National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Brick and Structural Clay Products Manufacturing; and National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Clay Ceramics Manufacturing

Note: EPA no longer updates this information, but it may be useful as a reference or resource.

[Federal Register: May 16, 2003 (Volume 68, Number 95)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 26689-26755]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr16my03-16]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 63
[OAR-2002-0054 and OAR-2002-0055, FRL-7459-9]
RIN 2060-A167 and 2060-A168

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for
Brick and Structural Clay Products Manufacturing; and National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Clay Ceramics Manufacturing

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action promulgates national emission standards for
hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) for new and existing sources at brick
and structural clay products (BSCP) manufacturing facilities and NESHAP
for new and existing sources at clay ceramics manufacturing facilities.
This action will implement section 112(d) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) by
requiring major sources to meet hazardous air pollutant (HAP) emission
standards reflecting the application of the maximum achievable control
technology (MACT). The two subparts will protect air quality and
promote the public health by reducing emissions of several of the HAP
listed in section 112(b)(1) of the CAA. The rules will reduce HAP
emissions from existing sources by 2,300 tons per year nationwide, with
hydrogen fluoride (HF) and hydrogen chloride (HCl) accounting for 2,290
tons per year (99.6 percent) of the total HAP emissions reductions from
existing sources. The associated metals (antimony, arsenic, beryllium,
cadmium, chromium, cobalt, mercury, manganese, nickel, lead, and
selenium) reductions from existing sources account for approximately 6
tons per year nationwide (0.4 percent). Exposure to these substances
has been demonstrated to cause adverse health effects such as
irritation of the lung, skin, and mucus membranes, effects on the
central nervous system, and kidney damage. The EPA has classified three
of the HAP as known human carcinogens, four as probable human
carcinogens, and one as a possible human carcinogen. We estimate that
the two subparts will reduce nationwide emissions of HAP from these
facilities by approximately 2,100 megagrams per year (Mg/yr)(2,300 tons
per year (tpy)), a reduction of approximately 35 percent from the
current level of emissions.

EFFECTIVE DATE: The final rule is effective May 16, 2003.

ADDRESSES: Docket No. OAR-2002-0054 contains supporting documentation
used in developing the final BSCP rule. Docket No. OAR-2002-0055
contains supporting documentation used in developing the final clay
ceramics rule. The dockets are located at the Air and Radiation Docket
and Information Center in the EPA Docket Center, (EPA/DC) EPA West,
Room B102, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460,
telephone (202) 566-1744. The dockets are available for public
inspection from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information concerning
applicability and rule determinations, contact the appropriate State or
local agency representative. If no State or local representative is
available, contact the EPA Regional Office staff listed in 40 CFR
63.13. For information concerning the analyses performed in developing
the final rules, contact Ms. Mary Johnson, Combustion Group, Emission
Standards Division (MC-C439-01), U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park,
North Carolina 27711, telephone number (919) 541-5025, e-mail address:
johnson.mary@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Regulated Entities. Entities potentially
regulated by this action are those industrial facilities that
manufacture BSCP and clay ceramics. Brick and structural clay products
manufacturing is classified under Standard Industrial Classification
(SIC) codes 3251, Brick and Structural Clay Tile; 3253, Ceramic Wall
and Floor Tile; and 3259, Other Structural Clay Products. The North
American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes for BSCP
manufacturing are 327121, Brick and Structural Clay Tile; 327122,
Ceramic Wall and Floor Tile Manufacturing; and 327123, Other Structural
Clay Products. Clay ceramics manufacturing is classified under SIC
codes 3253, Ceramic Wall and Floor Tile; and 3261, Vitreous Plumbing
Fixtures (Sanitaryware). The NAICS codes for clay ceramics
manufacturing are 327122, Ceramic Wall and Floor Tile Manufacturing;
and 327111, Vitreous China Plumbing Fixture and China and Earthenware
Bathroom Accessories Manufacturing. Regulated categories and entities
are shown in Table 1 of this preamble.

Table 1.--Regulated Categories and Entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Examples of potentially
Category SIC NAICS regulated entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industrial..................... 3251 327121 Brick and structural
clay tile
manufacturing
facilities (BSCP
NESHAP)
Industrial..................... 3253 327122 Ceramic wall and floor
tile manufacturing
facilities (Clay
Ceramics NESHAP) and
extruded tile
manufacturing
facilities (BSCP
NESHAP).
Industrial..................... 3259 327123 Other structural clay
products manufacturing
facilities (BSCP
NESHAP)
Industrial..................... 3261 327111 Vitreous plumbing
fixtures
(sanitaryware)
manufacturing
facilities (Clay
Ceramics NESHAP).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this
action. To determine whether your facility is regulated by this action,
you should examine the applicability criteria in Sec. 63.8385 of
today's final BSCP rule and Sec. 63.8535 of today's final clay
ceramics rule. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of
this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed in the
preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
Electronic Docket (E-Docket). The EPA has established official
public dockets for this action under Docket ID No. OAR-2002-0054 for
the final BSCP rule and Docket ID No. OAR-2002-0055 for the final clay
ceramics rule. The official public dockets are the collection of
materials that is available for public viewing at the EPA Docket Center
(Air Docket), EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20460. The Docket Center is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone
number for the Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number
for the Air Docket is (202) 566-1742. A reasonable fee may be charged
for copying docket materials.
Electronic Access. Electronic versions of the public dockets are
available through EPA's electronic public docket

[[Page 26691]]

and comment system, EPA Dockets. You may use EPA Dockets at http://www.epa.gov/
edocket/ to view public comments, access the indexes of the
contents of the official public dockets, and to access those documents
in the public dockets that are available electronically. Once in the
system, select ``search'' and key in the appropriate docket
identification number. Although not all docket materials may be
available electronically, you may still access any of the publicly
available docket materials through the docket facility identified in
this document.
Worldwide Web (WWW). In addition to being available in the dockets,
an electronic copy of today's document also will be available on the
WWW. Following the Administrator's signature, a copy of this action
will be posted at www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg on EPA's Technology Transfer
Network (TTN) policy and guidance page for newly proposed or
promulgated rules. The TTN provides information and technology exchange
in various areas of air pollution control. If more information
regarding the TTN is needed, call the TTN HELP line at (919) 541-5384.
Judicial Review. Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, judicial
review of the final rule is available only by filing a petition for
review in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit by July 15, 2003. Under section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA, only
an objection to the final rule that was raised with reasonable
specificity during the period for public comment can be raised during
judicial review. Moreover, under section 307(b)(2) of the CAA, the
requirements established by the final rule may not be challenged
separately in any civil or criminal proceedings brought by EPA to
enforce the requirements.
Outline. The information presented in this preamble is organized as
follows:

I. Background
A. What Is the Source of Authority for Development of NESHAP?
B. What Criteria Are Used in the Development of NESHAP?
C. How Were the Final Rules Developed?
D. What Are the Health Effects of Pollutants Emitted From the
Brick and Structural Clay Products Manufacturing and Clay Ceramics
Manufacturing Source Categories?
II. Summary of Responses to Major Comments and Changes to the Brick
and Structural Clay Products Manufacturing Proposed NESHAP
A. Air Pollution Control Devices
B. Affected Source
C. Existing Source MACT
D. New Source MACT
E. Cost and Economic Impacts
F. Test Data and Emission Limits
G. Monitoring Requirements
H. Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction
I. Risk-Based Approaches
III. Summary of the Final Brick and Structural Clay Products
Manufacturing NESHAP
A. What Source Category Is Regulated by the Final Rule?
B. What Are the Affected Sources?
C. When Must I Comply With the Final Rule?
D. What Are the Emission Limits?
E. What Are the Operating Limits?
F. What Are the Performance Test and Initial Compliance
Requirements?
G. What Are the Continuous Compliance Requirements?
H. What Are the Notification, Recordkeeping, and Reporting
Requirements?
IV. Summary of Environmental, Energy, and Economic Impacts for the
Final Brick and Structural Clay Products Manufacturing NESHAP
A. What Are the Air Quality Impacts?
B. What Are the Water and Solid Waste Impacts?
C. What Are the Energy Impacts?
D. Are There any Additional Environmental and Health Impacts?
E. What Are the Cost Impacts?
F. What Are the Economic Impacts?
V. Summary of Responses to Major Comments and Changes to the Clay
Ceramics Manufacturing Proposed NESHAP
A. Affected Source
B. Existing Source MACT
C. New Source MACT
D. Cost and Economic Impacts
E. Test Data and Emission Limits
F. Monitoring Requirements
G. Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction
VI. Summary of the Final Clay Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP
A. What Source Category Is Regulated by the Final Rule?
B. What Are the Affected Sources?
C. When Must I Comply With the Final Rule?
D. What Are the Emission Limits?
E. What Are the Operating Limits?
F. What Are the Work Practice Standards?
G. What Are the Performance Test and Initial Compliance
Requirements for Sources Subject to Emission Limits?
H. What Are the Initial Compliance Requirements for Sources
Subject to a Work Practice Standard?
I. What Are the Continuous Compliance Requirements for Sources
Subject to Emission Limits?
J. What Are the Continuous Compliance Requirements for Sources
Subject to a Work Practice Standard?
K. What Are the Notification, Recordkeeping, and Reporting
Requirements for Sources Subject to Emission Limits?
L. What Are the Notification, Recordkeeping, and Reporting
Requirements for Sources Subject to a Work Practice Standard?
VII. Summary of Environmental, Energy, and Economic Impacts for the
Final Clay Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP
A. What Are the Air Quality Impacts?
B. What Are the Water and Solid Waste Impacts?
C. What Are the Energy Impacts?
D. Are there any Additional Environmental and Health Impacts?
E. What Are the Cost Impacts?
F. What Are the Economic Impacts?
VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism
F. Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children From
Environmental Health & Safety Risks
H. Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
J. Congressional Review Act

I. Background

A. What Is the Source of Authority for Development of NESHAP?

Section 112 of the CAA requires us to list categories and
subcategories of major and area sources of HAP and to establish NESHAP
for the listed source categories and subcategories. Clay products
manufacturing was listed as a category of major sources on the initial
source category list published in the Federal Register on July 16, 1992
(57 FR 31576). In the July 22, 2002 Federal Register notice (67 FR
47894) that proposed NESHAP for BSCP manufacturing and clay ceramics
manufacturing, the clay products manufacturing source category was
replaced by the BSCP manufacturing source category and the clay
ceramics manufacturing source category. Today's action contains final
rules for the two source categories. Major sources of HAP are those
stationary sources or groups of stationary sources that are located
within a contiguous area and under common control that emit or have the
potential to emit considering controls, in the aggregate, 9.07 Mg/yr
(10 tpy) or more of any one HAP or 22.68 Mg/yr (25 tpy) or more of any
combination of HAP. Area sources are those stationary sources that are
not major sources.

B. What Criteria Are Used in the Development of NESHAP?

Section 112 of the CAA requires that we establish NESHAP for the
control of HAP from both new and existing major

[[Page 26692]]

sources. The CAA requires the NESHAP to reflect the maximum degree of
reduction in emissions of HAP that is achievable. This level of control
is commonly referred to as MACT.
The MACT floor is the minimum control level allowed for NESHAP and
is defined under section 112(d)(3) of the CAA. In essence, the MACT
floor ensures that the standards are set at a level that assures that
all major sources achieve the level of control at least as stringent as
that already achieved by the better-controlled and lower-emitting
sources in each source category or subcategory. For new sources, the
MACT floor cannot be less stringent than the emission control that is
achieved in practice by the best-controlled similar source. The MACT
standards for existing sources can be less stringent than standards for
new sources, but they cannot be less stringent than the average
emission limitation achieved by the best-performing 12 percent of
existing sources in the category or subcategory for which the
Administrator has emissions information (or the best-performing 5
sources for which the Administrator has or could reasonably obtain
emissions information for categories or subcategories with fewer than
30 sources).
In developing MACT, we also consider control options that are more
stringent than the floor. We may establish standards more stringent
than the floor based on the consideration of cost of achieving the
emissions reductions, any health and environmental impacts, and energy
requirements.

C. How Were the Final Rules Developed?

We proposed standards for BSCP manufacturing and clay ceramics
manufacturing on July 22, 2002 (67 FR 47894). The preamble for the
proposed standards described the rationale for the proposed standards.
Public comments were solicited at the time of proposal. The public
comment period lasted from July 22, 2002 to September 20, 2002.
Industry representatives, regulatory agencies, environmental groups,
and the general public were given the opportunity to comment on the
proposed rules and to provide additional information during the public
comment period. We also offered at proposal the opportunity for oral
presentation of data, views, or arguments concerning the proposed
rules. A public hearing on the proposed BSCP rule was held on August
21, 2002, during which 21 presentations were made. Following the public
hearing, we met with representatives of industry and environmental
groups on several occasions.
We received a total of 80 public comment letters on the proposed
BSCP rule and 9 public comments letters on the proposed clay ceramics
rule. Comments were submitted by industry trade associations, BSCP and
clay ceramics manufacturing companies, State regulatory agencies and
their representatives, and environmental groups. Today's final rules
reflect our consideration of all of the comments received. Major public
comments on the proposed rules, along with our responses to those
comments, are summarized in this preamble.

D. What Are the Health Effects of Pollutants Emitted From the Brick and
Structural Clay Products Manufacturing and Clay Ceramics Manufacturing
Source Categories?

Today's proposed rules protect air quality and promote the public
health by reducing emissions of some of the HAP listed in section
112(b)(1) of the CAA. Emissions data collected during development of
the proposed rules show that HF, HCl, and small amounts of metals
(antimony, arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, cobalt, mercury,
manganese, nickel, lead, and selenium) are emitted from BSCP and clay
ceramics manufacturing facilities. Exposure to these HAP is associated
with a variety of adverse health effects. These adverse health effects
include chronic health disorders (e.g., irritation of the lung, skin,
and mucus membranes, effects on the central nervous system, and damage
to the kidneys), and acute health disorders (e.g., lung irritation and
congestion, alimentary effects such as nausea and vomiting, and effects
on the kidney and central nervous system). We have classified three of
the HAP as human carcinogens, four as probable human carcinogens, and
one as a possible human carcinogen. We do not know the extent to which
the adverse health effects described above occur, or if any adverse
effects occur, in the populations surrounding these facilities.
However, to the extent the adverse effects do occur, today's proposed
rules would reduce emissions and subsequent exposures. The majority of
the emissions reductions from this rule are HF (1900 tons per year
nationwide) and HCl (390 tons per year nationwide), while the rule will
only reduce emissions of the HAP metals listed below by a small amount
(approximately 6 tons nationwide per year).
1. Hydrogen Fluoride
Acute (short-term) inhalation exposure to gaseous HF can cause
severe respiratory damage in humans, including severe irritation and
pulmonary edema. Chronic (long-term) exposure to fluoride at low levels
has a beneficial effect of dental cavity prevention and may also be
useful for the treatment of osteoporosis. Exposure to higher levels of
fluoride may cause dental fluorosis or mottling, while very high
exposures through drinking water or air can result in crippling
skeletal fluorosis. One study reported menstrual irregularities in
women occupationally exposed to fluoride. We have not classified HF for
carcinogenicity.
2. Hydrogen Chloride
Hydrogen chloride, also called hydrochloric acid, is corrosive to
the eyes, skin, and mucous membranes. Acute (short-term) inhalation
exposure may cause eye, nose, and respiratory tract irritation and
inflammation and pulmonary edema in humans. Chronic (long-term)
occupational exposure to HCl has been reported to cause gastritis,
bronchitis, and dermatitis in workers. Prolonged exposure to low
concentrations may also cause dental discoloration and erosion. No
information is available on the reproductive or developmental effects
of HCl in humans. In rats exposed to HCl by inhalation, altered estrus
cycles have been reported in females and increased fetal mortality and
decreased fetal weight have been reported in offspring. We have not
classified HCl for carcinogenicity.
3. Antimony
Acute (short-term) exposure to antimony by inhalation in humans
results in effects on the skin and eyes. Respiratory effects, such as
inflammation of the lungs, chronic bronchitis, and chronic emphysema,
are the primary effects noted from chronic (long-term) exposure to
antimony in humans via inhalation. Human studies are inconclusive
regarding antimony exposure and cancer, while animal studies have
reported lung tumors in rats exposed to antimony trioxide via
inhalation. Effects of oral exposure to antimony are not well-
described, but a single study has reported decreased longevity and
changes in serum glucose and cholesterol in rats. We have not
classified antimony for carcinogenicity.
4. Arsenic
Acute (short-term) high-level inhalation exposure to arsenic dust
or fumes has resulted in gastrointestinal effects (nausea, diarrhea,
abdominal

[[Page 26693]]

pain), and central and peripheral nervous system disorders. Chronic
(long-term) inhalation exposure to inorganic arsenic in humans is
associated with irritation of the skin and mucous membranes. Human data
suggest a relationship between inhalation exposure of women working at
or living near metal smelters and an increased risk of reproductive
effects, such as spontaneous abortions. Inorganic arsenic exposure in
humans by the inhalation route has been shown to be strongly associated
with lung cancer, while ingestion of inorganic arsenic in humans has
been linked to a form of skin cancer and also to bladder, liver, and
lung cancer. We have classified inorganic arsenic as a Group A, human
carcinogen.
5. Beryllium
Acute (short-term) inhalation exposure to high levels of beryllium
has been observed to cause inflammation of the lungs or acute
pneumonitis (reddening and swelling of the lungs) in humans; after
exposure ends, these symptoms may be reversible. Chronic (long-term)
inhalation exposure of humans to beryllium has been reported to cause
chronic beryllium disease (berylliosis), in which granulomatous
(noncancerous) lesions develop in the lung. Inhalation exposure to
beryllium has been demonstrated to cause lung cancer in rats and
monkeys. Human studies are limited, but suggest a causal relationship
between beryllium exposure and an increased risk of lung cancer. Oral
exposure to beryllium was found to cause stomach lesions in dogs, but
effects on humans are not well-described. We have classified beryllium
as a Group B1, probable human carcinogen, when inhaled; data are
inadequate to determine whether beryllium is carcinogenic when
ingested.
6. Cadmium
The acute (short-term) effects of cadmium inhalation in humans
consist mainly of effects on the lung, such as pulmonary irritation.
Chronic (long-term) inhalation or oral exposure to cadmium leads to a
build-up of cadmium in the kidneys that can cause kidney disease.
Cadmium has been shown to be a developmental toxicant in animals,
resulting in fetal malformations and other effects, but no conclusive
evidence exists in humans. An association between cadmium inhalation
exposure and an increased risk of lung cancer has been reported from
human studies, but these studies are inconclusive due to confounding
factors. Animal studies have demonstrated an increase in lung cancer
from long-term inhalation exposure to cadmium. We have classified
cadmium as a Group B1, probable human carcinogen when inhaled; data are
inadequate to determine whether cadmium is carcinogenic when ingested.
7. Chromium
Chromium may be emitted in two forms, trivalent chromium (chromium
III) or hexavalent chromium (chromium VI). The respiratory tract is the
major target organ for chromium VI toxicity, for acute (short-term) and
chronic (long-term) inhalation exposures. Shortness of breath,
coughing, and wheezing have been reported from acute exposure to
chromium VI, while perforations and ulcerations of the septum,
bronchitis, decreased pulmonary function, pneumonia, and other
respiratory effects have been noted from chronic exposure. Limited
human studies suggest that chromium VI inhalation exposure may be
associated with complications during pregnancy and childbirth, while
animal studies have not reported reproductive effects from inhalation
exposure to chromium VI. Human and animal studies have clearly
established that inhaled chromium VI is a carcinogen, resulting in an
increased risk of lung cancer. We have classified chromium VI as a
Group A, human carcinogen by the inhalation exposure route. Oral
exposure of humans to chromium VI has been reported to cause sores in
the mouth, gastrointestinal effects, and elevated white blood cell
counts. Animal studies of oral chromium VI exposure have reported
testicular degeneration and fetal damage in mice and rats. Chromium IV
is also a potent contact sensitizer, producing allergic dermatitis in
previously-exposed humans. Data are inadequate to determine if chromium
VI is carcinogenic by oral exposure.
Chromium III is much less toxic than chromium VI. The respiratory
tract is also the major target organ for chromium III toxicity, similar
to chromium VI. Chromium III is an essential element in humans, with a
daily oral intake of 50 to 200 micrograms per day ([mu]g/d) recommended
for an adult. Data on adverse effects of high oral exposures of
chromium III are not available for humans, but a study with mice
suggests possible damage to the male reproductive tract. We have not
classified chromium III for carcinogenicity.
8. Cobalt
Acute (short-term) exposure to high levels of cobalt by inhalation
in humans and animals results in respiratory effects such as a
significant decrease in ventilatory function, congestion, edema, and
hemorrhage of the lung. Respiratory effects are also the major effects
noted from chronic (long-term) exposure to cobalt by inhalation, with
respiratory irritation, wheezing, asthma, pneumonia, and fibrosis
noted. Cardiac effects, congestion of the liver, kidneys, and
conjunctiva, and immunological effects have also been associated with
cobalt inhalation in humans. Cobalt is an essential element in humans,
as a constituent of vitamin B12, but excessive oral intake has been
reported to damage the heart, and to cause gastrointestinal effects and
contact dermatitis. Human and animal studies are inconclusive with
respect to potential carcinogenicity of cobalt. We have not classified
cobalt for carcinogenicity.
9. Mercury
Mercury exists in three forms: Elemental mercury, inorganic mercury
compounds (primarily mercuric chloride), and organic mercury compounds
(primarily methylmercury). Each form exhibits different health effects.
Brick, structural clay products, and clay ceramics manufacturing may
release elemental or inorganic mercury, but not methylmercury. However,
elemental and inorganic mercury are deposited on surface water, where
they are converted to methylmercury, an important food contaminant.
Acute (short-term) exposure to high levels of elemental mercury in
humans results in central nervous system (CNS) effects such as tremors,
mood changes, and slowed sensory and motor nerve function. High
inhalation exposures can also cause kidney damage and effects on the
gastrointestinal tract and respiratory system. Chronic (long-term)
inhalation exposure to elemental mercury in humans also affects the
CNS, with effects such as increased excitability, irritability,
excessive shyness, and tremors. Data on toxic effects of oral exposure
to elemental mercury are sparse. We have not classified elemental
mercury for carcinogenicity.
Acute exposure to inorganic mercury by the oral route may result in
effects such as nausea, vomiting, and severe abdominal pain. The major
effect from chronic exposure, either oral or inhalation, to inorganic
mercury is kidney damage. Reproductive and developmental animal studies
have reported effects such as alterations in

[[Page 26694]]

testicular tissue, increased embryo resorption rates, and abnormalities
of development. Mercuric chloride (an inorganic mercury compound)
exposure has been shown to result in forestomach, thyroid, and renal
tumors in experimental animals. We have classified mercuric chloride as
a Group C, possible human carcinogen.
Both acute and chronic oral exposure to methylmercury have been
found to cause developmental damage to the central nervous system in
fetuses and children, with effects including mental retardation,
deafness, blindness, and cerebral palsy. Lower exposures may cause
developmental delays and abnormal reflexes. The most important source
of methylmercury exposure for most people is eating fish. Although fish
is an important part of a balanced diet federal and state fish
advisories recommend limiting intake of certain fish that contain
elevated methylmercury levels.
10. Manganese
Health effects in humans have been associated with both
deficiencies and excess intakes of manganese. Chronic (long-term)
exposure to low levels of manganese in the diet is considered to be
nutritionally essential in humans, with a recommended daily allowance
of 2 to 5 milligrams per day (mg/d). Chronic inhalation exposure to
high levels of manganese by inhalation in humans results primarily in
CNS effects. Visual reaction time, hand steadiness, and eye-hand
coordination were affected in chronically-exposed workers. Manganism,
characterized by feelings of weakness and lethargy, tremors, a mask-
like face, and psychological disturbances, may result from chronic
exposure to higher levels. Impotence and loss of libido have been noted
in male workers afflicted with manganism attributed to inhalation
exposures. We have classified manganese as Group D, not classifiable as
to human carcinogenicity.
11. Nickel
Nickel is an essential element in some animal species, and it has
been suggested it may be essential for human nutrition. Nickel
dermatitis, consisting of itching of the fingers, hands, and forearms,
is the most common effect in humans from chronic (long-term) skin
contact with nickel. Respiratory effects have also been reported in
humans from inhalation exposure to nickel. No information is available
regarding the reproductive or developmental effects of nickel in
humans, but animal studies have reported such effects. Human and animal
studies have reported an increased risk of lung and nasal cancers from
exposure to nickel refinery dusts and nickel subsulfide. Animal
inhalation studies of soluble nickel compounds (i.e., nickel carbonyl)
have reported lung tumors. Dermal exposure to nickel may produce
contact dermatitis. Adverse effects of oral nickel exposure are not
well-described. We have classified nickel refinery dust and nickel
subsulfide as Group A, human carcinogens, and nickel carbonyl as a
Group B2, probable human carcinogen, by inhalation exposure.
12. Lead
Lead is a very toxic element, causing a variety of effects at low
oral or inhaled dose levels. Brain damage, kidney damage, and
gastrointestinal distress may occur from acute (short-term) exposure to
high levels of lead in humans. Chronic (long-term) exposure to lead in
humans results in effects on the blood, CNS, blood pressure, and
kidneys. Children are particularly sensitive to the chronic effects of
lead, with slowed cognitive development, reduced growth, and other
effects reported. Reproductive effects, such as decreased sperm count
in men and spontaneous abortions in women, have been associated with
lead exposure. The developing fetus is at particular risk from maternal
lead exposure, with low birth weight and slowed postnatal
neurobehavioral development noted. Human studies are inconclusive
regarding lead exposure and cancer, while animal studies have reported
an increase in kidney cancer from lead exposure by the oral route. We
have classified lead as a Group B2, probable human carcinogen.
13. Selenium
Selenium is a naturally occurring substance that is toxic at high
concentrations but is also a nutritionally essential element. Acute
(short-term) exposure to elemental selenium, hydrogen selenide, and
selenium dioxide by inhalation results primarily in respiratory
effects, such as irritation of the mucous membranes, pulmonary edema,
severe bronchitis, and bronchial pneumonia. Studies of humans
chronically (long-term) exposed to high levels of selenium in food and
water have reported discoloration of the skin, pathological deformation
and loss of nails, loss of hair, excessive tooth decay and
discoloration, lack of mental alertness, and listlessness. The
consumption of high levels of selenium by pigs, sheep, and cattle has
been shown to interfere with normal fetal development and to produce
birth defects. Results of human and animal studies suggest that
supplementation with some forms of selenium may result in a reduced
incidence of several tumor types. One selenium compound, selenium
sulfide, is carcinogenic in animals exposed orally. We have classified
elemental selenium as a Group D, not classifiable as to human
carcinogenicity, and selenium sulfide as a Group B2, probable human
carcinogen.

II. Summary of Responses to Major Comments and Changes to the Brick and
Structural Clay Products Manufacturing Proposed NESHAP

In response to the public comments received on the proposed BSCP
rule, we made several changes in developing today's final BSCP rule.
The major comments and our responses and rule changes are summarized in
the following sections. A more detailed summary can be found in the
Response-to-Comments document, which is available from several sources
(see SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section).

A. Air Pollution Control Devices

The most significant change to the proposed BSCP rule concerns our
conclusions regarding the effective application of air pollution
control devices (APCD) to existing kilns. The EPA received numerous
comments from industry representatives, kiln manufacturers, and air
pollution control device vendors on issues related to the application
and performance of APCD. The MACT floor in the proposed rule was based
on the use of dry lime injection fabric filters (DIFF), dry lime
scrubber/fabric filters (DLS/FF), or wet scrubbers (WS). Another
technology commonly used to control emissions from brick kilns, dry
limestone adsorbers (DLA), was not considered to be a MACT floor
technology at the time of proposal because we had concerns with
monitoring options and our data indicated that the DLA could not
achieve HAP emissions reductions equivalent to the reductions achieved
by DIFF, DLS/FF, or WS technologies. However, as discussed in the
paragraphs below, many commenters reported disadvantages of the DIFF,
DLS/FF, and WS technologies for BSCP kilns and provided information to
address our concerns about DLA technology. Consequently, the final rule
allows some sources to use the DLA technology.
Several commenters argued that DIFF, DLS/FF, and WS technologies
are not proven or commercially available for BSCP kilns. Commenters
pointed out that, with the exception of one facility, full-scale WS
have never been used on

[[Page 26695]]

BSCP kilns, although some short-term pilot tests of WS have been
conducted. The commenters pointed out that injection systems (such as
DIFF and DLS/FF) and wet control devices need a certain airflow to
operate properly, and different products may require different
airflows, some of which could be outside of the range within which the
APCD operates properly. In addition, commenters pointed out that during
kiln slowdowns (which could be caused by a situation such as an
economic slowdown), the APCD may not be able to operate at all because
of reduced kiln airflow.
Several commenters expressed concerns about waste disposal.
Commenters stated that DIFF and DLS/FF systems produce large amounts of
solid waste that is difficult and expensive to dispose of. Commenters
stated that WS would not be viable options for many BSCP plants because
of wastewater treatment issues (e.g., limited or no sewer access,
wastewater treatment costs). Commenters added that recycling of WS
wastewater back into the brick body is not an option because of
problems created by the soluble salts in the water (e.g., scumming and
efflorescence) and because the volume of wastewater generated would
exceed process water needs even if recycling were possible.
Commenters also raised concerns about retrofitting existing BSCP
kilns with DIFF, DLS/FF, and WS technologies. Commenters pointed out
that brick color, the primary factor in brick sales, is affected by
kiln airflow. Thus, retrofitting with an APCD that changes the kiln
airflow would change the recipes for the manufacture of brick in a
tunnel kiln. Thus, years of experience in the colors produced by the
unique firing characteristics of a kiln would be lost. Implications are
serious if a facility cannot match its existing product line.
The commenters also charged that we did not account for other
retrofitting problems associated with installing DIFF, DLS/FF, or WS on
older kilns, and the costs associated with these problems. Commenters
also described how attempts at retrofitting kilns with these APCD have
resulted in significant amounts of kiln downtime and permanent
reductions in kiln production capacities. As stated by the commenters,
none of the retrofits have been entirely successful in terms of
reducing emissions while not disrupting the production process, and
several have had dramatic negative impacts on the production process.
At one facility that retrofitted two kilns with DIFF, the capacities of
the two kilns decreased from 13.5 cars per day to 12.2 cars per day
because of changes in the kiln airflow that resulted from the retrofit.
This resulted in a loss of revenue of about $1 million per year.
Another retrofit DIFF (multi-stage injection system) installation at a
different facility was reported to be extremely problematic, and the
cost of the APCD, which was originally estimated at $1 million, is now
over $2 million and the system is still not operating correctly more
than 2 years later. The facility has experienced numerous problems with
the basic design of the unit, including improperly designed dampers and
reagent feeding systems. A facility representative stated that the
problems are largely due to the fact that few systems have been
developed for brick kiln operations; therefore, vendors are still
learning (often on the industry's nickel) how to design these systems.
In the facility's public comments, they stated that they plan to never
build another hot baghouse (DIFF or DLS/FF) due to the massive
operating problems associated with them. A retrofit DLS/FF system, the
only one that has been attempted in the U.S. to date, also was
problematic. The facility stated that they have experienced maintenance
and material quality problems that have resulted in kiln downtime. The
facility added that the problems stem from the fact that the system is
a prototype without a substantial operational, troubleshooting and
maintenance history, which has left the facility in the position of
having to diagnose and solve the problems as the system operates. In
addition, the company that installed this system is no longer quoting
systems to the BSCP industry.
Numerous commenters recommended that EPA allow use of DLA. The
commenters described the operating benefits of DLA, including ease of
operation, low operating cost, little down time, and the ability to
handle kiln fluctuations with changing throughputs. Most importantly,
DLA do not impact kiln operation. The commenters pointed out that DLA
do not require a minimum airflow like DIFF, DLS/FF, or WS technologies.
One commenter pointed out that once a DLA is designed for maximum
airflow, any fluctuations below this maximum only create more contact
time between the kiln exhaust gases and the limestone, which would
likely increase the effectiveness of the DLA and would not impact the
operation of the kiln. The commenters pointed out that DLA have been
used extensively in Europe for many years and also are the most
prevalent APCD used in the BSCP industry in the United States. Many
commenters stated that DLA should be allowed if they can meet the BSCP
standards. The commenters indicated that plants should not have to
request site-specific monitoring parameters for DLA because they are
the most prevalent technology. In addition, some commenters discussed
the high costs and limited additional HAP reduction associated with
replacing existing DLA with a DIFF system.
Several commenters felt that EPA disregarded or ``bashed'' DLA and
disagreed with EPA's conclusions regarding DLA in the preamble to the
proposed rule. Specifically, the commenters disagreed that: DLA
generate particulate matter (PM) emissions; long-term test data that
demonstrate DLA performance over the life of the sorbent are not
available; DLA limestone is not continuously replaced; and the
performance of DLA decreases as the sorbent is re-used because the
ability of the sorbent to adsorb HF and HCl decreases.
We disagree with commenters that the use of DIFF has not been
proven in the brick industry. The DIFF and DLS/FF systems are a proven
control technology for kilns with a given minimum airflow rate. We do,
however, believe that retrofitting existing kilns with DIFF or DLS/FF
systems is not feasible in many cases. We recognize that WS may not be
practical or low-cost for most facilities, but believe they could be a
legitimate option for some facilities (e.g., facilities with sewer
access). We acknowledge that retrofitting existing BSCP kilns with
certain APCD (particularly those that affect kiln airflow) can alter
time-honored recipes for brick color, thereby changing the product. We
acknowledge that DLA are used extensively around the world to control
emissions from brick kilns. In developing the description of DLA
technology for the preamble to the proposed rule, we used the technical
data available to us at the time. We had no intention of ``bashing''
DLA but simply reported the data at hand.
After consideration of the comments received regarding DIFF, DLS/
FF, WS, and DLA technologies, we have come to new conclusions regarding
the effective application of these devices. We now believe that DLA are
the only currently available technology that can be used to retrofit
existing kilns without potentially significant impacts on the
production process, and we have revised today's final rule accordingly.
In addition, we believe that, because of the retrofit concerns that we
have identified, it is not technologically and economically feasible
for an existing

[[Page 26696]]

small tunnel kiln that would otherwise meet the criteria for
reconstruction in 40 CFR 63.2 and whose design capacity is increased
such that it is equal to or greater than 9.07 Mg/hr (10 tph) of fired
product (for the remainder of this preamble, these sources will be
referred to as ``existing small kilns that are rebuilt such that they
become large kilns'') to meet the relevant standards (i.e., new source
MACT) by retrofitting with a DIFF, DLS/FF, or WS. In addition, we
believe that it is not technologically and economically feasible for an
existing large DLA-controlled kiln that would otherwise meet the
criteria for reconstruction in 40 CFR 63.2 (for the remainder of this
preamble, these sources will be referred to as ``existing large DLA-
controlled kilns that are rebuilt'') to meet the relevant (i.e., new
source MACT) standards by retrofitting with a DIFF, DLS/FF, or WS.
Accordingly, we have added regulatory language in 40 CFR 63.8390(i) to
provide that an existing small kiln that is rebuilt such that it
becomes a large kiln and an existing large DLA-controlled tunnel kiln
that is rebuilt do not meet the definition of reconstruction in 40 CFR
63.2 and are not subject to the same requirements as new and
reconstructed large tunnel kilns. However, it is technologically and
economically feasible for both types of kilns described in 40 CFR
63.8390(i) to retrofit with a DLA (or to continue operating an existing
DLA) and we have revised today's final rule to require that such kilns
meet emission limits that correspond to the level of control provided
by a DLA. We continue to believe that DIFF, DLS/FF, and WS are
appropriate technologies for new large tunnel kilns and for
reconstructed large tunnel kilns that were equipped with DIFF, DLS/FF,
or WS prior to reconstruction. However, DLA are the only APCD that have
been demonstrated on small tunnel kilns (which have smaller airflows
than large tunnel kilns), and, therefore, the requirements for new and
reconstructed small tunnel kilns are based on the level of control that
can be achieved by a DLA. We note that facilities have the flexibility
to select any control device or technique that ensures that emissions
from their brick kilns are in compliance with the emission limits set
forth in the final rule. Each of the APCD described above have
advantages and disadvantages to their use, and the selection of the
APCD to meet the requirements of the final rule will be dependent on
site-specific parameters.

B. Affected Source

1. Production-Rate Limit
The proposed rule subcategorized tunnel kilns based on a 9.07 Mg/hr
(10 tph) design capacity. We requested comment on the appropriate
design capacity-based subcategorization level in the preamble to the
proposed rule. We received numerous comments regarding
subcategorization of tunnel kilns. While some commenters agreed with
the 9.07 Mg/hr (10 tph) distinction among tunnel kiln subcategories,
several commenters thought that the 9.07 Mg/hr (10 tph) limit was
arbitrarily assigned. The commenters charged that EPA did not use all
available data in determining the appropriate size cutoff. Many
commenters argued that the design capacity limit should be higher based
on available data (i.e., 10.1 Mg/hr (11.1 tph) or 12.1 Mg/hr (13.3
tph)). The commenters disagreed that the cutoff should be rounded down
from 10.1 Mg/hr (11.1 tph) to 9.07 Mg/hr (10 tph).
Some commenters noted that a design capacity distinction gives a
competitive advantage to facilities operating smaller kilns. One
commenter disagreed that there was a technological basis for
differentiating among tunnel kilns producing above or below 9.07 Mg/hr
(10 tph). The commenter stated that EPA may not subcategorize tunnel
kilns to reduce costs.
Through subcategorization, we are able to define subsets of similar
emission sources within a source category if differences in emissions
characteristics, processes, APCD viability, or opportunities for
pollution prevention exist within the source category. Section
112(d)(1) of the CAA states ``the Administrator may distinguish among
classes, types, and sizes of sources within a category or subcategory''
in establishing emission standards. Thus, we have discretion in
determining appropriate subcategories based on classes, types, and
sizes of sources. We used this discretion in developing subcategories
for the BSCP source category. We first subcategorized kilns based on
type (i.e., periodic kilns versus tunnel kilns). We then further
subcategorized tunnel kilns based on kiln size. Our distinctions are
based on technological differences in the equipment. For example,
periodic kilns are smaller than tunnel kilns and operate in batch
cycles, whereas tunnel kilns operate continuously. There are also
differences in the effective application of air pollution controls. To
our knowledge, HAP emissions from periodic kilns have not successfully
been controlled. Similarly, we distinguished between tunnel kilns with
design capacities above and below 9.07 Mg/hr (10 tph) at proposal in
part because the APCD we believed to be the best performers (DIFF, DLS/
FF, and WS) were not demonstrated on existing tunnel kilns with design
capacities below roughly 9.07 Mg/hr (10 tph). For the reasons discussed
below, we revisited the appropriate subcategorization level in response
to comments on the proposal when developing today's final rule. While
we continue to believe that 9.07 Mg/hr (10 tph) is the appropriate
subcategorization level, our reasons for choosing that level have
changed since proposal in light of new information that we received
during the public comment period about DLA controls and the three
proposed MACT controls (DIFF, DLS/FF, and WS).
As discussed earlier, numerous commenters pointed out serious
concerns regarding retrofitting existing kilns with APCD such as DIFF,
DLS/FF, and WS. Therefore, we now consider DLA to be the only currently
available technology that can be used to retrofit existing kilns,
including existing small kilns that are rebuilt such that they become
large kilns and existing large DLA-controlled kilns that are rebuilt,
without potentially significant impacts on the production process.
In response to comments suggesting that we include new data in our
analyses, we updated our data base with information on new kilns, new
APCD (except those controls that we consider to achieve the lowest
achievable emission rate (LAER) as specified in section 112(d)(3)(A) of
the CAA), changes in kiln capacities, and changes in facility
ownership. We used the information submitted by commenters and made
followup calls to States and individual facilities for additional
clarification as necessary to update our data base.
We used our updated data base in reevaluating all aspects of the
proposed standards. The smallest tunnel kiln with MACT floor controls
(i.e., with DLA controls reflecting the existing source MACT floor
under today's final rule) in our updated database has a capacity of 8.3
Mg/hr (9.1 tph). Rounding up to the nearest integer, based on current
application of APCD to BSCP tunnel kilns, we believe that 9.07 Mg/hr
(10 tph) continues to be an appropriate subcategorization level.
Commenters have stated that a smaller tunnel kiln (e.g., 4.5 Mg/hr (5
tph) capacity) is dissimilar from a larger tunnel kiln (e.g., 13.6 Mg/
hr (15 tph) capacity), especially with regard to the airflow, which is
a key operating parameter for APCD. Airflow is particularly important
for

[[Page 26697]]

lime injection-type systems (DIFF and DLS/FF), because the injected
lime is carried through the reaction chamber (or duct) by the kiln
exhaust gas. For a given lime injection rate, if a minimum exhaust flow
is not maintained, the sorbent can settle in the duct work and cause
APCD malfunction. Furthermore, APCD malfunctions can affect the airflow
within the kiln, and can destroy product that is in the kiln. We
believe that DIFF and DLS/FF systems, if attempted on smaller kilns,
would experience more difficulties with respect to airflow than systems
on larger kilns because as the design airflow decreases, the acceptable
operating range also would be expected to decrease. Any fluctuation in
airflow would be expected to have a greater impact on APCD operation as
the size of the system decreases. Given the technological concerns and
the capacities of currently-controlled tunnel kilns, we maintain that a
design capacity-based subcategorization level of 9.07 Mg/hr (10 tph) is
appropriate for existing tunnel kilns.
We acknowledge the comments suggesting that 10.1 Mg/hr (11.1 tph)
should be the size cutoff based on the smallest DIFF-controlled tunnel
kiln. However, because we now consider that the performance of a DLA
represents the MACT floor for existing sources (and DIFF, DLS/FF, and
WS also can meet the emission limits), we considered the smallest non-
LAER DLA-controlled kiln in setting the subcategorization level. We
disagree that 12.1 Mg/hr (13.3 tph) would have been the proper level
for proposal or for the final rule. We believe that consideration of
technological differences and the effective application of APCD to
kilns of different sizes is the appropriate method of selecting a
subcategorization level. We maintain that 9.07 Mg/hr (10 tph) is
appropriate.
We understand that, regardless of the particular subcategorization
level selected, there will be facilities that operate kilns with
throughputs slightly above the level and some that operate kilns at
slightly below the level. Facilities operating kilns slightly above the
subcategorization level have the option of accepting a federally
enforceable permit limit to limit their throughput to below the level.
Facilities operating just below the level must make careful decisions
regarding expansion of their kilns. We acknowledge that facilities
operating near the subcategorization level must make decisions
regarding permit limits and expansions based on facility-specific
considerations (e.g., control costs, impact on revenue). However, as
some commenters have pointed out, cost is not an appropriate criteria
for us to use in establishing subcategories, because our discretion for
establishing subcategories is limited, under the CAA, to distinguishing
among classes, types, and sizes of sources.
2. R&D Kiln Definition
One commenter requested that we change the definition of research
and development (R&D) kiln so that it is consistent with the definition
of R&D in section 112(c)(7) of the CAA and most other NESHAP.
Therefore, today's final rule includes a revised definition of research
and development kiln that is consistent with section 112(c)(7) of the
CAA and other NESHAP.

