d the use of the reference values derived by these sources to support EPA ’ s risk assessments in the RTR p rogram. Specifically, none of the compounds discussed here has been classified as carcinogenic or suggestive of the potential to be carcinogenic, indiv idually or in combination by existing authoritative bodies including the EPA, CalEPA, IARC, OECD, and the European Community. In light of the absence of evidence of carcinogenic risk for any of these pollutants, and the evidence of an existing threshold be low which HCl, HF and Cl 2 

## are not expected to cause adverse effects, the EPA considers it

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 128 of 445 appropriate to set health threshold standards under CAA 112(d)(4) for these pollutants. 2. Co

- Benefits
**Comment:** One commenter stated that the EPA’s proposal not to set MACT standards for acid gases did not fully consider the

co - benefits of controlling criteria pollutants. The commenter noted that t he legislative history makes clear that employing a
CAA section 1 12(d)(4) standard rather than a conventional MACT standard “ shall not result in adverse environmental effect which would otherwise be reduced or eliminated
. ” 74 

## The EPA asserted that where there is an established health threshold, the agency may weigh additional fac tors in making a judgment as to whether
to set CAA section 1 12(d)(4) standards or MACT standards, including “ [c]o

- benefits that would be achieved via the MACT standard, such as reductions in emissions of other HAP and/or criteria pollutants ” ( 79 FR 75622 )
. The commenter asserted that it is impossible to make this assessment without evaluating the full collateral benefits of a MACT standard. The c ommenter noted that the EPA has recognized that MACT standards for HCl in other source categories result ed in red uctions in emissions of PM , hydrogen cyanide, and other criteria and HAP pollutants and has relied upon the co

- benefits

74 

### S. Rep. No. 101

- 228, at 171
.

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 129 of 445 of these reductions as a basis for not set ting risk

- based standards for those other source categories. 75 

## However, for BSCP and clay ceram ics plants, the EPA only consider ed the co

benefits of reductions in sulfur dioxide ( SO 2 

## ). The commenter argued the EPA should have consider ed the significant reductions in PM , hydrogen cyanide, and other pollutants that would likely result from MACT standards for HCl, HF, and Cl 2 

## , as these are the same reductions that the EPA considered in its past rulemakings. The commenter stated that these reductions will provide enormous h ealth and environmental benefits that would not occur if CAA section 1 12(d)(4) standards are finalized instead. **Response:** Although not explicitly stated in the preamble to the proposed rule, the EPA agrees with the commenter that MACT

75 

### See, e.g. , National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants from the Portland Cement Manufacturing Industry and Standards of Performance for Portland Cement Plants, 75 FR 54970, 54984 (Sept. 9, 2010) ( “ Setting technology

- based MACT standards for HCl ... would likely a lso result in additional reductions in emissions of mercury, along with condensable PM, ammonia, and semi

- volatile compounds. ” ); id . at 54,985 ( “ Setting an HCl standard under 112(d)(2) and (3) allows the Agency to also address ” HCN, ammonia, and other poll utants.); National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants from the Portland Cement Manufacturing Industry, 74 FR 21136, 21160 (May 6, 2009) ( “ [S]etting a MACT standard for HCl is anticipated to result in a significant amount of control for other p ollutants emitted by cement kilns, most notably SO 2 

### and other acid gases, along with condensable PM, ammonia, and semi

- volatile compounds. ” ); 75 FR 32030 ( “ [S]etting conventional MACT standards for HCl as well as PM ... would result in significant reductio ns in emissions of other pollutants, most notably SO 2 

### , non - condensable PM, and other non

- HAP acid gases ( e.g. , hydrogen bromide) and would likely also result in additional reductions in emissions of mercury and other HAP metals ( e.g. , selenium). ” ); 76 FR 2 5051 ( “ [S]etting conventional MACT standards for HCl as well as PM ... would result in significant reductions in emissions of other pollutants, most notably SO 2 

### , PM, and other non - HAP acid gases ( e.g. , hydrogen bromide) and would likely also result in addi tional reductions in emissions of Hg and other HAP metals ( e.g. , Se). ” ).

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 130 of 445 standards for acid ga ses for BSCP manufacturing facilities are associated with additional reductions of PM emissions (approximately 460 tpy in the third year following promulgation of the standards ) and non

- Hg HAP metals emissions
. No additional
PM or non

- Hg HAP metals emissio n reductions would be expected from sanitaryware tunnel kilns because i t is anticipated that all sanitaryware tunnel kilns could meet the MACT floor emission limits for HF and HCl without additional APCD. The EPA has no information suggesting that HCN is emitted from BSCP or clay ceramics manufacturing facilities, so no reduction in HCN would be expected from MACT standards for HF, HCl, and Cl 2 

## . For the past rulemakings in which the EPA considered co

benefi ts as part of a CAA section 114(d)(4) evaluation, the EPA did not quantify the PM emissions reductions associated with MACT standards (see 79 FR 75641, footnote 27) , so a direct comparison of the co

- benefits of the BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP and the Clay Ce ramics Manufacturing NESHAP with the co

- benefits of these other rules for PM is not possible. The only pollutant with quantified emissions reductions in the co

- benefits analyses for these other rulemakings was SO 2 

## , so that was the pollutant highlighted in the co

- benefits analysis for BSCP and clay ceramics at proposal. The additional nationwide reductions of SO 2 

## that would be attributable to MACT standards for acid gases in

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 131 of 445 the BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP are estimated to be only 4, 7 00 tpy i n the third year f ollowing promulgation of the standards. No additional nationwide reductions of SO 2 

## would be attributable to MACT standards for acid gases in the Clay Ceramics Manufacturing
NESHAP because i t is anticipated that all sanitaryware tunnel kilns could meet the MACT floor emission limits without additional APCD
. As noted at proposal, t h e s e reduction s are substantially lower than the co

- benefits from MACT standards for other industries for which the EPA has decided not to set a
HBEL , and it would not be expected to provide a significant public health benefit. 3. Ecosystem Impacts
**Comment:** One c ommenter expressed concern about the ecological impacts of the proposed HBEL for acid gases. The commenter stated that federal, state and local agencies have struggled for y ears to reduce emissions of SO 2 

## and other acid gases to prevent the devastating effects of acid rain on large ecosystems and noted the proposed standards would likely result in the acidification of the ecosystems in close proximity to BSCP and clay ceramic s manufacturing sources. The commenter asserted the ecological impact analysis of the emissions standards for this proposal is inadequate
.

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 132 of 445 **Response:** The EPA disagrees with the commenter that the ecological analysis is inadequate. The environmental screenin g analysis evaluated potential damage and reduced productivity of plants due to chronic direct exposure to HCl and HF emitted by

c lay c eramics m anufacturing facilities and BSCP m anufacturing facilities into the air. The chronic 90

- day benchmarks used in th e environmental risk screen for the acid gases are shown in
T able 7 of this preamble and discussed in the following section.

**T ABLE**  

## 7 **. A**  **CID** 

## G **AS** 

## B **ENCHMARKS** 

## I **NCLUDED IN THE** 

## E **NVIRONMENTAL** 

## R **ISK** 

## S **CREEN**

a 

### Micrograms per cubic meter. b 

### Note that the human health RfC is 20 μg/m 3 

### , which is lower than the ecological benchmark. 

## For HCl, th e EPA identified chronic benchmark concentrations as described in a 2009 EPA document on RTR risk assessment methodologies. 76 

## The chronic benchmark for HCl was based on a lowest observed effects level (LO E L) from a short

term exposure (20 minutes) that rela ted HCl concentration to

“ changes ” in the leaves of 7 out of 8 plant species as reported

76 

### U
. S
. EPA, 2009. Risk and Technology Review (RTR) Risk Assessment Methodologies: For Review by the EPA ’ s Science Advisory Board with Case Studies

– MACT I Petroleum Refining Sources and Portland Cement Manufacturing. EPA

- 452/R

- 09

- 006. Docket Item No. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2013

- 0291

- 0044
. **Acid Gas Chronic**  **90 -**  **day Benchmark in μg/m 3**  **a** 

### Hydrochloric acid

- LO EL 50 b 

### Hydrofluoric acid

– Plant Community LOEL 0.5 Hydrofluoric acid

– Plant Community LOEL 0.4

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 133 of 445 by Lerman et al. 77 

## It was the lowest exposure concentration at which effects of any type were seen (visible injury to some proportion of leaves). Haber ’ s law was used t o extrapolate the 1.5 mg/m 3 

## LOEL concentration (20

- minute exposure) to a 0.5 mg/m 3 

## concentration expected to produce the same effect after 1 hour. The 1

- h our estimated LOEL was extrapolated to a chronic benchmark by dividing by a factor of ten to yield 0.0 50 mg/m 3 

## , or 50 μg/m 3


## . For HF, the EPA used two chronic benchmark concentrations for plants in the environmental screening analysis. The value of 0.5 μg HF/m 3 

## is based on the Washington State criterion for gaseous HF and represents a LOEL. The value of 0.4 μg HF/m 3 

## is based on the Environment Canada criteria and also represents a
LOEL. To protect vegetation from adverse effects resulting from HF exposure, the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment 78 

## recommends that HF concentrations not exceed 0.4 μg/m 3 

## over a 30

- to 90

- day period; HF concentrations can be

77 

### Lerman, S., O.C. Taylor, and E.F. Darley, 1976. Phytotoxicity of Hydrogen Chloride Gas with a Short

- Term Exposure. Atmospheric Environment, Vol.10, pp. 873

- 878. 78 

### CCME. 1999b. Canadian National Ambient Air Quality Objectives: Process and Status. In: Canadian Environmental Quality Guidelines, 1999, Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment, Winnipeg. Publication No. 1299, ISBN 1

- 896997

- 34

- 1. Availab le at http://ceqg

- rcqe.ccme.ca/download/en/133/
.

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 134 of 445 higher for shorter exposures). Environment Canada 79 

## defined the effect represented by the level of 0.4 μg HF/m 3 

## as:

“ The level above which there ar e demonstrated effects on human health and/or the environment. It is scientifically based and defines the boundary between the lowest observed adverse effect level (LOAEL) and the no observed adverse effect level (NOAEL). It is considered to be the level o f exposure just below that most likely to result in a defined and identifiable but minimal effect. The reference levels have no safety factors applied to them, as they are related directly to the LOAEL, and are the most conservative estimates of the effect level. ” High concentrations of HF in the air have also been linked to fluorosis in livestock. However, the HF concentrations at which fluorosis in livestock occur are higher than those at which plant damage begins. Therefore, the benchmarks for plants

ar e protective of both plants and livestock. For Clay Ceramics Manufacturing facilities, the environmental risk screen indicated that the area

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

- weighted average concentration o f all offsite data points in the modeling domain) did not exceed the ecological benchmark. In addition, the ecological benchmark was not exceeded at any offsite receptor location for any facility. For

79 

### EC. (Environment Canada). 1996. National Ambient Air Quality Objectives for Hydrogen Fluoride (HF). Science Assessment Document. A Report by the CEPA/FPAC Working Group on Air Quality Objectives and Guidel ines. July. ISBN 0

- 662

- 25641

- 7, Catalogue En42

- 17/6

- 1997. Available online at: http://www.bape.gouv.qc.ca/sections/mandats/ap50_rio_tinto_alcan/documents/DQ 3.1.1.pdf
.

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 135 of 445 HF, the environmental risk screen indicated that the ar ea weighted average modeled concentration of HF around each Clay Ceramics Manufacturing facility did not exceed the ecological benchmark. There were multiple facilities with modeled concentrations of HF at offsite receptor locations that exceeded the ecolo gical benchmark, but the area over which the value was exceeded was no greater than 1 percent of the offsite modeling domain for each facility, indicating that there would not be any significant or widespread environmental effects.
For BSCP Manufacturing f acilities, the environmental risk screen indicated that the area

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

area - weighted average concentration of all offsite data points in the modeling domain) did not exceed the ecological benchmarks. In addition, the area over which the HCl or HF benchmarks were exceeded was less than 1 percent of the offsite modeling domain for each facility in the category, indicating that there would not be any significant or widespread envir onmental effects. The EPA did not conduct an assessment of the potential for emissions of HCl to cause acidification in close proximity to the sources in this category. Acid deposition, more commonly known as acid rain, primarily occurs when emissions of S O 2 

## and

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 136 of 445 nitrogen oxides ( NO X 

## ) react in the atmosphere (with water, oxygen, and oxidants) to form various acidic compounds. 80 

## Although some studies indicate that HCl emissions could contribute to acidification around emission sources in certain environments, 81 

## its overall effect relative to NO X 

## and SO 2 

## emissions would be small. In addition, the commenter did not provide any data to support their assertion that the proposed standards would result in the acidification of the ecosystems in close proximity to BSCP and structural clay products manufacturing facilities. 4. Cumulative Effects
**Comment:** One c ommenter expressed concern that the EPA did
not fully consider the cumulative effects of exposure to HAP when proposing the health

- based standard under CAA section 112(d)(4)
. The commenter asserted that the agency assum ed there are no cumulative health and environmental impacts of concern and argued the EPA can not ensure that its proposed standards include an ample margin of safety without properly accounting for the additive and/or synergistic effects of multiple pollutants and the cumulative effects of nearby emissions.

80 

### National Acid Precipitation Assessment Program Report to Congress, 2005. Also see

- htt p://www.epa.gov/acidrain/reducing/index.html
. 81 

### Hydrochloric Acid: An Overlooked Driver of Environmental Change. Environmental Science and Technology 2011, 45, 1187

- 1894.

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 137 of 445 Another c ommenter stated that the EPA made no adjustments to the HBEL it selected to account for the potential for harm from exposures other than to the amounts of HCl, HF, and Cl 2 

## it proposed to allow. Specifically, the EPA must consider emissions of HCl, HF, and Cl 2 

## and other pollutants with biologically similar endpoints ( i.e. , that cause respiratory harm) from sources in the source category as wel l as from any co

- located sources and other stationary or mobile sources located such that their emissions affect people who are also exposed to the emissions subject to the NESHAP. The commenter asserted that the EPA cannot lawfully set limits “ with an amp le margin of safety ” when it ignores other sources of exposure and cumulative health effects
. The commenter asserted that, to protect exposed populations, the regulated sources must reduce their emissions to a level that ensures the total concentration of pollutants will remain below the pollutants ’ respective health thresholds. The commenter asserted that the EPA’s decision to ignore the impact of other emissions and background concentrations in the implementation of the HBEL is therefore arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, and otherwise not in accordance with law. If the ambient concentration of a particular pollutant is already at or near the health threshold, the commenter asserted

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 138 of 445 that an additional source of th at pollutant or another pollutant with a biologically similar endpoint can push the exposure over the threshold, even if the additional source emits the pollutant at low concentrations. The total risk that is unacceptable for the most

- exposed person in eac h source category must be reduced to consider the cumulative effect of these additional exposures and to create a total risk from all regulated source categories.
T he commenter stated that EPA ’s assessment of cumulative risks posed by HCl, HF, and Cl 2 

## emis sions ignored emissions from co

located sources (for BSCP kilns) , nearby sources and all other potential sources that could contribute to background levels
. The c ommenter noted that the EPA has emissions information about

co - located and nearby sources in i ts own databases but failed to evaluate whether cumulative exposures would exceed the health thresholds and to consider combined exposures
. The commenter reviewed reports from the EPA’s Enforcement and Compliance History Online (ECHO) Web site for a number of BSCP and clay ceramics facilities and provided note s on o ther major source facilities in close proximity. The c ommenter stated that the
EPA’s justifications regarding cumulative nearby emissions are legally inadequate and factually inaccurate
. The commenter stated that general assertions that other operations are not “commonly” co

- located with BSCP and clay ceramics facilities,

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 139 of 445 that such facilities are “typically” located on large tracts of land, and that facilities are set back from property lines in rural areas are insufficient to set the emissions standard at a level that protects all people living near such facilities. The c ommenter stated that information in the EPA’s own databases demonstrate s that BSCP and clay ceramics facilities are not pred ominantly located in rural, sparsely populated
areas, as the EPA assumes. M any of the BSCP facilities are located in urban areas, including Boral Bricks in Terre Haute,
I ndiana ; Hanson Brick in Columbia, S outh C arolina ; General Shale Brick in Denver, C olor ado ; and Cherokee Brick & Tile in Macon,
G eorgia
. 82 

## Similarly, i n the clay ceramics source category, only two of the sources are located in areas considered “ rural ” by the United States Census Bureau : American Marazzi Tile in Sunnyvale, T exas , and the Kohle r Wisconsin Plant outside of Sheboygan, W isconsin
. 83 

## The c ommenter stated that the EPA’s assessment of cumulative risks does not meet generally accepted good practices in risk assessment. The SAB recommended in May 2010 that the EPA

82 

### U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Census Urban and Rural Classification and Urban Area Criteria: Lists of 2010 Census Urban Areas, http://www2.census.gov/geo/docs/reference/ua/ua_list_all. xls
. 83 

### U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Census Urban and Rural Classification and Urban Area Criteria, https://www.census.gov/geo/reference/ua/urban

- rural

- 2010.html (revised Feb. 9, 2015) (searching plant location by city listed in address)
.

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 140 of 445 incorporate “ aggregate a nd cumulative risks, including background concentrations and contributions from other sources in the area ” into its risk analysis. 84 

## The commenter stated that the EPA must assess the total and cumulative risk burden, rather than only looking at each type of risk in a discrete, separate
way , and the EPA should be integrating its assessments and performing a “ comprehensive risk assessment ” as the NAS has emphasized. A fter first assessing the total cancer, chronic non

cancer, and acute risks, for both inhalation and multipathway
exposure, the EPA also must assess the total risks. 85 

## The EPA must aggregate health risk for each pollutant, and each type of health risk, to c reate a cumulative risk determination for an individual with maximum exposure. W ithout a combined health risk metric, the EPA cannot make an ample margin of safety determination that is based on the full picture of health risk for these source categories. Finally, the commenter stated that this proposal is contrary to the EPA’s recent conclusion in its regulation of power plant electric generating units that “the potential

84 

### Memorandum from Scie nce Advisory Board, U.S. EPA, to Lisa Jackson, Adm ’ r, U.S. EPA re: Review of EPA ’ s Draft, EPA

- SAB

- 10

- 007 at 6 (May 7, 2010). 85 

### Cal EPA, OEHHA, Cumulative Impacts at 19

- 21, 25 (describing total “ pollution burden ” as sum of exposures, public health effects, a nd environmental effects); EPA, Concepts, Methods and Data Sources for Cumulative Health Risk Assessment of Multiple Chemicals, Exposures and Effects, at 4

- 42 to 4

- 46 (Aug. 2007)

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 141 of 445 cumulative public health and environmental effects of acid gas emissions” did not all ow for CAA section 112(d)(4) standards. 86 

## In that rulemaking, the EPA did not receive facility

- specific emissions information for all the acid gases from units in the source category, co

- located sources, and all nearby sources. The EPA concluded that “cumul ative impacts of acid gases on public health were not assuaged by the comments received.” The commenter stated that the EPA did not consider that information in this rulemaking either, and just as in the power plant rulemaking, HBEL are not lawful. **Respons e:**  The EPA disagrees with the commenter that the EPA did not consider the potential impacts of nearby BSCP and clay ceramics facilities or other nearby facilities i n the determination of the HBEL for each source category . The limit reflects the impacts of all facilities in the source category
. While the risk assessment did not perform a detailed modeling analysis of other nearby facilities, based on a proximity analysis of sources emitting acid gases, the EPA concludes that the emissions from these faciliti es would not have significantly impacted the analysis for several reasons. First, the limit reflects a hazard index (HI) less than or equal to one at the

86 

### Responses to Public Comments on EPA ’ s National Emission Standards for Hazar dous Air Pollutants from Coal

- and Oil

- Fired Electric Utility Steam Generating Units, vol. 1 . Docket Item No. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2009

- 0234

- 20126
.

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 142 of 445 highest impacted receptor at each facility. For source categories like BSCP and clay ceramics where em ission release heights are low, the highest impacted receptor is always very near ( e.g. , share s a common fenceline) the facility, and ambient concentrations fall quickly with distance from the source. Because of this, other facilities would have to be very near a BSCP or clay ceramics facility and have relatively high emissions to have any significant impact on the receptor with the highest estimated concentration from the BSCP or clay ceramics emissions. As in risk assessments performed under the Risk and Technology Review program, the EPA did not model the nearby sources in the National Emissions Inventory ( NEI ) because that inventory has not received the same level of review and quality assurance that the BSCP emissions have for the purposes of this rulem aking
. Although the EPA did not model the other nearby facilities, the EPA did compare the location of all sources emitt ing acid gases with the location s of the BSCP and clay ceramics facilities
. The EPA found that only four facilities emitted acid gases within 1 kilometer of any B S CP facility
. Beyond 1 kilometer , we would expect very little coincidental impacts from multiple low level sources emitting the same pollutants. The largest of these facilities emitted less than 12 tpy of HC l

-

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 143 of 445 equivalent emission s, or less than 5 percent of the emissions limit. T he estimated HI for this BSCP facility was 0.6, so an increase of 5 percent in emissions would result in an increase in HI of at most 5 percent and , thus , not increase the HI above

a value of 1. There are no other sources emitting acid gases within 1 kilometer of any clay ceramics facility. Also , for the BSCP plant with the highest estimated HI , there are no other acid gas emissions indicated in the NEI within 5 kilometers of t he facility
. For the clay ceramics plant with the highest estimated HI, there are no other acid gas emissions indicated in the NEI within 10 kilometers of the facility
. Thus, we would not expect emissions of acid gases from other sources to contribute sign ificantly at the receptors where the maximum HI occurs due to BSCP or clay ceramic emissions, and the HI at these receptors would not exceed 1.

5. Risk Assessment
**Comment:** One c ommenter stated that the Human Exposure Model ( HEM

- 3 ) meteorological data used for dispersion calculations was insufficient because it included data for only 1 year (2011) from only 824 meteorological stations. The commenter asserted that this provides a very limited snapshot of air quality data and , therefore, is insufficient t o determine with confidence

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 144 of 445 that exposures at the proposed emission s standards pose “ no risk ” of adverse health effects. T he commenter stated that it is unlawful and arbitrary to set CAA section 1 12(d)(4) standards without more extensive air quality inform ation
. **Response:** The EPA disagrees with the commenter that the meteorological data were insufficient to perform the risk assessment. Although 5 years of meteorological data are preferred for assessing chronic exposures and risks, we use a single year (2011) of meteorological data in our risk assessments because of model run times for the Human Exposure Model ( HEM

- 3 ) air dispersion model ( AERMOD )
. Because we frequently run AERMOD for an entire source category with many individual emissions points and for many receptors, using 5 years of meteorological data would increase already significant model run times by a factor of five compared to a single y ear. In a sensitivity analysis of the impact of using a single year of meteorological data compared to 5 years, 87 

## we found that modeled concentrations differed by less than 10 percent on average and, thus, the use of 1 year of meteorological data is

87 

### U
. S
. EPA, 2009. Risk and Technology Review (RTR) Risk Assessment Methodologies: For Review by the EPA ’ s Science Advisory Board with Case Studies

– MACT I Petroleum Refining Sources and Portland Cement Manufacturing. EPA

- 452/R

- 09

- 006. Docket Item No. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2013

- 0291

- 0044
.

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 145 of 445 not lik ely to appreciably affect the results of the risk
assessment. The meteorological data we used were obtained from the Automated Surface Observing Systems (ASOS) program, which is a joint effort of the National Weather Service (NWS), the Federal Aviation Adm inistration (FAA), and the Department of Defense (DOD). The ASOS serves as the nation ’ s primary surface weather observing network and is designed to support weather forecast activities and aviation operations and, at the same time, support the needs of the meteorological, hydrological, and climatological research communities. With the largest and most modern complement of weather sensors, ASOS has significantly expanded the amount of available meteorological information. The ASOS works non

- stop, updating ob servations every minute, 24 hours a day, every day of the year. The ASOS is installed at more than 900 airports across the country, and our meteorological library for the year 2011 includes all of these that are without a significant number of missing hour s (824 stations).
**Comment:** Two c ommenter s stated that the EPA’s modeling understates chronic health risk by assuming that chronic exposure to HAP from BSCP and clay ceramic manufacturing sources

occur s at the census block centroid and not at the facility

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 146 of 445 f ence or property line. The commenter s stated that exposures are likely to be higher for people living closest to the plants, especially because census blocks can cover a large area and the center of a census block is almost always f a rther away from the fac ility than the facility’s property line
. One commenter noted that even if the area near the property line is not developed, over time homes and businesses could locate closer to the facility . W hile it is possible that population distribution is homogenous over a census block, the commenter stated this assumption is not necessarily accurate in considering the predicted impacts from the location of a source
. One commenter stated that no effort was made to move receptor points closer to the facility to assess chronic or cancer risk, even in those instances where local residents live nearer to a facility than the geographic centroid of the census block. T his conflicts with the recommenda tion of the SAB , which has urged the EPA to consider “ specific locations of residences. ” 88 

## The c ommenter stated that the EPA fail ed to adjust receptor points for residents living on the fence

- line even though the HEM

- AERMOD system allows for such an adjustm ent, and

88 

### Memorandum from Scien ce Advisory Board , U.S. EPA, to Lisa Jackson, Adm inistrato r, U.S. EPA re: Review of EPA ’ s Draft entitled, “Risk and Technology Review (RTR) Risk Assessment Methodologies: For Review by the EPA’s Science Advisory Board with Case Studies

– MACT I Petroleum Refining Sources and Portland Cement Manufacturing” at 4. M ay 7, 2010
.

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 147 of 445 that such an adjustment was appropriately made for the estimation of acute health risks (s ee, e.g. , 79 FR 75644 ) . The
commenter stated that the EPA cannot justify failing to analyze chronic health effects in a similar manner. Another c ommenter agr eed and stated that the EPA can use
HEM

- 3 to identify the maximum individual risk at any point in a census block that is within a 50

- kilometer radius from the center of the modeled facility. The commenter recommended the
EPA not use the predicted chronic e xposures at the census block centroid as a surrogate for the exposure concentrations for all people living in that block ; instead , the EPA should use the maximum individual risk in its risk assessments , irrespective of its location in the census block. **Response:** The EPA disagrees with the commenter s’ assertion that we relied solely on the census block centroids as receptors for human exposure. As we have noted in the development of RTR regulations, in a national

- scale assessment of lifetime inhalation ex posures and health risks from facilities in a source category, it is appropriate to identify exposure locations where it may be reasonably expected that an individual will spend a majority of his or her lifetime. Further, in determining chronic risks, it i s appropriate to use census block information on where people actually reside, rather than points

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 148 of 445 on a fenceline, to locate the estimation of exposures and risks to individuals living near such facilities. Census blocks are the finest resolution available as part of the nationwide population data (as developed by the U.S. Census Bureau); each is typically comprised of approximately 50 people, or about 20 households. In the EPA risk assessments, the geographic centroid of each census block containing at leas t one person is used to represent the location where all the people in that census block live. The census block centroid with the highest estimated exposure then becomes the location of maximum exposure, and the entire population of that census block is

as sumed to experience the maximum individual risk. In some cases, because actual residence locations may be closer to or farther from facility emission points, this may result in an overestimate or underestimate of the actual annual concentrations (although there is no systematic bias for average levels). Given the relatively small dimensions of census blocks in densely populated areas, there is little uncertainty introduced by using the census block centroids in lieu of actual residence locations. There is t he potential for more uncertainty when census blocks are larger, although there is still no systematic bias. The EPA concludes that the most appropriate locations at which to estimate chronic exposures and risks are

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 149 of 445 the census block centroids because: ( 1) census blocks are the finest resolution available in the national census data, ( 2) facility fencelines do not usually represent locations where chronic exposures are likely and ( 3) there is no bias introduced into the estimate of the MIR by using census bl ock centroid locations. In addition, in its peer review of the methodologies used to estimate risks as part of the RTR rulemaking efforts, the EPA ’ s SAB endorsed this approach. In addition to the approach described above, the EPA recognizes that where a ce nsus block centroid is located on industrial property or is large and the centroid is less likely to be representative of the block ’ s residential locations, the block centroid may not be the appropriate surrogate. For BSCP facilities, in cases where a cens us block centroid was within 300 meters of any emission source (and therefore possibly on facility property), we viewed aerial images of the facility to determine whether the block centroid was likely located on facility property. Likewise, we examined aer ial images of all large census blocks within 1 kilometer of any emission source. If the block centroid did not represent the residential locations within that block, we relocated it to better represent them and/or we added additional receptors for residenc es nearer to the facility than the centroid. For this source category, we

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 150 of 445 relocated 14 census blocks that appeared to be on facility property or were otherwise not representative of the population within the block, and we modeled an additional 15 receptors in cases where the single block centroid was inadequate to characterize the population within the census blocks.
**Comment:** One c ommenter stated that the EPA ’s risk
assessment did not account for the synergistic health e ffects from the potential exposure to multiple acid gas pollutants Specifically, t he EPA did not demonstrate that no health effects would occur if a person is chronically exposed to a combination of HCl, HF, and Cl 2 

## , even if the sum of the exposures (converted into “ equivalent ” units) does no t exceed the “ HCl

- equivalent ” limit . The commenter also argued the EPA failed to provide evidence showing that the acid gases would not have synergistic effects that could cause harm at a chronic exposure concentration that is lower than the RfC , REL , or MRL of each pollutant. The c ommenter asserted the EPA did not seek outside peer review by the S AB or other body or request public comment

on its us e of dose

- response values to exchange exposures of one acid gas pollutant for another prior to proposing use of “ HCl

equivalents ” standards
. The c ommenter s tated that since the EPA based the ratio for comparing HF and Cl 2 

## emissions to HCl emissions on the RfC , REL

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 151 of 445

or MRL values, and those values are uncertain and flawed (see previous comments in this section V.A , explaining that values were not based on a NOAEL, and the EPA has “ low ” confidence in the HCl Rf C ), the HCl

- equivalent method cannot assure “ an ample margin of safety. ” The commenter asserted that CAA section 112(d)(4) requires the EPA to set separate standards for HCl and HF, and the EPA’s decision to set a HCl

- equivalent emission s standard is unlawful and arbitrary. **Response:** The EPA believes that groups of chemicals can behave antagonistically or synergistically, such that combined exposure can either cause less or more harm, depending on the chemicals. To address pollutant mixtures in the determination of the HBEL, the EPA generally used the same methodology used in RTR assessments, which is t o follow the EPA’s mixture guidelines. 89 , 90 

## This methodology has been formally peer reviewed by the SAB
. 91 

## Following the mixture guidelines, the EPA aggregated noncancer hazard quotients ( HQs ) of HAP that act by similar toxic modes of action or that affect th e same target

89 

### US EPA, 1986. Guidelines for the Health Risk Assessment of Chemical Mixtures. EPA

- 630

- R

- 98

- 002. September 1986. 90 

### US EPA, 2000. Supplementary Guidance for Conducting Health Risk Assessment of Chemical Mixtures. August 2000. 91 

### US EPA S cience A dvisory B oard, 2010. R eview of EPA’s draft entitled, “Risk and Technology Review ( RTR) Risk Assessment Methodologies: For Review by the EPA’s Science Advisory Board with Case Studies

– MACT I Petroleum Refining Sources and Portland Cement Manufacturing .” M ay 7, 2010. Available at: http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/4AB3966E263D943A8525771F00668381/$ File/EPA

- SAB

- 10

- 007

- unsigned.pdf
.

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 152 of 445 organ. This process creates, for each target organ, a target

organ - specific hazard index ( TOSHI ) , defined as the sum of HQs for individual HAP that affect the same organ or organ system. All TOSHI calculations were based exclusively on effect s occurring at the “ critical dose ” ( i.e. , the lowest dose that produces adverse health effects). The EPA actually calculated the HBEL conservatively by including HF in the calculation of equivalent emissions even though it affects a different target
organ than HCl and Cl 2 

## , thereby allowing the development of a single emissions limit for all acid gases. The conservatism in the limit due to the inclusion of pollutants with different target organ systems would have the effect of ameliorating potential synergis m of the acid gases. 6 . Ample Margin of Safety
**Comment:** One c ommenter disagreed with the EPA’s decision to
set an HCl

- equivalent HBEL , rather than set separate HBEL for HCl, HF, and Cl 2 

## . The commenter stated that, by setting one “ HCl

equivalent emissions ” limit at 250 tpy (57 lb/hr) for BSCP tunnel kilns and 600 tpy (140 lb/hr) for clay ceramics sources, each source is free to emit whatever combination of HCl, HF, and Cl 2 

## it would like, provided the aggregate of the “ HCl

- equivalent emissions ” does not exce ed the limit. The commenter also noted that the HCl

- equivalent HBEL for clay ceramics does not include

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 153 of 445 Cl 2 

## and requested that the EPA explain how it converted Cl 2 

## into HCl

- equivalent emissions. The c ommenter stated that CAA section 112(d)(2) mandates that the EPA “ shall require the maximum degree of reduction in emissions of the hazardous air pollutants subject to this section. ” The commenter asserted that it is unlawful for the EPA

no t to set an emissions limit for a CAA section 1 12

- listed pollutant ( Nat’l Lime Ass’n , 233 F.3d at 634 ) and concluded that even if the EPA believes the health risks posed by HF and Cl 2 

## emissions can be translated into HCl

- equivalent units, the proposed “ HCl

- equivalent ” limit contravenes the EPA’s obligation
to set CAA section 1 12(d) standards for each pollutant. The commenter also stated that the EPA’s approach raises questions about whether the use of “ HCl

- equivalents ” results in limits that protect people against all of a pollutant ’ s health risks with “ an ample margin of safet y, ” as required by CAA section 1 12(d)(4). The commenter argued that because pollutants cause different adverse health effects , they are not

“ equivalent ” pollutants that cause “ equivalent ” health effects
at “ equivalent ” concentrations of exposure. The comme nter further argued the RfC for HCl is based on a study of respiratory toxicity and is meant to protect individuals against respiratory harms from chronic exposures , while t he REL used for

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 154 of 445 HF is based on a study of skeletal fluorosis (increased bone densit y) and is meant to protect individuals against skeletal harm from chronic exposures. 92 

## T he commenter noted that t he EPA focus ed only on the respiratory harm caused by the pollutants, when skeletal harm is the most sensitive effect for HF , and the EPA failed to expla i n why skeletal harm caused by a certain quantity of HF can be converted into respiratory harm caused by HCl. The commenter also noted that the EPA does not claim to be using HCl as a surrogate for HF or Cl 2 

## . The c ommenter stated that the EPA previously stated that HCl cannot act as a surrogate for the other acid gases because pollutants that act on humans in different manners, at different doses, cannot stand in for one another (see 76 FR 25049 and 75 FR 32031 )
. Another c ommenter expressed co ncern the HCl

- equivalent emissions limit could mask exposures or emissions of concern for the most toxic gas because the comparison would be dominated by a higher concentration pertinent to the less toxic gases. The
commenter asserted that the re is no anal ysis that justifies this

92 

### OEHHA, Chronic RELs and Toxicity Summaries, at 278. CalEPA made it clear that its REL is for “[i]ncreased bone densit y (skeletal fluorosis),” that the NOAEL was for “chronic skeletal fluorosis,” and that “[c]hanges in bone density ... appear[s] to be the most sensitive health effect for chronic exposure.” OEHHA, Chronic RELs and Toxicity Summaries at 272, 278

- 79. The pri ncipal study on which the REL is based did observe an increase in the incidence of acute respiratory disease, too, id . at 271, but the REL was not primarily based on that health effect.

