Safe Drinking Water Act Contaminant Candidate List ( 3/ 1998)

Purpose: : The 1996 amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act require the EPA to publish a list of contaminants that are known or anticipated to be present in public water systems.

The list must be published after consultation with the scientific community, including the Science Advisory Board, after notice and opportunity for public comment, and after consideration of the occurrence database established under section 1445( g). The unregulated contaminants considered for the list must include, but not be limited to, substances referred to in section 101( 14) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 ( CERCLA), and substances registered under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act ( FIFRA). During the development of the CCL, the Agency consulted with stakeholders, including the National Drinking Water Advisory Council's ( NDWAC) Working Group on Occurrence & Contaminant Selection, which includes microbiologists, toxicologists, public health scientists, and engineers, and consulted with other members of the scientific community including the Science Advisory Board ( SAB).

The initial list was published in march 1998. To meet the required revision schedule the next list is due in 2003.

Chemicals: The draft list included 263 chemicals from 8 source lists. The final list was reduced to 50 chemical and 10 microbial contaminants.

Sample Locations: None. This is a compilation of results from many sources.

Sample Design: None. This list is a summary of data from several lists of possible contaminants including the Drinking Water Priority List, Health Advisories, IRIS, PWS, CERCLA, Stakeholder summary list, TRI, and OPP ranking.

The initial list of contaminants considered, as well as those eliminated or deferred from consideration, are in Table 3 ( attached). The following sections provide a description of each of the lists and the rationale behind including it with, or excluding it from, the initial list of contaminants considered.

a. 1991 Drinking Water Priority List. The SDWA, as amended in 1986, required EPA to publish a triennial list of priority contaminants, the DWPL, which may require regulation. The first list containing 53 contaminants/ contaminant group was published on January 2, 1988 ( 53 FR 1892). Since none of the contaminants had been selected for regulation, EPA revised and updated the 1988 list three years later. The revised and updated list, published on January 14, 1991 ( 56 FR 1470), contained 50 substances carried over from the 1988 list and 27 new substances, bringing the total number of contaminants/ contaminant groups to 77, including one microorganism. In consideration of the statutory requirements and the time frame for rulemaking in the SDWA at the time, EPA used the following criteria to select contaminants for the DWPL: ( 1) occurrence or the potential occurrence of the substance in public water systems; ( 2) documented or suspected adverse health effects; and ( 3) the availability of sufficient information on the substance so that a regulation could be developed within the statutory time frame. The contaminants were selected from the following groups: disinfectants and their byproducts, the first group of 100 contaminants on the 1987 CERCLA priority list of hazardous substances ( 52 FR 12866), design analytes of the EPA National Pesticide Survey conducted between 1987 1990, pesticides with high potential for leaching in groundwater, substances recommended by the States and EPA regions, unregulated contaminants monitored under Section 1445 of the SDWA, and certain substances reported frequently and at high concentrations in drinking water. The selection of contaminants was made with the assistance of the DWPL workgroup which consisted of representatives from various programs within the Agency, the National Toxicology Program, the U. S. Geological Survey, and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. For development of the draft CCL, the Agency selected contaminants from the 1991 DWPL that were not specifically addressed by other regulations under development. Thus, all contaminants specifically addressed by the disinfectants and disinfection byproducts regulation were eliminated from consideration.

b. Health advisories. The Health Advisories ( HAs) are prepared for contaminants that have the potential to cause adverse human health effects and which are known or anticipated to occur in drinking water, but for which no national regulations currently exist. Each HA contains information on the nature of the adverse health effects of the contaminant and the concentrations that would not be anticipated to cause an adverse effect following various periods of exposure. HAs also summarize available data on occurrence, pharmacokinetics, environmental fate, health effects, available analytical methods, and treatment techniques for the contaminant. HA concentration levels include a margin of safety to protect sensitive members of the population ( e. g., children, the elderly, pregnant women). The Office of Water Health Advisory Program was initiated to provide information and guidance to individuals and agencies concerned with potential risk from drinking water contaminants. HAs are used only for guidance and are not legally enforceable, and are subject to change as new information becomes available. For purposes of developing the draft CCL, all contaminants with HAs, or HAs under development, were considered.

c. Integrated Risk Information System. The Integrated Risk Information System ( IRIS) is an EPA on line database containing health risk and EPA regulatory information. IRIS lists chemicals of interest or concern for which the Agency has reached consensus regarding adverse health effects. When available, a reference dose ( RfD) for non cancer health effect resulting from oral exposure is reported with information about how the RfD was derived and any uncertainty regarding the source studies. An RfD is an estimate of a daily exposure to the human population that is likely to be without appreciable risk of adverse effect over a lifetime of exposure. For carcinogens, a carcinogenic assessment, or cancer potency factor, is reported for both oral and inhalation exposure. The cancer potency factor is the estimated risk to the human population of cancer effects over a lifetime of exposure. In 1992, in anticipation of the next DWPL, the Agency developed a list of chemicals based on a risk based screen of chemicals in IRIS. There were approximately 600 chemicals in the IRIS database in 1992, and 312 were selected for further screening. The 312 were chosen because they had defined toxicity via the oral route of exposure and did not have NPDWRs. The 312 chemicals were screened using the following categories: ( 1) using Storage and Retrieval ( STORET) data, chemicals were identified with concentration in water that exceeded the drinking water equivalent level ( DWEL) which was derived from the reference dose or cancer potency; ( 2) chemicals were identified that were produced in quantities exceeding one billion pounds per year; ( 3) pesticides were identified with use exceeding 1000 tons per year; and ( 4) chemicals were identified that were reported in the Toxic Release Inventory ( TRI) database as discharged to surface water in excess of 100 tons per year. Sixteen chemicals met the STORET criteria; nine, the production criteria; 31, the pesticides criteria; and 6, the TRI criteria. A total of 48 individual chemicals were identified, and some were identified by more than one screen. All 48 contaminants were included on the initial list for consideration.

d. Non Target Analytes in Public Water Supply Samples. In anticipation of the 1994 DWPL, the Agency consulted with analytical laboratories that routinely analyze samples for public water systems to determine what contaminants were occurring that were not currently regulated. A list of contaminants tentatively identified in 1991 from drinking water samples collected for compliance monitoring was developed. These contaminants, also referred to as non targets analytes, are compounds identified by the spikes found on the chromatograph. The concentrations for these compounds were not measured. These non target analytes represent the monitoring experience of several water systems with operations in various states. The contaminants included on the initial list for consideration are a subset of 23 contaminants chosen from the larger list of non targets analytes. The 23 contaminants were chosen because they were considered to be related to possible anthropogenic sources.

e. CERCLA Priority List. In developing the CCL, the SDWA requires EPA to consider substances referred to in section 101( 14) of the CERCLA. CERCLA requires the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry ( ATSDR) to prepare a list in the order of priority of hazardous substances which are most commonly found at facilities on the CERCLA National Priority List ( NPL). In 1995, ATSDR developed a list of 275 hazardous substances ranked by the order of priority. ( ATSDR, 1996) To develop this list, ATSDR considered 750 of 2800 substances present at NPL sites and ranked them based on the following three criteria, which were combined to result in a total score. These criteria were: ( 1) Frequency of occurrence at NPL sites, ( 2) toxicity, and ( 3) potential for human exposure. The number of NPL sites at which a substance was identified in any medium was used to indicate the frequency of occurrence. EPA's Reportable Quantity ( RQ) was used to assess the toxicity of candidate substance. If a RQ was not available, the RQ methodology was applied to candidate substances to establish a Toxicity/ Environmental Score. The human exposure component was based on two parts: the concentration of the substance in the environmental media and the exposure status of population. EPA included the top 50 substances from the 1995 CERCLA prioritized list of 275 substances for consideration for the draft CCL.

