e *
lw/
\ ,f
PRO*^
Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Final
Amendments to the National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Lime
Manufacturing Plants
-------
ii
-------
EPA-452/R-24-014
June 2024
Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Final 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 Legal Basis for this Rulemaking 1
1.3 Economic Basis for this Rulemaking 2
1.4 Regulatory History 2
1.5 Regulatory Options 4
1.6 Organization of this RIA 6
2 Industry Profile 7
2.1 Introduction 7
2.2 Lime Production 7
2.3 Industry Data 7
2.4 Consumption and Uses of Lime 11
2.4.1 Substitution Possibilities in Consumption 15
2.5 Affected Producers 15
3 Engineering Cost Analysis 18
3.1 Introduction 18
3.2 Affected Sources 18
3.3 Capital Investment and Annual Costs 19
3.4 Secondary Impacts 29
3.5 Characterization of Uncertainty 31
4 Benefits of Emissions Reductions 33
4.1 Introduction 33
4.2 Hydrogen Chloride 34
4.3 Mercury 35
4.4 Acetaldehyde 35
4.5 Benzene 36
4.6 Ethylbenzene 36
4.7 Formaldehyde 37
4.8 Naphthalene 37
4.9 Styrene 38
4.10 Toluene 38
4.11 Xylenes 39
4.12 D ioxins and Furans 39
5 Environmental Justice Analysis 41
5.1 Introduction 41
5.2 Demographic Analysis 41
6 Economic and Small Business Impacts 44
6.1 Introduction 44
6.2 Screening Analysis 44
v
-------
6.2.1 Identification of Small Entities 45
6.2.2 Small Business Impacts Analysis 47
6.3 Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 50
6.3.1 Regulatory Flexibility Act Background 50
6.3.2 Reasons Why Action is Being Considered 51
6.3.3 Statementof Objectives and Legal Basis for Final Rule 51
6.3.4 Significant Issues Raised 52
6.3.5 Small Business Administration Comments 52
6.3.6 Description and Estimate of Affected Small Entities 57
6.3.7 Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance Requirements 57
6.3.8 Related Federal Rules 58
6.3.9 Regulatory Flexibility Alternatives 58
6.4 Economic Impact Modeling 63
6.4.1 Partial Equilibrium Model Description 64
6.4.2 Operational Model 65
6.4.3 Economic Impact Results 71
6.4.4 Caveats and Limitations of the Market Analysis 74
6.5 Employment Impacts 75
7 Comparison of Costs and Benefits 77
7.1 Results 77
7.2 Uncertainties and Limitations 78
8 References 81
vi
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 Lime Sales and Usage 1998-2021 (thousand metric tons) 8
Table 2 Exports and Imports of Lime 1998-2021 9
Table 3 Average Lime Prices 1998-2021 10
Table 4 Production Costs for Lime Manufacturing (NAICS 32741) 2002-2021 11
Table 5 Lime Usage in the United States (thousand metric tons) 12
Table 6 Hydrated Lime Usage in the United States, 2014-2021 (thousand metric tons) 13
Table 7 Number of Firms and Establishments, Employment, and Annual Payroll for Affected
Industries: 2020 17
Table 8 Modeled Air Pollution Control Device Costs (2022$) 20
Table 9 Breakdown of Air Pollution Control Device Total Annual Cost (2022$) 21
Table 10 Total Cost of Estimated Controls Required for Compliance with Final Standards (2022$)
23
Table 11 Total Cost of Estimated Controls Required for Compliance with Final Standards, by
Pollutant Controlled (2022$) 23
Table 12 Total Cost of Estimated Controls Required for Compliance with Beyond-the-Floor Option
(2022$) 24
Table 13 Total Cost of Estimated Controls Required for Compliance with Beyond-the-Floor Option,
by Pollutant Controlled (2022$) 24
Table 14 Testing, Monitoring, Recordkeeping, and Reporting Costs (2022$) 25
Table 15 Summary of Estimated Costs for the Final Amendments in Each of the First 8 Years After
the Rule is Final (2022$) 26
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$) 27
Table 17 Undiscounted Costs of Final Amendments 2024-2043 (2022$) 27
Table 18 2023 Present Value and Equivalent Annualized Value of Costs of Final Amendments
2024-2043 (2022$) 28
Table 19 Undiscounted Costs of Beyond-the-Floor Option 2024-2043 (2022$) 28
Table 20 2023 Present Value and Equivalent Annualized Value of Costs of Beyond-the-Floor
Option 2024-2043 (2022$) 29
Table 21 Secondary Impacts of Estimated Controls Required for Compliance with Final Standards
30
Table 22 Secondary Impacts of Estimated Controls Required for Compliance with Beyond-the-
Floor Option 30
Table 23 Estimated HAP Reductions 34
Table 24 Proximity Demographic Assessment Results for Major Source Lime Manufacturing
Facilities 42
Table 25 Affected NAICS Codes and SBA Small Entity Size Standards 45
Table 26 Ultimate Parent Companies Owning Affected Lime Manufacturing Plants 46
Table 27 Cost-to-Sales Ratios of the Final Amendments for Ultimate Owners of Affected Facilities
47
Table 28 Summary of Cost-to-Sales Ratios of the Final Amendments by SBA Size Category 48
T able 29 Cost-to-Sales Ratios of the Beyond-the-Floor Option for Ultimate Owners of Affected
Facilities 48
Table 30 Summary of Cost-to-Sales Ratios of the Beyond-the-Floor Option by SBA Size Category 49
Table 31 Emissions Averaging Compliance Alternative For HC1 and Mercury 62
Table 32 Lime Market Baseline Data, 2021 69
Table 3 3 Supply and Demand Elasticities 70
Table 34 National Engineering Control CostEstimates (millions of 2022 dollars) 71
vii
-------
Table 35 National-Level Market Impacts of the Final Amendments and Beyond-the-Floor Option:
2021 72
Table 36 Distribution of Social Costs Associated with the Final Amendments and Beyond-the-
Floor Option (millions 2022$) 74
Table 37 Summary of Benefits, Costs and Net Benefits for the Final Amendments and Beyond-the-
Floor Option from 2024 to 2043 (Million 2022$) 77
viii
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 Market Equilibrium without and with Regulation 64
Figure 2 MarketTrends 70
ix
-------
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is finalizing the amendments to the
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for Lime
Manufacturing facilities originally published in the Federal Register on January 5, 2023,
and subsequently supplemented by a proposal published in the Federal Register on
February 9, 2024 . In the January 5, 2023, action, the EPA proposed emissions standards for
the following hazardous air pollutants (HAP): hydrogen chloride (HC1), mercury, total
hydrocarbon (THC) as a surrogate for organic HAP, and dioxin/furans (D/F). The February
9, 2024, supplemental proposal revised 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 final amendments.