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 1 55 of 445 combined metric and noted it would be more justifiable if the substances were in the same order of magnitude for potential potency. The commenter recommended that the EPA consider whether these gases could contribute to the acid co mponent of ambient air that is thought to potentially contribute to cancer and other effects because th ese impacts appear not to have been considered by the EPA
. **Response:** The EPA disagrees with the commenters ’ assertion that the HBEL cannot be based on eq uivalent emissions of a single pollutant. For th e BSCP Manufacturing rulemaking, the EPA used an approach specific for this NESHAP to set health

protective emissions limits that would account for the multiple acid gas pollutants emitted by the BSCP facilit ies. By converting the emissions of each acid gas or combination of acid gases (HC l , C l 2 

## and HF) to an HC l

- equivalent emission , the EPA can estimate a single exposure concentrations for comparison with the HC l reference value (RfC). If the ratio of HC l exposure concentration to the HC l RfC value remains at or below 1 , the
HBEL (HC l

- e quivalent emissions) would ensure that the threshold values for any individual or combination of acid gases would not be exceeded ( i.e
. , remain at or below 1)
. The EPA used the same approach to convert emissions of HF to an HCl

- equivalent and determine the HBEL for the Clay Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP;

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 156 of 445 the only difference is that there are no valid Cl 2 

## emissions data for clay ceramics facilities, so Cl 2 

## is not included in t he HBEL.
**Comment:** Two c ommenters generally supported the proposed
HBEL and stated that the EPA has conclusively demonstrated that the proposed HBEL would provide an ample margin of safety for HCl, HF, and Cl 2 

## emissions from affected facilities. A s the EPA explained in the proposal, the analysis was based on site specific data from each tunnel kiln , and t he proposed HBEL was developed at a level that would result in an HQ of 1 at the
worst

- case facility. Because the potential risks at facilities other than the worst

- case facility are predicted to be well below 1 , t he commenters stated that this analysis assures that an ample margin of safety will be provided for the “ worst case ” facility in the industry and more than an ample margin will be provided for all other affected facilities. Conversely, another c ommenter contended that the EPA ’s proposed HBEL under CAA section 112(d)(4) does not include “ an ample margin of safety
. ” The commenter disagreed with the approach the EPA used to determine the CAA section 1 12(d)(4) limits . Specifically, t he commenter stated that by setting the limits at precisely the same level as the threshold value, the EPA proposed to allow plants to emit acid gas pollution that

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 157 of 445 would expose people to amounts of pollution that reach thres hold levels
. The commenter stated that these limits do not include any

“ margin of safety, ” let alone an “ ample ” one, as the EPA is required to include for CAA section 1 12(d)(4) standards. The
commenter expressed concern that under the EPA’s approach , even the slightest uncertainty in the EPA’s estimates or low background levels of pollution can place health at risk because plants can emit at the health threshold . The commenter stated that the EPA did not explain how these limits would protect public health with “ an ample margin of safety. ” 93 

## The commenter asserted that a margin of safety is supposed to provide additional safety and account for uncertainty and variability that might result in har m to individuals below the threshold
. The commenter further stated that an “ ample ” margin of safety must assure not only extra room for safety, but a “ generous ” margin for safety. 94 

## The c ommenter noted that a TOSHI (which is the sum of the HQs) of “ one ” doe s not necessarily represent a safe level of

93 

### Mountain Commc ’ ns v. FCC , 355 F.3d 644, 648

- 49 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (agency must “ explain how its position can be reconciled ” with statutory requirements). 94 

### Webster ’ s Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary (1971) defines “ margin ” as “ a spare amount or measure or degree allowed or given f or contingencies or special situations ” and “ ample ” as “ generous or more than adequate in size, scope, or capacity .”

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 158 of 445
exposure . The commenter assert ed the EPA characterizes a TOSHI or HQ of “ one ” or less as exposures that “ are not likely to cause adverse health effects ” ( 79 FR 75643 ) , but did not provide any explanation why this level would meet the statutory standard. According to t he commenter , Congress intended the standard to be set at a level at which there is “ no risk ” of

“ adverse health effects, ” plus “ an ample margin of safety (and not considering cost). ” 95 

## For these reaso ns, the commenter concluded that the proposed limits do not comply with the CA A and could put public health at risk. The c ommenter also expressed concern that the EPA did not take steps to adjust the limits to reflect the uncertainties regarding health exposures and effects. The EPA has factored in uncertainties and vulnerability factors in other rulemakings, such as when determining a Target Margin of Exposure under the FQPA , where the EPA considered whether risks below the Target Margin of Expos ure warrant ed increased scrutiny and changes to allowable exposures. 96 

## The commenter also stated that the EPA’s proposed limits would allow hu man exposures to exceed the level that Cal EPA has identified is the safety minimum. A llowing human

95 

### S. Rep. No. 101

- 228, at 171
. 96 

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

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 159 of 445
exposure to HCl concentrations above a threshold a state agency determined may cause respiratory harm , the commenter contend ed , would not provide the ample margin of safety required by law. The c ommenter further stated that the “ ample margin of safety ” language in CAA sec tion 1 12(d)(4) requires that any standard that is set under this authority must be sufficient to protect against significant unforeseen consequences. 97 

## The
commenter stated that because the “ ample margin of safety ” requirement is meant to protect against risks that have not yet been identified in research, a CAA section 1 12(d)(4) standard cannot be justified on grounds that the EPA does not have sufficient evidence about the health risks posed by a HAP or does not h ave the time or inclination to review the evidence that is available. **Response:** For several reasons, the EPA disagrees with the commenter who stated that the HBEL does not include an ample margin of safety. First, the limit is based on the single facility in the source category with the worst

- case combination of meteorology and distance to nearest residential receptor that leads to the highest ambient concentrations. While the EPA

97 

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

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 160 of 445 estimates that the limit reflects a n HI of one at this facility, th e HI at mo st other facilities would be significantly lower, with approximately 90 percent of the facilities having an estimated HI less than or equal to 0.5. Further as the standard is based on a 1

- hour emission limit, in determining chronic impacts, the analysis co nservatively assumes that each plant emits at the 1

- hour HBEL for an entire year (8 , 760 hours). Also, the limit is based on es timated ambient concentrations and not exposure concentrations. Exposure concentrations are typically lower than ambient concentra tions because they reflect that people ’ s activities ( e.g. , work, school) remove them from their residential exposure locations for significant amounts of time. For these reasons, the EPA concludes that the emission limit is health protective ( i.e. , exposur es will remain below the threshold values) and t h is conservative exposure scenario is consistent with the “ ample margin of safety ” requirement in CAA section 112(d)(4)
. **Comment:** One c ommenter expressed concern that the EPA underestimated acute health risks in the evaluation of the risk of acute harm from short

- term exposures by ignor ing variability in short

- term emissions. The commenter noted that t he EPA calculated the 1

- hour emissions estimates for its modeling of
acute harm by dividing the annual emissions level by 8 , 760 hours

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 161 of 445
per year instead of using a default factor or emissions multiplier to account for higher

- than

- average short

- term emissions . The commenter noted actual emissions over a 1

- hour period will at t imes exceed the average hourly emissions level used in the modeling . The commenter asserted the EPA did not explain how this approach captures peak short

- term emissions levels or adequately protects people from short

- term exposures at levels above the aver age. The c ommenter stated that the EPA has used emissions multiplier s to scale up average hourly emissions in air dispersion modeling for other risk assessments. 98 

## T he commenter asserted that although emission multipliers in risk assessments still underesti mate risk, these assessments show the EPA recognizes the need to use multipliers in assessing health risks from short

- term emissions . The commenter stated that it is

98 

### See, e.g. , National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutant Emissions: Group IV Polymers and Resins; Pesticide Ingredien t Production; and Polyether Polyols Production; Proposed Rule, 77 FR 1268, 1279 (Jan. 9, 2012) (finalized at 79 FR 17340 (Mar. 27, 2014); see also National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Ferroalloys Production, 79 FR 60238, 60252 (Oct. 6, 2014) (applying “ an emission adjustment factor ” to “ average annual hourly emission rates ... to account for emission fluctuations due to normal facility operations ” ); National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants Residual Risk and Technology R eview for Flexible Polyurethane Foam Production, 78 FR 66108, 66122 (Nov. 4, 2013) (applying “ a conservative default emissions multiplier of 10 to estimate the peak hourly emission rates from the average rates ” as part of EPA ’ s screening of “ worst

- case acu te impacts ” ); National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Mineral Wool Production and Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing, 76 FR 72770, 72785 (Nov. 25, 2011) (applying an “ emissions multiplier of 3 to estimate the peak hourly emission rates from the average rates ” ).

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 162 of 445 unlawful and arbitrary for the EPA not to use a n emissions multiplier for estimating risk for this rulemaking
. The c ommenter also stated that the EPA ’ s calculation of 1

- hour emissions assumed plants are operating (and generating emissions) 24 hours per day, 365 days per year. The commenter noted that averaging hourly emissions over the full calendar year produces lower hourly emissions than if the EPA had used each plant ’ s actual operating hours. The EPA has information about each plant ’ s operating hours and these data show many units are not ope rating over the full calendar year. By calculating the 1

- hour emissions based on 8 , 760 operating hours, the commenter asserted the EPA underestimated the risks of acute exposures over shorter spans of time. The commenter stated that because the EPA used sh ort

- term emissions that are neither conservative nor realistic, the EPA cannot conclude the standard assures “ an ample margin of safety
. ” The c ommenter stated that in two other recent rulemakings, the EPA found information on short

- term HCl emissions was i nsufficient to allow the EPA to evaluate “ whether a chronic health

- based emission standard for HCl would ensure that acute exposures will not pose any health concerns
. ” ( 75 FR 32031; 76 FR 25050 )
. In these rulemakings , the commenter stated , the EPA did not proceed with risk

- based standards due to the

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 163 of 445 lack of this information
. The commenter stated that the EPA is incorrectly proceed ing with the proposed health

- based standards without account ing for or quantify ing peak short

- term emissions. **Response:** The use of an emissions multiplier to convert annual emissions to peak 1

- hour emissions (determination of peak emissions for comparison with 1

- h ou r health benchmarks ) for acute (short

- term) risk calculations was not necessary for this analysis , because the HBEL de termined for the category is being promulgated as a mass of HCl

- equivalent emitted per hour. Similarly, plant h our s of operation need not be considered because the HBEL determined for the category is an hourly limit
. As noted in the preamble to the propose d rule for BSCP, “ To assure that no source emits more than the 250 tpy HCl

- equivalent limit in a single hour, we propose setting the emissions limit at the hourly equivalent of 250 tpy ( 57 lb/hr of HCl

- equivalent emissions)” (79 FR 75644)
. Similarly, for c lay ceramics manufacturing, “to assure that no source emits more than the 600 tpy HCl

- equivalent limit in a single hour, we propose setting the emissions limit at the hourly equivalent of 600 tpy (140 lb/hr of HCl

- equivalent emissions)” (79 FR 75661). The EPA concludes the risk analysis and subsequent standard
meet an “ ample margin of safety ” in accordance with the CAA. The proposed HBEL for the entire source category is based on an

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 164 of 445 emission s level corresponding to a maximum noncancer HI of one at the highe st impacted facility. All other facilities would have a lower risk than the highest risk facility. Further , as the standard is based on a 1

- hour emission limit, in determining chronic impacts, the analysis conservatively assumes that each plant emits at th e 1

- hour HBEL for an entire year (8 , 760 hours).
**Comment:** One c ommenter disagreed with the EPA’s evaluation of acute health risks , stating that the approach is inadequate and does not assure standards are based on a safe health threshold and include “ an ample margin of safety. ” Specifically, the commenter expressed concern that the proposed HBEL are based on the chronic dose

- response information and not on thresholds for acute health risks. T he commenter noted the EPA approximated
exposures , used those es timates to develop H Q values , and concluded “ there is low potential for acute risk ” when the HQ values are less than or equal to one
. I f values above one were identified, then the EPA examined additional information to determine whether there was a potenti al for “ significant acute risks ” for those living near the facility. The commenter noted that the EPA did not explain why this method satisfies the CAA section 112(d)(4) requirement that health

- based standard s be set
at a level that ensure s “an amply margi n of safety” for people living near th e facility
. The EPA’s evaluation is designed to

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 165 of 445 determine whether any facilities pose “ significant acute risks ” ; however, the commenter stated that this is not the statutory standard, and such a determination would not signify that an

“ ample margin of safety ” is included. The c ommenter stated that for HF, the EPA’s evaluation identified numerous plants at which there were potential acute health risks. Spec ifically, t he EPA found 23 BSCP facilities exceeded the H Q value for HF, with nearly half of those facilities exceeding the value by four

- or five

- fold. F or the clay ceramics category, the EPA found that eight facilities exceeded the H Q value for HF. T he a dditional analysis the EPA performed to determine whether these facilities posed

“ significant acute risks ” did not rule out the possibility of such “ significant acute risks .” F or these facilities, the EPA focused its analysis on maximum offsite H Q values ; however, the commenter noted that many of the maximum offsite HQ values exceed one, thereby indicating the potential for “ significant acute risks ” remained. The commenter asserted that the EPA provided no support for why value s above one means there is no potential for “ significant acute risks
. ” The c ommenter disagreed with the EPA’s assertion that there is no potential for “ significant acute risks ” because the risk assessment assumes there is a person present at the location and

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 166 of 445 time where the maximum HQ value occurs and stated that relaxing conservative assumptions about exposure in individual instances is arbitrary and defeats the purpose of the e valuation. The EPA cannot pretend that the person is n o t present and ignore the potential for harm
. The EPA’s statement that a facility is not likely to emit only HF similarly provides no assurance of safety. According to t he commenter , the EPA relax ed an assumption in the model because the model predicted an outcome the EPA did n o t like . The commenter stated the EPA provided no basis for its assertion that a facility is unlikely to emit only
HF or explain why a combination of HF (for which the EPA found a potential for “ significant acute risks ” ), HCl, and Cl 2 

## emissions would not still pose “ significant acute risks. ” The c ommenter stated that the EPA’s use of acute exposure guideline levels (AEGLs) and emergency response planning guidelines ( ERPGs) to assess acute risks cannot assure that exposure present s “ no risk ” of health effects at those concentrations. The AEGL and ERPG values were created for emergency exposure scenarios . The commenter stated that levels defined for “ once - in

- a - lifetime, short

- term expo sures ” and

“ emergency ” chemical releases or accidents are not appropriate for measur ing acute exposure risk . According to the SAB , indicated “ AEGL

- 2 and ERPG

- 2 values should never be used in

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 167 of 445 residual risk assessments because they represent levels that if exceeded could cause serious or irreversible health effects. ” 99 

## The c ommenter stated that because the AEGL and ERPG numbers would underestimate risk to the maximum exposed individual , AEGL and ERPG values do not indicate “ safe ” thresholds that protect healt h with “ an ample margin of safety
. ” For these reasons, the commenter contends AEGL and ERPG values should not be used to
set CAA section 1 12(d)(4) standards. **Response:** The EPA disagrees with the commenter that the
EPA ’ s acute assessment includes arbitrary decision

- making and does not reflect an ample margin of safety. The EPA is not required to regulate based solely on the results of a conservative acute screening scenario which assumes that a person will be present at a specific location and during worst

c ase meteorological conditions. Rather, this initial screening scenario is used as a starting point in the assessment of the potential for acute effects. For HCl and Cl 2 

## , the acute REL values for the pollutants are not estimated to be exceeded even when usi ng the screening scenario, and the acute REL for HF is estimated to be exceeded only by a factor of two for seven facilities using the screening scenario. The other cases of higher exceedances mentioned by the

99 

### Memorandum from Science Advisory Board re: Review of EPA ’ s Draft at 6.

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 168 of 445 commenter are situations where the locations o f the exceedances are on facility property and, therefore, not considered for public health. The acute REL is defined by CalEPA as “ the concentration level at or below which no adverse health effects are anticipated for a specified exposure duration. RELs are based on the most sensitive, relevant, adverse health effect reported in the medical and toxicological literature. RELs are designed to protect the most sensitive individuals in the population by the inclusion of uncertainty factors which are incorpora ted to address data gaps and uncertainties
. Regarding the use of AEGL and ERPG values, the EPA does not rely exclusively upon these values for assessment of acute exposures. Rather, the EPA ’ s approach is to consider various acute health effect reference v alues, including the California REL, in assessing the potential for risks from acute exposures. To better characterize the potential health risks associated with estimated acute exposures to HAP, and in response to a key recommendation from the SAB ’ s peer review of the EPA ’ s RTR risk assessment methodologies, we generally examine a wider range of available acute health metrics ( e.g. , RELs, AEGLs) than we do for our chronic risk assessments. This is in response to the
SAB ’ s acknowledgement that there are gen erally more data gaps and inconsistencies in acute reference values than there are in

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 169 of 445 chronic reference values. In some cases, when Reference Value Arrays 100 

## for HAP have been developed, we consider additional acute values ( i.e. , occupational and internation al values) to provide a more complete risk characterization. Because HCl, HF, and Cl 2 

## all have 1

- hour REL values, the maximum estimated 1

- hour concentrations were compared to these values to assess the potential for acute health effects.
**Comment:** One c omme nter expressed concern that the EPA’s risk analysis ignored exposures from emissions of HCl, HF, Cl 2 

## , and other pollutants with similar biological endpoints from units subject to the proposed work practice standards , including emissions during startup and shutdown, and emissions from BSCP periodic kilns and sanitaryware shuttle kilns. The commenter asserted that even though the EPA stated that the work practice standards are intended to minimize emissions, these sources are not included in the calculation o f the CAA section 1 12(d)(4) standards , and exposures to emissions from these other sources will contribute to an individual ’ s cumulative health risks
. The commenter asserted that the EPA does not know whether the proposed HBEL will provide “ an ample margin of safety ” once

100 

### U.S. EPA. (2009) Chapter 2.9 Chemical Specific Reference Values for Formaldehyde in Graphical Arrays of Chemical

- Specific Health Effect Reference Values for Inh alation Exposures (Final Report). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R

– 09/061, and available on

- line at http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=211003
.

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 170 of 445 emissions from periods of startup and shutdown and emissions from BSCP periodic kilns and sanitaryware shuttle kilns are added to the levels of pollution permitted by the proposed standards
. For this reason, the c ommenter stated that the
p roposed CAA section 1 12(d)(4) standards are unlawful and arbitrary
. The c ommenter also stated that emissions during startup and shutdown are expected to be uncontrolled , because the EPA did not propose to require that BSCP and clay ceramics plants use APCD or other methods to reduce emissions (such as mandating the use of clean fuels) during these periods
. T he proposed work practice standards for periodic and shuttle kilns do not require control technology and , according to the commenter , are not anticipate d to reduce emissions. Finally, the c ommenter stated that the only reason startup and shutdown periods and periodic and shuttle kilns are not subject to the proposed CAA section 1 12(d)(4) limits is because the EPA exempted them from CAA section 1 12(d). The commenter stated that it is arbitrary to exclude those emissions from the health analysis solely because the EPA proposed to regulate those sources of emissions under a different subsection of the
CAA . The commenter argued all exposures contribute to the risk

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 171 of 445 of harm, regardless of whether they are CAA section 1 12(d)

- regulated emissions or section CAA 1 12(h)

- regulated emissions. **Response:** The EPA disagrees that emissions during periods of startup and shutdown and emissions from BSCP periodic kilns and sanitaryware shuttle kilns will exceed the numerical HBEL
. Regarding the standards for periods of startup and shutdown, as noted in the preamble to the proposed rule and further documented in Docket ID No. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2013

- 0291 , 101 

## tem perature is the main factor affecting full production at BSCP plants
. T he kiln cars should be introduced into the kiln at a steadily increasing push rate to facilitate development of that specific kiln ’ s firing temperature profile. Since emissions are gene rated from the firing of the bricks and the fuel combusted, the EPA has concluded that the m aximum magnitude of emi ssions will occur when all kiln cars have been loaded with the maximum number of bricks and the maximum amount of fuel is used. During startu p, kiln operators will limit production until the kiln has heated enough to begin normal operation. This is the point whereby the standard transitions from a wor k practice to a numeric limit. The opposite process occurs during shutdown. Fuel use will decre ase significantly so as to cool the kiln, and kiln

101 

### Email from Susan Miller, BIA, to Sharon Nizich and Keith Barnet t, EPA. “Additional documents.” Dated June 25, 2015.

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 172 of 445 operators will slow production to a stop. Since emissions will be lower below this point of maximum loading and fuel use , emissions will not rise above the emission limit for all pollutants, including the acid gas limits. The owner or operator of each kiln will be required to determine the startup production rate for the kiln. For kilns with an APCD, the owner or operator will determine the minimum inlet temperature for the APCD
. For kilns that , through

co mpliance testing once the compliance date has been reached , have shown they are emitting under the emission limits and thus do not have an APCD, the owner or operator will determine the product

- specific kiln temperature profile that must be achieved before the kiln can reach full production. The startup standards will be tied to the startup production rate never being exceeded until the kiln reaches the minimum inlet temperature for the
APCD or the product

- specific kiln temperature profile , whichever is applicable
. During shutdown, once the kiln falls below the minimum inlet temperature for the APCD or the product

- specific kiln temperature profile , whichever is applicable, no additional product can be introduced. These temperature limits will be required to be included in the facility ’ s records and kept on site
. Thus, for periods of startup and shutdown, the HBEL set

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 173 of 445 for HCl, HF, and Cl 2 

## will not be surpas sed during startup and shutdown. In the case of sanitaryware shuttle kilns, the commenter is mistaken that we did not mandate the use of clean fuels. The rule does limit the fuels used to natural gas or equivalent, and also outlines work practice standards relative to temperature cycles and maintenance procedures designed to minimize HAP emissions (see Tab le 3 to s ubpart KKKKK)
. The use of clean fuels applies for all times the kiln is running , not just startup and shutdown. Therefore, the commenter is incorrect that we are not requiring the use of clean fuels for startup and shutdown relative to the operati on of shuttle kilns. The EPA also disagrees that just because the proposed work practice standards for periodic and shuttle kilns do not reflect the use of any control technology , they are not anticipated to reduce emissions. As the commenter has stated el sewhere , control technologies are not the only means of limiting emissions. Control of parameters such as fuel, operating temperature, combustion conditions, and throughput are also effective means of limiting emissions , and these are the types of paramete rs the EPA considered when finalizing the work practice standards for periodic and shuttle kilns
.

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 174 of 445 As discussed in the proposal at 79 FR 75662, CAA section 112(h)(1) states that the Administrator may prescribe a work practice standard or other requirements, consistent with the provisions of CAA sections 112(d) or (f), in those cases where, in the judgment of the Administrator, it is not feasible to enforce an emission standard. Section 112(h)(2)(B) of the CAA further defines the term “not feasible” in this c ontext to apply when “the application of measurement technology to a particular class of sources is not practicable due to technological and economic limitations,” which is the case here. There are fewer BSCP periodic kilns and first

- fire sanitaryware shut tle kilns compared to tunnel kilns , and they tend to be low

- emitting sources compared to tunnel kilns, 102 

## so their emissions will not cause an exceedance of the health threshold. The work practice standards we are finalizing will serve to ensure that emissions from these sources continue to remain low.

102 

### For example, even assuming that lb/ton emissions are similar for BSCP periodic and tunnel kilns, a comparison of annual kiln design capacities (ton product/yr) for model BSCP periodic kilns and tunnel kilns indicates that annual capacities for periodic kilns are on average only 5 percent of annual capacities for tunnel kilns. ( For the basis of this calculation, s ee the memorandum “ Updated Inventory Database and Documentation for Brick and Structural Cla y Products Manufacturing Final Rule ” in Docket ID No. EPA

- HQ

OAR

- 2013

- 0291 and the memorandum “ Final Rule: Documentation of Database and Responses to the 1997 Information Collection Request for Brick and Structural Cl ay Products” in Docket ID No. A

- 99

- 30.) In addition, in the BSCP industry, there are currently 120 periodic kilns located at 15 facilities, compared to 168 tunnel kilns at 84 facilities. In the sanitaryware industry sector, there are currently five first

- fire shuttle kilns, compared to 11 first

- fire tunnel kilns.

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 175 of 445
**Comment:** One c ommenter stated that, to create standards
t hat assure “ an ample margin of safety, ” the EPA is required to build a margin into the HBEL for exposures to HCl, HF, Cl 2 

## , and other pollutants with similar biological endpoints resulting from (a) exceedances of the HCl, HF, and Cl 2 

## standards, (b) violatio ns of the work practice standards applicable during startup and shutdown, and (c) exceedances of other standards ( e.g. , MACT standards for non

- Hg HAP metals ) that restrict pollutants with similar biological endpoints. The commenter also stated that estimat ing short

- term emissions by averaging annual emissions does not reflect emissions spikes that occur during plant malfunctions or upsets. The commenter stated that malfunctions and upsets increase emissions and thereby pose increased health risks that the E PA must consider. The commenter stated that relevant chronic exposures include exposures from exceedances and violations and noted that many exceedances, such as those from malfunctions and upsets, are likely to contribute significant emissions that can elevate an individual ’ s total exposures over time
. The commenter also stated that the EPA explains malfunction events can be significantly higher than emissions at any other time of source operation ( 79 FR 75626 )
. The commenter stated that t hese emissions pose much higher short

- term risks and can accumulate

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 176 of 44 5 and combine to increase public health impacts and risk and th at guarding against the health risks of releases of large amounts of HF ( for example ) must be built into the HBEL through the margin of safety. The commenter stated that HF exhibits characteristics in some circumstances that can make it uniquely hazardous over large areas . For example, HF molecules may associate with one another ( i.e. , form larger molecules like
H 4 

## F 4 

## , H 6 

## F 6 

## , H 8 

## F 8 

## ) via hydrogen bonding and such molecules may form a cloud that is heavier than air, therefore less likely to disperse. The c ommenter s tated that, by not accounting for exposures from exceedances, the EPA assum ed that such exceedances will be

z ero and buil t in no additional protections in case exceedances do occur
. The commenter claimed that t here is no factual basis for assuming that 100 percent of BSCP and clay ceramics facilities will comply with each of the relevant emissions limits 100 perc ent of the time. O ver the long term and across the population of regulated facilities, the commenter noted that it is predictable that a number of exceedances will occur a t facilities . The commenter stated i t is unlawful to ignore emissions and the resulti ng health risks from those exceedances and argued the additional risk from exceedances should not be ignored in risk assessments
.

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 177 of 445 The commenter stated that EPA regularly uses statistical methods and probability factors to assess health risk due to exceeda nces and to set clean air standards , and the EPA has data available to calculate representative factors to assess the health risk from malfunctions or can collect information on major sources ’ malfunction and violation histories. 103 

## I f the EPA needs more refined data regarding these emissions, the commenter suggested the EPA may request additional data from sources. The c ommenter stated that it is irrelevant that exceedances are a result of a failure to comply with the law when the EPA is

se tting CAA section 1 12(d)(4) standards, which must be set at a level that protects health. I t does not matter to a person whether the pollution he or she is breathing is a result of a permitted or unpermitted release; the commenter argued the EPA
cannot tur n a blind eye to the reality that compliance with its standards is n o t perfect. **Response:** T he HBEL was determined based on the assessment of acute affects at the worst

- case facility with respect to meteorology and distance to receptor and is protective of most facilities even if they had SSM event emissions. Even for the
worst

- case facility, the SSM emissions event would need to be

103 

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

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 178 of 445 coincident with the worst

- case meteorological conditions, which is not likely if SSM events are not frequent. For chronic risk, SSM emissions are not significant compared to the HBEL level, and most facilities are well below a n HI of one with emissions at the HBEL level
. The commenter is correct that the EPA did not include malfunctions and upsets emissions in setting emissions li mits. As noted in the preamble to the proposed rule (79 FR 75626), malfunctions “are, by definition sudden, infrequent and not reasonably preventable failures of emissions control, process or monitoring equipment.” The preamble also stated that “accounting for malfunctions in setting emission standards would be difficult, if not impossible, given the myriad different types of malfunctions that can occur across all sources in the category and given the difficulties associated with predicting or accounting fo r the frequency, degree and duration of various malfunctions that might occur. For these reasons, the performance of units that are malfunctioning is not ‘reasonably’ foreseeable.” It should also be noted that sources cannot conduct performance tests durin g periods of malfunction (40 CFR 63. 8445 (e) and 40 CFR 63.8595 ( d ) ) and there are no continuous emissions monitoring systems ( CEMS ) in place in the BSCP industry
.

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 179 of 445 The EPA disagrees that it is required to evaluate the ample margin of safety provided by a CAA section 112(d)(4) standard based on the level of emissions that could occur during an exceedance of the standard caused by a malfunction or any other

c ause. When the EPA establishes a standard under CAA section 112(d)(4), the EPA evaluates the ample ma rgin of safety based on what sources will emit when they are meeting the standard (which applies at all times including periods of malfunction) and does not include some additional margin of safety to compensate for periods of time that sources may violate the standard. This is consistent with how the EPA evaluates standards under CAA section 112(f)(2) (in that the EPA’s evaluation of the ample margin of safety under that review looks at the emissions allowed under the standard, not emissions that might occ ur when the standard is exceeded). Regarding t he comment that the standard is not health protective for emissions of HF , t he proposed rule determined the HCl equivalent emissions for HF by the ratio of the RfC value for each pollutant, such that a 250 tpy emission of HCl is equivalent to 175 tpy emissions of HF. By performing a risk analysis for each facility/kiln, the EPA demonstrated that these emissions limits are protective of both chronic and acute risks.

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 180 of 445 Regarding t he comment that HF exhibits release characteristics that may make it uniquely hazardous over large

areas , the EPA notes that the commenter did not include data or information supporting their assertion that plumes of acid gases from BSCP facilities could become heavier than air. The
commente r’s example case of the formation of dense clouds of acid gases is from studies performed on the vaporization of liquefied gaseous fuels from spills, and the commenter did not explain how this scenario is relevant to the emission of acid gases formed in BSCP kilns. In the absence of evidence suggesting that cloud s of dense gases are formed from BSCP facilities, and without a suggested alternate modeling methodology, the EPA used its preferred model AERMOD for dispersion for BSCP facilities. 7. Other Issue s **Comment:** One c ommenter stated that the EPA must account for the variability in emissions measured by compliance testing to measure whether each plant ’ s emissions meet the HBEL because that testing does not capture a source’s variance in emissions perform ance over time . The commenter noted that the EPA already recognizes this fact for stack tests for technology

- based standards. The EPA has stated that it lacks a high degree of confidence that stack tests capture variation in emissions over

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 181 of 445 time , and the co mmenter noted that as a result of this variance, it can be expected that the compliance tests would not be accurate. The commenter asserted that if the EPA believes that measurement variability needs to be corrected for, then it is irrational and arbitrary to correct for it with one set of standards (MACT standards) and not another (health

- based standards), when they both rely upon emissions data from stack
tests. The c ommenter noted that the EPA’s proposal to account for variability for MACT standards but not for compliance with the HBEL would result in weaker and less

- protective standards in both cases . **Response:** Variability in emissions would not have a significant impact on the estimated risks associated with the
HBEL
. For chronic exposures and risks, the estimates are based on long

- term (annual) emissions, so short

- term emissions variability would not impact the estimates of chronic risks as long as the annual emissions, on average, do not exceed the limit. For acute exposures and risks, short

- term emissions variability that causes emissions to exceed the 1

- hour HBEL would increase the potential for acute health effects, but the likelihood of such effects is low because the emissions variability would have to occur at the small number of facilities we estimated as having the highest acute H Q s based on

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 182 of 445 the emissions limits, and the emissions variability would have to coincide with worst

- case meteorological conditions even at those facilities to result in acute H Q s higher than those we estimated based on the HBEL . Most facilities have acute H Q estimates significantly below one, so short

- term emissions variability would have to be high (approximately 60 percent higher for the median facility) for the estimated H Q s to
approa ch a value of one. The EPA also notes that the HBEL was not established using emissions data from stack tests. Therefore, there was no need to account for variability in setting the HBEL as was done for the Hg and non

- Hg HAP metals standards. Instead, the standard was established at a conservative level to ensure that the H Q s remain below one for all facilities. The EPA agrees that there would be variability in the test results used to demonstrate compliance with the rule, but as already noted in this respo nse, short

- term emissions variability would have to be high for the estimated H Q s to approach a value of one. In addition, variability is not considered when comparing compliance testing results to any other emissions limit, so it would be inconsistent for the EPA to require owners and operators to adjust their test results before comparing those results to the
HBEL
.

