Document ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0015-0066
Agency: epa
Document Type: Proposed Rule
Title: National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Lime Manufacturing Plants Amendments
Posted Date: 2023-01-05T05:00Z

[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 3 (Thursday, January 5, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 805-820]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-27994]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0015; FRL-5948.1-01-OAR]
RIN 2060-AV59

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Lime 
Manufacturing Plants Amendments

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

[[Page 806]]

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing 
amendments to the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 
Pollutants for Lime Manufacturing Plants (Lime Manufacturing NESHAP), 
as required by the Clean Air Act (CAA). To ensure that all emissions of 
HAP from sources in the source category are regulated, the EPA is 
proposing hazardous air pollutant (HAP) emissions standards for the 
following pollutants: hydrogen chloride (HCl), mercury, total 
hydrocarbon (THC) as a surrogate for organic HAP, and dioxin/furans (D/
F).

DATES: Comments must be received on or before February 21, 2023. Under 
the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), comments on the information 
collection provisions are best assured of consideration if the Office 
of Management and Budget (OMB) receives a copy of your comments on or 
before February 6, 2023.
    Public hearing: If anyone contacts us requesting a public hearing 
on or before January 10, 2023, we will hold a virtual public hearing. 
See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for information on requesting and 
registering for a public hearing.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2017-0015, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov/ 
(our preferred method). Follow the online instructions for submitting 
comments.
     Email: [email protected]. Include Docket ID No. EPA-
HQ-OAR-2017-0015 in the subject line of the message.
     Fax: (202) 566-9744. Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2017-0015.
     Mail: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Docket 
Center, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0015, Mail Code 28221T, 1200 
Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460.
     Hand/Courier Delivery: EPA Docket Center, WJC West 
Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20004. 
The Docket Center's hours of operation are 8:30 a.m.-4:30 p.m., Monday-
Friday (except federal holidays).
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket ID 
No. for this rulemaking. Comments received may be posted without change 
to https://www.regulations.gov/, including any personal information 
provided. For detailed instructions on sending comments and additional 
information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY 
INFORMATION section of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about this proposed 
action, contact Brian Storey, Sector Policies and Programs Division 
(Mail Code D243-04), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 
27711; telephone number: (919) 541-1103; fax number: (919) 541-4991; 
and email address: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 
    Participation in virtual public hearing. To request a virtual 
public hearing, contact the public hearing team at (888) 372-8699 or by 
email at [email protected]. If requested, the hearing will be 
held via virtual platform on January 20, 2023. The hearing will convene 
at 10:00 a.m. Eastern Time (ET) and will conclude at 4:00 p.m. ET. The 
EPA may close a session 15 minutes after the last pre-registered 
speaker has testified if there are no additional speakers. The EPA will 
announce further details at https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/lime-manufacturing-plants-national-emission-standards-hazardous.
    If a public hearing is requested, the EPA will begin pre-
registering speakers for the hearing upon publication of this document 
in the Federal Register. To register to speak at the virtual hearing, 
please use the online registration form available at https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/lime-manufacturing-plants-national-emission-standards-hazardous or contact the public hearing 
team at (888) 372-8699 or by email at [email protected]. The 
last day to pre-register to speak at the hearing will be January 17, 
2023. Prior to the hearing, the EPA will post a general agenda that 
will list pre-registered speakers in approximate order at: https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/lime-manufacturing-plants-national-emission-standards-hazardous.
    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 
hearings to run either ahead of schedule or behind schedule.
    Each commenter will have 4 minutes to provide oral testimony. The 
EPA encourages commenters to submit a copy of their oral testimony as 
written comments to the rulemaking docket.
    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 testimony and 
supporting information presented at the public hearing.
    Please note that any updates made to any aspect of the hearing will 
be posted online at https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/lime-manufacturing-plants-national-emission-standards-hazardous. While the EPA expects the hearing to go forward as set forth 
above, please monitor our website or contact the public hearing team at 
(888) 372-8699 or by email at [email protected] to determine if 
there are any updates. The EPA does not intend to publish a document in 
the Federal Register announcing updates.
    If you require the services of a translator or special 
accommodation such as audio description, please pre-register for the 
hearing with the public hearing team and describe your needs by January 
12, 2023. The EPA may not be able to arrange accommodations without 
advanced notice.
    Docket. The EPA has established a docket for this rulemaking under 
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0015. All documents in the docket are 
listed in https://www.regulations.gov/. Although listed, some 
information is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business 
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted 
by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is 
not placed on the internet and will be publicly available only in hard 
copy. With the exception of such material, publicly available docket 
materials are available electronically in Regulations.gov.
    Instructions. Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2017-0015. 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 https://www.regulations.gov/, including any personal 
information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed 
to be CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by 
statute. Do not submit electronically to https://www.regulations.gov/ 
any information that you consider to be CBI or other information whose 
disclosure is restricted by statute. This type of information should be 
submitted as discussed below.
    The EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. 
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a 
written comment. The written comment is

[[Page 807]]

considered the official comment and should include discussion of all 
points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments 
or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e., on 
the Web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional 
submission methods, the full EPA public comment policy, information 
about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making 
effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
    The https://www.regulations.gov/ website allows you to submit your 
comment anonymously, 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 
https://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 
digital storage media 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 https://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Submitting CBI. Do not submit information containing CBI to the EPA 
through https://www.regulations.gov/. Clearly mark the part or all of 
the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information on any 
digital storage media that you mail to the EPA, note the docket ID, 
mark the outside of the digital storage media as CBI, and identify 
electronically within the digital storage media 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 directly to the public docket through the procedures 
outlined in Instructions above. If you submit any digital storage media 
that does not contain CBI, mark the outside of the digital storage 
media clearly that it does not contain CBI and note the docket ID. 
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 CFR part 2.
    Our preferred method to receive CBI is for it to be transmitted 
electronically using email attachments, File Transfer Protocol (FTP), 
or other online file sharing services (e.g., Dropbox, OneDrive, Google 
Drive). Electronic submissions must be transmitted directly to the 
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS) CBI Office at the 
email address [email protected], and as described above, should include 
clear CBI markings and note the docket ID. If assistance is needed with 
submitting large electronic files that exceed the file size limit for 
email attachments, and if you do not have your own file sharing 
service, please email [email protected] to request a file transfer link. 
If sending CBI information through the postal service, please send it 
to the following address: 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-2017-0015. The 
mailed CBI material should be double wrapped and clearly marked. Any 
CBI markings should not show through the outer envelope.
    Preamble acronyms and abbreviations. Throughout this notice the use 
of ``we,'' ``us,'' or ``our'' is intended to refer to the EPA. We use 
multiple acronyms and terms in this preamble. 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:

ACI activated carbon injection
APCD air pollution control device
BDL below detection level
CAA Clean Air Act
CBI Confidential Business Information
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DB dead burned dolomitic lime
D/F dioxin/furans
DL dolomitic lime
DSI dry sorbent injection
EJ environmental justice
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
ESP electrostatic precipitator
FB fluidized bed
FF fabric filter
FR Federal Register
g/dscm grams of pollutant per dry standard cubic meter of air
HAP hazardous air pollutant(s)
HCl hydrogen chloride
IQV intra-quarry variability
lb/MMton pounds of pollutant per million tons of lime produced at 
the kiln
lb/tsf pounds of pollutant per ton of stone feed
MACT maximum achievable control technology
NESHAP national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants
NTTAA National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
OAQPS Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
OMB Office of Management and Budget
PM particulate matter
ppmvd parts per million by volume, dry
PR preheater rotary kiln
PRA Paperwork Reduction Act
PSH process stone handling
QL quick lime
RDL representative detection level
RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act
RTR residual risk and technology review
RTO regenerative thermal oxidizer
SR straight rotary kiln
SSM startup, shutdown, and malfunction
THC total hydrocarbons
tpy tons of pollutant per year
UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
UPL upper predictive limit
VK vertical kilns
VCS voluntary consensus standards

    Organization of this document. The information in this preamble is 
organized as follows:

I. General Information
    A. Does this action apply to me?
    B. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related 
information?
II. Background
    A. What is the statutory authority for this action?
    B. What is this source category and how does the current NESHAP 
regulate its HAP emissions?
    C. What data collection activities were conducted to support 
this action?
III. Analytical Procedures and Decision Making
    A. How did we address unregulated emissions sources?
IV. Analytical Results and Proposed Decisions
    A. What are the results of our analyses of unregulated 
pollutants and how did we set MACT standards?
    B. What performance testing, monitoring, and recordkeeping and 
reporting are we proposing?
    C. What other actions are we proposing?
    D. What compliance dates are we proposing, and what is the 
rationale for the proposed compliance dates?
V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts
    A. What are the affected sources?
    B. What are the air quality impacts?
    C. What are the cost impacts?
    D. What are the economic impacts?
    E. What analysis of environmental justice did we conduct?
VI. Request for Comments
VII. Submitting Data Corrections
VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and 
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

[[Page 808]]

    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 (NTTAA) and 
1 CFR Part 51
    J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address 
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income 
Populations

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    Table 1 of this preamble lists the NESHAP and associated regulated 
industrial source category that is the subject of this proposal. Table 
1 is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for 
readers regarding the entities that this proposed action is likely to 
affect. The proposed standards, once promulgated, will be directly 
applicable to the affected sources. Federal, state, local, and tribal 
government entities would not be affected by this proposed action. As 
defined in the Initial List of Categories of Sources Under 
Section112(c)(1) of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (57 FR 31576, 
July 16, 1992) and Documentation for Developing the Initial Source 
Category List, Final Report (EPA-450/3-91-030, July 1992), the Lime 
Manufacturing source category is ``any facility engaged in producing 
high calcium lime, dolomitic lime, and dead-burned dolomite.'' However, 
lime manufacturing plants located at pulp and paper mills or at beet 
sugar factories are not included in the source category (69 FR 394, 
397, January 5, 2004).

