75622 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 243 / Thursday, December 18, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 63 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2013–0290 and EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2013–0291; FRL–9913–58–OAR] 

RIN 2060–AP69 

NESHAP for Brick and Structural Clay 

Products Manufacturing; and NESHAP 

for Clay Ceramics Manufacturing 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing national 

emission standards for hazardous air 

pollutants (NESHAP) for brick and 

structural clay products manufacturing 

and NESHAP for clay ceramics 

manufacturing. The EPA is proposing 

that all major sources in these categories 

meet maximum achievable control 

technology (MACT) standards for 

mercury, non-mercury metal hazardous 

air pollutants (HAP) (or particulate 

matter (PM) surrogate) and dioxins/

furans (Clay Ceramics only); healthbased standards for acid gas HAP; and 

work practice standards, where 

applicable. The proposed rule, which 

has been informed by input from 

industry and other stakeholders, 

including small businesses, would 

protect air quality and promote public 

health by reducing emissions of HAP 

listed in section 112 of the Clean Air 

Act (CAA). 

DATES: Comments. Comments must be 

received on or before February 17, 2015. 

A copy of comments on the information 

collection provisions should be 

submitted to the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) on or before January 

20, 2015. 

Public Hearing. If anyone contacts the 

EPA requesting a public hearing by 

January 15, 2014 the EPA will hold a 

public hearing on January 20, 2015 from 

1:00 p.m. [Eastern Standard Time] to 

5:00 p.m. [Eastern Standard Time] at the 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

building located at 109 T.W. Alexander 

Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC 

27711. If the EPA holds a public 

hearing, the EPA will keep the record of 

the hearing open for 30 days after 

completion of the hearing to provide an 

opportunity for submission of rebuttal 

and supplementary information. 

ADDRESSES: Comments. Submit your 

comments, identified by Docket ID No. 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2013–0291 for Brick 

and Structural Clay Products 

Manufacturing and EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2013–0290 for Clay Ceramics 

Manufacturing, by one of the following 

methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Email: A-and-R-docket@epa.gov. 

Include Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2013–0291 for Brick and Structural Clay 

Products Manufacturing or EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2013–0290 for Clay Ceramics 

Manufacturing in the subject line of the 

message. 

• Fax: (202) 566–9744. 

• Mail: Environmental Protection 

Agency, EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), 

Mailcode 28221T, Attention Docket ID 

No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2013–0291 (for 

Brick and Structural Clay Products 

Manufacturing) or EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2013–0290 (for Clay Ceramics 

Manufacturing), 1200 Pennsylvania 

Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460. In 

addition, please mail a copy of your 

comments on the information collection 

provisions to the Office of Information 

and Regulatory Affairs, Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB), Attn: 

Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th Street 

NW., Washington, DC 20503. 

• Hand/Courier Delivery: EPA Docket 

Center, Room 3334, EPA WJC West 

Building, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., 

Washington, DC 20004. Such deliveries 

are only accepted during the Docket’s 

normal hours of operation and special 

arrangements should be made for 

deliveries of boxed information. 

Instructions. Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2013– 

0291 for Brick and Structural Clay 

Products Manufacturing or EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2013–0290 for Clay Ceramics 

Manufacturing. The EPA’s policy is that 

all comments received will be included 

in the public docket without change and 

may be made available online at http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be confidential business 

information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through http://

www.regulations.gov or email. The 

http://www.regulations.gov Web site is 

an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means the EPA will not know your 

identity or contact information unless 

you provide it in the body of your 

comment. If you send an email 

comment directly to the EPA without 

going through http://

www.regulations.gov, your email 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the Internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, the EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If the EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, the EPA may not 

be able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should not include 

special characters or any form of 

encryption and be free of any defects or 

viruses. For additional information 

about the EPA’s public docket, visit the 

EPA Docket Center homepage at: http:// 

www.epa.gov/dockets. 

Docket. The EPA has established 

dockets for this rulemaking under 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2013– 

0291 for Brick and Structural Clay 

Products Manufacturing and Docket ID 

No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2013–0290 for Clay 

Ceramics Manufacturing. All documents 

in the dockets are listed in the 

regulations.gov index. Although listed 

in the index, some information is not 

publicly available, e.g., CBI or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

is not 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 Reading Room is 

(202) 566–1744 and the telephone 

number for the EPA Docket Center is 

(202) 566–1742. 

Public Hearing. If requested by 

January 15, 2014, we will hold a public 

hearing on January 20, 2015, from 1:00 

p.m. [Eastern Standard Time] to 5:00 

p.m. [Eastern Standard Time] at the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency 

building located at 109 T.W. Alexander 

Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC 

27711. Please contact Ms. Pamela 

Garrett of the Sector Policies and 

Programs Division (D243–01), Office of 

Air Quality Planning and Standards, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711; 

telephone number: (919) 541–7966; 

email address: garrett.pamela@epa.gov; 

to request a hearing, register to speak at 

the hearing or to inquire as to whether 

or not a hearing will be held. The last 

day to pre-register in advance to speak 

at the hearing will be December 30, 

2014. Additionally, requests to speak 

will be taken the day of the hearing at 

the hearing registration desk, although 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 243 / Thursday, December 18, 2014 / Proposed Rules 75623 

preferences on speaking times may not 

be able to be fulfilled. If you require the 

service of a translator or special 

accommodations such as audio 

description, we ask that you pre-register 

for the hearing, as we may not be able 

to arrange such accommodations 

without advance notice. The hearing 

will provide interested parties the 

opportunity to present data, views or 

arguments concerning the proposed 

action. The EPA will make every effort 

to accommodate all speakers who arrive 

and register. Because this hearing is 

being held at a U.S. government facility, 

individuals planning to attend the 

hearing should be prepared to show 

valid picture identification to the 

security staff in order to gain access to 

the meeting room. Please note that the 

REAL ID Act, passed by Congress in 

2005, established new requirements for 

entering federal facilities. If your 

driver’s license is issued by Alaska, 

American Samoa, Arizona, Kentucky, 

Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, 

Minnesota, Montana, New York, 

Oklahoma or the state of Washington, 

you must present an additional form of 

identification to enter the federal 

building. Acceptable alternative forms 

of identification include: Federal 

employee badges, passports, enhanced 

driver’s licenses and military 

identification cards. In addition, you 

will need to obtain a property pass for 

any personal belongings you bring with 

you. Upon leaving the building, you 

will be required to return this property 

pass to the security desk. No large signs 

will be allowed in the building, cameras 

may only be used outside of the 

building and demonstrations will not be 

allowed on federal property for security 

reasons. The EPA may ask clarifying 

questions during the oral presentations, 

but will not respond to the 

presentations at that time. Written 

statements and supporting information 

submitted during the comment period 

will be considered with the same weight 

as oral comments and supporting 

information presented at the public 

hearing. Verbatim transcripts of the 

hearing and written statements will be 

included in the docket for the 

rulemaking. The EPA will make every 

effort to follow the schedule as closely 

as possible on the day of the hearing; 

however, please plan for the hearing to 

run either ahead of schedule or behind 

schedule. Again, a hearing will not be 

held on this rulemaking unless 

requested. A hearing needs to be 

requested by December 23, 2014. Again, 

please contact Ms. Pamela Garrett of the 

Sector Policies and Programs Division 

(D243–01), Office of Air Quality 

Planning and Standards, Environmental 

Protection Agency, Research Triangle 

Park, NC 27711; telephone number: 

(919) 541–7966; email address: 

garrett.pamela@epa.gov to request a 

hearing. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

questions about the proposed rule for 

Brick and Structural Clay Products 

Manufacturing and Clay Ceramics 

Manufacturing, contact Ms. Sharon 

Nizich, Minerals and Manufacturing 

Group, Sector Policies and Program 

Division (D243–04), Office of Air 

Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 

27711; Telephone number: (919) 541– 

2825; Fax number: (919) 541–5450; 

Email address: nizich.sharon@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Preamble Acronyms and 

Abbreviations. This preamble includes 

several acronyms and terms used to 

describe industrial processes, data 

inventories and risk modeling. While 

this list may not be exhaustive, to ease 

the reading of this preamble and for 

reference purposes, the EPA defines the 

following terms and acronyms here: 

3×RDL representative detection level values 

multiplied by three 

ACI activated carbon injection 

AEGL Acute Exposure Guideline Level 

AERMOD air dispersion model used by the 

HEM–3 model 

APCD air pollution control device 

ATSDR Agency for Toxic Substances and 

Disease Registry 

BDL below detection limit 

BLD bag leak detection 

BSCP brick and structural clay products 

CAA Clean Air Act 

CalEPA California EPA 

CAS Chemical Abstract Services 

CBI Confidential Business Information 

CDX Central Data Exchange 

CEDRI Compliance and Emissions Data 

Reporting Interface 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

Cl2 chlorine 

CO carbon monoxide 

CPMS continuous parameter monitoring 

system 

DHHS Department of Health and Human 

Services 

DIFF dry lime injection fabric filter 

DLA dry limestone adsorber 

DLL detection level limited 

DLS/FF dry lime scrubber/fabric filter 

EPA Environmental Protection Agency 

ERPG Emergency Response Planning 

Guideline 

ERT Electronic Reporting Tool 

°F degrees Fahrenheit 

FF fabric filter 

FTIR Fourier transform infrared 

gr/dscf grains per dry standard cubic foot 

HAP hazardous air pollutant 

HCl hydrogen chloride 

HEM–3 Human Exposure Model 

(Community and Sector version 1.3.1) 

HF hydrogen fluoride 

Hg mercury 

HQ hazard quotient 

IARC International Agency for Research on 

Cancer 

ICR information collection request 

IOM Institute of Medicine 

IRFA initial regulatory flexibility analysis 

IRIS Integrated Risk Information System 

K kurtosis statistic 

lb/hr pounds per hour 

lb/ton pounds per ton 

LML lowest measured level 

MACT maximum achievable control 

technology 

mg/m3 milligrams per cubic meter 

MMBtu/yr million British thermal units per 

year 

MRL Minimal Risk Level 

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards 

NAICS North American Industry 

Classification System 

NATA National Air Toxics Assessment 

NEI National Emissions Inventory 

NESHAP national emissions standards for 

hazardous air pollutants 

ng/dscm nanograms per dry standard cubic 

meter 

No. number 

NO2 nitrogen dioxide 

NOAEL no observable adverse effect level 

non-Hg non-mercury 

NOX nitrogen oxides 

NTTAA National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

O2 oxygen 

OM&M operation, maintenance and 

monitoring 

OMB Office of Management and Budget 

PIC products of incomplete combustion 

PLC programmable logic controller 

PM particulate matter 

PM2.5 particulate matter with particles less 

than 2.5 micrometers in diameter 

RDL representative detection level 

REL reference exposure level 

RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act 

RfC reference concentration 

RIA Regulatory Impact Analysis 

S skewness statistic 

SBA Small Business Administration 

SBAR Small Business Advocacy Review 

SBE Standard Brick Equivalent 

SBREFA Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act 

SEK standard error of kurtosis 

SER small entity representative 

SES standard error of skewness 

SO2 sulfur dioxide 

SSM startup, shutdown and malfunction 

TCDD tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin 

TEQ 2,3,7,8-TCDD toxic equivalents 

TOSHI target organ-specific hazard index 

tph tons per hour 

tpy tons per year 

TTN Technology Transfer Network 

UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

mg/dscm micrograms per dry standard cubic 

meter 

mg/m3 micrograms per cubic meter 

UPL Upper Prediction Limit 

VCS voluntary consensus standards 

VE visible emissions 

WHO World Health Organization 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
75624 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 243 / Thursday, December 18, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

Organization of This Document. The 

information in this preamble is 

organized as follows: 

I. General Information 

A. Executive Summary 

B. Does this action apply to me? 

C. Where can I get a copy of this document 

and other related information? 

D. What should I consider as I prepare my 

comments for the EPA? 

II. Background Information 

A. What is the statutory authority for the 

proposed rule? 

B. What is the background for startup, 

shutdown and malfunction? 

C. What is the history of the proposed rule? 

D. What are the health effects of pollutants 

emitted from the Brick and Structural 

Clay Products and Clay Ceramics 

Manufacturing source categories? 

III. Summary of the Proposed Rule for the 

Brick and Structural Clay Products 

Manufacturing Source Category 

A. What source category is affected by the 

proposed rule? 

B. What are the affected sources? 

C. Does the proposed rule apply to me? 

D. What emission limitations and work 

practice standards must I meet? 

E. What are the startup and shutdown 

requirements? 

F. What are the testing and initial 

compliance requirements? 

G. What are the continuous compliance 

requirements? 

H. What are the notification, recordkeeping 

and reporting requirements? 

I. How would I submit emissions test 

results to the EPA? 

IV. Rationale for the Proposed Rule for Brick 

and Structural Clay Products 

Manufacturing 

A. How did the EPA determine which 

sources would be regulated under the 

proposed rule? 

B. How did the EPA select the format for 

the proposed rule? 

C. How did the EPA consider different 

subcategories? 

D. What approaches did the EPA consider 

in developing the proposed emission 

limitations for existing and new sources? 

E. How did the EPA determine the MACT 

floors for existing sources? 

F. How did the EPA determine the MACT 

floor for new sources? 

G. What is our approach for applying the 

upper prediction limit to limited 

datasets? 

H. How did the EPA consider beyond-thefloor for existing sources? 

I. How did the EPA consider beyond-thefloor for new sources? 

J. How did the EPA determine whether to 

set health-based standards for existing 

and new sources? 

K. How did the EPA determine whether to 

set work practice standards for existing 

and new sources? 

L. How did the EPA develop the startup 

and shutdown requirements? 

M. How did the EPA select the compliance 

requirements? 

N. How did the EPA determine compliance 

times for the proposed rule? 

O. How did the EPA determine the 

required records and reports for the 

proposed rule? 

P. How does the proposed rule affect 

permits? 

Q. What are the alternate approaches the 

EPA is considering? 

V. Summary of the Proposed Rule for the 

Clay Ceramics Manufacturing Category 

A. What source category is affected by the 

proposed rule? 

B. What are the affected sources? 

C. Does the proposed rule apply to me? 

D. What emission limitations and work 

practice standards must I meet? 

E. What are the startup and shutdown 

requirements? 

F. What are the testing and initial 

compliance requirements? 

G. What are the continuous compliance 

requirements? 

H. What are the notification, recordkeeping 

and reporting requirements? 

I. How would I submit emissions test 

results to the EPA? 

VI. Rationale for the Proposed Rule for Clay 

Ceramics Manufacturing 

A. How did the EPA determine which 

sources would be regulated under the 

proposed rule? 

B. How did the EPA select the format for 

the proposed rule? 

C. How did the EPA consider different 

subcategories? 

D. What approaches did the EPA consider 

in developing the proposed emission 

limitations for existing and new sources? 

E. How did the EPA determine the MACT 

floors for existing sources? 

F. How did the EPA determine the MACT 

floors for new sources? 

G. What is our approach for applying the 

upper prediction limit to limited 

datasets? 

H. How did the EPA consider beyond-thefloor for existing sources? 

I. How did the EPA consider beyond-thefloor for new sources? 

J. How did the EPA determine whether to 

set health-based standards for existing 

and new sources? 

K. How did the EPA determine whether to 

set work practice standards for existing 

and new sources? 

L. How did the EPA develop the startup 

and shutdown requirements? 

M. How did the EPA select the compliance 

requirements? 

N. How did the EPA determine compliance 

times for the proposed rule? 

O. How did the EPA determine the 

required records and reports for the 

proposed rule? 

P. How does the proposed rule affect 

permits? 

VII. Summary of the Environmental, Energy 

and Economic Impacts of the Proposed 

Standards 

A. What are the cost and emission 

reduction impacts? 

B. What are the secondary impacts? 

C. What are the economic impacts? 

D. What are the social costs and benefits 

of the proposed rule? 

VIII. Public Participation and Request for 

Comment 

IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution or Use 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions 

To Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations 

I. General Information 

A. Executive Summary 

1. Purpose of the Regulatory Action 

Section 112(d) of the CAA requires 

the EPA to set emissions standards for 

HAP emitted by major stationary 

sources based on the performance of the 

MACT. We issued the NESHAP for 

Brick and Structural Clay Products 

(BSCP) manufacturing and the NESHAP 

for 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 proposing 

new standards for BSCP manufacturing 

and clay ceramics manufacturing. 

2. Summary of the Major Provisions 

BSCP NESHAP. The EPA is proposing 

MACT emission limits for mercury (Hg) 

and non-mercury (non-Hg) HAP metals 

(or PM surrogate) and a health-based 

emission limit for acid gases (hydrogen 

fluoride (HF), hydrogen chloride (HCl) 

and chlorine (Cl2)) for BSCP tunnel 

kilns. In addition, the EPA is proposing 

work practice standards for periodic 

kilns, for dioxins/furans from tunnel 

kilns and for periods of startup and 

shutdown for tunnel kilns. To 

demonstrate compliance with the 

emission limits, the EPA is proposing 

initial and repeat 5-year performance 

testing for the regulated pollutants, 

continuous 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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 243 / Thursday, December 18, 2014 / Proposed Rules 75625 

demonstrating compliance using a bag 

leak detection (BLD) system instead of 

daily VE checks. 

Clay Ceramics NESHAP. The EPA is 

proposing MACT emission limits for Hg, 

PM (surrogate for non-Hg HAP metals) 

and dioxins/furans and health-based 

emission limits for acid gases (HF and 

HCl) for sanitaryware tunnel kilns and 

ceramic tile roller kilns. In addition, the 

EPA is proposing MACT emission limits 

for dioxins/furans for ceramic tile spray 

dryers and floor tile press dryers, MACT 

emission limits for Hg and PM 

(surrogate for non-Hg HAP metals) for 

ceramic tile glaze lines and MACT 

emission limits for PM (surrogate for 

non-Hg HAP metals) for sanitaryware 

glaze spray booths. The EPA is also 

proposing work practice standards for 

shuttle kilns and for periods of startup 

and shutdown. To demonstrate 

compliance with the emission limits, 

the EPA is proposing initial and repeat 

5-year performance testing for the 

regulated pollutants, continuous 

parameter monitoring and daily VE 

checks. Owners/operators whose 

affected sources are equipped with a FF 

(e.g., DIFF, DLS/FF) have the option of 

demonstrating compliance using a BLD 

system instead of daily VE checks. 

3. Costs and Benefits 

Table 1 of this preamble summarizes 

the costs and benefits of this proposed 

action for 40 CFR part 63, subpart JJJJJ 

(BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP), while 

Table 2 of this preamble summarizes the 

costs of this proposed action for 40 CFR 

part 63, subpart KKKKK (Clay Ceramics 

Manufacturing NESHAP). See section 

VII of this preamble for further 

discussion of the costs and benefits for 

the BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP and 

the costs for the Clay Ceramics 

Manufacturing NESHAP. See section 

IX.B of this preamble for discussion of 

the recordkeeping and reporting costs. 

TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF THE COSTS AND BENEFITS OF 40 CFR PART 63, SUBPART JJJJJ 

[Millions of 2011 dollars] 

Requirement Capital cost Annual cost Net benefit 

Emission controls ..................................................................................................................... $54 .9 $18 .4 $26 to $99. 

Emissions testing ..................................................................................................................... 0 .977 0 .238 

Monitoring ................................................................................................................................. .......................... 0 .346 

TABLE 2—SUMMARY OF THE COSTS OF 40 CFR PART 63, SUBPART KKKKK 

[Millions of 2011 dollars] 

Requirement Capital cost Annual cost 

Emission controls ..................................................................................................................................... $0 $0 

Emissions testing ..................................................................................................................................... 0.102 0.0249 

Monitoring ................................................................................................................................................ ................................ 0.0209 

B. Does this action apply to me? 

The regulated categories and entities 

potentially affected by the proposed 

standards are shown in Table 3 of this 

preamble: 

TABLE 3—NESHAP AND INDUSTRIAL SOURCE CATEGORIES AFFECTED BY THIS PROPOSED ACTION

Category NAICS code a Examples of potentially regulated entities 

Industry ..................................................... 327120 Brick, structural clay and extruded tile manufacturing facilities (BSCP NESHAP); 

and ceramic wall and floor tile manufacturing facilities (Clay Ceramics NESHAP). 

327110 Vitreous plumbing fixtures (sanitaryware) manufacturing facilities (Clay Ceramics 

NESHAP). 

Federal government .................................. ........................ Not affected. 

State/local/tribal government .................... ........................ Not affected. 

a North American Industry Classification System. 

This table is not intended to be 

exhaustive, but rather provides a guide 

for readers regarding entities likely to be 

regulated by this action. To determine 

whether your facility, company, 

business, organization, etc., would be 

regulated by this action, you should 

examine the applicability criteria in 40 

CFR 63.8385 of subpart JJJJJ (BSCP 

Manufacturing NESHAP) or 40 CFR 

63.8535 of subpart KKKKK (Clay 

Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP). If 

you have any questions regarding the 

applicability of this proposed action to 

a particular entity, contact either the air 

permitting authority for the entity or 

your EPA regional representative as 

listed in 40 CFR 63.13 of subpart A 

(General Provisions). 

C. Where can I get a copy of this 

document and other related 

information? 

In addition to being available in the 

docket, an electronic copy of this action 

is available on the Internet through the 

EPA’s Technology Transfer Network 

(TTN) Web site, a forum for information 

and technology exchange in various 

areas of air pollution control. Following 

signature by the EPA Administrator, the 

EPA will post a copy of this proposed 

action at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/

brick/brickpg.html. Following 

publication in the Federal Register, the 

EPA will post the Federal Register 

version of the proposal and key 

technical documents at this same Web 

site. 

D. What should I consider as I prepare 

my comments for the EPA? 

Do not submit information containing 

CBI to the EPA through http://

www.regulations.gov or email. Clearly 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
75626 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 243 / Thursday, December 18, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

mark the part or all of the information 

that you claim to be CBI. For CBI 

information on a disk or CD–ROM that 

you mail to the EPA, mark the outside 

of the disk or CD–ROM as CBI and then 

identify electronically within the disk or 

CD–ROM the specific information that 

is claimed as CBI. In addition to one 

complete version of the comments that 

includes information claimed as CBI, 

you must submit a copy of the 

comments that does not contain the 

information claimed as CBI for 

inclusion in the public docket. If you 

submit a CD–ROM or disk that does not 

contain CBI, mark the outside of the 

disk or CD–ROM clearly that it does not 

contain CBI. Information not marked as 

CBI will be included in the public 

docket and the EPA’s electronic public 

docket without prior notice. Information 

marked as CBI will not be disclosed 

except in accordance with procedures 

set forth in 40 Code of Federal 

Regulations (CFR) part 2. Send or 

deliver information identified as CBI 

only to the following address: Roberto 

Morales, OAQPS Document Control 

Officer (C404–02), OAQPS, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 

27711, Attention Docket ID No. EPA– 

HQ–OAR–2013–0291 (for BSCP 

Manufacturing NESHAP) or Docket ID 

No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2013–0290 (for Clay 

Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP). 

II. Background Information 

A. What is the statutory authority for the 

proposed rule? 

Section 112(d) of the CAA requires 

the EPA to set emissions standards for 

HAP emitted by major stationary 

sources based on the performance of the 

MACT. The MACT standards for 

existing sources must be at least as 

stringent as the average emissions 

limitation achieved by the best 

performing 12 percent of existing 

sources (for which the Administrator 

has emissions information) or the best 

performing five sources for source 

categories with less than 30 sources 

(CAA section 112(d)(3)(A) and (B)). This 

level of minimum stringency is called 

the MACT floor. For new sources, 

MACT standards must be at least as 

stringent as the control level 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, but must take into 

account the associated costs, energy and 

nonair environmental impacts. 

B. What is the background for startup, 

shutdown and malfunction? 

In its 2008 decision in Sierra Club v. 

EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008), the 

United States Court of Appeals for the 

District of Columbia Circuit vacated 

portions of two provisions in the EPA’s 

CAA section 112 regulations governing 

the emissions of HAP during periods of 

startup, shutdown and malfunction 

(SSM). Specifically, the Court vacated 

the SSM exemption contained in 40 

CFR 63.6(f)(1) and 40 CFR 63.6(h)(1), 

holding that under section 302(k) of the 

CAA, emissions standards or limitations 

must be continuous in nature and that 

the SSM exemption violates the CAA’s 

requirement that some section 112 

standards apply continuously. 

Consistent with Sierra Club v. EPA, 

we are proposing standards in this rule 

that apply at all times. In proposing the 

standards in this rule, the EPA has taken 

into account startup and shutdown 

periods and, for the reasons explained 

in sections IV.L and VI.L of this 

preamble, has proposed alternate 

standards for some sources during those 

periods. 

Periods of startup, normal operations 

and shutdown are all predictable and 

routine aspects of a source’s operations. 

Malfunctions, in contrast, are neither 

predictable nor routine. Instead they 

are, by definition sudden, infrequent 

and not reasonably preventable failures 

of emissions control, process or 

monitoring equipment. 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 determining 

the level ‘‘achieved’’ by the best 

performing sources when setting 

emission standards. As the U.S. Court of 

Appeals for the District of Columbia 

Circuit has recognized, the phrase 

‘‘average emissions limitation achieved 

by the best performing 12 percent of’’ 

sources ‘‘says nothing about how the 

performance of the best units is to be 

calculated.’’ Nat’l Ass’n of Clean Water 

Agencies v. EPA, 734 F.3d 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 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 

associated with predicting or accounting 

for the frequency, degree and duration 

of various malfunctions that might 

occur. For these reasons, the 

performance of units that are 

malfunctioning is not ‘‘reasonably’’ 

foreseeable. See, e.g., Sierra Club v. 

EPA, 167 F.3d 658, 662 (D.C. Cir. 1999) 

(‘‘The EPA typically has wide latitude 

in determining the extent of datagathering necessary to solve a problem. 

We generally defer to an agency’s 

decision to proceed on the basis of 

imperfect scientific information, rather 

than to ‘invest the resources to conduct 

the perfect study.’ ’’) See also, 

Weyerhaeuser v. Costle, 590 F.2d 1011, 

1058 (D.C. Cir. 1978) (‘‘In the nature of 

things, no general limit, individual 

permit, or even any upset provision can 

anticipate all upset situations. After a 

certain point, the transgression of 

regulatory limits caused by 

‘uncontrollable acts of third parties,’ 

such as strikes, sabotage, operator 

intoxication or insanity, and a variety of 

other eventualities, must be a matter for 

the administrative exercise of case-bycase enforcement discretion, not for 

specification in advance by 

regulation.’’). In addition, emissions 

during a malfunction event can be 

significantly higher than emissions at 

any other time of source operation. For 

example, if an air pollution control 

device with 99-percent removal goes offline as a result of a malfunction (as 

might happen if, for example, the bags 

in a baghouse catch fire) and the 

emission unit is a steady state type unit 

that would take days to shut down, the 

source would go from 99-percent 

control to zero control until the control 

device was repaired. The source’s 

emissions during the malfunction 

would be 100 times higher than during 

normal operations, and the emissions 

over a 4-day malfunction period would 

exceed the annual emissions of the 

source during normal operations. As 

this example illustrates, accounting for 

malfunctions could lead to standards 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 243 / Thursday, December 18, 2014 / Proposed Rules 75627 

that are not reflective of (and 

significantly less stringent than) levels 

that are achieved by a well-performing 

non-malfunctioning source. It is 

reasonable to interpret CAA section 112 

to avoid such a result. The EPA’s 

approach to malfunctions is consistent 

with CAA section 112 and is a 

reasonable interpretation of the statute. 

In the event that a source fails to 

comply with the applicable CAA section 

112 standards as a result of a 

malfunction event, the EPA would 

determine an appropriate response 

based on, among other things, the good 

faith efforts of the 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 enforcement action against a 

source for violation of an emission 

standard is warranted, the source can 

raise any and all defenses in that 

enforcement action and the federal 

district court will determine what, if 

any, relief is appropriate. The same is 

true for citizen enforcement actions. 

Similarly, the presiding officer in an 

administrative proceeding can consider 

any defense raised and determine 

whether administrative penalties are 

appropriate. 

In summary, the EPA interpretation of 

the CAA and, in particular, section 112 

is reasonable and encourages practices 

that will avoid malfunctions. 

Administrative and judicial procedures 

for addressing exceedances of the 

standards fully recognize that violations 

may occur despite good faith efforts to 

comply and can accommodate those 

situations. 

C. What is the history of the proposed 

rule? 

Pursuant to CAA section 112(c)(5), the 

EPA was originally required to 

promulgate standards for the BSCP 

Manufacturing and Clay Ceramics 

Manufacturing source categories by 

November 2000. The agency initially 

promulgated standards for these 

categories in 2003. See 68 FR 26690 

(May 16, 2003). Those standards were 

challenged and subsequently vacated by 

the Court of appeals for the District of 

Columbia Circuit in 2007. See Sierra 

Club v. EPA, 479 F.3d 875, 876 (D.C. 

Cir. 2007). In 2008, Sierra Club filed suit 

in the Court of Appeals for the District 

of Columbia Circuit under CAA section 

304(a)(2), alleging that the EPA had a 

continuing mandatory duty to 

promulgate standards for these 

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 District Court 

found that the vacatur of the 2003 rule 

recreated the mandatory duty to set 

standards by 2000 and held 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. 

Following the 2007 vacatur of the 

2003 rule, the EPA began efforts to 

collect additional data to support new 

standards for the BSCP and clay 

ceramics industries. 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 

information collection effort in 2010 to 

obtain additional emissions data and 

information on each facility’s SSM 

procedures, hereafter referred to as ‘‘the 

2010 EPA survey.’’ The information 

collected as part of these surveys and 

not claimed as CBI by respondents is 

available in Docket ID Nos. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2013–0290 and EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2013–0291. In addition, the dockets A– 

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. 

D. What are the health effects of 

pollutants emitted from the Brick and 

Structural Clay Products Manufacturing 

and Clay Ceramics Manufacturing 

source categories? 

The proposed rule protects air quality 

and promotes the public health by 

reducing emissions of HAP emitted 

from BSCP and clay ceramics kilns. 

Emissions data collected during 

development of the proposed rule 

shows that acid gases such as HF, HCl 

and Cl2 represent the predominant HAP 

emitted by BSCP and clay ceramics 

kilns, accounting for 99.3 percent of the 

total HAP emissions. These kilns also 

emit lesser amounts of other HAP 

compounds such as HAP metals and 

dioxins/furans, accounting for about 0.7 

percent of total HAP emissions. The 

HAP metals emitted include antimony, 

arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, 

chromium, cobalt, lead, manganese, 

mercury, nickel and selenium. Exposure 

to these HAP, depending on exposure 

duration and levels of exposures, can be 

associated with a variety of adverse 

health effects. These adverse health 

effects could include chronic health 

disorders (e.g., irritation of the lung, 

skin and mucus membranes, effects on 

the central nervous 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). 

III. Summary of the Proposed Rule for 

the Brick and Structural Clay Products 

Manufacturing Source Category 

This section summarizes the 

requirements for the BSCP 

Manufacturing source category 

proposed in today’s action. Section IV of 

this preamble provides our rationale for 

the proposed requirements. 

A. What source category is affected by 

the proposed rule? 

Today’s proposed rule for BSCP 

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 other 

extruded, dimensional clay products. 

B. What are the affected sources? 

The affected sources, which are the 

portions of each source in the category 

for which we are setting standards, are: 

(1) all tunnel kilns at a BSCP 

manufacturing facility; and (2) each 

periodic kiln. For purposes of this 

proposed BSCP manufacturing rule, 

tunnel kilns are defined to include any 

type of continuous kiln used at BSCP 

manufacturing facilities, including 

roller kilns. 

Tunnel kilns are fired by natural gas 

or other fuels, including sawdust. 

Sawdust firing typically involves the 

use of a sawdust dryer because sawdust 

typically is purchased wet and needs to 

be dried before it can be used as fuel. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
75628 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 243 / Thursday, December 18, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

Consequently, some sawdust-fired 

tunnel kilns have two process streams, 

including: (1) A process stream that 

exhausts directly to the atmosphere or 

to an APCD and (2) a process stream in 

which the kiln exhaust is ducted to a 

sawdust dryer where it is used to dry 

sawdust before being emitted to the 

atmosphere. Both process streams are 

subject to the requirements of today’s 

proposed BSCP manufacturing rule. 

The following BSCP process units are 

not subject to the requirements of 

today’s proposed rule: (1) kilns that are 

used exclusively for setting glazes on 

previously fired products and (2) dryers. 

See section IV.A of this preamble for 

information on why these sources are 

not subject to the proposed BSCP 

manufacturing rule. 

C. Does the proposed rule apply to me? 

This proposed BSCP manufacturing 

rule applies to owners 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 tons per year (tpy) or more 

of any HAP or 25 tpy or more of any 

combination of HAP. 

D. What emission limitations and work 

practice standards must I meet? 

1. Emission Limitations 

We are proposing a choice of emission 

limits for total non-Hg HAP metals for 

all new and existing tunnel kilns. The 

options include a total non-Hg HAP 

metals limit (pounds per hour (lb/hr)) 

and options for limiting PM as a 

surrogate for non-Hg HAP metals 

(pounds per ton (lb/ton) or grains per 

dry standard cubic foot (gr/dscf) at 7 

percent oxygen (O2)). We are also 

proposing a choice of emission limits 

for Hg (lb/ton, lb/hr or micrograms per 

dry standard cubic meter (mg/dscm) at 7 

percent O2) for new and existing tunnel 

kilns in two subcategories based on kiln 

size. In this proposed BSCP 

manufacturing rule, a large tunnel kiln 

is defined as a new or existing tunnel 

kiln with a design capacity of 10 tons 

per hour (tph) or greater and a small 

tunnel kiln is defined as a new or 

existing tunnel kiln with a design 

capacity of less than 10 tph. We are also 

proposing an emission limit for HClequivalent for all existing and new 

tunnel kilns at the facility to reduce the 

acid gases HF, HCl and Cl2. The 

proposed emission limits for Hg and 

non-Hg HAP metals are presented in 

Table 4 of this preamble. 

TABLE 4—PROPOSED TOTAL NON-MERCURY HAP METALS AND MERCURY EMISSION LIMITS FOR BRICK AND STRUCTURAL

CLAY PRODUCTS TUNNEL KILNS

Subcategory Acid gases Total non-Hg HAP metals Hg 

Limits for existing sources 

Large tunnel kilns ..........................

(≥ 10 tph) .......................................

....................................................... ....................................................... 2.2 E–05 lb/ton OR 2.7 E–04 lb/hr 

OR 29 μg/dscm at 7-percent O2

for each existing large tunnel 

kiln at facility. 

Small tunnel kilns ...........................

(< 10 tph) .......................................

....................................................... ....................................................... 2.0 E–04 lb/ton OR 0.0011 lb/hr 

OR 70 μg/dscm at 7-percent O2

for each existing small tunnel 

kiln at facility. 

All tunnel kilns ................................ 57 lb/hr HCl-equivalent for collection of all existing tunnel kilns at 

facility.

0.16 lb/ton PM OR 0.040 gr/dscf 

PM at 7 percent O2 OR 0.023 

lb/hr non-Hg HAP metals for 

each existing tunnel kiln at facility.

Limits for new sources 

Large tunnel kilns ..........................

(≥ 10 tph) .......................................

....................................................... ....................................................... 2.0 E–05 lb/ton OR 2.4 E–04 lb/hr 

OR 13 μg/dscm at 7-percent O2

for each new large tunnel kiln at 

facility. 

Small tunnel kilns ...........................

(< 10 tph) .......................................

....................................................... ....................................................... 2.0 E–04 lb/ton OR 0.0011 lb/hr 

OR 70 μg/dscm at 7-percent O2

for each new small tunnel kiln 

at facility. 

All tunnel kilns ................................ 57 lb/hr HCl-equivalent for collection of all new tunnel kilns at facility.0.022 lb/ton PM OR 0.0066 gr/

dscf PM at 7-percent O2 OR 

0.0032 lb/hr non-Hg HAP metals for each new tunnel kiln at 

facility.

2. Work Practice Standards 

We are proposing work practice 

standards for BSCP periodic kilns in 

lieu of HAP emission limits. The work 

practice standards would require 

developing and using a designed firing 

time and temperature cycle for each 

product produced in the periodic kiln; 

labeling each periodic kiln with the 

maximum load (in tons) that can be 

fired in the kiln during a single firing 

cycle; 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 proposing work practice 

standards for BSCP tunnel kilns in lieu 

of dioxin/furan emission limits. The 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 243 / Thursday, December 18, 2014 / Proposed Rules 75629 

work practice standards would require 

maintaining and inspecting the burners 

and associated combustion controls (as 

applicable); tuning the specific burner 

type to optimize combustion; keeping 

records of each burner tune-up; and 

submitting a report for each tune-up 

conducted. 

E. What are the startup and shutdown 

requirements? 

The EPA’s position on SSM events is 

discussed in section II.B of this 

preamble. Standards for periods of 

startup and shutdown are discussed in 

this section. 

We are proposing the work practice 

standards described in this paragraph 

for periods of startup and shutdown for 

BSCP tunnel kilns with APCD. For 

startup, the owner or operator would be 

required to vent the exhaust from the 

kiln through the APCD by the time the 

kiln exhaust temperature reaches 400 

degrees Fahrenheit (°F). In addition, no 

bricks or other product may be 

introduced to the kiln until the kiln 

exhaust temperature reaches 400 °F and 

the exhaust is being vented through the 

APCD. For shutdown, the owner or 

operator would be required to vent the 

exhaust from the kiln through the APCD 

until the kiln exhaust temperature falls 

below 300 °F. In addition, no bricks or 

other product may be put into the kiln 

once the kiln exhaust temperature falls 

to 300 °F and the exhaust is no longer 

being vented through the APCD. When 

the kiln exhaust is being vented through 

the APCD, the owner or operator would 

be required to comply with the 

applicable continuous compliance 

requirements described in section III.G 

of this preamble. 

We are proposing work practice 

standards for periods of startup and 

shutdown for BSCP tunnel kilns 

without an APCD as well. For startup, 

no bricks or other product may be 

introduced to the kiln until the kiln 

exhaust temperature reaches 400 °F. For 

shutdown, no bricks or other product 

may be put into the kiln once the kiln 

exhaust temperature falls to 300 °F. 

F. What are the testing and initial 

compliance requirements? 

We are proposing that owners or 

operators of all affected sources subject 

to emission limits conduct an initial 

performance test using specified EPA 

test methods to demonstrate initial 

compliance with all applicable emission 

limits. A performance test would have 

to be conducted before renewing the 

facility’s 40 CFR part 70 operating 

permit or at least every five years 

following the initial performance test, as 

well as when an operating limit 

parameter value is being revised. 

Under today’s proposed BSCP 

manufacturing rule, the owner or 

operator would have to measure 

emissions of HF, HCl, Cl2, Hg and PM 

(or non-Hg HAP metals). We are 

proposing that the owner or operator 

measure HF, HCl and Cl2 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, when no acid particulate (e.g., 

HF, HCl or Cl2 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 follows 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 would calculate the 

HCl-equivalent for the kiln using 

proposed Equation 2 in 40 CFR 

63.8445(f)(2)(i). If there are multiple 

kilns at a facility, the owner or operator 

would sum the HCl-equivalent for each 

kiln using proposed Equation 3 in 40 

CFR 63.8445(f)(2)(ii) to get the total 

facility HCl-equivalent and compare this 

value to the proposed limitation. 

If the owner or operator chooses to 

comply with one of the two PM 

emission limits, we are proposing that 

the owner or operator measure PM 

emissions using one of the following 

methods: 

• EPA Method 5, ‘‘Determination of 

Particulate Emissions from Stationary 

Sources,’’ 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–3; 

• EPA Method 29, ‘‘Determination of 

Metals Emissions From Stationary Sources,’’ 

40 CFR part 60, appendix A–8, where the test 

results would report the weight of the PM on 

the filter as PM filterable; or 

• Any other alternative method that has 

been approved by the Administrator under 

40 CFR 63.7(f) of the General Provisions. 

If the owner or operator chooses to 

comply with the non-Hg HAP metals 

emission limit instead of one of the PM 

emission limits, the owner or operator 

would 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 approved alternative method to 

measure Hg emissions. 

The following paragraphs discuss the 

initial compliance requirements that we 

are proposing. Prior to the initial 

performance test, the owner or operator 

would need to install the continuous 

parameter monitoring system (CPMS) 

equipment to be used to demonstrate 

continuous compliance with the 

operating limits. During the initial test, 

the owner or operator would use the 

CPMS to establish site-specific 

operating parameter values that 

represent the operating limits. 

For a DIFF or DLS/FF, we are 

proposing that the owner or operator 

ensure that lime in the feed hopper or 

silo and to the APCD is free-flowing at 

all times during the HF/HCl/Cl2

performance test and record the feeder 

setting (on a per ton of fired product 

basis) for the three test runs. If the lime 

feed rate varies, the owner or operator 

would be required to determine the 

average feed rate from the three test 

runs. The average of the three test runs 

establishes the minimum site-specific 

feed rate operating limit. If there are 

different average feed rate values during 

the PM/non-Hg HAP metals and HF/

HCl/Cl2 tests, the highest of the average 

values becomes the site-specific 

operating limit. If a BLD system is 

present, the owner or operator would 

need to submit analyses and supporting 

documentation demonstrating 

conformance with EPA guidance and 

specifications for BLD systems. 

For a stand-alone FF (i.e., no dry 

sorbent injection or DLS) and a BLD 

system, we are proposing that the owner 

or operator submit analyses and 

supporting documentation 

demonstrating conformance with EPA 

guidance and specifications for BLD 

systems. 

For a dry limestone adsorber (DLA), 

we are proposing that the owner or 

operator continuously measure the 

pressure drop across the DLA during the 

HF/HCl/Cl2 performance test and 

determine the 3-hour block average 

pressure drop. The average of the three 

test runs establishes the minimum sitespecific pressure drop operating limit. 

Alternatively, the owner or operator 

may continuously monitor the bypass 

stack damper position at least once 

every 15 minutes during the 

performance test. The owner or operator 

also would need to maintain an 

adequate amount of limestone in the 

limestone hopper, storage bin (located at 

the top of the DLA) and DLA at all 

times. In addition, the owner or operator 

would need to establish the limestone 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
75630 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 243 / Thursday, December 18, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

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 would need to 

document the source and grade of the 

limestone used during the performance 

test. 

For a wet scrubber, we are proposing 

that the owner or operator continuously 

measure the scrubber pressure drop 

during the PM/non-Hg HAP metals 

performance test, the scrubber liquid pH 

and chemical addition rate (if 

applicable) during the HF/HCl/Cl2

performance test and the scrubber liquid 

flow rate during both the PM/non-Hg 

HAP metals and HF/HCl/Cl2

performance tests. For each wet 

scrubber parameter, the owner or 

operator would need to determine and 

record the average values for the three 

test runs and the 3-hour block average 

value. The average of the three test runs 

establishes the minimum site-specific 

pressure drop, liquid pH, liquid flow 

rate and chemical addition rate 

operating limits. If different average wet 

scrubber liquid flow rate values are 

measured during the PM/non-Hg HAP 

metals and HF/HCl/Cl2 tests, the highest 

of the average values become the sitespecific operating limit. 

For an activated carbon injection 

(ACI) system, we are proposing that the 

owner or operator measure the activated 

carbon flow rate during the Hg 

performance test and determine the 3- 

hour block average flow rate. The 

average of the three test runs establishes 

the minimum site-specific activated 

carbon flow rate operating limit. 

For a source with no APCD installed, 

we are proposing that the owner or 

operator calculate the maximum 

potential HCl-equivalent using proposed 

Equation 4 in 40 CFR 63.8445(g)(1)(i). 

The owner or operator would 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 

kiln is 10 tph and the production rate 

during the performance test was 9 tph, 

then the test results represent 90 percent 

of the maximum potential emissions. If 

there are multiple kilns at a facility, the 

owner or operator would need to sum 

the maximum potential HCl-equivalent 

for each kiln to get the total facility 

maximum potential HCl-equivalent and 

compare this value to the proposed 

health-based emission limitation for 

acid gases. If the total facility maximum 

potential HCl-equivalent is greater than 

the proposed limitation, we are 

proposing that the owner or operator 

determine the maximum process rate for 

which the total facility maximum 

potential HCl-equivalent remains at or 

below the proposed limitation. If there 

are multiple kilns, the owner or operator 

would need to determine one or more 

combinations of maximum process rates 

that would result in a total facility 

maximum potential HCl-equivalent 

remains at or below the proposed 

limitation. The maximum process rate(s) 

would become the operating limit(s) for 

process rate. 

G. What are the continuous compliance 

requirements? 

Today’s BSCP manufacturing rule 

proposes that the owner or operator 

demonstrate continuous compliance 

with each emission limitation that 

applies. The owner or operator would 

have to follow the requirements in the 

operation, maintenance and monitoring 

(OM&M) plan and document 

conformance with the OM&M plan. The 

owner or operator would need to 

operate a CPMS to monitor the 

operating parameters established during 

the initial performance test as described 

in the following paragraphs. The CPMS 

would have to collect data at least every 

15 minutes, including at least three of 

four equally spaced data values (or at 

least 75 percent if there are more than 

four data values per hour) per hour to 

have a valid hour of data. The owner or 

operator would have to operate the 

CPMS at all times when the process is 

operating. The owner or operator would 

also have to conduct proper 

maintenance of the CPMS (including 

inspections, calibrations and validation 

checks) and maintain an inventory of 

necessary parts for routine repairs of the 

CPMS. Using the recorded readings, the 

owner or operator would need to 

calculate and record the 3-hour block 

average values of each operating 

parameter. To calculate the average for 

each 3-hour averaging period, the owner 

or operator would need to have at least 

75 percent of the recorded readings for 

that period. 

For a DIFF or DLS/FF, we are 

proposing that the owner or operator 

demonstrate compliance with the acid 

gas (HF/HCl/Cl2) health-based emission 

limit 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 load cell output, 

carrier gas/lime flow indicator, carrier 

gas pressure drop measurement system 

or other system, the owner or operator 

would have to promptly initiate and 

complete corrective actions according to 

the OM&M plan. The owner or operator 

would also have to maintain the feeder 

setting (on a per ton of fired product 

basis) at or above the level established 

during the HF/HCl/Cl2 performance test 

and record the feeder setting once each 

shift. 

The proposed rule would provide the 

option to use either a BLD system or VE 

monitoring to demonstrate compliance 

with the PM/non-Hg HAP metals 

emission limit. 

For the option of a BLD system, we 

are proposing that the owner or operator 

initiate corrective action within 1 hour 

of a BLD system alarm and complete 

corrective actions according to the 

OM&M plan. The owner or operator 

would also need to operate and 

maintain the FF such that the alarm is 

not engaged for more than 5 percent of 

the total operating time in a 6-month 

block reporting period. In calculating 

this operating time fraction, the owner 

or operator would not count any alarm 

time if inspection of the FF 

demonstrates that no corrective action is 

required. If corrective action is required, 

the owner or operator must count each 

alarm as a minimum of 1 hour. If 

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 monitoring VE, we 

are proposing that the owner or operator 

perform daily, 15-minute VE 

observations in accordance with the 

procedures of EPA Method 22, ‘‘Visual 

Determination of Fugitive Emissions 

from Material Sources and Smoke 

Emissions from Flares,’’ 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A–7. During the VE 

observations, the kiln would need to be 

operating under normal conditions. If 

VE are observed, the owner or operator 

would have to promptly initiate and 

complete corrective actions according to 

the OM&M plan. If no VE are observed 

in 30 consecutive daily EPA Method 22 

tests, the owner or operator may 

decrease the frequency of EPA Method 

22 testing from daily to weekly for that 

kiln stack. If VE are observed during any 

weekly test, the owner or operator 

would have to promptly initiate and 

complete corrective actions according to 

the OM&M plan and the owner or 

operator would need to resume EPA 

Method 22 testing of that kiln stack on 

a daily basis until no VE are observed 

in 30 consecutive daily tests, at which 

time the owner or operator may again 

decrease the frequency of EPA Method 

22 testing to a weekly basis. 

For a stand-alone FF, we are 

proposing that the owner or operator 

use a BLD system or monitor VE as 

described above to demonstrate 

compliance with the PM/non-Hg HAP 

metals emission limit. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 243 / Thursday, December 18, 2014 / Proposed Rules 75631 

For a DLA, we are proposing that the 

owner or operator demonstrate 

compliance with the acid gas (HF/HCl/ 

Cl2) health-based emission limit by 

collecting and recording data 

documenting the DLA pressure drop 

and reducing the data to 3-hour block 

averages. The owner or operator would 

need to maintain the average pressure 

drop across the DLA for each 3-hour 

block period at or above the average 

pressure drop established during the 

HF/HCl/Cl2 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. Any period in which the 

bypass damper is opened allowing the 

kiln exhaust gas to bypass the DLA 

would trigger corrective actions 

according to the OM&M plan. The 

owner or operator also would need to 

verify that the limestone hopper, storage 

bin (located at the top of the DLA) and 

DLA contain an adequate amount of 

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) 

conducting a physical check of the 

hopper; (2) creating a visual access 

point, such as a window, on the side of 

the hopper; (3) installing a camera in the 

hopper that provides continuous feed to 

a video monitor in the control room; or 

(4) confirming that load level indicators 

in the hopper are not indicating the 

need for additional limestone. If the 

hopper or storage bin does not contain 

adequate limestone, the owner or 

operator would have to promptly 

initiate and complete corrective actions 

according to the OM&M plan. The 

owner or operator also would have to 

record the limestone feeder setting daily 

(on a per ton of fired product basis) to 

verify that the feeder setting is being 

maintained at or above the level 

established during the HF/HCl/Cl2

performance test. The owner or operator 

also would need to use the same grade 

of limestone from the same source as 

was used during the HF/HCl/Cl2

performance test and maintain records 

of the source and type of limestone. 

Finally, the owner or operator would 

need to monitor VE, as described in the 

previous paragraph. 

For a wet scrubber, we are proposing 

that the owner or operator continuously 

maintain the 3-hour block averages for 

scrubber pressure drop, scrubber liquid 

pH, scrubber liquid flow rate and 

chemical addition rate (if applicable) at 

or above the minimum values 

established during the applicable 

performance test. Maintaining the 3- 

hour block average for scrubber pressure 

drop at or above the minimum value 

established during the PM/non-Hg HAP 

metals performance test would 

demonstrate compliance with the PM/

non-Hg HAP metals emission limit. 

Maintaining the 3-hour block average 

for scrubber liquid pH and chemical 

(e.g., lime, caustic) addition rate at or 

above the minimum values established 

during the HF/HCl/Cl2 performance test 

would demonstrate compliance with the 

acid gas (HF/HCl/Cl2) health-based 

emission limit. Maintaining the 3-hour 

block average for scrubber liquid flow 

rate at or above the lowest minimum 

value established during the PM/non-Hg 

HAP metals and HF/HCl/Cl2

performance tests would demonstrate 

compliance with all applicable emission 

limits by showing that the scrubber is in 

proper working order. 

For an ACI system, we are proposing 

that the owner or operator demonstrate 

compliance with the Hg emission limit 

by continuously 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 

proposing that the owner or operator 

monitor VE as described above to 

demonstrate compliance with the PM/

non-Hg HAP metals emission limit. In 

addition, if the last calculated total 

facility maximum potential HClequivalent was not at or below the 

proposed health-based emission 

limitation for acid gases, then we are 

proposing that the owner or operator 

collect and record data documenting the 

process rate of the kiln and reduce the 

data to 3-hour block averages. The 

owner or operator would need to 

maintain the kiln process rate at or 

below the kiln process rate operating 

limit(s) that would enable the total 

facility maximum potential HClequivalent to remain at or below the 

proposed limitation. 

H. What are the notification, 

recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements? 

All new and existing sources would 

be required to comply with certain 

requirements of the General Provisions 

(40 CFR part 64, subpart A), which are 

identified in proposed Table 8 of 40 

CFR part 64, subpart JJJJJ. The General 

Provisions include specific 

requirements for notifications, 

recordkeeping and reporting. 

Each owner or operator would be 

required to submit a notification of 

compliance status report, as required by 

40 CFR 63.9(h) of the General 

Provisions. This proposed BSCP 

manufacturing rule would require the 

owner or operator to include in the 

notification of compliance status report 

certifications of compliance with rule 

requirements. Semiannual compliance 

reports, as required by 40 CFR 

63.10(e)(3) of subpart A, would also be 

required for each semiannual reporting 

period. 

This proposed BSCP manufacturing 

rule would require records to 

demonstrate compliance with each 

emission limit and work practice 

standard. These recordkeeping 

requirements are specified directly in 

the General Provisions to 40 CFR part 63 

and are identified in proposed Table 8 

of subpart JJJJJ. 

Specifically, we are proposing that the 

owner or operator keep the following 

records: 

• All reports and notifications submitted 

to comply with this proposed BSCP 

manufacturing rule. 

• Records of performance tests. 

• Records relating to APCD maintenance 

and documentation of approved routine 

control device maintenance exemption. 

• Continuous monitoring data as required 

in this proposed BSCP manufacturing rule. 

• Records of BLD system alarms and 

corrective actions taken. 

• Records of 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 

performed on the APCD. 

• Current copies of the OM&M plan and 

records documenting conformance. 

• Logs of the information required to 

document compliance with the periodic kiln 

work practice standard. 

• Records of burner tune-ups used to 

comply with the dioxin/furan work practice 

standard for tunnel kilns. 

• Logs of the information required to 

document compliance with the startup and 

shutdown work practice standards. 

• Records of each malfunction and the 

corrective action taken. 

We are also proposing that the owner 

or operator submit the following reports 

and notifications: 

• Notifications required by the General 

Provisions. 

• Initial Notification no later than 120 

calendar days after the affected source 

becomes 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 

performance test. 

• Notification of Compliance Status 30 

calendar days following completion of a 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
75632 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 243 / Thursday, December 18, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

compliance demonstration that does not 

include a performance test (i.e., compliance 

demonstrations for the work practice 

standards). 

• Compliance reports semi-annually, 

including a report of the most recent burner 

tune-up conducted to comply with the 

dioxin/furan work practice standard and a 

report of each malfunction resulting in an 

exceedance and the corrective action taken. 

• Results of each performance test within 

60 days of completing the test, submitted to 

the EPA by direct computer-to-computer 

electronic transfer via EPA-provided software 

for data collected using supported test 

methods. 

I. How would I submit emissions test 

results to the EPA? 

In this proposal, the EPA is describing 

a process to increase the ease and 

efficiency of performance test data 

submittal while improving data 

accessibility. Specifically, the EPA is 

proposing that owners and operators of 

BSCP manufacturing facilities submit 

electronic copies of required 

performance test reports by direct 

computer-to-computer electronic 

transfer using EPA-provided software. 

The direct computer-to-computer 

electronic transfer is accomplished 

through the EPA’s Central Data 

Exchange (CDX) using the Compliance 

and Emissions Data Reporting Interface 

(CEDRI). The CDX is the EPA’s portal 

for submittal of electronic data. The 

EPA-provided software is called the 

Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT), which 

generates electronic reports of 

performance tests and evaluations. The 

ERT report package will be submitted 

using the CEDRI. The submitted report 

package will be stored in the CDX 

archive (the official copy of record) and 

the EPA’s public database called 

WebFIRE. All stakeholders will have 

access to all reports and data in 

WebFIRE via the WebFIRE Report 

Search and Retrieval link (http://

cfpub.epa.gov/webfire/index.

cfm?action=fire.searchERTSubmission). 

A description and instructions for use of 

the ERT can be found on the ERT Web 

site (http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/

index.html), and CEDRI can be accessed 

through the CDX Web site 

(www.epa.gov/cdx). 

The proposal to submit performance 

test data electronically to the EPA 

applies only to those performance tests 

conducted using test methods that are 

supported by the ERT at the time of the 

test. The ERT supports most of the 

commonly used EPA reference methods. 

A listing of the pollutants and test 

methods supported by the ERT is 

available on the ERT Web site. 

We believe that the electronic 

submittal of reports increases the 

usefulness of the data contained in 

those reports, is in keeping with current 

trends in data availability and may 

ultimately result in less burden on the 

regulated community. Electronic 

reporting can eliminate paper-based, 

manual processes, thereby saving time 

and resources, simplifying data entry, 

eliminating redundancies and providing 

data quickly and accurately to the 

affected sources, air agencies, the EPA 

and the public. 

By making data readily available, 

electronic reporting increases the 

amount of data that can be used for the 

development of emission factors. The 

EPA has received feedback from 

stakeholders asserting that many of the 

EPA’s emission factors are outdated or 

not representative of a particular 

industry emission source. While the 

EPA believes that the emission factors 

are suitable for their intended purpose, 

we also recognize that emissions 

profiles on different pieces of 

equipment can change over time due to 

a number of factors (fuel changes, 

equipment improvements, industry 

work practices), and it is important for 

emission factors to be updated to keep 

up with these changes. The EPA is 

currently pursuing emission factor 

development improvements that 

include procedures to incorporate the 

source test data that we are proposing be 

submitted electronically. 

Emission factors are used in the 

development of emissions inventories, 

and improved emission factors means 

that the quality of these inventories will 

be improved more quickly than they 

would under the current paper reporting 

requirements. Emissions inventories are 

used for tracking emission trends and 

identifying potential sources of 

emissions for reduction. For example, 

the EPA’s National Air Toxics 

Assessment (NATA) uses the EPA’s 

National Emissions Inventory (NEI) in 

its screening level assessments to 

characterize the nationwide chronic 

cancer risk estimates and noncancer 

hazards from inhaling air toxics. The 

NATA is used as a screening tool for air 

agencies to prioritize pollutants, 

emission sources and locations of 

interest for further study to gain a better 

understanding of risks. Therefore, 

improving the quality of these 

inventories is an on-going goal for the 

agency and a benefit to the public, air 

agencies and the regulated community. 

Additionally, the EPA, the regulated 

community and the public may benefit 

from electronic reporting when the EPA 

conducts its CAA-required technology 

and risk-based reviews. Because we will 

already have access to these reports, our 

ability to do comprehensive reviews 

will be increased and achieved within a 

shorter period of time. Under an 

electronic reporting system, the EPA 

would have performance test data in 

hand; thus, it is possible that fewer or 

less substantial information collection 

requests (ICRs) in conjunction with 

prospective CAA-required technology 

and risk-based reviews may be needed. 

This may result in a decrease in the 

need for industry staff time to respond 

to data collection requests. It may also 

allow the EPA to conduct these required 

reviews more quickly, as we will not 

have to include the ICR collection time 

in the process. While the regulated 

community may benefit from reduced 

ICRs, the general public benefits from 

the agency’s ability to conduct these 

required reviews more quickly. 

Electronic reporting could minimize 

submission of unnecessary or 

duplicative reports in cases where 

facilities report to multiple government 

agencies and the agencies opt to rely on 

the EPA’s electronic reporting system to 

view report submissions. Where air 

agencies continue to require a paper 

copy of these reports and will accept a 

hard copy of the electronic report, 

facilities will have the option to print 

paper copies of the electronic reporting 

forms to submit to the air agencies, thus 

minimizing the time spent reporting to 

multiple agencies. Additionally, 

maintenance and storage costs 

associated with retaining paper records 

could likewise be minimized by 

replacing those records with electronic 

records of electronically submitted data 

and reports. 

There are benefits of information that 

is submitted in a standardized format. 

Standardizing the reporting format will 

require the reporting of specific data 

elements, thereby helping to ensure 

completeness of the data and allowing 

for accurate assessment of data quality. 

Additionally, imbedded quality 

assurance checks will perform some of 

the required method calculations, 

reducing errors in test reports. And 

because the system is entirely 

electronic, it eliminates transcription 

errors in moving data from paper reports 

to data systems for analysis. These 

quality assurance checks and 

procedures will increase the accuracy of 

test report data, improve the overall 

quality of test data, and lead to more 

accurate emission factors and higher 

quality emissions inventories. These 

features benefit all users of the data. 

