e *
lw/
\ ,f
PRO*^
Regulatory Impact Analysis for the
Supplemental Proposed Amendments to the
National Emission Standards for Hazardous
Air Pollutants: Lime Manufacturing Plants
-------
ii
-------
EPA-452/ R-24-004
January 2024
Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Supplemental Proposed Amendments to the National
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Lime Manufacturing Plants
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Health and Environmental Impacts Division
Research Triangle Park, NC
iii
-------
CONTACT INFORMATION
This document has been prepared by staff from the Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Questions related to this document
should be addressed to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards, C439-02, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711 (email:
oaqpseconomics@epa.gov).
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We acknowledge the contributions of staff from RTI International in preparing the
compliance costs for the regulatory options analyzed in this document, and staff from SC&A
Incorporated for preparing the demographic analysis underlying the environmental justice
analysis in this document.
iv
-------
CONTENTS
List of Tables vii
List of Figures ix
1 Introduction 1
1.1 Background 1
1.2 Basis for the Regulation 1
1.3 Regulatory History 2
1.4 Regulatory Options 3
1.5 Organization of this RIA 4
2 Industry Profile 5
2.1 Introduction 5
2.2 Lime Production 5
2.3 Industry Data 5
2.4 Consumption and Uses of Lime 9
2.4.1 Substitution Possibilities in Consumption 13
2.5 Affected Producers 13
3 Engineering Cost Analysis 16
3.1 Introduction 16
3.2 Affected Sources 16
3.3 Capital Investment and Annual Costs 17
3.4 Secondary Impacts 26
3.5 Characterization of Uncertainty 27
4 Benefits of Emissions Reductions 29
4.1 Introduction 29
4.2 Hydrogen Chloride 30
4.3 Mercury 30
4.4 Acetaldehyde 31
4.5 Benzene 32
4.6 Ethylbenzene 32
4.7 Formaldehyde 32
4.8 Naphthalene 33
4.9 Styrene 33
4.10 Toluene 34
4.11 Xylenes 34
4.12 Dioxins and Furans 35
5 Environmental Justice Analysis 36
5.1 Introduction 36
5.2 Demographic Analysis 36
6 Economic and Small Business Impacts 39
6.1 Introduction 39
6.2 Screening Analysis 39
6.2.1 Identification of Small Entities 40
v
-------
6.2.2 Small Business Impacts Analysis 42
6.3 Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 44
6.3.1 Regulatory Flexibility Act Background 45
6.3.2 Reasons Why Action is Being Considered 45
6.3.3 Statement of Objectives and Legal Basis for Proposed Rule 45
6.3.4 Description and Estimate of Affected Small Entities 46
6.3.5 Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance Requirements 47
6.3.6 Related Federal Rules 47
6.3.7 Regulatory Flexibility Alternatives 47
6.4 Economic Impact Modeling 51
6.4.1 Partial Equilibrium Model Description 51
6.4.2 Operational Model 53
6.4.3 Economic Impact Results 58
6.4.4 Caveats and Limitations of the Market Analysis 61
6.5 Employment Impacts 63
7 Comparison of Costs and Benefits 64
7.1 Results 64
7.2 Uncertainties and Limitations 64
8 References 67
vi
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table
1
Table
2
Table
3
Table
4
Table
5
Table
6
Table
7
Table
8
Table
9
Table
10
Table
11
Table
12
Table
13
Table
14
Table
15
Table
16
Table
17
Table
18
Table
19
Table
20
Table
21
Table
22
Table
23
Table
24
Table
25
Table
26
Table
27
Table
28
Table
29
Table
30
Table
31
Table
32
Table
33
Lime Sales and Usage 1998-2021 (thousand metric tons) 6
Exports and Imports of Lime 1998-2021 (thousand metric tons) 7
Average Lime Prices 1998-2021 8
Production Costs for Lime Manufacturing (NAICS 32741) 2002-2021 9
Lime Usage in the United States (thousand metric tons) 10
Hydrated Lime Usage in the United States, 2014-2021 (thousand metric tons) 11
Number of Firms and Establishments, Employment, and Annual Payroll for Affected
Industries: 2020 15
Modeled Air Pollution Control Device Costs (2022$) 18
Breakdown of Air Pollution Control Device Total Annual Cost (2022$) 19
Total Cost of Estimated Controls Required for Compliance with Proposed Standards
(2022$) 19
Total Cost of Estimated Controls Required for Compliance with Proposed Standards, by
Pollutant Controlled (2022$) 20
Total Cost of Estimated Controls Required for Compliance with Beyond-the-Floor Option
(2022$) 20
Total Cost of Estimated Controls Required for Compliance with Beyond-the-Floor Option,
by Pollutant Controlled (2022$) 21
Testing, Monitoring, Recordkeeping, and Reporting Costs (2022$) 22
Summary of Estimated Costs for the Proposed Amendments in Each of the First 8 Years
After the Rule is Final (2022$) 23
Summary of Estimated Costs for the Beyond-the-Floor Option in Each of the First 8 Years
After the Rule is Final (2022$) 23
Undiscounted Costs of Proposed Amendments 2024-2043 (2022$) 24
2023 Present Value and Equivalent Annualized Value of Costs of Proposed Amendments
2024-2043 (2022$) 25
Undiscounted Costs of Beyond-the-Floor Option 2024-2043 (2022$) 25
2023 Present Value and Equivalent Annualized Value of Costs of Beyond-the-Floor
Option 2024-2043 (2022$) 26
Secondary Impacts of Estimated Controls Required for Compliance with Proposed
Standards 26
Secondary Impacts of Estimated Controls Required for Compliance with Beyond-the-
Floor Option 27
Estimated HAP Reductions 29
Proximity Demographic Assessment Results for Major Source Lime Manufacturing
Facilities 37
Affected NAICS Codes and SBA Small Entity Size Standards 40
Ultimate Parent Companies Owning Affected Lime Manufacturing Plants 41
Cost-to-Sales Ratios of the Proposed Amendments for Ultimate Owners of Affected
Facilities 42
Summary of Cost-to-Sales Ratios of the Proposed Amendments by SBA Size Category ...42
Cost-to-Sales Ratios of the Beyond-the-Floor Option for Ultimate Owners of Affected
Facilities 43
Summary of Cost-to-Sales Ratios of the Beyond-the-Floor Option by SBA Size Category43
Lime Market Baseline Data, 2021 57
Supply and Demand Elasticities 58
National Engineering Control Cost Estimates (millions of 2022 dollars) 58
Vll
-------
Table
34
Table
35
Table
36
National-Level Market Impacts of the Proposed Amendments and Beyond-the-Floor
Option: 2021 59
Distribution of Social Costs Associated with the Proposed Amendments and Beyond-the-
Floor Option (millions 2022$) 61
Summary of Benefits, Costs and Net Benefits for the Proposed Amendments and Beyond-
the-Floor Option from 2024 to 2043 (Million 2022$) 64
viii
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 Market Equilibrium without and with Regulation 5 2
Figure 2 MarketTrends 57
ix
-------
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is supplementing the proposed
amendments to the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP)
for Lime Manufacturing facilities published in the Federal Register on January 5, 2023. In
that action, the EPA proposed hazardous air pollutant (HAP) emissions standards for the
following pollutants: hydrogen chloride (HC1), mercury, total hydrocarbon (THC) as a
surrogate for organic HAP, and dioxin/furans (D/F). The EPA is proposing revisions to the
previously set emission limits for HC1, mercury, organic HAP, and D/F based on additional
information gathered since the publication of the January 5, 2023, proposed rule
amendments. This document presents the regulatory impact analysis (RIA) for the
proposed amendments.
1.2 Basis for the Regulation
The January 5, 2023, proposed rule amended the National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants for Lime Manufacturing Plants (Lime Manufacturing NESHAP), to
set emission standards for four previously unregulated pollutants. This supplemental
proposal revises the emission limits in the January 5, 2023, proposed rule for HC1, mercury,
organic HAP, and D/F based on information received from public commenters and other
sources of information.
In the Louisiana Environmental Action Network v. EPA (LEAN) decision issued on
April 21, 2020, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit)
held that the EPA has an obligation to address unregulated emissions from a source
category when the Agency conducts the 8-year technology review required by Clean Air Act
(CAA) section 112(d)(6).1 To meet this obligation, the EPA issued the January 5, 2023,
proposed rule to address unregulated emissions of HAP from the lime manufacturing
source category. The proposed amendments defined the maximum achievable control
technology (MACT) standard for HC1, mercury, THC as a surrogate for organic HAP, and
1 Louisiana Environmental Action Network v. EPA, 955 F.3d 1088 (D.C. Cir. 2020) ("LEAN").
1
-------
D/F within the lime manufacturing source category pursuant to CAA sections 112(d)(2)
and (3). This proposal supplements the January 5, 2023, proposed rule amendments.
1.3 Regulatory History
The EPA promulgated the Lime Manufacturing NESHAP on January 5, 2004 (69 FR
394). The standards are codified at 40 CFRpart63, subpart AAAAA. The lime
manufacturing industry consists of facilities that use a lime kiln to produce lime product
from limestone by calcination. The source category covered by this MACT standard
currently includes 34 facilities.
As promulgated in 2004, the current Lime Manufacturing NESHAP regulates HAP
emissions from all new and existing lime manufacturing plants that are major sources, co-
located with major sources, or are part of major sources. A lime manufacturing plant is
defined as any plant which uses a lime kiln to produce lime product from limestone or
other calcareous material by calcination. The NESHAP specifically excludes lime kilns that
use only calcium carbonate waste sludge from water softening processes as the feedstock.
In addition, lime manufacturing plants located at pulp and paper mills or at beet sugar
factories are not subject to the NESHAP. Lime manufacturing operations at pulp and paper
mills are subject to the NESHAP for combustion sources at kraft, soda, and sulfite pulp and
paper mills.2 Lime manufacturing operations at beet sugar processing plants would also
not be subject to the NESHAP because beet sugar lime kiln exhaust is typically routed
through a series of gas washers to clean the exhaust gas prior to process use. Additionally,
beet sugar plants typically operate only seasonally, and are not major sources of HAP.3
Other lime manufacturing plants that are part of multiple operations, such as (but not
limited to) those at steel mills and magnesia production facilities, are subject to those
NESHAP.
The Lime Manufacturing NESHAP defines the affected source as each lime kiln and
its associated cooler and each individual processed stone handling (PSH) operations
system. The PSH operations system includes all equipment associated with PSH operations
2 66 FR 3180, January 12,2001
3 67 FR 68053, December 20, 2002
2
-------
beginning at the process stone storage bin(s) or open storage pile(s) and ending where the
process stone is fed into the kiln. It includes man-made process stone storage bins (but not
open process stone storage piles), conveying system transfer points, bulk loading or
unloading systems, screening operations, surge bins, bucket elevators, and belt conveyors.
The current Lime Manufacturing NESHAP established particulate matter (PM)
emission limits for lime kilns, coolers, and PSH operations with stacks. The NESHAP also
established opacity limits for kilns equipped with electrostatic precipitators (ESP) and
fabric filters (FF) and scrubber liquid flow limits for kilns equipped with wet scrubbers.
Particulate matter serves as a surrogate for the non-mercury metal HAP. The NESHAP also
regulates opacity or visible emissions from most of the PSH operations, with opacity also
serving as a surrogate for HAP metals.
The 2020 amendments finalized the residual risk and technology review (RTR)
conducted for the Lime Manufacturing NESHAP. The RTR found that the risk associated
with air emissions from lime manufacturing was acceptable and that the current NESHAP
provides an ample margin of safety to protect public health. The EPA determined that there
were no developments in practices, processes, or control technologies that would warrant
revisions to the standards. In addition, the 2020 amendments addressed periods of startup,
shutdown, and malfunction (SSM) by removing any exemptions during SSM operations.
Lastly, the 2020 amendments included provisions requiring electronic reporting.
1.4 Regulatory Options
As discussed in Section 1.2, this proposed rule defines the MACT standard for HC1,
mercury, organic HAP, and D/F within the lime manufacturing source category pursuant to
CAA sections 112(d)(2) and 112(d)(3). The "MACT floor" for existing sources is calculated
based on the average performance of the best-performing units in each category or
subcategory and on a consideration of these units' variability. The MACT floor for new
sources is based on the single best-performing source, with a similar consideration of that
source's variability. The MACT floor for new sources cannot be less stringent than the
emissions performance that is achieved in practice by the best-controlled similar source.
3
-------
In addition, the EPA must examine, but is not necessarily required to adopt, more
stringent "beyond-the-floor" regulatory options to determine MACT. Unlike the floor
minimum stringency requirements, the EPA must consider various impacts of the more
stringent regulatory options in determining whether MACT standards are to reflect
beyond-the-floor requirements. If the EPA concludes that the more stringent regulatory
options have unreasonable impacts, the EPA selects the MACT floor as MACT. However, if
the EPA concludes that impacts associated with beyond-the-floor levels of control are
reasonable in light of additional emissions reductions achieved, the EPA selects those levels
as MACT.
Because of the prescriptive nature of the MACT standard setting process, this RIA
does not analyze a less stringent option to the MACT standard. However, for completeness
the costs and impacts of the most stringent beyond-the-floor option are presented in
Chapters 3 and 4. A detailed summary of the proposed standards is provided in the
memorandum titled Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) Floor Analysis for the
Lime Manufacturing Plants Industry Supplemental Proposal, located in the docket for this
action.
1.5 Organization of this RIA
The remainder of this report details the methodology and the results of the RIA.
Chapter 2 presents a profile of the lime manufacturing industry. Chapter 3 describes the
emissions and engineering cost analysis prepared for this proposed rule. Chapter 4
presents the benefits analysis, which is limited to a qualitative discussion of the health
effects associated with HAP emissions from lime manufacturing facilities, because the EPA
was unable to monetize the benefits of the proposed amendments. Chapter 5 describes the
environmental justice analysis performed for this proposed rule. Chapter 6 presents
analyses of economic impacts, impacts on small businesses, and a discussion of potential
employment impacts. The economic impacts include estimates of price and output changes
in response to the cost of the proposed rule. The small business impact analysis includes
estimates of annual cost-to-sales ratios for affected businesses, and compares the
estimated impacts for the small businesses to those that are not small. Chapter 7 presents a
comparison of the benefits and costs. Chapter 8 contains the references for this RIA.
4
-------
2 INDUSTRY PROFILE
2.1 Introduction
This chapter provides a brief introduction to the lime manufacturing industry.
Section 2.2 presents a description of how lime is produced. For additional information
about the types of equipment used in production, see the Economic Impact Analysis (EIA)
for the original lime manufacturing MACT standard (U.S. EPA, 2003a). Section 2.3 provides
historical market data on U.S. production, consumption, foreign trade, and prices. Section
2.4 provides information about the consumers and uses of lime and related products.
Finally, Section 2.5 describes the affected producers and provides economic statistics about
the industries with companies that will be affected by this proposed rule.
2.2 Lime Production
The production of lime begins with the quarrying and crushing of limestone. The
crushed limestone is then converted into lime by heating the limestone in a kiln, a process
known as calcination. When limestone is subjected to high temperatures, it undergoes a
chemical decomposition resulting in the formation of lime (CaO) and the emission of CO2.
Because calcination is a reversible chemical reaction, the CO2 emitted as a result of the
process must be removed to prevent recarbonation. Lime as it exits the kiln is known as
quicklime. It can be either high calcium or dolomitic, depending on the type of limestone
that was calcined. After the quicklime leaves the kiln, it is screened to remove undersized
particles. Quicklime can be reacted with water to from hydrated (slaked) lime. Hydrated
lime is produced in a vessel called a hydrator, where a precise amount of water is slowly
added to crushed or ground quicklime and the mixture is stirred and agitated.
Dead-burned dolomite, also called refractory lime, is a sintered or double-burned
form of dolomitic lime. It is used for lining open hearth or electric arc steel furnaces or as
an input in the refractory bricks that line basic oxygen steel furnaces.
2.3 Industry Data
Table 1 provides data on the number of lime manufacturing plants in the United
States and the production of quicklime, hydrated lime, and dead-burned dolomite from
1998-2021 (USGS, 2002-2021). During this period the number of plants decreased from
5
-------
107 in 1998 to 83 in 2021, while the overall sales and usage of lime decreased from 20,100
tons in 1998 to 16,800 tons in 2021. However, more recent values likely reflect lingering
impacts from the global COVID-19 pandemic.
Table 1 Lime Sales and Usage 1998-2021 (thousand metric tons)
Sold or Used by Producers by Type Combined Types
Year
Plants
Quicklime
Hydrated
Lime
Dead-burned
dolomite
Lime
Sales
Lime
Use
T otal Lime
Sold and Used
Apparent
Consumption
1998
107
17,500
2,330
300
17,800
2,320
20,100
20,300
1999
107
17,100
2,310
300
17,400
2,310
19,700
19,700
2000
106
17,300
1,970
200
17,500
2,020
19,500
19,600
2001
103
16,200
2,470
200
17,000
1,840
18,900
18,900
2002
99
15,800
1,930
200
16,500
1,340
17,900
17,900
2003
96
16,400
2,610
200
17,700
1,470
19,200
19,300
2004
91
17,200
2,570
200
18,400
1,520
20,000
20,100
2005
94
17,100
2,700
200
18,600
1,490
20,000
20,200
2006
91
18,000
2,780
200
19,400
1,620
21,000
21,200
2007
89
17,400
2,600
200
18,700
1,540
20,200
20,400
2008
90
17,200
2,420
200
18,400
1,470
19,900
20,000
2009
81
13,600
1,950
200
14,500
1,260
15,800
16,100
2010
85
15,900
2,150
200
16,900
1,380
18,300
18,500
2011
87
16,600
2,240
200
17,700
1,430
19,100
19,400
2012
87
16,300
2,260
200
17,500
1,340
18,800
19,100
2013
85
16,600
2,310
200
17,800
1,380
19,100
19,300
2014
86
16,800
2,470
200
18,100
1,400
19,500
19,600
2015
86
15,600
2,430
200
17,000
1,280
18,300
18,300
2016
86
14,500
2,630
200
16,100
1,230
17,300
17,300
2017
85
14,800
2,640
200
16,400
1,200
17,600
17,600
2018
86
15,200
2,690
200
16,800
1,220
18,000
18,000
2019
84
14,000
2,700
200
15,700
1,180
16,900
16,900
2020
83
13,100
2,570
200
14,700
1,170
15,800
15,900
2021
83
13,900
2,670
200
15,700
1,120
16,800
16,800
Source:USGS Minerals Yearbook: Lime, 2002-2021 (annual).