                Table 1--NESHAP and Industrial Source Categories Affected by This Proposed Action
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Source Category                    NESHAP                            NAICS code \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lime Manufacturing..................  Lime Manufacturing      32741, 33111, 3314, 327125.
                                       Plants.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ North American Industry Classification System.

B. 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. Following signature by the 
EPA Administrator, the EPA will post a copy of this proposed action at 
https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/lime-manufacturing-plants-national-emission-standards-hazardous. Following 
publication in the Federal Register, the EPA will post the Federal 
Register version of the proposal and key technical documents at this 
same website. A redline version of the regulatory language that 
incorporates the proposed changes in this action is available in the 
docket for this action (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0015).

II. Background

A. What is the statutory authority for this action?

    On July 24, 2020, the EPA took final action on the risk and 
technology review required by Clean Air Act (CAA) sections 112(d)(6) 
and (f)(2) for the NESHAP for Lime Manufacturing Plants (2020 RTR).\1\ 
The EPA is proposing in this action to amend the NESHAP to ensure that 
all emissions of HAP from sources in the source category are regulated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 85 FR 44960 July 24, 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In setting standards for major source categories under CAA 112(d), 
EPA has the obligation to address all HAP listed under CAA 112(b).\2\ 
In the Louisiana Environmental Action Network v. EPA (LEAN) decision 
issued on April 21, 2020, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of 
Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit) held that the EPA has an obligation to 
address unregulated emissions from a major source category when the 
Agency conducts the 8-year technology review. This proposed rule 
addresses currently unregulated emissions of HAP from the lime 
manufacturing source category.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Desert Citizens against Pollution v EPA, 699 F3d 524, 527 
(D.C. Cir. 2012) (``[W]e have read subparagraphs (1) and (3) of 
Sec.  112(d) to require the regulation of all HAPs listed in Sec.  
112(b)(1). See, e.g., Nat'l Lime Ass'n v. EPA, 233 F.3d 625, 633-34 
(D.C. Cir. 2000), Sierra Club v. EPA, 479 F.3d 875, 883 (C. Cir. 
2007).'')]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Emissions data collected for the 2020 RTR from the exhaust stack of 
existing lime kilns in the source category indicated the following 
unregulated pollutants were present: HCl, mercury, organic HAP (which 
we are proposing to regulate using THC as a surrogate), and D/F. 
Therefore, the EPA is proposing amendments establishing standards that 
reflect maximum achievable control technology (MACT) for these four 
pollutants emitted by the source category, pursuant to CAA sections 
112(d)(2) and (3).

B. What is this source category and how does the current NESHAP 
regulate its HAP emissions?

    The EPA promulgated the Lime Manufacturing NESHAP on January 5, 
2004 (69 FR 394). The standards are codified at 40 CFR part 63, subpart 
AAAAA. The lime manufacturing industry consists of facilities that use 
a lime kiln to produce lime product from limestone by calcination. The 
source category covered by this MACT standard currently includes 35 
facilities.
    As promulgated in 2004, the current Lime Manufacturing NESHAP 
regulates HAP emissions from all new and existing lime manufacturing 
plants that are major sources, co-located with major sources, or are 
part of major sources. However, lime manufacturing plants located at 
pulp and paper mills or at beet sugar factories are not subject to the 
NESHAP.\3\ Other lime manufacturing plants that are part of multiple 
operations, such as (but not limited to) those at steel mills and 
magnesia production facilities, are subject to the NESHAP. A lime 
manufacturing plant is defined as any plant which uses a lime kiln to 
produce lime product from limestone or other calcareous material by 
calcination. However, the NESHAP specifically excludes lime kilns that 
use only calcium carbonate waste sludge from water softening processes 
as the feedstock.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 69 FR 394, January 5, 2004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Lime Manufacturing NESHAP defines the affected source as each 
lime kiln and its associated cooler and each individual processed stone 
handling (PSH) operations system. The PSH operations system includes 
all equipment associated with PSH operations beginning at the process 
stone storage bin(s) or open storage pile(s) and ending where the 
process stone is fed into the kiln. It includes man-made process stone 
storage bins (but not open process stone storage piles), conveying 
system transfer points, bulk loading or unloading systems,

[[Page 809]]

screening operations, surge bins, bucket elevators, and belt conveyors.
    The current Lime Manufacturing NESHAP established particulate 
matter (PM) emission limits for lime kilns, coolers, and PSH operations 
with stacks. The NESHAP also established opacity limits for kilns 
equipped with electrostatic precipitators (ESP) and fabric filters (FF) 
and scrubber liquid flow limits for kilns equipped with wet scrubbers. 
Particulate matter serves as a surrogate for the non-mercury metal HAP. 
The NESHAP also regulates opacity or visible emissions from most of the 
PSH operations, with opacity also serving as a surrogate for HAP 
metals.
    The PM emission limit for existing kilns and coolers is 0.12 pounds 
PM per ton of stone feed (lb/tsf) for kilns using dry air pollution 
control systems prior to January 5, 2004. Existing kilns that have 
installed and are operating wet scrubbers prior to January 5, 2004, 
must meet an emission limit of 0.60 lb/tsf. Kilns which meet the 
criteria for the 0.60 lb/tsf emission limit must continue to use a wet 
scrubber for PM emission control in order to be eligible to meet the 
0.60 lb/tsf limit. If at any time such a kiln switches to a dry 
control, they would become subject to the 0.12 lb/tsf emission limit, 
regardless of the type of control device used in the future. The PM 
emission limit for all new kilns and lime coolers is 0.10 lb/tsf. As a 
compliance option, these emission limits (except for the 0.60 lb/tsf 
limit) may be applied to the combined emissions of all the kilns and 
coolers at the lime manufacturing plant. If the lime manufacturing 
plant has both new and existing kilns and coolers, then the emission 
limit would be an average of the existing and new kiln PM emissions 
limits, weighted by the annual actual production rates of the 
individual kilns, except that no new kiln may exceed the PM emission 
level of 0.10 lb/tsf. Kilns that are required to meet a 0.60 lb/tsf 
emission limit must meet that limit individually and may not be 
included in any averaging calculations.
    Emissions from PSH operations that are vented through a stack are 
subject to a limit of 0.05 grams PM per dry standard cubic meter (g/
dscm) and 7 percent opacity. Stack emissions from PSH operations that 
are controlled by wet scrubbers are subject to the 0.05 g PM/dscm limit 
but not subject to the opacity limit. Fugitive emissions from PSH 
operations are subject to a 10 percent opacity limit.
    For each building enclosing any PSH operation, each of the affected 
PSH operations in the building must comply individually with the 
applicable PM and opacity emission limitations. Otherwise, there must 
be no visible emissions from the building, except from a vent, and the 
building's vent emissions must not exceed 0.05 g/dscm and 7 percent 
opacity. For each fabric filter that controls emissions from only an 
individual, enclosed processed stone storage bin, the opacity must not 
exceed 7 percent. For each set of multiple processed stone storage bins 
with combined stack emissions, emissions must not exceed 0.05 g/dscm 
and 7 percent opacity. The current Lime Manufacturing NESHAP does not 
allow averaging of PSH operations.
    The 2020 amendments finalized the residual risk and technology 
review (RTR) conducted for the Lime Manufacturing NESHAP. The RTR found 
that the risk associated with air emissions from lime manufacturing was 
acceptable and that the current NESHAP provides an ample margin of 
safety to protect public health. The EPA determined that there were no 
developments in practices, processes, or control technologies that 
would warrant revisions to the standards. In addition, the 2020 
amendments addressed periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction 
(SSM) by removing any exemptions during SSM operations. Lastly, the 
2020 amendments included provisions requiring electronic reporting.

C. What data collection activities were conducted to support this 
action?

    During the development of 40 CFR part 63, subpart AAAAA, the EPA 
collected information on the emissions, operations, and location of 
lime manufacturing plants. Since this information was collected prior 
to the 2004 promulgation of 40 CFR part 63, subpart AAAAA, the EPA 
prepared a questionnaire in 2017 to collect updated information on the 
location and number of lime kilns, types and quantities of emissions, 
annual operating hours, types and quantities of fuels burned, and 
information on air pollution control devices and emission points. Nine 
companies completed the 2017 questionnaire for which they reported data 
for 32 of 35 major source facilities.
    In this action, the EPA used the emissions data collected from the 
2017 questionnaire to develop MACT standards for four unregulated 
pollutants (HCl, mercury, THC, D/F). In addition, supplemental 
information was provided by industry stakeholders on the mercury 
content of the raw material feed to the lime kiln, the types of lime 
kiln designs and their operations, and the types of lime produced. The 
data collected and used in this action are provided in the docket. In 
addition, the data collection and analysis of this action are described 
in detail in the document, ``Proposed Maximum Achievable Control 
Technology (MACT) Floor Analysis for the Lime Manufacturing Plant 
Industry,'' located in the docket (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0015).