C. Existing Source MACT

1. Consideration of Synthetic Area Sources in the MACT Floor
Determinations for Existing Sources
In the preamble to the proposed BSCP rule, we requested comment on
inclusion of synthetic area sources (also called synthetic minor
sources) in the MACT floor determinations for existing tunnel kilns.
For the remainder of this preamble, we will refer to these sources as
synthetic minor sources. Synthetic minor sources are those facilities
that emit fewer than 10 tons per year of any HAP and fewer than 25 tons
per year of any combination of HAP because they use some emission
control device (or devices), the operation of which is required by a
Federally Enforceable State Operating Permit (FESOP). In the absence of
such controls, these sources would be major.
Inclusion of synthetic minor sources in the MACT floor
determination was an issue prior to proposal because whether or not
synthetic minor sources were included would affect the level of control
represented by the floor determinations for existing large tunnel kilns
(i.e., tunnel kilns with design capacities equal to or greater than
9.07 Mg/hr (10 tph)). Had synthetic minor sources been excluded, the
MACT floor for existing tunnel kilns would have been ``no emissions
reductions.'' With synthetic minor sources included (as we proposed),
the MACT floor for existing tunnel kilns was based on a DIFF, DLS/FF or
WS.
Industry representatives asserted, prior to proposal, that the BSCP
MACT floor determination should not include synthetic minor sources. We
rejected the idea of excluding synthetic minor sources from the MACT
floor determination for several reasons discussed in the preamble to
the proposed rule. (See 67 FR 47894, 47911-47912, July 22, 2002.)
Nevertheless, because of the industry representatives' arguments, we
requested comment from all interested parties on inclusion of synthetic
minor sources in MACT floor determinations.
Following proposal, numerous industry representatives commented on
the issue of whether to include synthetic minor sources in MACT floor
determinations. The industry representatives commented that only major
sources are included in the listed BSCP source category, and therefore,
only major sources are to be used in the MACT floor determination. The
commenters referenced section 112(a)(1) of the CAA, which defines major
source as a source that ``emits or has the potential to emit
considering controls 10 tons per year * * *.'' (emphasis added), and
stated that by definition, synthetic minor sources are not major
sources. The commenters noted that EPA did not include true area
sources (or minor sources) in the MACT floor determination and stated
that synthetic minor sources should be treated similarly for purposes
of establishing MACT floors.
An environmental group also commented on the issue of including
synthetic minor sources in MACT floor determinations. The commenter
supported EPA's decision to include synthetic minor sources in the MACT
floor for BSCP. The commenter stated that the CAA requires EPA to
include synthetic minor sources in MACT floor determinations. The
commenter stated that excluding consideration of the best-controlled
sources (which became synthetic minor sources as a result of effective
controls) would contradict the CAA section 112(d) MACT floor
methodology established by Congress. The commenter argued that such
exclusion would weaken emission standards required for existing
sources, and increase the levels of air toxics released into the
environment.
Section 112(d) of the CAA directs us to establish emission
standards for each category or subcategory of major sources and minor
sources of HAP listed for regulation pursuant to section 112(c) of the
CAA. Each such standard must reflect a minimum level of control known
as the MACT floor. (See CAA section 112(d).) However, section 112 of
the CAA does not specifically address synthetic minor or synthetic area
sources, which include those sources that emit fewer than 10 tons per
year of any HAP or fewer than 25 tons per year of any combination of
HAP because they use some emission control device(s), pollution
prevention techniques or other measures (collectively referred to as
controls in this preamble) adopted

[[Page 26698]]

under Federal or State regulations. If not for the enforceable controls
they have implemented, synthetic minor sources would be major sources
under section 112 of the CAA.
We believe that the better interpretation of the CAA's plain
language and legislative history requires that synthetic minor sources
be included in MACT floor determinations. First, the plain language of
the statute makes clear that our MACT floor determinations are to
reflect the best sources in a category. For new sources in a category
or subcategory, the MACT floor shall not be less stringent than the
emission control that is achieved in practice by the best-controlled
similar source, as determined by EPA. (See CAA section 112(d)(3),
emphasis added.) For existing sources in a category or subcategory with
30 or more sources, the MACT floor may be less stringent than the floor
for new sources in the same category or subcategory but shall not be
less stringent than the average emission limitation achieved by the
best performing 12 percent of the existing sources (for which the
Administrator has emissions information). (See CAA section
112(d)(3)(A), emphasis added.\1\) Thus, section 112(d)(3) of the CAA
requires that MACT floors reflect what the best-controlled new sources
and the best-performing existing sources achieve in practice. These
phrases contain no exemptions and are not limited by references to
sources with or without controls. Therefore, they suggest that all of
the best-controlled or best-performing sources should be considered in
MACT floor determinations, regardless of whether or not such sources
rely upon controls.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\ If a category or subcategory has fewer than 30 sources, the
floor shall be ``the average emission limitation achieved by the
best performing 5 sources (for which the Administrator has or could
reasonably obtain emissions information) in the category or
subcategory.'' (See CAA section 112(d)(3)(B), emphasis added.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Furthermore, section 112(d)(3) of the CAA expressly excludes
certain sources that meet LAER requirements from MACT floor
determinations for existing sources. (See CAA section 112(d)(3)(A).)
The fact that Congress expressly excluded such LAER sources but did not
also exclude synthetic minor sources suggests that no exclusion was
intended for synthetic minor sources. Indeed, nothing in the statute
suggests that EPA should exclude a control technology from its
consideration of the MACT floor because the technology is so effective
that it reduces source emissions such that the source is no longer a
major source of HAP. (See 67 FR 36,460 and 36,464, May 23, 2002,
stating this rationale for including synthetic minor sources in the
floor determination for the proposed NESHAP for municipal solid waste
landfills.)
Some commenters argue that because the BSCP source category only
includes major sources and synthetic minor sources are non-major by
definition, synthetic minor sources (like true area sources) fall
outside the regulated source category and should not be considered in
MACT floor determinations. EPA agrees that the BSCP source category
includes only major sources. (See 67 FR 47,894 and 47,898, July 22,
2002.) However, EPA disagrees that the CAA contemplates that synthetic
minor sources must be treated like true area sources and excluded from
MACT floor determinations. Section 112(a) of the CAA defines a major
source as:

any stationary source or group of stationary sources located
within a contiguous area and under common control that emits or has
the potential to emit considering controls, in the aggregate, 10
tons per year or more of any hazardous air pollutant or 25 tons per
year or more of any combination of hazardous air pollutants * * *.

(See CAA section 112(a)(1).) An area source is defined as any
stationary source of hazardous air pollutants that is not a major
source. (See CAA section 112(a)(1).) In the major source definition,
the reference to a source's potential to emit considering controls
allows the interpretation that a source's potential to emit before and
after controls is relevant, such that synthetic minor sources may be
considered within the meaning of this definition and included in MACT
floor determinations for categories of major sources.\2\ Some
commenters appear to suggest that the reference to a source's potential
to emit considering controls can only mean a source's potential to emit
after controls have been implemented. While it is possible to read the
phrase in this manner in isolation, this interpretation would have the
effect of excluding the best-performing sources in a category from MACT
floor determinations and therefore would be contrary to the statutory
mandate that EPA set MACT floors based on the levels the best-
controlled new sources and the best-performing existing sources achieve
in practice. We believe the statutory reference to potential to emit
considering controls should be read in a manner consistent with the
other requirements of section 112(d) of the CAA to allow for the
consideration of synthetic minor sources in MACT floor determinations
for categories of major sources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\2\ We believe this approach is not inconsistent with our policy
that existing sources that limit their potential to emit to below
the major source threshold prior to the first compliance deadline
under a MACT standard will not be subject to the standard, as one
commenter suggests. (See Memorandum from John S. Seitz, Director,
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, EPA, to EPA Regions,
``Potential to Emit for MACT Standards--Guidance on Timing Issues,''
May 16, 1995.) Including synthetic minor sources in MACT floor
determinations ensures that MACT floors reflect the best-performing
sources, as the CAA requires. At the same time, our policy
recognizes that sources that already achieve or perform better than
the MACT floors need not be subject to the MACT standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In addition, the legislative history suggests that synthetic minor
sources should be included in MACT floor determinations. In a floor
statement, Senator Durenberger stated that in implementing section
112(d)(3) of the CAA, ``the [Senate]
managers intend the Administrator
to take whatever steps are necessary to assure that [the Administrator]
has collected data on all of the better-performing sources within each
category. [The Administrator]
must have a data-gathering program
sufficient to assure that [EPA]
does not miss any sources that have
superior levels of emission control.'' (See Environment and Natural
Resources Policy Division, Congressional Research Service, 103d Cong.,
S.Prt. 103-38 (prepared for the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment
and Public Works), A Legislative History of the Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1990 at 870, Nov. 1993, emphasis added.) This statement
underscores that Congress intended for MACT floor determinations to
reflect consideration of all of the sources in each category with the
best emission controls. We believe it would be inconsistent with
Congress's intent and the plain language of the CAA to exclude
synthetic minor sources--those sources with superior controls which
became synthetic minor sources by implementing such controls--from MACT
floor determinations.
We believe that the inclusion of synthetic minor sources in MACT
floor determinations is justified because of the reasons explained
above. Even if the MACT floor determination had been ``no emissions
reductions'' we believe that a departure from the MACT floor to a
beyond-the-floor standard, based on DLA technology, is viable because
the benefits associated with the emissions reductions will exceed the
cost of installing and operating the technology.
2. MACT Floors for Existing Sources
Some commenters questioned how the MACT floor for existing sources
was

[[Page 26699]]

set. Some commenters thought that control devices installed for sulfur
oxides (SO_x) control (rather than for HAP control) should
not be considered in the MACT floor. Other commenters felt that costs
should be a consideration.
One commenter charged that EPA has simply set MACT floors based on
control technology type and that EPA did not identify the relevant best
performers and set floors reflecting their average emission level. The
commenter noted that factors other than control device type affect
emissions and that EPA must consider all non-negligible factors in
setting MACT floors and considering beyond-the-floor measures. The
commenter stated that if EPA believes it is unworkable to consider all
factors, then perhaps EPA should base standards on actual emissions
data which reflects all the factors influencing a source's performance.
The commenter also noted that EPA picked the worst performance of any
source that used the chosen technology to set the floor for PM.
A detailed discussion of how we determined the MACT floor for
existing large tunnel kilns (i.e., tunnel kilns with design capacities
equal to or greater than 9.07 Mg/hr (10 tph)) is provided below.
Although the discussion in the example below focuses on existing large
tunnel kilns that exhaust directly to the atmosphere or to an APCD, the
same MACT floor methodology was used for existing large tunnel kilns
that exhaust to sawdust dryers prior to exhausting to the atmosphere,
existing small tunnel kilns that exhaust directly to the atmosphere or
to an APCD, existing small sawdust-fired tunnel kilns that duct to
sawdust dryers, and existing periodic kilns. Details of these MACT
floor determinations were discussed in the preamble to the proposed
rule. (See 67 FR 47909-47912, July 22, 2002.) Section 112(d)(3) is the
section of the CAA that dictates how we must establish MACT floors.
Section 112(d)(3) of the CAA states that:

The maximum degree of reduction in emissions that is deemed
achievable for new sources in a category or subcategory shall not be
less stringent than the emission control that is achieved in
practice by the best controlled similar source, as determined by the
Administrator. Emission standards promulgated under this subsection
for existing sources in a category or subcategory may be less
stringent than standards for new sources in the same category or
subcategory but shall not be less stringent, and may be more
stringent than--
(A) Rhe average emission limitation achieved by the best
performing 12 percent of the existing sources (for which the
Administrator has emissions information), excluding those sources
that have, within 18 months before the emission standard is proposed
or within 30 months before such standard is promulgated, whichever
is later, first achieved a level of emission rate or emission
reduction which complies, or would comply if the source is not
subject to such standard, with the lowest achievable emission rate
(as defined by section 171) applicable to the source category and
prevailing at the time, in the category or subcategory for
categories and subcategories with 30 or more sources * * *.

With the exception of the LAER provisions in section 112(d)(3)(A)
of the CAA, the CAA requires us to base the MACT floor on the best-
performing sources without consideration of why facilities decided to
control emissions. Therefore, if an APCD is reducing HAP emissions
(e.g., HF, HCl, or HAP metals), it is irrelevant if sources installed
APCD for SO_X or visible emissions control for purposes of
conducting MACT floor determinations.
We determined the MACT floor control level for existing sources
using the following general procedure:
(1) We reviewed available data on pollution prevention techniques
(including substitution of raw materials and/or fuels) and the
performance of add-on control devices to determine the techniques that
were viable for and effective at reducing HAP emissions;
(2) For each subcategory, we ranked the kilns from the best
performing to the worst performing based on the emission reduction
technique used on the kilns;
(3) For each subcategory, we then identified the 94th percentile
kiln and the emission reduction technique that represented the MACT
floor technology; and
(4) For each subcategory, we then selected production-based or
percent-reduction emission limits that correspond to the 94th
percentile kiln and emission reduction technique, and we based our
selections on the available data while considering variability in the
performance of a given emission reduction technique.
To identify the best-performing emission reduction techniques, we
reviewed available data on pollution prevention techniques (i.e.,,
substitution of raw materials and/or fuels) and the performance of add-
on control devices. We determined that substitution of raw materials
and/or fuels is not an option because substitution of raw materials
and/or fuels could affect the ability of a facility to duplicate its
current product line. In addition, it is impractical for facilities to
import, from a distance of more than a few miles, the large amounts of
raw material that are required (most facilities are located in close
proximity to their raw material source). With respect to use of low-HAP
fuels, our available test data for the BSCP industry do not show
identifiable differences in emissions based on kiln fuel type; that is,
the contribution of raw materials to HAP emissions far outweighs the
contribution of the fuels. In addition, fuel type can impact the color
of a product, and any requirement that would require a kiln to change
fuel type could cause the kiln to be unable to match an existing
product line. While we agree that factors other than APCD type can
affect emissions, we do not have the data to determine the specific
degree of the effect of factors other than APCD on emissions, and we
believe that, for the BSCP industry, factors other than APCD use are
not viable MACT floor or beyond-the-floor control options. Our data
show that add-on APCD have a large effect on emissions, and further
show that the presence or absence of an APCD is likely the greatest
factor in determining a BSCP kiln's actual performance. It follows that
the subset of BSCP kilns that are the best performers are those with
add-on APCD. Therefore, our analysis focused on the performance of add-
on control devices.
Prior to proposal we concluded that the best-performing add-on
control devices were DIFF, DLS/FF, and WS. Based on the comments
received following proposal (as discussed elsewhere in this preamble)
regarding retrofit concerns with these technologies, we now believe
that DLA are the only currently available technology that can be used
to retrofit existing large kilns without potentially significant
impacts on the production process. Thus, DLA are the best-performing
APCD for existing large tunnel kilns.
We ranked the kilns within each subcategory according to APCD use.
Information on the number of kilns and the types of APCD was based
primarily on responses to a survey of the industry and additional
information gathered following the survey including public comments on
the proposed rule. Equipment in use at major sources and synthetic
minor sources was used in the equipment ranking. In accordance with
section 112(d)(3)(A) of the CAA, equipment at kilns that achieved LAER
less than 18 months before proposal was not included in the equipment
ranking. When we ranked the large tunnel kilns, we treated kilns
equipped with DLA as the best-controlled sources, although DIFF, DLS/
FF, and WS also can achieve the level of performance of a DLA. We
ranked the kilns by APCD rather than actual unit-specific emissions
reductions because we do not have emissions test data for all kilns.

[[Page 26700]]

Section 112(d)(3) of the CAA specifies that we set standards for
existing sources that are no less stringent than the average emission
limitation achieved by the best-performing 12 percent of existing
sources (for which the Administrator has emissions information) where
there are 30 or more sources in the category or subcategory. Our
interpretation of average emission limitation is that it is a measure
of central tendency, such as the arithmetic mean or the median. If the
median is used when there are at least 30 sources, then the emission
level achievable by the source and its APCD that is at the bottom of
the top 6 percent of the best-performing sources (i.e., the 94th
percentile) represents the MACT floor control level. We based our MACT
floors for each BSCP subcategory on this interpretation. Nineteen
percent (22 of 115) of the existing large tunnel kilns located at
synthetic minor sources or major sources are controlled by a DLA (12),
DIFF (4), DLS/FF (4), or WS (2). Because more than 6 percent of the
large tunnel kilns reduce emissions by some technique, emissions
reductions from these kilns are required under the CAA. We then
considered which of these controls are proven to be applicable to
existing tunnel kilns, and we ranked these kilns to determine the
appropriate MACT emission limits. We consider the 12 DLA to be
equivalent and believe that this type of control can be applied to any
existing large tunnel kiln without causing potentially significant
production problems. We consider the performance of all of the DLA to
be equivalent because there currently are two types of DLA in the
industry (supplied by two manufacturers), and we have test data for
both designs that show HF removal efficiencies that are within 1
percent of one another. We excluded DIFF and DLS/FF from our ranking of
controls for existing sources because of the reported problems caused
by applying DIFF and DLS/FF to existing kilns. We excluded WS from our
ranking of controls for existing sources because many facilities do not
have proven wastewater disposal options. Therefore, we only considered
DLA in our ranking, and accordingly, the 94th percentile source (the
7th best-controlled source) is a DLA-controlled kiln. Therefore, the
MACT floors for existing large tunnel kilns are based on the level of
control achieved by a DLA. We have DLA outlet test data for 7 of the 12
existing large DLA-controlled tunnel kilns, and therefore, we are
confident that our test data are within the best-controlled 6 percent
of sources. Furthermore, the single best-performing source, based on
our available DLA outlet data, is one of the three sources for which a
control efficiency is available.
Section 112(d)(2) of the CAA dictates how we must establish MACT.
The MACT can either be established at the MACT floor, or can be some
control level more stringent than the MACT floor or beyond-the-floor.
Section 112(d)(2) of the CAA states that:

Emissions standards promulgated under this subsection and
applicable to new or existing sources of hazardous air pollutants
shall require the maximum degree of reduction in emissions of the
hazardous air pollutants subject to this section (including a
prohibition on such emissions, where achievable) that the
Administrator, taking into consideration the cost of achieving such
emission reduction, and any non-air quality health and environmental
impacts and energy requirements, determines is achievable for new or
existing sources in the category or subcategory to which such
emission standard applies * * *.

Although section 112(d)(3) of the CAA does not allow us to consider
cost when determining MACT floors, we do consider costs when we examine
beyond-the-floor control options according to section 112(d)(2) of the
CAA. We acknowledge the commenters' concerns regarding the cost of the
proposed standards. We determined that beyond-the-floor control
measures would not be appropriate for existing large BSCP kilns because
of retrofit costs arising from technical difficulties in retrofitting
DIFF, DLS/FF, or WS. Thus, the emission limits for existing large
tunnel kilns in today's final rule are based on the level of control
achievable with a DLA.
It is our goal to set emission standards that reflect the
performance of the best-controlled sources. Once we identified the
subset of the best-controlled BSCP sources (i.e., DLA-controlled
kilns), we used the highest emission level associated with these best
performers to set the emission standard because it was our intent to
set emission limits that reflect the performance that the best-
controlled sources continually achieve considering variability. All
sources, including the best-controlled sources, have variability in
emissions. For example, data (individual test runs) from two tests
conducted on one DLA-controlled kiln showed HF control efficiencies
that ranged from 91.6 percent to 96.4 percent. This variability may
result from APCD performance, and also could result from uncertainty
associated with the test methods. Commenters have agreed with our
approach to setting the production-based emission limits at or slightly
higher than the highest data point, because this approach accounts for
variability in the performance of individual sources, variability that
could exist across the industry, and uncertainty in the test methods
used to measure emissions. Furthermore, use of the highest emission
level associated with the best performers prevents sources within the
best-controlled subset from having to remove their existing APCD and
replace it with a new one that may or may not achieve slightly better
performance.
We believe and intend that a well-operated DLA will achieve the
emission limits set forth in this rulemaking. However, concerns have
recently been raised that if high concentrations of sulfur exist in the
kiln exhaust gas stream, the ability of a well-operated DLA to reduce
the target acid gas HAP emissions (i.e., HF and HCl) may be
compromised. The data we have does not suggest that these concerns are
justified. If the EPA receives information showing that they are, EPA
will take prompt action to resolve the issue through rulemaking and
ensure that a facility with a well-operated DLA will be in compliance
with the rule. The EPA will also work with any affected facilities to
ensure that they are not subject to inappropriate sanctions before we
are able to complete such a rulemaking.

D. New Source MACT

Several commenters disagreed that a large (design capacity equal to
or greater than 9.07 Mg/hr (10 tph) of fired product) tunnel kiln
equipped with DIFF, DLS/FF or WS was the best-controlled similar source
for all new tunnel kilns. The commenters expressed concern that the
DIFF, DLS/FF or WS controls proposed for all new tunnel kilns have not
been demonstrated on smaller kilns. The commenters argued that
emissions from small (e.g., less than 9.07 Mg/hr (10 tph)) and large
tunnel kilns are different because the required airflow and pollutant
loading is different. The commenters stated that controls such as DIFF,
DLS/FF, or WS do not decrease in size or cost for kilns below 9.07 Mg/
hr (10 tph) design capacity. The commenters thought that the proposed
standards for new tunnel kilns would prevent future construction of and
upgrades to smaller kilns. The commenters recommended that a throughput
cutoff be provided for new and reconstructed kilns. One commenter
suggested that EPA create a size-cutoff for new kilns, where the best-
controlled similar source for smaller new kilns is a DLA-controlled
kiln, and DLS/FF, DIFF, or WS for the larger

[[Page 26701]]

kilns. One commenter noted the potential of existing kilns triggering
new source requirements during reconstruction. The commenter requested
that the ability of small businesses to overhaul existing kilns be
addressed in the final rule.
These commenters have addressed several related issues including
the selection of the best-controlled similar source, differences
between small and large tunnel kilns, the feasibility of the proposed
MACT-level controls in controlling emissions from smaller tunnel kilns
or reconstructed tunnel kilns, and the costs of new controls. In
responding to these comments, we have re-evaluated our analysis of MACT
for new and reconstructed tunnel kilns. In the original MACT analysis
developed for the proposed rule, we recognized the inherent differences
between small and large tunnel kilns and established a
subcategorization level of 9.07 Mg/hr (10 tph). The proposed 9.07 Mg/hr
(10 tph) subcategorization level applied to both existing and new
tunnel kilns. For new and reconstructed sources, we selected the best-
controlled similar source (DIFF, DLS/FF, WS) that would be applied to
all new sources regardless of size. In re-evaluating this analysis and
in light of several comments that described the inherent differences
and issues with the application of DIFF, DLS/FF, and WS control
technologies to small tunnel kilns or reconstructed tunnel kilns, we
have revised MACT for new sources. We also have added language in 40
CFR 63.8390(i) to provide that it is not technologically and
economically feasible for two types of existing kilns that would
otherwise meet the criteria for reconstruction under 40 CFR 63.2 to
meet the relevant standards--i.e., new source MACT--and that such kilns
do not fall within the definition of reconstruction and are not subject
to new source MACT requirements. The two types of kilns are existing
small kilns that are rebuilt such that they become large kilns and
existing large DLA-controlled tunnel kilns that are rebuilt. Today's
final emission limits for those kilns and for new and reconstructed
small tunnel kilns are based on the performance of DLA control
technology. The final emission limits for new large tunnel kilns are
based on the performance of DIFF, DLS/FF, and WS control technology. In
addition, existing large tunnel kilns equipped with DIFF, DLS/FF or WS
are reconstructed sources subject to new source MACT requirements if
they meet the criteria for reconstruction in 40 CFR 63.2. Such kilns
must continue to meet new source MACT limits, which are based on the
performance of DIFF, DLS/FF, and WS.
We agree with the commenters that DIFF, DLS/FF, and WS control
technologies have not been demonstrated on small kilns. However, we
believe that the 9.07 Mg/hr (10 tph) size represents the threshold
where emission control using DIFF, DLS/FF, or WS is technically
feasible and demonstrated. Smaller kilns have smaller airflow rates
than larger kilns and any fluctuations in airflow rates can have a
significant impact on the ability of DIFF, DLS/FF, or WS to operate
correctly. For new and reconstructed small kilns, the DLA control
technology has been demonstrated to perform adequately despite the
lower airflow rates; DLA control systems are not as sensitive to
airflow changes as DIFF, DLS/FF, or WS control systems. In addition,
existing small kilns that are rebuilt such that they become large kilns
and existing large DLA-controlled kilns that are rebuilt would
experience the same types of retrofit problems that we described for
existing tunnel kilns, and we believe that such tunnel kilns should be
subject to requirements that can be met with a DLA. The DIFF, DLS/FF,
and WS control systems have been demonstrated on new large kilns.
Therefore, MACT for new and reconstructed large tunnel kilns is based
on DIFF, DLS/FF, and WS control and is unchanged from proposal.
Finally, the determination of MACT for new sources at the floor does
not take the cost of control into consideration.
Our revised standards for new and reconstructed small tunnel kilns,
existing small kilns that are rebuilt such that they become large
kilns, and existing large DLA-controlled kilns that are rebuilt are
based on the use of a DLA, which is considerably less expensive than
the other MACT controls. The revised standards should minimize the
commenters' concerns over the costs of reconstructing older kilns.

E. Cost and Economic Impacts

Numerous comments were received regarding costs of the proposed
rule. Commenters contended that EPA did not consider the full costs of
the rule (e.g., costs associated with problems retrofitting existing
kilns). In general, commenters indicated that the economic impacts to
brick industry would be severe. Several commenters pointed out that the
brick industry is losing market share to cheaper building materials
(e.g., vinyl) that are more detrimental to the environment. The
commenters stated that the proposed rule would have a negative effect
on the future of many small businesses and the communities where they
are located. The commenters expressed concern that the proposed rule
would limit the opportunity for continued operation or expansion of
brick plants throughout the U.S. The commenters noted that increased
production costs would increase brick prices, causing brick to become
less competitive with other materials and brick imports to rise,
putting small U.S. companies out of business. Several commenters stated
that the costs of the rule as proposed would prevent their company from
ever replacing, performing a major repair on, or upgrading their
existing kiln. Some commenters stated that the rule as proposed would
eventually cause their company to go out of business. Some commenters
added that they live in an economically depressed area and other jobs
are not readily available.
One commenter disagreed with the Administrator's certification that
the proposed rule would not create a significant impact on a
substantial number of small entities. The commenter submitted an
Economic Impacts Analysis (EIA). The commenter calculated and presented
the Sales Test, Cash Flow Test, and Profit Test criteria which the
commenter believes shows a greater number of small businesses at risk
than does EPA's EIA. In addition, the commenter provided several
specific comments on EPA's EIA. The commenter argued that the rule as
proposed is a significant rulemaking per Executive Order (E.O.) 12866.
A few commenters provided specific comments on the monitoring,
reporting, and recordkeeping costs in the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) 83-I form and supporting statement.
Commenters also questioned the environmental benefits of the BSCP
rule as proposed. One commenter questioned why the BSCP rule is
necessary if brick manufacturing emissions are not causing public
health problems or adverse environmental effects. Another commenter
argued that there is no epidemiological evidence that anyone in North
America has been harmed by brick plant HF emissions and that cancer
incidence in brick plant workers is not higher than for the general
population.
As previously mentioned in this preamble, section 112(b) of the CAA
contains a list of HAP identified by Congress and authorizes EPA to add
to that list pollutants that present or may present a threat of adverse
effects to human health or the environment. Section 112(c) of the CAA
requires us to list all categories and subcategories of major and area
sources of HAP and to

[[Page 26702]]

establish NESHAP for the listed source categories and subcategories
under section 112(d) of the CAA. Because BSCP manufacturing is a listed
source category containing major sources of HAP, we are required by the
CAA to establish NESHAP for BSCP manufacturing.
As stated previously, MACT can either be established at the MACT
floor, or can be some control level more stringent than the MACT floor
or beyond the floor. Section 112(d)(3) of the CAA does not allow us to
consider cost when determining MACT floors. We are only allowed to
consider costs when we examine beyond-the-floor control options
according to section 112(d)(2) of the CAA. We acknowledge the
commenters' concerns regarding the cost of the proposed rule. At
proposal, we determined that beyond-the-floor control measures would
not be appropriate for the BSCP industry, in part because of costs.
Following proposal, we reevaluated the MACT floors for existing
tunnel kilns and have revised the standards to incorporate use of DLA
on existing large tunnel kilns. We also revised the MACT standards for
new and reconstructed small tunnel kilns, existing small kilns that are
rebuilt such that they become large kilns, and existing large DLA-
controlled tunnel kilns that are rebuilt such that the standards are
based on the level of performance that can be achieved by a DLA. (MACT
requirements for existing small tunnel kilns and new and reconstructed
large tunnel kilns remain unchanged.) We continue to agree that beyond-
the-floor control measures are not warranted for the BSCP industry. The
revised MACT standards for new and reconstructed small tunnel kilns,
existing small kilns that are rebuilt such that they become large
kilns, and existing large DLA-controlled kilns that are rebuilt are the
same as the revised standards for existing large tunnel kilns. These
revised standards are less costly and should reduce concerns regarding
cost of retrofitting or rebuilding existing kilns and starting up new
small kilns. Environmental benefits of today's final BSCP rule are
discussed later in this preamble.
EPA reviewed the economic impact analysis report submitted by the
commenter. We have revised our EIA to identify additional small
businesses affected by the rule. We have also incorporated the lower
revised cost estimates into the EIA. Impacts on small businesses are
considerably lower in the revised analysis and prices are predicted to
rise by less than one percent on average. The results of our revised
EIA, as well as a discussion of the impact of today's final rule on
small businesses, are presented later in this preamble.
Comments on the costs of monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping
were incorporated into the revised OMB 83-I form and supporting
statement as appropriate. A discussion of the OMB 83-I form and
supporting statement prepared in compliance with the Paperwork
Reduction Act is presented later in this preamble.

F. Test Data and Emission Limits

1. HF and HCl Emission Limits
Commenters stated that the test data EPA used to set the HF and HCl
limits are questionable. An independent consultant, hired by the BSCP
industry, reviewed the data and determined that six of the seven test
runs used the wrong filter media. A glass filter media was used instead
of a Teflon filter. The commenter suggested that, as a result, the data
could be biased. One commenter also charged that EPA removed high test
runs without any technical basis even though all of these runs met the
same quality control (QC) criteria as other runs. Finally, one
commenter stated that EPA's use of both HF and total fluorides (TF)
data to develop the average uncontrolled HF emission factor (which was
used in developing the HF emission limit) was unsupported, and the
commenter believes that EPA should use only the HF test data because HF
is the regulated pollutant.
We have reviewed the emission tests mentioned by the commenter and
agree that there are some problems with most of the available test
data, and we have accounted for any potential bias by revising the
emission limits. In consultation with EPA's Emission Measurement Center
(EMC), we used a conservative approach to determine the possible impact
of the bias on the percent reduction emission limits. The analysis
showed that our available percent reduction data could be as much as
about 5 percent high, and we, therefore, decreased the corresponding HF
and HCl percent reduction requirements by 5 percent and adjusted the
corresponding production-based emission limits accordingly. In response
to the commenter's assertion that we dropped two test runs without a
technical reason, we examined the test runs in question and
incorporated one of the two runs back into the data set used for
developing the standards. Finally, in response to the appropriateness
of using TF data in calculating the average HF emission factor, while
the average of the TF and HF data sets suggest that TF and HF
measurements are similar, we recognize the inconsistencies between the
few available side-by-side HF and TF tests and we, therefore, decided
to remove the TF data from the HF emission factor calculation. Based on
the three issues discussed above, we revised the emission limits for
kilns where MACT is based on use of DIFF, DLS/FF, or WS (i.e., for new
large kilns). Today's final rule requires new large kilns to limit HF
emissions to 0.029 kilograms per megagram (kg/Mg) (0.057 pounds per ton
(lb/ton)) of fired product or reduce HF emissions by 90 percent; and
limit HCl emissions to 0.028 kg/Mg (0.056 lb/ton) or reduce HCl
emissions by 85 percent.
The revised HF and HCl emission limits for existing large tunnel
kilns, new and reconstructed small tunnel kilns, existing small kilns
that are rebuilt such that they become large kilns, and existing large
DLA-controlled tunnel kilns that are rebuilt are based on the use of a
DLA for HAP reduction. Two HF emission tests (both conducted on the
same source) and two total fluorides emission test are available for
DLA-controlled kilns, and the tests showed HF or TF control
efficiencies of 92.3 percent (HF), 96.4 percent (HF), 93.3 percent
(TF), and 93.5 percent (TF). Similar to the DIFF and DLS/FF tests, we
identified problems with the two HF emission tests that could have
biased the control efficiencies high. To account for this uncertain
bias, and considering typical vendor guarantees for DLA systems
(vendors will guarantee 90 percent HF reduction unless a lesser
percentage meets the customer's need, in which case the vendors
typically provide lower guarantees), we selected a percent reduction
emission limit of 90 percent for HF. We applied this 90 percent
reduction to the revised average HF emission factor of 0.29 kg/Mg (0.57
lb/ton) to calculate a production-based HF emission limit of 0.029 kg/
Mg (0.057 lb/ton). Control efficiency data for HCl are available from
two tests on a single DLA-controlled kiln. The tests averaged 30.7
percent control, and we selected a percent reduction HCl emission limit
of 30 percent. We applied this 30 percent reduction to the average HCl
emission factor of 0.19 kg/Mg (0.37 lb/ton) to calculate a production-
based HCl emission limit of 0.13 kg/Mg (0.26 lb/ton).
Percent of HAP metals in PM. Several commenters noted that HAP
metals and PM data from four facilities (0.16 percent, 0.99 percent,
2.8 percent, and 4.5 percent) were used to arrive at 1.9 percent of the
PM is PM HAP. The

[[Page 26703]]

commenters stated that EPA included an invalid, high data point for
manganese in developing the percentage of PM that is PM HAP. We have
examined the test run mentioned by the commenters and agree that the
run should be voided. Our revised analyses now indicate that the
overall percentage of PM that is HAP metals is 0.72 percent.
PM limit. Other commenters argued that a PM limit for brick kilns
is unnecessary. One commenter noted that metals occur naturally in
clays or shales used to make bricks and that PM emissions from BSCP
plants are clay dust. The commenter argued that metals are locked into
the structure of the clay dust and are not bio-available to affect
humans through respiratory adsorption, ingestion, or dermal contact.
Some commenters noted that there is limited information on the amount
of HAP metals in the PM emitted. Commenters pointed out that EPA is not
setting a PM limit for clay refractory kilns. Some commenters disagreed
that PM is an adequate surrogate for HAP metals emissions. Commenters
also requested that a percent reduction alternative be allowed for the
PM standard, similar to the percent reduction limits for HF and HCl.
We agree that PM emitted from BSCP facilities is largely clay dust,
and that metals are naturally occurring in clays and shales used to
make bricks. Many BSCP facilities apply surface coatings or body
additives containing HAP metals to their products, and these coatings
are another potential source of HAP metals emissions. These types of
additives and coatings are not used in the manufacture of clay
refractories.
We have four emission tests for HAP metals from tunnel kilns and
all of these tests measured some level of HAP metals emissions
including emissions of antimony, arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium,
cobalt, mercury, manganese, nickel, lead, and selenium. Based on these
data, we believe that all kilns emit some level of HAP metals and,
therefore, we are regulating HAP metals emissions. Test data for HAP
metals are not available for clay refractories kilns.
We are unaware of any information to support the idea that the HAP
metals are locked into the structure of the clay and are not bio-
available to affect humans. In the absence of such information and in
the interest of protecting public health, we assume conservatively that
the HAP metals are bio-available and could affect human health. This
assumption is consistent with the conservative approach embodied in the
CAA section 112(b)(2) directive that EPA add pollutants to the
statutory list of HAP that ``may'' present adverse risks to human
health and the environment through various exposure routes.
We used PM as a surrogate for HAP metals so that individual
emission limits would not be based on the limited and variable data. We
examined the available HAP metals test data and calculated that about
95 percent of the HAP metals emissions are in particulate form.
Furthermore, the types of control technologies used on BSCP kilns
remove PM and would indiscriminately remove particulate HAP metals. The
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
stated in a December 15, 2000 decision (in response to the National
Lime Association (NLA) challenge of the use of PM as a surrogate for
HAP metals), ``if HAP metals are invariably present in cement kiln PM,
then even if the ratio of metals to PM is small and variable, or simply
unknown, PM is a reasonable surrogate for the metals--assuming * * *
that PM control technology indiscriminately captures HAP metals along
with other particulates.'' Our use of PM as a surrogate for HAP metals
in the final BSCP rule is consistent with this decision.
We typically do not include percent reduction as an alternative for
PM because a percent reduction standard rewards those facilities that
have high inlet PM loadings. We believe that this is different from the
percent reduction standards for HF and HCl because facilities do not
typically have options for reducing the uncontrolled levels of HF or
HCl. Therefore, we are not providing an alternative percent reduction
standard for PM.
The revised PM emission limit for existing large tunnel kilns, new
and reconstructed small tunnel kilns, existing small kilns that are
rebuilt such that they become large kilns, and existing large DLA-
controlled tunnel kilns that are rebuilt is based on the use of a DLA.
Data from four tests conducted at the outlets of DLA were available for
establishing a production-based emission limit, and we selected the
highest PM data point as the emission limit in order to account for
variability. Today's final rule contains a PM emission limit of 0.21
kg/Mg (0.42 lb/ton) of fired product for existing large tunnel kilns,
new and reconstructed small tunnel kilns, existing small kilns that are
rebuilt such that they become large kilns, and existing large DLA-
controlled tunnel kilns that are rebuilt. The PM emission limit for new
and reconstructed large tunnel kilns is unchanged from proposal (0.060
kg/Mg (0.12 lb/ton) of fired product).