f. Stakeholder responses. In December 1996, the EPA convened its first stakeholder meeting on the contaminant identification process. At that meeting, EPA requested input on what contaminants to include on its first CCL. At the December meeting, and following, participants have provided input to the Agency on contaminants for inclusion on, or exclusion from, the CCL. Some stakeholders provided information on health effects or occurrence, or both, while others listed contaminants. All contaminants suggested by stakeholders were included for initial consideration except those which already had NPDWRs, or which were included under other regulatory activity mentioned in section VIII of this notice.

g. Toxic Release Inventory. Another source of available information which could serve as a predictor of anticipated occurrence in drinking water, is the TRI. This data base, established under the Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act of 1986, contains information from manufacturing facilities in the United States regarding transfers and releases of toxic and hazardous materials to air, ground and water. The most recent report analyzed data gathered for calendar year 1994 from 22 chemical categories and included 343 separate chemicals from 23,000 facilities which met certain thresholds requiring submission of data. ( U. S. EPA, 1997c). In order to assess the potential for a chemical to be a contaminant in public water systems, EPA conducted an analysis of the release and emissions data. Each of the four categories of emissions or discharges were assigned a threshold value above which the contaminant was deemed to fit within the criteria of the SDWA, as a contaminant anticipated to occur in public water systems. The threshold did not attempt to attribute differences in reactivity, solubility, mobility or toxicity of the pollutants at this stage of the contaminant evaluation process, but involved simply determining a gross anticipation factor. If a contaminant was released via an on site discharge to the environment, EPA judged that it was reasonable to anticipate it as a contaminant in public water systems to varying degrees, depending upon the media receiving the discharge. The overall analysis of the above TRI criteria resulted in 58 chemicals from the various discharges meeting the criteria. Where a release was close to the threshold, it was included in the tally. Several chemicals met the criteria but were excluded because there is an existing standard ( e. g., hydrofluoric acid fluoride is regulated) or a standard under consideration ( sulfuric acid there is regulatory activity currently underway regarding sulfate). Other contaminants such as ammonia, hydrochloric acid, or methanol were not believed to represent a significant threat to drinking water due to limited persistence, leaving 51 contaminants. Of the 51 contaminants, 49 met the criteria for air release, 21 from stack emissions, 38 for fugitive emissions, 11 via underground injection, 13 from land release, and 30 for surface water releases. All 51 were included for initial consideration in Table 3.

h. Pesticides identified by Office of Pesticide Programs. In developing the CCL, the SDWA requires EPA the consider substances referred to in the FIFRA. During the development of the draft CCL, the Agency's Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water sought assistance from the Office of Pesticide Programs ( OPP) in determining what pesticides should be priorities for the drinking water program. In response to the request, OPP provided recommendations for a number of pesticides. ( U. S. EPA, 1997b) The list of pesticides, based on physical chemical properties, occurrence and extent of use, was ranked using the Ground Water ( GW) Risk score, a calculated potential to leach to ground water. Pesticides with a GW Risk of 2.0 or greater were included for initial consideration in developing the CCL ( see Table 3). However, later during the data evaluation and screening phase of the draft CCL development, the decision was made to defer some of the pesticides identified by the OPP GW Risk of 2.0 or greater. The pesticides in Table 4 include those where the GW Risk value of 2.0 or greater was the only factor for inclusion on the CCL. The decision was made, that for these cases, inclusion on the CCL would be deferred pending further evaluation of the potential of these pesticides to occur at levels of health concern. Many new pesticides for which no other data exists are included in Table 4. Table 4. Pesticides Deferred Asulam bensulfuron methyl bentazon bromacil Cadre chlorimuron ethyl chlorsulfuron Diazinon oxypyrimidine Dicamba Ethylenethiourea ( ETU) Fenamiphos Fluometuron Halofenozide Halosulfuron Hexazinone Imazamethabenz Imazapyr Imazaquin Imazethapyr MCPA ( Methoxone) Methsulfuron methyl Nicosulfuron Norflurazon Primisulfuron methyl Prometryn Propazine Prosulfuron Pyrithiobac Na Rimsulfuron Sulfentrazone Sulfometuron methyl Tebufenozide Terbufos sulfone Thiazopyr Triasulfuron The Agency is working to develop a tool to estimate concentrations in ground and surface waters based on physical chemical properties and pesticide use volumes, and then compare the estimated concentrations with health advisory levels or calculated health levels based on reference doses or cancer potency. The model is expected to be completed and available for use at the end of 1997, and at that time the Agency will reevaluate the inclusion for the additional pesticides on Table 4 on the CCL. On August 4, 1997, EPA announced its schedule for reassessing tolerances for pesticide residues on raw and processed foods ( 62 FR 42020). Publication of this schedule was pursuant to the requirements, as established by the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 ( FQPA). Under this new law, EPA is required to reassess all existing tolerances and exemptions from tolerances for both active and inert ingredients. EPA is directed to give priority review to pesticides that appear to present risk concerns based on current data. Many of the pesticides included in today's notice are included among the first group of reassessments. In reassessing tolerances, EPA must consider the aggregate exposure to the pesticide, including drinking water; cumulative effects from other pesticides with a common mode of toxicity; whether there is an increased susceptibility from exposure to the pesticide to infants and children; and whether the pesticide produces an effect in humans similar to an effect produced by a naturally occurring estrogen or other endocrine effects.

j. Endocrine disruptors. A list of contaminants was developed which included those suspected of having adverse effects on endocrine function ( see Table 6). For several years, the Agency has been concerned that chemicals may be disrupting the endocrine ( i. e., hormonal) systems of humans and wildlife. It has also been hypothesized that endocrine disruption might result in cancer, harm to male and female reproductive systems, thyroid damage, or other adverse consequences. In February 1997, EPA issued an assessment and analysis of this concern ( U. S. EPA, 1997a). The report represents an interim assessment pending a more extensive review expected to be issued by the National Academy of Sciences ( NAS) later this year. Table 6. Contaminants Identified as Suspected of Endocrine Disruption Amitrole Benomyl Dicofol ( Kelthane) Esfenvalerate Ethylparathion Fenvalerate Kepone Mancozeb Metiram Mirex Nitrofen Oxychlordane Parathion Permethrin Synthetic pyrethroids Transnonachlor Tributyltin oxide Vinclozolin Zineb Ziram Octachlorostyrene PBBs Penta to nonyl phenols In brief, the report found that while effects have been found in laboratory animal studies, a causal relationship between exposure to a specific environmental agent and an adverse health effect in humans operating via endocrine disruption has not been established, with a few exceptions. The exceptions include incidents of chemical exposure in the workplace and exposure to the drug DES. Further research is needed before such effects can be demonstrated. Under the SDWA, as amended, the Agency is also required to establish a program to screen endocrine disrupting contaminants. Additional authority to assess endocrine disruptors is also provided through the recently enacted FQPA. EPA's Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances ( OPPTS) has the Agency lead on endocrine disruptor screening and testing issues. OPPTS is actively engaged in research and regulatory initiatives to respond to the growing scientific and public concern over endocrine disruptors. The Endocrine Disruptor Screening and Testing Advisory Committee ( EDSTAC) has been established to provide advice and counsel to the agency in implementing a screening and testing strategy required under the FQPA and SDWA. EDSTAC is composed of a balanced representation from industry, government, environmental and public health groups, labor, academia, and other interested stakeholders. During its deliberations, the Committee will consider human health, ecological, estrogenic, androgenic, anti estrogenic, antiandrogenic and thyroid effects of pesticides, industrial chemicals, and important mixtures. EDSTAC will complete its recommendations for a screening and testing strategy by March, 1998. The recommendations will be peer reviewed jointly by the SAB and the FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel. EPA is also involved in concurrent effort to coordinate activities with the European Union, the Organization of Economic and Community Development, and the United Nations Environmental Program concerning global research programs, and international harmonization of endocrine disruptor screening and testing methods for chemicals and pesticides. As a result, pending completion of the EDSTAC's recommendations and the additional review of endocrine disruptors by the NAS, EPA has not included contaminants for initial consideration for the draft CCL based solely on the possibility of endocrine disruption ( although several contaminants implicated as endocrine disruptors were considered for other reasons). The Agency will continue to follow this issue closely and reconsider this category of potential contaminants in the development of future CCLs.