Notes: Totals may not appear to sum correctly due to rounding. Apparent consumption is calculated as total
lime sold or used plus imports minus exports. Imports and exports are presented in Table 2.
Due both to the ready availability of limestone deposits in the U.S. as well as the
transportation costs associated with a heavy commodity, imports make up a small
percentage of overall lime consumption. For the years 1998-2021, Table 2 presents the
quantity of U.S. lime exports and imports, the value of those imports and exports, and the
exports and imports as a percentage of domestic production and consumption, respectively
(USGS, 2002-2021). While exports as a percentage of production and imports as a
percentage of consumption have both increased over time, these percentages are currently
6
-------
approximately two percent. Compared against the world production of lime that also
appears in Table 2, U.S. imports and exports of lime are negligible.
Table 2 Exports and Imports of Lime 1998-2021 (thousand metric tons)
Exports as a
Imports as a
World
Percentage of
Exports
Percentage of
Imports
Lime
Year
Exports
Production
Value
Imports
Consumption
Value
Production
1998
56
0.28%
9,110
231
1.14%
22,700
117,000
1999
59
0.30%
8,270
140
0.71%
15,700
116,000
2000
73
0.37%
9,960
113
0.58%
13,500
121,000
2001
96
0.51%
11,900
115
0.61%
15,100
121,000
2002
106
0.59%
13,100
157
0.88%
19,700
221,000
2003
98
0.51%
13,700
202
1.05%
22,500
238,000
2004
100
0.50%
14,300
232
1.15%
25,900
251,000
2005
133
0.67%
17,500
310
1.53%
33,100
270,000
2006
116
0.55%
19,200
298
1.41%
36,300
285,000
2007
144
0.71%
24,800
375
1.84%
49,600
302,000
2008
174
0.88%
27,100
307
1.53%
39,400
306,000
2009
108
0.68%
18,500
422
2.62%
53,200
291,000
2010
215
1.17%
36,200
445
2.41%
61,500
310,000
2011
231
1.21%
40,100
512
2.64%
69,900
330,000
2012
211
1.12%
36,700
468
2.45%
66,000
330,000
2013
271
1.42%
48,300
394
2.04%
64,100
340,000
2014
320
1.64%
57,600
414
2.11%
67,700
350,000
2015
346
1.89%
62,600
391
2.14%
66,900
370,000
2016
329
1.90%
64,500
376
2.17%
61,500
410,000
2017
391
2.22%
74,200
367
2.09%
62,300
410,000
2018
424
2.36%
83,600
370
2.06%
66,700
420,000
2019
347
2.05%
63,500
342
2.02%
62,500
430,000
2020
266
1.68%
39,100
308
1.94%
57,100
420,000
2021
335
1.99%
53,400
323
1.92%
62,100
430,000
Source: USGS Minerals Yearbook: Lime, 2002-2021 (annual).
Average lime prices between 1998 and 2021 are presented in Table 3 (USGS, 2002-
2021). The real (inflation-adjusted) price of lime ranges from $97.75 per metric ton in
2001 to $151.84 per metric ton in 2020. While the 2020 price was likely influenced by the
temporary closure of some plants due to the global COVID-19 pandemic, the real price has
been on a general upward trend since 2001. Lime producers have cited increased costs of
production as a factor in recent price increases (USGS, 2023).
7
-------
Table 3 Average Lime Prices 1998-2021
Total Value
Average Value
Year
(thousands)
Current $
2022$
1998
1,210,000
60.30
101.97
1999
1,190,000
60.40
100.72
2000
1,180,000
60.60
98.81
2001
1,160,000
61.30
97.75
2002
1,120,000
62.60
98.29
2003
1,240,000
64.80
99.78
2004
1,370,000
68.90
103.32
2005
1,500,000
75.00
109.04
2006
1,700,000
81.20
114.52
2007
1,760,000
87.00
119.48
2008
1,840,000
92.40
124.50
2009
1,660,000
105.00
140.58
2010
1,950,000
107.00
141.56
2011
2,130,000
111.50
144.51
2012
2,230,000
118.50
150.76
2013
2,320,000
121.20
151.54
2014
2,390,000
122.40
150.23
2015
2,290,000
124.40
151.18
2016
2,160,000
125.10
150.52
2017
2,230,000
126.40
149.25
2018
2,340,000
130.50
150.47
2019
2,250,000
133.20
150.88
2020
2,150,000
135.80
151.84
2021
2,320,000
138.00
147.67
Source:USGS Minerals Yearbook: Lime, 2002-2021 (annual).
Table 4 provides expenditures for payroll, materials, and capital, and other
operating expenses in lime manufacturing from 2002 to 2021 in both current and 2022
dollars (U.S. Census Bureau, 2002-2016, 2017, 2018-2021). Costs of materials include all
raw materials, containers, and supplies used in production, repair, or maintenance during
the year, as well as the cost of all electricity and fuel consumed. Capital expenditures
include permanent additions and alterations to facilities and machinery and equipment
used for expanding plant capacity or replacing existing machinery.
The cost of materials is the greatest cost to lime producers. Lime producers typically
spend approximately 60 percent of their total costs on materials, with approximately 30
percent of materials costs being fuels.
8
-------
Table 4 Production Costs for Lime Manufacturing (NAICS 32741) 2002-2021
Annual payroll Total cost of Total capital Total other operating
(millions] material (millions] expenditures (millions] expenses (millions]
Year Current $ 2022$ Current $ 2022$ Current $ 2022$ Current $ 2022$
2002
173
271
437
686
43
67
-
-
2003
167
256
455
701
56
86
-
-
2004
184
276
492
738
76
115
-
-
2005
208
303
555
807
71
103
-
-
2006
212
300
596
840
143
202
-
-
2007
233
320
848
1,164
214
293
120
164
2008
245
330
899
1,212
228
308
114
153
2009
224
300
754
1,010
105
141
101
135
2010
245
325
902
1,194
106
140
109
144
2011
255
331
978
1,267
142
185
112
145
2012
253
321
1,039
1,322
227
289
116
147
2013
257
321
1,064
1,331
155
193
178
222
2014
260
319
1,017
1,248
226
277
180
221
2015
258
314
1,033
1,256
321
390
182
221
2016
258
311
1,006
1,211
188
226
185
222
2017
282
332
1,049
1,239
167
197
187
221
2018
304
350
1,138
1,313
123
142
186
214
2019
308
349
1,153
1,306
198
224
170
193
2020
298
334
996
1,114
117
131
186
208
2021
301
322
1,123
1,201
119
128
205
219
Source: US Census Bureau Annual Survey of Manufactures, 2002-2016; 2018-2021 (annual), US Census
Bureau Economic Census, 2017.
Note: Total other operating expenses not reported for 2002-2006.
2.4 Consumption and Uses of Lime
Lime is widely used in a variety of industries.4 Table 5 summarizes the primary uses
of lime by industry for the period 2014-2021. While many different industries use lime,
lime use generally falls into one of the following categories: chemical and industrial
(including agriculture), metallurgical (including iron and steel production, the largest
single use of lime), construction, environmental, and refractories. In Table 5, a
miscellaneous and unidentified category is also included for years when data was withheld
to avoid disclosing proprietary information.
4 Additional information of the use of lime in the industries discussed in this section can be found at
https://www.graymont.com/en/markets, https://www.carmeuse.com/na-en/markets-applications, and
https: //www.lhoistcom/ en/market.
9
-------
Table 5 Lime Usage in the United States (thousand metric tons)
Use
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
Chemical and industrial
Fertilizer, including aglime
82
77
75
79
86
60
70
67
Glass
186
178
W
W
W
W
W
W
Paper and pulp
942
943
950
919
877
890
831
816
Precipitated calcium carbonate
803
798
690
659
680
607
440
444
Sugar refining
647
640
647
629
631
585
651
566
Other chemical and industrial
1,590
1,580
1,570
1,350
1,550
1,430
1,280
1,380
Total
4,250
4,220
3,930
3,640
3,830
3,570
3,270
3,270
Metallurgical
Steel and iron
Basic oxygen furnaces
2,470
2,140
1,860
1,900
2,300
2,190
1,790
1,960
Electric arc furnaces
3,150
2,570
2,470
2,760
2,650
2,580
2,650
3,100
Other steel and iron
322
251
184
218
237
183
139
197
Total
5,940
4,960
4,520
4,880
5,180
4,950
4,590
5,250
Nonferrous metallurgy
1,390
1,330
1,110
1,100
1,120
1,180
1,120
998
Total metallurgical
7,330
6,280
5,630
5,980
6,300
6,130
5,710
6,250
Construction
Asphalt
207
196
238
261
247
188
162
141
Building Uses
269
323
272
289
254
251
254
244
Soil stabilization
1,220
1,330
1,410
1,350
1,290
1,470
1,580
1,640
Other construction
43
62
46
32
57
57
62
59
Total
1,740
1,910
1,970
1,930
1,850
1,960
2,060
2,080
Environmental
Flue gas treatment
Utility powerplants
3,660
3,310
3,160
3,440
3,400
2,420
2,090
2,450
Incinerators
194
235
203
178
155
150
192
154
Industrial boilers and other
flue gas treatment
164
213
255
254
277
271
270
316
Total
4,020
3,760
3,620
3,870
3,830
2,840
2,550
2,920
Sludge treatment
Sewage
110
104
129
123
133
128
117
130
Other, industrial, and hazardous
196
262
W
W
W
W
W
W
Total
306
365
129
123
133
128
117
130
Water treatment
Acid-mine drainage
85
88
W
W
W
W
W
W
Drinking water
861
907
808
787
788
815
832
816
Wastewater
517
426
390
364
349
424
383
411
Total
1,460
1,420
1,200
1,150
1,090
1,240
1,220
1,220
Other environmental
190
155
151
221
213
189
131
112
Total environmental
5,980
5,700
5,100
5,370
5,260
4,400
4,020
4,390
Refractories (dead-burned dolomite)
219
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
-------
Use
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
Miscellaneous and unspecified
-
-
505
538
613
653
588
613
Grand total
19,500
18,300
17,300
17,600
18,000
16,900
15,800
16,800
Source:USGS Minerals Yearbook: Lime, 2002-2021 (annual).
Note: W indicates data withheld to avoid disclosing proprietary data. These values are included in the
Miscellaneous and unspecified category.
Table 6 summarizes the use of hydrated lime by industry over the same time period.
While quicklime and hydrated lime can often be used interchangeably, some applications
prefer one or the other depending on the feed rate of the process or the reactivity required.
Likewise, high-calcium and dolomitic quicklime can often be used interchangeably, but
some processes and agricultural uses require the magnesium present in dolomitic
quicklime. The largest use of hydrated lime is in the construction industry.
Table 6 Hydrated Lime Usage in the United States, 2014-2021 (thousand metric
tons)
Use
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
Chemical and industrial
643
564
554
519
542
615
625
653
Construction
Asphalt
182
172
215
237
218
149
126
113
Building uses
256
266
268
263
252
248
250
241
Soil stabilization and other
construction
471
487
570
574
541
618
607
604
Total
909
925
1,050
1,070
1,010
1,020
984
958
Environmental
Flue gas treatment:
Utility powerplants
269
260
332
359
411
361
303
363
Incinerators
31
30
24
27
25
22
22
22
Industrial boilers and other
flue gas treatment
56
80
104
99
103
111
97
125
Total
356
369
460
485
539
494
422
511
Sludge treatment
Sewage
30
29
36
33
42
29
18
17
Other sludge treatment
69
84
82
99
90
91
101
108
Total
99
113
117
132
132
120
119
125
Water treatment
Acid-mine drainage
27
38
35
35
56
41
43
43
Drinking water
157
159
125
120
111
123
126
138
Wastewater
183
146
151
120
125
138
109
113
Total
367
342
311
275
292
301
277
293
Other environmental
52
54
56
82
88
63
57
37
11
-------
Use
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
Metallurgy
44
65
79
74
87
89
84
92
Grand total
2,470
2,430
2,630
2,640
2,690
2,700
2,570
2,670
Source:USGS Minerals Yearbook: Lime, 2002-2021 (annual).
In agriculture, lime is used as a soil conditioner to manage pH and improve soil
structure, as an additive to animal feed, and to manage pond pH in aquaculture. In the food
industry, hydrated lime is used as a food processing agent, while lime is also used in the
storage of fruits and vegetables as well as in sugar production. Lime is used in glass and
fiberglass production as a fluxing agent, to manage viscosity, and to improve durability and
chemical resistance. In the pulp and paper industry, lime is used for the treatment of liquid
wastes from sulfite-pulping processes, it is an important part of the Kraft-pulping process,
and it is used as a coagulant in color removal.
In the steel industry, lime is used to convert iron into pig iron, as a fluxing agent to
remove impurities from steel being manufactured, or to enhance the refractory life of the
furnaces. Hydrated lime may also be used as a lubrication agent when drawing steel rods,
for pH correction in wastewater, and for bathing finished steel products or as a whitewash
coating on the steel. Lime is a key component in several processes in the production of
nonferrous metal.5
In the mining industry, both quicklime and hydrated lime are widely used in
processes to aid the recovery of valuable minerals and metals from ore. Lime is also used to
refine trona ore to produce soda ash (Na2C03) and caustic soda (NaOH), which are
themselves widely used in a variety of industries. It is also used in the treatment of mine
tailings and land reclamation.
In construction, lime is used for soil conditioning and stabilization, fill drying, and as
a filler for asphalt manufacture. Masonry applications include uses as a component of
mortars, stucco, or plasters. Environmental uses of lime include its use as a reagent in
emissions control devices, particularly in wet and dry flue-gas desulfurization (FGD)
5 Additional information on metallurgical uses of lime can be found at https://www.lime.org/lime-
basics / uses-of-lime / metallurgical-uses-of-lime/.
12
-------
processes. It is also used for water and sewage treatment, treatment of animal wastes,
hazardous waste treatment, and environmental rehabilitation.
Lime kiln dust (LKD), a co-product of the lime manufacturing process, also has a
number of uses. It is commonly used for drying, conditioning, and stabilizing construction
soils. It is also used for environmental remediation and the treatment of industrial waste.
2.4.1 Substitution Possibilities in Consumption
USGS (2023) notes that limestone can be a substitute for lime in many applications,
but there maybe some disadvantages because limestone contains less reactive material.
However, it is considerably less expensive than lime and is a potential substitute for lime in
agricultural applications, as a fluxing agent in the iron and steel industry, and for use in
emissions control devices. USGS (2023) further notes that calcined gypsum is a potential
alternative material in industrial plasters and mortars, while cement, cement kiln dust, fly
ash, and lime kiln dust are potential substitutes for some construction uses of lime.
Magnesium hydroxide is a potential substitute for lime in pH control (USGS, 2023; Gibson &
Maniocha, 2015), and magnesium oxide is a potential substitute for dolomitic lime as a flux
in steelmaking (USGS, 2023).
2.5 Affected Producers
The EPA estimates that there are currently 34 major sources subject to the Lime
Manufacturing NESHAP operating in the United States, with no new sources anticipated in
the foreseeable future.6 An affected source under the NESHAP is the owner or operator of a
lime manufacturing plant (LMP) that is a major source, or that is located at, or is a part of, a
major source of HAP emissions, unless the LMP is located at a kraft pulp mill, soda pulp
mill, sulfite pulp mill, beet sugar manufacturing plant, or only processes sludge containing
calcium carbonate from water softening processes. An LMP is an establishment engaged in
the manufacture of lime products (calcium oxide, calcium oxide with magnesium oxide, or
dead burned dolomite) by calcination of limestone, dolomite, shells, or other calcareous
substances. A major source of HAP is a plant site that emits or has the potential to emit any
6 The January 5, 2023, proposed rule estimated that there were 35 major sources subject to the NESHAP.
United States Lime & Minerals, Inc. has since indicated that they are completing a permit renewal for their
Batesville, AR plant and will no longer be considered a major source.
13
-------
single HAP at a rate of 9.07 megagrams (10 tons) or more, or any combination of HAP at a
rate of 22.68 megagrams (25 tons) or more per year from all emission sources at the plant
site.
The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code for the Lime
Manufacturing industry is 327410. Affected LMPs are also found in facilities with a primary
NAICS of 327120 (Clay Building Material and Refractories Manufacturing), 33111 (Iron and
Steel Mills and Ferroalloy Manufacturing), 212391 (Potash, Soda, and Borate Mineral
Mining), or 327310 (Cement Manufacturing).