G. Monitoring Requirements

Numerous comments were received on the proposed monitoring
requirements. Some commenters felt that the monitoring, reporting, and
recordkeeping requirements were unreasonable. Commenters noted that the
monitoring requirements would require additional and higher skilled
personnel.
Under section 114(a)(3) of the CAA, owners or operators of major
sources are required to conduct enhanced monitoring of affected sources
to ensure compliance with applicable emission standards. In response to
this mandate, we have incorporated continuous compliance requirements
into all part 63 standards, generally in the form of continuous
emissions monitoring or continuous parameter monitoring. We believe
that continuous monitoring is needed to ensure that emission controls
are operated properly. However, 40 CFR 63.8(f) allows owners and
operators of affected sources to request approval for alternative
monitoring procedures to demonstrate compliance with emission
limitations.
Although we have eliminated some of the proposed monitoring
requirements (such as fabric filter inlet temperature monitoring) from
today's final rule, we have retained most of the proposed monitoring
requirements. We believe that those monitoring requirements are the
minimum needed to ensure continuous compliance with the emission
limits.
1. Operation, Maintenance, and Monitoring (OM&M) Plan
Some commenters felt that development of an OM&M plan was overly
burdensome. One commenter thought the requirement to include OM&M
procedures for kiln operation was unjustified. Another commenter noted
possible contradictions of OM&M plan requirements and Table 7 of the
proposed BSCP rule (the table showing applicability of the General
Provisions to part 63).
After reviewing these comments, we decided that OM&M plans do not
have to include procedures for monitoring the operation and maintenance
of tunnel kilns, and we have written the final rule accordingly.
However, we continue to believe that site-specific OM&M plans are
necessary to ensure continued proper operation of any control device
that is used to comply with the final rule.
Regarding the apparent contradictions between 40 CFR 63.8425(b)(8)
through (10) and Table 7 of the proposed rule, we did not cite the
General Provisions

[[Page 26704]]

to part A in the proposed 40 CFR 63.8425 (b)(8) through (10), but
specified that OM&M plans must include operation and maintenance,
quality assurance, and reporting and recordkeeping procedures that are
consistent with the General Provisions. Therefore, we believe there is
no contradiction between 40 CFR 63.8425 (b)(8) through (10) and Table 7
of the proposed rule. However, we did clarify in Table 7 of the final
rule that 40 CFR 63.8(c)(4) does not apply to subpart JJJJJ because 40
CFR 63.8425 and 63.8465 specify the requirements for continuous
monitoring systems (CMS).
Some commenters requested clarification on whether OM&M plans (and
startup, shutdown, and malfunction plans (SSMP)) are required for kilns
that would not be subject to control requirements (e.g., existing small
tunnel kilns). Another commenter questioned if an OM&M plan would be
required if compliance is achieved without a control device. The BSCP
NESHAP applies only to affected sources. Under today's final rule, an
existing small tunnel kiln is not an affected source. Therefore, the
requirements for OM&M plans, SSMP, and other monitoring, notification,
reporting, and recordkeeping requirements do not apply to those kilns.
Owners or operators will be required to prepare an OM&M plan and SSMP
for any kiln that is an affected source even if the kiln can meet the
emission limits without the use of a control device.
2. Bag Leak Detectors
Commenters indicated that bag leak detectors are unnecessary,
overly protective, and maintenance intensive. The commenters noted that
bag failure is noticeable because PM emissions would be visible at the
stack. Several commenters requested that opacity or visible emissions
(VE) determinations be allowed as opposed to bag leak detectors.
We agree with the commenters that periodic VE checks should provide
a reasonable alternative to bag leak detectors, and we have written the
final rule accordingly. In today's final rule, owners and operators of
affected kilns that are controlled with a DLS/FF or DIFF can choose
between installing a bag leak detection system or performing daily VE
checks. Today's final rule also includes a provision for decreasing the
frequency of VE checks provided no VE are observed.
3. Water Injection Rate Monitoring on DLS/FF
Three commenters stated that DLS/FF water injection rate monitoring
has nothing to do with HF or HCl removal (but is important for sulfur
dioxide (SO₂) removal) and recommended that the provision
for monitoring DLS/FF water injection rate be eliminated.
After reviewing the available information, we decided to eliminate
the requirement for water injection rate monitoring on affected DLS/FF-
controlled kilns. Water injection is used to enhance the removal of
SO₂ by a DLS/FF, but has little effect on removal of HF and
HCl.
4. Fabric Filter Inlet Temperature
Several commenters recommended that the requirement to monitor
fabric filter inlet temperature be eliminated from the rule as
proposed. The commenters explained that it would be impractical to hold
the fabric filter inlet temperature to within 25 degrees below the
average established during the performance test. The fabric filter
inlet temperature varies frequently, much more than 25 degrees, because
of many process factors. Other commenters noted that fabric filter
inlet temperature has little relevancy to acid gas control. One
commenter stated that control systems using hydrated lime are generally
known to have increased HCl and HF removal when temperatures increase.
As a result of these comments, we have eliminated the requirement
for monitoring fabric filter inlet temperatures on affected kilns that
are controlled with a DLS/FF or DIFF. We believe that the other
monitoring requirements (e.g., lime feed rate monitoring and periodic
VE checks) that we have incorporated into the final rule are adequate
for ensuring continuous compliance with the emission limits.
5. DLA Parameter Monitoring
Many commenters suggested potential parametric monitoring
requirements for DLA that could be used to demonstrate continuous
compliance. Various commenters suggested documenting use, on a
continuous basis, of the same limestone that was used during the
performance test demonstrating compliance. Other suggestions included
monitoring pressure drop (demonstrating airflow); limestone flow; and
inlet and/or exhaust gas temperature.
We have incorporated parameter monitoring requirements for DLA into
the final rule based on information provided by commenters and a recent
site visit to a facility operating a DLA. Today's final rule will
require owners and operators of affected kilns with DLA to continuously
monitor the pressure drop across the DLA; perform a daily visual check
of the limestone hopper and storage bin (located at the top of the
DLA), and record the limestone feeder setting daily; and perform
periodic VE observations. In addition, owners and operators will be
required to document the source of the limestone used during the most
recent performance test and maintain records that demonstrate that the
source of limestone has not changed.
6. Continuous Emission Monitoring Systems
In the preamble to the proposed rule, we requested comment on
requiring the application of PM continuous emission monitoring systems
(CEMS) as a method to assure continuous compliance with the proposed PM
emission limits for BSCP tunnel kilns. While we believe there is
evidence that PM CEMS should work on BSCP tunnel kilns, we received no
comments in support of requiring PM CEMS. Commenters opposed use of
CEMS when less expensive, but effective, parametric monitoring
alternatives are available. Therefore, today's final rule does not
require use of PM CEMS or any other type of CEMS. We believe that the
parameter monitoring requirements specified in the final rule are
adequate for ensuring continuous compliance.
7. Establishing/Re-Establishing Production Rate
Several commenters requested that the process weight threshold be
based on average annual throughput instead of hourly or monthly
throughput. One commenter pointed out that the nature of brick
production does not allow for spikes in emissions. Several commenters
stated that the averaging period used to determine the MACT floor
applicability to existing tunnel kilns must have the same production
averaging basis as the data used in setting the subcategorization
level. The commenters stated that it is not reasonable to base the
standard on a 12-month averaging period and then enforce the floor on
an instantaneous or 30-day rolling averaging period.
One commenter requested clarification as to whether EPA would
require a retest if the maximum production level of a kiln would be
higher than the level observed during the performance test. The
commenter added that several States recognize that capacity and maximum
production are difficult figures to calculate for a brick kiln because
they are highly dependent

[[Page 26705]]

on the specific characteristics of a product (size, percent void).
We agree with the commenters that a kiln's process weight threshold
(e.g., design capacity level) should be based on average annual tonnage
rather than on the proposed 30-day rolling average. We have revised the
final BSCP rule accordingly to require the ton per hour production
capacity of a kiln to be calculated based on the maximum amount of BSCP
(in tons) that can be produced in a 12-month period divided by 8,760
hours per year.
Regarding the question of whether we will require a retest if the
maximum production level of a kiln is higher than the level observed
during the performance test, a retest will be required because an
increase in production is likely to increase emissions, and the
operating limits that are based on the performance test would no longer
demonstrate continuous compliance with the emission limits.
8. Test Methods
One commenter requested that we allow any of the applicable EPA
Method 5 variations to demonstrate compliance with the PM standard. The
commenter pointed out that a facility with high SO₂ could
reduce the potential for SO₂ to be counted as PM by using
EPA Method 5B. We are not including EPA Method 5B as a test method
because our emission limit is based on EPA Method 5 and includes tests
on sources with high SO₂ emissions. Individual facilities
will have the option of requesting an alternative test method.
One commenter on the proposed clay ceramics rule requested that the
final rule provide facilities with the option to use either EPA Method
26A or EPA Method 320 for all required stack testing for HF and HCl.
This comment applies for both BSCP and clay ceramics. Therefore, we
have modified today's final BSCP rule to include EPA Method 320 as an
alternative to EPA Method 26A.

H. Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction

1. APCD Bypass
Several commenters stated that the BSCP rule, as proposed, would
not allow the kiln control device to be bypassed at any time. Various
commenters stated that the proposed MACT controls (DIFF, DLS/FF, or WS)
must maintain a given flow to perform efficiently. Thus, the APCD would
dictate how the kiln is operated. During initial kiln startup or
subsequent kiln startups or shutdowns, airflow temperatures and volumes
would be below APCD design volumes. The heat from the furnace zone
could damage the kiln walls and cars if not vented. Therefore, the
ability to bypass during startups, routine maintenance, and emergency
shutdowns of the APCD is needed.
Several commenters noted that brick kilns are constant flow devices
that cannot just be turned off without detrimental impact to large
volumes of product (e.g., character, color, and quality of brick) and
the kiln itself. The commenters stated that days to weeks may be needed
to properly shut down a brick kiln. One commenter noted that kilns
operate continuously 2 to 3 years before being shut down for routine
maintenance.
Commenters stated that short periods of bypass are necessary to
conduct routine preventive maintenance inspections of APCD. Commenters
pointed out that the control devices currently employed have and use
bypass capability for routine maintenance and emergency repairs.
We generally agree with the commenters that some provision is
needed to allow the control device on tunnel kilns to be bypassed for
routine maintenance of the control device, and we have revised the rule
accordingly. Under 40 CFR 63.8420(e) of today's final rule, owners and
operators of an affected tunnel kiln can bypass the kiln control device
for a cumulative period of up to 4 percent of the annual operating
hours for the kiln. Based on the data and other information submitted
by commenters on the proposed rule, we believe that the amount of time
equating to 4 percent of annual kiln operating hours is adequate for
completing routine maintenance on the types of controls that are likely
to be used to comply with the BSCP NESHAP.
To comply with this bypass provision, owners or operators must
submit a request to us for a routine control device maintenance
exemption. The request must justify the need for the routine
maintenance on the control device and the time required to complete the
maintenance activities. The request also must describe the maintenance
activities and the frequency of the maintenance activities, explain why
the maintenance cannot be accomplished during kiln shutdowns, and
describe how emissions will be minimized during the period when the
kiln is operating and the control device is offline. Upon approval, the
request for exemption must be incorporated by reference in, and
attached to, the affected source's title V permit. During any period
when the kiln is operating and the kiln control device is offline, the
owner or operator must minimize HAP emissions. The duration of such
periods also must be minimized.
We also note that the bypass provision included in today's final
rule does not apply to startups, shutdowns, or malfunctions. 40 CFR
63.6(f)(1) explicitly states that nonopacity emission standards, such
as the proposed emission limits for HF, HCl, and PM, ``* * * apply at
all times except during periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction *
* *'' Startups, shutdowns, and malfunctions must be addressed in a
facility's SSMP.
2. Initial Startup
Commenters stated that it is impractical to meet emission standards
during initial startup of a tunnel kiln. The commenters indicated that
it can take from weeks to a year to bring new BSCP kilns online. In
addition, APCD such as DIFF, DLS/FF, or WS cannot be brought online
until adequate temperature and airflow ranges are met. The commenters
indicated that roughly 75 percent of design gas flow rate or kiln
production rate must be obtained before a DIFF or DLS/FF could begin to
operate properly. Another commenter stated that the proposed initial
testing deadline (180 days following the compliance date) would not
provide enough time for a new kiln to come up-to-speed.
We recognize that an extended period of time may be needed for the
initial startup of a new kiln and have added a definition of initial
startup to the BSCP final rule to address the concerns expressed by the
commenters. The definition differentiates between DLA-controlled kilns
and DIFF-, DLS/FF-, or WS-controlled kilns, because DLA are not
sensitive to airflow and only require that the kiln gases are hot
enough to avoid condensation in the DLA. Avoiding condensation is
necessary because water and calcium carbonate (limestone) combine to
make cement, and any introduction of water in the DLA reaction chamber
could cause the limestone to be cemented together. In the final rule,
we provided the following definition: ``Initial startup'' means: (1)
For a new or reconstructed tunnel kiln controlled with a DLA, and for a
tunnel kiln that would be considered reconstructed but for 40 CFR
63.8390(i)(1) or 40 CFR 63.8390(i)(2), the time at which the
temperature in the kiln first reaches 260 [deg]C (500 [deg]F) and the
kiln contains product; or (2) for a new or reconstructed tunnel kiln
controlled with a DIFF, DLS/FF, or WS, the time at which the kiln first
reaches a level of production that is equal to 75 percent of the kiln
design capacity or 12 months

[[Page 26706]]

after the affected source begins firing BSCP, whichever is earlier.
Although some commenters suggested that initial startup for DIFF-, DLS/
FF-, and WS-controlled kilns be defined in terms of airflow, we defined
initial startup in terms of production rate for DIFF-, DLS/FF-, and WS-
controlled kilns because the final rule requires owners and operators
of affected sources to monitor production rate, whereas flowrate
monitoring is not required under today's final rule. We included the
stipulation for DIFF-, DLS/FF-, and WS-controlled kilns that initial
startup occurs no later than 12 months after the new kiln begins firing
BSCP to prevent facilities from operating an affected new or
reconstructed kiln at just less than 75 percent of the kiln design
capacity long term to circumvent the final rule. A similar stipulation
is not necessary for DLA-controlled kilns because the kiln temperature
requirement is such that the kiln cannot produce BSCP until well after
the temperature is reached.
By defining initial startup in today's final rule, we also have
clarified the compliance date for new and reconstructed sources, which
is specified in terms of the initial startup. Thus, new and
reconstructed DIFF-, DLS/FF-, and WS-controlled tunnel kilns beginning
operation after the promulgation date will be allowed to reach 75
percent of the kiln design capacity before initial startup is triggered
and the APCD must come online. New and reconstructed DLA-controlled
tunnel kilns, and tunnel kilns that would be considered reconstructed
but for 40 CFR 63.8390(i)(1) or 40 CFR 63.8390(i)(2), beginning
operation after the promulgation date will trigger initial startup when
the temperature in the kiln first reaches 260[deg]C (500[deg]F) and the
kiln contains product. Performance testing is required 180 days
following the compliance date (i.e., 180 days following initial
startup). Facilities wishing to conduct performance testing to
determine the level of air pollution control necessary may conduct such
testing prior to achieving initial startup.
3. Startup
Two commenters expressed concern with how startup is defined with
respect to the proposed rule. The commenters stated that, under the
proposed rule, a kiln could be considered to be operating if only one
burner was operating. However, a kiln could have as many as 100 burners
or more. To clarify what constitutes kiln startup we added to today's
final rule a definition of ``startup'' that incorporates ``starting the
production process.''
4. Deviations
One commenter felt that the requirement of reporting emissions as
deviations during startup, shutdown, or malfunction (SSM) is
inappropriate because facilities are not required to be in compliance
with the emission limitations during SSM. Another commenter requested
that EPA make it clear the deviations are not necessarily an indication
of noncompliance or excess emissions.
The term deviation applies to events during which an affected
source fails to meet an emission limitation or comply with another
requirement of the final rule. Deviations are not synonymous with
violations; depending on the circumstances, a deviation may or may not
be a violation of an applicable requirement. We agree with the
commenter that an affected source need not be in compliance with
emission limits during periods of SSM. Although we consider non-
compliance with emission limits during startup, shutdown, and
malfunction to be deviations from the emission limits, we do not
consider these deviations to be violations of the emission limits. 40
CFR 63.7(e)(1) specifies that, ``Operations during periods of startup,
shutdown, and malfunction shall not constitute representative
conditions for the purpose of a performance test, nor shall emissions
in excess of the level of the relevant standard during periods of
startup, shutdown, and malfunction be considered a violation of the
relevant standard unless otherwise specified in the relevant standard
or a determination of noncompliance is made under 40 CFR 63.6(e).'' As
indicated in Table 7 of the final rule, this language of the general
provisions to part 63 does apply to subpart JJJJJ. The definition of
deviation included in today's final rule is consistent with how
deviation is defined in other NESHAP, and has not been changed since
proposal.

I. Risk-Based Approaches

The preamble to the proposed BSCP rule requested comment on whether
there might be further ways to structure the BSCP rule to focus on the
facilities which pose significant risks and avoid the imposition of
high costs on facilities that pose little risk to public health and the
environment. Specifically, we requested comment on the technical and
legal viability of two risk-based approaches: (1) An applicability
cutoff for threshold pollutants under the authority of CAA section
112(d)(4); and (2) subcategorization and delisting under the authority
of CAA sections 112(c)(1) and 112(c)(9).\3\ We indicated that we would
evaluate all comments before determining whether either approach would
be included in the final BSCP rule. Numerous commenters submitted
detailed comments on these risk-based approaches. These comments are
summarized in the BSCP Response-to-Comments document (see SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\3\ See 68 FR 1276 (January 9, 2003) (Plywood and Composite Wood
Products Proposed NESHAP) and docket number A-98-44, Item No. II-D-
525 (White papers submitted to EPA outlining the risk-based
approaches).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Based on our consideration of the comments received and other
factors, we have decided not to include the risk-based approaches in
today's final BSCP rule. The risk-based approaches described in the
proposed BSCP rule and addressed in the comments we received raise a
number of complex issues. In addition, we are under time pressure to
complete the BSCP rule, because the statutory deadline for promulgation
has passed and a deadline suit has been filed against EPA. (See Sierra
Club v. Whitman, Civil Action No. 1:01CV01537 (D.D.C.).) Given the
range of issues raised by the risk-based approaches and the need to
promulgate a final rule expeditiously, we believe that it is
appropriate not to include any risk-based approaches in today's final
BSCP rule. Nonetheless, we expect to continue to consider risk-based
approaches in connection with other proposed NESHAP where we have
described and solicited comment on such approaches. Finally, while we
are not including risk-based approaches in today's final BSCP rule, we
have included a number of other measures that we expect will reduce the
costs and burdens on the affected sources.

III. Summary of the Final Brick and Structural Clay Products
Manufacturing NESHAP

A. What Source Category Is Regulated by the Final Rule?

Today's final rule for BSCP manufacturing applies to BSCP
manufacturing facilities that are, are located at, or are part of, a
major source of HAP emissions. The BSCP manufacturing source category
includes those facilities that manufacture brick (including, but not
limited to, face brick, structural brick, and brick pavers); clay pipe;
roof tile; extruded floor and wall tile; and/or other extruded,
dimensional clay products. Brick and structural clay products primarily
are produced from common clay and shale. Production of BSCP typically
consists of processing and handling the raw materials, forming

[[Page 26707]]

and cutting bricks and shapes, and drying and firing the bricks and
shapes. One by-product of brick manufacturing is crushed brick, which
is produced at some facilities by crushing reject bricks.
There are a total of 189 domestic BSCP manufacturing facilities;
170 of these facilities primarily produce brick, and 19 of these
facilities primarily produce structural clay products. The 189 BSCP
manufacturing facilities are located in 39 States and are owned by 89
companies. Seventy-six of the companies are small businesses, and these
76 companies own 92 of the BSCP manufacturing facilities. Thirteen of
the companies are large businesses, and these 13 companies own 97 BSCP
manufacturing facilities.
All BSCP are fired either in continuous (tunnel or roller) or batch
(periodic) kilns. Because the vast majority of continuous kilns are
tunnel kilns, continuous kilns, including roller kilns, will be
referred to as tunnel kilns for the remainder of this preamble. A total
of 314 permitted and operable tunnel kilns were reported by industry;
302 of these kilns are located at facilities that are estimated, based
on uncontrolled emissions, to be major sources. Of the 302 tunnel kilns
located at major sources, 275 are located at brick manufacturing
facilities and 27 are located at structural clay products manufacturing
facilities. A total of 227 permitted and operable periodic kilns were
reported by industry; 164 of these kilns are located at facilities that
are estimated to be major sources. Of the 164 periodic kilns located at
major sources, 81 are located at brick manufacturing facilities and 83
are located at structural clay products manufacturing facilities.
The primary HAP emissions sources at BSCP manufacturing plants are
tunnel kilns and periodic kilns, which emit HF, HCl, and HAP metals.
Kilns also emit PM and SO₂. Other sources of HAP emissions
at BSCP manufacturing plants are the raw material processing and
handling equipment. The APCD that are used by the industry to control
emissions from kilns include DIFF, DLS/FF, DLA, WS, and fabric filters.

B. What Are the Affected Sources?

The existing affected source, which is the portion of each source
in the category for which we are setting emission standards, is any
existing large tunnel kiln. Large tunnel kilns have a design capacity
equal to or greater than 9.07 Mg/hr (10 tph) of fired product. Such
tunnel kilns may be fired by natural gas or other fuels, including
sawdust. Sawdust firing typically involves the use of a sawdust dryer
because sawdust typically is purchased wet and needs to be dried before
it can be used as fuel. Consequently, some sawdust-fired tunnel kilns
have two process streams, including: A process stream that exhausts
directly to the atmosphere or to an APCD, and a process stream in which
the kiln exhaust is ducted to a sawdust dryer where it is used to dry
sawdust before being emitted to the atmosphere.
Today's final rule focuses on those process streams from existing
large tunnel kilns that exhaust directly to the atmosphere or to an
APCD. For existing large tunnel kilns that do not have sawdust dryers,
the kiln exhaust process stream (i.e., the only process stream) is
subject to the requirements of today's final rule. In accordance with
CAA section 112(d)(1), we have divided tunnel kilns that duct exhaust
to sawdust dryers into two classes for purposes of regulation. For
existing large tunnel kilns that ducted exhaust to sawdust dryers prior
to July 22, 2002, only the process stream that is emitted directly to
the atmosphere or to an APCD is subject to the requirements of today's
final rule; any process stream from such kilns that is ducted to a
sawdust dryer is not subject to those requirements.
By contrast, for existing large tunnel kilns that first duct
exhaust to sawdust dryers on or after July 22, 2002, all of the exhaust
(i.e., both the process stream that is emitted directly to the
atmosphere or to an APCD and the process stream that is ducted to a
sawdust dryer) is subject to the same level of control requirement as a
new tunnel kiln.
In addition, each new or reconstructed tunnel kiln is an affected
source and all process streams from new or reconstructed tunnel kilns
are subject to the requirements of today's final rule. The requirements
of today's final rule for new and reconstructed tunnel kilns are
different for small and large kilns. Small tunnel kilns have design
capacities less than 9.07 Mg/hr (10 tph) of fired product, and large
tunnel kilns have design capacities equal to or greater than 9.07 Mg/hr
(10 tph) of fired product. A source is a new affected source if
construction began on or after July 22, 2002. An affected source is
reconstructed if the criteria defined in 40 CFR 63.2 are met, as
qualified by 40 CFR 63.8390(i). An affected source is existing if it is
not new or reconstructed.
An existing tunnel kiln with a federally enforceable permit
condition that restricts kiln operation to less than 9.07 Mg/hr (10
tph) of fired product on an annual average basis is not subject to the
requirements of today's final rule. Kilns that are used exclusively for
R&D and not used to manufacture products for commercial sale, except in
a de minimis manner, are not subject to the requirements of today's
final rule. Finally, kilns that are used exclusively for setting glazes
on previously fired products are not subject to the requirements of
today's final rule.

C. When Must I Comply With the Final Rule?

Existing affected sources must comply within 3 years of May 16,
2003. New and reconstructed affected sources with an initial startup
before May 16, 2003 must comply no later than May 16, 2003. New and
reconstructed affected sources with an initial startup after May 16,
2003 must comply upon initial startup. Existing area sources that
subsequently become major sources have 3 years from the date they
become major sources to come into compliance. Any portion of existing
facilities that become new or reconstructed major sources and any new
or reconstructed area sources that become major sources must be in
compliance upon initial startup.

D. What Are the Emission Limits?

[[Page 26708]]

If you own or operate a new or reconstructed large tunnel kiln, you
must meet an HF emission limit of 0.029 kg/Mg (0.057 lb/ton) of fired
product or reduce uncontrolled HF emissions by at least 90 percent for
all process streams. You must meet an HCl emission limit of 0.028 kg/Mg
(0.056 lb/ton) of fired product or reduce uncontrolled HCl emissions by
at least 85 percent. You are required to meet a PM emission limit of
0.060 kg/Mg (0.12 lb/ton) of fired product.

E. What Are the Operating Limits?

In addition to the emission limits, today's final rule includes
operating limits that apply to APCD used to comply with the final rule.
The operating limits require you to maintain certain process or APCD
parameters within levels established during performance tests. Each
facility affected by today's final rule is required to prepare,
implement, and revise, as necessary, an OM&M plan. The OM&M plan
generally specifies the operating parameters to be monitored; the
frequency that parameter values will be determined; the limits for each
parameter; procedures for proper operation and maintenance of APCD and
monitoring equipment; procedures for responding to parameter
deviations; and procedures for documenting compliance.
We have established operating limits for DLA, DIFF, DLS/FF, and WS.
If you operate a DLA, you must maintain the average pressure drop
across the DLA for each 3-hour block period at or above the average
pressure drop established during the performance test. You also must
maintain an adequate amount of limestone in the limestone hopper,
storage bin (located at the top of the DLA), and DLA at all times. In
addition, you must maintain the limestone feeder setting at or above
the level established during the performance test and you must use the
same grade of limestone from the same source as was used during the
performance test. Finally, you must maintain no VE from the DLA stack.
If you operate a DIFF or DLS/FF, you must maintain free-flowing
lime in the feed hopper or silo and to the APCD at all times and
maintain the feeder setting at or above the level established during
your performance test. In addition, you have the option of using a bag
leak detection system or monitoring VE. If you use a bag leak detection
system, you must initiate corrective action within 1 hour of a bag leak
detection system alarm and complete corrective actions according to
your OM&M plan, and operate and maintain the fabric filter such that
the alarm is not engaged for more than 5 percent of the total operating
time in a 6-month reporting period. If you monitor VE, you must
maintain no VE from the DIFF or DLS/FF stack.
If you operate a WS, you are required to maintain the average
scrubber pressure drop, the average scrubber liquid pH, the average
scrubber liquid flow rate, and the average chemical addition rate, if
applicable, for each 3-hour block period at or above the average values
established during your performance test.
If you own or operate an affected source equipped with an
alternative APCD or technique not listed in the rule, you must
establish operating limits for the appropriate operating parameters
subject to prior written approval by the Administrator as described in
40 CFR 63.8(f). You are required to submit a request for approval of
alternative monitoring procedures that includes a description of the
alternative APCD or technique, the type of monitoring device or
procedure that you would use, the appropriate operating parameters that
you would monitor, and the frequency that the operating parameter
values would be determined and recorded. You must establish site-
specific operating limits during your performance test based on the
information included in the approved alternative monitoring procedures
request. You are required to install, operate, and maintain the
parameter monitoring system for the alternative APCD or technique
according to your OM&M plan.

F. What Are the Performance Test and Initial Compliance Requirements?

We are requiring owners and operators of all affected sources to
conduct an initial performance test using specified EPA test methods to
demonstrate initial compliance with the emission limits. A performance
test must be conducted before renewing your 40 CFR part 70 operating
permit or at least every 5 years following the initial performance
test, as well as when an operating limit parameter value is being
revised. You must test at the outlet of the APCD and prior to any
releases to the atmosphere for all affected sources. If meeting the
percent reduction emission limits for HF or HCl, you must also test at
the APCD inlet. You must conduct each test while operating at the
maximum production level.
Under today's final rule, you are required to measure emissions of
HF, HCl, and PM. You must measure HF and HCl emissions using EPA Method
26A, ``Determination of Hydrogen Halide and Halogen Emissions from
Stationary Sources-Isokinetic Method,'' 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, or
any other alternative method that has been approved by the
Administrator under 40 CFR 63.7(f) of the general provisions. The EPA
Method 26, ``Determination of Hydrogen Chloride Emissions from
Stationary Sources,'' 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, may be used when no
acid particulate matter (e.g., HF or HCl dissolved in water droplets
emitted by sources controlled by a WS) is present. As an alternative to
using EPA Methods 26A or 26, you may measure HF and HCl emissions using
EPA Method 320 ``Measurement of Vapor Phase Organic and Inorganic
Emission by Extractive FTIR'' 40 CFR part 63, appendix A. When using
EPA Method 320, you must follow the analyte spiking procedures of
section 13 of Method 320 unless you can demonstrate that the complete
spiking procedure has been conducted at a similar source. Particulate
matter emissions must be measured using EPA Method 5, ``Determination
of Particulate Emissions from Stationary Sources,'' 40 CFR part 60,
appendix A, or any other approved alternative method.
To determine initial compliance with the production-based mass
emission limits for HF, HCl, and PM, you must calculate the mass
emissions per unit of production for each test run using the mass
emission rates of HF, HCl, and PM and the production rate (on a fired-
product basis) measured during your performance test. To determine
initial compliance with any of the percent reduction emission limits,
you must calculate the percent reduction for each test run using the
mass emission rates, measured during your performance test, of the
specific HAP (HF or HCl) entering and exiting the APCD.
Prior to your initial performance test, you are required to install
the CMS (e.g., continuous parameter monitoring system) equipment to be
used to demonstrate continuous compliance with the operating limits.
During your initial test, you must use the CMS to establish site-
specific operating parameter values that represent your operating
limits.
If you operate a DLA, you must continuously measure the pressure
drop across the DLA during the performance test and determine the 3-
hour block average pressure drop. You also must maintain an adequate
amount of limestone in the limestone hopper, storage bin (located at
the top of the DLA), and DLA at all times. In addition, you must
establish your limestone feeder setting one week prior to the
performance test and maintain the feeder setting for the one-week
period

[[Page 26709]]

that precedes the performance test and during the performance test.
Finally, you are required to document the source and grade of the
limestone used during the performance test.
If you operate a DIFF or DLS/FF, you are required to ensure that
lime in the feed hopper or silo and to the APCD is free-flowing at all
times during the performance test, and you are required to record the
feeder setting for the three test runs. If the lime feed rate varies,
you are required to determine the average feed rate from the three test
runs. If you use a bag leak detection system, you must submit analyses
and supporting documentation demonstrating conformance with EPA
guidance and specifications for bag leak detection systems.
If you operate a WS, you are required to continuously measure the
scrubber pressure drop, the scrubber liquid pH, the scrubber liquid
flow rate, and the chemical addition rate (if applicable). For each WS
parameter, you are required to determine and record the average values
for the three test runs and the 3-hour block average value.

G. What Are the Continuous Compliance Requirements?

Today's final rule requires that you demonstrate continuous
compliance with each emission limitation that applies to you. You must
follow the requirements in your OM&M plan and document conformance with
your OM&M plan. You are required to operate a CMS to monitor the
operating parameters established during your initial performance test
as described in the following paragraphs. The CMS must collect data at
least every 15 minutes, and you need to have at least three of four
equally spaced data values (or at least 75 percent if you collect more
than four data values per hour) per hour (not including startup,
shutdown, malfunction, out-of-control periods, or periods of routine
control device maintenance covered by a routine control device
maintenance exemption) to have a valid hour of data. You must operate
the CMS at all times when the process is operating. You also have to
conduct proper maintenance of the CMS, including inspections,
calibrations, and validation checks, and maintain an inventory of
necessary parts for routine repairs of the CMS. Using the recorded
readings, you must calculate and record the 3-hour block average values
of each operating parameter. To calculate the average for each 3-hour
averaging period, you must have at least 75 percent of the recorded
readings for that period (not including startup, shutdown, malfunction,
out-of-control periods, or periods of routine control device
maintenance covered by a routine control device maintenance exemption).
If you operate a DLA, you must collect and record data documenting
the DLA pressure drop and reduce the data to 3-hour block averages. You
must maintain the average pressure drop across the DLA for each 3-hour
block period at or above the average pressure drop established during
the performance test. You also must verify that the limestone hopper,
storage bin (located at the top of the DLA), and DLA contain an
adequate amount of limestone by performing a daily visual check of the
limestone hopper and the storage bin, and if the hopper or storage bin
do not contain adequate limestone you must promptly initiate and
complete corrective actions according to your OM&M plan. You also must
record the limestone feeder setting daily to verify that the feeder
setting is being maintained at or above the level established during
the performance test. You also must use the same grade of limestone
from the same source as was used during the performance test and
maintain records of the source and type of limestone. Finally, you must
perform daily, 15-minute VE observations in accordance with the
procedures of EPA Method 22, ``Visual Determination of Fugitive
Emissions from Material Sources and Smoke Emissions from Flares,'' 40
CFR part 60, appendix A. During the VE observations, the kiln must be
operating under normal conditions. If VE are observed, you must
promptly initiate and complete corrective actions according to your
OM&M plan. If no VE are observed in 30 consecutive daily EPA Method 22
tests, you may decrease the frequency of EPA Method 22 testing from
daily to weekly for that kiln stack. If VE are observed during any
weekly test, you must promptly initiate and complete corrective actions
according to your OM&M plan and you must resume EPA Method 22 testing
of that kiln stack on a daily basis until no VE are observed in 30
consecutive daily tests, at which time you may again decrease the
frequency of EPA Method 22 testing to a weekly basis.
For DIFF and DLS/FF systems, you must maintain free-flowing lime in
the feed hopper or silo and to the APCD at all times. If lime is found
not to be free flowing via the output of a load cell, carrier gas/lime
flow indicator, carrier gas pressure drop measurement system, or other
system, you must promptly initiate and complete corrective actions
according to your OM&M plan. You also have to maintain the feeder
setting at or above the level established during your performance test
and record the feeder setting once each shift. If you use a bag leak
detection system, you must initiate corrective action within 1 hour of
a bag leak detection system alarm and complete corrective actions
according to your OM&M plan. You also must operate and maintain the
fabric filter such that the alarm is not engaged for more than 5
percent of the total operating time in a 6-month block reporting
period. In calculating this operating time fraction, if inspection of
the fabric filter demonstrates that no corrective action is required,
no alarm time is counted. If corrective action is required, each alarm
must be counted as a minimum of 1 hour, and if you take longer than 1
hour to initiate corrective action, the alarm time must be counted as
the actual amount of time taken to initiate corrective action. As an
alternative to using a bag leak detection system, you may monitor VE.
If you choose to monitor VE, you must perform daily, 15-minute VE
observations in accordance with the procedures of EPA Method 22. During
the VE observations, the kiln must be operating under normal
conditions. If VE are observed, you must promptly initiate and complete
corrective actions according to your OM&M plan. If no VE are observed
in 30 consecutive daily EPA Method 22 tests, you may decrease the
frequency of EPA Method 22 testing from daily to weekly for that kiln
stack. If VE are observed during any weekly test, you must promptly
initiate and complete corrective actions according to your OM&M plan
and you must resume EPA Method 22 testing of that kiln stack on a daily
basis until no VE are observed in 30 consecutive daily tests, at which
time you may again decrease the frequency of EPA Method 22 testing to a
weekly basis.
For WS, you are required to continuously maintain the 3-hour block
averages for scrubber pressure drop, scrubber liquid pH, scrubber
liquid flow rate, and chemical addition rate (if applicable) at or
above the minimum values established during your performance test.

H. What Are the Notification, Recordkeeping, and Reporting
Requirements?

We are requiring owners and operators of all affected sources to
submit initial notifications, notifications of performance tests, and
notifications of compliance status by the specified dates in the final
rule, which may vary depending on whether the affected source is new or
existing. In addition to the information specified in 40 CFR

[[Page 26710]]

63.9(h)(2)(i), you are required to include the following in your
notification of compliance status: (1) The operating limit parameter
values established for each affected source (with supporting
documentation) and a description of the procedure used to establish the
values, and (2) if applicable, analysis and supporting documentation
demonstrating conformance with EPA guidance and specifications for bag
leak detection systems.
We are requiring owners and operators of all affected sources to
submit semiannual compliance reports containing statements and
information concerning emission limitation deviations, out-of-control
CMS, periods of startup, shutdown, or malfunction, when actions
consistent with your approved SSMP were taken, and periods of routine
control device maintenance for facilities obtaining a routine control
device maintenance exemption. In addition, if you undertake an action
that is inconsistent with your approved SSMP, then you are required to
submit a startup, shutdown, and malfunction report within 2 working
days of starting such action and within 7 working days of ending such
action unless you have made alternative arrangements with the
permitting authority.
We are requiring owners and operators of all affected sources to
maintain records for at least 5 years from the date of each record. You
must retain the records onsite for at least the first 2 years but may
retain the records offsite for the remaining 3 years. You are required
to keep a copy of each notification and report, along with supporting
documentation. You are required to keep records related to the
following: (1) Records of startup, shutdown, or malfunction; (2)
records of performance tests; (3) records to show continuous compliance
with each emission limitation; (4) if a bag leak detection system is
used, records of each bag leak detection system alarm, including the
time of the alarm, the time corrective action was initiated and
completed, and a description of the cause of the alarm and the
corrective action taken; (5) if VE measurements are taken, records of
VE observations; (6) records of each operating limit parameter value
deviation, including the date, time, and duration of the deviation, a
description of the cause of the deviation and the corrective action
taken, and whether the deviation occurred during a period of startup,
shutdown, or malfunction; (7) records of routine control device
maintenance for facilities obtaining a routine control device
maintenance exemption, including a copy of the approved request for a
routine control device maintenance exemption; (8) records of production
rate; (9) records for any approved alternative monitoring or test
procedures; and (10) current copies of your SSMP and OM&M plan,
including any revisions, with records documenting conformance.

IV. Summary of Environmental, Energy, and Economic Impacts for the
Final Brick and Structural Clay Products Manufacturing NESHAP

A. What Are the Air Quality Impacts?

At the current level of control and 1996 production levels,
nationwide emissions of HAP from the 169 BSCP facilities estimated to
be major sources are about 6,000 Mg/yr (6,600 tpy). Under today's final
rule, it is assumed that DLA will be installed on 89 tunnel kilns with
production capacities equal to or greater than 9.07 Mg (10 tph)(that
currently are not controlled with a DLA, DIFF, DLS/FF, or WS). This
will result in an estimated reduction in nationwide HAP emissions of
2,100 Mg/yr (2,300 tpy).
Hydrogen fluoride emissions account for approximately 60 percent of
the baseline HAP emissions. Hydrogen chloride emissions account for
approximately 40 percent, with HAP metals comprising less than 1
percent of the baseline HAP emissions. Estimated nationwide emissions
of HF, HCl, and HAP metals from existing major source BSCP facilities
at the current level of control are 3,500 Mg/yr (3,900 tpy), 2,400 Mg/
yr (2,600 tpy), and 24 Mg/yr (26 tpy), respectively. Implementation of
today's final rule is estimated to reduce nationwide HF emissions from
existing tunnel kilns by about 1,700 Mg/yr (1,900 tpy), and HCl will be
reduced by 350 Mg/yr (390 tpy). Emissions of HAP metals are estimated
to be reduced by 5.4 Mg/yr (5.9 tpy). Implementation of today's final
rule also is estimated to reduce PM and SO₂ emissions by 740
Mg/yr (820 tpy) and 2,500 Mg/yr (2,800 tpy), respectively.
To project air quality impacts for new sources, we assumed that two
large model tunnel kilns (each with a 13.6 Mg/hr (15 tph) capacity and
equipped with DIFF) and one medium model tunnel kiln (with an 8.2 Mg/hr
(9 tph) capacity and equipped with a DLA), will begin operation at the
beginning of the first year following promulgation. We estimate that by
implementing today's final rule, HF emissions from new sources will be
reduced by 87 Mg/yr (96 tpy), HCl emissions will be reduced by 47 Mg/yr
(52 tpy), and HAP metals emissions will be reduced by 0.48 Mg/yr (0.53
tpy). We also estimate that PM and SO₂ emissions from the
new kilns will be reduced by 67 Mg/yr (74 tpy) and 170 Mg/yr (190 tpy),
respectively.
Secondary air impacts associated with today's final BSCP rule are
direct impacts that result from the operation of any new or additional
APCD. The generation of electricity required to operate the APCD on new
and existing kilns will result in 11 Mg/yr (12 tpy) of nitrogen oxides
(NO_X) emissions in the first year following compliance with
today's final rule. The electricity is assumed to be generated by
natural gas-fired turbines.

B. What Are the Water and Solid Waste Impacts?

Because compliance with today's final rule is based on the use of
DLA or DIFF, no water pollution impacts are estimated. However,
facilities with available wastewater disposal options may choose to use
wet scrubbers. Based on available information, each scrubber-controlled
kiln could generate as much as about 5 million gallons per year of
waste water (based on a 10 gallon per minute scrubber blowdown, which
is the maximum permitted amount in the industry).
The solid waste disposal impacts that result from the use of DLA
include the disposal of the spent limestone that is discharged from the
DLA. We calculated the solid waste by taking the difference between the
amount of limestone charged into the DLA and the amount of reacted
limestone and then adding the amount of reaction products and PM
captured. Implementation of today's final rule is estimated to increase
solid waste from existing sources by 65,200 Mg/yr (71,900 tpy).
To project solid waste impacts for new sources, we assumed that two
large model tunnel kilns (equipped with DIFF) and one medium model
tunnel kiln (equipped with a DLA) will begin operation at the beginning
of the first year following promulgation of the final rule. The
analysis of solid waste from DLA is discussed in the previous
paragraph. The solid waste disposal impacts that result from the use of
DIFF include the disposal of the spent lime (or other sorbent) that is
injected into the kiln exhaust stream and subsequently captured by a
fabric filter. We calculated the solid waste by taking the difference
between the amount of lime injected into the system and the amount of
reacted lime, and then adding the amount of reaction products and PM
captured. Stoichiometric ratios of 1.0 to 2.0 have been reported for
the DIFF and DLS/FF in use in the brick manufacturing industry. The
average

[[Page 26711]]

stoichiometric ratio of 1.35 was used in this analysis. We estimate
that implementing today's final rule will result in the generation of
1,410 Mg/yr (1,550 tpy) of solid waste from new sources.