Time period Covered: Drinking Water Priority List from 1991, IRIS data from1992, non target analytes list from 1991, CERCLA list from 1995, stakeholder responses from 1996, TRI data from 1994 and OPP list 1997.

Evaluation Method: Criteria were developed by the NDWAC Working Group for use in screening and evaluating chemical contaminants for the draft CCL, with the exception of aldicarbs, nickel, and sulfate which are discussed in section III. C. 3. The general premises of the criteria were: ( 1) The contaminants included for initial consideration be those on EPA's initial list, without NPDWRs, and ( 2) that occurrence, or anticipated occurrence, of the contaminant be evaluated first, before evaluating its health effects information. The criteria, presented below, were used to screen and evaluate chemical contaminants for the purpose of developing today's draft CCL. Data used to evaluate and screen contaminants were obtained from STORET, the Hazardous Substances Database ( HSDB), IRIS, published literature, and various EPA reports and documents.

These criteria, as well as the conceptual approach to the Contaminant Identification Method ( CIM) presented in the December 2 3, 1996 Stakeholders meeting, will serve as the basis for developing a more robust contaminant identification method for future CCL development. The search results on each element of the criteria for contaminants considered during the development of the CCL can be found by using the Occurrence Table, the Health Table, and the Comments Table included in the docket for today's notice. a. Criteria for occurrence. For the occurrence portion of the criteria, an affirmative response to any of the following elements would result in moving to the health portion of the criteria for further consideration. If all of the occurrence elements had a negative response, the contaminant was eliminated from further consideration. The two main elements to the occurrence portion of the criteria were as follows: ( 1) Was the contaminant looked for and found in drinking water, or in a major drinking water source, or in ambient water at levels that would trigger concern about human health? ( 2) if the contaminant was not looked for, is it likely to be found in water based on surrogates for occurrence? To judge whether a contaminant was looked for and found in drinking water, according to the criteria, it would need to be included in a major survey which was defined as one which included a population of 100,000 or more, 2 or more states, or 10 or more small public water systems, or a data set such as EPA's Unregulated Contaminants Database. To judge whether a contaminant was looked for and found in a major drinking water source, or in ambient water, any source of occurrence data could be used. A source of drinking water was considered to be major if it supplied a population of 100,000 or more, or 2 or more states. Levels that would trigger concern about human health were defined as concentrations in samples within an order of magnitude of the level that is likely to cause health effects, or at least \ 1/ 2\ of samples at 50% of level that is likely to cause health effects. Contaminants were considered to have met the criteria if the data available indicated occurrence at a population of 100,000 or more; or in 2 or more states; or in 10 or more small public water systems at levels that would trigger concern about human health. If the contaminant was not looked for using the data available, it was evaluated to determine if it was likely to be found in water based on surrogates for occurrence. The elements considered as surrogates for occurrence included: TRI releases, or production volumes, coupled with physicalchemical properties, or the OPP GW Risk value. In order for a contaminant to meet this criterion as likely to be found in water using TRI, the release to surface water was in excess of 400,000 pounds per year, and the physical chemical properties indicated persistence & mobility of the contaminant. The quantity of 400,000 pound per year was based on the top 15 TRI chemicals with the largest discharges to surface water as reported in 1995. In order for a contaminant to meet this criterion as likely to be found in water using production, the volume was in excess of 10 billion pounds per year, and physical chemical properties indicated persistence and mobility. For a contaminant to meet this criteria as likely to be found in water using OPP GW Risk, the value was 2.0 or greater. However, late during the data evaluation and screening phase of the CCL development, the decision was made to defer contaminants identified under this element until a more in depth analysis could be performed that would include risk to both surface and ground water, and a component to address health. b. Criteria for health. For the health portion of the criteria, an affirmative response to any of the following elements resulted in including the contaminant on the first CCL, if it also met the occurrence criteria. A negative response to every question resulted in the contaminant being eliminated from consideration for the CCL. The health portion of the criteria had one major component; was there evidence, or suspicion, that the contaminant causes adverse human health effects? This portion of the criteria was met if a contaminant had one or more of the following elements: ( 1) Listed by California Proposition 65, ( 2) an EPA Health Advisory, ( 3) a likely ( based on animal data) or known ( based on human data) carcinogen by EPA or International Agency for Research on Cancer ( IARC), ( 4) more than one human epidemiological study ( indicating adverse effects), ( 5) an oral value in IRIS, ( 6) regulated in drinking water by another industrial country, ( 7) a member of a chemical family of known toxicity, or ( 8) structural activity relationship indicating toxicity. As the contaminants were being screened and evaluated, the factors for health which proved to be the most useful were those that provided a health level of concern as a concentration that could be compared to the levels of occurrence found in water, such as an EPA Health Advisory, an oral value in IRIS, or a regulatory level from another industrial country. Being listed by California Proposition 65, or a member of a chemical family of known toxicity had limited utility in determining which contaminants to include on the CCL.

Results: The final candidate contaminant list includes 50 chemical and 10 microbial contaminants ( see Table 1, attached). It also identifies data gaps and next steps for future lists ( see Table 2, attached).

Short Term Followup: Contact ODWGW for progress of 2003 list and fulfillment of data gap research priorities.

Long Term Followup: Can we coordinate these two planning processes? Table 6. Contaminants Identified as Suspected of Endocrine Disruption Amitrole Benomyl Dicofol ( Kelthane) Esfenvalerate Ethylparathion Fenvalerate Kepone Mancozeb Metiram Mirex Nitrofen Oxychlordane Parathion Permethrin Synthetic pyrethroids Transnonachlor Tributyltin oxide Vinclozolin Zineb Ziram Octachlorostyrene PBBs Penta to nonyl phenols Table 1. Drinking Water Contaminant Candidate List  Microbiological contaminants  Acanthamoeba ( guidance expected for contact lens wearers) Adenoviruses Aeromonas hydrophila Caliciviruses Coxsackieviruses Cyanobacteria ( blue green algae), other freshwater algae, and their toxins Echoviruses Helicobacter pylori Microsporidia ( Enterocytozoon & Septata) Mycobacterium avium intracellulare ( MAC)

Chemical contaminants CASRN 1,1,2,2 tetrachloroethane............................... 79 34 5 1,2,4 trimethylbenzene.................................. 95 63 6 1,1 dichloroethane...................................... 75 34 3 1,1 dichloropropene..................................... 563 58 6 1,2 diphenylhydrazine................................... 122 66 7 1,3 dichloropropane..................................... 142 28 9 1,3 Dichloropropene..................................... 542 75 6 [[ Page 10276]]