NAICS 327410 comprises establishments primarily engaged in manufacturing lime
from calcitic limestone, dolomitic limestone, or other calcareous materials, such as coral,
chalk, and shells. Lime manufacturing establishments may mine, quarry, collect, or
purchase the sources of calcium carbonate. NAICS 327120 comprises establishments
primarily engaged in shaping, molding, baking, burning, or hardening clay refractories,
nonclay refractories, ceramic tile, structural clay tile, brick, and other structural clay
building materials. A refractory is a material that will retain its shape and chemical identity
when subjected to high temperatures and is used in applications that require extreme
resistance to heat, such as furnace linings. NAICS 33111 comprises establishments
primarily engaged in one or more of the following: (1) direct reduction of iron ore; (2)
manufacturing pig iron in molten or solid form; (3) converting pig iron into steel; (4)
making steel; (5) making steel and manufacturing shapes (e.g., bar, plate, rod, sheet, strip,
wire); (6) making steel and forming pipe and tube; and (7) manufacturing
electrometallurgical ferroalloys. Ferroalloys add critical elements, such as silicon and
manganese for carbon steel and chromium, vanadium, tungsten, titanium, and
molybdenum for low- and high-alloy metals. Ferroalloys include iron-rich alloys and more
pure forms of elements added during the steel manufacturing process that alter or improve
the characteristics of the metal.
In the 2022 NAICS revisions, NAICS 212391 was combined with three similar NAICS
codes to form NAICS 212390 (Other Nonmetallic Mineral Mining and Quarrying). NAICS
212390 comprises establishments primarily engaged in developing the mine site, mining,
and/or milling or otherwise beneficiating (i.e., preparing) nonmetallic minerals (except
14
-------
coal, stone, sand, gravel, clay, and ceramic and refractory minerals). NAICS 327310
comprises establishments primarily engaged in manufacturing Portland, natural, masonry,
pozzolanic, and other hydraulic cements.
The total number of firms and establishments in each NAICS with facilities
potentially affected by this proposed rule, as well as their employment and annual payroll
are summarized in Table 7 below. The information in Table 7 is not meant to serve as an
exhaustive presentation for each affected industry but is instead meant to serve as a high-
level summary of potentially relevant information for these industries. The impacts on the
specific facilities expected to be affected by this proposed rule, as well as on the companies
that own them, are discussed in Chapter 6.
Table 7 Number of Firms and Establishments, Employment, and Annual Payroll for
Affected Industries: 2020
Annual
NAICS NAICS Description Firms Establishments Employment Payroll
($1,000)
212391 Potash, Soda, and Borate Mineral Mining
15
18
3,161
326,765
327120 Clay Building Material and Refractories Manufacturing
346
492
24,146
1,218,005
327130 Cement Manufacturing
89
189
11,819
1,030,337
327410 Lime Manufacturing
31
101
4,371
304,755
33111 Iron and Steel Mills and Ferroalloy Manufacturing
260
409
87,803
7,335,531
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Statistics of U.S. Businesses.
15
-------
3 ENGINEERING COST ANALYSIS
3.1 Introduction
This chapter provides a summary of the engineering cost analysis conducted for this
rulemaking. Section 3.2 describes the affected sources. Section 3.3 briefly describes the
methodology employed in the engineering cost analysis and presents the results of that
analysis. Section 3.4 characterizes the uncertainty in the engineering cost estimates.
3.2 Affected Sources
The current Lime Manufacturing NESHAP defines the affected source as each lime
kiln and its associated cooler and each individual processed stone handling (PSH)
operations system. The PSH operations system includes all equipment associated with PSH
operations beginning at the process stone storage bin(s) or open storage pile(s) and ending
where the process stone is fed into the kiln. It includes man-made process stone storage
bins (but not open process stone storage piles), conveying system transfer points, bulk
loading or unloading systems, screening operations, surge bins, bucket elevators, and belt
conveyors. The materials processing operations associated with lime products, lime kiln
dust handling, quarry or mining operations, limestone sizing operations, and fuels are not
subject to the NESHAP. Finally, lime hydrators and cooler nuisance dust collectors are not
included under the definition of affected source under the NESHAP.
This proposed rule addresses currently unregulated emissions of HAP from the lime
manufacturing source category. Emissions data collected for the 2020 residual risk and
technology review (RTR) from the exhaust stack of existing lime kilns in the source
category indicated the following unregulated pollutants were present: HC1, mercury,
organic HAP, and D/F. Therefore, the EPA proposed amendments establishing standards
that reflect MACT for these four pollutants emitted by the source category.
The January 5, 2023, proposed amendments included standards using THC as a
surrogate for organic HAP. The EPA received comments opposing the use of THC as a
surrogate for organic HAP. In response to these comments, the EPA re-evaluated the test
data of organic HAP emissions and identified 8 pollutants from the data that were found to
be consistently emitted by the lime manufacturing source category. The list includes both
16
-------
"high volume" and "low volume" organic HAP. These include the following pollutants:
formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, toluene, benzene, xylenes (a mixture of m, o, and p isomers),
styrene, ethyl benzene, and napthalene. The EPA believes that the emissions data of these 8
pollutants best represents the typical organic HAP emissions of the source category, and
that by controlling the emissions of the 8 pollutants a lime manufacturing facility would
also control potential emissions of all other organic HAP. For this reason, the EPA is re-
proposing to use an aggregated emission standard of the 8 organic HAP identified in the
data analysis as a surrogate for total organic HAP. Other comments received led to
revisions and/or corrections in the limits for HC1, mercury, and D/F. A detailed summary of
the proposed standards is provided in the memorandum titled Maximum Achievable
Control Technology (MACT) Floor Analysis for the Lime Manufacturing Plants Industry
Supplemental Proposal, located in the docket for this action.
3.3 Capital Investment and Annual Costs
Using test data submitted through the 2017 Information Collection Request (ICR)
conducted in support of the 2020 RTR in conjunction with additional data provided by the
industry, the costs of control devices expected to be used to meet the proposed standards
were estimated using the methods described in the EPA Air Pollution Control Cost Manual
(US EPA, 2017). Based on comments received about the January 5, 2023, proposed
amendments, the costs of the control technologies were updated. Additionally, all costs
were updated to 2022 using the Chemical Engineering Plant Cost Index annual value for
2022. The capital costs were annualized using an interest rate of 8.25 percent and an
assumed equipment life for all controls of 20 years.7
Detailed information about the control devices used by the industry and
assumptions made to estimate the emission reductions, control costs, and cost
effectiveness are provided in the memorandum titled Cost Impacts for the Lime
Manufacturing Plants Industry Supplemental Proposal, located in the docket for this action.
That analysis found that Activated Carbon Injection (ACI) was the most cost-effective
7 The EPA Air Pollution Control Cost Manual (US EPA, 2017) includes a discussion of interest rate selection.
Specifically, Chapter 2, Section 2.5.2 discusses appropriate interest rates to use for engineering cost
estimation. The prime rate was 8.25 percent in June 2023, when the costs were calculated.
17
-------
control enabling compliance with the mercury standard. Dry Sorbent Injection (DSI) was
the most cost-effective control enabling compliance with the HC1 standard, but some units
will require the use of a Wet Packed Tower Gas Absorber (WPTGA). The organic HAP
standard could be met using ACI with some units also requiring the use of a Regenerative
Thermal Oxidizer (RTO). ACI was also the most cost-effective control for meeting the
standard for D/F. Some units are estimated to require the use of a gas conditioning tower
using water spray injection to lower the temperature of the gas stream for use with these
control devices. The costs of two types of gas conditioning towers that differ in the amount
of cooling provided were estimated. The modeled control cost for each type of control and
gas conditioning tower is presented in Table 8.
Table 8 Modeled Air Pollution Control Device Costs (2022$)
T otal Capital T otal Annual
Investment Cost per Control
Control Type
HAP [si Controlled
per Control
(2022$)
(2022$)
Dry Sorbent Injection
HC1
2,920,000
623,000
Activated Carbon Injection
Mercury, D/F, and Organic HAP
2,310,000
1,360,000
Wet Packed Tower Gas Absorber
HC1
20,300,000
3,520,000
Regenerative Thermal Oxidizer
Organic HAP
5,200,000
1,630,000
Gas Conditioning Tower (Type 1)
-
1,710,000
446,000
Gas Conditioning Tower (Type 2")
-
2,070,000
624,000
Note: Values rounded to three significant figures.
The total capital investment represents the cost of installation of the control. The
annual cost of the control comprises the annualized payments for that capital cost as well
as the annual operation and maintenance costs of these controls. In addition, for the
activated carbon injection control, a lime kiln dust sales loss penalty was included to
account for the loss of an otherwise sellable product due to the use of this control. The
breakdown of total annual cost per control into these components is shown in Table 9.
18
-------
Table 9 Breakdown of Air Pollution Control Device Total Annual Cost (2022$)
Annualized
Operation and
Lime Kiln
Capital Cost
Maintenance Costs
Dust Penalty
Control Type
(2022$)
(2022$)
(2022$)
Dry Sorbent Injection
303,000
320,000
0
Activated Carbon Injection
239,000
604,000
516,000
Wet Packed Tower Gas Absorber
2,110,000
1,420,000
0
Regenerative Thermal Oxidizer
540,000
1,090,000
0
Gas Conditioning Tower (Type 1)
177,000
269,000
0
Gas Conditioning Tower (Type 2)
215,000
409,000
0
Note: Values rounded to three significant figures.
Table 10 summarizes the total estimated control cost by control type, as well as the
percentage of each control type's share of the total capital investment and annual costs.
The largest share of total capital investment and total annual costs is associated with the
activated carbon injection control.
Table 10 Total Cost of Estimated Controls Required for Compliance with Proposed
Standards (2022$)
Number of
Total
Percentage
Total
Percentage
Controls for
Capital
of Total
Annual
of Total
Proposed
Investment
Capital
Costs
Annual
Control Type
Standards
(millions)
Investment
(millions)
Costs
Dry Sorbent Injection
40
117
23%
24.9
14%
Activated Carbon Injection
66
152
30%
89.7
52%
Wet Packed Tower Gas Absorber
4
81.2
16%
14.1
8%
Regenerative Thermal Oxidizer
7
36.4
7%
11.4
7%
Gas Conditioning Tower (Type 1)
66
113
22%
29.4
17%
Gas Conditioning Tower (Type 2)
5
10.4
2%
3.12
2%
Total
510
100%
173
100%
Note: Values rounded to three significant figures.
Table 11 summarizes the total estimated control cost by the pollutant controlled.
The largest shares of the control costs are associated with the control of HC1 and mercury.
19
-------
Table 11 Total Cost of Estimated Controls Required for Compliance with Proposed
Standards, by Pollutant Controlled (2022$)
HAP
Total
Capital
Investment
(millions)
Percentage
of Total
Capital
Investment
Total
Annual
Costs
(millions)
Percentage
of Total
Annual
Costs
HC1
240
47%
50
29%
Mercury
221
43%
105
61%
Organic HAP
46
9%
16
9%
Dioxins/Furans
3
1%
2
1%
Total
510
100%
173
100%
Note: Values rounded to three significant figures.
While the more stringent beyond-the-floor option was not chosen after
consideration of cost-effectiveness, for completeness the costs of estimated controls
required to comply with this option are presented in Table 12, and Table 13 summarizes
the total estimated control cost of the beyond-the-floor option by the pollutant controlled.
Table 12 Total Cost of Estimated Controls Required for Compliance with Beyond-
the-Floor Option (2022$)
Control Type
Number of
Controls for
Proposed
Standards
Total
Capital
Investment
(millions)
Percentage
of Total
Capital
Investment
Total
Annual
Costs
(millions)
Percentage
of Total
Annual
Costs
Dry Sorbent Injection
36
105
10%
22.4
8%
Activated Carbon Injection
72
166
16%
97.8
36%
Wet Packed Tower Gas Absorber
30
609
58%
106
39%
Regenerative Thermal Oxidizer
7
36.4
3%
11.4
4%
Gas Conditioning Tower (Type 1)
67
114
11%
29.9
11%
Gas Conditioning Tower (Type 2)
5
10.4
1%
3.12
1%
Total
1,040
100%
270
100%
Note: Values rounded to three significant figures.
20
-------
Table 13 Total Cost of Estimated Controls Required for Compliance with Beyond-
the-Floor Option, by Pollutant Controlled (2022$)
HAP
Total
Capital
Investment
(millions)
Percentage
of Total
Capital
Investment
Total
Annual
Costs
(millions)
Percentage
of Total
Annual
Costs
HC1
749
72%
137
51%
Mercury
243
23%
115
43%
Organic HAP
46
4%
16
6%
Dioxins/Furans
3
0%
2
1%
Total
1,040
100%
270
100%
Note: Values rounded to three significant figures.
Based on the new and existing source limits for lime kilns, new sources will be
required to demonstrate initial compliance within 180 days after start-up, and existing
sources must demonstrate initial compliance within 3 years after the promulgation of the
final rule. Additionally, consistent with the existing performance testing requirements of
the Lime Manufacturing NESHAP, subsequent performance testing will be required every
five years. Continuous compliance with the emission limits will be demonstrated through
control device parameter monitoring coupled with periodic emissions testing. Consistent
with NESHAP general provisions, a source owner will be required to operate and maintain
the source, its air pollution control equipment, and its monitoring equipment in a manner
consistent with safety and good air pollution control practices for minimizing emissions, to
include operating and maintaining equipment in accordance with manufacturer's
recommendations. Owners will be required to prepare and keep records of calibration and
accuracy checks of the continuous parameter monitoring system (CPMS) to document
proper operation and maintenance of the monitoring system. Consistent with existing
requirements in the Lime Manufacturing NESHAP, a source owner will be required to
submit semi-annual compliance summary reports which document both compliance with
the requirements of the Lime Manufacturing NESHAP and any deviations from compliance
with any of those requirements. Owners and operators will be required to maintain the
records specified by 40 CFR § 63.10 and, in addition, will be required to maintain records of
all inspection and monitoring data, in accordance with the Lime Manufacturing NESHAP.
The costs of these requirements are presented in Table 14 below and summarized in the
supporting statement for the Information Collection Request (ICR) titled NESHAP for Lime
21
-------
Manufacturing (40 CFRPart 63, Subpart AAAAA) (2021 LEAN Proposed Rule), available in
the docket for this action.
Table 14 Testing, Monitoring, Recordkeeping, and Reporting Costs (2022$)
Cost Element
Cost per Respondent
One-time Costs
Development and/or Adjustment of Recordkeeping System
$2,800
Recurring Costs
Annualized Capital and O&M Costs Associated with Testing and Monitoring
$9,570
Familiarization with Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements
$234
Inspection and Maintenance
$467
Performance Testing per facility (first year and every five years thereafter)
$4,670
Performance Test Reporting (first year and every five years thereafter)
$234
Recording and Transmitting Information
$18,300
Semiannual Compliance and Emergency SSM Reports
$2,800
Note: Values rounded to three significant figures.
For this proposed rule, we selected an 8-year analysis period and estimated
compliance will begin in 2024. We selected an 8-year period for the calculations to follow
the technology review cycle in the Clean Air Act (i.e., section 112(d)(6)). Table 15
summarizes for the proposed amendments the total cost of controls as well as testing,
monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting for facilities over the eight-year analysis period.
While existing sources must demonstrate initial compliance within 3 years after the
promulgation of the final rule, for the purposes of this analysis the initial test is assumed to
occur in the first year. Facilities are then assumed to perform an additional test five years
later. Likewise, controls are assumed to be installed in the first year of the rule. As
previously mentioned in Section 3.3, the total annual cost of controls comprises the
annualized capital cost of installed air pollution control devices and the annual operation
and maintenance costs of these controls, as well as a lime kiln dust sales loss penalty for the
activated carbon injection control. The range of estimated annual costs was $0 to $22.6
million per facility, and the average was $5.1 million per facility.8
Detailed results can be found in the 00_LMP_Supplemental_Proposed_Control_Costs_2023.xlsx workbook
available in the docket for this rule.
22
-------
Table 15 Summary of Estimated Costs for the Proposed Amendments in Each of the
First 8 Years After the Rule is Final (2022$)
Year
Total Annual Cost
of Controls
(2022$)
Recordkeeping
and Reporting
(2022$)
Total
(2022$)
2024
$173,000,000
$1,370,000
$174,000,000
2025
$173,000,000
$1,100,000
$174,000,000
2026
$173,000,000
$1,100,000
$174,000,000
2027
$173,000,000
$1,100,000
$174,000,000
2028
$173,000,000
$1,100,000
$174,000,000
2029
$173,000,000
$1,270,000
$174,000,000
2030
$173,000,000
$1,100,000
$174,000,000
2031
$173,000,000
$1,100,000
$174,000,000
Note: Values rounded to three significant figures so totals may not appear to sum correctly.
Table 16 summarizes the costs of the beyond-the-floor option for the same 8-year
analysis period. The testing, monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements are
the same for this option as for the proposed amendments, and the difference in cost reflects
the different mix of controls needed to meet the more stringent standards. The range of
estimated annual costs was $0 to $43.7 million per facility, and the average was $7.95
million per facility.9
Table 16 Summary of Estimated Costs for the Beyond-the-Floor Option in Each of the
First 8 Years After the Rule is Final (2022$)
Year
Total Annual Cost
of Controls
(2022$)
Recordkeeping
and Reporting
(2022$)
Total
(2022$)
2024
$270,000,000
$1,370,000
$272,000,000
2025
$270,000,000
$1,100,000
$271,000,000
2026
$270,000,000
$1,100,000
$271,000,000
2027
$270,000,000
$1,100,000
$271,000,000
2028
$270,000,000
$1,100,000
$271,000,000
2029
$270,000,000
$1,270,000
$272,000,000
2030
$270,000,000
$1,100,000
$271,000,000
2031
$270,000,000
$1,100,000
$271,000,000
Note: Values rounded to three significant figures so totals may not appear to sum correctly.