C. What Are the Energy Impacts?

Energy impacts consist of the electricity needed to operate the
APCD. Electricity requirements are driven primarily by the size of the
fan needed in the APCD. We estimate the increase in electricity
consumption that will result from implementation of the final rule to
be 89 terajoules per year (84 billion British thermal units (Btu) per
year) for existing sources.
To project energy impacts for new sources, we assumed that two
large model tunnel kilns (equipped with DIFF) and one medium model
tunnel kiln (equipped with a DLA) will begin operation at the beginning
of the first year following promulgation of the final rule. We estimate
the increase in energy consumption that will result from implementation
of today's final rule to be 7.8 terajoules per year (7.4 billion Btu
per year) for new sources.

D. Are There Any Additional Environmental and Health Impacts?

Reducing HAP emissions under today's final rule will lower
occupational HAP exposure levels. The operation of APCD may increase
occupational noise levels.

E. What Are the Cost Impacts?

For existing sources, nationwide total capital costs to implement
today's final rule are estimated at $63 million, with total annualized
costs of $24 million. The capital costs include the purchase and
installation of DLA and monitoring equipment on 89 existing large
tunnel kilns. The annualized costs include annualized capital costs of
the control and monitoring equipment, operation and maintenance
expenses, emission testing costs, and recordkeeping and reporting costs
associated with installing and operating these 89 DLA, as well as the
monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting, and emission testing costs on
20 additional APCD that currently are installed on existing large
tunnel kilns.
To project costs for new sources, we assumed that two large model
tunnel kilns (equipped with DIFF) and one medium model tunnel kiln
(equipped with a DLA) will begin operation at the beginning of the
first year following promulgation of the final rule. We estimate the
capital costs associated with implementation of today's final rule to
be $2.8 million for these three new sources. We estimate the annualized
costs associated with implementation of today's final rule to be $1.14
million per year for new sources in the first year following
promulgation of the rule.
We calculated the cost estimates using cost algorithms that are
based on procedures from EPA's Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards (OAQPS) Control Cost Manual (EPA 450/3-90-006, January 1990)
and cost information provided by the BSCP industry. We estimated costs
by developing model process units that correspond to the various sizes
of kilns found at BSCP manufacturing facilities and assigning the model
process units to each facility based on the kiln sizes at each
facility. The facility costs were summed to determine total industry
costs.

F. What Are the Economic Impacts?

We conducted a detailed economic impact analysis to determine the
market- and industry-level impacts associated with today's final rule.
The compliance costs of today's final rule are expected to increase the
price of brick and reduce their domestic production and consumption. We
project the price of brick to increase by just less than 1 percent and
project no change in price for structural clay products. Domestic
production of brick is expected to decline by close to 1 percent. In
addition, foreign brick imports are estimated to increase while exports
decrease, both by just under 1 percent. Since there is no expected
change in the price of structural clay products, we predict no change
in domestic production or foreign imports of structural clay products.
In terms of industry impacts, the brick producers are projected to
experience a decrease in operating profits of about 10 percent, which
reflects the compliance costs associated with brick production and the
resulting reductions in revenues due to the increase in the price of
brick and the reduced quantity purchased. Through the market impacts
described above, today's final rule would create both positive and
negative financial impacts on facilities within the BSCP manufacturing
industry. The majority of facilities, almost 71 percent, are expected
to experience profit increases with today's final rule; however, there
are some facilities projected to lose profits (about 29 percent).
Furthermore, the economic impact analysis indicates that of the 189
BSCP manufacturing facilities, two brick facilities are at risk of
closure because of today's final rule, while none of the structural
clay products facilities are at risk to close.
Based on the market analysis, the annual social costs of today's
final rule are projected to be $23.3 million. This differs from the
annual engineering costs of today's final rule because the social costs
account for producer and consumer behavior. These social costs are
distributed across the many consumers and producers of brick. Since
there are no price changes occurring in the structural clay products
market, the social costs of today's final rule are confined to the
brick industry. The consumers of brick are expected to incur $14.7
million in costs associated with today's final rule, with domestic
consumers bearing $14.6 million and foreign consumers bearing $0.07
million. Brick producers, in aggregate, are expected to bear the
remaining $8.6 million annually in costs. Domestic producers incur
$8.67 million while foreign producers gain $0.04 million annually.
We estimate that 15 new kilns will be built during the 5 years
after promulgation of today's final rule. The total compliance costs
associated with these kilns are projected to be less than 0.6 percent
of the industry's value of shipments. The economic impact analysis
estimated the impact of today's final rule on these new sources through
a sensitivity analysis. According to that analysis, it is projected
that anywhere from three to six of these new kilns will be delayed in
coming on-line in the BSCP manufacturing industry due to today's final
rule.

V. Summary of Responses to Major Comments and Changes to the Clay
Ceramics Manufacturing Proposed NESHAP

In response to the public comments received on the proposed clay
ceramics rule, we made several changes in developing today's final clay
ceramics rule. The major comments and our responses and rule changes
are summarized in the following sections. A more detailed summary can
be found in the Response-to-Comments document, which is available from
several sources (see SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section).

A. Affected Source

1. Subcategories of Clay Ceramics Kilns
We proposed two subcategories of clay ceramics kilns: Continuous
(tunnel or roller) kilns and batch (periodic) kilns. Based on the
public comments received regarding APCD applicability, as described in
section V.C of this preamble, we revised the subcategorization
structure for today's final rule. Today's final rule is based on

[[Page 26712]]

four subcategories of clay ceramics kilns: Ceramic tile or sanitaryware
tunnel kilns with design capacities less than 9.07 Mg/hr (10 tph) of
fired product, ceramic tile or sanitaryware tunnel kilns with design
capacities equal to or greater than 9.07 Mg/hr (10 tph) of fired
product, ceramic tile roller kilns, and periodic kilns.
2. R&D Kiln Definition
One commenter requested that we change the definition of research
and development kiln so that it is consistent with the definition of
R&D in section 112(c)(7) of the CAA and most other NESHAP. Therefore,
today's final rule includes a revised definition of research and
development kiln that is consistent with section 112(c)(7) of the CAA
and other NESHAP.
3. Facilities Co-Located With Major Sources
Commenters indicated that considering a clay ceramics facility a
major source because it is co-located with a major source (under a
separate NESHAP) puts those facilities at a competitive disadvantage
with competitors operating facilities that are not co-located. We
understand these commenters' concerns. However, section 112 of the CAA
requires us to regulate HAP emissions from all major source facilities,
regardless of the processes or operations that make those facilities
major sources. Thus, today's final rule applies for both co-located and
stand-alone clay ceramics manufacturing facilities that are major
sources.

B. Existing Source MACT

Four commenters concurred with the existing MACT floor of ``no
emissions reductions'' for existing clay ceramics sources. To the
contrary, one commenter charged that EPA has simply set MACT floors
based on control technology type and that EPA did not identify the
relevant best performers and set floors reflecting their average
emission level. The commenter noted that factors other than control
device type affect emissions and that EPA must consider all non-
negligible factors in setting MACT floors and considering beyond-the-
floor measures. The commenter stated that if EPA believes it is
unworkable to consider all factors, then perhaps EPA should base
standards on actual emissions data which reflects all the factors
influencing a source's performance.
We reevaluated our existing source MACT determinations following
proposal based on consideration of factors other than APCD type. We
agree that factors other than APCD type (e.g., kiln design, fuel type,
raw materials, additives and surface coatings) can affect emissions
from clay ceramics kilns. We acknowledged the effect of kiln design on
emissions by creating separate subcategories for periodic, roller, and
tunnel kilns. We maintain that low-HAP raw material use is not a viable
MACT option because, similar to the BSCP industry, all facilities use
product-specific raw materials that are integral to the various
products. Changes in raw materials would change the end products, and
because of this, it would not be feasible for facilities to meet
requirements based on the use of low-HAP raw materials. With respect to
requiring kilns to fire low-HAP fuels, all clay ceramics kilns for
which we have information are fired with natural gas or propane.
Therefore, we are not concerned that a requirement to use natural gas
(or equivalent fuel) to fire all existing kilns would have any impact
on the end products of existing kilns, as would be the case in the BSCP
industry. Therefore, the MACT floor for all existing clay ceramics
periodic kilns, tunnel kilns, and roller kilns is based on firing the
kilns with natural gas or an equivalent fuel (such as propane or other
clean-burning fuel), and we added a work practice standard to the final
rule that covers this requirement. We considered developing emission
limitations based on firing natural gas, but the available data are
insufficient for us to determine the contribution of kiln fuel to HAP
emissions, and we believe that a work practice standard is the only
feasible means of addressing the commenter's concern that we did not
consider options besides APCD use.

C. New Source MACT

At proposal, we concluded that MACT for new and reconstructed
periodic kilns was ``no emissions reductions.'' We concluded that MACT
for new and reconstructed tunnel and roller kilns was the level of
control achievable with a DIFF, DLS/FF, or WS because the best-
controlled similar source (a BSCP tunnel kiln) had this level of
control.
Following proposal, several commenters argued that clay ceramics
kilns are different from BSCP kilns, and that EPA should not consider
BSCP tunnel kilns to be the best-controlled similar source. The
commenters noted that clay ceramics kilns typically have much lower
throughput than BSCP kilns and that the exhaust from clay ceramics
kilns contains lower pollutant concentrations than BSCP kiln exhaust.
Commenters stated that the lower pollutant concentrations in clay
ceramics kiln exhaust would result in the inability to achieve high
removal efficiencies. The commenters suggested that the proposed
control technologies are not transferable to clay ceramics kilns and
noted that none of the technologies are currently in use on domestic
clay ceramics kilns. The commenters suggested that the best-controlled
similar source should come from the sources in the clay ceramics source
category, which would result in a new source MACT floor of ``no
emissions reductions'' for clay ceramics kilns.
One commenter stated that, whereas brick products are fired
unglazed, most sanitaryware products have a ceramic glaze applied
before firing, which melts in the kiln, evenly covering the surface of
the piece, helping to seal the surface and hinder the emission of by-
products typically associated with the clay raw material.
One commenter suggested that MACT for new clay ceramics kilns be
applied only to large kilns (i.e., kilns with a design capacity equal
to or greater than 9.07 Mg/hr (10 tph) of fired product). The commenter
suggested (based on their conversation with an APCD vendor) that DIFF
systems may not be readily available for small (less than 9.07 Mg/hr
(10 tph)) clay ceramics kilns.
One commenter requested that EPA distinguish between ceramic tile
tunnel and roller kilns. The commenter stated that the two major design
differences between BSCP periodic and new BSCP tunnel kilns are the
same dissimilarities exhibited between clay ceramics tunnel and roller
kilns. The commenter also provided reasons why clay ceramics roller
kilns are different from BSCP tunnel kilns. The commenter stated that
BSCP tunnel kilns are made of brick lined with refractory materials,
have a high profile (tall) design, and require setting and stacking
product on rail cars which move on floor rails. Bricks are fired on a
15 to 24 hour cycle. Ceramic tile roller kilns are designed in modular
units with a low (short) profile (which affects the excess airflow),
have different firing curves and flow characteristics, process a single
row of tile moved by roller, and utilize high velocity burners for
turbulent airflow. The tiles are not stacked and are fired on a 40 to
60 minute cycle. The commenter stated that firing time has a
significant effect on the evolution of HF emissions (roller kilns
exhibit significantly lower HF emissions) and provided detail of firing
curves/emission estimates for the two types of kilns. In addition, the
commenter stated that APCD available for BSCP tunnel

[[Page 26713]]

kilns are not readily available for roller kilns.
We acknowledge that the control technologies (DIFF, DLS/FF, and WS)
that formed the basis for the proposed emission limits for new and
reconstructed clay ceramics kilns are not currently in use on any
domestic clay ceramics kiln. However, section 112(d) of the CAA
requires us to establish emission limits for new sources based on the
performance of the best-controlled similar source. The CAA does not
specify that the similar source must be within the same source
category. To the contrary, our interpretation of section 112(d) of the
CAA is that we are obligated to consider similar sources from other
source categories in determining the best-controlled similar source for
establishing MACT for new sources.
We have reevaluated our subcategory and best-controlled similar
source determinations for new and reconstructed clay ceramics kilns. We
maintain that MACT for new and reconstructed periodic kilns does not
require use of add-on APCD because the best-controlled similar source
is uncontrolled. In addition, based on the comments received and other
information, we have concluded that there are significant differences
between clay ceramics tunnel kilns and roller kilns. We believe that
differences in the operation of BSCP tunnel kilns and tile roller
kilns, particularly with respect to the duration of firing, result in
emission characteristics that are likely to be very dissimilar. As a
result, we cannot assume that APCD that have been demonstrated to be
effective for reducing HF and HCl emissions from BSCP tunnel kilns are
feasible for tile roller kilns. Therefore, we have concluded that BSCP
tunnel kilns cannot be considered similar sources to tile roller kilns,
and we have determined that MACT for new and reconstructed clay
ceramics tile roller kilns does not include control with an add-on
APCD.
We disagree that there are technological differences between clay
ceramics tunnel kilns and BSCP tunnel kilns. Some tunnel kilns actually
produce both ceramic tile and structural clay tile (a structural clay
product). Regarding the effect of glazing on emissions, we cannot
refute that the glazes applied to sanitaryware form a seal that could
prevent further release of certain pollutants from the body of the
ware. However, we have no information that indicates that the sealing
becomes effective before HF and HCl are released. To the contrary, we
have data from several tests on sanitaryware kilns that quantify HF
emissions, and the tests indicate that uncontrolled emissions are
within the range emitted from BSCP kilns.
We maintain that the best-controlled similar source for a clay
ceramics tunnel kiln is a BSCP tunnel kiln. As discussed in section
II.D of this preamble, MACT for new and reconstructed BSCP tunnel kilns
with design capacities less than 9.07 Mg/hr (10 tph) of fired product
is based on use of a DLA, while MACT for new and reconstructed BSCP
tunnel kilns with design capacities equal to or greater than 9.07 Mg/hr
(10 tph) of fired product is based on use of DIFF, DLS/FF, or WS. Thus,
we have adopted the same requirements for new and reconstructed clay
ceramics tunnel kilns. New and reconstructed clay ceramics tile and
sanitaryware tunnel kilns with design capacities less than 9.07 Mg/hr
(10 tph) of fired product will be required to meet emission limits
based on the levels of control that can be achieved by a kiln
controlled with a DLA. The emission limits for HF are 0.029 kg/Mg
(0.057 lb/ton) or at least 90 percent reduction. For HCl, the emission
limits are 0.13 kg/Mg (0.26 lb/ton) or at least 30 percent reduction.
For PM, which is used as a surrogate for HAP metals, the emission limit
is 0.21 kg/Mg (0.42 lb/ton). For new and reconstructed clay ceramics
tile and sanitaryware tunnel kilns with design capacities equal to or
greater than 9.07 Mg/hr (10 tph) of fired product, we have revised the
emission limits (based on the levels of control that can be achieved by
a kiln controlled with a DIFF, DLS/FF, or WS) to reflect new data that
were considered in the development of the final BSCP rule, as discussed
in section II.F of this preamble. The revised HF emission limits are
0.029 kg/Mg (0.057 lb/ton) or at least 90 percent reduction. The
revised HCl emission limits are 0.028 kg/Mg (0.056 lb/ton) or at least
85 percent reduction. The PM emission limit remains unchanged (from
proposal) at 0.060 kg/Mg (0.12 lb/ton).
Similar to the requirements for existing sources, we added a work
practice standard that requires facilities to use natural gas, or an
equivalent fuel, to fire all new or reconstructed clay ceramics
periodic kilns, tunnel kilns, and roller kilns, except during periods
of natural gas curtailment or other periods when natural gas is not
available.
Similar to the requirements for BSCP tunnel kilns, two types of
clay ceramics tunnel kilns that would otherwise be considered
reconstructed do not meet the definition of reconstruction in 40 CFR
63.2. We have added language in 40 CFR 63.8450(f) to provide that it is
not technologically and economically feasible for these two types of
existing kilns that would otherwise meet the criteria for
reconstruction under 40 CFR 63.2 to meet the relevant standards--i.e.,
new source MACT. The two types of kilns are existing tunnel kilns with
design capacities less than 9.07 Mg/hr (10 tph) of fired product whose
design capacities are increased such that they are equal to or greater
than 9.07 Mg/hr (10 tph) of fired product, and existing DLA-controlled
tunnel kilns with design capacities equal to or greater than 9.07 Mg/hr
(10 tph) of fired product. These sources will be required to meet
emission limits based on the levels of control that can be achieved by
a kiln controlled with a DLA. They also will be subject to the work
practice standard that requires facilities to use natural gas, or an
equivalent fuel, to fire all kilns, except during periods of natural
gas curtailment or other periods when natural gas is not available.
We acknowledge that the higher airflow rates that are
characteristic of clay ceramics kilns result in lower pollutant
concentrations in the exhaust stream, and that control efficiency
limits (or percentage reduction limits) are more difficult to achieve
when exhaust gas concentrations are lower. For that reason, we proposed
and are promulgating today production-based mass emission limits as
alternatives to the HF and HCl percentage reduction limits. Exhaust gas
concentrations have no effect on mass emission rates, provided the
concentrations are above the test method detection limit. The mass
emission rate (e.g., pounds of pollutant emitted per hour) for a source
is unchanged regardless of how much dilution air is introduced.
Therefore, even though a clay ceramics kiln with a diluted exhaust
stream may not be able to meet the percentage HF and HCl reduction
limits, the available data indicate that a kiln that is controlled to
the new source MACT level will be able to meet the production-based
emission limits for HF and HCl, as well as the production-based limit
for PM.

D. Cost and Economic Impacts

Several commenters stated that EPA underestimated the cost per ton
of pollutant removed at proposal. In general, the commenters felt the
costs were unreasonable. Commenters questioned the public health
benefits of the proposed clay ceramics rule.
One commenter stated that EPA entirely misunderstood the economic
state of the ceramic tile industry in the U.S., and therefore, grossly
underestimated the economic impact of

[[Page 26714]]

the proposed rule on the industry. The commenter challenged the
assumptions presented in the algorithms on which the cost analysis is
based, charging that they bear no reasonable relationship to reality in
the industry and that the APCD strategies are not actually feasible for
implementation. The commenter also argued that the economic analysis of
the MACT floor for reconstructed and new ceramic clay roller kilns does
not support DIFF-, DLS/FF- or WS-based controls.
We acknowledge the commenters' statements about the high cost
effectiveness of the proposed rule. As discussed previously, we have
revised the rule, as proposed, such that it is now less costly. Under
today's final rule, new clay ceramic roller kilns will not be subject
to emission limits. In addition, we have subcategorized clay ceramics
tunnel kilns by design capacity. New and reconstructed tunnel kilns
with design capacities less than 9.07 Mg/hr (10 tph) of fired product
and tunnel kilns that would be considered reconstructed but for 40 CFR
63.8540(f)(1) or 40 CFR 63.8540(f)(2) will be required to meet emission
limits based on the levels of control that can be achieved by a DLA. In
addition to the changes mentioned above, we have added a work practice
standard that requires facilities to use natural gas, or an equivalent
fuel, to fire all clay ceramics kilns, except during periods of natural
gas curtailment or other periods when natural gas is not available. The
costs associated with this change are minimal. Based on these changes,
there will be no control cost for new roller kilns and the control cost
for new and reconstructed tunnel kilns with design capacities less than
9.07 Mg/hr (10 tph) of fired product and tunnel kilns that would be
considered reconstructed but for 40 CFR 63.8540(f)(1) or 40 CFR
63.8540(f)(2) will be lower than at proposal. Most of the new tunnel
kilns constructed will likely be in this smaller size category. New
clay ceramics tunnel kilns with design capacities equal to or greater
than 9.07 Mg/hr (10 tph) are still required to meet emission limits
based on the use of DIFF, DLS/FF or WS technologies. However, the HF
and HCl emission limits are slightly less stringent than at proposal
(due to the inclusion of new test data). The PM emission limit for new
clay ceramics tunnel kilns with design capacities equal to or greater
than 9.07 Mg/hr (10 tph) is unchanged from the proposed requirements
for all new kilns.
Public health benefits are likely to be realized due to the reduced
emissions and reduced exposures to emissions as a result of today's
final rule. However, we have not quantified these public health
benefits because we are not required to do so under the CAA.
We disagree with the commenter's statement that the economic
impacts of the rule on the ceramic tile industry have been grossly
underestimated. Based on revisions to the final rule as described
above, we expect minimal impacts on existing sources, based on
recordkeeping and reporting costs associated with the work practice
standard for existing kilns, and we estimate that only one new source
will be impacted by the final rule in the first five years following
promulgation. Therefore, the EIA at proposal overestimated the impacts
on the industry. Thus, it is very unlikely that the one new source
affected by the rule or the addition of a work practice standard that
requires all kilns to be fired with natural gas (or equivalent fuel)
will be able to influence industry prices or foreign competition.

E. Test Data and Emission Limits

One commenter implied that there are no data to suggest that HCl is
emitted from ceramic tile kilns. Another commenter stated that limits
for HCl and PM are irrelevant and that we should only set an emission
limit for HF (the largest single HAP emitted from the kilns). The
commenter believes that there is no need to establish an emission
limitation for HCl or PM because any control system designed to achieve
the required HF reduction will also reduce HCl and PM. One commenter
disagreed that PM is an adequate surrogate for HAP metals emissions.
We are required by section 112(d) of the CAA to establish emission
limits for listed HAP emitted from major sources. Section 112(b) of the
CAA lists HCl and various HAP metals. We believe that PM is an adequate
surrogate for HAP metals for the reasons discussed in section II.F of
this preamble.
We acknowledge that we have no test data that demonstrate that HCl
is emitted from clay ceramics kilns. However, we do have data that show
that chlorides are present in many clay materials, and that HCl is
emitted from various types of clays when heated above a minimum
temperature. The data include raw material analyses and emission test
reports of HCl emissions for the BSCP manufacturing, lightweight
aggregate manufacturing, and kaolin processing industries. Because of
the similarities in raw materials used in those industries and the raw
materials used to manufacture clay ceramics, we assume that clay
ceramics kilns also emit HCl.
We agree that HF emission rates from clay ceramics kilns generally
are greater than the corresponding emission rates for HCl or metal HAP.
We also agree that emission controls that are used to meet the emission
limits for HF are likely to reduce emissions of HCl and SO_x
as well. However, as stated previously, the CAA requires us to set
emission limits for all listed HAP based on MACT. The data indicated
that there are existing controls on similar sources that achieve
significant reductions in emissions of HCl and PM (as a surrogate for
metal HAP). Therefore, we are required to establish emission limits for
HCl and metal HAP. We also note that, if HCl and PM emissions from any
affected source are negligible or are automatically controlled by HF
control devices, complying with the HCl and PM emission limits should
not present a problem.

F. Monitoring Requirements

1. Fabric Filter Inlet Temperature
Two commenters disagreed with the proposed fabric filter inlet
temperature monitoring requirement. One commenter stated that control
systems using hydrated lime are generally known to have increased HCl
and HF removal when temperatures increase. The other commenter
suggested that the only limit on fabric filter inlet temperature should
be based on manufacturer's specifications for protection of the
equipment.
We have eliminated the requirement for monitoring fabric filter
inlet temperatures on affected kilns that are controlled with a DLS/FF
or DIFF. We believe that the other monitoring requirements (e.g., lime
feed rate monitoring and periodic VE checks) that we have incorporated
into today's final rule are adequate for ensuring continuous compliance
with the emission limits.
2. Bag Leak Detection Systems and Visible Emissions
One commenter suggested changes to the amount of bag leak detector
alarm time that must be recorded. We have not changed the requirements
for recording bag leak detection system downtime. However, we have
incorporated into today's final rule an option for owners and operators
of affected kilns that are controlled with a DLS/FF, or DIFF to perform
daily VE checks rather than using bag leak detection systems. Visible
emissions checks are required for DLA-controlled kilns. Today's final
rule also includes a provision for decreasing the frequency of VE
checks provided no VE are observed.

[[Page 26715]]

3. Continuous Emissions Monitoring Systems
In the preamble to the proposed rule, we requested comment on
requiring the application of PM CEMS as a method to assure continuous
compliance with the proposed PM emission limits. Commenters opposed use
of CEMS when less expensive, but effective, parametric monitoring
alternatives are available. Therefore, today's final rule does not
require use of PM CEMS or any other type of CEMS. We believe that the
parameter monitoring requirements specified in the final rule are
adequate for ensuring continuous compliance.
4. Test Methods
One commenter requested that the final clay ceramics rule provide
facilities with the option to use either EPA Method 26A or EPA Method
320 for all required stack testing for HF emissions, HCl emissions, or
both. Because EPA Method 320 will provide accurate HF and HCl
measurements, we have modified today's final clay ceramics rule to
include EPA Method 320 as an alternative to EPA Method 26A.

G. Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction

1. Bypass
One commenter requested that EPA allow for use of the bypass stack
during periods of APCD maintenance. Similar comments were received on
the proposed BSCP rule. Therefore, today's final clay ceramics rule
allows for bypass of the APCD during periods of routine control device
maintenance for up to 4 percent of the annual kiln operating hours.
Section II.H of this preamble presents details on use of this routine
control device maintenance exemption.
2. Initial Startup
Commenters on both the proposed BSCP rule and clay ceramics rule
pointed out that it is impractical to meet emission standards during
initial startup of a tunnel kiln. Thus, as discussed in section II.H of
this preamble, we have added a definition of initial startup to today's
final clay ceramics rule to address the concerns expressed by the
commenters.

VI. Summary of the Final Clay Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP

A. What Source Category Is Regulated by the Final Rule?

Today's final rule for clay ceramics manufacturing applies to clay
ceramics manufacturing facilities that are, are located at, or are part
of, a major source of HAP emissions. The clay ceramics manufacturing
source category includes those facilities that manufacture pressed
floor tile, pressed wall tile, and other pressed tile; or sanitaryware
(toilets and sinks). Clay ceramics are primarily composed of clay and
shale, and may include many different additives, including silica,
talc, and various high purity powders produced by chemical synthesis.
Clay ceramics manufacturing generally includes raw material processing
and handling and forming of the tile or sanitaryware shapes, followed
by drying, glazing, and firing. Most clay ceramics are coated with a
glaze prior to firing. The clay ceramics industry also includes
dinnerware and pottery manufacturing, but these industry segments are
not covered by today's final rule because we determined that there are
no dinnerware or pottery manufacturing facilities that are major
sources of HAP.
Available information shows a total of 58 facilities that produce
clay ceramics. Thirty-two of these facilities, located in 16 States,
primarily produce pressed tile, while 26 of these facilities, located
in 15 States, primarily produce sanitaryware. Eight of the 58 clay
ceramics manufacturing facilities are estimated to be major sources.
Thirteen clay ceramics facilities are owned by small businesses, and
none of the small business-owned facilities are estimated to be major
sources.
All clay ceramics are fired in kilns. Firing may be performed in
one or more stages. Tile can be fired in either continuous (tunnel or
roller) or batch (periodic) kilns, but most facilities use either
tunnel or roller kilns for tile production. Periodic kilns are usually
used at smaller facilities or are used primarily for second-firing a
product after a glaze has been applied.
The sanitaryware industry uses either tunnel kilns or periodic
kilns for firing. Tunnel kilns account for most sanitaryware firing;
periodic kilns are used primarily for refiring rejected pieces that
have been repaired and re-glazed. Some smaller facilities use periodic
kilns for all firing operations.
The primary HAP emission sources at clay ceramics manufacturing
plants are roller, tunnel, and periodic kilns which emit HF, HCl, and
HAP metals. Kilns also emit PM and SO₂. Currently, no APCD
are used by the clay ceramics industry to control emission from kilns,
although the industry's emissions are minimized because the kilns fire
clean-burning fuels. Other sources of HAP emissions at clay ceramics
manufacturing plants are the raw material processing and handling
equipment.

B. What Are the Affected Sources?

The affected sources, which are the portions of each source in the
category for which we are setting emission standards, include each
existing, new, or reconstructed periodic kiln, tunnel kiln, and roller
kiln. Each tunnel kiln that meets the description in 40 CFR
63.8540(f)(1) or 40 CFR 63.8540(f)(2) also is an affected source. All
affected sources are subject to the work practice standard in today's
final rule. In addition, today's final rule contains different emission
limits, based on design capacity, for new and reconstructed tunnel
kilns, and also includes emission limits for tunnel kilns that would
otherwise meet the criteria for reconstruction but for 40 CFR
63.8540(f)(1) or 40 CFR 63.8540(f)(2). The tunnel kiln subcategories
are tunnel kilns with design capacities less than 9.07 Mg/hr (10 tph)
of fired product and tunnel kilns with design capacities equal to or
greater than 9.07 Mg/hr (10 tph) of fired product. Kilns that are used
exclusively for R&D and not used to manufacture products for commercial
sale, except in a de minimis manner, are not subject to the
requirements of today's final rule. Kilns that are used exclusively for
refiring or for setting glazes on previously fired products are not
subject to the requirements of today's final rule.
A source is a new affected source if construction began on or after
July 22, 2002. An affected source is reconstructed if the criteria
defined in 40 CFR 63.2 are met, as qualified by 40 CFR 63.8540(f). An
affected source is existing if it is not new or reconstructed and does
not meet the descriptions in 40 CFR 63.8540(f). As indicated, affected
sources described in 40 CFR 63.8540(f) also are subject to today's
final rule.

C. When Must I Comply With the Final Rule?

New and reconstructed affected sources and affected sources that
would be considered reconstructed but for 40 CFR 63.8540(f)(1) or 40
CFR 63.8540(f)(2) with an initial startup before May 16, 2003 must
comply no later than May 16, 2003. New and reconstructed affected
sources and affected sources that would be considered reconstructed but
for 40 CFR 63.8540(f)(1) or 40 CFR 63.8540(f)(2) with an initial
startup after May 16, 2003 must comply upon initial startup. Any
portion of existing facilities that become new or reconstructed major
sources and any new or reconstructed area sources that become major
sources must be in compliance upon initial startup.

[[Page 26716]]

If you have an existing affected source, you must comply with the
work practice standards within 3 years of May 16, 2003.

D. What Are the Emission Limits?

Today's final rule includes emission limits in the form of
production-based mass emission limits and percent reduction
requirements. In establishing the HAP emission limits, we selected PM
as a surrogate for HAP metals, including mercury in particulate form.
Today's final rule includes HF, HCl, and PM emission limits for new and
reconstructed affected sources at clay ceramics manufacturing
facilities, as well as for the following affected sources that would be
considered reconstructed but for 40 CFR 63.8540(f): Existing tunnel
kilns with design capacities less than 9.07 Mg/hr (10 tph) of fired
product whose design capacities are increased such that they are equal
to or greater than 9.07 Mg/hr (10 tph) of fired product, and existing
DLA-controlled tunnel kilns with design capacities equal to or greater
than 9.07 Mg/hr (10 tph) of fired product.
If you own or operate a new or reconstructed tunnel kiln with a
design capacity less than 9.07 Mg/hr (10 tph) of fired product or a
tunnel kiln that would be considered reconstructed but for 40 CFR
63.8540(f)(1) or 40 CFR 63.8540(f)(2), you are required to meet an HF
emission limit of 0.029 kg/Mg (0.057 lb/ton) of fired product or reduce
uncontrolled HF emissions by at least 90 percent. You also are required
to meet an HCl emission limit of 0.13 kg/Mg (0.26 lb/ton) of fired
product or reduce uncontrolled HCl emissions by at least 30 percent.
Finally, you are required to meet a PM emission limit of 0.21 kg/Mg
(0.42 lb/ton) of fired product.
If you own or operate a new or reconstructed tunnel kiln with a
design capacity equal to or greater than 9.07 Mg/hr (10 tph) of fired
product, you are required to meet an HF emission limit of 0.029 kg/Mg
(0.057 lb/ton) of fired product or reduce uncontrolled HF emissions by
at least 90 percent. You also are required to meet an HCl emission
limit of 0.028 kg/Mg (0.056 lb/ton) of fired product or reduce
uncontrolled HCl emissions by at least 85 percent. Finally, you are
required to meet a PM emission limit of 0.06 kg/Mg (0.12 lb/ton) of
fired product.

E. What Are the Operating Limits?

The operating limits for new and reconstructed clay ceramics tunnel
kilns and tunnel kilns that would be considered reconstructed but for
40 CFR 63.8540(f)(1) or 40 CFR 63.8540(f)(2) are the same as those for
new and reconstructed BSCP tunnel kilns. These operating limits are
presented in section III.E of this preamble.

F. What Are the Work Practice Standards?

If you have an existing, new, or reconstructed clay ceramics
periodic kiln, tunnel kiln, or roller kiln, or a tunnel kiln that would
be considered reconstructed but for 40 CFR 63.8540(f)(1) or 40 CFR
63.8540(f)(2), you must use natural gas, or an equivalent fuel, as the
kiln fuel at all times except during periods of natural gas curtailment
or other periods when natural gas is not available.

G. What Are the Performance Test and Initial Compliance Requirements
for Sources Subject to Emission Limits?

The performance test and initial compliance requirements for new
and reconstructed clay ceramics tunnel kilns and tunnel kilns that
would be considered reconstructed but for 40 CFR 63.8540(f)(1) or 40
CFR 63.8540(f)(2) are the same as those for new and reconstructed BSCP
tunnel kilns. These requirements are presented in section III.F of this
preamble.

H. What Are the Initial Compliance Requirements for Sources Subject to
a Work Practice Standard?

For each existing, new, or reconstructed clay ceramics periodic
kiln, tunnel kiln, or roller kiln, and each tunnel kiln that would be
considered reconstructed but for 40 CFR 63.8540(f)(1) or 40 CFR
63.8540(f)(2), you must indicate, in your initial notification, that
you use natural gas, or an equivalent fuel, as the kiln fuel, and
certify that such information is true, accurate, and complete.

I. What Are the Continuous Compliance Requirements for Sources Subject
to Emission Limits?

The continuous compliance requirements for new and reconstructed
clay ceramics tunnel kilns and tunnel kilns that would be considered
reconstructed but for 40 CFR 63.8540(f)(1) or 40 CFR 63.8540(f)(2) are
the same as those for new and reconstructed BSCP tunnel kilns. These
requirements are presented in section III.G of this preamble.

J. What Are the Continuous Compliance Requirements for Sources Subject
to a Work Practice Standard?

For each existing, new, or reconstructed clay ceramics periodic
kiln, tunnel kiln, or roller kiln, and each tunnel kiln that would be
considered reconstructed but for 40 CFR 63.8540(f)(1) or 40 CFR
63.8540(f)(2), you must use natural gas, or an equivalent fuel, as the
kiln fuel, and document the type of fuel used. The type of fuel used,
along with other compliance information, must be certified as part of
your compliance reports. During periods of natural gas curtailment or
other periods when natural gas is unavailable, you are allowed to use
an alternative fuel. However, if you use an alternative fuel, you must
meet the notification requirements specified in 40 CFR 63.8630(g) and
the reporting requirements specified in 40 CFR 63.8635(g).

K. What Are the Notification, Recordkeeping, and Reporting Requirements
for Sources Subject to Emission Limits?

The notification, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements for new
and reconstructed clay ceramics tunnel kilns and tunnel kilns that
would be considered reconstructed but for 40 CFR 63.8540(f)(1) or 40
CFR 63.8540(f)(2) are the same as those for new and reconstructed BSCP
tunnel kilns. These requirements are presented in section III.H of this
preamble.

L. What Are the Notification, Recordkeeping, and Reporting Requirements
for Sources Subject to a Work Practice Standard?

If you operate an existing, new, or reconstructed clay ceramics
periodic kiln, tunnel kiln, or roller kiln, or a tunnel kiln that would
be considered reconstructed but for 40 CFR 63.8540(f)(1) or 40 CFR
63.8540(f)(2), you must submit an initial notification that indicates
that you use natural gas, or an equivalent fuel, as the kiln fuel. You
must keep records that document your kiln fuel, and if you must use an
alternative fuel due to a natural gas curtailment or other interruption
of natural gas supply, you must submit a notification of alternative
fuel use that includes the information specified in 40 CFR 63.8630(g).
You must submit a report of alternative fuel use within 10 working days
after terminating the use of the alternative fuel. The report must
include the information specified in 40 CFR 63.8635(g).

VII. Summary of Environmental, Energy, and Economic Impacts for the
Final Clay Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP

A. What Are the Air Quality Impacts?

Because the only requirements for existing sources under today's
final rule

[[Page 26717]]

are work practice standards that we believe that all facilities are
already meeting, no air quality impacts are projected for existing
sources. To project air quality impacts for new sources, we assumed
that one sanitaryware tunnel kiln (3.6 Mg/hr (4 tph) capacity) equipped
with a DLA will begin operation at the beginning of the first year
following promulgation of the rule. We estimate that by implementing
the rule, HF emissions from this new source will be reduced by 4.9 Mg/
yr (5.4 tpy), HCl emissions will be reduced by 1.0 Mg/yr (1.1 tpy), and
HAP metals emissions will be reduced by 0.028 Mg/yr (0.031 tpy). We
also estimate that PM and SO₂ emissions from the new kiln
will be reduced by 3.9 Mg/yr (4.3 tpy) and 13 Mg/yr (14 tpy),
respectively.
Secondary air impacts associated with today's final clay ceramics
rule are direct impacts that result from the operation of any new APCD.
The generation of electricity required to operate the control device on
the projected new kiln will result in 0.09 tpy of NO_X
emissions in the first year following promulgation of the rule. The
electricity was assumed to be generated by natural gas-fired turbines.

B. What Are the Water and Solid Waste Impacts?

Because the only requirements for existing sources under today's
final rule are work practice standards that we believe that all
facilities are already meeting, no water and solid waste impacts are
projected for existing sources. Our analyses are based on the use of
DLA for controlling new kilns and, therefore, no water impacts are
projected for new sources. To project solid waste impacts for new
sources, we assumed that one sanitaryware tunnel kiln equipped with a
DLA will begin operation at the beginning of the first year following
promulgation of the rule. The solid waste disposal impacts that result
from the use of DLA will include the disposal of spent limestone. We
calculated the solid waste by taking the difference between the amount
of limestone charged into the DLA and the amount of reacted limestone
and then adding the amount of reaction products and PM captured. We
estimate that implementing the rule will result in the generation of
290 Mg/yr (320 tpy) of solid waste from the new source.

C. What Are the Energy Impacts?

Because the only requirements for existing sources under today's
final rule are work practice standards that we believe that all
facilities are already meeting, no energy impacts are projected for
existing sources. To project energy impacts for new sources, we assumed
that one sanitaryware tunnel kiln equipped with a DLA will begin
operation at the beginning of the first year following promulgation of
the rule. Energy impacts consist of the electricity needed to operate
the DLA. Electricity requirements are driven primarily by the size of
the fan needed in the control device. We estimate the increase in
energy consumption that would result from implementation of the rule to
be 710 gigajoules per year (670 million Btu per year).

D. Are There Any Additional Environmental and Health Impacts?

Reducing HAP emissions under today's final rule will lower
occupational HAP exposure levels. The operation of APCD may increase
occupational noise levels.

E. What Are the Cost Impacts?

Because the only requirements for existing sources under today's
final rule are work practice standards that we believe that all
facilities are already meeting, cost impacts projected for existing
sources are based only on recordkeeping and reporting requirements
associated with the work practice standard. These costs are $1,193 per
year for each of the eight major source facilities, and the total
annual cost to the industry for existing sources is $9,533. To project
costs for new sources, we assumed that one sanitaryware tunnel kiln,
equipped with a DLA, will be built during the first year following
promulgation. We estimate the capital costs associated with
implementation of the rule to be $510,000 for new sources. The capital
costs include the purchase and installation of DLA and monitoring
equipment. We estimate the annualized costs associated with
implementation of the rule to be $170,000 per year for new sources. The
annualized costs include annualized capital costs of the control and
monitoring equipment, operation and maintenance expenses, emission
testing costs, and recordkeeping and reporting costs associated with
installing and operating the DLA.
We calculated the cost estimates using cost algorithms that are
based on procedures from EPA's OAQPS Control Cost Manual (EPA 450/3-90-
006, January 1990) and cost information provided by the BSCP industry
and control device vendors. We estimated costs by developing model
process units that correspond to the various sizes of kilns found at
clay ceramics manufacturing facilities.