2,4,6 trichlorophenol................................... 88 06 2 2,2 dichloropropane..................................... 594 20 7 2,4 dichlorophenol...................................... 120 83 2 2,4 dinitrophenol....................................... 51 28 5 2,4 dinitrotoluene...................................... 121 14 2 2,6 dinitrotoluene...................................... 606 20 2 2 methyl Phenol ( o cresol).............................. 95 48 7 Acetochlor.............................................. 34256 82 1 Alachlor ESA & other acetanilide pesticide degradation products............................................... N/ A Aldrin.................................................. 309 00 2 Aluminum................................................ 7429 90 5 Boron................................................... 7440 42 8 Bromobenzene............................................ 108 86 1 DCPA mono acid degradate................................ 887 54 7 DCPA di acid degradate.................................. 2136 79 0 DDE..................................................... 72 55 9 Diazinon................................................ 333 41 5 Dieldrin................................................ 60 57 1 Disulfoton.............................................. 298 04 4 Diuron.................................................. 330 54 1 EPTC ( s ethyl dipropylthiocarbamate).................... 759 94 4 Fonofos................................................. 944 22 9 Hexachlorobutadiene..................................... 87 68 3 p Isopropyltoluene ( p cymene)........................... 99 87 6 Linuron................................................. 330 55 2 Manganese............................................... 7439 96 5 Methyl bromide.......................................... 74 83 9 Methyl t butyl ether ( MTBE)............................. 1634 04 4 Metolachlor............................................. 51218 45 2 Metribuzin.............................................. 21087 64 9 Molinate................................................ 2212 67 1 Naphthalene............................................. 91 20 3 Nitrobenzene............................................ 98 95 3 Organotins.............................................. N/ A Perchlorate............................................. N/ A Prometon................................................ 1610 18 0 RDX..................................................... 121 82 4 Sodium.................................................. 7440 23 5 Sulfate................................................. 14808 79 8 Terbacil................................................ 5902 51 2 Terbufos................................................ 13071 79 9 Triazines & degradation products of triazines ( including, but not limited to Cyanazine 21725 46 2, and atrazine desethyl 6190 65 4)....................... Vanadium................................................ 7440 62 2


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 8 (Tuesday, January 13, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 1608-1615]
[FR Doc No: 2015-00328]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2014-0861, FRL-9921-49-Region 9]

Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Arizona;
Regional Haze Federal Implementation Plan; Reconsideration

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
revise provisions of the Arizona Regional Haze (RH) Federal
Implementation Plan (FIP) applicable to the Nelson Lime Plant. In
response to a request for reconsideration from the plant's owner,
Lhoist North America of Arizona, Inc. (LNA), we propose to replace the
control technology demonstration requirements for nitrogen oxides
(NOX) applicable to Kilns 1 and 2 at the Nelson Lime Plant
with a series of revised recordkeeping and reporting requirements.
Lastly, we are proposing a correction in the regulatory language of the
final rule where a table listing the pollution emission limits for
NOX and sulfur dioxide (SO2) at each kiln was
misprinted. We are seeking comment on each of these proposed actions.

DATES: Written comments must be submitted on or before February 27,
2015. Requests for a public hearing must be received on or before
January 28, 2015.

ADDRESSES: See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for further
instructions on where and how to learn more about this proposal,
request a public hearing, or submit comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas Webb, U.S. EPA, Region 9,
Planning Office, Air Division, Air-2, 75 Hawthorne Street, San
Francisco, CA 94105. Thomas Webb can be reached at telephone number
(415) 947-4139 and via electronic mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us,''
and ``our'' refer to EPA.

Table of Contents

I. General Information
II. Background
III. FIP Revision for Nelson Lime Plant
IV. EPA's Proposed Action
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. General Information

A. Definitions

    For the purpose of this document, we are giving meaning to certain
words or initials as follows:
     The words or initials Act or CAA mean or refer to the
Clean Air Act, unless the context indicates otherwise.
     The initials ADEQ mean or refer to the Arizona Department
of Environmental Quality.
     The words Arizona and State mean the State of Arizona.
     The initials BART mean or refer to Best Available Retrofit
Technology.
     The initials CAA mean or refer to the Clean Air Act.
     The term Class I area refers to a mandatory Class I
Federal area.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Although states and tribes may designate as Class I
additional areas which they consider to have visibility as an
important value, the requirements of the visibility program set
forth in section 169A of the CAA apply only to ``mandatory Class I
Federal areas.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     The initials CBI mean or refer to Confidential Business
Information.
     The initials CEMS mean or refer to continuous emission
monitoring system or systems.
     The words EPA, we, us or our mean or refer to the United
States Environmental Protection Agency.
     The initials FIP mean or refer to Federal Implementation
Plan.
     The initials LNA mean or refer to LNA North America of
Arizona, Inc.
     The initials MMBtu mean or refer to million British
thermal units.
     The initials NOX mean or refer to nitrogen oxides.
     The initials RH mean or refer to regional haze.
     The initials RHR mean or refer to EPA's Regional Haze
Rule.
     The initials SIP mean or refer to State Implementation
Plan.
     The initials SNCR mean or refer to selective non-catalytic
reduction.
     The initials SO2 mean or refer to sulfur dioxide.

B. Docket

    The proposed action relies on documents, information, and data that
are listed in the index on http://www.regulations.gov under docket
number EPA-R09-OAR-2014-0861. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available (e.g., Confidential Business
Information (CBI)). Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly
available docket materials are available either electronically at
http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Planning Office of
the Air Division, AIR-2, EPA Region 9, 75 Hawthorne Street, San
Francisco, CA 94105. EPA requests that you contact the individual
listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to view the hard
copy of the docket. You may view the hard copy of the docket Monday
through Friday, 9-5:00 PDT, excluding Federal holidays.

C. Instructions for Submitting Comments to EPA

    Written comments must be submitted on or before February 27, 2015.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R09-OAR-2014-
0861, by one of the following methods:
     Federal Rulemaking portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
     Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER> (Attention: Thomas Webb).
     Mail, Hand Delivery or Courier: Thomas Webb, EPA Region 9,
Air Division (AIR-2), 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California
94105. Hand and courier deliveries are only accepted Monday through
Friday, 8:30 a.m.-4:30 p.m., excluding Federal holidays. Special
arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information.
    EPA's policy is to include all comments received in the public
docket without change. We may make comments available online at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be CBI or other
information for which disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not
submit information that you consider to be CBI or that is otherwise
protected through http://www.regulations.gov or email. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system, which
means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you
provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment
directly to EPA, without going through http://www.regulations.gov, we
will include your email address as part of the comment that is placed
in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit
an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and
other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk
or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical
difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be
able to consider your comment. Electronic files should not include
special characters or any form of encryption, and be free of any
defects or viruses.

D. Submitting Confidential Business Information

    Do not submit CBI to EPA through http://www.regulations.gov or by
email. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim
as CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to EPA,
mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and identify
electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific information that
is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment
that includes information claimed as CBI, you must submit a copy of the
comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI for
inclusion in the public docket. We will not disclose information so
marked except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.

E. Tips for Preparing Your Comments

    When submitting comments, remember to:
     Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other
identifying information (e.g., subject heading, Federal Register date,
and page number).
     Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives
and substitute language for your requested changes.
     Describe any assumptions and provide any technical
information and/or data that you used.
     If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how
you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
     Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and
suggest alternatives.
     Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the
use of profanity or personal threats.
     Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline.

F. Public Hearings

    If anyone contacts EPA by January 28, 2015 requesting to speak at a
public hearing, EPA will schedule a public hearing and announce the
hearing in the Federal Register. Contact Thomas Webb at<PHONE_NUMBER>
or at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>to request a hearing or to determine if a
hearing will be held.