Air agencies could benefit from more 

streamlined and automated review of 

the electronically submitted data. For 

example, because the performance test 

data would be readily-available in a 

standard electronic format, air agencies 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 243 / Thursday, December 18, 2014 / Proposed Rules 75633 

would be able to review reports and 

data electronically rather than having to 

conduct a review of the reports and data 

manually. Having reports and associated 

data in electronic format will facilitate 

review through the use of software 

‘‘search’’ options, as well as the 

downloading and analyzing of data in 

spreadsheet format. Additionally, air 

agencies would benefit from the 

reported data being accessible to them 

through the EPA’s electronic reporting 

system whenever they want or need 

access (as long as they have access to 

the Internet). The ability to access and 

review information electronically will 

assist air agencies in more quickly 

determining compliance with emission 

standards. This benefits both air 

agencies and the general public. 

The general public would also benefit 

from electronic reporting of emissions 

data because the data would be 

available for viewing sooner and would 

be easier for the public to access. The 

EPA Web site that stores the submitted 

electronic data is easily accessible to the 

public and provides a user-friendly 

interface that any stakeholder could 

access. 

In summary, in addition to supporting 

regulation development, control strategy 

development and other air pollution 

control activities, having an electronic 

database populated with performance 

test data would save industry, air 

agencies and the EPA significant time, 

money and effort while also improving 

the quality of emission inventories and 

air quality regulations. 

IV. Rationale for the Proposed Rule for 

Brick and Structural Clay Products 

Manufacturing 

A. How did the EPA determine which 

sources would be regulated under the 

proposed rule? 

In the BSCP manufacturing industry, 

the primary sources of HAP emissions 

are kilns, including tunnel kilns and 

periodic kilns. The HAP emitted from 

BSCP kilns include HF, HCl, Cl2, Hg and 

other non-Hg HAP metals. At one time, 

dryers were a potential source of HF, 

HCl, Cl2 and non-Hg HAP metals 

emissions, but the design and operation 

of kilns and dryers has changed such 

that emissions released from the heating 

of the raw materials and the products of 

combustion no longer pass from the kiln 

into the dryer. In addition, the 2010 

EPA survey requested that owners/

operators of specific dryers test for 

dioxins/furans, and none of the tests 

found detectable levels of dioxins/

furans. See the technical memorandum 

‘‘Determination of ‘‘Non-Detect’’ Test 

Data for the BSCP Proposed Rule’’ in 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2013– 

0291. Other process units at BSCP 

manufacturing facilities (e.g., raw 

material processing and handling) have 

not been found to emit measurable 

quantities of HAP. For this reason, the 

proposed rule covers existing and new 

kilns at major source BSCP 

manufacturing facilities which meet the 

applicability criteria in the rule. 

BSCP kilns that do not meet the 

applicability criteria include kilns that 

are used exclusively for setting glazes 

on previously fired products. Nearly all 

of the acid gas emissions from the firing 

of BSCP products are released during 

the initial firing, so kilns that are used 

exclusively for setting glazes on 

previously fired products emit little to 

no HF, HCl or Cl2. 

B. How did the EPA select the format for 

the proposed rule? 

For Hg and total non-Hg HAP metals, 

this proposed BSCP manufacturing rule 

provides owners and operators of 

regulated sources with a choice between 

a numerical emission rate limit as a 

mass of pollutant emitted per ton of 

bricks produced and a numerical 

emission limit in units of concentration. 

The selection of numerical emission rate 

limits and numerical emission limits as 

the format for this proposed BSCP 

manufacturing rule provides flexibility 

for the regulated community by 

allowing a regulated source to choose 

any control technology or technique to 

meet the emission limits, rather than 

requiring each unit to use a prescribed 

control method that may not be 

appropriate in each case. In addition, 

the selection of numerical emission rate 

limits as mass of pollutant emitted per 

ton of bricks produced ensures that 

differences in kiln sizes or production 

rates do not affect the level of emissions 

control achieved. 

The PM limits are proposed as a 

surrogate for non-Hg HAP metals. The 

same control techniques that would be 

used to control PM will control non-Hg 

HAP metals. Particulate matter was also 

chosen instead of requiring control of 

specific individual HAP metals because 

all kilns do not emit the same type and 

amount of HAP metals due to 

differences in raw materials and fuels 

used to fire the kilns. However, most 

kilns generally emit PM that includes 

some amount and combination of HAP 

metals. The use of PM as a surrogate 

will also eliminate the cost of 

performance testing needed to comply 

with numerous standards for individual 

non-Hg HAP metals. We have used PM 

as a surrogate for non-Hg HAP metals 

NESHAP for other rules with similar 

processes (e.g., Portland Cement 

Manufacturing, Lime Manufacturing). 

Although we continue to believe that 

PM is a good surrogate for non-Hg HAP 

metals and that complying with a PM 

emission limit rather than non-Hg HAP 

metals limits will be less costly for most 

kilns, we understand that some owners 

and operators may find that meeting a 

total non-Hg HAP metals limit is less 

costly than meeting a PM limit. To 

provide that flexibility, we have 

developed an alternative compliance 

option of a numerical emission rate 

limit for total non-Hg HAP metals as a 

mass of pollutant emitted per hour. The 

ability to comply with this limit would 

provide additional flexibility for small 

tunnel kilns and tunnel kilns with a low 

metals content in the PM emissions and 

would achieve equivalent emission 

reductions to the options to limit PM. 

For acid gases (HF, HCl and Cl2), this 

proposed BSCP manufacturing rule 

includes a health-based emission limit 

as a mass of HCl-equivalent emitted per 

hour. Further discussion about the 

development of the health-based 

standard for the proposed BSCP 

manufacturing rule is provided in 

section IV.J of this preamble. 

This proposed BSCP manufacturing 

rule includes work practices for 

dioxins/furans from tunnel kilns. As 

described in more detail in section 

IV.K.2 of this preamble, 83 percent of 

the dioxin/furan data collected during 

the ICR process were below the 

detection level and it is not practicable 

due to technological and economic 

limitations to apply measurement 

methodology to test for compliance with 

a numerical limit. 

This proposed BSCP manufacturing 

rule also includes work practices for 

periodic kilns. As described in more 

detail in section IV.K.1 of this preamble, 

technological and economic limitations 

make it impracticable to measure 

compliance with numerical emission 

limits for BSCP periodic kilns. 

C. How did the EPA consider different 

subcategories? 

Section 112(d)(1) of the CAA allows 

the EPA to promulgate emission 

standards for either categories or 

subcategories of sources. Through 

subcategorization, we are able to define 

subsets of similar emission sources 

within a source category if differences 

in emissions characteristics, processes 

or opportunities for pollution 

prevention exist within the source 

category. Upon initial consideration of 

the available information on the BSCP 

manufacturing industry, we determined 

that separate subcategories for periodic 

kilns and tunnel kilns were warranted 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
75634 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 243 / Thursday, December 18, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

for several reasons. First, periodic kilns 

are smaller than tunnel kilns (with 

lower production on an hourly basis, as 

well as accounting for only about 4 

percent of total BSCP industry 

production). Second, periodic kilns are 

operated in batch cycles, whereas 

tunnel kilns operate continuously. 

Third, periodic kilns are typically 

operated at higher temperatures than 

tunnel kilns and products are typically 

heated in the kiln for longer periods 

than products fired in tunnel kilns, 

resulting in higher energy requirements. 

As noted in section IV.K.1 of this 

preamble, we have determined that it is 

technologically and economically 

infeasible to test periodic kilns, thereby 

ruling out a quantitative analysis of how 

these differences impact emissions. 

However, a qualitative comparison can 

be made, in that smaller kilns operated 

periodically (i.e., periodic kilns) would 

be expected to have lower emissions 

over time compared to the larger, 

continuously operated tunnel kilns. 

We then examined the potential for 

additional subcategories for tunnel 

kilns, including subcategorization based 

on kiln fuel and kiln size. Based on the 

available emissions test data, we could 

not discern differences in emissions 

based on fuel type. For that reason, we 

have not subcategorized by fuel type. 

We request comment, including 

additional data if appropriate, on 

whether we should subcategorize by 

fuel type. In particular, we request 

comment on whether we should create 

a subcategory for kilns fired with 

sawdust (with or without a sawdust 

dryer). 

We then considered subcategorization 

of tunnel kilns based on kiln size. There 

are several differences between the 

design, operation and efficiency of 

larger kilns and smaller kilns. In 

particular, many small kilns are the 

older, less efficient kilns in the industry 

and newer kilns can be constructed to 

be larger and more efficient due to 

advances in design. Smaller, older kilns 

were constructed with large amounts of 

heavy refractory brick and are narrow 

and tall in shape, with high arched 

ceilings. Larger, newer kilns can be 

constructed with more efficient 

refractories and can include features 

such as fiber linings and insulating 

brick, resulting in a wider kiln with 

lower ceilings. In addition, the burners 

in a small kiln are generally less 

efficient and are located near the bottom 

of the kiln, where some of the heat is 

absorbed by the cars that move the 

bricks through the kiln rather than by 

the bricks themselves. In a large kiln, 

the burners are more efficient and are 

often located at the top of the kiln, 

where they can fire downward to the 

product. Combined with the kiln size 

and shape differences, the difference in 

burner efficiency and location results in 

a more even temperature distribution 

throughout the kiln and product in a 

large kiln than in a small kiln. 

To assess whether these design and 

operation differences have an effect on 

emissions and provide support for 

defining size subcategories in the 

proposed BSCP manufacturing rule, we 

conducted a set of statistical analyses on 

the emissions dataset. In the vacated 

rule, ‘‘small kilns’’ were defined as kilns 

with a design capacity less than 10 tph 

and ‘‘large kilns’’ were defined as kilns 

with a design capacity of 10 tph or 

greater. The main goal of the statistical 

analyses was to determine if these 

definitions are supported by our current 

dataset. Because we have Cl2, Hg and 

non-Hg HAP metals data for only about 

10 percent of the kilns in the industry, 

we conducted the series analyses based 

on the HF, HCl and PM datasets, which 

are available for a much larger 

percentage of the kilns in the industry, 

providing more representative kiln 

datasets for the analyses. 

We found that the median of the 

emissions data from kilns in the large 

kiln dataset was statistically different 

than the median of the emissions data 

from kilns in the small kiln dataset for 

all three pollutants. Also, based on a 

logistic model, we found high 

association between emissions and the 

hypothesized design capacity 

classification. Finally, we conducted a 

cluster analysis and considered all three 

pollutants together to investigate 

whether the combined dataset 

supported changing the definitions of 

small and large kilns. This cluster 

analysis supported the subcategory 

definitions from the vacated rule. (For 

more information on the statistical 

analyses, see ‘‘Analysis of Potential 

Subcategories for BSCP Tunnel Kilns’’ 

in Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2013– 

0291.) 

Based on the above information and 

analyses, we determined that 

differences in design and emissions 

exist between large (10 tph or greater) 

and small (less than 10 tph) kilns. 

Therefore, we are proposing to exercise 

our discretion to subcategorize based on 

kiln size for these kilns’ emissions of 

Hg. As discussed in section IV.D of this 

preamble, we are not proposing to 

exercise our discretion to subcategorize 

for other pollutants. 

D. What approaches did the EPA 

consider in developing the proposed 

emission limitations for existing and 

new sources? 

All standards established pursuant to 

CAA section 112(d)(2) must reflect 

MACT, the maximum degree of 

reduction in emissions of air pollutants 

that the Administrator, taking into 

consideration the cost of achieving such 

emissions reductions and any nonair 

quality health and environmental 

impacts and energy requirements, 

determined is achievable for each 

category. 

For existing sources, MACT cannot be 

less stringent than the average emission 

limitation achieved by the best 

performing 12 percent of existing 

sources for categories and subcategories 

with 30 or more sources or the best 

performing five sources for 

subcategories with less than 30 sources. 

This requirement constitutes the MACT 

floor for existing sources. The CAA 

specifies that MACT for new sources 

shall not be less stringent than the 

emission control that is achieved in 

practice by the best controlled similar 

source. This minimum level of 

stringency is the MACT floor for new 

units. 

The EPA may not consider costs or 

other impacts in determining the MACT 

floor. However, the EPA must consider 

cost, nonair quality health and 

environmental impacts and energy 

requirements in connection with any 

standards that are more stringent than 

the MACT floor (beyond-the-floor 

controls). 

The remainder of this section 

describes the development of the pool of 

data used to calculate the MACT floors 

for Hg and PM (as a surrogate for nonHg HAP metals). As noted in section 

IV.J of this preamble, health-based 

emissions standards are being proposed 

for the acid gases HF, HCl and Cl2 under 

the provisions of CAA section 112(d)(4). 

Consequently, the EPA has not prepared 

a MACT floor analysis for these 

pollutants. 

1. Mercury 

In our MACT floor analysis for Hg, we 

separated the sources into large kiln and 

small kiln subcategories, as described in 

section IV.C of this preamble. For each 

subcategory, we ranked the sources 

based on the data in terms of lb/ton (as 

described in section IV.E of this 

preamble) and identified the best 

performing 12 percent of sources. Once 

we identified the best performing kilns, 

we then calculated the MACT floor in 

units of lb/ton for each subcategory as 

described in section IV.E of this 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 243 / Thursday, December 18, 2014 / Proposed Rules 75635 

1Further, as discussed in section IV.P.1 of this 

preamble, the EPA is also considering setting 

emission limits for PM and total non-Hg HAP 

metals based on the top 12 percent of the data 

available in each of the kiln size subcategories. The 

reliability of the data showing low emissions from 

some kilns without a FF-based APCD is a key factor 

in the EPA’s determination of which approach is 

appropriate. 

preamble. We also calculated the MACT 

floor in lb/hr and concentration units 

(mg/dscm at 7-percent O2) for each 

subcategory, based on the concentration 

emissions data for the same top 12 

percent (best performing) sources as the 

lb/ton floor. This is further discussed in 

section IV.E of this preamble and in the 

technical memorandum ‘‘Maximum 

Achievable Control Technology (MACT) 

Floor Analysis for Brick and Structural 

Clay Products’’ in Docket ID No. EPA– 

HQ–OAR–2013–0291. 

2. Total Non-Hg HAP Metals 

We developed MACT floors for PM as 

a surrogate for total non-Hg HAP metals. 

The available PM data show that kilns 

controlled with a FF-based APCD (e.g., 

DIFF, DLS/FF) as a group are better 

performers than kilns without FF-based 

controls. When we divided the kilns 

into two groups, one group consisting of 

kilns with a FF-based APCD and the 

other group consisting of uncontrolled 

kilns and kilns with a different type of 

APCD, we found that the test data for 

kilns with FF-based APCD showed they 

were consistently good performers, 

while the test data for kilns without a 

FF-based APCD varied widely. The 

worst performing kiln with a FF-based 

APCD performs better than the average 

kiln in the group without a FF-based 

APCD. The best performing 75 percent 

of the kilns with a FF-based APCD 

showed better performance than 80 

percent of the kilns without a FF-based 

APCD. We also conducted a t-test on the 

averages of the two groups and we 

found that the average of the test data 

for kilns with FF-based APCD was 

statistically different from the average of 

the test data for kilns without a FFbased APCD (with 99-percent 

confidence). See the technical 

memorandum ‘‘Analysis of Potential 

Subcategories in the BSCP Source 

Category’’ in Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2013–0291. 

One consequence of the wide 

variability in emissions from kilns 

without a FF-based APCD is that there 

are a few uncontrolled kilns and kilns 

controlled with DLA with lower lb/ton 

emissions than some of the kilns 

controlled with a FF-based APCD. We 

understand that that the emissions from 

kilns with FF-based APCD will be 

consistently low over time, based on the 

design of these APCD and years of 

experience with these devices. On the 

other hand, we do not have multiple 

tests over time that would enable us to 

say the same for kilns that have a 

different type of APCD (e.g., DLA) or are 

uncontrolled. Thus, we are requesting 

information and analysis as to whether 

the data showing low emissions from 

some kilns without a FF-based APCD 

are reliable.1

As of January 1, 2014, there were 225 

operating BSCP tunnel kilns in the 

industry (including kilns at major 

sources and synthetic area sources); the 

top 12 percent of the kilns in the 

industry would be represented by the 27 

best performing kilns. Therefore, we 

ranked the kilns with a FF-based APCD 

in terms of lb/ton (as described in 

section IV.E of this preamble) and 

identified the 27 best performing 

sources from that group. Once we 

identified the best performing kilns, we 

then calculated the MACT floor in units 

of lb/ton as described in section IV.E of 

this preamble. We also calculated the 

MACT floor in concentration units (gr/ 

dscf at 7-percent O2), based on the 

concentration emissions data for the 

same top 12 percent (best performing) 

sources as the lb/ton floor. As another 

alternative, we calculated an equivalent 

lb/hr total non-Hg HAP metals limit 

using the average non-Hg HAP metals 

content of the PM emissions and the 

average process rates of the best 

performing kilns. This limit would 

provide additional compliance 

flexibility for small tunnel kilns and 

tunnel kilns with a low metals content 

in the PM emissions. The alternatives 

are further discussed in section IV.E of 

this preamble and in the technical 

memorandum ‘‘Maximum Achievable 

Control Technology (MACT) Floor 

Analysis for Brick and Structural Clay 

Products’’ in Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2013–0291. 

E. How did the EPA determine the 

MACT floors for existing sources? 

The EPA must consider available 

emissions information to determine the 

MACT floors. The EPA must exercise its 

judgment, based on an evaluation of the 

relevant factors and available data, to 

determine the level of emissions control 

that has been achieved by the best 

performing sources under variable 

conditions. The United States Court of 

Appeals for the District of Columbia 

Circuit has recognized that the EPA may 

consider variability in estimating the 

degree of emission reduction achieved 

by best performing sources and in 

setting MACT floors. See Mossville 

Envt’l Action Now v. EPA, 370 F.3d 

1232, 1241–42 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (holding 

EPA may consider emission variability 

in estimating performance achieved by 

best performing sources and may set the 

floor at level that best performing source 

can expect to meet ‘‘every day and 

under all operating conditions’’). 

As discussed in section IV.D of this 

preamble, the EPA established the 

MACT floors for PM (as a surrogate for 

non-Hg HAP metals) for BSCP kilns 

based on sources representing 12 

percent of the number of sources in the 

category. For Hg emitted from each of 

the kiln subcategories, the EPA 

established the MACT floors based on 

sources representing 12 percent of the 

sources for which we had emissions 

information. The MACT floor 

limitations for Hg and PM (as a 

surrogate for total non-Hg HAP metals) 

were calculated based on the 

performance of the best performing 

sources in each of the subcategories. 

The best performing sources were 

determined by ranking each source’s 

average emission value from lowest to 

highest. 

Once the best performing sources in 

the MACT floor pools were identified, 

the MACT floors were calculated using 

an Upper Prediction Limit (UPL). The 

UPL takes into consideration the 

average performance of the units in the 

MACT floor pool and the variability of 

the test runs during the testing 

conditions. For more information 

regarding the general use of the UPL and 

why it is appropriate for calculating 

MACT floors, see the memorandum 

‘‘Use of the Upper Prediction Limit for 

Calculating MACT Floors’’ in Docket ID 

No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2013–0291. 

The UPL represents the value which 

one can expect the mean of a specified 

number of future observations (e.g., 3- 

run average) to fall below for the 

specified level of confidence, based 

upon the results of an independent 

sample from the same population. A 

prediction interval for a future 

observation or an average of future 

observations, is an interval that will, 

with a specified degree of confidence, 

contain the next (or the average of some 

other pre-specified number of) 

randomly selected observation(s) from a 

population. Given this definition, the 

UPL represents the value which we can 

expect the mean of three future 

observations (3-run average) to fall 

below, based upon the results of an 

independent sample from the same 

population. In other words, if we were 

to randomly select a future test 

condition from any of these sources (i.e., 

average of three runs), we can be 99 

percent confident that the reported level 

will fall at or below the UPL value. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
75636 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 243 / Thursday, December 18, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

2American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 

Reference Method Accuracy and Precision 

(ReMAP): Phase 1, Precision of Manual Stack 

Emission Measurements, CRTD Vol. 60, February 

2001. 

3 ‘‘Data and procedure for handling below 

detection level data in analyzing various pollutant 

emissions databases for MACT and RTR emissions 

limits.’’ Memorandum from Peter Westlin, SPPD, 

MPG and Raymond Merrill, AQAD, MTG, to SPPD 

management and MACT rule writers. December 13, 

2011. 

There are different UPL equations 

depending on the distribution of the 

data (e.g., normal, lognormal, skewed/

unknown). We first determined the 

distribution of each MACT floor pool’s 

data to determine the appropriate UPL 

equation using statistical tests of the 

kurtosis (K), standard error of kurtosis 

(SEK), skewness (S) and standard error 

of skewness (SES). The skewness 

statistic (S) characterizes the degree of 

asymmetry of a given dataset. According 

to the skewness hypothesis test, if S is 

less than two times the SES, the data 

distribution can be considered to be 

normal. The kurtosis statistic (K) 

characterizes the degree of peakedness 

or flatness of a given data distribution 

in comparison to a normal distribution. 

According to the kurtosis hypothesis 

test, if K is less than two times the SEK, 

the data distribution can be considered 

to be normal. The skewness and kurtosis 

hypothesis tests were applied to both 

the reported test values and the logtransformed values of the reported test 

values to determine the distribution of 

each dataset. A UPL was then calculated 

for each MACT floor pool with the UPL 

equation corresponding to the dataset’s 

distribution (e.g., normal, lognormal, 

skewed/unknown). 

A more detailed explanation of all the 

UPL equations used, including the 

calculations of kurtosis, standard error 

of kurtosis, skewness and standard error 

of skewness, can be found in the 

technical memorandum ‘‘Maximum 

Achievable Control Technology (MACT) 

Floor Analysis for Brick and Structural 

Clay Products’’ in Docket ID No. EPA– 

HQ–OAR–2013–0291. 

Test method measurement 

imprecision can also be a component of 

data variability. Of particular concern 

are those data that are reported near or 

below a test method’s pollutant 

detection capability. There is a concern 

that a floor emissions limit calculated 

using values at or near the method 

detection limit may not account 

adequately for data measurement 

variability. The expected measurement 

imprecision for an emissions value 

occurring at or near the detection limit 

is about 40 to 50 percent. Relative 

pollutant measurement imprecision 

decreases to a consistent 10 to 15 

percent for values measured at a level 

about 3 times the method detection 

limit.2

One approach that we believe could 

be applied to account for measurement 

variability would require defining a 

detection limit that is representative of 

the data used in establishing the floor 

emissions limitations and also 

minimizes the influence of an outlier 

test-specific method detection limit 

value. The EPA has developed a list of 

representative detection levels (RDL) 

developed from available pollutant 

specific method detection levels.3 These 

RDL values are then multiplied by three 

to decrease measurement imprecision to 

around 10 to 15 percent (as noted in the 

previous paragraph), resulting in values 

referred to as ‘‘3×RDL’’ values. 

The appropriate 3×RDL value was 

compared to the calculated UPL value 

for each pollutant and subcategory. If 

the 3×RDL value was less than the 

calculated UPL value, we concluded 

that measurement variability is 

adequately addressed and we used the 

calculated UPL value as the MACT floor 

emissions limit. If, on the other hand, 

the 3×RDL value was greater than the 

calculated UPL value, we concluded 

that the calculated UPL value does not 

account entirely for measurement 

variability. We then used the 3×RDL 

value in place of the calculated UPL 

value to ensure that measurement 

variability is adequately addressed in 

the MACT floor emissions limit. This 

check was part of the variability 

analysis for all existing MACT floors 

that had below detection limit (BDL) or 

detection level limited (DLL) run data 

present in the best performing datasets 

(see the technical memorandum 

‘‘Maximum Achievable Control 

Technology (MACT) Floor Analysis for 

Brick and Structural Clay Products’’ in 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2013– 

0291). 

As previously discussed, we 

accounted for variability in setting 

floors, not only because variability is an 

element of performance, but because it 

is reasonable to assess best performance 

over time. For example, we know that 

the HAP emission data from the best 

performing units are, for the most part, 

short-term averages and that the actual 

HAP emissions from those sources will 

vary over time. If we do not account for 

this variability, we would expect that 

even the units that perform better than 

the floor on average could potentially 

exceed the floor emission levels a part 

of the time, which would mean that 

variability was not properly taken into 

account. This variability may include 

the day-to-day variability in the total 

HAP input to each unit; variability of 

the sampling and analysis methods; and 

variability resulting from site-to-site 

differences for the best performing 

units. The EPA’s consideration of 

variability accounted for that variability 

exhibited by the data representing 

multiple units and multiple data values 

for a given unit (where available). We 

calculated the MACT floor based on the 

UPL (upper 99th percentile) as 

described earlier from the average 

performance of the best performing 

units and the variability of the best 

performing units. 

We believe this approach reasonably 

ensures that the emission limits selected 

as the MACT floors adequately 

represent the level of emissions actually 

achieved by the average of the units in 

the top 12 percent, considering 

operational variability of those units. 

Both the analysis of the measured 

emissions from units representative of 

the top 12 percent and the variability 

analysis are reasonably designed to 

provide a meaningful estimate of the 

average performance or central 

tendency, of the best performing 12 

percent of units in a given subcategory. 

A detailed discussion of the MACT floor 

methodology is presented in the 

technical memorandum ‘‘Maximum 

Achievable Control Technology (MACT) 

Floor Analysis for Brick and Structural 

Clay Products’’ in Docket ID No. EPA– 

HQ–OAR–2013–0291. 

Table 5 of this preamble presents the 

average emission level of the best 

performing sources and the existing 

source MACT floor. For this source 

category, all the existing source MACT 

floors are based on the UPL. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 243 / Thursday, December 18, 2014 / Proposed Rules 75637 

TABLE 5—SUMMARY OF MACT FLOOR RESULTS FOR BRICK AND STRUCTURAL CLAY PRODUCTS EXISTING SOURCES a

Subcategory Parameter Hg b PM b c

Large tunnel kilns (≥ 10 tph) ................... Avg. of best performing sources ............ 1.6 E–05 lb/ton .......................................

1.7 E–04 lb/hr ........................................

14 μg/dscm.

MACT floor ............................................. 2.2 E–05 lb/ton .......................................

2.7 E–04 lb/hr ........................................

29 μg/dscm.

Small tunnel kilns (< 10 tph) ................... Avg. of best performing sources ............ 1.8 E–04 lb/ton .......................................

0.0010 lb/hr ............................................

62 μg/dscm.

MACT floor ............................................. 2.0 E–04 lb/ton .......................................

0.0011 lb/hr ............................................

70 μg/dscm.

All kilns .................................................... Avg. of best performing sources ............ ................................................................ 0.041 lb/ton. 

0.011 gr/dscf. 

MACT floor ............................................. ................................................................ 0.16 lb/ton. 

0.040 gr/dscf. 

aFor this source category, all the existing source MACT floors are based on the UPL. 

b Concentration units are at 7-percent O2. cPM is a surrogate for non-Hg HAP metals. 

F. How did the EPA determine the 

MACT floors for new sources? 

The approach that we used to 

calculate the MACT floors for new 

sources is somewhat different from the 

approach that we used to calculate the 

MACT floors for existing sources 

because the statutory standard is 

different. Although the MACT floors for 

existing units are intended to reflect the 

performance achieved by the average of 

the best performing 12 percent of 

sources, the MACT floors for new units 

are meant to reflect the emission control 

that is achieved in practice by the best 

controlled similar source. Thus, for 

existing units, we are concerned about 

estimating the central tendency of a set 

of multiple units, whereas for new 

units, we are concerned about 

estimating the level of control that is 

representative of that achieved by a 

single best performing source. As with 

the analysis for existing sources, the 

new source analysis must account for 

variability. 

Similar to the MACT floor process 

used for existing units, the approach we 

used for determining the MACT floor for 

new units was based on available 

emissions test data. Specifically, we 

calculated the new source MACT floor 

for a subcategory of sources by ranking 

each unit’s average emission value 

within the subcategory from lowest to 

highest to identify the best performing 

similar source. The new source MACT 

floor limits for Hg and PM (as a 

surrogate for total non-Hg HAP metals) 

were calculated based on the 

performance of the best performing 

source for each pollutant in each of the 

subcategories. 

The MACT floor limits for new 

sources were calculated using the same 

UPL formula as was used for existing 

sources, except the data used were from 

the best performing source rather than 

the best performing 12 percent of 

sources. As previously discussed, we 

accounted for variability of the best 

performing source in setting floors, not 

only because variability is an element of 

performance, but because it is 

reasonable to assess best performance 

over time. We calculated the new source 

MACT floor based on the UPL (upper 

99th percentile) as described earlier 

from the average performance of the best 

performing similar source, Student’s tfactor and the total variability of the best 

performing source. 

This approach reasonably ensures that 

the emission limit selected as the MACT 

floor for new sources adequately 

represents the average level of control 

achieved in practice by the best 

controlled similar source, considering 

ordinary operational variability. A 

detailed discussion of the MACT floor 

methodology is presented in the 

technical memorandum ‘‘Maximum 

Achievable Control Technology (MACT) 

Floor Analysis for Brick and Structural 

Clay Products’’ in Docket ID No. EPA– 

HQ–OAR–2013–0291. 

Table 6 of this preamble presents, for 

each subcategory and pollutant, the 

average emission level of the best 

performing similar source and the new 

source MACT floor. The new source 

MACT floors are based on the UPL 

unless otherwise noted. 

TABLE 6—SUMMARY OF MACT FLOOR RESULTS FOR BRICK AND STRUCTURAL CLAY PRODUCTS NEW SOURCES a

Subcategory Parameter Hg b PM b c

Large tunnel kilns (≥ 10 tph) ............... Avg. of top performer .......................... 1.5 E–05 lb/ton ....................................

1.8 E–04 lb/hr ......................................

10 μg/dscm.

MACT floor .......................................... 2.0 E–05 lb/ton ....................................

2.4 E–04 lb/hr ......................................

13 μg/dscm.

Small tunnel kilns (< 10 tph) ............... Avg. of top performer .......................... 1.8 E–04 lb/ton ....................................

0.0010 lb/hr .........................................

62 μg/dscm.

MACT floor .......................................... 2.0 E–04 lb/ton ....................................

0.0011 lb/hr .........................................

70 μg/dscm.

All kilns ................................................. Avg. of top performer .......................... .............................................................. 0.0060 lb/ton. 

0.0020 gr/dscf. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
75638 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 243 / Thursday, December 18, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 6—SUMMARY OF MACT FLOOR RESULTS FOR BRICK AND STRUCTURAL CLAY PRODUCTS NEW SOURCES a— 

Continued 

Subcategory Parameter Hg b PM b c

MACT floor .......................................... .............................................................. 0.022 lb/ton d. 

0.0066 gr/dscf d. 

aThe new source MACT floors are based on the UPL unless otherwise noted. 

b Concentration units are at 7 percent O2. cPM is a surrogate for non-Hg HAP metals. 

dThe MACT floor is based on the 3×RDL value. 

G. What is our approach for applying 

the upper prediction limit to limited 

datasets? 

In a recent United States Court of 

Appeals for the District of Columbia 

Circuit decision in National Association 

of Clean Water Agencies v. EPA, which 

involved challenges to EPA’s MACT 

standards for sewage sludge 

incinerators, questions were raised 

regarding the application of the UPL to 

limited datasets. We have since 

addressed these questions, as explained 

in detail in the memorandum titled, 

‘‘Approach for Applying the Upper 

Prediction Limit to Limited Datasets’’ 

(hereafter referred to as the ‘‘Limited 

Dataset Memo’’), which is available in 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2013– 

0291. 

A limited dataset is defined as having 

less than seven data points. In 

calculating MACT floor limits based on 

limited datasets, we considered 

additional factors as described in the 

Limited Dataset Memo. We seek 

comments on the approach described in 

the Limited Dataset Memo and whether 

there are other approaches we should 

consider for such datasets. We also seek 

comments on the application of this 

approach for the derivation of MACT 

limits based on limited datasets in this 

proposal, which are described in the 

Limited Dataset Memo. 

For the BSCP manufacturing source 

category, we have limited datasets for 

the following pollutants and 

subcategories: Hg for existing and new 

small tunnel kilns; PM for new tunnel 

kilns; and Hg for new large tunnel kilns. 

For each dataset, we performed the 

steps outlined in the Limited Dataset 

Memo. See the Limited Dataset Memo 

for more information. 

H. How did the EPA consider beyondthe-floor for existing sources? 

As discussed in sections II.A and IV.D 

of this preamble, the EPA must consider 

emissions limitations and requirements 

that are more stringent than the MACT 

floor (i.e., beyond-the-floor options). 

When considering beyond-the-floor 

options, the EPA must consider not only 

the maximum degree of reduction in 

emissions of HAP, but must take into 

account the associated costs, energy and 

non-air quality health and 

environmental impacts. 

Once the MACT floor determinations 

were complete for each subcategory, we 

considered regulatory options more 

stringent than the MACT floor level of 

control (e.g., the performance of 

technologies that could result in lower 

emissions) for the different 

subcategories. We considered requiring 

all existing sources to meet the new 

source MACT floors for Hg and PM (as 

a surrogate for total non-Hg HAP metals) 

developed as described in section IV.F 

of this preamble. We analyzed the 

beyond-the-floor options for Hg and 

total non-Hg HAP metals separately for 

existing sources. Our analyses are 

documented in the technical 

memorandum, ‘‘Development of Cost 

and Emission Reduction Impacts for the 

BSCP NESHAP,’’ in Docket ID No. EPA– 

HQ–OAR–2013–0291. 

The beyond-the-floor option for total 

non-Hg HAP metals is estimated to 

achieve additional non-Hg HAP metals 

reductions of 2.86 tpy and cost an 

additional $22.8 million per year (2011 

dollars), for a cost effectiveness of 

$7,960,000 per ton of total additional 

non-Hg HAP metals removed. The 

beyond-the-floor option for Hg is 

estimated to achieve additional Hg 

reductions of 0.0625 tpy (125 pounds 

per year) and cost an additional $9.25 

million per year (2011 dollars), for a 

cost effectiveness of $148,000,000 per 

ton of total additional Hg removed 

($74,000 per pound of additional Hg 

removed). We have concluded that the 

incremental costs of additional control 

beyond the MACT floor emission limits 

are not reasonable relative to the level 

of emission reduction achieved for 

either the Hg or total non-Hg HAP 

metals beyond-the-floor options. 

Therefore, we are not proposing beyondthe-floor limits for Hg or total non-Hg 

HAP metals. 

I. How did the EPA consider beyondthe-floor for new sources? 

The MACT floor level of control for 

new tunnel kilns for each pollutant was 

based on the emission control that is 

achieved in practice by the best 

controlled similar source within each of 

the subcategories. A new kiln would 

likely need both a FF and ACI system 

for control of non-Hg HAP metals and 

Hg to meet the new source MACT floors. 

When we establish a beyond-the-floor 

standard, we typically identify control 

techniques that have the ability to 

achieve an emissions limit more 

stringent than the MACT floor. No 

techniques were identified that would 

achieve HAP reductions greater than the 

new source floors for the subcategories. 

Therefore, the EPA is not proposing a 

beyond-the-floor limit for new sources 

in this proposed BSCP manufacturing 

rule. 

J. How did the EPA determine whether 

to set health-based standards for 

existing and new sources? 

In developing the proposed BSCP 

manufacturing rule, we considered 

whether it was appropriate to establish 

health-based emission standards under 

CAA section 112(d)(4) for the acid gases 

HF, HCl and Cl2. As a general matter, 

CAA section 112(d) requires MACT 

standards at least as stringent as the 

MACT floor to be set for all HAP 

emitted from major sources. However, 

CAA section 112(d)(4) provides that for 

HAP with established health thresholds, 

the EPA has the discretionary authority 

to consider such health thresholds when 

establishing emission standards under 

CAA section 112(d). This provision is 

intended to allow the EPA to establish 

emission standards other than 

technology-based MACT standards, in 

cases where an alternative emission 

standard will still ensure that the health 

threshold will not be exceeded, with an 

ample margin of safety. This section 

discusses the prerequisite for setting a 

CAA section 112(d)(4) standard, the 

factors the EPA considered in exercising 

its discretion to set a CAA section 

112(d)(4) standard and how the EPA set 

the level of the proposed standard. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 243 / Thursday, December 18, 2014 / Proposed Rules 75639 

4See Portland Cement NESHAP Final Rule, 75 FR 

54970, 54985 (col. 2–3) (September 9, 2010) (‘‘In 

order to exercise this discretion [to set health 

threshold standards under 112(d)(4)], EPA must 

first conclude that the HAP at issue has an 

established health threshold . . .’’). 

5See Pulp and Paper Chemical Recovery 

Combustion Sources NESHAP Proposed Rule, 63 FR 

18754, 18766/1–18767/1 (April 15, 1998). 

6The current weight-of-evidence under the 2005 

EPA Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessments, 

which replaced the 1986 cancer guidelines, 

recommends the following cancer hazard 

descriptors: ‘‘Carcinogenic to Humans,’’ ‘‘Likely to 

Be Carcinogenic to Humans,’’ ‘‘Suggestive Evidence 

of Carcinogenic Potential,’’ ‘‘Inadequate Information 

to Assess Carcinogenic Potential,’’ and ‘‘Not Likely 

to Be Carcinogenic to Humans’’ (which are 

considered equivalent to the 1986 groups A, B, C, 

D and E respectively). 

7See Pulp and Paper Chemical Recovery 

Combustion Sources NESHAP Proposed Rule, 63 FR 

18754, 18765/3 (‘‘The EPA presumptively applies 

section 112(d)(4) only to HAP’s that are not 

carcinogens because Congress clearly intended that 

carcinogens be considered nonthreshold 

pollutants’’). 

8The EPA has not classified HF or Cl2 gas with 

respect to carcinogenicity. However, at this time the 

agency is not aware of any data that would suggest 

either of these HAP are carcinogens. 

9U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 

Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS). 

Hydrogen chloride (CASRN 7647–01–0). 1995. 

Available at: http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/

0396.htm. Accessed on April 11, 2014. 

10 ‘‘Sensitive subgroups’’ may refer to particular 

life stages, such as children or the elderly or to 

those with particular medical conditions, such as 

asthmatics. 

11California EPA considered acute toxicity and 

established a 1-hour reference exposure level (REL) 

of 2.1 mg/m3. An REL is the concentration level at 

or below which no adverse health effects are 

anticipated for a specified exposure duration. RELs 

are designed to protect the most sensitive 

individuals in the population by the inclusion of 

margins of safety. 

12See California Office of Health Hazard 

Assessment. Acute Toxicity Summary for Hydrogen 

Chloride. Available at: http://www.oehha.ca.gov/

air/hot_spots/2008/AppendixD2_

final.pdf#page=112, EPA, 2008. 

13See Health Assessment Document for Chlorine 

and Hydrogen Chloride, Review Draft; EPA–600/8– 

87/041A, August 1994. 

1. What Are the Prerequisites for Setting 

a CAA Section 112(d)(4) Standard? 

The prerequisites for setting a CAA 

section 112(d)(4) standard are that the 

pollutant must have a health threshold 

and not be carcinogenic.4 Whether a 

pollutant has a health threshold is based 

on certain factors, including evidence 

and classification of carcinogenic risk 

and evidence of noncarcinogenic 

effects: 5

• The EPA ‘‘presumptively concludes’’ 

that known, probable and possible 

carcinogens (Group A, B and C pollutants) 

‘‘should not be categorized as threshold 

pollutants.’’ 

• Pollutants for which there is not enough 

evidence to make a conclusion on 

carcinogenicity (Group D pollutants) will be 

evaluated on a case-by-case basis. 

• Pollutants classified as non-carcinogens 

(Group E pollutants) are ‘‘presumptively 

considered’’ to be threshold pollutants.6

Health threshold standards may not be 

set for pollutants that are carcinogenic.7

The EPA has exercised its 

discretionary authority under CAA 

section 112(d)(4) in a handful of prior 

actions setting emissions standards for 

other major source categories, including 

the emissions standards issued in 2004 

for commercial and industrial boilers 

and process heaters, which were 

vacated on other grounds by the United 

States Court of Appeals for the District 

of Columbia Circuit. In the proposals for 

both the Pulp and Paper Chemical 

Recovery Combustion Sources NESHAP, 

63 FR at 18765 (April 15, 1998) and 

Lime Manufacturing NESHAP, 67 FR at 

78054 (December 20, 2002), the EPA 

invoked CAA section 112(d)(4) for HCl 

emissions for discrete units within the 

facility. In those proposed actions, the 

EPA concluded that HCl had an 

established health threshold (in those 

cases it was interpreted as the reference 

concentration for chronic effects or RfC) 

and was not classified as a human 

carcinogen. In light of the absence of 

evidence of carcinogenic risk, the 

availability of information on 

noncarcinogenic effects and the limited 

potential health risk associated with the 

discrete units being regulated, the EPA 

concluded that it was within the EPA’s 

discretion to set an emissions standard 

under CAA section 112(d)(4) for HCl 

under the circumstances of those 

actions. 

In more recent actions, the EPA noted 

that HCl was a threshold pollutant, but 

decided not to propose a health-based 

emission standard for HCl emissions 

under CAA section 112(d)(4) for 

Portland Cement facilities (74 FR at 

21154; May 6, 2009) or for Boilers and 

Process Heaters (75 FR at 32032; June 4, 

2010) for other reasons. To date, the 

EPA has not implemented a NESHAP 

that applied the provisions of CAA 

section 112(d)(4) to HF or Cl2.8

Since any emission standard under 

CAA section 112(d)(4) must consider 

the established health threshold level, 

with an ample margin of safety, in this 

proposed BSCP manufacturing 

rulemaking the EPA has considered the 

adverse health effects of the HAP acid 

gases, HCl, Cl2 and HF. The standard 

approach for determining potential 

hazards of a pollutant has been to use 

a health benchmark below which effects 

are not expected to occur. Described 

below are the health effects and 

benchmarks for HCl, Cl2 and HF and the 

rationale for their designation as 

threshold pollutants. It is important to 

note that if exposure levels as proposed 

by the emissions limits in this proposed 

BSCP manufacturing rulemaking are 

achieved, the adverse health effects 

described below will not be of concern 

for emissions from these source 

categories. 

Hydrogen chloride is corrosive to the 

eyes, skin and mucous membranes. 

Acute inhalation exposure may cause 

eye, nose and respiratory tract irritation 

and inflammation and pulmonary 

edema in humans. Chronic occupational 

exposure to HCl has been reported to 

cause gastritis, bronchitis and dermatitis 

in workers. Prolonged exposure to low 

concentrations may also cause dental 

discoloration and erosion. No 

information is available on the 

reproductive or developmental effects of 

HCl in humans. In rats exposed to HCl 

by inhalation, altered estrus cycles have 

been reported in females and increased 

fetal mortality and decreased fetal 

weight have been reported in offspring. 

The EPA conducted a toxicity 

assessment of chronic inhalation 

exposure to HCl and has established an 

RfC of 20 micrograms per cubic meter 

(mg/m3).9 An RfC is defined as an 

estimate (with uncertainty spanning 

perhaps an order of magnitude) of a 

continuous inhalation exposure to the 

human population (including sensitive 

subgroups 10) that is likely to be without 

an appreciable risk of deleterious effects 

during a lifetime. The EPA RfC for HCl 

was based on respiratory toxicity 

observed in animals. An uncertainty 

factor of 300 was applied to the lowest 

adverse effect level noted in animals. 

This assessment did not take into 

account effects associated with acute 

exposure.11 The EPA has not classified 

HCl for carcinogenicity. 

With respect to the potential health 

effects of HCl, we know the following: 

• Chronic exposure to concentrations at or 

below the RfC is not expected to cause 

chronic respiratory effects. 

• Little research has been conducted on its 

carcinogenicity. The one occupational study 

of which we are aware found no evidence of 

carcinogenicity. 

• There is a significant body of scientific 

literature addressing the health effects of 

acute exposure to HCl.12

Based on this information, the agency 

believes it is reasonable to classify HCl 

as a Group D pollutant.13 Based on the 

negative carcinogenicity data and on the 

EPA’s knowledge of how HCl reacts in 

the body and its likely mechanism of 

action, as discussed above, the agency 

considers HCl to be a threshold 

pollutant. 

The effects of acute exposure to 

humans and animals to Cl2 have been 

well characterized. Similar to HCl, Cl2 is 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
75640 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 243 / Thursday, December 18, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

14Toxicological Profile for Chlorine, Agency for 

Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) 

2010. Available at http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/

toxprofiles/tp.asp?id=1079&tid=36. 15 Inhalation MRLs are used in noncancer 

assessments when IRIS RfCs are not available 

because their concept, definition and derivation are 

philosophically consistent (though not identical) 

with the basis for EPA’s RfCs (http://www.epa.gov/ 

ttn/atw/nata1999/99pdfs/healtheffectsinfo.pdf). 

16California EPA Chronic Toxicity Summary for 

Fluorides including Hydrogen Fluoride. 2003. 

Available at http://www.oehha.org/air/hot_spots/

2008/AppendixD3_final.pdf#page=270. 

17 IOM. 1997. Dietary reference intakes for 

calcium, phosphorus, magnesium, vitamin Dand 

fluoride. Washington, DC: Institute of Medicine. 

National Academy of Sciences. National Academy 

Press. www4.nationalacademies.org/iom/

iomhome.nsf. 

18WHO. 2002. Fluorides. Geneva, Switzerland: 

World Health Organization. Environmental Health 

Criteria Number 227. http://www.inchem.org/pages/ 

ehc.html. 19California EPA Chronic Toxicity Summary for 

Fluorides including Hydrogen Fluoride. 2003. 

Available at http://www.oehha.org/air/hot_spots/

2008/AppendixD3_final.pdf#page=270. 20The California Office of Environmental Health 

Hazard Assessment has developed dose-response 

assessments for many substances, based both on 

carcinogenicity and health effects other than cancer. 

The process for developing these assessments is 

similar to that used by the EPA to develop IRIS 

values and incorporates significant external 

scientific peer review. The EPA may use CalEPA 

values in the absence of an IRIS value. http://

www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/nata1999/99pdfs/

healtheffectsinfo.pdf. 

21 Derryberry OM, Bartholomew MD, Fleming 

RBL. 1963. ‘‘Fluoride exposure and worker health.’’ 

Arch Environ Health 6:503–514. 

a well-known sensory irritant (capable 

of eliciting sensory irritation) and the 

most sensitive target for toxicity in 

humans and animals is the respiratory 

system. Acute exposures to low levels of 

Cl2 (approximately 3 to 40 milligrams 

per cubic meter (mg/m3)) have been 

shown to cause nose, eyes and throat 

irritation in humans. Acute exposure to 

high levels (above 40 mg/m3) of Cl2 in 

humans can result in chest pain, 

vomiting, toxic pneumonitis and 

pulmonary edema. Chronic (long-term) 

exposure to Cl2 gas in workers has 

resulted in respiratory effects including 

eye and throat irritation and airflow 

obstruction. Animal studies have 

reported decreased body weight gain, 

eye and nose irritation, non-neoplastic 

nasal lesions and respiratory epithelial 

hyperplasia from chronic inhalation 

exposure to Cl2. There is no evidence 

that Cl2 causes reproductive or 

developmental effects in animals or 

humans. A few studies of workers in the 

chemical industry did not find any 

evidence that Cl2 is carcinogenic. The 

EPA, the International Agency for 

Research on Cancer (IARC) and the 

Department of Health and Human 

Services (DHHS) have not classified Cl2

gas as to its carcinogenicity. 

The human health value for Cl2 is an 

Agency for Toxic Substances and 

Disease Registry (ATSDR) Minimal Risk 

Level (MRL) of 0.00015 mg/m3.14 The 

MRL is defined as an estimate of daily 

human exposure to a substance that is 

likely to be without an appreciable risk 

of adverse effects (other than cancer) 

over a specified duration of exposure.15

The MRL was based on respiratory 

toxicity (nasal lesions) observed in a 

chronic inhalation exposure (1 year) in 

monkeys. An uncertainty factor of 30 

was applied to the MRL to account for 

uncertainties in extrapolating results 

from animal to humans and to account 

for human variability. Since the effects 

of acute exposure of humans and 

animals to Cl2 have been well 

characterized, the ATSDR toxicity 

profile for Cl2 also included acute MRL. 

With respect to the potential health 

effects of Cl2, we know the following: 

• Chronic exposure to concentrations at or 

below the MRL is not expected to cause 

chronic respiratory effects. 

• The acute effects of Cl2 have been well 

characterized in humans. 

• Studies of workers in the chemical 

industry did not find any evidence that Cl2

is carcinogenic. 

Based on the negative carcinogenicity 

data and on the EPA’s knowledge of 

how Cl2 reacts in the body and its likely 

mechanism of action, as discussed 

above, the agency presumptively 

considers Cl2 to be a threshold 

pollutant. 

There is a significant body of 

scientific literature addressing the 

health effects of acute exposure to HF.16

Hydrogen fluoride is a respiratory tract 

irritant capable of causing severe tissue 

damage in the respiratory system. Acute 

(short-term) inhalation exposure to 

gaseous HF can cause severe respiratory 

effects in humans, including severe 

irritation and pulmonary edema. Severe 

ocular irritation and dermal burns may 

occur following eye or skin exposure in 

humans. Because the toxic effects of HF 

are, to a large extent, based on the 

fluoride ion rather than the hydrogen 

ion, it is noteworthy to mention that the 

major health effect of chronic inhalation 

exposure to high levels of fluoride is 

skeletal fluorosis. In skeletal fluorosis, 

fluoride accumulates in the bone 

progressively over many years and can 

cause a variety of symptoms including 

stiffness and pain in the joints. In severe 

cases, the bone structure may change 

and ligaments may calcify, resulting in 

muscle impairment and pain. Chronic 

inhalation exposure to HF (with 

particulate fluorides) in the aluminum 

industry has been associated with 

increased risk of asthma. Chronic oral 

exposure to fluoride at low levels has a 

beneficial effect of dental cavity 

prevention and may also be useful for 

the treatment of osteoporosis. Exposure 

to higher levels of fluoride may cause 

dental and bone fluorosis. Although the 

existing toxicological database on 

fluoride does not provide strong 

evidence for the consideration of 

fluoride as an essential element, several 

organizations consider fluoride an 

important dietary element for humans. 

The Institute of Medicine (IOM) has 

derived adequate intake values ranging 

from 0.01 to 4 milligrams per day to 

reduce the occurrence of dental caries.17

The World Health Organization (WHO) 

considers fluoride to be ‘‘essential’’ 

because it considered ‘‘resistance to 

dental caries to be a physiologically 

important function.’’ 18 With regard to 

HF carcinogenic potential, the ATSDR 

Public Health Statement document 

states that ‘‘carcinogenicity via 

inhalation of fluoride is not considered 

to be likely by most investigators 

reporting in the existing literature.’’ The 

EPA has not classified HF for 

carcinogenicity. 

The chronic inhalation noncancer 

human health value the EPA uses for HF 

is the REL of 0.014 mg/m3 derived by 

California EPA (CalEPA).19 CalEPA 

defines the REL as a concentration level 

at (or below) which no adverse health 

effects are anticipated for specific 

exposure durations, a concept that is 

substantially similar to EPA’s noncancer dose-response assessment 

perspective and we, therefore, use it as 

an alternate value in the absence of an 

IRIS RfC.20 REL are designed to protect 

the most sensitive individuals in the 

population by the inclusion of margins 

of safety. The REL was based on 

minimal changes in bone density 

(skeletal fluorosis) in the workplace by 

Derryberry et al.21 CalEPA states that 

major strengths of the key study on 

which the chronic REL is based is the 

observation of health effects in a large 

group of workers exposed over many 

years and the identification of no 

observable adverse effect level 

(NOAEL). The primary uncertainty in 

the study is the lack of comprehensive 

health effects examination. Another 

source of concern is the potential for 

greater susceptibility of children to the 

effects of inhaled fluorides, considering 

the rapid bone growth at early lifestages. 

This effect applies with particular 

importance to children’s teeth since it 

has been established that excessive 

exposure to fluoride during tooth 

development in infancy and childhood 

causes dental fluorosis. To account for 

uncertainties, the CalEPA REL included 

a factor of 10 for intraspecies differences 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 243 / Thursday, December 18, 2014 / Proposed Rules 75641 

22Toxicological Profile for Chlorine, Agency for 

Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) 

2010. Available at http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/

toxprofiles/tp.asp?id=1079&tid=36. 

23See Boiler MACT Proposed Rule, 75 FR 32006, 

32031/3 (June 4, 2010) (‘‘[W]e have concluded that 

we do not have sufficient information at this time 

to establish what the health-based emission 

standards would be for HCl or the other acid 

gases.’’). 

24For more information, see the technical 

memorandum, ‘‘Risk Assessment to Determine a 

Health-Based Emission Limitation for Acid Gases 

for the Brick and Structural Clay Products 

Manufacturing Source Category,’’ in Docket ID No. 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2013–0291. 

25See Portland Cement NESHAP Final Rule, 75 

FR 54970, 54986/1 (September 9, 2010) (‘‘[W]e 

currently lack information on the peak short-term 

emissions of HCl from cement kilns which might 

allow us to determine whether a chronic healthbased emission standard for HCl would ensure that 

acute exposures will not pose health concerns.’’). 

26See S. Rep. No. 101–228, 101st Cong. 1st sess. 

at 172. 

27See Portland Cement NESHAP Final Rule, 75 

FR 54970 (September 9, 2010)—Co-benefits was 

identified as the ‘‘decisive factor’’ in the Portland 

Cement NESHAP Final Rule. 75 FR 54970, 54985/ 

3. There, EPA declined to set a health-based 

standard for HCl where setting a MACT standard 

also controlled other HAP and criteria pollutants. 

Specifically discussed were SO2 and other HAP 

gases. See 75 FR at 54984/3 (‘‘The additional 

reductions of SO2 alone attributable to the MACT 

standards for HCl are estimated to be 124,000 tons 

per year’’ and discussing both direct SO2 effects and 

effects of SO2 as a precursor to PM2.5) and 75 FR 

at 54986/1 (‘‘[Other HAP gases (chlorine (Cl2), 

hydrogen cyanide (HCN) and hydrogen fluoride 

(HF))] are also controlled during the process of 

controlling HCl emissions from cement kilns using 

a wet scrubber. As such, their health impacts must 

be taken into account when considering a healthbased emission limit for HCl.’’ See also Boiler 

MACT Final Rule, 76 FR at 15644/1 (‘‘EPA 

considered the comments received on this issue and 

continues to believe that the co-benefits are 

significant and provide an additional basis for the 

Administrator to conclude that it is not appropriate 

to exercise her discretion under section 112(d)(4).’’) 

and Boiler MACT Proposed Rule, 75 FR 32006, 

32032 (June 4, 2010)—Co-benefits from MACT 

standard for HCl and PM as surrogate for HAP 

metals included the reduction of 340,000 tons per 

year of SO2 and unspecified reductions of PM, other 

non-HAP acid gases (hydrogen bromide) and Hg. 

See also MATS Proposed Rule, 76 FR 24976, 25051/ 

1—Co-benefits from MACT standard for HCl and 

PM as surrogate for HAP metals included the 

reduction of 2.1 million tons per year of SO2 and 

unspecified reductions of PM, other non-HAP acid 

gases (hydrogen bromide) and Hg. 

(which also accounts for variation in 

kinetics between children and adults). 

In addition, the chronic inhalation REL 

is lower than the oral chronic REL and 

the California Public Health Guidance 

for fluoride in drinking water, which are 

based on lifetime exposure and 

protective of infants and children. 

CalEPA also considered the acute 

toxicity of HF and established a 1-hour 

REL of 0.24 mg/m3 based on mild eye 

and respiratory irritation. 

With respect to the potential health 

effects of HF, we know the following: 

• Chronic exposure at or below the REL is 

not expected to cause adverse effects. 

• There is limited/equivocal evidence of 

the carcinogenic potential of HF. With regard 

to the carcinogenic potential evidence 

available, the ATSDR Public Health 

Statement document on HF states that 

‘‘carcinogenicity via inhalation of fluoride is 

not considered to be likely by most 

investigators reporting in the existing 

literature.’’ 22

• There is significant evidence on the 

health effects of acute exposure to HF 

allowing for the derivation of an acute health 

benchmark. 

Based on the negative carcinogenicity 

data and on the EPA’s knowledge of 

how HF reacts in the body and its likely 

mechanism of action, as discussed 

above, the agency considers HF to be a 

threshold pollutant. 

2. What factors does the EPA consider 

in exercising its discretion whether to 

set a CAA section 112(d)(4) standard? 

The EPA may exercise its 

discretionary authority under CAA 

section 112(d)(4) only with respect to 

pollutants with a health threshold. 

Where there is an established threshold, 

the EPA interprets CAA section 

112(d)(4) to allow it to weigh additional 

factors, beyond any established health 

threshold, in making a judgment 

whether to set a standard for a specific 

pollutant based on the threshold or 

instead follow the traditional path of 

developing a MACT standard after 

determining a MACT floor. In deciding 

whether to exercise its discretion for a 

threshold pollutant for a given source 

category, the EPA interprets CAA 

section 112(d)(4) to allow it to take into 

account factors such as the following: 

• The availability of data to set the healthbased standard; 

• Co-benefits that would be achieved via 

the MACT standard, such as reductions in 

emissions of other HAP and/or criteria 

pollutants; 

• The potential impacts on ecosystems of 

releases of the pollutant; and 

• The potential for cumulative adverse 

health effects due to concurrent exposure to 

the same HAP or other HAP with similar 

biological endpoints, from either the same or 

other source categories, where the 

concentration of the threshold pollutant 

emitted from the given source category is 

below the threshold. 

If the EPA does determine that it is 

appropriate to set a standard based on 

a health threshold, the agency must 

develop emission standards that will 

ensure the public will not be exposed to 

levels of the pertinent HAP emitted 

from the source category in question in 

excess of the health threshold, with an 

ample margin of safety. 

a. Availability of Data To Determine a 

Standard 

In determining whether to set a 

health-based standard, the EPA 

considered whether sufficient data for a 

particular industry are available to 

determine such a standard. In previous 

rules, the EPA declined to set a healthbased standard, based in part on the 

unavailability of data to determine a 

standard.23 However, for the proposed 

BSCP manufacturing rule, because of 

the relatively small number of facilities 

compared to other rules such as the 

Boiler MACT proposal, the EPA was 

able to determine facility-specific 

information, including tunnel kiln 

locations and operating characteristics 

and stack parameters, available for all 

BSCP facilities to assess the feasibility 

of health-based standards in this rule. 

Such information enabled us to conduct 

the dispersion modeling necessary to 

establish a health-based emission limit 

for acid gases.24 Consequently, we have 

concluded that we have enough 

information to determine the healthbased emission standards for the acid 

gases HF, HCl and Cl2 for the BSCP 

manufacturing industry. As discussed in 

further detail below, these limits have 

been developed to ensure that exposure 

is below the health threshold for each 

facility and also ensure that acute 

exposures will not pose any health 

concerns.25

b. Co-Benefits 

We also considered whether setting 

technology-based MACT standards for 

HF, HCl and Cl2 from BSCP plants 

would result in significant reductions in 

emissions of other pollutants, most 

notably sulfur dioxide (SO2). Although 

MACT standards may directly address 

only HAP, not criteria pollutants, 

Congress did recognize, in the 

legislative history to CAA section 

112(d)(4), that MACT standards would 

have the collateral benefit of controlling 

criteria pollutants as well and viewed 

this as an important benefit of the air 

toxics program.26 Therefore, even where 

the EPA concludes a HAP has a health 

threshold, the agency may consider 

such co-benefits as a factor in 

determining whether to exercise its 

discretion under CAA section 112(d)(4). 