F. What Are the Economic Impacts?

We did not prepare a revised economic impact analysis for the clay
ceramics industry because the requirements of the final rule will
result in a decrease in cost impacts on the industry. Specifically, new
and reconstructed roller kilns, which would have been subject to
emission limits in the rule as proposed, are not subject to emission
limits in the final rule. In addition, the requirements for clay
ceramics tunnel kilns with design capacities less than 9.07 Mg/hr (10
tph) are based on control with a DLA rather than the more costly DIFF,
DLS/FF, or WS systems on which the proposed rule was based.
The goal of the economic impact analysis is to estimate the market
response of clay ceramics manufacturing producers to today's final rule
and to determine the economic effects that may result due to the final
rule. Because the MACT floor for existing clay ceramics kilns is based
on firing natural gas, or an equivalent fuel, and all clay ceramics
kilns for which we have data are fired by natural gas or propane, the
compliance costs for existing sources associated with today's final
rule consist only of recordkeeping and reporting costs and are minimal.
The aggregate price of ceramic products is, therefore, expected to
remain the same. Because the prices of ceramic products are not
expected to change due to today's final rule, there are no projected
changes in domestic production, domestic consumption, or foreign trade.
Therefore, no economic impacts on existing major sources are expected
from today's final rule.
Unlike existing sources, new and reconstructed tunnel kilns used to
produce clay ceramics will face positive compliance costs associated
with the installation and operation of APCD. We estimate that one new
3.6 Mg/hr (4 tph) capacity tunnel kiln will be constructed in the
sanitaryware industry during the first 5 years after the rule is
promulgated. Industry compliance costs associated with this kiln are
expected to be less than 0.1 percent of industry value of shipments for
the sanitaryware industry. No level of cost-to-sales for sanitaryware
kilns could be developed due to the diversity of product types that
they produce.

VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), EPA
must determine whether the regulatory action

[[Page 26718]]

is ``significant'' and, therefore, subject to review by the OMB and the
requirements of the Executive Order. The Executive Order defines
``significant regulatory action'' as one that is likely to result in a
rule that may:
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or
communities;
(2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants,
user fees, or loan programs, or the rights and obligations of
recipients thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in
the Executive Order.
Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 12866, it has been
determined that today's BSCP final rule is a ``significant regulatory
action'' because it raises novel legal or policy issues within the
meaning of paragraph (4) above. Consequently, today's final BSCP rule
was submitted to OMB for review under Executive Order 12866. Any
written comments from OMB and written EPA responses are available in
the docket (see ADDRESSES section of this preamble).
Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 12866, it has been
determined that the clay ceramics final rule does not constitute a
``significant regulatory action'' because it does not meet any of the
above criteria. Consequently, today's final clay ceramics rule was not
submitted to OMB for review under Executive Order 12866.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

The information collection requirements in today's final rules will
be submitted for approval to OMB under the requirements of the
Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The EPA has prepared an
Information Collection Request (ICR) document for each of the rules
(ICR No. 2022.01 for BSCP manufacturing and ICR No. 2023.01 for clay
ceramics manufacturing), and a copy of either document may be obtained
from Susan Auby by mail at Office of Environmental Information,
Collection Strategies Division (2822T), U.S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania
Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20460; by e-mail at auby.susan@epa.gov; or
by calling (202) 566-1672. You may also download a copy off the
Internet at http://www.epa.gov/icr. The information requirements are
not enforceable until OMB approves them.
The information requirements are based on notification,
recordkeeping, and reporting requirements in the NESHAP General
Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A), which are mandatory for all
operators subject to national emission standards. These recordkeeping
and reporting requirements are specifically authorized by section 114
of the CAA (42 U.S.C. 7414). All information submitted to EPA pursuant
to the recordkeeping and reporting requirements for which a claim of
confidentiality is made is safeguarded according to EPA's policies set
forth in 40 CFR part 2, subpart B.
Today's final BSCP rule will not require any notifications or
reports beyond those required by the NESHAP General Provisions. The
recordkeeping requirements require only the specific information needed
to assure compliance.
With one exception, today's final clay ceramics rule will not
require any notifications or reports beyond those required by the
NESHAP General Provisions. The exception applies to affected sources
that are subject to limits on the type of fuel used. In such cases, the
owner or operator may use an alternative fuel under certain conditions
but must submit a notification before using the alternative fuel and
must report on alternative fuel use after terminating use of the
alternative fuel. The recordkeeping requirements require only the
specific information needed to assure compliance.
The annual monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping burden for the
collection of information required by today's final BSCP manufacturing
rule (averaged over the first 3 years after the effective date of the
final rule) is estimated to be 17,471 labor hours per year at a total
annual labor cost of $900,328. This burden estimate includes a one-time
submission of an OM&M plan; one-time submission of a SSMP, with
immediate reports for any event when the procedures in the plan were
not followed; semiannual compliance reports; maintenance inspections;
notifications; and recordkeeping. Total annualized capital/startup
costs associated with the monitoring requirements over the 3-year
period of the ICR are estimated at $115,111, with operation and
maintenance costs of $4,853/yr.
The annual monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping burden for the
collection of information required by today's final clay ceramics
manufacturing rule (averaged over the first 3 years after the effective
date of the final rule) is estimated to be 185 labor hours per year at
a total annual labor cost of $9,533. This burden estimate includes a
one-time submission of an OM&M plan; one-time submission of a SSMP,
with immediate reports for any event when the procedures in the plan
were not followed; semiannual compliance reports; maintenance
inspections; notifications; and recordkeeping. Total annualized
capital/startup costs associated with the monitoring requirements over
the 3-year period of the ICR are estimated at $1,824, with operation
and maintenance costs of $358/yr.
Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources
expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or
provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time
needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize
technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and
verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and
disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to
comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements;
train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information;
search data sources; complete and review the collection of information;
and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
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 EPA's
regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15. The OMB
control numbers for the information collection requirements in the
final rules will be listed in an amendment to 40 CFR part 9 in a
subsequent Federal Register document after OMB approves the ICRs.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The EPA has determined that it is not necessary to prepare a
regulatory flexibility analysis in connection with this action. After
considering the economic impacts of today's final rule on small
entities in the two source categories, the EPA has determined that this
action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Although today's final rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities,
we have nonetheless tried to minimize the impact of the final rule on
small entities. For both the BSCP manufacturing and clay ceramics

[[Page 26719]]

manufacturing source categories, we exercised flexibility in minimizing
impacts on small entities through subcategorization of tunnel kilns by
size, which still benefits the environment by requiring greater
emissions reductions from the larger kilns. In addition, for the BSCP
manufacturing source category, we contacted the small entities
estimated to incur impacts in excess of 1 percent of sales to explain
the rule's regulatory approach, as well as a potential alternative to
installing an APCD. Facilities with existing tunnel kilns operating at
or near 10 tph could accept a permit condition that restricts kiln
production to less than 10 tph and, therefore, places the kiln in the
subcategory unaffected by the standards for existing kilns.
For purposes of assessing the impact of today's action on small
entities, small entities are defined as: (1) A small business according
to Small Business Administration (SBA) size standards; (2) a small
governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town,
school district or special district with a population of less than
50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit
enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not
dominant in its field. The following two sections provide descriptions
of the small business assessments for the two categories of sources
addressed by today's action.
1. Brick and Structural Clay Products (BSCP) Manufacturing
Small Business Administration size standards for BSCP
manufacturing, by NAICS code, are shown in Table 2 of this preamble.

Table 2.--Small Business Size Standards for BSCP Manufacturing
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Size
standard,
NAICS code number of
employees
------------------------------------------------------------------------
327121..................................................... 500
327122..................................................... 500
327123..................................................... 500
327125..................................................... 750
327993..................................................... 750
------------------------------------------------------------------------

We have determined that 76 of the 89 companies owning BSCP
manufacturing facilities are small businesses. Although small
businesses represent 86 percent of the companies within the source
category, they are expected to incur about 21 percent of the total
industry engineering compliance costs of $24 million. Additionally, 61
of the 76 small businesses will incur no costs. Under the final rule,
we estimate that three small firms in this source category may
experience an impact less 1 percent of sales, nine small firms in this
source category may experience an impact between 1 percent and 3
percent of sales, and 3 small businesses (or 20 percent) may experience
an impact greater than 3 percent of sales.
We also conducted an economic impact analysis that accounted for
firm behavior to provide an estimate of the facility and market impacts
of the proposed rule. The analysis projected that of the 189 facilities
in this source category, two facilities are at risk of closure. Neither
of these facilities is owned by a small business. The median compliance
cost is below 1 percent of sales for both small and large firms
affected by the proposed rule (0.0 and 0.1 percent for small and large
firms, respectively).
Fifteen new BSCP manufacturing sources are projected to be
constructed during the five years after promulgation of the rule.
Industry compliance costs associated with these sources are anticipated
to be less than 0.6 percent of the BSCP manufacturing industry's value
of shipments. According to the new source economic impact analysis,
three to six of these new sources may be delayed in coming on-line due
to the compliance costs they would face. We cannot determine with
certainty whether these new sources will be built by large or small
companies. Regardless, impacts at the company level are not expected to
be significant for a substantial number of small entities.
2. Clay Ceramics Manufacturing
Small Business Administration size standards for clay ceramics
manufacturing, by NAICS code, are shown in Table 3 of this preamble.

Table 3.--Small Business Size Standards for Clay Ceramics Manufacturing
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Size
standard,
NAICS code number of
employees
------------------------------------------------------------------------
326191..................................................... 500
327111..................................................... 750
327112..................................................... 500
327122..................................................... 500
327123..................................................... 500
327125..................................................... 750
335121..................................................... 500
421220..................................................... 100
421320..................................................... 100
------------------------------------------------------------------------

The EPA identified 13 of the 29 companies owning clay ceramics
manufacturing facilities as small businesses. Because the clay ceramics
manufacturing final rule does not include emissions limits for existing
kilns and includes only a work practice standard that requires that
existing kilns are fired with natural gas, a firm's existing kilns will
be minimally impacted by the final rule. One new sanitaryware
manufacturing source is projected to be constructed in the first five
years following promulgation of the rule. Industry compliance costs
associated with this source are expected to be less than 0.1 percent of
industry value of shipments for the sanitaryware industry segments. No
level of cost-to-sales for the new sanitaryware manufacturing source
could be developed due to the diversity of product types produced.
Thus, new clay ceramics manufacturing sources are expected to face
positive compliance costs; however, we cannot determine with certainty
whether these sources will be built by large or small companies.
Regardless, impacts at the company level are not expected to be
significant for a substantial number of small entities.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Pub.
L. 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, the
EPA generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-
benefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal
mandates'' that may result in expenditures by State, local, and tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100
million or more in any 1 year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for
which a written statement is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally
requires EPA to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory
alternatives and adopt the least costly, most cost-effective, or least
burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. The
provisions of section 205 do not apply when they are inconsistent with
applicable law. Moreover, section 205 allows EPA to adopt an
alternative other than the least costly, most cost-effective, or least
burdensome alternative if the Administrator publishes with the final
rule an explanation why that alternative was not adopted. Before EPA
establishes any regulatory requirements that may significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, including tribal governments, it
must have developed,

[[Page 26720]]

under section 203 of the UMRA, a small government agency plan. The plan
must provide for notifying potentially affected small governments,
enabling officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and
timely input in the development of EPA's regulatory proposals with
significant Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing,
educating, and advising small governments on compliance with the
regulatory requirements.
The EPA has determined that today's final rules do not contain a
Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more
for State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the
private sector in any 1 year. The total annual cost for today's final
BSCP rule for any 1 year is estimated at $24 million. The total annual
cost for today's final clay ceramics rule for any 1 year is estimated
at $9,500. Thus, today's final rules are not subject to the
requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA. In addition, the EPA
has determined that today's final rules contain no regulatory
requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small
governments because they contain no regulatory requirements that apply
to such governments or impose obligations upon them. Therefore, today's
final rules are not subject to the requirements of section 203 of the
UMRA.

E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism

Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) requires EPA
to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely
input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory
policies that have federalism implications.'' ``Policies that have
federalism implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include
regulations that 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.'' Under Executive Order 13132, the EPA may not issue a
regulation that has federalism implications, that imposes substantial
direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless
the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct
compliance costs incurred by State and local governments, or EPA
consults with State and local officials early in the process of
developing the proposed regulation. The EPA also may not issue a
regulation that has federalism implications and that preempts State law
unless EPA consults with State and local officials early in the process
of developing the proposed regulation.
If EPA complies by consulting, Executive Order 13132 requires EPA
to provide to OMB, in a separately identified section of the preamble
to the rule, a federalism summary impact statement (FSIS). The FSIS
must include a description of the extent of EPA's prior consultation
with State and local officials, a summary of the nature of their
concerns and EPA's position supporting the need to issue the
regulation, and a statement of the extent to which the concerns of
State and local officials have been met. Also, when EPA transmits a
draft final rule with federalism implications to OMB for review
pursuant to Executive Order 12866, it must include a certification from
EPA's Federalism Official stating that EPA has met the requirements of
Executive Order 13132 in a meaningful and timely manner.
Today's final rules do not have federalism implications. They will
not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government,
as specified in Executive Order 13132. None of the affected facilities
are owned or operated by State governments, and the final rule
requirements will not supercede State regulations that are more
stringent. Thus, the requirements of Executive Order 13132 do not apply
to the final rules.

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

Executive Order 13175 (59 FR 22951, November 6, 2000) requires EPA
to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely
input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies
that have tribal implications.'' ``Policies that have tribal
implications'' are defined in the Executive Order to include
regulations that have ``substantial direct effects on one or more
Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal government and
the Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the Federal government and Indian tribes.''
Today's final rules do not have tribal implications. They will not
have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the
relationship between the Federal government and Indian tribes, or on
the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal
government and Indian tribes, as specified in Executive Order 13175. No
tribal governments are known to own or operate BSCP or clay ceramics
manufacturing facilities. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to
the final rules.

G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children From Environmental
Health & Safety Risks

Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any
rule that: (1) Is determined to be ``economically significant'' as
defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns the environmental
health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a
disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets
both criteria, the EPA must evaluate the environmental health or safety
effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the planned
regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably
feasible alternatives considered by EPA.
The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those
regulatory actions that are based on health or safety risks, such that
the analysis required under section 5-501 of the Executive Order has
the potential to influence the rule. Today's final rules are not
subject to Executive Order 13045 because they are based on technology
performance and not on health or safety risks.

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

Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) provides that
agencies shall prepare and submit to the Administrator of the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, a Statement of Energy Effects
for certain actions identified as ``significant energy actions.''
Section 4(b) of Executive Order 13211 defines ``significant energy
actions'' as ``any action by an agency (normally published in the
Federal Register) that promulgates or is expected to lead to the
promulgation of a final rule or regulation, including notices of
inquiry, advance notices of proposed rulemaking, and notices of
proposed rulemaking: (1)(i) That is a significant regulatory action
under Executive Order 12866 or any successor order, and (ii) is likely
to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or
use of energy; or (2) that is designated by the Administrator of the
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs as a significant energy
action.'' Today's final clay ceramics manufacturing rule is not subject
to Executive Order 13211

[[Page 26721]]

because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order
12866. Although today's final BSCP rule is considered to be a
significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866, it 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. The basis for the determination is as follows.
Today's final BSCP rule affects manufacturers in the BSCP (NAICS
327121), extruded tile (NAICS 327122), and other structural clay
products (NAICS 327123) industries. There is no crude oil, fuel, or
coal production from these industries. Hence, there is no direct effect
on such energy production related to implementation of the BSCP rule.
In fact, as previously mentioned in this preamble, there will be an
increase in energy consumption, and hence an increase in energy
production, resulting from installation of APCD likely needed for
sources to meet the requirements of the final BSCP rule. This increase
in energy consumption is equal to approximately 27 million kilowatt-
hours/year (kWh/yr) for electricity. The electricity increase is
considered negligible, equivalent to 0.0007 percent of 1999 U.S.
electricity production.\4\ There is no expected increase in natural gas
consumption. It should be noted, however, that the estimated decrease
in BSCP production resulting from producer's and consumer's reactions
to the final BSCP rule will offset this effect on such energy
production. It is likely that the output reduction in the industries
will lead to less energy use by these industries and thus some
reduction in overall energy production.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\4\ U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information
Administration. Annual Energy Review, End-Use Energy Consumption for
1998. Located on the Internet at http://www.eia.doe.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Given the negligible change in energy consumption resulting from
the final BSCP rule, we do not expect any price increase for any energy
type. The cost of energy distribution should not be affected by the
final BSCP rule at all since the final rule does not affect energy
distribution facilities. Finally, with changes in net exports being a
minimal percentage of domestic output from the affected industries,
there will be only a negligible change in international trade, and
hence in dependence on foreign energy supplies. No other adverse
outcomes are expected to occur with regards to energy supplies.
Therefore, we conclude that today's final BSCP rule is not likely
to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or
use of energy.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act (NTTAA) of 1995 (Pub. L. No. 104-113; 15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs
EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory and
procurement activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with
applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards
are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods,
sampling procedures, business practices) developed or adopted by one or
more voluntary consensus bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide
Congress, through annual reports to OMB, with explanations when an
agency does not use available and applicable voluntary consensus
standards.
The final rules involve technical standards. The EPA cites the
following standards in the final rules: EPA Methods 1, 1A, 2, 2A, 2C,
2D, 2F, 2G, 3, 4, 5, 22, 26, 26A, and 320 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix
A. Consistent with the NTTAA, EPA conducted searches to identify
voluntary consensus standards in addition to these EPA methods. No
applicable voluntary consensus standards were identified for EPA
Methods 1A, 2A, 2D, 2F, 2G, and 22. The search and review results have
been documented and are in the dockets for the final rules.
The search for emissions measurement procedures identified 11
voluntary consensus standards. The EPA determined that eight of these
11 standards identified for measuring emissions of the HAPs or
surrogates subject to emission standards in the final rules were
impractical alternatives to EPA test methods for the purposes of the
final rules. Therefore, EPA does not intend to adopt these standards at
this time. The reasons for this determination for the 11 methods are
discussed in the dockets for the final rules.
Two of the 11 voluntary consensus standards identified in this
search were not available at the time the review was conducted for the
purposes of the final rules because they are under development by a
voluntary consensus body: ASME/BSR MFC 13M, ``Flow Measurement by
Velocity Traverse,'' for EPA Method 2 (and possibly 1); and ASME/BSR
MFC 12M, ``Flow in Closed Conduits Using Multiport Averaging Pitot
Primary Flowmeters,'' for EPA Method 2.
In response to public comments received, we considered and decided
to include EPA Method 320 as an option for measuring HF and HCl. The
voluntary consensus standard ASTM D6348-98, ``Determination of Gaseous
Compounds by Extractive Direct Interface Fourier Transform (FTIR)
Spectroscopy,'' has been reviewed by the EPA as a potential alternative
to EPA Method 320. Suggested revisions to ASTM D6348-98 that would
allow the EPA to accept ASTM D6348-98 as an acceptable alternative were
sent to ASTM by the EPA. The ASTM Subcommittee D22-03 is currently
undertaking a revision of ASTM D6348-98. Because of this, we are not
citing this standard as an acceptable alternative for EPA Method 320 in
the final rules today. However, upon successful ASTM balloting and
demonstration of technical equivalency with the EPA FTIR methods, the
revised ASTM standard could be incorporated by reference for EPA
regulatory applicability. In the interim, facilities have the option to
request ASTM D6348-98 as an alternative test method under 40 CFR
63.7(f) and 40 CFR 63.8(f) on a case-by-case basis.
Table 3 of the final BSCP rule and Table 4 of the final clay
ceramics rule list the EPA testing methods included in the rules. Under
40 CFR 63.7(f) and 40 CFR 63.8(f), a source may apply to EPA for
permission to use alternative test methods or alternative monitoring
requirements in place of any of the EPA testing methods, performance
specifications, or procedures.

J. Congressional Review Act

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. The EPA will submit a report containing today's final
rules and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House
of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States
prior to publication of the rules in the Federal Register. Neither of
today's rules are ``major rules'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). The
final rules will be effective on May 16, 2003.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control,
Hazardous substances, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

[[Page 26722]]

Dated: February 28, 2003.
Christine Todd Whitman,
Administrator.

? For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, part 63 of
the Code of the Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 63--[AMENDED]

? 1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.
? 2. Part 63 is amended by adding subpart JJJJJ to read as follows:

Subpart JJJJJ--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants for Brick and Structural Clay Products Manufacturing

Sec.

What This Subpart Covers

63.8380 What is the purpose of this subpart?
63.8385 Am I subject to this subpart?
63.8390 What parts of my plant does this subpart cover?
63.8395 When do I have to comply with this subpart?

Emission Limitations

63.8405 What emission limitations must I meet?
63.8410 What are my options for meeting the emission limitations?

General Compliance Requirements

63.8420 What are my general requirements for complying with this
subpart?
63.8425 What do I need to know about operation, maintenance, and
monitoring plans?

Testing and Initial Compliance Requirements

63.8435 By what date must I conduct performance tests?
63.8440 When must I conduct subsequent performance tests?
63.8445 How do I conduct performance tests and establish operating
limits?
63.8450 What are my monitoring installation, operation, and
maintenance requirements?
63.8455 How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the emission
limitations?

Continuous Compliance Requirements

63.8465 How do I monitor and collect data to demonstrate continuous
compliance?
63.8470 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the emission
limitations?

Notifications, Reports, and Records

63.8480 What notifications must I submit and when?
63.8485 What reports must I submit and when?
63.8490 What records must I keep?
63.8495 In what form and for how long must I keep my records?

Other Requirements and Information

63.8505 What parts of the General Provisions apply to me?
63.8510 Who implements and enforces this subpart?
63.8515 What definitions apply to this subpart?

Tables to Subpart JJJJJ of Part 63

Table 1 to Subpart JJJJJ of Part 63--Emission Limits
Table 2 to Subpart JJJJJ of Part 63--Operating Limits
Table 3 to Subpart JJJJJ of Part 63--Requirements for Performance Tests
Table 4 to Subpart JJJJJ of Part 63--Initial Compliance with Emission
Limitations
Table 5 to Subpart JJJJJ of Part 63--Continuous Compliance with
Emission Limits and Operating Limits
Table 6 to Subpart JJJJJ of Part 63--Requirements for Reports
Table 7 to Subpart JJJJJ of Part 63--Applicability of General
Provisions to Subpart JJJJJ

What This Subpart Covers

Sec. 63.8380 What is the purpose of this subpart?

This subpart establishes national emission limitations for
hazardous air pollutants (HAP) emitted from brick and structural clay
products (BSCP) manufacturing facilities. This subpart also establishes
requirements to demonstrate initial and continuous compliance with the
emission limitations.

Sec. 63.8385 Am I subject to this subpart?

You are subject to this subpart if you own or operate a BSCP
manufacturing facility that is, is located at, or is part of, a major
source of HAP emissions according to the criteria in paragraphs (a) and
(b) of this section.
(a) A BSCP manufacturing facility is a plant site that manufactures
brick (including, but not limited to, face brick, structural brick, and
brick pavers); clay pipe; roof tile; extruded floor and wall tile; and/
or other extruded, dimensional clay products. Brick and structural clay
products manufacturing facilities typically process raw clay and shale,
form the processed materials into bricks or shapes, and dry and fire
the bricks or shapes.
(b) A major source of HAP emissions is any stationary source or
group of stationary sources within a contiguous area under common
control that emits or has the potential to emit any single HAP at a
rate of 9.07 megagrams (10 tons) or more per year or any combination of
HAP at a rate of 22.68 megagrams (25 tons) or more per year.

Sec. 63.8390 What parts of my plant does this subpart cover?

(a) This subpart applies to each existing, new, or reconstructed
affected source at a BSCP manufacturing facility.
(b) The existing affected source is an existing tunnel kiln with a
design capacity equal to or greater than 9.07 megagrams per hour (Mg/
hr) (10 tons per hour (tph)) of fired product according to paragraphs
(b)(1) through (3) of this section. For the remainder of this subpart,
a tunnel kiln with a design capacity equal to or greater than 9.07 Mg/
hr (10 tph) of fired product will be called a large tunnel kiln, and a
tunnel kiln with a design capacity less than 9.07 Mg/hr (10 tph) of
fired product will be called a small tunnel kiln.
(1) For existing tunnel kilns that do not have sawdust dryers, the
kiln exhaust process stream (i.e., the only process stream) is subject
to the requirements of this subpart.
(2) For existing tunnel kilns that ducted exhaust to sawdust dryers
prior to July 22, 2002, only the kiln exhaust process stream (i.e., the
process stream that exhausts directly to the atmosphere or to an air
pollution control device (APCD)) is subject to the requirements of this
subpart. As such, any process stream that is ducted to a sawdust dryer
is not subject to these requirements.
(3) For existing tunnel kilns that first ducted exhaust to sawdust
dryers on or after July 22, 2002, all of the exhaust (i.e., all process
streams) is subject to the requirements of this subpart.
(c) An existing small tunnel kiln whose design capacity is
increased such that it is equal to or greater than 9.07 Mg/hr (10 tph)
of fired product is subject to the requirements of this subpart.
(d) An existing tunnel kiln with a federally enforceable permit
condition that restricts kiln operation to less than 9.07 Mg/hr (10
tph) of fired product on a 12-month rolling average basis is not
subject to the requirements of this subpart.
(e) Each new or reconstructed tunnel kiln is an affected source
regardless of design capacity. All process streams from each new or
reconstructed tunnel kiln are subject to the requirements of this
subpart.
(f) Kilns that are used exclusively for research and development
(R&D) and are not used to manufacture products for commercial sale,
except in a de minimis manner, are not subject to the requirements of
this subpart.
(g) Kilns that are used exclusively for setting glazes on
previously fired products are not subject to the requirements of this
subpart.

[[Page 26723]]

(h) A source is a new affected source if construction of the
affected source began after July 22, 2002, and you met the
applicability criteria at the time you began construction.
(i) An affected source is reconstructed if you meet the criteria as
defined in Sec. 63.2, except as provided in paragraphs (i)(1) and
(i)(2) of this section.
(1) It is not technologically and economically feasible for an
existing small tunnel kiln whose design capacity is increased such that
it is equal to or greater than 9.07 Mg/hr (10 tph) of fired product to
meet the relevant standards (i.e., new source maximum achievable
control technology (MACT)) by retrofitting with a dry lime injection
fabric filter (DIFF), dry lime scrubber/fabric filter (DLS/FF), or wet
scrubber (WS).
(2) It is not technologically and economically feasible for an
existing large dry limestone adsorber (DLA)-controlled kiln to meet the
relevant standards by retrofitting with a DIFF, DLS/FF, or WS.
(j) An affected source is existing if it is not new or
reconstructed.

Sec. 63.8395 When do I have to comply with this subpart?

(a) If you have a new or reconstructed affected source, you must
comply with this subpart according to paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this
section.
(1) If the initial startup of your affected source is before May
16, 2003, then you must comply with the applicable emission limitations
in Tables 1 and 2 to this subpart no later than May 16, 2003.
(2) If the initial startup of your affected source is after May 16,
2003, then you must comply with the applicable emission limitations in
Tables 1 and 2 to this subpart upon initial startup of your affected
source.
(b) If you have an existing affected source, you must comply with
the applicable emission limitations in Tables 1 and 2 to this subpart
no later than May 16, 2003.
(c) If you have an existing area source that increases its
emissions or its potential to emit such that it becomes a major source
of HAP, you must be in compliance with this subpart according to
paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of this section.
(1) Any portion of the existing facility that is a new affected
source or a new reconstructed source must be in compliance with this
subpart upon startup.
(2) All other parts of the existing facility must be in compliance
with this subpart by 3 years after the date the area source becomes a
major source.
(d) If you have a new area source (i.e., an area source for which
construction or reconstruction commenced after July 22, 2002) that
increases its emissions or its potential to emit such that it becomes a
major source of HAP, you must be in compliance with this subpart upon
initial startup of your affected source as a major source.
(e) You must meet the notification requirements in Sec. 63.8480
according to the schedule in Sec. 63.8480 and in 40 CFR part 63,
subpart A. Some of the notifications must be submitted before you are
required to comply with the emission limitations in this subpart.

Emission Limitations

Sec. 63.8405 What emission limitations must I meet?

(a) You must meet each emission limit in Table 1 to this subpart
that applies to you.
(b) You must meet each operating limit in Table 2 to this subpart
that applies to you.

Sec. 63.8410 What are my options for meeting the emission
limitations?

To meet the emission limitations in Tables 1 and 2 to this subpart,
you must use one or more of the options listed in paragraphs (a) and
(b) of this section.
(a) Emissions control system. Use an emissions capture and
collection system and an APCD and demonstrate that the resulting
emissions or emissions reductions meet the emission limits in Table 1
to this subpart, and that the capture and collection system and APCD
meet the applicable operating limits in Table 2 to this subpart.
(b) Process changes. Use low-HAP raw materials or implement
manufacturing process changes and demonstrate that the resulting
emissions or emissions reductions meet the emission limits in Table 1
to this subpart.

General Compliance Requirements

Sec. 63.8420 What are my general requirements for complying with this
subpart?

(a) You must be in compliance with the emission limitations
(including operating limits) in this subpart at all times, except
during periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction and during periods
of routine control device maintenance as specified in paragraph (e) of
this section.
(b) Except as specified in paragraph (e) of this section, you must
always operate and maintain your affected source, including air
pollution control and monitoring equipment, according to the provisions
in Sec. 63.6(e)(1)(i). During the period between the compliance date
specified for your affected source in Sec. 63.8395 and the date upon
which continuous monitoring systems (CMS) (e.g., continuous parameter
monitoring systems) have been installed and verified and any applicable
operating limits have been set, you must maintain a log detailing the
operation and maintenance of the process and emissions control
equipment.
(c) You must develop and implement a written startup, shutdown, and
malfunction plan (SSMP) according to the provisions in Sec.
63.6(e)(3).
(d) You must prepare and implement a written operation,
maintenance, and monitoring (OM&M) plan according to the requirements
in Sec. 63.8425.
(e) If you own or operate an affected kiln and must perform routine
maintenance on the control device for that kiln, you may bypass the
kiln control device and continue operating the kiln upon approval by
the Administrator provided you satisfy the conditions listed in
paragraphs (e)(1) through (5) of this section.
(1) You must request a routine control device maintenance exemption
from the Administrator. Your request must justify the need for the
routine maintenance on the control device and the time required to
accomplish the maintenance activities, describe the maintenance
activities and the frequency of the maintenance activities, explain why
the maintenance cannot be accomplished during kiln shutdowns, describe
how you plan to minimize emissions to the greatest extent possible
during the maintenance, and provide any other documentation required by
the Administrator.
(2) The routine control device maintenance exemption must not
exceed 4 percent of the annual operating uptime for each kiln.
(3) The request for the routine control device maintenance
exemption, if approved by the Administrator, must be incorporated by
reference in and attached to the affected source's title V permit.
(4) You must minimize HAP emissions during the period when the kiln
is operating and the control device is offline.
(5) You must minimize the time period during which the kiln is
operating and the control device is offline.
(f) You must be in compliance with the provisions of subpart A of
this part, except as noted in Table 7 to this subpart.

[[Page 26724]]

Sec. 63.8425 What do I need to know about operation, maintenance, and
monitoring plans?

(a) You must prepare, implement, and revise as necessary an OM&M
plan that includes the information in paragraph (b) of this section.
Your OM&M plan must be available for inspection by the permitting
authority upon request.
(b) Your OM&M plan must include, as a minimum, the information in
paragraphs (b)(1) through (13) of this section.
(1) Each process and APCD to be monitored, the type of monitoring
device that will be used, and the operating parameters that will be
monitored.
(2) A monitoring schedule that specifies the frequency that the
parameter values will be determined and recorded.
(3) The limits for each parameter that represent continuous
compliance with the emission limitations in Sec. 63.8405. The limits
must be based on values of the monitored parameters recorded during
performance tests.
(4) Procedures for the proper operation and routine and long-term
maintenance of each APCD, including a maintenance and inspection
schedule that is consistent with the manufacturer's recommendations.
(5) Procedures for installing the CMS sampling probe or other
interface at a measurement location relative to each affected process
unit such that the measurement is representative of control of the
exhaust emissions (e.g., on or downstream of the last APCD).
(6) Performance and equipment specifications for the sample
interface, the pollutant concentration or parametric signal analyzer,
and the data collection and reduction system.
(7) Continuous monitoring system performance evaluation procedures
and acceptance criteria (e.g., calibrations).
(8) Procedures for the proper operation and maintenance of
monitoring equipment consistent with the requirements in Sec. Sec.
63.8450 and 63.8(c)(1), (3), (4)(ii), (7), and (8).
(9) Continuous monitoring system data quality assurance procedures
consistent with the requirements in Sec. 63.8(d).
(10) Continuous monitoring system recordkeeping and reporting
procedures consistent with the requirements in Sec. 63.10(c), (e)(1),
and (e)(2)(i).
(11) Procedures for responding to operating parameter deviations,
including the procedures in paragraphs (b)(11)(i) through (iii) of this
section.
(i) Procedures for determining the cause of the operating parameter
deviation.
(ii) Actions for correcting the deviation and returning the
operating parameters to the allowable limits.
(iii) Procedures for recording the times that the deviation began
and ended and corrective actions were initiated and completed.
(12) Procedures for keeping records to document compliance.
(13) If you operate an affected kiln and you plan to take the kiln
control device out of service for routine maintenance, as specified in
Sec. 63.8420(e), the procedures specified in paragraphs (b)(13)(i) and
(ii) of this section.
(i) Procedures for minimizing HAP emissions from the kiln during
periods of routine maintenance of the kiln control device when the kiln
is operating and the control device is offline.
(ii) Procedures for minimizing the duration of any period of
routine maintenance on the kiln control device when the kiln is
operating and the control device is offline.
(c) Changes to the operating limits in your OM&M plan require a new
performance test. If you are revising an operating limit parameter
value, you must meet the requirements in paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of
this section.
(1) Submit a notification of performance test to the Administrator
as specified in Sec. 63.7(b).
(2) After completing the performance tests to demonstrate that
compliance with the emission limits can be achieved at the revised
operating limit parameter value, you must submit the performance test
results and the revised operating limits as part of the Notification of
Compliance Status required under Sec. 63.9(h).
(d) If you are revising the inspection and maintenance procedures
in your OM&M plan, you do not need to conduct a new performance test.

Testing and Initial Compliance Requirements

Sec. 63.8435 By what date must I conduct performance tests?

You must conduct performance tests within 180 calendar days after
the compliance date that is specified for your source in Sec. 63.8395
and according to the provisions in Sec. 63.7(a)(2).

Sec. 63.8440 When must I conduct subsequent performance tests?

(a) You must conduct a performance test before renewing your 40 CFR
part 70 operating permit or at least every 5 years following the
initial performance test.
(b) You must conduct a performance test when you want to change the
parameter value for any operating limit specified in your OM&M plan.

Sec. 63.8445 How do I conduct performance tests and establish
operating limits?

(a) You must conduct each performance test in Table 3 to this
subpart that applies to you.
(b) Before conducting the performance test, you must install and
calibrate all monitoring equipment.
(c) Each performance test must be conducted according to the
requirements in Sec. 63.7 and under the specific conditions in Table 3
to this subpart.
(d) You must test while operating at the maximum production level.
(e) You may not conduct performance tests during periods of
startup, shutdown, or malfunction, as specified in Sec. 63.7(e)(1).
(f) You must conduct at least three separate test runs for each
performance test required in this section, as specified in Sec.
63.7(e)(3). Each test run must last at least 1 hour.
(g) You must use the data gathered during the performance test and
the equations in paragraphs (g)(1) and (2) of this section to determine
compliance with the emission limitations.
(1) To determine compliance with the production-based hydrogen
fluoride (HF), hydrogen chloride (HCl), and particulate matter (PM)
emission limits in Table 1 to this subpart, you must calculate your
mass emissions per unit of production for each test run using Equation
1 of this section:
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TR16MY03.000

Where:

MP=mass per unit of production, kilograms (pounds) of pollutant per
megagram (ton) of fired product
ER=mass emission rate of pollutant (HF, HCl, or PM) during each
performance test run, kilograms (pounds) per hour
P=production rate during each performance test run, megagrams
(tons) of fired product per hour.

(2) To determine compliance with the percent reduction HF and HCl
emission limits in Table 1 to this subpart, you must calculate the
percent reduction for each test run using Equation 2 of this section:
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TR16MY03.001

Where:

PR=percent reduction, percent
ER_i=mass emission rate of specific HAP (HF or HCl)
entering the

[[Page 26725]]

APCD, kilograms (pounds) per hour
ER_o=mass emission rate of specific HAP (HF or HCl)
exiting the APCD, kilograms (pounds) per hour.

(h) You must establish each site-specific operating limit in Table
2 to this subpart that applies to you as specified in Table 3 to this
subpart.
(i) For each affected kiln that is equipped with an APCD that is
not addressed in Table 2 to this subpart or that is using process
changes as a means of meeting the emission limits in Table 1 to this
subpart, you must meet the requirements in Sec. 63.8(f) and paragraphs
(i)(1) and (2) of this section.
(1) Submit a request for approval of alternative monitoring
procedures to the Administrator no later than the notification of
intent to conduct a performance test. The request must contain the
information specified in paragraphs (i)(1)(i) through (iv) of this
section.
(i) A description of the alternative APCD or process changes.
(ii) The type of monitoring device or procedure that will be used.
(iii) The operating parameters that will be monitored.
(iv) The frequency that the operating parameter values will be
determined and recorded to establish continuous compliance with the
operating limits.
(2) Establish site-specific operating limits during the performance
test based on the information included in the approved alternative
monitoring procedures request and, as applicable, as specified in Table
3 to this subpart.

Sec. 63.8450 What are my monitoring installation, operation, and
maintenance requirements?

(a) You must install, operate, and maintain each CMS according to
your OM&M plan and the requirements in paragraphs (a)(1) through (5) of
this section.
(1) Conduct a performance evaluation of each CMS according to your
OM&M plan.
(2) The CMS must complete a minimum of one cycle of operation for
each successive 15-minute period. To have a valid hour of data, you
must have at least three of four equally spaced data values (or at
least 75 percent if you collect more than four data values per hour)
for that hour (not including startup, shutdown, malfunction, out-of-
control periods, or periods of routine control device maintenance
covered by a routine control device maintenance exemption as specified
in Sec. 63.8420(e)).
(3) Determine and record the 3-hour block averages of all recorded
readings, calculated after every 3 hours of operation as the average of
the previous 3 operating hours. To calculate the average for each 3-
hour average period, you must have at least 75 percent of the recorded
readings for that period (not including startup, shutdown, malfunction,
out-of-control periods, or periods of routine control device
maintenance covered by a routine control device maintenance exemption
as specified in Sec. 63.8420(e)).
(4) Record the results of each inspection, calibration, and
validation check.
(5) At all times, maintain the monitoring equipment including, but
not limited to, maintaining necessary parts for routine repairs of the
monitoring equipment.
(b) For each liquid flow measurement device, you must meet the
requirements in paragraphs (a)(1) through (5) and paragraphs (b)(1)
through (3) of this section.
(1) Locate the flow sensor in a position that provides a
representative flowrate.
(2) Use a flow sensor with a minimum measurement sensitivity of 2
percent of the liquid flowrate.
(3) At least semiannually, conduct a flow sensor calibration check.
(c) For each pressure measurement device, you must meet the
requirements in paragraphs (a)(1) through (5) and paragraphs (c)(1)
through (7) of this section.
(1) Locate the pressure sensor(s) in or as close to a position that
provides a representative measurement of the pressure.
(2) Minimize or eliminate pulsating pressure, vibration, and
internal and external corrosion.
(3) Use a gauge with a minimum measurement sensitivity of 0.5 inch
of water or a transducer with a minimum measurement sensitivity of 1
percent of the pressure range.
(4) Check the pressure tap daily to ensure that it is not plugged.
(5) Using a manometer, check gauge calibration quarterly and
transducer calibration monthly.
(6) Any time the sensor exceeds the manufacturer's specified
maximum operating pressure range, conduct calibration checks or install
a new pressure sensor.
(7) At least monthly, inspect all components for integrity, all
electrical connections for continuity, and all mechanical connections
for leakage.
(d) For each pH measurement device, you must meet the requirements
in paragraphs (a)(1) through (5) and paragraphs (d)(1) through (4) of
this section.
(1) Locate the pH sensor in a position that provides a
representative measurement of pH.
(2) Ensure the sample is properly mixed and representative of the
fluid to be measured.
(3) Check the pH meter's calibration on at least two points every 8
hours of process operation.
(4) At least monthly, inspect all components for integrity and all
electrical connections for continuity.
(e) For each bag leak detection system, you must meet the
requirements in paragraphs (e)(1) through (11) of this section.
(1) Each triboelectric bag leak detection system must be installed,
calibrated, operated, and maintained according to the ``Fabric Filter
Bag Leak Detection Guidance,'' (EPA-454/R-98-015, September 1997). This
document is available from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(U.S. EPA); Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards; Emissions,
Monitoring and Analysis Division; Emission Measurement Center (MD-19),
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711. This document is also available on
the Technology Transfer Network (TTN) under Emission Measurement Center
Continuous Emission Monitoring. Other types of bag leak detection
systems must be installed, operated, calibrated, and maintained in a
manner consistent with the manufacturer's written specifications and
recommendations.
(2) The bag leak detection system must be certified by the
manufacturer to be capable of detecting PM emissions at concentrations
of 10 milligrams per actual cubic meter (0.0044 grains per actual cubic
foot) or less.
(3) The bag leak detection system sensor must provide an output of
relative PM loadings.
(4) The bag leak detection system must be equipped with a device to
continuously record the output signal from the sensor.
(5) The bag leak detection system must be equipped with an audible
alarm system that will sound automatically when an increase in relative
PM emissions over a preset level is detected. The alarm must be located
where it is easily heard by plant operating personnel.
(6) For positive pressure fabric filter systems, a bag leak
detector must be installed in each baghouse compartment or cell.
(7) For negative pressure or induced air fabric filters, the bag
leak detector must be installed downstream of the fabric filter.
(8) Where multiple detectors are required, the system's
instrumentation and alarm may be shared among detectors.