II. Background

A. Summary of Statutory and Regulatory Requirements

    Congress created a program for protecting visibility in the
nation's national parks and wilderness areas in section 169A of the
1977 Amendments to the CAA. This section of the CAA

establishes as a national goal the ``prevention of any future, and the
remedying of any existing, impairment of visibility in mandatory Class
I Federal areas which impairment results from man-made air pollution.''
\2\ It also directs states to evaluate the use of retrofit controls at
certain larger, often uncontrolled, older stationary sources in order
to address visibility impacts from these sources. Specifically, section
169A(b)(2)(A) of the CAA requires states to revise their State
Implementation Plans (SIPs) to contain such measures as may be
necessary to make reasonable progress towards the natural visibility
goal, including a requirement that certain categories of existing major
stationary sources built between 1962 and 1977 procure, install, and
operate best available retrofit technology (BART) controls. These
sources are referred to as ``BART-eligible'' sources.\3\ In the 1990
CAA Amendments, Congress amended the visibility provisions in the CAA
to focus attention on the problem of regional haze, which is visibility
impairment produced by a multitude of sources and activities located
across a broad geographic area.\4\ We promulgated the Regional Haze
Rule (RHR) in 1999, which requires states to develop and implement SIPs
to ensure reasonable progress toward improving visibility in mandatory
Class I Federal areas \5\ by reducing emissions that cause or
contribute to regional haze.\6\ Under the Regional Haze Rule (RHR),
states are directed to conduct BART determinations for BART-eligible
sources that may be anticipated to cause or contribute to any
visibility impairment in a Class I area.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 42 U.S.C. 7491(a)(1).
    \3\ 40 CFR 51.301.
    \4\ See CAA section 169B, 42 U.S.C. 7492.
    \5\ Areas designated as mandatory Class I Federal areas consist
of national parks exceeding 6000 acres, wilderness areas, and
national memorial parks exceeding 5000 acres, and all international
parks that were in existence on August 7, 1977. 42 U.S.C. 7472(a).
When we use the term ``Class I area'' in this action, we mean a
``mandatory Class I Federal area.''
    \6\ See generally 40 CFR 51.308.
    \7\ 40 CFR 51.308(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. History of FIP BART Determination

    The Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) submitted a
Regional Haze SIP to EPA on February 28, 2011. EPA promulgated two
final rules approving in part and disapproving in part the Arizona RH
SIP. The first final rule addressed the State's BART determinations for
three power plants (Apache, Cholla, and Coronado).\8\ The second final
rule, which addressed the remaining elements of the Arizona RH SIP,
included our disapproval of the State's determination that the Nelson
Lime Plant was not subject to BART.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 77 FR 72512 (December 5, 2012).
    \9\ 78 FR 46142 (July 30, 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In a third final rule, EPA found that the Nelson Lime Plant was
subject to BART and made a BART determination for the plant, as part of
the Arizona RH FIP.\10\ EPA set BART emission limits for NOX
at the Nelson Lime Plant of 3.80 lb/ton of limestone product for Kiln 1
and 2.61 lb/ton of limestone product for Kiln 2 based on a 12-month
rolling average; and a combined limit for Kilns 1 and 2 of 3.27 tons of
NOX/day on a 30-day rolling average. These limits are
consistent with the use of SNCR control technology and represent a 50
percent reduction from baseline emission rates. The FIP also included
monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements, and established
a compliance deadline for the final NOX emission limits of
September 3, 2017, which is three years from the publication date of
the final rule. Finally, we received certain comments alleging that an
SNCR control efficiency of 50 percent was unsupported, and that SNCR
was capable of achieving control efficiency as high as 80 percent. In
responses to these comments in our final rule, we noted that the
commenters were unable to provide information indicating that an SNCR
control efficiency better than 50 percent was achievable at a lime
kiln. As a result, our final rule established NOX emission
limits consistent with an SNCR control efficiency of 50 percent.
However, in response to these comments, as well as the lack of data
regarding the performance of SNCR on lime kilns, the final rule
included a series of control technology demonstration requirements for
Kiln 1 and Kiln 2 to ensure the optimization of the SNCR systems
installed at the Nelson Lime Plant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 79 FR 52420 (September 3, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Petition for Reconsideration and Stay

    LNA submitted a petition to EPA on October 31, 2014, seeking
administrative reconsideration and a partial stay of the final rule
under CAA section 307(d)(7)(B).\11\ Specifically, LNA requested that
EPA eliminate the control technology demonstration requirements for the
Nelson Lime Plant. In an attachment to the petition, LNA provided
additional data regarding SNCR performance at lime kilns located at
another LNA facility, the O'Neal Lime Plant in Calera, Alabama. In the
petition, LNA also requested a stay if EPA did not take action prior to
December 31, 2014. LNA requested a stay on the grounds that the control
technology demonstration requirements would not provide sufficient time
to meet the SO2 and NOX BART emission limits. LNA
asserted that the time needed to implement the demonstration
requirements, in particular the requirement to collect six months of
uncontrolled NOX emission data, would delay the critical
path schedule for SNCR installation beyond the compliance date. EPA
sent a letter to LNA on November 20, 2014, granting reconsideration of
the optimization protocol requirements pursuant to CAA section
307(d)(7)(B).\12\ Today's notice of proposed rulemaking constitutes
EPA's proposed action on the reconsideration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Letter from Eric Hiser, Jorden Bischoff & Hiser, to Regina
McCarthy, EPA (October 31, 2014).
    \12\ Letter from Jared Blumenfeld, EPA to Eric Hiser, Jorden
Bischoff & Hiser (November 20, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. FIP Revision for Nelson Lime Plant

A. Summary of FIP Revision

    This proposed rule consists of several components: removal of the
control technology demonstration requirements, revised recordkeeping
and reporting requirements, and an error correction to a table in our
September 3, 2014, final rule. This proposed rule does not change any
of the emission limits, compliance deadlines, or the compliance
determination methods established in the final rule.

B. EPA's Evaluation of Eliminating Control Technology Demonstration
Requirements

    EPA is proposing to remove the control technology demonstration
requirements from the final rule based on information provided in LNA's
petition for reconsideration. In particular, in a letter dated October
2, 2014, and enclosed with the petition, LNA provided new data
concerning operation of SNCR at another of its facilities, the O'Neal
Lime Plant. The O'Neal Lime Plant originally consisted of Kiln 1, but
was later expanded through the construction of Kiln 2. In order for the
construction of Kiln 2 not to trigger major new source review for
NOX emissions, LNA elected to install SNCR on both Kilns 1
and 2 to maintain NOX emissions below thresholds for major
new source review. LNA provided information comparing the physical
design of the two kilns at the O'Neal Lime Plant with the two kilns at
the Nelson Lime Plant. LNA indicated that although the two O'Neal kilns
are not identical to the Nelson kilns, O'Neal Kiln 1 is more similar in
design to the Nelson kilns than O'Neal Kiln 2. We consider this
comparison reasonable. Of