Consistent with the Office of Management and Budget's Circular A-4, we also
calculated the present value in 2023 of the costs of the proposed amendments using both 3
9 Detailed results can be found in the 00_LMP_Supplemental_Proposed_Control_Costs_2023.xlsx workbook
available in the docket for this rule.
23
-------
and 7 percent discount rates (OMB, 2003). Table 17 below shows the undiscounted stream
of costs per year for the proposed amendments. Capital costs are presented as completely
incurred in their initial year, though large capital expenditures are typically financed over
many years. Because the annualized costs presented in Table 8 assume a 20-year
equipment life, the undiscounted costs are presented over the entire expected life of the
equipment rather than the 8-year period presented in Table 15.
Table 17 Undiscounted Costs of Proposed Amendments 2024-2043 (2022$)
Year
Capital
(2022$)
Non-Capital
Annual Costs
(2022$)
Recordkeeping
and Reporting
(2022$)
Total
(2022$)
2024
$510,000,000
$120,000,000
$1,370,000
$631,000,000
2025
$0
$120,000,000
$1,100,000
$121,000,000
2026
$0
$120,000,000
$1,100,000
$121,000,000
2027
$0
$120,000,000
$1,100,000
$121,000,000
2028
$0
$120,000,000
$1,100,000
$121,000,000
2029
$0
$120,000,000
$1,270,000
$121,000,000
2030
$0
$120,000,000
$1,100,000
$121,000,000
2031
$0
$120,000,000
$1,100,000
$121,000,000
2032
$0
$120,000,000
$1,100,000
$121,000,000
2033
$0
$120,000,000
$1,100,000
$121,000,000
2034
$0
$120,000,000
$1,270,000
$121,000,000
2035
$0
$120,000,000
$1,100,000
$121,000,000
2036
$0
$120,000,000
$1,100,000
$121,000,000
2037
$0
$120,000,000
$1,100,000
$121,000,000
2038
$0
$120,000,000
$1,100,000
$121,000,000
2039
$0
$120,000,000
$1,270,000
$121,000,000
2040
$0
$120,000,000
$1,100,000
$121,000,000
2041
$0
$120,000,000
$1,100,000
$121,000,000
2042
$0
$120,000,000
$1,100,000
$121,000,000
2043
$0
$120,000,000
$1,100,000
$121,000,000
Note: Values rounded to three significant figures so totals may not appear to sum correctly.
Recordkeeping and Reporting values for 2024, 2029, 2034, and 2039 include cost of required
performance test.
Table 18 shows the 2023 present values and equivalent annualized values of the
costs shown in Table 17 at 3 and 7 percent discount rates. The equivalent annualized value
is calculated over 20 years.
24
-------
Table 18 2023 Present Value and Equivalent Annualized Value of Costs of Proposed
Amendments 2024-2043 (2022$)
3% Discount Rate
7% Discount Rate
Present Value
$2,430,000,000
$2,010,000,000
Equivalent Annualized Value
$164,000,000
$190,000,000
Note: Values rounded to three significant figures.
Table 19 reports the undiscounted stream of costs per year for the beyond-the-floor
option over the same 2024-2043 period.
Table 19 Undiscounted Costs of Beyond-the-Floor Option 2024-2043 (2022$)
Year
Capital
(2022$)
Non-Capital
Annual Costs
(2022$)
Recordkeeping
and Reporting
(2022$)
Total
(2022$)
2024
$1,040,000,000
$162,000,000
$1,370,000
$1,200,000,000
2025
$0
$162,000,000
$1,100,000
$163,000,000
2026
$0
$162,000,000
$1,100,000
$163,000,000
2027
$0
$162,000,000
$1,100,000
$163,000,000
2028
$0
$162,000,000
$1,100,000
$163,000,000
2029
$0
$162,000,000
$1,270,000
$164,000,000
2030
$0
$162,000,000
$1,100,000
$163,000,000
2031
$0
$162,000,000
$1,100,000
$163,000,000
2032
$0
$162,000,000
$1,100,000
$163,000,000
2033
$0
$162,000,000
$1,100,000
$163,000,000
2034
$0
$162,000,000
$1,270,000
$164,000,000
2035
$0
$162,000,000
$1,100,000
$163,000,000
2036
$0
$162,000,000
$1,100,000
$163,000,000
2037
$0
$162,000,000
$1,100,000
$163,000,000
2038
$0
$162,000,000
$1,100,000
$163,000,000
2039
$0
$162,000,000
$1,270,000
$164,000,000
2040
$0
$162,000,000
$1,100,000
$163,000,000
2041
$0
$162,000,000
$1,100,000
$163,000,000
2042
$0
$162,000,000
$1,100,000
$163,000,000
2043
$0
$162,000,000
$1,100,000
$163,000,000
Note: Values rounded to three significant figures so totals may not appear to sum correctly.
Recordkeeping and Reporting values for 2024, 2029, 2034, and 2039 include cost of required
performance test.
Table 20 reports the 2023 present values and equivalent annualized values of the
costs shown in Table 19 at 3 and 7 percent discount rates. As before, the equivalent
annualized value is calculated over 20 years.
25
-------
Table 20 2023 Present Value and Equivalent Annualized Value of Costs of Beyond-
the-Floor Option 2024-2043 (2022$)
3% Discount Rate
7% Discount Rate
Present Value
$3,650,000,000
$3,100,000,000
Equivalent Annualized Value
$246,000,000
$292,000,000
Note: Values rounded to three significant figures.
3.4 Secondary Impacts
In addition to the costs associated with installing and running the control devices
described in Section 3.3, there are secondary impacts associated with these controls. These
secondary impacts typically include the energy needed to power the control devices, solid
waste and wastewater generated from operation of the control devices, and air emissions
that result from the generation of electricity used to operate the control devices. While the
cost of electricity, water, and waste disposal are accounted for in the estimates presented
in Section 3.3, estimates of the total energy, solid waste, and wastewater impacts
associated with the estimated controls required for compliance with the proposed
standards are presented in Table 21. Table 22 presents this information for the estimated
controls required for compliance with the beyond-the-floor option that was not selected.
Table 21 Secondary Impacts of Estimated Controls Required for Compliance with
Proposed Standards
Energy
Solid Waste
Wastewater
Impacts
Impacts
Impacts
Control Type
(mmBtu/yr)
fton/yr)
fgallon/yrl
Wet Packed Tower Gas Absorber
89,600
466
1,120,000
Dry Sorbent Injection
89,600
4,270
-
Regenerative Thermal Oxidizer
157,000
-
-
Activated Carbon Injection
148,000
8,650
-
Heat Exchangers
212,000
-
-
Total
696,000
13,400
1,120,000
Note: Values rounded to three significant figures.
26
-------
Table 22 Secondary Impacts of Estimated Controls Required for Compliance with
Beyond-the-Floor Option
Energy
Solid Waste
Wastewater
Impacts
Impacts
Impacts
Control Type
(mmBtu/yr)
fton/yr)
fgallon/yrl
Wet Packed Tower Gas Absorber
672,000
3,500
8,410,000
Dry Sorbent Injection
80,600
3,840
-
Regenerative Thermal Oxidizer
157,000
-
-
Activated Carbon Injection
161,000
9,440
-
Heat Exchangers
215,000
-
-
Total
1,070,000
16,800
8,410,000
Note: Values rounded to three significant figures.
The energy impacts presented in Table 21 and Table 22 are expected to lead to
increased emissions from electricity generating units (EGUs). Secondary emissions
typically include carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), particulate matter (PM),
particulate matter less than 2.5 microns (PM2.5), sulfur dioxide (SO2), carbon dioxide (CO2),
methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N2O). However, the extent of the increase in these
pollutants is highly dependent on the type of fuel used in the EGUs. The EPA does not have
any information that suggests that facilities in the lime manufacturing source category
generate their own electricity and is requesting comments about the source of electricity
for these facilities. Because the EPA is not able to determine the source of electricity for
affected lime manufacturing plants, estimates of secondary emissions impacts are not
presented in this RIA.
3.5 Characterization of Uncertainty
It is important to note that the cost estimates presented in this chapter are subject
to multiple sources of uncertainty. The proposed rule does not dictate that controls must
be installed to control pollutants, and companies may find alternative methods to comply
with the emissions limits. If companies are able to find alternative methods to comply, then
the costs presented in this RIA may be overestimates. Furthermore, while the EPA has
estimated the costs of controls in accordance with the methodology laid out in the EPA Air
Pollution Control Cost Manual, these estimates necessarily include assumptions that may
not be true for all facilities that install controls. The assumptions include but are not limited
to the cost of equipment, labor, and utilities, as well as the interest rate firms will be able to
27
-------
obtain when financing capital expenditures. While the EPA has attempted to use the most
recent data available and believes these costs are a conservative estimate of the costs of
necessary emissions controls, the costs may be overestimated if the amount of emissions
reductions required to comply with the standards was overestimated in the engineering
cost analysis or if alternative, less expensive controls could be used to obtain the same
reductions. Likewise, the costs may be underestimated if the amount of emissions
reductions required to comply with the standards was underestimated in the engineering
cost analysis or if the controls the EPA assumed will be needed are not able to obtain the
required reductions.
The EPA was not able to determine how the compliance measures might affect
capacity at facilities, or whether and how long facilities would need to close to complete
upgrades and thus lose revenue during that time. However, the EPA did include a penalty
for the loss of sales of lime kiln dust associated with the activated carbon injection control,
in response to concerns expressed by the industry during the small business outreach
process.
Finally, there may be an opportunity cost associated with the installation of
environmental controls (for purposes of mitigating the emission of pollutants) that is not
reflected in the compliance costs included in this chapter. If environmental investment
displaces investment in productive capital, the difference between the rate of return on the
marginal investment (which is discretionary in nature) displaced by the mandatory
environmental investment is a measure of the opportunity cost of the environmental
requirement to the regulated entity. To the extent that any opportunity costs are not
included in the control costs, the compliance costs for this proposed action may be
underestimated.
28
-------
4 BENEFITS OF EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS
4.1 Introduction
The EPA was unable to monetize the benefits from the estimated mercury, HC1, THC,
and D/F emissions reductions associated with the proposed amendments to the NESHAP.
However, it is reasonable to expect that, were the Agency able to do so, reducing emissions
of the pollutants below would reduce the incidence of adverse effects among the exposed
populations. Monetization of the benefits of reductions in cancer incidences requires
several important inputs, including central estimates of cancer risks, estimates of exposure
to carcinogenic HAP, and estimates of the value of an avoided case of cancer (fatal and non-
fatal). Due to methodology and data limitations, we did not attempt to monetize the health
benefits of reductions in HAP in this analysis. Instead, we are providing a qualitative
discussion of the health effects associated with HAP emitted from sources subject to
control under the proposed action. The EPA remains committed to improving methods for
estimating HAP benefits by continuing to explore additional aspects of HAP-related risk
from the lime manufacturing sector, including the distribution of that risk. EPA requests
comment on approaches for better characterizing the number and value of HAP-
attributable adverse effects.
As shown in Table 23, the proposed standards are expected to result in the
reduction of 884 tons of HC1 per year, 0.23 tons of mercury per year, 20 tons of organic
HAP per year, and 0.000000047 tons of dioxins/furans compared to the allowable
emissions under the current NESHAP. The beyond-the-floor option that was not selected
would have resulted in the reduction of an additional 568 tons of HC1 per year and 0.01
tons of mercury per year.
Table 23 Estimated HAP Reductions
Emissions Reductions (tons/yr)
Baseline Emissions
Proposed
Beyond-the-Floor
HAP
(tons/yr)
Standards
Option
Hydrogen Chloride [HC1]
2,230
884
1,453
Mercury (Hg)
0.32
0.23
0.24
Organic HAP Aggregate [oHAP]
106
20
20
Dioxins/Furans [DF]
0.0000013
0.000000047
0.000000047
29
-------
While we expect these emissions reductions to have beneficial effects on air quality
and public health for populations exposed to emissions from lime manufacturing facilities,
we have determined that quantification of those benefits cannot be accomplished for this
proposed rule. This is not to imply that there are no benefits of the proposal. Rather, it is a
reflection of the difficulties in modeling the health effects and monetizing the benefits of
reducing HAP emissions from this source category with the data currently available. The
rest of this chapter provides a qualitative discussion of the health effects associated with
the pollutants that will be controlled as a result of the proposed amendments to the
NESHAP.
4.2 Hydrogen Chloride
Hydrogen chloride is a corrosive gas that can cause irritation of the mucous
membranes of the nose, throat, and respiratory tract. Brief exposure to 35 ppm causes
throat irritation, and levels of 50 to 100 ppm are barely tolerable for 1 hour (ATSDR, 2014).
The greatest impact is on the upper respiratory tract; exposure to high concentrations can
rapidly lead to swelling and spasm of the throat and suffocation. Most seriously exposed
persons have immediate onset of rapid breathing, blue coloring of the skin, and narrowing
of the bronchioles. Exposure to HC1 can lead to RADS, a chemically or irritant-induced type
of asthma. Children may be more vulnerable to corrosive agents than adults because of the
relatively smaller diameter of their airways. Children may also be more vulnerable to gas
exposure because of increased minute ventilation per kg and failure to evacuate an area
promptly when exposed. Hydrogen chloride has not been classified for carcinogenic effects
(U.S. EPA, 1995a).
4.3 Mercury
Mercury exists in three forms: elemental mercury (Hg, oxidation state 0); inorganic
mercury compounds (oxidation state +1, univalent; or +2, divalent); and organic mercury
compounds. Elemental mercury can exist as a shiny silver liquid, but readily vaporizes into
air. All forms of mercury are toxic, and each form exhibits different health effects. Acute
(short-term) exposure to high levels of elemental mercury vapors results in central
nervous system (CNS) effects such as tremors, mood changes, and slowed sensory and
motor nerve function. Chronic (long-term) exposure to elemental mercury in humans also
30
-------
affects the CNS, with effects such as erethism (increased excitability), irritability, excessive
shyness, and tremors. The major effect from chronic ingestion or inhalation of low levels of
inorganic mercury is kidney damage. Methylmercury (CH3Hg+) is the most common
organic mercury compound in the environment. Acute exposure of humans to very high
levels of methyl mercury results in profound CNS effects such as blindness and spastic
quadriparesis. Chronic exposure to methyl mercury, most commonly by consumption of
fish from mercury contaminated waters, also affects the CNS with symptoms such as
paresthesia (a sensation of pricking on the skin), blurred vision, malaise, speech difficulties,
and constriction of the visual field. Ingestion of methyl mercury can lead to significant
developmental effects. Infants born to women who ingested high levels of methyl mercury
exhibited mental retardation, ataxia, constriction of the visual field, blindness, and cerebral
palsy (ATSDR, 2022). The EPA has concluded that mercuric chloride and methyl mercury
are possibly carcinogenic to humans (U.S. EPA, 1995b; U.S. EPA, 2001).
4.4 Acetaldehyde
Acetaldehyde is ubiquitous in the ambient environment. It is an intermediate
product of higher plant respiration and formed as a product of incomplete wood
combustion in fireplaces and woodstoves, coffee roasting, burning of tobacco, vehicle
exhaust fumes, and coal refining and waste processing. Acute (short-term) exposure to
acetaldehyde results in effects including irritation of the eyes, skin, and respiratory tract. At
higher exposure levels, erythema, coughing, pulmonary edema, and necrosis may also
occur. Acute inhalation of acetaldehyde has also resulted in a depressed respiratory rate
and elevated blood pressure in experimental animals (U.S. EPA, 1991a). Symptoms of
chronic (long-term) intoxication of acetaldehyde resemble those of alcoholism (Budavari,
1989). In hamsters, chronic inhalation exposure to acetaldehyde has produced changes in
the nasal mucosa and trachea, growth retardation, slight anemia, and increased kidney
weight. The EPA has classified acetaldehyde as a probable human carcinogen (Group B2)
(U.S. EPA, 1991a).
31
-------
4.5 Benzene
Acute effects of benzene inhalation exposure in humans include neurological
symptoms such as drowsiness, dizziness, headaches, and unconsciousness. Exposure to
benzene vapor can cause eye, skin, and upper respiratory tract irritation. Chronic exposure
to benzene is associated with blood disorders, such as preleukemia and aplastic anemia
(ATSDR, 2007a). The EPA's IRIS database lists benzene as a known human carcinogen
(causing leukemia) by all routes of exposure. IRIS found a causal relationship between
benzene exposure and acute lymphocytic leukemia and a suggestive relationship between
benzene exposure and chronic non-lymphocytic leukemia and chronic lymphocytic
leukemia (U.S. EPA, 2003b). IARC has also determined that benzene is a human carcinogen
(IARC, 1987).
4.6 Ethylbenzene
Acute (short-term) exposure to ethylbenzene in humans results in respiratory
effects, such as throat irritation and chest constriction, irritation of the eyes, and
neurological effects such as dizziness. Chronic (long-term) exposure to ethylbenzene by
inhalation in humans has shown conflicting results regarding its effects on the
blood. Animal studies have reported effects on the blood, liver, and kidneys from chronic
inhalation exposure to ethylbenzene. Limited information is available on the carcinogenic
effects of ethylbenzene in humans (ATSDR, 2010a). In a study by the National Toxicology
Program (NTP), exposure to ethylbenzene by inhalation resulted in an increased incidence
of kidney and testicular tumors in rats, and lung and liver tumors in mice (NTP, 1999). The
EPA has classified ethylbenzene as a Group D, not classifiable as to human carcinogenicity
(U.S. EPA, 1991b). IARC classified ethylbenzene as a Group 2B carcinogen, possibly
carcinogenic to humans (IARC, 2000).