[[Page 26726]]

(9) The baseline output must be established by adjusting the range
and the averaging period of the device and establishing the alarm set
points and the alarm delay time according to section 5.0 of the
``Fabric Filter Bag Leak Detection Guidance.''
(10) Following initial adjustment of the system, the sensitivity or
range, averaging period, alarm set points, or alarm delay time may not
be adjusted except as detailed in your OM&M plan. In no case may the
sensitivity be increased by more than 100 percent or decreased more
than 50 percent over a 365-day period unless such adjustment follows a
complete fabric filter inspection that demonstrates that the fabric
filter is in good operating condition. Record each adjustment.
(11) Record the results of each inspection, calibration, and
validation check.
(f) For each lime or chemical feed rate measurement device, you
must meet the requirements in paragraphs (a)(1) through (5) and
paragraphs (f)(1) and (2) of this section.
(1) Locate the measurement device in a position that provides a
representative feed rate measurement.
(2) At least semiannually, conduct a calibration check.
(g) For each limestone feed system on a DLA, you must meet the
requirements in paragraphs (a)(1),(4), and (5) of this section and must
ensure on a monthly basis that the feed system replaces limestone at
least as frequently as the schedule set during the performance test.
(h) Requests for approval of alternate monitoring procedures must
meet the requirements in Sec. Sec. 63.8445(i) and 63.8(f).

Sec. 63.8455 How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the
emission limitations?

(a) You must demonstrate initial compliance with each emission
limitation that applies to you according to Table 4 to this subpart.
(b) You must establish each site-specific operating limit in Table
2 to this subpart that applies to you according to the requirements in
Sec. 63.8445 and Table 3 to this subpart.
(c) You must submit the Notification of Compliance Status
containing the results of the initial compliance demonstration
according to the requirements in Sec. 63.8480(e).

Continuous Compliance Requirements

Sec. 63.8465 How do I monitor and collect data to demonstrate
continuous compliance?

(a) You must monitor and collect data according to this section.
(b) Except for periods of monitor malfunctions, associated repairs,
and required quality assurance or control activities (including, as
applicable, calibration checks and required zero and span adjustments),
you must monitor continuously (or collect data at all required
intervals) at all times that the affected source is operating. This
includes periods of startup, shutdown, malfunction, and routine control
device maintenance as specified in Sec. 63.8420(e) when the affected
source is operating.
(c) You may not use data recorded during monitoring malfunctions,
associated repairs, out-of-control periods, or required quality
assurance or control activities for purposes of calculating data
averages. A monitoring malfunction is any sudden, infrequent, not
reasonably preventable failure of the monitoring system to provide
valid data. Monitoring failures that are caused in part by poor
maintenance or careless operation are not malfunctions. You must use
all the valid data collected during all other periods in assessing
compliance. Any averaging period for which you do not have valid
monitoring data and such data are required constitutes a deviation from
the monitoring requirements.

Sec. 63.8470 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the
emission limitations?

(a) You must demonstrate continuous compliance with each emission
limit and operating limit in Tables 1 and 2 to this subpart that
applies to you according to the methods specified in Table 5 to this
subpart.
(b) For each affected kiln that is equipped with an APCD that is
not addressed in Table 2 to this subpart, or that is using process
changes as a means of meeting the emission limits in Table 1 to this
subpart, you must demonstrate continuous compliance with each emission
limit in Table 1 to this subpart, and each operating limit established
as required in Sec. 63.8445(i)(2) according to the methods specified
in your approved alternative monitoring procedures request, as
described in Sec. Sec. 63.8445(i)(1) and 63.8(f).
(c) You must report each instance in which you did not meet each
emission limit and each operating limit in this subpart that applies to
you. This includes periods of startup, shutdown, malfunction, and
routine control device maintenance. These instances are deviations from
the emission limitations in this subpart. These deviations must be
reported according to the requirements in Sec. 63.8485.
(d) During periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction, you must
operate according to your SSMP.
(e) Consistent with Sec. Sec. 63.6(e)and 63.7(e)(1), deviations
that occur during a period of startup, shutdown, or malfunction are not
violations if you demonstrate to the Administrator's satisfaction that
you were operating according to an SSMP that satisfies the requirements
of Sec. 63.6(e) and your OM&M plan. The Administrator will determine
whether deviations that occur during a period of startup, shutdown, or
malfunction are violations, according to the provisions in Sec.
63.6(e).
(f) Deviations that occur during periods of control device
maintenance covered by an approved routine control device maintenance
exemption according to Sec. 63.8420(e) are not violations if you
demonstrate to the Administrator's satisfaction that you were operating
in accordance with the approved routine control device maintenance
exemption.
(g) You must demonstrate continuous compliance with the operating
limits in Table 2 to this subpart for visible emissions (VE) from
tunnel kilns equipped with DLA, DIFF, or DLS/FF by monitoring VE at
each kiln stack according to the requirements in paragraphs (g)(1)
through (3) of this section.
(1) Perform daily VE observations of each kiln stack according to
the procedures of Method 22 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A. You must
conduct the Method 22 test while the affected source is operating under
normal conditions. The duration of each Method 22 test must be at least
15 minutes.
(2) If VE are observed during any daily test conducted using Method
22 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, you must promptly initiate and
complete corrective actions according to your OM&M plan. If no VE are
observed in 30 consecutive daily Method 22 tests for any kiln stack,
you may decrease the frequency of Method 22 testing from daily to
weekly for that kiln stack. If VE are observed during any weekly test,
you must promptly initiate and complete corrective actions according to
your OM&M plan, resume Method 22 testing of that kiln stack on a daily
basis, and maintain that schedule until no VE are observed in 30
consecutive daily tests, at which time you may again decrease the
frequency of Method 22 testing to a weekly basis.
(3) If VE are observed during any test conducted using Method 22 of
40 CFR part 60, appendix A, you must report these deviations by
following the requirements in Sec. 63.8485.

[[Page 26727]]

Notifications, Reports, and Records

Sec. 63.8480 What notifications must I submit and when?

(a) You must submit all of the notifications in Sec. Sec. 63.7(b)
and (c), 63.8(f)(4), and 63.9 (b) through (e), (g)(1), and (h) that
apply to you, by the dates specified.
(b) As specified in Sec. 63.9(b)(2) and (3), if you start up your
affected source before May 16, 2003, you must submit an Initial
Notification not later than 120 calendar days after May 16, 2003.
(c) As specified in Sec. 63.9(b)(3), if you start up your new or
reconstructed affected source on or after May 16, 2003, you must submit
an Initial Notification not later than 120 calendar days after you
become subject to this subpart.
(d) If you are required to conduct a performance test, you must
submit a notification of intent to conduct a performance test at least
60 calendar days before the performance test is scheduled to begin, as
required in Sec. 63.7(b)(1).
(e) If you are required to conduct a performance test as specified
in Table 3 to this subpart, you must submit a Notification of
Compliance Status as specified in Sec. 63.9(h) and paragraphs (e)(1)
and (2) of this section.
(1) For each compliance demonstration that includes a performance
test conducted according to the requirements in Table 3 to this
subpart, you must submit the Notification of Compliance Status,
including the performance test results, before the close of business on
the 60th calendar day following the completion of the performance test,
according to Sec. 63.10(d)(2).
(2) In addition to the requirements in Sec. 63.9(h)(2)(i), you
must include the information in paragraphs (e)(2)(i) and (ii) of this
section in your Notification of Compliance Status.
(i) The operating limit parameter values established for each
affected source with supporting documentation and a description of the
procedure used to establish the values.
(ii) For each APCD that includes a fabric filter, if a bag leak
detection system is used, analysis and supporting documentation
demonstrating conformance with EPA guidance and specifications for bag
leak detection systems in Sec. 63.8450(e).
(f) If you request a routine control device maintenance exemption
according to Sec. 63.8420(e), you must submit your request for the
exemption no later than 30 days before the compliance date.

Sec. 63.8485 What reports must I submit and when?

(a) You must submit each report in Table 6 to this subpart that
applies to you.
(b) Unless the Administrator has approved a different schedule for
submission of reports under Sec. 63.10(a), you must submit each report
by the date in Table 6 to this subpart and as specified in paragraphs
(b)(1) through (5) of this section.
(1) The first compliance report must cover the period beginning on
the compliance date that is specified for your affected source in Sec.
63.8395 and ending on June 30 or December 31, and lasting at least 6
months, but less than 12 months. For example, if your compliance date
is March 1, then the first semiannual reporting period would begin on
March 1 and end on December 31.
(2) The first compliance report must be postmarked or delivered no
later than July 31 or January 31 for compliance periods ending on June
30 and December 31, respectively.
(3) Each subsequent compliance report must cover the semiannual
reporting period from January 1 through June 30 or the semiannual
reporting period from July 1 through December 31.
(4) Each subsequent compliance report must be postmarked or
delivered no later than July 31 or January 31 for compliance periods
ending on June 30 and December 31, respectively.
(5) For each affected source that is subject to permitting
regulations pursuant to 40 CFR part 70 or 40 CFR part 71, if the
permitting authority has established dates for submitting semiannual
reports pursuant to 40 CFR 70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A) or 40 CFR
71.6(a)(3)(iii)(A), you may submit the first and subsequent compliance
reports according to the dates the permitting authority has established
instead of according to the dates in paragraphs (b)(1) through (4) of
this section.
(c) The compliance report must contain the information in
paragraphs (c)(1) through (7) of this section.
(1) Company name and address.
(2) Statement by a responsible official with that official's name,
title, and signature, certifying that, based on information and belief
formed after reasonable inquiry, the statements and information in the
report are true, accurate, and complete.
(3) Date of report and beginning and ending dates of the reporting
period.
(4) If you had a startup, shutdown or malfunction during the
reporting period and you took actions consistent with your SSMP and
OM&M plan, the compliance report must include the information specified
in Sec. 63.10(d)(5)(i).
(5) A description of control device maintenance performed while the
control device was offline and the kiln controlled by the control
device was operating, including the information specified in paragraphs
(c)(5)(i) through (iii) of this section.
(i) The date and time when the control device was shutdown and
restarted.
(ii) Identification of the kiln that was operating and the number
of hours that the kiln operated while the control device was offline.
(iii) A statement of whether or not the control device maintenance
was included in your approved routine control device maintenance
exemption developed as specified in Sec. 63.8420(e). If the control
device maintenance was included in your approved routine control device
maintenance exemption, then you must report the information in
paragraphs (c)(5)(iii)(A) through (C) of this section.
(A) The total amount of time that the kiln controlled by the
control device operated during the current semiannual compliance period
and during the previous semiannual compliance period.
(B) The amount of time that each kiln controlled by the control
device operated while the control device was offline for maintenance
covered under the routine control device maintenance exemption during
the current semiannual compliance period and during the previous
semiannual compliance period.
(C) Based on the information recorded under paragraphs
(c)(5)(iii)(A) and (B) of this section, compute the annual percent of
kiln operating uptime during which the control device was offline for
routine maintenance using Equation 1 of this section.
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TR16MY03.002

Where:

RM=Annual percentage of kiln uptime during which control device was
offline for routine control device maintenance
DT_p=Control device downtime claimed under the routine
control device maintenance exemption for the previous semiannual
compliance period
DT_c=Control device downtime claimed under the routine
control device maintenance exemption for the current semiannual
compliance period

[[Page 26728]]

KU_p=Kiln uptime for the previous semiannual compliance
period
KU_c=Kiln uptime for the current semiannual compliance
period

(6) If there are no deviations from any emission limitations
(emission limits or operating limits) that apply to you, the compliance
report must contain a statement that there were no deviations from the
emission limitations during the reporting period.
(7) If there were no periods during which the CMS was out-of-
control as specified in your OM&M plan, the compliance report must
contain a statement that there were no periods during which the CMS was
out-of-control during the reporting period.
(d) For each deviation from an emission limitation (emission limit
or operating limit) that occurs at an affected source where you are not
using a CMS to comply with the emission limitations in this subpart,
the compliance report must contain the information in paragraphs (c)(1)
through (5) and paragraphs (d)(1) and (2) of this section. This
includes periods of startup, shutdown, malfunction, and routine control
device maintenance.
(1) The total operating time of each affected source during the
reporting period.
(2) Information on the number, duration, and cause of deviations
(including unknown cause, if applicable), as applicable, and the
corrective action taken.
(e) For each deviation from an emission limitation (emission limit
or operating limit) occurring at an affected source where you are using
a CMS to comply with the emission limitations in this subpart, you must
include the information in paragraphs (c)(1) through (5) and paragraphs
(e)(1) through (13) of this section. This includes periods of startup,
shutdown, malfunction, and routine control device maintenance.
(1) The total operating time of each affected source during the
reporting period.
(2) The date and time that each malfunction started and stopped.
(3) The date and time that each CMS was inoperative, except for
zero (low-level) and high-level checks.
(4) The date, time, and duration that each CMS was out-of-control,
including the pertinent information in your OM&M plan.
(5) The date and time that each deviation started and stopped, and
whether each deviation occurred during a period of startup, shutdown,
or malfunction; during routine control device maintenance covered in
your approved routine control device maintenance exemption; or during
another period.
(6) A description of corrective action taken in response to a
deviation.
(7) A summary of the total duration of the deviation during the
reporting period and the total duration as a percent of the total
source operating time during that reporting period.
(8) A breakdown of the total duration of the deviations during the
reporting period into those that were due to startup, shutdown, control
equipment problems, process problems, other known causes, and other
unknown causes.
(9) A summary of the total duration of CMS downtime during the
reporting period and the total duration of CMS downtime as a percent of
the total source operating time during that reporting period.
(10) A brief description of the process units.
(11) A brief description of the CMS.
(12) The date of the latest CMS certification or audit.
(13) A description of any changes in CMS, processes, or control
equipment since the last reporting period.
(f) If you have obtained a title V operating permit according to 40
CFR part 70 or 40 CFR part 71, you must report all deviations as
defined in this subpart in the semiannual monitoring report required by
40 CFR 70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A) or 40 CFR 71.6(a)(3)(iii)(A). If you submit a
compliance report according to Table 6 to this subpart along with, or
as part of, the semiannual monitoring report required by 40 CFR
70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A) or 40 CFR 71.6(a)(3)(iii)(A), and the compliance
report includes all required information concerning deviations from any
emission limitation (including any operating limit), then submitting
the compliance report will satisfy any obligation to report the same
deviations in the semiannual monitoring report. However, submitting a
compliance report will not otherwise affect any obligation you may have
to report deviations from permit requirements to the permitting
authority.

Sec. 63.8490 What records must I keep?

(a) You must keep the records listed in paragraphs (a)(1) through
(4) of this section.
(1) A copy of each notification and report that you submitted to
comply with this subpart, including all documentation supporting any
Initial Notification or Notification of Compliance Status that you
submitted, according to the requirements in Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(xiv).
(2) The records in Sec. 63.6(e)(3)(iii) through (v) related to
startup, shutdown, and malfunction.
(3) Records of performance tests as required in Sec.
63.10(b)(2)(viii).
(4) Records relating to control device maintenance and
documentation of your approved routine control device maintenance
exemption, if you request such an exemption under Sec. 63.8420(e).
(b) You must keep the records required in Table 5 to this subpart
to show continuous compliance with each emission limitation that
applies to you.
(c) You must also maintain the records listed in paragraphs (c)(1)
through (6) of this section.
(1) For each bag leak detection system, records of each alarm, the
time of the alarm, the time corrective action was initiated and
completed, and a brief description of the cause of the alarm and the
corrective action taken.
(2) For each deviation of an operating limit parameter value, the
date, time, and duration of the deviation, a brief explanation of the
cause of the deviation and the corrective action taken, and whether the
deviation occurred during a period of startup, shutdown, or
malfunction.
(3) For each affected source, records of production rates on a
fired-product basis.
(4) Records for any approved alternative monitoring or test
procedures.
(5) Records of maintenance and inspections performed on the APCD.
(6) Current copies of your SSMP and OM&M plan, including any
revisions, with records documenting conformance.

Sec. 63.8495 In what form and for how long must I keep my records?

(a) Your records must be in a form suitable and readily available
for expeditious review, according to Sec. 63.10(b)(1).
(b) As specified in Sec. 63.10(b)(1), you must keep each record
for 5 years following the date of each occurrence, measurement,
maintenance, corrective action, report, or record.
(c) You must keep each record onsite for at least 2 years after the
date of each occurrence, measurement, maintenance, corrective action,
report, or record, according to Sec. 63.10(b)(1). You may keep the
records offsite for the remaining 3 years.

Other Requirements and Information

Sec. 63.8505 What parts of the General Provisions apply to me?

Table 7 to this subpart shows which parts of the General Provisions
in Sec. Sec. 63.1 through 63.15 apply to you.

[[Page 26729]]

Sec. 63.8510 Who implements and enforces this subpart?

(a) This subpart can be implemented and enforced by us, the U.S.
EPA, or a delegated authority such as your State, local, or tribal
agency. If the U.S. EPA Administrator has delegated authority to your
State, local, or tribal agency, then that agency, in addition to the
U.S. EPA, has the authority to implement and enforce this subpart. You
should contact your U.S. EPA Regional Office to find out if
implementation and enforcement of this subpart is delegated to your
State, local, or tribal agency.
(b) In delegating implementation and enforcement authority of this
subpart to a State, local, or tribal agency under section 40 CFR part
63, subpart E, the authorities contained in paragraph (c) of this
section are retained by the Administrator of the U.S. EPA and are not
transferred to the State, local, or tribal agency.
(c) The authorities that cannot be delegated to State, local, or
tribal agencies are as specified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (4) of
this section.
(1) Approval of alternatives to the applicability requirements in
Sec. Sec. 63.8385 and 63.8390, the compliance date requirements in
Sec. 63.8395, and the non-opacity emission limitations in Sec.
63.8405.
(2) Approval of major changes to test methods under Sec.
63.7(e)(2)(ii) and (f) and as defined in Sec. 63.90.
(3) Approval of major changes to monitoring under Sec. 63.8(f) and
as defined in Sec. 63.90.
(4) Approval of major changes to recordkeeping and reporting under
Sec. 63.10(f) and as defined in Sec. 63.90.

Sec. 63.8515 What definitions apply to this subpart?

Terms used in this subpart are defined in the Clean Air Act, in
Sec. 63.2, and in this section as follows:
Air pollution control device (APCD) means any equipment that
reduces the quantity of a pollutant that is emitted to the air.
Bag leak detection system means an instrument that is capable of
monitoring PM loadings in the exhaust of a fabric filter in order to
detect bag failures. A bag leak detection system includes, but is not
limited to, an instrument that operates on triboelectric, light-
scattering, light-transmittance, or other effects to monitor relative
PM loadings.
Brick and structural clay products (BSCP) manufacturing facility
means a plant site that manufactures brick (including, but not limited
to, face brick, structural brick, and brick pavers); clay pipe; roof
tile; extruded floor and wall tile; and/or other extruded, dimensional
clay products. Brick and structural clay products manufacturing
facilities typically process raw clay and shale, form the processed
materials into bricks or shapes, and dry and fire the bricks or shapes.
Deviation means any instance in which an affected source subject to
this subpart, or an owner or operator of such a source:
(1) Fails to meet any requirement or obligation established by this
subpart including, but not limited to, any emission limitation
(including any operating limit) or work practice standard;
(2) Fails to meet any term or condition that is adopted to
implement an applicable requirement in this subpart for any affected
source required to obtain such a permit; or
(3) Fails to meet any emission limitation (including any operating
limit) or work practice standard in this subpart during startup,
shutdown, or malfunction, regardless of whether or not such failure is
permitted by this subpart.
Dry lime injection fabric filter (DIFF) means an APCD that includes
continuous injection of hydrated lime or other sorbent into a duct or
reaction chamber followed by a fabric filter.
Dry lime scrubber/fabric filter (DLS/FF) means an APCD that
includes continuous injection of humidified hydrated lime or other
sorbent into a reaction chamber followed by a fabric filter. These
systems typically include recirculation of some of the sorbent.
Dry limestone adsorber (DLA) means an APCD that includes a
limestone storage bin, a reaction chamber that is essentially a packed
tower filled with limestone, and may or may not include a peeling drum
that mechanically scrapes reacted limestone to regenerate the stone for
reuse.
Emission limitation means any emission limit or operating limit.
Fabric filter means an APCD used to capture PM by filtering a gas
stream through filter media; also known as a baghouse.
Initial startup means:
(1) For a new or reconstructed tunnel kiln controlled with a DLA,
and for a tunnel kiln that would be considered reconstructed but for
Sec. 63.8390(i)(1) or Sec. 63.8390(i)(2), the time at which the
temperature in the kiln first reaches 260 [deg]C (500 [deg]F) and the
kiln contains product; or
(2) For a new or reconstructed tunnel kiln controlled with a DIFF,
DLS/FF, or WS, the time at which the kiln first reaches a level of
production that is equal to 75 percent of the kiln design capacity or
12 months after the affected source begins firing BSCP, whichever is
earlier.
Kiln exhaust process stream means the portion of the exhaust from a
tunnel kiln that exhausts directly to the atmosphere (or to an APCD),
rather than to a sawdust dryer.
Large tunnel kiln means a tunnel kiln (existing, new, or
reconstructed) with a design capacity equal to or greater than 9.07 Mg/
hr (10 tph) of fired product.
Particulate matter (PM) means, for purposes of this subpart,
emissions of PM that serve as a measure of total particulate emissions,
as measured by Method 5 (40 CFR part 60, appendix A), and as a
surrogate for metal HAP contained in the particulates including, but
not limited to, antimony, arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium,
cobalt, lead, manganese, mercury, nickel, and selenium.
Plant site means all contiguous or adjoining property that is under
common control, including properties that are separated only by a road
or other public right-of-way. Common control includes properties that
are owned, leased, or operated by the same entity, parent entity,
subsidiary, or any combination thereof.
Research and development kiln means any kiln whose purpose is to
conduct research and development for new processes and products and is
not engaged in the manufacture of products for commercial sale, except
in a de minimis manner.
Responsible official means responsible official as defined in 40
CFR 70.2.
Small tunnel kiln means a tunnel kiln (existing, new, or
reconstructed) with a design capacity less than 9.07 Mg/hr (10 tph) of
fired product.
Startup means the setting in operation of an affected source and
starting the production process.
Tunnel kiln means any continuous kiln that is used to fire BSCP.
Some tunnel kilns have two process streams, including a process stream
that exhausts directly to the atmosphere or to an APCD, and a process
stream in which the kiln exhaust is ducted to a sawdust dryer where it
is used to dry sawdust before being emitted to the atmosphere.
Tunnel kiln design capacity means the maximum amount of brick, in
Mg (tons), that a kiln is designed to produce in one year divided by
the number of hours in a year (8,760 hours). If a kiln is modified to
increase the capacity, the design capacity is considered to be the
capacity following modifications.
Wet scrubber (WS) means an APCD that uses water, which may include
caustic additives or other chemicals, as the sorbent. Wet scrubbers may
use any

[[Page 26730]]

of various design mechanisms to increase the contact between exhaust
gases and the sorbent.

Tables to Subpart JJJJJ of Part 63

As stated in Sec. 63.8405, you must meet each emission limit in
the following table that applies to you:

Table 1 to Subpart JJJJJ of Part 63.--Emission Limits
------------------------------------------------------------------------
You must meet the Or you must comply
For each . . . following emission with the following
limits . . . . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Existing large tunnel kiln a. HF emissions Reduce
(design capacity £=10 must not exceed uncontrolled HF
tph of fired product), 0.029 kilograms emissions by at
excluding any process stream per megagram (kg/ least 90 percent.
that is ducted to a sawdust Mg) (0.057 pounds ..................
dryer prior to July 22, 2002; per ton (lb/ton)) Reduce
or including any process stream of fired product. uncontrolled HCl
that exhausts directly to the b. HCl emissions emissions by at
atmosphere or to an APCD and must not exceed least 30 percent.
any process stream that is 0.13 kg/Mg (0.26 Not applicable.
first ducted to a sawdust on or lb/ton) of fired
after July 22, 2002; each new product.
or reconstructed small tunnel c. PM emissions
kiln (design capacity <10 tph must not exceed
of fired product), including 0.21 kg/Mg (0.42
all process streams; each lb/ton) of fired
tunnel kiln that would be product.
considered reconstructed but
for Sec. 63.8390(i)(1),
including all process streams;
and each large tunnel kiln
previously equipped with a DLA
that would be considered
reconstructed but for Sec.
63.8390(i)(2), including all
process streams.
2. New or reconstructed large a. HF emissions Reduce
tunnel kiln, including all must not exceed uncontrolled HF
process streams. 0.029 kg/Mg emissions by at
(0.057 lb/ton) of least 90 percent.
fired product.
b. HCl emissions Reduce
must not exceed uncontrolled HCl
0.028 kg/Mg emissions by at
(0.056 lb/ton) of least 85 percent.
fired product.
c. PM emissions Not applicable.
must not exceed
0.060 kg/Mg (0.12
lb/ton) of fired
product.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

As stated in Sec. 63.8405, you must meet each operating limit in
the following table that applies to you:m

Table 2 to Subpart JJJJJ of Part 63.--Operating Limits
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For each . . . You must . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Kiln equipped with a DLA........ a. Maintain the average pressure
drop across the DLA for each 3-
hour block period at or above the
average pressure drop established
during the performance test; and
b. Maintain an adequate amount of
limestone in the limestone hopper,
storage bin (located at the top of
the DLA), and DLA at all times;
maintain the limestone feeder
setting at or above the level
established during the performance
test; and
c. Use the same grade of limestone
from the same source as was used
during the performance test;
maintain records of the source and
grade of limestone; and
d. Maintain no VE from the DLA
stack.
2. Kiln equipped with a DIFF or DLS/ a. If you use a bag leak detection
FF. system, initiate corrective action
within 1 hour of a bag leak
detection system alarm and
complete corrective actions in
accordance with your OM&M plan;
operate and maintain the fabric
filter such that the alarm is not
engaged for more than 5 percent of
the total operating time in a 6-
month block reporting period; or
maintain no VE from the DIFF or
DLS/FF stack; and
b. Maintain free-flowing lime in
the feed hopper or silo and to the
APCD at all times for continuous
injection systems; maintain the
feeder setting at or above the
level established during the
performance test for continuous
injection systems.
3. Kiln equipped with a WS......... a. Maintain the average scrubber
pressure drop for each 3-hour
block period at or above the
average pressure drop established
during the performance test; and
b. Maintain the average scrubber
liquid pH for each 3-hour block
period at or above the average
scrubber liquid pH established
during the performance test; and
c. Maintain the average scrubber
liquid flow rate for each 3-hour
block period at or above the
average scrubber liquid flow rate
established during the performance
test; and
d. If chemicals are added to the
scrubber water, maintain the
average scrubber chemical feed
rate for each 3-hour block period
at or above the average scrubber
chemical feed rate established
during the performance test.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 26731]]

As stated in Sec. 63.8445, you must conduct each performance test
in the following table that applies to you:

Table 3 to Subpart JJJJJ of Part 63.--Requirements for Performance Tests
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to the
For each . . . You must . . . Using . . . following requirements
. . .
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Kiln.............................. a. Select locations of Method 1 or 1A of 40 Sampling sites must be
sampling ports and the CFR part 60, appendix located at the outlet
number of traverse A. of the APCD and prior
points. to any releases to the
atmosphere for all
affected sources. If
you choose to meet the
percent emission
reduction requirements
for HF or HCl, a
sampling site must
also be located at the
APCD inlet.
b. Determine velocities Method 2 of 40 CFR part You may use Method 2A,
and volumetric flow 60, appendix A. 2C, 2D, 2F, or 2G of
rate. 40 CFR part 60,
appendix A, as
appropriate, as an
alternative to using
Method 2 of 40 CFR
part 60, appendix A.
c. Conduct gas Method 3 of 40 CFR part You may use Method 3A
molecular weight 60, appendix A. or 3B of 40 CFR part
analysis. 60, appendix A, as
appropriate, as an
alternative to using
Method 3 of 40 CFR
part 60, appendix A.
d. Measure moisture Method 4 of 40 CFR part .......................
content of the stack 60, appendix A.
gas.
e. Measure HF and HCl Method 26A of 40 CFR Conduct the test while
emissions. part 60, appendix A; operating at the
or maximum production
level. You may use
Method 26 of 40 CFR
part 60, appendix A,
as an alternative to
using Method 26A of 40
CFR part 60, appendix
A, when no acid PM
(e.g., HF or HCl
dissolved in water
droplets emitted by
sources controlled by
a WS) is present.
Method 320 of 40 CFR Conduct the test while
part 63, appendix A. operating at the
maximum production
level. When using
Method 320 of 40 CFR
part 63, appendix A,
you must follow the
analyte spiking
procedures of section
13 of Method 320 of 40
CFR part 63, appendix
A, unless you can
demonstrate that the
complete spiking
procedure has been
conducted at a similar
source.
f. Measure PM Method 5 of 40 CFR part Conduct the test while
emissions. 60, appendix A. operating at the
maximum production
level.
2. Kiln that is complying with Determine the Production data You must measure and
production-based emission limits. production rate during collected during the record the production
each test run in order performance tests rate, on a fired-
to determine (e.g., no. of pushes product basis, of the
compliance with per hour, no. of affected source for
production-based bricks per kiln car, each of the three test
emission limits. weight of a typical runs.
fired brick).
3. Kiln equipped with a DLA.......... a. Establish the Data from the pressure You must continuously
operating limit for drop measurement measure the pressure
the average pressure device during the drop across the DLA,
drop across the DLA. performance test. determine and record
the block average
pressure drop values
for the three test
runs, and determine
and record the 3-hour
block average of the
recorded pressure drop
measurements for the
three test runs.

[[Page 26732]]

b. Establish the Data from the limestone You must ensure that
operating limit for feeder during the you maintain an
the limestone feeder performance test. adequate amount of
setting. limestone in the
limestone hopper,
storage bin (located
at the top of the
DLA), and DLA at all
times during the
performance test. You
must establish your
limestone feeder
setting one week prior
to the performance
test and maintain the
feeder setting for the
one-week period that
precedes the
performance test and
during the performance
test.
c. Document the source Records of limestone
and grade of limestone purchase.
used.
4. Kiln equipped with a DIFF or DLS/ Establish the operating Data from the lime For continuous lime
FF. limit for the lime feeder during the injection systems, you
feeder setting. performance test. must ensure that lime
in the feed hopper or
silo and to the APCD
is free-flowing at all
times during the
performance test and
record the feeder
setting for the three
test runs. If the feed
rate setting varies
during the three test
runs, determine and
record the average
feed rate from the
three test runs.
5. Kiln equipped with a WS........... a. Establish the Data from the pressure You must continuously
operating limit for drop measurement measure the scrubber
the average scrubber device during the pressure drop,
pressure drop. performance test. determine and record
the block average
pressure drop values
for the three test
runs, and determine
and record the 3-hour
block average of the
recorded pressure drop
measurements for the
three test runs.
b. Establish the Data from the pH You must continuously
operating limit for measurement device measure the scrubber
the average scrubber during the performace liquid pH, determine
liquid pH. test. and record the block
average pH values for
the three test runs,
and determine and
record the 3-hour
block average of the
recorded pH
measurements for the
three test runs.
c. Establish the Data from the flow rate You must continuously
operating limit for measurement device measure the scrubber
the average scrubber during the performance liquid flow rate,
liquid flow rate. test. determine and record
the block average flow
rate values for the
three test runs, and
determine and record
the 3-hour block
average of the
recorded flow rate
measurements for the
three test runs.
6. Kiln equipped with a WS that Establish the operating Data from the chemical You must continuously
includes chemical addition to the limit for the average feed rate measurement measure the scrubber
water. scrubber chemical feed device during the chemical feed rate,
rate. performance test. determine and record
the block average
chemical feed rate
values for the three
test runs, and
determine and record
the 3-hour block
average of the
recorded chemical feed
rate measurements for
the three test runs.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As stated in Sec. 63.8455, you must demonstrate initial compliance
with each emission limitation that applies to you according to the
following table:

[[Page 26733]]

Table 4 to Subpart JJJJJ of Part 63.--Initial Compliance with Emission
Limitations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
You have
For the following demonstrated
For each . . . emission initial compliance
limitation . . . if . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Existing large tunnel kiln a. HF emissions i. The HF
(design capacity £=10 must not exceed emissions
tph of fired product), 0.029 kg/Mg measured using
excluding any process stream (0.057 lb/ton) of Method 26A of 40
that is ducted to a sawdust fired product; or CFR part 60,
dryer prior to July 22, 2002; uncontrolled HF appendix A or
or including any process stream emissions must be Method 320 of 40
that exhausts directly to the reduced by at CFR part 63,
atmosphere or to an APCD and least 90 percent; appendix A over
any process stream that is and the period of the
first ducted to a sawdust dryer initial
on or after July 22, 2002; each performance test,
new or reconstructed small according to the
tunnel kiln (design capacity calculations in
<10 tph of fired product), Sec.
including all process streams; 63.8445(g)(1), do
each tunnel kiln that would be not exceed 0.029
considered reconstructed but kg/Mg (0.057 lb/
for Sec. 63.8390(i)(1), ton); or
including all process streams; uncontrolled HF
and each large tunnel kiln emissions
previously equipped with a DLA measured using
that would be considered Method 26A of 40
reconstructed but for Sec. CFR part 60,
63.8390(i)(2), including all appendix A or
process streams. Method 320 of 40
CFR part 63,
appendix A over
the period of the
initial
performance test
are reduced by at
least 90 percent,
according to the
calculations in
Sec.
63.8445(g)(2);
and
ii. You establish
and have a record
of the operating
limits listed in
Table 2 to this
subpart over the
3-hour
performance test
during which HF
emissions did not
exceed 0.029 kg/
Mg (0.057 lb/ton)
or uncontrolled
HF emissions were
reduced by at
least 90 percent.
b. HCl emissions i. The HCl
must not exceed emissions
0.13 kg/Mg (0.26 measured using
lb/ton) of fired Method 26A of 40
product; or CFR part 60,
uncontrolled HCl appendix A or
emissions must be Method 320 of 40
reduced by at CFR part 63,
least 30 percent; appendix A over
and the period of the
initial
performance test,
according to the
calculations in
Sec.
63.8445(g)(1), do
not exceed 0.13
kg/Mg (0.26 lb/
ton); or
uncontrolled HCl
emissions
measured using
Method 26A of 40
CFR part 60,
appendix A or
Method 320 of 40
CFR part 63,
appendix A over
the period of the
initial
performance test
are reduced by at
least 30 percent,
according to the
calculations in
Sec.
63.8445(g)(2);
and
ii. You establish
and have a record
of the operating
limits listed in
Table 2 to this
subpart over the
3-hour
performance test
during which HCl
emissions did not
exceed 0.13 kg/Mg
(0.26 lb/ton) or
uncontrolled HCl
emissions were
reduced by at
least 30 percent.
c. PM emissions i. The PM
must not exceed emissions
0.21 kg/Mg (0.42 measured using
lb/ton) of fired Method 5 of 40
product. CFR part 60,
appendix A, over
the period of the
initial
performance test,
according to the
calculations in
Sec.
63.8445(g)(1), do
not exceed 0.21
kg/Mg (0.42 lb/
ton); and
ii. You establish
and have a record
of the operating
limits listed in
Table 2 to this
subpart over the
3-hour
performance test
during which PM
emissions did not
exceed 0.21 kg/Mg
(0.42 lb/ton).
2. New or reconstructed large a. HF emissions i. The HF
tunnel kiln, including all must not exceed emissions
process streams. 0.029 kg/Mg measured using
(0.057 lb/ton) of Method 26A of 40
fired product; or CFR part 60,
uncontrolled HF appendix A or
emissions must be Method 320 of 40
reduced by at CFR part 63,
least 90 percent; appendix A over
and the period of the
initial
performance test,
according to the
calculations in
Sec.
63.8445(g)(1), do
not exceed 0.029
kg/Mg (0.057 lb/
ton); or
uncontrolled HF
emissions
measured using
Method 26A of 40
CFR part 60,
appendix A or
Method 320 of 40
CFR part 63,
appendix A over
the period of the
initial
performance test
are reduced by at
least 90 percent,
according to the
calculations in
Sec.
63.8445(g)(2);
and

[[Page 26734]]

ii. You establish
and have a record
of the operating
limits listed in
Table 2 to this
subpart over the
3-hour
performance test
during which HF
emissions did not
exceed 0.029 kg/
Mg (0.057 lb/ton)
or uncontrolled
HF emissions were
reduced by at
least 90 percent.
b. HCl emissions i. The HCl
must not exceed emissions
0.028 kg/Mg measured using
(0.056 lb/ton) of Method 26A of 40
fired product; or CFR part 60,
uncontrolled HCl appendix A or
emissions must be Method 320 of 40
reduced by at CFR part 63,
least 85 percent; appendix A over
and the period of the
initial
performance test,
according to the
calculations in
Sec.
63.8445(g)(1), do
not exceed 0.028
kg/Mg (0.056 lb/
ton); or
uncontrolled HCl
emissions
measured using
Method 26A of 40
CFR part 60,
appendix A or
Method 320 of 40
CFR part 63,
appendix A over
the period of the
initial
performance test
are reduced by at
least 85 percent,
according to the
calculations in
Sec.
63.8445(g)(2);
and
ii. You establish
and have a record
of the operating
limits listed in
Table 2 to this
subpart over the
3-hour
performance test
during which HCl
emissions did not
exceed 0.028 kg/
Mg (0.056 lb/ton)
or uncontrolled
HCl emissions
were reduced by
at least 85
percent.
c. PM emissions i. The PM
must not exceed emissions
0.060 kg/Mg (0.12 measured using
lb/ton) of fired Method 5 of 40
product. CFR part 60,
appendix A, over
the period of the
initial
performance test,
according to the
calculations in
Sec.
63.8445(g)(1), do
not exceed 0.060
kg/Mg (0.12 lb/
ton); and
ii. You establish
and have a record
of the operating
limits listed in
Table 2 to this
subpart over the
3-hour
performance test
during which PM
emissions did not
exceed 0.060 kg/
Mg (0.12 lb/ton).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

As stated in Sec. 63.8470, you must demonstrate continuous
compliance with each emission limit and operating limit that applies to
you according to the following table:

Table 5 to Subpart JJJJJ of Part 63.--Continuous Compliance With
Emission Limits and Operating Limits
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the following
emission limits You must demonstrate
For each . . . and operating continuous compliance
limits . . . by . . .

------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Kiln equipped with a DLA... Each emission i. Collecting the DLA
limit in Table 1 pressure drop data
to this subpart according to Sec.
and each 63.8450(a); reducing
operating limit the DLA pressure
in Item 1 of drop data to 3-hour
Table 2 to this block averages
subpart for according to Sec.
kilns equipped 63.8450(a);
with a DLA. maintaining the
average pressure
drop across the DLA
for each 3-hour
block period at or
above the average
pressure drop
established during
the performance
test; and
ii. Verifying that
the limestone hopper
and storage bin
(located at the top
of the DLA) contain
adequate limestone
by performing a
daily visual check;
and
iii. Recording the
limestone feeder
setting daily to
verify that the
feeder setting is
being maintained at
or above the level
established during
the performance
test; and
iv. Using the same
grade of limestone
from the same source
as was used during
the performance
test; maintaining
records of the
source and type of
limestone; and
v. Performing VE
observations of the
DLA stack at the
frequency specified
in Sec. 63.8470(g)
using Method 22 of
40 CFR part 60,
appendix A;
maintaining no VE
from the DLA stack.