the two O'Neal kilns, Kiln 1 is closer in age, physical dimensions,
lime production rate, and fuel efficiency to the Nelson kilns than Kiln
2.
    The remainder of the October 2, 2014, letter summarizes
NOX emission data from specific days of operation at O'Neal
Kiln 1 to evaluate the SNCR control efficiency of the kiln. Evaluating
the control efficiency involves comparing uncontrolled emission rates
with controlled emission rates from Kiln 1. However, uncontrolled
NOX emission data for the O'Neal plant are limited, because
the facility did not operate with a continuous emission monitoring
system (CEMS) for NOX prior to installing SNCR.\13\ As a
result, uncontrolled NOX emission data are limited to those
periods of time following SNCR installation during which the SNCR
system did not operate. LNA provided emission data from six days during
which the SNCR did not operate to represent uncontrolled NOX
emission rates. NOX emission data from those periods
corresponding to hours of SNCR operation were also included as a
representation of controlled NOX emission rates. Based on
this analysis, the SNCR control efficiency of O'Neal Kiln 1 varied from
42 to 61 percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ This is common with older lime and cement plants, and is
similar to the situation at the Nelson plant, which does not
currently operate NOX CEMS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This range of control efficiency represents SNCR performance over
relatively short-term periods of less than 24 hours. For example, the
highest observed control efficiency (61 percent) corresponds to a
period ending on December 1, 2011, and consists of a comparison of six
hours of uncontrolled emissions with eight hours of controlled
emissions. As noted in the final rule in regard to control efficiencies
for dry sorbent injection, we do not consider the upper range of short-
term control efficiencies necessarily to be sustainable over longer
periods, such as on an annual average basis.\14\ Therefore, while the
emission data provided by LNA indicate that a 61 percent SNCR control
efficiency was achievable over short term periods (lasting several
hours), we do not necessarily consider 61 percent control efficiency to
be achievable over longer averaging periods, such as an annual average
or 30-day average. For cement kilns, a source category similar to lime
kilns, the highest short-term emission rates can be as much as 25-50
percent greater than the highest annual average or 30-day average
emission rates.\15\ As a result, given the short-term nature of the
emission data indicating a maximum 61 percent SNCR control efficiency,
we consider the use of a 50 percent control efficiency on a longer
annual average basis to be reasonable for the Nelson kilns.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 79 FR 52439.
    \15\ For comparison, we have examined the maximum 24-hr average,
30-day average, and annual average emissions for Kiln 4 at the
Phoenix Cement Plant (see spreadsheet ``Phoenix Cement Kiln 4
NOX Emissions 2005-10 (public).xlsx.'' The Phoenix Cement
Kiln 4 data illustrate the substantial variability in emission rates
from a cement kiln when examining emissions on short-term versus
longer-term averaging periods. Given the similarity between lime
kilns and cement kilns, we expect similar variability in the short-
term versus longer-term emission rates from lime kilns.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Accordingly, we propose to find that the data from the O'Neal kilns
are sufficient to establish that an SNCR control efficiency of 50
percent is appropriate for the Nelson kilns for purposes of BART. While
we still consider it necessary to ensure that the SNCR system be
optimized, we do not consider it necessary for LNA to adhere to the
relatively detailed and prescribed procedures contained in the control
technology demonstration requirements. Therefore, we are proposing to
remove the control technology demonstration requirements included in
the final rule, and, as described below, are proposing requirements
that will require LNA to report similar information in a less
prescribed manner.

C. Revised Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements

    We are proposing several additional reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, including a summary of SNCR design and a summary of SNCR
debugging and process improvement activities, to replace the control
technology demonstration requirements in the FIP for Nelson Lime Plant.
As described in III.B above, we consider it necessary to include
provisions for SNCR optimization. Given the NOX emission
data provided by LNA from the O'Neal Plant indicating that 50 percent
SNCR control efficiency has been achieved at a lime kiln, we do not
consider it necessary for optimization measures to be as prescriptive
and detailed as established in our September 4, 2014, final rule.
Specifically, we propose to require LNA to submit a summary of the SNCR
design prior to commencing construction of the ammonia injection system
at Kilns 1 and 2, including information regarding reagent type,
locations selected for reagent injection, reagent injection rate,
equipment arrangement, and kiln characteristics. We also propose to
require LNA to submit a summary of SNCR debugging and process
improvement activities, including a description of each process
adjustment performed on the SNCR system, a discussion of whether the
adjustment affected the NOX emission rate, a description of
the range over which the adjustment was examined, and a discussion of
how the adjustment will be reflected or accounted for in kiln operating
practices.

D. Error Correction

    We are proposing a minor correction to a table printed in our
September 3, 2014, final rule at 79 FR 52480. The table, which is
codified at 40 CFR 52.145(i)(3)(i) and lists NOX and
SO2 limits for the Nelson Plant Kilns, appears with
incorrect column labels due to a misprint in the Federal Register. The
table appears with the correct labels in the proposed regulatory text
that follows this proposed rule.

E. Non-interference With Applicable Requirements

    The CAA requires that any revision to an implementation plan shall
not be approved by the Administrator if the revision would interfere
with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable
further progress or any other applicable requirement of the CAA.\16\
Today's proposed revisions would not affect any applicable requirements
of the CAA because they would not alter the amount or timing of
emission reductions from the Nelson Lime Plant. In particular, the
proposed replacement of the control technology demonstration
requirements with a series of recordkeeping and reporting requirements
would not alter any of the applicable emission limitations, compliance
determination methodologies, or compliance deadlines. Therefore, we
propose to find that these revisions would comply with CAA section
110(l).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ CAA Section 110(l), 42 U.S.C. 7410(l).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. EPA's Proposed Action

    For the reasons described above, EPA proposes to revise the Arizona
Regional Haze FIP to eliminate the control technology demonstration
requirements at the Nelson Lime Plant and replace them with additional
recordkeeping and reporting requirements. This revision would
constitute our action on LNA's Petition for Reconsideration of the FIP.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

    This proposed action is not a ``significant regulatory action''
under the terms of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993)
and is therefore not subject to review under Executive Orders 12866 and
13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011). This proposed rule applies to
only one facility and is therefore not a rule of general applicability.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This action does not impose an information collection burden under
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency
to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative
Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses,
small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
    For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's proposed rule on
small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as
defined by the Small Business Administration's (SBA) regulations at 13
CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government
of a city, county, town, school district or special district with a
population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is
any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated
and is not dominant in its field. Pursuant to 13 CFR 121.201, footnote
1, a firm is small if it is in NAICS 327410 (lime manufacturing) and
the concern and its affiliates have no more than 500 employees. LNA is
affiliated with the LNA Group, which has more than 5,500 employees.\17\
Therefore, LNA is not a small business.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ http://www.LNA.com/facts-and-figures-LNA-group-2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2
U.S.C. 1531-1538, requires Federal agencies, unless otherwise
prohibited by law, to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on
State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. Federal
agencies must also develop a plan to provide notice to small
governments that might be significantly or uniquely affected by any
regulatory requirements. The plan must enable officials of affected
small governments to have meaningful and timely input in the
development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant Federal
intergovernmental mandates and must inform, educate, and advise small
governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements.
    This proposed rule does not contain a Federal mandate that may
result in expenditures of $100 million or more for state, local, and
tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector in any one
year. Thus, this rule is not subject to the requirements of sections
202 or 205 of UMRA.
    This proposed rule is also not subject to the requirements of
section 203 of UMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements that
might significantly or uniquely affect small governments. This proposed
rule does not impose regulatory requirements on any government entity.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between
the national government and the states, or in the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as
specified in Executive Order 13132.
    In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent with EPA
policy to promote communications between EPA and State and local
governments, EPA specifically solicits comment on this proposed action
from State and local officials.

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

    Under Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), EPA
may not issue a regulation that has tribal 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 tribal governments, or EPA
consults with tribal officials early in the process of developing the
proposed regulation and develops a tribal summary impact statement.
    This proposed rule does not have tribal implications, as specified
in Executive Order 13175. It will not have substantial direct effects
on tribal governments. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to
this rule. EPA specifically solicits additional comment on this
proposed rule from tribal officials.

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

    EPA interprets EO 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) as applying
only to those regulatory actions that concern health or safety risks,
such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of the EO has the
potential to influence the regulation. This action is not subject to EO
13045 because it does not establish an environmental standard intended
to mitigate health or safety risks. This proposed action addresses
regional haze and visibility protection.

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

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355
(May 22, 2001)), because it is exempt under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, 12 (10) (15 U.S.C. 272 note)
directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS) in its
regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with
applicable law or otherwise impractical. VCS are technical standards
(e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and
business practices) that are developed or adopted by the VCS bodies.
The NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through annual reports to
OMB, with explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and
applicable VCS.
    EPA believes that VCS are inapplicable to this action. Today's
action does not require the public to perform activities conducive to
the use of VCS.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994), establishes
federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision
directs

federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by
law, to make environmental justice part of their mission by identifying
and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse
human health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and
activities on minority populations and low- income populations in the
United States.
    EPA has determined that this proposed rule will not have
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority or low-income populations because it does not
change the level of environmental protection for any affected
populations.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Nitrogen oxides,
Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur
dioxide, Visibility. Incorporation by Reference.