III. Analytical Procedures and Decision Making

A. How did we address unregulated emissions sources?

    While evaluating the lime manufacturing source category and 
emissions data collected in support of the 2020 RTR, we identified 
several HAP which are not currently regulated by the Lime Manufacturing 
NESHAP. These HAP include HCl, mercury, and D/F. Additionally, multiple 
HAP that are classified as ``organic HAP'' were identified. The EPA has 
a ``clear statutory obligation to set emissions standards for each 
listed HAP''.\4\ For these HAP, we are proposing emissions limits 
pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(2) and 112(d)(3). The results and 
proposed decisions based on the analyses performed pursuant to CAA 
section 112(d)(2) and 112(d)(3) are presented in section IV of this 
preamble.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ National Lime v. EPA, 233 F. 3d 625, 634 (D.C. Cir. 2000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Hydrochloric Acid
    In response to the 2017 questionnaire, we received HCl emissions 
data that EPA did not have when we developed the 2004 NESHAP. 
Therefore, we are proposing a standard pursuant to CAA section 
112(d)(2) and (d)(3), as described further in section IV.A.1 of this 
preamble.
2. Mercury
    The 2004 NESHAP specified emissions limits for particulate metal 
HAP (e.g., manganese, arsenic, nickel, chromium) in terms of a 
particulate matter emissions limit (i.e., particulate matter is used as 
a surrogate for metal HAP that are emitted in particulate form). There 
is no explicit standard for mercury. The responses to the 2017 
questionnaire indicated that mercury is emitted by the lime 
manufacturing process. Therefore, we are proposing a standard 
specifically for mercury pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(2) and (d)(3), 
as described further in section IV.A.2 of this preamble.
3. Total Hydrocarbons
    In response to the 2017 questionnaire, we received THC emissions 
data that EPA did not have when we developed the 2004 NESHAP. The THC 
data

[[Page 810]]

indicated the presence of pollutants defined as organic HAP. Therefore, 
we are proposing a standard for THC as a surrogate for organic HAP 
pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(2) and (d)(3), as described further in 
section IV.A.3 of this preamble. We are accepting comment on a 
potential total organic HAP limit as an alternative. Comments should 
include emissions data to support a total organic HAP limit.
4. Dioxin/Furans
    Lastly, the 2017 questionnaire identified the potential for sources 
in the lime manufacturing source category to emit congeners of D/F; 
therefore, we are proposing a standard for D/F pursuant to CAA section 
112(d)(2) and (d)(3), as described in detail in section IV.A.4 of this 
preamble.

IV. Analytical Results and Proposed Decisions

    The ``MACT floor'' for existing sources is calculated based on the 
average performance of the best-performing units in each category or 
subcategory and on a consideration of the variability of HAP emissions 
from these units. The MACT floor for new sources is based on the single 
best-performing source, with a similar consideration of variability. 
The MACT floor for new sources cannot be less stringent than the 
emissions performance that is achieved in practice by the best-
controlled similar source. To account for variability in the lime 
manufacturing operations and resulting emissions, we calculated the 
MACT floors using the 99 percent Upper Predictive Limit (UPL) using 
available stack test data.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ For more information regarding the general use of the UPL 
and why it is appropriate for calculating MACT floors, see Use of 
Upper Prediction Limit for Calculating MACT Floors (UPL Memo), which 
is available in the docket for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The UPL approach addresses variability of emissions data from the 
best-performing source or sources in setting MACT standards. The UPL 
also accounts for uncertainty associated with emission values in a 
dataset, which can be influenced by components such as the number of 
samples available for developing MACT standards and the number of 
samples that will be collected to assess compliance with the emission 
limit. The UPL approach has been used in many environmental science 
applications. As explained in more detail in the UPL Memo cited above, 
the EPA uses the UPL approach to reasonably estimate the emissions 
performance of the best-performing source or sources to establish MACT 
floor standards.
    In addition, the EPA must examine more stringent ``beyond-the-
floor'' regulatory options to determine MACT. Unlike the floor minimum 
stringency requirements, the EPA must consider various impacts of the 
more stringent regulatory options in determining whether MACT standards 
are to reflect beyond-the-floor requirements. If the EPA concludes that 
the more stringent regulatory options have unreasonable impacts, the 
EPA selects the MACT floor as MACT. However, if the EPA concludes that 
impacts associated with beyond-the-floor levels of control are 
reasonable in light of additional emissions reductions achieved, the 
EPA selects those levels as MACT.
    Data submitted to the EPA for the 2017 questionnaire included air 
emissions test results from 32 of the 35 lime manufacturing facilities 
in the source category. From the questionnaire responses, we also noted 
the types of kilns in use and types of lime being produced at the time 
of testing. The types of kilns used by the lime manufacturing industry 
include straight rotary kilns (SR), preheater rotary kilns (PR), 
vertical kilns (VK), and fluidized bed kilns (FB). The types of lime 
produced include refractory dead burned dolomitic lime (DB), dolomitic 
quick lime (DL), and high-calcium quick lime (QL).

A. What are the results of our analyses of unregulated pollutants and 
how did we set MACT standards?

1. Hydrochloric Acid Emissions
    The 2017 data included the results of stack testing 30 kiln exhaust 
stacks for the presence of HCl, using EPA Methods 320 and 321. Data 
collected using the test method ASTM D6735-01 ``Standard Test Method 
for Measurement of Gaseous Chlorides and Fluorides from Mineral 
Calcining Exhaust Sources--Impinger Method'' were found to be invalid, 
based on the fact that the test method is no longer an active ASTM 
method. The ASTM method was never revised to reflect the change in 
probe and filter temperature as were included in EPA Method 26A. 
Because of this, the ASTM method is run hot enough to evaporate amonium 
chloride from the sample and bias the HCl results high. Additionally, 
we evaluated the types of kilns and lime produced for which we had 
data. From our discussions with industry representatives, and our 
review of the HCl emissions data, we found that the configuration of 
the different types of kilns (i.e., SR, PR, VK, FB) warranted 
subcategorization by kiln configuration. In addition, the differences 
in residence time of the raw materials within the heating zone of the 
kiln during the production of the different types of lime also 
warranted subcategorization by the three types of lime produced (i.e., 
DB, DL, QL).
    To account for variability in the lime manufacturing operations and 
resulting emissions, the stack test data were used to calculate the HCl 
MACT floor limits based on the 99 percent UPL. In some instances, 
subcategorization resulted in limited datasets, and a single dataset 
was used to calculate both existing and new source HCl MACT floor 
limits. In these instances, the existing HCl MACT floor limit equals 
the new source HCl MACT floor limit. The HCl MACT floor limits were 
calculated based on concentration, in units of parts per million by 
volume, dry, corrected to 7 percent oxygen (ppmvd @7 percent 
O2). Using known and assumed production rates recorded at 
the time of testing, we then converted the concentration-based limits 
to units of pounds of pollutant per tons of lime produced at the kiln 
(lb/ton lime produced). A summary of the proposed subcategories, and 
the associated proposed HCl MACT floor limits in units of lb/ton of 
lime produced for new and existing lime manufacturing sources is 
included as Table 2.

      Table 2--Proposed Hydrogen Chloride MACT Floor Limits for New and Existing Lime Manufacturing Sources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                    New source       Existing
                                                                                    MACT floor      source MACT
                 Kiln type \1\                          Lime produced \2\          limit (lb/ton    floor limit
                                                                                      of lime       (lb/ton of
                                                                                     produced)    lime produced)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SR............................................  DL, DB..........................             1.6             2.2

[[Page 811]]

 
SR............................................  QL..............................           0.021            0.58
PR............................................  DL, DB..........................            0.39            0.39
PR............................................  QL..............................           0.015           0.015
VK............................................  QL, DL, DB......................           0.021           0.021
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note:
\1\ Straight rotary (SR), preheater rotary (PR), vertical (VK).
\2\ Dolomitic lime (DL), high-calcium quick lime (QL), dead burned dolomitic lime (DB).