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 183 of 445
**Comment:** One c ommenter suggested that the EPA should require fence

- line ambient air quality monitoring that measures multiple pollutants in re al

- time or near real

- time to ensure that people are not being exposed to ambient pollutant concentrations that exceed the proposed HBEL
. The commenter recommended the EPA also require real

- time public reporting of the monitoring data.
I n addition, the comm enter suggested that the EPA should require facilities to submit monitoring plans, data, and corrective action plans for agency review and public comment
. T he se requirements would ensure concerned community members have the ability to review and recommend improvements to monitoring plans before they are implemented and would enable the EPA to consider community concerns when deciding whether to approve a plan. **Response:** The EPA disagrees with the commenter. Because stack emissions can travel for long dista nces and are at heights above where a fence

- line monitors would measure, it is inappropriate to use fence

- line monitoring for stack emissions.
Fence

- line monitoring is performed for fugitive emissions (see discussion of fence

- line monitoring use on fugitiv e emissions at 79 FR 36919, Petroleum Refinery Sector Risk and Technology Review and New Source Performance Standards; Proposed Rule). In

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 184 of 445 response to the comment that the EPA should require all facilities to submit monitoring plans, data, and corrective

ac tion plans for agency review and public comment , the EPA notes that t hese requirements are indeed in the rule, as facilities are required to submit monitoring plans, data and corrective actions for the regulatory agency review. However, in most cases, thes e submissions are required to be sent to the delegated authority, and the follow

- up to that review, is left to the discretion of the delegated authority. B. BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP
1
. MACT Floors

a . Sources in MACT Floor Pool
One c ommenter stated that th e D.C. Circuit held that the
BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP published on May 16, 2003 ( 68 FR 26690) violated the CAA in a number of ways ( Sierra Club v. EPA , 479 F.3d 875 (D.C. Cir. 2007) ) . The court held that , in setting MACT floors for brick tunnel kilns, the EPA ’s exc lu sion of kilns employing non

- DLA controls from its ranking and identification of the best performing sources was unlawful because CAA section
1 12(d)(3) “ requires floors based on the emission level actually achieved by the best performers (tho se with the lowest emission levels). ” Id
. In addition, the court recognized that factors other than pollution control technology affect performance

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 185 of 445 ( e.g. , clay type), and the EPA cannot ignore such factors, even where the EPA finds that floors based on tho se factors would be unachievable. The commenter noted that the EPA is once again exclud ing best performing sources from its floor analysis and bas ing floors on a group of kilns using the EPA’s preferred control technologies, in contravention of the holding of Sierra Club , which is the decision to which this rulemaking is intended to be
a response. In the proposed rule , prior to ranking the best performing sources for the BSCP tunnel kiln floors for PM (as a surrogate for non - Hg HAP metals ) for existing and new sources, the EPA removed all kilns without a FF

- based APCD
. O nce removed, those kilns were not included in the ranking of best performing sources, and hence they were not considered for inclusion among the best performing 12 percent of sources (for the existing source floor) or the best controlled similar source (fo r the new source floor). The commenter asserted that the agency ’ s reprisal of a floor approach that the D.C. Circuit has already rejected repeatedly is not just unlawful, but amounts to contempt for the
court ’ s authority. **Response:** The EPA disagrees with t he c ommenter ’s assertion that the EPA’s proposed approach to calculating PM surrogate MACT floors for kilns was illegal in that it impermissibly

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 186 of 445 excluded certain kilns. However, at proposal , we asked for comment on this approach and requested additional da ta to support this approach , and w e did not receive any such additional data
. In addition, some of the test data for sources with FF

- based APCD could not be used in the final rulemaking because it was discovered that the testing was not carried out in acco rdance with the appropriate test method. Therefore, we can no longer assert that we have emissions data for all BSCP kilns with FF

- based APCD
. Thus, the EPA did not use the approach challenged by the commenter to establish the MACT floors in the final rule. The EPA has amended the approach to developing PM surrogate MACT floors for reasons explained in section IV .A.1 of this preamble , so these comments are now moot. However, the EPA still believes the approach to identify the best performing sources has merit. When the EPA has data on every single controlled source in the category, and these data support that these sources are the best performing , then basing the MACT floor on the top 12 percent of the total number of sources is appropriate. b . Equivalen t L imits
**Comment :**  One c ommenter stated that , in addition to the lb/ton MACT floors for emissions of Hg and PM (as a surrogate

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 187 of 445 for non - Hg HAP metals ) , the EPA developed two “ equivalent limits
. ” The EPA used its ranking of the sources based on their

“ average ” lb/ton emissions to identify the best performing source or sources for the floor pool. To develop the PM and Hg

“ equivalent ” limits, the EPA took the best performing source or sources the EPA had selected and retrieved data on those

sources ’ emission per formance as measured by gr/dscf at 7

- percent O 2 

## for PM and Hg and lb/hr for Hg. F or non - Hg HAP metals , the EPA proposed to set an additional standard that would limit the pounds of non

- Hg HAP metals emitted per hour. For this additional limit, the EPA aga in used the ranking of the sources based on their “ average ” lb/ton emissions and also (without any explanation) no longer used PM as a surrogate for non

- Hg HAP metals, but instead set the limit in terms of total non

- Hg HAP metals. The commenter stated that the EPA acknowledged that the available data on non

- Hg HAP metals is incomplete , so to develop this proposed limit , the EPA simply took the final pounds of PM per ton of fired product floor limit that it had derived and applied a set of “ conversion factor s ” it invented to put that standard in terms of pounds of non

- Hg HAP metal emissions per hour. The commenter stated the EPA used completely different

“ conversion ” methodologies for the new and existing standards

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 188 of 445 because the EPA lacks even the limited data it used for the existing source methodology on new sources. The co mmenter stated the “ equivalent ” limits the EPA proposed are not “ equivalent ” and Congress did not give the EPA the authority to set multiple limits and allow sources to comply with whichever limit they choose. The commenter stated the EPA ’ s use of different measures of performance to identify the top sources on the one hand and to evaluate their performance on the other is inconsistent, irrational, and unexplained; the same metric should appl y for purposes of identifying the best performers and identifying those sources ’ actual performance. The commenter also stated the EPA did not use the best performing 12 percent of existing sources “ for which the Administrator has emissions information ” for the non

- Hg HAP metals lb/hr limit. Another c ommenter supported the EPA ’ s inclusion of multiple formats for both PM/non

- Hg HAP metals and Hg . The commenter stated that the inclusion of each of these formats, as well as the inclusion of small and large kiln subcategories, provides needed flexibility to numerous BSCP facilities, including a large number of small businesses, to find that standard that best suits their operations while still ensuring that the CAA requirements are met. The commenter asserted that the inclusion

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 189 of 445 of three alternate compliance formats is so critical to the development of this standard that the EPA must re

- propose this rule if it maintains numeric limits but deletes any of these alternative formats for the final rule
. **Response:** Th e EPA appreciates all comments regarding t he alternat iv e limits. The EPA is retaining the alternat iv e limits in the final rule but is revising the ranking methodology as described in section IV.A.2 of this preamble . For the final rule, the concentration fl oor is based on the ranking of the concentration data , and the lb/hr floor is based on the ranking of the lb/hr data. Each floor is based on the best performing units for that unit of measurement.

c . O xygen C orrectio n **Comment :**  One c ommenter stated, regarding the concentration compliance limits, that the use of the equation to correct measured concentrations to 7

- percent O 2 

## could be problematic when used to correct concentrations measured in stacks with high O 2 

## content, which is typical of the brick industry. The c ommenter stated because the correction term is in the denominator of the equation for the correction to 7

- percent O 2 

## , the overall correction factor increases exponentially as O 2 

## concentrations approach 20.9 percent . As a result, any variance s in the O 2 

## measurement are greatly magnified in the correction factor for

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 190 of 445 kilns with high stack O 2 

## content. The commenter suggested that the correction factor should be the average O 2 

## content represent ed in the respective floors, 17

- percent O 2 

## (based on a range of O 2 

## stack content s for BSCP kilns from 13 to 20 percent ). The commenter asserted that the correction to an average of 17

- percent will minimize the artificial inflation of the results for the industry. **Response:** The EPA evaluated the O 2 

## content of the run - by

- run datasets of PM and Hg for BSCP tunnel kilns as described in section IV.A.1 of this preamble and agrees that correcting concentration data to 17

- percent O 2 

## rather than 7

- percent, as proposed, provides more representative values of kilns’
ope rating conditions and would not artificially inflate the values
. For the final rule, t he EPA has taken the O 2 

## percent analysis into consideration and revised the equivalent concentration based limits to be developed from 17

- percent O 2 

## - corrected concentrat ion data
. 2 . Startup and Shutdown
**Comment:** Numerous commenters supported the use of work practice standards for periods of startup and shutdown but asserted that the startup and shutdown procedures listed in the proposed rule cannot be met by all BSCP kiln s an d must be modified. Commenters requested that the final language allow a

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 191 of 445 more basic construct for the work practice requirements in the final rule and require facilities to develop site

- specific temperatures as part of their permitting process. Multipl e commenters specifically stated that the requirement for an exhaust temperature of 400 °F at startup is not workable because the kiln exhaust temperature in some kilns never reaches 400 °F. C ommenters also noted that kilns must have
pro duct at startup. Th erefore, commenter s requested that the startup provisions apply to the introduction, or charging, of new brick or structural clay product through a kiln and not impact the initial staging of kiln cars in a kiln b efore start

up. C ommenters suggested revisio ns to the proposed language to

“ not put any bricks into the kiln ” below specifi ed temperatures. Multiple commenters agreed with the language that requires a kiln to vent to an APCD before the exhaust gas reaches 400 ° F, because it can vent at any time up t o that te mperature. Multiple
commenters stated that for a controlled kiln, it is acceptable to require that no new product is allowed to be introduced to the controlled kiln until the kiln is vented to an APCD. One
commenter stated that a feasible work pra ctice standard would be for the exhaust gases to be vented through the APCD during the startup process, with the reagent feed started on an intermittent basis during this period and then brought up to

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 192 of 445 full feed rate once the exhaust temperature has reached the normal operating temperature range. A few commenters also requested specific revisions to the production requirements for peri ods of shutdown. One commenter stated that during shutdown, a kiln operator would not be pushing any cars in the kiln after r eaching a range of 250 to 300 °F in the exhaust stack (depending on the type of kiln and its operating parameters). The commenter asked that a minimum operating range be allowed during a shut down cycle. Another
commenter noted that a limitation for a kiln to cease charging in new product before a kiln stops venting to an APCD may be a reasonable alternative to temperature requirements. **Response:** The EPA evaluated the comments and additional information received following proposal as described in section IV.A.4 of this preamble. As a result , the EPA has revised the work practice standards for periods of startup and shutdown for BSCP tunnel kilns to provide requirements that are more representative of the best performing kil ns. Specifically, instead of defining the minimum inlet APCD temperature as 400 °F, the EPA is requiring the owner or operator to determine the minimum inlet temperature for each APCD. If a kiln does not have an APCD, the owner or operator is required to d etermine the product

- specific kiln temperature profile that must be achieved

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 193 of 445 before the kiln can reach full production. In addition, instead of specifying that no product can be introduced to the kiln during startup, the EPA is requiring the owner or opera tor to determine the production rate needed to start up the kiln. The final startup standards specify that this startup production rate cannot be exceeded until the kiln exhaust reaches the APCD minimum inlet temperature or the product

- specific kiln temper ature profile, whichever is applicable. The final shutdown standards specify that no additional product can be introduced once the kiln exhaust falls below the APCD minimum inlet temperature or the product

- specific kiln temperature profile, whichever is ap plicable.
C
. Clay Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP
1
. Authority
**Comment:** Two c ommenters argued that the EPA has no legal authority to finalize major source NESHAP for the ceramic tile manufacturing industry 104 

## because there are currently no existing major sourc es in that industry sector that will be subject to the standards. Specifically, they argue d that CAA s ection 112(d)(1) only provides the EPA authority to regulate a category

104 

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

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 194 of 445 or subcategory if it has major sources. Commenters contend ed that, here, c eramic tile manufacturing facilities that emit HAP have all become synthetic area sources and so are subject to the

“ area source ” NESHAP regulation. Thus, they argue, the l aw does
not a llow the EPA to proceed with a major source standard for these subcateg ories. Both c ommenters also stated that the CAA does not give the EPA the authority to regulate “ just

- in

- case ” there is a major source in the future , and th e EPA may only regulate categories and subcategories that currently have major sources in them.
One c ommenter stated that the EPA should not devote resources to finalizing these regulations when those regulations would apply to no one , and , thus , will have no environmental benefits. The commenter stated that it is the EPA ’ s duty to responsibly steward th e public resources with which it has been entrusted to use in fulfillment of its mission , and using t hese resources to issu e regulations that will regulate no one fails to satisfy that responsibility. Issuing such regulations is expensive for the regulated community and has the real potential to create unintended, inaccurate impressions of the industry, its emissions and its products. It serves no public purpose, and will impose short and long term costs on the EPA, and long term

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 195 of 445 costs on delegated states a s an unfunded mandate and on the tile manufacturing industry, 79 FR 75671 (Dec. 18, 2014). The c ommenter argued that , because the EPA ’ s promulgation of standards for the ceramic tile industry is not authorized by the CAA , finalizing such standards would violate Articles I and II of the U.S. Constitution because it is an attempt by the EPA to rewrite portions of the CAA when the power to enact laws is reserved to Congress
. The commenter stated that Congress provided clear instructions to the EPA, in the un ambiguous numerical definition of “ major source, ” as to which industry categories or subcategories could be regulated by major source NESHAP standards. The commenter noted that the Supreme Court very recently stated: “ An agency may not rewrite clear statut ory terms to suit its own sense of how the statute should operate. ” Util. Air Regulatory Grp. v. EPA , 134 S.Ct. 2427 , 2446 (2014). Further, the Court stated : “ We are not willing to stand on the dock and wave goodbye as EPA embarks on a multiyear voyage of discovery. ” 134 S.Ct. at 2446
. The commenter asserted that t he Supreme Court ’ s concerns in the U ARG case are instructive here because, as in the UARG case, the statute creates unambiguous numeric thresholds defining a major source : the emission of 10 tpy a ny one HAP or the emission of 25 tpy in the aggregate of all HAP , 42 U.S.C. 9612(a)(l)
. The commenter

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 196 of 445 contend ed that the Supreme Court supported the commenter ’ s position when it stated that “ [i]t is hard to imagine a statutory term less ambiguous than the pr ecise numerical thresholds...” Id . at 2445. The c ommenter argued that the Sierra Club c onsent d ecree is irrelevant to the EPA ’ s statutory authority and its limitations. The c onsent d ecree entered in the case of Sierra Club v. EPA , 850 F.2d 300 (D.D.C. 2012) (hereafter the “ c onsent d ecree ” ) is germane to the timing of this rulemaking, but it does not, and legally could not, expand CAA section 112(d) to grant the EPA legal authority to regulate on the just

- in

- case basis the EPA has proposed. The withdrawal of the proposed NESHAP does not preclude the EPA from meeting its statutory obligations, fulfilling the requirements of the c onsent d ecree, and continuing its existing precedent. The EPA may issue final NESHAP for those subcategori es within this category in which a major source exists. The ceramic tile manufacturing industry is not among them. The c ommenter argued that the proposed NESHAP would, if finalized as proposed, be arbitrary and capricious because t he proposed NESHAP is bas ed on hypothetical or imaginary manufacturing and air emissions control strategies, flawed data from an i nvalidated stack test method, and on statistically

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 197 of 445 created emissions data. The EPA even proposed in places not to use actual emissions data. According to the commenter, the EPA ’ s proposal, if finalized, would create an economic hurdle so high that no one in the industry would expand their business to the point of becoming a NESHAP major source. Further, a substantial number of these entities meet the def inition of a “ small business ” as defined by the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) . The result of this regulation, if finalized, would be to hand non

market

- based economic advantages to foreign producers to grow their presence in the U.S. market by i mporting their competing ceramic tile. Financing of capital projects will be adversely affected by the costs imposed by the NESHAP, further raising the economic hurdle. Major source domestic manufacturing capacity will not be built, and the jobs and tax ba se that go along with that capacity will not be created. **Response:** Under CAA section 112(c)(1), the EPA first lists all categories and subcategories of major sources. It is at this first step that the EPA determines that a given category or subcategory contains major sources of HAP. Then, the EPA sets standards for those listed categories and source categories. Both CAA section 112(c)(2) and CAA section 112(d)(1) make clear that the EPA is to regulate a ll listed categories and

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 198 of 445 subcategories. As CAA section 112(c)(2) states: “ For the categories and subcategories the Administrator lists, the Administrator shall establish standards
... ” As CAA section 112(d)(1) states: “ The Administrator shall promulgate
reg ulations establishing emissions standards for each category and subcategory of major sources and area sources of hazardous air pollutants listed for regulation pursuant to subsection (c) of this section
.. . ” In short, once a category or subcategory of major sources is listed under CAA section 112(c), it must be regulated. If commenters believe that the major source ceramic tile subcategories should not be regulated, they may seek to delete these subcategories from the list, which is a process that Congress e stablished in CAA section 112(c)(9) and which the D.C. Circuit has held is the EPA ’ s sole authority for removing a listed category or subcategory from the list. New Jersey v. EPA , 517 F.3d 574, 581

- 583 ( D.C. Cir. 2008)
. In interpreting the relevant provisi ons here, the EPA is mindful of the recent and longstanding instructions from the Supreme Court that statutory provisions must be read to further rather than undermine Congress ’ s statutory intent
. King v Burwell , 2015 U.S. Lexis 4248, *29 (2015)( “ We cannot interpret federal statutes to negate their own stated purposes. ” )(citing and quoting New York State Dept. of Social Servs. v. Dublino ,

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 199 of 445 413 U. S. 405, 419

- 420, 93 S. Ct. 2507, 37 L. Ed. 2d 688 (1973) ); E.I. Du Pont De Nemours v. Train , 430 U.S. 112, 132 (1977) ( “ We cannot, in these circumstances, conclude that Congress has given authority inadequate to achieve with reasonable effectiveness the purposes for which it has acted. ” ) (quoting Permian Basin Area Rate Cases, 390 U.S. 747, 777 (1968)). In this conte xt, it is unreasonable to read CAA section 112(d)(1) as limiting the EPA ’ s authority to set standards that will be applicable to the highest emitting sources in a category or subcategory and creating a loophole by which major sources can evade regulation. Without suggesting that the following is the commenters ’ intent, the effect of the
comment e rs ’ interpretation of CAA section 112 would be that major sources would be able to evade regulation by, first, becoming synthetic area sources during the rulemaking process (which, under the commenters ’ view, would preclude the EPA from finalizing standards for major sources) and then, after the EPA withdraws the proposed standards, reconverting to be major sources and thus not subject to any standard. Consideration o f this scenario is particularly appropriate in the circumstances here, because there are standards in place for area sources in the ceramic tile subcategories. It is not reasonable to interpret CAA section 112 to create a structure where an area

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 200 of 445 source (wh ether a natural area source or a synthetic area source) has an incentive to increase emissions to become a major source, and by doing so is no longer subject to emissions limitations. Further, the issue of whether there are major sources in the ceramic til e subcategories is not as clear as the commenters presume. Even if, as the commenters contend, all of the existing major sources in these subcategories have successfully completed the process of becoming synthetic area sources, then these
sources are not s ubject to the requirements imposed on major sources but that does not equate to a conclusion that they are no longer major sources in any respect. The EPA ’ s view is that synthetic area sources, though subject to area source requirements rather than major s ource requirements, are still major sources in certain respects. For example, synthetic area sources are considered to be major sources when the EPA identifies the best performing major sources as part of a MACT floor calculation under CAA section 112(d)
. Further, CAA s ection 112(a) (1) defines a major source as “ any stationary source or group of stationary sources located within a contiguous area and under common control that emits or has the potential to emit considering controls, in the aggregate, 10 tons per year or more of any hazardous air pollutant or 25 tons per year or more of

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 201 of 445 any combination of hazardous air pollutants .” T he reference to a
source's “ potential to emit considering controls ” in this definition allows the interpretation that a source's potential to emit before and after controls is relevant, such that synthetic area sources may be considered within the meaning of this definition
. With respect to the commenter ’ s argument that CAA section 112 does no t authorize “ just in case ” regulation, that is both not correct and off point. First, CAA section 112 clearly provides that the EPA will set standards for new sources in the listed categories and subcategories notwithstanding that the EPA can never know whether there will actually be any new sources. As required under CAA section 112, the EPA establishes new source standards “ just in case ” (to use commenter ’ s phrasing) new sources come into existence. Second, as discussed above, it is reasonable for the EPA to promulgate major sourc e standards whe re, as here, there are synthetic area sources that could revert to major sources just in case that happens. With respect to the commenters ’ argument that it is a poor use of agency resources for the EPA to finalize standards for the ceramic tile subcategories, the EPA has considered whether it is better to complete the current rulemaking with respect to the ceramic tile subcategories (and have them in place in the

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 202 of 445 event that there are new major sources or a synthetic area
source reverts to ma jor source status) or to take no action now and re

- do this rulemaking with respect to these subcategories in the event that there are major sources in the future. The EPA ’ s conclusion is that, having gotten this far along in the rulemaking process, it is a better use of agency resources to finalize requirements for the ceramic tile subcategories now. Given the options, finalizing these requirements in this rulemaking requires only a modest amount of additional resources, and is a much more efficient use of agency resources than restarting and repeating the rulemaking process at some point in the future. Even if one considers that there may not be any major sources that become subject to these requirements and that such a rulemaking might not ever be done, th e EPA ’ s judgment is still that it is more efficient and a more cost

effective use of agency resources to finalize these requirements now. Finally, on the issue of how likely it is that major sources will be built in the future, the EPA notes that the

comme nters ’ own arguments suggest they will be. Specifically, the commenters state d that having a major source standard in place will dissuade companies from expanding small facilities into major sources and will impede financing for new major

sources . T he prem ise of such a comment is that, in the absence

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 203 of 445 of a standard, there will be such expansions and new major

sources. The document “National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Clay Ceramics Manufacturing: Background Information for Final Rule

- Summary of Public Comments and Responses” in Docket ID No. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2013

- 0290 addresses additional comments on this topic.
**Comment:** According to one commenter, the EPA failed to demonstrate that the benefits of this proposed arbitrary and capricious NE SHAP justify the costs. As stated in Executive Order 13563, “ Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, ” issued by President Obama on January 18, 2011 to reaffirm Executive Order 12866, “ [e]ach agency must ... propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination that its benefits justify its costs
. ” The preamble to the proposed NESHAP provides cost information (which the commenter noted elsewhere is erroneous) but did not discuss the benefits. T he EPA only articulate d the benefits of the BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP. With respect to costs, the EPA ’ s cost analysis fail ed to account for costs to the a gency and delegated states to promulgat e and implement the regulations. There are no benefits to justi fy any of these costs. Further, “ [i]n deciding whether and how to regulate, agencies should assess all costs and benefits of

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 204 of 445 available regulatory alternatives, including the alternative of not regulating
. ” The EPA did not assess the alternative of not
regu lating

– a path that would have exactly the same result, as there are no major sources to be regulated or not regulated. Therefore, the commenter stated that the EPA failed to meet its burden ; the proposed NESHAP does not have benefits justifying its costs , and therefore such a regulation cannot be adopted. **Response:** We disagree with the commenter. First, CAA section 112 clearly states that the EPA is obligated to regulate emissions of HAP from listed source categories . There is no benefits test in the stat utory requirement. The language in Executive Order 12866 does not supersede a clear legal requirement in the CAA. Second, because there are no major

sources that will be regulated by this rule at the present time, there will be no implementation costs for the rule. If at a later date a major source is constructed, or a non

- major source becomes major, then there will be implementation costs, but this rule will result in emission reduction requirements compared to the emissions that would be expected to occur in the absence of a rule. Therefore, at the point where this rule actually results in costs, it will also have corresponding benefits. In the absence of any current major sources that will be covered by this rule , we simply cannot calculate the benefits.

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 205 of 445 2 . MACT Floors
**Comment:** One c ommenter disagreed with the inclusion of emissions data from Kohler’s South Carolina facility tunnel kiln with the wet scrubber in the sanitaryware tunnel kiln existing source data pool for MACT floor determination. The commenter stated that Kohler installed a new tunnel kiln at the South Carolina facility in 2005 under the Clay Ceramics Manufacturing
NESHAP promulgated in 2003 , which , according to the commenter , required the installation of APCD on any new first

- fire tunnel kilns to meet the HF and HCl emission limitations. The APCD that Kohler installed , a wet scrubber , was written into the facility ’ s air permit at the time, and so its use at that time

was federally enforceable . The court vacated the Clay Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP in 2007, and t he South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control revised the facility ’ s air permit in March 2009, removing any reference to the Clay Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP and any requirement to operate the scrubber. Kohler then permanently shut down the scrubber in March 2009, though they continued to operate the tunnel kiln per permit requirements. Due to cost considerations, the scrubber

was abandoned in place and not demolished/removed. The co mmenter noted that, when the EPA issued the information collection request ( ICR ) for clay ceramics emissions

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 206 of 445 test data in 2010, the EPA required that Kohler make operational that wet scrubber for emissions testing of that tunnel kiln, even though the APCD was not listed in any permit nor required under any rule and had n o t been operated in 17 months. Initially, Kohler agreed to test the kiln as an existing source per operational requirements in the facility ’ s air permit ( i.e. , without the wet scrubber). Ho wever, the EPA demanded that Kohler restart and operate the abandoned scrubber during the kiln ’ s emissions testing. The commenter noted that Kohler cooperated with the EPA and tested emissions with the scrubber operating, but the scrubber was immediately s hut down after testing. This scrubber has operated for a total of 1 week in the past 6 years, and that short period of operation was only to comply with the
EPA ’ s ICR testing demand. The c ommenter acknowledged that the EPA has the authority require operat ion of any permitted source for emissions testing under rulemaking and ICR protocol. The commenter agreed with the EPA that the “ kiln ” in question is an existing source but disagreed that the non - operating wet scrubber qualifies as part of an existing sour ce. The commenter contended that the EPA is arbitrarily penalizing Kohler for not spending the money to demolish and remove the wet scrubber back in 2009 when it was removed from the facility ’s air permit. T he commenter asserted

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 207 of 445 that t he test data from the wet scrubber are not representative of any existing source and were not actually achieved in practice over time
. The refore, using the test data in the MACT floor analysis is inconsistent with the EPA’s expressed intent to determine MACT floors for existing sources based on the average emissions actually achieved in practice by the best performing sources with consideration for variability in emissions over time. T he commenter asserted that all emissions data from the wet scrubber should be excluded from the existing source data pool for MACT floor analysis, and the existing source floors should be recalculated for the remaining existing

sources. **Response:** Data from th e APCD the commenter refers to was considered in developing both the new and existin g MACT floors for sanitaryware kilns. As stated by the commenter, the APCD was installed to comply with the previously promulgated C lay
C eramics Manufacturing NESHAP and thus was an available data point for collection through the CAA section 114 data colle ction process for this rulemaking. Because this source had an operational APCD (even though it was not being operated) , we believe that testing with the APCD operating would be most representative of the source’s best performance as defined in the CAA. Hav ing collected the emissions data for the source with

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 208 of 445 the APCD operating, the EPA consider ed the data consistent with section 112(d)(3)(B) of the CAA, under which the Administrator is required to calculate “the average emission limitation achieved by the be st performing 5 sources (for which the Administrator has or could reasonably obtain emissions information) in the category or subcategory for categories or subcategories with fewer than 30 sources.” Since it is appropriate to include the data in the databa se available to determine MACT floors, it is appropriate to use these data in floor calculations, if it is actually part of the best performing facilities. We note, h owever, that the data from this device was only significant for the existing source dioxin /furan MACT floor, for reasons that are dependent on each regulated pollutant and discussed as follows. For both new and existing PM MACT floors, the final limit was unaffected by use of these data, since the data from the
APCD was not ranked in the top five sources with data. For both new and existing Hg MACT floors, the data from the
APCD were not ranked because the data w ere invalidated. The data

were removed from the dataset because of errors in the analytical procedures surrounding the digestion proc ess as dictated by Method 29. See Section 4.1: Analytical discrepancy of the Test Report “Kohler Co., Spartanburg, SC: Tunnel Kilns

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 209 of 445 and Glaze Spray Booths 08/11

- 17/2010 Stack Test,” Doc ket Item
No. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2013

- 0290

- 0069. For dioxin/furan, the data from the APCD are in the top five but is not the best performing unit based on the dioxin/furan ng/kg ranking. (Note the units of measure for dioxin/furan ranking have changed from the proposed ng/dscm at 7

- percent O 2 

## to ng/kg.) For the existing source floor, the result of the calculation of the best performing five sources is 3.3 ng/kg with the data point, and would have been 4.0 ng/kg without the data point, which we consider a nominal difference. The difference does not result in any source having to add

con trols. The calculation of the new source floor was not affected by the data from the APCD because, as stated above, the source was not the best performing unit, and the new source floor is based on the best performing unit.
**Comment:** Three commenters questi oned EPA's decision to propose the dioxin/furan emission limits for ceramic tile manufacturing and sanitaryware manufacturing in concentration format only. Two commenters stated that the final dioxin/furan standards should provide the option to comply with a limitation expressed in units of nanograms per milligram of tile produced, in addition to or in lieu of the proposed standard stated in ng/dscm. A mass

- based production

- related standard effectively

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 210 of 445 removed the issues around O 2 

## correction created by use of a standard based only on concentration . Further, the commenters asserted that it is a more universally appropriate adjustment for comparison of emissions from large kilns having high air flow rates to emissions from small kilns with low air volumes. The third commenter agreed and noted that the proposed limits for PM and Hg are expressed as lb/ton fired product. The commenter asked EPA to explain how the concentration format for the emission limit is more appropriate for dioxins/furans than a

mass throughput limit
. If it is not, the commenter suggested using a mass throughput format for the dioxin/furan emission limit. **Response:** The dioxin/furan limits provided in the final rule for clay ceramics are in units of ng TEQ /kg of throughput fired or processed. The EPA agrees that this change in format eliminates the questions surrounding the O 2 

## correction for concentration values and is more consistent with the other units of measure provided in the Clay Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP
. To demonstrate c ompliance with the limits, the owner or operator will determine the mass TEQ for each test run (using the toxic equivalency factors in Table 5 to s ubpart KKKKK ), divide the mass TEQ by the production rate during the test run, and average the test runs.

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 211 of 445 The production

- based dioxin/furan limits are provided in lieu of the proposed concentration limits. The compliance flexibility provided to the BSCP Manufacturing source category (including alternative compliance options for PM and Hg ) was solely related to co ncerns under the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) , specifically reducing the regulatory burden of the numerous small entities in the BSCP category . There are no small businesses expected to be subject to the C lay Ceramics Manufac turing NESHAP , so the EPA determined that no additional compliance flexibility was necessary or warranted for the C lay C eramics Manufacturing s ource category
. 3 . Startup and Shutdown
**Comment:** One c ommenter challenged the proposed startup and shutdown regulations for ceramic tile manufacturing. The
commenter asserted that these standards are based conceptually on the desire to minimize the time during which ceramic tile manufacturing process units operate in a temperature range that is “ conducive ” to the formation of new dioxins/furans ( i.e. , 200

- 450 degrees Celsius ) . The commenter stated that this concern is moot because there are no new dioxins/furans formed in th e ceramic tile industry sector , based on the emissions data the EPA proposed to use to set MACT floors for ceramic tile sources and on the fact that ceramic tile dioxin/furan congener profile s

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 212 of 445 are different from the profile of the dioxins/furans created as a product of combustion
. The c ommenter also challenged the EPA ’ s startup and shutdown proposal for spray dryers relative to dioxins/furans
. The input to the spray dryer experiences no more than 212 ° F because the operational purpose of the spray dryer is to cause the excess moisture suspended or at tached to the ball clay matrix to evaporate. If any spray dryer operating temperature is relevant to the EPA ’ s concern about temperatures in a spray dryer conducive to dioxin/furan formation, this is the correct focus
. F or ceramic tile floor tile and wall tile roller kilns , the commenter stated that t he proposed temperature requirements for startup and shutdown reflect good kiln production practices ; therefore, t he propos ed startup and shutdown standards are
unnecessary. The commenter noted that the standar ds are based only on data from the BSCP subcategory , and the proposed temperatures are not appropriate for all sources
. For example, ceramic t ile dryers uniformly operate below 400 ° F, so product could never be introduced to a tile dryer . The commenter als o noted that the startup provisions require startup of APCD at 400 ° F. However,

c eramic tile dryers do not have APCD because they burn only

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 213 of 445 natural gas, their normal operating temperature is less than 400

° F, and their resulting emissions are minimal . For these reasons, t he proposal effectively constitutes a ban on the operation of tile dryers. If tile dryers are not an available manufacturing process, ceramic tile manufacturing as it is currently conducted in the United States would effectively cease
at ma jor sources. The commenter stated that the EPA lacks the legal authority to implement a de facto shut down of major sources, or to bar the possibility of the proposal of a major source, in this industry
. For all the above reasons, the c ommenter asserted th at the
EPA must withdraw the startup and shutdown proposal from any final NESHAP for this subcategory. The commenter contended that,

as proposed , these standards are arbitrary and capricious
. **Response:** The CAA requires that NESHAP emissions limitations und er section 112 must apply continuously, including during periods of startup and shutdown. As noted in the preamble to the proposed rule, we recognize that it is not feasible to conduct emission testing during periods of startup and shutdown ; therefore, own ers and operators would be unable to demonstrate compliance with the final numeric MACT standards during those periods. Therefore, the EPA is finalizing work practice standards for periods of startup or shutdown to ensure that the

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 214 of 445 Clay Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP includes continuous CAA section 112

- compliant standards. The commenter is correct that the specific startup and shutdown work practice standards proposed were based on information from the BSCP industry. In absence of any data on speci fic startup and shutdown procedures from the clay ceramics
CAA section 114 survey, the EPA used the only data available for a similar industry. The EPA has not received any additional information from clay ceramics manufacturers on specific procedures, and in light of that lack of data, the EPA maintains that the less prescriptive startup and shutdown work practices being finalized for the BSCP industry are appropriate for the clay ceramics industry. First, one of the commenter ’ s main points is that the spe cific temperatures that were proposed are not appropriate for all the types of units to which the standards were proposed to apply, which is consistent with comments received on the BSCP proposal. Second, the commenter did note that the proposed standards reflect good kiln production practices for one type of process unit for which the specific temperature was appropriate . Therefore, the EPA is finalizing work practice standards that are based on best practices but are less prescriptive than the proposed st andards.

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 215 of 445 As a final note, the EPA is clarifying in this response that the startup and shutdown standards are not intended to minimize only emissions of dioxins/furans. Instead, the standards are intended to minimize emissions of all pollutants by limiting the amount of throughput being processed before the unit reaches full production and limiting the amount of time the exhaust is not being routed to the APCD, if applicable. In addition, the proposed startup and shutdown work practice requirements did not r equire the use of an APCD, nor do the final standards. The standards only specify the requirements for routing exhaust to an APCD if one is present. The EPA has reviewed the language in the final rule to ensure the standards are clear. **VI. Summary of the C**  **ost, Environmental, Energy**  **and Economic**  **Impacts**
A. What are the cost and emission s reduction impacts? Table 8 of this preamble illustrates the costs and emissions reductions for existing sources under the final BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP and final Clay Ceramics Manufacturing
NESHAP
. The costs include the cost s of installing APCD as well as the costs for the testing and monitoring needed to demonstrate compliance.

**T ABLE**  

## 8 **. S**  **UMMARY OF** 

## C **OSTS AND** 

## E **MISSIONS** 

## R **EDUCTIONS FOR** 

## BSCP **AND** 

## C **LAY** 

## C **ERAMICS** 

## E **XISTING** 

## S **OURCES A**  

## (2011 **DOLLARS** 

## )

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 216 of 445
**Cost ( million**  **) Emissions reductions (tpy)** 

**Industry Capital**  **Annual HF**  **HCl Cl**  **2** 

### Non **- Hg**  **HAP metals**  **b** 

### Hg **PM PM**  **2.5 c**  

### SO **2** 

### BSCP $ 64
. 6 $ 24
. 6 344 2 2
. 1 2.0 4 7
. 08 0.0 733 643 309 2 0 5 Clay Ceramics $0. 2 67 $0.0 924 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 c apital and annual costs of the APCD , testing, and monitoring needed to comply with the final BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP are expected to total $ 64
. 6 million and $ 24
. 6 million, respectively (2011 dollars) . The nationwi de HAP emissions reductions achieved under the final BSCP Manufacturing
NESHAP are expected to total 375 tpy. The methodology used to estimate the nationwide costs and emissions reductions of the final BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP is presented in the technica l memorand a titled “ Development of Cost and Emission Reduction Impacts for the Final BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP ” and “ Monitoring and Testing Requirements and Costs for the Final BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP ” in D ocket I D No. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2013

- 029 1
. It is anticipated that all sanitaryware emission points will meet the MACT floor emission limits in the final Clay Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP , so no emission control costs or emissions reductions are expected for these sources. However, these facilities are expected to incur $92,400 annually in

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 217 of 445 monitoring and testing costs to demonstrate compliance with the final Clay Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP
. These costs are documented in the technical memorandum titled , “ Monitoring and Testing Requirements and Cos ts for the Final Clay Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP ” in Docket I D No. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2013

- 0290
. There are no major sources producing ceramic floor tile or ceramic wall tile. The five facilities that were major 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 tile facilities will be subject to the provisions of the Clay Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP , which means that no costs or emissions reduct ions are expected for tile affected sources under the final Clay Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP
. B. What are the secondary impacts? Table 9 of this preamble illustrates the secondary impacts for existing sources under the BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP and Clay Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP
.
**T ABLE**  

## 9 **. S**  **UMMARY OF** 

## S **ECONDARY** 

## I **MPACTS FOR** 

## BSCP **AND** 

## C **LAY** 

## C **ERAMICS** 

## E **XISTING** 

## S **OURCES a** 



### Industry **Secondary air emissions (tpy) Energy**  **impacts (MMBtu/yr)**  **Solid waste impacts** 

**(tpy) PM**  **PM 2.5**  

### CO **NO X**  

### SO **2** 

### CO **2** 

### BSCP 3.40 1.14 5.74 45.6 133 27,900 461 ,000 5,210 Clay Ceramics 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

a 

### CO = carbon monoxide ; CO 2 

### = carbon dioxide; MMBtu/yr = million British thermal units per year .

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 218 of 445

The relevant secondary impacts that were evaluated for the
BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP and Clay Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP include secondary air emissions, energy impacts and solid waste impacts. Indirect or secondary air emissions are impacts that result from the increased electricity usage associated with the operation of APCD to meet the promulga t ed 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 th at is disposed of as waste (not reused or recycled). Under the final BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP , the n ationwide secondary emissions of the criteria pollutants PM, CO, NO X 

## and
SO 2 

## are expected to total 188 tpy , and secondary emissions of the greenhouse gas p ollutant CO 2 

## are expected to total 27,900 tpy, with energy impacts of 461 ,000 MM Btu/yr and solid waste impacts of 5 , 21 0 tpy
. T he methodology used to estimate the nationwide secondary impacts of the final BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP is presented in the technical memorandum , “ Development of Cost and Emission Reduction Impacts for the Final BSCP Manufacturing
NESHAP ” in D ocket ID No. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2013

- 029 1
.