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

    Dated: December 29, 2014.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, EPA Region IX.

    Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is
proposed to be amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart D--Arizona

0
2. Amend Sec.  52.145 by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (i); and
0
b. Removing Appendix B to Sec.  52.145--Lime Kiln Control Technology
Demonstration Requirements.
    The revision reads as follows:

Sec.  52.145  Visibility protection.

* * * * *
    (i) Source-specific federal implementation plan for regional haze
at Nelson Lime Plant--
    (1) Applicability. This paragraph (i) applies to the owner/operator
of the lime kilns designated as Kiln 1 and Kiln 2 at the Nelson Lime
Plant located in Yavapai County, Arizona.
    (2) Definitions. Terms not defined in this paragraph (i)(2) shall
have the meaning given them in the Clean Air Act or EPA's regulations
implementing the Clean Air Act. For purposes of this paragraph (i):
    Ammonia injection shall include any of the following: Anhydrous
ammonia, aqueous ammonia, or urea injection.
    Continuous emission monitoring system or CEMS means the equipment
required by this section to sample, analyze, measure, and provide, by
means of readings recorded at least once every 15 minutes (using an
automated data acquisition and handling system (DAHS)), a permanent
record of NOX emissions, SO2 emissions, diluent,
and stack gas volumetric flow rate.
    Kiln means either of the kilns identified in paragraph (i)(1) of
this section.
    Kiln 1 means lime kiln 1, as identified in paragraph (i)(1) of this
section.
    Kiln 2 means lime kiln 2, as identified in paragraph (i)(1) of this
section.
    Kiln operating day means a 24-hour period between 12 midnight and
the following midnight during which there is operation of Kiln 1, Kiln
2, or both kilns at any time.
    Kiln operation means any period when any raw materials are fed into
the Kiln or any period when any combustion is occurring or fuel is
being fired in the Kiln.
    Lime product means the product of the lime-kiln calcination
process, including calcitic lime, dolomitic lime, and dead-burned
dolomite.
    NOX means oxides of nitrogen.
    Owner/operator means any person who owns or who operates, controls,
or supervises a kiln identified in paragraph (i)(1) of this section.
    SO2 means sulfur dioxide.
    (3) Emission limitations. (i) The owner/operator of the kilns
identified in paragraph (i)(1) of this section shall not emit or cause
to be emitted pollutants in excess of the following limitations in
pounds of pollutant per ton of lime product (lb/ton), from any kiln.
Each emission limit shall be based on a 12-month rolling basis.

                        Pollutant Emission Limit
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Kiln ID                          NOX     SO[ihel2]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kiln 1............................................       3.80       9.32
Kiln 2............................................       2.61       9.73
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (ii) The owner/operator of the kilns identified in paragraph (i)(1)
of this section shall not emit or cause to be emitted pollutants in
excess of 3.27 tons of NOX per day and 10.10 tons of
SO2 per day, combined from both kilns, based on a rolling
30-kiln-operating-day basis.
    (4) Compliance dates. (i) The owner/operator of each kiln shall
comply with the NOX emission limitations and other
NOX-related requirements of this paragraph (i) no later than
September 4, 2017.
    (ii) The owner/operator of each kiln shall comply with the
SO2 emission limitations and other SO2-related
requirements of this paragraph (i) no later than March 3, 2016.
    (5) [Reserved]
    (6) Compliance determination--(i) Continuous emission monitoring
system. At all times after the compliance dates specified in paragraph
(i)(4) of this section, the owner/operator of kilns 1 and 2 shall
maintain, calibrate, and operate a CEMS, in full compliance with the
requirements found at 40 CFR 60.13 and 40 CFR part 60, appendices B and
F, to accurately measure diluent, stack gas volumetric flow rate, and
concentration by volume of NOX and SO2 emissions
into the atmosphere from kilns 1 and 2. The CEMS shall be used by the
owner/operator to determine compliance with the emission limitations in
paragraph (i)(3) of this section, in combination with data on actual
lime production. The owner/operator must operate the monitoring system
and collect data at all required intervals at all times that an
affected kiln is operating, except for periods of monitoring system
malfunctions, repairs associated with monitoring system malfunctions,
and required monitoring system quality assurance or quality control
activities (including, as applicable, calibration checks and required
zero and span adjustments).
    (ii) Ammonia consumption monitoring. Upon and after the completion
of installation of ammonia injection on a kiln, the owner or operator
shall install, and thereafter maintain and operate, instrumentation to
continuously monitor and record levels of ammonia consumption for that
kiln.
    (iii) Compliance determination for lb per ton NOX limit. Compliance
with the NOX emission limits described in paragraph
(i)(3)(i) of this section shall be determined based on a rolling 12-
month basis. The 12-month rolling NOX emission rate for each
kiln shall be calculated within 30 days following the end of each
calendar month in accordance with the following procedure: Step one,
sum the hourly pounds of NOX emitted for the month just
completed and the eleven (11) months preceding the month just completed
to calculate the total pounds of NOX emitted over the most
recent twelve (12) month period for that kiln; Step two, sum the total
lime product, in tons, produced during the month just completed and the
eleven (11) months preceding the month just completed to calculate the
total lime product