The additional nationwide reductions of 

SO2 that would be attributable to BSCP 

MACT standards for acid gases are 

estimated to be only 4,300 tpy in the 

third year following promulgation of the 

proposed BSCP standards. This 

reduction is substantially lower than the 

co-benefits from MACT standards for 

other industries for which the EPA has 

decided not to set a health-based limit,27


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
75642 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 243 / Thursday, December 18, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

28See Portland Cement NESHAP Final Rule, 75 

FR 54970, 54986/3 (September 9, 2010). 

29See Boiler MACT Proposed Rule, 75 FR 32006, 

32030/2 (June 4, 2010), citing S.Rep. 101–228 at 

171–72. 

and it would not be expected to provide 

a significant public health benefit. 

c. Ecosystem Impacts 

In addition to potential health 

impacts, the EPA has evaluated the 

potential for environmental impacts 

when considering whether to exercise 

discretion under CAA section 

112(d)(4).28 The agency applied the 

environmental risk screen methodology 

that it uses in the Risk and Technology 

Program under section 112 of the CAA 

to evaluate the potential for chronic 

exposure to acid gases emitted by BSCP 

facilities to cause phytotoxicity and 

reduced productivity of plants. 

The environmental screen uses air 

concentrations from the HEM–3 model 

used in the human health exposure and 

risk analysis. We take these 

concentrations and derive an areaweighted average offsite annual ambient 

air concentration for each pollutant. The 

area-weighted average concentrations 

are compared directly to the appropriate 

ecological benchmarks for a given 

pollutant by dividing the area-weighted 

average concentration by the 

appropriate ecological benchmark. The 

result is called a hazard quotient (HQ). 

An HQ greater than 1 indicated that the 

area-weighted average concentration 

exceeded the ecological benchmark. 

For the section 112(d)(4) evaluation, 

the EPA assessed the acid gases HCl and 

HF around each BSCP facility. Although 

Cl2 may also be emitted from BSCP 

facilities, chlorine gas is so reactive that 

it is not expected to remain in the 

environment very long after it is 

released. Chlorine immediately reacts 

with both organic and inorganic 

materials that it comes into contact 

with. Chlorine undergoes direct 

photolysis in the air and its half-life in 

the troposphere is on the order of 

several minutes. Therefore, it was not 

considered in the environmental risk 

screening for the BSCP Manufacturing 

source category. 

For HCl, the environmental risk 

screen indicated that the area-weighted 

average modeled concentrations of HCl 

around each facility (i.e., the areaweighted average concentration of all 

offsite data points in the modeling 

domain) did not exceed the ecological 

benchmark. In addition, there was only 

one facility with a modeled 

concentration of HCl at an offsite 

receptor location that exceeded the 

ecological benchmark and that was at a 

single receptor. 

For HF, the environmental risk screen 

indicated that the area-weighted average 

modeled concentrations of HF around 

each facility (i.e., the area-weighted 

average concentration of all offsite data 

points in the modeling domain) did not 

exceed the ecological benchmarks. 

There were multiple facilities with 

modeled concentrations of HF at offsite 

receptor locations that exceeded the 

ecological benchmark, but the area over 

which the value was exceeded was less 

than one percent of the offsite modeling 

domain for each facility, indicating that 

there would not be any significant or 

widespread environmental effects. 

d. Cumulative Effects 

The EPA may consider the availability 

of information on emissions from colocated and nearby sources and consider 

if it is feasible to determine the potential 

cumulative health effects from 

emissions from the sources in the 

category when combined with other 

emissions from other sources that are 

co-located or located nearby. Relevant 

emissions may include both emissions 

of the same pollutant and emissions of 

other pollutants that may cause 

cumulative effects. 

Through the BSCP industry’s 

responses to the 2008 EPA survey and 

the 2010 EPA survey, we have 

substantial information on the locations 

of BSCP plants and the levels of HF, HCl 

and Cl2 emitted from those plants. BSCP 

plants are not commonly co-located 

with any other type of operations. They 

are typically located near the source of 

the raw materials on large tracts of land 

from which raw materials are extracted. 

This provides an additional buffer 

between the BSCP plants and the 

surrounding area. Because of the 

relatively low plume heights, maximum 

risks from the BSCP plants are located 

close to the facility property line. In 

trying to define cumulative risks from 

nearby non-BSCP emissions, the 

location and emissions associated with 

other sources not in the BSCP 

Manufacturing source category are far 

less certain. While the EPA 2008 survey 

and EPA 2010 survey data for BSCP 

facilities have been reviewed by EPA 

engineers and scientists, the emissions 

levels and locations of nearby other 

facilities, such as those in the NEI, have 

not undergone the same level of detailed 

review. Thus, a quantitative analysis of 

nearby emissions may contain 

significant uncertainty. However, as 

discussed above, because of the large 

footprint of BSCP facilities, their rural 

locations and the BSCP risks being 

confined to the near plant locations, we 

do not expect that the combined 

emissions of HF, HCl or Cl2 from BSCP 

facilities and nearby other sources 

would result in substantial cumulative 

health and environmental effects. 

3. How did the EPA set the level of the 

standard? 

Based on the EPA’s findings, 

including the minimal cumulative 

health and environmental effects 

expected from co-located and nearby 

sources, the minimal co-benefits of 

setting technology-based MACT 

standards for acid gases, the minimal 

ecosystem impacts from setting a healthbased standard in place of a MACT 

standard and the availability of data to 

determine a health-based standard, the 

EPA is proposing to exercise its 

discretion to use CAA section 112(d)(4). 

This conclusion is consistent with the 

EPA’s prior decisions where we found 

it appropriate not to exercise the 

discretion to invoke the authority in 

CAA section 112(d)(4) for acid gases, 

because the circumstances in this case 

differ from those previous 

considerations. We request comment on 

the analysis and conclusions regarding 

setting health-based standards. 

Following from the EPA’s 

determination that a health-based 

standard is appropriate, the standard 

must be set as follows: 

• There must be an ample margin of safety 

to avoid the health effects on which the 

threshold is based. 

• There must be no observable adverse 

effect. 

• The standard must not allow greater 

adverse environmental effects than the 

MACT standard that would otherwise be 

established. 

• A standard must be set; there can be no 

exclusions from compliance based on a 

showing that the source’s emissions do not 

pose a health risk. 

CAA section 112(d)(4) expressly states 

that the health-based standard must be 

set at the threshold level ‘‘with an 

ample margin of safety.’’ In addition, the 

legislative history of CAA section 

112(d)(4) indicates that a health-based 

emission limit under CAA section 

112(d)(4) should be set at the level at 

which no observable effects occur, with 

an ample margin of safety.29 Because the 

statute requires an ample margin of 

safety, it would be reasonable to set any 

CAA section 112(d)(4) emission 

standard for a pollutant with a health 

threshold at a level that at least assures 

that, for the sources in the controlled 

category or subcategory, persons 

exposed to emissions of the pollutant 

would not experience the adverse health 

effects on which the threshold is 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 243 / Thursday, December 18, 2014 / Proposed Rules 75643 

30See Boiler MACT Proposed Rule, 75 FR 32006, 

32031/3 (June 4, 2010). 31See Portland Cement NESHAP Final Rule, 75 

FR 54970, 54985/2 (September 9, 2010), citing 

S.Rep. 101–228 at 171–72. 

32See Boiler MACT Final Rule, 76 FR 15608, 

15643/3–14644/1 (March 21, 2011). See also MATS 

Final Rule, 77 FR 9304, 9406/1 (February 16, 2012) 

(same point using nearly identical text). 

33USEPA Human Exposure Model; available at 

http://www2.epa.gov/fera/download-humanexposure-model-hem. 

based.30 The legislative history also 

states that establishing a CAA section 

112(d)(4) standard rather than a 

conventional MACT standard ‘‘shall not 

result in adverse environmental effects 

which would otherwise be reduced or 

eliminated.’’ 31

The EPA’s decision to exercise its 

discretion to use CAA section 112(d)(4) 

will not be used to exclude sources from 

compliance. The EPA does not believe 

that a plain reading of the statute 

supports the establishment of an 

approach in which the EPA excludes 

specific facilities from complying with 

emissions limits if the facility 

demonstrates that its emissions do not 

pose a health risk. While CAA section 

112(d)(4) authorizes the EPA to consider 

the level of the health threshold for 

pollutants which have an established 

threshold, that threshold may be 

considered when establishing emissions 

standards under CAA section 112(d). 

Therefore, the EPA must still establish 

emissions standards under CAA section 

112(d) even if it chooses to exercise its 

discretion to consider an established 

health threshold.32

As part of the development of the 

proposed standards, we have 

maintained an inventory of major source 

facilities, including the size and 

operating hours of each tunnel kiln and 

the geographic location and physical 

attributes (e.g., stack height, diameter, 

exit gas flow rate) of each tunnel kiln 

stack. To develop a health-based 

emission limit, both long-term and 

short-term inhalation exposure 

concentrations and health risks from the 

BSCP manufacturing source category 

were estimated using the Human 

Exposure Model (Community and 

Sector HEM–3 version 1.3.1). The HEM– 

3 performs three primary risk 

assessment activities: (1) Conducting 

dispersion modeling to estimate the 

concentrations of HAP in ambient air, 

(2) estimating long-term and short-term 

inhalation exposures to individuals 

residing within 50 kilometers of the 

modeled sources and (3) estimating 

individual and population-level 

inhalation risks using the exposure 

estimates and quantitative doseresponse information. 

The air dispersion model used by the 

HEM–3 model (AERMOD) is one of the 

EPA’s preferred models for assessing 

pollutant concentrations from industrial 

facilities. To perform the dispersion 

modeling and to develop the 

preliminary risk estimates, HEM–3 

draws on three data libraries. The first 

is a library of meteorological data, 

which is used for dispersion 

calculations. This library includes one 

year (2011) of hourly surface and upper 

air observations for 824 meteorological 

stations, selected to provide coverage of 

the United States and Puerto Rico. A 

second library of United States Census 

Bureau census block internal point 

locations and populations provides the 

basis of human exposure calculations.33

In addition, for each census block, the 

census library includes the elevation 

and controlling hill height, which are 

also used in dispersion calculations. A 

third library of pollutant unit risk 

factors and other health benchmarks is 

used to estimate health risks. These risk 

factors and health benchmarks are the 

latest values recommended by the EPA 

for HAP and other toxic air pollutants. 

The chronic and acute values for the 

acid gases evaluated in this assessment 

are presented in Tables 7 and 8 of this 

preamble, respectively. Further 

information on the development and 

sources of these benchmarks and the 

overall modeling approach is presented 

in the technical memorandum, ‘‘Risk 

Assessment to Determine a HealthBased Emission Limitation for Acid 

Gases for the Brick and Structural Clay 

Products Manufacturing Source 

Category’’ in Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2013–0291. 

TABLE 7—DOSE-RESPONSE VALUES FOR CHRONIC INHALATION EXPOSURE TO ACID GASES

Pollutant CAS Number a RfC 

(mg/m3) Source 

Hydrogen chloride ............................................................................................................................ 7647010 0 .02 IRIS. 

Hydrogen fluoride ............................................................................................................................ 7664393 0 .014 CalEPA. 

Chlorine ............................................................................................................................................ 7782505 0 .00015 ATSDR. 

a Chemical Abstract Services identification number. For groups of compounds that lack a CAS number, we have used a surrogate 3-digit identifier corresponding to the group’s position on the CAA list of HAP. 

TABLE 8—DOSE-RESPONSE VALUES FOR ACUTE INHALATION EXPOSURE TO ACID GASES a

Pollutant CAS No. 

AEGL–1 

(1-hr) 

(mg/m3) 

AEGL–2 

(1-hr) 

(mg/m3) 

ERPG–1 

(mg/m3) 

ERPG–2 

(mg/m3) REL 

Hydrogen chloride ............................ 7647010 2 .7 33 4.5 30 2 .1 

Hydrogen fluoride ............................. 7664393 0 .82 20 1.6 16 0 .24 

Chlorine ............................................ 7782505 1 .5 5 .8 2.9 8 .7 0 .21 

aAEGL = Acute Exposure Guideline Level, ERPG = Emergency Response Planning Guideline. 

In developing the risk assessment for 

chronic exposures, we used the 

estimated annual average ambient air 

concentrations of each acid gas emitted 

by each source in the source category. 

The air concentrations at each nearby 

census block centroid were used as a 

surrogate for the chronic inhalation 

exposure concentration for all the 

people who reside in that census block. 

Chronic noncancer health hazards are 

expressed by comparing a chronic 

exposure to a reference level as a ratio. 

The HQ is the estimated exposure 

divided by a reference level (e.g., the 

RfC). For a given acid gas, exposures at 

or below the reference level (HQ less 

than or equal to 1) are not likely to 

cause adverse health effects. As 

exposures increase above the reference 

level (HQs increasingly greater than 1), 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
75644 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 243 / Thursday, December 18, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

34See the memorandum titled ‘‘Rationale for 

Establishing Work Practice Standards for Periodic 

Brick Kilns’’ in Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2013–0291. 

the potential for adverse effects 

increases. For a typical risk assessment 

where multiple pollutants are coemitted, we aggregate noncancer HQs of 

HAP that act by similar toxic modes of 

action or (where this information is 

absent) that affect the same target organ. 

This process creates, for each target 

organ, a specific hazard index (TOSHI) 

defined as the sum of HQs for 

individual HAP that affect the same 

organ or organ system. Because we 

performed HEM–3 model runs for each 

acid gas individually, we did not 

aggregate HQ values of different acid 

gases. Of course, multiple acid gas 

pollutants are emitted at BSCP facilities, 

but a 250 tpy level of HCl-equivalent 

emissions (based on the HEM risks 

modeling) ensures that a TOSHI of 1 is 

not exceeded as long as the HClequivalent emissions do not exceed 250 

tpy. It is important to note that this 

emission limit is only applicable to the 

sources in this source category and 

should not be considered for sources 

other than those included in this 

analysis. Equivalent emissions for other 

acid gases are determined by the ratio of 

the chronic RfCs to that for HCl, such 

that the HCl-equivalent emissions for 

HF are 175 tpy and for Cl2 are 1.9 tpy. 

For the assessment of potential health 

risks from acute exposures to the acid 

gases, we performed a screening 

assessment using conservative 

assumptions that in combination 

approximate a worst-case exposure. The 

acute exposure scenario assumed worstcase meteorology (from one year of local 

meteorology) and that a person is 

located downwind at the point of 

maximum impact during this same 

worst-case 1-hour period, but no nearer 

to the source than 100 meters, which is 

conservative for this industry given our 

understanding of the locations of these 

facilities. 

Screening for potentially significant 

acute inhalation exposures also 

followed the HQ approach. We divided 

the maximum estimated acute exposure 

by each available short-term threshold 

value to develop an array of HQ values 

relative to the various acute endpoints 

and thresholds. In general, when none 

of these HQ values are greater than 1, 

there is low potential for acute risk. In 

those cases where HQ values above 1 

are seen, additional information is used 

to determine if there is a potential for 

significant acute risks. Additional 

information for facilities in the BSCP 

manufacturing source category included 

using aerial imagery of the facilities to 

determine the maximum offsite 1-hour 

concentrations. 

Because the emissions equivalency 

was based on chronic dose-response 

values, the 250 tpy level does not 

necessarily ensure that acute reference 

levels will not be exceeded. For the HCl 

and Cl2 model runs, there were no 

facilities with acute screening HQ 

values exceeding 1. For HF, we estimate 

that four of the 91 facilities examined 

had an acute value exceed the REL, with 

the highest being 2. However, no facility 

exceeded an HQ (AEGL–1) value for HF. 

To assure that no 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). 

It is important to note that the above 

emissions thresholds are developed 

from back-calculating the emissions that 

would result in an HQ of 1 at the worstcase facility. Potential risks at other 

facilities (not the worst-case facility) are 

predicted to be well below 1. 

Because we had site-specific data on 

the operation of each tunnel kiln, we 

were able to use dispersion modeling to 

ensure that (1) the health-based 

emission limit cited above for BSCP 

facilities provides an ample margin of 

safety and (2) persons exposed to 

emissions of the pollutant would not 

experience the adverse health effects on 

which the threshold is based. In 

addition, as stated previously, the levels 

of acid gas emissions associated with 

BSCP kilns, based on results from the 

EPA’s environmental risk screen 

methodology outlined above, are not 

expected to have an adverse 

environmental impact. 

Facilities would demonstrate 

compliance with the health-based 

emission limit by determining their 

facility-wide HCl, HF and Cl2 emissions, 

calculating the HCl-equivalent 

emissions for HF and Cl2 using RfC 

values and adding the HCl emissions to 

the HCl-equivalent values to calculate 

the total HCl-equivalent emissions. An 

equation to perform this calculation is 

provided in the proposed BSCP 

manufacturing rule. For more 

information on the development of the 

health-based standard see the technical 

memorandum ‘‘Risk Assessment to 

Determine a Health-Based Emissions 

Limitation for Acid Gases for the Brick 

and Structural Clay Products 

Manufacturing Source Category’’ in 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2013– 

0291. For more information on the 

calculation of an HCl-equivalent value, 

see the technical memorandum 

‘‘Development of Cost and Emission 

Reduction Impacts for the BSCP 

NESHAP’’ in Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2013–0291. 

K. How did the EPA determine whether 

to set work practice standards for 

existing and new sources? 

Under CAA section 112(h), the EPA 

may set work practice standards in 

place of an emissions standard where it 

is not feasible to prescribe or enforce an 

emission standard. The EPA is 

proposing to conclude that an emissions 

standard for certain HAP from certain 

BSCP manufacturing sources is not 

feasible because the application of 

measurement methodology to certain 

sources is not practicable due to 

technological and economic limitations. 

Specifically, the EPA is proposing a 

work practice standard for BSCP 

periodic kilns in lieu of emission limits 

for acid gases (HF, HCl and Cl2), Hg and 

non-Hg HAP metals. The EPA is also 

proposing a work practice standard for 

dioxin/furan emissions from BSCP 

tunnel kilns in lieu of a dioxin/furan 

emission limit. The rationale for these 

work practice standards is discussed in 

the paragraphs below. We request 

comment on how the work practice 

standards were developed and the 

proposed standards themselves. 

1. Periodic Kilns 

a. Rationale for Setting Work Practice 

Standard in Lieu of Emission Standard 

Overview. Periodic kilns are batch 

process units that are used for firing 

BSCP under a carefully controlled 

environment. The large majority of 

BSCP are fired in tunnel kilns, which 

operate continuously and are much 

more energy-efficient than periodic 

kilns when producing BSCP of a 

uniform type, such as standard building 

bricks. In contrast, periodic kilns can 

readily accommodate variations in firing 

temperature profiles and cycle times to 

match the requirements of a wide 

variety of products. As a result, periodic 

kilns generally are reserved for specialty 

products and typically are used only 

when necessary.34

In the BSCP industry, periodic kilns 

are classified as either beehive kilns or 

shuttle kilns, but all operate generally 

the same. A batch of unfired bricks or 

shapes is loaded into the cold kiln, the 

kiln is sealed and the burners are 

ignited and controlled to carefully 

increase the temperature according to a 

time-temperature profile specific to the 

products being manufactured. Once 

firing is complete, the temperature in 

the kiln is reduced, the burners are 

extinguished and the fired product is 

allowed to cool. When the product is at 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 243 / Thursday, December 18, 2014 / Proposed Rules 75645 

35 Id. 

36 Id. 

37 Id. 

38 Id. 

39 Id. 

40 Id. 

41 Id. 

42 Id. 

43 Id. 

44 Id. 

or near ambient temperature, the kiln is 

opened and the fired products are 

removed.35

Based on responses to the 2008 EPA 

survey sent to the BSCP industry, 

periodic kiln cycle times range from 35 

to 168 hours per cycle and typically take 

48 to 58 hours. These cycle times cover 

the period beginning when the burners 

are first ignited and ending when the 

burners are cut off. It may take an 

additional 8 to 10 hours for the fired 

products to cool before they can be 

removed from the kiln.36

Emissions. Based on limited data from 

the testing of three BSCP periodic kilns 

using Method 320 (Fourier transform 

infrared (FTIR) spectroscopy), emissions 

of HF and HCl begin within the first 5 

to 10 hours of the firing cycle and 

continue throughout the firing cycle. 

Emissions are highly variable and can 

experience large spikes at various points 

throughout the cycle. In addition, it is 

likely that emissions continue beyond 

the completion of the firing cycle, as the 

fired products cool. HF concentrations 

in the kiln exhaust can still exceed 100 

parts per million at the end of the firing 

cycle.37

Testing Periodic Kilns for Emissions 

of HF and HCl. The conventional 

compliance test requirement for most 

emission sources is to test each source 

for three 1-hour test runs. This 

requirement is based on the 

assumptions that the source operates 

continuously and that emissions are 

relatively constant. However, there 

generally are some variations in 

emissions. For this reason, the source is 

tested over three separate runs and the 

results are averaged to generate a 

number that is representative of typical 

emissions.38

Unlike continuous sources, emissions 

from BSCP periodic kilns can vary 

significantly over the course of one 

cycle. Because of these variations and 

the fact that emissions begin shortly 

after the start of the firing cycle and 

continue beyond the end of the cycle for 

an undetermined period of time, the 

conventional compliance test 

requirement of three 1-hour test runs 

cannot accurately measure emissions. 

Instead, the only way to accurately 

determine the total emissions from a 

BSCP periodic kiln cycle is to measure 

the emissions throughout the entire 

firing cycle and continuing beyond the 

completion of the cycle until emission 

levels become negligible. Testing for any 

less time could result in estimated 

emissions that are either much higher or 

much lower than actual emissions, 

depending on when during the kiln 

cycle emissions are sampled.39

Because of the variations during firing 

cycles and variations across the tests, 

sampling a single kiln cycle is not 

adequate for characterizing periodic kiln 

emissions, so more than one kiln cycle 

would have to be tested. Given that 

BSCP periodic kiln cycle times typically 

range from 48 to 58 hours, each periodic 

kiln would need to be tested for more 

than 100 hours in order to determine an 

emission rate that is representative of 

normal operating conditions. Also, 

because BSCP periodic kilns are used to 

fire specialty products that may have 

significantly differently timetemperature profiles, it would be 

necessary to test the same kiln multiple 

times to characterize emissions from 

different types of products.40

Test Methods. The standard reference 

methods for measuring emissions of HF 

and HCl are EPA Methods 26 and 26A. 

These methods are reliable and 

relatively inexpensive. However, if 

emissions are variable and experience 

large spikes, as appears to be the case 

for BSCP periodic kilns, breakthrough of 

HCl can occur. That is, the testing 

apparatus reaches its capacity for 

absorbing HCl and subsequent HCl in 

the emissions are not captured. It is not 

known if breakthrough has occurred 

until a breakthrough analysis is 

performed after completion of the test. 

If it is determined that breakthrough has 

occurred, retesting is necessary. Another 

disadvantage to using Methods 26 or 

26A for testing throughout periodic kiln 

cycles is the need for additional 

manpower to operate the sampling 

trains around the clock and to recover 

samples.41

An alternative to using Method 26 or 

26A is to conduct the tests using FTIR 

according to EPA Method 320. With 

FTIR, HCl breakthrough is not an issue. 

In addition, FTIR also provides near 

real-time emissions data. However, as 

noted in the following section, the cost 

for testing by FTIR is expensive, similar 

to the cost for testing by Methods 26 or 

26A throughout an entire cycle.42

Emission Test Costs. The cost for 

testing by FTIR is estimated to be 

$49,750 (2009 dollars) for a single 50- 

hour kiln cycle. If it were determined 

that the variations in emissions from 

cycle to cycle were significant, it would 

be necessary to test each kiln for two or 

more cycles in order to develop a 

representative emission rate. Testing for 

a second cycle would double the testing 

cost to almost $100,000 and testing for 

a third cycle would triple the cost to 

almost $150,000 (2009 dollars). In 

addition to these costs, additional costs 

would be incurred for testing the kilns 

for PM emissions, which would have to 

be tested using a manual test method 

(e.g., EPA Methods 5 or 17). If testing 

were extended into the cooling period, 

the costs would be even higher.43

To address the potential economic 

impact of a requirement to test periodic 

kilns, we conducted a cost-to-sales 

assessment. (See the memorandum 

‘‘Economic Feasibility of Testing 

Periodic Brick Kilns’’ in Docket ID No. 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2013–0291.) The 

conclusion that testing is not 

economically feasible for most of the 

kilns is quite clear. Over half of the 

kilns included in the analysis have 

estimated cost-to-sales percentages 

greater than 3 percent. The economic 

analysis estimates that for the upper end 

of the closure estimate for the other 

kilns when the costs are between 3 

percent and 5 percent, one-quarter of 

the firms will close. This possibility of 

closure makes this level of costs for 

testing not economically feasible. 

Feasibility of Numerical Emission 

Limits for Periodic Kilns. CAA section 

112(h)(1) states that the Administrator 

may prescribe a work practice standard 

or other requirements, consistent with 

the provisions of CAA sections 112(d) or 

(f), in those cases where, in the 

judgment of the Administrator, it is not 

feasible to enforce an emission standard. 

CAA section 112(h)(2)(B) further defines 

the term ‘‘not feasible’’ in this context 

to apply when ‘‘the application of 

measurement technology to a particular 

class of sources is not practicable due to 

technological and economic 

limitations.’’ 

Because of the technological and 

economic limitations described above, 

we conclude that it is not practicable to 

establish numerical emission limits for 

BSCP periodic kilns. Demonstrating 

compliance with a numerical emissions 

limit for periodic kilns is 

technologically limited to testing 

procedures that are economically 

infeasible for the BSCP industry. 

Consequently, we are proposing a work 

practice standard for BSCP periodic 

kilns under CAA section 112(h).44

b. Development of Work Practice 

Standard 

Information provided to the EPA 

indicates there are six operational 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
75646 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 243 / Thursday, December 18, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

45See the memorandum titled ‘‘Work Practice 

Standards for Periodic Kiln Operations,’’ in Docket 

ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2013–0291. 

46 Id. 

47 Id. 

48 Id. 

49 Id. 

50 Id. 

51 Id. 

52See the email titled ‘‘Periodic kiln language,’’ 

in the docket for the proposed BSCP rulemaking. 

53 Johnson, S. Determination of ‘‘non-detect’’ from 

EPA Method 29 (multi-metals) and EPA Method 23 

(dioxin/furan) test data when evaluating the setting 

of MACT floors versus establishing work practice 

standards. June 5, 2014. 

factors that have a direct bearing on 

HAP emissions from BSCP periodic 

kilns: Temperature, firing cycle, product 

quality, automatic control, combustion 

control and kiln load/kiln technology.45

These six operational factors and their 

impact on HAP emissions are described 

further in the paragraphs below. 

Temperature. Various scientific test 

methods are used to study the reactions 

in brick clays during heating. 

Differential thermal analysis, thermo 

gravimetric analysis and simultaneous 

thermal analysis are techniques used to 

show the oxidation, de-hydroxylation 

and vitrification reactions, as well as the 

weight loss characteristics of the 

material. Knowledge of these reaction 

characteristics would enable the brick 

manufacturer to design the kiln firing 

cycle for the optimization of the product 

quality and to minimize process losses. 

Ensuring good product quality and 

minimizing process losses would 

eliminate the need for additional 

production firing cycles to meet the 

quantities demanded by the market, 

thereby avoiding the generation of 

additional HAP emissions.46

Firing Cycle. Each periodic firing 

process in the brick industry is unique 

and is governed by the nature of the 

brick clay material being fired. For 

example, some shale materials have 

higher carbon and sulfur levels and 

require a longer ‘‘dwell’’ at the 

oxidation temperature range from 1,600 

°F to 1,700 °F, while other clay 

materials are more refractory in nature 

and require higher final firing 

temperatures in order to develop the 

desired finished color and the physical 

properties to meet the ASTM standards 

required by the market. These factors 

influence the period of time in the 

oxidation stages, as well as the time 

required in the final ‘‘soak’’ stage of the 

firing cycle. HAP emissions have also 

been shown to take place in these stages 

of the firing cycle.47 Consequently, 

knowledge of these factors is key to 

avoiding any additional emissions 

during these stages. 

Product Quality. The time and 

temperature relationships previously 

described affect the ultimate quality and 

acceptability of the finished product. An 

‘‘over-fired’’ product would produce 

excessive shrinkage, color variation and 

process losses. This type of firing cycle 

would likely produce higher HAP 

emissions per ton of ware fired. 

Similarly, an under-fired product would 

not meet durability standards required 

by the ASTM standards and the market. 

While under-firing the product would 

produce less HAP emissions, more 

product would have to be fired to meet 

production requirements, which would 

lead to more HAP emissions per sellable 

ton of ware. Therefore, any work 

practice standard would need to be a 

practice that produces the best product 

quality and the minimum HAP 

emissions. This optimized work practice 

would entail developing an optimum 

firing cycle for each particular brick clay 

body.48

Automatic Control. The design of the 

kiln firing system influences the brick 

manufacturers’ ability to achieve 

repeatable, maximum product quality 

results. Most periodic kiln operators in 

the brick industry have used modern 

programmable logic controller (PLC) 

technology for some time. These 

systems enable the brick manufacturer 

to program the kiln firing temperature 

over a well-established, optimized time 

cycle, to achieve repeatable results. 

Modern high-velocity burner technology 

is commonly employed.49 Achieving 

repeatable, maximum product quality 

results would eliminate the need to fire 

additional product to meet production 

requirements, thereby avoiding the 

generation of additional HAP emissions. 

Combustion Control. The use of PLC 

technology enables the rate of gas 

delivery to the burner system to be 

accurately programmed, to ensure that 

each stage of the firing cycle is 

accurately controlled and to avoid overfiring or under-firing. The measuring 

devices that are part of the combustion 

equipment enable the kiln operator to 

adjust the air-to-fuel ratios in each stage, 

to achieve the optimum combustion 

efficiency needed to produce the 

desired product. In this way, the 

production of poor quality, rejects and 

losses is minimized. Technology that 

does not achieve this would produce 

higher losses and poor quality, resulting 

in additional production firing cycles 

being required to meet the quantities 

demanded by the market and additional 

HAP emissions.50

Kiln Load/Kiln Technology. For 

proper combustion, it is important that 

the periodic kiln not be overloaded, as 

overloading could cause improper 

combustion and lost product, resulting 

in additional production firing cycles 

and additional HAP emissions. To 

ensure proper firing, the following 

parameters should be addressed: 51

• Employment of draft controls on exhaust 

fans to adjust exhaust volume flow. 

• Measurement, monitoring and control of 

kiln pressure by adjustment of kiln exhaust. 

• Measurement and monitoring of kiln 

temperatures. 

• Measurement and control of air and fuel 

flow to the combustion system. 

Work Practice Standard. Based on 

these six operational factors, the 

following work practice standard is 

proposed under CAA section 112(h): 52

• Each facility would have to develop and 

use a designed firing time and temperature 

cycle for each product produced in the 

periodic kiln, by programming the time and 

temperature cycle into the kiln or by tracking 

each step on a log sheet. 

• Each facility would have to label each 

periodic kiln with the maximum load (in 

tons) that can be fired in the kiln during a 

single firing cycle. 

• For each firing load, each facility would 

have to limit the total tonnage placed in the 

kiln to no more than the maximum load and 

document the total tonnage placed in the kiln 

to show that it is not greater than the 

maximum load. 

• Each facility would have to develop and 

implement maintenance procedures for each 

kiln that specify the frequency of inspection 

and maintenance of the following items: 

Æ Calibration of temperature measuring 

devices 

Æ Controls that regulate air-to-fuel ratios 

Æ Controls that regulate firing cycles 

• Each facility would have to develop and 

maintain records required for each periodic 

kiln, including logs to document the proper 

operation of the periodic kilns and logs of the 

maintenance procedures used to demonstrate 

compliance with the standard. 

2. Dioxin/Furan Emissions 

a. Rationale for Setting Work Practice 

Standard 

The significant majority of measured 

dioxin/furan emissions from BSCP 

tunnel kilns are BDL and the EPA 

considers it impracticable to reliably 

measure dioxin/furan emissions from 

these units. (Note: Both dioxin/furan 

emissions and detection levels are in 

terms of 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-pdioxin (TCDD) toxic equivalents (TEQ).) 

The fact that the majority of 

measurements are so low casts doubt on 

whether the tests accurately measured 

the true levels of emissions. The 

dioxins/furans for each run were 

compared to one-half the RDL 

developed for utilities.53 Overall, 15 out 

of 18 test runs (83 percent of the entire 

test run dataset) contained dioxin/furan 

estimates below one-half of the RDL. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 243 / Thursday, December 18, 2014 / Proposed Rules 75647 

Based on the difficulties with accurate 

measurements at the levels of dioxins/ 

furans encountered from tunnel kilns 

and the economics associated with units 

trying to apply measurement 

methodology to test for compliance with 

numerical limits, we are concluding that 

application of measurement 

methodology is not practicable and are 

proposing to set a work practice 

standard under CAA section 112(h). We 

request comment on the rationale for 

setting work practice standards. 

b. Work Practice Standard 

The proposed work practice standard 

described below ensures that equipment 

is maintained and run so as to minimize 

emissions of dioxins and furans. The 

work practice would involve 

maintaining and inspecting the burners 

and associated combustion controls (as 

applicable), tuning the specific burner 

type to optimize combustion, keeping 

records of each burner tune-up and 

submitting a report for each tune-up 

conducted. Dioxins/furans are products 

of incomplete combustion (PIC) and 

optimizing combustion limits the 

formation of PIC, thereby minimizing 

emissions of dioxins/furans. 

We are proposing that the tune-up 

must be conducted no less frequently 

than every 36 calendar months. Initial 

compliance with the work practice 

standard of maintaining burners must 

occur within 180 days of the 

compliance date of the BSCP 

manufacturing rule. The initial 

compliance demonstration for the work 

practice standard of conducting a tuneup must occur no later than 42 months 

(36 months plus 180 days) from the 

effective date of the final BSCP 

manufacturing rule. We request 

comment on the proposed work practice 

standards. 

L. How did the EPA develop the startup 

and shutdown requirements? 

As noted in section III.B of this 

preamble, tunnel kilns typically operate 

continuously, so startups and 

shutdowns are infrequent. Startup of a 

tunnel kiln involves starting up the 

burners based on a set procedure to 

raise the temperature of the kiln to the 

proper operational temperature for 

manufacturing bricks or structural clay 

products. Shutdown of a tunnel kiln is 

the process of cooling the kiln from the 

proper operational temperature by 

stopping the burners based on a set 

procedure. When the temperature of the 

kiln is below the proper operational 

temperature, BSCP manufacturers 

typically do not push new product into 

the kiln, so the emissions are not 

expected to be the same during startup 

and shutdown as during normal 

operations. 

While the kiln is heating to the proper 

operational temperature during startup 

or cooling from the operational 

temperature during shutdown, other 

parameters such as exhaust flow rate, 

moisture content, O2 concentration and 

pressure are also changing. In addition, 

the changes in these parameters may not 

happen smoothly and consistently as 

startup or shutdown progresses, as the 

kiln does not heat or cool evenly. The 

fluctuations in all these parameters are 

not consistent with the relatively 

steady-state conditions needed for valid, 

accurate results over three test runs 

using the measurement methods 

proposed to be used to demonstrate 

compliance. 

Even if testing were feasible during 

startup and shutdown, most of the 

emission limit formats chosen for this 

proposed BSCP manufacturing rule are 

not appropriate for use during periods 

other than normal operation. For 

example, if there is no throughout in the 

kiln, emission limits that are in a mass 

per throughput format would be 

essentially meaningless. In addition, the 

concentration based-standards are 

corrected to a specified O2

concentration to avoid the use of 

dilution air to lower the measured 

concentration, but during startup and 

shutdown, the O2 concentration in the 

kiln exhaust is likely to fluctuate. This 

means that even if an owner or operator 

could conduct an emissions test and 

measure the O2 content during startup 

and shutdown for comparison to the O2- 

corrected emission limit, the 

fluctuations in O2 content and other 

parameters in the kiln mean that the O2- 

corrected emissions are also fluctuating. 

For tunnel kilns with an APCD, 

venting the kiln exhaust through the 

APCD at low temperatures can cause 

operational problems, including 

moisture in the bags of a baghouse or 

solidification of the lime in a DIFF. 

Therefore, the BSCP owners and 

operators that responded to the SSM 

portion of the 2010 EPA survey 

indicated that they bypass the APCD if 

the kiln exhaust temperature is below a 

‘‘low temperature set point.’’ Based on 

information received through the 2010 

EPA survey, this kiln exhaust 

temperature ranges from 284 to 400 °F 

for startup and from 150 to 300 °F for 

shutdown. All of the EPA survey 

respondents indicated that no new 

product is introduced to the kiln as long 

as the APCD is bypassed, so that 

emissions are minimized. 

Therefore, we are proposing work 

practice standards for periods of startup 

and shutdown for BSCP tunnel kilns 

with APCD. For startup, the owner or 

operator would be required to vent the 

exhaust from the kiln through the APCD 

by the time the kiln exhaust temperature 

reaches 400 °F. In addition, no bricks or 

other product may be introduced to the 

kiln until the kiln exhaust temperature 

reaches 400 °F and the exhaust is being 

vented through the APCD. For 

shutdown, the owner or operator would 

be required to vent the exhaust from the 

kiln through the APCD until the kiln 

exhaust temperature falls below 300 °F. 

In addition, no bricks or other product 

may be put into the kiln once the kiln 

exhaust temperature falls to 300 °F and 

the exhaust is no longer being vented 

through the APCD. When the kiln 

exhaust is being vented through the 

APCD, the owner or operator would be 

required to comply with the applicable 

continuous compliance requirements 

described in section III.G of this 

preamble. 

For kilns that can meet the proposed 

standards without an APCD, there are 

no concerns about damaging an APCD 

or procedures for bypassing an APCD. In 

addition, we did not receive any data 

through the 2010 EPA survey regarding 

startup and shutdown of uncontrolled 

kilns. However, as noted above, we 

recognize that it is not feasible to 

conduct emission testing during periods 

of startup and shutdown. Therefore, we 

are proposing work practice standards 

for periods of startup and shutdown for 

BSCP tunnel kilns without an APCD. 

For startup, no bricks or other product 

may be introduced to the kiln until the 

kiln exhaust temperature reaches 400 

°F. For shutdown, no bricks or other 

product may be put into the kiln once 

the kiln exhaust temperature falls to 300 

°F. When there are bricks in the kiln, the 

owner or operator would be required to 

comply with the applicable continuous 

compliance requirements described in 

section III.G of this preamble. 

M. How did the EPA select the 

compliance requirements? 

We are proposing testing and 

monitoring requirements that are 

adequate to assure continuous 

compliance with the requirements of 

this proposed BSCP manufacturing rule. 

These requirements are described in 

detail in sections III.F and III.G of this 

preamble. We selected these 

requirements based upon our 

determination of the information 

necessary to ensure that the emission 

standards are being met and the work 

practices are being followed and that 

APCD and equipment are maintained 

and operated properly. Further, these 

proposed requirements ensure 

compliance with this proposed BSCP 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
75648 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 243 / Thursday, December 18, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

manufacturing rule without imposing a 

significant additional burden for 

facilities that must implement them. 

We are proposing that initial 

compliance with the emission limits for 

HF, HCl, Cl2, PM (or non-Hg HAP 

metals) and Hg be demonstrated by an 

initial performance test. The proposed 

BSCP manufacturing rule would also 

require 5-year repeat performance tests 

to ensure, on an ongoing basis, that the 

APCD is operating properly and that its 

performance has not deteriorated. 

The majority of test methods that this 

proposed BSCP manufacturing rule 

would require for the performance stack 

tests (e.g., EPA Methods 5, 26A and 29) 

have been required under many other 

EPA standards. Many of the emissions 

tests upon which the proposed emission 

limits are based were conducted using 

these test methods. 

When a performance test is 

conducted, we are proposing that 

parameter operating limits be 

determined during the test. To ensure 

continuous compliance with the 

proposed emission limits, the proposed 

BSCP manufacturing rule would require 

continuous parameter monitoring of the 

kilns and APCD and maintaining these 

parameters within the operating limits 

established during the performance test. 

We selected these parameter monitoring 

requirements because they produce data 

that will be useful to both the owners or 

operators and the EPA for ensuring 

continuous compliance with the 

emission limits and/or operating limits 

and because of their reasonable cost and 

ease of execution. 

The APCD monitoring parameters 

included in the proposed rule were 

chosen for the types of APCD commonly 

used in the BSCP industry or 

anticipated to be used to comply with 

the proposed emission limits. These 

parameters include lime injection rate 

(on a per ton of fired product basis) for 

DIFF and DLS/FF; pressure drop (or 

bypass stack damper position) and 

limestone feeder setting for DLA; 

pressure drop, pH, liquid flow rate and 

chemical addition rate (if applicable) for 

wet scrubbers; and activated carbon 

flow rate for ACI systems. If applicable 

for demonstrating compliance with the 

HF/HCl/Cl2 standard, the kiln 

monitoring parameter included in the 

proposed BSCP manufacturing rule is 

the kiln process rate. Many of these 

CPMS are standard features on BSCP 

tunnel kilns and their associated APCD 

and have also been used in other 

standards for similar industries. 

In addition to parameter monitoring, 

the proposed BSCP manufacturing rule 

also includes a requirement for kilns 

equipped with a FF (e.g., a DIFF, DLS/ 

FF or stand-alone FF) to either install a 

BLD system or monitor VE. Similar to 

the CPMS being proposed, BLD systems 

have also been used in other standards 

in similar industries. We have also 

determined that periodic VE checks are 

a reasonable alternative to BLD systems 

for this proposed BSCP manufacturing 

rule. Periodic VE checks have also been 

proposed for kilns without an add-on 

control to demonstrate continuous 

compliance. 

N. How did the EPA determine 

compliance times for the proposed rule? 

Section 112 of the CAA specifies the 

dates by which affected sources must 

comply with the emission standards. 

Under CAA section 112(i)(1), new or 

reconstructed units must be in 

compliance with this proposed rule 

immediately upon startup or the 

effective date of the final rule, 

whichever is later. (The final action is 

expected to be a ‘‘major rule’’ as defined 

by 5 U.S.C. 804(2), so the effective date 

of the final rule is expected to be 60 

days after the final rule is published in 

the Federal Register.) 

Under CAA section 112(i)(3), existing 

sources are allowed up to 3 years after 

the effective date of the rule to comply 

with the final rule. For this industry, we 

believe that 3 years for compliance is 

necessary to allow adequate time to 

design, install and test any control 

systems that may need to be retrofitted 

onto existing kilns, as well as obtain 

permits for the use of add-on controls. 

The compliance date for existing area 

sources that subsequently become major 

sources is governed by 40 CFR 

63.6(c)(5). We are proposing that such 

sources have 3 years from the date they 

become major sources to come into 

compliance, which is equivalent to the 

compliance period for existing sources 

discussed in the previous paragraph. 

Further, under the current regulations in 

40 CFR 63.6(b)(7), where an area source 

becomes a major source by the addition 

of equipment or operations that meet 

the definition of new affected source 

under this rule, that portion of the 

existing facility that is a new affected 

source must be in compliance upon 

initial startup. 

O. How did the EPA determine the 

required records and reports for the 

proposed rule? 

The owner or operator would be 

required to comply with the applicable 

requirements in the NESHAP General 

Provisions, subpart A of 40 CFR part 63, 

as described in Table 8 of the proposed 

BSCP manufacturing rule. We evaluated 

the General Provisions requirements 

and included those we determined to be 

the notification, recordkeeping and 

reporting necessary to ensure 

compliance with and effective 

enforcement of this proposed BSCP 

manufacturing rule. 

We are also proposing that the owner 

or operator keep records on the firing 

time and temperature cycle for each 

periodic kiln, the type of product fired 

in each batch and the amount of product 

fired in the periodic kiln, to address the 

operational factors that impact HAP 

emissions from periodic kilns and 

demonstrate compliance with the work 

practice standard for periodic kilns 

(discussed further in section IV.K.1 of 

this preamble). 

In addition, we are proposing that the 

owner or operator keep records and 

submit a report of each burner tune-up 

that is conducted to ensure good 

combustion practice and minimize the 

formation of dioxins/furans from 

incomplete combustion, to demonstrate 

compliance with the dioxin/furan work 

practice standard for tunnel kilns 

(discussed further in section IV.K.2 of 

this preamble). 

We are also proposing that the owner 

or operator keep records and submit a 

report of each malfunction and the 

corrective action taken as part of the 

next semiannual compliance report. The 

proposed compliance report would 

provide information on each type of 

malfunction which occurred during the 

reporting period and which caused or 

may have caused an exceedance of an 

emission limit. 

This proposed BSCP manufacturing 

rule also includes a requirement for 

electronic reporting of performance test 

data, which is discussed further in 

section III.I of this preamble. 

We request comment on ways that we 

could streamline the recordkeeping and 

reporting requirements of the proposed 

BSCP manufacturing rule by relying on 

existing business practices. 

P. How does the proposed rule affect 

permits? 

The CAA requires that sources subject 

to the BSCP manufacturing rule, once 

finalized, be operated pursuant to a 

permit issued under an EPA-approved 

state operating permit program. The 

operating permit programs are 

developed under title V of the CAA and 

the implementing regulations under 40 

CFR parts 70 and 71. If the facility is 

operating in the first 3 years of an 

operating permit, the owner or operator 

will need to obtain a revised permit to 

incorporate the requirements of this 

BSCP manufacturing rule. If the facility 

is in the last 2 years of an operating 

permit, the owner or operator will need 

to incorporate the requirement of this 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 243 / Thursday, December 18, 2014 / Proposed Rules 75649 

BSCP manufacturing rule into the next 

renewal of the permit. 

Q. What are the alternate approaches 

the EPA is considering? 

1. Alternate Non-Hg HAP Metals 

Standards 

As noted in section IV.E of this 

preamble, the proposed emission limits 

for total non-Hg HAP metals and PM are 

based on the best performing 27 kilns 

with a DIFF or DLS/FF (i.e., 12 percent 

of the kilns in the industry). Instead of 

these proposed limits, we are 

considering an alternate approach of 

setting emission limits for total non-Hg 

HAP metals and PM based on MACT 

floors calculated using the top 12 

percent of the data available in each of 

the kiln size subcategories, similar to 

the procedure we followed for setting 

the Hg limits. 

The alternate PM limits were 

calculated using the same procedure as 

described in section IV.E for Hg. In 

other words, the kilns were ranked 

within each subcategory on the basis of 

their lb/ton PM emissions and the top 

12 percent best performing kilns were 

identified (top 9 large kilns and top 3 

small kilns). Both the PM lb/ton limit 

and the concentration limit for existing 

sources were calculated based on those 

top 12 percent. The alternate PM lb/ton 

limit and the concentration limit for 

new sources were calculated based on 

the best performing source in each 

subcategory. 

As discussed in section IV.G of this 

preamble, the EPA must take 

considerations when dealing with 

limited datasets. For the BSCP alternate 

options, we have limited datasets for the 

following pollutants and subcategories: 

PM for new large tunnel kilns and PM 

for new small tunnel kilns. For each 

dataset, we performed the steps outlined 

in the Limited Dataset Memo. See the 

Limited Dataset Memo for more 

information. 

The alternate total non-Hg HAP 

metals limit was calculated using a 

similar methodology as the proposed 

total non-Hg HAP metals limit. Since 

the alternate total non-Hg HAP metals 

limits were calculated based on smaller 

datasets, we found that there were no 

small kilns in the top three best 

performing kilns with both PM and nonHg HAP metals data and only one large 

kiln in the top nine best performing 

kilns with both PM and non-Hg HAP 

metals data. Therefore, the alternate 

large kiln total non-Hg HAP metals limit 

for existing sources was calculated by 

multiplying the alternate PM lb/ton 

limit by the throughput and the 

percentage of non-Hg HAP metals 

measured in the PM during that test. 

The alternate small kiln non-Hg HAP 

metals limit for existing sources was 

then set equal to the existing source 

large kiln non-Hg HAP metals limit. For 

new sources, the best performing unit in 

the PM new source MACT floor pool 

did not have any non-Hg HAP metals 

data. Therefore, the alternate large kiln 

total non-Hg HAP metals limit for new 

sources was calculated using the 

average throughput and the average 

percentage of non-Hg HAP metals 

measured during tests for kilns with a 

FF-based APCD. The alternate small 

kiln non-Hg HAP metals limit for new 

sources was then set equal to the new 

source large kiln non-Hg HAP metals 

limit. 

The alternate emissions limits for 

existing and new sources are presented 

in in the technical memorandum 

‘‘Maximum Achievable Control 

Technology (MACT) Floor Analysis for 

Brick and Structural Clay Products’’ in 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2013– 

0291. We request comment on the 

calculation methodology used to 

generate these alternate limits, which is 

described in the technical memorandum 

‘‘Maximum Achievable Control 

Technology (MACT) Floor Analysis for 

Brick and Structural Clay Products’’ in 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2013– 

0291), as well as comment on whether 

we should use these limits instead of 

the limits we are proposing. 

2. HAP Metals Work Practice Standard 

In the recommendations of the Small 

Business Advocacy Review (SBAR) 

Panel, members of the BSCP 

manufacturing industry discussed 

whether work practice standards for Hg 

and non-Hg HAP metals would be more 

appropriate for BSCP tunnel kilns than 

emissions limits for these pollutants. 

BSCP manufacturing industry 

representatives noted the high 

percentage of test runs below the 

respective detection limits in the tests 

results for each metal as support for this 

suggestion. 

We reviewed the available stack test 

data for Hg and non-Hg HAP metals 

from BSCP tunnel kilns to evaluate this 

suggestion. For Hg, we found that all 

test runs were actually above the 

detection limits. For the non-Hg HAP 

metals, we found that only one of the 

individual non-Hg HAP metals had a 

high percentage of test runs below the 

detection limit. We found a high 

percentage of test runs above the 

detection limits for all the other non-Hg 

HAP metals. For more information on 

this analysis, please see the technical 

memorandum ‘‘Determination of ‘‘NonDetect’’ Test Data for the BSCP Proposed 

Rule’’ in Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2013–0291. 

Because Hg and most of the non-Hg 

HAP metals are emitted from BSCP 

kilns in detectable levels, the EPA 

believes it is technologically practicable 

to measure these emissions and they do 

not meet the statutory prerequisite for 

work practice standards under CAA 

section 112(h). Consequently, we have 

declined to propose work practice 

standards for Hg or non-Hg HAP metals. 

Although we are not proposing work 

practices for HAP metals, we are 

requesting comment on this issue. We 

are specifically asking for emissions 

data or any other information relevant to 

the issue of whether the metals 

emissions from these sources meet the 

statutory prerequisite for work practice 

standards in CAA section 112(h). 

3. Emissions Averaging 

As part of the EPA’s general policy of 

encouraging the use of flexible 

compliance approaches where they can 

be properly monitored and enforced, we 

are also requesting comment in this 

proposed rule on whether to include 

emissions averaging as an alternative to 

the individual MACT floor emission 

limits in the proposed rule. Specifically, 

the EPA is requesting comment on 

whether to consider alternative 

emissions averaging limits for PM (in 

units of lb/ton or gr/dscf at 7 percent O2) 

and total non-Hg HAP metals (in units 

of lb/hr) for existing tunnel kilns. 

Emissions averaging can provide 

sources the flexibility to comply in the 

least costly manner while still 

maintaining regulation that is workable 

and enforceable. Emissions averaging 

would not be applicable to new sources 

and could only be used between 

existing tunnel kilns in the same size 

subcategory (large or small) at a 

particular BSCP facility. 

Emissions averaging would allow 

owners and operators of an affected 

source to demonstrate that the source 

complies with the emission limits by 

averaging the emissions from an 

individual affected unit that is emitting 

above the emission limits with other 

affected units at the same facility that 

are emitting below the emission limits. 

We are requesting comment on 

whether to include an emissions 

averaging compliance alternative in 

which emissions averaging represents 

an equivalent, more flexible, and less 

costly alternative to controlling certain 

emission points to MACT levels. A 

limited form of averaging could be 

implemented that would not lessen the 

stringency of the MACT floor limits and 

would provide flexibility in compliance, 

cost and energy savings to owners and 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
75650 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 243 / Thursday, December 18, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

operators. We also recognize that we 

must ensure that any emissions 

averaging option can be implemented 

and enforced, will be clear to sources, 

and would be no less stringent than unit 

by unit implementation of the MACT 

floor limits. 

The EPA has concluded that it is 

permissible under the appropriate 

circumstances to establish within a 

NESHAP a unified compliance regimen 

that permits averaging within an 

affected source across individual 

affected units subject to the standard 

under certain conditions. Averaging 

across affected units is permitted only if 

it can be demonstrated that the total 

quantity of any particular HAP that may 

be emitted by that portion of a 

contiguous major source that is subject 

to the NESHAP will not be greater under 

the averaging mechanism than it could 

be if each individual affected unit 

complied separately with the applicable 

standard. Under this test, the practical 

outcome of averaging is equivalent to 

compliance with the MACT floor limits 

by each discrete unit, and the statutory 

requirement that the MACT standard 

reflect the maximum achievable 

emissions reductions is, therefore, fully 

effectuated. 

In past rulemakings, the EPA has 

generally imposed certain limits on the 

scope and nature of emissions averaging 

programs. These limits include: (1) No 

averaging between different types of 

pollutants, (2) no averaging between 

sources that are not part of the same 

affected source, (3) no averaging 

between individual sources within a 

single major source if the individual 

sources are not subject to the same 

NESHAP, and (4) no averaging between 

existing sources and new sources. 

Any emissions averaging alternative 

to the proposed rule requirements 

would fully satisfy each of these criteria. 

First, emissions averaging would only 

be permitted between individual 

sources at a single existing affected 

source, and would only be permitted 

between individual sources subject to 

the Brick and Structural Clay NESHAP. 

Further, emissions averaging would not 

be permitted between two or more 

different affected sources or between 

two or more sources in different 

subcategories. Finally, new sources 

could not use emissions averaging. In 

addition, any emissions averaging 

alternative would require each facility 

that intends to utilize emissions 

averaging to submit an emissions 

averaging plan, which provides 

additional assurance that the necessary 

criteria will be followed. In such an 

emissions averaging plan, the facility 

would include the identification of: (1) 

All units in the averaging group, (2) the 

control technology installed, (3) the 

process parameter that will be 

monitored, (4) the specific control 

technology or pollution prevention 

measure to be used, (5) the test plan for 

the measurement of the HAP being 

averaged, and (6) the operating 

parameters to be monitored for each 

control device. Upon receipt, the 

regulatory authority would not be able 

to approve an emissions averaging plan 

containing averaging between emissions 

of different types of pollutants or 

between sources in different 

subcategories. 

This emissions averaging alternative 

would also exclude new affected 

sources from the emissions averaging 

provision. The EPA believes emissions 

averaging is not appropriate for new 

sources because it is most cost effective 

to integrate state-of-the-art controls into 

equipment design and to install the 

technology during construction of new 

sources. One reason to allow emissions 

averaging under certain circumstances 

is to give existing sources flexibility to 

achieve compliance at diverse points 

with varying degrees of add-on control 

already in place in the most costeffective and technically reasonable 

fashion. This flexibility is not needed 

for new sources because they can be 

designed and constructed with 

compliance in mind. 

With concern about the equivalency 

of emissions reductions from averaging 

and non-averaging in mind, we would 

also include under the emissions 

averaging provision caps on the current 

emissions from each of the sources in 

the averaging group. The emissions for 

each unit in the averaging group would 

be capped at the emission level being 

achieved on the effective date of the 

final rule. These caps would ensure that 

emissions do not increase above the 

emission levels that sources currently 

are designed, operated, and maintained 

to achieve. In the absence of 

performance tests, in documenting these 

caps, these sources would document the 

type, design, and operating specification 

of control devices installed on the 

effective date of the final rule to ensure 

that existing controls are not removed or 

operated less efficiently. By including 

this provision in this proposed rule, we 

would further ensure that emissions 

averaging results in environmental 

benefits equivalent to or better than 

without emissions averaging. 

In addition, we would plan to include 

a discount factor of 10 percent that 

would be applied when emissions 

averaging is used. This discount factor 

will further ensure that averaging will 

be at least as stringent as the MACT 

floor limits in the absence of averaging. 

The EPA is soliciting comment on use 

of a discount factor and whether 10 

percent is the appropriate discount 

factor or whether the appropriate 

discount factor is somewhere in the 

range of 5% to 25%. The emissions 

averaging provision would not apply to 

individual units if the unit shares a 

common stack with units in other 

subcategories, because in that 

circumstance it is not possible to 

distinguish the emissions from each 

individual unit. 

The alternative emissions averaging 

provisions for which we are requesting 

comment in this proposed rule are 

based in part on the emissions averaging 

provisions in the Hazardous Organic 

NESHAP (HON). The legal basis and 

rationale for the HON emissions 

averaging provisions were provided in 

the preamble to the final HON (59 FR 

19425, April 22, 1994). 

4. Subcategories Based on Raw 

Materials 

The Clean Air Act authorizes EPA to 

create subcategories which distinguish 

among ‘‘classes, types, and sizes of 

sources.’’ Section 112(d)(1). EPA is 

taking comment on subcategorizing with 

regard to potential standards for 

mercury emitted by brick kilns. Were 

EPA to do so, each subcategory would 

have its own floor and standard, 

reflecting performance of the sources 

within that subcategory. 

The EPA may create a subcategory 

applicable to a single HAP, rather than 

to all HAP emitted by the source 

category, if the facts warrant. Normally, 

any basis for subcategorizing must be 

related to an effect on emissions, rather 

than to some difference among sources 

which does not affect emissions 

performance. The subcategorization 

possibility for mercury which we are 

considering is the mercury 

concentration of the raw materials in the 

kiln’s clay mine, or geographic location. 

The EPA does not have sufficient data 

to determine if mercury emissions 

correlate with the mercury content of 

the clay used as raw material by the 

kiln. Additionally, EPA does not have 

data that show to what extent mercury 

content of clay varies by kiln location 

(i.e., geographical distinction) or within 

a given source of clay, and to what 

extent a source could reduce mercury 

emissions by using an alternate source 

of clay with lower mercury content. 

If data were available to show that the 

amount of mercury in the raw materials 

significantly affected mercury 

emissions, and that kilns could not 

reasonably use an alternative source of 

clay with lower mercury content, kilns 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 243 / Thursday, December 18, 2014 / Proposed Rules 75651 

using raw materials with higher 

mercury content might be considered a 

different type or class of kiln because 

their process necessarily requires the 

use of that higher-mercury raw 

materials. 

However, data are not available to 

support subcategorization based on the 

amount of mercury in the raw materials. 

Such data would need to show a 

correlation between raw material 

content and mercury emissions and also 

need to indicate sharp disparities in raw 

material mercury content that readily 

differentiate among types of sources. 

Additionally, data would also be needed 

to show that alternate sources of raw 

materials with lower mercury content 

are not available or feasible. We are 

specifically asking for mercury 

emissions data coupled with raw 

materials mercury data. We are also 

asking for information regarding the 

availability of low mercury clay and the 

feasibility of using low mercury clay to 

reduce emissions. EPA realizes that if 

this data is not currently available, 

obtaining this data may not be possible 

within the current schedule to 

promulgate the final rule. Therefore, 

EPA requests comment on possible 

approaches to resolve this issue. 

V. Summary of the Proposed Rule for 

the Clay Ceramics Manufacturing 

Category 

This section summarizes the 

requirements for the Clay Ceramics 

Manufacturing source category 

proposed in today’s action. Section VI of 

this preamble provides our rationale for 

the proposed requirements. 

A. What source category is affected by 

the proposed rule? 

Today’s proposed rule for 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 (toilets and sinks). 