4.7 Formaldehyde
Formaldehyde is used mainly to produce resins used in particleboard products and
as an intermediate in the synthesis of other chemicals. Both acute and chronic exposure to
formaldehyde via inhalation can cause irritation to the eyes, nose, and throat, and
increased tearing. Effects from repeated exposure in humans include respiratory tract
32
-------
irritation, chronic bronchitis and nasal epithelial lesions such as metaplasia and loss of
cilia. Animal studies suggest that formaldehyde may also cause airway inflammation—
including eosinophil infiltration into the airways (ATSDR, 1999c). Some studies have
shown that exposure to formaldehyde may cause cancer in animals (nose cancer) and
humans (nasopharyngeal cancer). The EPA has classified formaldehyde as a probable
human carcinogen (Group Bl) (U.S. EPA, 1985b).
4.8 Naphthalene
Naphthalene is used in the production of phthalic anhydride; it is also used in
mothballs. Acute exposure of humans to naphthalene by inhalation, ingestion, and dermal
contact is associated with hemolytic anemia, damage to the liver, and neurological
damage. Cataracts have also been reported in workers acutely exposed to naphthalene by
inhalation and ingestion. Chronic (long-term) exposure of workers and rodents to
naphthalene has been reported to cause cataracts and damage to the retina. Hemolytic
anemia has been reported in infants born to mothers who "sniffed" and ingested
naphthalene (as mothballs) during pregnancy (ATSDR, 2005; U.S. EPA, 1998a). Available
data are inadequate to establish a causal relationship between exposure to naphthalene
and cancer in humans. The EPA has classified naphthalene as a Group C, possible human
carcinogen (U.S. EPA, 1998b). IARC classified naphthalene as possibly carcinogenic to
humans, Group 2B (IARC, 2002).
4.9 Styrene
Styrene is primarily used in the production of polystyrene plastics and resins.
Humans are exposed to styrene through breathing indoor air that has styrene vapors from
building materials, consumer products, and tobacco smoke. Acute (short-term) exposure to
styrene in humans results in mucous membrane and eye irritation, and gastrointestinal
effects (ATSDR, 2010b). Chronic (long-term) exposure to styrene in humans results in
effects on the central nervous system (CNS), such as headache, fatigue, weakness, and
depression, CSN dysfunction, hearing loss, and peripheral neuropathy (ATSDR, 2010b; U.S.
EPA, 1992). The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has assigned styrene
to Group 2B, possibly carcinogenic to humans, based on limited evidence of carcinogenicity
in animals but supporting data on mechanisms of carcinogenesis (IARC, 2019). The
33
-------
National Toxicology Program (NTP) classified styrene as reasonably anticipated to be a
human carcinogen based on limited evidence of carcinogenicity from human studies,
sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity from animal studies and supporting data on
mechanisms of carcinogenesis (NTP, 2021). The EPA has not assigned a formal carcinogen
classification to styrene (U.S. EPA, 1992).
4.10 Toluene
Toluene is added to gasoline, used to produce benzene, and used as a
solvent. Automobile emissions are the principal source of toluene to the ambient air.
Toluene exposure causes toxicity to the central nervous system (CNS) in both humans and
animals for acute (short-term) and chronic (long-term) exposures (ATSDR, 2017). CNS
dysfunction and narcosis have been frequently observed in humans acutely exposed to
elevated airborne levels of toluene; symptoms include fatigue, sleepiness, headaches, and
nausea. CNS depression has been reported to occur in chronic abusers exposed to high
levels of toluene. Chronic inhalation exposure of humans to toluene also causes irritation of
the upper respiratory tract and eyes, sore throat, dizziness, and headache. Human studies
have reported developmental effects, such as CNS dysfunction, attention deficits, and minor
craniofacial and limb anomalies, in the children of pregnant women exposed to high levels
of toluene or mixed solvents by inhalation (ATSDR, 2017). The EPA has concluded that that
there is inadequate information to assess the carcinogenic potential of toluene (U.S. EPA,
2005).
4.11 Xylenes
Xylenes are released into the atmosphere as fugitive emissions from industrial
sources, from auto exhaust, and through volatilization from their use as solvents. Acute
(short-term) inhalation exposure to mixed xylenes in humans results in irritation of the
eyes, nose, and throat, gastrointestinal effects, eye irritation, and neurological effects (U.S.
EPA, 2003c). Chronic (long-term) inhalation exposure of humans to mixed xylenes results
primarily in central nervous system (CNS) effects, such as headache, dizziness, fatigue,
tremors, and incoordination; respiratory, cardiovascular, and kidney effects have also been
reported (ATSDR, 2007b; U.S. EPA, 2003c). The EPA has classified mixed xylenes as a Group
D, not classifiable as to human carcinogenicity (U.S. EPA, 2003c).
34
-------
4.12 Dioxins and Furans
Dioxins and furans are a group of chemicals formed as unintentional byproducts of
incomplete combustion. They are released to the environment during the combustion of
fossil fuels and wood, and during the incineration of municipal and industrial wastes
(ATSDR, 1998). Dioxins and furans are generally compared to 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-
p-dioxin (2,3,7,8-TCDD) as a reference (or index) chemical because it is relatively well-
studied and the most toxic compound within the group (U.S. EPA, 1985a). Out of all HAPs
for which a health benchmark has been assigned, 2,3,7,8-TCDD is the most potent for both
cancer and non-cancer hazard. 2,3,7,8-TCDD causes chloracne in humans, a severe acne-
like condition. It is known to be a developmental toxicant in animals, causing skeletal
deformities, kidney defects, and weakened immune responses in the offspring of animals
exposed to 2,3,7,8-TCDD during pregnancy. Human studies have shown an association
between 2,3,7,8-TCDD and soft-tissue sarcomas, lymphomas, and stomach carcinomas
(ATSDR, 1998). The EPA has classified 2,3,7,8- TCDD as a probable human carcinogen
(Group B2) (U.S. EPA, 1985a).
35
-------
5 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ANALYSIS
5.1 Introduction
Consistent with the EPA's commitment to integrating environmental justice (EJ) in
the Agency's actions, and following the directives set forth in multiple Executive Orders, the
Agency has carefully considered the impacts of this action on communities with EJ
concerns. The EPA defines EJ as "the just treatment and meaningful involvement of all
people regardless of income, race, color, national origin, Tribal affiliation, or disability, in
agency decision-making and other Federal activities that affect human health and the
environment so that people i) are fully protected from disproportionate and adverse
human health and environmental effects (including risks) and hazards, including those
related to climate change, the cumulative impacts of environmental and other burdens, and
the legacy of racism or other structural or systemic barriers; and ii) have equitable access
to a healthy, sustainable, and resilient environment in which to live, play, work, learn grow,
worship, and engage in cultural and subsistence practices".10 In recognizing that particular
communities often bear an unequal burden of environmental harms and risks, the EPA
continues to consider ways of protecting communities with EJ concerns from adverse
public health and environmental effects of air pollution.
5.2 Demographic Analysis
To examine the potential for any EJ issues that might be associated with lime
manufacturing facilities, we performed a proximity demographic analysis, which is an
assessment of individual demographic groups of the populations living within 5 km
(approximately 3.1 miles) and 50 km (approximately 31 miles) of the facilities. The EPA
then compared the data from this analysis to the national average for each of the
demographic groups. In this section, we focus on the proximity results for the populations
living within 5 km of the facilities. A description of the methodology and the results of this
proximity analysis for populations living within 50 km are included in the technical report
10 https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/04/26/2023-08955/revitalizing-our-nations-
commitment-to-environmentaJ-justice-for-aJJ
36
-------
titled Analysis of Demographic Factors for Populations Living Near Lime Manufacturing
Facilities, which is available in the docket for this action.
A summary of the proximity demographic assessment performed for the major
source lime manufacturing facilities is presented in Table 24. The results show that for
populations within 5 km of the 34 Lime Manufacturing facilities, the following demographic
groups were above the national average: Hispanic/Latino (37 percent versus 19 percent
nationally), linguistically isolated households (21 percent versus 5 percent nationally),
people living below the poverty level (27 percent versus 13 percent nationally), people of
color (50 percent versus 40 percent nationally), and people without a high school diploma
(17 percent versus 12 percent nationally).
Table 24 Proximity Demographic Assessment Results for Major Source Lime
Manufacturing Facilities
Population within
Demographic Group Nationwide 5 km
of Facilities
Tolnl Population 32
8,0 If.,2-12
¦1-73,3-1-3
I\;icl' niul Llhnicily hy I'cicenl
White
60%
50%
Black
12%
9%
Native American
0.7%
0.9%
Hispanic or Latino (includes white and nonwhite]
19%
37%
Other and Multiracial
8%
3%
Income hy IVrccnl
Below Poverly Level
13%
27%
Above Poverty Level
87%
73%
lltlucnlion hy I'ei cenl
Over 25 and without a High School Diploma
12%
17%
Over 25 and with a High School Diploma
88%
83%
l.inguislicnlly Isolnlcd hy I'cicenl
Linguistically Isolated
5%
21%
Notes: Nationwide population and demographic percentages are based on the Census' 2015-2019 American
Community Survey 5-year block group averages and include Puerto Rico. Demographic percentages
based on different averages may differ. The total population counts within 5 km of all facilities are
based on the 2010 Decennial Census block populations.
Minority population is the total population minus the white population.
To avoid double counting, the "Hispanic or Latino" category is treated as a distinct demographic
category for these analyses. A person is identified as one of five racial/ethnic categories above:
White, Black, Native American, Other and Multiracial, or Hispanic/Latino. A person who identifies as
37
-------
Hispanic or Latino is counted as Hispanic/Latino for this analysis, regardless of what race this person
may have also identified as in the Census.
The human health risk estimated for this source category for the July 24, 2020, RTR
(85 FR 44960) was determined to be acceptable, and the standards were determined to
provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health. Specifically, the maximum
individual cancer risk was 1-in-l million for actual emissions (2-in-l million for allowable
emissions) and the noncancer hazard indices for chronic exposure were well below 1 (0.04
for actual emissions, 0.05 for allowable emissions). The noncancer hazard quotient for
acute exposure was 0.6, also below 1. The proposed changes to the NESHAP subpart
AAAAA will reduce emissions by 905 tons of HAP per year, and therefore, further improve
human health exposures for populations in these demographic groups. The proposed
changes will have beneficial effects on air quality and public health for populations exposed
to emissions from lime manufacturing facilities.
38
-------
6 ECONOMIC AND SMALL BUSINESS IMPACTS
6.1 Introduction
This chapter presents the economic and small business impact analyses performed
for this rulemaking. Section 6.2 describes the screening analysis that was performed to
determine the impacts to small entities impacted by this proposed rule. Because the EPA
was unable to certify that there will not be a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities, an initial regulatory flexibility analyses was prepared and appears
in Section 6.3. Section 6.4 presents the economic impact modeling that was conducted for
this rulemaking, while Section 6.5 concludes with a discussion of potential employment
impacts of the proposed rule.
6.2 Screening Analysis
For this proposed rule, the EPA performed a screening analysis for impacts on
affected facilities by comparing compliance costs to revenues at the ultimate parent
company level. This is known as the cost-to-revenue or cost-to-sales test, or the "sales test."
The sales test is an impact methodology the EPA employs in analyzing entity impacts as
opposed to a "profits test," in which annualized compliance costs are calculated as a share
of profits. The sales testis frequently used because revenues or sales data are commonly
available for entities impacted by the EPA regulations, and profits data normally made
available are often not the true profit earned by firms because of accounting and tax
considerations. Also, the use of a sales test for estimating small business impacts for a
rulemaking is consistent with guidance offered by the EPA on compliance with the
Regulatory Flexibility Act and is consistent with guidance published by the U.S. Small
Business Administration's Office of Advocacy that suggests that cost as a percentage of total
revenues is a metric for evaluating cost increases on small entities in relation to increases
on large entities (U.S. SBA, 2017).11
11 The RFA compliance guidance to the EPA rule writers can be found at
https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2015-06/documents/guidance-regflexact.pdf.
39
-------
Section 6.2.1 describes the process for identification of small entities, and the cost-
to-sales ratios for all of the parent companies of affected facilities are presented and
discussed in Section 6.2.2.
6.2.1 Identification of Small Entities
As discussed in Section 2.5, the EPA estimates that there are currently 34 major
sources subject to the Lime Manufacturing NESHAP operating in the United States, with no
new sources anticipated in the foreseeable future. These 34 affected facilities are owned by
11 different parent companies. EPA prepared a small business screening assessment to
determine if any of the identified affected entities are small entities, as defined by the U.S.
Small Business Administration (SBA). The parent companies of affected lime
manufacturing plants fall into one of the NAICS codes in Table 25, which also presents the
associated SBA small entity size threshold for each NAICS code.12 Two of the ultimate
parent companies owning affected facilities are small entities.
Table 25 Affected NAICS Codes and SBA Small Entity Size Standards
Size
Size
standards in
standards in
NAICS
millions of
number of
Code
NAICS Industry Description
dollars
employees
212312
Crushed and Broken Limestone Mining and Quarrying
750
212321
Construction Sand and Gravel Mining
500
327120
Clay Building Material and Refractories Manufacturing
750
327320
Ready-Mix Concrete Manufacturing
500
327410
Lime Manufacturing
1,050
331110
Iron and Steel Mills and Ferroalloy Manufacturing
1,500
486110
Pipeline Transportation of Crude Oil
1,500
523910
Miscellaneous Intermediation
$47.0
Source: U.S. SBATable of Size Standards (March 17,2023),
Table 26 provides information about the 11 parent companies that own affected
lime manufacturing plants. For each parent company, the primary NAICS code of the
business is indicated along with an estimate of the annual sales of the company and the
number of employees, the number of affected facilities and their locations, and if they are
12 The table of SBA's Small Business Size Standards is available at https://www.sba.gov/document/support-
table-size-standards.
40
-------
considered a small business based on the standards presented in Table 25. Of the 11 parent
companies, 2 are considered small, and these 2 parent companies own 3 affected facilities.
Table 26 Ultimate Parent Companies Owning Affected Lime Manufacturing Plants
Primary
Annual
NAICS
Sales
Number of
Small
Affected
Ultimate Parent Company
Code
(millions)
Employees Business? Facilities Facility Locations
Carmeuse Lime, Inc.
212312
1,720
3,725
No
11
Saginaw, AL
Gary, IN
Butler, KY
Maysville, KY
River Rouge, MI
Bettsville, OH
Grand River, OH
Millersville, OH
Annville, PA
Clear Brook, VA
Manitowoc, WI
Cemex, S.A.B. de C.V.
327320
720
40,024
No
1
Ponce, PR
Cleveland-Cliffs Inc.
331110
20,440
11,672
No
1
East Chicago, IN
Genesis Energy, L.P.
486110
2,130
2,100
No
1
Green River, WY
Graymont Limited
327410
820
1,500
No
6
Gulliver, MI
Pleasant Gap, PA
Delta, UT
Eden, WI
Green Bay, WI
Superior, WI
Greer Industries, Inc.
212312
103
430
Yes
1
Riverton, WV
HBM Holdings
523910
452
621
No
2
Verona, KY
Ste. Genevieve, MO
Lhoist Group
327410
2,600
6,400
No
7
Calera, AL (Montevallo Plant)
Calera, AL (O'Neal Plant)
Peach Springs, AZ
Sainte Genevieve, MO
Las Vegas, NV
Clifton, TX
Ripplemead, VA
Magnesita Refratarios SA
327120
283
4,354
No
1
York, PA
Martin Marietta Materials Inc.
212321
4,740
8,700
No
1
Woodville, OH
Pete Lien & Sons, Inc.
327410
150
375
Yes
2
Rapid City, SD
Laramie, WY
Note: Primary NAICS code, annual sales, and number of employees for ultimate parent companies were
derived from multiple sources, including D&B Hoovers, Reference Solutions, and communication
with companies.
United States Lime & Minerals, Inc. was included in the list of ultimate parent companies owning
affected lime manufacturing plants for the original proposed rule. However, this company has since
indicated that they are completing a permit renewal for their Batesville, AR plant and will no longer
be considered a major source.
41
-------
6.2.2 Small Business Impacts Analysis
The cost-to-sales ratios of the proposed amendments for ultimate owners of
affected facilities are presented in Table 27. This table also indicates if the ultimate owner
is considered a small entity based on SBA size standards. The impacts range from 0.02% to
3.9%.
Table 27 Cost-to-Sales Ratios of the Proposed Amendments for Ultimate Owners of
Affected Facilities
Ultimate Parent Company
Small
Business?
Affected
Facilities
Affected
Facilities
with Costs
Sales
f$M")
Total Annual
Costs
Including ICR
Costs ($M)
Cost/Sales
Including
ICR Costs
Carmeuse Lime, Inc.
No
11
11
1,720
47.1
2.7%
Cemex, S.A.B. de C.V.
No
1
1
720
2.5
0.3%
Cleveland-Cliffs Inc.
No
1
1
20,440
4.9
0.02%
Genesis Energy, L.P.
No
1
1
2,130
2.5
0.1%
Graymont Limited
No
6
3
820
31.8
3.9%
Greer Industries, Inc.
Yes
1
1
103
3.5
3.4%
HBM Holdings
No
2
2
1,712
24.4
1.4%
Lhoist Group
No
7
7
2,600
42.7
1.6%
Magnesita Refratarios SA
No
1
1
283
3.6
1.3%
Martin Marietta Materials Inc.
No
1
1
4,740
5.5
0.1%
Pete Lien & Sons, Inc.
Yes
2
2
150
5.4
3.6%
Note: Sales values reflect global sales of all products from parent companies. Because most of the companies
in this list are international or include sales from operations other than lime production, these sales
are not directly comparable to the value of domestic lime sold that can be derived from Table 31.