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 2 19 of 445 As noted in the previous section, it is anticipated that all sanitaryware emission points will meet th e MACT floor emission limits in the Clay Ceramics Manufacturing final rule, so there are no secondary impacts expected for these sources. There are no major sources producing ceramic floor tile or ceramic wall tile. The 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 Manufact uring NESHAP , which means that no secondary impacts are expected for ceramic tile affected sources under the final Clay Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP
. C. What are the economic impacts? For the BSCP Manufacturing source category , t he average national brick price under the promulgated standards increases by 1. 8 percent or $ 4.37 per 1,000 S tandard Brick Equivalent (S BE ) (2011 dollars) , while overall domestic production falls by 1. 5 percent or 52 million bricks per year. Under the promulgated standards, the EPA estimated that two to four BSCP manufacturing facilities are at significant risk of closure. Based on the results of the small entity screening analysis for BSCP Manufacturing , the EPA concluded that it is not able to

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 220 of 445 certify that the BSCP Manufacturing N ESHAP will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities . As a result, the EPA initiated a Small Business Advocacy Review ( SBAR ) 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 (for testing, monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting)
. That affected company is not a small business. The compliance costs are less than 0. 00 2 percent of sales for the affected company . Hence, the economic impact for compliance is minimal. As noted above, there are no major sources producing ceramic floor tile or ceramic wall tile. Because no small firms face significant control costs, there is no significant impact on small ent ities. Thus , the Clay Ceramics Manufacturing regulation is not expected to have significant impact on a substantial number of small entities
. For more information on the benefits analysis and market analyses , please refer to the Regulatory Impact Analysis ( RIA ) for th e BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP , “ Regulatory Impact Analysis: Final 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 221 of 445
D. What are the benefits? Emission controls installed to meet the requirements of this rule will generate benefits by reducing emissions of HAP as well as criteria pollutants and their precursors, NO X 

## and SO 2 

## . Sulfur dioxide and NO X 

## are precursors to PM 2.5 

## , and NO X 

## is a precursor to ozo ne. The criteria pollutant benefits are considered co

- benefits for this rule. For this rule, we were only able to quantify the health co

- benefits associated with reduced exposure to PM 2.5 

## from changes in emission s directly emitted PM 2.5 

## , SO 2 

## , and NO X 

## . We estimate the monetized co

- benefits of the BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP in 2018 to be $ 8 3 million to $1 9 0 million (2011 dollars) at a 3

- percent discount rate and $ 7 5 million to $1 7 0 million (2011 dollars) at a 7

- percent discount
rate , not including consideration of energy disbenefits . Using alternate relationships between PM 2.5 

## and premature mortality supplied by experts, higher and lower co

- benefits estimates are plausible, but most of the expert

- based estimates fall between these two estimates. 105 

## A summary of the emission reduction and monetized co

- b enefits estimates for this BSCP Manufacturing
NESHAP at discount rates of 3 percent and 7 percent is illustrated in Table 10 of this preamble.

105 

### Roman, et al. , 2008. “ Expert Judgment Assessment of the Mortality Impact of Changes in Ambient Fine Particulate Matter in the U.S., ” Environ. Sci. Technol. , 42, 7, 2268

– 2274.

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 222 of 445
**T ABLE**  

## 10 **. S**  **UMMARY OF THE** 

## M **ONETIZED** 

## PM **2.5** 

## C **O** 

## - **B ENEFITS FOR**  **THE** 

## BSCP **M**

**ANUFACTURING** 

## NESHAP **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 

### 308 $8 3 to $ 1 9 0 $7 5 to $1 7 0
PM 2.5 

### precursors SO 2 

### 72 $2.9 to $6.6 $2.6 to $6.0 NO X c



### - 46

- $0. 29 to

- $0. 66

- $0. 26 to

- $0. 59 Total monetized benefits $84 to $190 $76 to $170

a 

### All estimates are for the analysis year and are rounded to two significant figures so numbers may not sum across rows. The total monetized co

- benefits reflect the human health benefits associated with reducing exposure to PM 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 particl e type.
c 

### These emission reductions are the net emission reductions from the rule after subtracting out secondary emission increases due to additional energy requirements to run the control equipment. These estimates do not include monetized CO 2 

### disbenefit s, which range from $0.3 to $ 3 million depending on the discount rate. See the RIA for more information about how the E P A monetized these disben e fits.



## 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 rule. Due to analytical limitations, it was not possible to conduct air quality modeling for this rule. Instead, we used a

“ benefit

- per - ton ” approach to estimate the benef its of this rulemaking. To create the benefit

- per - ton estimates, this approach uses a model to convert emissions of PM 2.5 

## precursors

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 223 of 445 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 emissions in specific sectors. These benefit

- per - ton estimates were derived using the approach published in Fann , et al. (2012) , 106 

## but they have since been updated to reflect the studies and population data in t he 2012 PM National Ambient Air Quality Standards ( NAA QS ) RIA. 107 

## Specifically, we multiplied the benefit

- per - ton estimates from the “ Non

- EGU Point other ” category by the corresponding emission reductions. 108 

## All national

- average benefit

- per - ton estimates reflect the geographic distribution of the modeled emissions, which may not exactly match the 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

106 

### Fann, N., K.R. Bakerand C.M. Fulcher. 2012. “ Characterizing the PM 2.5 

### - related health benefits of em ission reductions for 17 industrial, area and mobile emission sectors across the U.S. ” Environment International 49 41

– 151. 107 

### U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2012. Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Final Revisions to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter . EPA

- 452/R

- 12

- 003. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Health and Environmental Impacts Division. December. Available at http://www.epa.gov/pm/2012/finalria.pdf
. 108 

### U.S. Environmental 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 224 of 445 available in the technical support document, which is available

as D ocket Item No. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2013

- 0291

- 0089
. These models assume that all fine particles, regardless of their chemical composition, are equally potent in causing premature mortality because the scientific evidence is not yet sufficient to allow differentiation of effects estimates by particle type. Even though we assume that all fine particles have equivalent health effects, the benefit

- per - ton estimates vary between precursors depending on the location and magnitude of their impact on PM 2.5 

## lev els, 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 109 

## and the extended Six Cities cohort study. 110 

## In the RIA for th e final rule, which is available in Docket ID No. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2013

- 0291 , we also include benefits estim ates derived from expert judgments (Roman , et al. , 2008) as a characterization of uncertainty regarding the PM 2.5 

## - mortality relationship.

109 

### 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
. 110 

### Lepeule J, Laden F, Dockery D, Schwartz J
. 2012. “ Chronic Exposure to Fine Particles and Mortality : An Extended Follow

- Up of the Harvard Six Cities Study from 1974 to 2009. ” Environ Health Perspect. Jul y ; 120(7):965

- 70
.

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 225 of 445 Considering a substantial body of published scientific literature, reflecting thousands of epidemiology, toxicology and clinical studies, the EPA ’ s Integrated Science Assessment fo r Particulate Matter 111 

## 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 SAB , concluded that the scientific literature consistently finds that a no

- threshold model most adequately portrays the PM

- mortality concentration

response relationship. Therefore, in this analysis, the EPA assumes that the health impact function for fine particles is without a threshold. In general, we are more confident in the magnitude of the risks we estimate from simulated 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, w e 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

111 

### U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2009. Integrated Science Assessment for Particulate Matter (Final Report) . EPA

- 600

- R

- 08

- 139F. National Center for Environmental Assessment

– RTP Division. December. Available on the Internet at http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=216546
.

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 226 of 445 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 be nefits. 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 concent ration benchmarks as a concentration threshold below which we would not quantify health benefits of air quality improvements. For this analysis, policy

- specific air quality data are not available due to time and resource limitations and , thus, we are unable to estimate the percentage of premature mortality associated with this specific rule ’ s emission reductions at each
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, et 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

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 227 of 445 to note that baseline exposure is only one parameter in the health impact function, along with baseline incidence rates , population a nd change in air quality. Therefore, caution is warranted when interpreting the LML assessment for this rule because these results are not consistent with results from rules that model changes in air quality. Every benefit analysis examining the potential effects of a change in environmental protection requirements is limited, to some extent, by data gaps, model capabilities (such as geographic coverage) and uncertainties in the underlying scientific and economic studies used to configure the benefit and c ost models. Despite these uncertainties, we believe the benefit analysis for this rule provides a reasonable indication of the expected health benefits of the rulemaking under a set of reasonable assumptions. This analysis does not include the type of deta iled uncertainty assessment found in the 2012 PM 2.5 

## NAAQS
RIA 112 

## because we lack the necessary air quality input and monitoring data to run the benefits model. In addition, we have not conducted air quality modeling for this rule , and using a benefit

- per - ton approach adds another important source of

112 

### U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2012. Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Final Revisions to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter . EPA

- 452/R

- 12

- 003. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Health and Environmental Impacts Division. December. Docket Item No. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2013

- 0291

- 0087
.

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 228 of 445 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 that the monetized co

- benefits esti mates 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 rule, we include a qualitative assessment of these unquantified benefits in the RIA for these promulgated standards
. The specific control technologies for this rule are anticipated to have minor secondary disbenefits, including an increase of 41 tons of NO X 

## , about 3 tons of PM , less than 6 tons of CO and 121 tons of SO 2 

## each year. Because we do not currently have methods to monetize emission changes of CO , only secondary effects of PM , SO 2 

## , and NO X 

## 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 Analys is: Final 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 229 of 445
**VI I**  **. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews** Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders can be found at http://www2.epa.gov/laws

regulations/laws

- and

- executive

- orders
. A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
T his action is a n economically significant regulatory action that was submitted to the Office of Management and Budget ( OMB ) for review . A ny changes made in response to OMB recommendations have been documented in the docket s for this action. The EPA prepared an analysis of the potential costs and benefits associated wit h this action . This analysis is contained in “ Regulatory Impact Analysis: Final Brick and Structural Clay Products NESHAP
. ” A copy of the analysis is available in the docket for the BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP (Docket ID No. EPA

- HQ

OAR

- 2013

- 0291 ) and the analysis is briefly summarized here
. The EPA ’ s study estimates that affected BSCP facilities will incur total annualized costs of $2 4.6 million (2011 dollars) under the BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP , including costs of emission controls, testing and monit oring, along with recordkeeping and reporting costs for facilities that have testing and monitoring. The EPA gathered information on firm

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 230 of 445 sales and overall industry profitability for firms owning affected BSCP facilities. T he EPA estimated that two to four
BSCP manufacturing facilities are at significant risk of closure under the final standards
. The EPA also conducted an assessment of the benefits of the final rule , as described in section VI of this preamble. These estimates reflect the monetized human health benefits of reducing cases of morbidity and premature mortality among populations exposed to PM 2.5 

## reduced by this rule. Data, resource and methodological limitations prevented the EPA from monetizing the benefits from several important benefit cate gories, including benefits from reducing exposure to 375 tons of HAP each year for the promulgated standards , as well as ecosystem effects and visibility impairment. In addition to reducing emissions of PM precursors such as SO 2 

## , this rule will reduce

seve ral non

- Hg HAP metals emissions ( i.e. , arsenic, cadmium, chromium, lead, manganese, nickel , and selenium) each year. The EPA estimate s the total monetized co

- benefits to be $ 83 million to $ 190 million (2011 dollars) at a 3

- percent discount rate and $ 75 mil lion to $ 170 million (2011 dollars) at a 7

- percent discount rate on a yearly average in 2018 for the promulgated standards
.

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 231 of 445 Based on the EPA ’ s examination of costs and benefits of the final BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP , the EPA believes that the benefits of the BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP will exceed the costs. The EPA also examined the costs and economic impacts associated with the Clay Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP. The remaining firm with major sources is estimated to incur costs as a result of the Clay Ceramics Manufacturing final rule and the firm only incurs costs associated with testing, monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting. Total annualized costs are only $92,400 (2011 dollars) and the firm ’ s estimated costs of comply ing with the Clay Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP are less than 0.002 percent of sales. B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) The information collection activities in the BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP and Clay Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP have been submitted for app roval to OMB under the PRA
. The ICR document that the EPA prepared for the BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP has been assigned EPA ICR number 2509.01 . The ICR document that the EPA prepared for the Clay Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP has been assigned EPA ICR numbe r 2510.01
. You can find copies of the ICRs in the dockets for the BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP and Clay Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP , and they are briefly summarized

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 232 of 445 here. The information collection requirements are not enforceable until OMB approves them.
T he information collected from respondents will be used by EPA enforcement personnel to: (1) identify new, modified, reconstructed and existing sources subject to the standards; (2) ensure that MACT is being properly applied; and (3) ensure that the APCD are being properly operated and maintained on a continuous basis. In addition, records and reports are necessary to enable the EPA to identify facilities that may not be in compliance with the standards. Based on the reported information, the EPA can deci de which facilities should be inspected and what records or processes should be inspected at these facilities. The records that facilities maintain will indicate to the EPA whether the owners and operators are in compliance with the emission limitations (i ncluding emission limits, operating limits ) and work practice standards
. Much of the information the EPA would need to determine compliance would be recorded and retained onsite at the facility. Such information would be reviewed by enforcement personnel d uring an inspection and would not need to be routinely reported to the
EPA. All information submitted to the EPA for which a claim of confidentiality is made will be safeguarded according to EPA

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 233 of 445 policies set forth in t itle 40, c hapter 1, p art 2, s ubpart B

- Confidentiality of Business Information. (See 40 CFR 2; 41 FR 36902, September 1, 1976; amended by 43 FR 39999, September 28, 1978; 43 FR 42251, September 28, 1978; and 44 FR 17674, March 23, 1979.) Potential respondents to the information collection
req uirements in the BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP are owners and operators of new and existing sources at BSCP manufacturing facilities. A BSCP facility manufactures brick, including face brick, structural brick, brick pavers, or other brick and/or structural cla y products including clay pipe; roof tile; extruded floor and wall tile; or other extruded, dimensional clay products. The BSCP facilities typically form, dry and fire bricks and shapes that are composed primarily of clay and shale. Kilns are used to fire BSCP. The rule applies to all new and existing tunnel and periodic kilns at BSCP facilities. Potential respondents to the information collection requirements in the Clay Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP are owners and operators of new and existing sources at clay ceramic s manufacturing facilities. A clay ceramics facility manufactures pressed floor tile, pressed wall tile, or sanitaryware ( e.g. , sinks and toilets). Clay ceramics facilities typically form, dry and fire tile or sanitaryware products that

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 234 of 445 are composed of clay, shale and various additives. Spray dryers are used during the forming process at tile facilities to process the ceramic mix into a powder to allow tile pressing. Dryers are used to reduce the moisture content of the cer amic products prior to firing. Glazes are applied to some tile and sanitaryware products, with glaze spraying accounting for all glazing emissions. Kilns are used to fire the ceramic products and include ceramic tile roller kilns and sanitaryware tunnel

an d shuttle kilns. The rule applies to all existing, new and reconstructed affected sources, which include the kilns, glaze spray operations, ceramic tile spray dryers and floor tile press dryers. (Wall tile press dryers and sanitaryware ware dryers, with no measurable emissions, are not covered.) The information requirements are based on notification, recordkeeping and reporting requirements in the NESHAP General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A), which are mandatory for all operators subject to nationa l 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 confid entiality is made is safeguarded according to the EPA policies set forth in 40 CFR part 2, subpart B.

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 235 of 445 In addition to the notification, recordkeeping and reporting requirements in the NESHAP General Provisions, t he final 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 plan, maintenance and inspection of process and control equipment, compliance with work practice standards and periods of malfunction
. Collection of data will begin after the effective date of the final BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP and Clay Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP. The compliance date for existing sources is 3 years after the eff ective date. The compliance date for new or reconstructed sources is the effective date if the source startup date is before the effective date, or upon startup if the startup date is on or after the effective date. The schedule for notifications and repor ts required by the rule is summarized below. For BSCP and clay ceramics facilities with existing affected sources, the initial notification stating that the facility is subject to the rule must be submitted no later than 120 calendar days after the effecti ve date of the rule. Facilities with new or reconstructed affected sources for which startup occurs on or after the effective date must submit the

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 236 of 445 initial notification no later than 120 calendar days after the source becomes subject to the rule (although w e are projecting no new affected sources in the short term). Facilities may choose to submit a request to use the routine control device maintenance alternative standard 120 calendar days prior to the compliance date. Facilities required to conduct a perfo rmance test must submit a notification of intent to conduct a performance test at least 60 calendar days before the performance test is scheduled to begin. For each initial compliance demonstration that includes a performance test, facilities must submit a n initial notification of compliance status no later than 60 calendar days following the completion of the performance test. For each initial compliance demonstration that does not involve a performance test, facilities must submit an initial notification within 30 calendar days of completing the initial compliance demonstration. Records necessary to determine compliance with the emission limitations and work practice standards must be compiled on a daily basis, and compliance reports must be submitted to t he Administrator on a semiannual basis. Repeat performance tests are to be conducted every 5 years to ensure ongoing compliance.

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 237 of 445 There are 9 0 BSCP facilities that are currently major sources of HAP , 8 4 of which have at least one tunnel kiln . An estimated 2 1 of these facilities are projected to become synthetic area sources by promulgation rather than comply with the BSCP standards. The remaining 6 9 facilities (63 of which have a tunnel kiln) are expected to be subject to the BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP . For these 6 9 facilities, t he annual recordkeeping and reporting burden associated with th e BSCP standards ( averaged over the first 3 years after the effective date of the standards) is estimated to be 20,963 labor hours per
year , at a cost of $ 1,113,105 per y ear ( yr )
. Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
N o capital costs associated with monitoring, testing, recordkeeping or reporting are expected to be incurred during this period . The annual operati o n and maintenance costs are estimated to be $ 682 /yr. The total burden for the federal government (averaged over the first 3 years after the effective date of the standards) is estimated to be 71 labor hours per year , at a total labor cost of $ 3,698 /yr
. (All costs are in 2011 dollars.) There are three clay ceramics facilities that are currently major sources of HAP and are expected to be subject to the Clay Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP . For these three facilities, t he

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 238 of 445 annual recordkeeping and reporting burden associated with the Clay Ceramics standards (averaged over the first 3 years after the effective date of the standards) is estimated to total 996 labor hours per year at a cost of $ 52,674 /yr. As with the BSCP standards, n o capital costs associated with monitoring, testing, recordkeeping or reportin g are expected to be incurred during this period . The annual operati o n and maintenance costs are estimated to be $44 /yr. The total burden for the federal government (averaged over the first 3 years after the effective date of the standards) is estimated to be 4.6 labor hours per year , at a total labor cost of $239 /yr
. (All costs are in 2011 dollars.) Because BSCP and clay ceramics facilities are not required to come into full compliance with the standards until 3 years after promulgation, much of the respon dent burden ( e.g. , performance tests, inspections, notification of compliance status, compliance report s , records of compliance data and malfunctions) does not occur until the fourth year following promulgation. For the BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP , we estimate an average annual recordkeeping and reporting burden of 48,674 labor hours
per year , at a cost of $ 2,702,447 /yr, for years 4 through 6. We also estimate annualized capital costs of $ 606,760 /yr and annual

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 239 of 445 operating and maintenance costs of $ 20 6,872 /yr over this period, for a total annualized cost of $ 813,632 /yr. The average annual burden for the federal government for years 4 through 6 is estimated to be 3, 891 labor hours per year , at a total labor cost of $20 4,550 /yr
. (All costs are in 2011 do llars.) For the Clay Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP , we estimate an average annual recordkeeping and reporting burden of 2,323 labor hours per year, at a cost of $ 122,786 /yr, for years 4 through 6. We also estimate annualized capital costs of $ 72,050 /yr and annual operating and maintenance costs of $ 27,069 /yr over this period, for a total annualized cost of $ 99,119 /yr. The average annual burden for the federal government for years 4 through 6 is estimated to be 180 labor hours per year, at a total labor
cost of $9,448 per year. (All costs are in 2011 dollars.) An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for the EPA ’ s regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. When OMB approves this ICR, the a gency will announce that approval in the **Federal Register** and publish a technical amendment to 40 CFR part 9 to display the OMB control number for the approved informati on collection activities contained in this final rule.

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 240 of 44 5 C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) Pursuant to sections 603 and 609(b) of the RFA, the EPA prepared an IRFA that examines the impact of the proposed rule on small entities along with regulatory altern atives that could minimize that impact. The complete IRFA is available for review in the docket and is summarized here. We convened a SBAR Panel to obtain advice and recommendations from small entity representatives that potentially would be subject to th e rule ’ s requirements. Summaries of the IRFA and Panel recommendations are included at 79 FR 75669

- 75671
. As required by section 604 of the RFA, the EPA prepared a final regulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA) for this action. The FRFA addresses the issues raised by public comments on the IRFA for the proposed rule. The complete FRFA is in cluded in Section 5 of “ Regulatory Impact Analysis: Final Brick and Structural Clay Products NESHAP , ” available for review in the docket ( Docket ID No. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2013

- 0291 ), and is summarized here. 1. Need for the Rule The EPA is required under CAA section 112(d) to establish emission standards for each category or subcategory of major and area sources of HAP listed for regulation in s ection 112(b). These standards are applicable to new or existing sources of HAP

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 241 of 445 and shall require the maximum degree of emission reduction. In the Administrator ’ s judgment, the pollutants emitted from BSCP manufacturing facilities cause or contribute significantly to air pollution that may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health. Consequently, NESHAP for the BSCP source category are being finalized
. 2. Objectives and Legal Basis for the Rule Section 112(d) of the CAA requires the EPA to set emissions standards for HAP emitted by major stationary sources based on the performance of the MACT. The MACT standards for existing sources must be at least as stringent as the average emissions limitation achieved by the best performing 12 percent of existing sources (for which the Administr ator has emissions information) or the best performing five sources for source categories with less than 30 sources (CAA section 112(d)(3)(A) and (B)). For new sources, MACT standards must be at least as stringent as the control level achieved in practice by the best controlled similar source (CAA section 112(d)(3)). The EPA also must consider more stringent “ beyond

- the

- floor ” control options. When considering beyond

- the

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

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 242 of 445 environmental impacts when doing so. This rule is being proposed
to comply with CAA section 112(d). 3. Significant Issues Raised The EPA received comments on the proposed standards and requests for comment that were included based on SBAR Panel recommendations
. See section V of this preamble and “ National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Brick and Structural Clay Products Manufacturing: Backgrou nd Information for Final Rule

- Summary of Public Comments and Responses ” in Docket ID No. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2013

- 0291 for more detailed comment summaries and responses.

• Work practices for dioxin/furan : One commenter stated that work practices for dioxin/furan em issions from BSCP tunnel kilns are not lawful under the CAA , and , even if they were, the work practices proposed are not sufficient to minimize dioxin/furan emissions . Other commenters supported the
p ropos ed work practices for dioxin/furan. Response : The E PA is finalizing work practices for dioxin/furan as proposed. The EPA’s response to the legal arguments made against work practice standards is presented in “National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Brick and Structural Clay Products
Ma nufacturing: Background Information for Final Rule

-

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 243 of 445 Summary of Public Comments and Responses” found in the docket ( Docket ID No. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2013

- 0291 )
.

• Work practices for Hg and other metals : Several commenters responded to the EPA ’ s request for comment on work practices for Hg and non

- Hg HAP metals. Numerous commenters stated that the EPA should finalize work practices instead of numeric limits and provided support for their assertion that the numeric limits are technically and economically impracticable to enforce. Commenters also noted that the emissions reduced by these numeric standards are not justified by the high cost that would be incurred to meet the standards. Response : Emissions of Hg and non

- Hg HAP metals were detected using standard EPA test methods; therefore, t he Hg and non

- Hg HAP metals data sets do not meet the criteria for setting work practice standards under CAA section 112(h). The EPA is finalizing numeric standards for Hg and

non - Hg HAP metals under CAA section rather than work practi ces . The final numeric standards have been revised since the proposal to account for new data from the industry (including data on the Hg content of raw materials) , removal of test data found not to meet the requirements of the applicable data, and changes in the

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 244 of 445
EPA ’ s approach to selecting the MACT floor pools (see section V. B.1 of this preamble for additional details).

• H ealth

- based standard for acid gases : Several commenters asserted that the EPA may not legally set CAA section 112(d)(4) health

- based stan dards for acid gases for BSCP facilities . Other commenters supported the EPA ’ s decision to propose health

- based standards for acid gases but noted that the EPA ’ s approach was overly conservative and requested that the EPA consider setting multiple limits b ased on site characteristics. Response : The EPA is finalizing the health

- based standards for acid gases as proposed. The EPA ’ s response to the legal arguments made against health

- based standards is presented in section V. A of this preamble. The EPA is not changing the HBEL from proposal, as the proposed HBEL provides low potential for both chronic and acute health effects.

• Size subcategories for MACT floors : Several commenters requested that the EPA subcategorize by size for the non

- Hg HAP metal/PM MACT floor limits, as was proposed for Hg. Response : As part of recalculating the MACT floor limits based on the final data set, the EPA is finalizing separate lim its for small and large kilns for non

- Hg HAP metals/PM as well as Hg. The EPA is also finalizing limits in three

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 245 of 445 different formats for both pollutants to provide additional flexibility for small tunnel kilns and tunnel kilns with a low metals content in th e PM emissions
.

• Sawdust dryers : Several commenters requested that the EPA finalize a subcategory of sawdust

- fired kilns venting to sawdust dryers. Commenters provided general descriptions of how the operation of these kilns is different than tunnel kilns a nd stated that there are only two operating that would be subject to the BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP
. Response : Although one commenter noted that stack testing of a sawdust dryer is being considered, commenters did not provide test data to demonstrate that e missions from sawdust dryers are different than other tunnel kilns. Therefore, the EPA is not finalizing a subcategory of sawdust

- fired kilns venting to sawdust dryers.

• Periods of startup and shutdown : One commenter stated that work practices for periods o f startup and shutdown of BSCP tunnel kilns are not lawful under the CAA. Other commenters supported the proposal to provide work practices for periods of startup and shutdown , but suggested improvements to the standards to make them feasible for all tunne l kilns.

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 246 of 445 Response : The EPA evaluated the comments and is finalizing work practice s tandards for periods of startup and shutdown that reflect best practices for minimizing emissions during these periods (see section V. B.2 of this preamble for additional inf ormation).

• MACT floor pool : Several commenters supported the EPA ’ s proposal to calculate MACT floor standards for PM based on the top 12 percent of the kilns in the industry ( i.e. , the best

- performing sources with a FF

- based APCD) . One commenter asserted that the EPA ’ s proposal is unlawful and the EPA must consider other factors than the APCD type when setting MACT standards. Response : The EPA reviewed all the data used for the MACT floor for PM as a surrogate for non

- Hg HAP metals and found that some of t he test data did not meet the requirements of EPA Method 5. When these data were removed, the EPA could no longer confirm that the data available to the agency represented all the best

- performing sources . Therefore, the final PM and non - Hg HAP metals are b ased on the top 12 percent of sources for which we had test data , regardless of APCD type (see section V. B.1 of this preamble for additional details).

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 247 of 445 4. SBA Comments The SBA ’ s Office of Advocacy supported the EPA ’ s proposals to set work practice standards and health

- based emission standards in all instances allowed by statute and suggested other areas of improvement. The comments on areas of improvement and the EPA ’ s responses are summarized below:

• Hg standards : The EPA should pursue subcategorization by i nput (raw material) type and dela y promulgation of a Hg standard to gather more information if needed. Standards may need to be combined with a significantly longer averaging time to allow for continuous compliance. Response : The EPA maintains that a delay in promulgation of an Hg standard is not appropriate for two reasons. First,

u nder CAA section 112(e), the EPA was scheduled to complete standards for all source categories by 2000. The EPA’s 2003
B SCP Manufacturing NESHAP was vacated, and that vacatur r e created the EPA’s obligation to set standards for the BSCP source category. Sierra Club v. EPA , 850 F.Supp.2d 300, 303

- 304 (D.D.C. 2012) . Under the consent decree in that case, as amended in August 2014 , the EPA was obligated to sign a notice of final ru lemaking to set standards for the
B SCP source category by September 24, 2015
.

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 248 of 445 Second, the EPA notes that f ollowing proposal, it received additional information on the Hg content of raw materials from facilities in the BSCP industry. This information did n ot provide the EPA with the information needed to establish subcategories based on the class or type of raw materials. However, the EPA has concluded that it has sufficient information to allow it to finalize Hg standards that account for the variability o f Hg content in raw materials. Thus, the EPA’s conclusion is that there is

no basis to delay promulgation of the Hg standards in order to gather more information.

• Economic analysis : The economic impact of the proposed rule on small entities is significantl y underestimated. Specifically, the EPA should not annualize costs at 7 percent over 20 years because that does not reflect the financing options available to small entities, the EPA underestimated the cost for a facility to become a synthetic area source, and the EPA has underestimated the cost to comply with the Hg standards given the limited information the agency has on the performance of Hg controls in this industry. Response : The EPA standard engineering cost practice is to annualize over the expected life of the cont rol equipment

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 249 of 445 at 7 percent. The EPA does not have the data available to model the way a firm pays for a n APCD because each firm has a different set of potential options for financing including debt financing, equity financing, and financing through retaine d earnings. The EPA acknowledges that some firms may not be able to borrow the money and some may close. The EPA’s closure analysis is quite uncertain, but we do not have the detailed firm

- specific information necessary to refine the analysis. The EPA agre es that the costs to become a synthetic area source at proposal were underestimated, and the final rule impacts include testing costs for all facilities, as potential synthetic area sources would have to demonstrate that their emissions qualify them to app ly for synthetic area status. Finally, the EPA must use the best information available to the agency to estimate the impact of the standards on all entities. The final Hg standards incorporate variability in the Hg content of raw materials, which is expect ed to ease the burdens on some small entities.
5 . Affected Small Entities Of 44 parent companies owning BSCP facilities, 36 parent companies are small businesses. The EPA computed the ratio of estimated compliance costs to company sales (cost

- to

- sales

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 250 of 445 rati o) to measure the magnitude of potential impacts on small companies. Under the final standards, the EPA estimated that two
to three small BSCP manufacturing facilit ies (two to four BSCP manufacturing facilities overall) are at significant risk of closur e . 6. Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance Requirements Respondents would be required to provide one

- time and periodic notifications, including initial notification,

n otification of performance tests, and notification of

c ompliance status. Respondents would also be required to submit semiannual reports documenting compliance with the rule and detailing any compliance issues, and they would be required to submit the results of performance tests to the EPA ’ s ERT. Respondents would be required to keep documentation supporting information included in these notifications and reports, as well as records of the operation and maintenance of affected sources and APCD at the facility. 7. Significant Alternatives The EPA considered three major options f or this final rule ;

see “ Regulatory Impact Analysis: Final Brick and Structural Clay Products NESHAP , ” in Docket ID No. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2013

- 0291 ), for more information about the alternatives
. Finalizing the proposed changes without revision is expected to have similar cost and

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 251 of 445 emission reduction impacts to the standards the EPA is finalizing, with a similar number of closures (one to two small
BSCP manufacturing facilit ies rather than two to three). However, for the various legal and technical reasons outlined in this preamble and “ National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Brick and Structural Clay Products Manufacturing: Background Information for Final R ule

- Summary of Public Comments and Responses ” in Docket ID No. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2013

- 0291, the EPA determined that the PM/non

- Hg HAP metals and Hg standards should not be finalized as proposed. The other alternative considered included the same standards for a cid gases and Hg that are being finalized but only provided one set of limits PM/non

- Hg HAP metals ( i.e. , did not provide separate sets of limits for small and large tunnel kilns). This alternative is expected to have significantly higher cost impacts than the standards the EPA is finalizing, along with a significantly higher number of closures (five to 10 small BSCP manufacturing facilit ies rather than two to three small BSCP manufacturing facilities ). Therefore, the EPA determined that it is necessary to exercise its discretion to subcategorize by kiln size to minimize the significant economic impact on small entities.

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 252 of 445 In addition, the EPA is preparing a Small Entity Compliance Guide to help small entities comply with this rule. The guide will be available on the W orld W ide W eb approximately 1 year after promulgation of the rule , at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/brick/brickpg.html
. D . Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) This action does not contain a n unfunded mandate of $100 million or more as described in the UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531

- 1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments
. This action imposes no enforceable duty on any state, local , or tribal governments or the private sector.
E . Executive Order 13132 : Federalism This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states , or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government
. F
. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. It will not have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the relationshi p between the federal government and Indian tribes , or on the distribution of

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 253 of 445 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. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action. G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks This action is not subj ect to Executive Order 13045 because the EPA does not believe the environmental health risks or safety risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to children. This action ’ s health and risk assessments are contained in the memoranda “ Ris k Assessment to Determine a Health

- Based Emission Limitation for Acid Gases for the Brick and Structural Clay Products Manufacturing Source Category, ” Docket Item No. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2013

- 0291

- 0132 and “ Risk Assessment to Determine a Health

- Based Emission Limit ation for Acid Gases for the Clay Ceramics Manufacturing Source Category, ” Docket
Item No. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2013

- 0290

- 0213. H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution or Use This action is not a “ significant energy action ” because it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution , or use of energy. This action will not

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 254 of 445 adversely directly affect productivity, competition , or prices in the energy sector.
I . National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NT T AA) and 1 CFR part 51 This action involves technical standards
. The EPA has decided to use the following four voluntary consensus standards as acceptable alternatives to the EPA test methods for the purpose of t his rule. The EPA has decided to use ANSI/ASME PTC 19
. 10

- 1981 , “ Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses , ” for its manual methods of measuring the oxygen or carbon dioxide content of the exhaust gas. This standard is acceptable as an al ternative to Method 3A and 3B a nd is available from the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) at http://www.asme.org ; by mail at Three Park Avenue, New York, NY 10016

- 5990 ; or by telephone at (800) 843

- 2763
. The EPA has also decided to use ASTM D6735

- 01 (Reapproved 2009) , “ Standard Test Method for Measurement of Gaseous Chlorides and Fluorides from Mineral Calcining Exhaust Sources

— Impinger Method , ” for its measurement of the concentration of gaseous HCl and HF and other gaseous chlorides and fluorides. This standard is acce ptable as an alternative to Methods 26 and 26A.