B. What are the affected sources? 

The affected sources, which are the 

portions of each source in the category 

for which we are setting standards, are: 

(1) Each 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 today’s proposed rule: (1) Kilns that 

are used exclusively for refiring or 

setting glazes on previously fired 

products; (2) glaze spray operations that 

use wet glazes containing less than 0.1 

(weight) percent metal HAP (dry basis); 

(3) wall tile press dryers; and (4) 

sanitaryware ware dryers. See section 

VI.A for information on why these 

sources are not subject to the proposed 

rule. 

C. Does the proposed rule apply to me? 

This proposed Clay Ceramics 

manufacturing rule applies to owners 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. 

D. What emission limitations and work 

practice standards must I meet? 

1. Emission Limitations 

We are proposing emission limits for 

PM as a surrogate for total non-Hg HAP 

metals for all new and existing ceramic 

tile roller kilns, sanitaryware tunnel 

kilns and ceramic tile and sanitaryware 

glazing operations. We are proposing 

emission limits for Hg for all new and 

existing ceramic tile roller kilns, 

ceramic tile glaze lines and sanitaryware 

tunnel kilns. We are proposing emission 

limits for dioxin/furan for all new and 

existing ceramic tile roller kilns, 

sanitaryware tunnel kilns, floor tile 

press dryers and ceramic tile spray 

dryers. We are also proposing an 

emission limit for HCl-equivalent for all 

existing and new roller and tunnel kilns 

at each facility to reduce the acid gases 

HF and HCl. The proposed emission 

limits are presented in Table 9 of this 

preamble. 

TABLE 9—PROPOSED EMISSION LIMITS FOR CLAY CERAMICS SOURCES

Subcategory 

Acid gases 

(lb/hr HCl-equivalent) a

Hg 

(lb/ton) 

PM b

(lb/ton) 

Dioxins/furans 

(ng/dscm at 7 percent O2) c

Limits for existing sources 

Floor tile roller kilns ........................................................... 140 1.3 E–04 0 .18 4 .6 

Floor tile press dryers ........................................................ .............................. .............................. .................................. 0 .19 

Floor tile spray dryers ........................................................ .............................. .............................. .................................. 44 

Wall tile roller kilns ............................................................. 140 2.0 E–04 0 .20 0 .17 

Wall tile spray dryers ......................................................... .............................. .............................. .................................. 0 .12 

Tile glaze lines ................................................................... .............................. 1.6 E–04 1 .9 

First-fire sanitaryware tunnel kilns ..................................... 140 1.2 E–04 0 .33 1 .5 

Sanitaryware manual glaze application ............................. .............................. .............................. 33 

Sanitaryware spray machine glaze application ................. .............................. .............................. 12 

Sanitaryware robot glaze application ................................ .............................. .............................. 8 .8 

Limits for new sources 

Floor tile roller kilns ........................................................... 140 3.9 E–05 0 .027 1 .5 

Floor tile press dryers ........................................................ .............................. .............................. .................................. 0 .19 

Floor tile spray dryers ........................................................ .............................. .............................. .................................. 0 .17 

Wall tile roller kilns ............................................................. 140 2.0 E–04 0 .20 0 .17 

Wall tile spray dryers ......................................................... .............................. .............................. .................................. 0 .12 

Tile glaze lines ................................................................... .............................. 1.6 E–04 0 .61 

First-fire sanitaryware tunnel kilns ..................................... 140 1.2 E–04 0 .095 0 .37 

Sanitaryware manual glaze application ............................. .............................. .............................. 3 .8 

Sanitaryware spray machine glaze application ................. .............................. .............................. 3 .2 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
75652 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 243 / Thursday, December 18, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 9—PROPOSED EMISSION LIMITS FOR CLAY CERAMICS SOURCES—Continued 

Subcategory 

Acid gases 

(lb/hr HCl-equivalent) a

Hg 

(lb/ton) 

PM b

(lb/ton) 

Dioxins/furans 

(ng/dscm at 7 percent O2) c

Sanitaryware robot glaze application ................................ .............................. .............................. 2 .2 

a Limit applies to all kilns at facility. 

bPM is a surrogate for non-Hg HAP metals. 

c ng/dscm = nanograms per dry standard cubic meter. 

2. Work Practice Standards 

We are proposing work practice 

standards in lieu of emission limits for 

acid gases (HF and HCl), Hg and nonHg HAP metals for sanitaryware shuttle 

kilns. The work practice standards 

would require using natural gas (or 

equivalent) as kiln fuel except during 

periods of natural gas curtailment or 

supply interruption; developing and 

using a designed firing time and 

temperature cycle for each product 

produced in the shuttle kiln; labeling 

each shuttle kiln with the maximum 

load (in tons) that can be fired in the 

kiln during a single firing cycle; 

documenting the total tonnage placed in 

the kiln for each load to ensure that it 

is not greater than the maximum load; 

developing and implementing 

maintenance procedures for each kiln 

that specify the frequency of inspection 

and maintenance; and developing and 

maintaining records for each shuttle 

kiln, including logs to document the 

proper operation and maintenance 

procedures of the shuttle kilns. 

E. What are the startup and shutdown 

requirements? 

The EPA’s position on SSM events is 

discussed in section II.B of this 

preamble. Standards for periods of 

startup and shutdown are discussed in 

this section. 

We are proposing work practice 

standards for periods of startup and 

shutdown for ceramic tile roller kilns, 

floor tile press dryers, ceramic tile spray 

dryers and sanitaryware tunnel kilns 

with APCD. For startup, the owner or 

operator would be required to vent the 

exhaust from the kiln through the APCD 

by the time the kiln exhaust temperature 

reaches 40 °F. In addition, no ceramics 

or other product may be introduced to 

the kiln until the kiln exhaust 

temperature reaches 40 °F and the 

exhaust is being vented through the 

APCD. For shutdown, the owner or 

operator would be required to vent the 

exhaust from the kiln through the APCD 

until the kiln exhaust temperature falls 

below 300 °F. In addition, no ceramics 

or other product may be introduced to 

the kiln once the kiln exhaust 

temperature falls to 300 °F and the 

exhaust is no longer being vented 

through the APCD. When the kiln 

exhaust is being vented through the 

APCD, the owner or operator would be 

required to comply with the applicable 

continuous compliance requirements 

described in section V.G of this 

preamble. 

We are also proposing work practice 

standards for periods of startup and 

shutdown for ceramic tile roller kilns, 

floor tile press dryers, ceramic tile spray 

dryers and sanitaryware tunnel kilns 

without an APCD. For startup, no 

ceramics or other product may be 

introduced to the kiln or dryer until the 

kiln or dryer exhaust temperature 

reaches 400 °F. For shutdown, no 

ceramics or other product may be 

introduced to the kiln or dryer once the 

kiln or dryer exhaust temperature falls 

to 300 °F. When there are ceramics in 

the kiln or dryer, the owner or operator 

would be expected to demonstrate 

compliance with the emissions 

limitations (as described in section V.G 

of this preamble). 

We are not proposing alternate 

standards for periods of startup and 

shutdown for ceramic tile glaze lines or 

sanitaryware glaze spray booths. These 

sources would be expected to 

demonstrate compliance with the 

emissions limitations (as described in 

section V.G of this preamble) at all times 

when the source is operating, including 

periods of startup and shutdown. 

F. What are the testing and initial 

compliance requirements? 

We are proposing that owners or 

operators of all affected sources subject 

to emission limits conduct an initial 

performance test using specified EPA 

test methods to demonstrate initial 

compliance with all applicable emission 

limits. A performance test would need 

to be conducted before renewing the 

facility’s 40 CFR part 70 operating 

permit or at least every 5 years 

following the initial performance test, as 

well as when an operating limit 

parameter value is being revised. 

Under today’s proposed Clay 

Ceramics manufacturing rule, the owner 

or operator would need to measure 

emissions of HF, HCl, Hg, PM (as a 

surrogate for non-Hg HAP metals) and 

dioxins/furans. The owner or operator 

would measure HF and HCl from 

ceramic tile roller kilns and 

sanitaryware first-fire tunnel kilns using 

one of the following methods: 

• EPA Method 26A, ‘‘Determination of 

Hydrogen Halide and Halogen Emissions 

from 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 follows 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 would calculate the 

HCl-equivalent for the kiln using 

proposed Equation 4 in 40 CFR 

63.8595(f)(4)(i). If there are multiple 

kilns at a facility, the owner or operator 

would sum the HCl-equivalent for each 

kiln using proposed Equation 5 in 40 

CFR 63.8595(f)(4)(ii) to get the total 

facility HCl-equivalent and compare this 

value to the proposed limitation. 

We are proposing that the owner or 

operator measure PM emissions from 

ceramic tile roller kilns and 

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, where the test 

results would report the weight of the PM on 

the filter as PM filterable; or 

• Any other alternative method that has 

been approved by the Administrator under 

40 CFR 63.7(f) of the General Provisions. 

Method 29 or any other approved 

alternative method may also be used to 

measure Hg emissions from ceramic tile 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 243 / Thursday, December 18, 2014 / Proposed Rules 75653 

roller kilns, ceramic tile glaze lines and 

sanitaryware first-fire tunnel kilns. 

We are proposing that the owner or 

operator measure PM emissions from 

ceramic tile and sanitaryware glaze 

spray booths using EPA Method 5 or 

any other alternative method that has 

been approved by the Administrator 

under 40 CFR 63.7(f) of the General 

Provisions. 

We are also proposing that the owner 

or operator measure dioxin/furan 

emissions from ceramic tile roller kilns 

and spray dryers, floor tile press dryers 

and sanitaryware first-fire tunnel kilns 

using EPA Method 23, ‘‘Determination 

of 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 that are 

being proposed. Prior to the initial 

performance test, the owner or operator 

would need to install the CPMS 

equipment to be used to demonstrate 

continuous compliance with the 

operating limits. During the initial test, 

the owner or operator would use the 

CPMS to establish site-specific 

operating parameter values that 

represent the operating limits. 

For a DIFF or DLS/FF, we are 

proposing that the owner or operator 

ensure that lime in the feed hopper or 

silo and to the APCD is free-flowing at 

all times during the HF/HCl 

performance test and record the feeder 

setting (on a per ton of fired product 

basis) for the three test runs. If the lime 

feed rate varies, the owner or operator 

would be required to determine the 

average feed rate from the three test 

runs. The average of the three test runs 

establishes the minimum site-specific 

feed rate operating limit. If there are 

different average feed rate values during 

the PM and HF/HCl tests, the highest of 

the average values becomes the sitespecific operating limit. If a BLD system 

is present, the owner or operator would 

need to submit analyses and supporting 

documentation demonstrating 

conformance with EPA guidance and 

specifications for BLD systems. 

For a stand-alone FF (i.e., no dry 

sorbent injection or DLS) and a BLD 

system, we are proposing that the owner 

or operator submit analyses and 

supporting documentation 

demonstrating conformance with EPA 

guidance and specifications for BLD 

systems. 

For a wet scrubber, we are proposing 

that the owner or operator continuously 

measure the scrubber pressure drop 

during the PM performance test, the 

scrubber liquid pH and the chemical 

addition rate (if applicable) during the 

HF/HCl performance test and the 

scrubber liquid flow rate during both 

the PM and HF/HCl performance tests. 

For each wet scrubber parameter, the 

owner or operator would need to 

determine and record the average values 

for the three test runs and the 3-hour 

block average value. The average of the 

three test runs establishes the minimum 

site-specific pressure drop, liquid pH, 

liquid flow rate and chemical addition 

rate operating limits. If different average 

wet scrubber liquid flow rate values are 

measured during the PM and HF/HCl 

tests, the highest of the average values 

become the site-specific operating 

limits. 

For an ACI system, we are proposing 

that the owner or operator measure the 

activated carbon flow rate during the Hg 

and dioxin/furan performance tests and 

determine the 3-hour block average flow 

rate. The average of the three test runs 

establishes the minimum site-specific 

activated carbon flow rate operating 

limit. If different average activated 

carbon flow rate values are measured 

during the Hg and dioxin/furan tests, 

the highest of the average values 

becomes the site-specific operating 

limit. 

If the owner or operator intends to 

comply with the dioxin/furan emission 

limit without an ACI system, we are 

proposing that the owner or operator 

measure the operating temperature of 

the process (tunnel or roller kiln, 

ceramic tile spray dryer, floor tile press 

dryer) during the dioxin/furan 

performance test and determine the 3- 

hour block average operating 

temperature. The average of the three 

test runs establishes the site-specific 

operating limit. 

For sources with no APCD installed, 

we are proposing that the owner or 

operator calculate the maximum 

potential HCl-equivalent using proposed 

Equation 6 in 40 CFR 63.8595(g)(1)(i). 

The owner or operator would 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 there are multiple 

kilns at a facility, the owner or operator 

would need to sum the maximum 

potential HCl-equivalent for each kiln to 

get the total facility maximum potential 

HCl-equivalent and compare this value 

to the proposed health-based emission 

limitation for acid gases. If the total 

facility maximum potential HClequivalent is greater than the proposed 

limitation, we are proposing that the 

owner or operator determine the 

maximum process rate for which the 

total facility maximum potential HClequivalent remains at or below the 

proposed limitation. If there are 

multiple kilns, the owner or operator 

would need to determine one or more 

combinations of maximum process rates 

that would result in a total facility 

maximum potential HCl-equivalent that 

remains at or below the proposed 

limitation. The maximum process rate(s) 

would become the operating limit(s) for 

process rate. We are also proposing that 

the owner or operator measure the 

operating temperature of a source 

during the dioxin/furan performance 

test and determine the 3-hour block 

average operating temperature. The 

average of the three test runs establishes 

the site-specific operating limit for 

temperature. 

G. What are the continuous compliance 

requirements? 

Today’s Clay Ceramics manufacturing 

rule proposes that the owner or operator 

demonstrate continuous compliance 

with each emission limitation that 

applies. The owner or operator would 

have to follow the requirements in the 

OM&M plan and document 

conformance with the OM&M plan. The 

owner or operator would need to 

operate a CPMS to monitor the 

operating parameters established during 

the initial performance test as described 

in the following paragraphs. The CPMS 

would have to collect data at least every 

15 minutes, including at least three of 

four equally spaced data values (or at 

least 75 percent if there are more than 

four data values per hour) per hour to 

have a valid hour of data. The owner or 

operator would have to operate the 

CPMS at all times when the process is 

operating. The owner or operator would 

also have to conduct proper 

maintenance of the CPMS, including 

inspections, calibrations and validation 

checks, and maintain an inventory of 

necessary parts for routine repairs of the 

CPMS. Using the recorded readings, the 

owner or operator would need to 

calculate and record the 3-hour block 

average values of each operating 

parameter. To calculate the average for 

each 3-hour averaging period, the owner 

or operator would need to have at least 

75 percent of the recorded readings for 

that period. 

For a DIFF or DLS/FF, we are 

proposing that the owner or operator 

demonstrate compliance with the acid 

gas (HF/HCl) health-based emission 

limit by maintaining free-flowing lime 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
75654 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 243 / Thursday, December 18, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

in the feed hopper or silo and to the 

APCD at all times. If lime is found not 

to be free flowing via the output of a 

load cell, carrier gas/lime flow 

indicator, carrier gas pressure drop 

measurement system or other system, 

the owner or operator would have to 

promptly initiate and complete 

corrective actions according to the 

OM&M plan. The owner or operator 

would also have to maintain the feeder 

setting (on a per ton of fired product 

basis) at or above the level established 

during the performance test and record 

the feeder setting once each shift. 

For a DIFF or DLS/FF, the proposed 

rule would provide the option to use 

either a BLD system or VE monitoring 

to demonstrate compliance with the PM 

emission limit. 

For the option of a BLD system, we 

are proposing that the owner or operator 

initiate corrective action within 1 hour 

of a BLD system alarm and complete 

corrective actions according to the 

OM&M plan. The owner or operator 

would also need to operate and 

maintain the FF such that the alarm is 

not engaged for more than 5 percent of 

the total operating time in a 6-month 

block reporting period. In calculating 

this operating time fraction, 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 

are proposing that the owner or operator 

perform daily, 15-minute VE 

observations in accordance with the 

procedures of EPA Method 22, ‘‘Visual 

Determination of Fugitive Emissions 

from Material Sources and Smoke 

Emissions from Flares,’’ 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A–7. During the VE 

observations, the source would need to 

be operating under normal conditions. If 

VE are observed, the owner or operator 

would have to promptly initiate and 

complete corrective actions according to 

the OM&M plan. If no VE are observed 

in 30 consecutive daily EPA Method 22 

tests, the owner or operator may 

decrease the frequency of EPA Method 

22 testing from daily to weekly for that 

source. If VE are observed during any 

weekly test, the owner or operator 

would have to promptly initiate and 

complete corrective actions according to 

the OM&M plan and the owner or 

operator would need to resume EPA 

Method 22 testing of that source on a 

daily basis until no VE are observed in 

30 consecutive daily tests, at which time 

the owner or operator may again 

decrease the frequency of EPA Method 

22 testing to a weekly basis. 

For a stand-alone FF, we are 

proposing that the owner or operator 

use a BLD system or monitor VE as 

described above to demonstrate 

compliance with the applicable 

emission limit. 

For a wet scrubber, we are proposing 

that the owner or operator continuously 

maintain the 3-hour block averages for 

scrubber pressure drop, scrubber liquid 

pH, scrubber liquid flow rate and 

chemical addition rate (if applicable) at 

or above the minimum values 

established during the applicable 

performance test. Maintaining the 3- 

hour block average for scrubber pressure 

drop at or above the minimum value 

established during the PM performance 

test would demonstrate compliance 

with the PM emission limit. 

Maintaining the 3-hour block average 

for scrubber liquid pH and chemical 

(e.g., lime, caustic) addition rate at or 

above the minimum values established 

during the HF/HCl performance test 

would demonstrate compliance with the 

acid gas (HF/HCl) health-based emission 

limit. Maintaining the 3-hour block 

average for scrubber liquid flow rate at 

or above the lowest minimum value 

established during the PM and HF/HCl 

performance tests would demonstrate 

compliance with all applicable emission 

limits by showing that the scrubber is in 

proper working order. 

For an ACI system, we are proposing 

that the owner or operator demonstrate 

compliance with the Hg and dioxin/

furan emission limits 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 tests. 

If the owner or operator intends to 

comply with the dioxin/furan emission 

limit without an ACI system, we are 

proposing that the owner or operator 

demonstrate compliance by 

continuously monitoring the operating 

temperature of the process (tunnel or 

roller kiln, ceramic tile spray dryer, 

floor tile press dryer) and maintaining it 

at or above the average operating 

temperature during the dioxin/furan 

performance test for the tunnel or roller 

kiln and ceramic tile spray dryer and at 

or below the average operating 

temperature during the dioxin/furan 

performance test for the floor tile press 

dryer. 

For a water curtain on a spray glazing 

operation, we are proposing that the 

owner or operator demonstrate 

compliance with the PM emission limit 

by conducting a daily inspection to 

verify 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 proposing 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 

proposing that, to demonstrate 

compliance with the PM emission limit, 

the owner or operator monitor VE as 

described above; and, to demonstrate 

compliance with the dioxin/furan 

emission limit, the owner or operator 

continuously monitor the operating 

temperature, determine and record 3- 

hour block averages and maintain the 3- 

hour block averages at or above the 

average operating temperature during 

the dioxin/furan performance test for 

the tunnel or roller kiln and ceramic tile 

spray dryer and at or below the average 

operating temperature during the 

dioxin/furan performance test for the 

floor tile press dryer. In addition, if the 

last calculated total facility maximum 

potential HCl-equivalent was not at or 

below the proposed health-based 

emission limitation for acid gases, then 

we are proposing that the owner or 

operator collect and record data 

documenting the process rate of the 

tunnel or roller kiln and reduce the data 

to 3-hour block averages. The owner or 

operator would need to maintain the 

kiln process rate(s) at or below the kiln 

process rate operating limit(s) that 

would enable the total facility 

maximum potential HCl-equivalent to 

remain at or below the proposed 

limitation. 

H. What are the notification, 

recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements? 

All new and existing sources would 

be required to comply with certain 

requirements of the General Provisions 

(40 CFR part 63, subpart A), which are 

identified in Table 9 of subpart KKKKK. 

The General Provisions include specific 

requirements for notifications, 

recordkeeping and reporting. 

Each owner or operator would be 

required to submit a notification of 

compliance status report, as required by 

40 CFR 63.9(h) of the General 

Provisions. This proposed Clay 

Ceramics manufacturing rule would 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 243 / Thursday, December 18, 2014 / Proposed Rules 75655 

54As part of the 2010 EPA survey, wall tile press 

dryers and sanitaryware ware dryers were tested for 

dioxins/furans, but none of the tests found 

detectable levels of dioxins/furans. 

require the owner or operator to include 

in the notification of compliance status 

report certifications of compliance with 

rule requirements. Semiannual 

compliance reports, as required by 40 

CFR 63.10(e)(3) of subpart A, would also 

be required for each semiannual 

reporting period. 

This proposed Clay Ceramics 

manufacturing rule would require 

records to demonstrate compliance with 

each emission limit and work practice 

standard. These recordkeeping 

requirements are specified directly in 

the General Provisions to 40 CFR part 63 

and are identified in Table 9 of subpart 

KKKKK. 

Specifically, we are proposing that the 

owner or operator must keep the 

following records: 

• All reports and notifications submitted 

to comply with this proposed Clay Ceramics 

manufacturing rule. 

• Records of performance tests. 

• Records relating to APCD maintenance 

and documentation of approved routine 

control device maintenance exemption. 

• Continuous monitoring data as required 

in this proposed Clay Ceramics 

manufacturing rule. 

• Records of BLD system alarms and 

corrective actions 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 

performed on the APCD. 

• Current copies of the OM&M plan and 

records documenting conformance. 

• Logs of the information required to 

document compliance with the shuttle kiln 

work practice standard. 

• Logs of the information required to 

document compliance with the startup and 

shutdown work practice standards. 

• Records of each malfunction and the 

corrective action taken. 

We are also proposing to require that 

the owner or operator submit the 

following reports and notifications: 

• Notifications required by the General 

Provisions. 

• Initial Notification no later than 120 

calendar days after the affected source 

becomes 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 

performance test. 

• Notification of Compliance Status 30 

calendar days following completion of a 

compliance demonstration that does not 

include a performance test (i.e., compliance 

demonstration for the work practice 

standard). 

• Compliance reports semi-annually, 

including a report of each malfunction 

resulting in an exceedance and the corrective 

action taken. 

• Report of alternative fuel use within 10 

working days after terminating use of the 

alternative fuel. 

• Results of each performance test within 

60 days of completing the test, submitted to 

the EPA by direct computer-to-computer 

electronic transfer via EPA-provided software 

for data collected using supported test 

methods. 

I. How would I submit emissions test 

results to the EPA? 

The ERT provisions being proposed 

for clay ceramics manufacturing are the 

same as those being proposed for BSCP 

manufacturing. The ERT provisions for 

BSCP manufacturing are discussed in 

section III.I of this preamble. 

VI. Rationale for the Proposed Rule for 

Clay Ceramics Manufacturing 

A. How did the EPA determine which 

sources would be regulated under the 

proposed rule? 

Based on our review of the available 

information on the clay ceramics 

manufacturing industry, we determined 

that there are three distinct sectors 

within the industry: (1) Ceramic floor 

tile; (2) ceramic wall tile; and (3) 

sanitaryware. Specifically, we found 

that the ceramic floor tile, ceramic wall 

tile and sanitaryware sectors of the 

industry differ in terms of raw materials, 

processes and final products. 

The primary raw materials used for 

manufacturing sanitaryware are ball 

clay, other clays, feldspar and silica, 

whereas ceramic tile is made primarily 

from ball clay, talc, nepheline syenite 

(an igneous rock comprised of 

nepheline, microcline and albite), fire 

clay and shale. However, while the raw 

materials are similar for ceramic floor 

and wall tile, the mix for ceramic wall 

tile includes more talc and less ball 

clay, resulting in a lighter-weight mix. 

Regarding processes, ceramic floor tile 

facilities use spray dryers to process the 

ceramic mix into a powder to allow tile 

pressing, followed by press dryers to 

press the tiles. The tile is then glazed 

prior to firing in a roller kiln. Ceramic 

wall tile facilities also use spray and 

press dryers, but they are designed, 

managed and operated to handle the 

lighter weight raw material mix. 

Ceramic wall tile is produced in a twostep firing process using roller kilns and 

it is glazed in between firings. On the 

other hand, sanitaryware facilities use 

tunnel kilns to fire the ceramic ware and 

they glaze the ware before firing, 

predominantly using glaze spraying. 

Ceramic floor tile, ceramic wall tile 

and sanitaryware also have different 

characteristics as finished products and 

compete in different markets. Ceramic 

floor tile is defined as a vitreous product 

with a low water absorption rate. Floor 

tile is known for its multi-color, 

variably-textured, and slip-resistant 

characteristics, which are not acceptable 

in most wall tiles. Ceramic wall tile is 

defined as a non-vitreous product 

required to meet a water absorption rate 

of 7 to 20 percent, much higher than 

that required for floor tile. Wall tile has 

much more stringent appearance 

requirements compared to floor tile, 

with the market demanding that most 

wall tile be mono-color, with a high 

gloss or smooth matte finish (requiring 

a two-step firing process). Sanitaryware 

is vitreous ceramic ware of zero or low 

absorption after firing that is used for 

plumbing and bathroom fixtures and 

accessories (such as toilets and ceramic 

sinks). 

In the clay ceramics manufacturing 

industry, the foremost sources of HAP 

emissions are first-fire tunnel and 

periodic (shuttle) kilns at sanitaryware 

facilities and roller kilns at ceramic tile 

facilities. Based on emissions testing, 

the HAP emitted from first-fire tunnel 

kilns and roller kilns include HF, HCl, 

Hg, other non-Hg HAP metals and 

dioxins/furans. Shuttle kilns are also 

assumed to emit these pollutants based 

on similarities in raw materials used in 

shuttle kilns and first-fire tunnel kilns. 

Other sources of HAP emissions at clay 

ceramics manufacturing facilities are 

glaze lines that employ glaze spraying at 

ceramic tile facilities, glaze spray booths 

at sanitaryware facilities, spray dryers at 

ceramic tile facilities and press dryers at 

floor tile facilities. The HAP emitted 

from ceramic tile glaze lines include Hg 

and non-Hg HAP metals, the HAP 

emitted from sanitaryware glazing 

operations include non-Hg HAP metals 

and the HAP emitted from ceramic tile 

spray dryers and press dryers are 

dioxins/furans. Other process units at 

clay ceramics facilities (e.g., raw 

material processing and handling, wall 

tile press dryers and sanitaryware ware 

dryers) have not been found to emit 

measurable quantities of HAP.54 For this 

reason, the proposed Clay Ceramics 

manufacturing rule covers those existing 

and new first-fire kilns, glaze spray 

operations, spray dryers and press 

dryers at major source clay ceramics 

manufacturing facilities that emit HAP 

and meet the applicability criteria. 

Additional clay ceramics process 

units that do not meet the applicability 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
75656 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 243 / Thursday, December 18, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

criteria include (1) kilns that are used 

exclusively for refiring or setting glazes 

on previously fired products; (2) glaze 

spray operations that use wet glazes 

containing less than 0.1 (weight) percent 

metal HAP (dry basis); and (3) glazing 

operations using a flow (curtain) coating 

or waterfall method. 

Re-fire kilns are used for firing 

products that have already been fired 

but have minor defects, which are 

subsequently repaired. Nearly all of the 

emissions from the firing of a clay body 

(i.e., fluorides, chlorides) are released 

during the initial vitrification step 

conducted in first-fire kilns, while refire ware has already been vitrified and 

emits little to no fluorides or chlorides. 

Kilns that are used exclusively for 

setting glazes on previously fired 

products also emit little to no HF or HCl 

for similar reasons. Glaze spray 

operations using glaze containing less 

than 0.1 (weight) percent metal HAP are 

expected to be an insignificant source of 

HAP emissions. Glaze applied using a 

flow (curtain) coating or waterfall 

method rather than using an aerosol 

spraying method would have little to no 

air emissions of non-Hg HAP metals. 

B. How did the EPA select the format for 

the proposed rule? 

For Hg and PM (as a surrogate for 

non-Hg HAP metals) emissions from 

ceramic tile roller kilns and first-fire 

sanitaryware tunnel kilns, this proposed 

Clay Ceramics manufacturing rule 

includes numerical emission rate limits 

as a mass of pollutant emitted per ton 

of product produced. For non-Hg HAP 

metals emissions from ceramic tile glaze 

lines and sanitaryware glaze spray 

booths, this proposed Clay Ceramics 

manufacturing rule includes numerical 

emission rate limits for PM as a mass of 

pollutant emitted per ton of glaze 

sprayed. For Hg emissions from ceramic 

tile glaze lines, this proposed rule 

includes numerical emission rate limits 

as a mass of pollutant emitted per ton 

of glaze sprayed. For dioxin/furan 

emissions from ceramic tile roller kilns, 

floor tile press dryers, ceramic tile spray 

dryers and first-fire sanitaryware tunnel 

kilns, this proposed rule includes 

numerical emission limits in units of 

concentration. The selection of 

numerical emission rate limits and 

numerical emission limits as the format 

for this proposed Clay Ceramics 

manufacturing rule provides flexibility 

for the regulated community by 

allowing a regulated source to choose 

any control technology or technique to 

meet the emission limits, rather than 

requiring each unit to use a prescribed 

control method that may not be 

appropriate in each case. In addition, 

the selection of numerical emission rate 

limits as a mass of pollutant emitted per 

ton of product produced ensures that 

differences in the size or process rate of 

the affected source do not affect the 

level of emissions control achieved. 

The PM limits are proposed as a 

surrogate for non-Hg HAP metals. The 

same control techniques that would be 

used to control PM will control non-Hg 

HAP metals. Particulate matter was also 

chosen instead of requiring control of 

specific individual HAP metals because 

all sources do not emit the same type 

and amount of non-Hg HAP metals due 

to differences in raw materials and glaze 

formulations. However, most sources 

generally emit PM that includes some 

amount and combination of HAP 

metals. The use of PM as a surrogate 

will also eliminate the cost of 

performance testing to comply with 

numerous standards for individual nonHg HAP metals. 

For acid gases (HF and HCl), this 

proposed Clay Ceramics manufacturing 

rule includes a health-based emission 

limit as a mass of HCl-equivalent 

emitted per hour. Further discussion 

about the development of health-based 

standards for the proposed Clay 

Ceramics manufacturing rule is 

provided in section VI.J of this 

preamble. 

This proposed Clay Ceramics 

manufacturing rule includes work 

practices for sanitaryware shuttle kilns. 

As described in more detail in section 

VI.K.1 of this preamble, technological 

and economic limitations make it 

impracticable to measure compliance 

with numerical emission limits for 

sanitaryware shuttle kilns. 

C. How did the EPA consider different 

subcategories? 

Section 112(d)(1) of the CAA allows 

the EPA to promulgate emission 

standards for either categories or 

subcategories of sources. Through 

subcategorization, the EPA may 

distinguish among classes, types and 

sizes of sources within a category. 

1. Sanitaryware Kilns 

Upon initial consideration of the 

available information on the 

sanitaryware sector of the clay ceramics 

manufacturing industry, we determined 

that separate subcategories for 

sanitaryware periodic (shuttle) kilns and 

sanitaryware continuous (tunnel) kilns 

were warranted because shuttle kilns 

are smaller than tunnel kilns (with 

lower production on an hourly basis 

and accounting for only a small 

percentage of production) and are 

operated in batch cycles, whereas 

tunnel kilns operate continuously. 

As noted in section VI.K.1 of this 

preamble, we have determined that it is 

technologically and economically 

infeasible to test shuttle kilns, thereby 

ruling out a quantitative analysis of how 

these differences impact emissions. 

However, a qualitative comparison can 

be made, in that smaller kilns operated 

periodically (i.e., shuttle kilns) would 

be expected to have lower emissions 

over time compared to the larger, 

continuously operated tunnel kilns. 

2. Sanitaryware Glazing 

We also determined that separate 

subcategories for three different glaze 

application methods for sanitaryware 

were warranted. Manual glaze spraying 

is done by a human operator with one 

spray gun per station per booth. The 

ware are moved and set up manually 

and glaze is applied to one to two pieces 

at a time. The emissions per ton of glaze 

sprayed for this type of glaze spraying 

are the highest of the application 

methods. Spray machine, or chain-onedge, glaze application is done by 

automatic reciprocating spray guns from 

a fixed location with 10 to 20 spray guns 

per booth. The ware are moved and set 

up on a ‘‘chain-on-edge’’ conveyor 

system and glaze is applied to six to 

seven pieces at a time. The emissions 

per ton of glaze sprayed for this type of 

glaze spraying are the second highest of 

the application methods. Robot glaze 

spraying is done by an automatic robot 

arm with one spray gun per booth. The 

ware are moved and set up manually 

and glaze is applied to one piece at a 

time. The emissions per ton of glaze 

sprayed for this type of glaze spraying 

are the lowest of the application 

methods. 

We also examined subcategorization 

by manual spraying and non-manual 

spraying (where ‘‘non-manual spraying’’ 

would include both spray machine and 

robot glaze spraying), but we 

determined that the design and 

emission differences between spray 

machine and robot glaze spraying are 

significant enough to warrant separate 

subcategories. 

D. What approaches did the EPA 

consider in developing the proposed 

emission limitations for existing and 

new sources? 

As noted in section IV.D of this 

preamble, all standards for new and 

existing sources established pursuant to 

CAA section 112(d)(2) must reflect 

MACT. The remainder of this section 

describes the development of the pool of 

data used to calculate the MACT floors 

for Hg, PM (as a surrogate for non-Hg 

HAP metals) and dioxins/furans. As 

noted in section VI.J of this preamble, 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 243 / Thursday, December 18, 2014 / Proposed Rules 75657 

health-based emissions standards are 

being proposed for the acid gases HF 

and HCl under the provisions of CAA 

section 112(d)(4). Consequently, the 

EPA has not prepared a MACT floor 

analysis for these pollutants. 

In our MACT floor analyses for Hg, 

PM (as a surrogate for non-Hg HAP 

metals) and dioxins/furans, we 

separated the data by industry sector, 

source type and subcategory as 

described in section VI.C of this 

preamble (if applicable). Within each of 

those categories or subcategories, we 

ranked the data in terms of lb/ton for 

PM and Hg and in terms of nanograms 

per dry standard cubic meter (ng/dscm) 

at 7 percent O2 for dioxins/furans (as 

described in section VI.E of this 

preamble). Because there are less than 

30 sources in each subcategory, we 

identified the top five (best performing) 

sources for which we had data. For 

subcategories with less than five 

sources, we considered all sources for 

which we had data as best performing 

sources. Once we identified the best 

performing sources, we then calculated 

the MACT floor in units of lb/ton or ng/ 

dscm at 7 percent O2 (as applicable) as 

described in section VI.E of this 

preamble. 

E. How did the EPA determine the 

MACT floors for existing sources? 

The EPA must consider available 

emissions information to determine the 

MACT floors. For Hg, PM (as a surrogate 

for total non-Hg HAP metals) and 

dioxins/furans, we calculated the MACT 

floor for a subcategory of sources by 

ranking all the available emissions data 

for units within the subcategory with 

the best performing sources ranked at 

the top, as described later in this section 

and then using the test results from the 

best performing sources (up to five). 

Therefore, as discussed in section VI.D 

of this preamble, the MACT floor limits 

for Hg, PM (as a surrogate for total nonHg HAP metals) and dioxins/furans 

were calculated based on the 

performance of the best performing 

sources in each of the subcategories. 

The best performing sources were 

determined by ranking each source’s 

average emission value from lowest to 

highest. We then determined the data 

distribution of the dataset made up of 

the top five best performers using 

kurtosis and skewness, as described in 

section IV.E of this preamble. We 

assessed variability of the best 

performers by calculating a UPL using 

the appropriate equation based on the 

data distribution. The UPL takes into 

consideration the average performance 

of the unit and the variability of the test 

runs during the testing conditions. As 

described in section IV.E of this 

preamble, the UPL represents the value 

which one can expect the mean of a 

specified number of future observations 

(e.g., 3-run average) to fall below for the 

specified level of confidence, based 

upon the results of an independent 

sample from the same population. It is 

a standard statistical methodology used 

to account for variability. 

A more detailed explanation of all the 

UPL equations used, including the 

calculations of kurtosis, standard error 

of kurtosis, skewness and standard error 

of skewness, can be found in the 

technical memorandum ‘‘Maximum 

Achievable Control Technology (MACT) 

Floor Analysis for Clay Ceramics’’ in 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2013– 

0290. 

We also compared the appropriate 

3×RDL value to the calculated UPL 

value for each pollutant and 

subcategory. As described in section 

IV.E of this preamble, we used the 

greater of the 3×RDL value and 

calculated UPL value to ensure that 

measurement variability is adequately 

addressed in the MACT floor emissions 

limit. This check was part of the 

variability analysis for all existing 

MACT floors that had BDL or DLL run 

data present in the best performing 

datasets (see the technical memorandum 

‘‘Maximum Achievable Control 

Technology (MACT) Floor Analysis for 

Clay Ceramics’’ in Docket ID No. EPA– 

HQ–OAR–2013–0290). 

As previously discussed, we 

accounted for variability in setting 

floors, not only because variability is an 

element of performance, but because it 

is reasonable to assess best performance 

over time. We believe this approach 

reasonably ensures that the emission 

limits selected as the MACT floors 

adequately represent the level of 

emissions actually achieved by the 

average of the best performing units, 

considering operational variability of 

those units. Both the analysis of the 

measured emissions from units 

representative of the best performers 

and the variability analysis are 

reasonably designed to provide a 

meaningful estimate of the average 

performance or central tendency, of the 

best performing five units in a given 

subcategory. A detailed discussion of 

the MACT floor methodology is 

presented in the technical memorandum 

‘‘Maximum Achievable Control 

Technology (MACT) Floor Analysis for 

Clay Ceramics’’ in Docket ID No. EPA– 

HQ–OAR–2013–0290. 

Table 10 of this preamble presents the 

average emission level of the best 

performing sources and the existing 

source MACT floor. Each subcategory 

had less than 30 sources nationwide; 

thus, the top five sources were used in 

the MACT floor. If we had data for less 

than five sources, we used all the data 

available. The existing source MACT 

floors are based on the UPL unless 

otherwise noted. 

TABLE 10—SUMMARY OF MACT FLOOR RESULTS FOR CLAY CERAMICS EXISTING SOURCES a

Subcategory Parameter Hg b

(lb/ton) PM b c (lb/ton) 

Dioxins/furans 

(ng/dscm at 7 

percent O2) 

Floor tile roller kilns ................ Avg. of best performing sources ............................................ 7.8 E–05 ........ 0.054 2.9 

MACT floor ............................................................................. 1.3 E–04 ........ 0.18 4.6 

Floor tile press dryers ............ Avg. of best performing sources ............................................ ........................ ........................ 0.078 

MACT floor ............................................................................. ........................ ........................ d 0.19 

Floor tile spray dryers ............ Avg. of best performing sources ............................................ ........................ ........................ 0.96 

MACT floor ............................................................................. ........................ ........................ 44 

Wall tile roller kilns ................. Avg. of best performing sources ............................................ 5.0 E–05 ........ 0.071 0.065 

MACT floor ............................................................................. 2.0 E–04 ........ 0.20 0.17 

Wall tile spray dryers .............. Avg. of best performing sources ............................................ ........................ ........................ 0.053 

MACT floor ............................................................................. ........................ ........................ 0.12 d

Tile glaze lines ....................... Avg. of best performing sources ............................................ 2.0 E–05 ........ 0.67 ........................

MACT floor ............................................................................. 1.6 E–04 d ...... 1.9 ........................

First-fire sanitaryware tunnel 

kilns.

Avg. of best performing sources ............................................ 1.6 E–04 ........ 0.12 0.81 

MACT floor ............................................................................. 2.6 E–04 ........ 0.33 1.5 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
75658 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 243 / Thursday, December 18, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 10—SUMMARY OF MACT FLOOR RESULTS FOR CLAY CERAMICS EXISTING SOURCES a—Continued 

Subcategory Parameter Hg b

(lb/ton) PM b c (lb/ton) 

Dioxins/furans 

(ng/dscm at 7 

percent O2) 

Sanitaryware manual glaze 

application.

Avg. of best performing sources ............................................ ........................ 14 ........................

MACT floor ............................................................................. ........................ 33 ........................

Sanitaryware spray machine 

glaze application.

Avg. of best performing sources ............................................ ........................ 5.9 ........................

MACT floor ............................................................................. ........................ 12 ........................

Sanitaryware robot glaze application.Avg. of best performing sources ............................................ ........................ 4.4 ........................

MACT floor ............................................................................. ........................ 8.8 ........................

aThe existing source MACT floors are based on the UPL unless otherwise noted. 

b Units of measure for kilns are lb/ton ware produced; for glazing are lb/ton glaze sprayed. 

cPM is a surrogate for non-Hg HAP metals. 

dThe MACT floor is based on 3×RDL value. 

F. How did the EPA determine the 

MACT floors for new sources? 

The approach that we used to 

calculate the MACT floors for new 

sources is described in section IV.F of 

this preamble. This approach reasonably 

ensures that the emission limit selected 

as the MACT floor adequately 

represents the average level of control 

actually achieved in practice by the best 

controlled similar source, considering 

ordinary operational variability. A 

detailed discussion of the MACT floor 

methodology is presented in the 

technical memorandum ‘‘Maximum 

Achievable Control Technology (MACT) 

Floor Analysis for Clay Ceramics’’ in 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2013– 

0290. 

Table 11 of this preamble presents, for 

each subcategory and pollutant, the 

average emission level of the best 

performing similar source and the new 

source MACT floor. The new source 

MACT floors are based on the UPL 

unless otherwise noted. 

TABLE 11—SUMMARY OF MACT FLOOR RESULTS FOR CLAY CERAMICS NEW SOURCES A

Subcategory Parameter Hg b

(lb/ton) PM b c (lb/ton) 

Dioxins/furans 

(ng/dscm at 7 

percent O2) 

Floor tile roller kilns ................ Avg. of top performer ............................................................. 3.5 E–05 ........ 0.020 1.1 

MACT floor ............................................................................. 3.9 E–05 ........ 0.027 1.5 

Floor tile press dryers ............ Avg. of top performer ............................................................. ........................ ........................ 0.070 

MACT floor ............................................................................. ........................ ........................ d 0.19 

Floor tile spray dryers ............ Avg. of top performer ............................................................. ........................ ........................ 0.010 

MACT floor ............................................................................. ........................ ........................ d 0.17 

Wall tile roller kilns ................. Avg. of top performer ............................................................. 5.0 E–05 ........ 0.071 0.065 

MACT floor ............................................................................. 2.0 E–04 ........ 0.20 0.17 

Wall tile spray dryers .............. Avg. of top performer ............................................................. ........................ ........................ 0.053 

MACT floor ............................................................................. ........................ ........................ d 0.12 

Tile glaze lines ....................... Avg. of top performer ............................................................. 7.4 E–06 ........ 0.15 ........................

MACT floor ............................................................................. 1.6 E–04 d ...... 0.61 ........................

First-fire sanitaryware tunnel 

kilns.

Avg. of top performer ............................................................. 6.4 E–05 ........ 0.092 0.23 

MACT floor ............................................................................. 1.2 E–04 ........ 0.095 0.37 

Sanitaryware manual glaze 

application.

Avg. of top performer ............................................................. ........................ 3.3 ........................

MACT floor ............................................................................. ........................ 3.8 ........................

Sanitaryware spray machine 

glaze application.

Avg. of top performer ............................................................. ........................ 2.0 ........................

MACT floor ............................................................................. ........................ 3.2 ........................

Sanitaryware robot glaze application.Avg. of top performer ............................................................. ........................ 1.3 ........................

MACT floor ............................................................................. ........................ 2.2 ........................

aThe new source MACT floors are based on the UPL unless otherwise noted. 

b Units of measure for kilns are lb/ton ware produced; for glazing are lb/ton glaze sprayed. 

cPM is a surrogate for non-Hg HAP metals. 

dThe MACT floor is based on 3xRDL value. 

G. What is our approach for applying 

the upper prediction limit to limited 

datasets? 

As discussed in section IV.G of this 

preamble, there are specific 

considerations when dealing with 

limited datasets. For the clay ceramics 

source category, we have limited 

datasets for the following pollutants and 

subcategories: 

• Hg, PM, and dioxins/furans for new floor 

tile roller kilns; 

• dioxins/furans for new floor tile press 

dryers; 

• dioxins/furans for new floor tile spray 

dryers; 

• Hg and dioxins/furans for existing and 

new wall tile roller kilns; 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 243 / Thursday, December 18, 2014 / Proposed Rules 75659 

• dioxins/furans for existing and new wall 

tile spray dryers; 

• Hg and PM for new tile glaze lines; 

• Hg, PM, and dioxins/furans for new 

sanitaryware tunnel kilns; and 

• PM for new sanitaryware manual, spray 

machine, and robot glaze spray booths. 

For each dataset, we performed the 

steps outlined in the memorandum 

titled ‘‘Approach for Applying the 

Upper Prediction Limit to Limited 

Datasets,’’ which is available in Docket 

ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2013–0291; see 

that memorandum for more information 

on the analysis and the results. 

H. How did the EPA consider beyondthe-floor for existing sources? 

As discussed in sections II.A and VI.D 

of this preamble, the EPA must consider 

emissions limitations and requirements 

that are more stringent than the MACT 

floor (i.e., beyond-the-floor control 

options). When considering beyond-thefloor options, the EPA must consider 

not only the maximum degree of 

reduction in emissions of HAP, but 

must take into account costs, energy and 

non-air quality health and 

environmental impacts when doing so. 

Once the MACT floor determinations 

were complete for each subcategory, we 

considered various regulatory options 

more stringent than the MACT floor 

level of control (e.g., the performance of 

technologies that could result in lower 

emissions) for the different 

subcategories. 

We considered requiring each 

subcategory of existing sources to meet 

the new source MACT floors developed 

as described in section VI.F of this 

preamble. We analyzed the beyond-thefloor options for each pollutant 

separately for each subcategory of 

existing sources. Our analyses are 

documented in the technical 

memorandum ‘‘Development of Cost 

and Emission Reduction Impacts for the 

Clay Ceramics NESHAP’’ in Docket ID 

No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2013–0290 and 

summarized in the following 

paragraphs. 

For Hg from existing sanitaryware 

tunnel kilns, based on the data 

available, we estimate that all existing 

tunnel kilns could meet the new source 

MACT floor emission limits described 

in section VI.F of this preamble without 

incurring additional emission control 

costs. Therefore, we are proposing a 

beyond-the-floor Hg limit for existing 

sanitaryware tunnel kilns equivalent to 

the new source MACT floor. 

For several sources and pollutants, 

the existing source MACT floor and the 

new source MACT floor are the same 

value, usually because there is only one 

source with data in the subcategory or 

because both floors are based on the 

3xRDL value. These sources/pollutants 

include dioxins/furans from floor tile 

press dryers, PM (as a surrogate for total 

non-Hg HAP metals), Hg and dioxins/

furans from wall tile roller kilns, 

dioxins/furans from wall tile spray 

dryers and Hg from ceramic tile glaze 

lines. Therefore, we are not proposing 

beyond-the-floor limits for these sources 

and pollutants. 

The incremental costs, emission 

reductions and cost effectiveness for all 

other beyond-the-floor options are 

summarized by subcategory and by 

pollutant in Table 12 of this preamble. 

In all these cases, we have concluded 

that the incremental costs of additional 

control above the MACT floor emission 

limits are not reasonable relative to the 

level of emission reduction achieved. 

Therefore, we are not proposing to go 

beyond-the-floor for any of the 

subcategory/pollutant concentrations 

included in Table 12 of this preamble. 

TABLE 12—SUMMARY OF COSTS, EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS AND COST EFFECTIVENESS FOR SELECTED CLAY CERAMICS

BEYOND-THE-FLOOR OPTIONS (2011 DOLLARS) 

Subcategory Pollutant 

Cost (million) Incremental 

HAP 

Emissions 

Reductions 

(tpy) 

Cost Effectiveness 

($/ton total HAP) Capital Annual 

Floor tile roller kilns Hg ....................................................... $4.14 $3.16 0.044 $71,800,000 

Total non-Hg HAP metals .................. 10.8 4.28 0.73 5,830,000 

Dioxins/furans ..................................... 2.32 1.77 8.5 E–07 2,080,000,000,000 

Floor tile spray dryers.Dioxins/furans ..................................... 0.335 0.278 4.6 E–08 5,990,000,000,000 

Tile glaze lines ...... Total non-Hg HAP metals .................. 7.67 2.70 0.038 70,600,000 

First-fire 

sanitaryware tunnel kilns.

Total non-Hg HAP metals .................. 3.91 2.01 0.020 102,000,000 

Dioxins/furans ..................................... 2.98 1.78 3.4 E–08 51,700,000,000,000 

Sanitaryware manual glaze application.Total non-Hg HAP metals .................. 6.78 2.19 0.24 9,090,000 

Sanitaryware spray 

machine glaze 

application.

Total non-Hg HAP metals .................. 1.89 0.900 0.14 6,420,000 

Sanitaryware robot 

glaze application.

Total non-Hg HAP metals .................. 4.97 2.22 0.097 23,000,000 

I. How did the EPA consider beyondthe-floor for new sources? 

The MACT floor level of control for 

each subcategory of new sources for 

each pollutant was based on the 

emission control that is achieved in 

practice by the best controlled similar 

source within each of the subcategories. 

When we establish a beyond-the-floor 

standard, we typically identify control 

techniques that have the ability to 

achieve an emissions limit more 

stringent than the MACT floor. No 

techniques were identified that would 

achieve HAP reductions greater than the 

new source floors for any of the 

subcategories for each pollutant. 

Therefore, the EPA is not proposing a 

beyond-the-floor limit for any of the 

new sources in this proposed Clay 

Ceramics manufacturing rule. 

J. How did the EPA determine whether 

to set health-based standards for 

existing and new sources? 

In developing the proposed Clay 

Ceramics manufacturing rule, we 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
75660 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 243 / Thursday, December 18, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

55For more information, see the technical 

memorandum ‘‘Risk Assessment to Determine a 

Health-Based Emission Limitation for Acid Gases 

for the Clay Ceramics Manufacturing Source 

Category’’ in Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2013– 

0290. 

56See Portland Cement NESHAP Final Rule, 75 

FR 54970, 54986/1 (September 9, 2010) (‘‘[W]e 

currently lack information on the peak short-term 

emissions of HCl from cement kilns which might 

allow us to determine whether a chronic healthbased emission standard for HCl would ensure that 

acute exposures will not pose health concerns.’’) 

57See Portland Cement NESHAP Final Rule, 75 

FR 54970 (September 9, 2010)—Co-benefits was 

identified as the ‘‘decisive factor’’ in the Portland 

Cement NESHAP Final Rule. 75 FR 54970, 54985/ 

3. There, EPA declined to set a health-based 

standard for HCl where setting a MACT standard 

also controlled other HAP and criteria pollutants. 

Specifically discussed were SO2 and other HAP 

gases. See 75 FR at 54984/3 (‘‘The additional 

reductions of SO2 alone attributable to the MACT 

standards for HCl are estimated to be 124,000 tons 

per year’’ and discussing both direct SO2 effects and 

effects of SO2 as a precursor to PM2.5) and 75 FR 

at 54986/1 (‘‘[Other HAP gases (chlorine (Cl2), 

hydrogen cyanide (HCN) and hydrogen fluoride 

(HF))] are also controlled during the process of 

controlling HCl emissions from cement kilns using 

a wet scrubber. As such, their health impacts must 

be taken into account when considering a healthbased emission limit for HCl.’’ See also Boiler 

MACT Final Rule, 76 FR at 15644/1 (‘‘EPA 

considered the comments received on this issue and 

continues to believe that the co-benefits are 

significant and provide an additional basis for the 

Administrator to conclude that it is not appropriate 

to exercise her discretion under section 112(d)(4).’’) 

and Boiler MACT Proposed Rule, 75 FR 32006, 

32032 (June 4, 2010)—Co-benefits from MACT 

standard for HCl and PM as surrogate for HAP 

metals included the reduction of 340,000 tons per 

year of SO2 and unspecified reductions of PM, other 

non-HAP acid gases (hydrogen bromide) and 

mercury. See also MATS Proposed Rule, 76 FR 

24976, 25051/1—Co-benefits from MACT standard 

for HCl and PM as surrogate for HAP metals 

included the reduction of 2.1 million tons per year 

of SO2 and unspecified reductions of PM, other 

non-HAP acid gases (hydrogen bromide) and 

mercury. 

considered whether it was appropriate 

to establish health-based emission 

standards under CAA section 112(d)(4) 

for the acid gases HF and HCl. The 

rationale for the development of healthbased standards for the proposed Clay 

Ceramics manufacturing rule is the 

same as that presented for the proposed 

BSCP manufacturing rule, with a few 

exceptions, which are discussed in the 

sections below. The rationale for the 

development of health-based standards 

for the proposed BSCP manufacturing 

rule is discussed in section IV.J of this 

preamble. 

1. What factors does the EPA consider 

in exercising its discretion whether to 

set a CAA section 112(d)(4) standard? 

Section IV.J of this preamble 

discusses the following factors that the 

EPA considers in making a judgment 

whether to set a standard based on the 

health threshold or the traditional 

MACT process: 

• The availability of data to set the healthbased standard; 

• Co-benefits that would be achieved via 

the MACT standard, such as reductions in 

emissions of other HAP and/or criteria 

pollutants; 

• The potential impacts on ecosystems of 

releases of the pollutant; and 

• The potential for cumulative adverse 

health effects due to concurrent exposure to 

the same HAP or other HAP with similar 

biological endpoints, from either the same or 

other source categories, where the 

concentration of the threshold pollutant 

emitted from the given source category is 

below the threshold. 

The evaluation of the first three 

factors (availability of data, co-benefits 

and potential ecosystem impacts) are 

nearly identical for both the BSCP and 

clay ceramics industries. However, 

further analysis was required 

concerning the last factor (potential for 

cumulative adverse health effects). The 

evaluation of all four factors for the clay 

ceramics industry is provided below. 

a. Availability of Data To Determine 

Standard 

Like the BSCP manufacturing rule, 

because of the relatively small number 

of facilities compared to other rules 

such as the Boiler MACT proposal, the 

EPA was able to determine facilityspecific information for the Clay 

Ceramics manufacturing rule, including 

tunnel and roller kiln locations and 

operating characteristics and stack 

parameters, available for all clay 

ceramics facilities to assess the 

feasibility of health-based standards in 

this proposed Clay Ceramics 

manufacturing rule. Such information 

enabled us to conduct the dispersion 

modeling necessary to establish a 

health-based emission limit for acid 

gases.55

Consequently, we have concluded 

that we have enough information to 

determine the health-based emission 

standards for the acid gases HF and HCl 

for the clay ceramics industry. As 

discussed in further detail below, these 

limits have been developed to ensure 

that exposure is below the health 

threshold for each facility and also 

ensure that acute exposures will not 

pose any health concerns.56

b. Co-Benefits 

The additional nationwide SO2

reductions that would be attributable to 

Clay Ceramics MACT standards for acid 

gases are estimated to be 31 tpy in the 

third year following promulgation of the 

proposed standards. Similar to BSCP, 

this reduction is substantially lower 

than the co-benefits from MACT 

standards for other industries for which 

the EPA has decided not to set a healthbased limit,57 and it would not be 

expected to provide a significant public 

health benefit in the circumstances here. 

c. Ecosystem Impacts 

For the section 112(d)(4) evaluation, 

the EPA assessed the acid gases HCl and 

HF around each clay ceramics facility. 

For HCl, the environmental risk screen 

indicated that the area-weighted average 

modeled concentrations of HCl around 

each facility (i.e., the area-weighted 

average concentration of all offsite data 

points in the modeling domain) did not 

exceed the ecological benchmark. In 

addition, the ecological benchmark was 

not exceeded at any offsite receptor 

location for any facility. 

For HF, the environmental risk screen 

indicated that the area-weighted average 

modeled concentrations of HF around 

each facility (i.e., the area-weighted 

average concentration of all offsite data 

points in the modeling domain) did not 

exceed the ecological benchmarks. 

There were multiple facilities with 

modeled concentrations of HF at offsite 

receptor locations that exceeded the 

ecological benchmark, but the area over 

which the value was exceeded was no 

greater than one percent of the offsite 

modeling domain for each facility, 

indicating that there would not be any 

significant or widespread environmental 

effects. 

d. Cumulative Effects 

As noted previously, the EPA may 

consider the availability of information 

on emissions from co-located and 

nearby sources and consider if it is 

feasible to determine the potential 

cumulative health effects from 

emissions from the sources in the 

category when combined with other 

emissions from other sources that are 

co-located or located nearby. Relevant 

emissions may include both emissions 

of the same pollutant and emissions of 

other pollutants that may cause 

cumulative effects. 

Through industry responses to the 

clay ceramics 2008 EPA survey and the 

2010 EPA survey, we have substantial 

information on the locations of clay 

ceramics plants and the levels of HF and 

HCl emitted from those plants. While 

the major source ceramic tile plants are 

not co-located with any other type of 

operation, the three major source 

sanitaryware plants are. However, the 

sources co-located with the 

sanitaryware plants do not emit acid 

gases. The metal foundry plant colocated with the sanitaryware plant in 

Kohler, Wisconsin emits chiefly 

particulates and metals, while the 

fiberglass plants co-located with the 

sanitaryware plants in Spartanburg, 

South Carolina and Brownwood, Texas 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 243 / Thursday, December 18, 2014 / Proposed Rules 75661 

emit chiefly organic HAP (styrene). 

Consequently, any acid gas emissions 

from co-located sources are not 

expected to impact the total facility acid 

gas emissions significantly. 

Like BSCP facilities, clay ceramics 

facilities are typically located on large 

tracts of land needed for all of the 

processes involved in clay ceramics 

manufacturing, including raw material 

receiving, storage and processing; glaze 

preparation; forming; drying; glazing; 

firing; product inspection; and 

packaging. This provides an additional 

buffer between the clay ceramics plants 

and the surrounding area. Because of 

the relatively low plume heights, 

maximum risks from the clay ceramics 

plants are located close to the facility 

property line. In trying to define 

cumulative risks from nearby non-clay 

ceramics emissions, the location and 

emissions associated with other sources 

not in the clay ceramics source category 

are far less certain. While the 2008 EPA 

survey and the 2010 EPA survey data for 

clay ceramics facilities have been 

reviewed by EPA engineers and 

scientists, the emissions levels and 

locations of nearby other facilities such 

as those in the NEI have not undergone 

the same level of detailed review. Thus, 

a quantitative analysis of nearby 

emissions may contain significant of 

uncertainty. However, as discussed 

above, because of the large footprint of 

clay ceramic facilities and the clay 

ceramics risks being confined to the 

near plant locations, we do not expect 

that the combined emissions of HF or 

HCl from clay ceramics facilities and 

nearby other sources would result in 

substantial cumulative health and 

environmental effects. 

2. How did the EPA set the level of the 

standard? 

As with BSCP, the EPA is proposing 

to exercise its discretion to use CAA 

section 112(d)(4). This conclusion is 

consistent with the EPA’s prior 

decisions where we found it appropriate 

not to exercise the discretion to invoke 

the authority in CAA section 112(d)(4) 

for acid gases, because the 

circumstances in this case differ from 

those previous considerations. We 

request comment on the analysis and 

conclusions regarding setting healthbased standards. 

Following from the EPA’s 

determination that a health-based 

standard is appropriate, the standard 

must be set as follows: 

• There must be an ample margin of safety 

to avoid the health effects on which the 

threshold is based. 

• There must be no observable adverse 

effect. 

• The standard must not allow greater 

adverse environmental effects as the MACT 

standard that would otherwise be 

established. 

• A standard must be set; there can be no 

exclusions from compliance based on a 

showing that the source’s emissions do not 

pose a health risk. 