    We did not have emissions data from fluidized bed kilns, and after 
discussions with industry representatives, we understand that there are 
no fluidized bed kilns located at any major source facilities subject 
to the Lime Manufacturing NESHAP. There are fluidized bed kilns in use 
at area sources, but area sources are not subject to the Lime 
Manufacturing NESHAP. In addition, the 2017 questionnaire provided 
emissions data for vertical kilns producing high-calcium quick lime 
only. We have set the new and existing HCl MACT floor limits for 
vertical kilns producing dolomitic lime and dead burned dolomitic lime 
equal to the MACT floor for high-calcium quick lime. Lastly, we have 
set the MACT floor for preheater rotary kilns producing dead burned 
dolomitic lime, equal to those preheater rotary kilns producing 
dolomitic quick lime.
    The EPA then compared the emission rates estimated in the 2020 RTR 
to the HCl MACT floor limits to determine the number of kilns in the 
source category that would require additional air pollution control 
devices (APCD) to meet the HCl MACT floor limit. We found that out of 
96 existing kilns, 55 kilns would require additional controls to comply 
with the proposed HCl MACT floor limit. From this information, we 
evaluated the effectiveness of potential APCD for removal of HCl from 
kiln exhaust gas streams and found that dry sorbent injection has an 
estimated 98 percent removal efficiency for HCl.
    Dry sorbent injection (DSI) removes HCl and other acid gases using 
a powdered alkali sorbent injected into the exhaust gas ductwork where 
it then reacts with the HCl in the exhaust stream. The sorbent solids 
are then collected in either an ESP or baghouse. The most commonly used 
sodium-based sorbent is Trona, typically used in situations where the 
goal is to remove sulfur dioxide and/or acid gases from an exhaust gas. 
Hydrated lime can be used in processes, such as lime manufacturing, 
where the goal is to reduce acid gas emissions only.
    Applying the removal efficiency of DSI controls using hydrated lime 
to each of the 55 kilns identified would reduce HCl emissions from 
these sources to below the HCl MACT floor limit. This would result in a 
combined reduction of 1,163 tons of HCl per year from these sources. 
The total capital investment to retrofit 55 existing kilns with DSI 
controls are estimated to be $5,400,000 and the total annual costs are 
estimated to be $5,200,000 per year. The cost per ton of HCl removed is 
estimated to be $4,500 per ton of HCl removed.
    We also conducted a beyond-the-floor analysis, where we evaluated 
whether existing kilns would be able to comply with the new source HCl 
MACT floor limits. We found that of the 96 existing kilns in the source 
category, 74 kilns would require a DSI as control in order to meet the 
new source HCl MACT floor limit. The estimated reduction in HCl 
emissions from a beyond-the-floor HCl limit is 1,754 tons of HCl per 
year. The estimated incremental reduction, where we compare the 
existing source beyond-the-floor limit to the existing source MACT 
floor limit, is 591 tons of HCl per year. We estimate the total capital 
investment to be $9,400,000 and total annual costs to be $7,500,000 per 
year for beyond-the-floor limits. This results in a cost effectiveness 
of approximately $4,300 per ton of HCl removal. We do not consider the 
control costs to be reasonable and therefore are not proposing a 
beyond-the-floor standard for HCl.
    As part of our beyond-the-floor analysis, 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 
HCl subcategories. Therefore, the EPA is not proposing a beyond-the-
floor HCl limit for new sources in this proposed rule.
    A detailed description of the analysis of HCl emissions, the 
controls necessary to reduce HCl emissions, and the cost of these 
controls are included in the document, ``Proposed Maximum Achievable 
Control Technology (MACT) Floor Analysis for the Lime Manufacturing 
Plants Industry'', located in the docket (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2017-0015).
2. Mercury Emissions
    The 2017 data included the results of stack testing 21 kiln exhaust 
stacks for the presence of mercury, using EPA Methods 29 and 30B. As 
with HCl, we evaluated the types of kilns and lime produced for which 
we had data. From our discussions with industry representatives and our 
review of the mercury emissions data, we found that the differences in 
residence time of the raw materials within the heating zone of the kiln 
during the production of the different types of lime produced warranted 
subcategorization by the three types of lime produced (i.e., DB, DL, 
QL).
    To account for variability in the lime manufacturing operations and 
resulting emissions, the stack test data were used to calculate the 
mercury MACT floor limits based on the 99 percent UPL. The mercury MACT 
floor limits were calculated in units of pounds of pollutant per 
million tons of lime produced (lb/MMton lime produced).
    The EPA compared the mercury emission rates estimated in the 2020 
RTR to the calculated MACT floor limits to determine the number of 
kilns in the source category that would require additional APCD to meet 
the mercury MACT floor limit. We found that out of 96 existing kilns, 
75 kilns would require additional controls to comply with the 
calculated mercury MACT floor limits. We evaluated the effectiveness of 
potential APCD for removal of mercury from kiln exhaust gas streams and 
found

[[Page 812]]

that activated carbon injection (ACI) has an estimated 90 percent 
removal efficiency for mercury.
    Similar to the discussion on the mechanism of DSI controls, ACI 
removes gaseous mercury from an exhaust gas stream by injecting 
activated carbon into the exhaust gas ductwork where it then adsorbs 
the gaseous mercury. The mercury-laden carbon is then collected in 
either an ESP or baghouse as particulate.
    Applying the removal efficiency of ACI controls to each of the 75 
kilns identified would reduce mercury emissions from these sources to 
below the mercury MACT floor limits. This would result in a combined 
reduction of approximately 488.5 pounds, or 0.24 tons of mercury per 
year from these sources. The total capital investment to retrofit 75 
existing kilns with ACI controls are estimated to be $7,300,000 and the 
total annual costs are estimated to be $18,900,000 per year. To comply 
with the mercury MACT floor limits, the cost per ton of mercury removed 
is estimated to be $39,000 per pound of mercury removed. The use of ACI 
controls also provides removal of THC and D/F, as discussed in sections 
IV.A.3 and IV.A.4 of this preamble.
    For existing sources in each of the mercury subcategories we found 
it is cost-effective to set emissions limits that go beyond the 
calculated MACT floor limits. In the case of the quick lime and 
dolomitic lime subcategories, the new and existing MACT floor limits 
were similar in value (24.94 lb/MMton for new sources, and 25.58 lb/
MMton for existing sources), such that with the suggested controls the 
existing sources would be able to comply with the new source standard 
with no additional costs. We therefore set the existing emission limit 
equal to the new source emission limit. For the dead burned dolomitic 
lime subcategory, we evaluated the use of APCD to control mercury from 
these sources and estimate that the cost effectiveness ($/lb) 
associated with the installation of ACI controls is $16,969 per pound 
of mercury removed. This cost-effectiveness value is well within the 
range that we have determined to be cost-effective for mercury in other 
rules, and therefore for the dead burned dolomitic lime subcategory we 
are proposing beyond-the-floor limits for new and existing sources 
based on the use of these controls. A more detailed discussion of the 
APCD selected to remove mercury, and the beyond-the-floor analysis is 
provided below.
    A summary of the proposed subcategories, and the associated 
proposed mercury MACT floor limits in units of lb/MMton of lime 
produced for new and existing lime manufacturing sources is included as 
Table 3.

Table 3--Proposed Mercury Limits for New and Existing Lime Manufacturing
                                 Sources
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   New source limit     Existing source
        Lime produced \1\           (lb/MMton lime      limit (lb/MMton
                                       produced)        lime produced)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
QL, DL..........................  24.9 (MACT Floor).  24.9 (BTF).\2\
DB..............................  24.4 (BTF)........  33.1 (BTF).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note:
\1\ Dolomitic lime (DL), high-calcium quick lime (QL), dead burned
  dolomitic lime (DB).
\2\ Beyond the floor (BTF) MACT limits.

    In addition to the pooled variability factor in the UPL 
calculation, the EPA evaluated the possibility of considering the 
variability in mercury content of the raw material feed over the life 
of a quarry, consistent with the approach followed in other NESHAPs 
including the Portland Cement Manufacturing NESHAP (74 FR 21142), and 
the Brick and Structural Clay Products NESHAP (79 FR 75634). The pooled 
variability factor in the UPL accounts for short term variability in 
air emissions, and an ``intra-quarry variability'' (IQV) factor would 
account for variability in the mercury content of the raw material over 
the long-term life of the quarry.
    Industry stakeholders provided the EPA with data from two separate 
lime manufacturing facilities, both of which were included in the 
mercury MACT floor calculations. At the first facility, the mercury 
content of the kiln feed was sampled, and the results tabulated. At the 
second facility the quarry was sampled, as well as the kiln feed, and 
the results tabulated. The EPA believes that from the kiln feed data 
provided, and the quarry sample data provided, the kiln feed data is 
more representative of the variability. This is based primarily on the 
fact that the mined quarry stone is first stored in open storage piles, 
where it can then mix with stone collected from the quarry over time. 
Therefore, the kiln feed represents a more homogenized sample of the 
storage pile and is more representative of the raw material fed to the 
lime kiln. The EPA considered the mercury content data of the kiln feed 
material of the two facilities and determined that we did not have 
enough data to establish an IQV factor. Additionally, from the data 
that was provided, the calculated IQV had little effect on the mercury 
MACT floor limits. A detailed description of this analysis is provided 
in the docket.
    In the beyond-the-floor analysis for the quick lime and dolomitic 
lime subcategory, we evaluated whether existing kilns would be able to 
comply with the new source mercury MACT floor limit. Because facilities 
will require ACI controls to reduce mercury emissions in order to 
comply with the proposed limits, existing sources would be able to also 
meet the new source limit without any additional costs. Therefore, we 
are proposing to set the existing source limit equal to the new source 
limit for the quick lime and dolomitic lime subcategory. For the dead 
burned dolomitic lime subcategory, we performed a beyond-the-floor 
analysis where we analyzed the effects of ACI controls versus the costs 
associated with installation and maintenance of ACI controls. We 
determined that the cost for new and existing sources in the dead 
burned dolomitic lime subcategory to install and operate ACI controls 
to reduce their mercury emissions beyond the calculated MACT floor were 
reasonable. As part of this analysis, we considered the use of ACI to 
control THC emissions (discussed in section IV.A.3 of this preamble). 
Because facilities will incur costs associated with controlling THC 
emissions, we did not double-count those costs when assessing the dead 
burned dolomitic lime subcategory, where ACI controls are used to 
reduce their mercury emissions beyond the calculated MACT floor. The 
total annual costs for the dead burned dolomitic lime subcategory to go 
beyond the MACT floor by installing ACI controls is, therefore, zero, 
due to these sources already installing ACI controls to comply with the 
THC MACT floor limits.
    No control techniques were identified that would achieve mercury 
reductions

[[Page 813]]

greater than the new source mercury MACT floors for the dolomitic lime 
and quick lime subcategories. Therefore, the EPA is not proposing a 
beyond-the-floor mercury limit for new source dolomitic lime and quick 
lime subcategories in this proposed rule.
    A detailed description of the analysis of mercury emissions, the 
controls necessary to reduce mercury emissions, and the cost of these 
controls are included in the document, ``Proposed Maximum Achievable 
Control Technology (MACT) Floor Analysis for the Lime Manufacturing 
Plant Industry'', located in the docket (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-
0015).
3. Total Hydrocarbon Emissions
    The 2017 data included the results of testing 34 kiln exhaust 
stacks for the presence of THC, using EPA Method 25A. In addition, 
industry stakeholders provided emissions testing data that identified 
nine non-dioxin organic HAP. These included the pollutants 
formaldehyde, benzene, toluene, styrene, o-, m-, and p-xylenes, 
acetaldehyde, and naphthalene. The EPA evaluated the organic HAP data 
and compared the list of nine pollutants with the THC test data which 
identified the nine, but also identified additional organic HAP 
pollutants in the analyses including the pollutants acrolein, carbon 
disulfide, ethyl benzene, and vinyl chloride. Based on the EPA's 
assessment of the available test data, the EPA concludes that 
compliance with a THC emissions standard would, therefore, limit and 
control emissions of total organic HAP being emitted from the lime 
manufacturing process. Therefore, the EPA is proposing to establish 
standards for THC as a surrogate for organic HAP. We also evaluated the 
types of kilns and lime produced for which we had data and determined 
that subcategorization by kiln type or lime produced was not warranted.
    To account for variability in the lime manufacturing operations and 
resulting emissions, the stack test data were used to calculate the THC 
MACT floor limits based on the 99 percent UPL. The THC MACT floor 
limits were calculated based on concentration as propane, in units of 
ppmvd, corrected to 7 percent O2. The new and existing 
source THC MACT floor limits are summarized in Table 4.