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 255 of 445 In addition, the EPA has decided to use ASTM D6784

- 02 (Reapproved 2008) , “ Standard Test Method for Elemental, Oxidized, Particle

- Bound and Total Mercury Gas Generated from Coal

- Fired Stationary Sources (Ontar io Hydro Method) , ” for its determination of elemental, oxidized, particle

- bound, and total Hg emissions. This standard is acceptable as an alternative to Method 29 (portion for Hg only). Finally, the EPA has decided to use ASTM D6348

- 03 ( Reapproved 2010), “ Standard Test Method for Determination of Gaseous Compounds by Extractive Direct Interface Fourier Transform Infrared (FTIR) Spectroscopy , ” for its use of an extractive sampling system to direct stationary source effluent to an FTIR spectrometer for the i dentification and quantification of gaseous compounds. This standard 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 recovery (%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 are not

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 256 of 445 acceptable for that compound and the test must be repeated for that analyte ( i.e. , the sampling and/or analytical pr ocedure should be adjusted before a retest). The %R value for each compound must be reported in the test report and all field measurements must be corrected with the calculated %R value for that compound by using the following equation: Reported Result = ( Measured Concentration in the Stack x 100)/%R. The standards ASTM D6735

- 01, ASTM D6784

- 02, and ASTM D6348

- 03 are available from the American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM) at http://www.astm.org ; by mail at 100 Barr Harbor Drive, Post Office Box C 700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428

- 2959 ; or by t elephone at (610) 832

- 9585. While the EPA identified ASTM D7520

– 13, “ Standard Test Method for Determining the Opacity in a Plume in an Outdoor Ambient Atmosphere ” as being potentially applicable as an alternative to Method 9 for measuring opacity from BSCP tunnel kilns , the a gency decided not to use it. The use of this voluntary consensus standard would be impractical. T he five provisions for the use of this standard appear to be based on the ass umption that the optical camera will be used on a daily basis. However, this rulemaking does not include daily Method 9
tests. The rule requirements are such that a Method 9 observation would need to be made unexpectedly and only when the

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 257 of 445 Method 22 test fa iled. It would be unreasonable to expect that a source would be making daily calibrations of the camera when its use would be so infrequent. Given that, it is unlikely that the camera could be made ready in the time specified for the Method 9 readings. The refore, this standard is not usable based on the current requirements in this rulemaking
. J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low

- Income Populations The EPA believes the human health or environmental risk addressed by this action will **not** have potential disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority, low

- income, or indigenous populations because it does not affect the level of protection provided to human health or the environment. As explained in the December 2014 proposal (79 FR 75672 ), the EPA determined that this final rule will not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or low

- income populations, because it increases the level of environmental protection for all affected populations without having any disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on any population, including any min ority or low

- income population. Additionally, the agency has conducted

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 258 of 445 a proximity analysis for this rulemaking , which is located in the docket. (See “ EJ Screening Report for Brick and Structural Clay , ” Docket Item No. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2013

- 0291

- 0102, and “ EJ
Sc reening Report for Clay Ceramics, ” Docket Item No. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

2013

- 0290

- 0241
. ) K. Congressional Review Act (CRA) This action is subject to the CRA , and the EPA will submit a rule report to each ho u se of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. Th is action is a

“ major rule ” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

## NESHAP for Brick and Structural Clay Products Manufacturing; and **NESHAP for Cla y Ceramics Manufacturing**  Page 259 of 445 **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 260 of 445
F or the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Environmental Protection Agency amends 40 CFR part 63 as follows: **PART 63 --**  **NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR** 
**POLLUTANTS FOR SOURCE CATEGORIES**  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 ( g )( 1); b. Revising paragraph (h)(75);

c. Redesignating paragraphs (h)(85) through (97) as paragraphs (h)(86) through (98), respectively; d. Adding new paragraph (h)(85); e. Revising newly redesignated paragraph (h)( 87); and f. Revising paragraph (m)(2). The revisions and additions read as follows : **§63.14 Incorporations by reference.**
* * * * * ( g ) * * * (1) ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10

– 1981, Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses [P art 10, Instruments and Apparatus], issued August 31, 1981, IBR approved for §§63.309 (k) , 63.457(k), 63. 772(e) and (h),

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 261 of 445 63.865 (b) , 63.1282(d) and (g), 63. 1 6 25(b), 63.3166 (a) , 63.3360 (e) , 63.3545 (a) , 63.3555 (a) , 63.4166 (a) , 63.4362 (a) , 63.4766 (a) , 63.4965 (a) , 63.5160 (d) , table 4 to subpart UUUU, 63.9307 (c) , 63.9323 (a) , 63.11148 (e) , 63.11155 (e) , 63.11162 (f) , 63.11163 (g) , 63.11410 (j) , 63.11551 (a) , 63.11646(a), and 63.11945, table 5 to subpart DDDDD, table 4 to subpart JJJJJ, table 4 to subpart KKKKK, tables 4 and 5 of subpart UUUUU, table 1 to subpart ZZZZZ , and table 4 to subpart JJJJJJ
. * * * * * ( h ) * * * (75 ) ASTM D6348

- 03 (Re approved 2010), Standard Test Method for Determination of Gaseous Compounds by Extractive Direct Interface Fourier Transform Infrared (FTIR) Spectroscopy, including Annexes A1 through A8, (Approved October 1, 2010), IBR approved for tables 4 and 5 to subpa rt JJJJJ, tables 4 and 6 to subpart KKKKK, tables 1, 2, and 5 to subpart UUUUU , and appendix B to subpart UUUUU.
* * * * * (8 5 ) ASTM D6735

- 01 (Reapproved 2009), Standard Test Method for Measurement of Gaseous Chlorides and Fluorides from Mineral Calcining Exhaust Sources

— Impinger Method , IBR approved for tables 4 and 5 to subpart JJJJJ and tables 4 and 6 to subpart
KKKKK.

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 262 of 445
* * * * * (8 7 ) ASTM D6784

- 02 (Reapproved 2008), Standard Test Method for Elemental, Oxidized, Particle

- Bound and Total Merc ury in Flue Gas Generated from Coal

- Fired Stationary Sources (Ontario Hydro Method), (Approved April 1, 2008), IBR approved for §§63.11646(a), 63.11647(a) and (d), tables 1, 2, 5, 11, 12t, and 13 to subpart DDDDD, tables 4 and 5 to subpart JJJJJ, tables 4 and 6 to subpart KKKKK, table 4 to subpart JJJJJJ, table 5 to subpart UUUUU, and appendix A to subpart UUUUU.
* * * * * ( m ) * * * (2) EPA

- 454/R

- 98

- 015, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS), Fabric Filter Bag Leak Detection Guidance,
S eptember 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?

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 263 of 445 63.8395 When do I have to comply with this subpart? **Emission Limitations and Work Practice Standards** 63.8405 What emission limitations and work practice standards must I meet? 63.8410 What are my options for meeting the emission limitations and work practice standards? **General Co mpliance 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 cond uct performance tests? 63.8440 When must I conduct subsequent performance tests? 63.8445 How do I conduct performance tests and establish operating limits? 63.8450 What are my monitoring installation, operation, and maintenance requirements? 63.8455 How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the emission limitations and work practice standards? **Continuous Compliance Requirements** 63.8465 How do I monitor and collect data to demonstrate continuous compliance? 63.8470 How do I demonstrate continuous complia nce 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 264 of 445 **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

-- Com pliance Dates Table 8 to Subpart JJJJJ of Part 63

-- Requirements for Notifications Table 9 to Subpart JJJJJ of Part 63

-- Requirements for Reports Table 10 to Subpart JJJJJ of Part 63

-- Applicability of General Provisions to Subpart JJJJJ **What This Subpart Co vers**  **§63.8380 What is the purpose of this subpart?** This subpart establishes national emission limitations for hazardous air pollutants (HAP) emitted from brick and structural clay products (BSCP) manufacturing facilities. This subpart also establishes req uirements to demonstrate initial and continuous compliance with the emission limitations. **§63.8385 Am I subject to this subpart?**
You are subject to this subpart if you own or operate a BSCP manufacturing facility that is, is located at, or is part of, a major source of HAP emissions 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,

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 265 of 445 structural brick, and brick pavers); cl ay 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 dr y and fire the bricks or shapes. A plant site that manufactures refractory product s, as defined in 40 CFR 63.9824 , or clay ceramics, as defined in 40 CFR 63.8665, is not a BSCP manufacturing facility. (b) A major source of HAP emissions is any stationary

s ource 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 p er hour (tph)) of

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 266 of 445 fired product will be called a large tunnel kiln, and a tunnel kiln with a design capacity less than 9.07 Mg/hr (10 tph) of fired product will be called a small tunnel kiln. (2) Each periodic kiln is an affected source. (c) Process units not subject to the requirements of this subpart are listed in paragraphs (c)(1) through (4) of this section. (1) Kilns that are used exclusively for setting glazes on previously fired products are not subject to the requirements of this subpart. (2) Raw ma terial processing and handling. (3) Dryers. (4) Sources covered by subparts KKKKK and SSSSS of this part. (d) A source is a new affected source if construction of the affected source began after December 18, 2014, and you met the applicability criteria at the time you began construction. (e) An affected source is reconstructed if you meet the criteria as defined in §63.2. (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 267 of 445 **§63.8395 When do I have to comply with this subpart?** (a) Y ou must c omply with this subpart no later than the compliance dates in Table 7 to this subpart
. ( b ) You must meet the notification requirements in §63.8480 according to the schedule in §63.8480 and in subpart A of this part. Some of the notifications must be submit ted 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 Tabl e 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.

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 268 of 445 (1) Emissions control system
. Use an emissions capture and collection system and an air pollution control device (APCD) and demonstrate that the resulting emissions meet the emission limits in Table 1 to this subpart, and that the capture and collection system and APCD meet the applic able 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 sub part. (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 t he requirements listed in Table 3 to this subpart
. (d) To meet the work practice standards for affected tunnel kilns during periods of startup and shutdown, you must comply with the requirements listed in Table 3 to this subpart
.

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 269 of 445 **General Compliance Require ments**  **§63.8420 What are my general requirements for complying with this subpart?**  (a) You must be in compliance with the emission limitations (including operating limits) in this subpart at all times, except during periods that you are approved for and in compliance with the alternative standard for routine control device maintenance as specified in paragraph (d) of this section , and except during periods of start

- up and shutdown, at which time you must comply with the applicable work practice standard spec ified in Table 3 to this subpart
. (b) A t all times, you must operate and maintain any affected source, including associated air pollution control equipment and monitoring equipment, in a manner consistent with safety and good air pollution control practice s for minimizing emissions. The general duty to minimize emissions does not require you to make any further efforts to reduce emissions if levels required by the applicable standard have been achieved. Determination of whether a source is operating in comp liance 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

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 270 of 445 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 insta lled and verified and any applicable operating limits have been set, you must maintain a log detailing the operation and maintenance of the process and emissions control equipment. ( c) For each affected kiln that is subject to the emission limits specified in Table 1 to this subpart, you must prepare and implement a written operation, maintenance, and monitoring (OM&M) plan according to the requirements in §63.8425. (d) If you own or operate an affected kiln that is subject to the emission limits specified in Table 1 to this subpart and must perform routine maintenance on the control device for that kiln, you may bypass the kiln control device and continue operating the kiln subject to the alternative standard established in this paragraph upon approval by t he Administrator and provided you satisfy the conditions listed in paragraphs (d)(1) through (5) of this section. (1) You must request to use the routine control device maintenance alternative standard from the Administrator no later than 120 calendar days before the compliance date specified in §63.8395 . Your request must justify the need for the routine

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 271 of 445 maintenance on the control device and the time required to accomplish the maintenance activities, describe the maintenance activities and the frequency of the maintenance activities, explain why the maintenance cannot be accomplished during kiln shutdowns, provide information stating whether the continued operation of the affected source will result in fewer emissions than sh utting the source down while the maintenance is performed, describe how you plan to comply with paragraph (b) of this section during the maintenance, and provide any other documentation required by the Administrator. (2) The routine control device maintena nce must not exceed 4 percent of the annual operating uptime for each kiln. (3) The request for the routine control device maintenance alternative standard , if approved by the Administrator, must be incorporated by reference in and attached to the affected

source ’ s title V permit. (4) You must minimize HAP emissions during the period when the kiln is operating and the control device is offline by complying with the applicable standard in Table 3 to this subpart
. (5) You must minimize the time period during which the kiln is operating and the control device is offline.

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 272 of 445 (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 Tabl e 10 to this subpart. **§63.8425 What do I need to know about operation, maintenance, and monitoring plans?**  (a) For each affected kiln that is subject to the emission limits specified in Table 1 to this subpart, you must prepare, implement, and revise as ne cessary an OM&M plan that includes the information in paragraph (b) of this section. Your OM&M plan must be available for inspection by the delegated authority upon request. (b) Your OM&M plan must include, as a minimum, the information in paragraphs (b)(1 ) through (13) of this section. (1) Each process and APCD to be monitored, the type of monitoring device that will be used, and the operating parameters that will be monitored. (2) A monitoring schedule that specifies the frequency that the parameter values will be determined and recorded. (3) The limits for each parameter that represent continuous compliance with the emission limitations in §63.8405. The limits

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 273 of 445 must be based on values of the monitored parameters recorded during performance tests. (4) Procedures for the proper operation and routine and long

- term maintenance of each APCD, including a maintenance and inspection schedule that is consistent with the manufacturer ’ s recommendations. (5) Procedures for installing the CMS sampling probe or othe r interface at a measurement location relative to each affected process unit such that the measurement is representative of control of the exhaust emissions ( e.g. , on or downstream of the last APCD). (6) Performance and equipment specifications for the sam ple interface, the pollutant concentration or parametric signal analyzer, and the data collection and reduction system. (7) Continuous monitoring system performance evaluation procedures and acceptance criteria ( e.g. , calibrations). (8) Procedures for the proper operation and maintenance of monitoring equipment consistent with the requirements in §§63.8450 and 63.8(c)(1), (3 ), (7), and (8)
. (9) Continuous monitoring system data quality assurance procedures consistent with the requirements in §63.8(d) (1) and (2)
. The owner or operator shall keep these written procedures on record for the life of the affected source or until the

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 274 of 445 affected source is no longer subject to the provisions of this part, to be made available for inspection, upon request, by the Admini strator. If the performance evaluation plan in §63.8(d) (2) is revised, the owner or operator shall keep previous ( i.e. , superseded) versions of the performance evaluation plan on record to be made available for inspection, upon request, by the Administrato r, for a period of 5 years after each revision to the plan. The program of corrective action should be included in the plan required under §63.8(d)(2). (10) Continuous monitoring system recordkeeping and reporting procedures consistent with the requirements in §§63.8485 and 63.8490. (11) Procedures for responding to operating parameter deviations, including the procedures in paragraphs (b)(11)(i) through (iii) of this section. (i) Procedures for determining the cause of the operating parameter de viation. (ii) Actions necessary for correcting the deviation and returning the operating parameters to the allowable limits. (iii) Procedures for recording the times that the deviation began and ended and corrective actions were initiated and completed. (1 2) Procedures for keeping records to document compliance.

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 275 of 445 (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 duratio n of any period of routine maintenance on the kiln control device when the kiln is operating and the control device is offline. (c) Changes to the operating limits in your OM&M plan require a new performance test. If you are revising an operating limit par ameter 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 complianc e with the emission limits can be achieved at the revised operating limit parameter value, you must submit the performance test results and the revised operating limits as part of the Notification of Compliance Status required under §63.9(h).

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 276 of 445 (d) If you ar e 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 §63.8435 By what date must I conduct performance tests?**  For each affected kiln that is s ubject to the emission limits specified in Table 1 to this subpart, you must conduct performance tests within 180 calendar days after the compliance date that is specified for your source in §63.8395 and according to the provisions in §63.7(a)(2). **§63.8440 When must I conduct subsequent performance tests?**  (a) For each affected kiln that is subject to the emission limits specified in Table 1 to this subpart, you must conduct a performance test before renewing your 40 CFR part 70 operating permit or at least every 5 years following the initial performance test. (b) You must conduct a performance test when you want to change the parameter value for any operating limit specified in your OM&M plan. **§63.8445 How do I conduct performance tests and establish**  **operating limits?** (a) You must conduct each performance test in Table 4 to this subpart that applies to you.

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 277 of 445 (b) Before conducting the performance test, you must install and calibrate all monitoring equipment. (c) Each performance test must be conducted according to the requirements in §63.7 and under the specific conditions in Table 4 to this subpart. (d) Performance tests shall be conducted under such conditions as the Administrator specifies to you based on

r epresentative performance of the affected source for the period being tested. Representative conditions exclude periods of startup and shutdown. You may not conduct performance tests during periods of malfunction. You must record the process information th at is necessary to document operating conditions during the test and include in such record an explanation to support that such conditions represent normal operation. Upon request, you shall make available to the Administrator such records as may be necess ary to determine the conditions of performance tests. (e) You must conduct at least three separate test runs for each performance test required in this section, as specified in §63.7(e)(3). Each test run must last at least 1 hour. (f) You must use the data gathered during the performance test and the equations in paragraphs (f)(1) and (2) of this section to determine compliance with the emission limitations.

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 278 of 445 (1) To determine compliance with the production

- based particulate matter (PM) and mercury (Hg) emiss ion limits in Table 1 to 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 complianc e 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:

                +               + =
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 hour
E HCl 

## = emissions of HCl, kilograms (pounds) per hour
E HF 

## = emission s of HF, kilograms (pounds) per hour

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 279 of 445
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 Cl 2 

## , 0.15 micrograms per cubic meter (ii) If you have multiple tunnel kilns at your facility, sum the HCl

- equivalent values for all tunnel kilns at the facility using Equation 3: 

# ∑

= 

## = 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 facility (iii) Compare this value to the health

- based standard in Table 1 to this subpart. ( g) You must establish each site

- specific operating limit in Table 2 to this subpart that applies to you as specified in paragraph (g)(1) of this section and in Table 4 to this subpart. (1)(i) If you do not have an APCD installed on your kiln,

c alculate the maximum potential HCl

- equivalent emissions for HF ,

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 280 of 445 HCl, and Cl 2 

## for each tunnel ki ln 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 production 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 concentra tion 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 )

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 281 of 445 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 Equ ation 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, kil ograms (pounds) of HCl per megagram (ton) of fired product
MP iH F 

## = mass of HF per unit of production for kiln i, kilograms

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 282 of 445 (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 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

- 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 su bpart, you must meet the requirements in §63.8(f) and paragraphs (h)(1) and (2) of this section.

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 2 83 of 445 (1) Submit a request for approval of alternative monitoring procedures to the Administrator no later than the notification of intent to conduct a performance t est. The request must contain the information specified in paragraphs (h)(1)(i) through (iv) of this section. (i) A description of the alternative APCD or process changes. (ii) The type of monitoring device or procedure that will be used. (iii) The operati ng parameters that will be monitored. (iv) The frequency that the operating parameter values will be determined and recorded to establish continuous compliance with the operating limits. (2) Establish site

- specific operating limits during the performance t est 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 mus t install, operate, and maintain each CMS according to your OM&M plan and the requirements in paragraphs (a)(1) through (5) of this section.

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 284 of 445 (1) Conduct a performance evaluation of each CMS according to your OM&M plan. (2) The CMS must complete a minimum o f one cycle of operation for each successive 15

- minute period. To have a valid hour of data, you must have at least three of four equally spaced data values (or at least 75 percent if you collect more than four data values per hour) for that hour (not incl uding startup, shutdown, malfunction, out

- of

- control periods, or periods of routine control device maintenance covered by the routine control device maintenance alternative standard as specified in §63. 8420( d)). (3) Determine and record the 3

- hour block av erages 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 peri od (not including startup, shutdown, malfunction, out

- of

- control periods, or periods of routine control device maintenance covered by the routine control device maintenance alternative standard as specifi ed in §63. 8420( d)). (4) Record the results of each inspection, calibration, and validation check.

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 285 of 445 (5) At all times, maintain the monitoring equipment including, but not limited to, maintaining necessary parts for routine repairs of the monitoring equipment. (b) For each liquid flow measurement device, you must meet the requirements in paragraphs (a)(1) through (5) and paragraphs (b)(1) through (3) of this section. (1) Locate the flow sensor in a position that provides a representative flowrate. (2) Use a flow sensor with a minimum measurement sensitivity of 2 percent of the liquid flowrate. (3) At least semiannually, conduct a flow sensor calibration check. (c) For each pressure measurement device, you must meet the requirements in paragraphs (a)(1) through (5) and paragraphs (c)(1) through (7) of this secti on. (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 meas urement sensitivity of 0.5 inch of water or a transducer with a minimum measurement sensitivity of 1 percent of the pressure range.

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 286 of 445 (4) Check the pressure tap daily to ensure that it is not plugged. (5) Using a manometer, check gauge calibration quarterly and transducer calibration monthly. (6) Any time the sensor exceeds the manufacturer ’ s specified maximum operating pressure range, conduct calibration checks or install a new pressure sensor. (7) At least monthly, inspect all components for integrity, all electrical connections for continuity, and all mechanical connections for leakage. (d) For each pH measurement device, you must meet the requirements in paragraphs (a)(1) through (5) and paragraphs (d)(1) through (4) of this section. (1) Locate the pH sens or in a position that provides a representative measurement of pH. (2) Ensure the sample is properly mixed and representative of the fluid to be measured. (3) Check the pH meter ’ s calibration at o ne point daily
. (4) At least monthly, inspect all components for integrity and all electrical connections for continuity. (e) For each bag leak detection system, you must meet the requirements in paragraphs (e)(1) through (11) of this section.

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 287 of 445 (1) Each triboelectric bag leak detection system must be installed, cali brated, operated, and maintained according to
EPA

- 454/R

- 98

- 015, “ Fabric Filter Bag Leak Detection Guidance, ” (incorporated by reference, see §63.14)
. Other types of bag leak detection systems must be installed, operated, calibrated, and maintained in a man ner consistent with the manufacturer ’ s written specifications and recommendations. (2) The bag leak detection system must be certified by the manufacturer to be capable of detecting PM emissions at concentrations of 10 milligrams per actual cubic meter (0. 0044 grains per actual cubic foot) or less. (3) The bag leak detection system sensor must provide an output of relative PM loadings. (4) The bag leak detection system must be equipped with a device to continuously record the output signal from the sensor. (5) The bag leak detection system must be equipped with an audible alarm system that will sound automatically when an increase in relative PM emissions over a preset level is detected. The alarm must be located where it is easily heard by plant operating p ersonnel. (6) For positive pressure fabric filter systems, a bag leak detector must be installed in each baghouse compartment or cell.

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 288 of 445 (7) For negative pressure or induced air fabric filters, the bag leak detector must be installed downstream of the fabric filter. (8) Where multiple detectors are required, the system ’ s instrumentation and alarm may be shared among detectors. (9) The baseline output must be established by adjusting the range and the averaging period of the device and establishing the alarm set points and the alarm delay time according to section 5.0 of the “ Fabric Filter Bag Leak Detection Guidance, ” (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. I n 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 con dition, as defined in section 5.2 of the

“ Fabric Filter Bag Leak Detection Guidance, ” (incorporated by reference, see §63.14) . Record each adjustment. (11) Record the results of each inspection, calibration, and validation check.

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 289 of 445 (f) For each lime, chemica l, or carbon feed rate measurement device, you must meet the requirements in paragraphs (a)(1) through (5) and paragraphs (f)(1) and (2) of this section. (1) Locate the measurement device in a position that provides a representative feed rate measurement. (2) At least semiannually, conduct a calibration check. (g) For each limestone feed system on a dry limestone adsorber (DLA), you must meet the requirements in paragraphs (a)(1), (4), and (5) of this section and must ensure on a monthly basis that the feed system replaces limestone at least as frequently as the schedule set during the performance test. ( h ) For each temperature measurement device, you must meet the requirements in paragraphs (a)( 1) through (5) and paragraphs (h )(1) through (3) of this sectio n. (1) Locate the measurement device in a position that provides a representative temperature. (2) Use a measurement device with a minimum sensitivity of 1 percent of the temperature being measured. (3) At least semiannually, conduct a calibration check. ( i ) Requests for approval of alternate monitoring procedures must meet the requirements in §§63.8445(h) and 63.8(f).

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 290 of 445 **§63.8455 How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the emission limitations and work practice standards?**  (a) You must demonstrate initia l compliance with each emission limitation and work practice standard that applies to you according to Table 5 to this subpart. (b) You must establish each site

- specific operating limit in Table 2 to this subpart that applies to you according to the requir ements in §63.8445 and Table 4 to this subpart. (c) You must submit the Notification of Compliance Status containing the results of the initial compliance demonstration according to the requirements in §63.8480( c ). **Continuous Compliance Requirements §63.84**  **65 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 activ ities (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, shu tdown,

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 291 of 445 malfunction, and routine control device maintenance as specified in §63.8420(d) when the affected source is operating. (c) You may not use data recorded during monitoring malfunctions, associated repairs, out

- of

- control periods, or required quality assurance or control activities for purposes of calculating data averages. You must use all the valid data collected during all other periods in assessing compliance. Any averaging period for which you do not have valid monitoring data and such data are re quired constitutes a deviation from the monitoring requirements. **§63.8470 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the emission limitations and work practice standards?**  (a) You must demonstrate continuous compliance with each emission limit, operat ing 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 su bpart 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

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 292 of 445 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 e ach instance in which you did not meet each emission limit and each operating limit in this subpart that applies to you. These instances are deviations from the emission limitations in this subpart. These deviations must be reported according to the requir ements in §63.8485 (c)(9)
. (d) [Reserved] (e) (1) VE testing
. You must demonstrate continuous compliance with the operating limits in Table 2 to this subpart for visible emissions (VE) from tunnel kilns that are uncontrolled or equipped with DLA, dry lime injection fabric filter (DIFF), dry lime scrubber/fabric filter (DLS/FF), or other dry control device by monitoring VE at each kiln stack according to the requirements in paragraphs (e)(1) (i) through (v) of this section. ( i ) Perform daily VE observations o f 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 293 of 445 ( ii ) If VE are observed during any daily test conducted using Method 22 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 7, you must promptly conduct a n opacity test , according to the procedures of Method 9 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 4. If opacity greater than 10 percent is observed , you must initiate and complete corrective actions according to your OM&M plan. (iii) You may decrease the frequency of Method 22 testing from daily to weekly for a kiln stack if one of the conditions in paragraph (e)(1)(iii)(A) or (B) of this section is met. (A) N o VE are observed in 30 consecutive daily Method 22 tests for any kiln stack ; or (B) No opacity greater than 10 percent is observed during any of the Method 9 tests for any kiln stack. (iv) If VE are observed during any weekly test an d opacity greater than 10 percent is observed in the subsequent Method 9
test , you must promptly initiate and complete corrective actions according to your OM&M plan, resume testing of that kiln stack following Method 22 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 7 , on a daily basis, as described in paragraph (e)(1)(i) of this section, and maintain that schedule until one of the conditions in paragraph (e)(1)(iii)(A) or (B) of this section is met , at which time you may again decrease the frequency of Method 22 testing t o a weekly basis.

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 294 of 445 ( v ) If greater than 10 percent opacity is observed during any test conducted using Method 9 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

4, you must report these deviations by following the requirements in §63.8485. ( 2 ) Alternative to VE testing . In lie u of meeting the requirements under paragraph (e)(1) above, you may conduct a PM
test at least once every year following the initial performance
test , according to the procedures of Method 5 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 3 , and the provisions of § 63.8445(e ) and (f)(1)
. **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 s pecified. (b) You must submit all of the notifications specified in Table 8 to this subpart that apply to you, by the dates specified
. ( c ) If you are required to conduct a performance test or other initial compliance demonstration as specified in Tables 4 and 5 to this subpart, you r Notification of Compliance Status as specified in Table 8 to this subpart must include the information in paragraphs ( c )( 1 ) through ( 3 ) of this section. (1) The requirements in §63.9(h)(2)(i).

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 295 of 445 ( 2 ) The operating limit parameter values established for each affected source with supporting documentation and a description of the procedure used to establish the values. ( 3 ) For each APCD that includes a fabric filter, if a bag leak detection system is used, analysis and supporting docu mentation demonstrating conformance with EPA guidance and specifications for bag leak detection systems in §63.8450(e). **§63.8485 What reports must I submit and when?** (a) You must submit each report in Table 9 to this subpart that applies to you. (b) Unles s the Administrator has approved a different schedule for submission of reports under §63.10(a), you must submit each report by the date in Table 9 to this subpart and as specified in paragraphs (b)(1) through (5) of this section. (1) The first compliance report must cover the period beginning on the compliance date that is specified for your affected source in §63.8395 and ending on either June 30 or December 31. The first reporting period must be at least 6 months, but less than 1 2 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.

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 296 of 445 (2) The first compliance report must be postmarked or delivered no later than July 31 or January 31 for com pliance 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 su bsequent compliance report must be postmarked or delivered no later than July 31 or January 31 for compliance periods ending on June 30 and December 31, respectively. (5) For each affected source that is subject to permitting regulations pursuant to 40 CFR part 70 or 40 CFR part 71, if the permitting authority has established dates for submitting semiannual reports pursuant to 40 CFR 70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A) or 40 CFR 71.6(a)(3)(iii)(A), you may submit the first and subsequent compliance reports according to the dates the permitting authority has established instead of the dates in paragraphs (b)(1) through (4) of this section. (c) The compliance report must contain the information in paragraphs (c)(1) through (8) of this section. (1) Company name and address. (2) Statement by a responsible official with that official ’ s name, title, and signature, certifying that, based on information and belief formed after reasonable inquiry, the

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 297 of 445 statements and information in the report are true, accurate, and complete. (3) Date of report and beginning and ending dates of the reporting period. (4) A description of control device maintenance performed while the control device was offline and the kiln controlled by the control device was operating, including the information specifie d 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

w as offline. (iii) A statement of whether or not the control device maintenance was included in your approved routine control device maintenance request developed as specified in §63. 8420( d). If the control device maintenance was included in your approved

r outine control device maintenance request , then you must report the information in paragraphs (c)(4)(iii)(A) through (C) of this section. ( A ) The total amount of time that the kiln controlled by the control device operated during the current semiannual

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 298 of 445

com pliance period and during the previous semiannual compliance period. (B) The amount of time that each kiln controlled by the control device operated while the control device was offline for maintenance covered under the routine control device maintenance

a lternative standard during the current semiannual compliance period and during the previous semiannual compliance period. (C) Based on the information recorded under paragraphs (c)(4)(iii)(A) and (B) of this section, compute the annual percent of kiln oper ating 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
D T p 

## = Control device downtime claimed under the routine control device maintenance alternative standard for the previous semiannual compliance period
DT c 

## = Control device downtime claimed under the routine control device maintenance alternative standard 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

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 299 of 445 (5) A report of the most recent burner tune

- up conducted to comply with the dioxin/furan work practice standard in Table 3 to this subpart. (6) If there are no deviations from any emission limitations (emission limits or operating limits) that apply to you, the compliance report must contain a statement that there were no deviatio ns from the emission limitations during the reporting period. (7) If there were no periods during which the CMS was out

of

- control as specified in your OM&M plan, the compliance report must contain a statement that there were no periods during which the CM S was out

- of

- control during the reporting period. (8) The first compliance report must contain the startup push rate for each kiln, the minimum APCD inlet temperature for each APCD, and the temperature profile for each kiln without an
APCD. ( 9 ) For each de viation that occurs at an affected source, report such events in the compliance report by including the information in paragraphs ( c )( 9 ) (i) through ( iii ) of this section. ( i ) The date, time, and duration of the deviation
. (ii) A list of the affected source s or equipment for which the deviation occurred.

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 300 of 445 ( iii ) A n estimate of the quantity of each regulated pollutant emitted over any emission limit , and a description of the method used to estimate the emissions
. ( d ) For each deviation from an emission limitati on (emission limit or operating limit) occurring at an affected source where you are using a CMS to comply with the emission limitations in this subpart, you must include the information in paragraphs (c)(1) through (4) and (c)(9), and paragraphs ( d )(1) th rough (1 1 ) of this section. This includes periods of startup, shutdown, and routine control device maintenance. (1) The total operating time of each affected source during the reporting period. (2) The date and time that each CMS was inoperative, except fo r 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 ) W hether each deviation occurred during routine control device maintenance covered in you r approved routine control device maintenance alternative standard or during another period, and the cause of each deviation (including unknown cause, if applicable). ( 5 ) A description of any corrective action ta ken to return the affected unit to its normal or usual manner of operation
.

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 301 of 445 ( 6 ) A breakdown of the total duration of the deviations during the reporting period into those that were due to startup, shutdown, control equipment problems, process problems, other known causes, and other unknown cau ses. ( 7 ) A summary of the total duration of CMS downtime during the reporting period and the total duration of CMS downtime as a percent of the total source operating time during that reporting period. ( 8 ) A brief description of the process units. ( 9 ) A br ief description of the CMS. (1 0 ) The date of the latest CMS certification or audit. (1 1 ) A description of any changes in CMS, processes, or control equipment since the last reporting period. ( e ) If you have obtained a title V operating permit according to 40 CFR part 70 or 40 CFR part 71, you must report all deviations as defined in this subpart in the semiannual monitoring report required by 40 CFR 70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A) or 40 CFR 71.6(a)(3)(iii)(A). If you submit a compliance report according to Table 9 to th is subpart along with, or as part of, the semiannual monitoring report required by 40 CFR 70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A) or 40 CFR 71.6(a)(3)(iii)(A), and the compliance report includes all required information concerning deviations from any emission limitation (inclu ding any operating

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 302 of 445 limit), then submitting the compliance report will satisfy any obligation to report the same deviations in the semiannual monitoring report. However, submitting a compliance report will not otherwise affect any obligation you may have to report deviations from permit requirements to the permitting authority. ( f ) Within 60 calendar days after the date of completing each performance test (as defined in §63.2) required by this subpart, you must submit the results of the performance test foll owing the procedure specified in either paragraph ( f )(1) or ( f )(2) of this section. (1) For data collected using test methods supported by the
EPA ’ s Electronic Reporting Tool ( ERT ) as listed on the EPA ’ s ERT
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/ ) .) Performance test data must be submitted in a file format generated through the use of the EPA ’ s ERT or an a lternate electronic file format consistent with the extensible markup language (XML) schema listed on the EPA ’ s ERT Web site
. If you claim that some of the performance test information being submitted is confidential business information (CBI), you must submit a complete file

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 303 of 445 generated through the use of the EPA ’ s ERT or an alternate electronic file consistent with the XML schema listed on the
EPA ’ s E RT Web site , 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: Gr oup Leader, Measurement Policy Group , MD C404

- 02, 4930 Old Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703. The same ERT or alternate file with the CBI omitted must be submitted to the EPA via the
EPA ’ s CDX as described earlier in this paragraph. (2) For data collected using test methods that are not supported by the EPA ’ s ERT as listed on the EPA ’ s ERT 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 mu st I keep?**  (a) You must keep the records listed in paragraphs (a)(1) through (3) of this section. (1) A copy of each notification and report that you submitted to comply with this subpart, including all documentation supporting any Initial Notification or Notification of Compliance Status that you submitted, according to the requirements in §63.10(b)(2)(xiv).

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 304 of 44 5 (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 request , if you request to use the alternative standard under §63. 8420(d). (b) You must keep the records required in Table 6 to this subpart to show continuous compliance with each emission limitation and work practic e standard that applies to you. (c) You must also maintain the records listed in paragraphs (c)(1) through (11) of this section. (1) For each bag leak detection system, records of each alarm, the time of the alarm, the time corrective action was initiated and completed, and a brief description of the cause of the alarm and the corrective action taken. (2) For each deviation, record the information in paragraphs (c)(2)(i) through (i v ) of this section. (i) T he date, time, and duration of the deviation
. (ii) A list of the affected sources or equipment
. (iii) A n estimate of the quantity of each regulated pollutant emitted over any emission limit and a description of the method used to estimate the emissions.

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 305 of 445 (iv) Actions taken to minimize emissions in accordance with §63.8420(b) and any corrective action s taken to return the affected unit to its normal or usual manner of operation. (3) For each affected source, records of production rates

on a fired

- product basis
. (4) Records for any approved alternative monitori ng 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) L ogs of the information required in paragraphs ( c )( 7 ) (i) throu gh ( iii ) of this section to document proper operation of your periodic kiln. (i) Records of the firing time and temperature cycle for each product produced in each periodic kiln. If all periodic kilns use the same time and temperature cycles, one copy may be maintained for each kiln. Reference numbers must be assigned to use in log sheets
. (ii) For each periodic kiln, a log that details the type of product fired in each batch, the corresponding time and temperature protocol reference number, and an indicati on of whether the appropriate time and temperature cycle was fired.