As part of the development of the 

proposed standards, we have 

maintained an inventory of major source 

facilities, including the size and 

operating hours of each tunnel and 

roller kiln and the geographic location 

and physical attributes (e.g., stack 

height, diameter, exit gas flow rate) of 

each kiln stack. To develop a healthbased emission limit, both long-term 

and short-term inhalation exposure 

concentrations and health risks from the 

Clay Ceramics Manufacturing source 

category were estimated using the 

HEM–3 model as described in section 

IV.J.3 of this preamble. Further 

information on the overall modeling 

approach is presented in the technical 

memorandum, ‘‘Risk Assessment to 

Determine a Health-Based Emission 

Limitation for Acid Gases for the Clay 

Ceramics Manufacturing Source 

Category’’ in Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2013–0290. 

In developing the risk assessment for 

chronic exposures, we used the 

estimated annual average ambient air 

concentrations of each acid gas emitted 

by each source in the source category. 

The air concentrations at each nearby 

census block centroid were used as a 

surrogate for the chronic inhalation 

exposure concentration for all the 

people who reside in that census block. 

Chronic noncancer health hazards are 

expressed by comparing a chronic 

exposure to a reference level as a ratio. 

Because we performed HEM–3 model 

runs for each acid gas individually, we 

did not aggregate HQ values of different 

acid gases. Of course, multiple acid gas 

pollutants are emitted at clay ceramics 

facilities, but a 600 tpy level of HClequivalent emissions (based on the HEM 

risks modeling) ensures that a TOSHI of 

1 is not exceeded, as long as the HClequivalent emissions do not exceed 600 

tpy. It is important to note that this 

emission limit is only applicable to the 

sources in this source category and 

should not be considered for sources 

other than those included in this 

analysis. Equivalent emissions for HF 

are determined by the ratio of the 

chronic RfC to that for HCl, such that 

the HCl-equivalent emissions for HF are 

420 tpy. 

Because the emissions equivalency 

was based on chronic dose-response 

values, the 600 tpy level does not 

necessarily ensure that acute reference 

levels will not be exceeded. For the HCl 

model runs, there were no facilities with 

acute screening HQ values exceeding 1. 

For HF, we estimate that two of the 

eight facilities examined had an acute 

value exceed the REL with the highest 

being two. However, no facility 

exceeded an HQ (AEGL–1) value for HF. 

To assure that no source 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). 

It is important to note that the above 

emissions thresholds are developed 

from back-calculating the emissions that 

would result in an HQ of 1 at the worstcase facility. Potential risks at other 

facilities (not the worst-case facility) are 

predicted to be well below 1. 

Because we had site-specific data on 

the operation of each tunnel and roller 

kiln, we were able to use dispersion 

modeling to ensure that: (1) The healthbased emission limit cited above for 

clay ceramics facilities provides an 

ample margin of safety and (2) persons 

exposed to emissions of the pollutant 

would not experience the adverse health 

effects on which the threshold is based. 

In addition, as stated previously, the 

levels of acid gas emissions associated 

with clay ceramics kilns, based on 

results from the EPA’s environmental 

risk screen methodology outlined above, 

are not expected to have an adverse 

environmental impact. 

Facilities would demonstrate 

compliance with the health-based 

emission limit by determining their 

facility-wide HCl and HF emissions, 

calculating the HCl-equivalent 

emissions for HF using RfC values and 

adding the HCl emissions to the HClequivalent value to calculate the total 

HCl-equivalent emissions. An equation 

to perform this calculation is provided 

in the proposed Clay Ceramics 

manufacturing rule. For more 

information on the development of the 

health-based standard, see the technical 

memorandum ‘‘Risk Assessment to 

Determine a Health-Based Emissions 

Limitation for Acid Gases for the Clay 

Ceramics Manufacturing Source 

Category’’ in Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2013–0290. For more information 

on the calculation of an HCl-equivalent 

value, see the technical memorandum 

‘‘Development of Cost and Emission 

Reduction Impacts for the Clay 

Ceramics NESHAP’’ in Docket ID No. 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2013–0290. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
75662 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 243 / Thursday, December 18, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

58See the memorandum titled ‘‘Characterization 

of the Ceramic Manufacturing Industry’’ in the 

original Clay Ceramics NESHAP docket, 

incorporated by reference into the docket for the 

proposed Clay Ceramics rulemaking. 

59See the email titled ‘‘Kohler’s response to EPA 

question regarding options for if and how shuttle 

kilns (periodic kilns) should be addressed,’’ in the 

docket for this proposed rule. 

60 Id. 

61See the memorandum entitled ‘‘Rationale for 

Establishing Work Practice Standards for Periodic 

Brick Kilns’’ in Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2013–0290. 

62See the sanitaryware industry communication 

titled ‘‘Kohler’s response to EPA question regarding 

options for if and how shuttle kilns (periodic kilns) 

should be addressed,’’ in Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2013–0290. 

63See the RTI memorandum titled ‘‘Rationale for 

Establishing Work Practice Standards for Periodic 

Brick Kilns’’ in Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2013–0290. 64 Id. 

K. How did the EPA determine whether 

to set work practice standards for 

existing and new sources? 

Under CAA section 112(h), the EPA 

may set work practice standards in 

place of an emissions standard where it 

is not feasible to prescribe or enforce an 

emission standard. The EPA is 

proposing to conclude that an emissions 

standard for sanitaryware shuttle kilns 

is not feasible because the application of 

measurement methodology to these 

sources is not practicable due to 

technological and economic limitations. 

Therefore, the EPA is proposing a work 

practice standard for sanitaryware 

shuttle kilns in lieu of emission limits 

for acid gases (HF and HCl), Hg and 

non-Hg HAP metals. The rationale for 

this work practice standard is discussed 

in the paragraphs below. 

1. Rationale for Setting Work Practice 

Standard in Lieu of Emission Standards 

a. Overview 

Shuttle kilns at sanitaryware facilities 

are a type of periodic kiln used 

primarily to refire rejected pieces that 

have been machined and reglazed 

(although some shuttle kilns are used as 

first-fire units). Shuttle kilns are 

designed with a removable 

superstructure that is tilted or raised 

using hydraulic struts to allow entrance 

and egress. The main advantage of this 

type of kiln is that it can readily 

accommodate changes in firing 

temperature profile and cycle time to 

match the requirements of a wide 

variety of ceramic products. The 

primary disadvantage of this type of kiln 

is much higher energy costs per ton 

when compared to tunnel kilns and 

roller kilns.58

Shuttle kilns are batch operated, 

meaning that a batch starts cold and 

ends cold. The sanitaryware industry 

operates shuttle kilns on batch cycle 

times of 18 to 38 hours, with the most 

common cycle times between 22 and 30 

hours. As shuttle kilns operate through 

a heating cycle, temperatures are either 

in ramp-up or cool-down mode.59

b. Emissions and Testing 

Emission rates can vary over the batch 

cycle due to the temperature cycle of the 

kiln. In order to accurately determine 

the total emissions from a shuttle kiln 

cycle, emissions from the entire cycle 

period would need to be tested.60 As 

with testing BSCP periodic kilns, testing 

sanitaryware shuttle kilns for any less 

time could result in estimated emissions 

that are either higher or lower than 

actual emissions, depending on when 

during the kiln cycle the emissions are 

sampled.61

Conducting a shuttle kiln test on even 

the shortest cycle time would require a 

test crew to be on site for at least 24 

hours and would require the test team 

to have at least a dozen or more 

sampling train set-ups or additional 

manpower on site to recover samples 

and turn-around sampling trains for 

subsequent use during the test. It is 

estimated that the test of a single shuttle 

kiln firing cycle with analysis would 

cost $20,000 or more (2009 dollars). As 

with BSCP periodic kilns, sampling a 

single firing cycle might not be adequate 

for characterizing shuttle kiln 

emissions, due to variations during 

firing cycles and variations across tests. 

To collect three test runs of data, two 

additional cycles would need to be 

tested, bringing the cost to $60,000 or 

more (2009 dollars) to test a single 

shuttle kiln. Furthermore, the 

sanitaryware facilities covered under 

this proposed Clay Ceramics 

manufacturing rule have three or more 

shuttle kilns each, requiring additional 

tests at each facility.62

c. Test Methods and Costs 

As noted in section VI.K.1.a of this 

preamble, when EPA Method 26 or 26A 

is used, breakthrough of HCl can occur 

if emissions are variable and experience 

large spikes, as appears to be the case 

for BSCP periodic kilns. Testing of 

sanitaryware shuttle kilns could 

encounter a similar problem. Another 

disadvantage to using Methods 26 or 

26A for testing throughout shuttle kiln 

cycles is the need for additional 

manpower to operate the sampling 

trains around the clock and to recover 

samples.63

An alternative to using Method 26 or 

26A is to conduct the tests using FTIR 

according to EPA Method 320, where 

HCl breakthrough is not an issue. In 

addition, FTIR also provides near realtime emissions data. However, the cost 

for FTIR testing would be similarly 

expensive as testing by Method 26 or 

26A throughout an entire cycle. The 

cost for testing by FTIR is estimated to 

be $49,750 (2009 dollars) for a single 50- 

hour kiln cycle (the average cycle time 

for a BSCP periodic kiln). Assuming a 

50 percent reduction in cost for an 

average 25-hour sanitaryware shuttle 

kiln cycle, the cost to test one cycle 

would still be substantial (nearly 

$25,000 (2009 dollars)). If it were 

determined that the variations in 

emissions from cycle to cycle were 

significant, it might be necessary to test 

each kiln for two or more cycles in order 

to develop a representative emission 

rate. Testing for a second cycle would 

double the testing cost to almost 

$50,000 and testing for a third cycle 

would triple the cost to almost $75,000 

(2009 dollars). In addition to these costs, 

additional costs would be incurred for 

testing the kilns for PM emissions, 

which would have to be tested using a 

manual test method (e.g., EPA Methods 

5 or 17). If additional shuttle kilns 

needed to be tested at each facility, the 

costs would be even higher.64

While no formal cost-to-sales analysis 

was conducted for sanitaryware shuttle 

kilns like the one conducted for BSCP 

periodic kilns (see section IV.K.1 of this 

preamble), a similar informal analysis 

was performed using the sales and 

production data provided in the 2008 

EPA survey responses (claimed as CBI 

by the respondent). Based on this 

analysis, a similar conclusion (that 

testing is not economically feasible) can 

be reached. Because the test costs are 

similar and shuttle kilns represent a 

small share of total sanitaryware 

production and revenues, the EPA has 

concluded that it would not be 

economically feasible to require testing 

for shuttle kilns. 

d. Feasibility of Numerical Emission 

Limits for Shuttle Kilns 

CAA section 112(h)(1) states that the 

Administrator may prescribe a work 

practice standard or other requirements, 

consistent with the provisions of CAA 

sections 112(d) or (f), in those cases 

where, in the judgment of the 

Administrator, it is not feasible to 

enforce an emission standard. CAA 

section 112(h)(2)(B) further defines the 

term ‘‘not feasible’’ in this context to 

apply when ‘‘the application of 

measurement technology to a particular 

class of sources is not practicable due to 

technological and economic 

limitations.’’ 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 243 / Thursday, December 18, 2014 / Proposed Rules 75663 

65See the BSCP industry communication titled 

‘‘Periodic kiln language,’’ in the docket for the 

proposed Clay Ceramics rulemaking. 

Because of the technological and 

economic limitations described above, 

we conclude that it is not practicable to 

establish numerical emission limits for 

sanitaryware shuttle kilns. 

Demonstrating compliance with a 

numerical emissions limit for shuttle 

kilns is technologically limited to 

testing procedures that are economically 

infeasible for the sanitaryware industry. 

Consequently, we are proposing a work 

practice standard for sanitaryware 

shuttle kilns under CAA section 112(h). 

2. Work Practice Standard 

The work practice standard for 

sanitaryware shuttle kilns proposed in 

today’s Clay Ceramics manufacturing 

rule includes the following specific 

provisions: 65

• Each facility would have to use natural 

gas or equivalent as the kiln fuel, except 

during periods of natural gas curtailment or 

supply interruption. 

• Each facility would have to develop and 

use a designed firing time and temperature 

cycle for each product produced in the 

shuttle kiln, by programming the time and 

temperature cycle into the kiln or by tracking 

each step on a log sheet. 

• Each facility would have to label each 

shuttle kiln with the maximum load (in tons) 

that can be fired in the kiln during a single 

firing cycle. 

• For each firing load, each facility would 

have to limit the total tonnage placed in the 

kiln to no more than the maximum load and 

each facility would have to document the 

total tonnage placed in the kiln to show that 

it is not greater than the maximum load. 

• Each facility would have to develop and 

implement maintenance procedures for each 

kiln that specify the frequency of inspection 

and maintenance of the following items: 

Æ Calibration of temperature measuring 

devices 

Æ Controls that regulate air-to-fuel ratios 

Æ Controls that regulate firing cycles 

• Each facility would have to develop and 

maintain records required for each shuttle 

kiln, including logs to document the proper 

operation of the shuttle kilns and logs of the 

maintenance procedures used to demonstrate 

compliance with the standard. 

L. How did the EPA develop the startup 

and shutdown requirements? 

As stated in section V.E of this 

preamble, we are proposing work 

practice standards for periods of startup 

and shutdown for ceramic tile roller 

kilns, floor tile press dryers, ceramic tile 

spray dryers and sanitaryware tunnel 

kilns. We are not proposing alternate 

standards for periods of startup and 

shutdown for ceramic tile glaze lines or 

sanitaryware glaze spray booths. 

As noted in section V.B of this 

preamble, roller and tunnel kilns and 

dryers typically operate continuously, 

so startups and shutdowns are 

infrequent. Startup of a roller or tunnel 

kiln involves starting up the burners 

based on a set procedure to raise the 

temperature of the kiln to the proper 

operational temperature for 

manufacturing clay ceramics. Shutdown 

of a roller or tunnel kiln is the process 

of cooling the kiln from the proper 

operational temperature by stopping the 

burners based on a set procedure. 

Similarly, startup and shutdown of a 

dryer is the process of raising the 

temperature to the proper operational 

temperature or lowering the temperature 

from the proper operational temperature 

for manufacturing clay ceramics. When 

the temperature of the kiln or dryer is 

below the proper operational 

temperature, ceramic tile and 

sanitaryware manufacturers typically do 

not push ceramics into the kiln, so the 

emissions are expected to be much 

lower during startup and shutdown than 

during normal operations. 

While a kiln or dryer is heating to the 

proper operational temperature during 

startup or cooling from the operational 

temperature during shutdown, other 

parameters such as exhaust flow rate, 

moisture content, O2 concentration and 

pressure are also changing. In addition, 

the changes in these parameters may not 

happen smoothly and consistently as 

startup or shutdown progresses, as the 

kiln or dryer does not heat or cool 

evenly. The fluctuations in all these 

parameters are not consistent with the 

relatively steady-state conditions 

needed for valid, accurate results over 

three test runs using the measurement 

methods proposed to be used to 

demonstrate compliance. Even if testing 

were feasible during startup and 

shutdown, the emission limit formats 

chosen for this proposed Clay Ceramics 

manufacturing rule are not appropriate 

for use during periods other than 

normal operation. Specifically, if there 

is no throughout in the kiln or dryer, 

emission limits that are in a mass per 

throughput format would be essentially 

meaningless. 

We did not receive any detailed 

information through the 2010 EPA 

survey about the startup or shutdown of 

ceramic tile roller kilns, floor tile press 

dryers, ceramic tile spray dryers or 

sanitaryware tunnel kilns. However, 

ceramic tile roller kilns or sanitaryware 

tunnel kilns are fired at similar or 

slightly higher temperatures to BSCP 

tunnel kilns and they would likely use 

similar APCD to comply with the 

standards. Therefore, we expect that the 

issues described in section IV.E of this 

preamble associated with venting lowtemperature kiln exhaust through an 

APCD on a BSCP tunnel kiln would also 

apply to an APCD on a ceramic tile 

roller kiln, floor tile press dryer, ceramic 

tile spray dryer or sanitaryware tunnel 

kiln. We also expect that the low 

temperature set points would be about 

the same as for BSCP tunnel kilns, as 

those temperatures are based on the 

tolerance of the APCD. 

Therefore, we are proposing work 

practice standards for periods of startup 

and shutdown for ceramic tile roller 

kilns, floor tile press dryers, ceramic tile 

spray dryers and sanitaryware tunnel 

kilns with APCD. For startup, the owner 

or operator would be required to vent 

the exhaust from the kiln or dryer 

through the APCD by the time the kiln 

or dryer exhaust temperature reaches 

400 °F. In addition, no ceramics or other 

product may be introduced to the kiln 

or dryer until the kiln or dryer exhaust 

temperature reaches 400 °F and the 

exhaust is being vented through the 

APCD. For shutdown, the owner or 

operator would be required to vent the 

exhaust from the kiln or dryer through 

the APCD until the kiln or dryer exhaust 

temperature falls below 300 °F. In 

addition, no ceramics or other product 

may be introduced to the kiln or dryer 

once the kiln or dryer exhaust 

temperature falls to 300 °F and the 

exhaust is no longer being vented 

through the APCD. When the kiln or 

dryer exhaust is being vented through 

the APCD, the owner or operator would 

be required to comply with the 

applicable continuous compliance 

requirements described in section V.G 

of this preamble. 

For ceramic tile roller kilns, floor tile 

press dryers, ceramic tile spray dryers 

and sanitaryware tunnel kilns that can 

meet the proposed standards without an 

APCD, there are no concerns about 

damaging an APCD or procedures for 

bypassing an APCD. In addition, we did 

not receive any data through the 2010 

EPA survey regarding startup and 

shutdown of uncontrolled kilns. 

However, as noted above, we recognize 

that it is not feasible to conduct 

emission testing during periods of 

startup and shutdown. Therefore, we are 

proposing work practice standards for 

periods of startup and shutdown for 

ceramic tile roller kilns or sanitaryware 

tunnel kilns without an APCD. For 

startup, no ceramics or other product 

may be introduced to the kiln or dryer 

until the kiln or dryer exhaust 

temperature reaches 400 °F. For 

shutdown, no ceramics or other product 

may be put into the kiln or dryer once 

the kiln or dryer exhaust temperature 

falls to 300 °F. When there are ceramics 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
75664 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 243 / Thursday, December 18, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

in the kiln or dryer, the owner or 

operator would be expected to 

demonstrate compliance with the 

emissions limitations (as described in 

section V.G of this preamble). 

We are not proposing alternate 

standards (either work practice 

standards or an alternate numeric 

emission limit) for periods of startup 

and shutdown for ceramic tile glaze 

lines or sanitaryware glaze spray booths. 

These sources would be expected to 

comply with the emissions limitations 

(as described in section V.G of this 

preamble) at all times when the source 

is operating, including periods of 

startup and shutdown. We did not 

receive any data through the 2010 EPA 

survey suggesting that alternate 

standards for periods of startup and 

shutdown are needed for these sources. 

Glazing operations are intermittent in 

nature during normal operations, so 

emissions during startup and shutdown 

would not be expected to be different 

than emissions during normal 

operations. 

M. How did the EPA select the 

compliance requirements? 

We are proposing testing and 

monitoring requirements that are 

adequate to assure continuous 

compliance with the requirements of 

this proposed Clay Ceramics 

manufacturing rule. These requirements 

are described in detail in sections V.F 

and V.G of this preamble. We selected 

these requirements based upon our 

determination of the information 

necessary to ensure that the emission 

standards are being met and the work 

practices are being followed and that 

APCD and equipment are maintained 

and operated properly. Further, these 

proposed requirements ensure 

compliance with this proposed Clay 

Ceramics manufacturing rule without 

imposing a significant additional 

burden for facilities that must 

implement them. 

We are proposing that initial 

compliance with the emission limits for 

HF, HCl, PM, Hg and dioxins/furans be 

demonstrated by an initial performance 

test. The proposed Clay Ceramics 

manufacturing rule would also require 

5-year repeat performance tests to 

ensure, on an ongoing basis, that the 

APCD is operating properly and that its 

performance has not deteriorated. 

The majority of test methods that this 

proposed Clay Ceramics manufacturing 

rule would require for the performance 

stack tests (e.g., EPA Methods 5, 26A 

and 29) have been required under many 

other EPA standards. Many of the 

emissions tests upon which the 

proposed emission limits are based were 

conducted using these test methods. 

When a performance test is 

conducted, we are proposing that 

parameter operating limits be 

determined during the test. To ensure 

continuous compliance with the 

proposed emission limits, the proposed 

Clay Ceramics manufacturing rule 

would require continuous parameter 

monitoring of the kilns and APCD and 

maintaining these parameters within the 

operating limits established during the 

performance test. We selected these 

parameter monitoring requirements 

because they produce data that will be 

useful to both the owners or operators 

and the EPA for ensuring continuous 

compliance with the emission limits 

and/or operating limits and because of 

their reasonable cost and ease of 

execution. 

The APCD monitoring parameters 

included in the proposed rule were 

chosen for the types of APCD commonly 

used in the clay ceramics industry or 

anticipated to be used to comply with 

the proposed emission limits. These 

parameters include lime injection rate 

(on a per ton of fired product basis) for 

DIFF and DLS/FF; pressure drop, pH, 

liquid flow rate and chemical addition 

rate (if applicable) for wet scrubbers; 

activated carbon flow rate for ACI 

systems; periodic inspections for water 

curtains; and annual inspections for 

baffles. If applicable for demonstrating 

compliance with the HF/HCl standard, 

the kiln monitoring parameter included 

in the proposed Clay Ceramics 

manufacturing rule is the kiln process 

rate. To demonstrate compliance with 

the dioxin/furan standard for those 

affected sources without an ACI system, 

the monitoring parameter included in 

the proposed Clay Ceramics 

manufacturing rule is the operating 

temperature for the affected process 

(tunnel or roller kiln, ceramic tile spray 

dryer, floor tile press dryer), because the 

formation and destruction of dioxins/

furans are influenced by temperature 

conditions. Many of these CPMS are 

standard features on ceramic tile roller 

kilns and sanitaryware tunnel kilns and 

their associated APCD and have also 

been used in other standards for similar 

industries. 

In addition to parameter monitoring, 

the proposed Clay Ceramics 

manufacturing rule also includes a 

requirement for kilns equipped with a 

FF (e.g., a DIFF, DLS/FF or stand-alone 

FF) to either install a BLD system or 

monitor VE. Similar to the CPMS being 

proposed, BLD systems have also been 

used in other standards in similar 

industries. We have also determined 

that periodic VE checks are a reasonable 

alternative to BLD systems for this 

proposed Clay Ceramics manufacturing 

rule. Periodic VE checks have also been 

proposed for affected sources without 

an add-on control to demonstrate 

continuous compliance. 

N. How did the EPA determine 

compliance times for the proposed rule? 

Section 112 of the CAA specifies the 

dates by which affected sources must 

comply with the emission standards. 

Under CAA section 112(i)(1), new or 

reconstructed units must be in 

compliance with this proposed rule 

immediately upon startup or the 

effective date of the final rule, 

whichever is later. (The final action is 

expected to be a ‘‘major rule’’ as defined 

by 5 U.S.C. 804(2), so the effective date 

of the final rule is expected to be 60 

days after the final rule is published in 

the Federal Register.) 

Under CAA section 112(i)(3), existing 

sources are allowed up to 3 years after 

the effective date of the rule to comply 

with the final rule. For this industry, we 

believe that 3 years for compliance is 

necessary to allow adequate time to 

design, install and test any control 

systems that may need to be retrofitted 

onto existing sources, as well as obtain 

permits for the use of add-on controls. 

The compliance data for existing area 

sources that subsequently become major 

sources is governed by 40 CFR 

63.6(c)(5). We are proposing that such 

sources have 3 years from the date they 

become major sources to come into 

compliance, which is equivalent to the 

compliance period for existing sources 

discussed in the previous paragraph. 

Further, under the current regulations in 

40 CFR 63.6(b)(7), where an area source 

becomes a major source by the addition 

of equipment or operations that meet 

the definition of new affected source 

under this rule, that portion of the 

existing facility that is a new affected 

source must be in compliance upon 

initial startup. 

O. How did the EPA determine the 

required records and reports for the 

proposed rule? 

We are proposing that owner/

operators would be required to comply 

with the applicable requirements in the 

NESHAP General Provisions, subpart A 

of 40 CFR part 63, as described in Table 

9 of the proposed Clay Ceramics 

manufacturing rule. We evaluated the 

General Provisions requirements and 

included those we determined to be the 

notification, recordkeeping and 

reporting necessary to ensure 

compliance with and effective 

enforcement of, this proposed Clay 

Ceramics manufacturing rule. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 243 / Thursday, December 18, 2014 / Proposed Rules 75665 

We are also proposing that the owner 

or operator keep records on the firing 

time and temperature cycle for each 

sanitaryware shuttle kiln, the type of 

product fired in each batch and the 

amount of product fired in the shuttle 

kiln, to address the operational factors 

that impact HAP emissions from shuttle 

kilns and demonstrate compliance with 

the work practice standard for shuttle 

kilns (discussed further in section 

VI.K.1 of this preamble). 

In addition, we are proposing that the 

owner or operator keep records and 

submit a report of each malfunction and 

the corrective action taken as part of the 

next semiannual compliance report. The 

proposed compliance report would 

provide information on each type of 

malfunction which occurred during the 

reporting period and which caused or 

may have caused an exceedance of an 

emission limit. 

This proposed Clay Ceramics 

manufacturing rule also includes a 

requirement for electronic reporting of 

performance test data, which is 

discussed further in section III.I of this 

preamble. 

We request comment on ways that we 

could streamline the recordkeeping and 

reporting requirements of the proposed 

Clay Ceramics manufacturing rule by 

relying on existing business practices. 

P. How does the proposed rule affect 

permits? 

The CAA requires that sources subject 

to this Clay Ceramics manufacturing 

rule, once finalized, be operated 

pursuant to a permit issued under an 

EPA-approved State operating permit 

program. The operating permit programs 

are developed under title V of the CAA 

and the implementing regulations under 

40 CFR parts 70 and 71. If the facility 

is operating in the first 3 years of an 

operating permit, the owner or operator 

will need to obtain a revised permit to 

incorporate the requirements of this 

Clay Ceramics manufacturing rule. If the 

facility is in the last 2 years of an 

operating permit, the owner or operator 

will need to incorporate the 

requirements of this Clay Ceramics 

manufacturing rule into the next 

renewal of the permit. 

VII. Summary of the Environmental, 

Energy and Economic Impacts of the 

Proposed Standards 

A. What are the cost and emissions 

reduction impacts? 

Table 13 of this preamble illustrates 

the costs and emissions reductions for 

existing sources under the BSCP 

manufacturing and Clay Ceramics 

manufacturing proposed rule. 

TABLE 13—SUMMARY OF COSTS AND EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS FOR BSCP AND CLAY CERAMICS EXISTING SOURCES a

[2011 dollars] 

Industry 

Cost (million) Emissions reductions (tpy) 

Capital Annual HF HCl Cl2

Non-Hg 

HAP metals bHg PM PM2.5 SO2

BSCP ........................ $55.9 $19.0 410 24.0 2.09 3.79 0.0590 359 172 255 

Clay Ceramics .......... 0.102 0.0458 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. 

cPM2.5 = particulate matter with particles less than 2.5 micrometers in diameter. 

The nationwide capital and annual 

costs of the proposed BSCP 

manufacturing rule are expected to total 

$55.9 million and $19.0 million, 

respectively (2011 dollars). The 

nationwide HAP emissions reductions 

achieved under the proposed BSCP 

manufacturing rule are expected to total 

440 tpy. The methodology used to 

estimate the nationwide costs and 

emissions reductions of the proposed 

BSCP manufacturing rule is presented 

in the technical memoranda titled 

‘‘Development of Cost and Emission 

Reduction Impacts for the BSCP 

NESHAP’’ and ‘‘Monitoring and Testing 

Requirements and Costs for the BSCP 

NESHAP’’ in Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2013–0291. 

It is anticipated that all sanitaryware 

emission points will meet the MACT 

floor emission limits in the proposed 

Clay Ceramics manufacturing rule, so no 

emission control costs or emissions 

reductions are expected for these 

sources. However, these facilities will 

incur monitoring and testing costs to 

demonstrate compliance with the 

proposed Clay Ceramics manufacturing 

rule. These costs are documented in the 

technical memorandum titled 

‘‘Monitoring and Testing Requirements 

and Costs for the Clay Ceramics 

NESHAP’’ in Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2013–0290. 

There are no major sources producing 

ceramic tile. The five facilities that were 

major sources at the time of the 2008 

and 2010 EPA surveys have already 

taken the necessary steps to become 

synthetic area sources. Consequently, 

none of the known tile facilities will be 

subject to the provisions of the Clay 

Ceramics manufacturing rule, which 

means that no costs or emissions 

reductions are expected for tile affected 

sources under the proposed Clay 

Ceramics manufacturing rule. We 

request comment on whether we need to 

finalize the standards for ceramic tile 

manufacturing even though there 

currently are no major sources. 

B. What are the secondary impacts? 

Table 14 of this preamble illustrates 

the secondary impacts for existing 

sources under the BSCP and Clay 

Ceramics proposed rule. 

TABLE 14—SUMMARY OF SECONDARY IMPACTS FOR BSCP AND CLAY CERAMICS EXISTING SOURCES a

Control option 

Secondary air emissions (tpy) Energy 

impacts 

(MMBtu/yr) 

Solid waste 

impacts (tpy) PM PM2.5 CO NOX SO2

BSCP ............................................................. 1.93 0.646 3.60 28.0 81.7 268,000 8,630 

Clay Ceramics ............................................... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

aPM2.5 = particulate matter with particles less than 2.5 micrometers in diameter; CO = carbon monoxide; NOX = nitrogen oxides; MMBtu/yr = million British thermal 

units per year. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
75666 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 243 / Thursday, December 18, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

66Roman, 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. 

The relevant secondary impacts that 

were evaluated for the BSCP 

manufacturing and Clay Ceramics 

manufacturing proposed rule includes 

secondary air emissions, energy impacts 

and solid waste impacts. Indirect or 

secondary air emissions are impacts that 

result from the increased electricity 

usage associated with the operation of 

APCD to meet the proposed limits (i.e., 

increased secondary emissions of 

criteria pollutants from power plants). 

Energy impacts consist of the electricity 

needed to operate the APCD and solid 

waste impacts consist of the particulate 

captured by the APCD that is disposed 

of as waste (not reused or recycled). 

Under the proposed BSCP 

manufacturing rule, the nationwide 

secondary emissions of the criteria 

pollutants PM, carbon monoxide (CO), 

nitrogen oxides (NOX) and SO2 are 

expected to total 115 tpy, with energy 

impacts of 268,000 million British 

thermal units per year (MMBtu/yr) and 

solid waste impacts of 8,630 tpy. The 

methodology used to estimate the 

nationwide secondary impacts of the 

proposed BSCP manufacturing rule is 

presented in the technical memorandum 

‘‘Development of Cost and Emission 

Reduction Impacts for the BSCP 

NESHAP’’ in Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2013–0291. 

As noted in the previous section, it is 

anticipated that all sanitaryware 

emission points will meet the MACT 

floor emission limits in the proposed 

Clay Ceramics manufacturing rule, so 

there are no secondary impacts expected 

for these sources. There are no major 

sources producing ceramic tile. The five 

facilities that were major sources at the 

time of the 2008 and 2010 EPA surveys 

have already taken the necessary steps 

to become synthetic area sources. 

Consequently, none of the known 

ceramic tile facilities are expected to be 

subject to the provisions of the Clay 

Ceramics manufacturing rule, which 

means that no secondary impacts are 

expected for ceramic tile affected 

sources under the proposed Clay 

Ceramics manufacturing rule. 

C. What are the economic impacts? 

For the BSCP Manufacturing source 

category, the average national brick 

price under the proposed standards 

increases by 1.4 percent or $3.29 per 

1,000 Standard Brick Equivalent (SBE) 

(2011 dollars), while overall domestic 

production falls by 1.1 percent or 38 

million bricks per year. Under the 

proposed standards, the EPA estimated 

that one to two BSCP manufacturing 

facilities are at significant risk of 

closure. 

Based on the results of the small 

entity screening analysis for BSCP 

Manufacturing, the EPA concluded that 

it is not able to certify that the BSCP 

manufacturing rule will not have a 

significant impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. As a result, the 

EPA initiated a SBAR Panel and 

undertook an Initial Regulatory 

Flexibility Analysis (IRFA). 

For clay ceramics manufacturing, one 

sanitaryware company owns major 

sources and will incur costs. That 

affected company is not a small 

business. The compliance costs are less 

than 0.001 percent of sales for the 

affected company. Hence, the economic 

impact for compliance is minimal. 

Because no small firms face significant 

control costs, there is no significant 

impact on small entities. Thus, the 

proposed Clay Ceramics regulation is 

not expected to have significant impact 

on a substantial number of small 

entities. 

For more information on the benefits 

analysis and market analyses, please 

refer to the Regulatory Impact Analysis 

(RIA) for the BSCP manufacturing rule, 

‘‘Regulatory Impact Analysis: Proposed 

Brick and Structural Clay Products 

NESHAP,’’ which is available in Docket 

ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2013–0291. 

D. What are the social costs and 

benefits? 

Emission controls installed to meet 

the requirements of the proposed BSCP 

manufacturing rule will generate 

benefits by reducing emissions of HAP 

as well as criteria pollutants and their 

precursors, NOX and SO2. SO2 and NOX

are precursors to PM2.5 (particulate 

matter with particles less than 2.5 

micrometers in diameter) and Nox is a 

precursor to ozone. The criteria 

pollutant benefits are considered cobenefits for this proposed rule. For this 

proposed rule, we were only able to 

quantify the health co-benefits 

associated with reduced exposure to 

PM2.5 from emission reductions of SO2

and directly emitted PM2.5 because of 

methodological limitations associated 

with quantifying and monetizing HAP 

benefits. We estimate the monetized cobenefits of the proposed BSCP NESHAP 

in 2018 to be $52 million to $120 

million (2011 dollars) at a 3-percent 

discount rate and $47 million to $110 

million (2011 dollars) at a 7-percent 

discount rate. Using alternate 

relationships between PM2.5 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.66 A summary of the 

emission reduction and monetized cobenefits estimates for this proposed 

BSCP manufacturing rule at discount 

rates of 3 percent and 7 percent is in 

Table 15 of this preamble. 

TABLE 15—SUMMARY OF THE MONETIZED PM2.5 CO-BENEFITS FOR BRICK AND STRUCTURAL CLAY PRODUCTS

MANUFACTURING NESHAP FOR IN 2018 

[Millions of 2011 dollars] a, b

Pollutant 

Emission 

reductions 

(tpy) 

Total monetized co-benefits 

(3 percent Discount) 

Total monetized co-benefits 

(7 percent Discount) 

Directly emitted PM2.5 ............................................................... 170 45 to 100 ................................. 41 to 92. 

PM2.5 precursors 

SO2 ........................................................................................... 173 7 to 16 ..................................... 6 to 14. 

aAll 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 PM2.5 through reductions of PM2.5 precursors, such as SO2

and directly emitted PM2.5. 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 (NO2), exposure to ozone, ecosystem effects or visibility impairment. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 243 / Thursday, December 18, 2014 / Proposed Rules 75667 

67Fann, N., K.R. Bakerand 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. 68U.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. 69U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2013. 

Technical support document: Estimating the benefit 

per ton of reducing PM2.5 precursors from 17 

sectors. Research Triangle Park, NC. January. 

70 Krewski, C.A., III, R.T. Burnett, M.J. Thun, E.E. 

Calle, D. Krewski, K. Itoand 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. 

71Lepeule 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. July;120(7):965–70. 

72U.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>. 

bPM co-benefits are shown as a range from Krewski, et al. (2009) to Lepeule, et al. (2012). These models assume that all fine particles, regardless of their chemical composition, are equally potent in causing premature mortality because the scientific evidence is not yet sufficient to 

allow differentiation of effects estimates by particle type. 

These co-benefits estimates represent 

the total monetized human health 

benefits for populations exposed to less 

PM2.5 from controls installed to reduce 

air pollutants in order to meet this 

proposed rule. Due to analytical 

limitations, it was not possible to 

conduct air quality modeling for this 

proposed rule. Instead, we used a 

‘‘benefit-per-ton’’ approach to estimate 

the benefits of this rulemaking. To 

create the benefit-per-ton estimates, this 

approach uses a model to convert 

emissions of PM2.5 precursors into 

changes in ambient PM2.5 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),67 but 

they have since been updated to reflect 

the studies and population data in the 

2012 p.m. National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards (NAAQS) RIA.68 Specifically, 

we multiplied the benefit-per-ton 

estimates from the ‘‘Non-EGU Point 

other’’ category by the corresponding 

emission reductions.69 All nationalaverage 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 benefitper-ton estimates for this category is 

available in the technical support 

document, which is available in Docket 

ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2013–0291. 

These models assume that all fine 

particles, regardless of their chemical 

composition, are equally potent in 

causing premature mortality because the 

scientific evidence is not yet sufficient 

to allow differentiation of effects 

estimates by particle type. Even though 

we assume that all fine particles have 

equivalent health effects, the benefitper-ton estimates vary between 

precursors depending on the location 

and magnitude of their impact on PM2.5

levels, which drive population 

exposure. 

It is important to note that the 

magnitude of the PM2.5 co-benefits is 

largely driven by the concentration 

response function for premature 

mortality. We cite two key empirical 

studies, one based on the American 

Cancer Society cohort study 70 and the 

extended Six Cities cohort study.71 In 

the RIA for this rule, which is available 

in Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2013– 

0291, we also include benefits estimates 

derived from expert judgments (Roman 

et al., 2008) as a characterization of 

uncertainty regarding the PM2.5- 

mortality relationship. 

Considering a substantial body of 

published scientific literature, reflecting 

thousands of epidemiology, toxicology 

and clinical studies, the EPA’s 

Integrated Science Assessment for 

Particulate Matter 72 documents the 

association between elevated PM2.5

concentrations and adverse health 

effects, including increased premature 

mortality. This assessment, which was 

twice reviewed by the EPA’s 

independent Science Advisory Board, 

concluded that the scientific literature 

consistently finds that a no-threshold 

model most adequately portrays the PMmortality 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 PM2.5 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 PM2.5 concentrations 

that fall below the bulk of the observed 

data in these studies. Concentration 

benchmark analyses (e.g., lowest 

measured level (LML) or one standard 

deviation below the mean of the air 

quality data in the study) allow readers 

to determine the portion of population 

exposed to annual mean PM2.5 levels at 

or above different concentrations, which 

provides some insight into the level of 

uncertainty in the estimated PM2.5

mortality benefits. There are 

uncertainties inherent in identifying any 

particular point at which our confidence 

in reported associations becomes 

appreciably less and the scientific 

evidence provides no clear dividing 

line. However, the EPA does not view 

these concentration benchmarks as a 

concentration threshold below which 

we would not quantify health benefits of 

air quality improvements. 

For this analysis, policy-specific air 

quality data are not available due to 

time or resource limitations and thus, 

we are unable to estimate the percentage 

of premature mortality associated with 

this specific rule’s emission reductions 

at each PM2.5 level. As a surrogate 

measure of mortality impacts, we 

provide the percentage of the 

population exposed at each PM2.5 level 

using the source apportionment 

modeling used to calculate the benefitper-ton estimates for this sector. Using 

the Krewski, et al. (2009) study, 93 

percent of the population is exposed to 

annual mean PM2.5 levels at or above the 

LML of 5.8 mg/m3. Using the Lepeule, et 

al. (2012) study, 67 percent of the 

population is exposed above the LML of 

8 mg/m3. 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 warranted when 

interpreting the LML assessment for this 

rule because these results are not 

consistent with results from rules that 

had air quality modeling. 

Every benefit analysis 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. Despite these uncertainties, 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
75668 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 243 / Thursday, December 18, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

73U.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. 

we believe the benefit analysis for this 

proposed rule provides a reasonable 

indication of the expected health 

benefits of the rulemaking under a set of 

reasonable assumptions. This analysis 

does not include the type of detailed 

uncertainty assessment found in the 

2012 PM2.5 NAAQS RIA 73 because we 

lack the necessary air quality input and 

monitoring data to run the benefits 

model. In addition, we have not 

conducted air quality modeling for this 

proposed rule and using a benefit-perton approach adds another important 

source of uncertainty to the benefits 

estimates. The 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS 

benefits analysis provides an indication 

of the sensitivity of our results to 

various assumptions. 

It should be noted that the monetized 

co-benefits estimates provided above do 

not include benefits from several 

important benefit categories, including 

exposure to HAP, NOX and ozone 

exposure, as well as ecosystem effects 

and visibility impairment. Although we 

do not have sufficient information or 

modeling available to provide 

monetized estimates for this proposed 

rule, we include a qualitative 

assessment of these unquantified 

benefits in the RIA for the rule. 

The specific control technologies for 

the proposed rule are anticipated to 

have minor secondary impacts, 

including an increase of 28 tons of NOX, 

less than 2 tons of PM, 3 tons of CO and 

82 tons of SO2 each year. Given the 

insignificant increase, only secondary 

effects of PM and SO2 were included in 

the monetary evaluation of the actual 

benefits. 

For more information on the benefits 

analysis, please refer to the RIA for this 

rule, ‘‘Regulatory Impact Analysis: 

Proposed Brick and Structural Clay 

Products NESHAP,’’ which is available 

in Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2013– 

0291. 

VIII. Public Participation and Request 

for Comment 

We request comment on all aspects of 

the proposed rule for BSCP 

Manufacturing and Clay Ceramics 

Manufacturing, including any alternate 

approaches that the EPA is considering 

(see section IV.Q of this preamble for 

further discussion on these approaches). 

During this rulemaking, we conducted 

outreach to small entities and convened 

a SBAR Panel to obtain advice and 

recommendation of representatives of 

the small entities that potentially would 

be subject to the requirements of the 

proposed BSCP manufacturing rule. 

(Note: We did not convene a SBAR 

Panel for the proposed Clay Ceramics 

manufacturing rule because none of the 

major source facilities subject to the 

proposed Clay Ceramics manufacturing 

rule are owned by a small entity.) As 

part of the SBAR Panel process, we 

conducted outreach with 

representatives from various small 

entities that would be affected by the 

proposed BSCP manufacturing rule. We 

met with these small entity 

representatives (SERs) to discuss the 

potential rulemaking approaches and 

potential options to decrease the impact 

of the BSCP manufacturing rulemaking 

on their industries/sectors. We 

distributed outreach materials to the 

SERs; these materials included 

background on the BSCP manufacturing 

rulemaking, possible regulatory 

approaches, preliminary cost and 

economic impacts and possible 

rulemaking alternatives. We met with 

SERs from the BSCP industry that will 

be impacted directly by the proposed 

BSCP manufacturing rule to discuss the 

outreach materials and receive feedback 

on the approaches and alternatives 

detailed in the outreach packet. The 

Panel received written comments from 

the SERs following the meeting in 

response to discussions at the meeting 

and the questions posed to the SERs by 

the agency. The SERs were specifically 

asked to provide comment on regulatory 

alternatives that could help to minimize 

the BSCP manufacturing rule’s impact 

on small businesses. A copy of the final 

Panel report is available in Docket ID 

No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2013–0291. 

IX. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

Under section 3(f)(1) of Executive 

Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 

1993), this action is an ‘‘economically 

significant regulatory action’’ because it 

is likely to have an annual effect on the 

economy of $100 million or more.’’ 

Accordingly, the EPA submitted this 

action to OMB for review under 

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 (76 

FR 3821, January 21, 2011) and any 

changes made in response to OMB 

recommendations have been 

documented in the dockets for this 

action. 

In addition, the EPA prepared an 

analysis of the potential costs and 

benefits associated with this action. 

This analysis is contained in 

‘‘Regulatory Impact Analysis: Proposed 

Brick and Structural Clay Products 

NESHAP.’’ A copy of the analysis is 

available in the docket for the proposed 

BSCP manufacturing rule (Docket ID No. 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2013–0291) and the 

analysis is briefly summarized here. 

The EPA’s study estimates that 

affected BSCP facilities will incur total 

annualized costs of $21 million (2011 

dollars) under the proposed BSCP 

manufacturing rule, including costs of 

emission controls, testing and 

monitoring, along with recordkeeping 

and reporting costs for facilities that 

have testing and monitoring. Total 

annualized costs for the alternate 

approach are estimated to be $31 

million (2011 dollars). The EPA 

gathered information on firm sales and 

overall industry profitability for firms 

owning affected BSCP facilities. The 

EPA estimated that one to two BSCP 

manufacturing facilities are at 

significant risk of closure under the 

proposed standards. Under the alternate 

approach, the EPA estimated that two to 

six BSCP manufacturing facilities are at 

significant risk of closure. 

The EPA also conducted an 

assessment of the benefits of the 

proposed rule, as described in section 

VII of this preamble. These estimates 

reflect the monetized human health 

benefits of reducing cases of morbidity 

and premature mortality among 

populations exposed to PM2.5 reduced 

by this rule. Data, resource and 

methodological limitations prevented 

the EPA from monetizing the benefits 

from several important benefit 

categories, including benefits from 

reducing exposure to close to 450 tons 

of HAP each year for the proposed 

standards and exposure to as high as 

740 tons of HAP each year through the 

alternate standards, as well as 

ecosystem effects and visibility 

impairment due to PM emissions. In 

addition to reducing emissions of PM 

precursors such as SO2, this rule would 

reduce several non-Hg HAP metals 

emissions (i.e., antimony, arsenic, 

beryllium, cadmium, chromium, cobalt, 

lead, manganese, nickel and selenium) 

each year. The EPA estimates the total 

monetized co-benefits to be $52 million 

to $120 million (2011 dollars) at a 3 

percent discount rate and $47 million to 

$110 million (2011 dollars) at a 7 

percent discount rate on a yearly 

average in 2018 for the proposed 

standards. 

Based on the EPA’s examination of 

costs and benefits of the proposed BSCP 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 243 / Thursday, December 18, 2014 / Proposed Rules 75669 

NESHAP, the EPA believes that the 

benefits of the proposed BSCP 

manufacturing rule will exceed the 

costs. 

The EPA also examined the costs and 

economic impacts associated with the 

Clay Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP. 

Only two firms are estimated to incur 

costs as a result of the proposed Clay 

Ceramics manufacturing rule and they 

only incur costs associated with testing, 

monitoring, recordkeeping and 

reporting. Total annualized costs are 

only $55,900 (2011 dollars) and both 

firms’ estimated costs of complying with 

the proposed Clay Ceramics 

manufacturing rule are less than 0.001 

percent of their sales. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

The information collection 

requirements in the BSCP and Clay 

Ceramics proposed rule have been 

submitted for approval to OMB under 

the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 

3501 et seq. 

The ICR document prepared by the 

EPA for the BSCP Manufacturing 

NESHAP has been assigned the EPA ICR 

number 2509.01. The ICR document 

prepared by the EPA for the Clay 

Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP has 

been assigned the EPA ICR number 

2510.01. The information requirements 

are based on notification, recordkeeping 

and reporting requirements in the 

NESHAP General Provisions (40 CFR 

part 63, subpart A), which are 

mandatory for all operators subject to 

national emissions standards. These 

recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements are specifically authorized 

by CAA section 114 (42 U.S.C. 7414). 

All information submitted to the EPA 

pursuant to the recordkeeping and 

reporting requirements for which a 

claim of confidentiality is made is 

safeguarded according to the EPA 

policies set forth in 40 CFR part 2, 

subpart B. 

In addition to the notification, 

recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements in the NESHAP General 

Provisions, the proposed rule includes 

paperwork requirements associated with 

initial and 5-year repeat testing for 

selected process equipment, electronic 

reporting of performance test results, 

parameter monitoring, preparation of an 

OM&M plan, maintenance and 

inspection of process and control 

equipment, compliance with work 

practice standards and periods of 

malfunction. 

There are 92 BSCP facilities that are 

currently major sources of HAP. An 

estimated 25 of these facilities are 

projected to become synthetic area 

sources by promulgation rather than 

comply with the BSCP standards. The 

remaining 67 facilities are expected to 

be subject to the proposed BSCP 

manufacturing rule. For these 67 

facilities, the annual recordkeeping and 

reporting burden associated with the 

proposed BSCP standards (averaged 

over the first 3 years after the effective 

date of the standards) is estimated to be 

15,063 labor hours per year, at a cost of 

$796,255/yr. No capital costs associated 

with monitoring, testing, recordkeeping 

or reporting are expected to be incurred 

during this period. The annual 

operating and maintenance costs are 

estimated to be $983/yr. The total 

burden for the federal government 

(averaged over the first 3 years after the 

effective date of the standards) is 

estimated to be 103 hours per year, at 

a total labor cost of $5,329 per year. (All 

costs are in 2011 dollars.) Burden is 

defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). 

There are three clay ceramics facilities 

that are currently major sources of HAP 

and would be subject to the Clay 

Ceramics manufacturing rule that we are 

proposing. For these three facilities, the 

annual recordkeeping and reporting 

burden associated with the Clay 

Ceramics standards (averaged over the 

first 3 years after the effective date of the 

standards) is estimated to total 674 labor 

hours per year at a cost of $35,653/yr. 

As with the BSCP standards, no capital 

costs associated with monitoring, 

testing, recordkeeping or reporting are 

expected to be incurred during this 

period. The annual operating and 

maintenance costs are estimated to be 

$44/yr. The total burden for the federal 

government (averaged over the first 3 

years after the effective date of the 

standards) is estimated to be 4.6 hours 

per year, at a total labor cost of $239 per 

year. (All costs are in 2011 dollars.) 

Because BSCP and clay ceramics 

facilities are not required to come into 

full compliance with the standards until 

3 years after promulgation, much of the 

respondent burden (e.g., performance 

tests, inspections, notification of 

compliance status, compliance report, 

records of compliance data and 

malfunctions) does not occur until the 

fourth year following promulgation. 

For the proposed BSCP manufacturing 

rule, we estimate an average annual 

recordkeeping and reporting burden of 

31,805 labor hours per year, at a cost of 

$1,681,231/yr, for years 4 through 6. We 

also estimate annualized capital costs of 

$262,119/yr and annual operating and 

maintenance costs of $350,075/yr over 

this period, for a total annualized cost 

of $612,194/yr. The average annual 

burden for the federal government for 

years 4 through 6 is estimated to be 

3,953 hours per year, at a total labor cost 

of $207,946 per year. (All costs are in 

2011 dollars.) 

For the proposed Clay Ceramics 

manufacturing rule, we estimate an 

average annual recordkeeping and 

reporting burden of 1,448 labor hours 

per year, at a cost of $76,519/yr, for 

years 4 through 6. We also estimate 

annualized capital costs of $27,368/yr 

and annual operating and maintenance 

costs of $21,101/yr over this period, for 

a total annualized cost of $48,469/yr. 

The average annual burden for the 

federal government for years 4 through 

6 is estimated to be 180 hours per year, 

at a total labor cost of $9,448 per year. 

(All costs are in 2011 dollars.) 

An agency may not conduct or 

sponsor, and a person is not required to 

respond to, a collection of information 

unless it displays a currently valid OMB 

control number. The OMB control 

numbers for the EPA’s regulations in 40 

CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. 

To comment on the agency’s need for 

this information, the accuracy of the 

provided burden estimates and any 

suggested methods for minimizing 

respondent burden, the EPA has 

established a public docket for each 

rule, which includes this ICR, under 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2013– 

0291 (for the BSCP Manufacturing 

NESHAP) and Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2013–0290 (for the Clay Ceramics 

Manufacturing NESHAP). Submit any 

comments related to the ICR to the EPA 

and OMB. See the ADDRESSES section at 

the beginning of this action for where to 

submit comments to the EPA. Send 

comments to OMB at the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs, 

Office of Management and Budget, 725 

17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503, 

Attention: Desk Office for the EPA. 

Since OMB is required to make a 

decision concerning the ICR between 30 

and 60 days after December 18, 2014, a 

comment to OMB is best assured of 

having its full effect if OMB receives it 

by January 20, 2015. The final rule will 

respond to any OMB or public 

comments on the information collection 

requirements contained in this proposal. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

generally requires an agency to prepare 

a regulatory flexibility analysis of any 

rule subject to notice and comment 

rulemaking requirements under the 

Administrative Procedure Act or any 

other statute unless the agency certifies 

that the rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. Small entities 

include small businesses, small 

organizations and small governmental 

jurisdictions. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
75670 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 243 / Thursday, December 18, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

For purposes of assessing the impacts 

of the proposed rule on small entities, 

small entity is defined as: (1) A small 

business as defined by the Small 

Business Administration’s (SBA’s) 

regulations at 13 CFR 121.201; (2) a 

small governmental jurisdiction that is a 

government of a city, county, town, 

school district or special district with a 

population of less than 50,000; and (3) 

a small organization that is any not-forprofit enterprise which is independently 

owned and operated and is not 

dominant in its field. Small entities 

affected by the proposed BSCP NESHAP 

are small businesses that own BSCP 

manufacturing facilities. Affected parent 

companies fall under the Clay Building 

Material and Refractories Manufacturing 

(NAICS 327120) industry and the SBA 

(2013) defines a small business in this 

industry as a firm with fewer than 750 

employees. Of 44 parent companies 

owning BSCP facilities, there are 36 

parent companies that are small 

businesses. Small entities affected by 

the proposed Clay Ceramics NESHAP 

are small businesses that own clay 

ceramics manufacturing facilities. 

Affected parent companies of ceramic 

tile facilities fall under the Clay 

Building Material and Refractories 

Manufacturing (NAICS 327120) industry 

and affected parent companies of 

sanitaryware facilities fall under the 

Pottery, Ceramics, and Plumbing Fixture 

Manufacturing (NAICS 327110) 

industry. However, we have determined 

that no small entities would be subject 

to the clay ceramics proposed standards. 

Pursuant to section 603 of the RFA, 

the EPA prepared an IRFA that 

examines the impact of the proposed 

BSCP manufacturing rule on small 

entities along with regulatory 

alternatives that could reduce that 

impact. The IRFA is included in Section 

5 of the RIA and is available for review 

in the docket for the proposed BSCP 

manufacturing rule (Docket ID No. EPA– 

HQ–OAR–2013–0291) and is 

summarized below. 

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 section 

112(b). These standards are applicable 

to new or existing sources of HAP and 

shall require the maximum degree of 

emission reduction. In the 

Administrator’s judgment, the 

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 proposed. 

2. Objectives and Legal Basis for the 

Rule 

Section 112(d) of the CAA requires 

the EPA to set emissions standards for 

HAP emitted by major stationary 

sources based on the performance of the 

MACT. The MACT standards for 

existing sources must be at least as 

stringent as the average emissions 

limitation achieved by the best 

performing 12 percent of existing 

sources (for which the Administrator 

has emissions information) or the best 

performing five sources for source 

categories with less than 30 sources 

(CAA section 112(d)(3)(A) and (B)). 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 HAP, but 

must take into account costs, energy and 

nonair environmental impacts when 

doing so. This rule is being proposed to 

comply with CAA section 112(d). 

3. Affected 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 ratio) to 

measure the magnitude of potential 

impacts on small companies. Under the 

proposed standards, the EPA estimated 

that one to two small brick 

manufacturing facilities are at 

significant risk of closure. Under the 

alternate approach, two to five small 

brick manufacturing facilities are at 

significant risk of closure. 

4. 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. 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. 

5. Related Federal Rules 

The EPA determined that there are no 

related federal rules for this source 

category. 

6. Significant Alternatives 

The EPA has included provisions in 

the proposed rule where possible to 

minimize the burden on all affected 

entities, including small entities. As 

required by section 609(b) of the RFA, 

as amended by Small Business 

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act 

(SBREFA), the EPA also conducted 

outreach to small entities and convened 

a SBAR Panel to obtain advice and 

recommendations of representatives of 

the small entities that potentially would 

be subject to the proposed BSCP 

manufacturing rule’s requirements. 

Seventeen SERs associated with brick 

manufacturing participated. On June 26, 

2013, the SBAR Panel held an outreach 

meeting/teleconference with the SERs. 

In addition to the materials that the 

SERs received for the pre-Panel 

outreach, the SERs were provided with 

background information to help them 

prepare for the teleconference and 

prepare their comments on the proposed 

rulemaking. 

Consistent with the RFA/SBREFA 

requirements, the Panel evaluated the 

assembled materials and small-entity 

comments on issues related to elements 

of the IRFA. A copy of the Panel report 

is included in the docket for the 

proposed BSCP manufacturing rule 

(Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2013– 

0291). 

The SBAR made several 

recommendations to enhance flexibility 

for small businesses complying with the 

proposed BSCP manufacturing rule. The 

EPA adopted the panel 

recommendations to the extent feasible, 

as described below: 

• The panel recommended that the 

EPA propose work practices for dioxin 

and take comment on the feasibility of 

work practice standards for Hg and 

other metals. The discussion of work 

practices for Hg and other metals should 

clearly identify any areas where the 

agency believes that the data do not 

support work practices to allow for 

meaningful comments and also discuss 

work practice alternatives with 

sufficient specificity that they can be 

fully considered as an alternative in the 

final BSCP manufacturing rule. 

Proposed rule: The EPA is proposing 

work practices for dioxin/furan. 

Although the EPA is proposing emission 

limits for Hg and for non-Hg HAP 

metals, the EPA is specifically 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 243 / Thursday, December 18, 2014 / Proposed Rules 75671 

requesting comment in the proposal on 

whether or not work practice standards 

for non-Hg HAP metals and for Hg are 

appropriate. 

• The panel recommended that the 

EPA co-propose both a health-based 

limit and MACT limits for acid gases 

unless the EPA determines it lacks 

sufficient information to propose a 

numerical health-based limit. 

Proposed rule: The EPA is proposing 

a health-based emission limit for acid 

gases in lieu of MACT limits. 

• The panel recommended that the 

EPA propose separate subcategories for 

kilns based on size if it reduces the 

financial impact and that the EPA 

should take comment and solicit data on 

subcategorization based on raw 

materials, fuels and other factors. 

Proposed rule: The EPA evaluated the 

data to determine if subcategories of 

sources were supported, including 

subcategories by kiln size. As a result, 

the EPA is proposing emission limits for 

Hg in two subcategories based on kiln 

size (large, small). However, although 

the EPA has the discretion to 

subcategorize by kiln size, the EPA 

determined it was not necessary to 

exercise this discretion for all 

pollutants, including total non-Hg HAP 

metals. Instead, the EPA is proposing a 

choice of emission limits for PM or total 

non-Hg HAP metals for all tunnel kilns. 

The ability to comply with the 

equivalent lb/hr total non-Hg HAP 

metals limit provides additional 

flexibility for small tunnel kilns and 

tunnel kilns with a low metals content 

in the PM emissions. 

• The panel recommended that the 

EPA specifically request information, at 

proposal, on how the presence of 

sawdust dryers would affect emissions 

and control costs. 

Proposed rule: The proposed rule 

requests comment on whether the EPA 

should create a subcategory for kilns 

fired with sawdust (with or without a 

sawdust dryer). 

• The panel recommended that the 

EPA propose work practice standards 

for startup and shutdown. 

Proposed rule: The EPA is proposing 

work practice standards for periods of 

startup and shutdown for tunnel kilns. 

• The panel recommended that the 

EPA set the floor based on 12 percent 

of the entire source category if the EPA 

can establish that the data available to 

the agency represent the bestperforming sources consistent with 

section 112 of the CAA and relevant 

case law. 

Proposed rule: The test data for PM 

(the surrogate for total non-Hg HAP 

metals) showed that kilns controlled 

with a FF-based APCD (e.g., DIFF, DLS/ 

FF) are the better performers and at least 

12 percent of the kilns in the industry 

are controlled with a FF-based APCD. 

Therefore, the MACT limit is based on 

the top 12 percent of the kilns in the 

industry (i.e., the best-performing 

sources with a FF-based APCD). 