    Table 4--Proposed THC MACT Floor Limits for New and Existing Lime
                          Manufacturing Sources
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Existing
                                            New source      source MACT
            Lime produced \1\               MACT floor      floor limit
                                           limit (ppmvd   (ppmvd @7% O2)
                                              @7% O2)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
QL, DL, DB..............................        \2\ 1.86            3.21
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note:
\1\ Dolomitic lime (DL), high-calcium quick lime (QL), dead burned
  dolomitic lime (DB).
\2\ The MACT floor limit was set based on the 3xRDL value of the test
  method.

    The EPA compared the emission rates estimated in the 2020 RTR to 
the proposed THC MACT floor limits to determine the number of kilns in 
the source category that would require additional APCD to meet the THC 
MACT floor limit. We found that out of 96 existing kilns, 78 kilns 
would require additional controls to comply with the proposed THC MACT 
floor limit. From this information, we evaluated the potential 
effectiveness of APCD for removal of THC from kiln exhaust gas streams 
and found that an ACI has an estimated 60 percent THC removal 
efficiency. Of the 78 sources in the category, we determined that 74 
sources could comply with the THC MACT floor limit using ACI, but four 
sources would be required to operate additional or alternative APCD to 
comply with the THC MACT floor limit. We therefore evaluated the use of 
a regenerative thermal oxidizer (RTO), which has a 99 percent THC 
removal efficiency. Based on our evaluation, the four sources would be 
required to install an RTO instead of ACI controls in order to comply 
with the proposed THC MACT floor limit.
    As previously discussed, and similar to the control of mercury, ACI 
systems control THC emissions by injecting activated carbon into the 
exhaust gas stream. The activated carbon reacts with the organic HAP to 
form a reactant which can then be removed by an ESP or baghouse as 
particulate.
    An RTO uses a high-density media to preheat the exhaust gas stream 
and to start the oxidation process. The gas then enters a combustion 
chamber, where high temperatures complete the oxidation process. Heat 
from the combustion chamber is then routed back to the high-density 
media chamber and provides the heat to preheat the incoming gas stream.
    Applying the removal efficiency of ACI controls, and in four cases 
the removal efficiency of an RTO, to each of the 78 kilns previously 
identified, would reduce THC emissions from these sources to below the 
proposed THC MACT floor limit. This would result in a combined 
reduction of approximately 570 tons of THC per year from these sources. 
When calculating the capital investment and annual costs associated 
with controlling THC emissions, we also considered those facilities 
that would have to install ACI to control mercury emissions, as 
previously discussed in this preamble. The total capital investment to 
retrofit 78 existing kilns with the appropriate THC controls is 
estimated to be $14,600,000 and the total annual costs are estimated to 
be $7,800,000 per year. The cost per ton of THC removed is estimated to 
be $13,800 per ton of THC removed.
    We also conducted a beyond-the-floor analysis where we evaluated 
whether existing kilns would be able to comply with the new source THC 
MACT floor limits. We found that of the 96 existing kilns in the source 
category, 36 kilns would require ACI as control and 47 would require an 
RTO as control, in order to meet the new source THC MACT floor limit. 
The estimated reduction in THC emissions from a beyond-the-floor THC 
limit is approximately 780 tons of THC per year. The incremental 
reduction, where we compare the existing source beyond-the-floor limit 
to the existing source MACT floor limit, is estimated to be 
approximately 210 tons of THC per year. We estimate the total capital 
investment to be $160,000,000 and total annual costs $52,000,000 per 
year for beyond-the-floor limits. This results in a cost effectiveness 
of $67,000 per ton of THC reduction.

[[Page 814]]

    We also assessed the costs associated with the use of RTO to 
control THC beyond the MACT floor limit. As previously stated, of the 
96 existing kilns in the source category, 4 kilns will be required to 
install an RTO to comply with the THC MACT floor limit. The total 
capital investment for the remaining 92 existing kilns to install an 
RTO to go beyond-the-floor for THC would be $300,000,000, and the total 
annual cost is estimated as $99,000,000. We did not consider the costs 
of either of these beyond-the-floor options to be reasonable and 
therefore are not proposing a beyond-the-floor standard for THC.
    A detailed description of the analysis of THC emissions, the 
controls necessary to reduce THC emissions, and the cost of these 
controls are included in the document, ``Proposed Maximum Achievable 
Control Technology (MACT) Floor Analysis for the Lime Manufacturing 
Plant Industry'', located in the docket (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-
0015).
4. Dioxin/Furan Emissions
    The 2017 data included the results of testing seven kiln exhaust 
stacks for the presence of D/F congeners using EPA Method 23. After 
review of the test reports, the EPA determined that five of the seven 
reports were not valid because each report only performed a 1-run test, 
which cannot be used to set a MACT floor limit. Two of the seven 
reports included valid 3-run tests. To account for variability in the 
lime manufacturing operations and resulting D/F emissions, the data 
were used to calculate the D/F MACT floor based on the 99 percent UPL. 
The 2017 D/F data included some congeners reported as below detection 
level (BDL). Because of this we followed the guidance of the June 5, 
2014, memorandum from Steffan Johnson titled, ``Determination of 
`non[hyphen]detect' from EPA Method 29 (multi[hyphen]metals) and EPA 
Method 23 (dioxin/furan) test data when evaluating the setting of MACT 
floors versus establishing work practice standards'' (Docket ID No. 
EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0015), which provides guidance on using detection 
limits as an indicator of the measurable presence of a given pollutant, 
specifically where multi-component samples, such as with D/F congeners, 
are the pollutants of concern. Additionally, we reviewed the December 
13, 2011, memorandum from Peter Westlin and Ray Merrill titled ``Data 
and procedure for handling below detection level data in analyzing 
various pollutant emissions databases for MACT and RTR emissions 
limits'' (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0015), which describes the 
procedure for handling below detection level (BDL) data and developing 
representative detection level (RDL) data when setting MACT emission 
limits. In accordance with these guidance documents, the new and 
existing UPL for D/F were compared to the emission limit value 
determined to be equivalent to 3 times the RDL (3xRDL) \6\ of the test 
method, and the 3xRDL value (0.028 ng/dscm TEQ @7 percent 
O2) was greater than the UPL (0.019 ng/dscm TEQ @7 percent 
O2). Therefore, the MACT floor limit for D/F was set based 
on the 3xRDL value of the test method. The D/F MACT floor limits for 
new and existing sources are summarized in Table 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The factor of three used in the 3xRDL calculation is based 
on a scientifically accepted definition of level of quantitation--
simply stated, the level where a test method performs with 
acceptable precision. The level of quantitation has been defined as 
ten times the standard deviation of seven replicate analyses of a 
sample at a concentration level close to the MDL units of the 
emission standard is then compared to the MACT floor value to ensure 
that the resulting emission limit is in a range that can be measured 
with reasonable precision. In other words, if the 3xRDL value were 
less than the calculated floor (e.g., calculated from the UPL), we 
would conclude that measurement variability has been adequately 
addressed; if it were greater than the calculated floor, we would 
adjust the emissions limit to comport with the 3xRDL value to 
address measurement variability.

    Table 5--Proposed D/F MACT Floor Limits for New and Existing Lime
                          Manufacturing Sources
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            New source       Existing
                                            MACT floor      source MACT
            Lime produced \1\             limit (ng/dscm    floor limit
                                            TEQ @7% O2)     (ng/dsc TEQ
                                                              @7% O2)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
QL, DL, DB..............................           0.028           0.028
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note:
\1\ Dolomitic lime (DL), high-calcium quick lime (QL), dead burned
  dolomitic lime (DB).

    The EPA recognizes that these proposed limits are based on a 
limited D/F emissions dataset. The EPA will accept any additional D/F 
test data relevant to lime manufacturing operations during the public 
comment period.
    The EPA then compared the emission rates estimated in the 2020 RTR 
to the proposed D/F MACT floor limits to determine the number of kilns 
in the source category that would require additional APCD to meet the 
MACT floor limit. We found that 1 of the 96 kilns in the source 
category would require additional controls in order to be able to 
comply with the proposed D/F MACT floor limit. From this information, 
we evaluated the potential effectiveness of APCD for removal of D/F 
from kiln exhaust gas streams and found that an ACI has an estimated 85 
percent D/F removal efficiency. The total capital investment for the 
use of ACI as control of D/F is estimated to be $98,000, and the total 
annual cost is estimated to be $251,000.
    We did not perform a beyond-the-floor analysis for D/F. The 
proposed limit is based on the detection limit of the method and 
represents the lowest concentration of D/F that can be measured; 
therefore, no further emissions reduction can be achieved that is 
measurable.
    A detailed description of the analysis of D/F emissions, the 
comparison with the 3xRDL value, the controls necessary to reduce D/F 
emissions, and the cost of these controls are included in the document, 
``Proposed Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) Floor Analysis 
for the Lime Manufacturing Plants Industry'', located in the docket 
(Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0015).
5. Summary of Proposed New and Existing Source Limits for Lime Kilns
    The proposed emission limits for new and existing sources in the 
Lime Manufacturing NESHAP are summarized in Table 6.