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 306 of 445 (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 kil n. (8) L ogs of the maintenance procedures used to demonstrate compliance with the maintenance requirements of the periodic kiln work practice standard s 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 of startup and shutdown , records of the following information: (i) T he date, time, and duration of each startup and/or shutdown period , recording the periods when the affected source was subject to the standard applicable to startup and shutdown
. (ii) For periods of startup, the kiln push rate and kiln exhaust temperature prior to the time the kiln exhaust reaches the minimum APCD inlet temperature ( for a kiln with an APCD ) or the kiln temperature profile is attained ( for a kiln with no
APCD ). (iii) For periods of shutdown, the kiln push rate and kiln exhaust temperature after the time the kiln exhaust falls below the minimum APCD inlet temperature (for a kiln with an APCD) or

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 307 of 445 the kiln temperature profile is no longer maintained (for a kiln with no APCD)
. ( 11 ) All site

- specific parameters, temperature profiles, and procedures required to be established or developed according to the applicable work practice standards in Table 3 to this

s ubpart
. **§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 y ears following the date of each occurrence, measurement, maintenance, corrective action, report, or record. (c) You must keep each record onsite for at least 2 years after the date of each occurrence, measurement, maintenance, corrective action, report, or record, according to §63.10(b)(1). You may keep the records offsite for the remaining 3 years. **Other Requirements and Information §63.8505 What parts of the General Provisions apply to me?**  Table 10 to this subpart shows which parts of the General Provisi ons 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

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 308 of 445 tribal agency. If the U.S. EPA Admini strator 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 a nd 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 pa ragraph (c) of this section are retained by the Administrator of the U.S. EPA and are not transferred to the state , local, or tribal
agency. (c) The authorities that cannot be delegated to state , local, or tribal agencies are as specified in paragraphs (c) (1) through ( 6 ) of this section. (1) Approval of alternatives to the applicability requirements in §§63.8385 and 63.8390, the compliance date requirements in §63.8395, and the non

- opacity emission limitations in §63.8405. (2) Approval of major changes to t est methods under §63.7(e)(2)(ii) and (f) and as defined in §63.90.

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 309 of 445 (3) Approval of major changes to monitoring under §63.8(f) and as defined in §63.90. (4) Approval of major changes to recordkeeping and reporting under §63.10(f) and as defined in §63.90. (5) Approval of an alternative to any electronic reporting to the EPA required by this subpart. (6) Approval of a routine control device maintenance request under §63.8420(d). **§63.8515 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 operates on triboelectric, light

- scattering, l ight

transmittance, or other effects to monitor relative PM loadings. Brick and structural clay products (BSCP) manufacturing facility means a plant site that manufactures brick (including, but not limited to, face brick, structural brick, and brick

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 310 of 445
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, a nd dry and fire the bricks or shapes. A plant site that manufactures refractory product s , as defined in 40 CFR 63.9824, or clay ceramics, as defined in 40 CFR 63.8665, is not a BSCP manufacturing facility. Deviation means any instance in which an affected source subject to this subpart, or an owner or operator of such a

source: (1) Fails to meet any requirement or obligation established by this subpart including, but not limited to, any emission limitation (including any operating limit) or work practice
st andard; 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 continuo us injection of hydrated lime or other sorbent into a duct or reaction chamber followed by a fabric filter. Dry lime scrubber/fabric filter (DLS/FF) means an APCD that includes continuous injection of humidified hydrated lime or

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 311 of 445 other sorbent into a reacti on 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 wit h limestone, and may or may not include a peeling drum that mechanically scrapes reacted limestone to regenerate the stone for reuse. Emission limitation means any emission limit or operating limit. Fabric filter means an APCD used to capture PM by filteri ng a gas stream through filter media; also known as a baghouse. Initial startup means: (1) for a new or reconstructed tunnel kiln controlled with a DLA, the time at which the temperature in the kiln first reaches 260 ° C (500 ° F) and the kiln contains product ; or (2) for a new or reconstructed tunnel kiln controlled with a DIFF, DLS/FF, or wet scrubber (WS), the time at which the kiln first reaches a level of production that is equal to 75 percent of the kiln design capacity or 12 months after the affected

sou rce begins firing BSCP, whichever is earlier. Fired product means brick or structural clay products that have gone through the firing process via kilns.

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 312 of 445 Kiln exhaust process stream means the portion of the exhaust from a tunnel kiln that exhausts directly to the atmosphere (or to an APCD), rather than to a sawdust dryer. Large tunnel kiln means a tunnel kiln (existing, new, or reconstructed) with a design capacity equal to or greater than 9.07 Mg/hr (10 tph) of fired product. Minimum APCD inlet temperature means the minimum temperature that kiln exhaust can be vented to the APCD that ensures the long

- term integrity of the APCD
. Particulate matter (PM) means, for purposes of this subpart, emissions of PM that serve as a measure of total particulate emissions , as measured by Method 5 (40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 3) or Method 29 (40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 8), and as a surrogate for non - mercury metal HAP contained in the particulates including, but not limited to, antimony, arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, cobalt, lead, manganese, nickel, and selenium. Periodic kiln means a batch firing kiln. Plant site means all contiguous or adjoining property that is under common control, including properties that are separated only by a road or other public right

- of

- way . Common control includes properties that are owned, leased, or operated by the

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 313 of 445 same entity, parent entity, subsidiary, or any combination thereof. Responsible official means responsible official as defined in 40 CFR 70.2. Small tunnel kiln means a tunnel kiln (existing, new, or reconstructed) with a design capacity less than 9.07 Mg/hr (10 tph) of fired product. Startup means the setting in operation of an affected source and starting the production process. Startup push rate means the kiln push rate required to bring the kiln to the proper operating temperature during startup. Tunnel kiln means any continuous kiln that is used to fire BSCP. Some tunnel kilns have two process streams, including a process stream that exhausts d irectly 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 M g (tons), that a kiln is designed to produce in one year divided by the number of hours in a year (8,760 hours), taking into account the void space in the brick, the push rate for the kiln, and the stacking pattern, if applicable. If a kiln

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 314 of 445 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 vario us design mechanisms to increase the contact between exhaust gases and the sorbent. Work practice standard means any design, equipment, work practice, operational standard, or combination thereof, that is promulgated pursuant to section 112(h) of the Clean Air Act. **Tables to Subpart JJJJJ of Part 63** As stated in §63.8405, you must meet each emission limit in the following table that applies to you: **Table 1 to Subpart JJJJJ of Part 63 --**  **Emission Limits**

**For each... You must meet the**  **following emission limits.**  **.. Or you must comply**  **with the following...**  1. Collection of all tunnel kilns at facility, including all process streams. HF, HCl, and 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 large tunnel kiln (design capacity ≥ 10 tons per hour ( tph ) of fired product) , including all process streams. a. PM emissions must not exceed 0.0 1 8 kg /Mg (0.03 6 lb/ton) of fired product. i . PM emissions must n ot exceed 6.6 mg/dscm (0.0029 gr/dscf) at 17% O 2 

### ; or ii. Non

- Hg HAP metals emissions must not exceed 0.0026 kg/hr (0.0057 lb/hr).

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 315 of 445

**For each... You must meet the**  **following emission limits.**  **.. Or you must comply**  **with the following...**  b. Hg emissions must not exceed 2. 1 E

- 05 kilogram per megagram (kg/Mg) (4. 1 E

- 05 pound per ton (lb/ton)) of fired product. i. Hg emissions must not exceed 7. 7 micrograms per dry standard cubic meter (μg/dscm) at 17% O 2 

### ; or ii. Hg emissions must not exceed 2.5 E

- 04 kg/hr (5. 5 E

- 04 lb/hr). 3 . Existing small tunnel kiln (design capacity <10 tph of fired product), including all process streams a. PM emissions must not exceed 0. 1 9 kg/Mg (0.3 7 lb/ton) of fired product. i . PM emissions must not exceed 4.8 mg/dscm (0.00 21 gr/dscf) at 17% O 2 

### ; or ii. Non

- Hg HAP metals emissions must not exceed 0.0 4 7 kg/hr (0.1 1 lb/hr). b . Hg emissions must not exceed 1. 7 E

- 04 kg/Mg (3. 3 E

- 04 lb/ton) of fired product. i. Hg emissions must not exceed 91 μg/dscm at 17% O 2 

### ; or ii. Hg emissions must not exceed 8. 5 E

- 04 kg/hr (0.001 9 lb/hr). 4 . New or reconstructed large tunnel kiln (design capacity ≥ 10 tph of fired product) , including all process streams a. PM emissions must not exceed 0.0089 kg/Mg ( 0.018 lb/ton) of fired product. i . PM emissions must not exceed 3.2 mg/dscm ( 0.0014 gr/dscf) at 17% O 2 

### ; or ii. Non

- Hg HAP metals emissions must not exceed 0.0026 kg/hr (0.0057 lb/hr) of fired product. b. Hg emissions must not exceed 1.4 E

- 05 kg/Mg (2. 8 E

- 05 lb/ton) of fired product. i. Hg emissions must not exceed 6. 2 μg/dscm at 17% O 2 

### . ii. Hg emissions must not exceed 1. 6 E

- 04 kg/hr (3. 4 E

- 04 lb/hr).

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 316 of 445

**For each... You must meet the**  **following emission limits.**  **.. Or you must comply**  **with the following...**  5. New or reconstructed small tunnel kiln (design capacity <10 tph of fired product), including all process streams. a. PM emissions must not exceed 0.015 kg/Mg ( 0.030 lb/ton) of fired product. i . PM emissions must not exceed 4. 7 mg/dscm (0.002 1 gr/dscf) at 17% O 2 

### ; or ii. Non

- Hg HAP metals emissions must not exceed 0.04 7 kg/hr (0.1 1 lb/hr) of fired product. b. Hg emissions must not exceed 1. 7 E

- 04 kg/Mg (3. 3 E

- 04 lb/ton) of fired product. i. Hg emissions must not exceed 91 μg/dscm at 17% O 2 

### . ii. Hg emissions must not exceed 8. 5 E

- 04 kg/hr (0.001 9 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 damper is opened allowing the kiln exhaust gas to bypass the DLA and complete corrective action in accord ance with your OM&M plan ; and b. Maintain an adequate amount of limestone in the limestone hopper, storage bin (located at the top of the DLA), and DLA at all times; maintain the limestone feeder setting (on a per ton of fired product basis) at or above the level established during the HF/HCl/Cl 2 

### performance test in which compliance was demonstrated ; and c. Use the same grade of limestone from the same source as was used during the HF/HCl/Cl 2 

### performance test in which compliance was demonstrated ; maintain records of the source and grade of limestone; and

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 317 of 445

**For each...**  **You must...** 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 s ystem alarm and complete corrective actions in accordance with your OM&M plan; operate and maintain the fabric filter such that the alarm is not engaged for more than 5 percent of the total operating time in a 6

- month block reporting period; or maintain no VE from the DIFF or DLS/FF stack; and b. Maintain free

- flowing lime in the feed hopper or silo and to the APCD at all times for continuous injection systems; maintain the feeder setting (on a per ton of fired product basis) at or above the level established during the HF/HCl/Cl 2 

### performance test for continuous injection systems in which compliance was demonstrated
. 3. Tunnel kiln equipped with a WS. a. Maintain the average scrubber liquid pH for each 3

- hour block period at or above the average scrubber liquid pH established during the HF/HCl/Cl 2 

### performance test in which compliance was demonstrated; and

b . Maintain the average scrubber liquid flow rate for each 3

- hour block period at or above the highest average scrubber liquid flow rate established during the HF/HCl/Cl 2 

### and PM/non

- Hg HAP metals performance tests in which compliance was demonstrated. 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 in which compliance was demonstrated
.

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).


## 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**

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 318 of 445

**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 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. Establish the start up push rate for each kiln, the minimum APCD inlet temperature for each APCD, and temperature profile for each kiln without an APCD and include them in your first compliance report, as specified in §63.8485(c)(8); and ii. After initial charging of the kiln with loaded kiln cars, remain at or below the startup push rate for the kiln until the kiln exhaust reaches the minimum APCD inlet temperature for a kiln with an APCD or until the kiln temperature profile is attained for a kiln with no APCD ; and iii. If your kiln has an APCD, begin v ent ing the exhaust from the kiln through the APCD by the time the kiln exhaust temperature reaches the minimum APCD inlet temperature
.

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 319 of 445

**For each**  **... You must...**  **According to the following requirements...**  4. Existing, new or reconstructed tunnel kiln during periods of shutdown a. Minimize HAP emissions. i. Do not push loaded kiln cars into the kiln once the kiln exhaust temperature falls below the minimum APCD inlet temperature if the kiln is controlled by an APCD or when the kiln temperature profile i s no longer maintained for an uncontrolled kiln ; and ii. If your kiln has an APCD, continue to vent the exhaust from the kiln through the APCD until the kiln exhaust temperature falls below the minimum inlet temperature for the APCD. 5. Existing, new or reconstructed tunnel kiln during periods of routine control device maintenance a. Minimize HAP emissions. i. Develop and us e a temperature profile for each kiln ; and

ii. Develop and follow maintenance procedures for each kiln that, at a minimum, specify the frequency of inspection and maintenance of temperature monitoring devices and controls that regulate air

- to

- fuel ratios ; and i i i . Develop and maintain records for each kiln, as specified in §63.8490 ( a )( 3 )
.


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

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 320 of 445

**For each... You must...**  **Using... According to the**  **following requirements...**  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 (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. 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. 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) (incorporated 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 321 of 445

**For each... You must...**  **Using... According to the**  **following requirements...**  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 bee n 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 de termined 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 ii. For PM or non - Hg HAP metals: Method 29 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 8. 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)
.

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 322 of 445

**For each... You must...**  **Using... According to the**  **following requirements...**  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), 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)
. 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 an d record the production rate, on a fired

product basis, of the affected source for each of the three test runs.

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 averag e of the recorded pressure drop measurements for the three test runs. The average of the three test runs establishes your minimum site

specific pressure drop operating limit.

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 323 of 445

**For each... You must...**  **Using... According to the**  **following requirements...**  b. Establish the operating limit for the limestone feeder 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 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.

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 324 of 445

**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 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.

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 325 of 445

**For each... You must...**  **Using... According to the**  **following requirements...**  b . Establish the operating limit for the average scrubber liquid flow rate. Data from the flow rate measurement device during the 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
. 7 . 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 performa nce 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 runs, and determine and record the 3

- hour block average of the recorded carbon flow rate measurements fo r 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 326 of 445 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** 

**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, 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 each kiln using Equation 2 to this subpart; and iii. You sum the HCl

- equivalent values for all kilns at the facility using Equation 3 to this subpart; and iv. The facility total HCl

equivalent does not exceed 26 kg/hr (57 lb/hr). 2. Existing large tunnel kiln (design capacity ≥10 tph of fired product), including all process streams. a. PM emissions must not exceed 0.018 kg/Mg (0.03 6 lb/ton) of fired product or 6.6 mg/dscm (0.0029 gr/dscf) at 17% 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 0.018 kg/Mg (0.03 6 lb/ ton) of fired product or 6.6 mg/dscm (0.0029 gr/dscf) at 17% O 2 

### ; and

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 327 of 445

**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 0.018 kg/Mg (0.03 6 lb/ton) of fired product or 6.6 mg/dscm (0.0029 gr/dscf) at 17% O 2 

### . b. Non

- Hg HAP metals emissions must not exceed 0.0026 kg/hr ( 0.0057 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 0.0026 kg/hr ( 0.0057 lb/hr) ; and ii. You establish and have a record of the applicable operating limits listed in Table 2 to this subpart over the 3

- hour performance test during which non

- Hg HAP metals emissions did not exceed 0.0026 kg/hr ( 0.0057 lb/hr)
. c. Hg emissions must not exceed 2. 1 E

- 05 kg/Mg (4. 1 E

05 lb/ton) of fired product or 7. 7 μg/dscm at 17% O 2 

### or 2. 5 E

- 04 kg/hr (5. 5 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 b y reference, see §63.14) , over the period of the initial performance test, do not exceed 2. 1 E

- 05 kg/Mg (4. 1 E

- 05 lb/ton) of fired product or 7. 7 μg/dscm at 17% O 2 

### or 2.5 E

- 04 kg/hr (5. 5 E

- 04 lb/hr ); and ii. You establish and have a record of the applicable operating limits listed in Table 2 to this subpart over the 3

- hour performance test during which Hg emissions did not exceed 2. 1 E

- 05 kg/Mg (4. 1 E

- 05 lb/ton) of fired product or 7. 7 μg/dscm at 17% O 2 

### or 2.5 E

- 04 kg/hr (5. 5 E

- 04 lb/hr ).

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 328 of 445

**For each... For the**  **following... You have demonstrated initial**  **compliance if...** 3. Existing small tunnel kiln (design capacity < 10 tph of fired product), including all process streams. a. PM emissions must not exceed 0.1 9 kg/Mg (0.3 7 lb/ton) of fired product or 4.8 mg/dscm (0.00 21 gr/dscf) at 17% 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 0.1 9 kg/Mg (0.3 7 l b/ton) of fired product or 4. 8 mg/dscm (0.00 21 gr/dscf) at 17% 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 0.1 9 kg/Mg (0.3 7 lb/ton) of fired product or 4. 8 mg/dscm (0.00 21 gr/dscf) at 17% O 2 

### . b. Non

- Hg HAP metals emissions must not exceed 0.0 4 7 kg/hr ( 0.1 1 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 4 7 kg/hr ( 0.1 1 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 4 7 kg/hr ( 0.1 1 lb/hr)
. c . Hg emissions must not exceed 1. 7 E

- 04 kg/Mg (3. 3 E

04 lb/ton) of fired product or 91 μg/dscm at 17% O 2 

### or 8. 5 E

- 04 kg/hr (0.001 9 lb/hr). i. The Hg emissions measured using Method 29 of 40 CFR p art 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 1.7 E

- 04 kg/Mg (3.3 E

- 04 lb/ton) of fired product or 91 μg/dscm at 17% O 2 

### or 8. 5 E

- 04 kg/hr (0.0019 lb/hr); and

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 329 of 445

**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 1.7 E

- 04 kg/Mg (3.3 E

- 04 lb/ton) of fired product or 91 μg/dscm at 17% O 2 

### or 8. 5 E

- 04 kg/hr (0.0019 lb/hr). 4 . New or reconstructed large tunnel kiln (design capacity ≥10 tph of fired product), including all process streams. a. PM emissions must not exceed 0.0089 kg/Mg ( 0.018 lb/ton) of fired product or 3.2 mg/dscm ( 0.0014 gr/dscf) at 17% 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, accordi ng to the calculations in §63.8445(f)(1), do not exceed 0.0089 kg/Mg ( 0.018 lb/ton) of fired product or 3.2 mg/dscm ( 0.0014 gr/dscf) at 17% 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 0.0089 kg/Mg ( 0.018 lb/ton) of fired product or 3.2 mg/dscm ( 0.0014 gr/dscf) at 17% O 2 

### . b. Non

- Hg HAP metals emissions must not exceed 0.0026 kg/hr ( 0.0057 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 0.0026 kg/hr (0.0057 lb/hr) ; and ii. You establish and have a record of the applicable operating limits listed in Table 2 to this subpart over the 3

- hour performance test during which non

- Hg HAP metals emissions did not exceed 0.0026 kg/hr (0.0057 lb/hr)
. c. Hg emissions must not exceed 1.4 E

- 05 kg/Mg (2. 8 E

05 lb/ton) of fired product or 6. 2 μg/dscm at 17% O 2 

### or 1. 6 E

- 04 kg/hr (3. 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 1.4 E

- 05 kg/Mg (2.8 E

- 05 lb/ton) of fired product or 6. 2 μg/dscm at 17% O 2 

### or 1.6 E

- 04 kg/hr (3.4 E

- 04 lb/hr); and

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 330 of 445

**For each... For the**  **following... You have demonstrated initial**  **compliance if...** ii. You establish and have a reco rd of the applicable operating limits listed in Table 2 to this subpart over the 3

- hour performance test during which Hg emissions did not exceed 1.4 E

- 05 kg/Mg (2.8 E

- 05 lb/ton) of fired product or 6. 2 μg/dscm at 17% O 2 

### or 1.6 E

- 04 kg/hr (3.4 E

- 04 lb/hr). 5. New or reconstructed small tunnel kiln (design capacity <10 tph of fired product), including all process streams. a. PM emissions must not exceed 0.015 kg/Mg ( 0.030 lb/ton) of fired product or 4. 7 mg/dscm (0.002 1 gr/dscf) at 17% 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 0.015 kg/Mg ( 0.030 lb/ton) of fired product or 4. 7 mg/dscm (0.002 1 g r/dscf) at 17% 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 0.015 kg/Mg ( 0.030 lb/ton) of fired product or 4. 7 mg/dscm (0.002 1 gr/dscf) at 17% O 2 

### . b. Non

- Hg HAP metals emissions must not exceed 0.04 7 kg/hr (0.1 1 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 0.047 kg/hr (0.11 lb/hr); and ii. You establish and have a record of the applicable operating limits listed in Table 2 to this subpart over the 3

- hour performance test during which non

- Hg HAP metals emissions did not exceed 0.047 kg/hr (0.11 lb/hr). c. Hg emissions must not exceed 1. 7 E

- 04 kg/Mg (3. 3 E

04 lb/ton) of fired product or 91 μg/dscm at 17% O 2 

### or 8. 5 E

- 04 kg/hr (0.001 9 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 1.7 E

- 04 kg/Mg (3.3 E

- 04 lb/ton) of fired product or 91 μg/dscm at 17% O 2 

### or 8. 5 E

- 04 kg/hr (0.0019 lb/hr); and

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 331 of 445

**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 1.7 E

- 04 kg/Mg (3.3 E

- 04 lb/ton) of fired product or 91 μg/dscm at 17% O 2 

### or 8. 5 E

- 04 kg/hr (0.0019 lb/hr). 6. Existing, new or reconstructed periodic kiln. a. Minimize HAP emissions. i. Develop a designed firing time and temperature cycle for each periodic kiln . You must either program the time and temperature cycle into your kiln or track each step on a log sheet; and ii. Label each periodic kiln with the maximum load (in tons) of product that can be fired in the kiln during a single firing cycle ; and iii. 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. 7. 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 332 of 445

**For each...**  **For the following...**  **You must demonstra te 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 da ta 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 t he HF/HCl/Cl 2 

### performance test in which compliance was demonstrated ; 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 da mper 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 in which compliance was demonstrated ; 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 th e 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 333 of 445

**For each...**  **For the following...**  **You must demonstra te 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, as prescribed in 63.8450(e), initiating corrective action within 1 hour of a bag leak detection system alarm and completing corrective actions in accordance with your OM&M plan; operating and maintaining the fabric filter such that the alarm is not engaged for more than 5 percent of the total operating time in a 6

- month block reporting period; in calculating this ope rating 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 initiat e corrective action, the alarm time is counted as the actual amount of time taken by you to initiate corrective action; or performing VE observations of the DIFF or DLS/FF stack at the frequency specified in §63.8470(e) using Method 22 of 40 CFR part 60, a ppendix A

- 7; and maintaining no VE from the DIFF or DLS/FF stack; and ii. Verifying that lime is free

- flowing via a load cell, carrier gas/lime flow indicator, carrier gas pressure drop measurement system, or other system; recording all monitor or sensor output, and if lime is found not to be free flowing, promptly initiating and completing corrective actions in accordance with your OM&M plan; recording the feeder setting once during each shift of operation to verify that the feeder setting is being maintained at or above the level established during the HF/HCl/Cl 2 

### performance test in which compliance was demonstrated
. 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 t o this subpart for tunnel kilns equipped with WS. i. Collecting the scrubber liquid pH data according to §63.8450(a); reducing the scrubber liquid pH data to 3

- hour block averages according to §63.8450(a); maintaining the average scrubber liquid pH for eac h 3

- hour block period at or above the average scrubber liquid pH established during the HF/HCl/Cl 2 

### performance test in which compliance was demonstrated; and

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 334 of 445

**For each...**  **For the following...**  **You must demonstra te continuous compliance**  **by...** ii. Collecting the scrubber liquid flow rate data according to §63.8450(a); reducing the scrubber liquid flow rate data to 3

- hour block averages according to §63.8450(a); maintaining the average scrubber liquid flow rate for each 3

- hour block period at or above the highest average scrubber liquid flow rate established during the HF/HCl/Cl 2 

### and PM/non

- Hg HAP metals performance tests in which compliance was demonstrated
. 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 in which compliance was demonstrated
.

5. Tunnel kiln with no add

- on control a. Each emission limit in Table 1 to this subpart and each operating limit in Item 5 of Table 2 to this subpart for tunnel kilns with no add

- on control. 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 periodic kiln ; and

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 335 of 445

**For each...**  **For the following...**  **You must demonstra te continuous compliance**  **by...** 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 iii. Submitting a report of most recent tune

up conducted with compliance report.


## As stated in §63.8395, you must meet each compliance date in the following table that applies to you: **Table 7 to Subpart JJJJJ of Part 63 --**  **Compliance Dates**
**If you have a(n) ...**  **Then you must ...**  **No later than ...**  1. N ew or reconstructed affected source and the initial startup of your affected source is after December 18, 2014, but before **[insert date**  **60 days from date**  **of publication in the**  **Federal Register ]**  C omply with the applicable emission limitations and work practice standards in Tables 1, 2, and 3 to this subpart **[I nsert**  **date 60**  **days from date of publication**  **in the Federal Register**  **] .** 

2. N ew or reconstructed affected source and the initial startup of your affected source is after **[insert date**  **60 days from date**  **of publication in the**  **Federal Register ]**  C omply with the applicable emission limitations and work practice standards in Tables 1, 2, and 3 to this subpart I nitial startup of your affected source .

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 336 of 445
**If you have a(n) ...**  **Then you must ...**  **No later than ...**  3. E xisting affected source C omply with the applicable emission limitations and work practice standards in Tables 1, 2, and 3 to this subpart **[I nsert date 3**  **years and 60**  **days from**  **date o**  **f publication in the Federal**  **Register ]**  **.** 4. E xisting 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 B e in compliance with this subpart I nitia l startup of your affected source as a major source
.

5. N ew area source ( i.e. , an area source for which construction or reconstruction commenced after December 18, 2014) that increases its emissions or its potential to emit such that it becomes a major so urce of HAP B e in compliance with this subpart I nitial startup of your affected source as a major source
.



## As stated in §63.8480, you must submit each notification that applies to you according to the following table: **Table 8 to Subpart JJJJJ of Part 63**  **-- Deadlines for Submitting**  **Notifications**

**If you... You must...**  **No later than ...**  **As specified in...**  1. Start up your affected source before **[insert date**  **60 days from date**  **of publication**  **in the Federal Register**  **]** Submit an Initial Notification **[ I**  **nsert date 240**  **days from**  **date of publication**  **in the Federal**  **Register ]**  §63.9(b)( 2)
.

2. Start up your new or reconstructed affected source on or after **[insert date**  **60 days from date**  **of publication**  **in the Federal Register**  **]** Submit an Initial Notification 120 calendar days after you become subject to this subpart §63.9( b)(2)
.

3. Are required to conduct a performance test Submit a notification of intent to conduct a performance test 60 calendar days before the performance test is scheduled to begin §63.7(b)(1).

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 337 of 445 4. Are required to conduct a compliance demonstration that includes a performance test according to the requirements in Table 4 to this subpart Submit a Notification of Compliance Status, including the performance test results 60 calendar days following the completion of the performance test, by the close of business §63.9(h) and §63.10(d)(2).

5. Are required to conduct a compliance demonstration required in Table 5 to this subpart that does not include a performance test ( i.e. , compliance demonstrations for the work practice standards) Submit a Notification of Compliance Status 30 calendar days following the completion of the compliance demonstrations, by the close of business §63.9(h)
.

6. Request to use the routine control device maintenance alternative standard according to §63.8420( d) Submit your request 120 calendar days before the compliance date specified in §63.8395.


## As stated in §63.8485, you must submit each report that applies to you according to the following table: **Table 9**  **to Subpart JJJJJ of Part 63 --**  **Requirements for Reports**

**You must submit...**  **The report must contain... You must submit**  **the report...** 1. A compliance report. a. If there are no deviations from any emission limitations (emission limits, operating limits) that apply to you, a statement that there were no deviations from the emission limitations during the reporting period. If there were no periods during which the CMS was out

- of

control as specified in your OM&M plan, a statement that there were no periods duri ng which the CMS was out

- of

- control during the reporting period. Semiannually according to the requirements in §63.8485(b).

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 338 of 445

**You must submit...**  **The report must contain... You must submit**  **the report...** b. If you have a deviation from any emission limitation (emission limit, operating limit) during the reporting period, the report must contain the information in §63.8485( c ) (9) . If there were periods during which the CMS was out

- of

- control, as specified in your OM&M plan, the report must contain the information in §63.8485( d ). Semiannually according to the requirements in §63.8485(b)
.



## As stated in §63.8505, you must comply with the General Provisions in §§63.1 through 63.16 that apply to you according to the following table: **Table 10**  **to Subpart JJJJJ of Part 63 --**  **Applicability of General Provisions to Subpart JJJJJ** 

**Citation Subject**  **Brief Description Applies to**  **Subpart JJJJJ?** §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.

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 339 of 445

**Citation Subject**  **Brief Description Applies to**  **Subpart JJJJJ?** §63.6(b)(1)

- (4) Compliance Dates for New and Reconstructed sources. Standards apply at effective date; 3 years after effect ive 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 reconstruction 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 calendar 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.

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 340 of 445

**Citation Subject**  **Brief Description Applies to**  **Subpart JJJJJ?** §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 V E 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.

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 341 of 445

**Citation Subject**  **Brief Description Applies to**  **Subpart JJJJJ?** §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 calendar days after first subject to rule. Yes.

§63.7(a)(3) Section 114 Authorit y. 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 calendar days before the test. Yes.

§63.7(b)(2) Notification of Rescheduling. Must notify Administrator 5 calendar 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) Condit ions for Conducting Performance Tests. Cannot conduct performance tests during SSM; not a violation to exceed standard during SSM. No, §63.8445 specifies requirements.

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 342 of 445

**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 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 calendar 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.

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 343 of 445

**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 pollution cont rol 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.

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 344 of 445

**Citation Subject**  **Brief Description Applies to**  **Subpart JJJJJ?** §63.8(d) (1) and (2) CMS Quality Control. Requirements for CMS quality control. Yes. §63.8(d)(3) CMS Quality Control. Written procedures for CMS
. No, §63.84 25(b)(9) specifies requirements §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 calendar days prior. Yes.

§63.9(f) Notification of VE/Opacity Test. Notify Administrator 30 calendar days prior. No, not applicable.
§63.9(g)(1) Additional Notifications When Using CMS. Notification of performance evaluation. Yes

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 345 of 445

**Citation Subject**  **Brief Description Applies to**  **Subpart JJJJJ?** §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 calendar 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.

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 346 of 445

**Citation Subject**  **Brief Description Applies to**  **Subpart JJJJJ?** §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.

§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( c ) (9) for malfunction reporting requirements. §63.10(e)(1)

- (3) Additional CMS Reports. Requirements for CMS r eporting. 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.

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 3 47 of 445

**Citation Subject**  **Brief Description Applies to**  **Subpart JJJJJ?** §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: **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 t his subpart? 63.8540 What parts of my plant does this subpart cover? 63.8545 When do I have to comply with this subpart? **Emission Limitations and Work Practice Standards** 63.8555 What emission limitations and work practice standards must I meet? 63.8560 Wh at are my options for meeting the emission limitations and work practice standards?

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 348 of 445 **General Compliance Requirements** 63.8570 What are my general requirements for complying with this subpart? 63.8575 What do I need to know about operation, maintenance, and monitoring plans? **Testing and Initial Compliance Requirements** 63.8585 By what date must I conduct performance tests? 63.8590 When must I conduct subsequent performance tests? 63.8595 How do I conduct performance tests and establish operating limits? 63.86 00 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 col lect 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 Wh at reports must I submit and when? 63.8640 What records must I keep? 63.8645 In what form and for how long must I keep my records? **Other Requirements and Information** 63.8655 What parts of the General Provisions apply to me? 63.8660 Who implements and enfo rces 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 Equivalency Factors

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 349 of 445 Table 6 to Subpart KKKKK of Part 63

-- Initial Compliance with Emission Limitations and Work Practice St andards Table 7 to Subpart KKKKK of Part 63

-- Continuous Compliance with Emission Limitations and Work Practice Standards Table 8 to Subpart KKKKK of Part 63

-- Compliance Dates Table 9 to Subpart KKKKK of Part 63

-- Requirements for Notifications Table 10 to S ubpart KKKKK of Part 63

-- Requirements for Reports Table 11 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 an d continuous 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 manufacturi ng facility that is, is located at, or is part of a major source of HAP emissions according to the criteria in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section. (a) A clay ceramics manufacturing facility is a plant site that manufactures pressed floor tile, pressed wall tile, other pressed tile, or sanitaryware ( e.g. , sinks and toilets). Clay ceramics manufacturing facilities typically process clay, shale, and various additives; form the processed materials into tile or

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 350 of 445 sanitaryware shapes; and dry and fire the ceram ic products. Glazes are applied to many tile and sanitaryware products. A plant site that manufactures refractory product s , as defined in 40 CFR 63.9824, or brick and structural clay products (BSCP), as defined in 40 CFR 63.8515, is not a clay ceramics man ufacturing facility. (b) A major source of HAP emissions is any stationary source or group of stationary sources within a contiguous area under common control that emits or has the potential to emit any single HAP at a rate of 9.07 megagrams (10 tons) or more per year or any combination of HAP at a rate of 22.68 megagrams (25 tons) or more per year. **§63.8540 What parts of my plant does this subpart cover?** (a) This subpart applies to each existing, new, or reconstructed affected source at a c lay ceramics manufacturing facility. (b) Each existing, new, or reconstructed ceramic tile roller kiln , sanitaryware tunnel kiln , sanitaryware shuttle kiln , ceramic tile glaze line using glaze spraying , sanitaryware glaze spray booth , ceramic tile spray dr yer , and floor tile press dryer is an affected source.

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 351 of 445 (c) Process units not subject to the requirements of this subpart are listed in paragraphs (c)(1) through ( 9 ) of this section. (1) Tunnel, roller or shuttle kilns that are used exclusively for refiring
. (2) Tunnel, roller or shuttle kilns that are used exclusively for setting glazes on previously fired products. (3) Glaze spray operations that are used exclusively with those kilns listed in paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of this section. (4) Process units listed in paragraphs (c)(1) through (3) of this section that are permitted to, but do not, process first

- fire ware, until such time as they begin to process first

fire ware. ( 5 ) G laze spray operations that on average use wet glazes containing less than 0.1 (weight) percent metal HAP (dry weight basis) per spray booth over an entire calendar year. ( 6 ) Raw material processing and handling. ( 7 ) Wall tile press dryers. ( 8 ) Sanitaryware ware dryers. ( 9 ) Sources covered by subparts JJJJJ and SSSSS of this part.

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 352 of 445 ( d) A source is a new affected source if construction of the affected source began after December 18, 2014, and you met the applicability criteria at the time you began construction. (e) An affected source is reconstructed if you meet the criteria as define d 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) Y ou must comply with this subpart no later than the compliance dates in Table 8 to this subpart. ( b ) You must meet the notification requirements in §63.8630 according to the schedule in §63.8630 and in subpart A of this part. Some of the notifications must be submitted before you are required to comply with the emission limitations in this subpart. **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 m ust meet each operating limit in Table 2 to this subpart that applies to you.

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 353 of 445 (c) You must meet each work practice standard in Table 3 to this subpart that applies to you. **§63.8560 What are my options for meeting the emission limitations and work practice**  **standards?** (a) To meet the emission limitations in Tables 1 and 2 to this subpart, you must use one or more of the options listed in paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this section. (1) Emissions control system . U se an emissions capture and collection system an d an air pollution control device (APCD) and demonstrate that the resulting emissions meet the emission limits in Table 1 to this subpart, and that the capture and collection system and APCD meet the applicable operating limits in Table 2 to this subpart. (2) Process changes
. Use low

- HAP raw materials or implement manufacturing process changes and demonstrate that the resulting emissions or emissions reductions meet the emission limits in Table 1 to this subpart. (b) To meet 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.