However, the EPA was unable to 

establish that the data available to the 

agency represented the best-performing 

sources for Hg control. Therefore, the 

MACT limit for Hg is based upon the 

top 12 percent of sources for which we 

had test data. 

We invite comments on all aspects of 

the proposal and its impacts on small 

entities. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 

1531–1538, requires Federal agencies, 

unless otherwise prohibited by law, to 

assess the effects of their regulatory 

actions on State, local and tribal 

governments and the private sector. 

This action does not contain a federal 

mandate that may result in expenditures 

of $100 million or more for state, local 

or tribal governments, in the aggregate, 

or the private sector in any 1 year. This 

action is not expected to impact state, 

local or tribal governments. The 

nationwide annual cost to the affected 

industry is estimated to be $19.0 million 

per year for the proposed BSCP 

manufacturing rule and $54,100 per 

year for the proposed Clay Ceramics 

manufacturing rule (2011 dollars). Thus, 

this action is not subject to the 

requirements of sections 202 or 205 of 

the UMRA. 

This action is also not subject to the 

requirements of section 203 of UMRA 

because it contains no regulatory 

requirements that might significantly or 

uniquely affect small governments. It 

contains no requirements that apply to 

such governments, nor does it impose 

obligations upon them. 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

This action does not have federalism 

implications. It will not have substantial 

direct effects on the states, on the 

relationship between the national 

government and the states or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132. None of the 

facilities subject to this action are 

owned or operated by state governments 

and nothing in this proposal will 

supersede state regulations. Thus, 

Executive Order 13132 does not apply 

to this action. In the spirit of Executive 

Order 13132 and consistent with the 

EPA policy to promote communications 

between the EPA and state and local 

governments, the EPA specifically 

solicits comment on this proposed 

action from state and local officials. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

This action does not have tribal 

implications, as specified in Executive 

Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 

2000). It will not have substantial direct 

effects on tribal governments, on the 

relationship between the federal 

government and Indian tribes or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities between the federal 

government and Indian tribes, as 

specified in Executive Order 13175. The 

action imposes requirements on owners 

and operators of BSCP and clay 

ceramics manufacturing facilities and 

not tribal governments. Although 

Executive Order 13175 does not apply 

to this action, the EPA specifically 

solicits additional comment on this 

proposed action from tribal officials. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

The EPA interprets Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) as 

applying to those regulatory actions that 

concern health or safety risks, such that 

the analysis required under section 5– 

501 of the Executive Order has the 

potential to influence the regulation. 

This action is not subject to Executive 

Order 13045 because it is based solely 

on technology performance. 

Nevertheless, this action will result in 

reductions in emissions of HF, HCl, Cl2, 

dioxins/furans and Hg and other metals, 

which will provide some increased 

protection of health for people of all 

ages including children. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution or Use 

This action is not a ‘‘significant 

energy action’’ as defined in Executive 

Order 13211 (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 

2001)), because it is not likely to have 

a significant adverse effect on the 

supply, distribution or use of energy. 

This action will not adversely directly 

affect productivity, competition or 

prices in the energy sector. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (‘‘NTTAA’’), Public Law 

104–113 (15 U.S.C. 272 note), directs 

the EPA to use voluntary consensus 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
75672 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 243 / Thursday, December 18, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

standards (VCS) in its regulatory 

activities unless to do so would be 

inconsistent with applicable law or 

otherwise impractical. Voluntary 

consensus standards are technical 

standards (e.g., materials specifications, 

test methods, sampling procedures, 

business practices) that are developed or 

adopted by voluntary consensus 

standards bodies. The NTTAA directs 

the EPA to provide Congress, through 

OMB, explanations when the agency 

decides not to use available and 

applicable VCS. 

This proposed rulemaking involves 

technical standards. The EPA proposes 

to use the following four VCS as 

acceptable alternatives to the EPA test 

methods for the purpose of this rule. 

ANSI/ASME PTC 19–10–1981, Part 10, 

‘‘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. 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 

Mercury 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 Direct 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 mandatory; and (2) 

in ASTM D6348–03 Annex A5 (Analyte 

Spiking Technique), the percent (%) R 

must be determined for each target 

analyte (Equation A5.5). In order for the 

test data to be acceptable for a 

compound, %R must be greater than or 

equal to 70 percent and less than or 

equal to 130 percent. If the %R value 

does not meet this criterion for a target 

compound, the test data is not 

acceptable for that compound and the 

test must be repeated for that analyte 

(i.e., the sampling and/or analytical 

procedure should be adjusted before a 

retest). The %R value for each 

compound must be reported in the test 

report and all field measurements must 

be corrected with the calculated %R 

value for that compound by using the 

following equation: Reported Result = 

(Measured Concentration in the Stack × 

100)/%R. 

The EPA welcomes comments on this 

aspect of the proposed rulemaking and, 

specifically, invites the public to 

identify potentially applicable VCS and 

to explain why such standards should 

be used in one or both of these 

regulations. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations 

Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, 

February 16, 1994) establishes federal 

executive policy on environmental 

justice. Its main provision directs 

federal agencies, to the greatest extent 

practicable and permitted by law, to 

make environmental justice part of their 

mission by identifying and addressing, 

as appropriate, disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their programs, 

policies and activities on minority 

populations and low-income 

populations in the United States. 

The EPA has determined that this 

proposed rule will not have 

disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects 

on minority, low income or indigenous 

populations because they increase the 

level of environmental protection for all 

affected populations without having any 

disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects 

on any population, including any 

minority, low income or indigenous 

populations. The proposed rule 

establishes national standards that will 

result in reductions in emissions of HF, 

HCl, Cl2, dioxins/furans and Hg and 

other metals to which all affected 

populations are exposed. Thus the 

proposed rule is projected to have 

positive, not adverse, impacts on human 

health and the environment. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedure, 

Air pollution control, Hazardous 

substances, Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements. 

Dated: November 20, 2014. 

Gina McCarthy, 

Administrator. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Environmental Protection 

Agency proposes to amend 40 CFR part 

63 as follows: 

PART 63—NATIONAL EMISSION 

STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR 

POLLUTANTS FOR SOURCE 

CATEGORIES 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 63 

continues to read as follows: 

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

■ 2. Section 63.14 is amended by: 

■ a. Revising paragraphs (f)(1), (g)(74) 

and (84); 

■ b. Adding paragraph (g)(95); and 

■ c. Revising paragraph (l)(2). 

The revisions and addition read as 

follows: 

§ 63.14 Incorporations by reference. 

* * * * * 

(f) * * * 

(1) ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10–1981, 

Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses [Part 10, 

Instruments and Apparatus], issued 

August 31, 1981, IBR approved for 

§§ 63.309(k), 63.457(k), 63.772(e) and 

(h), 63.865(b), 63.1282(d) and (g), 

63.3166(a), 63.3360(e), 63.3545(a), 

63.3555(a), 63.4166(a), 63.4362(a), 

63.4766(a), 63.4965(a), 63.5160(d), table 

4 to subpart UUUU, 63.9307(c), 

63.9323(a), 63.11148(e), 63.11155(e), 

63.11162(f), 63.11163(g), 63.11410(j), 

63.11551(a), 63.11646(a), and 63.11945, 

table 5 to subpart DDDDD, table 4 to 

subpart JJJJJ, table 4 to subpart KKKKK, 

tables 4 and 5 of subpart UUUUU, and 

table 1 to subpart ZZZZZ. 

* * * * * 

(g) * * * 

(74) ASTM D6348–03 (Reapproved 

2010), Standard Test Method for 

Determination of Gaseous Compounds 

by Extractive Direct Interface Fourier 

Transform Infrared (FTIR) Spectroscopy, 

including Annexes A1 through A8, 

(Approved October 1, 2010), IBR 

approved for table 4 to subpart JJJJJ, 

table 4 to subpart KKKKK, tables 1, 2, 

and 5 to subpart UUUUU, and appendix 

B to subpart UUUUU. 

* * * * * 

(84) ASTM D6784–02 (Reapproved 

2008), Standard Test Method for 

Elemental, 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, table 4 to subpart JJJJJ, table 4 

to subpart KKKKK, table 4 to subpart 

JJJJJJ, table 5 to subpart UUUUU, and 

appendix A to subpart UUUUU. 

* * * * * 

(95) ASTM D6735–01 (Reapproved 

2009), Standard Test Method for 

Measurement of Gaseous Chlorides and 

Fluorides from Mineral Calcining 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 243 / Thursday, December 18, 2014 / Proposed Rules 75673 

Exhaust Sources—Impinger Method, 

IBR approved for table 4 to subpart JJJJJ 

and table 4 to subpart KKKKK. 

* * * * * 

(l) * * * 

(2) EPA–454/R–98–015, Office of Air 

Quality Planning and Standards 

(OAQPS), Fabric Filter Bag Leak 

Detection Guidance, September 1997, 

IBR approved for §§ 63.548(e), 

63.7525(j), 63.8450(e), 63.8600(e), and 

63.11224(f). 

■ 3. Subchapter C is amended by 

revising subpart JJJJJ to read as follows: 

Subpart JJJJJ—National Emission 

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 

for Brick and Structural Clay Products 

Manufacturing 

Sec. 

What This Subpart Covers 

63.8380 What is the purpose of this 

subpart? 

63.8385 Am I subject to this subpart? 

63.8390 What parts of my plant does this 

subpart cover? 

63.8395 When do I have to comply with 

this subpart? 

Emission Limitations and Work Practice 

Standards 

63.8405 What emission limitations and 

work practice standards must I meet? 

63.8410 What are my options for meeting 

the emission limitations and work 

practice standards? 

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, maintenance, 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 monitor 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? 

Other Requirements and Information 

63.8505 What parts of the General 

Provisions apply to me? 

63.8510 Who implements and enforces this 

subpart? 

63.8515 What definitions apply to this 

subpart? 

Tables to Subpart JJJJJ of Part 63 

Table 1 to Subpart JJJJJ of Part 63—Emission 

Limits 

Table 2 to Subpart JJJJJ of Part 63—Operating 

Limits 

Table 3 to Subpart JJJJJ of Part 63—Work 

Practice Standards 

Table 4 to Subpart JJJJJ of Part 63— 

Requirements for Performance Tests 

Table 5 to 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— 

Requirements for Reports 

Table 8 to Subpart JJJJJ of Part 63— 

Applicability of General Provisions to 

Subpart JJJJJ 

What This Subpart Covers 

§ 63.8380 What is the purpose of this 

subpart? 

This subpart establishes national 

emission limitations for hazardous air 

pollutants (HAP) emitted from brick and 

structural clay products (BSCP) 

manufacturing facilities. This subpart 

also establishes requirements to 

demonstrate initial and continuous 

compliance with the emission 

limitations. 

§ 63.8385 Am I subject to this 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, 

structural brick, and brick pavers); clay 

pipe; roof tile; extruded floor and wall 

tile; and/or other extruded, dimensional 

clay products. Brick and structural clay 

products manufacturing facilities 

typically process raw clay and shale, 

form the processed materials into bricks 

or shapes, and dry and fire the bricks or 

shapes. 

(b) A major source of HAP emissions 

is any stationary source or group of 

stationary sources within a contiguous 

area under common control that emits 

or has the potential to emit any single 

HAP at a rate of 9.07 megagrams (10 

tons) or more per year or any 

combination of HAP at a rate of 22.68 

megagrams (25 tons) or more per year. 

§ 63.8390 What parts of my plant does this 

subpart cover? 

(a) This subpart applies to each 

existing, new, or reconstructed affected 

source at a BSCP manufacturing facility. 

(b) For the purposes of this subpart, 

the affected sources are described in 

paragraphs (b)(1) and (2). 

(1) All tunnel kilns at a BSCP 

manufacturing facility are an affected 

source. For the remainder of this 

subpart, a tunnel kiln with a design 

capacity equal to or greater than 9.07 

megagrams per hour (Mg/hr) (10 tons 

per hour (tph)) of fired product will be 

called a large tunnel kiln, and a tunnel 

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 (3) of this 

section. 

(1) Kilns that are used exclusively for 

setting glazes on previously fired 

products are not subject to the 

requirements of this subpart. 

(2) Raw material processing and 

handling. 

(3) Dryers. 

(d) A source is a new affected source 

if construction of the affected source 

began after 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. 

§ 63.8395 When do I have to comply with 

this subpart? 

(a) If you have a new or reconstructed 

affected source, you must comply with 

this subpart according to paragraphs 

(a)(1) and (2) of this section. 

(1) If the initial startup of your 

affected source is after December 18, 

2014 but before [DATE 60 DAYS AFTER 

THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE 

FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register], 

then you must comply with the 

applicable emission limitations and 

work practice standards in Tables 1, 2, 

and 3 to this subpart no later than 

[DATE 60 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF 

PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE 

IN THE Federal Register]. 

(2) If the initial startup of your 

affected source is after [DATE 60 DAYS 

AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION 

OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE Federal 

Register], then you must comply with 

the applicable emission limitations and 

work practice standards in Tables 1, 2, 

and 3 to this subpart upon initial startup 

of your affected source. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
75674 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 243 / Thursday, December 18, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

(b) If you have an existing affected 

source, you must comply with the 

applicable emission limitations and 

work practice standards in Tables 1, 2, 

and 3 to this subpart no later than 

[DATE 3 YEARS AND 60 DAYS AFTER 

THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE 

FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register]. 

(c) If you have an existing area source 

that increases its emissions or its 

potential to emit such that it becomes a 

major source of HAP by adding a new 

affected source or by reconstructing, you 

must be in compliance with this subpart 

upon initial startup of your affected 

source as a major source. 

(d) If you have a new area source (i.e., 

an area source for which construction or 

reconstruction commenced after 

December 18, 2014) that increases its 

emissions or its potential to emit such 

that it becomes a major source of HAP, 

you must be in compliance with this 

subpart upon initial startup of your 

affected source as a major source. 

(e) You must meet the notification 

requirements in § 63.8480 according to 

the schedule in § 63.8480 and in subpart 

A of this part. Some of the notifications 

must be submitted before you are 

required to comply with the emission 

limitations in this subpart. 

Emission Limitations and Work 

Practice Standards 

§ 63.8405 What emission limitations and 

work practice standards must I meet? 

(a) You must meet each emission limit 

in Table 1 to this subpart that applies to 

you. 

(b) You must meet each operating 

limit in Table 2 to this subpart that 

applies to you. 

(c) You must meet each work practice 

standard in Table 3 to this subpart that 

applies to you. 

§ 63.8410 What are my options for 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 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 the work practice 

standards for affected periodic kilns, 

you must comply with the requirements 

listed in Table 3 to this subpart. 

(c) To meet the work practice 

standards for dioxins/furans for affected 

tunnel kilns, you must comply with the 

requirements listed in Table 3 to this 

subpart. 

(d) To meet the work practice 

standards for affected tunnel kilns 

during periods of startup and shutdown, 

you must comply with the requirements 

listed in Table 3 to this subpart. 

General Compliance Requirements 

§ 63.8420 What are my general 

requirements for complying with this 

subpart? 

(a) You must be in compliance with 

the emission limitations (including 

operating limits) in this subpart at all 

times, except during periods of routine 

control device maintenance as specified 

in paragraph (d) of this section. 

(b) Except as specified in paragraph 

(d) of this section, you must operate and 

maintain any affected source, including 

associated air pollution control 

equipment and monitoring equipment, 

in a manner consistent with safety and 

good air pollution control 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 

information available to the 

Administrator which may include, but 

is not limited to, monitoring results, 

review of operation and maintenance 

procedures, review of operation and 

maintenance records, and inspection of 

the source. During the period between 

the compliance date specified for your 

affected source in § 63.8395 and the date 

upon which continuous monitoring 

systems (CMS) (e.g., continuous 

parameter monitoring systems) have 

been installed and verified and any 

applicable operating limits have been 

set, you must maintain a log detailing 

the operation and maintenance of the 

process and emissions control 

equipment. 

(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 upon 

approval by the Administrator provided 

you satisfy the conditions listed in 

paragraphs (d)(1) through (5) of this 

section. 

(1) You must request a routine control 

device maintenance exemption from the 

Administrator. Your request must justify 

the need for the routine maintenance on 

the control device and the time required 

to accomplish the maintenance 

activities, describe the maintenance 

activities and the frequency of the 

maintenance activities, explain why the 

maintenance cannot be accomplished 

during kiln shutdowns, describe how 

you plan to minimize emissions to the 

greatest extent possible during the 

maintenance, and provide any other 

documentation required by the 

Administrator. 

(2) The routine control device 

maintenance exemption must not 

exceed 4 percent of the annual operating 

uptime for each kiln. 

(3) The request for the routine control 

device maintenance exemption, if 

approved by the Administrator, must be 

incorporated by reference in and 

attached to the affected source’s title V 

permit. 

(4) You must minimize HAP 

emissions during the period when the 

kiln is operating and the control device 

is offline. 

(5) You must minimize the time 

period during which the kiln is 

operating and the control device is 

offline. 

(e) You must be in compliance with 

the work practice standards in this 

subpart at all times. 

(f) You must be in compliance with 

the provisions of subpart A of this part, 

except as noted in Table 8 to this 

subpart. 

§ 63.8425 What do I need to know about 

operation, maintenance, and monitoring 

plans? 

(a) For each affected 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 

permitting authority upon request. 

(b) Your OM&M plan must include, as 

a minimum, the information in 

paragraphs (b)(1) through (13) of this 

section. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 243 / Thursday, December 18, 2014 / Proposed Rules 75675 

(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 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 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 reduction system. 

(7) Continuous monitoring system 

performance evaluation procedures and 

acceptance criteria (e.g., calibrations). 

(8) Procedures for the proper 

operation and maintenance of 

monitoring equipment consistent with 

the requirements in §§ 63.8450 and 

63.8(c)(1), (3), (7), and (8). 

(9) Continuous monitoring system 

data quality assurance procedures 

consistent with the requirements in 

§ 63.8(d). 

(10) Continuous monitoring system 

recordkeeping and reporting procedures 

consistent with the requirements in 

§§ 63.8485 and 63.8490. 

(11) Procedures for responding to 

operating parameter deviations, 

including the procedures in paragraphs 

(b)(11)(i) through (iii) of this section. 

(i) Procedures for determining the 

cause of the operating parameter 

deviation. 

(ii) Actions necessary for 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 kiln 

and you plan to take the kiln control 

device out of service for routine 

maintenance, as specified in 

§ 63.8420(d), the procedures specified in 

paragraphs (b)(13)(i) and (ii) of this 

section. 

(i) Procedures for minimizing HAP 

emissions from the kiln during periods 

of routine maintenance of the kiln 

control device when the kiln is 

operating and the control device is 

offline. 

(ii) Procedures for minimizing the 

duration of any period of routine 

maintenance on 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 parameter value, you 

must meet the requirements in 

paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of this section. 

(1) Submit a notification of 

performance test to the Administrator as 

specified in § 63.7(b). 

(2) After completing the performance 

tests to demonstrate that compliance 

with the emission limits can be 

achieved at the revised operating limit 

parameter value, you must submit the 

performance test results and the revised 

operating limits as part of the 

Notification of Compliance Status 

required under § 63.9(h). 

(d) If you are revising the inspection 

and maintenance procedures in your 

OM&M plan, you do not need to 

conduct a new performance test. 

Testing and Initial Compliance 

Requirements 

§ 63.8435 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. 

§ 63.8445 How do I conduct performance 

tests and establish operating limits? 

(a) You must conduct each 

performance test in Table 4 to this 

subpart that applies to you. 

(b) Before conducting the performance 

test, you must install and calibrate all 

monitoring equipment. 

(c) Each performance test must be 

conducted according to the 

requirements in § 63.7 and under the 

specific conditions in Table 4 to this 

subpart. 

(d) Performance tests shall be 

conducted under such conditions as the 

Administrator specifies to the owner or 

operator based on representative 

performance of the affected source for 

the period being tested. Representative 

conditions exclude periods of startup 

and shutdown. The owner or operator 

may not conduct performance tests 

during periods of malfunction. The 

owner or operator must record the 

process information that is necessary to 

document operating conditions during 

the test and include in such record an 

explanation to support that such 

conditions represent normal operation. 

Upon request, the owner or operator 

shall make available to the 

Administrator such records as may be 

necessary to determine the conditions of 

performance tests. 

(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. 

(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 of this section: 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP18DE14.000</GPH>
75676 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 243 / Thursday, December 18, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

Where: 

MP = mass per unit of production, kilograms 

(pounds) of pollutant per megagram (ton) 

of fired product 

ER = mass emission rate of pollutant (PM or 

Hg) during each performance test run, 

kilograms (pounds) per hour 

P = production rate during each performance 

test run, megagrams (tons) of fired 

product per hour. 

(2) To determine compliance with the 

health-based standard for acid gas HAP 

for BSCP manufacturing facilities in 

Table 1 to this subpart, you must: 

(i) Calculate the HCl-equivalent 

emissions for HF, HCl, and Cl2 for each 

tunnel kiln at your facility using 

Equation 2 of this section: 

Where: 

Ei = HCl-equivalent emissions for kiln i, 

kilograms (pounds) per hour 

EHCl = emissions of HCl, kilograms (pounds) 

per hour 

EHF = emissions of HF, kilograms (pounds) 

per hour 

ECl2 = emissions of Cl2, kilograms (pounds) 

per hour 

RfCHCl = reference concentration for HCl, 20 

micrograms per cubic meter 

RfCHF = reference concentration for HF, 14 

micrograms per cubic meter 

RfCCl2 = reference concentration for chlorine, 

0.15 micrograms per cubic meter 

(ii) If you have multiple tunnel kilns 

at your facility, sum the HCl-equivalent 

values for all tunnel kilns at the facility 

using Equation 3 of this section: 

Where: 

Etotal = HCl-equivalent emissions for total of 

all kilns at facility, kilograms (pounds) 

per hour 

Ei = HCl-equivalent emissions for kiln i, 

kilograms (pounds) per hour 

n = number of tunnel kilns at facility 

(iii) Compare this value to the healthbased standard in Table 1 to this 

subpart. 

(g) You must establish each sitespecific 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, calculate the 

maximum potential HCl-equivalent 

emissions for HF, HCl, and Cl2 for each 

tunnel kiln at your facility using 

Equation 4 of this section: 

Where: 

Emax i = maximum potential HCl-equivalent 

emissions for kiln i, kilograms (pounds) 

per hour 

Capi = design capacity for kiln i, megagrams 

(tons) of fired product per hour 

MPiHCl = mass of HCl per unit of production 

for kiln i, kilograms (pounds) of HCl per 

megagram (ton) of fired product 

MPiHF = mass of HF per unit of production 

for kiln i, kilograms (pounds) of HF per 

megagram (ton) of fired product 

MPiCl2 = mass of Cl2 per unit of production 

for kiln i, kilograms (pounds) of Cl2 per 

megagram (ton) of fired product 

RfCHCl = reference concentration for HCl, 20 

micrograms per cubic meter 

RfCHF = reference concentration for HF, 14 

micrograms per cubic meter 

RfCCl2 = reference concentration for Cl2, 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 of this section: 

Where: 

Emax total = maximum potential HClequivalent emissions for total of all kilns 

at facility, kilograms (pounds) per hour 

Emax i = maximum potential HCl-equivalent 

emissions 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 (Emax total) 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 of this section 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. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP18DE14.001</GPH> EP18DE14.002</GPH> EP18DE14.003</GPH> EP18DE14.004</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 243 / Thursday, December 18, 2014 / Proposed Rules 75677 

Where: 

Pmax 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 

MPiHCl = mass of HCl per unit of production 

for kiln i, kilograms (pounds) of HCl per 

megagram (ton) of fired product 

MPiHF = mass of HF per unit of production 

for kiln i, kilograms (pounds) of HF per 

megagram (ton) of fired product 

MPiCl2 = mass of Cl2 per unit of production 

for kiln i, kilograms (pounds) of Cl2 per 

megagram (ton) of fired product 

RfCHCl = reference concentration for HCl, 20 

micrograms per cubic meter 

RfCHF = reference concentration for HF, 14 

micrograms per cubic meter 

RfCCl2 = reference concentration for Cl2, 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 (Emax total) are greater than the 

HCl-equivalent limit in Table 1 to this 

subpart, determine the combination of 

maximum process rates that would 

ensure that total facility maximum 

potential HCl-equivalent remains at or 

below the HCl-equivalent limit. The 

maximum process rates would become 

your operating limits for process rate 

and must be included in your OM&M 

plan. 

(h) For each affected kiln that is 

subject to the emission limits specified 

in Table 1 to this subpart and is 

equipped with an APCD that is not 

addressed in Table 2 to this subpart or 

that is using process changes as a means 

of meeting the emission limits in Table 

1 to this subpart, you must meet the 

requirements in § 63.8(f) and paragraphs 

(h)(1) and (2) of this section. 

(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 

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. 

§ 63.8450 What are my monitoring 

installation, operation, and maintenance 

requirements? 

(a) You must install, operate, and 

maintain each CMS according to your 

OM&M plan and the requirements in 

paragraphs (a)(1) through (5) of this 

section. 

(1) Conduct a performance evaluation 

of each CMS according to your OM&M 

plan. 

(2) The CMS must complete a 

minimum of one cycle of operation for 

each successive 15-minute period. 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, shutdown, malfunction, out-ofcontrol periods, or periods of routine 

control device maintenance covered by 

a routine control device maintenance 

exemption as specified in § 63.8420(d)). 

(3) Determine and record the 3-hour 

block averages of all recorded readings, 

calculated after every 3 hours of 

operation as the average of the previous 

3 operating hours. To calculate the 

average for each 3-hour average period, 

you must have at least 75 percent of the 

recorded readings for that period (not 

including startup, shutdown, 

malfunction, out-of-control periods, or 

periods of routine control device 

maintenance covered by a routine 

control device maintenance exemption 

as specified in § 63.8420(d)). 

(4) Record the results of each 

inspection, calibration, and validation 

check. 

(5) At all times, maintain the 

monitoring 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 

(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 

(c)(1) through (7) of this section. 

(1) Locate the pressure sensor(s) in or 

as close to a position that provides a 

representative measurement of the 

pressure. 

(2) Minimize or eliminate pulsating 

pressure, vibration, and internal and 

external corrosion. 

(3) Use a gauge with a minimum 

measurement sensitivity of 0.5 inch of 

water or a transducer with a minimum 

measurement sensitivity of 1 percent of 

the pressure range. 

(4) Check the pressure tap daily to 

ensure that it is not plugged. 

(5) Using a manometer, check gauge 

calibration quarterly and transducer 

calibration monthly. 

(6) Any time the sensor exceeds the 

manufacturer’s specified maximum 

operating pressure 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 (d)(1) 

through (4) of this section. 

(1) Locate the pH sensor in a position 

that provides a representative 

measurement of pH. 

(2) Ensure the sample is properly 

mixed and representative of the fluid to 

be measured. 

(3) Check the pH meter’s calibration 

on at least two points every 8 hours of 

process operation. 

(4) At least monthly, inspect all 

components for integrity and all 

electrical connections for continuity. 

(e) For each bag leak detection system, 

you must meet the requirements in 

paragraphs (e)(1) through (11) of this 

section. 

(1) Each triboelectric bag leak 

detection system must be installed, 

calibrated, operated, and maintained 

according to the ‘‘Fabric Filter Bag Leak 

Detection Guidance,’’ (EPA–454/R–98– 

015, September 1997) (incorporated by 

reference, see § 63.14). Other types of 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP18DE14.005</GPH>
75678 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 243 / Thursday, December 18, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

bag leak detection systems must be 

installed, operated, calibrated, and 

maintained in a manner consistent with 

the manufacturer’s written 

specifications and recommendations. 

(2) The bag leak detection system 

must be certified by the manufacturer to 

be capable of detecting PM emissions at 

concentrations of 10 milligrams per 

actual cubic meter (0.0044 grains per 

actual cubic foot) or less. 

(3) The bag leak detection system 

sensor must provide an output of 

relative PM loadings. 

(4) The bag leak detection system 

must be equipped with a device to 

continuously record the output signal 

from the sensor. 

(5) The bag leak detection system 

must be equipped with an audible alarm 

system that will sound automatically 

when an increase in relative PM 

emissions over a preset level is detected. 

The alarm must be located where it is 

easily heard by plant operating 

personnel. 

(6) For positive pressure fabric filter 

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,’’ (EPA–454/R–98– 

015, September 1997) (incorporated by 

reference, see § 63.14). 

(10) Following initial adjustment of 

the system, the sensitivity or range, 

averaging period, alarm set points, or 

alarm delay time may not be adjusted 

except as detailed in your OM&M plan. 

In no case may the sensitivity be 

increased by more than 100 percent or 

decreased more than 50 percent over a 

365-day period unless such adjustment 

follows a complete fabric filter 

inspection that demonstrates that the 

fabric filter is in good operating 

condition, as defined in section 5.2 of 

the ‘‘Fabric Filter Bag Leak Detection 

Guidance,’’ (EPA–454/R–98–015, 

September 1997) (incorporated by 

reference, see § 63.14). 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 (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) 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 sitespecific operating limit in Table 2 to 

this subpart that applies to you 

according to the requirements in 

§ 63.8445 and Table 4 to this subpart. 

(c) You must submit the Notification 

of Compliance Status containing the 

results of the initial compliance 

demonstration according to the 

requirements in § 63.8480(e). 

Continuous Compliance Requirements 

§ 63.8465 How do I monitor and collect 

data to demonstrate continuous 

compliance? 

(a) You must monitor and collect data 

according to this section. 

(b) Except for periods of monitor 

malfunctions, associated repairs, and 

required quality assurance or control 

activities (including, as applicable, 

calibration checks and required zero 

and span adjustments), you must 

monitor continuously (or collect data at 

all required intervals) at all times that 

the affected source is operating. This 

includes periods of startup, shutdown, 

malfunction, and routine control device 

maintenance as specified in § 63.8420(d) 

when the affected source is operating. 

(c) You may not use data recorded 

during monitoring malfunctions, 

associated repairs, out-of-control 

periods, or required quality assurance or 

control activities for purposes of 

calculating data averages. A monitoring 

malfunction is any sudden, infrequent, 

not reasonably preventable failure of the 

monitoring system to provide valid data. 

Monitoring failures that are caused in 

part by poor maintenance or careless 

operation are not malfunctions. You 

must use all the valid data collected 

during all other periods in assessing 

compliance. Any averaging period for 

which you do not have valid monitoring 

data and such data are required 

constitutes a deviation from the 

monitoring requirements. 

§ 63.8470 How do I demonstrate 

continuous compliance with the emission 

limitations and work practice standards? 

(a) You must demonstrate continuous 

compliance with each emission limit, 

operating limit, and work practice 

standard in Tables 1, 2, and 3 to this 

subpart that applies to you according to 

the methods specified in Table 6 to this 

subpart. 

(b) For each affected kiln that is 

subject to the emission limits specified 

in Table 1 to this subpart and is 

equipped with an APCD that is not 

addressed in Table 2 to this subpart, or 

that is using process changes as a means 

of meeting the emission limits in Table 

1 to this subpart, you must demonstrate 

continuous compliance with each 

emission limit in Table 1 to this subpart, 

and each operating limit established as 

required in § 63.8445(h)(2) according to 

the methods specified in your approved 

alternative monitoring procedures 

request, as described in §§ 63.8445(h)(1) 

and 63.8(f). 

(c) You must report each instance in 

which you did not meet each emission 

limit and each operating limit in this 

subpart that applies to you. This 

includes periods of startup, shutdown, 

malfunction, and routine control device 

maintenance. These instances are 

deviations from the emission limitations 

in this subpart. These deviations must 

be reported according to the 

requirements in § 63.8485. 

(d) Deviations that occur during 

periods of control device maintenance 

covered by an approved routine control 

device maintenance exemption 

according to § 63.8420(d) are not 

violations if you demonstrate to the 

Administrator’s satisfaction that you 

were operating in accordance with the 

approved routine control device 

maintenance exemption. 

(e) You must demonstrate continuous 

compliance with the operating limits in 

Table 2 to this subpart for visible 

emissions (VE) from tunnel kilns that 

are uncontrolled or equipped with DLA, 

dry lime injection fabric filter (DIFF), 

dry lime scrubber/fabric filter (DLS/FF), 

or other dry control device by 

monitoring VE at each kiln stack 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 243 / Thursday, December 18, 2014 / Proposed Rules 75679 

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. 

(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 daily 

tests, at which time you may again 

decrease the frequency of Method 22 

testing to a weekly basis. 

(3) If VE are observed during any test 

conducted using Method 22 of 40 CFR 

part 60, appendix A–7, you must report 

these deviations by following the 

requirements in § 63.8485. 

Notifications, Reports, and Records 

§ 63.8480 What notifications must I submit 

and when? 

(a) You must submit all of the 

notifications in §§ 63.7(b) and (c), 

63.8(f)(4), and 63.9(b) through (e), (g)(1), 

and (h) that apply to you, by the dates 

specified. 

(b) As specified in § 63.9(b)(2), if you 

start up your affected source before 

[DATE 60 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF 

PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE 

IN THE Federal Register], you must 

submit an Initial Notification not later 

than 120 calendar days after [DATE 60 

DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF 

PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE 

IN THE Federal Register]. 

(c) As specified in § 63.9(b)(2), if you 

start up your new or reconstructed 

affected source on or after [DATE 60 

DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF 

PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE 

IN THE Federal Register], you must 

submit an Initial Notification not later 

than 120 calendar days after you 

become subject to this subpart. 

(d) If you are required to conduct a 

performance test, you must submit a 

notification of intent to conduct a 

performance test at least 60 calendar 

days before the performance test is 

scheduled to begin, as required in 

§ 63.7(b)(1). 

(e) If you are required to conduct a 

performance test or other initial 

compliance demonstration as specified 

in Tables 4 and 5 to this subpart, you 

must submit a Notification of 

Compliance Status as specified in 

§ 63.9(h) and paragraphs (e)(1) through 

(3) of this section. 

(1) For each compliance 

demonstration that includes a 

performance test conducted according 

to the requirements in Table 4 to this 

subpart, you must submit the 

Notification of Compliance Status, 

including the performance test results, 

before the close of business on the 60th 

calendar day following the completion 

of the performance test, according to 

§ 63.10(d)(2). 

(2) In addition to the requirements in 

§ 63.9(h)(2)(i), you must include the 

information in paragraphs (e)(2)(i) and 

(ii) of this section in your Notification 

of Compliance Status. 

(i) The operating limit parameter 

values established for each affected 

source with supporting documentation 

and a description of the procedure used 

to establish the values. 

(ii) For each APCD that 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 § 63.8450(e). 

(3) For each compliance 

demonstration required in Table 5 to 

this subpart that does not include a 

performance test (i.e., compliance 

demonstrations for the work practice 

standards), you must submit the 

Notification of Compliance Status before 

the close of business on the 30th 

calendar day following the completion 

of the compliance demonstrations. 

(f) If you request a routine control 

device maintenance exemption 

according to § 63.8420(d), you must 

submit your request for the exemption 

no later than 30 days before the 

compliance date. 

§ 63.8485 What reports must I submit and 

when? 

(a) You must submit each report in 

Table 7 to this subpart that applies to 

you. 

(b) Unless the Administrator has 

approved a different schedule for 

submission of reports under § 63.10(a), 

you must submit each report by the date 

in Table 7 to this subpart and as 

specified in paragraphs (b)(1) through 

(5) of this section. 

(1) The first compliance report must 

cover the period beginning on the 

compliance date that is specified for 

your affected source in § 63.8395 and 

ending on June 30 or December 31, and 

lasting at least 6 months, but less than 

12 months. For example, if your 

compliance date is March 1, then the 

first semiannual reporting period would 

begin on March 1 and end on December 

31. 

(2) The first compliance report must 

be postmarked or delivered no later than 

July 31 or January 31 for compliance 

periods ending on June 30 and 

December 31, respectively. 

(3) Each subsequent compliance 

report must cover the semiannual 

reporting period from January 1 through 

June 30 or the semiannual reporting 

period from July 1 through December 

31. 

(4) Each subsequent compliance 

report must be postmarked or delivered 

no 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 

according to the dates in paragraphs 

(b)(1) through (4) of this section. 

(c) The compliance report must 

contain the information in paragraphs 

(c)(1) through (7) of this section. 

(1) Company name and address. 

(2) Statement by a responsible official 

with that official’s name, title, and 

signature, certifying that, based on 

information and belief formed after 

reasonable inquiry, the statements and 

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 

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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
75680 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 243 / Thursday, December 18, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

included in your approved routine 

control device maintenance exemption 

developed as specified in § 63.8420(d). 

If the control device maintenance was 

included in your approved routine 

control device maintenance exemption, 

then you must report the information in 

paragraphs (c)(4)(iii)(A) through (C) of 

this section. 

(A) The total amount of time that the 

kiln controlled by the control device 

operated during the current semiannual 

compliance period and during the 

previous semiannual compliance 

period. 

(B) The amount of time that each kiln 

controlled by the control device 

operated while the control device was 

offline for maintenance covered under 

the routine control device maintenance 

exemption during the current 

semiannual compliance period and 

during the previous semiannual 

compliance period. 

(C) Based on the information recorded 

under paragraphs (c)(4)(iii)(A) and (B) of 

this section, compute the annual 

percent of kiln operating uptime during 

which the control device was offline for 

routine maintenance using Equation 1 of 

this section. 

Where: 

RM = Annual percentage of kiln uptime 

during which control device was offline 

for routine control device maintenance 

DTp = Control device downtime claimed 

under the routine control device 

maintenance exemption for the previous 

semiannual compliance period 

DTc = Control device downtime claimed 

under the routine control device 

maintenance exemption for the current 

semiannual compliance period 

KUp = Kiln uptime for the previous 

semiannual compliance period 

KUc = 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 were no deviations 

from the emission limitations during the 

reporting period. 

(7) If there were no periods during 

which the CMS was out-of-control as 

specified in your OM&M plan, the 

compliance report must contain a 

statement that there were no periods 

during which the CMS was out-ofcontrol during the reporting period. 

(d) For each deviation from an 

emission limitation (emission limit or 

operating limit) that occurs at an 

affected source where you are not using 

a CMS to comply with the emission 

limitations in this subpart, the 

compliance report must contain the 

information in paragraphs (c)(1) through 

(4) and (d)(1) through (3) of this section. 

This includes periods of startup, 

shutdown, and routine control device 

maintenance. 

(1) The total operating time of each 

affected source during the reporting 

period and identification of the sources 

for which there was a deviation. 

(2) Information on the number, date, 

time, duration, and cause of deviations 

(including unknown cause, if 

applicable), as applicable, and the 

corrective action taken. 

(3) The applicable operating limit or 

work practice standard from which you 

deviated and either the parameter 

monitor reading during the deviation or 

a description of how you deviated from 

the work practice standard. 

(e) For each deviation from an 

emission limitation (emission limit or 

operating limit) occurring at an affected 

source where you are using a CMS to 

comply with the emission limitations in 

this subpart, you must include the 

information in paragraphs (c)(1) through 

(4) and (e)(1) through (13) of this 

section. This includes periods of 

startup, shutdown, and routine control 

device maintenance. 

(1) The total operating time of each 

affected source during the reporting 

period and identification of the sources 

for which there was a deviation. 

(2) The date and time that each CMS 

was inoperative, except for zero (lowlevel) and high-level checks. 

(3) The date, time, and duration that 

each CMS was out-of-control, including 

the pertinent information in your 

OM&M plan. 

(4) The date and time that each 

deviation started and stopped, and 

whether each deviation occurred during 

routine control device maintenance 

covered in your approved routine 

control device maintenance exemption 

or during another period, and the cause 

of each deviation (including unknown 

cause, if applicable). 

(5) An estimate of the quantity of each 

regulated pollutant emitted over the 

emission limit during the deviation, and 

a description of the method used to 

estimate the emissions. 

(6) A description of corrective action 

taken in response to a deviation. 

(7) A summary of the total duration of 

the deviation during the reporting 

period and the total duration as a 

percent of the total source operating 

time during that reporting period. 

(8) A breakdown of the total duration 

of the deviations during the reporting 

period into those that were due to 

startup, shutdown, control equipment 

problems, process problems, other 

known causes, and other unknown 

causes. 

(9) A summary of the total duration of 

CMS downtime during the reporting 

period and the total duration of CMS 

downtime as a percent of the total 

source operating time during that 

reporting period. 

(10) A brief description of the process 

units. 

(11) A brief description of the CMS. 

(12) The date of the latest CMS 

certification or audit. 

(13) A description of any changes in 

CMS, processes, or control equipment 

since the last reporting period. 

(f) If a malfunction occurred during 

the reporting period, the compliance 

report must contain the information in 

paragraphs (c)(1) through (4) and (f)(1) 

and (2) of this section. 

(1) The number, duration, and a brief 

description for each type of malfunction 

which occurred during the reporting 

period and which caused or may have 

caused any applicable emission 

limitation to be exceeded. 

(2) A description of actions taken by 

an owner or operator during a 

malfunction of an affected facility to 

minimize emissions in accordance with 

§ 63.8420(b), including actions taken to 

correct a malfunction. 

(g) If you have obtained a title V 

operating permit according to 40 CFR 

part 70 or 40 CFR part 71, you must 

report all deviations as defined in this 

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 7 

to this subpart along with, or as part of, 

the semiannual monitoring report 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP18DE14.006</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 243 / Thursday, December 18, 2014 / Proposed Rules 75681 

required by 40 CFR 70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A) or 

40 CFR 71.6(a)(3)(iii)(A), and the 

compliance report includes all required 

information concerning deviations from 

any emission limitation (including any 

operating limit), then submitting the 

compliance report will satisfy any 

obligation to report the same deviations 

in the semiannual monitoring report. 

However, submitting a compliance 

report will not otherwise affect any 

obligation you may have to report 

deviations from permit requirements to 

the permitting authority. 

(h) Within 60 days after the date of 

completing each performance test (as 

defined in § 63.2) as required by this 

subpart, you must submit the results of 

the performance test following the 

procedure specified in either paragraph 

(h)(1) or (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 Web 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. Instead of 

submitting performance test data in a 

file format generated through the use of 

the EPA’s ERT, you may submit an 

alternate electronic file format 

consistent with the extensible markup 

language (XML) schema listed on the 

EPA’s ERT 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 Web site once the 

XML schema is available), including 

information claimed to be CBI, on a 

compact disc, 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 file (or alternate 

file) with the CBI omitted must be 

submitted to the EPA via the EPA’s CDX 

as described earlier in this paragraph. 

(2) For data collected using test 

methods that are not supported by the 

EPA’s ERT as listed on the EPA’s ERT 

Web site at the time of the test, you must 

submit the results of the performance 

test to the Administrator at the 

appropriate address listed in § 63.13. 

§ 63.8490 What records must I keep? 

(a) You must keep the records listed 

in paragraphs (a)(1) through (3) of this 

section. 

(1) A copy of each notification and 

report that you submitted to comply 

with this subpart, including all 

documentation supporting any Initial 

Notification or Notification of 

Compliance Status that you submitted, 

according to the requirements in 

§ 63.10(b)(2)(xiv). 

(2) Records of performance tests as 

required in § 63.10(b)(2)(viii). 

(3) Records relating to control device 

maintenance and documentation of your 

approved routine control device 

maintenance exemption, if you request 

such an exemption under § 63.8420(d). 

(b) You must keep the records 

required in Table 6 to this subpart to 

show continuous compliance with each 

emission limitation and work practice 

standard that applies to you. 

(c) You must also maintain the 

records listed in paragraphs (c)(1) 

through (11) of this section. 

(1) For each bag leak detection 

system, records of each alarm, the time 

of the alarm, the time corrective action 

was initiated and completed, and a brief 

description of the cause of the alarm 

and the corrective action taken. 

(2) For each deviation of an operating 

limit parameter value, the date, time, 

and duration of the deviation, a brief 

explanation of the cause of the 

deviation, actions taken to minimize 

emissions in accordance with 

§ 63.8420(b) and the corrective action 

taken to return the affected unit to its 

normal or usual manner of operation, 

and whether the deviation occurred 

during a period of startup, shutdown, or 

malfunction. Record and retain a list of 

the affected sources or equipment, an 

estimate of the volume of each regulated 

pollutant emitted over any emission 

limit and a description of the method 

used to estimate the emissions. 

(3) For each affected source, records 

of production rates on a fired-product 

basis. 

(4) Records for any approved 

alternative monitoring or test 

procedures. 

(5) Records of maintenance and 

inspections performed on the APCD. 

(6) Current copies of your OM&M 

plan, including any revisions, with 

records documenting conformance. 

(7) Logs of the information required in 

paragraphs (c)(7)(i) through (iii) of this 

section to document proper operation of 

your periodic kiln. 

(i) Records of the firing time and 

temperature cycle for each product 

produced in each 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 

whether the tonnage was below the 

maximum tonnage for that specific kiln. 

(8) Logs of the maintenance 

procedures used to demonstrate 

compliance with the maintenance 

requirements of the periodic kiln work 

practice standard specified in Table 3 to 

this subpart. 

(9) Records of burner tune-ups used to 

comply with the dioxin/furan work 

practice standard for tunnel kilns. 

(10) For periods of startup, records of 

the date, time, and duration of each 

startup period, logs of the kiln exhaust 

temperature at the time the first bricks 

were placed in the kiln, and if 

applicable, logs of the temperature 

when the kiln exhaust stopped 

bypassing the control device. For 

periods of shutdown, records of the 

date, time, and duration of each 

shutdown period, logs of the kiln 

exhaust temperature at the time the last 

bricks were placed in the kiln, and if 

applicable, logs of the temperature 

when the kiln exhaust began bypassing 

the control device. 

(11) For each malfunction, records of 

the following information: 

(i) Records of the occurrence and 

duration of each malfunction of 

operation (i.e., process equipment) or 

the air pollution control and monitoring 

equipment. 

(ii) Records of actions taken during 

periods of malfunction to minimize 

emissions in accordance with 

§ 63.8420(b), including corrective 

actions to restore malfunctioning 

process and air pollution control and 

monitoring equipment to its normal or 

usual manner of operation. 

§ 63.8495 In what form and for how long 

must I keep my records? 

(a) Your records must be in a form 

suitable and readily available for 

expeditious review, according to 

§ 63.10(b)(1). 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
75682 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 243 / Thursday, December 18, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

(b) As specified in § 63.10(b)(1), you 

must keep each record for 5 years 

following the date of each occurrence, 

measurement, maintenance, corrective 

action, report, or record. 

(c) You must keep each record onsite 

for at least 2 years after the date of each 

occurrence, measurement, maintenance, 

corrective action, report, or record, 

according to § 63.10(b)(1). You may 

keep the records offsite for the 

remaining 3 years. 

Other Requirements and Information 

§ 63.8505 What parts of the General 

Provisions apply to me? 

Table 8 to this subpart shows which 

parts of the General Provisions in 

§§ 63.1 through 63.16 apply to you. 

§ 63.8510 Who implements and enforces 

this subpart? 

(a) This subpart can be implemented 

and enforced by us, the U.S. EPA, or a 

delegated authority such as your State, 

local, or tribal agency. If the U.S. EPA 

Administrator has delegated authority to 

your State, local, or tribal agency, then 

that agency, in addition to the U.S. EPA, 

has the authority to implement and 

enforce this subpart. You should contact 

your U.S. EPA Regional Office to find 

out if implementation and enforcement 

of this subpart is delegated to your 

State, local, or tribal agency. 

(b) In delegating implementation and 

enforcement authority of this subpart to 

a State, local, or tribal agency under 

subpart E of this part, the authorities 

contained in paragraph (c) of this 

section are retained by the 

Administrator of the U.S. EPA and are 

not transferred to the State, local, or 

tribal agency. 

(c) The authorities that cannot be 

delegated to State, local, or tribal 

agencies are as specified in paragraphs 

(c)(1) through (5) of this section. 

(1) Approval of alternatives to the 

applicability requirements in §§ 63.8385 

and 63.8390, the compliance date 

requirements in § 63.8395, and the nonopacity emission limitations in 

§ 63.8405. 

(2) Approval of major changes to test 

methods under § 63.7(e)(2)(ii) and (f) 

and as defined in § 63.90. 

(3) Approval of major changes to 

monitoring under § 63.8(f) and as 

defined in § 63.90. 

(4) Approval of major changes to 

recordkeeping and reporting under 

§ 63.10(f) and as defined in § 63.90. 

(5) Approval of an alternative to any 

electronic reporting to the EPA required 

by this subpart. 

§ 63.8515 What definitions apply to this 

subpart? 

Terms used in this subpart are 

defined in the Clean Air Act, in § 63.2, 

and in this section as 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, lightscattering, 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 structural clay 

products manufacturing facilities 

typically process raw clay and shale, 

form the processed materials into bricks 

or shapes, and dry and fire the bricks or 

shapes. 

Deviation means any instance in 

which an affected source 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. 

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 

filter. These systems typically include 

recirculation of some of the sorbent. 

Dry limestone adsorber (DLA) means 

an APCD that includes a limestone 

storage bin, a reaction chamber that is 

essentially a packed tower filled with 

limestone, and may or may not include 

a peeling drum that mechanically 

scrapes reacted limestone to regenerate 

the stone for reuse. 

Emission limitation means any 

emission limit or operating limit. 

Fabric filter means an APCD used to 

capture PM by filtering a gas stream 

through filter media; also known as a 

baghouse. 

Initial startup means: 

(1) For a new or reconstructed 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 source begins firing 

BSCP, whichever is earlier. 

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. 

Particulate matter (PM) means, for 

purposes of this subpart, emissions of 

PM that serve as a measure of total 

particulate emissions, as measured by 

Method 5 (40 CFR part 60, appendix 

A–3) or Method 29 (40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A–8), and as a surrogate for 

metal HAP contained in the particulates 

including, but not limited to, antimony, 

arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, 

chromium, cobalt, lead, manganese, 

mercury, nickel, and selenium. 

Periodic kiln means a batch firing 

kiln. 

Plant site means all contiguous or 

adjoining property that is under 

common control, including properties 

that are separated only by a road or 

other public right-of-way. Common 

control includes properties that are 

owned, leased, or operated by the same 

entity, parent entity, subsidiary, or any 

combination thereof. 

Responsible official means 

responsible official as defined in 40 CFR 

70.2. 

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. 

Tunnel kiln means any continuous 

kiln that is used to fire BSCP. Some 

tunnel kilns have two process streams, 

including a process stream that exhausts 

directly to the atmosphere or to an 

APCD, and a process stream in which 

the kiln exhaust is ducted to a sawdust 

dryer where it is used to dry sawdust 

before being emitted to the atmosphere. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 243 / Thursday, December 18, 2014 / Proposed Rules 75683 

Tunnel kiln design capacity means 

the maximum amount of brick, in Mg 

(tons), that a kiln is designed to produce 

in one year divided by the number of 

hours in a year (8,760 hours). If a kiln 

is modified to increase the capacity, the 

design capacity is considered to be the 

capacity following modifications. 

Wet scrubber (WS) means an APCD 

that uses water, which may include 

caustic additives or other chemicals, as 

the sorbent. Wet scrubbers may use any 

of various design mechanisms to 

increase the contact between exhaust 

gases and the sorbent. 

Work practice standard means any 

design, equipment, work 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 Cl2 emissions must not exceed 

26 kg/hr (57 lb/hr) HCl equivalent, under the 

health-based standard, as determined using 

Equations 2 and 3 of § 63.8445..

Not applicable. 

2. Existing tunnel kiln, including all process 

streams.

a. PM emissions must not exceed 0.082 kg/

Mg (0.16 lb/ton) of fired product.

i. PM emissions must not exceed 92 mg/dscm 

(0.040 gr/dscf) at 7% O2; or 

ii. Non-Hg HAP metals emissions must not exceed 0.0011 kg/hr (0.023 lb/hr) of fired 

product. 

3. Existing large tunnel kiln (design capacity 

≥10 tph of fired product), including all process streams.

a. Hg emissions must not exceed 1.1 E–05 

kilogram per megagram (kg/Mg) (2.2 E–05 

pound per ton (lb/ton)) of fired product.

i. Hg emissions must not exceed 29 

micrograms per dry standard cubic meter 

(μg/dscm) at 7% O2; or 

ii. Hg emissions must not exceed 1.2 E–04 

kg/hr (2.7 E–04 lb/hr). 

4. Existing small tunnel kiln (design capacity 

<10 tph of fired product), including all process streams.

a. Hg emissions must not exceed 9.9 E–05 

kg/Mg (2.0 E–04 lb/ton) of fired product.

i. Hg emissions must not exceed 70 μg/dscm 

at 7% O2; or 

ii. Hg emissions must not exceed 5.0 E–04 

kg/hr (0.0011 lb/hr). 

5. New or reconstructed tunnel kiln, including 

all process streams.

a. PM emissions must not exceed 0.011 kg/

Mg (0.022 lb/ton) of fired product.

i. PM emissions must not exceed 15 mg/dscm 

(0.0066 gr/dscf) at 7% O2; or 

ii. Non-Hg HAP metals emissions must not exceed 0.0014 kg/hr (0.0032 lb/hr) of fired 

product. 

6. New or reconstructed large tunnel kiln, including all process streams.a. Hg emissions must not exceed 1.0 E–05 

kg/Mg (2.0 E–05 lb/ton) of fired product.

i. Hg emissions must not exceed 13 μg/dscm 

at 7% O2. 

ii. Hg emissions must not exceed 1.1 E–04 

kg/hr (2.4 E–04 lb/hr). 

7. New or reconstructed small tunnel kiln, including all process streams.a. Hg emissions must not exceed 9.9 E–05 

kg/Mg (2.0 E–04 lb/ton) of fired product.

i. Hg emissions must not exceed 70 μg/dscm 

at 7% O2. 

ii. Hg emissions must not exceed 5.0 E–04 

kg/hr (0.0011 lb/hr). 

As stated in § 63.8405, you must meet 

each operating limit in the following 

table that applies to you. 

TABLE 2 TO SUBPART JJJJJ OF PART 63—OPERATING LIMITS

For each . . . You must . . . 

1. Tunnel kiln equipped with a DLA ........ a. Maintain the average pressure drop across the DLA for each 3-hour block period at or above the 

average pressure drop established during the HF/HCl/Cl2 performance test; or, if you are monitoring the 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/Cl2 performance test; and 

c. Use the same grade of limestone from the same source as was used during the HF/HCl/Cl2 performance test; maintain records of the source and grade of limestone; and 

d. Maintain no VE from the DLA stack. 

2. Tunnel kiln equipped with a DIFF or 

DLS/FF.

a. If you use a bag leak detection system, initiate corrective action within 1 hour of a bag leak detection system alarm and complete corrective actions in accordance with your OM&M plan; operate 

and maintain the fabric filter such that the alarm is not 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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
75684 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 243 / Thursday, December 18, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 2 TO SUBPART JJJJJ OF PART 63—OPERATING LIMITS—Continued 

For each . . . You must . . . 

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/Cl2 performance test for continuous injection systems. 

3. Tunnel kiln equipped with a WS ......... a. Maintain the average scrubber pressure drop for each 3-hour block period at or above the average 

pressure drop established during the PM/non-Hg HAP metals performance test; and 

b. Maintain the average scrubber liquid pH for each 3-hour block period at or above the average 

scrubber liquid pH established during the HF/HCl/Cl2 performance test; and 

c. Maintain the average scrubber liquid flow rate for each 3-hour block period at or above the highest 

average scrubber liquid flow rate established during the HF/HCl/Cl2 and PM/non-Hg HAP metals 

performance tests; and 

d. If chemicals are added to the scrubber water, maintain the average scrubber chemical feed rate for 

each 3-hour block period at or above the average scrubber chemical feed rate established during 

the HF/HCl/Cl2 performance test. 

4. Tunnel kiln equipped with an ACI system.Maintain the average carbon flow rate for each 3-hour block period at or above the average carbon 

flow rate established during the Hg performance test. 

5. Tunnel kiln with no add-on control ...... a. Maintain no VE from the stack. 

b. Maintain the kiln process rate at or below the kiln process rate determined according to 

§ 63.8445(g)(1). 

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 use a designed firing time and temperature cycle for 

each product produced in the periodic kiln. You must either program the time and temperature cycle into your kiln or track each 

step on a log sheet; and 

ii. Label each periodic kiln with the maximum load (in tons) of product that can be fired in the kiln during a single firing cycle; and 

iii. For each firing load, document 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. Develop and follow maintenance procedures for each kiln that, at 

a minimum, specify the frequency of inspection and maintenance 

of temperature monitoring devices, controls that regulate air-to-fuel 

ratios, and controls that regulate firing cycles; and 

v. Develop and maintain records for each periodic kiln, as specified 

in § 63.8490. 

2. Existing, new or reconstructed 

tunnel kiln.

a. Minimize dioxin/furan emissions i. Maintain and inspect the burners and associated combustion controls (as applicable); and 

ii. Tune the specific burner type to optimize combustion. 

3. Existing, new or reconstructed 

tunnel kiln during periods of startup.

a. Minimize HAP emissions .......... i. Do not put any bricks into the kiln until the kiln exhaust temperature reaches 204 °C (400 °F); and 

ii. If your kiln has an APCD, begin venting the exhaust from the kiln 

through the APCD by the time the kiln exhaust temperature 

reaches 204 °C (400 °F). 

4. Existing, new or reconstructed 

tunnel kiln during periods of shutdown.

a. Minimize HAP emissions .......... i. Do not put any bricks into the kiln once the kiln exhaust temperature falls to 149 °C (300 °F); 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 to 

149 °C (300 °F). 

As stated in § 63.8445, you must 

conduct each performance test in the 

following table that applies to you. 

TABLE 4 TO SUBPART JJJJJ OF PART 63—REQUIREMENTS FOR PERFORMANCE TESTS

For each . . . You must . . . Using . . . According to the following requirements . . . 

1. Tunnel kiln ....................... a. Select locations of sampling ports and the number of traverse points.Method 1 or 1A of 40 CFR 

part 60, appendix A–1.

Sampling sites must be located at the outlet of the 

APCD and prior to any releases to the atmosphere 

for all affected sources. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 243 / Thursday, December 18, 2014 / Proposed Rules 75685 

TABLE 4 TO SUBPART JJJJJ OF PART 63—REQUIREMENTS FOR PERFORMANCE TESTS—Continued 

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 [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, HCl and 

Cl2 emissions.

Method 26A of 40 CFR 

part 60, appendix A–8; 

or 

You may use Method 26 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix 

A–8, as an alternative to using Method 26A of 40 

CFR part 60, appendix A–8, when no acid PM (e.g., 

HF or HCl dissolved in 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. 

Method 320 of appendix A 

of this part.

When using Method 320 of appendix A of this part, 

you must follow the analyte spiking procedures of 

section 13 of Method 320 of appendix A of this part, 

unless you can demonstrate that the complete spiking procedure has been conducted at a similar 

source. ASTM D6348–03 (Reapproved 2010) (incorporated by reference, see § 63.14) may be used as 

an alternative to Method 320 if the test plan preparation and implementation in Annexes A1–A8 are 

mandatory and the %R in Annex A5 is determined 

for each target analyte. 

f. Measure PM emissions 

or non-Hg HAP metals.

i. For PM only: Method 5 

of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–3; or 

ii. For PM or non-Hg HAP 

metals: Method 29 of 40 

CFR part 60, appendix 

A–8.

To determine PM, weigh the filter and report the results as PM filterable. 

g. Measure Hg emissions Method 29 of 40 CFR part 

60, appendix A–8.

ASTM D6784–02 (Reapproved 2008) (incorporated by 

reference, see § 63.14) may be used as an alternative to Method 29 (portion for Hg only). 

2. Tunnel kiln with no addon control.Establish the operating 

limit(s) for kiln process 

rate if the total facility 

maximum potential HClequivalent emissions are 

greater than the HClequivalent 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/Cl2 performance 

test.

Using the procedures in § 63.8445(g)(1), you must determine the maximum process rate(s) for your kiln(s) 

that would 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 sitespecific process rate operating limit(s). 