[[Page 26735]]

2. Kiln equipped with a DIFF Each emission i. If you use a bag
or DLS/FF. limit in Table 1 leak detection
to this subpart system, initiating
and each corrective action
operating limit within 1 hour of a
in Item 2 of bag leak detection
Table 2 to this system alarm and
subpart for completing
kilns equipped corrective actions
with DIFF or DLS/ in accordance with
FF. your OM&M plan;
operating and
maintaining the
fabric filter such
that the alarm is
not engaged for more
than 5 percent of
the total operating
time in a 6-month
block reporting
period; in
calculating this
operating time
fraction, if
inspection of the
fabric filter
demonstrates that no
corrective action is
required, no alarm
time is counted; if
corrective action is
required, each alarm
is counted as a
minimum of 1 hour;
if you take longer
than 1 hour to
initiate corrective
action, the alarm
time is counted as
the actual amount of
time taken by you to
initiate corrective
action; or
performing VE
observations of the
DIFF or DLS/FF stack
at the frequency
specified in Sec.
63.8470(g) using
Method 22 of 40 CFR
part 60, appendix A;
maintaining no VE
from the DIFF or DLS/
FF stack; and
ii. Verifying that
lime is free-flowing
via a load cell,
carrier gas/lime
flow indicator,
carrier gas pressure
drop measurement
system, or other
system; recording
all monitor or
sensor output, and
if lime is found not
to be free flowing,
promptly initiating
and completing
corrective actions
in accordance with
your OM&M plan;
recording the feeder
setting once during
each shift of
operation to verify
that the feeder
setting is being
maintained at or
above the level
established during
the performance
test.
3. Kiln equipped with a WS.... Each emission i. Collecting the
limit in Table 1 scrubber pressure
to this subpart drop data according
and each to Sec.
operating limit 63.8450(a); reducing
in Item 3 of the scrubber
Table 2 to this pressure drop data
subpart for to 3-hour block
kilns equipped averages according
with WS. to Sec.
63.8450(a);
maintaining the
average scrubber
pressure drop for
each 3-hour block
period at or above
the average pressure
drop established
during the
performance test;
and
ii. Collecting the
scrubber liquid pH
data according to
Sec. 63.8450(a);
reducing the
scrubber liquid pH
data to 3-hour block
averages according
to Sec.
63.8450(a);
maintaining the
average scrubber
liquid pH for each 3-
hour block period at
or above the average
scrubber liquid pH
established during
the performance
test; and
iii. Collecting the
scrubber liquid flow
rate data according
to Sec.
63.8450(a); reducing
the scrubber liquid
flow rate data to 3-
hour block averages
according to Sec.
63.8450(a);
maintaining the
average scrubber
liquid flow rate for
each 3-hour block
period at or above
the average scrubber
liquid flow rate
established during
the performance
test; and
iv. If chemicals are
added to the
scrubber water,
collecting the
scrubber chemical
feed rate data
according to Sec.
63.8450(a); reducing
the scrubber
chemical feed rate
data to 3-hour block
averages according
to Sec.
63.8450(a);
maintaining the
average scrubber
chemical feed rate
for each 3-hour
block period at or
above the average
scrubber chemical
feed rate
established during
the performance
test.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

As stated in Sec. 63.8485, you must submit each report that
applies to you according to the following table:

Table 6 to Subpart JJJJJ of Part 63.--Requirements for Reports
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You must submit the report
You must submit . . . The report must contain . . . . . .
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. A compliance report.................. a. If there are no deviations from any Semiannually according to
emission limitations (emission limits, the requirements in Sec.
operating limits) that apply to you, a 63.8485(b).
statement that there were no deviations
from the emission limitations during the
reporting period. If there were no
periods during which the CMS was out-of-
control as specified in your OM&M plan, a
statement that there were no periods
during which the CMS was out- of-control
during the reporting period.

[[Page 26736]]

b. If you have a deviation from any Semiannually according to
emission limitation (emission limit, the requirements in Sec.
operating limit) during the reporting 63.8485(b).
period, the report must contain the
information in Sec. 63.8485(d) or (e).
If there were periods during which the
CMS was out-of-control, as specified in
your OM&M plan, the report must contain
the information in Sec. 63.8485(e).
c. If you had a startup, shutdown or Semiannually according to
malfunction during the reporting period the requirements in Sec.
and you took actions consistent with your 63.8485(b).
SSMP, the compliance report must include
the information in Sec. 63.10(d)(5)(i).
2. An immediate startup, shutdown, and a. Actions taken for the event according By fax or telephone within
malfunction report if you took actions to the requirements in Sec. 2 working days after
during a startup, shutdown, or 63.10(d)(5)(ii). starting actions
malfunction during the reporting period inconsistent with the
that are not consistent with your SSMP. plan.
b. The information in Sec. By letter within 7 working
63.10(d)(5)(ii). days after the end of the
event unless you have
made alternative
arrangements with the
permitting authority.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As stated in Sec. 63.8505, you must comply with the General
Provisions in Sec. Sec. 63.1 through 63.15 that apply to you according
to the following table:

Table 7 to Subpart JJJJJ of Part 63.--Applicability of General Provisions to Subpart JJJJJ
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Citation Subject Brief description Applies to subpart JJJJJ
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 63.1............... Applicability......... Initial applicability Yes.
determination; applicability
after standard established;
permit requirements;
extensions, notifications.
Sec. 63.2............... Definitions........... Definitions for part 63 Yes.
standards.
Sec. 63.3............... Units and Units and abbreviations for part Yes.
Abbreviations. 63 standards.
Sec. 63.4............... Prohibited Activities. Compliance date; circumvention; Yes.
severability.
Sec. 63.5............... Construction/ Applicability; applications; Yes.
Reconstruction. approvals.
Sec. 63.6(a)............ Applicability......... General Provisions (GP) apply Yes.
unless compliance extension; GP
apply to area sources that
become major.
Sec. 63.6(b)(1)-(4)..... Compliance Dates for Standards apply at effective Yes.
New and Reconstructed date; 3 years after effective
sources. date; upon startup; 10 years
after construction or
reconstruction commences for
section 112(f).
Sec. 63.6(b)(5)......... Notification.......... Must notify if commenced Yes.
construction or reconstruction
after proposal.
Sec. 63.6(b)(6)......... [Reserved].
Sec. 63.6(b)(7)......... Compliance Dates for Area sources that become major Yes.
New and Reconstructed must comply with major source
area Sources That standards immediately upon
Become Major. becoming major, regardless of
whether required to comply when
they were area sources.
Sec. 63.6(c)(1)-(2)..... Compliance Dates for Comply according to date in Yes.
Existing Sources. subpart, which must be no later
than 3 years after effective
date; for section 112(f)
standards, comply within 90
days of effective date unless
compliance extension.
Sec. 63.6(c)(3)-(4)..... [Reserved]............
Sec. 63.6(c)(5)......... Compliance Dates for Area sources that become major Yes.
Existing area Sources must comply with major source
That Become Major. standards by date indicated in
subpart or by equivalent time
period (for example, 3 years).
Sec. 63.6(d)............ [Reserved].
Sec. 63.6(e)(1)-(2)..... Operation & Operate to minimize emissions at Yes.
Maintenance. all times; correct malfunctions
as soon as practicable;
requirements independently
enforceable; information
Administrator will use to
determine if operation and
maintenance requirements were
met.
Sec. 63.6(e)(3)......... Startup, Shutdown, and Requirement for startup, Yes.
Malfunction Plan shutdown, and malfunction (SSM)
(SSMP). and SSMP; content of SSMP.
Sec. 63.6(f)(1)......... Compliance Except You must comply with emission Yes.
During SSM. standards at all times except
during SSM.
Sec. 63.6(f)(2)-(3)..... Methods for Compliance based on performance Yes.
Determining test, operation and maintenance
Compliance. plans, records, inspection.
Sec. 63.6(g)............ Alternative Standard.. Procedures for getting an Yes.
alternative standard.
Sec. 63.6(h)............ Opacity/VE Standards.. Requirements for opacity and VE No, not applicable.
standards.

[[Page 26737]]

Sec. 63.6(i)............ Compliance Extension.. Procedures and criteria for Yes.
Administrator to grant
compliance extension.
Sec. 63.6(j)............ Presidential President may exempt source Yes.
Compliance Exemption. category.
Sec. 63.7(a)(1)-(2)..... Performance Test Dates Dates for conducting initial Yes.
performance testing and other
compliance demonstrations; must
conduct 180 days after first
subject to rule.
Sec. 63.7(a)(3)......... Section 114 Authority. Administrator may require a Yes.
performance test under CAA
section 114 at any time.
Sec. 63.7(b)(1)......... Notification of Must notify Administrator 60 Yes.
Performance Test. days before the test.
Sec. 63.7(b)(2)......... Notification of Must notify Administrator 5 days Yes.
Rescheduling. before scheduled date of
rescheduled date.
Sec. 63.7(c)............ Quality Assurance(QA)/ Requirements; test plan approval Yes.
Test Plan. procedures; performance audit
requirements; internal and
external QA procedures for
testing.
Sec. 63.7(d)............ Testing Facilities.... Requirements for testing Yes.
facilities.
Sec. 63.7(e)(1)......... Conditions for Performance tests must be No, Sec. 63.8445
Conducting conducted under representative specifies requirements.
Performance Tests. conditions.
Cannot conduct performance tests Yes.
during SSM; not a violation to
exceed standard during SSM.
Sec. 63.7(e)(2)-(3)..... Conditions for Must conduct according to Yes.
Conducting subpart and EPA test methods
Performance Tests. unless Administrator approves
alternative; must have at least
three test runs of at least 1
hour each; compliance is based
on arithmetic mean of three
runs; conditions when data from
an additional test run can be
used.
Sec. 63.7(f)............ Alternative Test Procedures by which Yes.
Method. Administrator can grant
approval to use an alternative
test method.
Sec. 63.7(g)............ Performance Test Data Must include raw data in Yes.
Analysis. performance test report; must
submit performance test data 60
days after end of test with the
notification of compliance
status.
Sec. 63.7(h)............ Waiver of Tests....... Procedures for Administrator to Yes.
waive performance test.
Sec. 63.8(a)(1)......... Applicability of Subject to all monitoring Yes.
Monitoring requirements in subpart.
Requirements.
Sec. 63.8(a)(2)......... Performance Performance Specifications in Yes.
Specifications. appendix B of 40 CFR part 60
apply.
Sec. 63.8(a)(3)......... [Reserved]............
Sec. 63.8(a)(4)......... Monitoring with Flares Requirements for flares in Sec. No, not applicable.
63.11 apply.
Sec. 63.8(b)(1)......... Monitoring............ Must conduct monitoring Yes.
according to standard unless
Administrator approves
alternative.
Sec. 63.8(b)(2)-(3)..... Multiple Effluents and Specific requirements for Yes.
Multiple Monitoring installing and reporting on
Systems. monitoring systems.
Sec. 63.8(c)(1)......... Monitoring System Maintenance consistent with good Yes.
Operation and air pollution control practices.
Maintenance.
Sec. 63.8(c)(1)(i)...... Routine and Reporting requirements for SSM Yes.
Predictable SSM. when action is described in
SSMP.
Sec. 63.8(c)(1)(ii)..... SSM not in SSMP....... Reporting requirements for SSM Yes.
when action is not described in
SSMP.
Sec. 63.8(c)(1)(iii).... Compliance with How Administrator determines if Yes.
Operation and source complying with operation
Maintenance and maintenance requirements.
Requirements.
Sec. 63.8(c)(2)-(3)..... Monitoring System Must install to get Yes.
Installation. representative emission and
parameter measurements.
Sec. 63.8(c)(4)......... CMS Requirements...... Requirements for CMS............ No, Sec. Sec. 63.8425
and 63.8465 specify
requirements.
Sec. 63.8(c)(5)......... Continuous Opacity COMS minimum procedures......... No, not applicable.
Monitoring System
(COMS) Minimum
Procedures.
Sec. 63.8(c)(6)......... CMS Requirements...... Zero and high level calibration No, Sec. 63.8425
check requirements. specifies requirements.
Sec. 63.8(c)(7)-(8)..... CMS Requirements...... Out-of-control periods.......... No, Sec. 63.8425
specifies requirements.
Sec. 63.8(d)............ CMS Quality Control... Requirements for CMS quality No, Sec. 63.8425
control. specifies requirements.
Sec. 63.8(e)............ CMS Performance Requirements for CMS performance No, Sec. 63.8425
Evaluation. evaluation. specifies requirements.
Sec. 63.8(f)(1)-(5)..... Alternative Monitoring Procedures for Administrator to Yes.
Method. approve alternative monitoring.

[[Page 26738]]

Sec. 63.8(f)(6)......... Alternative to Procedures for Administrator to No, not applicable.
Relative Accuracy approve alternative relative
Test. accuracy test for continuous
emissions monitoring systems
(CEMS).
Sec. 63.8(g)............ Data Reduction........ COMS and CEMS data reduction No, not applicable.
requirements.
Sec. 63.9(a)............ Notification Applicability; State delegation. Yes.
Requirements.
Sec. 63.9(b)............ Initial Notifications. Requirements for initial Yes.
notifications.
Sec. 63.9(c)............ Request for Compliance Can request if cannot comply by Yes.
Extension. date or if installed BACT/LAER.
Sec. 63.9(d)............ Notification of For sources that commence Yes.
Special Compliance construction between proposal
Requirements for New and promulgation and want to
Source. comply 3 years after effective
date.
Sec. 63.9(e)............ Notification of Notify Administrator 60 days Yes.
Performance Test. prior.
Sec. 63.9(f)............ Notification of VE/ Notify Administrator 30 days No, not applicable.
Opacity Test. prior.
Sec. 63.9(g)(1)......... Additional Notification of performance Yes.
Notifications When evaluation.
Using CMS.
Sec. 63.9(g)(2)-(3)..... Additional Notification of COMS data use; No, not applicable.
Notifications When notification that relative
Using CMS. accuracy alternative criterion
were exceeded.
Sec. 63.9(h)............ Notification of Contents; submittal requirements Yes.
Compliance Status.
Sec. 63.9(i)............ Adjustment of Procedures for Administrator to Yes.
Submittal Deadlines. approve change in when
notifications must be submitted.
Sec. 63.9(j)............ Change in Previous Must submit within 15 days after Yes.
Information. the change.
Sec. 63.10(a)........... Recordkeeping/ Applicability; general Yes.
Reporting. information.
Sec. 63.10(b)(1)........ General Recordkeeping General requirements............ Yes.
Requirements.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(i)-(v). Records Related to SSM Requirements for SSM records.... Yes.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(vi)- CMS Records........... Records when CMS is Yes.
(xii) and (xiv). malfunctioning, inoperative or
out-of-control.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(xiii).. Records............... Records when using alternative No, not applicable.
to relative accuracy test.
Sec. 63.10(b)(3)........ Records............... Applicability Determinations.... Yes.
Sec. 63.10(c)(1)-(15)... Records............... Additional records for CMS...... No, Sec. Sec. 63.8425
and 63.8490 specify
requirements.
Sec. 63.10(d)(1) and (2) General Reporting Requirements for and reporting; Yes.
Requirements. performance test results
reporting.
Sec. 63.10(d)(3)........ Reporting Opacity or Requirements for reporting No, not applicable.
VE Observations. opacity and VE.
Sec. 63.10(d)(4)........ Progress Reports...... Must submit progress reports on Yes.
schedule if under compliance
extension.
Sec. 63.10(d)(5)........ SSM Reports........... Contents and submission......... Yes.
Sec. 63.10(e)(1)-(3).... Additional CMS Reports Requirements for CMS reporting.. No, Sec. Sec. 63.8425
and 63.8485 specify
requirements.
Sec. 63.10(e)(4)........ Reporting COMS data... Requirements for reporting COMS No, not applicable.
data with performance test data.
Sec. 63.10(f)........... Waiver for Procedures for Administrator to Yes.
Recordkeeping/ waive.
Reporting.
Sec. 63.11.............. Flares................ Requirement for flares.......... No, not applicable.
Sec. 63.12.............. Delegation............ State authority to enforce Yes.
standards.
Sec. 63.13.............. Addresses............. Addresses for reports, Yes.
notifications, requests.
Sec. 63.14.............. Incorporation by Materials incorporated by Yes.
Reference. reference.
Sec. 63.15.............. Availability of Information availability; Yes.
Information. confidential information.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Part 63 is amended by adding subpart KKKKK to read as follows:

Subpart KKKKK--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants for Clay Ceramics Manufacturing

Sec.

What This Subpart Covers

63.8530 What is the purpose of this subpart?
63.8535 Am I subject to this subpart?
63.8540 What parts of my plant does this subpart cover?
63.8545 When do I have to comply with this subpart?

Emission Limitations and Work Practice Standards

63.8555 What emission limitations and work practice standards must I
meet?
63.8560 What are my options for meeting the emission limitations and
work practice standards?

General Compliance Requirements

63.8570 What are my general requirements for complying with this
subpart?
63.8575 What do I need to know about operation, maintenance, and
monitoring plans?

Testing and Initial Compliance Requirements

63.8585 By what date must I conduct performance tests?
63.8590 When must I conduct subsequent performance tests?
63.8595 How do I conduct performance tests and establish operating
limits?
63.8600 What are my monitoring installation, operation, and
maintenance requirements?
63.8605 How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the emission
limitations and work practice standards?

Continuous Compliance Requirements

63.8615 How do I monitor and collect data to demonstrate continuous
compliance?
63.8620 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the emission
limitations and work practice standards?

[[Page 26739]]

Notifications, Reports, and Records

63.8630 What notifications must I submit and when?
63.8635 What reports must I submit and when?
63.8640 What records must I keep?
63.8645 In what form and for how long must I keep my records?

Other Requirements and Information

63.8655 What parts of the General Provisions apply to me?
63.8660 Who implements and enforces this subpart?
63.8665 What definitions apply to this subpart?

Tables to Subpart KKKKK of Part 63

Table 1 to Subpart KKKKK of Part 63--Emission Limits
Table 2 to Subpart KKKKK of Part 63--Operating Limits
Table 3 to Subpart KKKKK of Part 63--Work Practice Standards
Table 4 to Subpart KKKKK of Part 63--Requirements for Performance
Tests
Table 5 to Subpart KKKKK of Part 63--Initial Compliance with
Emission Limitations and Work Practice Standards
Table 6 to Subpart KKKKK of Part 63--Continuous Compliance with
Emission Limitations and Work Practice Standards
Table 7 to Subpart KKKKK of Part 63--Requirements for Reports
Table 8 to Subpart KKKKK of Part 63--Applicability of General
Provisions to Subpart KKKKK

What This Subpart Covers

Sec. 63.8530 What is the purpose of this subpart?

This subpart establishes national emission limitations and work
practice standards for hazardous air pollutants (HAP) emitted from clay
ceramics manufacturing facilities. This subpart also establishes
requirements to demonstrate initial and continuous compliance with the
emission limitations and work practice standards.

Sec. 63.8535 Am I subject to this subpart?

You are subject to this subpart if you own or operate a clay
ceramics manufacturing facility that is, is located at, or is part of a
major source of HAP emissions according to the criteria in paragraphs
(a) and (b) of this section.
(a) A clay ceramics manufacturing facility is a plant site that
manufactures pressed floor tile, pressed wall tile, other pressed tile,
or sanitaryware (e.g., sinks and toilets). Clay ceramics manufacturing
facilities typically process clay, shale, and various additives; form
the processed materials into tile or sanitaryware shapes; and dry and
fire the ceramic products. Glazes are applied to many tile and
sanitaryware products.
(b) A major source of HAP emissions is any stationary source or
group of stationary sources within a contiguous area under common
control that emits or has the potential to emit any single HAP at a
rate of 9.07 megagrams (10 tons) or more per year or any combination of
HAP at a rate of 22.68 megagrams (25 tons) or more per year.

Sec. 63.8540 What parts of my plant does this subpart cover?

(a) This subpart applies to each existing, new, or reconstructed
affected source at a clay ceramics manufacturing facility and to each
affected source described in paragraphs (f)(1) or (f)(2) of this
section.
(b) Each existing, new, or reconstructed periodic kiln, tunnel
kiln, and roller kiln is an affected source regardless of design
capacity. Each source that meets the description in paragraphs (f)(1)
or (f)(2) also is an affected source.
(c) Kilns that are used exclusively for research and development
(R&D) and are not used to manufacture products for commercial sale,
except in a de minimis manner, are not subject to the requirements of
this subpart.
(d) Kilns that are used exclusively for setting glazes on
previously fired products or for refiring are not subject to the
requirements of this subpart.
(e) A source is a new affected source if construction of the
affected source began after July 22, 2002, and you met the
applicability criteria at the time you began construction.
(f) An affected source is reconstructed if you meet the criteria as
defined in Sec. 63.2, except as provided in paragraphs (f)(1) and
(f)(2) of this section.
(1) It is not technologically and economically feasible for an
existing tunnel kiln whose design capacity is less than 9.07 megagrams
per hour (Mg/hr) (10 tons per hour (tph)) of fired product but is
increased such that it is equal to or greater than 9.07 Mg/hr (10 tph)
of fired product to meet the relevant standards (i.e., new source
maximum achievable control technology (MACT)) by retrofitting with a
dry lime injection fabric filter (DIFF), dry lime scrubber/fabric
filter (DLS/FF), or wet scrubber (WS).
(2) It is not technologically and economically feasible for an
existing dry limestone adsorber (DLA)-controlled kiln whose design
capacity is equal to or greater than 9.07 Mg/hr (10 tph) of fired
product to meet the relevant standards by retrofitting with a DIFF,
DLS/FF, or WS.
(g) An affected source is existing if it is not new or
reconstructed and does not meet the descriptions provided in paragraphs
(f)(1) and (f)(2) of this section.

Sec. 63.8545 When do I have to comply with this subpart?

(a) If you have a new or reconstructed affected source or an
affected source described in Sec. 63.8540(f)(1) or Sec.
63.8540(f)(2), you must comply with this subpart according to
paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this section.
(1) If the initial startup of your affected source is before May
16, 2003, then you must comply with the applicable emission limitations
and work practice standards in Tables 1, 2, and 3 to this subpart no
later than May 16, 2003.
(2) If the initial startup of your affected source is after May 16,
2003, then you must comply with the applicable emission limitations and
work practice standards in Tables 1, 2, and 3 to this subpart upon
initial startup of your affected source.
(b) If you have an existing affected source, you must comply with
the work practice standards for existing sources in Table 3 to this
subpart no later than May 16, 2003.
(c) If you have an existing area source that increases its
emissions or its potential to emit such that it becomes a major source
of HAP by adding a new affected source or by reconstructing, you must
be in compliance with this subpart upon initial startup of your
affected source as a major source.
(d) If you have a new area source (i.e., an area source for which
construction or reconstruction was commenced after July 22, 2002) that
increases its emissions or its potential to emit such that it becomes a
major source of HAP, you must be in compliance with this subpart upon
initial startup of your affected source as a major source.
(e) You must meet the notification requirements in Sec. 63.8630
according to the schedule in Sec. 63.8630 and in 40 CFR part 63,
subpart A. Some of the notifications must be submitted before you are
required to comply with the emission limitations in this subpart.

Emission Limitations and Work Practice Standards

Sec. 63.8555 What emission limitations and work practice standards
must I meet?

(a) You must meet each emission limit in Table 1 to this subpart
that applies to you.
(b) You must meet each operating limit in Table 2 to this subpart
that applies to you.
(c) You must meet each work practice standard in Table 3 to this
subpart that applies to you.

[[Page 26740]]

Sec. 63.8560 What are my options for meeting the emission limitations
and work practice standards?

(a) To meet the emission limitations in Tables 1 and 2 to this
subpart, you must use one or more of the options listed in paragraphs
(a)(1) and (2) of this section.
(1) Emissions control system. Use an emissions capture and
collection system and an air pollution control device (APCD) and
demonstrate that the resulting emissions or emissions reductions meet
the emission limits in Table 1 to this subpart, and that the capture
and collection system and APCD meet the applicable operating limits in
Table 2 to this subpart.
(2) Process changes. Use low-HAP raw materials or implement
manufacturing process changes and demonstrate that the resulting
emissions or emissions reductions meet the emission limits in Table 1
to this subpart.
(b) To meet the work practice standards in Table 3 to this subpart,
for each affected kiln, you must use natural gas, or an equivalent fuel
(such as propane or other clean burning fuel), as the kiln fuel at all
times except during periods of natural gas curtailment or other periods
when natural gas is not available.

General Compliance Requirements

Sec. 63.8570 What are my general requirements for complying with this
subpart?

(a) You must be in compliance with the emission limitations
(including operating limits) in this subpart at all times, except
during periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction and during periods
of routine control device maintenance as specified in paragraph (e) of
this section.
(b) Except as specified in paragraph (e) of this section, you must
always operate and maintain your affected source, including air
pollution control and monitoring equipment, according to the provisions
in Sec. 63.6(e)(1)(i). During the period between the compliance date
specified for your affected source in Sec. 63.8545 and the date upon
which continuous monitoring systems (CMS) (e.g., continuous parameter
monitoring systems) have been installed and verified and any applicable
operating limits have been set, you must maintain a log detailing the
operation and maintenance of the process and emissions control
equipment.
(c) For each kiln that is subject to the emission limits specified
in Table 1 to this subpart, you must develop and implement a written
startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan (SSMP) according to the
provisions in Sec. 63.6(e)(3).
(d) For each kiln that is subject to the emission limits specified
in Table 1 to this subpart, you must prepare and implement a written
operation, maintenance, and monitoring (OM&M) plan according to the
requirements in Sec. 63.8575.
(e) If you own or operate a kiln that is subject to the emission
limits specified in Table 1 to this subpart and must perform routine
maintenance on the control device for that kiln, you may bypass the
kiln control device and continue operating the kiln upon approval by
the Administrator provided you satisfy the conditions listed in
paragraphs (e)(1) through (5) of this section.
(1) You must request a routine control device maintenance exemption
from the Administrator. Your request must justify the need for the
routine maintenance on the control device and the time required to
accomplish the maintenance activities, describe the maintenance
activities and the frequency of the maintenance activities, explain why
the maintenance cannot be accomplished during kiln shutdowns, describe
how you plan to minimize emissions to the greatest extent possible
during the maintenance, and provide any other documentation required by
the Administrator.
(2) The routine control device maintenance exemption must not
exceed 4 percent of the annual operating uptime for each kiln.
(3) The request for the routine control device maintenance
exemption, if approved by the Administrator, must be incorporated by
reference in and attached to the affected source's title V permit.
(4) You must minimize HAP emissions during the period when the kiln
is operating and the control device is offline.
(5) You must minimize the time period during which the kiln is
operating and the control device is offline.
(f) You must be in compliance with the work practice standards in
this subpart at all times, except during periods of natural gas
curtailment or other periods when natural gas is not available.
(g) You must be in compliance with the provisions of subpart A of
this part, except as noted in Table 8 to this subpart.

Sec. 63.8575 What do I need to know about operation, maintenance, and
monitoring plans?

(a) For each kiln that is subject to the emission limits specified
in Table 1 to this subpart, you must prepare, implement, and revise as
necessary an OM&M plan that includes the information in paragraph (b)
of this section. Your OM&M plan must be available for inspection by the
permitting authority upon request.
(b) Your OM&M plan must include, as a minimum, the information in
paragraphs (b)(1) through (13) of this section.
(1) Each process and APCD to be monitored, the type of monitoring
device that will be used, and the operating parameters that will be
monitored.
(2) A monitoring schedule that specifies the frequency that the
parameter values will be determined and recorded.
(3) The limits for each parameter that represent continuous
compliance with the emission limitations in Sec. 63.8555. The limits
must be based on values of the monitored parameters recorded during
performance tests.
(4) Procedures for the proper operation and routine and long-term
maintenance of each APCD, including a maintenance and inspection
schedule that is consistent with the manufacturer's recommendations.
(5) Procedures for installing the CMS sampling probe or other
interface at a measurement location relative to each affected process
unit such that the measurement is representative of control of the
exhaust emissions (e.g., on or downstream of the last APCD).
(6) Performance and equipment specifications for the sample
interface, the pollutant concentration or parametric signal analyzer,
and the data collection and reduction system.
(7) Continuous monitoring system performance evaluation procedures
and acceptance criteria (e.g., calibrations).
(8) Procedures for the proper operation and maintenance of
monitoring equipment consistent with the requirements in Sec. Sec.
63.8600 and 63.8(c)(1), (3), (4)(ii), (7), and (8).
(9) Continuous monitoring system data quality assurance procedures
consistent with the requirements in Sec. 63.8(d).
(10) Continuous monitoring system recordkeeping and reporting
procedures consistent with the requirements in Sec. 63.10(c), (e)(1),
and (e)(2)(i).
(11) Procedures for responding to operating parameter deviations,
including the procedures in paragraphs (b)(11)(i) through (iii) of this
section.

[[Page 26741]]

(i) Procedures for determining the cause of the operating parameter
deviation.
(ii) Actions for correcting the deviation and returning the
operating parameters to the allowable limits.
(iii) Procedures for recording the times that the deviation began
and ended, and corrective actions were initiated and completed.
(12) Procedures for keeping records to document compliance.
(13) If you operate an affected kiln and you plan to take the kiln
control device out of service for routine maintenance, as specified in
Sec. 63.8570(e), the procedures specified in paragraphs (b)(13)(i) and
(ii) of this section.
(i) Procedures for minimizing HAP emissions from the kiln during
periods of routine maintenance of the kiln control device when the kiln
is operating and the control device is offline.
(ii) Procedures for minimizing the duration of any period of
routine maintenance on the kiln control device when the kiln is
operating and the control device is offline.
(c) Changes to the operating limits in your OM&M plan require a new
performance test. If you are revising an operating limit parameter
value, you must meet the requirements in paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of
this section.
(1) Submit a notification of performance test to the Administrator
as specified in Sec. 63.7(b).
(2) After completing the performance test to demonstrate that
compliance with the emission limits can be achieved at the revised
operating limit parameter value, you must submit the performance test
results and the revised operating limits as part of the Notification of
Compliance Status required under Sec. 63.9(h).
(d) If you are revising the inspection and maintenance procedures
in your OM&M plan, you do not need to conduct a new performance test.

Testing and Initial Compliance Requirements

Sec. 63.8585 By what date must I conduct performance tests?

For each kiln that is subject to the emission limits specified in
Table 1 to this subpart, you must conduct performance tests within 180
calendar days after the compliance date that is specified for your
source in Sec. 63.8545 and according to the provisions in Sec.
63.7(a)(2).

Sec. 63.8590 When must I conduct subsequent performance tests?

(a) For each kiln that is subject to the emission limits specified
in Table 1 to this subpart, you must conduct a performance test before
renewing your 40 CFR part 70 operating permit or at least every 5 years
following the initial performance test.
(b) You must conduct a performance test when you want to change the
parameter value for any operating limit specified in your OM&M plan.

Sec. 63.8595 How do I conduct performance tests and establish
operating limits?

(a) You must conduct each performance test in Table 4 to this
subpart that applies to you.
(b) Before conducting the performance test, you must install and
calibrate all monitoring equipment.
(c) Each performance test must be conducted according to the
requirements in Sec. 63.7 and under the specific conditions in Table 4
to this subpart.
(d) You must test while operating at the maximum production level.
(e) You may not conduct performance tests during periods of
startup, shutdown, or malfunction, as specified in Sec. 63.7(e)(1).
(f) You must conduct at least three separate test runs for each
performance test required in this section, as specified in Sec.
63.7(e)(3). Each test run must last at least 1 hour.
(g) You must use the data gathered during the performance test and
the equations in paragraphs (g)(1) and (2) of this section to determine
compliance with the emission limitations.
(1) To determine compliance with the production-based hydrogen
fluoride (HF), hydrogen chloride (HCl), and particulate matter (PM)
emission limits in Table 1 to this subpart, you must calculate your
mass emissions per unit of production for each test run using Equation
1 of this section:
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TR16MY03.003

Where:

MP=mass per unit production, kilograms (pounds) of pollutant per
megagram (ton) of fired product
ER=mass emission rate of pollutant (HF, HCl, or PM) during each
performance test run, kilograms (pounds) per hour
P=production rate during each performance test run, megagrams (tons) of
fired product per hour.

[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TR16MY03.004

Where:

PR=percent reduction, percent
ER_i=mass emission rate of specific HAP (HF or HCl) entering
the APCD, kilograms (pounds) per hour
ER_o=mass emission rate of specific HAP (HF or HCl) exiting
the APCD, kilograms (pounds) per hour.

(h) You must establish each site-specific operating limit in Table
2 to this subpart that applies to you as specified in Table 4 to this
subpart.
(i) For each kiln that is subject to the emission limits specified
in Table 1 to this subpart and is equipped with an APCD that is not
addressed in Table 2 to this subpart or that is using process changes
as a means of meeting the emission limits in Table 1 to this subpart,
you must meet the requirements in Sec. 63.8(f) and paragraphs (i)(1)
and (2) of this section.
(1) Submit a request for approval of alternative monitoring
procedures to the Administrator no later than the notification of
intent to conduct a performance test. The request must contain the
information specified in paragraphs (i)(1)(i) through (iv) of this
section.
(i) A description of the alternative APCD or process changes.
(ii) The type of monitoring device or procedure that will be used.
(iii) The operating parameters that will be monitored.
(iv) The frequency that the operating parameter values will be
determined and recorded to establish continuous compliance with the
operating limits.
(2) Establish site-specific operating limits during the performance
test based on the information included in the approved alternative
monitoring procedures request and, as applicable, as specified in Table
4 to this subpart.

Sec. 63.8600 What are my monitoring installation, operation, and
maintenance requirements?

[[Page 26742]]

at least three of four equally spaced data values (or at least 75
percent if you collect more than four data values per hour) for that
hour (not including startup, shutdown, malfunction, out-of-control
periods, or periods of routine control device maintenance covered by a
routine control device maintenance exemption as specified in Sec.
63.8570(e)).
(3) Determine and record the 3-hour block averages of all recorded
readings, calculated after every 3 hours of operation as the average of
the previous 3 operating hours. To calculate the average for each 3-
hour average period, you must have at least 75 percent of the recorded
readings for that period (not including startup, shutdown, malfunction,
out-of-control periods, or periods of routine control device
maintenance covered by a routine control device maintenance exemption
as specified in Sec. 63.8570(e)).
(4) Record the results of each inspection, calibration, and
validation check.
(5) At all times, maintain the monitoring equipment including, but
not limited to, maintaining necessary parts for routine repairs of the
monitoring equipment.
(b) For each liquid flow measurement device, you must meet the
requirements in paragraphs (a)(1) through (5) and paragraphs (b)(1)
through (3) of this section.
(1) Locate the flow sensor in a position that provides a
representative flowrate.
(2) Use a flow sensor with a minimum measurement sensitivity of 2
percent of the liquid flowrate.
(3) At least semiannually, conduct a flow sensor calibration check.
(c) For each pressure measurement device, you must meet the
requirements in paragraphs (a)(1) through (5) and paragraphs (c)(1)
through (7) of this section.
(1) Locate the pressure sensor(s) in or as close to a position that
provides a representative measurement of the pressure.
(2) Minimize or eliminate pulsating pressure, vibration, and
internal and external corrosion.
(3) Use a gauge with a minimum measurement sensitivity of 0.5 inch
of water or a transducer with a minimum measurement sensitivity of 1
percent of the pressure range.
(4) Check the pressure tap daily to ensure that it is not plugged.
(5) Using a manometer, check gauge calibration quarterly and
transducer calibration monthly.
(6) Any time the sensor exceeds the manufacturer's specified
maximum operating pressure range, conduct calibration checks or install
a new pressure sensor.
(7) At least monthly, inspect all components for integrity, all
electrical connections for continuity, and all mechanical connections
for leakage.
(d) For each pH measurement device, you must meet the requirements
in paragraphs (a)(1) through (5) and paragraphs (d)(1) through (4) of
this section.
(1) Locate the pH sensor in a position that provides a
representative measurement of pH.
(2) Ensure the sample is properly mixed and representative of the
fluid to be measured.
(3) Check the pH meter's calibration on at least two points every 8
hours of process operation.
(4) At least monthly, inspect all components for integrity and all
electrical connections for continuity.
(e) For each bag leak detection system, you must meet the
requirements in paragraphs (e)(1) through (11) of this section.
(1) Each triboelectric bag leak detection system must be installed,
calibrated, operated, and maintained according to the ``Fabric Filter
Bag Leak Detection Guidance,'' (EPA-454/R-98-015, September 1997). This
document is available from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(U.S. EPA); Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards; Emissions,
Monitoring and Analysis Division; Emission Measurement Center (MD-19),
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711. This document is also available on
the Technology Transfer Network (TTN) under Emission Measurement
Center, Continuous Emission Monitoring. Other types of bag leak
detection systems must be installed, operated, calibrated, and
maintained in a manner consistent with the manufacturer's written
specifications and recommendations.
(2) The bag leak detection system must be certified by the
manufacturer to be capable of detecting PM emissions at concentrations
of 10 milligrams per actual cubic meter (0.0044 grains per actual cubic
foot) or less.
(3) The bag leak detection system sensor must provide an output of
relative PM loadings.
(4) The bag leak detection system must be equipped with a device to
continuously record the output signal from the sensor.
(5) The bag leak detection system must be equipped with an audible
alarm system that will sound automatically when an increase in relative
PM emissions over a preset level is detected. The alarm must be located
where it is easily heard by plant operating personnel.
(6) For positive pressure fabric filter systems, a bag leak
detector must be installed in each baghouse compartment or cell.
(7) For negative pressure or induced air fabric filters, the bag
leak detector must be installed downstream of the fabric filter.
(8) Where multiple detectors are required, the system's
instrumentation and alarm may be shared among detectors.
(9) The baseline output must be established by adjusting the range
and the averaging period of the device and establishing the alarm set
points and the alarm delay time according to section 5.0 of the
``Fabric Filter Bag Leak Detection Guidance.''
(10) Following initial adjustment of the system, the sensitivity or
range, averaging period, alarm set points, or alarm delay time may not
be adjusted except as detailed in your OM&M plan. In no case may the
sensitivity be increased by more than 100 percent or decreased more
than 50 percent over a 365-day period unless such adjustment follows a
complete fabric filter inspection which demonstrates that the fabric
filter is in good operating condition. Record each adjustment.
(11) Record the results of each inspection, calibration, and
validation check.
(f) For each lime or chemical feed rate measurement device, you
must meet the requirements in paragraphs (a)(1) through (5) and
paragraphs (f)(1) and (2) of this section.
(1) Locate the measurement device in a position that provides a
representative feed rate measurement.
(2) At least semiannually, conduct a calibration check.
(g) For each limestone feed system on a DLA, you must meet the
requirements in paragraphs (a)(1), (4), and (5) of this section and
must ensure on a monthly basis that the feed system replaces limestone
at least as frequently as the schedule set during the performance test.
(h) Requests for approval of alternate monitoring procedures must
meet the requirements in Sec. Sec. 63.8595(i) and 63.8(f).

Sec. 63.8605 How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the
emission limitations and work practice standards?

(a) You must demonstrate initial compliance with each emission
limitation and work practice standard that applies to you according to
Table 5 to this subpart.
(b) You must establish each site-specific operating limit in Table
2 to

[[Page 26743]]

this subpart that applies to you according to the requirements in Sec.
63.8595 and Table 4 to this subpart.
(c) You must submit the Notification of Compliance Status
containing the results of the initial compliance demonstration
according to the requirements in Sec. 63.8630(e).

Continuous Compliance Requirements

Sec. 63.8615 How do I monitor and collect data to demonstrate
continuous compliance?

(a) You must monitor and collect data according to this section.
(b) Except for periods of monitor malfunctions, associated repairs,
and required quality assurance or control activities (including, as
applicable, calibration checks and required zero and span adjustments),
you must monitor continuously (or collect data at all required
intervals) at all times that the affected source is operating. This
includes periods of startup, shutdown, malfunction, and routine control
device maintenance as specified in Sec. 63.8570(e) when the affected
source is operating.
(c) You may not use data recorded during monitoring malfunctions,
associated repairs, out-of-control periods, or required quality
assurance or control activities for purposes of calculating data
averages. A monitoring malfunction is any sudden, infrequent, not
reasonably preventable failure of the monitoring system to provide
valid data. Monitoring failures that are caused in part by poor
maintenance or careless operation are not malfunctions. You must use
all the valid data collected during all other periods in assessing
compliance. Any averaging period for which you do not have valid
monitoring data and such data are required constitutes a deviation from
the monitoring requirements.

Sec. 63.8620 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the
emission limitations and work practice standards?

(a) You must demonstrate continuous compliance with each emission
limit, operating limit, and work practice standard in Tables 1, 2, and
3 to this subpart that applies to you according to the methods
specified in Table 6 to this subpart.
(b) For each kiln that is subject to the emission limits specified
in Table 1 to this subpart and is equipped with an APCD that is not
addressed in Table 2 to this subpart, or that is using process changes
as a means of meeting the emission limits in Table 1 to this subpart,
you must demonstrate continuous compliance with each emission limit in
Table 1 to this subpart, and each operating limit established as
required in Sec. 63.8595(i)(2) according to the methods specified in
your approved alternative monitoring procedures request, as described
in Sec. Sec. 63.8595(i)(1) and 63.8(f).
(c) You must report each instance in which you did not meet each
emission limit and operating limit in this subpart that applies to you.
This includes periods of startup, shutdown, malfunction, and routine
control device maintenance. These instances are deviations from the
emission limitations in this subpart. These deviations must be reported
according to the requirements in Sec. 63.8635.
(d) During periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction, you must
operate according to your SSMP.
(e) Consistent with Sec. Sec. 63.6(e) and 63.7(e)(1), deviations
that occur during a period of startup, shutdown, or malfunction are not
violations if you demonstrate to the Administrator's satisfaction that
you were operating according to an SSMP that satisfies the requirements
of Sec. 63.6(e) and your OM&M plan. The Administrator will determine
whether deviations that occur during a period of startup, shutdown, or
malfunction are violations, according to the provisions in Sec.
63.6(e).
(f) Deviations that occur during periods of control device
maintenance covered by an approved routine control device maintenance
exemption according to Sec. 63.8570(e) are not violations if you
demonstrate to the Administrator's satisfaction that you were operating
in accordance with the approved routine control device maintenance
exemption.
(g) You must demonstrate continuous compliance with the operating
limits in Table 2 to this subpart for visible emissions (VE) from
tunnel kilns equipped with DLA, DIFF, or DLS/FF by monitoring VE at
each kiln stack according to the requirements in paragraphs (g)(1)
through (3) of this section.
(1) Perform daily VE observations of each kiln stack according to
the procedures of Method 22 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A. You must
conduct the Method 22 test while the affected source is operating under
normal conditions. The duration of each Method 22 test must be at least
15 minutes.
(2) If VE are observed during any daily test conducted using Method
22 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, you must promptly initiate and
complete corrective actions according to your OM&M plan. If no VE are
observed in 30 consecutive daily Method 22 tests for any kiln stack,
you may decrease the frequency of Method 22 testing from daily to
weekly for that kiln stack. If VE are observed during any weekly test,
you must promptly initiate and complete corrective actions according to
your OM&M plan, resume Method 22 testing of that kiln stack on a daily
basis, and maintain that schedule until no VE are observed in 30
consecutive daily tests, at which time you may again decrease the
frequency of Method 22 testing to a weekly basis.
(3) If VE are observed during any test conducted using Method 22 of
40 CFR part 60, appendix A, you must report these deviations by
following the requirements in Sec. 63.8635.