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 354 of 445 **General Compliance Requirements §63.8570 What are my general requirements for complying with**  **this subpa rt?**  (a) You must be in compliance with the emission limitations (including operating limits) in this subpart at all times, except during periods that you are approved for and in compliance with the alternative standard for routine control device maintenanc e as specified in paragraph (d) of this section , and except during periods of start

- up and shutdown, at which time you must comply with the applicable work practice standard specified in Table 3 to this subpart
. (b) A t all times, you must operate and maintain any affected source, including associated air pollution control equipment and monitoring equipment, in a manner consistent with safety and good air pollution control practices for minimizing emissions. The general duty to minimiz e emissions does not require you to make any further efforts to reduce emissions if levels required by the applicable standard have been achieved. Determination of whether a source is operating in compliance with operation and maintenance requirements will be based on information available to the Administrator which may include, but is not limited to, monitoring results, review of operation and maintenance procedures, review of operation and maintenance

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 355 of 445 records, and in spection of the source. During the peri od 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 h ave 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 imp lement a written operation, maintenance, and monitoring (OM&M) plan according to the requirements in §63.8575. (d) If you own or operate an affected source that is subject to the emission limits specified in Table 1 to this subpart and must perform routine maintenance on the control device for that affected source, you may bypass the source control device and continue operating the affected source subject to the alternative standard established in this paragraph upon approval by the Administrator and provid ed you satisfy the conditions listed in paragraphs (d)(1) through (5) of this section. (1) You must request to use the routine control device maintenance alternative standard from the Administrator no later

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 356 of 445 than 120 calendar days before the compliance date specified in §63.8545 . Your request must justify the need for the routine maintenance on the control device and the time required to accomplish the maintenance activities, describe the maintenance activities and the frequency of the maintenance activities , explain why the maintenance cannot be accomplished during source shutdowns, provide information stating whether the continued operation of the affected source will result in fewer emissions than shutting the source down while the maintenance is performed , describe how you plan to comply with paragraph (b) of this section du ring the maintenance, and provide any other documentation required by the Administrator. (2) The routine control device maintenance must not exceed 4 percent of the annual operating uptime for each affected

source. (3) The request for the routine control device maintenance alternative standard , if approved by the Administrator, must be incorporated by reference in and attached to the affected

source ’ s title V permit. (4) You must mini mize HAP emissions during the period when the affected source is operating and the control device is offline by complying with the applicable standard in Table 3 to this subpart
.

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 357 of 445 (5) You must minimize the time period during which the affected source is ope rating and the control device is offline. ( e ) If you own or operate an affected kiln that is subject to the work practice standard specified in Table 3 to this subpart, you must be in compliance with that work practice standard at all times, except during periods of natural gas curtailment or other periods when natural gas is not available. ( f ) You must be in compliance with the provisions of subpart A of this part, except as noted in Table 9 to this subpart. **§63.8575 What do I need to know about operation , maintenance,**  **and monitoring plans?** (a) For each affected source that is subject to the emission limits specified in Table 1 to this subpart, you must prepare, implement, and revise as necessary an OM&M plan that includes the information in paragraph (b) of this section. Your OM&M plan must be available for inspection by the delegated authority upon request. (b) Your OM&M plan must include, as a minimum, the information in paragraphs (b)(1) through (13) of this section. (1) Each process and APCD to be moni tored, 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 358 of 445 (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 manufacturer ’ s recommendations. (5) Procedures for installing the CMS sampling probe or other interface at a measurement location relative to each affected process u nit such that the measurement is representative of control of the exhaust emissions ( e.g. , on or downstream of the last APCD). (6) Performance and equipment specifications for the sample interface, the pollutant concentration or parametric signal analyzer, and the data collection and reduction system. (7) Continuous monitoring system performance evaluation procedures and acceptance criteria ( e.g. , calibrations). (8) Procedures for the proper operation and maintenance of monitoring equipment consistent with the requirements in §§63.8600 and 63.8(c)(1), (3), (7), and (8).

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 359 of 445 (9) Continuous monitoring system data quality assurance procedures consistent with the requirements in §63.8(d) (1) and (2)
. The owner or operator shall keep these written procedures on record for the life of the affected source or until the affected source is no longer subject to the provisions of this part, to be made available for inspection, upon request, by the Administrator. If the performance evaluation plan in §63.8(d) (2) is revised, th e owner or operator shall keep previous ( i.e. , superseded) versions of the performance evaluation plan on record to be made available for inspection, upon request, by the Administrator, for a period of 5 years after each revision to the plan. The program o f corrective action should be included in the plan required under §63.8(d)(2). (10) Continuous monitoring system recordkeeping and reporting procedures consistent with the requirements in §§63.8635 and 63.8640
. (11) Procedures for responding to operating parameter deviations, including the procedures in paragraphs (b)(11)(i) through (iii) of this section. (i) Procedures for determining the cause of the operating parameter deviation. (ii) Actions necessary for correcting the deviation and returning the oper ating parameters to the allowable limits.

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 360 of 445 (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 a ffected 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 c ontrol 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 requireme nts 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

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 361 of 445 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 source that is subject to the emission limits specified in Table 1 to this subpart, you must conduct performance tests within 180 calendar days after the compliance date that is specified for your source in §63.8545 and according to the provisions in §63.7(a)(2)
. **§63.8590 When must I conduct subsequent performance tests?** (a) For each affected source that is subject to the emission limits specified in Table 1 to this subpart, you must conduct a performance test before renewing your 40 CFR part 70 operating permit or at least every 5 years following the initial performance test. (b) You must conduct a performance test when you want to change the parameter value for any operating limit specified in your OM&M plan.

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 362 of 445 **§63.8595 How do I conduct performance tests and est ablish**  **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 mus t install and calibrate all monitoring equipment. (c) Each performance test must be conducted according to the requirements in §63.7 and under the specific conditions in Table 4 to this subpart. Stacks to be tested at sanitaryware manufacturing facilities shall be limited to products of combustion (POC) stacks and those cooling stacks with an oxygen content at or below 20.5 percent. (d) Performance tests shall be conducted under such conditions as the Administrator specifies to you based on representative p erformance of the affected source for the period being tested. Representative conditions exclude periods of startup and shutdown
. You may not conduct performance tests during periods of malfunction. You must record the process information that is necessary to document operating conditions during the test and include in such record an explanation to support that such conditions represent normal operation. Upon request, you shall make available to the Administrator such

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 363 of 445 records as may be necessary to determin e 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 durin g the performance test and the equations in paragraphs (f)(1) through (4) of this section to determine compliance with the emission limitations. (1) To determine compliance with the production

- based particulate matter (PM) and mercury (Hg) emission limits for ceramic tile roller kilns and sanitaryware tunnel kilns in Table 1 to this subpart, you must calculate your mass emissions per unit of production for each test run using Equation 1:

P ER MP = 

## (Eq. 1)

Where:
MP = mass per unit of production, kilograms (pounds) of pollutant per megagram (ton) of throughput
ER = mass emission rate of pollutant (PM or Hg) during each performance test run, kilograms (pounds) per hour
P = production rate during each performance test run , megagrams (tons) of throughput per hour. (2) To determine compliance with the PM emission limits for ceramic tile glaze lines with glaze spraying and sanitaryware glaze spray booths in Table 1 to this subpart, you must

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 364 of 445 calculate your mass emissions per u nit of first

- fire glaze sprayed (dry weight basis) 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 first

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

- fire glaze sprayed per hour (dry weight basis). (3) To determine compliance with the dioxin/furan emission limits for tunnel and roller kilns, ceramic tile spray dryers, and floor tile press dryers in Table 1 to this subpart, you must calculate the sum of the 2,3,7,8

- tetrachlorodibenzo

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

- TCDD) toxic equivalents (T EQs) for each test run using Equation 3: 

# ( )
P T TEF M TEQ

r n

i i i


## ×

×

= 

# ∑

= 1 

## (Eq. 3)

Where: TEQ = sum of the 2,3,7,8

- TCDD TEQs, nanograms per kilogram of throughput processed
. M i 

## = mass of dioxin or furan congener i during performance test run , nanograms

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 365 of 445
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
T r 

## = time of performance test run, hours
P = production rate during performance test run, kilograms of throughput proc essed per hour. (4) To determine compliance with the health

- based standard for acid gas HAP for clay ceramics manufacturing facilities in Table 1 to this subpart, you must: (i) 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 366 of 445 

# ∑

= 

## = 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 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 us ing 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 throughput per hour
MP iH Cl 

## = mass of HCl per unit of production for kiln i, kilograms (pounds) of HCl per megagram (ton) of

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 367 of 445 throughput
MP iH F 

## = mass of HF per unit of production for kiln i, kilograms (pounds) of HF per megagram (ton) of throughput RfC HCl 

## = r eference concentration for H Cl , 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

- 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 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

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 368 of 44 5 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 throughput
MP iH F 

## = mass of HF per unit of production for kiln i, kilograms (pounds) of HF per megagram (ton) of thro ughput RfC HCl 

## = r eference concentration for HCl , 20 micrograms per cubic meter 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

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 369 of 445 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 paragraph s (h)(1)(i) through (iv) of this section. (i) A description of the alternative APCD or process changes. (ii) The type of monitoring device or procedure that will be used. (iii) The operating parameters that will be monitored. (iv) The frequency that the op erating 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 370 of 445 (2) Establish site

- specific operating limits during the performance test based on the information included in the approved alternative mo nitoring procedures request and, as applicable, as specified in Table 4 to this subpart. **§63.8600 What are my monitoring installation, operation, and maintenance requirements?**  (a) You must install, operate, and maintain each CMS according to your OM&M plan and the requirements in paragraphs (a)(1) through (5) of this section. (1) Conduct a performance evaluation of each CMS according to your OM&M plan. (2) T he CMS must complete a minimum of one cycle of operation for each successive 15

- minute period. To have a valid hour of data, you must have at least three of four equally spaced data values (or at least 75 percent if you collect more than four data values p er hour) for that hour (not including startup, shutdown, malfunction, out

- of

- control periods, or periods of routine control device maintenance covered by the routine control device maintenance alternative standard as specified in §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

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 371 of 445 the average for each 3

- hour average period, you must have at least 75 pe rcent of the recorded readings for that period (not including startup, shutdown, malfunction, out

- of

- control periods, or periods of routine control device maintenance covered by the routine control device maintenance alternative standard as specified in §6 3.8570( 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) Fo r 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 senso r 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.

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 372 of 445 (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 cor rosion. (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 ma nometer, check gauge calibration quarterly and transducer calibration monthly. (6) Any time the sensor exceeds the manufacturer ’ s specified maximum operating pressure range, conduct calibration checks or install a new pressure sensor. (7) At least monthly, inspect all components for integrity, all electrical connections for continuity, and all mechanical connections for leakage. (d) For each pH measurement device, you must meet the requirements in paragraphs (a)(1) through (5) and paragraphs (d)(1) through (4) of this section. (1) Locate the pH sensor in a position that provides a representative measurement of pH.

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 373 of 445 (2) Ensure the sample is properly mixed and representative of the fluid to be measured. (3) Check the pH meter ’ s calibration at o ne point daily
. ( 4) At least monthly, inspect all components for integrity and all electrical connections for continuity. (e) For each bag leak detection system, you must meet the requirements in paragraphs (e)(1) through (11) of this section. (1) Each triboelectric bag le ak detection system must be installed, calibrated, operated, and maintained according to the
EPA

- 454/R

- 98

- 015, “ Fabric Filter Bag Leak Detection Guidance, ” (incorporated by reference, see §63.14) . Other types of bag leak detection systems must be installed, operated, calibrated, and maintained in a manner consistent with the manufacturer ’ s written specifications and recommendations. (2) The bag leak detection system must be certified by the manufacturer to be capable of detecting PM emissions at

co ncentrations 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.

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 374 of 445 (5) The bag leak detection system must be equipped with an audible alarm system that will sound automatically when an increase in relative PM emissions over a preset level is detected. The alarm must be located where it is easily heard by plant operating personnel. (6) For positive pressure fabric filter systems, a bag leak detector must be installed in each baghouse compartment or cell. (7) For negative pressure or induced air fabric filters, the bag leak detector must be installed downstream of the fabric filter. (8) Where multiple detectors are required, the system ’ s instrumentation and alarm may be shared among detectors. (9) The baseline output must be established by adjusting the range and the averaging period of the device and establishing the alarm set points and the alarm delay time according to section 5.0 of the “ Fabric Filter Bag Leak Detection Guidance, ” (incorpora ted 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 in creased by more than 100 percent or decreased more than 50 percent over a 365

- day period unless such adjustment follows a complete fabric

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 375 of 445 filter inspection which demonstrates that the fabric filter is in good operating condition, as defined in section 5.2 of the

“ Fabric Filter Bag Leak Detection Guidance, ” (incorporated by reference, see §63.14) . Record each adjustment. (11) Record the results of each inspection, calibration, and validation check. (f) For each lime, chemical, or carbon feed rate
measurement device, you must meet the requirements in paragraphs (a)(1) through (5) and paragraphs (f)(1) and (2) of this section. (1) Locate the measurement device in a position that provides a representative feed rate measurement. (2) At least semiannually, conduct a calibration check. (g) For each temperature measurement device, you must meet the requirements in paragraphs (a)(1) through (5) and paragraphs (g)(1) through (3) of this section. (1) Locate the measurement device in a position that provides a representa tive 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.

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 376 of 445 (h) Requests for approval of alternate monitoring procedures must meet the req uirements in §§63.8595(h) and 63.8(f). **§63.8605 How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the emission limitations and work practice standards?**  (a) You must demonstrate initial compliance with each emission limitation and work practice standard that ap plies to you according to Table 6 to this subpart. (b) You must establish each site

- specific operating limit in Table 2 to this subpart that applies to you according to the requirements in §63.8595 and Table 4 to this subpart. (c) You must submit the Notif ication of Compliance Status containing the results of the initial compliance demonstration according to the requirements in §63.8630(e). **Continuous Compliance Requirements §63.8615 How do I monitor and collect dat**  **a 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, cal ibration checks and required zero and span adjustments), you must monitor continuously (or collect

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 377 of 445 data at all required intervals) at all times that the affected source is operating. This includes periods of startup, shutdown, malfunction, and routine cont rol device maintenance as specified in §63.8570( d ) when the affected source is operating. (c) You may not use data recorded during monitoring malfunctions, associated repairs, out

- of

- control periods, or required quality assurance or control activities for purposes of calculating data averages. You must use all the valid data collected during all other periods in assessing compliance. Any averaging period for which you do not have valid monitoring data and such data are required constitutes a deviation from the monitoring requirements. **§63.8620 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the emission limitations and work practice standards?**  (a) You must demonstrate continuous compliance with each emission limit, operating limit, and work practice standar d in Tables 1, 2, and 3 to this subpart that applies to you according to the methods specified in Table 7 to this subpart. (b) For each affected source that is subject to the emission limits specified in Table 1 to this subpart and is equipped with an APCD that is not addressed in Table 2 to this subpart, or that is using process changes as a means of meeting the emission limits in Table 1 to this subpart, you must

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 378 of 445 demonstrate continuous compliance with each emission limit in Table 1 to this subpart, and ea ch operating limit established as required in §63.8595( h )(2) according to the methods specified in your approved alternative monitoring procedures request, as described in §§63.8595( h )(1) and 63.8(f). (c) You must report each instance in which you did not meet each emission limit and operating limit in this subpart that applies to you. These instances are deviations from the emission limitations in this subpart. These deviations must be reported according to the requirements in §63.8635 (c)(8)
. ( d) [Reserved ] (e) You must demonstrate continuous compliance with the operating limits in Table 2 to this subpart for visible emissions (VE) from tunnel or roller kilns that are uncontrolled or equipped with DIFF, DLS/FF, or other dry control device by monitoring VE at each kiln stack according to the requirements in paragraphs (e)(1) through (3) of this section. (1) Perform daily VE observations of each kiln stack according to the procedures of Method 22 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 7. You must conduct 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 379 of 445 (2) If VE are observed during any daily test conducted using Method 22 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 7, you must promptly initiate and complete corrective actions according to your OM&M plan. If no VE are observed in 30 consecutive daily Method 22 tests for any kiln stack, you may decrease the frequency of Method 22 testing from daily to weekly for that kiln stack. If VE are observed during any weekly test, you must promptly initiate and complete corrective actions according to your OM&M plan, resume Method 22 testing of that kiln stack on a daily basis, and maintain that schedule until no VE are observed in 30 consecutive da ily 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 requir ements 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) You must submit all of the notifications specified in Table 9 to this subpart that apply to you, by the dates specified.

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 380 of 445 (c) If you are required to conduct a performance test or other initial c ompliance demonstration as specified in Tables 4 and 6 to this subpart, you r Notification of Compliance Status as specified in Table 9 to this subpart must include the information in paragraphs ( c )(1) through (3) of this section. (1) T he requirements in §6 3.9(h)(2)(i)
. ( 2 ) The operating limit parameter values established for each affected source with supporting documentation and a description of the procedure used to establish the values. ( 3 ) For each APCD that includes a fabric filter, if a bag leak detect ion system is used, analysis and supporting documentation demonstrating conformance with EPA guidance and specifications for bag leak detection systems in §63.8600(e). ( d ) If you own or operate an affected kiln that is subject to the work practice standard specified in Item 1 of Table 3 to this subpart, and you intend to use a fuel other than natural gas or equivalent to fire the affected kiln, you r notification of alternative fuel use must include the information specified in paragraphs ( d )(1) through (5) of this section. (1) Company name and address. (2) Identification of the affected kiln.

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 381 of 445 (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 10 to this subpart that applies to yo u. (b) Unless the Administrator has approved a different schedule for submission of reports under §63.10(a), you must submit each report by the date in Table 10 to this subpart and as specified in paragraphs (b)(1) through (5) of this section. (1) The firs t compliance report must cover the period beginning on the compliance date that is specified for your affected source in §63.8545 and ending on either June 30 or December 31. This reporting period must be at least 6 months, but less than 12 months. For exa mple, 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 e nding on June 30 and December 31, respectively.

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 382 of 445 (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 complian ce 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 CF R 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 per mitting authority has established instead of the dates in paragraphs (b)(1) through (4) of this section. (c) The compliance report must contain the information in paragraphs (c)(1) through ( 8 ) of this section. (1) Company name and address. (2) Statement by a responsible official with that official ’ s name, title, and signature, certifying that, based on information and belief formed after reasonable inquiry, the statements and information in the report are true, accurate, and complete.

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 383 of 445 (3) Date of report and beginning and ending dates of the reporting period. ( 4) A description of control device maintenance performed while the control device was offline and the affected source controlled by the control device was operating, including the information specified in paragraphs (c)(4)(i) through (iii) of this section. (i) The date and time when the control device was shut down and restarted. (ii) Identification of the affected source that was operating and the number of hours that the affected source operated while the control device was offline. (iii) A statement of whether or not the control device maintenance was included in your approved routine control device maintenance request developed as specified in §63.8570( d ). If the control device maintenance was include d in your approved routine control device maintenance request , then you must report the information in paragraphs (c)(4)(iii)(A) through (C) of this section. (A) The total amount of time that the affected source controlled by the control device operated du ring the current semiannual compliance period and during the previous semiannual compliance period.

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 384 of 445 (B) The amount of time that each affected source controlled by the control device operated while the control device was offline for maintenance covered unde r the routine control device maintenance alternative standard during the current semiannual compliance period and during the previous semiannual compliance period. (C) Based on the information recorded under paragraphs (c)(4)(iii)(A) and (B) of this sectio n, 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 con trol device was offline for routine control device maintenance
DT p 

## = Control device downtime claimed under the routine control device maintenance alternative standard for the previous semiannual compliance period
DT c 

## = Control device downtime claimed under the routine control device maintenance alternative standard 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 385 of 445 (5) If there are no deviations from any emission limitations (emission limits or operating limits) or work practice standards that apply to you, the compliance report must contain a statement that there were no deviations from the emission limitations or work practice standards during the reporting period. (6) If there were no periods during which the CMS was out

of

- control as specified in your OM&M plan, the compliance report must contain a statement that there were no periods during which the CMS was out

- of

- control during the reporting period. (7) The first compliance report must contain the startup production rate for each ceramic tile roller kiln, floor tile press dryer, ceramic tile spray dryer, and sanitaryware tunnel kiln; the minimum APCD inlet temp erature for each APCD; and the temperature profile for each ceramic tile roller kiln, floor tile press dryer, ceramic tile spray dryer, and sanitaryware tunnel kiln without an APCD. ( 8 ) For each deviation that occurs at an affected source, report such events in the compliance report by including the information in paragraphs (c)(8)(i) through (iii) of this section
. (i) The date, time, and duration of the deviation.

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 386 of 445 (ii) A list of the affected sources or equipment for which the deviation occurred. (iii) A n estimate of the quantity of each regulated pollutant emitted over any emission limit , and a description of the method used to estimate the emissions
. ( d ) For each deviation from an emission limitation (emission limit or operating limit) occurring at an affected source where you are using a CMS to comply with the emission limitations in this subpart, you must include the information in paragraphs (c)(1) through (4) and (c)(8), and paragraphs ( d )(1) through (1 1 ) of this section. This includes periods of sta rtup, shutdown, and routine control device maintenance. (1) The total operating time of each affected source during the reporting period. (2) The date and time that each CMS was inoperative, except for zero (low

- level) and high

- level checks. (3) The date, time, and duration that each CMS was out

- of

control, including the pertinent information in your OM&M plan. (4 ) W hether each deviation occurred during routine control device maintenance covered in your approved routine control device maintenance alternativ e standard 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 387 of 445 ( 5 ) A description of any corrective action taken to return the affected unit to its normal or usual manner of operation
. ( 6 ) A breakdown of the t otal duration of the deviations during the reporting period into those that are due to startup, shutdown, control equipment problems, process problems, other known causes, and other unknown causes. ( 7 ) A summary of the total duration of CMS downtime during the reporting period and the total duration of CMS downtime as a percent of the total source operating time during that reporting period. ( 8 ) A brief description of the process units. ( 9 ) A brief description of the CMS. (1 0 ) The date of the latest CMS cer tification or audit. (1 1 ) A description of any changes in CMS, processes, or control equipment since the last reporting period. ( e ) If you have obtained a title V operating permit according to 40 CFR part 70 or 40 CFR part 71, you must report all deviation s as defined in this subpart in the semiannual monitoring report required by 40 CFR 70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A) or 40 CFR 71.6(a)(3)(iii)(A). If you submit a compliance report according to Table 8 to this subpart along with, or as part of, the semiannual monitoring report required by 40 CFR 70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A) or 40 CFR 71.6(a)(3)(iii)(A), and the

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 388 of 445 compliance report includes all required information concerning deviations from any emission limitation (including any operating limit), then submitting the compliance repor t 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 a uthority. ( f ) If you own or operate an affected kiln that is subject to the work practice standard specified in Item 1 of Table 3 to this subpart, and you use a fuel other than natural gas or equivalent to fire the affected kiln, you must submit a report

o f alternative fuel use within 10 working days after terminating the use of the alternative fuel. The report must include the information in paragraphs ( f )(1) through (6) of this section. (1) Company name and address. (2) Identification of the affected kiln
. (3) Reason for using the alternative fuel. (4) Type of alternative fuel used to fire the affected kiln. (5) Dates that the use of the alternative fuel started and ended. (6) Amount of alternative fuel used.

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 389 of 445 ( g ) Within 60 calendar days after the date of completing each performance test (as defined in §63.2) required by this subpart, you must submit the results of the performance test following the procedure specified in either paragraph ( g )(1) or ( g )(2) of this section. (1) For data collected using test methods supported by the
EPA ’ s Electronic Reporting Tool ( ERT ) as listed on the EPA ’ s ERT
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/ ) .) Performance test data must be submitted in a file format generated through the use of the EPA ’ s ERT or an alternate electronic file format consistent with the extensible markup language (XML) schema listed on the EPA ’ s ERT Web site
. If you claim that some of the performance test information being submitted is confidential business informat ion (CBI), you must submit a complete file generated through the use of the EPA ’ s ERT or an alternate electronic file consistent with the XML schema listed on the
EPA ’ s ERT Web site , including information claimed to be CBI , on a compact dis c, flash drive, or other commonly used electronic storage media to the EPA. The electronic media must be clearly

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 390 of 445 marked as CBI and mailed to U.S. EPA/OAPQS/CORE CBI Office, Attention: Group Leader, Measurement Policy Group , MD C404

- 02, 4930 Old Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703 . The same ERT or alternate file with the CBI omitted must be submitted to the EPA via the
EPA ’ s CDX as described earlier in this paragraph. (2) For data collected using test methods that are not supported by the EPA ’ s ERT as listed on the EPA ’ s ERT W eb si te 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 t his 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 i n §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

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 391 of 445 maintenance request , if you request to use the alternative standard under §63.8570( d ). (b) You must keep the records required in Table 7 to this subpart to show continuous compliance with each emission limitation and work practice standard that applies to you. (c) You must also maintain the records listed in para graphs (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 a ction taken. (2) For each deviation, record the information in paragraphs (c)(2)(i) through (iv) of this section. (i) T he date, time, and duration of the deviation
. (ii) A list of the affected sources or equipment
. (iii) A n estimate of the quantity of each regulated pollutant emitted over any emission limit and a description of the method used to estimate the emissions. (iv) Actions taken to minimize emissions in accordance with §63. 8570 (b) and any corrective action s taken to return the affected unit to its normal or usual manner of operation. (3) For each affected source, records of production rates

on a ton throughput processed basis.

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 392 of 445 (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 sani taryware shuttle kiln. (i) Records of the firing time and temperature cycle for each sanitaryware shuttle kiln. If all shuttle kilns use the same time and temperature cycles, one copy may be maintained for each kiln. Reference numbers must be assigned to u se in log sheets. (ii) For each sanitaryware shuttle kiln, a log that details the time and temperature protocol reference number, and an indication of whether the appropriate time and temperature cycle was fired. (iii) For each sanitaryware shuttle kiln, a log of the actual tonnage of greenware fired in the shuttle kiln and an indication of whether the tonnage was below the maximum tonnage for that specific kiln.

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 393 of 445 ( 8 ) Logs of the maintenance procedures used to demonstrate compliance with the maintenance requirements of the sanitaryware shuttle kiln work practice standard s specified in Table 3 to this subpart. ( 9 ) For periods of startup and shutdown, records of the fol lowing information: (i) T he date, time, and duration of each startup and/or shutdown period , recording the periods when the affected source was subject to the standard applicable to startup and shutdown
. (ii) For periods of startup, the production rate and exhaust temperature prior to the time the exhaust reaches the minimum APCD inlet temperature (for ceramic tile roller kilns, floor tile press dryers, ceramic tile spray dryers, and sanitaryware tunnel kilns with an APCD ) or the temperature profile is atta ined ( for ceramic tile roller kilns, floor tile press dryers, ceramic tile spray dryers, and sanitaryware tunnel kilns with no APCD ). (iii) For periods of shutdown, the production rate and exhaust temperature after the time the exhaust falls below the min imum APCD inlet temperature (for ceramic tile roller kilns, floor tile press dryers, ceramic tile spray dryers, and sanitaryware tunnel kilns with an APCD) or the temperature profile is no longer maintained (for ceramic tile roller kilns,

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 394 of 445 floor tile press dryers, ceramic tile spray dryers, and sanitaryware tunnel kilns with no APCD)
. ( 10 ) All site

- specific parameters, temperature profiles, and procedures required to be established or developed according to the applicable work practice standards in Table 3 t o this subpart
. **§63.8645 In what form and for how long must I keep my records?** (a) Your records must be in a form suitable and readily available for expeditious review, according to §63.10(b)(1). (b) As specified in §63.10(b)(1), you must keep each record for 5 years following the date of each occurrence, measurement, maintenance, corrective action, report, or record. (c) You must keep each record onsite for at least 2 years after the date of each occurrence, measurement, maintenance, corrective action, re port, or record, according to §63.10(b)(1). You may keep the records offsite for the remaining 3 years. **Other Requirements and Information §63.8655 What parts of the General Provisions apply to me?**  Table 11 to this subpart shows which parts of the General Provisions in §§63.1 through 63 .16 apply to you. **§63.8660 Who implements and enforces this subpart?** (a) This subpart can be implemented and enforced by us, the U.S. EPA, or a delegated authority such as yo ur s tate, local, or

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 395 of 445 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 unde r 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 , loc al, or tribal agencies are as specified in paragraphs (c)(1) through ( 6 ) of this section. (1) Approval of alternatives to the applicability requirements in §§63.8535 and 63.8540, the compliance date requirements in §63.8545, and the non

- opacity emission li mitations 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.

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 396 of 445 (3) Approval of major changes to monitoring under §63.8(f) and as defined in in §63.90. (4) Approval of major changes to recordkeep ing and reporting under §63.10(f) and as defined in §63.90. (5) Approval of an alternative to any electronic reporting to the EPA required by this subpart. (6) Approval of a routine control device maintenance request under §63.8570(d). **§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 of a pollutant that is emitted to t he air. Bag leak detection system means an instrument that is capable of monitoring PM loadings in the exhaust of a fabric filter in order to detect bag failures. A bag leak detection system includes, but is not limited to, an instrument that operates on t riboelectric, 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

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 397 of 445 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 sa nitaryware products. A plant site that manufactures refractory product s , as defined in 40 CFR 63.9824, or brick and structural clay products (BSCP), as defined in 40 CFR 63.8515, is not a clay ceramics manufacturing facility. Deviation means any instance i n which an affected source subject to this subpart, or an owner or operator of such a

source: (1) Fails to meet any requirement or obligation established by this subpart including, but not limited to, any emission limitation (including any operating limit) or work practice standard; or (2) Fails to meet any term or condition that is adopted to implement an applicable requirement in this subpart for any affected source required to obtain such a permit. Dioxin/furan means, for purposes of this subpart, the su m of the 2,3,7,8

- TCDD toxic equivalents calculated using Equation 3 of this subpart
.

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 398 of 445 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 fa bric filter. Dry lime scrubber/fabric filter (DLS/FF) means an APCD that includes continuous injection of humidified hydrated lime or other sorbent into a reaction chamber followed by a fabric filter. These systems typically include recirculation of some o f 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. Fired product means clay ceramic or sanitaryware products that have gone through the firing process via kilns. Glaze means a coating of colored, opaque, or transparent material applied to ceramic products before firing. Glaze line means a production line for glazing ceramic products, which includes gla ze 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 p roducts.

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 399 of 445 Glaze spray operation means any type of glaze application that uses glaze spraying, including glaze lines and glaze spray booths.
Greenware means clay ceramic or sanitaryware products that have not gone through the firing process via kilns. Initia l startup means the time at which the kiln first reaches a level of production that is equal to 75 percent of the kiln design capacity or 12 months after the affected source begins firing clay ceramics, whichever is earlier. Kiln design capacity means the maximum amount of clay ceramics, in Mg (tons), that a kiln is designed to produce in one year divided by the number of hours in a year (8,760 hours), taking into account the void space in the product , the push rate for the kiln, and the stacking pattern, i f applicable. If a kiln is modified to increase the capacity, the design capacity is considered to be the capacity following modifications. Minimum APCD inlet temperature means the minimum temperature that kiln exhaust can be vented to the APCD that

ensure s the long

- term integrity of the APCD
. Particulate matter (PM) means, for purposes of this subpart, emissions of filterable PM that serve as a measure of total particulate emissions, as measured by Method 5 (40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 3) or Method 29 (40 C FR part 60, appendix A

-

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 400 of 445 8), and as a surrogate for non - mercury metal HAP contained in the particulates including, but not limited to, antimony, arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, cobalt, lead, manganese, nickel, and selenium. Period of natural gas curta ilment 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 t hat are owned, leased, or operated by the same entity, parent entity, subsidiary, or any combination thereof. Responsible official means responsible official as defined in 40 CFR 70.2. Roller kiln means a continuous kiln similar to a tunnel kiln except tha t 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 401 of 445 Shuttle kiln means a batch firing kiln that is designed with a removable superstructure that is tilted or raised using hydraulic struts to allow entrance and egress . In the clay ceramics source category, shuttle kilns are used at sanitaryware manufacturing plants. Spray dryer means a drying chamber used to form a free

flowing powder from a slurry of ceramic mix and water, to improve handling and compaction. In the clay ceramics source category, spray dryers are used at ceramic tile manufacturing plants. Startup means the setti ng in operation of an affected source and starting the production process. Startup production rate means the kiln, press dryer or spray dryer production rate required to bring the process unit to the proper operating temperature during startup. Tunnel kiln means any continuous kiln that is not a roller kiln that is used to fire clay ceramics. In the clay ceramics source category, tunnel kilns are used at sanitaryware manufacturing plants.
Wet scrubber (WS) means an APCD that uses water, which may include ca ustic 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 402 of 445 Work practice standard means any design, equipment, work practice, operational standar d, 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 0.0 63 kilogram per megagram (kg/Mg) (0.1 3 pound per ton (lb/ton)) of fired product
. b. Hg emissions must not exceed 6.3 E

- 05 kg/Mg (1.3 E

- 04 lb/ton) of fired product
. c. Dioxin/furan emissions must not exceed 2. 8 nanograms per kilogram (n g/ kg ) of fired product
. 3. Existing wall tile roller kiln a. PM emissions must not exceed 0.1 9 kg/Mg (0.3 7 lb/ton) of fired product
. b. Hg emissions must not exceed 1. 1 E

- 04 kg/Mg (2. 1 E

- 04 lb/ton) of fired product
. c. Dioxin/furan emissions must not exceed 0. 22 ng/ kg of fired product
. 4. Existing first

fire sanitaryware tunnel kiln a. PM emissions must not exceed 0.17 kg/Mg (0.3 4 lb/ton) of greenware fired. b. Hg emissions must not exceed 1.3 E

- 04 kg/Mg (2.6 E

- 04 lb/ton) of greenware fired. c. Dioxin/furan emissions must not exceed 3.3 ng/ kg of greenware fired
. 5. Existing tile glaze line with glaze spraying a. PM emissions must not exceed 0.93 kg/Mg (1.9 lb/ton) of first

- fire glaze sprayed (dry weight basis). b. Hg emissions must not exceed 8.0 E

- 05 kg/Mg ( 1.6 E

- 0 4 lb/ton) of first

- fire glaze sprayed (dry weight basis).

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 403 of 445 6. Existing sanitaryware manual glaze application PM emissions must not exceed 18 kg/Mg (35 lb/ton) of first

- fire glaze sprayed (dry weight basis). 7. Existing sanitaryware spray machine glaze application PM emissions must not exceed 6.2 kg/Mg (1 3 lb/ton) of first

- fire glaze spr ayed (dry weight basis).

8. Existing sanitaryware robot glaze application PM emissions must not exceed 4. 5 kg/Mg (8. 9 lb/ton) of first

- fire glaze sprayed (dry weight basis). 9. Existing floor tile spray dryer Dioxin/furan emissions must not exceed 1 9 ng/ kg of throughput processed
. 10. Existing wall tile spray dryer Dioxin/furan emissions must not exceed 0.0 5 8 ng/ kg of throughput processed
. 11. Existing floor tile press dryer Dioxin/furan emissions must not exceed 0.0 2 4 ng/ kg of throughput processed
. 12. New or reconstructed floor tile roller kiln a. PM emissions must not exceed 0.01 9 kg/Mg (0.0 37 lb/ton) of fired product
. b. Hg emissions must not exceed 2.0 E

- 05 kg/Mg (3.9 E

- 05 lb/ton) of fired product
. c. Dioxin/furan emissions must not exceed 1.3 ng/ kg of fired product
. 13. New or reconstructed wall tile roller kiln a. PM emissions must not exceed 0.1 9 kg/Mg (0.3 7 lb/ton) of fired product
. b. Hg emissions must not exceed 1. 1 E

- 04 kg/Mg (2. 1 E

- 04 lb/ton) of fired product
. c. Dioxin/furan emissions must not exceed 0. 22 ng/ kg of fired product
. 14. New or reconstructed first

fire sanitaryware tunnel kiln a. PM emissions must not exceed 0.04 8 kg/Mg (0.095 lb/ton) of greenware fired. b. Hg emissions must not exceed 6. 1 E

- 05 kg/Mg (1. 3 E

- 04 lb/ton) of greenware fired. c. Dioxin/furan emissions must not exceed 0. 99 ng/ kg of greenware fired
. 15. New or reconstructed tile glaze line with glaze spraying a. PM emissions must not exceed 0.3 1 kg/Mg (0.61 lb/ton) of first

- fire glaze sprayed (dry weight basis). b. Hg emissions must not exceed 8.0 E

- 0 5 kg/Mg ( 1.6 E

- 0 4 lb/ton) of first

- fire glaze sprayed (dry weight basis). 16. New or reconstructed sanitaryware m anual glaze application PM emissions must not exceed 2.0 kg/Mg (3. 9 lb/ton) of first

- fire glaze sprayed (dry weight basis).