1.2 Legal Basis for this Rulemaking
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. The February 9, 2024,
supplemental proposal revised 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). That proposal was supplemented by the February 9, 2024, proposed rule
amendments. This action finalizes the amendments specified in the original and
supplemental proposals, to ensure that all emissions of HAP from sources in the source
category are regulated.
1.3 Economic Basis for this Rulemaking
Regulation can be used to address market failures, which otherwise lead to a
suboptimal allocation of resources within the free market. Many environmental problems
are classic examples of "negative externalities", which arise when private entities do not
internalize the full opportunity cost of their production, and some of this opportunity cost
is borne by members of society who are neither consumers nor producers of the goods
produced (i.e., they are "external"). For example, the smoke from a factory may adversely
affect the health of nearby residents, soil quality, and visibility. Public goods such as air
quality are valued by individuals but suffer from a lack of property rights, so the value of
good air quality tends to be unpriced in the markets that generate air pollution. In such
cases, markets fail to allocate resources efficiently and regulatory intervention is needed to
address the problem.
While recognizing that the socially optimal level of pollution is often not zero, the
emissions from lime manufacturing facilities impose costs on society (i.e., negative health
impacts) that may not be reflected in the equilibrium market prices for lime. If emissions
from lime manufacturing facilities increase risks to human health, some social costs will be
borne not by the firm and its customers but rather imposed on communities near the lime
manufacturing facilities and other individuals exposed to their emissions. Consequently,
absent a regulation limiting emissions from lime manufacturing facilities and causing firms
to internalize the external costs of their operations, emissions will exceed the socially
optimal level.
1.4 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
2
-------
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 that 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
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
2 66 FR 3180, January 12,2001
3 67 FR 68053, December 20, 2002
3
-------
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.
Amendments in 2020 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.
1.5 Regulatory Options
Several statutes and executive orders (EO) apply analytical requirements to federal
rulemakings. This RIA presents several of the analyses required by these statutes and EOs,
such as EO 12866, EO 14094, and the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA). Below is a summary
of the requirements of EO 12866 and EO 14094. The guidance document associated with
these executive orders is the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) Circular A-4 (U.S.
OMB, 2023), which was updated in November 2023.
This final action is significant under E.0.12866 Section 3(f)(1) as defined by EO
12866 (applied at proposal) and EO 14094 (now applicable).4 In accordance with EO
12866, as amended by EO 14094, and the guidelines of OMB Circular A-4, this RIA analyzes
4 Executive Order 14094 contains updated guidance regarding 3(f)(1) significance determinations. EO 12866
as amended by EO 14094 Section 3(f)(1) specifies that a rule is significant if it is likely to result in an
annual effect on the economy of $2 00 million or more (adjusted every 3 years by the Administrator of OIRA
for changes in gross domestic product); or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local,
territorial, or tribal governments or communities. This threshold was $100 million in EO 12866. The
supplemental proposal was considered Section 3(f)(1) significant under EO 12866 and this final rule is
considered Section 3(f)(1) significant under the revised threshold in EO 14094. EO 14094 can be found at
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/04/ll/2023-07760/modernizing-regulatory-review.
4
-------
the costs of complying with the requirements in this final rule for regulated facilities. The
EPA did not monetize the benefits associated with the requirements, but they are
characterized qualitatively in Chapter 4.
As discussed in Section 1.2, this final 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.
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 final standards is provided in the
memorandum titled Final Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) Floor Analysis
for the Lime Manufacturing Plants Industry, located in the docket for this action.
The recent update to Circular A-4 contains changes to the practices for discounting
impacts that occur in the future. Specifically, a single discount rate of 2 percent is now
required for analyses. To maintain consistency and transparency of the impacts between
5
-------
the supplemental proposal and final RIAs, the EPA continues to present impacts at the 3
percent and 7 percent discount rates required by the previous version of Circular A-4 (U.S.
OMB, 2003) in this RIA while also presenting impacts using a 2 percent discount rate.
1.6 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 final 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 final amendments. Chapter 5 describes the environmental
justice analysis performed for this final rule. Chapter 6 presents analyses of economic
impacts, impacts on small businesses, including a summary of the final regulatory flexibility
analysis, and a discussion of potential employment impacts. The economic impacts include
estimates of price and output changes in response to the cost of the final 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.
6
-------
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 final 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 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 form hydrated 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
7
-------
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. No closures are expected, and due to the importance
of lime to a variety of industries, the overall production of lime is expected to remain stable,
as it has since 1998. It should also be noted that while there are 34 major sources of lime
subject to the NESHAP, there are also area source lime manufacturing facilities, so the
facilities affected by this rule are not all of the domestic producers of lime. EPA lacks the
information or modeling capability to conduct the sensitivity analysis thay may project
facility consolidation or closure over the period of analysis. However, more recent values
likely reflect lingering impacts from the global COVID-19 pandemic, specifically a ramping
up of production as the economy has recovered from the effects of the 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.