Information about the lime portion of the sales values in this table is not available.
Table 28 summarizes the cost-to-sales ratios presented in Table 27 by SBA size
category. The bulk of the costs are anticipated to be borne by ultimate parent companies
that are not small by SBA standards. These companies on average have cost-to-sales ratios
that are smaller than those of small entities, but the maximum estimated impact is for a
non-small company. The two small companies have an average cost-to-sales ratio of 3.5%.
Table 28 Summary of Cost-to-Sales Ratios of the Proposed Amendments by SBA Size
Category
Small
Ultimate
Parent
Affected
Total Annual
Costs Including
Percentage of
T otal Annual
Cost/Sales Including ICR Costs
Business?
Companies
Facilities
ICR Costs ($M)
Costs
Minimum Average Maximum
No
9
28
165.7
95.2%
0.02% 1.3% 3.9%
Yes
2
3
8.9
5.1%
3.5% 3.5% 3.6%
42
-------
The cost-to-sales ratios of the beyond-the-floor option that was not selected are
presented in Table 29. These impacts range from 0.02% to 5.6%.
Table 29 Cost-to-Sales Ratios of the Beyond-the-Floor Option for Ultimate Owners of
Affected Facilities
Ultimate Parent Company
Small
Business?
Affected
Facilities
Affected
Facilities
with Costs
Sales
f$M")
Total Annual
Costs
Including ICR
Costs ($M)
Cost/Sales
Including
ICR Costs
Carmeuse Lime, Inc.
No
11
11
1,720
90.6
5.3%
Cemex, S.A.B. de C.V.
No
1
1
720
2.5
0.3%
Cleveland-Cliffs Inc.
No
1
1
20,440
4.9
0.02%
Genesis Energy, L.P.
No
1
1
2,130
2.5
0.1%
Graymont Limited
No
6
3
820
46.1
5.6%
Greer Industries, Inc.
Yes
1
1
103
3.5
3.4%
HBM Holdings
No
2
2
1,712
45.6
2.7%
Lhoist Group
No
7
7
2,600
60.3
2.3%
Magnesita Refratarios SA
No
1
1
283
3.6
1.3%
Martin Marietta Materials Inc.
No
1
1
4,740
5.5
0.1%
Pete Lien & Sons, Inc.
Yes
2
2
150
6.7
4.5%
Note: Sales values reflect global sales of all products from parent companies. Because most of the companies
in this list are international or include sales from operations other than lime production, these sales
are not directly comparable to the value of domestic lime sold that can be derived from Table 31.
Information about the lime portion of the sales values in this table is not available.
Table 30 summarizes the cost-to-sales ratios presented in Table 29 by SBA size
category. As with the proposed amendments, the bulk of the costs are anticipated to be
borne by ultimate parent companies that are not small by SBA standards. These companies
on average have cost-to-sales ratios that are smaller than those of small entities, but the
maximum estimated impact is for a non-small company. The two small companies have an
average cost-to-sales ratio of 4.0%.
Table 30 Summary of Cost-to-Sales Ratios of the Beyond-the-Floor Option by SBA
Size Category
Small
Ultimate
Parent
Affected
Total Annual
Costs Including
ICR Costs ($M)
Percentage of
T otal Annual
Cost/Sales Including ICR Costs
Business?
Companies
Facilities
Costs
Minimum Average Maximum
No
9
28
261.4
96.2%
0.02% 2.0% 5.6%
Yes
2
3
10.3
3.8%
3.4% 4.0% 4.5%
It is important to note that the cost-to-sales ratios estimated in this analysis may be
overstated or understated depending on the accuracy of the information in the underlying
43
-------
data on parent company ownership and parent company revenues in addition to the
accuracy of the facility-level engineering costs. The annual sales values for ultimate parent
companies were derived from multiple sources, including D&B Hoovers, Reference
Solutions, and communication with companies. However, as most of the companies in this
industry are privately held and do not publicly report their sales, there is considerable
uncertainty regarding the accuracy of this data. Likewise, there are uncertainties
associated with the cost estimates. These uncertainties are discussed in Section 3.4.
Because of the magnitude of the estimated impacts on the two small entities affected
by this rule, the EPA is unable to certify that there will not be a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities. As a result, the EPA prepared an initial regulatory
flexibility analysis (IRFA) and convened a Small Business Advocacy Review (SBAR) Panel.
These are discussed in the following section.
6.3 Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
This section presents the IRFA for this proposed rule. This section describes the
methods used to perform the small entity screening conducted for this proposal and the
results of the screening. A small entity screening is used to determine whether a regulatory
action may have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
(SISNOSE). Thresholds for what constitutes 'significant' for economic impacts and
'substantial' for the number of small entities are outlined in guidance prepared for the
Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) as amended by the Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA).
The EPA did not certify a 'no SISNOSE' determination for this proposal as the small
entity screening analysis discussed in Section 6.2 identified the potential for significant cost
impacts on a substantial share of the small entities affected by this proposed rule. When a
'no SISNOSE' determination cannot be certified, the agency responsible for issuing the
regulation in question must complete an IRFA. This section describes the IRFA conducted
for this proposed rule, including summaries of the EPA's small entity outreach and the
SBAR Panel's suggestions to reduce impacts on small businesses.
44
-------
6.3.1 Regulatory Flexibility Act Background
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA; 5 U.S.C.§ 601 et seq.), as amended by the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (Public Law No. 104-121), provides that
whenever an agency is required to publish a general notice of proposed rulemaking, it must
prepare and make available an IRFA, unless it certifies that the proposed rule, if
promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities (5 U.S.C. § 605[b]). Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and
small governmental jurisdictions. An IRFA describes the economic impact of the proposed
rule on small entities and any significant alternatives to the proposed rule that would
accomplish the objectives of the rule while minimizing significant economic impacts on
small entities. Pursuant to section 603 of the RFA, the EPA prepared an IRFA that examines
the impact of the proposed rule on small entities along with regulatory alternatives that
could minimize that impact.
The EPA will prepare a Small Entity Compliance Guide to help small entities comply
with this rule when it is finalized. As required by section 604 of the RFA, the EPA will
prepare a final regulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA) for this action as part of the final rule.
The FRFA will address the issues raised by public comments on the IRFA.
6.3.2 Reasons Why Action is Being Considered
This industry is regulated by the EPA because pollutants emitted from lime
manufacturing facilities are considered to cause or contribute significantly to air pollution
that may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health. This action is being
proposed to comply with CAA section 112 requirements, which direct the EPA to complete
periodic reviews of NESHAPs following initial promulgation. The proposed requirements
are being considered to address unacceptable health risks linked to emissions from lime
manufacturing facilities and to provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health.
6.3.3 Statement of Objectives and Legal Basis for Proposed Rule
The EPA is required under CAA section 112(d) to establish emission standards for
each category or subcategory of major and area sources of HAPs listed for regulation in
45
-------
section 112(b). These standards are applicable to new or existing sources of HAPs and
require the maximum degree of emission reduction. These MACT standards are based on
emissions levels that are already being achieved by the best-controlled and lowest-emitting
sources in an industry. Within eight years of setting the MACT standards, the CAA directs
EPA to assess the remaining health risks from each source category to determine whether
the MACT standards protect public health with an ample margin of safety and protect
against adverse environmental effects. The EPA is also required to review these standards
set under CAA section 112 every eight years following their promulgation and revise them
as necessary to account for improvements in air pollution controls and/or prevention.
This action proposes to amend the Lime Manufacturing NESHAP, which was
previously amended when the EPA finalized the residual risk and technology review on
July 24, 2020. In the Louisiana Environmental Action Networks. EPA (LEAN) decision issued
on April 21, 2020, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit)
held that the EPA has an obligation to address unregulated emissions from a source
category when the Agency conducts the 8-year technology review required by Clean Air Act
(CAA) section 112(d)(6).13
This proposed rule addresses currently unregulated emissions of HAP from the lime
manufacturing source category. Emissions data collected for the 2020 RTR from the
exhaust stack of existing lime kilns in the source category indicated the following
unregulated pollutants were present: HC1, mercury, organic HAP, and D/F. Therefore, the
EPA is proposing amendments establishing standards that reflect MACT for these four
pollutants emitted by the source category, pursuant to CAA sections 112(d)(2) and (3).
6.3.4 Description and Estimate of Affected Small Entities
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) describes small entities as "small businesses,"
"small governments," and "small organizations" (5 USC 601). The proposed amendments
being considered by the EPA in this action are expected to affect a variety of businesses,
including small businesses, but would not affect any small governments or small
organizations. The "business" is defined as the owner company, rather than the facility. In
13 Louisiana Environmental Action Network v. EPA, 955 F.3d 1088 (D.C. Cir. 2020) ("LEAN").
46
-------
an IRFA, the EPA evaluates affected entities at the highest level of business ownership, or
the ultimate parent company level. The analysis uses the size of the ultimate parent
company to determine the resources it has available to comply with the rule.
As noted in Section 6.2.2, the 34 affected facilities are owned by 11 ultimate parent
companies, 2 of which were determined to be small entities based on the SBA size
standards. The rule, as proposed, is expected to have significant economic impacts on both
of the small businesses in this source category.
6.3.5 Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance Requirements
The proposed rule requires testing every five years for all pollutants. This is
considered to be the minimum testing requirement for a NESHAP. This is less burdensome
than a continuous emissions monitoring requirement and can therefore be considered to
minimize the monitoring burden for all entities.
6.3.6 Related Federal Rules
Lime manufacturing is also regulated by the EPA under the New Source
Performance Standards for Lime Manufacturing Plants, proposed May 3,1977,
promulgated March 7,1978, 40 CFR part 60 subpart HH. That rule limits particulate matter
(PM) emissions from rotary and lime hydrator kilns.
6.3.7 Regulatory Flexibility Alternatives
Pursuant to sections 603 and 609(b) of the RFA, the EPA prepared an IRFA for the
proposed rule and convened a SBAR Panel to obtain recommendations from small entity
representatives (SERs) that would potentially be subject to the proposed rule.
The SBAR Panel reviewed the information provided by the EPA to the SERs and the
SERs' oral and written comments from the pre-panel outreach and panel outreach. The
Panel's review identified several significant alternatives for consideration by the
Administrator of the EPA that accomplish the stated objectives of the CAA and minimize
any significant economic impact of the proposed rule on small entities. The significant
issues and alternatives identified by the Panel are summarized below. A copy of the full
SBAR Panel Report is available in the docket.
47
-------
6.3.7.1 Health-based standard for HCl
The Panel recommends the EPA consider and take public comment on a health-
based standard for HCl based on CAA section 112(d)(4). With respect to pollutants for
which a health threshold has been established, the Administrator may consider such
threshold level, with an ample margin of safety, when establishing NESHAP emission
standards. The Panel notes that there have been two separate risk analyses performed on
the health impacts of HCl for this source category and both indicated that ambient levels of
HCl resulting from kiln emissions were well below the health effects threshold established
in the EPA Integrated Risk Information System. Therefore, the Panel believes these data are
sufficient to allow EPA to consider the health impacts threshold when setting an HCl
emissions limit. This would be an important step to lessen the impact of the rule on small
businesses.
In response to this recommendation, the EPA is considering if it would be
appropriate to establish health-based emission standards for HCl under CAA section
112(d)(4), and is soliciting public comment on this issue in the current supplemental
proposal.
6.3.7.2 Aggregated organic HAP emission standard
The Panel recommends the EPA consider and take comment on an overall organic
HAP limit rather than a THC limit. The proposed rule used THC as a surrogate for
establishing an emissions limit for organic HAP. The Panel notes that EPA has the option of
setting a standard for organic HAP (the actual pollutant being regulated) rather than
relying on a THC surrogate if data are available. There is organic HAP data available to EPA;
therefore, EPA has the flexibility to set a specific organic HAP limit.
In response to this recommendation, the EPA re-evaluated the test data of organic
HAP emissions and identified 8 pollutants from the data that were found to be consistently
emitted by the lime manufacturing source category. The list includes both "high volume"
and "low volume" organic HAP. These include the following pollutants: formaldehyde,
acetaldehyde, toluene, benzene, xylenes (a mixture of m, o, and p isomers), styrene, ethyl
48
-------
benzene, and napthalene. The EPA believes that the emissions data of these 8 pollutants
best represents the typical organic HAP emissions of the source category. Furthermore, the
EPA believes that controlling the emissions of these 8 pollutants from a lime manufacturing
facility by use of activated carbon or other means would also control potential emissions of
all other organic HAP because the same controls applied to control the 8 pollutants would
also be effective controls for all organic HAP. For this reason, the EPA is re-proposing to use
an aggregated emission standard of the 8 organic HAP identified in the data analysis as a
surrogate for total organic HAP.
6.3.7.3 Use of Intra-quarry variability factor in setting mercury emissions limit
The Panel recommends that the EPA consider intra-quarry variability (IQV) of
mercury in setting the mercury emissions limit. The Panel believes that the EPA should
account for additional sources of variability in this floor determination, namely the long-
term variability of the limestone mercury content that is not captured by a short-term
emissions test.14 The EPA is aware that limestone quarries are immense and are
customarily used from periods of 50 to 100 years. The Panel notes that taking the average
of a three-hour emissions test from one part of the quarry would not necessarily
encompass all the different mercury levels throughout the quarry. The Panel notes that
industry commenters had provided data on mercury content of kiln feed and core samples
of quarry mercury content that they believe could be used to assess this long-term
emissions variability.
In response to this recommendation and public comments on the January 5, 2023,
proposed rule, the EPA reanalyzed the IQV factor to correct mistaken assumptions and
revised the originally proposed mercury emission limit for new and existing quicklime
sources from 24.9 pounds per million tons of lime produced (rounded to 25 lb/MMton) for
14 Because this source category has more than 30 sources, when setting MACT standards EPA looks to the
average emissions of the best performing 12 percent of the sources for which emissions data are available.
However, the test data used to set standards are a short-term snapshot of the emissions for the best
performing kilns. For this reason, in setting MACT standards EPA assesses variability of the best
performers by using a statistical formula designed to estimate a MACT floor level that is equivalent to the
average of the best performing sources based on future compliance tests. For this source category the
limestone quarry adjacent to a lime kiln is an inherent part of the process and it is not possible to find
substitute limestone sources, so variability of mercury emissions is directly tied to the variability of the
mercury content of the quarry.
49
-------
both new and existing sources to 27 lb/MMton for new sources, and 34 lb/MMton for
existing sources in the quicklime subcategory.
6.3.7A Subcategories for HCl emissions limit
The Panel recommends that the EPA retain the subcategories for the HCl numeric
emissions limits unless the EPA sets a health-based standard for HCl. The Panel noted that
the EPA does have the flexibility to set subcategories based on size, class, or type. In the
proposed rule the EPA exercised this flexibility and established separate HCl emissions
limits for different types of lime kilns and different types of lime products. The Panel notes
that this flexibility reduces the economic impacts of the HCl standard by accounting for
differences in emissions that are inherent to the kiln type. The Panel supports this
subcategorization, noting that if the EPA does decide to set a health-based standard then
this issue would become moot.
In response to this recommendation, the EPA has retained the subcategories and in
response to a public comment has added a vertical kiln (VK): dolomitic lime (DL), dead-
burned, dolomitic lime (DB) subcategory
6.3.7.5 Work practice standard for dioxins/furans
The panel recommends that the EPA consider and take comment on setting a work
practice standard for dioxins/furans in place of a numeric limit. The panel believes that the
EPA should set a work practice standard for dioxins/furans rather than a numeric
emissions limit. The Panel notes that Section 112(h)(2) of the CAA allows the
Administrator to set a work practice standard if they determine that the application of
measurement methodology to a particular class of sources is not practicable due to
technological and economic limitations, and that a significant percentage of the D/F data
shows that emissions are below the method detection limit. The Panel believes that the
EPA should review these data to determine if they support a finding that it is not feasible in
the judgment of the Administrator to prescribe or enforce a numeric emissions limit.
The EPA considered this recommendation but does not find that a work practice
standard would be appropriate at this time because the EPA does not have data relating
any work practice to dioxin/furan emissions reductions from lime manufacturing
50
-------
operations. Section 112(h)(3) of the CAA requires any work practice to achieve emissions
reductions equal to that of an emission standard for the same pollutant.
6.4 Economic Impact Modeling
The proposed rule requires lime manufacturers to meet emission standards for the
release of HAPs into the environment. To meet these standards, companies will have to add
emissions control devices to reduce emissions of HC1, mercury, organic HAP, and
dioxins/furans from kilns located at major sources. These changes may result in higher
costs of production for affected producers and impact broader product markets if these
costs are transmitted through market relationships. This section describes and quantifies
potential economic impacts on lime producers and consumers resulting from the
imposition of regulatory costs on lime production facilities.
This section starts with a brief overview of the conceptual approach to estimating
potential economic impacts using a partial equilibrium model. We then present a
discussion of the baseline data and elasticity estimates used to parameterize the economic
model. The results section presents and interprets the results of the economic modeling,
including market-level impacts such as changes in price, domestic production, and imports
and societal-level impacts such as estimates of the change in producer and consumer
welfare. The final section discusses key uncertainties and caveats of the market impact
analysis.
6.4.1 Partial Equilibrium Model Description
The EPA based the partial equilibrium model on the model used in the EIA for the
2003 Lime MACT Standard (U.S. EPA, 2003a). We assume prices and quantities are
determined in a perfectly competitive market for a single lime commodity, where the
market equilibrium is determined by the intersection of market supply and demand curves,
as shown in Figure 1. Under the baseline scenario, a market price and quantity (P, Q) are
determined by the intersection of the downward-sloping market demand curve (DM) and
the upward-sloping market supply curve (SM) that reflects the horizontal summation of the
individual supply curves of directly affected and indirectly affected facilities.