[[Page 815]]

                              Table 6--Summary of Proposed New and Existing Source Limits for the Lime Manufacturing NESHAP
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                            New source                               Existing
        Pollutant \1\             Kiln type \2\       Lime produced \3\        limit          Unit of measure      source limit       Unit of measure
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HCl.........................  SR..................  DL, DB..............             1.6  lb/ton lime produced..             2.2  lb/ton lime produced.
                              SR..................  QL..................           0.021  lb/ton lime produced..            0.58  lb/ton lime produced.
                              PR..................  DL, DB..............            0.39  lb/ton lime produced..            0.39  lb/ton lime produced.
                              PR..................  QL..................           0.015  lb/ton lime produced..           0.015  lb/ton lime produced.
                              VK..................  All.................           0.021  lb/ton lime produced..           0.021  lb/ton lime produced.
Mercury.....................  All.................  QL, DL..............            24.9  lb/MMton lime produced            24.9  lb/MMton lime
                                                                                                                                   produced.
                              All.................  DB..................            24.4  lb/MMton lime produced            33.1  lb/MMton lime
                                                                                                                                   produced.
THC.........................  All.................  All.................            1.86  ppmvd as propane @7%              3.21  ppmvd as propane @7%
                                                                                           O2.                                     O2.
D/F.........................  All.................  All.................           0.028  ng/dscm (TEQ) @7% O2..           0.028  ng/dscm (TEQ) @7% O2.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note:
\1\ Hydrogen chloride (HCl), total hydrocarbon (THC), dioxin/furans (D/F).
\2\ Straight rotary (SR), preheater rotary (PR), vertical (VK).
\3\ Dolomitic lime (DL), quick lime (QL), dead burned dolomitic lime (DB).

B. What performance testing, monitoring, and recordkeeping and 
reporting are we proposing?

1. Performance Testing
    We are proposing, based on the new and existing source limits for 
lime kilns, that new sources demonstrate initial compliance within 180 
days after start-up, and existing sources demonstrate initial 
compliance within 3 years after the promulgation of the final rule. We 
are proposing that the initial performance tests to demonstrate 
compliance with the MACT standards of Table 6 of this preamble are 
conducted using the methods identified in Table 7.

                Table 7--Summary of Proposed Test Methods
------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Pollutant                           EPA method
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HCl.................................  320 or 321.
Mercury.............................  29 or 30B.
THC.................................  25A.
D/F.................................  23.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, consistent with the existing performance testing 
requirements of the Lime Manufacturing NESHAP (40 CFR 63.7111), 
subsequent performance testing will be required every 5 years, using 
the methods identified in Table 7.
2. Parameter Monitoring
    Under this proposal, continuous compliance with the emission limits 
would be demonstrated through control device parameter monitoring 
coupled with periodic emissions testing described above.
    In addition to the parametric monitoring currently specified in the 
rule for wet scrubbers and baghouses (40 CFR 63.7113), we are proposing 
to add to Table 3 of the NESHAP the following parameter monitoring 
requirements for the types of APCDs that we expect would be used to 
comply with the standards:
     For DSI, monitor and record the sorbent injection flow 
rate, and gas flow rate.
     For ACI, monitor and record the activated carbon injection 
rate, and the gas flow rate.
     For RTO, monitor and record the combustion chamber 
temperature.
    The operating limits for these parameters are set consistent with 
the existing provisions of 40 CFR 63.7112(j), as the average of the 
three test run averages during the performance test. In addition, 
consistent with NESHAP general provisions, a source owner will be 
required to operate and maintain the source, its air pollution control 
equipment, and its monitoring equipment in a manner consistent with 
safety and good air pollution control practices for minimizing 
emissions, to include operating and maintaining equipment in accordance 
with manufacturer's recommendations. Owners will be required to prepare 
and keep records of calibration and accuracy checks of the continuous 
parameter monitoring system (CPMS) to document proper operation and 
maintenance of the monitoring system.
3. Recordkeeping and Reporting
    Under this proposal, and consistent with existing requirements in 
the Lime Manufacturing NESHAP, a source owner will be required to 
submit semi-annual compliance summary reports which document both 
compliance with the requirements of the Lime Manufacturing NESHAP and 
any deviations from compliance with any of those requirements.
    Owners and operators would be required to maintain the records 
specified by 40 CFR 63.10 and, in addition, would be required to 
maintain records of all inspection and monitoring data, in accordance 
with the Lime Manufacturing NESHAP (40 CFR 63.7132).

C. What other actions are we proposing?

    We are proposing to update the electronic reporting requirements 
found in 40 CFR 63.7131(g) and 40 CFR 63.7131(h)(3) to reflect new 
procedures for reporting CBI. The update provides an email address that 
source owners and operators can electronically mail CBI to the OAQPS 
CBI Office when submitting compliance reports.

D. What compliance dates are we proposing, and what is the rationale 
for the proposed compliance dates?

    Amendments to the Lime Manufacturing NESHAP proposed in this 
rulemaking for adoption under CAA section 112(d)(2) and (3) are subject 
to the compliance deadlines outlined in the CAA under section 112(i). 
For existing sources, CAA section 112(i)(3) provides there shall be 
compliance ``as expeditiously as practicable, but in no event later 
than 3 years after the effective date of such standard'' subject to 
certain exemptions further detailed in the statute.\7\ In determining 
what compliance period is as ``expeditious as practicable,'' we 
consider the amount of time needed to plan and construct projects and 
change operating procedures. As provided in CAA section 112(i), all new 
affected sources would comply with these provisions by the effective 
date of the final amendments to the Lime Manufacturing NESHAP or upon 
startup, whichever is later.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Association of Battery Recyclers v. EPA, 716 F.3d 667, 672 
(D.C. Cir. 2013) (``Section 112(i)(3)'s 3-year maximum compliance 
period applies generally to any emission standard . . . promulgated 
under [section 112]'' (brackets in original)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA projects that many existing sources would need to install 
add-on controls to comply with the proposed limits. These sources would 
require

[[Page 816]]

time to construct, conduct performance testing, and implement 
monitoring to comply with the revised provisions. Therefore, we are 
proposing to allow 3 years for existing source to become compliant with 
the new emission standards.
    All affected facilities would have to continue to meet the current 
provisions of 40 CFR part 63, subpart AAAAA until the applicable 
compliance date of the amended rule. The final action is not a ``major 
rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2), so the effective date of the 
final rule will be the promulgation date as specified in CAA section 
112(d)(10).
    For all affected sources that commence construction or 
reconstruction on or before January 5, 2023, we are proposing that it 
is necessary to provide 3 years after the effective date of the final 
rule (or upon startup, whichever is later) for owners and operators to 
comply with the provisions of this action. For all affected sources 
that commenced construction or reconstruction after January 5, 2023, we 
are proposing that owners and operators comply with the provisions by 
the effective date of the final rule (or upon startup, whichever is 
later).
    We solicit comment on these proposed compliance periods, and we 
specifically request submission of information from sources in this 
source category regarding specific actions that would need to be 
undertaken to comply with the proposed amended provisions and the time 
needed to make the adjustments for compliance with any of the revised 
provisions. We note that information provided may result in changes to 
the proposed compliance dates.

V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts

A. What are the affected sources?

    As previously indicated, there are currently 35 major sources 
subject to the Lime Manufacturing NESHAP that are operating in the 
United States. An affected source under the NESHAP is the owner or 
operator of a lime manufacturing plant that is a major source, or that 
is located at, or is a part of, a major source of HAP emissions, unless 
the lime manufacturing plant is located at a kraft pulp mill, soda pulp 
mill, sulfite pulp mill, beet sugar manufacturing plant, or only 
processes sludge containing calcium carbonate from water softening 
processes. A lime manufacturing plant is an establishment engaged in 
the manufacture of lime products (calcium oxide, calcium oxide with 
magnesium oxide, or dead burned dolomite) by calcination of limestone, 
dolomite, shells, or other calcareous substances. A major source of HAP 
is a plant site that emits or has the potential to emit any single HAP 
at a rate of 9.07 megagrams (10 tons) or more, or any combination of 
HAP at a rate of 22.68 megagrams (25 tons) or more per year from all 
emission sources at the plant site.
    The Lime Manufacturing NESHAP applies to each existing or new lime 
kiln and their associated cooler(s). In addition, the NESHAP applies to 
each PSH operation located at the plant. This includes storage bins, 
conveying systems and transfer points, bulk loading and unloading 
operations, screening operations, surge bins, and bucket elevators.

B. What are the air quality impacts?

    This action proposes first-time standards for HCl, mercury, THC, 
and D/F that will limit emissions and require, in some cases, the 
installation of additional controls at lime manufacturing plants at 
major sources. We estimate that the lime manufacturing industry will 
comply with the D/F standards without the addition of controls. For 
HCl, mercury, and THC, installation of controls will result in a 
combined reduction of total HAP of 1,730 tons of HAP per year (tpy). 
Specifically, installation of controls will reduce HCl emissions by 
1,163 tpy. The installation of controls will reduce mercury emissions 
by 488 lbs per year (0.24 tpy). The installation of controls will 
reduce THC emissions by 570 tpy. Finally, the installation of controls 
will reduce D/F emissions by 9.5 x 10-\5\ lbs per year (4.7 
x 10-\8\ tpy).
    Indirect or secondary air emissions impacts are impacts that would 
result from the increased electricity usage associated with the 
operation of control devices (e.g., increased secondary emissions of 
criteria pollutants from power plants). Energy impacts consist of the 
electricity and steam needed to operate control devices and other 
equipment. We find that the secondary impacts of this action are 
minimal, consisting of the natural gas required to maintain the RTO. 
Refer to the ``Lime Impacts Memorandum'' for a detailed discussion of 
the analyses performed on potential secondary impacts. This memorandum 
is located in the docket (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0015).