8
-------
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
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
World Lime
Year
Exports
(thousand
metric
tons}
Exports as a
Percentage of
Production
Exports
Value
($thousands)
Imports
(thousand
metric
tons}
Imports as a
Percentage of
Consumption
Imports
Value
($thousands)
Production
(thousand
metric
tons}
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
9
-------
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).
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. The cost of materials is also
assumed to include the cost of quarrying limestone. Capital expenditures include
permanent additions and alterations to facilities and machinery and equipment used for
expanding plant capacity or replacing existing machinery.
10
-------
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.
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.5 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
5 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.
11
-------
miscellaneous and unidentified category is also included for years when data was withheld
to avoid disclosing proprietary information.
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
12
-------
Use
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
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
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
13
-------
Use
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
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
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.6
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
6 Additional information on metallurgical uses of lime can be found at https://www.lime.org/lime-
basics / uses-of-lime / metallurgical-uses-of-lime/.
14
-------
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)
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.7 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
7 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.
15
-------
dead burned dolomite) by calcination of limestone, dolomite, shells, or other calcareous
substances. A major source of HAP is a plant site that emits or has the potential to emit any
single HAP at a rate of 9.07 megagrams (10 tons) or more, or any combination of HAP at a
rate of 22.68 megagrams (25 tons) or more per year from all emission sources at the plant
site.
The 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
16
-------
212390 comprises establishments primarily engaged in developing the mine site, mining,
and/or milling or otherwise beneficiating (i.e., preparing) nonmetallic minerals (except
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 final 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 final 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.
17
-------
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 final 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 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
18
-------
"high volume" and "low volume" organic HAP. These include the following pollutants:
formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, toluene, benzene, xylenes (a mixture of m, o, and p isomers8),
styrene, ethyl benzene, and napthalene. The EPA believes that the emissions data of these 8
pollutants best represents the consistently emitted organic HAP 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 issued a
supplemental proposal 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. These
standards are now being finalized, and a detailed summary of the final standards is
provided in the memorandum titled Final Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT)
Floor Analysis for the Lime Manufacturing Plants Industry, 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 engineering costs of control devices expected to be used to meet the final
standards were estimated using the concepts and methodologies described in the EPA Air
Pollution Control Cost Manual (US EPA, 2017).9 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.10
8 An isomer is a chemical compound with the same formula but a different arrangement of atoms in the
molecule and different properties. There are three forms of xylene in which the methyl groups vary on the
benzene ring: meta-xylene, ortho-xylene, and para-xylene (m-, o-, and p-xylene],
9 The EPA Air Pollution Control Cost Manual is available at https://www.epa.gov/economic-and-cost-
analysis-air-pollution-regulations/cost-reports-and-guidance-air-pollution.
10 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.
19
-------
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 Final Cost Impacts for the Lime
Manufacturing Plants Industry, located in the docket for this action. That analysis found that
Activated Carbon Injection (ACI) was the most cost-effective 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 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. Lime
manufacturers indicated in comments to the January 5, 2023, proposed rule that the
presence of carbon in the lime kiln dust would render it unsellable. Lime manufacturers
also indicated that the installation of control equipment will result in downtime for the
20
-------
kilns, leading to product supply disruption and lost revenue for producers. This was
flagged as a particular concern for small businesses, as they have fewer kilns across which
to spread the lost production. While the EPA acknowledges this potential impact, we lack
the information necessary to independently assess the downtime loss of production due to
capital improvements or deferred maintenance that would be associated with these
controls for each affected facility. The breakdown of total annual cost per control into these
components is shown in Table 9.
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.
To estimate the impacts of this final rulemaking, the change in emissions and
incurred costs from the expected application of new emissions controls was determined
assuming compliance with the final standards. Baseline emissions were determined for
each kiln configuration in total tons per year, and in the respective unit of measure for each
final standard (i.e., HC1, mercury, organic HAP, and D/F) to evaluate estimated compliance
status with the final standards.
For the existing HC1 standards, each kiln configuration was assigned an expected
sub-category (e.g., pre-rotary dolomitic quicklime) based on data collected through the
2017 ICR and provided in industry comments. Then, the existing source standard for each
sub-category was compared to the baseline emissions rate for each kiln configuration to
determine if the unit was complying with the final standards. Where baseline emissions
were below the final standards, it was assumed that no additional control would be
required. Where baseline emissions were above the final standards, WPTGA and DSI
controls were evaluated to see if the kiln configuration would comply with the final existing
standards after application of each control. It was estimated that all kiln configurations
21
-------
could meet the final standards with DSI or WPTGAs. It was assumed that facilities would
choose DSI when possible, as it would be the more cost-effective control option. WPTGAs
were applied where the DSI control was not sufficient for compliance.
Emissions reductions were then determined for all kiln configurations that required
add-on control by multiplying the assumed control efficiency by the baseline emissions for
that kiln configuration. Model total capital investment and total annual cost estimates were
calculated for each kiln configuration requiring add-on control to determine the total costs
for industry-wide compliance. The same process was then applied to mercury, organic HAP
and D/F.
For mercury, WPTGA and ACI controls were evaluated, with the assumption that
facilities would choose the more cost-effective control option of ACI over WPTGAs if both
controls could bring the kiln configuration into compliance. It was estimated that all kiln
configurations could comply with the final mercury standards using ACI.