3. Tunnel kiln that is complying with PM and/or Hg 

production-based emission limits.

Determine the production 

rate during each PM/Hg 

test run in order to determine compliance with 

PM and/or Hg production-based emission limits.

Production data collected 

during the PM/Hg performance tests (e.g., no. 

of pushes per hour, no. 

of bricks per kiln car, 

weight of a typical fired 

brick).

You must measure and record the production rate, on 

a fired-product basis, of the affected source for each 

of the three test runs. 

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/

Cl2 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. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
75686 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 243 / Thursday, December 18, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 4 TO SUBPART JJJJJ OF PART 63—REQUIREMENTS FOR PERFORMANCE TESTS—Continued 

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/Cl2 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.

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/Cl2

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/nonHg HAP metals performance test.

You must continuously measure the scrubber pressure 

drop, determine and record the block average pressure drop values for the three test runs, and determine and record the 3-hour block average of the recorded pressure drop measurements for the three 

test runs. The average of the three test runs establishes your minimum site-specific pressure drop operating limit. 

b. Establish the operating 

limit for the average 

scrubber liquid pH.

Data from the pH measurement device during 

the performance HF/HCl/

Cl2 performance test.

You must continuously measure the scrubber liquid 

pH, determine and record the block average pH values for the three test runs, and determine and 

record the 3-hour block average of the recorded pH 

measurements for the three test runs. The average 

of the three test runs establishes your minimum 

site-specific liquid pH operating limit. 

c. Establish the operating 

limit for the average 

scrubber liquid flow rate.

Data from the flow rate 

measurement device 

during the HF/HCl/Cl2

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 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/Cl2 and 

PM/non-Hg HAP metals tests, the highest of the average values become your site-specific operating 

limit. 

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/Cl2 performance test.

You must continuously measure the scrubber chemical feed rate, determine and record the block average chemical feed rate values for the three test 

runs, and determine and record the 3-hour block average of the recorded chemical feed rate measurements for the three test runs. The average of the 

three test runs establishes your minimum site-specific chemical addition rate operating limit. 

8. Tunnel kiln equipped with 

an ACI system.

Establish the operating 

limit for the average carbon flow rate.

Data from the carbon flow 

rate measurement conducted during the Hg 

performance test.

You must measure the carbon flow rate during each 

test run, determine and record the block average 

carbon flow rate values 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 operating 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. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 243 / Thursday, December 18, 2014 / Proposed Rules 75687 

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 Cl2 emissions 

must not exceed 26 kg/hr (57 

lb/hr) HCl equivalent. 

i. You measure HF, HCl, and Cl2 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 calculate the HCl-equivalent emissions for each kiln using 

Equation 2 to § 63.8445; and 

iii. You sum the HCl-equivalent values for all kilns at the facility using 

Equation 3 of § 63.8445; and 

iv. The facility total HCl-equivalent does not exceed 26 kg/hr (57 lb/

hr). 

2. Existing tunnel kiln, including all 

process streams. 

a. PM emissions must not exceed 

0.082 kg/Mg (0.16 lb/ton) of 

fired product or 92 mg/dscm 

(0.040 gr/dscf) at 7% O2; or 

i. The PM emissions measured using Method 5 of 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A–3 or Method 29 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–8, 

over the period of the initial performance test, according to the calculations in § 63.8445(f)(1), do not exceed 0.082 kg/Mg (0.16 lb/

ton) of fired product or 92 mg/dscm (0.040 gr/dscf) at 7% O2; and 

ii. You establish and have a record of the applicable operating limits 

listed in Table 2 to this subpart over the 3-hour performance test 

during which PM emissions did not exceed 0.088 kg/Mg (0.18 lb/

ton) of fired product or 97 mg/dscm (0.043 gr/dscf) at 7% O2. 

b. Non-Hg HAP metals emissions 

must not exceed 0.011 kg/hr 

(0.023 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 0.011 kg/hr (0.023 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 0.0114 

kg/hr (0.023 lb/hr). 

3. Existing large tunnel kiln (design 

capacity ≥10 tph of fired product), 

including all process streams.

a. Hg emissions must not exceed 

1.1 E–05 kg/Mg (2.2 E–05 lb/

ton) of fired product or 29 μg/

dscm at 7% O2 or 1.2 E–04 kg/

hr (2.7 E–04 lb/hr).

i. The Hg emissions measured using Method 29 of 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A–8 or its alternative, ASTM D6784–02 (Reapproved 

2008) (incorporated by reference, see § 63.14), over the period of 

the initial performance test, do not exceed 1.1 E–05 kg/Mg (2.2 E– 

05 lb/ton) of fired product or 29 μg/dscm at 7% O2 or 1.2 E–04 kg/

hr (2.7 E–04 lb/hr); and 

ii. You establish and have a record of the applicable operating limits 

listed in Table 2 to this subpart over the 3-hour performance test 

during which Hg emissions did not exceed 1.1 E–05 kg/Mg (2.2 E– 

05 lb/ton) of fired product or 29 μg/dscm at 7% O2 or 1.2 E–04 kg/

hr (2.7 E–04 lb/hr). 

4. Existing small tunnel kiln (design 

capacity <10 tph of fired product), 

including all process streams. 

a. Hg emissions must not exceed 

9.9 E–05 kg/Mg (2.0 E–04 lb/

ton) of fired product or 70 μg/

dscm at 7% O2 or 5.0 E–04 kg/

hr (0.0011 lb/hr). 

i. The Hg emissions measured using Method 29 of 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A–8 or its alternative, ASTM D6784–02 (Reapproved 

2008) (incorporated by reference, see § 63.14), over the period of 

the initial performance test, do not exceed 9.9 E–05 kg/Mg (2.0 E– 

04 lb/ton) of fired product or 70 μg/dscm at 7% O2 or 5.0 E–04 kg/

hr (0.0011 lb/hr); and 

ii. You establish and have a record of the applicable operating limits 

listed in Table 2 to this subpart over the 3-hour performance test 

during which Hg emissions did not exceed 9.9 E–05 kg/Mg (2.0 E– 

04 lb/ton) of fired product or 70 μg/dscm at 7% O2 or 5.0 E–04 kg/

hr (0.0011 lb/hr). 

5. New or reconstructed tunnel kiln, 

including all process streams 

a. PM emissions must not exceed 

0.011 kg/Mg (0.022 lb/ton) of 

fired product or 15 mg/dscm at 

7% O2; or 

i. The PM emissions measured using Method 5 of 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A–3, over the period of the initial performance test, according to the calculations in § 63.8445(f)(1), do not exceed 0.011 

kg/Mg (0.022 lb/ton) of fired product or 15 mg/dscm at 7% O2; and 

ii. You establish and have a record of the applicable operating limits 

listed in Table 2 to this subpart over the 3-hour performance test 

during which PM emissions did not exceed 0.011 kg/Mg (0.022 lb/

ton) of fired product or 15 mg/dscm at 7% O2. 

b. Non-Hg HAP metals emissions 

must not exceed 0.0014 kg/hr 

(0.0032 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 0.0014 kg/hr (0.0032 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 0.0014 

kg/hr (0.0032 lb/hr). 

6. New or reconstructed large tunnel 

kiln, including all process streams. 

a. Hg emissions must not exceed 

1.0 E–05 kg/Mg (2.0 E–05 lb/

ton) of fired product or 13 μg/

dscm at 7% O2 or 1.1 E–04 kg/

hr (2.4 E–04 lb/hr). 

i. The Hg emissions measured using Method 29 of 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A–8 or its alternative, ASTM D6784–02 (Reapproved 

2008) (incorporated by reference, see § 63.14), over the period of 

the initial performance test, do not exceed 1.0 E–05 kg/Mg (2.0 E– 

05 lb/ton) of fired product or 13 μg/dscm at 7% O2; and 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
75688 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 243 / Thursday, December 18, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 5 TO SUBPART JJJJJ OF PART 63—INITIAL COMPLIANCE WITH EMISSION LIMITATIONS AND WORK PRACTICE

STANDARDS—Continued 

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 1.0 E–05 kg/Mg (2.0 E– 

05 lb/ton) of fired product or 13 μg/dscm at 7% O2 or 1.1 E–04 kg/

hr (2.4 E–04 lb/hr). 

7. New or reconstructed small tunnel 

kiln, including all process streams. 

a. Hg emissions must not exceed 

9.9 E–05 kg/Mg (2.0 E–04 lb/

ton) of fired product or 70 μg/

dscm at 7% O2 or 5.0 E–04 kg/

hr (0.0011 lb/hr). 

i. The Hg emissions measured using Method 29 of 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A–8 or its alternative, ASTM D6784–02 (Reapproved 

2008) (incorporated by reference, see § 63.14), over the period of 

the initial performance test, do not exceed 9.9 E–05 kg/Mg (2.0 E– 

04 lb/ton) of fired product or 70 μg/dscm at 7% O2 or 5.0 E–04 kg/

hr (0.0011 lb/hr); and 

ii. You establish and have a record of the applicable operating limits 

listed in Table 2 to this subpart over the 3-hour performance test 

during which Hg emissions did not exceed 9.9 E–05 kg/Mg (2.0 E– 

04 lb/ton) of fired product or 70 μg/dscm at 7% O2. 

a. Minimize HAP emissions .......... i. Develop a designed firing time and temperature cycle for each 

product produced in the periodic kiln. You must either program the 

time and temperature cycle into your kiln or track each step on a 

log sheet; and 

ii. Label each periodic kiln with the maximum load (in tons) of product that can be fired in the kiln during a single firing cycle; and 

iii. Develop maintenance procedures for each kiln that, at a minimum, specify the frequency of inspection and maintenance of 

temperature monitoring devices, controls that regulate air-to-fuel 

ratios, and controls that regulate firing cycles. 

9. Existing, new or reconstructed 

tunnel kiln. 

a. Minimize dioxin/furan emissions. i. Conduct initial inspection of the burners and associated combustion controls (as applicable); and 

ii. Tune the specific burner type to optimize combustion. 

As stated in § 63.8470, you must 

demonstrate continuous compliance 

with each emission limitation and work 

practice standard that applies to you 

according to the following table. 

TABLE 6 TO SUBPART JJJJJ OF PART 63—CONTINUOUS COMPLIANCE WITH EMISSION LIMITATIONS AND WORK PRACTICE

STANDARDS

For each . . . For the following . . . You must demonstrate continuous compliance by . . . 

1. Tunnel kiln equipped with a DLA a. Each emission limit in Table 1 

to this subpart and each operating limit in Item 1 of Table 2 

to this subpart for tunnel kilns 

equipped with a DLA.

i. Collecting the DLA pressure drop data according to § 63.8450(a); 

reducing the DLA pressure drop data to 3-hour block averages according to § 63.8450(a); maintaining the average pressure drop 

across the DLA for each 3-hour block period at or above the average pressure drop established during the HF/HCl/Cl2 performance 

test; or continuously monitoring 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 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 visual access point, such as a window, on the side of the hopper; (3) installing a camera in the hopper that provides continuous feed to a 

video monitor in the control room; or (4) confirming that load level 

indicators in the hopper are not indicating the need for additional 

limestone; 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/Cl2 performance test; and 

iv. Using the same grade of limestone from the same source as was 

used during the HF/HCl/Cl2 performance test; maintaining records 

of the source and type of limestone; and 

v. Performing VE observations of the DLA stack at the frequency 

specified in § 63.8470(e) using Method 22 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–7; maintaining no VE from the DLA stack. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 243 / Thursday, December 18, 2014 / Proposed Rules 75689 

TABLE 6 TO SUBPART JJJJJ OF PART 63—CONTINUOUS COMPLIANCE WITH EMISSION LIMITATIONS AND WORK PRACTICE

STANDARDS—Continued 

For each . . . For the following . . . You must demonstrate continuous compliance by . . . 

2. Tunnel kiln equipped with a DIFF 

or DLS/FF.

a. Each emission limit in Table 1 

to this subpart and each operating limit in Item 2 of Table 2 

to this subpart for tunnel kilns 

equipped with DIFF or DLS/FF.

i. If you use a bag leak detection system, initiating corrective action 

within 1 hour of a bag leak detection system alarm and completing 

corrective actions in accordance with your OM&M plan; operating 

and maintaining the fabric filter such that the alarm is not engaged 

for more than 5 percent of the total operating time in a 6-month 

block reporting period; in calculating this operating time fraction, if 

inspection of the fabric filter demonstrates that no corrective action 

is required, no alarm time is counted; if corrective action is required, each alarm is counted as a minimum of 1 hour; if you take 

longer than 1 hour to initiate corrective action, the alarm time is 

counted as the actual amount of 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, appendix A–7; and maintaining no VE from 

the DIFF or DLS/FF stack; and 

ii. Verifying that lime is free-flowing via a load cell, carrier gas/lime 

flow indicator, carrier gas pressure drop measurement system, or 

other system; recording all monitor or sensor output, and if lime is 

found not to be free flowing, promptly initiating and completing 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/Cl2 performance test. 

3. Tunnel kiln equipped with a WS .. a. Each emission limit in Table 1 

to this subpart and each operating limit in Item 3 of Table 2 

to this subpart for tunnel kilns 

equipped with WS.

i. Collecting the scrubber pressure drop data according to 

§ 63.8450(a); reducing the scrubber pressure drop data to 3-hour 

block averages according to § 63.8450(a); maintaining the average 

scrubber pressure drop for each 3-hour block period at or above 

the average pressure drop established during the PM/non-Hg HAP 

metals performance test; and 

ii. Collecting the scrubber liquid pH data according to § 63.8450(a); 

reducing the scrubber liquid pH data to 3-hour block averages according to § 63.8450(a); maintaining the average scrubber liquid 

pH for each 3-hour block period at or above the average scrubber 

liquid pH established during the HF/HCl/Cl2 performance test; and 

iii. Collecting the scrubber liquid flow rate data according to 

§ 63.8450(a); reducing the scrubber liquid flow rate data to 3-hour 

block averages 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/Cl2 and PM/non-Hg HAP metals performance tests; 

and 

iv. If chemicals are added to the scrubber water, collecting the scrubber chemical feed rate data according to § 63.8450(a); reducing 

the scrubber chemical feed rate data to 3-hour block averages according to § 63.8450(a); maintaining the average scrubber chemical feed rate for each 3-hour block period at or above the average 

scrubber chemical feed rate established during the HF/HCl/Cl2 performance test. 

4. Tunnel kiln equipped with an ACI 

system.

Each emission limit in Table 1 to 

this subpart and each operating 

limit in Item 4 of Table 2 to this 

subpart for tunnel kilns 

equipped with ACI system.

Collecting the carbon flow rate data according to § 63.8450(a); reducing the carbon flow rate data to 3-hour block averages according to § 63.8450(a); maintaining the average carbon flow rate for 

each 3-hour block period at or above the average carbon flow rate 

established during the Hg performance test. 

5. Tunnel kiln with no add-on contro 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. If 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 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 kil .................................... a. Minimize HAP emissions .......... i. Using a designed firing time and temperature cycle for each product produced in the periodic kiln; and 

ii. For each firing load, documenting 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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
75690 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 243 / Thursday, December 18, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 6 TO SUBPART JJJJJ OF PART 63—CONTINUOUS COMPLIANCE WITH EMISSION LIMITATIONS AND WORK PRACTICE

STANDARDS—Continued 

For each . . . For the following . . . You must demonstrate continuous compliance by . . . 

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 kil ...................................... a. Minimize dioxin/furan emission 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. 

TABLE 7 TO SUBPART JJJJJ OF PART 63—REQUIREMENTS FOR REPORTS

You must submit . . . The report must contain . . . You must submit the report . . . 

1. A compliance report ..................... a. If there are no deviations from any emission limitations (emission 

limits, operating limits) that apply to you, a statement that there 

were no deviations from the emission limitations during the reporting period. If there were no periods during which the CMS was 

out-of-control as 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(d) or (e). If there were periods 

during which the CMS was out-of-control, as specified in your 

OM&M plan, the report must contain the information in 

§ 63.8485(e).

Semiannually according to the requirements in § 63.8485(b). 

As stated in § 63.8505, you must 

comply with the General Provisions in 

§§ 63.1 through 63.16 that apply to you 

according to the following table. 

TABLE 8 TO SUBPART JJJJJ OF 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. 

§ 63.6(b)(1) through (4) ....... Compliance Dates for New 

and Reconstructed 

sources.

Standards apply at effective date; 3 years after effective date; upon startup; 10 years after construction 

or reconstruction commences for section 112(f).

Yes. 

§ 63.6(b)(5) .......................... Notification ......................... Must notify if commenced construction or 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) and (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) and (4) .............. [Reserved] ......................... ........................................................................................ No. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 243 / Thursday, December 18, 2014 / Proposed Rules 75691 

TABLE 8 TO SUBPART JJJJJ OF PART 63—APPLICABILITY OF GENERAL PROVISIONS TO SUBPART JJJJJ—Continued 

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 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) and (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) and (2) .............. Performance Test Dates ... Dates for conducting initial performance testing and 

other compliance demonstrations for emission limits 

and work practice standards; must conduct 180 

days after first subject to rule.

Yes. 

§ 63.7(a)(3) .......................... Section 114 Authority ........ Administrator may require a performance test under 

CAA section 114 at any time.

Yes. 

§ 63.7(a)(4) .......................... Notification of Delay in 

Performance Testing 

Due To Force Majeure.

Must notify Administrator of delay in performance testing due to force majeure.Yes. 

§ 63.7(b)(1) .......................... Notification of Performance 

Test.

Must notify Administrator 60 days before the test ........ Yes. 

§ 63.7(b)(2) .......................... Notification of Rescheduling.Must notify Administrator 5 days before scheduled 

date of rescheduled date.

Yes. 

§ 63.7(c) ............................... Quality Assurance(QA)/

Test Plan.

Requirements; test plan approval procedures; performance audit requirements; internal and external QA 

procedures for testing.

Yes. 

§ 63.7(d) ............................... Testing Facilities ................ Requirements for testing facilities ................................. Yes. 

§ 63.7(e)(1) .......................... Conditions for Conducting 

Performance Tests.

Cannot conduct performance tests during SSM; not a 

violation to exceed standard during SSM.

No, § 63.8445 specifies requirements. 

§ 63.7(e)(2) and (3) .............. Conditions for Conducting 

Performance Tests.

Must conduct according to subpart and EPA test 

methods unless Administrator approves alternative; 

must have at least three test runs of at least 1 hour 

each; compliance is based on arithmetic mean of 

three runs; conditions when data from an additional 

test run can be used.

Yes. 

§ 63.7(e)(4) .......................... Testing under Section 114 Administrator’s authority to require testing under section 114 of the Act.Yes. 

§ 63.7(f) ................................ Alternative Test Method .... Procedures by which Administrator can grant approval 

to use an alternative test method.

Yes. 

§ 63.7(g) ............................... Performance Test Data 

Analysis.

Must include raw data in performance test report; 

must submit performance test data 60 days after 

end of test with the notification of compliance status.

Yes. 

§ 63.7(h) ............................... Waiver of Tests ................. Procedures for Administrator to waive performance 

test.

Yes. 

§ 63.8(a)(1) .......................... Applicability of Monitoring 

Requirements.

Subject to all monitoring requirements in subpart ........ Yes. 

§ 63.8(a)(2) .......................... Performance Specifications Performance Specifications in appendix B of 40 CFR 

part 60 apply.

Yes. 

§ 63.8(a)(3) .......................... [Reserved] ......................... ........................................................................................ No. 

§ 63.8(a)(4) .......................... Monitoring with Flares ....... Requirements for flares in § 63.11 apply ...................... No, not applicable. 

§ 63.8(b)(1) .......................... Monitoring .......................... Must conduct monitoring according to standard unless 

Administrator approves alternative.

Yes. 

§ 63.8(b)(2) and (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 in SSMP.No. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
75692 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 243 / Thursday, December 18, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 8 TO SUBPART JJJJJ OF PART 63—APPLICABILITY OF GENERAL PROVISIONS TO SUBPART JJJJJ—Continued 

Citation Subject Brief description Applies to subpart JJJJJ? 

§ 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) and (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. 

§ 63.8(c)(7) and (8) .............. CMS Requirements ........... Out-of-control periods .................................................... Yes. 

§ 63.8(d) ............................... CMS Quality Control ......... Requirements for CMS quality control .......................... Yes. 

§ 63.8(e) ............................... CMS Performance Evaluation.Requirements for CMS performance evaluation ........... Yes. 

§ 63.8(f)(1) through (5) ........ Alternative Monitoring 

Method.

Procedures for Administrator to approve alternative 

monitoring.

Yes. 

§ 63.8(f)(6) ........................... Alternative to Relative Accuracy Test.Procedures for Administrator to approve alternative 

relative accuracy test for continuous emissions monitoring systems (CEMS).

No, not applicable. 

§ 63.8(g) ............................... Data Reduction .................. COMS and CEMS data reduction requirements ........... No, not applicable. 

§ 63.9(a) ............................... Notification Requirements Applicability; State delegation ....................................... Yes. 

§ 63.9(b) ............................... Initial Notifications ............. Requirements for initial notifications ............................. Yes. 

§ 63.9(c) ............................... Request for Compliance 

Extension.

Can request if cannot comply by date or if installed 

BACT/LAER.

Yes. 

§ 63.9(d) ............................... Notification of Special 

Compliance Requirements for New Source.

For sources that commence construction between proposal and promulgation and want to comply 3 years 

after effective date.

Yes. 

§ 63.9(e) ............................... Notification of Performance 

Test.

Notify Administrator 60 days prior ................................. Yes. 

§ 63.9(f) ................................ Notification of VE/Opacity 

Test.

Notify Administrator 30 days prior ................................. No, not applicable. 

§ 63.9(g)(1) .......................... Additional Notifications 

When Using CMS.

Notification of performance evaluation .......................... Yes 

§ 63.9(g)(2) and (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/R Reporting Applicability; general information .................................. Yes. 

§ 63.10(b)(1) ........................ General Recordkeeping 

Requirements.

General requirements .................................................... Yes. 

§ 63.10(b)(2)(i) ..................... Records Related to SSM .. Recordkeeping of occurrence and duration of startups 

and shutdowns.

No. 

§ 63.10(b)(2)(ii) .................... Records Related to SSM .. Recordkeeping of failures to meet a standard .............. No. See § 63.8490(c)(2) for 

recordkeeping of (1) 

date, time and duration; 

(2) listing of affected 

source or equipment, 

and an estimate of the 

volume of each regulated pollutant emitted 

over the standard; and 

(3) actions to minimize 

emissions and correct 

the failure. 

§ 63.10(b)(2)(iii) .................... Records Related to SSM .. Maintenance records ..................................................... Yes. 

§ 63.10(b)(2)(iv) and (v) ....... Records Related to SSM .. Actions taken to minimize emissions during SSM ........ No. 

§ 63.10(b)(2)(vi) through (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) through (15) .... Records ............................. Additional records for CMS ........................................... No, §§ 63.8425 and 

63.8490 specify requirements. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 243 / Thursday, December 18, 2014 / Proposed Rules 75693 

TABLE 8 TO SUBPART JJJJJ OF PART 63—APPLICABILITY OF GENERAL PROVISIONS TO SUBPART JJJJJ—Continued 

Citation Subject Brief description Applies to subpart JJJJJ? 

§ 63.10(d)(1) and (2) ............ General Reporting Requirements.Requirements for reporting; performance test results 

reporting.

Yes. 

§ 63.10(d)(3) ........................ Reporting Opacity or VE 

Observations.

Requirements for reporting opacity and VE .................. No, not applicable. 

§ 63.10(d)(4) ........................ Progress Reports .............. Must submit progress reports on schedule if under 

compliance extension.

Yes. 

§ 63.10(d)(5) ........................ SSM Reports ..................... Contents and submission .............................................. No. See § 63.8485(f) for 

malfunction reporting requirements. 

§ 63.10(e)(1) through (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.Requirements for Performance Track member facilities Yes. 

■ 4. Subchapter C is amended by 

revising subpart KKKKK to read as 

follows: 

Subpart KKKKK—National Emission 

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 

for Clay Ceramics Manufacturing 

What This Subpart Covers 

Sec. 

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 limitations and work 

practice standards? 

General Compliance Requirements 

63.8570 What are my general requirements 

for complying with this subpart? 

63.8575 What do I need to know about 

operation, maintenance, and monitoring 

plans? 

Testing and Initial Compliance 

Requirements 

63.8585 By what date must I conduct 

performance tests? 

63.8590 When 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? 

63.8620 How do I demonstrate continuous 

compliance with the emission 

limitations and work practice standards? 

Notifications, Reports, and Records 

63.8630 What notifications must I submit 

and when? 

63.8635 What reports must I submit and 

when? 

63.8640 What records must I keep? 

63.8645 In what form and for how long 

must I keep my records? 

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 63— 

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— 

Continuous Compliance with Emission 

Limitations and Work Practice Standards 

Table 8 to Subpart KKKKK of Part 63— 

Requirements for Reports 

Table 9 to Subpart KKKKK of Part 63— 

Applicability of General Provisions to 

Subpart KKKKK 

What This Subpart Covers 

§ 63.8530 What is the purpose of this 

subpart? 

This subpart establishes national 

emission limitations and work practice 

standards for hazardous air pollutants 

(HAP) emitted from clay ceramics 

manufacturing facilities. This subpart 

also establishes requirements to 

demonstrate initial and 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 

manufacturing facility that is, is located 

at, or is part of a major source of HAP 

emissions according to the criteria in 

paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section. 

(a) A clay ceramics manufacturing 

facility is a plant site that manufactures 

pressed floor tile, pressed 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 

sanitaryware products. 

(b) A major source of HAP emissions 

is any stationary source or group of 

stationary sources within a contiguous 

area under common control that emits 

or has the potential to emit any single 

HAP at a rate of 9.07 megagrams (10 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
75694 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 243 / Thursday, December 18, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

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 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 (6) of this 

section. 

(1) Kilns that are used exclusively for 

refiring. 

(2) Kilns that are used exclusively for 

setting glazes on previously fired 

products. 

(3) Glaze spray operations that use 

wet glazes containing less than 0.1 

(weight) percent metal HAP (dry basis). 

(4) Raw material processing and 

handling. 

(5) Wall tile press dryers. 

(6) Sanitaryware ware dryers. 

(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. 

§ 63.8545 When do I have to comply with 

this subpart? 

(a) If you have a new or reconstructed 

affected source, you must comply with 

this subpart according to paragraphs 

(a)(1) and (2) of this section. 

(1) If the initial startup of your 

affected source is after December 18, 

2014 but before [DATE 60 DAYS AFTER 

THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE 

FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register], 

then you must comply with the 

applicable emission limitations and 

work practice standards in Tables 1, 2, 

and 3 to this subpart no later than 

[DATE 60 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF 

PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE 

IN THE Federal Register]. 

(2) If the initial startup of your 

affected source is after [DATE 60 DAYS 

AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION 

OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE Federal 

Register], then you must comply with 

the applicable emission limitations and 

work practice standards in Tables 1, 2, 

and 3 to this subpart upon initial startup 

of your affected source. 

(b) If you have an existing affected 

source, you must comply with the 

emission limitations and work practice 

standards for existing sources in Tables 

1, 2, and 3 to this subpart no later than 

[DATE 3 YEARS AND 60 DAYS AFTER 

THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE 

FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register]. 

(c) If you have an existing area source 

that increases its emissions or its 

potential to emit such that it becomes a 

major source of HAP by adding a new 

affected source or by reconstructing, you 

must be in compliance with this subpart 

upon initial startup of your affected 

source as a major source. 

(d) If you have a new area source (i.e., 

an area source for which construction or 

reconstruction was commenced after 

December 18, 2014) that increases its 

emissions or its potential to emit such 

that it becomes a major source of HAP, 

you must be in compliance with this 

subpart upon initial startup of your 

affected source as a major source. 

(e) You must meet the notification 

requirements in § 63.8630 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 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 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 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 the work practice 

standards for affected sanitaryware 

shuttle kilns, you must comply with the 

requirements listed in Table 3 to this 

subpart. 

(c) To meet the work practice 

standards for affected sources during 

periods of startup and shutdown, you 

must comply with the requirements 

listed in Table 3 to this subpart. 

General Compliance Requirements 

§ 63.8570 What are my general 

requirements for complying with this 

subpart? 

(a) You must be in compliance with 

the emission limitations (including 

operating limits) in this subpart at all 

times, except during periods of routine 

control device maintenance as specified 

in paragraph (d) of this section. 

(b) Except as specified in paragraph 

(d) of this section, you must operate and 

maintain any affected source, including 

associated air pollution control 

equipment and monitoring equipment, 

in a manner consistent with safety and 

good air pollution control 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 

information available to the 

Administrator which may include, but 

is not limited to, monitoring results, 

review of operation and maintenance 

procedures, review of operation and 

maintenance records, and inspection of 

the source. During the period between 

the compliance date specified for your 

affected source in § 63.8545 and the date 

upon which continuous monitoring 

systems (CMS) (e.g., continuous 

parameter monitoring systems) have 

been installed and verified and any 

applicable operating limits have been 

set, you must maintain a log detailing 

the operation and maintenance of the 

process and emissions control 

equipment. 

(c) For each affected source that is 

subject to the emission limits specified 

in Table 1 to this subpart, you must 

prepare and implement a written 

operation, maintenance, and monitoring 

(OM&M) plan according to the 

requirements in § 63.8575. 

(d) If you own or operate an affected 

source that is subject to the emission 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 243 / Thursday, December 18, 2014 / Proposed Rules 75695 

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 upon 

approval by the Administrator provided 

you satisfy the conditions listed in 

paragraphs (d)(1) through (5) of this 

section. 

(1) You must request a routine control 

device maintenance exemption from the 

Administrator. Your request must justify 

the need for the routine maintenance on 

the control device and the time required 

to accomplish the maintenance 

activities, describe the maintenance 

activities and the frequency of the 

maintenance activities, explain why the 

maintenance cannot be accomplished 

during source shutdowns, describe how 

you plan to minimize emissions to the 

greatest extent possible during the 

maintenance, and provide any other 

documentation required by the 

Administrator. 

(2) The routine control device 

maintenance exemption must not 

exceed 4 percent of the annual operating 

uptime for each affected source. 

(3) The request for the routine control 

device maintenance exemption, if 

approved by the Administrator, must be 

incorporated by reference in and 

attached to the affected source’s title V 

permit. 

(4) You must minimize HAP 

emissions during the period when the 

affected source is operating and the 

control device is offline. 

(5) You must minimize the time 

period during which the affected source 

is operating and the control device is 

offline. 

(e) If you own or operate an affected 

kiln that is 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 

permitting authority upon request. 

(b) Your OM&M plan must include, as 

a minimum, the information in 

paragraphs (b)(1) through (13) of this 

section. 

(1) Each process and APCD to be 

monitored, the type of monitoring 

device that will be used, and the 

operating parameters that will be 

monitored. 

(2) A monitoring schedule that 

specifies the frequency that the 

parameter values will be determined 

and recorded. 

(3) The limits for each parameter that 

represent continuous compliance with 

the emission limitations in § 63.8555. 

The limits must be based on values of 

the monitored parameters recorded 

during performance tests. 

(4) Procedures for the proper 

operation and routine and long-term 

maintenance of each APCD, including a 

maintenance and inspection schedule 

that is consistent with the 

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 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). 

(9) Continuous monitoring system 

data quality assurance procedures 

consistent with the requirements in 

§ 63.8(d). 

(10) Continuous monitoring system 

recordkeeping and reporting procedures 

consistent with the requirements in 

§§ 63.8635 and 63.8640. 

(11) Procedures for responding to 

operating parameter deviations, 

including the procedures in paragraphs 

(b)(11)(i) through (iii) of this section. 

(i) Procedures for determining the 

cause of the operating parameter 

deviation. 

(ii) Actions necessary for correcting 

the deviation and returning the 

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. 

(ii) Procedures for minimizing the 

duration of any period of routine 

maintenance on the source control 

device when the affected source is 

operating and the control device is 

offline. 

(c) Changes to the operating limits in 

your OM&M plan require a new 

performance test. If you are revising an 

operating limit parameter value, you 

must meet the requirements in 

paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of this section. 

(1) Submit a notification of 

performance test to the Administrator as 

specified in § 63.7(b). 

(2) After completing the performance 

test to demonstrate that compliance 

with the emission limits can be 

achieved at the revised 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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
75696 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 243 / Thursday, December 18, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

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. 

(d) Performance tests shall be 

conducted under such conditions as the 

Administrator specifies to the owner or 

operator based on representative 

performance of the affected source for 

the period being tested. Representative 

conditions exclude periods of startup 

and shutdown. The owner or operator 

may not conduct performance tests 

during periods of malfunction. The 

owner or operator must record the 

process information that is necessary to 

document operating conditions during 

the test and include in such record an 

explanation to support that such 

conditions represent normal operation. 

Upon request, the owner or operator 

shall make available to the 

Administrator such records as may be 

necessary to determine the conditions of 

performance tests. 

(e) You must conduct at least three 

separate test runs for each performance 

test required in this section, as specified 

in § 63.7(e)(3). Each test run must last at 

least 1 hour. 

(f) You must use the data gathered 

during the performance test and the 

equations in paragraphs (f)(1) through 

(4) of this section to determine 

compliance with the emission 

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 of this 

section: 

Where: 

MP = mass per unit of production, kilograms 

(pounds) of pollutant per megagram (ton) 

of fired product 

ER = mass emission rate of pollutant (PM or 

Hg) during each performance test run, 

kilograms (pounds) per hour 

P = production rate during each performance 

test run, megagrams (tons) of fired 

product per hour. 

(2) To determine compliance with the 

PM emission limits for ceramic tile 

glaze lines with glaze spraying and 

sanitaryware glaze spray booths in Table 

1 to this subpart, you must calculate 

your mass emissions per unit of glaze 

sprayed for each test run using Equation 

2 of this section: 

Where: 

MG = mass per unit of glaze application, 

kilograms (pounds) of PM per megagram 

(ton) of glaze sprayed 

ER = mass emission rate of PM during each 

performance test run, kilograms (pounds) 

per hour 

G = glaze application rate during each 

performance test run, megagrams (tons) 

of glaze sprayed per hour 

(3) To determine compliance with the 

dioxin/furan emission limits for tunnel 

and roller kilns, ceramic tile spray 

dryers, and floor tile press dryers in 

Table 1 to this subpart, you must 

calculate the sum of the 2,3,7,8- 

tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (2,3,7,8- 

TCDD) toxic equivalents (TEQs) for each 

test run using Equation 3 of this section: 

Where: 

TEQ = sum of the 2,3,7,8-TCDD TEQs, 

nanograms per dry standard cubic meter 

Ci = concentration of dioxin or furan 

congener i, nanograms per dry standard 

cubic meter 

TEFi = 2,3,7,8-TCDD toxic equivalency factor 

(TEF) for congener i, as provided in 

Table 5 to this subpart. 

n = number of congeners included in TEQ 

(4) To determine compliance with the 

health-based standard for acid gas HAP 

for clay ceramics manufacturing 

facilities in Table 1 to this subpart, you 

must: 

(i) Calculate the HCl-equivalent 

emissions for HF and HCl for each 

tunnel or roller kiln at your facility 

using Equation 4 of this section: 

Where: 

Ei = HCl-equivalent emissions for kiln i, 

kilograms (pounds) per hour 

EHCl = emissions of HCl, kilograms (pounds) 

per hour 

EHF = emissions of HF, kilograms (pounds) 

per hour 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP18DE14.007</GPH> EP18DE14.008</GPH> EP18DE14.009</GPH> EP18DE14.010</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 243 / Thursday, December 18, 2014 / Proposed Rules 75697 

RfCHCl = reference concentration for HCl, 20 

micrograms per cubic meter 

RfCHF = reference concentration for HF, 14 

micrograms per cubic meter 

(ii) If you have multiple tunnel or 

roller kilns at your facility, sum the HClequivalent values for all tunnel or roller 

kilns at the facility using Equation 5 of 

this section: 

Where: 

Etotal = HCl-equivalent emissions for total of 

all kilns at facility, kilograms (pounds) 

per hour 

Ei = HCl-equivalent emissions for kiln i, 

kilograms (pounds) per hour 

n = number of tunnel kilns at facility 

(iii) Compare this value to the healthbased standard in Table 1 to this 

subpart. 

(g) You must establish each sitespecific 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 calculate the maximum 

potential HCl-equivalent emissions for 

HF and HCl for each tunnel or roller 

kiln at your facility using Equation 6 of 

this section: 

Where: 

Emax i = maximum potential HCl-equivalent 

emissions for kiln i, kilograms (pounds) 

per hour 

Capi = design capacity for kiln i, megagrams 

(tons) of fired product per hour 

MPiHCl = mass of HCl per unit of production 

for kiln i, kilograms (pounds) of HCl per 

megagram (ton) of fired product 

MPiHF = mass of HF per unit of production 

for kiln i, kilograms (pounds) of HF per 

megagram (ton) of fired product 

RfCHCl = reference concentration for HCl, 20 

micrograms per cubic meter 

RfCHF = reference 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 of this section: 

Where: 

Emax total = maximum potential HClequivalent emissions for total of all kilns 

at facility, kilograms (pounds) per hour 

Emax i = maximum potential HCl-equivalent 

emissions 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 HClequivalent emissions (Emax total) 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. 

Where: 

Pmax 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 

MPiHCl = mass of HCl per unit of production 

for kiln i, kilograms (pounds) of HCl per 

megagram (ton) of fired product 

MPiHF = mass of HF per unit of production 

for kiln i, kilograms (pounds) of HF per 

megagram (ton) of fired product 

RfCHCl = reference concentration for HCl, 20 

micrograms per cubic meter 

RfCHF = reference 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 HClequivalent emissions (Emax total) 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 HClequivalent remains at or below the HClequivalent limit. The maximum process 

rates would become your operating 

limits for process rate and must be 

included in your OM&M plan. 

(h) For each affected source that is 

subject to the emission limits specified 

in Table 1 to this subpart and is 

equipped with an APCD that is not 

addressed in Table 2 to this subpart or 

that is using process changes as a means 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP18DE14.011</GPH> EP18DE14.012</GPH> EP18DE14.013</GPH> EP18DE14.014</GPH>
75698 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 243 / Thursday, December 18, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

of meeting the emission limits in Table 

1 to this subpart, you must meet the 

requirements in § 63.8(f) and paragraphs 

(h)(1) and (2) of this section. 

(1) Submit a request for approval of 

alternative monitoring procedures to the 

Administrator no later than the 

notification of intent to conduct a 

performance test. The request must 

contain the information specified in 

paragraphs (h)(1)(i) through (iv) of this 

section. 

(i) A description of the alternative 

APCD or process changes. 

(ii) The type of 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 requirements in 

paragraphs (a)(1) through (5) of this 

section. 

(1) Conduct a performance evaluation 

of each CMS according to your OM&M 

plan. 

(2) The CMS must complete a 

minimum of one cycle of operation for 

each successive 15-minute period. 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, shutdown, malfunction, out-ofcontrol periods, or periods of routine 

control device maintenance covered by 

a routine control device maintenance 

exemption as specified in § 63.8570(d)). 

(3) Determine and record the 3-hour 

block averages of all recorded readings, 

calculated after every 3 hours of 

operation as the average of the previous 

3 operating hours. To calculate the 

average for each 3-hour average period, 

you must have at least 75 percent of the 

recorded readings for that period (not 

including startup, shutdown, 

malfunction, out-of-control periods, or 

periods of routine control device 

maintenance covered by a routine 

control device maintenance exemption 

as specified in § 63.8570(d)). 

(4) Record the results of each 

inspection, calibration, and validation 

check. 

(5) At all times, maintain the 

monitoring equipment including, but 

not 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 

(c)(1) through (7) of this section. 

(1) Locate the pressure sensor(s) in or 

as close to a position that provides a 

representative measurement of the 

pressure. 

(2) Minimize or eliminate pulsating 

pressure, vibration, and internal and 

external corrosion. 

(3) Use a gauge with a minimum 

measurement sensitivity of 0.5 inch of 

water or a transducer with a minimum 

measurement sensitivity of 1 percent of 

the pressure range. 

(4) Check the pressure tap daily to 

ensure that it is not plugged. 

(5) Using a manometer, check gauge 

calibration quarterly and transducer 

calibration monthly. 

(6) Any time the sensor exceeds the 

manufacturer’s specified maximum 

operating pressure 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 (d)(1) 

through (4) of this section. 

(1) Locate the pH sensor in a position 

that provides a representative 

measurement of pH. 

(2) Ensure the sample is properly 

mixed and representative of the fluid to 

be measured. 

(3) Check the pH meter’s calibration 

on at least two points every 8 hours of 

process operation. 

(4) At least monthly, inspect all 

components for integrity and all 

electrical connections for continuity. 

(e) For each bag leak detection system, 

you must meet the requirements in 

paragraphs (e)(1) through (11) of this 

section. 

(1) Each triboelectric bag leak 

detection system must be installed, 

calibrated, operated, and maintained 

according to the ‘‘Fabric Filter Bag Leak 

Detection Guidance,’’ (EPA–454/R–98– 

015, September 1997) (incorporated by 

reference, see § 63.14). Other types of 

bag leak detection systems must be 

installed, operated, calibrated, and 

maintained in a manner consistent with 

the manufacturer’s written 

specifications and recommendations. 

(2) The bag leak detection system 

must be certified by the manufacturer to 

be capable of detecting PM emissions at 

concentrations of 10 milligrams per 

actual cubic meter (0.0044 grains per 

actual cubic foot) or less. 

(3) The bag leak detection system 

sensor must provide an output of 

relative PM loadings. 

(4) The bag leak detection system 

must be equipped with a device to 

continuously record the output signal 

from the sensor. 

(5) The bag leak detection system 

must be equipped with an audible alarm 

system that will sound automatically 

when an increase in relative PM 

emissions over a preset level is detected. 

The alarm must be located where it is 

easily heard by plant operating 

personnel. 

(6) For positive pressure fabric filter 

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,’’ (EPA–454/R–98– 

015, September 1997) (incorporated by 

reference, see § 63.14). 

(10) Following initial adjustment of 

the system, the sensitivity or range, 

averaging period, alarm set points, or 

alarm delay time may not be adjusted 

except as detailed in your OM&M plan. 

In no case may the sensitivity be 

increased by more than 100 percent or 

decreased more than 50 percent over a 

365-day period unless such adjustment 

follows a complete fabric filter 

inspection 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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 243 / Thursday, December 18, 2014 / Proposed Rules 75699 

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 (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 

(g)(1) through (3) of this section. 

(1) Locate the measurement device in 

a position that provides a representative 

temperature. 

(2) Use a measurement device with a 

minimum sensitivity of 1 percent of the 

temperature being measured. 

(3) At least semiannually, conduct a 

calibration check. 

(h) Requests for approval of alternate 

monitoring procedures must meet the 

requirements in §§ 63.8595(h) and 

63.8(f). 

§ 63.8605 How do I demonstrate initial 

compliance with the emission limitations 

and work 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 sitespecific 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 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 at 

all required intervals) at all times that 

the affected source is operating. This 

includes periods of startup, shutdown, 

malfunction, and routine control device 

maintenance as specified in § 63.8570(d) 

when the affected source is operating. 

(c) You may not use data recorded 

during monitoring malfunctions, 

associated repairs, out-of-control 

periods, or required quality assurance or 

control activities for purposes of 

calculating data averages. A monitoring 

malfunction is any sudden, infrequent, 

not reasonably preventable failure of the 

monitoring system to provide valid data. 

Monitoring failures that are caused in 

part by poor maintenance or careless 

operation are not malfunctions. You 

must use all the valid data collected 

during all other periods in assessing 

compliance. Any averaging period for 

which you do not have valid monitoring 

data and such data are required 

constitutes a deviation from the 

monitoring requirements. 

§ 63.8620 How do I demonstrate 

continuous compliance with the emission 

limitations and 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 

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. This includes 

periods of startup, shutdown, 

malfunction, and routine control device 

maintenance. These instances are 

deviations from the emission limitations 

in this subpart. These deviations must 

be reported according to the 

requirements in § 63.8635. 

(d) Deviations that occur during 

periods of control device maintenance 

covered by an approved routine control 

device maintenance exemption 

according to § 63.8570(d) are not 

violations if you demonstrate to the 

Administrator’s satisfaction that you 

were operating in accordance with the 

approved routine control device 

maintenance exemption. 

(e) You must demonstrate continuous 

compliance with the operating limits in 

Table 2 to this subpart for visible 

emissions (VE) from tunnel or roller 

kilns that are uncontrolled or equipped 

with DIFF, DLS/FF, or 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. 

(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 daily 

tests, at which time you may again 

decrease the frequency of Method 22 

testing to a weekly basis. 

(3) If VE are observed during any test 

conducted using Method 22 of 40 CFR 

part 60, appendix A–7, you must report 

these deviations by following the 

requirements in § 63.8635. 

Notifications, Reports, and Records 

§ 63.8630 What notifications must I submit 

and when? 

(a) You must submit all of the 

notifications in §§ 63.7(b) and (c), 

63.8(f)(4), and 63.9 (b) through (e), 

(g)(1), and (h) that apply to you, by the 

dates specified. 

(b) As specified in § 63.9(b)(2), if you 

start up your affected source before 

[DATE 60 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF 

PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE 

IN THE Federal Register], you must 

submit an Initial Notification not later 

than 120 calendar days after [DATE 60 

DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF 

PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE 

IN THE Federal Register]. 

(c) As specified in § 63.9(b)(2), if you 

start up your new or reconstructed 

affected source or affected source 

described in § 63.8540(d) or § 63.8540(e) 

on or after [DATE 60 DAYS AFTER THE 

DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE 

FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register], 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
75700 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 243 / Thursday, December 18, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

you must submit an Initial Notification 

not later than 120 calendar days after 

you become subject to this subpart. 

(d) If you are required to conduct a 

performance test, you must submit a 

written notification of intent to conduct 

a performance test at least 60 calendar 

days before the performance test is 

scheduled to begin, as required in 

§ 63.7(b)(1). 

(e) If you are required to conduct a 

performance test or other initial 

compliance demonstration as specified 

in Tables 4 and 6 to this subpart, you 

must submit a Notification of 

Compliance Status as specified in 

§ 63.9(h) and paragraphs (e)(1) through 

(3) of this section. 

(1) For each compliance 

demonstration that includes a 

performance test conducted according 

to the requirements in Table 4 to this 

subpart, you must submit the 

Notification of Compliance Status, 

including the performance test results, 

before the close of business on the 60th 

calendar day following the completion 

of the performance test, according to 

§ 63.10(d)(2). 

(2) In addition to the requirements in 

§ 63.9(h)(2)(i), you must include the 

information in paragraphs (e)(2)(i) and 

(ii) of this section in your Notification 

of Compliance Status: 

(i) The operating limit parameter 

values established for each affected 

source with supporting documentation 

and a description of the procedure used 

to establish the values. 

(ii) For each APCD that includes a 

fabric filter, if a bag leak detection 

system is used, analysis and supporting 

documentation demonstrating 

conformance with EPA guidance and 

specifications for bag leak detection 

systems in § 63.8600(e). 

(3) For each compliance 

demonstration required in Table 6 to 

this subpart that does not include a 

performance test (i.e., compliance 

demonstration for the work practice 

standard), you must submit the 

Notification of Compliance Status before 

the close of business on the 30th 

calendar day following the completion 

of the compliance demonstration. 

(f) If you request a routine control 

device maintenance exemption 

according to § 63.8570(d), you must 

submit your request for the exemption 

no later than 30 days before the 

compliance date. 

(g) 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 must 

submit a notification of alternative fuel 

use within 48 hours of the declaration 

of a period of natural gas curtailment or 

supply interruption, as defined in 

§ 63.8665. The notification must include 

the information specified in paragraphs 

(g)(1) through (5) of this section. 

(1) Company name and address. 

(2) Identification of the affected kiln. 

(3) Reason you are unable to use 

natural gas or equivalent fuel, including 

the date when the natural gas 

curtailment was declared or the natural 

gas supply interruption began. 

(4) Type of alternative fuel that you 

intend to use. 

(5) Dates when the alternative fuel use 

is expected to begin and end. 

§ 63.8635 What reports must I submit and 

when? 

(a) You must submit each report in 

Table 8 to this subpart that applies to 

you. 

(b) Unless the Administrator has 

approved a different schedule for 

submission of reports under § 63.10(a), 

you must submit each report by the date 

in Table 8 to this subpart and as 

specified in paragraphs (b)(1) through 

(5) of this section. 

(1) The first compliance report must 

cover the period beginning on the 

compliance date that is specified for 

your affected source in § 63.8545 and 

ending on June 30 or December 31, and 

lasting at least 6 months, but less than 

12 months. For example, if your 

compliance date is March 1, then the 

first semiannual reporting period would 

begin on March 1 and end on December 

31. 

(2) The first compliance report must 

be postmarked or delivered no later than 

July 31 or January 31 for compliance 

periods ending on June 30 and 

December 31, respectively. 

(3) Each subsequent compliance 

report must cover the semiannual 

reporting period from January 1 through 

June 30 or the semiannual reporting 

period from July 1 through December 

31. 

(4) Each subsequent compliance 

report must be postmarked or delivered 

no later than July 31 or January 31 for 

compliance periods ending on June 30 

and December 31, respectively. 

(5) For each affected source that is 

subject to permitting regulations 

pursuant to 40 CFR part 70 or 40 CFR 

part 71, and if the permitting authority 

has established dates for submitting 

semiannual reports pursuant to 40 CFR 

70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A) or 40 CFR 

71.6(a)(3)(iii)(A), you may submit the 

first and subsequent compliance reports 

according to the dates the permitting 

authority has established instead of 

according to the dates in paragraphs 

(b)(1) through (4) of this section. 

(c) The compliance report must 

contain the information in paragraphs 

(c)(1) through (6) of this section. 

(1) Company name and address. 

(2) Statement by a responsible official 

with that official’s name, title, and 

signature, certifying that, based on 

information and belief formed after 

reasonable inquiry, the statements and 

information in the report are true, 

accurate, and complete. 

(3) Date of report and beginning and 

ending dates of the reporting period. 

(4) A description of control device 

maintenance performed while the 

control device was offline and the 

affected source controlled by the control 

device was operating, including the 

information specified in paragraphs 

(c)(4)(i) through (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 exemption 

developed as specified in § 63.8570(d). 

If the control device maintenance was 

included in your approved routine 

control device maintenance exemption, 

then you must report the information in 

paragraphs (c)(4)(iii)(A) through (C) of 

this section. 

(A) The total amount of time that the 

affected source 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 

affected source controlled by the control 

device operated while the control 

device was offline for maintenance 

covered under the routine control 

device maintenance exemption during 

the current semiannual compliance 

period and during the previous 

semiannual compliance period. 

(C) Based on the information recorded 

under paragraphs (c)(4)(iii)(A) and (B) of 

this section, compute the annual 

percent of affected source operating 

uptime during which the control device 

was offline for routine maintenance 

using Equation 1 of this section. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 243 / Thursday, December 18, 2014 / Proposed Rules 75701 

Where: 

RM = Annual percentage of affected source 

uptime during which control device was 

offline for routine control device 

maintenance 

DTp = Control device downtime claimed 

under the routine control device 

maintenance exemption for the previous 

semiannual compliance period 

DTc = Control device downtime claimed 

under the routine control device 

maintenance exemption for the current 

semiannual compliance period 

SUp = Affected source uptime for the 

previous semiannual compliance period 

SUc = 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 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-ofcontrol during the reporting period. 

(d) For each deviation from an 

emission limitation (emission limit or 

operating limit) that occurs at an 

affected source where you are not using 

a CMS to comply with the emission 

limitations in this subpart, the 

compliance report must contain the 

information in paragraphs (c)(1) through 

(4) and (d)(1) through (3) of this section. 

This includes periods of startup, 

shutdown, and routine control device 

maintenance. 

(1) The total operating time of each 

affected source during the reporting 

period and identification of the sources 

for which there was a deviation. 

(2) Information on the number, date, 

time, duration, and cause of deviations 

(including unknown cause, if 

applicable), as applicable, and the 

corrective action taken. 

(3) The applicable operating limit or 

work practice standard from which you 

deviated and either the parameter 

monitor reading during the deviation or 

a description of how you deviated from 

the work practice standard. 

(e) For each deviation from an 

emission limitation (emission limit or 

operating limit) occurring at an affected 

source where you are using a CMS to 

comply with the emission limitations in 

this subpart, you must include the 

information in paragraphs (c)(1) through 

(4) and (e)(1) through (13) of this 

section. This includes periods of 

startup, shutdown, and routine control 

device maintenance. 

(1) The total operating time of each 

affected source during the reporting 

period and identification of the sources 

for which there was a deviation. 

(2) The date and time that each CMS 

was inoperative, except for zero (lowlevel) and high-level checks. 

(3) The date, time, and duration that 

each CMS was out-of-control, including 

the pertinent information in your 

OM&M plan. 

(4) The date and time that each 

deviation started and stopped, and 

whether each deviation occurred during 

routine control device maintenance 

covered in your approved routine 

control device maintenance exemption 

or during another period, and the cause 

of each deviation (including unknown 

cause, if applicable). 

(5) An estimate of the quantity of each 

regulated pollutant emitted over the 

emission limit during the deviation, and 

a description of the method used to 

estimate the emissions. 

(6) A description of corrective action 

taken in response to a deviation. 

(7) A summary of the total duration of 

the deviation during the reporting 

period and the total duration as a 

percent of the total source operating 

time during that reporting period. 

(8) A breakdown of the total duration 

of the deviations during the reporting 

period into those that are due to startup, 

shutdown, control equipment problems, 

process problems, other known causes, 

and other unknown causes. 

(9) A summary of the total duration of 

CMS downtime during the reporting 

period and the total duration of CMS 

downtime as a percent of the total 

source operating time during that 

reporting period. 

(10) A brief description of the process 

units. 

(11) A brief description of the CMS. 

(12) The date of the latest CMS 

certification or audit. 

(13) A description of any changes in 

CMS, processes, or control equipment 

since the last reporting period. 

(f) If a malfunction occurred during 

the reporting period, the compliance 

report must contain the information in 

paragraphs (c)(1) through (4) and (f)(1) 

and (2) of this section. 

(1) The number, duration, and a brief 

description for each type of malfunction 

which occurred during the reporting 

period and which caused or may have 

caused any applicable emission 

limitation to be exceeded. 

(2) A description of actions taken by 

an owner or operator during a 

malfunction of an affected facility to 

minimize emissions in accordance with 

§ 63.8570(b), including actions taken to 

correct a malfunction. 

(g) If you have obtained a title V 

operating permit according to 40 CFR 

part 70 or 40 CFR part 71, you must 

report all 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 

information concerning deviations from 

any emission limitation (including any 

operating limit), then submitting the 

compliance report will satisfy any 

obligation to report the same deviations 

in the semiannual monitoring report. 

However, submitting a compliance 

report will not otherwise affect any 

obligation you may have to report 

deviations from permit requirements to 

the permitting authority. 

(h) If you own or operate an affected 

kiln that is subject to the work practice 

standard specified in Item 1 of Table 3 

to this subpart, and you use a fuel other 

than natural gas or equivalent to fire the 

affected kiln, you must submit a report 

of alternative fuel use within 10 

working days after terminating the use 

of the alternative fuel. The report must 

include the information in paragraphs 

(h)(1) through (6) of this section. 

(1) Company name and address. 

(2) 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. 

(i) Within 60 days after the date of 

completing each performance test (as 

defined in § 63.2) as required by this 

subpart, you must submit the results of 

the performance test following the 

procedures specified in either paragraph 

(i)(1) or (i)(2) of this section. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP18DE14.015</GPH>
75702 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 243 / Thursday, December 18, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

(1) For data collected using test 

methods supported by the EPA’s 

Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) as 

listed on the EPA’s ERT Web 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. Instead of 

submitting performance test data in a 

file format generated through the use of 

the EPA’s ERT, you may submit an 

alternate electronic file format 

consistent with the extensible markup 

language (XML) schema listed on the 

EPA’s ERT 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 Web site once the 

XML schema is available), including 

information claimed to be CBI, on a 

compact disc, 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 file (or alternate 

file) with the CBI omitted must be 

submitted to the EPA via the EPA’s CDX 

as described earlier in this paragraph. 

(2) For data collected using test 

methods that are not supported by the 

EPA’s ERT as listed on the EPA’s ERT 

Web 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 Notification of 

Compliance Status that you submitted, 

according to the requirements in 

§ 63.10(b)(2)(xiv). 

(2) Records of performance tests as 

required in § 63.10(b)(2)(viii). 

(3) Records relating to control device 

maintenance and documentation of your 

approved routine control device 

maintenance exemption, if you request 

such an exemption under § 63.8570(d). 

(b) You must keep the records 

required in Table 7 to this subpart to 

show continuous compliance with each 

emission limitation and work practice 

standard that applies to you. 

(c) You must also maintain the 

records listed in paragraphs (c)(1) 

through (10) of this section. 

(1) For each bag leak detection 

system, records of each alarm, the time 

of the alarm, the time corrective action 

was initiated and completed, and a brief 

description of the cause of the alarm 

and the corrective action taken. 

(2) For each deviation of an operating 

limit parameter value, the date, time, 

and duration of the deviation, a brief 

explanation of the cause of the 

deviation, actions taken to minimize 

emissions in accordance with 

§ 63.8570(b) and the corrective action 

taken to return the affected unit to its 

normal or usual manner of operation, 

and whether the deviation occurred 

during a period of startup, shutdown, or 

malfunction. Record and retain a list of 

the affected sources or equipment, an 

estimate of the volume of each regulated 

pollutant emitted over any emission 

limit and a description of the method 

used to estimate the emissions. 

(3) For each affected source, records 

of production rates on a fired-product 

weight basis. 

(4) Records for any approved 

alternative monitoring or test 

procedures. 

(5) Records of maintenance and 

inspections performed on the APCD. 

(6) Current copies of your OM&M 

plan, including any revisions, with 

records documenting conformance. 

(7) Logs of the information required in 

paragraphs (c)(7)(i) through (iii) of this 

section to document proper operation of 

your sanitaryware shuttle kiln. 

(i) Records of the firing time and 

temperature cycle for each product 

produced in each sanitaryware shuttle 

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 

use in log sheets. 

(ii) For each sanitaryware shuttle kiln, 

a log that details the type of product 

fired in each batch, the corresponding 

time and temperature protocol reference 

number, and an indication of whether 

the appropriate time and temperature 

cycle was fired. 

(iii) For each sanitaryware shuttle 

kiln, a log of the actual tonnage of 

product fired in the shuttle kiln and an 

indication of whether the tonnage was 

below the maximum tonnage for that 

specific kiln. 

(8) Logs of the maintenance 

procedures used to demonstrate 

compliance with the maintenance 

requirements of the sanitaryware shuttle 

kiln work practice standard specified in 

Table 3 to this subpart. 

(9) For periods of startup, records of 

the date, time, and duration of each 

startup period, logs of the kiln or dryer 

exhaust temperature at the time the first 

ceramics were placed in the kiln or 

dryer, and if applicable, logs of the 

temperature when the kiln or dryer 

exhaust stopped bypassing the control 

device. For periods of shutdown, 

records of the date, time, and duration 

of each shutdown period, logs of the 

kiln or dryer exhaust temperature at the 

time the last ceramics were placed in 

the kiln or dryer, and if applicable, logs 

of the temperature when the kiln or 

dryer exhaust began bypassing the 

control device. 

(10) For each malfunction, records of 

the following information: 

(i) Records of the occurrence and 

duration of each malfunction of 

operation (i.e., process equipment) or 

the air pollution control and monitoring 

equipment. 

(ii) Records of actions taken during 

periods of malfunction to minimize 

emissions in accordance with 

§ 63.8570(b), including corrective 

actions to restore malfunctioning 

process and air pollution control and 

monitoring equipment to its normal or 

usual manner of operation. 