C. What are the cost impacts?

    This action proposes emission limits for new and existing sources 
in the lime manufacturing source category. Although the action contains 
requirements for new sources, we are not aware of any new sources being 
constructed now or planned in the next year, and, consequently, we did 
not estimate any cost impacts for new sources. We estimate the total 
annualized cost of the proposed rule to existing sources in the lime 
manufacturing source category to be $32,000,000 per year. The annual 
costs are expected to be based on operation and maintenance of the 
added control systems. A memorandum titled ``Proposed Maximum 
Achievable Control Technology (MACT) Floor Analysis for the Lime 
Manufacturing Plants Industry'' includes details of tour cost 
assessment and is included in the docket for this action (Docket ID 
EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0015).

D. What are the economic impacts?

    For the proposed rule, the EPA estimated the cost of installing 
additional APCD in order to comply with the proposed emission limits. 
This includes the capital costs of the initial installation, and 
subsequent maintenance and operation of the controls. To assess the 
potential economic impacts, the expected annual cost was compared to 
the total sales revenue for the ultimate owners of affected facilities. 
For this rule, the expected annual cost is $920,000 (on average) for 
each facility, with an estimated nationwide annual cost of $32,000,000 
per year. The 35 affected facilities are owned by 12 parent companies, 
and the total costs associated with the proposed amendments are 
expected to be less than one percent of annual sales revenue per 
ultimate owner.
    The EPA also prepared a small business screening assessment to 
determine if any of the identified affected entities are small 
entities, as defined by the U.S. Small Business Administration. This 
analysis is available in the Docket for this action (Docket ID No. EPA-
HQ-OAR-2017-0015). Because the total costs associated with the proposed 
amendments are expected to be less than one percent of annual sales 
revenue per owner in the lime manufacturing source category, there are, 
therefore, no significant economic impacts from these proposed 
amendments on the three affected facilities that are owned by small 
entities.
    Information on our cost impact estimates on the sources in the lime 
manufacturing source category is available in the docket for this 
proposed rule (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0015).

[[Page 817]]

E. What analysis of environmental justice did we conduct?

    Consistent with EPA's commitment to integrating environmental 
justice (EJ) in the Agency's actions, and following the directives set 
forth in multiple Executive Orders, the Agency has carefully considered 
the impacts of this action on communities with EJ concerns. Executive 
Order 12898 directs the EPA to identify the populations of concern who 
are most likely to experience unequal burdens from environmental harms; 
specifically, minority populations (i.e., people of color and/or 
Indigenous peoples) and low-income populations (59 FR 7629, February 
16, 1994). Additionally, Executive Order 13985 is intended to advance 
racial equity and support underserved communities through federal 
government actions (86 FR 7009, January 25, 2021). The EPA defines EJ 
as ``the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people 
regardless of race, color, national origin, or income, with respect to 
the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, 
regulations, and policies''.\8\ The EPA further defines fair treatment 
to mean that ``no group of people should bear a disproportionate burden 
of environmental harms and risks, including those resulting from the 
negative environmental consequences of industrial, governmental, and 
commercial operations or programs and policies''. In recognizing that 
people of color and low-income populations often bear an unequal burden 
of environmental harms and risks, the EPA continues to consider ways of 
protecting them from adverse public health and environmental effects of 
air pollution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ https://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To examine the potential for any EJ issues that might be associated 
with lime manufacturing facilities, we performed a demographic 
analysis, which is an assessment of individual demographic groups of 
the populations living within 5 kilometers (km) and 50 km of the 
facilities. The EPA then compared the data from this analysis to the 
national average for each of the demographic groups.
    The results of the demographic analysis (see Table 8) indicate that 
the population percentages for certain demographic groups within 5 km 
of the 35 facilities are greater than the corresponding nationwide 
percentages. The demographic percentage for populations residing within 
5 km of facility operations is 18 percentage points greater than its 
corresponding nationwide percentage for the Hispanic and Latino 
population (37 percent within 5 km of the facilities compared to 19 
percent nationwide), 16 percentage points greater than its 
corresponding nationwide percentage for the population living in 
linguistic isolation (21 percent within 5 km of the facilities compared 
to 5 percent nationwide), 14 percentage points greater than its 
corresponding nationwide percentage for the population living below the 
poverty level (27 percent within 5 km of the facilities compared to 13 
percent nationwide), 10 percentage points greater than its 
corresponding nationwide percentage for the minority population (50 
percent within 5 km of the facilities compared to 40 percent 
nationwide), and 5 percentage points greater than its corresponding 
nationwide percentage for the population 25 years old and older without 
a high school diploma (17 percent within 5 km of the facilities 
compared to 12 percent nationwide). The remaining demographic groups 
within 5 km of facility operations are less than, or within one 
percentage point of, the corresponding nationwide percentages.
    In addition, the proximity results presented in Table 8 indicate 
that the population percentages for certain demographic groups within 
50 km of the 35 facilities are greater than the corresponding 
nationwide percentages. The demographic percentage for populations 
residing within 50 km of the facility operations is 5 percentage points 
greater than its corresponding nationwide percentage for the African 
American population (17 percent within 50 km to the facilities compared 
to 12 percent nationwide), 3 percentage points greater than its 
corresponding nationwide percentage for the population living below the 
poverty level (16 percent within 50 km of the facilities compared to 13 
percent nationwide), and 2 percentage points greater than its 
corresponding nationwide percentage for the population living in 
linguistic isolation (7 percent within 50 km of the facilities compared 
to 5 percent nationwide). The remaining demographic percentages within 
50 km of the facilities are less than, or within one percentage point 
of, the corresponding nationwide percentages.
    A summary of the proximity demographic assessment performed for the 
major source lime manufacturing facilities is included as Table 8. The 
methodology and the results of the demographic analysis are presented 
in a technical report, Analysis of Demographic Factors for Populations 
Living Near Lime Manufacturing Facilities, available in this docket for 
this action (Docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0015).

        Table 8--Proximity Demographic Assessment Results for Major Source Lime Manufacturing Facilities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                    Population
                                                                                   within 50 km     Population
                        Demographic group                           Nationwide         of 35      within 5 km of
                                                                                    facilities     35 facilities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Population................................................     328,016,242      21,999,863         473,343
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                           Race and Ethnicity by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
White...........................................................             60%             60%             50%
African American................................................             12%             17%              9%
Native American.................................................            0.7%            0.3%            0.9%
Hispanic or Latino (includes white and nonwhite)................             19%             17%             37%
Other and Multiracial...........................................              8%              6%              3%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                 Income by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Below Poverty Level.............................................             13%             16%             27%
Above Poverty Level.............................................             87%             84%             73%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 818]]

 
                                                                               Education by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Over 25 and without a High School Diploma.......................             12%             12%             17%
Over 25 and with a High School Diploma..........................             88%             88%             83%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        Linguistically Isolated by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Linguistically Isolated.........................................              5%              7%             21%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:
 The nationwide population count, and all demographic percentages are based on the Census' 2015-2019
  American Community Survey 5-year block group averages and include Puerto Rico. Demographic percentages based
  on different averages may differ. The total population counts within 5 km and 50 km of all facilities are
  based on the 2010 Decennial Census block populations.
 Minority population is the total population minus the white population.
 To avoid double counting, the ``Hispanic or Latino'' category is treated as a distinct demographic
  category for these analyses. A person is identified as one of five racial/ethnic categories above: White,
  African American, Native American, Other and Multiracial, or Hispanic/Latino. A person who identifies as
  Hispanic or Latino is counted as Hispanic/Latino for this analysis, regardless of what race this person may
  have also identified as in the Census.

    The human health risk estimated for this source category for the 
July 24, 2020, RTR (85 FR 44960) was determined to be acceptable, and 
the standards were determined to provide an ample margin of safety to 
protect public health. Specifically, the maximum individual cancer risk 
was 1-in-1 million for actual emissions (2-in-1 million for allowable 
emissions) and the noncancer hazard indices for chronic exposure were 
well below 1 (0.04 for actual emissions, 0.05 for allowable emissions). 
The noncancer hazard quotient for acute exposure was 0.06, also below 
1. The proposed changes to the NESHAP subpart AAAAA will reduce 
emissions by 1,730 tons of HAP per year, and therefore, further improve 
human health exposures for populations in these demographic groups. The 
proposed changes will have beneficial effects on air quality and public 
health for populations exposed to emissions from lime manufacturing 
facilities.

VI. Request for Comments

    We solicit comments on this proposed action. In addition to general 
comments on this proposed action, we are also interested in additional 
data that may improve the analyses. We are specifically interested in 
receiving any information regarding developments in practices, 
processes, and control technologies that reduce HAP emissions.

VII. Submitting Data Corrections

    The site-specific emissions data used in setting MACT standards for 
HCl, mercury, THC, and D/F, as emitted from the lime manufacturing 
source category, are provided in the docket (Docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-
0015).
    If you believe that the data are not representative or are 
inaccurate, please identify the data in question, provide your reason 
for concern, and provide any ``improved'' data that you have, if 
available. When you submit data, we request that you provide 
documentation of the basis for the revised values to support your 
suggested changes.
    For information on how to submit comments, including the submittal 
of data corrections, refer to the instructions provided in the 
introduction of this preamble.

VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders 
can be found at https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive 
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    This action is not a significant regulatory action and was 
therefore not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 
for review.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    The information collection activities in this proposed rule have 
been submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget 
(OMB) under the PRA. The Information Collection Request (ICR) document 
that the EPA prepared has been assigned EPA ICR number 2072.10. You can 
find a copy of the ICR in the docket for this rule, and it is briefly 
summarized here.
    We are proposing changes to the reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements for the Lime Manufacturing Plants NESHAP by incorporating 
the reporting and recordkeeping requirements associated with the new 
and existing source MACT standards for HCl, mercury, THC, and D/F.
    Respondents/affected entities: Owners or operators of lime 
manufacturing plants that are major sources, or that are located at, or 
are part of, major sources of HAP emissions, unless the lime 
manufacturing plant is located at a kraft pulp mill, soda pulp mill, 
sulfite pulp mill, sugar beet manufacturing plant, or only processes 
sludge containing calcium carbonate from water softening processes.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 63, 
subpart AAAAA)
    Estimated number of respondents: On average over the next 3 years, 
approximately 35 existing major sources will be subject to these 
standards. It is also estimated that no additional respondent will 
become subject to the emission standards over the 3-year period.
    Frequency of response: The frequency of responses varies depending 
on the burden item.
    Total estimated burden: The average annual burden to industry over 
the next 3 years from the proposed recordkeeping and reporting 
requirements is estimated to be 8.392 hours per year. Burden is defined 
at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
    Total estimated cost: The annual recordkeeping and reporting cost 
for all facilities to comply with all of the requirements in the NESHAP 
is estimated to be $3,570,000 per year, of which $1,370,000 (first 
year) is for this

[[Page 819]]

rule, and the rest is for other costs related to continued compliance 
with the current NESHAP requirements including $1,005,000 in annualized 
capital and operation and maintenance costs.
    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.
    Submit your comments on the Agency's need for this information, the 
accuracy of the provided burden estimates and any suggested methods for 
minimizing respondent burden to the EPA using the docket identified at 
the beginning of this rule. The EPA will respond to any ICR-related 
comments in the final rule. You may also send your ICR-related comments 
to OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs using the 
interface at www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. Find this particular 
information collection by selecting ``Currently under Review--Open for 
Public Comments'' or by using the search function. OMB must receive 
comments no later than March 6, 2023.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    I certify that this action will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. The 
small entities subject to the requirements of this action are small 
businesses, as defined by the U.S. Small Business Administration. The 
Agency has determined that 3 lime manufacturing parent companies out of 
35 may experience an impact 0.5 percent to 0.9 percent of annual sales. 
Details of this analysis are presented in ``Economic Impact and Small 
Business Screening Assessments for Proposed Amendments to the National 
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Lime Manufacturing 
Facilities'', located in the docket for this action (Docket ID No. EPA-
HQ-OAR-2017-0015).

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This action does not contain an unfunded mandate of $100 million or 
more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not 
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The action imposes 
no enforceable duty on any state, local, or tribal governments or the 
private sector.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have 
substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between 
the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power 
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian 
Tribal Governments

    This action does not have tribal implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13175. The EPA does not know of any lime manufacturing 
facilities owned or operated by Indian tribal governments. Thus, 
Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental 
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is 
not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and 
because the EPA does not believe the environmental health or safety 
risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to 
children. This action's proposes emission standards for four previously 
unregulated pollutants; therefore, the rule should result in health 
benefits to children by reducing the level of HAP emissions emitted 
from the lime manufacturing process.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This action is not a ``significant energy action'' because it is 
not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, 
distribution or use of energy. In this proposed action, the EPA is 
setting emission standards for previously unregulated pollutant. This 
does not impact energy supply, distribution, or use.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) and 1 CFR 
Part 51

    This action involves technical standards. Therefore, the EPA 
conducted searches for the Lime Manufacturing NESHAP through the 
Enhanced National Standards Systems Network (NSSN) Database managed by 
the American National Standards Institute (ANSI). We also conducted a 
review of voluntary consensus standards (VCS) organizations and 
accessed and searched their databases. We conducted searches for EPA 
Methods 23, 25A, 29, 30B, 320, and 321. During the EPA's VCS search, if 
the title or abstract (if provided) of the VCS described technical 
sampling and analytical procedures that are similar to the EPA's 
referenced method, the EPA ordered a copy of the standard and reviewed 
it as a potential equivalent method. We reviewed all potential 
standards to determine the practicality of the VCS for this rule. This 
review requires significant method validation data that meet the 
requirements of EPA Method 301 for accepting alternative methods or 
scientific, engineering, and policy equivalence to procedures in the 
EPA referenced methods. The EPA may reconsider determinations of 
impracticality when additional information is available for any 
particular VCS.
    Two VCS were identified as acceptable alternatives to the EPA test 
methods for this proposed rule. The VCS ASTM D6784-16, ``Standard Test 
Method for Elemental, Oxidized, Particle-Bound and Total Mercury Gas 
Generated from Coal-Fired Stationary Sources (Ontario Hydro Method)'' 
is an acceptable alternative to EPA Method 29 (portion for mercury 
only) as a method for measuring mercury. The VCS ASTM D6348-12e1, 
``Determination of Gaseous Compounds by Extractive Direct Interface 
Fourier Transform (FTIR) Spectroscopy'' is an acceptable alternative to 
EPA Method 320 with certain conditions. Detailed information on the VCS 
search and determination can be found in the memorandum, ``Voluntary 
Consensus Standard Results for National Emission Standards for 
Hazardous Air Pollutants: Lime Manufacturing Technology Review,'' which 
is available in the docket for this action (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2017-0015). The two VCS may be obtained from https://www.astm.org or 
from the ASTM Headquarters at 100 Barr Harbor Drive, P.O. Box C700, 
West Conshohocken, Pennsylvania, 19428-2959.
    The EPA is incorporating by reference the VCS ASTM D6348-12e1, 
``Determination of Gaseous Compounds by Extractive Direct Interface 
Fourier Transform (FTIR) Spectroscopy,'' as an acceptable alternative 
to EPA Method 320. ASTM D6348-03(2010) was determined to be equivalent 
to EPA Method 320 with caveats. ASTM D6348-12e1 is a revised version of 
ASTM D6348-03(2010) and includes a new section on accepting the results 
from the direct measurement of a certified spike gas cylinder, but 
lacks the caveats placed on the ASTM D6348-03(2010) version. ASTM 
D6348-12e1 is an extractive FTIR field test method used to quantify gas 
phase concentrations of multiple analytes from stationary source 
effluent and is an acceptable alternative to EPA Method 320 at this 
time with caveats requiring

[[Page 820]]

inclusion of selected annexes to the standard as mandatory. When using 
ASTM D6348-12e1, the following conditions must be met:
     The test plan preparation and implementation in the 
Annexes to ASTM D6348-03, Sections A1 through A8 are mandatory; and
     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, percent 
R must be 70 percent >= R <= 130 percent. If the percent 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 percent R value for each compound must 
be reported in the test report, and all field measurements must be 
corrected with the calculated percent R value for that compound by 
using the following equation:

Reported Results = ((Measured Concentration in Stack))/(percent R) x 
100.

    The EPA is incorporating by reference the VCS ASTM D6784-16), 
``Standard Test Method for Elemental, Oxidized, Particle-Bound and 
Total Mercury in Flue Gas Generated from Coal-Fired Stationary Sources 
(Ontario Hydro Method),'' as an acceptable alternative to EPA Method 29 
(portion for mercury only) as a method for measuring elemental, 
oxidized, particle-bound, and total mercury concentrations ranging from 
approximately 0.5 to 100 micrograms per normal cubic meter. This test 
method describes equipment and procedures for obtaining samples from 
effluent ducts and stacks, equipment and procedures for laboratory 
analysis, and procedures for calculating results. VCS ASTM D6784-16 
allows for additional flexibility in the sampling and analytical 
procedures for the earlier version of the same standard VCS ASTM D6784-
02 (Reapproved 2008).
    Additionally, EPA is incorporating by reference ``Recommended 
Toxicity Equivalence Factors (TEFs) for Human Health Risk Assessments 
of 2, 3, 7, 8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin and Dioxin-Like Compounds'' 
(EPA/100/R-10/005 December 2010), which is the source of the toxicity 
equivalent factors for dioxins and furans used in calculating the toxic 
equivalence quotient of the proposed dioxin and furan standard.

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) 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 (people of color and/or Indigenous 
peoples) and low-income populations.
    The EPA believes that the human health or environmental conditions 
that exist prior to this action result in or have the potential to 
result in disproportionate and adverse human health or environmental 
effects on people of color, low-income populations and/or Indigenous 
peoples. The assessment of populations in close proximity of lime 
manufacturing facilities shows the percentage of Hispanic or Latino, 
below poverty level, and linguistically isolated groups are higher than 
the national average (see section V.E. of the preamble). The higher 
percentages are driven by 4 of the 35 facilities in the source 
category.
    The EPA believes that this action is likely to reduce existing 
disproportionate and adverse effects on people of color, low-income 
populations and/or Indigenous peoples. The EPA is proposing MACT 
standards for HCl, mercury, THC as a surrogate for organic HAP, and D/
F. EPA expects that the four facilities would have to implement control 
measures to reduce emissions to comply with the MACT standards and that 
HAP exposures for the people of color and low-income individuals living 
near these four facilities would decrease.
    The EPA will additionally identify and address environmental 
justice concerns by conducting outreach after signature of this 
proposed rule. The EPA will reach out to tribes through a monthly 
policy call and with consultation letters. Additionally, the EPA will 
address this rule during the monthly Environmental Justice call for 
communities burdened by disproportionate environmental impacts.
    The information supporting this Executive Order review is contained 
in section V.E of this preamble.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hazardous 
substances, Incorporation by reference, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements.

Michael S. Regan,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2022-27994 Filed 1-3-23; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P