For organic HAP, RTO and ACI controls were evaluated, with the assumption that
facilities would choose the more cost-effective control option of ACI over RTOs if both
controls could bring the kiln configuration into compliance. Based on the assumed control
efficiencies for ACI and RTOs for oHAP, it was estimated that the majority of kiln
configurations would require RTOs to comply with the final oHAP standard. ACI was
selected when RTOs would not reduce emissions to necessary levels.
For D/F, ACI was the only control option evaluated. Based on emissions test data,
only one kiln would not be able to meet the final standard without additional controls. This
kiln is expected to use ACI to comply with the final D/F standard. Details regarding the
emissions and cost estimates for compliance with the final standards can be found in the
docket for this rulemaking.11
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.
11 Detailed results can be found in the 00_LMP_Final_Control_Costs_2024_Final.xlsx workbook available in the
docket for this rule.
22
-------
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 Final
Standards (2022$)
Number of
Total
Percentage
Total
Percentage
Controls for
Capital
of Total
Annual
of Total
Final
Investment
Capital
Costs
Annual
Control Type
Standards
(millions)
Investment
(millions)
Costs
Dry Sorbent Injection
40
117
24%
24.9
15%
Activated Carbon Injection
67
155
32%
91
55%
Wet Packed Tower Gas Absorber
4
81.2
17%
14.1
9%
Regenerative Thermal Oxidizer
2
10.4
2%
3.25
2%
Gas Conditioning Tower (Type 1)
65
111
23%
29
18%
Gas Conditioning Tower (Type 2)
5
10.4
2%
3.12
2%
Total
484
100%
165
100%
Note: Values rounded to three significant figures.
Table 11 summarizes the total estimated control cost by the pollutant controlled.
The largest shares of the control costs are associated with the control of HC1 and mercury.
Table 11 Total Cost of Estimated Controls Required for Compliance with Final
Standards, by Pollutant Controlled (2022$)
HAP
Total
Capital
Investment
(millions)
Percentage
of Total
Capital
Investment
Total
Annual
Costs
(millions)
Percentage
of Total
Annual
Costs
HC1
239
49%
50
30%
Mercury
221
46%
105
64%
Organic HAP
21
4%
9
6%
Dioxins/Furans
3
1%
2
1%
Total
484
100%
165
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.
23
-------
Table 12 Total Cost of Estimated Controls Required for Compliance with Beyond-
the-Floor Option (2022$)
Control Type
Number of
Controls for
Beyond-the-
Floor Option
Total
Capital
Investment
(millions)
Percentage
of Total
Capital
Investment
Total
Annual
Costs
(millions)
Percentage
of Total
Annual
Costs
Dry Sorbent Injection
36
105
10%
22.4
9%
Activated Carbon Injection
73
168
17%
99.2
38%
Wet Packed Tower Gas Absorber
30
609
60%
106
40%
Regenerative Thermal Oxidizer
2
10.4
1%
3.25
1%
Gas Conditioning Tower (Type 1)
66
113
11%
29.4
11%
Gas Conditioning Tower (Type 2)
5
10.4
1%
3.12
1%
Total
1,020
100%
263
100%
Note: Values rounded to three significant figures.
Table 13 Total Cost of Estimated Controls Required for Compliance with Beyond-
the-Floor Option, by Pollutant Controlled (2022$)
HAP
Total
Capital
Investment
(millions)
Percentage
of Total
Capital
Investment
Total
Annual
Costs
(millions)
Percentage
of Total
Annual
Costs
HC1
748
74%
137
52%
Mercury
243
24%
115
44%
Organic HAP
22
2%
9
3%
Dioxins/Furans
3
0%
2
1%
Total
1,020
100%
263
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
24
-------
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
Manufacturing (40 CFR Part 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 final 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 final 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.
25
-------
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 $21.2 million per facility,
and the average was $4.9 million per facility.12
Table 15 Summary of Estimated Costs for the Final Amendments in Each of the First
8 Years After the Rule is Final (2022$)
Year
Total Annual Cost
of Controls
(2022$)
Recordkeeping
and Reporting
(2022$)
Total
(2022$)
2024
$165,000,000
$1,370,000
$167,000,000
2025
$165,000,000
$1,100,000
$167,000,000
2026
$165,000,000
$1,100,000
$167,000,000
2027
$165,000,000
$1,100,000
$167,000,000
2028
$165,000,000
$1,100,000
$167,000,000
2029
$165,000,000
$1,270,000
$167,000,000
2030
$165,000,000
$1,100,000
$167,000,000
2031
$165,000,000
$1,100,000
$167,000,000
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 final 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 $42.3 million per facility, and the average was $7.74
million per facility.13
12 Detailed results can be found in the 00_LMP_Final_Control_Costs_2024_Final.xlsx workbook available in the
docket for this rule.
13 Detailed results can be found in the 00_LMP_Final_Control_Costs_2024_Final.xlsx workbook available in the
docket for this rule.
26
-------
Table 16 Summary of Estimated Costs for the Beyond-the-Floor Option in Each of the
First 8 Years After the Rule is Final (2022$)
Year
Total Annual Cost
of Controls
(2022$)
Recordkeeping
and Reporting
(2022$)
Total
(2022$)
2024
$263,000,000
$1,370,000
$265,000,000
2025
$263,000,000
$1,100,000
$264,000,000
2026
$263,000,000
$1,100,000
$264,000,000
2027
$263,000,000
$1,100,000
$264,000,000
2028
$263,000,000
$1,100,000
$264,000,000
2029
$263,000,000
$1,270,000
$264,000,000
2030
$263,000,000
$1,100,000
$264,000,000
2031
$263,000,000
$1,100,000
$264,000,000
Note: Values rounded to three significant figures so totals may not appear to sum correctly.