§ 63.8645 In what form and for how long 

must I keep my records? 

(a) Your records must be in a form 

suitable and readily available for 

expeditious review, according to 

§ 63.10(b)(1). 

(b) As specified in § 63.10(b)(1), you 

must keep each record for 5 years 

following the date of each occurrence, 

measurement, maintenance, corrective 

action, report, or record. 

(c) You must keep each record onsite 

for at least 2 years after the date of each 

occurrence, measurement, maintenance, 

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 9 to this subpart shows which 

parts of the General Provisions in 

§§ 63.1 through 63.16 apply to you. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 243 / Thursday, December 18, 2014 / Proposed Rules 75703 

§ 63.8660 Who implements and enforces 

this subpart? 

(a) This subpart can be implemented 

and enforced by us, the U.S. EPA, or a 

delegated authority such as your State, 

local, or tribal agency. If the U.S. EPA 

Administrator has delegated authority to 

your State, local, or tribal agency, then 

that agency, in addition to the U.S. EPA, 

has the authority to implement and 

enforce this subpart. You should contact 

your U.S. EPA Regional Office to find 

out if implementation and enforcement 

of this subpart is delegated to your 

State, local, or tribal agency. 

(b) In delegating implementation and 

enforcement authority of this subpart to 

a State, local, or tribal agency under 

subpart E of this part, the authorities 

contained in paragraph (c) of this 

section are retained by the 

Administrator of the U.S. EPA and are 

not transferred to the State, local, or 

tribal agency. 

(c) The authorities that cannot be 

delegated to State, local, or tribal 

agencies are as specified in paragraphs 

(c)(1) through (5) of this section. 

(1) Approval of alternatives to the 

applicability requirements in §§ 63.8535 

and 63.8540, the compliance date 

requirements in § 63.8545, and the nonopacity emission limitations in 

§ 63.8555. 

(2) Approval of major changes to test 

methods under § 63.7(e)(2)(ii) and (f) 

and as defined in § 63.90. 

(3) Approval of major changes to 

monitoring under § 63.8(f) and as 

defined in § 63.90. 

(4) Approval of major changes to 

recordkeeping and reporting under 

§ 63.10(f) and as defined in § 63.90. 

(5) Approval of an alternative to any 

electronic reporting to the EPA required 

by this subpart. 

§ 63.8665 What definitions apply to this 

subpart? 

Terms used in this subpart are 

defined in the Clean Air Act, in § 63.2, 

and in this section as follows: 

Air pollution 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, lightscattering, 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 sanitaryware shapes, and dry 

and fire the ceramic products. Glazes 

are applied to many tile and 

sanitaryware products. 

Deviation means any instance in 

which an affected source subject to this 

subpart, or an owner or operator of such 

a 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 § 63.8595 

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 

filter. These systems typically include 

recirculation of some of the sorbent. 

Emission limitation means any 

emission limit or operating limit. 

Fabric filter means an APCD used to 

capture PM by filtering a gas stream 

through filter media; also known as a 

baghouse. 

Glaze means a coating of colored, 

opaque, or transparent material applied 

to ceramic products before firing. 

Glaze line means a production line for 

glazing ceramic products, which 

includes glaze spraying (typically 

comprised of one or more glaze spray 

booths) and other types of glazing 

operations (e.g., dipping, flooding, 

centrifugal disc glazing, curtain 

coating). 

Glaze spray booth means a type of 

equipment used for spraying glaze on 

ceramic products. 

Initial startup means the time at 

which the kiln first reaches a level of 

production that is equal to 75 percent of 

the kiln design capacity or 12 months 

after the affected source 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). 

If a kiln is modified to increase the 

capacity, the design capacity is 

considered to be the capacity following 

modifications. 

Particulate matter (PM) means, for 

purposes of this subpart, emissions of 

PM that serve as a measure of total 

particulate emissions, as measured by 

Method 5 (40 CFR part 60, appendix A– 

3) or Method 29 (40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A–8), and as a surrogate for 

metal HAP contained in the particulates 

including, but not limited to, antimony, 

arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, 

chromium, cobalt, lead, manganese, 

mercury, nickel, and selenium. 

Period of natural gas curtailment or 

supply interruption means a period of 

time during which the supply of natural 

gas to an affected facility is halted for 

reasons beyond the control of the 

facility. An increase in the cost or unit 

price of natural gas does not constitute 

a period of natural gas curtailment or 

supply interruption. 

Plant site means all contiguous or 

adjoining property that is under 

common control, including properties 

that are separated only by a road or 

other public right-of-way. Common 

control includes properties that are 

owned, leased, or operated by the same 

entity, parent entity, subsidiary, or any 

combination thereof. 

Responsible official means 

responsible official as defined in 40 CFR 

70.2. 

Roller kiln means a continuous kiln 

similar to a tunnel kiln except that the 

unfired ceramic product travels 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 

superstructure that is tilted or raised 

using hydraulic struts to allow entrance 

and egress. In the clay ceramics source 

category, shuttle kilns are used at 

sanitaryware manufacturing plants. 

Spray dryer means a drying chamber 

used to form a free-flowing powder from 

a slurry of ceramic mix and water, to 

improve handling and compaction. In 

the clay ceramics source category, spray 

dryers are used at ceramic tile 

manufacturing plants. 

Startup means the setting in operation 

of an affected source and starting the 

production process. 

Tunnel kiln means any continuous 

kiln that is not a roller kiln that is used 

to fire clay ceramics. In the clay 

ceramics source category, tunnel kilns 

are used at sanitaryware manufacturing 

plants. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
75704 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 243 / Thursday, December 18, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

Wet scrubber (WS) means an APCD 

that uses water, which may include 

caustic additives or other chemicals, as 

the sorbent. Wet scrubbers may use any 

of various design mechanisms to 

increase the contact between exhaust 

gases and the sorbent. 

Work practice standard means any 

design, equipment, work 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 of § 63.8595. 

2. Existing floor tile roller kiln .............................. a. PM emissions must not exceed 0.090 kilogram per megagram (kg/Mg) (0.18 pound per ton 

(lb/ton)) of fired product. 

b. Hg emissions must not exceed 6.3 E–05 kg/Mg (1.3 E–04 lb/ton) of fired product. 

c. Dioxin/furan emissions must not exceed 4.6 nanograms per dry standard cubic meter (ng/

dscm) at 7% O2. 

3. Existing wall tile roller kiln ............................... a. PM emissions must not exceed 0.099 kg/Mg (0.20 lb/ton) of fired product. 

b. Hg emissions must not exceed 6.7 E–05 kg/Mg (1.3 E–04 lb/ton) of fired product. 

c. Dioxin/furan emissions must not exceed 0.16 ng/dscm at 7% O2. 

4. Existing first-fire sanitaryware tunnel kiln ....... a. PM emissions must not exceed 0.17 kg/Mg (0.33 lb/ton) of fired product. 

b. Hg emissions must not exceed 1.3 E–04 kg/Mg (2.6 E–04 lb/ton) of fired product. 

c. Dioxin/furan emissions must not exceed 1.5 ng/dscm at 7% O2. 

5. Existing tile glaze line with glaze spraying ..... a. PM emissions must not exceed 0.93 kg/Mg (1.9 lb/ton) of glaze sprayed. 

b. Hg emissions must not exceed 7.9 E–05 kg/Mg (1.6 E–04 lb/ton) of glaze sprayed. 

6. Existing sanitaryware manual glaze application.PM emissions must not exceed 16 kg/Mg (33 lb/ton) of glaze sprayed. 

7. Existing sanitaryware spray machine glaze 

application.

PM emissions must not exceed 6.2 kg/Mg (12 lb/ton) of glaze sprayed. 

8. Existing sanitaryware robot glaze application PM emissions must not exceed 4.4 kg/Mg (8.8 lb/ton) of glaze sprayed. 

9. Existing floor tile spray dryer .......................... Dioxin/furan emissions must not exceed 44 ng/dscm at 7% O2. 

10. Existing wall tile spray dryer ......................... Dioxin/furan emissions must not exceed 0.12 ng/dscm at 7% O2. 

11. Existing floor tile press dryer ........................ Dioxin/furan emissions must not exceed 0.19 ng/dscm at 7% O2. 

12. New or reconstructed floor tile roller kiln ...... a. PM emissions must not exceed 0.014 kg/Mg (0.027 lb/ton) of fired product. 

b. Hg emissions must not exceed 1.9 E–05 kg/Mg (3.9 E–05 lb/ton) of fired product. 

c. Dioxin/furan emissions must not exceed 1.5 ng/dscm at 7% O2. 

13. New or reconstructed wall tile roller kiln ....... a. PM emissions must not exceed 0.15 kg/Mg (0.27 lb/ton) of fired product.

b. Hg emissions must not exceed 1.5 E–06 kg/Mg (3.1 E–06 lb/ton) of fired product. 

c. Dioxin/furan emissions must not exceed 0.160.23 ng/dscm at 7% O2. 

14. New or reconstructed first-fire sanitaryware 

tunnel kiln.

a. PM emissions must not exceed 0.047 kg/Mg (0.095 lb/ton) of fired product. 

b. Hg emissions must not exceed 6.0 E–05 kg/Mg (1.2 E–04 lb/ton) of fired product. 

c. Dioxin/furan emissions must not exceed 0.37 ng/dscm at 7% O2. 

15. New or reconstructed tile glaze line with 

glaze spraying.

a. PM emissions must not exceed 0.30 kg/Mg (0.61 lb/ton) of glaze sprayed. 

b. Hg emissions must not exceed 7.9 E–05 kg/Mg (1.6 E–04 lb/ton) of glaze sprayed. 

16. New or reconstructed sanitaryware manual 

glaze application.

PM emissions must not exceed 1.9 kg/Mg (3.8 lb/ton) of glaze sprayed. 

17. New or reconstructed sanitaryware spray 

machine glaze application.

PM emissions must not exceed 1.6 kg/Mg (3.2 lb/ton) of glaze sprayed. 

18. New or reconstructed sanitaryware robot 

glaze application.

PM emissions must not exceed 1.1 kg/Mg (2.2 lb/ton) of glaze sprayed. 

19. New or reconstructed floor tile spray dryer .. Dioxin/furan emissions must not exceed 0.17 ng/dscm at 7% O2. 

20. New or reconstructed wall tile spray dryer ... Dioxin/furan emissions must not exceed 0.12 ng/dscm at 7% O2. 

21. New or reconstructed floor tile press dryer .. Dioxin/furan emissions must not exceed 0.19 ng/dscm at 7% O2. 

As stated in § 63.8555, you must meet 

each operating limit in the following 

table that applies to you. 

TABLE 2 TO SUBPART KKKKK OF PART 63—OPERATING LIMITS

For each . . . You must . . . 

1. Tunnel or roller kiln equipped with a 

DIFF or DLS/FF.

a. If you use a bag leak detection system, initiate corrective action within 1 hour of a bag leak detection system alarm and complete corrective actions in accordance with your OM&M plan; operate and maintain the fabric filter such that the alarm is not engaged for more than 5 percent of the 

total operating time in a 6-month block reporting period; or maintain no VE from the DIFF or DLS/

FF stack; and 

b. Maintain free-flowing lime in the feed hopper or silo and to the APCD at all times for continuous 

injection systems; maintain the feeder setting (on a per ton of fired product basis) at or above the 

level established during the performance test for continuous injection systems. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 243 / Thursday, December 18, 2014 / Proposed Rules 75705 

TABLE 2 TO SUBPART KKKKK OF PART 63—OPERATING LIMITS—Continued 

For each . . . You must . . . 

2. Tunnel or roller kiln equipped with a 

WS.

a. Maintain the average scrubber pressure drop for each 3-hour block period at or above the average pressure drop established during the PM performance test; and 

b. Maintain the average scrubber liquid pH for each 3-hour block period at or above the average 

scrubber liquid pH established during the HF/HCl performance test; and 

c. Maintain the average scrubber liquid flow rate for each 3-hour block period at or above the highest average scrubber liquid flow rate established during the HF/HCl and PM performance tests; 

and 

d. If chemicals are added to the scrubber water, maintain the average scrubber chemical feed rate 

for each 3-hour block period at or above the average scrubber chemical feed rate established 

during the HF/HCl performance test. 

3. Tunnel or roller kiln equipped with an 

ACI system.

Maintain the average carbon flow rate for each 3-hour block period at or above the highest average 

carbon flow rate established during the Hg and dioxin/furan performance tests. 

4. Tunnel or roller kiln intending to comply 

with dioxin/furan emission limit without 

an ACI system.

If you intend to comply with the dioxin/furan emission limit without an ACI system, maintain the average kiln operating temperature for each 3-hour block period at or above the average temperature established during the dioxin/furan performance test. 

5. 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); and 

c. Maintain the average kiln operating temperature for each 3-hour block period at or below the average temperature established during the dioxin/furan performance test. 

6. Glaze spray operation equipped with a 

FF.

If you use a bag leak detection system, initiate corrective action within 1 hour of a bag leak detection system alarm and complete corrective actions in accordance with your OM&M plan; operate 

and maintain the fabric filter such that the alarm is not engaged for more than 5 percent of the 

total operating time in a 6-month block reporting period; or maintain no VE from the FF stack; and 

7. Glaze spray operation equipped with a 

WS.

a. Maintain the average scrubber pressure drop for each 3-hour block period at or above the average pressure drop established during the PM performance test; and 

b. Maintain the average scrubber liquid flow rate for each 3-hour block period at or above the average scrubber liquid flow rate established during the PM performance test. 

8. Glaze spray operation equipped with a 

water curtain.

Conduct daily inspections 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 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. 

11. Floor tile press dryer ........................... Maintain the average operating temperature for each 3-hour block period at or below the average 

temperature established during the dioxin/furan performance test. 

As stated in § 63.8555, you must 

comply with each work practice 

standard in the following table that 

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 use a designed firing time and temperature cycle for each product 

produced in the sanitaryware shuttle kiln. You must either program the time and 

temperature cycle into your kiln or track each step on a log sheet; and 

iii. Label each sanitaryware shuttle kiln with the maximum load (in tons) of product 

that can be fired in the kiln during a single firing cycle; and 

iv. For each firing load, document the total tonnage of product placed in the kiln to 

ensure that it is not greater than the maximum load identified in item 1.a.iii; and 

v. Develop 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 

vi. Develop and maintain records for each sanitaryware shuttle kiln, as specified in 

§ 63.8640. 

2. Existing, new or reconstructed kiln or dryer during periods of startup.a. Minimize HAP emissions i. Do not put any ceramics into the kiln or dryer until the kiln or dryer exhaust temperature reaches 204 °C (400 °F); and 

ii. If your kiln or dryer has an APCD, begin venting the exhaust from the kiln or 

dryer through the APCD by the time the kiln or dryer exhaust temperature 

reaches 204 °C (400 °F). 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
75706 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 243 / Thursday, December 18, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 3 TO SUBPART KKKKK OF PART 63—WORK PRACTICE STANDARDS—Continued 

For each . . . You must . . . According to one of the following requirements . . . 

3. Existing, new or reconstructed kiln or dryer during periods of shutdown.a. Minimize HAP emissions i. Do not put any ceramics into the kiln or dryer once the kiln or dryer exhaust temperature falls to 149 °C (300 °F); and 

ii. If your kiln or dryer has an APCD, continue to vent the exhaust from the kiln or 

dryer through the APCD until the kiln or dryer exhaust temperature falls to 149 

°C (300 °F). 

As stated in § 63.8595, you must 

conduct each performance test in the 

following table that applies to you. 

TABLE 4 TO SUBPART KKKKK OF PART 63—REQUIREMENTS FOR 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. 

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. 

ii. Method 320 of appendix 

A of this part.

When using Method 320 of appendix A of this part, 

you must follow the analyte spiking procedures of 

section 13 of Method 320 of appendix A of this part, 

unless you can demonstrate that the complete spiking procedure has been conducted at a similar 

source. ASTM D6348–03 (Reapproved 2010) (incorporated by reference, see § 63.14) may be used as 

an alternative to Method 320 if the test plan preparation and implementation in Annexes A1–A8 are 

mandatory and the %R in Annex A5 is determined 

for each target analyte. 

f. Measure PM emissions .. i. Method 5 of 40 CFR part 

60, appendix A–3; or.

ii. Method 29 of 40 CFR 

part 60, appendix A–8.

To determine PM, weigh the filter and report the results as PM filterable 

g. Measure Hg emissions Method 29 of 40 CFR part 

60, appendix A–8.

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. 

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. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 243 / Thursday, December 18, 2014 / Proposed Rules 75707 

TABLE 4 TO SUBPART KKKKK OF PART 63—REQUIREMENTS FOR PERFORMANCE TESTS—Continued 

For each . . . You must . . . Using . . . According to the following requirements . . . 

c. Conduct gas molecular 

weight analysis.

Method 3 of 40 CFR part 

60, appendix A–2.

You may use Method 3A or 3B of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–2, as appropriate, as an alternative to 

using Method 3 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–2. 

ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10–1981 [Part 10] (incorporated by reference, see § 63.14) may be used as 

an alternative to the manual procedures (but not the 

instrumental procedures) in Methods 3A and 3B. 

d. Measure moisture content of the stack gas.Method 4 of 40 CFR part 

60, appendix A–3.

e. Measure PM emissions Method 5 of 40 CFR part 

60, appendix A–3.

f. Measure Hg emissions 

(tile glaze spray operations only).

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). 

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. 

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 HClequivalent emissions are 

greater than the HClequivalent 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/Cl2 performance 

test.

Using the procedures in § 63.8595(g)(1), you must determine the maximum process rate(s) for your kiln(s) 

that would 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 sitespecific process rate operating limit(s). 

b. Establish the operating 

limit for kiln operating 

temperature.

Data from the temperature 

measurement device 

during the dioxin/furan 

performance test.

You must continuously measure the kiln operating 

temperature, determine and record the block average temperature values for the 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. 

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 

piece in the kiln during a 

test run divided by the 

amount of time to fire a 

piece).

You must measure and record the production rate, on 

a fired-product weight basis, of the affected kiln for 

each 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 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. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
75708 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 243 / Thursday, December 18, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 4 TO SUBPART KKKKK OF PART 63—REQUIREMENTS FOR PERFORMANCE TESTS—Continued 

For each . . . You must . . . Using . . . According to the following requirements . . . 

7. Tunnel or roller 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 performance test.

You must continuously measure the scrubber pressure 

drop, determine and record the block average pressure drop values for the three test runs, and determine and record the 3-hour block average of the recorded pressure drop measurements for the three 

test runs. The average of the three test runs establishes your minimum site-specific pressure drop operating limit. 

b. Establish the operating 

limit for the average 

scrubber liquid pH.

Data from the pH measurement device during 

the HF/HCl performance 

test.

You must continuously measure the scrubber liquid 

pH, determine and record the block average pH values for the three test runs, and determine and 

record the 3-hour block average of the recorded pH 

measurements for the three test runs. The average 

of the three test runs establishes your minimum 

site-specific liquid pH operating limit. 

c. Establish the operating 

limit for the average 

scrubber liquid flow rate.

Data from the flow rate 

measurement device 

during the HF/HCl and 

PM performance tests.

You must continuously measure the scrubber liquid 

flow rate, determine and record the block average 

flow rate values for the three test runs, and determine and record the 3-hour block average of the recorded flow rate measurements for the three test 

runs. The average of the three test runs establishes 

your minimum site-specific liquid flow rate operating 

level. If different average wet scrubber liquid flow 

rate values are measured during the HF/HCl and 

PM tests, the highest of the average values become 

your site-specific operating limit. 

8. Tunnel or roller kiln 

equipped with a WS that 

includes chemical addition 

to the water.

Establish the operating 

limit for the average 

scrubber chemical feed 

rate.

Data from the chemical 

feed rate measurement 

device during the HF/

HCl performance test.

You must continuously measure the scrubber chemical feed rate, determine and record the block average chemical feed rate values for the three test 

runs, and determine and record the 3-hour block average of the recorded 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. 

9. Tunnel or roller kiln 

equipped with an ACI system.

Establish the operating 

limit for the average carbon flow rate.

Data from the carbon flow 

rate measurement conducted during the Hg 

performance test.

You must measure the carbon flow rate during each 

test run, determine and record the block average 

carbon flow rate values for the three test 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 operating limit. 

10. Tunnel or roller kiln intending to comply with 

dioxin/furan emission limit 

without an ACI system.

Establish the operating 

limit for kiln operating 

temperature.

Data from the temperature 

measurement device 

during the dioxin/furan 

performance test.

You must continuously measure the kiln operating 

temperature, determine and record the block average temperature values for the three test runs, and 

determine and record the 3-hour block average of 

the recorded temperature measurements for the 

three test runs. The average of the three test runs 

establishes your minimum site-specific operating 

limit. 

11. Glaze spray operation 

equipped with a WS.

a. Establish the operating 

limit for the average 

scrubber pressure drop.

Data from the pressure 

drop measurement device during the PM performance test.

You must continuously measure the scrubber pressure 

drop, determine and record the block average pressure drop values for the three test runs, and determine and record the 3-hour block average of the recorded pressure drop measurements for the three 

test runs. The average of the three test runs establishes your minimum site-specific pressure drop operating limit. 

b. Establish the operating 

limit for the average 

scrubber liquid flow rate.

Data from the flow rate 

measurement device 

during the PM performance test.

You must continuously measure the scrubber liquid 

flow rate, determine and record the block average 

flow rate values for the three test runs, and determine and record the 3-hour block average of the recorded flow rate measurements for the three test 

runs. The average of the three test runs establishes 

your minimum site-specific liquid flow rate operating 

limit. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 243 / Thursday, December 18, 2014 / Proposed Rules 75709 

TABLE 4 TO SUBPART KKKKK OF PART 63—REQUIREMENTS FOR PERFORMANCE TESTS—Continued 

For each . . . You must . . . Using . . . According to the following requirements . . . 

12. 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. 

13. 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 temperature measurements for the three 

test runs. The average of the three test runs establishes your maximum site-specific operating limit. 

As stated in § 63.8595(f)(3), you must 

demonstrate initial compliance with 

each dioxin/furan emission limit that 

applies to you by calculating the sum of 

the 2,3,7,8-TCDD TEQs using the TEFs 

in the following table. 

TABLE 5 TO SUBPART KKKKK OF

PART 63—TOXIC EQUIVALENCY

FACTORS

For each dioxin/furan congener . . . 

You must calculate its 

2,3,7,8-TCDD 

TEQ using the 

following TEF 

. . . 

2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-pdioxin ................................. 1 

1,2,3,7,8- 

pentachlorodibenzo-pdioxin ................................. 1 

1,2,3,4,7,8- 

hexachlorodibenzo-pdioxin ................................. 0.1 

TABLE 5 TO SUBPART KKKKK OF

PART 63—TOXIC EQUIVALENCY

FACTORS—Continued 

For each dioxin/furan congener . . . 

You must calculate its 

2,3,7,8-TCDD 

TEQ using the 

following TEF 

. . . 

1,2,3,7,8,9- 

hexachlorodibenzo-pdioxin ................................. 0.1 

1,2,3,6,7,8- 

hexachlorodibenzo-pdioxin ................................. 0.1 

1,2,3,4,6,7,8- 

heptachlorodibenzo-pdioxin ................................. 0.01 

Octachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin .. 0.0003 

2,3,7,8- 

tetrachlorodibenzofuran .... 0.1 

2,3,4,7,8- 

pentachlorodibenzofuran ... 0.3 

1,2,3,7,8- 

pentachlorodibenzofuran ... 0.03 

1,2,3,4,7,8- 

hexachlorodibenzofuran .... 0.1 

TABLE 5 TO SUBPART KKKKK OF

PART 63—TOXIC EQUIVALENCY

FACTORS—Continued 

For each dioxin/furan congener . . . 

You must calculate its 

2,3,7,8-TCDD 

TEQ using the 

following TEF 

. . . 

1,2,3,6,7,8- 

hexachlorodibenzofuran .... 0.1 

1,2,3,7,8,9- 

hexachlorodibenzofuran .... 0.1 

2,3,4,6,7,8- 

hexachlorodibenzofuran .... 0.1 

1,2,3,4,6,7,8- 

heptachlorodibenzofuran ... 0.01 

1,2,3,4,7,8,9- 

heptachlorodibenzofuran ... 0.01 

Octachlorodibenzofuran ........ 0.0003 

As stated in § 63.8605, you must 

demonstrate initial compliance with 

each emission limitation and work 

practice standard that applies to you 

according to the following table. 

TABLE 6 TO SUBPART KKKKK OF PART 63—INITIAL COMPLIANCE WITH EMISSION LIMITATIONS AND WORK PRACTICE

STANDARDS

For each . . . For the following . . . You have demonstrated initial compliance if . . . 

1. Collection of all tunnel or 

roller kilns at the facility.

a. HF, HCl, and Cl2 emissions must not exceed 62 

kg/hr (140 lb/hr) HCl 

equivalent.

i. You measure HF and HCl 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 calculate the HCl-equivalent emissions for HF for each kiln using Equation 4 

of § 63.8595; and 

iii. You sum the HCl-equivalent values for all kilns at the facility using Equation 5 of 

§ 63.8595; and 

iv. The facility total HCl-equivalent does not exceed 62 kg/hr (140 lb/hr). 

2. Existing floor tile roller kiln a. PM emissions must not 

exceed 0.090 kg/Mg 

(0.18 lb/ton) of fired product.

i. The PM emissions measured using Method 5 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–3 

or Method 29 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–8, over the period of the initial performance test, according to the calculations in § 63.8595(f)(1), do not exceed 

0.090 kg/Mg (0.18 lb/ton) of fired product; and 

ii. You establish and have a record of the applicable operating limits listed in Table 

2 to this subpart over the 3-hour performance test during which PM emissions 

did not exceed 0.090 kg/Mg (0.18 lb/ton) of fired product. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
75710 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 243 / Thursday, December 18, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 6 TO SUBPART KKKKK OF PART 63—INITIAL COMPLIANCE WITH EMISSION LIMITATIONS AND WORK PRACTICE

STANDARDS—Continued 

For each . . . For the following . . . You have demonstrated initial compliance if . . . 

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, ASTM 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. 

c. Dioxin/furan emissions 

must not exceed 4.6 ng/

dscm at 7% O2..

i. The dioxin/furan emissions measured using Method 23 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–7, over the period of the initial performance test, do not exceed 4.6 ng/

dscm at 7% O2; and 

ii. You establish and have a record of the operating limits listed in Table 2 to this 

subpart over the 3-hour performance test during which dioxin/furan emissions did 

not exceed 4.6 ng/dscm at 7% O2. 

3. Existing wall tile roller kiln a. PM emissions must not 

exceed 0.10 kg/Mg (0.20 

lb/ton) of fired product.

i. The PM emissions measured using Method 5 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–3 

or Method 29 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–8, over the period of the initial performance test, according to the calculations in § 63.8595(f)(1), do not exceed 

0.10 kg/Mg (0.20 lb/ton) of fired product; and 

ii. You establish and have a record of the operating limits listed in Table 2 to this 

subpart over the 3-hour performance test during which PM emissions did not exceed 0.10 kg/Mg (0.20 lb/ton) of fired product. 

b. Hg emissions must not 

exceed 1.0 E–04 kg/Mg 

(2.0 E–04 lb/ton) of fired 

product.

i. The Hg emissions measured using Method 29 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–8 

or its alternative, ASTM D6784–02 (Reapproved 2008) (incorporated by reference, see § 63.14), over the period of the initial performance test, do not exceed 1.0 E–04 kg/Mg (2.0 E–04 lb/ton) of fired product; and 

ii. You establish and have a record of the operating limits listed in Table 2 to this 

subpart over the 3-hour performance test during which Hg emissions did not exceed 1.0 E–04 kg/Mg (2.0 E–04 lb/ton) of fired product. 

c. Dioxin/furan emissions 

must not exceed 0.17 ng/

dscm at 7% O2.

i. The dioxin/furan emissions measured using Method 23 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–7, over the period of the initial performance test, do not exceed 0.17 

ng/dscm at 7% O2; and 

ii. You establish and have a record of the operating limits listed in Table 2 to this 

subpart over the 3-hour performance test during which dioxin/furan emissions did 

not exceed 0.17 ng/dscm at 7% O2. 

4. Existing first-fire 

sanitaryware tunnel kiln.

a. PM emissions must not 

exceed 0.17 kg/Mg (0.33 

lb/ton) of fired product.

i. The PM emissions measured using Method 5 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–3 

or Method 29 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–8, over the period of the initial performance test, according to the calculations in § 63.8595(f)(1), do not exceed 

0.17 kg/Mg (0.33 lb/ton) of fired product; and 

ii. You establish and have a record of the operating limits listed in Table 2 to this 

subpart over the 3-hour performance test during which PM emissions did not exceed 0.17 kg/Mg (0.33 lb/ton) of fired product. 

b. Hg emissions must not 

exceed 1.3 E–04 kg/Mg 

(2.6 E–04 lb/ton) of fired 

product.

i. The Hg emissions measured using Method 29 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–8 

or its alternative, ASTM D6784–02 (Reapproved 2008) (incorporated by reference, see § 63.14), over the period of the initial performance test, do not exceed 1.3 E–04 kg/Mg (2.6 E–04 lb/ton) of fired product; and 

ii. You establish and have a record of the operating limits listed in Table 2 to this 

subpart over the 3-hour performance test during which Hg emissions did not exceed 1.3 E–04 kg/Mg (2.6 E–04 lb/ton) of fired product. 

c. Dioxin/furan emissions 

must not exceed 1.5 ng/

dscm at 7% O2.

i. The dioxin/furan emissions measured using Method 23 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–7, over the period of the initial performance test, do not exceed 1.5 ng/

dscm at 7% O2; and 

ii. You establish and have a record of the operating limits listed in Table 2 to this 

subpart over the 3-hour performance test during which dioxin/furan emissions did 

not exceed 1.5 ng/dscm at 7% O2. 

5. Existing tile glaze line with 

glaze spraying.

a. PM emissions must not 

exceed 0.93 kg/Mg (1.9 

lb/ton) of glaze sprayed.

i. The PM emissions measured using Method 5 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–3, 

over the period of the initial performance test, according to the calculations in 

§ 63.8595(f)(2), do not exceed 0.93 kg/Mg (1.9 lb/ton) of glaze sprayed; and 

ii. You establish and have a record of the operating limits listed in Table 2 to this 

subpart over the 3-hour performance test during which PM emissions did not exceed 0.93 kg/Mg (1.9 lb/ton) of glaze sprayed. 

b. Hg emissions must not 

exceed 7.9 E–05 kg/Mg 

(1.6 E–04 lb/ton) of glaze 

sprayed.

i. The Hg emissions measured using Method 29 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–8 

or its alternative, ASTM D6784–02 (Reapproved 2008) (incorporated by reference, see § 63.14), over the period of the initial performance test, do not exceed 7.9 E–05 kg/Mg (1.6 E–04 lb/ton) of glaze sprayed; and 

ii. You establish and have a record of the operating limits listed in Table 2 to this 

subpart over the 3-hour performance test during which Hg emissions did not exceed 7.9 E–05 kg/Mg (1.6 E–04 lb/ton) of glaze sprayed. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 243 / Thursday, December 18, 2014 / Proposed Rules 75711 

TABLE 6 TO SUBPART KKKKK OF PART 63—INITIAL COMPLIANCE WITH EMISSION LIMITATIONS AND WORK PRACTICE

STANDARDS—Continued 

For each . . . For the following . . . You have demonstrated initial compliance if . . . 

6. Existing sanitaryware 

manual glaze application.

a. PM emissions must not 

exceed 16 kg/Mg (33 lb/

ton) of glaze sprayed.

i. The PM emissions measured using Method 5 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–3, 

over the period of the initial performance test, according to the calculations in 

§ 63.8595(f)(2), do not exceed 16 kg/Mg (33 lb/ton) of glaze sprayed; and 

ii. You establish and have a record of the operating limits listed in Table 2 to this 

subpart over the 3-hour performance test during which PM emissions did not exceed 16 kg/Mg (33 lb/ton) of glaze sprayed. 

7. Existing sanitaryware 

spray machine glaze application.

a. PM emissions must not 

exceed 6.2 kg/Mg (12 lb/

ton) of glaze sprayed.

i. The PM emissions measured using Method 5 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–3, 

over the period of the initial performance test, according to the calculations in 

§ 63.8595(f)(2), do not exceed 6.2 kg/Mg (12 lb/ton) of glaze sprayed; and 

ii. You establish and have a record of the operating limits listed in Table 2 to this 

subpart over the 3-hour performance test during which PM emissions did not exceed 6.2 kg/Mg (12 lb/ton) of glaze sprayed. 

8. Existing sanitaryware 

robot glaze application.

a. PM emissions must not 

exceed 4.4 kg/Mg (8.8 lb/

ton) of glaze sprayed.

i. The PM emissions measured using Method 5 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–3, 

over the period of the initial performance test, according to the calculations in 

§ 63.8595(f)(2), do not exceed 4.4 kg/Mg (8.8 lb/ton) of glaze sprayed; and 

ii. You establish and have a record of the operating limits listed in Table 2 to this 

subpart over the 3-hour performance test during which PM emissions did not exceed 4.4 kg/Mg (8.8 lb/ton) of glaze sprayed. 

9. Existing floor tile spray 

dryer.

a. Dioxin/furan emissions 

must not exceed 44 ng/

dscm at 7% O2.

i. The dioxin/furan emissions measured using Method 23 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–7, over the period of the initial performance test, do not exceed 44 ng/

dscm at 7% O2; and 

ii. You establish and have a record of the operating limits listed in Table 2 to this 

subpart over the 3-hour performance test during which dioxin/furan emissions did 

not exceed 44 ng/dscm at 7% O2. 

10. Existing wall tile spray 

dryer.

a. Dioxin/furan emissions 

must not exceed 0.12 ng/

dscm at 7% O2.

i. The dioxin/furan emissions measured using Method 23 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–7, over the period of the initial performance test, do not exceed 0.12 

ng/dscm at 7% O2; and 

ii. You establish and have a record of the operating limits listed in Table 2 to this 

subpart over the 3-hour performance test during which dioxin/furan emissions did 

not exceed 0.12 ng/dscm at 7% O2. 

11. Existing floor tile press 

dryer.

a. Dioxin/furan emissions 

must not exceed 0.19 ng/

dscm at 7% O2.

i. The dioxin/furan emissions measured using Method 23 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–7, over the period of the initial performance test, do not exceed 0.19 

ng/dscm at 7% O2; and 

ii. You establish and have a record of the operating limits listed in Table 2 to this 

subpart over the 3-hour performance test during which dioxin/furan emissions did 

not exceed 0.19 ng/dscm at 7% O2. 

12. New or reconstructed 

floor tile roller kiln..

a. PM emissions must not 

exceed 0.014 kg/Mg 

(0.027 lb/ton) of fired 

product.

i. The PM emissions measured using Method 5 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–3 

or Method 29 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–8, over the period of the initial performance test, according to the calculations in § 63.8595(f)(1), do not exceed 

0.014 kg/Mg (0.027 lb/ton) of fired product; and 

ii. You establish and have a record of the operating limits listed in Table 2 to this 

subpart over the 3-hour performance test during which PM emissions did not exceed 0.014 kg/Mg (0.027 lb/ton) of fired product. 

b. Hg emissions must not 

exceed 1.9 E–05 kg/Mg 

(3.9 E–05 lb/ton) of fired 

product.

i. The Hg emissions measured using Method 29 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–8 

or its alternative, ASTM D6784–02 (Reapproved 2008) (incorporated by reference, see § 63.14), over the period of the initial performance test, do not exceed 1.9 E–05 kg/Mg (3.9 E–05 lb/ton) of fired product; and 

ii. You establish and have a record of the operating limits listed in Table 2 to this 

subpart over the 3-hour performance test during which Hg emissions did not exceed 1.9 E–05 kg/Mg (3.9 E–05 lb/ton) of fired product. 

c. Dioxin/furan emissions 

must not exceed 1.5 ng/

dscm at 7% O2.

i. The dioxin/furan emissions measured using Method 23 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–7, over the period of the initial performance test, do not exceed 1.5 ng/

dscm at 7% O2; and 

ii. You establish and have a record of the operating limits listed in Table 2 to this 

subpart over the 3-hour performance test during which dioxin/furan emissions did 

not exceed 1.5 ng/dscm at 7% O2. 

13. New or reconstructed 

wall tile roller kiln.

a. PM emissions must not 

exceed 0.10 kg/Mg (0.20 

lb/ton) of fired product.

i. The PM emissions measured using Method 5 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–3 

or Method 29 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–8, over the period of the initial performance test, according to the calculations in § 63.8595(f)(1), do not exceed 

0.10 kg/Mg (0.20 lb/ton) of fired product; and 

ii. You establish and have a record of the operating limits listed in Table 2 to this 

subpart over the 3-hour performance test during which PM emissions did not exceed 0.10 kg/Mg (0.20 lb/ton) of fired product. 

b. Hg emissions must not 

exceed 1.0 E–04 kg/Mg 

(2.0 E–04 lb/ton) of fired 

product.

i. The Hg emissions measured using Method 29 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–8 

or its alternative, ASTM D6784–02 (Reapproved 2008) (incorporated by reference, see § 63.14), over the period of the initial performance test, do not exceed 1.0 E–04 kg/Mg (2.0 E–04 lb/ton) of fired product; and 

ii. You establish and have a record of the operating limits listed in Table 2 to this 

subpart over the 3-hour performance test during which Hg emissions did not exceed 1.0 E–04 kg/Mg (2.0 E–04 lb/ton) of fired product. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
75712 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 243 / Thursday, December 18, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 6 TO SUBPART KKKKK OF PART 63—INITIAL COMPLIANCE WITH EMISSION LIMITATIONS AND WORK PRACTICE

STANDARDS—Continued 

For each . . . For the following . . . You have demonstrated initial compliance if . . . 

c. Dioxin/furan emissions 

must not exceed 0.17 ng/

dscm at 7% O2.

i. The dioxin/furan emissions measured using Method 23 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–7, over the period of the initial performance test, do not exceed 0.17 

ng/dscm at 7% O2; and 

ii. You establish and have a record of the operating limits listed in Table 2 to this 

subpart over the 3-hour performance test during which dioxin/furan emissions did 

not exceed 0.17 ng/dscm at 7% O2. 

14. New or reconstructed 

first-fire sanitaryware tunnel kiln.

a. PM emissions must not 

exceed 0.047 kg/Mg 

(0.095 lb/ton) of fired 

product.

i. The PM emissions measured using Method 5 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–3 

or Method 29 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–8, over the period of the initial performance test, according to the calculations in § 63.8595(f)(1), do not exceed 

0.047 kg/Mg (0.095 lb/ton) of fired product; and 

ii. You establish and have a record of the operating limits listed in Table 2 to this 

subpart over the 3-hour performance test during which PM emissions did not exceed 0.047 kg/Mg (0.095 lb/ton) of fired product. 

b. Hg emissions must not 

exceed 6.0 E–05 kg/Mg 

(1.2 E–04 lb/ton) of fired 

product.

i. The Hg emissions measured using Method 29 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–8 

or its alternative, ASTM D6784–02 (Reapproved 2008) (incorporated by reference, see § 63.14), over the period of the initial performance test, do not exceed 6.0 E–05 kg/Mg (1.2 E–04 lb/ton) of fired product; and 

ii. You establish and have a record of the operating limits listed in Table 2 to this 

subpart over the 3-hour performance test during which Hg emissions did not exceed 6.0 E–05 kg/Mg (1.2 E–04 lb/ton) of fired product. 

c. Dioxin/furan emissions 

must not exceed 0.37 ng/

dscm at 7% O2.

i. The dioxin/furan emissions measured using Method 23 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–7, over the period of the initial performance test, do not exceed 0.37 

ng/dscm at 7% O2; and 

ii. You establish and have a record of the operating limits listed in Table 2 to this 

subpart over the 3-hour performance test during which dioxin/furan emissions did 

not exceed 0.37 ng/dscm at 7% O2. 

15. New or reconstructed tile 

glaze line with glaze 

spraying.

a. PM emissions must not 

exceed 0.30 kg/Mg (0.61 

lb/ton) of glaze sprayed.

i. The PM emissions measured using Method 5 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–3, 

over the period of the initial performance test, according to the calculations in 

§ 63.8595(f)(2), do not exceed 0.30 kg/Mg (0.61 lb/ton) of glaze sprayed; and 

ii. You establish and have a record of the operating limits listed in Table 2 to this 

subpart over the 3-hour performance test during which PM emissions did not exceed 0.30 kg/Mg (0.61 lb/ton) of glaze sprayed. 

b. Hg emissions must not 

exceed 7.9 E–05 kg/Mg 

(1.6 E–04 lb/ton) of glaze 

sprayed.

i. The Hg emissions measured using Method 29 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–8 

or its alternative, ASTM D6784–02 (Reapproved 2008) (incorporated by reference, see § 63.14), over the period of the initial performance test, do not exceed 7.9 E–05 kg/Mg (1.6 E–04 lb/ton) of glaze sprayed; and 

ii. You establish and have a record of the operating limits listed in Table 2 to this 

subpart over the 3-hour performance test during which Hg emissions did not exceed 7.9 E–05 kg/Mg (1.6 E–04 lb/ton) of glaze sprayed. 

16. New or reconstructed 

sanitaryware manual glaze 

application.

a. PM emissions must not 

exceed 1.9 kg/Mg (3.8 lb/

ton) of glaze sprayed.

i. The PM emissions measured using Method 5 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–3, 

over the period of the initial performance test, according to the calculations in 

§ 63.8595(f)(2), do not exceed 1.9 kg/Mg (3.8 lb/ton) of glaze sprayed; and 

ii. You establish and have a record of the operating limits listed in Table 2 to this 

subpart over the 3-hour performance test during which PM emissions did not exceed 1.9 kg/Mg (3.8 lb/ton) of glaze sprayed. 

17. New or reconstructed 

sanitaryware spray machine glaze application.

a. PM emissions must not 

exceed 1.6 kg/Mg (3.2 lb/

ton) of glaze sprayed.

i. The PM emissions measured using Method 5 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–3, 

over the period of the initial performance test, according to the calculations in 

§ 63.8595(f)(2), do not exceed 1.6 kg/Mg (3.2 lb/ton) of glaze sprayed; and 

ii. You establish and have a record of the operating limits listed in Table 2 to this 

subpart over the 3-hour performance test during which PM emissions did not exceed 1.6 kg/Mg (3.2 lb/ton) of glaze sprayed. 

18. New or reconstructed 

sanitaryware robot glaze 

application.

a. PM emissions must not 

exceed 1.1 kg/Mg (2.2 lb/

ton) of glaze sprayed.

i. The PM emissions measured using Method 5 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–3, 

over the period of the initial performance test, according to the calculations in 

§ 63.8595(f)(2), do not exceed 1.1 kg/Mg (2.2 lb/ton) of glaze sprayed; and 

ii. You establish and have a record of the operating limits listed in Table 2 to this 

subpart over the 3-hour performance test during which PM emissions did not exceed 1.1 kg/Mg (2.2 lb/ton) of glaze sprayed. 

19. New or reconstructed 

floor tile spray dryer.

a. Dioxin/furan emissions 

must not exceed 0.17 ng/

dscm at 7% O2.

i. The dioxin/furan emissions measured using Method 23 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–7, over the period of the initial performance test, do not exceed 0.17 

ng/dscm at 7% O2; and 

ii. You establish and have a record of the operating limits listed in Table 2 to this 

subpart over the 3-hour performance test during which dioxin/furan emissions did 

not exceed 0.17 ng/dscm at 7% O2. 

20. New or reconstructed 

wall tile spray dryer.

a. Dioxin/furan emissions 

must not exceed 0.12 ng/

dscm at 7% O2.

i. The dioxin/furan emissions measured using Method 23 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–7, over the period of the initial performance test, do not exceed 0.12 

ng/dscm at 7% O2; and 

ii. You establish and have a record of the operating limits listed in Table 2 to this 

subpart over the 3-hour performance test during which dioxin/furan emissions did 

not exceed 0.12 ng/dscm at 7% O2. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 243 / Thursday, December 18, 2014 / Proposed Rules 75713 

TABLE 6 TO SUBPART KKKKK OF PART 63—INITIAL COMPLIANCE WITH EMISSION LIMITATIONS AND WORK PRACTICE

STANDARDS—Continued 

For each . . . For the following . . . You have demonstrated initial compliance if . . . 

21. New or reconstructed 

floor tile press dryer.

a. Dioxin/furan emissions 

must not exceed 0.19 ng/

dscm at 7% O2.

i. The dioxin/furan emissions measured using Method 23 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–7, over the period of the initial performance test, do not exceed 0.19 

ng/dscm at 7% O2; and 

ii. You establish and have a record of the operating limits listed in Table 2 to this 

subpart over the 3-hour performance test during which dioxin/furan emissions did 

not exceed 0.19 ng/dscm at 7% O2. 

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 each product produced 

in the sanitaryware shuttle kiln. You must either program the time and temperature cycle into your kiln or track each step on a log sheet; and 

iii. Label each sanitaryware shuttle kiln with the maximum load (in tons) of product 

that can be fired in the kiln during a single firing cycle; and 

iv. Develop 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 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, initiating corrective action 

within 1 hour of a bag leak detection system alarm and completing 

corrective actions in accordance with your OM&M plan; operating 

and maintaining the fabric filter such that the alarm is not engaged 

for more than 5 percent of the total operating time in a 6-month 

block reporting period; in calculating this operating time fraction, if 

inspection of the fabric filter demonstrates that no corrective action 

is required, no alarm time is counted; if corrective action is required, each alarm is counted as a minimum of 1 hour; if you take 

longer than 1 hour to initiate corrective action, the alarm time is 

counted as the actual amount of 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 

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. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
75714 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 243 / Thursday, December 18, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 7 TO SUBPART KKKKK OF PART 63—CONTINUOUS COMPLIANCE WITH EMISSION LIMITATIONS AND WORK

PRACTICE STANDARDS—Continued 

For each . . . For the following . . . You must demonstrate continuous compliance by . . . 

2. Tunnel or roller kiln equipped 

with a WS.

a. Each emission limit in Table 1 

to this subpart and each operating limit in Item 2 of Table 2 to 

this subpart for kilns equipped 

with WS.

i. Collecting the scrubber pressure drop data according to 

§ 63.8600(a); reducing the scrubber pressure drop data to 3-hour 

block averages according to § 63.8600(a); maintaining the average 

scrubber pressure drop for each 3-hour block period at or above 

the average pressure drop established during the PM performance 

test; and 

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. Collecting the scrubber liquid flow rate data according to 

§ 63.8600(a); reducing the scrubber liquid flow rate data to 3-hour 

block averages according to § 63.8600(a); maintaining the average 

scrubber liquid flow rate for each 3-hour block period at or above 

the highest average scrubber liquid flow rate established during the 

HF/HCl and PM performance tests; and 

iv. If chemicals are added to the scrubber water, collecting the scrubber chemical feed rate data according to § 63.8600(a); reducing the 

scrubber chemical feed rate data to 3-hour block averages according to § 63.8600(a); maintaining the average scrubber chemical 

feed rate for each 3-hour block period at or above the average 

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 carbon flow rate 

established during the Hg and dioxin/furan performance tests. 

4. Tunnel or roller kiln intending to 

comply with dioxin/furan emission 

limit without an ACI system.

Each emission limit in Table 1 to 

this subpart and each operating 

limit in Item 4 of Table 2 to this 

subpart for kilns intending to 

comply with dioxin/furan emission limit without an ACI system.

Collecting the kiln operating temperature data according to 

§ 63.8600(a); reducing the kiln operating temperature data to 3- 

hour block averages according to § 63.8600(a); maintaining the average kiln operating temperature for each 3-hour block period at or 

below the average operating temperature established during the 

dioxin/furan performance test. 

5. Tunnel or roller kiln with no addon 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. If your last calculated total facility maximum potential HCl-equivalent was not at or below the health-based standard in Table 1 to 

this subpart, collecting the kiln process rate data according to 

§ 63.8600(a); reducing the kiln process rate data to 3-hour block 

averages according to § 63.8600(a); maintaining the average kiln 

process rate for each 3-hour block period at or below the kiln process rate determined according to § 63.8595(g)(1). 

iii. Collecting the kiln operating temperature data according to 

§ 63.8600(a); reducing the kiln operating temperature data to 3- 

hour block averages according to § 63.8600(a); maintaining the average kiln operating temperature for each 3-hour block period at or 

above the average operating temperature established during the 

dioxin/furan performance test. 

6. Glaze spray operation equipped 

with a FF.

Each emission limit in Table 1 to 

this subpart and each operating 

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 

corrective actions in accordance with your OM&M plan; operating 

and maintaining the fabric filter such that the alarm is not engaged 

for more than 5 percent of the total operating time in a 6-month 

block reporting period; in calculating this operating time fraction, if 

inspection of the fabric filter demonstrates that no corrective action 

is required, no alarm time is counted; if corrective action is required, each alarm is counted as a minimum of 1 hour; if you take 

longer than 1 hour to initiate corrective action, the alarm time is 

counted as the actual amount of time taken by you to initiate corrective action; or performing VE observations of the FF stack at the 

frequency specified in § 63.8620(e) using Method 22 of 40 CFR 

part 60, appendix A–7; and maintaining no VE from the FF stack. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 243 / Thursday, December 18, 2014 / Proposed Rules 75715 

TABLE 7 TO SUBPART KKKKK OF PART 63—CONTINUOUS COMPLIANCE WITH EMISSION LIMITATIONS AND WORK

PRACTICE STANDARDS—Continued 

For each . . . For the following . . . You must demonstrate continuous compliance by . . . 

7. Glaze spray operation equipped 

with a WS.

a. Each emission limit in Table 1 

to this subpart and each operating limit in Item 7 of Table 2 to 

this subpart for kilns equipped 

with WS.

i. Collecting the scrubber pressure drop data according to 

§ 63.8600(a); reducing the scrubber pressure drop data to 3-hour 

block averages according to § 63.8600(a); maintaining the average 

scrubber pressure drop for each 3-hour block period at or above 

the average pressure drop established during the PM performance 

test; and 

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 average scrubber liquid flow rate established during the PM 

performance test. 

8. Glaze spray operation equipped 

with a water curtain.

a. Each emission limit in Table 1 

to this subpart and each operating limit in Item 8 of Table 2 to 

this subpart for kilns equipped 

with a water curtain.

Conducting daily inspections to verify the presence of water flow to 

the wet control system; and 

Conducting weekly visual inspections of the system ductwork and 

control equipment for leaks; and 

Conducting annual inspections of the interior of the control equipment 

(if applicable) to determine the structural integrity and condition of 

the control equipment. 

9. Glaze spray operation equipped 

with baffles.

Each emission limit in Table 1 to 

this subpart and each operating 

limit in Item 9 of Table 2 to this 

subpart for kilns equipped with 

baffles.

Conducting an annual visual inspection of the baffles to confirm the 

baffles are in place. 

10. Spray dryer ............................... Each emission limit in Table 1 to 

this subpart and each operating 

limit in Item 10 of Table 2 to this 

subpart for spray dryers.

Collecting the operating temperature data according to § 63.8600(a); 

reducing the operating temperature data to 3-hour block averages 

according to § 63.8600(a); maintaining the average operating temperature for each 3-hour block period at or above the average operating temperature established during the dioxin/furan performance test. 

11. Floor tile press dryer ................. Each emission limit in Table 1 to 

this subpart and each operating 

limit in 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 average operating temperature established during the dioxin/furan performance test. 

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 product produced in the shuttle kiln; and 

v. For each firing load, documenting the total tonnage of product 

placed in the kiln to ensure that it is not greater than the maximum 

load identified in Item 1.a.iii of Table 3 to this subpart; and 

vi. Following maintenance procedures for each kiln that, at a minimum, specify the frequency of inspection and maintenance of temperature monitoring devices, controls that regulate air-to-fuel ratios, 

and controls that regulate firing cycles; and 

vii. Developing and maintaining records for each shuttle kiln, as specified in § 63.8640. 

As stated in § 63.8635, you must 

submit each report that applies to you 

according to the following table. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
75716 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 243 / Thursday, December 18, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 8 TO SUBPART KKKKK OF PART 63—REQUIREMENTS FOR REPORTS

You must submit . . . The report must contain . . . You must submit the report . . . 

1. A compliance report ..................... a. If there are no deviations from any emission limitations or work 

practice standards that apply to you, a statement that there were 

no deviations from the emission limitations or work practice standards during the reporting period. If there were no periods during 

which the CMS was out-of-control as specified in your OM&M 

plan, a statement that there were no periods during which the 

CMS was out-of-control during the reporting period.

Semiannually according to the requirements in § 63.8635(b). 

b. If you have a deviation from any emission limitation (emission 

limit, operating limit) during the reporting period, the report must 

contain the information in § 63.8635(d) or (e). If there were periods 

during which the CMS was out-of-control, as specified in your 

OM&M plan, the report must contain the information in 

§ 63.8635(e).

Semiannually according to the requirements in § 63.8635(b). 

2. A report of alternative fuel use ..... The information in § 63.8635(g) ............................................................ If you are subject to the work 

practice standards specified in 

Table 3 to this subpart, and you 

use an alternative fuel to fire an 

affected kiln, by letter within 10 

working days after terminating 

the use of the alternative fuel. 

As stated in § 63.8655, you must 

comply with the General Provisions in 

§§ 63.1 through 63.16 that apply to you 

according to the following table. 

TABLE 9 TO SUBPART KKKKK OF PART 63—APPLICABILITY OF GENERAL PROVISIONS TO SUBPART KKKKK 

Citation Subject Brief description Applies to Subpart 

KKKKK? 

§ 63.1 ................................... Applicability ........................ Initial applicability determination; 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) through (4) ....... Compliance Dates for New 

and Reconstructed 

sources.

Standards apply at effective date; 3 years after effective date; upon startup; 10 years after construction 

or reconstruction commences for section 112(f).

Yes. 

§ 63.6(b)(5) .......................... Notification ......................... Must notify if commenced construction or reconstruction after proposal.Yes. 

§ 63.6(b)(6) .......................... [Reserved] ......................... ........................................................................................

§ 63.6(b)(7) .......................... Compliance Dates for New 

and Reconstructed Area 

Sources That Become 

Major.

Area sources that become major must comply with 

major source standards immediately upon becoming 

major, regardless of whether required to comply 

when they were area sources.

Yes. 

§ 63.6(c)(1) and (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) and (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. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 243 / Thursday, December 18, 2014 / Proposed Rules 75717 

TABLE 9 TO SUBPART KKKKK OF PART 63—APPLICABILITY OF GENERAL PROVISIONS TO SUBPART KKKKK—Continued 

Citation Subject Brief description Applies to Subpart 

KKKKK? 

§ 63.6(f)(2) and (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) and (2) .............. Performance Test Dates ... Dates for conducting initial performance testing and 

other compliance demonstrations for emission limits 

and work practice standards; must conduct 180 

days after first subject to rule.

Yes. 

§ 63.7(a)(3) .......................... Section 114 Authority ........ Administrator may require a performance test under 

CAA section 114 at any time.

Yes. 

§ 63.7(a)(4) .......................... Notification of Delay in 

Performance Testing 

Due To Force Majeure.

Must notify Administrator of delay in performance testing due to force majeure.Yes. 

§ 63.7(b)(1) .......................... Notification of Performance 

Test.

Must notify Administrator 60 days before the test ........ Yes. 

§ 63.7(b)(2) .......................... Notification of Rescheduling.Must notify Administrator 5 days before scheduled 

date of rescheduled date.

Yes. 

§ 63.7(c) ............................... Quality Assurance (QA)/

Test Plan.

Requirements; test plan approval procedures; performance audit requirements; internal and external QA 

procedures for testing.

Yes. 

§ 63.7(d) ............................... Testing Facilities ................ Requirements for testing facilities ................................. Yes. 

§ 63.7(e)(1) .......................... Conditions for Conducting 

Performance Tests.

Performance tests must be conducted under representative conditions.

Cannot conduct performance tests during SSM; not a 

violation to exceed standard during SSM.

No, § 63.8595 specifies requirements. 

Yes. 

§ 63.7(e)(2) and (3) .............. Conditions for Conducting 

Performance Tests.

Must conduct according to subpart and EPA test 

methods unless Administrator approves alternative; 

must have at least three test runs of at least 1 hour 

each; compliance is based on arithmetic mean of 

three runs; conditions when data from an additional 

test run can be used.

Yes. 

§ 63.7(e)(4) .......................... Testing under Section 114 Administrator’s authority to require testing under section 114 of the Act.Yes. 

§ 63.7(f) ................................ Alternative Test Method .... Procedures by which Administrator can grant approval 

to use an alternative test method.

Yes. 

§ 63.7(g) ............................... Performance Test Data 

Analysis.

Must include raw data in performance test report; 

must submit performance test data 60 days after 

end of test with the notification of compliance status.

Yes. 

§ 63.7(h) ............................... Waiver of Tests ................. Procedures for Administrator to waive performance 

test.

Yes. 

§ 63.8(a)(1) .......................... Applicability of Monitoring 

Requirements.

Subject to all monitoring requirements in subpart ........ Yes. 

§ 63.8(a)(2) .......................... Performance Specifications Performance Specifications in appendix B of 40 CFR 

part 60 apply.

Yes. 

§ 63.8(a)(3) .......................... [Reserved] ......................... ........................................................................................ No. 

§ 63.8(a)(4) .......................... Monitoring with Flares ....... Requirements for flares in § 63.11 apply ...................... No, not applicable. 

§ 63.8(b)(1) .......................... Monitoring .......................... Must conduct monitoring according to standard unless 

Administrator approves alternative.

Yes. 

§ 63.8(b)(2) and (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 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) and (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 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. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
75718 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 243 / Thursday, December 18, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 9 TO SUBPART KKKKK OF PART 63—APPLICABILITY OF GENERAL PROVISIONS TO SUBPART KKKKK—Continued 

Citation Subject Brief description Applies to Subpart 

KKKKK? 

§ 63.8(c)(7) and (8) .............. CMS Requirements ........... Out-of-control periods .................................................... Yes. 

§ 63.8(d) ............................... CMS Quality Control ......... Requirements for CMS quality control .......................... Yes. 

§ 63.8(e) ............................... CMS Performance Evaluation.Requirements for CMS performance evaluation ........... Yes. 

§ 63.8(f)(1) through (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) and (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. 

§ 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) and (v) ....... Records Related to SSM .. Actions taken to minimize emissions during SSM ........ No. 

§ 63.10(b)(2)(vi) through (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) through (15) .... Records ............................. Additional records for CMS ........................................... No, §§ 63.8575 and 

63.8640 specify requirements. 

§ 63.10(d)(1) and (2) ............ General Reporting Requirements.Requirements for reporting; performance test results 

reporting.

Yes. 

§ 63.10(d)(3) ........................ Reporting Opacity or VE 

Observations.

Requirements for reporting opacity and VE .................. No, not applicable. 

§ 63.10(d)(4) ........................ Progress Reports .............. Must submit progress reports on schedule if under 

compliance extension.

Yes. 

§ 63.10(d)(5) ........................ SSM Reports ..................... Contents and submission .............................................. No. See § 63.8635(f) for 

malfunction reporting requirements. 

§ 63.10(e)(1) through (3) ..... Additional CMS Reports .... Requirements for CMS reporting .................................. No, §§ 63.8575 and 

63.8635 specify requirements. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 243 / Thursday, December 18, 2014 / Proposed Rules 75719 

TABLE 9 TO SUBPART KKKKK OF PART 63—APPLICABILITY OF GENERAL PROVISIONS TO SUBPART KKKKK—Continued 

Citation Subject Brief description Applies to Subpart 

KKKKK? 

§ 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.Requirements for Performance Track member facilities Yes. 

[FR Doc. 2014–28125 Filed 12–17–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2