Notifications, Reports, and Records

Sec. 63.8630 What notifications must I submit and when?

(a) You must submit all of the notifications in Sec. Sec. 63.7(b)
and (c), 63.8(f)(4), and 63.9 (b) through (e), (g)(1), and (h) that
apply to you, by the dates specified.
(b) As specified in Sec. 63.9(b)(2) and (3), if you start up your
affected source before May 16, 2003, you must submit an Initial
Notification not later than 120 calendar days after May 16, 2003.
(c) As specified in Sec. 63.9(b)(3), if you start up your new or
reconstructed affected source or affected source described in Sec.
63.8540(f)(1) or Sec. 63.8540(f)(2) on or after May 16, 2003, you must
submit an Initial Notification not later than 120 calendar days after
you become subject to this subpart.
(d) If you are required to conduct a performance test, you must
submit a written notification of intent to conduct a performance test
at least 60 calendar days before the performance test is scheduled to
begin, as required in Sec. 63.7(b)(1).
(e) If you are required to conduct a performance test or other
initial compliance demonstration as specified in Tables 4 and 5 to this
subpart, you must submit a Notification of Compliance Status as
specified in Sec. 63.9(h) and paragraphs (e)(1) through (3) of this
section.
(1) For each compliance demonstration that includes a performance
test conducted according to the requirements in Table 4 to this
subpart, you must submit the Notification of Compliance Status,
including the performance test results, before the close of business on
the 60th calendar day following the completion of the performance test,
according to Sec. 63.10(d)(2).
(2) In addition to the requirements in Sec. 63.9(h)(2)(i), you
must include the information in paragraphs (e)(2)(i) and (ii) of this
section in your Notification of Compliance Status:

[[Page 26744]]

(i) The operating limit parameter values established for each
affected source with supporting documentation and a description of the
procedure used to establish the values.
(ii) For each APCD that includes a fabric filter, if a bag leak
detection system is used, analysis and supporting documentation
demonstrating conformance with EPA guidance and specifications for bag
leak detection systems in Sec. 63.8600(e).
(3) For each compliance demonstration required in Table 5 to this
subpart that does not include a performance test (i.e., compliance
demonstration for the work practice standard), you must submit the
Notification of Compliance Status before the close of business on the
30th calendar day following the completion of the compliance
demonstration.
(f) If you request a routine control device maintenance exemption
according to Sec. 63.8570(e), you must submit your request for the
exemption no later than 30 days before the compliance date.
(g) If you own or operate an affected kiln that is subject to the
work practice standards specified in Table 3 to this subpart, and you
intend to use a fuel other than natural gas or equivalent to fire the
affected kiln, you must submit a notification of alternative fuel use
within 48 hours of the declaration of a period of natural gas
curtailment or supply interruption, as defined in Sec. 63.8665. The
notification must include the information specified in paragraphs
(g)(1) through (5) of this section.
(1) Company name and address.
(2) Identification of the affected kiln.
(3) Reason you are unable to use natural gas or equivalent fuel,
including the date when the natural gas curtailment was declared or the
natural gas supply interruption began.
(4) Type of alternative fuel that you intend to use.
(5) Dates when the alternative fuel use is expected to begin and
end.

Sec. 63.8635 What reports must I submit and when?

(a) You must submit each report in Table 7 to this subpart that
applies to you.
(b) Unless the Administrator has approved a different schedule for
submission of reports under Sec. 63.10(a), you must submit each report
by the date in Table 7 to this subpart and as specified in paragraphs
(b)(1) through (5) of this section.
(1) The first compliance report must cover the period beginning on
the compliance date that is specified for your affected source in Sec.
63.8545 and ending on June 30 or December 31, and lasting at least 6
months, but less than 12 months. For example, if your compliance date
is March 1, then the first semiannual reporting period would begin on
March 1 and end on December 31.
(2) The first compliance report must be postmarked or delivered no
later than July 31 or January 31 for compliance periods ending on June
30 and December 31, respectively.
(3) Each subsequent compliance report must cover the semiannual
reporting period from January 1 through June 30 or the semiannual
reporting period from July 1 through December 31.
(4) Each subsequent compliance report must be postmarked or
delivered no later than July 31 or January 31 for compliance periods
ending on June 30 and December 31, respectively.
(5) For each affected source that is subject to permitting
regulations pursuant to 40 CFR part 70 or 40 CFR part 71, and if the
permitting authority has established dates for submitting semiannual
reports pursuant to 40 CFR 70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A) or 40 CFR
71.6(a)(3)(iii)(A), you may submit the first and subsequent compliance
reports according to the dates the permitting authority has established
instead of according to the dates in paragraphs (b)(1) through (4) of
this section.
(c) The compliance report must contain the information in
paragraphs (c)(1) through (7) of this section.
(1) Company name and address.
(2) Statement by a responsible official with that official's name,
title, and signature, certifying that, based on information and belief
formed after reasonable inquiry, the statements and information in the
report are true, accurate, and complete.
(3) Date of report and beginning and ending dates of the reporting
period.
(4) If you had a startup, shutdown or malfunction during the
reporting period and you took actions consistent with your SSMP and
OM&M plan, the compliance report must include the information specified
in Sec. 63.10(d)(5)(i).
(5) A description of control device maintenance performed while the
control device was offline and the kiln controlled by the control
device was operating, including the information specified in paragraphs
(c)(5)(i) through (iii) of this section.
(i) The date and time when the control device was shutdown and
restarted.
(ii) Identification of the kiln that was operating and the number
of hours that the kiln operated while the control device was offline.
(iii) A statement of whether or not the control device maintenance
was included in your approved routine control device maintenance
exemption developed as specified in Sec. 63.8570(e). If the control
device maintenance was included in your approved routine control device
maintenance exemption, then you must report the information in
paragraphs (c)(5)(iii)(A) through (C) of this section.
(A) The total amount of time that the kiln controlled by the
control device operated during the current semiannual compliance period
and during the previous semiannual compliance period.
(B) The amount of time that each kiln controlled by the control
device operated while the control device was offline for maintenance
covered under the routine control device maintenance exemption during
the current semiannual compliance period and during the previous
semiannual compliance period.
(C) Based on the information recorded under paragraphs
(c)(5)(iii)(A) and (B) of this section, compute the annual percent of
kiln operating uptime during which the control device was offline for
routine maintenance using Equation 1 of this section.
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TR16MY03.005

Where:

RM=Annual percentage of kiln uptime during which control device is down
for routine control device maintenance
DT_p=Control device downtime claimed under the routine
control device maintenance exemption for the previous semiannual
compliance period
DT_c=Control device downtime claimed under the routine
control device maintenance exemption for the current semiannual
compliance period
KU_p=Kiln uptime for the previous semiannual compliance
period
KU_c=Kiln uptime for the current semiannual compliance period

(6) If there are no deviations from any emission limitations
(emission limits or operating limits) or work practice standards that
apply to you, the compliance report must contain a statement that there
were no deviations from the emission limitations or work practice
standards during the reporting period.
(7) If there were no periods during which the CMS was out-of-
control as specified in your OM&M plan, the

[[Page 26745]]

compliance report must contain a statement that there were no periods
during which the CMS was out-of-control during the reporting period.
(d) For each deviation from an emission limitation (emission limit
or operating limit) that occurs at an affected source where you are not
using a CMS to comply with the emission limitations in this subpart,
the compliance report must contain the information in paragraphs (c)(1)
through (5) and paragraphs (d)(1) and (2) of this section. This
includes periods of startup, shutdown, malfunction, and routine control
device maintenance.
(1) The total operating time of each affected source during the
reporting period.
(2) Information on the number, duration, and cause of deviations
(including unknown cause, if applicable), as applicable, and the
corrective action taken.
(e) For each deviation from an emission limitation (emission limit
or operating limit) occurring at an affected source where you are using
a CMS to comply with the emission limitations in this subpart, you must
include the information in paragraphs (c)(1) through (5) and paragraphs
(e)(1) through (13) of this section. This includes periods of startup,
shutdown, malfunction, and routine control device maintenance.
(1) The total operating time of each affected source during the
reporting period.
(2) The date and time that each malfunction started and stopped.
(3) The date and time that each CMS was inoperative, except for
zero (low-level) and high-level checks.
(4) The date, time, and duration that each CMS was out-of-control,
including the pertinent information in your OM&M plan.
(5) The date and time that each deviation started and stopped, and
whether each deviation occurred during a period of startup, shutdown,
or malfunction; during routine control device maintenance covered in
your approved routine control device maintenance exemption; or during
another period.
(6) A description of corrective action taken in response to a
deviation.
(7) A summary of the total duration of the deviation during the
reporting period and the total duration as a percent of the total
source operating time during that reporting period.
(8) A breakdown of the total duration of the deviations during the
reporting period into those that are due to startup, shutdown, control
equipment problems, process problems, other known causes, and other
unknown causes.
(9) A summary of the total duration of CMS downtime during the
reporting period and the total duration of CMS downtime as a percent of
the total source operating time during that reporting period.
(10) A brief description of the process units.
(11) A brief description of the CMS.
(12) The date of the latest CMS certification or audit.
(13) A description of any changes in CMS, processes, or control
equipment since the last reporting period.
(f) If you have obtained a title V operating permit according to 40
CFR part 70 or 40 CFR part 71, you must report all deviations as
defined in this subpart in the semiannual monitoring report required by
40 CFR 70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A) or 40 CFR 71.6(a)(3)(iii)(A). If you submit a
compliance report according to Table 7 to this subpart along with, or
as part of, the semiannual monitoring report required by 40 CFR
70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A) or 40 CFR 71.6(a)(3)(iii)(A), and the compliance
report includes all required information concerning deviations from any
emission limitation (including any operating limit), then submitting
the compliance report will satisfy any obligation to report the same
deviations in the semiannual monitoring report. However, submitting a
compliance report will not otherwise affect any obligation you may have
to report deviations from permit requirements to the permitting
authority.
(g) If you own or operate an affected kiln that is subject to the
work practice standard specified in Table 3 to this subpart, and you
use a fuel other than natural gas or equivalent to fire the affected
kiln, you must submit a report of alternative fuel use within 10
working days after terminating the use of the alternative fuel. The
report must include the information in paragraphs (g)(1) through (6) of
this section.
(1) Company name and address.
(2) Identification of the affected kiln.
(3) Reason for using the alternative fuel.
(4) Type of alternative fuel used to fire the affected kiln.
(5) Dates that the use of the alternative fuel started and ended.
(6) Amount of alternative fuel used.

Sec. 63.8640 What records must I keep?

(a) You must keep the records listed in paragraphs (a)(1) through
(4) of this section.
(1) A copy of each notification and report that you submitted to
comply with this subpart, including all documentation supporting any
Initial Notification or Notification of Compliance Status that you
submitted, according to the requirements in Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(xiv).
(2) The records in Sec. 63.6(e)(3)(iii) through (v) related to
startup, shutdown, and malfunction.
(3) Records of performance tests as required in Sec.
63.10(b)(2)(viii).
(4) Records relating to control device maintenance and
documentation of your approved routine control device maintenance
exemption, if you request such an exemption under Sec. 63.8570(e).
(b) You must keep the records required in Table 6 to this subpart
to show continuous compliance with each emission limitation that
applies to you.
(c) You must also maintain the records listed in paragraphs (c)(1)
through (7) of this section.
(1) For each bag leak detection system, records of each alarm, the
time of the alarm, the time corrective action was initiated and
completed, and a brief description of the cause of the alarm and the
corrective action taken.
(2) For each deviation of an operating limit parameter value, the
date, time, and duration of the deviation, a brief explanation of the
cause of the deviation and the corrective action taken, and whether the
deviation occurred during a period of startup, shutdown, or
malfunction.
(3) For each kiln that is subject to the emission limits in Table
1, records of production rates on a fired-product weight basis.
(4) For each kiln that is subject to the emission limits in Table
1, records for any approved alternative monitoring or test procedures.
(5) For each kiln that is subject to the emission limits in Table
1, records of maintenance and inspections performed on the APCD.
(6) For each kiln that is subject to the emission limits in Table
1, current copies of your SSMP and OM&M plan, including any revisions,
with records documenting conformance.
(7) Records that document compliance with any work practice
standard that applies to you.

Sec. 63.8645 In what form and for how long must I keep my records?

[[Page 26746]]

corrective action, report, or record, according to Sec. 63.10(b)(1).
You may keep the records offsite for the remaining 3 years.

Other Requirements and Information

Sec. 63.8655 What parts of the General Provisions apply to me?

Table 8 to this subpart shows which parts of the General Provisions
in Sec. Sec. 63.1 through 63.15 apply to you.

Sec. 63.8660 Who implements and enforces this subpart?

(a) This subpart can be implemented and enforced by us, the U.S.
EPA, or a delegated authority such as your State, local, or tribal
agency. If the U.S. EPA Administrator has delegated authority to your
State, local, or tribal agency, then that agency, in addition to the
U.S. EPA, has the authority to implement and enforce this subpart. You
should contact your U.S. EPA Regional Office to find out if
implementation and enforcement of this subpart is delegated to your
State, local, or tribal agency.
(b) In delegating implementation and enforcement authority of this
subpart to a State, local, or tribal agency under section 40 CFR part
63, subpart E, the authorities contained in paragraph (c) of this
section are retained by the Administrator of the U.S. EPA and are not
transferred to the State, local, or tribal agency.
(c) The authorities that cannot be delegated to State, local, or
tribal agencies are as specified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (4) of
this section.
(1) Approval of alternatives to the applicability requirements in
Sec. Sec. 63.8535 and 63.8540, the compliance date requirements in
Sec. 63.8545, and the non-opacity emission limitations in Sec.
63.8555.
(2) Approval of major changes to test methods under Sec.
63.7(e)(2)(ii) and (f) and as defined in Sec. 63.90.
(3) Approval of major changes to monitoring under Sec. 63.8(f) and
as defined in Sec. 63.90.
(4) Approval of major changes to recordkeeping and reporting under
Sec. 63.10(f) and as defined in Sec. 63.90.

Sec. 63.8665 What definitions apply to this subpart?

Terms used in this subpart are defined in the Clean Air Act, in
Sec. 63.2, and in this section as follows:
Air pollution control device (APCD) means any equipment that
reduces the quantity of a pollutant that is emitted to the air.
Bag leak detection system means an instrument that is capable of
monitoring PM loadings in the exhaust of a fabric filter in order to
detect bag failures. A bag leak detection system includes, but is not
limited to, an instrument that operates on triboelectric, light-
scattering, light-transmittance, or other effects to monitor relative
PM loadings.
Clay ceramics manufacturing facility means a plant site that
manufactures pressed floor tile, pressed wall tile, other pressed tile,
or sanitaryware (e.g., sinks and toilets). Clay ceramics manufacturing
facilities typically process clay, shale, and various additives, form
the processed materials into tile or sanitaryware shapes, and dry and
fire the ceramic products. Glazes are applied to many tile and
sanitaryware products.
Deviation means any instance in which an affected source subject to
this subpart, or an owner or operator of such a source:
(1) Fails to meet any requirement or obligation established by this
subpart including, but not limited to, any emission limitation
(including any operating limit) or work practice standard;
(2) Fails to meet any term or condition that is adopted to
implement an applicable requirement in this subpart for any affected
source required to obtain such a permit; or
(3) Fails to meet any emission limitation (including any operating
limit) or work practice standard in this subpart during startup,
shutdown, or malfunction, regardless of whether or not such failure is
permitted by this subpart.
Dry lime injection fabric filter (DIFF) means an APCD that includes
continuous injection of hydrated lime or other sorbent into a duct or
reaction chamber followed by a fabric filter.
Dry lime scrubber/fabric filter (DLS/FF) means an APCD that
includes continuous injection of humidified hydrated lime or other
sorbent into a reaction chamber followed by a fabric filter. These
systems typically include recirculation of some of the sorbent.
Dry limestone adsorber (DLA) means an APCD that includes a
limestone storage bin, a reaction chamber that is essentially a packed
tower filled with limestone, and may or may not include a peeling drum
that mechanically scrapes reacted limestone to regenerate the stone for
reuse.
Emission limitation means any emission limit or operating limit.
Fabric filter means an APCD used to capture PM by filtering a gas
stream through filter media; also known as a baghouse.
Initial startup means:
(1) For a new or reconstructed tunnel kiln controlled with a DLA,
and for a tunnel kiln that would be considered reconstructed but for
Sec. 63.8540(f)(1) or Sec. 63.8540(f)(2), the time at which the
temperature in the kiln first reaches 260 [deg]C (500 [deg]F) and the
kiln contains product; or
(2) For a new or reconstructed tunnel kiln controlled with a DIFF,
DLS/FF, or WS, the time at which the kiln first reaches a level of
production that is equal to 75 percent of the kiln design capacity or
12 months after the affected source begins firing clay ceramics,
whichever is earlier.
Particulate matter (PM) means, for purposes of this subpart,
emissions of PM that serve as a measure of total particulate emissions,
as measured by Method 5 (40 CFR part 60, appendix A), and as a
surrogate for metal HAP contained in the particulates including, but
not limited to, antimony, arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium,
cobalt, lead, manganese, mercury, nickel, and selenium.
Period of natural gas curtailment or supply interruption means a
period of time during which the supply of natural gas to an affected
facility is halted for reasons beyond the control of the facility. An
increase in the cost or unit price of natural gas does not constitute a
period of natural gas curtailment or supply interruption.
Plant site means all contiguous or adjoining property that is under
common control, including properties that are separated only by a road
or other public right-of-way. Common control includes properties that
are owned, leased, or operated by the same entity, parent entity,
subsidiary, or any combination thereof.
Research and development kiln means any kiln whose purpose is to
conduct research and development for new processes and products and is
not engaged in the manufacture of products for commercial sale, except
in a de minimis manner.
Responsible official means responsible official as defined in 40
CFR 70.2.
Startup means the setting in operation of an affected source and
starting the production process.
Tunnel kiln means any continuous kiln that is not a roller kiln
that is used to fire clay ceramics.
Tunnel kiln design capacity means the maximum amount of clay
ceramics, in Mg (tons), that a kiln is designed to produce in one year
divided by the number of hours in a year (8,760 hours). If a kiln is
modified to increase the capacity, the design capacity is considered to
be the capacity following modifications.
Wet scrubber (WS) means an APCD that uses water, which may include

[[Page 26747]]

caustic additives or other chemicals, as the sorbent. Wet scrubbers may
use any of various design mechanisms to increase the contact between
exhaust gases and the sorbent.
Work practice standard means any design, equipment, work practice,
operational standard, or combination thereof, that is promulgated
pursuant to section 112(h) of the Clean Air Act.

Tables to Subpart KKKKK of Part 63

As stated in Sec. 63.8555, you must meet each emission limit in
the following table that applies to you:

Table 1 to Subpart KKKKK of Part 63.--Emission Limits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You must meet the following Or you must comply with the
For each . . . emission limits . . . following . . .
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. New or reconstructed tunnel kiln with a design a. HF emissions must not Reduce uncontrolled HF
capacity less than 9.07 Mg/hr (10 tph) of fired exceed 0.029 kilograms per emissions by at least 90
product; each tunnel kiln that would be megagram (kg/Mg) (0.057 percent.
considered reconstructed but for Sec. pounds per ton (lb/ton)) of
63.8540(f)(1); and each tunnel kiln that would be fired product.
considered reconstructed but for Sec.
63.8540(f)(2).
b. HCl emissions must not Reduce uncontrolled HCl
exceed 0.13 kg/Mg (0.26 lb/ emissions by at least 30
ton) of fired product. percent.
c. PM emissions must not Not applicable.
exceed 0.21 kg/Mg (0.42 lb/
ton) of fired product.
2. New or reconstructed tunnel kiln with a design a. HF emissions must not Reduce uncontrolled HF
capacity equal to or greater than 10 tph of fired exceed 0.029 kg/Mg (0.057 lb/ emissions by at least 90
product. ton) of fired product. percent.
b. HCl emissions must not Reduce uncontrolled HCl
exceed 0.028 kg/Mg (0.056 lb/ emissions by at least 85
ton) of fired product. percent.
c. PM emissions must not Not applicable.
exceed 0.060 kg/Mg (0.12 lb/
ton) of fired product.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As stated in Sec. 63.8555, you must meet each operating limit in
the following table that applies to you:

Table 2 to Subpart KKKKK of Part 63.--Operating Limits
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For each . . . You must . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Kiln equipped with a DLA.................. a. Maintain the average
pressure drop across the
DLA for each 3-hour
block period at or above
the average pressure
drop established during
the performance test;
and
b. Maintain a sufficient
amount of limestone in
the limestone hopper,
storage bin (located at
the top of the DLA), and
DLA at all times;
maintain the limestone
feeder setting at or
above the level
established during the
performance test; and
c. Use the same grade of
limestone from the same
source as was used
during the performance
test; maintain records
of the source and grade
of limestone; and
d. Maintain no VE from
the DLA stack.
2. Kiln equipped with a DIFF or DLS/FF....... a. If you use a bag leak
detection system,
initiate corrective
action within 1 hour of
a bag leak detection
system alarm and
complete corrective
actions in accordance
with your OM&M plan;
operate and maintain the
fabric filter such that
the alarm is not engaged
for more than 5 percent
of the total operating
time in a 6-month block
reporting period; or
maintain no VE from the
DIFF or DLS/FF stack;
and
b. Maintain free-flowing
lime in the feed hopper
or silo and to the APCD
at all times for
continuous injection
systems; maintain the
feeder setting at or
above the level
established during the
performance test for
continuous injection
systems.
3. Kiln equipped with a WS................... a. Maintain the average
scrubber pressure drop
for each 3-hour block
period at or above the
average pressure drop
established during the
performance test; and
b. Maintain the average
scrubber liquid pH for
each 3-hour block period
at or above the average
scrubber liquid pH
established during the
performance test; and
c. Maintain the average
scrubber liquid flow
rate for each 3-hour
block period at or above
the average scrubber
liquid flow rate
established during the
performance test; and
d. If chemicals are added
to the scrubber water,
maintain the average
scrubber chemical feed
rate for each 3-hour
block period at or above
the average scrubber
chemical feed rate
established during the
performance test.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

As stated in Sec. 63.8555, you must comply with each work practice
standard in the following table that applies to you:

Table 3 to Subpart KKKKK of Part 63.--Work Practice Standards
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to one of the
For . . . You must . . . following requirements . .
.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Each existing, new, or Minimize fuel-based HAP emissions.............. Use natural gas, or
reconstructed periodic kiln, equivalent, as the kiln
tunnel kiln, or roller kiln; each fuel, except during
tunnel kiln that would be periods of natural gas
considered reconstructed but for curtailment or supply
Sec. 63.8540(f)(1); and each interruption, as defined
tunnel kiln that would be in Sec. 63.8665.
considered reconstructed but for
Sec. 63.8540(f)(2).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 26748]]

As stated in Sec. 63.8595, you must conduct each performance test
in the following table that applies to you:

Table 4 to Subpart KKKKK of Part 63.--Requirements for Performance Tests
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to the following
For each . . . You must . . . Using . . . requirements . . .
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. New or reconstructed tunnel a. Select locations of Method 1 or 1A of 40 Sampling sites must be
kiln; each tunnel kiln that would sampling ports and CFR part 60, appendix located at the outlet of
be considered reconstructed but the number of A. the APCD and prior to any
for Sec. 63.8540(f)(1); and each traverse points. releases to the atmosphere
tunnel kiln that would be for all affected sources.
considered reconstructed but for If you choose to meet the
Sec. 63.8540(f)(2). percent emission reduction
requirements for HF or
HCl, a sampling site must
also be located at the
APCD inlet.
b. Determine Method 2 of 40 CFR You may use Method 2A, 2C,
velocities and part 60, appendix A. 2D, 2F, or 2G of 40 CFR
volumetric flow rate. part 60, appendix A, as
appropriate, as an
alternative to using
Method 2 of 40 CFR part
60, appendix A.
c. Conduct gas Method 3 of 40 CFR You may use Method 3A or 3B
molecular weight part 60, appendix A. of 40 CFR part 60,
analysis. appendix A, as
appropriate, as an
alternative to using
Method 3 of 40 CFR part
60, appendix A.
d. Measure moisture Method 4 of 40 CFR
content of the stack part 60, appendix A.
gas.
e. Measure HF and HCl Method 26A of 40 CFR Conduct the test while
emissions. part 60, appendix A; operating at the maximum
or production level. You may
use Method 26 of 40 CFR
part 60, appendix A, as an
alternative to using
Method 26A of 40 CFR part
60, appendix A, when no
acid PM (e.g., HF or HCl
dissolved in water
droplets emitted by
sources controlled by a
WS) is present.
Method 320 of 40 CFR Conduct the test while
part 63, appendix A. operating at the maximum
production level. When
using Method 320 of 40 CFR
part 63, appendix A, you
must follow the analyte
spiking procedures of
section 13 of Method 320
of 40 CFR part 63,
appendix A, unless you can
demonstrate that the
complete spiking procedure
has been conducted at a
similar source.
f. Measure PM Method 5 of 40 CFR Conduct the test while
emissions. part 60, appendix A. operating at the maximum
production level.
2. Kiln that is complying with Determine the Production data You must measure and record
production-based emission limits. production rate collected during the the production rate, on a
during each test run performance tests fired-product weight
in order to determine (e.g., the number of basis, of the affected
compliance with ceramic pieces and kiln for each of the three
production-based weight per piece in test runs.
emission limits. the kiln during a
test run divided by
the amount of time to
fire a piece).
3. Kiln equipped with a DLA........ a. Establish the Data from the pressure You must continuously
operating limit for drop measurement measure the pressure drop
the average pressure device during the across the DLA, determine
drop across the DLA. performance test. and record the block
average pressure drop
values for the three test
runs, and determine and
record the 3-hour block
average of the recorded
pressure drop measurements
for the three test runs.

[[Page 26749]]

b. Establish the Data from the You must ensure that you
operating limit for limestone feeder maintain an adequate
the limestone feeder during the amount of limestone in the
setting. performance test. limestone hopper, storage
bin (located at the top of
the DLA), and DLA at all
times during the
performance test. You must
establish your limestone
feeder setting one week
prior to the performance
test and maintain the
feeder setting for the one-
week period that precedes
the performance test and
during the performance
test.
c. Document the source Records of limestone
and grade of purchase.
limestone used.
4. Kiln equipped with a DIFF or DLS/ Establish the Data from the lime For continuous lime
FF. operating limit for feeder during the injection systems, you
the lime feeder performance test. must ensure that lime in
setting. the feed hopper or silo
and to the APCD is free-
flowing at all times
during the performance
test and record the feeder
setting for the three test
runs. If the feed rate
setting varies during the
three test runs, determine
and record the average
feed rate from the three
test runs.
5. Kiln equipped with a WS......... a. Establish the Data from the pressure You must continuously
operating limit for drop measurement measure the scrubber
the average scrubber device during the pressure drop, determine
pressure drop. performance test. and record the block
average pressure drop
values for the three test
runs, and determine and
record the 3-hour block
average of the recorded
pressure drop measurements
for the three test runs.
b. Establish the Data from the pH You must continuously
operating limit for measurement device measure the scrubber
the average scrubber during the liquid pH, determine and
liquid pH. performance test. record the block average
pH values for the three
test runs, and determine
and record the 3-hour
block average of the
recorded pH measurements
for the three test runs.
c. Establish the Data from the flow You must continuously
operating limit for rate measurement measure the scrubber
the average scrubber device during the liquid flow rate,
liquid flow rate. performance test. determine and record the
block average flow rate
values for the three test
runs, and determine and
record the 3-hour block
average of the recorded
flow rate measurements for
the three test runs.
6. Kiln equipped with a WS that Establish the Data from the chemical You must continuously
includes chemical addition to the operating limit for feed rate measurement measure the scrubber
water. the average scrubber device during the chemical feed rate,
chemical feed rate. performance test. determine and record the
block average chemical
feed rate values for the
three test runs, and
determine and record the 3-
hour block average of the
recorded chemical feed
rate measurements for the
three test runs.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As stated in Sec. 63.8605, you must demonstrate initial compliance
with each emission limitation that applies to you according to the
following table:

[[Page 26750]]

Table 5 to Subpart KKKKK of Part 63.--Initial Compliance with Emission Limitations and Work Practice Standards
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You have demonstrated initial compliance
For each . . . For the following . . . if . . .
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. New or reconstructed tunnel kiln with a. HF emissions must not i. The HF emissions measured using Method
a design capacity less than 9.07 Mg/hr exceed 0.029 kg/Mg (0.057 26A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A or
(10 tph) of fired product; each tunnel lb/ton) of fired product; Method 320 of 40 CFR part 63, appendix A
kiln that would be considered or uncontrolled HF over the period of the initial
reconstructed but for Sec. emissions must be reduced performance test, according to the
63.8540(f)(1); and each tunnel kiln by at least 90 percent; calculations in Sec. 63.8595(g)(1), do
that would be considered reconstructed and. not exceed 0.029 kg/Mg (0.057 lb/ton);
but for Sec. 63.8540(f)(2). or uncontrolled HF emissions measured
using Method 26A of 40 CFR part 60,
appendix A or Method 320 of 40 CFR part
63, appendix A over the period of the
initial performance test are reduced by
at least 90 percent, according to the
calculations in Sec. 63.8595(g)(2);
and
ii. You establish and have a record of
the operating limits listed in Table 2
to this subpart over the 3-hour
performance test during which HF
emissions did not exceed 0.029 kg/Mg
(0.057 lb/ton) or uncontrolled HF
emissions were reduced by at least 90
percent.
b. HCl emissions must not i. The HCl emissions measured using
exceed 0.13 kg/Mg (0.26 lb/ Method 26A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A
ton) of fired product; or or Method 320 of 40 CFR part 63,
uncontrolled HCl emissions appendix A over the period of the
must be reduced by at initial performance test, according to
least 30 percent; and the calculations in Sec.
63.8595(g)(1), do not exceed 0.13 kg/Mg
(0.26 lb/ton); or uncontrolled HCl
emissions measured using Method 26A of
40 CFR part 60, appendix A or Method 320
of 40 CFR part 63, appendix A over the
period of the initial performance test
are reduced by at least 30 percent,
according to the calculations in Sec.
63.8595(g)(2); and
ii. You establish and have a record of
the operating limits listed in Table 2
to this subpart over the 3-hour
performance test during which HCl
emissions did not exceed 0.13 kg/Mg
(0.26 lb/ton) or uncontrolled HCl
emissions were reduced by at least 30
percent.
c. PM emissions must not i. The PM emissions measured using Method
exceed 0.21 kg/Mg (0.42 lb/ 5 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, over
ton) of fired product. the period of the initial performance
test, according to the calculations in
Sec. 63.8595(g)(1), do not exceed 0.21
kg/Mg (0.42 lb/ton); and
ii. You establish and have a record of
the operating limits listed in Table 2
to this supbart over the 3-hour
performance test during which PM
emissions did not exceed 0.21 kg/Mg
(0.42 lb/ton).
2. New or reconstructed tunnel kiln with a. HF emissions must not i. The HF emissions measured using Method
a design capacity equal to or greater exceed 0.029 kg/Mg (0.057 26A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A or
than 10 tph of fired product. lb/ton) of fired product; Method 320 of 40 CFR part 63, appendix A
or uncontrolled HF over the period of the initial
emissions must be reduced performance test, according to the
by at least 90 percent; calculations in Sec. 63.8595(g)(1), do
and not exceed 0.029 kg/Mg (0.057 lb/ton);
or uncontrolled HF emissions measured
using Method 26A of 40 CFR part 60,
appendix A or Method 320 of 40 CFR part
63, appendix A over the period of the
initial performance test are reduced by
at least 90 percent, according to the
calculations in Sec. 63.8595(g)(2);
and
ii. You establish and have a record of
the operating limits listed in Table 2
to this subpart over the 3-hour
performance test during which HF
emissions did not exceed 0.029 kg/Mg
(0.057 lb/ton) or uncontrolled HF
emissions were reduced by at least 90
percent.
b. HCl emissions must not i. The HCl emissions measured using
exceed 0.028 kg/Mg (0.056 Method 26A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A
lb.ton) of fired product; or Method 320 of 40 CFR part 63,
or uncontrolled HCl appendix A over the period of the
emissions must be reduced initial performance test, according to
by at least 85 percent; the calculations in Sec.
and 63.8595(g)(1), do not exceed 0.028 kg/Mg
(0.056 lb/ton); or uncontrolled HCl
emissions measured using Method 26A of
40 CFR part 60, appendix A or Method 320
of 40 CFR part 63, appendix A over the
period of the initial performance test
are reduced by at least 85 percent,
according to the calculations in Sec.
63.8595(g)(2); and
ii. You establish and have a record of
the operating limits listed in Table 2
to this subpart over the 3-hour
performance test during which HCl
emissions did not exceed 0.028 kg/Mg
(0.056 lb/ton) or uncontrolled HCI
emissions were reduced by at least 85
percent.
c. PM emissions must not i. The PM emissions measured using Method
exceed 0.060 kg/Mg (0.12 5 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, over
lb/ton) of fired product. the period of the initial performance
test, according to the calculations on
Sec. 63.8595(g)(1), do not exceed
0.060 kg/Mg (0.12 lb/ton); and
ii. You establish and have a record of
the operating limits listed in Table 2
to this subpart over the 3-hour
performance test during which PM
emissions did not exceed 0.060 kg/Mg
(0.12 lb/ton).

[[Page 26751]]

3. Existing, new, or reconstructed Minimize fuel-based HAP You use natural gas, or equivalent, as
periodic kiln, tunel kiln, or roller emissions. the kiln fuel.
kiln; each tunnel kiln that would be
considered reconstructed but for Sec.
63.8540(f)(1); and each tunnel kiln
that would be considered reconstructed
but for Sec. 63.8540(f)(2).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As stated in Sec. 63.8620, you must demonstrate continuous
compliance with each emission limit and operating limit that applies to
you according to the following table:

Table 6 to Subpart KKKKK of Part 63.--Continuous Compliance with Emission Limitations and Work Practice
Standards
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You must demonstrate continuous
For each . . . For the following . . . compliance by . . .
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Kiln equipped with a DLA............. a. Each emission limit in i. Collecting the DLA pressure drop data
Table 1 to this subpart according to Sec. 63.8600(a); reducing
and each operating limit the DLA pressure drop data to 3-hour
in Item 1 of Table 2 to block averages according to Sec.
this subpart for kilns 63.8600(a); maintaining the average
equipped with a DLA. pressure drop across the DLA for each 3-
hour block period at or above the
average pressure drop established during
the performance test; and
ii. Verifying that the limestone hopper
and storage bin (located at the top of
the DLA) contain adequate limestone by
performing a daily visual check; and
iii. Recording the limestone feeder
setting daily to verify that the feeder
setting is being maintained at or above
the level established during the
performance test; and
iv. Using the same grade of limestone
from the same source as was used during
the performance test; maintaining
records of the source and type of
limestone; and
v. Performing VE observations of the DLA
stack at the frequency specified in Sec.
63.8620(g) using Method 22 of 40 CFR
part 60, appendix A; maintaining no VE
from the DLA stack.
2. Kiln equipped with a DIFF or DLS/FF.. a. Each emission limit in i. If you use a bag leak detection
Table 1 to this subpart system, initiating corrective action
and each operating limit within 1 hour of a bag leak detection
in Item 2 of Table 2 to system alarm and completing corrective
this subpart for kilns actions in accordance with your OM&M
equipped with DIFF or DLS/ plan; operating and maintaining the
FF. fabric filter such that the alarm is not
engaged for more than 5 percent of the
total operating time in a 6-month block
reporting period; in calculating this
operating time fraction, if inspection
of the fabric filter demonstrates that
no corrective action is required, no
alarm time is counted; if corrective
action is required, each alarm is
counted as a minimum of 1 hour; if you
take longer than 1 hour to initiate
corrective action, the alarm time is
counted as the actual amount of time
taken by you to initiate corrective
action; or performing VE observations of
the DIFF or DLS/FF stack at the
frequency specified in Sec. 63.8620(g)
using Method 22 of 40 CFR part 60,
appendix A; maintaining no VE from the
DIFF or DLS/FF stack; and
ii. Verifying that lime is free-flowing
via a load cell, carrier gas/lime flow
indicator, carrier gas pressure drop
measurement system, or other system;
recording all monitor or sensor output,
and if lime is found not to be free
flowing, promptly initiating and
completing corrective actions in
accordance with your OM&M plan;
recording the feeder setting once each
shift of operation to verify that the
feeder setting is being maintained at or
above the level established during the
performance test.
3. Kiln equipped with a WS.............. a. Each emission limit in i. Collecting the scrubber pressure drop
Table 1 to this subpart data according to Sec. 63.8600(a);
and each operating limit reducing the scrubber pressure drop data
in Item 3 of Table 2 to to 3-hour block averages according to
this subpart for kilns Sec. 63.8600(a); maintaining the
equipped with WS. average scrubber pressure drop for each
3-hour block period at or above the
average pressure drop established during
the performance test; and
ii. Collecting the scrubber liquid pH
data according to Sec. 63.8600(a);
reducing the scrubber liquid pH data to
3-hour block averages according to Sec.
63.8600(a); maintaining the average
scrubber liquid pH for each 3-hour block
period at or above the average scrubber
liquid pH established during the
performance test; and

[[Page 26752]]

iii. Collecting the scrubber liquid flow
rate data according to Sec.
63.8600(a); reducing the scrubber liquid
flow rate data to 3-hour block averages
according to Sec. 63.8600(a);
maintaining the average scrubber liquid
flow rate for each 3-hour block period
at or above the average scrubber liquid
flow rate established during the
performance test; and
iv. If chemicals are added to the
scrubber water, collecting the scrubber
chemical feed rate data according to
Sec. 63.8600(a); reducing the scrubber
chemical feed rate data to 3-hour block
averages according to Sec. 63.8600(a);
maintaining the average scrubber
chemical feed rate for each 3-hour block
period at or above the average scrubber
chemical feed rate established during
the performance test.
4. Existing, new, or reconstructed Minimize fuel-based HAP i. Maintaining records documenting your
periodic kiln, tunnel kiln, or roller emissions. use of natural gas, or an equivalent
kiln; each tunnel kiln that would be fuel, as the kiln fuel at all times
considered reconstructed but for Sec. except during periods of natural gas
63.8540 (f)(1); and each tunnel kiln curtailment or supply interruption; and
that would be considered reconstructed ii. If you intend to use an alternative
but for Sec. 63.8540(f)(2). fuel, submitting a notification of
alternative fuel use within 48 hours of
the declaration of a period of natural
gas curtailment or supply interruption,
as defined in Sec. 63.8665; and
iii. Submitting a report of alternative
fuel use within 10 working days after
terminating the use of the alternative
fuel, as specified in Sec. 63.8635(g).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As stated in Sec. 63.8635, you must submit each report that
applies to you according to the following table:

Table 7 to Subpart KKKKK of Part 63.--Requirements for Reports
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You must submit the report
You must submit . . . The report must contain . . . . . .
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. A compliance report.................. a. If there are no deviations from any Semiannually according to
emission limitations or work practice the requirements in Sec.
standards that apply to you, a statement 63.8635(b).
that there were no deviations from the
emission limitations or work practice
standards during the reporting period. If
there were no periods during which the
CMS was out-of-control as specified in
your OM&M plan, a statement that there
were no periods during which the CMS was
out-of-control during the reporting
period.
b. If you have a deviation from any Semiannually according to
emission limitation (emission limit, the requirements in Sec.
operating limit) during the reporting 63.8635(b).
period, the report must contain the
information in Sec. 63.8635(d) or (e).
If there were periods during which the
CMS was out-of-control, as specified in
your OM&M plan, the report must contain
the information in Sec. 63.8635(e).
c. If you had a startup, shutdown, or Semiannually according to