Consistent with the previous version of the Office of Management and Budget's
Circular A-4 (U.S. 0MB, 2003), we calculated the present value in 2023 of the costs of the
final amendments using both 3 and 7 percent discount rates, while also presenting impacts
using the 2 percent discount rate required by the updated Circular A-4 (U.S. 0MB, 2023).
Table 17 below shows the undiscounted stream of costs per year for the final amendments.
Capital costs are presented as completely incurred in their initial year, though large capital
expenditures are typically financed over many years. Because the annualized costs
presented in Table 8 assume a 20-year equipment life, the undiscounted costs are
presented over the entire expected life of the equipment rather than the 8-year period
presented in Table 15.
Table 17 Undiscounted Costs of Final Amendments 2024-2043 (2022$)
Year
Capital
(2022$)
Non-Capital
Annual Costs
(2022$)
Recordkeeping
and Reporting
(2022$)
Total
(2022$)
2024
$484,000,000
$115,000,000
$1,370,000
$601,000,000
2025
$0
$115,000,000
$1,100,000
$116,000,000
2026
$0
$115,000,000
$1,100,000
$116,000,000
2027
$0
$115,000,000
$1,100,000
$116,000,000
2028
$0
$115,000,000
$1,100,000
$116,000,000
2029
$0
$115,000,000
$1,270,000
$116,000,000
2030
$0
$115,000,000
$1,100,000
$116,000,000
2031
$0
$115,000,000
$1,100,000
$116,000,000
2032
$0
$115,000,000
$1,100,000
$116,000,000
2033
$0
$115,000,000
$1,100,000
$116,000,000
2034
$0
$115,000,000
$1,270,000
$116,000,000
27
-------
Year
Capital
(2022$)
Non-Capital
Annual Costs
(2022$)
Recordkeeping
and Reporting
(2022$)
Total
(2022$)
2035
$0
$115,000,000
$1,100,000
$116,000,000
2036
$0
$115,000,000
$1,100,000
$116,000,000
2037
$0
$115,000,000
$1,100,000
$116,000,000
2038
$0
$115,000,000
$1,100,000
$116,000,000
2039
$0
$115,000,000
$1,270,000
$116,000,000
2040
$0
$115,000,000
$1,100,000
$116,000,000
2041
$0
$115,000,000
$1,100,000
$116,000,000
2042
$0
$115,000,000
$1,100,000
$116,000,000
2043
$0
$115,000,000
$1,100,000
$116,000,000
Note: Values rounded to three significant figures so totals may not appear to sum correctly.
Recordkeeping and Reporting values for 2024, 2029, 2034, and 2039 include cost of required
performance test.
Table 18 shows the 2023 present values and equivalent annualized values of the
costs shown in Table 17 at 2, 3, and 7 percent discount rates. The equivalent annualized
value is calculated over 20 years.
Table 18 2023 Present Value and Equivalent Annualized Value of Costs of Final
Amendments 2024-2043 (2022$)
2% Discount Rate
3% Discount Rate
7% Discount Rate
Present Value
$2,380,000,000
$2,200,000,000
$1,680,000,000
Equivalent Annualized Value
$145,000,000
$148,000,000
$159,000,000
Note: Values rounded to three significant figures. In addition to updates to the costs made since the
supplemental proposal, the 3 percent and 7 percent discount rate values in this table reflect the
correction of a calculation error that was present in the RIA for the supplemental proposal.
Table 19 reports the undiscounted stream of costs per year for the beyond-the-floor
option over the same 2024-2043 period.
Table 19 Undiscounted Costs of Beyond-the-Floor Option 2024-2043 (2022$)
Year
Capital
(2022$)
Non-Capital
Annual Costs
(2022$)
Recordkeeping
and Reporting
(2022$)
Total
(2022$)
2024
$1,020,000,000
$158,000,000
$1,370,000
$1,170,000,000
2025
$0
$158,000,000
$1,100,000
$159,000,000
2026
$0
$158,000,000
$1,100,000
$159,000,000
2027
$0
$158,000,000
$1,100,000
$159,000,000
2028
$0
$158,000,000
$1,100,000
$159,000,000
2029
$0
$158,000,000
$1,270,000
$159,000,000
2030
$0
$158,000,000
$1,100,000
$159,000,000
2031
$0
$158,000,000
$1,100,000
$159,000,000
2032
$0
$158,000,000
$1,100,000
$159,000,000
28
-------
Year
Capital
(2022$)
Non-Capital
Annual Costs
(2022$)
Recordkeeping
and Reporting
(2022$)
Total
(2022$)
2033
$0
$158,000,000
$1,100,000
$159,000,000
2034
$0
$158,000,000
$1,270,000
$159,000,000
2035
$0
$158,000,000
$1,100,000
$159,000,000
2036
$0
$158,000,000
$1,100,000
$159,000,000
2037
$0
$158,000,000
$1,100,000
$159,000,000
2038
$0
$158,000,000
$1,100,000
$159,000,000
2039
$0
$158,000,000
$1,270,000
$159,000,000
2040
$0
$158,000,000
$1,100,000
$159,000,000
2041
$0
$158,000,000
$1,100,000
$159,000,000
2042
$0
$158,000,000
$1,100,000
$159,000,000
2043
$0
$158,000,000
$1,100,000
$159,000,000
Note: Values rounded to three significant figures so totals may not appear to sum correctly.
Recordkeeping and Reporting values for 2024, 2029, 2034, and 2039 include cost of required
performance test.
Table 20 reports the 2023 present values and equivalent annualized values of the
costs shown in Table 19 at 2, 3, and 7 percent discount rates. As before, the equivalent
annualized value is calculated over 20 years.