51
-------
Affected Facilities
Unaffected Facilities
a) Baseline Equilibrium
Market
Affected Facilities Unaffected Facilities Market
b) With-Regulation Equilibrium
Figure 1 Market Equilibrium without and with Regulation
Under the regulation, the cost of production increases for directly affected
producers. The imposition of the compliance costs is represented as an upward shift in the
supply curve for each affected facility from Sa to S'a. As a result, as shown in Figure 1, the
market supply curve shifts upward to SM', reflecting the increased costs of production at
these facilities. In the baseline scenario without the standards, the industry would produce
total output, Q, at the price, P, with affected facilities producing the amount qa and
unaffected facilities accounting for Q minus qa, or qu. At the new equilibrium with the
regulation, the market price increases from P to P', and market output (as determined from
the market demand curve, DM) declines from Q to Q'. This reduction in market output is the
net result from output reductions at affected facilities and increases at unaffected facilities
and reductions in consumer demand due to the increases in the market price for the good.
52
-------
6.4.2 Operational Model
To develop quantitative estimates of economic impacts, the Agency developed an
operational model written as a series of equations and solved using the modeling software
GAMS. As described above, this model characterizes baseline demand and supply and the
behavioral responses to changes in production costs and market prices.
6.4.2.1 Supply
Market supply in the lime market is defined as the sum of domestic and foreign
supply, or:
Q ~ tfdom tffor Eq. 1
where Qs represents the quantity supplied, q^om represents supply from domestic plants,
and qjor represents supply from foreign sources (imports).
Parameters of the supply functions were calibrated using baseline production, price
data, and the responsiveness of supply to changes in price (supply elasticity). We use a
Cobb-Douglas supply function for a single representative supplier to represent the total
supply from domestic firms. This function is expressed as follows:
Rdom = A(P - Cdorn)^om Eq. 2
where A is parameter that calibrates the supply equation to replicate baseline production,
P is an estimate of the average market price, cdom is the per-unit emissions control costs
for domestic firms, and s^om is an estimate of the domestic supply elasticity.
Foreign producers do not face additional costs of production with regulation.
However, their output decisions are affected indirectly by price changes expected to result
from the regulation on domestic producers. Foreign supply is expressed as follows:
qfor = BPef°r Eq. 3
where B is a parameter that calibrates the supply equation to replicate baseline production
and £f0ris an estimate of the foreign supply elasticity.
53
-------
6.4.2.2 Demand
Market demand is the sum of domestic and foreign demand, or:
Q ~ tfdom If or
where represents domestic demand and qjor represents exports to foreign
consumers.
Eq. 4
Domestic demand is expressed as follows:
Rdom = CPVdom
Eq. 5
where C is parameter that calibrates the demand equation to replicate domestic demand
and ?7dom is an estimate of the domestic demand elasticity.
Foreign demand is expressed similarly, or:
where D is parameter that calibrates the demand equation to replicate lime exports and
rjf0r is an estimate of foreign demand elasticity.
6.4.2.3 Regulatory-Cost Induced Shifts in the Supply Function
The upward shift in the supply function is calculated by taking the annual
compliance cost estimate and dividing it by baseline output, represented by cdom in Eq. 2,
and subtracting this value from the market price faced by producers. Computing the supply
shift in this manner treats the compliance costs as the conceptual equivalent of a unit-tax
on output.
Typically, the Agency assumes that only the variable cost component of compliance
costs varies with output levels. In that case, the variable costs are the only compliance costs
that affect the firm's decisions regarding how much to produce, and the supply curve is
assumed to shift up by the average variable per-unit operating costs. The fixed cost
component of compliance costs is assumed to only influence the facility's decision
regarding whether to operate or to exit the market. However, compliance expenditures
may depend upon kiln capacity, which is also an important determinant in output levels.
qfor = DP*?'
Eq. 6
54
-------
Thus, we determined that including annual capital costs as part of the supply shift was
appropriate for this analysis.
6.4.2.4 Estimating Changes in Producer and Consumer Surplus
From an economic perspective, the impact of a regulatory action is traditionally
measured by the change in economic welfare that it generates. The regulation's welfare
impacts, or the social costs required to achieve environmental improvements, will extend
to consumers and producers alike. Consumers experience welfare impacts due to changes
in market prices and consumption levels associated with the rule. Producers experience
welfare impacts resulting from changes in pre-tax earnings corresponding with the
changes in production levels and market prices. The relative changes between producer
and consumer surplus provide an estimate of the distribution of regulatory costs between
producers and consumers. However, it is important to emphasize that this measure does
not include benefits that occur outside the market for the specific product, that is, the
impact of reduced air pollution for which there may be substantial market and nonmarket
economic values.
Changes in consumer surplus (ACS) are estimated from changes in prices and
quantities using the following linear approximation formula:
ACS = -AP * Qtaseiine + * AP * AQ Eq. 7
We estimate the changes in consumer surplus for domestic and foreign consumers
separately.
Changes in producer surplus (APS) are estimated from changes in prices and
quantities using the following linear approximation formula:
APS = AP * Qtaseiine + * AP * AQ Eq. 8
where AP represents the net price to the producer. We estimate the changes in producer
surplus for domestic and foreign producers separately. In calculating the producer surplus
change for domestic producers, we additionally deduct the per ton of output estimate of
compliance costs from the new price in calculating the change in price faced by domestic
producers under the rule.
55
-------
6.4.2.5 Baseline Data and Elasticity Estimates
To estimate a model of this type, the EPA would ideally have information on the
quantities of lime produced for commercial sale and for captive use at each facility, as well
as regional market prices. However, there are no publicly available data distinguishing lime
produced for commercial and captive use at the state or regional level, and data on lime
production are often not available at the state or regional level because states with low
levels of production are aggregated or not reported to avoid disclosing individual company
information. Thus, the market for lime was modeled as a national perfectly competitive
market. The perfectly competitive market structure reflects the assumption that individual
facilities have negligible power over the market price of the products and thus take the
prices as "given" by the market.
While affected facilities will have three years to comply with the final regulation
once it is issued, we do not have projections of lime market prices and quantities for future
years. As a result, we analyze the most recent year for which we have baseline data, 2021.
That the economics of future years will differ from 2021 is an important source of
uncertainty in this analysis.
In 2021, the United States had 83 lime plants. These plants produced a total of 16.8
million metric tons of lime. About 15.7 million metric tons was sold commercially, and 1.1
million metric tons was used by producers themselves. Of the lime sold commercially,
quicklime constituted 13.2 million metric tons (84 percent), and hydrated lime constituted
2.5 million metric tons (16 percent).
We used the data in Table 31 to characterize the market in 2021. Domestic
production and import and export quantities for lime were collected from the U.S.
Geological Survey (USGS).15 We used the average price of lime for 2021 as reported by the
USGS. Figure 2 displays trends in aggregate consumption, exports, imports, and inflation-
adjusted prices.
15 We obtained unrounded "Salient Statistics—United States" figures from USGS for 2021 (L. Apodaca, USGS,
personal communication, September 22, 2023).
56
-------
Table 31 Lime Market Baseline Data, 2021
Price ($/metric ton in 2022 dollars)3 148
Domestic Production (metric tons/year) 15,700
Domestic Consumption (metric tons/year)b 15,700
Domestic (metric tons/year) 15,400
Imports (metric tons/year) 323
Exp orts (metric tons/year) 335
Notes: a Converted from a 2021 estimate of average price to 2022 using the Gross Domestic Product-Implicit
Price Deflator.
b Domestic consumption adjusted downward to account for approximately 1,100 tons of lime captive
consumption by producers.
20,000
160
18,000 *'«<""*' '% .«>**
144
16,000 w—-®
128
14,000 \ /
112
12,000 .^¦••-••"¦-•¦¦""" ":'
•.e
| 10,000
96
80
m
CN
CN
O
w
O 8,000
64
O
Q
•c
6,000
48
Ph
4,000
32
2,000
16
• • • • • • 0
^ ^ ^ ^ ^ r^ ^ ^ ^ r^
V .nestic Consumption , v>oits Imports <••••-? ••••¦Price
Figure 2 Market Trends
Table 32 shows the supply and demand elasticities used in the model. In the absence
of available empirical estimates, the domestic supply elasticity was assumed to be 1.0.
Empirical estimates are available for similar commodities (i.e., Portland cement), or
aggregate commodity groups such as stone, clay, and glass, of which lime is one component.
We used the domestic demand elasticity of -0.20 for cement as estimated by Miller et al.
(2023) and foreign supply elasticity of 2.0 for cement as estimated by Broda et al. (2008).
Ho and Jorgensen (1998) report an export demand elasticity of -1.2 for the stone, clay, and
glass industry, which was used in this analysis for the lime export demand elasticity. These
elasticities are also allowed to vary independently to provide estimate ranges for changes
in prices and equilibrium quantities.
57
-------
Table 32 Supply and Demand Elasticities
Supply
Demand
Domestic
1.0a
-0.20b
Foreign
2.0C
-1.2d
a Assumed value.
b Miller etal. (2023)
c Broda et al. (2008)
dHo and Jorgensen (1998)
6.4.2.6 Control Cost Inputs
As described in Section 3 of this RIA, the EPA developed compliance cost estimates
for kilns subject to the proposed rule. To serve as inputs to the analysis, the affected kilns
and associated compliance costs for each category of control are aggregated to the sector-
level. The total annual compliance costs are expressed per unit of output and serve as
"cost-shifters" for the industry aggregate domestic supply function. These costs are
reported in Table 33 for the proposed amendments and the beyond-the-floor option that
was not selected.
Table 33 National Engineering Control Cost Estimates (millions of 2022 dollars)
Total Capital
Investment
Non-capital Annual
Costs
Total Annualized Costs
Proposed Amendments
510
121
174
Beyond-the-Floor Option
1,041
164
272
Note: Figures are rounded to the nearest million dollars. Total capital investment is annualized over an
equipment life of 20 years using an interest rate of 8.25 percent.
Detailed information about the control devices used by the industry and
assumptions made to estimate the emission reductions, control costs, and cost-
effectiveness are provided in the memorandum titled Cost Impacts for the Lime
Manufacturing Plants Industry Supplemental Proposal, located in the docket for this action.
6.4.3 Economic Impact Results
The model presented above suggests that regulated producers attempt to mitigate
the impacts of higher-cost production by shifting the burden on to other economic agents
to the extent the market conditions allow. We would expect the model to project upward
pressure on prices for lime as producers reduced domestic output rates in response to
higher costs. Unaffected foreign production (imports) would increase in response to higher
58
-------
prices. Consumption rates (domestic and exports) would be expected to fall. These
interacting market adjustments determine the social costs of the regulation and its
distribution across stakeholders (producers and consumers). We use the model equations,
baseline data, and elasticities described in Section 6.4.2 and a solver application from the
GAMS software package to compute the price and quantity changes necessary to achieve a
post-regulation equilibrium. The GAMS code used in this analysis can be found in the
docket for this action.
6.4.3.1 National-level Market Impacts
The increased cost of production due to the regulation is expected to increase
the price of lime and reduce lime production and consumption from baseline levels.
The level of increase depends on the responsiveness of consumers and producers to
changes in price, measured by market demand and supply elasticities. As shown in
Table 34, the price of lime increases 5.9 percent under the proposed amendments and
9.3 percent under the beyond-the-floor option that was not selected. While individual
firms in a perfectly competitive market have no ability to unilaterally increase their
price, the market price they receive will change in response to changes in market
conditions, such as the increase in the cost of producing lime under the regulation.
Table 34 National-Level Market Impacts of the Proposed Amendments and Beyond-
the-Floor Option: 2021
Proposed Amendments
Beyond-the-Floor Option
Baseline
Change Change(%]
Change Change(%]
Price ($/metric ton in 2022$) 148
8.8 5.9
[5.7, 9.61 T3.8, 6.31
13.8 9.3
T9.0,15.01 T6.1,10.21
"c IT Domestic Production 15,700
TO TO
-243 -1.5
T-379, -1371 r-2.4, -0.91
-374 -2.4
r-585, -2131 T-3.7,-1.41
2 ^ Imports 323
>3. C
40 12.3
[25, 431 T7.8,12.51
63 19.5
[30,691 112.5,21.41
— u
& u Exports 335
e f-!
-22 -6.7
f-46, -81 [-13.7, -2.71
-34 -10.1
r-68,-121 r-20.3, -3.61
TO CD
o> ^ Domestic Consumption 15,700
-180 -1.1
r-315, -801 r-2.0, -0.51
-277 -1.8
[-485, -1291 r-3.1, -0.81
Note: Point estimates are presented for the assumed elasticities. As a sensitivity analysis, elasticities were
allowed to be their originally assumed to be half their originally assumed elasticity, equal to their
originally assumed elasticity, or double their originally assumed elasticity. With three options per
elasticity, this results in 81 (or 3 '] combinations. The same estimation procedure was used as was
used to produce the point estimates. The ranges of estimates for the values articulated above appear
in brackets and do not represent standard confidence intervals, nor do they imply any distribution or
correlation.
59
-------
Under the proposed amendments, domestic production is estimated to decline
by 243,000 metric tons (1.5 percent), imports are estimated to increase by 40,000
metric tons (12.3 percent), and exports are estimated to decline by 22,000 metric tons
(6.7 percent), resulting in an estimated net decline in the quantity of lime distributed
to the domestic market by about 180,000 metric tons (1.1 percent). Under the beyond-
the-floor option, these impacts are more pronounced. Domestic production is
estimated to decline by 374,000 metric tons (2.4 percent), imports are estimated to
increase by 63,000 metric tons (19.5 percent), and exports are estimated to decline by
34,000 metric tons (10.1 percent), resulting in an estimated net decline in the quantity
of lime distributed to the domestic market of about 277,000 metric tons (1.8 percent).
Although foreign lime suppliers are estimated to gain under the proposed amendments
and the beyond-the-floor option, imports of lime account for such a small share of the
U.S. lime market in the baseline that even a fairly large percentage increase in imports
results in only a small increase in the quantity of lime imported. The fact that imports
account for such a small share of the U.S. lime market implies that transportation costs
are too high for imported lime to be competitive in the majority of the U.S.
In addition to some substitution of imported lime for domestic lime, it is
expected that there would be some substitution towards lime substitutes in response
to an increase in the price of lime. There are substitutes for lime in many of the
markets in which it competes, such as crushed limestone, caustic soda, soda ash, and
other products, although none of these products is a perfect substitute. Potential
substitution is not explicitly quantified in this analysis because of insufficient data.
6.4.3.2 Social Costs
The economic analysis accounts for behavioral responses by producers and
consumers to the regulation (i.e., shifting costs to other economic agents). This approach
provides insights into the way in which the regulatory burden is distributed across
stakeholders. As shown in Table 35, the economic model estimates a partial equilibrium
estimate of the total social cost of the proposed amendments of $173 million and $269
million for the beyond-the-floor option. As noted above, these social cost estimates are
incomplete as they do not account for economic impacts beyond the lime sector or the
60
-------
potential beneficial impacts of the regulation arising from the projected emissions
reductions.
As a result of higher prices and lower consumption levels, domestic consumers are
projected to lose $137 million in consumer surplus under the proposed amendments and
foreign consumers are projected to lose $3 million in consumer surplus. Domestic producer
surplus is estimated to decline by $36 million. Foreign producers are estimated to gain
from the regulation with producer surplus increasing by about $3 million. Under the
beyond-the-floor option, domestic consumers are projected to lose $214 million in
consumer surplus and foreign consumers are projected to lose $4 million in consumer
surplus. Domestic producer surplus is estimated to decline by $55 million under the
beyond-the-floor option. Foreign producers are estimated to gain under the beyond-the-
floor option with producer surplus increasing by about $5 million under this option. Under
both the proposed amendments and beyond-the-floor option, foreign producers benefit
from the higher prices associated with additional control costs on domestic producers and
the fact that they do not have to incur the costs. As shown in Table 35, the majority of costs
associated with the proposed amendments and beyond-the-floor option are passed on to
consumers.
Table 35 Distribution of Social Costs Associated with the Proposed Amendments and
Beyond-the-Floor Option (millions 2022$)
Proposed Amendments Beyond-the-Floor Option
Change in Consumer Surplus
Domestic -137 -214
Foreign -3 -4
Change in Producer Surplus
Domestic -36 -55
Foreign 3 5
Total Surplus Change -173 -269
6.4.4 Caveats and Limitations of the Market Analysis
The lime market impact analysis presented in this section is subject to several
caveats and limitations. As with any modeling exercise, the market impact analysis depends
61
-------
crucially on uncertain input parameters. These parameters include the cost to firms of
compliance, baseline price and quantity data, and elasticity estimates.
Of particular importance in model interpretation is that the model estimates the
impact of regulatory costs on the production and consumption of a lime aggregate, where
in reality there are several types of lime products used for different purposes. To the extent
that the regulatory costs differ across different lime products, the economic impact results
of this single-product model would differ from a model that characterized differentiated
lime products.
As mentioned earlier, we do not have projections of lime market prices and
quantities for future years. As a result, we analyze the most recent year for which we have
baseline data, 2021. That the economics of future years will differ from 2021 is an
important source of uncertainty in this analysis. This analysis also uses a single-period
model whereas dynamic effects of regulation on investment may be an important feature of
the lime market.
This analysis does not distinguish between different regions of the United States.
The cost of producing lime products likely varies over the U.S. Compliance costs may also
vary regionally. Impacts to lime production would likely be larger in regions with higher
production costs or higher compliance costs. This could result in different price changes in
different regions of the country to the extent lime cannot be easily transported large
distances.