produced over the most recent twelve (12) month period for that kiln;
Step three, divide the total amount of NOX calculated from
Step one by the total lime product calculated from Step two to
calculate the 12-month rolling NOX emission rate for that
kiln. Each 12-month rolling NOX emission rate shall include
all emissions and all lime product that occur during all periods within
the 12-month period, including emissions from startup, shutdown, and
malfunction.
    (iv) Compliance determination for lb per ton SO2 limit. Compliance
with the SO2 emission limits described in paragraph
(i)(3)(i) of this section shall be determined based on a rolling 12-
month basis. The 12-month rolling SO2 emission rate for each
kiln shall be calculated within 30 days following the end of each
calendar month in accordance with the following procedure: Step one,
sum the hourly pounds of SO2 emitted for the month just
completed and the eleven (11) months preceding the month just completed
to calculate the total pounds of SO2 emitted over the most
recent twelve (12) month period for that kiln; Step two, sum the total
lime product, in tons, produced during the month just completed and the
eleven (11) months preceding the month just completed to calculate the
total lime product produced over the most recent twelve (12) month
period for that kiln; Step three, divide the total amount of
SO2 calculated from Step one by the total lime product
calculated from Step two to calculate the 12-month rolling
SO2 emission rate for that kiln. Each 12-month rolling
SO2 emission rate shall include all emissions and all lime
product that occur during all periods within the 12-month period,
including emissions from startup, shutdown, and malfunction.
    (v) Compliance determination for ton per day NOX limit. Compliance
with the NOX emission limit described in paragraph
(i)(3)(ii) of this section shall be determined based on a rolling 30-
kiln-operating-day basis. The rolling 30-kiln operating day
NOX emission rate for the kilns shall be calculated for each
kiln operating day in accordance with the following procedure: Step
one, sum the hourly pounds of NOX emitted from both kilns
for the current kiln operating day and the preceding twenty-nine (29)
kiln-operating-day period for both kilns; Step two, divide the total
pounds of NOX calculated from Step one by two thousand
(2,000) to calculate the total tons of NOX; Step three,
divide the total tons of NOX calculated from Step two by
thirty (30) to calculate the rolling 30-kiln operating day
NOX emission rate for both kilns. Each rolling 30-kiln
operating day NOX emission rate shall include all emissions
that occur from both kilns during all periods within any kiln operating
day, including emissions from startup, shutdown, and malfunction.
    (vi) Compliance determination for ton per day SO2 limit. Compliance
with the SO2 emission limit described in paragraph
(i)(3)(ii) of this section shall be determined based on a rolling 30-
kiln-operating-day basis. The rolling 30-kiln operating day
SO2 emission rate for the kilns shall be calculated for each
kiln operating day in accordance with the following procedure: Step
one, sum the hourly pounds of SO2 emitted from both kilns
for the current kiln operating day and the preceding twenty-nine (29)
kiln operating days, to calculate the total pounds of SO2
emitted over the most recent thirty (30) kiln operating day period for
both kilns; Step two, divide the total pounds of SO2
calculated from Step one by two thousand (2,000) to calculate the total
tons of SO2; Step three, divide the total tons of
SO2 calculated from Step two by thirty (30) to calculate the
rolling 30-kiln operating day SO2 emission rate for both
kilns. Each rolling 30-kiln operating day SO2 emission rate
shall include all emissions that occur from both kilns during all
periods within any kiln operating day, including emissions from
startup, shutdown, and malfunction.
    (7) Recordkeeping. The owner/operator shall maintain the following
records for at least five years:
    (i) All CEMS data, including the date, place, and time of sampling
or measurement; parameters sampled or measured; and results.
    (ii) All records of lime production.
    (iii) Monthly rolling 12-month emission rates of NOX and
SO2, calculated in accordance with paragraphs (i)(6)(iii)
and (iv) of this section.
    (iv) Daily rolling 30-kiln operating day emission rates of
NOX and SO2 calculated in accordance with
paragraphs (i)(6)(v) and (vi) of this section.
    (v) Records of quality assurance and quality control activities for
emissions measuring systems including, but not limited to, any records
specified by 40 CFR part 60, appendix F, Procedure 1, as well as the
following:
    (A) The occurrence and duration of any startup, shutdown, or
malfunction, performance testing, evaluations, calibrations, checks,
adjustments maintenance, duration of any periods during which a CEMS or
COMS is inoperative, and corresponding emission measurements.
    (B) Date, place, and time of measurement or monitoring equipment
maintenance activity;
    (C) Operating conditions at the time of measurement or monitoring
equipment maintenance activity;
    (D) Date, place, name of company or entity that performed the
measurement or monitoring equipment maintenance activity and the
methods used; and
    (E) Results of the measurement or monitoring equipment maintenance.
    (vi) Records of ammonia consumption, as recorded by the
instrumentation required in paragraph (i)(6)(ii) of this section.
    (vii) Records of all major maintenance activities conducted on
emission units, air pollution control equipment, CEMS, and lime
production measurement devices.
    (viii) All other records specified by 40 CFR part 60, appendix F,
Procedure 1.
    (8) Reporting. All reports required under this section shall be
submitted by the owner/operator to the Director, Enforcement Division,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9, electronically via
email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Any data that are required under this section
shall be submitted in Excel format. Reports required under paragraphs
(i)(8)(iii) through (i)(8)(v) of this section shall be submitted within
30 days after the applicable compliance date(s) in paragraph (i)(4) of
this section and at least semiannually thereafter, within 30 days after
the end of a semiannual period. The owner/operator may submit reports
more frequently than semiannually for the purposes of synchronizing
reports required under this section with other reporting requirements,
such as the title V monitoring report required by 40 CFR
70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A), but at no point shall the duration of a semiannual
period exceed six months.
    (i) Prior to commencing construction of the ammonia injection
system, the owner/operator shall submit to EPA a summary report of the
design of the SNCR system. Elements of this summary report shall
include: Reagent type, description of the locations selected for
reagent injection, reagent injection rate (expressed as a molar ratio
of reagent to NOX), equipment list, equipment arrangement,
and a summary of kiln characteristics that were relied upon as the
design basis for the SNCR system.
    (ii) By October 3, 2017, the owner/operator shall submit to EPA a
summary of any process improvement or debugging activities that were
performed on the SNCR system.

Elements of this summary report shall include: A description of each
process adjustment performed on the SNCR system, a discussion of
whether the adjustment affected NOX emission rate (including
CEMS data that may have been recorded while the adjustment was in
progress), a description of the range (if applicable) over which the
adjustment was examined, and a discussion of how the adjustment will be
reflected or accounted for in kiln operating practices. In addition, to
the extent that the owner/operator evaluates the impact of varying
reagent injection rate on NOX emissions, the owner/operator
shall include the following information: The range of reagent injection
rates evaluated (expressed as a molar ratio of reagent to average
NOX concentration), reagent injection rate, average
NOX concentration, lime production rate, kiln flue gas
temperature, and the presence of any detached plumes from the kiln
exhaust.
    (iii) The owner/operator shall submit a report that lists the daily
rolling 30-kiln operating day emission rates for NOX and
SO2, calculated in accordance with paragraphs (i)(6)(iii)
and (iv) of this section.
    (iv) The owner/operator shall submit a report that lists the
monthly rolling 12-month emission rates for NOX and
SO2, calculated in accordance with paragraphs (i)(6)(v) and
(vi) of this section.
    (v) The owner/operator shall submit excess emissions reports for
NOX and SO2 limits. Excess emissions means
emissions that exceed any of the emissions limits specified in
paragraph (i)(3) of this section. The reports shall include the
magnitude, date(s), and duration of each period of excessemissions;
specific identification of each period of excess emissions that occurs
during startups, shutdowns, and malfunctions of the kiln; the nature
and cause of any malfunction (if known); and the corrective action
taken or preventative measures adopted.
    (vi) The owner/operator shall submit a summary of CEMS operation,
to include dates and duration of each period during which the CEMS was
inoperative (except for zero and span adjustments and calibration
checks), reason(s) why the CEMS was inoperative and steps taken to
prevent recurrence, and any CEMS repairs or adjustments.
    (vii) The owner/operator shall submit results of all CEMS
performance tests required by 40 CFR part 60, Appendix F, Procedure 1
(Relative Accuracy Test Audits, Relative Accuracy Audits, and Cylinder
Gas Audits).
    (viiii) When no excess emissions have occurred or the CEMS has not
been inoperative, repaired, or adjusted during the reporting period,
the owner/operator shall state such information in the semiannual
report.
    (9) Notifications. All notifications required under this section
shall be submitted by the owner/operator to the Director, Enforcement
Division (Mail Code ENF-2-1), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 9, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California 94105-3901.
    (i) The owner/operator shall submit notification of commencement of
construction of any equipment which is being constructed to comply with
the NOX emission limits in paragraph (i)(3) of this section.
    (ii) The owner/operator shall submit semiannual progress reports on
construction of any such equipment.
    (iii) The owner/operator shall submit notification of initial
startup of any such equipment.
    (10) Equipment operations. (i) At all times, including periods of
startup, shutdown, and malfunction, the owner/operator shall, to the
extent practicable, maintain and operate the kilns, including
associated air pollution control equipment, in a manner consistent with
good air pollution control practices for minimizing emissions.
Pollution control equipment shall be designed and capable of operating
properly to minimize emissions during all expected operating
conditions. Determination of whether acceptable operating and
maintenance procedures are being used will be based on information
available to the Regional Administrator, which may include, but is not
limited to, monitoring results, review of operating and maintenance
procedures, and inspection of the kilns.
    (ii) After completion of installation of ammonia injection on a
kiln, the owner/operator shall inject sufficient ammonia to achieve
compliance with the NOX emission limits from paragraph
(i)(3) of this section for that kiln while preventing excessive ammonia
emissions.
    (11) Enforcement. Notwithstanding any other provision in this
implementation plan, any credible evidence or information relevant as
to whether the kiln would have been in compliance with applicable
requirements if the appropriate performance or compliance test had been
performed can be used to establish whether or not the owner/operator
has violated or is in violation of any standard or applicable emission
limit in the plan.

[FR Doc. 2015-00328 Filed 1-12-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P