Table 20 2023 Present Value and Equivalent Annualized Value of Costs of Beyond-
the-Floor Option 2024-2043 (2022$)
2% Discount Rate
3% Discount Rate
7% Discount Rate
Present Value
$3,590,000,000
$3,350,000,000
$2,630,000,000
Equivalent Annualized Value
$220,000,000
$225,000,000
$249,000,000
Note: Values rounded to three significant figures. In addition to updates to the costs made since the
supplemental proposal, the 3 percent and 7 percent discount rate values in this table reflect the
correction of a calculation error that was present in the RIA for the supplemental proposal.
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 final standards are
29
-------
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
Final Standards
Energy
Solid Waste
Wastewater
Impacts
Impacts
Impacts
Control Type
(mmBtu/yr)
fton/yr)
fgallon/yrl
Wet Packed Tower Gas Absorber
272,000
466
1,120,000
Dry Sorbent Injection
272,000
4,270
-
Regenerative Thermal Oxidizer
136,000
-
-
Activated Carbon Injection
455,000
8,780
-
Heat Exchangers
634,000
-
-
Total
1,770,000
13,500
1,120,000
Note: Values rounded to three significant figures.
Table 22 Secondary Impacts of Estimated Controls Required for Comi
Beyond-the-Floor Option
Energy
Solid Waste
Wastewater
Impacts
Impacts
Impacts
Control Type
(mmBtu/yr)
fton/yr)
fgallon/yrl
Wet Packed Tower Gas Absorber
2,040,000
3,500
8,410,000
Dry Sorbent Injection
244,000
3,850
-
Activated Carbon Injection
496,000
9,570
-
Heat Exchangers
643,000
-
-
Total
3,420,000
16,900
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 did not receive any new information about the source of
electricity for these facilities from the request for comments in the supplemental proposal.
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.
30
-------
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 rule does not dictate that controls must be installed
to control pollutants, and companies may find alternative methods such as changes to their
production processes 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 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. The EPA solicited comment on economic
aspects of this rule but did not receive data on this topic. While the EPA acknowledges
potential impacts, we lack the information necessary to independently assess the
downtime loss of production due to capital improvements or deferred maintenance that
would be associated with these controls for each affected facility. 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.
31
-------
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 final action may be
underestimated.
32
-------
4 BENEFITS OF EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS
4.1 Introduction
The EPA was unable to monetize the benefits from the estimated mercury, HC1,
organic HAP, and D/F emissions reductions associated with the final 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. EPA does not currently quantify or value in
dollar terms the benefits of reductions in HAPs or costs of reductions in HAPs. EPA's ability
to quantify or value health benefits of HAPs reductions is limited by the scientific literature.
Benefits calculations typically use human studies, typically based in observational
epidemiology. While there is a robust toxicological literature on the health impacts of HAPs,
there is relatively little epidemiological literature which is needed for benefits estimation.
Instead, we are providing a qualitative discussion of the health effects associated with HAP
emitted from sources subject to control under the final action. The EPA remains committed
to improving methods for estimating HAP benefits. EPA continues to solicit
recommendations on approaches (such as broad ambient and residential exposure
epidemiological studies) for better characterizing the number and value of HAP-
attributable adverse effects.
As shown in Table 23, the final standards are expected to result in the reduction of
884 tons of HC1 per year, 0.23 tons of mercury per year, 8 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 569 tons of HC1 per year and 0.01 tons of mercury per year.
33
-------
Table 23 Estimated HAP Reductions
Emissions Reductions (tons/yr)
Baseline Emissions
Final
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
8
8
Dioxins/Furans [DF]
0.0000013
0.000000047
0.000000047
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
final rule. The facilities are predominantly rural and some of the lime facilities are co-
located with other industrial sites; we lack the data and modeling necessary to assess
impacts on nearby vegetation and farmland. Each location would be different with different
species and different sensitivities. Any farmland would be different from natural forest or
grassland. Different modelling and analyses would be required for each place and we do
not have specific data for all the different species. This is not to imply that there are no
benefits of the amendments. 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 final 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
34
-------
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
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 methylmercury results in profound CNS effects such as blindness and spastic
quadriparesis. Chronic exposure to methylmercury, 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 methylmercury can lead to significant
developmental effects. Infants born to women who ingested high levels of methylmercury
exhibited mental retardation, ataxia, constriction of the visual field, blindness, and cerebral
palsy (ATSDR, 2022). The EPA has concluded that mercuric chloride and methylmercury
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
35
-------
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).
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, 2018).
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
36
-------
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
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).
37
-------
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
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
38
-------
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 concluded that that there is
inadequate information to assess the carcinogenic potential of mixed xylenes (U.S. EPA,
2003c).
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). The EPA recommends that the toxicity equivalence factor (TEF)
methodology, a component mixture method, be used to evaluate human health risks posed
by dioxin-like compounds, using 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (2,3,7,8-TCDD) as the
index chemical. Dioxins and furans are generally compared to 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. Currently, the EPA recommends the use of the consensus TEF values for
2,3,7,8-TCDD and the dioxin-like compounds published in 2005 by the World Health
Organization (U.S. EPA, 2010).
Out of all HAP 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
39
-------
shown an association between 2,3,7,8-TCDD and soft-tissue sarcomas, lymphomas, and
stomach carcinomas (ATSDR, 1998). The EPA has previously classified 2,3,7,8- TCDD as a
probable human carcinogen (U.S. EPA, 1985a).
40
-------
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".14 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. While risk
modeling was not conducted for this action, we did conduct risk modeling for the Lime
Manufacturing RTR (85 FR 44960) in 2019.15 This modeling indicated that the average
distance to the Maximum Individual Risk Location for the 34 modeled facilities was about 4
14 This definition is from EO 14096, available at
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/04/26/2023-08955/revitalizing-our-nations-
commitment-to-environmental-justice-for-all.