The choice of supply and demand elasticities are important sources of uncertainty.
As discussed earlier, we were unable to obtain lime-specific elasticity estimates and chose
available estimates for similar products from the cement, stone, clay, and glass industries,
as well as making the strong assumption that the domestic elasticity of supply is 1.0 absent
an empirical estimate. The choice of trade elasticities is also especially important in that
lime may not be traded internationally to the same extent as the trade on the products from
which the trade elasticities were estimated.
62
-------
6.5 Employment Impacts
This section presents an overview of the various ways that environmental
regulation can affect employment. Employment impacts of environmental regulations are
generally composed of a mix of potential declines and gains in different areas of the
economy over time. Regulatory employment impacts can vary across occupations, regions,
and industries; by labor and product demand and supply elasticities; and in response to
other labor market conditions. Isolating such impacts is a challenge, as they are difficult to
disentangle from employment impacts caused by a wide variety of ongoing, concurrent
economic changes. The EPA continues to explore the relevant theoretical and empirical
literature and to seek public comments in order to ensure that the way the EPA
characterizes the employment effects of its regulations is reasonable and informative.
Environmental regulation "typically affects the distribution of employment among
industries rather than the general employment level" (Arrow et al., 1996). Even if impacts
are small after long-run market adjustments to full employment, many regulatory actions
have transitional effects in the short run (U.S. OMB, 2015). These movements of workers in
and out of jobs in response to environmental regulation are potentially important and of
interest to policymakers. Transitional job losses have consequences for workers that
operate in declining industries or occupations, have limited capacity to migrate, or live in
communities or regions with high unemployment rates.
As indicated by the potential impacts on lime markets discussed in Section 6.4, this
proposed rule is projected to cause changes in lime production and price. As a result,
demand for labor employed in lime manufacturing-related activities and associated
industries might experience adjustments as there may be increases in compliance-related
labor requirements as well as changes in employment due to quantity effects in directly
regulated sectors and sectors that consume lime.
63
-------
7 COMPARISON OF COSTS AND BENEFITS
7.1 Results
The net benefits for the proposed amendments to the NESHAP for Lime
Manufacturing facilities are presented in Table 36. This table includes the present values
(PV) and the equivalent annualized values (EAV) of the proposed amendments and the
beyond-the-floor option from Table 18 and Table 20. Because the EPA estimated the
compliance costs of the proposed amendments but was unable to monetize the health
benefits of this rule, there is no value reported in this table for monetized benefits and the
net benefits of this rule are therefore unclear. However, the proposed changes will have
beneficial effects on air quality and public health for populations exposed to emissions
from lime manufacturing facilities.
Table 36 Summary of Benefits, Costs and Net Benefits for the Proposed Amendments
and Beyond-the-Floor Option from 2024 to 2043 (Million 2022$)
Proposed Amendments
3% 7%
Beyond-the-Floor Option
3% 7%
PV EAV PV EAV
PV EAV PV EAV
Monetized Benefits N/A N/A
Total Annual Costs $2,430 $164 $2,010 $190
Net Benefits N/A N/A
• 884 tpy of HC1
• 0.23 tpy of mercury
• 20 tpy of organic HAP
Non-Monetized Benefits • 0.000000047 tpy of D/F
• Health effects of reduced
exposure to HC1, mercury,
organic HAP, and D/F
N/A N/A
$3,650 $246 $3,100 $292
N/A N/A
• 1,453 tpy of HC1
• 0.24 tpy of mercury
• 20 tpy of organic HAP
• 0.000000047 tpy of D/F
• Health effects of reduced
exposure to HC1, mercury,
organic HAP, and D/F
Note: While we expect these emissions reductions to have beneficial effects on air quality and public health
for populations exposed to emissions from lime manufacturing facilities, we have determined that
quantification of those benefits cannot be accomplished for this proposed rule. This is not to imply
that there are no benefits of the proposal. Rather, it is a reflection of the difficulties in modeling the
health effects and monetizing the benefits of reducing HAP emissions from this source category with
the data currently available.
7.2 Uncertainties and Limitations
The analysis presented in this RIA is subject to many sources of uncertainty. This
analysis includes many data sources as inputs, including information about the types of
affected units derived from information collection request responses, equipment and labor
costs derived from the EPA Air Pollution Control Cost Manual and other sources, and
64
-------
assumptions regarding the current state of the lime manufacturing industry and how
individual facilities carry out their operations.
As noted in Section 3.5, the proposed rule does not dictate that controls must be
installed to control pollutants, and companies may find alternative methods to comply with
the emissions limits. Furthermore, the cost estimates necessarily include assumptions that
may not be true for all facilities that install controls. There is also uncertainty about the
specific components of the engineering costs, such as the costs of the equipment and labor
required to comply with the proposal and how the costs might change over time, as well as
the interest rate firms may be able to obtain when financing capital expenditures. One
specific issue for this source category is that data on the current emissions of the pollutants
being regulated in this action is limited. Because emissions of mercury, HC1, organic HAP
and dioxin/furans are not currently regulated, the emissions test datasets are small. As a
result, for the majority of sources the current uncontrolled emissions of these pollutants
are not known but rather are estimated based on the average values of the sources for
which emissions are known. If the true emissions differ from these estimates, the costs and
emissions reductions may be overestimated or underestimated.
This analysis is also unable to account for the future state of the industry or the
future state of the world [e.g., regulations, technology, economic activity, and human
behavior). While no new major sources are currently predicted in the industry, this could
change as the economy evolves.
Health benefits are not quantified and monetized in this RIA. The risk results and
environmental justice analysis are also subject to several sources of uncertainty. First,
there is uncertainty in the baseline emissions dataset and the modeling conducted to
estimate the emissions reductions due to the proposal. There is also uncertainty associated
with the inputs and assumptions used in the dispersion modeling, the inhalation exposure
estimates, and the dose-response relationships in the human health risk assessment
estimated for this source category for the July 24, 2020, RTR.
Finally, there is uncertainty in the small business impact assessment and economic
impact modeling conducted for this analysis. The cost-to-sales ratios for individual firms
65
-------
reported in Section 6.2.2 are based upon the best information the EPA had available, but
because the actual sales are often not publicly available and the cost estimates are subject
to the uncertainty described above, the cost-to-sales ratios may overestimate or
underestimate the true impact for affected firms. Uncertainties in the economic impact
modeling are discussed in Section 6.4.4 and include data limitations and the lack of product
and regional specificity in the model.
Despite these uncertainties and limitations, the EPA believes these costs are a
conservative estimate of the costs and impacts of the proposed rule.
66
-------
8 REFERENCES
Arrow, K. J., Cropper, M. L., Eads, G. C., Hahn, R. J., Lave, L. B., Noll, R. G., Portney, P. R.,
Russell, M., Schmalensee, R., Smith, V. K., & Stavins, R. N. (1996). Benefit-Cost Analysis in
Environmental, Health, and Safety Regulation: A Statement of Principles. Washington, DC:
American Enterprise Institute, the Annapolis Center, and Resources for the Future; AEI
Press, https://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/-benefitcost-analysis-in-
environmental-health-and-safety-regulation_161535983778.pdf
ATSDR. (1998). Toxicological Profile for Chlorinated Dibenzop-Dioxins. U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Agency for Toxic Substances and
Disease Registry, Atlanta, GA. https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tpl04.pdf
ATSDR. (1999c). Toxicological Prof le for Formaldehyde. U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services, Public Health Service, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease
Registry, Atlanta, GA. https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tplll.pdf
ATSDR. (2005). Toxicological Prof le for Naphthalene. U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services, Public Health Service, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry,
Atlanta, GA. https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp67.pdf
ATSDR. (2007a). Toxicological Profile for Benzene. U.S. Public Health Service, U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease
Registry, Atlanta, GA. https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp3.pdf
ATSDR. (2007b). Toxicological Profile for Xylenes. U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services, Public Health Service, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry,
Atlanta, GA. https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp71.pdf
ATSDR. (2010a). Toxicological Profile for Ethylbenzene. U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services, Public Health Service, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease
Registry, Atlanta, GA. https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tpllO.pdf
ATSDR. (2010b). Toxicological Profile for Styrene. U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services, Public Health Service, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry,
Atlanta, GA. https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp53.pdf
ATSDR. (2014). Medical Management Guidelines for Hydrogen Chloride. U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Agency for Toxic Substances and
Disease Registry, Atlanta, GA. https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/MHMI/mmgl73.pdf
ATSDR. (2017). Toxicological Profile for Toluene. U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services, Public Health Service, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry,
Atlanta, GA. https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp56.pdf
67
-------
ATSDR. (2022). Toxicological Profile for Mercury. U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services, Public Health Service, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry,
Atlanta, GA. https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp46.pdf
Broda, C., Limao, N., & Weinstein, D. E. (2008). Optimal Tariffs and Market Power: The
Evidence. American Economic Review, 98(5), 2032-2065.
https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.98-5.2032
Budavari, S. (Ed.). (1989). The Merck Index. An Encyclopedia of Chemicals, Drugs, and
Biologicals. 11th ed. Merck and Co. Inc., Rahway, NJ.
Gibson, A. & Maniocha, M. (2015). The Use of Magnesium Hydroxide Slurry for Biological
Treatment of Municipal and Industrial Wastewater. Martin Marietta Magnesia
Specialties. https://magnesiaspecialties.com/technical-resources/The-Use-of-MgOH2-
Sluriy-for-Treatment-of-Wastewater-010215.pdf
Ho, M., & Jorgensen, D. (1998). Modeling Trade Policies and U.S. Growth: Some
Methodological Issues. In The Economic Implications of Liberalizing APEC Tariff and
Nontariff Barriers to Trade. U.S. International Trade Commission.
https://www.usitc.gov/publications/docs/pubs/332/PUB31011.PDF
IARC. (2000). Ethylbenzene. IARC Monographs on the evaluation of carcinogenic risk of
chemicals to humans, Volume 77. World Health Organization, International Agency for
Research on Cancer, Lyon, France.
https://publications.iarc.fr/_publications/media/download/2531/a8eflf09057f50038
12ef757c2179bc9bd95318f.pdf
IARC. (2002). Some traditional herbal medicines, some mycotoxins, naphthalene and
styrene. IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans, Volume
82. World Health Organization, International Agency for Research on Cancer, Lyon,
France.
https://publications.iarc.fr/_publications/media/download/2618/a48798blacflf630b
e9fcbb30ffb2d56b790c08d.pdf
IARC. (2018). Benzene. IARC Monographs on the evaluation of carcinogenic risk of chemicals
to humans, Volume 120. World Health Organization, International Agency for Research
on Cancer, Lyon, France.
https://publications.iarc.fr/_publications/media/download/6043/20a78adel4e86cf07
6c3981a9a094f45da6d27cc.pdf
IARC. (2019). Styrene, Styrene-7,8-oxide, and Quinoline. IARC Monographs on the
Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans, Volume 121. World Health Organization,
International Agency for Research on Cancer, Lyon, France.
https://publications.iarc.fr/_publications/media/download/6060/5894fec08dl86b0e
bla24cfa93db2cd97dc2eb2c.pdf
68
-------
Miller, N. H., Osborne, M., Sheu, G., & Sileo, G. (2023). Technology and Market Power: The
United States Cement Industry, 1974-2019. Georgetown McDonough School of Business.
http://www.nathanhmiller.org/cementmarkups.pdf
NTP. (1999). Toxicology and Carcinogenesis Studies of Ethylbenzene (CAS No. 100-41-4) in
F344/N Rats and B6C3F1 Mice (Inhalation Studies). TR No. 466. U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, National Institutes of Health,
National Toxicology Program, Bethesda, MD.
https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/sites/default/files/ntp/htdocs/lt_rpts/tr466.pdf
NTP. (2021). Introduction. Report on carcinogens. 15th ed. U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services, Public Health Service, National Toxicology Program, Research Triangle
Park, NC. https://doi.org/10.22427/NTP-OTHER-1003
U.S. Census Bureau. (2002-2016). Annual Survey of Manufactures. U.S. Department of
Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau, https://www.census.gov/data/developers/data-
sets/asm-timeseries.html
U.S. Census Bureau. (2017). 2017 Economic Census. U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S.
Census Bureau, https://www.census.gov/data/developers/data-sets/economic-
census.html.
U.S. Census Bureau. (2018-2021). Annual Survey of Manufactures. U.S. Department of
Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau, https://www.census.gov/data/developers/data-
sets/Annual-Survey-of-Manufactures.html
U.S. Census Bureau. (2023). 2020 Statistics of U.S. Businesses, 2020 SUSB Annual Data Tables
by Establishment Industry.
https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2020/econ/susb/2020-susb-annual.html
U.S. EPA. (1985a). Health Assessment Document for Polychlorinated Dibenzo-P-Dioxins. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. EPA/600/8-84/014F (NTIS
PB86122546). https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPURL.cgi?Dockey=30001CBN.txt
U.S. EPA. (1985b). Health and Environmental Effects Profile for Formaldehyde. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Office of Health
and Environmental Assessment, Environmental Criteria and Assessment Office,
Cincinnati, OH. EPA/600/x-85/362.
https://ntrl.ntis.gov/NTRL/dashboard/searchResults.xhtml?searchQueiy=PB8817495
8&starDB=GRAHIST
U.S. EPA. (1991a). Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) on Acetaldehyde. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, National Center
for Environmental Assessment, Washington, DC.
https://iris.epa.gov/static/pdfs/0290_summary.pdf
69
-------
U.S. EPA. (1991b). Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) on Ethylbenzene. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, National Center
for Environmental Assessment, Washington, DC.
https://iris.epa.gov/static/pdfs/0051_summary.pdf
U.S. EPA. (1992). Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) on Styrene. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, National Center for
Environmental Assessment, Washington, DC.
https://iris.epa.gov/static/pdfs/0104_summary.pdf
U.S. EPA. (1995a). Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) on Hydrogen Chloride. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, National Center
for Environmental Assessment, Washington, DC.
https://iris.epa.gov/static/pdfs/0396_summary.pdf
U.S. EPA. (1995b). Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) on Mercuric Chloride. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, National Center
for Environmental Assessment, Washington, DC.
https://iris.epa.gov/static/pdfs/0692_summary.pdf
U.S. EPA. (1998a). Toxicological Review of Naphthalene (CAS No. 91-20-3) in Support of
Summary Information on the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS). U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, National Center
for Environmental Assessment, Cincinnati, OH.
https://iris.epa.gov/static/pdfs/0436tr.pdf
U.S. EPA. (1998b). Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) on Naphthalene. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, National Center
for Environmental Assessment, Washington, DC.
https://iris.epa.gov/static/pdfs/0436_summary.pdf
U.S. EPA. (2001). Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) on Methylmercury. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, National Center
for Environmental Assessment, Washington, DC.
https://iris.epa.gov/static/pdfs/0073_summary.pdf
U.S. EPA. (2003a). Economic Impact Analysis for the Lime Manufacturing MACT Standard.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards,
Research Triangle Park, NC. July 2003. EPA-452/R-03-013.
https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2020-07/documents/lime-
mfg_eia_neshap_final_08-2003.pdf
U.S. EPA. (2003b). Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) on Benzene. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, National Center for
Environmental Assessment, Washington, DC.
https://iris.epa.gov/static/pdfs/0276_summary.pdf
70
-------
U.S. EPA. (2003c). Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) on Xylenes. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, National Center for
Environmental Assessment, Washington, DC.
https://iris.epa.gov/static/pdfs/0270_summary.pdf
U.S. EPA. (2005). Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) on Toluene. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, National Center for
Environmental Assessment, Washington, DC.
https://iris.epa.gov/static/pdfs/0118_summary.pdf
U.S. EPA. (2017). EPA Air Pollution Control Cost Manual. Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC. https://www.epa.gov/economic-and-cost-
analysis-air-pollution-regulations/cost-reports-and-guidance-air-pollution
USGS. (2002-2021). Minerals Yearbook: Lime (annual). U.S. Geological Survey.
https://www.usgs.gov/centers/national-minerals-information-center/lime-statistics-
and-information
USGS. (2023). Mineral Commodity Summaries 2023. U.S. Geological Survey.
https://doi.org/10.3133/mcs2023
U.S. 0MB. (2003). Circular A-4, Regulatory Analysis. U.S. Office of Management and Budget,
September 17, 2003. https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-
content/uploads/legacy_drupal_files / omb / circulars/A4/a-4.pdf
U.S. OMB. (2015). 2015 Report to Congress on the Benefits and Costs of Federal Regulations
and Agency Compliance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. U.S. Office of
Management and Budget, Washington, DC. https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-
content/uploads/legacy_drupal_files/omb/inforeg/inforeg/2015_cb/2015-cost-
benefit-reportpdf
U.S. OMB. (2022). North American Industry Classification System: United States, 2022. U.S.
Office of Management and Budget.
https://www.census.gov/naics/reference_files_tools/2022_NAICS_Manual.pdf
U.S. SBA. (2017). A Guide for Government Agencies, How to Comply with the Regulatory
Flexibility Act, Implementing the President's Small Business Agenda and Executive Order
13272. U.S. Small Business Administration, Office of Advocacy.
https://advocacy.sba.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/How-to-Comply-with-the-
RFA-WEB.pdf
U.S. SBA. (2023). Table of Small Business Size Standards (March 17, 2023). U.S. Small
Business Administration, Office of Size Standards.
https://www.sba.gov/document/support-table-size-standards
71
-------
United States Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards Publication No. EPA-452/R-24-004
Environmental Protection Health and Environmental Impacts Division January 2024
Agency Research Triangle Park, NC
------- |