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 404 of 445

17. New or reconstructed sanitaryware s pray machine glaze application PM emissions must not exceed 1.6 kg/Mg (3.2 lb/ton) of first

- fire glaze sprayed (dry weight basis).

18. New or reconstructed sanitaryware r obot glaze application PM emissions must not exceed 1. 2 kg/Mg (2. 3 lb/ton) of first

- fire glaze sprayed (dry weight basis).

19. New or reconstructed f loor tile spray dryer Dioxin/furan emissions must not exceed 0.07 1 ng/ kg of throughput processed
. 20. New or reconstructed wall tile spray dryer Dioxin/furan emissions must not exceed 0.0 5 8 ng/ kg of throughput processed
. 21. New or reconstructed f loor tile press dryer Dioxin/furan emissions must not exceed 0.0 2 4 ng/ kg of throughput processed
.



## 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 per cent of the total operating time in a 6

- month block reporting period; or maintain no VE from the DIFF or DLS/FF stack; and b. Maintain free

- flowing lime in the feed hopper or silo and to the APCD at all times for continuous injection systems; maintain the feeder setting (on a per ton of throughput basis) at or above the level established during the performance test for continu ous injection systems in which compliance was demonstrated
. 2. Tunnel or roller kiln equipped with a WS. a. Maintain the average scrubber liquid pH for each 3

- hour block period at or above the average scrubber liquid pH established during the HF/HCl perfo rmance test in which compliance was demonstrated; and

b . Maintain the average scrubber liquid flow rate for each 3

- hour block period at or above the highest average scrubber liquid flow rate established during the HF/HCl and PM performance tests in which compliance was demonstrated
.

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 405 of 445
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 rate established during the Hg and dioxin/furan performance tests in which compliance was demonstrated
. 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 stack temperature at or below the highest 4

- hour average stack temperature established during the dioxin/furan performance test in which compliance was demonstrated.

5. Tunnel or roller kiln with no 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) if your total facility maximum potential HCl

- equivalent emissions are greater than the HCl

- equivalent limit in Table 1 to this subpart ; and c. Maintain the stack temperature at or below the highest 4

- hour average stack temperature established during the dioxin/furan performance test in which compliance was demonstrated. 6. Glaze spray operation equipped 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 per cent 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 in which compliance was demonstrated ; and b. Maintain the average scrubber liquid flow rate for each 3

- hour block period at or above the average scrubber liquid flow rate established during the PM performance test in which compliance was demonstrated
. 8. Glaze spray operation equipped 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
.

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 406 of 445

9. Glaze spray operation equipped with baffles. Conduct an annual visual inspection of the baffles to confirm the baffles are in place.

10. Spray dryer. Maintain the average operating temperature for each 3

- hour block period at or above the average temperature established during the dioxin/furan performance test in which compliance was demonstrated
. 11. Floor tile press dryer. Maintain the average operating temperature for each 3

- hour block period at or below the average temperature established duri ng the dioxin/furan performance test in which compliance was demonstrated
.


## As stated in §63.8555, you must comply with each work practice standard in the following table that applies to you: **Table 3 to Subpart KKKKK of Part 63 --**  **Work Practice Standards**

**Fo r 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 sanitaryware shuttle kiln . You must either program the time and temperature cycle into your kiln or track each step on a log sheet; and iii. Label each sanitaryware shuttle kiln with the maximum load (in tons) of greenware that can be fired in the kiln during a single firing cycle ; and iv. For each firing load, d ocument the total tonnage of greenware placed in th e 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 that , at a minimum, specify the frequency of inspection and maintenance of temperature monitoring de vices, controls that regulate air

- to

- fuel ratios, and controls that regulate firing cycles; and

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 407 of 445 vi. Develop and maintain records for each sanitaryware shuttle kiln, as specified in §63.8640. 2. Existing, new or reconstructed ceramic tile roller kiln, sanitaryware tunnel kiln, floor tile press dryer or ceramic tile spray dryer during periods of startup a. Minimize HAP emissions. i. Establish the start up production rate for each kiln or dryer; the minimum APCD inlet temperature for each APCD; and tempera ture profile for each kiln or dryer with no APCD and include them in your first compliance report, as specified in §63.8635(c)(7); and

ii. After initial loading of the kiln or dryer , remain at or below the startup production rate for the kiln or dryer until the kiln or dryer exhaust reaches the minimum APCD inlet temperature for a kiln or dryer with an APCD or until the kiln or dryer temperature profile is attained for a kiln or dryer with no APCD ; and iii. If your kiln or dryer has an APCD, begin v ent ing the exhaust from the kiln or dryer through the APCD by the time the kiln or dryer exhaust temperature reaches the minimum APCD inlet temperature
. 3. Existing, new or reconstructed ceramic tile roller kiln, sanitaryware tunnel kiln, floor tile press dryer or ceramic tile spray dryer during periods of shutdown a. Minimize HAP emissions. i. Do not load the kiln or dryer once the kiln or dryer exhaust temperature falls below the minimum APCD inlet temperature if the kiln or dryer is controlled by an APCD or when the kiln or dryer temperature profile is no longer maintained for an uncontrolled kiln or dryer; and

ii. If your kiln or dryer has an APCD, continue to vent the exhaust from the kiln or dryer through the APCD until the kiln or dryer exhaust temperature falls below the minimum inlet temperature for the APCD. 4. Existing, new or reconstructed ceramic tile roller kiln, sanitaryware tunnel kiln, floor tile press a. Minimize HAP emissions. i. Develop and use a temperature profile for each kiln or dryer ; and

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 408 of 445 dryer or ceramic tile spray dryer during periods of routine control device maintenance ii . Develop and follow maintenance procedures for each kiln that, at a minimum, specify the frequency of inspection and maintenance of temperature monitoring devices and controls that regulate air

- to

- fuel ratios ; and i ii . Develop and maintain records for each kiln or dryer , as specified in §63.8640 ( a )( 3 )
.


## As stated in §63.8595, you must conduct each performance test in the following table that applies to you: **Table 4 to Subpart KKKKK of Part 63 --**  **Requirements for Performance Tests** 

**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.

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 409 of 445

c. Co nduct 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 (incor porated 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) (incorporated 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 410 of 445
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) (i ncorporated 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. g. Measure Hg emissions. Method 29 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 8. ASTM D6784

- 02 (Reapproved 2008) (incorporated by reference, see §63.14) may be used as 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 4 11 of 445
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 (incorporated by reference, see §63.14) may be used as an alternat ive 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, appendix A

- 3. f. M easure 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 atmosphere for all aff ected sources.

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 412 of 445
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 Met hod 3 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 2. ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10

- 1981 (incorporated by reference, see §63.14) may be used as an alternative to the manual procedures (but not the instrumental procedures) in Methods 3A and 3B. d. Measure moisture content of the stack gas. 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 and production data from the HF/HCl/Cl 2 

### performance test
. Using the proc edures 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 proces s 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 413 of 445
b. Establish the stack temperature operating limit
. Data from the temperature measurement device during the dioxin/furan performance test. You must continuously measure the stack temperature and determine and record the temperature values for the three test runs. The highest 4

- hour average stack temperature of the three test runs establishes your maximum site

- specific stack temperature operating limit. 5. Tunnel or roller kiln that is complying with PM and/or Hg production

based emission limits. Determine the production rate during each PM/Hg test run in order to determine compliance with PM and/or Hg production

- based emission limits. Production data collected during the PM/Hg p erformance 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 ton of throughput processed basis, of the affected kiln for each of the three test runs.

6. Tunnel or roller kiln equipped with a DIFF or DLS/FF. 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 throughput basis, for the three test runs. I f 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.

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 414 of 445

7. Tunnel or roller kiln e quipped with a WS. a. Establish the operating limit for the average scrubber liquid pH. Data from the pH measurement device during the HF/HCl performance test. 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. b
. Establish the operating limit for the average scrubber liquid flow rate. Data from the flow rate measurement device during the HF/HCl and PM performance tests. You must continuously measure the scrubber liquid flow rate, determine and record the block aver age 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 opera ting 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 415 of 445

8 . Tunnel or roller kiln equipped with an ACI system Establish the operating limit for the average carbon flow rate. Data from the carbon flow rate measurement conducted during the Hg performance test. You must measure the carbon flow rate during each test run, determine and record the block average carbon flow rate v alues 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 ope rating limit. 9 . Tunnel or roller kiln intending to comply with dioxin/furan emission limit without an ACI system. Establish the stack temperature operating limit. Data from the temperature measurement device during the dioxin/furan performance test. You must continuously measure the stack temperature and determine and record the temperature values for the three test runs. The highest 4

- hour average stack temperature of the three test runs establishes your maximum site

- specific stack temperature operat ing limit. 1 0 . 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 pre ssure 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 establ ishes your minimum site

specific pressure drop operating limit.

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 416 of 445
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 measurements for the three test runs. The average of the three test runs establishes your minimum site

- specific liquid flow rate operating limit
. 1 1 . Spray dryer. Establish the operating limit for operating temperature. Data from the temperature measurement device during the dioxin/furan performance test. You must continuously measure the operating temperature, determine and record the block average temperature values for the three test runs, and determine and record the 3

- hour block average of the recorded temperature measurements for the three test runs. The average of the three test runs establishes your minimum site

specific operating limit. 1 2 . Floor tile press dryer. Establish the operating limit for operating temperature. Data from the temperature measurement device during the dioxi n/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 temperature measurements for the three test runs. The average of the three test runs establishes your maximum site

specific operating limit.

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 417 of 445

As stated in §63.8595(f)(3), you must demonstrate initial compliance with each dioxin/furan emission limit that applies to you by calcula ting 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 1,2,3,7,8

- pentachlor o dibenzofuran 0.03 2,3,4,7,8

- pentachlor o dibenzofuran 0.3 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 limitati on 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** 

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 418 of 445

**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, a ppendix A

- 8 or its alternative, ASTM D6735

- 01 (Reapproved 2009) (incorporated by reference, see §63.14) ; or Method 320 of appendix A of this part or its alternative, ASTM D6348

- 03 (Reapproved 2010) (incorporated by reference, see §63.14); and 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 0.0 63 kg/Mg (0.1 3 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 0.063 kg/Mg (0.13 lb/to n) of fired product ; and ii. You establish and have a record of the applicable operating limits listed in Table 2 to this subpart over the 3

- hour performance test during which PM emissions did not exceed 0.063 kg/Mg (0.13 lb/ton) of fired product
. b. Hg emissions 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) , over the period of the initial performance test, do not exceed 6.3 E

- 05 kg/Mg (1.3 E

- 04 lb/ton) of fired product ; and ii. You establish and have a record of the operating limits listed in Table 2 to this subpart over the 3

- hour performance test during which Hg emissions did not exceed 6.3 E

- 05 kg/Mg (1.3 E

- 04 lb/ton) of fired product
.

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 419 of 445
c. Dioxin/furan emissions must not exceed 2. 8 ng/ kg of fired product
. i . The dioxin/furan emissions measured using Method 23 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 7, over the period of the initial performance test, do not exceed 2. 8 ng/kg of fired product ; and ii. You establish and have a record of the operating limits listed in Table 2 to this subpart over the 3

- hour performance test during which dioxin/furan emissions did not exceed 2. 8 ng/kg of fired product
. 3. Existing wall tile roller kiln a. PM emission s must not exceed 0.1 9 kg/Mg (0.3 7 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 calcula tions in §63.8595(f)(1), do not exceed 0.19 kg/Mg (0.37 lb/ton) of fired product ; and ii. You establish and have a record of the operating limits listed in Table 2 to this subpart over the 3

- hour performance test during which PM emissions did not exceed 0.19 kg/Mg (0.37 lb/ton) of fired producvt
. b. Hg emissions must not exceed 1. 1 E

- 04 kg/Mg (2. 1 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 perform ance test, do not exceed 1.1 E

- 04 kg/Mg (2.1 E

- 04 lb/ton) of fired product ; and ii. You establish and have a record of the operating limits listed in Table 2 to this subpart over the 3

- hour performance test during which Hg emissions did not exceed 1.1 E

- 04 kg/Mg (2.1 E

- 04 lb/ton) of fired product
. c. Dioxin/furan emissions must not exceed 0. 22 ng/ kg of fired product
. i . The dioxin/furan emissions measured using Method 23 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 7, over the period of the initial performance test, do not exceed 0.22 ng/kg of fired product ; and ii. You establish and have a record of the operating limits listed in Table 2 to this subpart over the 3

- hour performance test during which dioxin/furan emissions did not exceed 0.22 ng/kg of fired product
.

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 420 of 445 4. Existing first

- fire sanitaryware tunnel kiln a. PM emissions must not exceed 0.17 kg/Mg (0.3 4 lb/ton) of greenware fired. 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, accordi ng to the calculations in §63.8595(f)(1), do not exceed 0.17 kg/Mg (0.3 4 lb/ton) of greenware fired; and ii. You establish and have a record of the operating limits listed in Table 2 to this subpart over the 3

- hour performance test during which PM emissions did not exceed 0.17 kg/Mg (0.3 4 lb/ton) of greenware fired. b. Hg emissions must not exceed 1.3 E

- 04 kg/Mg (2.6 E

- 04 lb/ton) of greenware fired. 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 greenware fired; and ii. You establish and have a record of the operating limits listed in Table 2 to this subpart over the 3

- hour performance test during which Hg emissions did not exceed 1.3 E

- 04 kg/Mg (2.6 E

- 04 lb/ton) of greenware fired. c. Dioxin/furan emissions must not exceed 3.3 ng/ kg of greenware fired
. 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 3.3 ng/kg of greenware fired ; and ii. You establish and have a record of the operating limits listed in Table 2 to this subpart over the 3

- hour performance test during which dioxin/furan emissions did not exceed 3.3 ng/kg of greenware fired
. 5. Existing tile glaze line with glaze spraying a. PM emissions must not exceed 0.93 kg/Mg (1.9 lb/ton) of first

- fire glaze sprayed (dry weight basis). 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 first

fire glaze sprayed (dry weight basis); and

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 421 of 445
ii. You establish and have a record of the operating limits listed in Table 2 to this subpart over the 3

- hour performance test duri ng which PM emissions did not exceed 0.93 kg/Mg (1.9 lb/ton) of first

fire glaze sprayed (dry weight basis). b. Hg emissions must not exceed 8.0 E

- 05 kg/Mg ( 1.6 E

- 0 4 lb/ton) of first

- fire glaze sprayed (dry weight basis). 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 8.0 E

- 05 kg/Mg (1.6 E

- 04 lb/ton) of first

- fire glaze sprayed (dry weight basis); and ii. You establish and have a record of the operating limits listed in Table 2 to this subpart over the 3

- hour performance test during which Hg emissions did not exceed 8.0 E

- 05 kg/Mg (1.6 E

- 04 lb/ton) of first

- fire glaze sprayed (dry weight basis). 6. Existing sanitaryware m anual glaze application a. PM emissions must not exceed 18 kg/Mg (35 lb/ton) of first

- fire glaze sprayed (dry weight basis). 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 18 kg/Mg (35 lb/ton) of first

- fire glaze sprayed (dry weight basis); and ii. You establish and have a record of the operating limits listed in Table 2 to this subpart over the 3

- hour performance test during which PM emissions did not exceed 18 kg/Mg (35 lb/ton) of first

- fire glaze sprayed (dry weight basis). 7. Existing sanitaryware s pray machine glaze application a. PM emissions must not exceed 6.2 kg/Mg (1 3 lb/ton) of first

- fire glaze sprayed (dry weight basis). 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 calculatio ns in §63.8595(f)(2), do not exceed 6.2 kg/Mg (1 3 lb/ton) of first

fire glaze sprayed (dry weight basis); and ii. You establish and have a record of the operating limits listed in Table 2 to this subpart over the 3

- hour performance test during which PM emissions did not exceed 6.2 kg/Mg (1 3 lb/ton) of first

fire glaze sprayed (dry weight basis).

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 422 of 445 8. Existing sanitaryware r obot glaze application a. PM emissions must not exceed 4. 5 kg/Mg (8. 9 lb/ton) of first

- fire glaze sprayed (dry weight basis). 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 4.5 kg/Mg (8.9 lb/ton) of first

fire glaze sprayed (dry weight basis ); and ii. You establish and have a record of the operating limits listed in Table 2 to this subpart over the 3

- hour performance test during which PM emissions did not exceed 4.5 kg/Mg (8.9 lb/ton) of first

fire glaze sprayed (dry weight basis). 9. Existing f loor tile spray dryer a. Dioxin/furan emissions must not exceed 1 9 ng/ kg of throughput processed
. 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 19 ng/kg of throughput processed ; and
ii. You establish and have a record of the operating limits listed in Table 2 to this subpart over the 3

- hour performance test during which dioxin/furan emissions did not exceed 19 ng/kg of throughput processed
. 10. Existing wall tile spray dryer a. Dioxin/furan emissions must not exceed 0.0 5 8 ng/ kg of throughput processed
. 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 n ot exceed 0.05 8 ng/kg of throughput processed ; and
ii. You establish and have a record of the operating limits listed in Table 2 to this subpart over the 3

- hour performance test during which dioxin/furan emissions did not exceed 0.05 8 ng/kg of throughput processed
. 11. Existing f loor tile press dryer a. Dioxin/furan emissions must not exceed 0.0 2 4 ng/ kg of throughput processed
. 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 0.02 4 ng/kg of throughput processed ; and
ii. You establish and have a record of the operating limits li sted in Table 2 to this subpart over the 3

- hour performance test during which dioxin/furan emissions did not exceed 0.02 4 ng/kg of throughput processed
.

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 423 of 445

12. New or reconstructed floor tile roller kiln. a. PM emissions must not exceed 0.01 9 kg/Mg (0.0 3 7 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 e xceed 0.019 kg/Mg (0.037 lb/ton) of fired product ; and ii. You establish and have a record of the operating limits listed in Table 2 to this subpart over the 3

- hour performance test during which PM emissions did not exceed 0.019 kg/Mg (0.037 lb/ton) of fired product
. b. Hg emissions must not exceed 2.0 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 2.0 E

- 05 kg/Mg (3.9 E

- 05 lb/ton) of fired product ; and ii. You establish and have a record of the operating limits listed in Table 2 to this subpart over the 3

- hour performance test during which Hg emissions did not exceed 2.0 E

- 05 kg/Mg (3.9 E

- 05 lb/ton) of fired product
. c. Dioxin/furan emissions must not exceed 1.3 ng/ kg of fired product
. i. The dioxin/furan emissions measured using Method 23 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 7, over the period of the initial performance test, do not exceed 1.3 ng/ kg of fired product ; and ii. You establish and have a record of the operating limits listed in Table 2 to this subpart over the 3

- hour performance test during which dioxin/furan emissions did not exceed 1.3 ng/ kg of fired product
. 13. New or reconstructed wall tile roller kiln. a. PM emissions must not exceed 0.1 9 kg/Mg (0.3 7 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 0.19 kg/Mg (0.37 lb/ton) of fired product ; and

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 424 of 445
ii. You establish and have a record of the operating limits listed in Table 2 to this subpart over the 3

- hour performance test during which PM emissions did not exceed 0.19 kg/Mg (0.37 lb/ton) of fired product
. b. Hg emissions must not exceed 1. 1 E

- 04 kg/Mg (2. 1 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 perform ance test, do not exceed 1.1 E

- 04 kg/Mg (2.1 E

- 04 lb/ton) of fired product ; and ii. You establish and have a record of the operating limits listed in Table 2 to this subpart over the 3

- hour performance test during which Hg emissions did not exceed 1.1 E

- 04 kg/Mg (2.1 E

- 04 lb/ton) of fired product
. c. Dioxin/furan emissions must not exceed 0. 22 ng/ kg of fired product
. i . The dioxin/furan emissions measured using Method 23 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 7, over the period of the initial performance test, do not exceed 0.22 ng/kg of fired product ; and ii. You establish and have a record of the operating limits listed in Table 2 to this subpart over the 3

- hour performance test during which dioxin/furan emissions did not exceed 0.22 ng/kg of fired product
. 14. New or reconstructed first

- fire sanitaryware tunnel kiln a. PM emissions must not exceed 0.04 8 kg/Mg (0.095 lb/ton) of greenware fired. 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 0.04 8 kg/Mg (0.095 lb/ton) of greenware fired; and ii. You establish and have a record of the operating limits listed in Table 2 to this subpart over the 3

- hour performance test during which PM emissions did not exceed 0.04 8 kg/Mg (0.095 lb/ton) of greenware fired.

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 425 of 445 b. Hg emissions must not exceed 6. 1 E

- 05 kg/Mg (1. 3 E

04 lb/ton) of greenware fired. 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 6.1 E

- 05 kg/Mg (1.3 E

- 04 lb/ton) of greenware fired; and ii. You establish and have a record of the operating limits listed in Table 2 to this subpart over the 3

- hour performance test during which Hg emissions did not exceed 6.1 E

- 05 kg/Mg (1.3 E

- 04 lb/ton) of greenware fired. c. Dioxin/furan emissions must not exceed 0. 99 ng/ kg of greenware fired
. 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 0.99 ng/kg of greenware fired ; and ii. You establish and have a record of the operating limits listed in Table 2 to this subpart over the 3

- hour performance test during which dioxin/furan emissions did not exceed 0.99 ng/kg of greenware fired
. 15. New or reconstructed tile glaze line with glaze spraying a. PM emissions must not exceed 0.3 1 kg/Mg (0.61 lb/ton) of first

- fire glaze sprayed (dry weight basis). 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 0.3 1 kg/Mg (0.61 lb/ton) of first

fire glaze sprayed (dry weight basis); and ii. You establish and have a record of the operating limits listed in Table 2 to this subpart over the 3

- hour performance test during which PM emissions did not exceed 0.3 1 kg/Mg (0.61 lb/ton) of first

fire glaze sprayed (dry weight basis). b. Hg emissions must not exceed 8.0 E

- 05 kg/Mg ( 1.6 E

- 0 4 lb/ton) of first

- fire glaze sprayed (dry weight basis). 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 8.0 E

- 05 kg/Mg (1.6 E

- 04 lb/ton) of first

- fire glaze sprayed (dry weight basis); and

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 426 of 445
ii. You establish and have a record of the operating limits listed in Table 2 to this subpart over the 3

- hour performance test during which Hg emissions did not exceed 8.0 E

- 05 kg/Mg (1.6 E

- 04 lb/ton) of first

- fire glaze sprayed (dry weight basis). 16. New or reconstructed sanitaryware m anual glaze application a. PM emissions must not exceed 2.0 kg/Mg (3. 9 lb/ton) of first

- fire glaze sprayed (dry weight basis). 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 2.0 kg/Mg (3.9 lb/ton) of first

fire glaze sprayed (dry weight basis ); and ii. You establish and have a record of the operating limits listed in Table 2 to this subpart over the 3

- hour performance test during which PM emissions did not exceed 2.0 kg/Mg (3.9 lb/ton) of first

fire glaze sprayed (dry weight basis). 17. New or reconstructed sanitaryware s pray machine glaze application a. PM emissions must not exceed 1.6 kg/Mg (3.2 lb/ton) of first

- fire glaze sprayed (dry weight basis). i. The PM emissions measured using Method 5 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 3, over t he 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 first

fire glaze sprayed (dry weight basis); and ii. You establish and have a record of the operating limits listed in Table 2 to this subpart over the 3

- hour performance test during which PM emissions did not exceed 1.6 kg/Mg (3.2 lb/ton) of first

fire glaze sprayed (dry weight basis). 18. New or reconstructed sanitaryware r obot glaze application a. PM emissions must not exceed 1. 2 kg/Mg (2. 3 lb/ton) of first

- fire glaze sprayed (dry weight basis). 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 1.2 kg/Mg (2. 3 lb/ton) of first

fire glaze sprayed (dry weight basis); and ii. You establish and have a record of the operating limits listed in Table 2 to this subpart over the 3

- hour performance test during which PM emissions did not exceed 1.2 kg/Mg (2. 3 lb/ton) of first

fire glaze sprayed (dry weight basis).

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 427 of 445

19. New or reconstructed f loor tile spray dryer a. Dioxin/furan emissions must not exceed 0.07 1 ng/ kg of throughput processed
. 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 0.07 1 ng/kg of throughput processed ; and
ii. You establish and have a record of the operating limits listed in Table 2 to this subpart over the 3

- hour performance test during which dioxin/furan emissions did not exceed 0.07 1 ng/kg of throughput processed
. 20. New or reconstructed wall tile spray dryer a. Dioxin/furan emissions must not exceed 0.0 5 8 ng/ kg of throughput processed
. 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 0.05 8 ng/kg of throughput processed ; and
ii. You establish and have a record of the operating limits listed in Table 2 to this subpart over the 3

- hour performance test during which dioxin/furan emissions did not exceed 0.05 8 ng/kg of throughput processed
. 21. New or reconstructed f loor tile pres s dryer a. Dioxin/furan emissions must not exceed 0.0 2 4 ng/ kg of throughput processed
. 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 0.02 4 ng/kg of throughput processed ; and
ii. You establish and have a record of the operating limits listed in Table 2 to this subpart over the 3

- hour performance test during which dioxin/furan emissions did not exceed 0.02 4 ng/kg of throughput processed
. 22. Existing, new, or reconstructed sanitaryware shuttle 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 the sanitaryware shuttle kiln . You must either program the time and temperature cycle into your kiln or track each step on a log sheet; and iii. Label each sanitaryware shuttle kiln with the maximum load (in tons) of greenware that can be fired in the kiln during a single firing cycle ; and

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 428 of 445
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 demonstrate continuous compliance with each emission limitation and work practice standard that applies to you according to the following table:

**Table 7 to Subpart KKKKK of Part 63 --**  **Continuous Compliance with Emission Limitations and Wo**  **rk 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 kilns equipped with DIFF or DLS/FF. i. If you use a bag leak detection system , as prescribed in 63.8450(e) , initiating corrective action within 1 hour of a bag leak detection system alarm and completing corrective actions in accordanc e 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 cou nted as the actual amount of time taken by you to initiate corrective action; or performing VE observations of the DIFF or DLS/FF stack at the frequency specified in §63.8620(e) using Method 22 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 7; and maintaining no VE from th e DIFF or DLS/FF stack; and

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 429 of 445 ii. Verifying that lime is free

flowing via a load cell, carrier gas/lime flow indicator, carrier gas pressure drop measurement system, or other system; recording all monitor or sensor output, and if lime is found not to be free flowing, promptly initiating and completing corrective actions in accordance with your OM&M plan; recording the feeder setting once each shift of operation to verify that the feeder setting is being maintained at or above the level established during the HF/HCl performance test in which compliance was demonstrated
. 2. Tunnel or roller kiln 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. C ollecting the scrubber liquid pH data according to §63.8600(a); reducing the scrubber liquid pH data to 3

- hour block averages according to §63.8600(a); maintaining the average scrubber liquid pH for each 3

- hour block period at or above the average scrubber liquid pH established during the HF/HCl performance test in which compliance was demonstrated ; and ii Collecting the scrubber liquid flow rate data according to §63.8600(a); reducing the scrubber liquid flow rate data to 3

- hour block averages according to §63.8600(a); maintaining the average scrubber liquid flow rate for each 3

- hour block period at or above the highest average scrubber liquid flow rate established during the HF/HCl and PM performance tests in which compliance was demonstrated
. 3. Tunnel or roller kiln equipped with an ACI system. Each emission limit in Table 1 to this subpart and each operating limit in Item 3 of Table 2 to this subpart for kilns equipped with ACI system. 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 highest average carbon flow rate established during the Hg and dioxin/f uran performance tests in which compliance was demonstrated
. 4. Tunnel or roller kiln intending to Each emission limit in Table 1 to this subpart and each Collecting the stack temperature data according to §63.8600(a); and maintaining the stack temperature at

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 430 of 445 comply with dioxin/furan emission limit without an ACI system. 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. or below the highest stack temperature established during the dioxin/furan performance test in which compliance was demonstrated
.

5. Tunnel or roller kiln with no 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 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 stack temperature data according to §63.8600(a); and maintaining the stack temperature at or below the highest stack temperature established during the dioxin/furan performance test in which compliance was demonstrated
. 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 operations equipped with a FF. If you use a bag leak detection system, initiating corrective action within 1 hour of a bag leak detection system alarm and completing cor rective 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

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 431 of 445
fr action, 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 a ction, 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 maintaini ng 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 av erage pressure drop established during the PM performance test in which compliance was demonstrated ; 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 acc ording to §63.8600(a); maintaining the average scrubber liquid flow rate for each 3

- hour block period at or above the average scrubber liquid flow rate established during the PM performance test in which compliance was demonstrated
. 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 f low 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

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 432 of 44 5 (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 a nnual 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 e stablished during the dioxin/furan performance test in which compliance was demonstrated
. 11. Floor tile press dryer Each emission limit in Table 1 to this subpart and each operating limit in Item 11 of Table 2 to this subpart for floor tile press dryers. Collecting the operating temperature data according to §63.8600(a); reducing the operating temperature data to 3

- hour block averages according to §63.8600(a); maintaining the average operating temperature for each 3

- hour block period at or below the avera ge operating temperature established during the dioxin/furan performance test in which compliance was demonstrated
. 12. 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 433 of 445 use of the alternative fuel, as specified in §63.8635(g); and iv. Using a designed firing time and temperature cycle for each sanitaryware shuttle kiln ; and v. For each firing load, d ocument ing the total tonnage of greenware placed in the kiln to ensure that it is not greater than the maximum load identified in Item 1.a.ii i of Table 3 to this subpart; and vi. Following maintenance procedures for each kiln that , at a minimum, specify the frequency of inspection and maintenance of temperature monitoring devices, controls that regulate air

- to

- fuel ratios, and controls that regulate firing cycles; and vii. Developing and maintaining records for each sanitaryware shuttle kiln, as specified in §63.8640.


## As stated in §63.8545, you must meet each compliance date in the following table that applies to you: **Table 8 to Subpart KKKKK of Part 63 --**  **Compliance Dates**
**If you have a(n)... Then you must...**  **No later than...** 1. New or reconstructed affected source and the initial startup of your affected source is after December 18, 2014, but before **[insert da**  **te 60 days**  **from date of publication**  **in the Federal Register**  **]** Comply with the applicable emission limitations and work p ractice standards in Tables 1, 2, and 3 to this subpart **[I nsert**  **date 60**  **days from date of publication**  **in the Federal Register**  **] .** 

2. New or reconstructed affected source and the initial startup of your affected source is after **[insert da**  **te 60 days**  **from date of publication**  **in the Federal Register**  **]** Comply with the applicable emission limitations and work practice standards in Tables 1, 2, and 3 to this subpart Initial startup of your affected source.

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 434 of 445
**If you have a(n)... Then you must...**  **No later than...** 3. Existing affected source Comply with th e applicable emission limitations and work practice standards in Tables 1, 2, and 3 to this subpart **[I nsert date 3**  **years and 60**  **days f**  **rom da te**  **of publication in the Federal**  **Register ]**  **.** 4. Existing area source that increases its emissions or its potential t o emit such that it becomes a major source of HAP by adding a new affected source or by reconstructing Be in compliance with this subpart Initial startup of your affected source as a major source.

5. New area source ( i.e. , an area source for which constru ction or reconstruction commenced after December 18, 2014) that increases its emissions or its potential to emit such that it becomes a major source of HAP Be in compliance with this subpart Initial startup of your affected source as a major source.



## As stated in §63.8630, you must submit each notification that applies to you according to the following table: **Table 9**  **to Subpart KKKKK of Part 63 --**  **Deadlines for Submitting Notifications** 

**If you... You must...**  **No later than ...**  **As specified in...**  1. Start up your affected source before **[insert da**  **te 60**  **days from date of**  **publication in the**  **Federal Register ]**  Submit an Initial Notification **[ I**  **nsert date 240**  **days f**  **rom da te of**  **publication in**  **the Federal Register**  **]** §63.9(b)( 2)
.

2. Start up your new or reconstructed affected source on or after **[insert da**  **te 60**  **days from date of**  **publication in the**  **Federal Register ]**  Submit an Initial Notification 120 calendar days after you become subject to this subpart §63.9( b)(2)
.

3. Are required to conduct a performance test Submit a notification of intent to conduct a performance test 60 calendar days before the performance test is scheduled to begin §63.7(b)(1).

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 435 of 445 4. Are required to conduct a compliance demonstration that includes a performance test according to the requirements in Table 4 to this subpart Submit a Notification of Compliance Status, including the performance test results 60 calendar days following the completion of the performance test, by the close of business §63.9(h) and §63.10 (d)(2).

5. Are required to conduct a compliance demonstration required in Table 6 to this subpart that does not include a performance test ( i.e. , compliance demonstrations for the work practice standards) Submit a Notification of Compliance Status 30 calendar days following the completion of the compliance demonstrations, by the close of business §63.9(h)
.

6. Request to use the routine control device maintenance alternative standard according to §63.8 570 ( d) Submit your request 120 calendar days before the compliance date specified in §63.8545. 7. O wn 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 aff ected kiln S ubmit a notification of alternative fuel use 48 hours following the declaration of a period of natural gas curtailment or supply interruption, as defined in §63.8665.



## As stated in §63.8635, you must submit each report that applies to you according to the following table: **Table 10**  **to Subpart KKKKK of Part 63 --**  **Requirements for Reports**

**You must submit...**  **The report must contain... You must submit the**  **report...**

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 436 of 445 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 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 §63.8635(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( c )( 8 ). If there were periods during which the CMS was out

- of

- control, as specified in your OM&M plan, the report must contain the information in §63.8635( d ). 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 alterna tive 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 11**  **to Subpart KKKKK of Part 63 --**  **Applicability of General Provisions to Subpart KKKKK** 

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 437 of 445

**Citation Subject**  **Brief Description Applies to**  **Subpart KKKKK?** §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) No tification. 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.

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 438 of 445
§63.6(c)(1)

- (2) Compliance Dates for Existing Sources. Comply according to date in subpart, which must be no later than 3 ye ars 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 §63.8570(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.

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 439 of 445
§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; mu st 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.

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 440 of 445
§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 performanc e 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.

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 441 of 445
§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 o n 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. 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 emission and parameter measurements. Yes.

§63.8(c)(4) CMS Requirements. Requirements for CMS. No, §63.8600 specifies requiremen ts
. §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) (1) and (2) CMS Quality Control. Requirements for CMS quality control. Yes.

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 442 of 445
§63.8(d)(3) CMS Quality Control. Written procedures for CMS
. No, §63.8 575(b)(9) specifies requirements
. §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. 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.

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 443 of 445
§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.

§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 §63.8640(c)(2) for recordkeeping of (1) date, time and duration; (2) listing of affected source or equipment, and an estimate of the volume of each regulated pollutant emitted over the standard; and (3) actions to minim ize 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.

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 444 of 445
§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.

§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( c ) (8) 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.

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 445 of 445
§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.