15 The Lime Manufacturing Plants Residual Risk and Technology Review (85 FR 44960) is available at
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2020-07-24/pdf/2020-12588.pdf. The Residual Risk
Assessment for this rule fU.S. EPA, 2019) is available at https://www.regulations.gov/document/EPA-HQ-
OAR-2 017-0015-0033.
41
-------
km (median about 1 km). 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
is included in the technical report 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
Demographic Group
Nationwide
Population within
5 km
of Facilities
Total Population
328,016,242
473,343
Race and Ethnicity by Percent
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 by Percent
Below Poverty Level
13%
27%
Above Poverty Level
87%
73%
Education by Percent
Over 25 and without a High School Diploma
12%
17%
Over 25 and with a High School Diploma
88%
83%
Linguistically Isolated by Percent
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
42
-------
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
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 changes to the NESHAP subpart AAAAA will
reduce emissions by 892 tons of HAP per year, and therefore, further improve human
health exposures for populations in these demographic groups. These changes will have
beneficial effects on air quality and public health for populations exposed to emissions
from lime manufacturing facilities.
43
-------
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 final rule. Because the EPA was
unable to certify that there will not be a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities from the supplemental proposal, an initial regulatory flexibility
analyses (IRFA) was prepared and included in the RIA for the supplemental proposal. The
final regulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA) for this rule 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 final rule.
6.2 Screening Analysis
For this final 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 test is 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.
SB A, 2017).16
16 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.
44
-------
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.17 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
17 The table of SBA's Small Business Size Standards is available at https://www.sba.gov/document/support-
table-size-standards.
45
-------
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.
46
-------
6.2.2 Small Business Impacts Analysis
The cost-to-sales ratios of the final 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
3.7%. 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 32.
Table 27 Cost-to-Sales Ratios of the Final 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 ($M)
Cost/Sales
Including
ICR Costs
Carmeuse Lime, Inc.
No
11
11
1,720
46.9
2.7%
Cemex, S.A.B. de C.V.
No
1
1
720
2.5
0.3%
Cleveland-Cliffs Inc.
No
1
1
20,440
4.9
0.02%
Genesis Energy, L.P.
No
1
1
2,130
2.5
0.1%
Graymont Limited
No
6
3
820
30.0
3.7%
Greer Industries, Inc.
Yes
1
1
103
3.5
3.4%
HBM Holdings
No
2
2
1,712
21.2
1.2%
Lhoist Group
No
7
7
2,600
40.8
1.6%
Magnesita Refratarios SA
No
1
1
283
3.6
1.3%
Martin Marietta Materials Inc.
No
1
1
4,740
5.5
0.1%
Pete Lien & Sons, Inc.
Yes
2
2
150
5.4
3.6%
Note: Sales values reflect global sales of all products from parent companies. Because most of the companies
in this list are international or include sales from operations other than lime production, these sales
are not directly comparable and not entirely reflective of the value of domestic lime sold that can be
derived from Table 31. Information about the lime portion of the sales values in this table is not
available.
Table 28 summarizes the cost-to-sales ratios presented in Table 27 by SBA size
category. The bulk of the costs are anticipated to be borne by ultimate parent companies
that are not small by SBA standards. These companies on average have cost-to-sales ratios
that are smaller than those of small entities, but the maximum estimated impact is for a
non-small company. The two small companies have an average cost-to-sales ratio of 3.5%.
47
-------
Table 28 Summary of Cost-to-Sales Ratios of the Final Amendments by SBA Size
Category
Small
Ultimate
Parent
Affected
Total Annual
Costs Including
Percentage of
T otal Annual
Cost/Sales Including ICR Costs
Business?
Companies
Facilities
ICR Costs ($M)
Costs
Minimum Average Maximum
No
9
28
157.8
94.7%
0.02% 1.2% 3.7%
Yes
2
3
8.9
5.3%
3.4% 3.5% 3.6%
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 5.4%.
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
90.3
5.2%
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
44.2
5.4%
Greer Industries, Inc.
Yes
1
1
103
3.5
3.4%
HBM Holdings
No
2
2
1,712
42.4
2.5%
Lhoist Group
No
7
7
2,600
58.4
2.2%
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. 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%.
48
-------
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
Percentage of
T otal Annual
Cost/Sales Including ICR Costs
Business?
Companies
Facilities
ICR Costs ($M)
Costs
Minimum Average Maximum
No
9
28
254.2
96.1%
0.02% 1.9% 5.4%
Yes
2
3
10.3
3.9%
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
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 3.5.
Because of the magnitude of the estimated impacts on the two small entities affected
by the supplemental proposal, the EPA was unable to certify that there would not be a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. As a result, the EPA
prepared an IRFA and convened a Small Business Advocacy Review (SBAR) Panel. The IRFA
appears in the document titled Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Supplemental Proposed
Amendments to the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Lime
Manufacturing Plants. That document as well as the SBAR Panel Report are available in the
docket for this action.
The estimated impacts on the two small entities affected by this final rule have not
changed from the supplemental proposal, so the EPA is still unable to certify that there will
not be a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities affected by
this final rule. The FRFA for this rule is discussed in the following section.
49
-------
6.3 Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
This section presents the FRFA for this final rule. The methods used to perform the
small entity screening conducted for this final rule and the results of the screening are
described. 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 the supplemental proposal
or this final rule because 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 rule. When a 'no SISNOSE' determination cannot be certified, the
agency responsible for issuing the regulation in question must complete an IRFA for the
proposed rule and a FRFA for the final rule. The IRFA was prepared and included in the RIA
for the supplemental proposal, and this section describes the FRFA for this final rule,
including summaries of the EPA's small entity outreach and responses to the SBAR Panel's
suggestions to reduce impacts on small businesses.
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
50
-------
could minimize that impact. As noted above, the IRFA appears in the RIA for the
supplemental proposal, available in the docket for this rulemaking.
The EPA has prepared a Small Entity Compliance Guide to help small entities comply
with this final rule. As required by section 604 of the RFA, the EPA has prepared a FRFA for
this final rule. The FRFA addresses issues raised by public comments on the IRFA and
describes the economic impact of the final rule on small entities and the steps taken to
minimize significant economic impacts on small entities consistent with the stated
objectives of applicable statutes (5 U.S.C. § 604[a]).
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 finalized
to comply with CAA section 112 requirements, which direct the EPA to complete periodic
reviews of NESHAPs following initial promulgation. The requirements are being finalized to
comply with recent court decisions concerning requirements for technology reviews noted
below.
6.3.3 Statement of Objectives and Legal Basis for Final Rule
The EPA is required under CAA section 112(d) to establish emission standards for
each category or subcategory of major and area sources of HAP listed for regulation in
section 112(b). These standards are applicable to new or existing sources of HAP and
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.
51
-------
This action amends 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 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).18
This final 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.19 Therefore, the
EPA is finalizing amendments establishing standards that reflect MACT for these four
pollutants emitted by the source category, pursuant to CAA sections 112(d)(2) and (3).
These requirements are being finalized under CAA section 112(d) to address the court
decision noted above.
6.3.4 Significant Issues Raised
While the EPA did not receive any comments specifically in response to the initial
regulatory flexibility analysis during the supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking, we
did receive comments from the Office of Advocacy within the Small Business
Administration (SBA) that discussed concerns with the rule that were also reflected in
comments from small businesses and organizations with small business interests. A
summary of the major comments from SBA and our responses is provided in the next
section.
6.3.5 Small Business Administration Comments
The SBA's Office of Advocacy (hereafter "Advocacy") provided substantive
comments on the February 9, 2024, Supplemental Proposal. Advocacy stated that while the
18 Louisiana Environmental Action Network v. EPA, 955 F.3d 1088 (D.C. Cir. 2020) ("LEAN").
19 The 2020 RTR emissions data included the results of testing 34 kiln exhaust stacks for the presence of total
hydrocabons (THC) using EPA Method 25A. In addition, industry stakeholders provided emissions testing
data that identified specific non-dioxin organic HAP.
52
-------
amendments contain many positive recommendations from the 2023 SBAR panel
conducted on EPA's proposed changes to the NESHAP for lime manufacturing plants, they
recommend additional refinements.
While they feel that the SBAR Panel recommendations would be positive for the
overall lime manufacturing industry, they are not specifically targeted at small businesses.
For this reason, Advocacy recommends the EPA grant the small businesses in the lime
manufacturing sector additional time to comply with the rule, because small businesses
will not have priority with the technology vendors and consultants needed to help them
meet the rule requirements and will have to wait until larger entities have met their needs.
Additional time would also allow small businesses to evaluate which technologies worked
best for larger facilities and invest their limited resources accordingly. Advocacy notes that
the Clean Air Act (CAA) section 112(i)(3) allows the Administrator to grant existing sources
an additional year to comply.
Regarding the possibility of an extension, for existing sources, CAA section
112(i)(3)(A) requires the EPA to set the compliance date for a new standard "as
expeditiously as possible, but in no event later than 3 years after the effective date." Under
CAA section 112(i)(3)(B), if an additional period is necessary "for the installation of
controls," at an existing source, an extension of up to one year can be included as a
condition in a permit. Accordingly, the EPA cannot include a one-year compliance extension
in this rulemaking.
Advocacy stated that the EPA should adopt a health-based standard for HC1,
because they believe that a health-based emissions limit (HBEL) for HC1 is based on the
best available science and will adequately protect both public and ecological health.
Advocacy also stated that the EPA should adopt a health-based standard for HC1, as it will
make it possible for small businesses to comply with the amended NESHAP without
significant new capital investments and operating costs based on what the small lime
manufacturing plants have told Advocacy.
The EPA received comments on the February 9, 2024, supplemental proposal both
supporting an HBEL and against setting an HBEL. Commenters supporting an HBEL for HC1
53
-------
stated that HC1 is a "threshold pollutant" as described by EPA in the supplemental proposal
and that current levels of HC1 emissions from lime kilns are well below the threshold levels
of concern for human receptors. Commenters supporting the use of an HBEL also cited the
conclusions in the July 24, 2020, RTR (85 FR 44960) that the risks of lime manufacturing
under the current MACT standards were acceptable and that the current NESHAP provides
an ample margin of safety to protect public health to argue that EPA should establish a
health-based standard for HC1 under section 112(d)(4). Commenters opposed to the use of
an HBEL for HC1 stated that EPA had not provided substantial evidence that HC1 is not
carcinogenic. They stated that a carcinogen cannot be a threshold pollutant, and, therefore,
if the EPA cannot say HC1 is non-carcinogenic, then it cannot designate HC1 as a threshold
pollutant. Additionally, commenters opposed stated that the EPA did not provide sufficient
and unequivocal evidence to support its claim that HC1 does not act via a mutagenic mode
of action. Therefore, they stated, the EPA cannot establish an HBEL for HC1. They also stated
that EPA should seek peer review on the issue of threshold.
Based on the comments received, and on further review of the potential use of an
HBEL as described in the February 9, 2024, supplemental proposal, the EPA has decided
not to promulgate an HBEL for HC1 in the Lime Manufacturing NESHAP at this time.
While Advocacy supported the EPA's proposed aggregate standards for organic
hazardous air pollutants (oHAP), they recommend using an average of all detection limits,
as opposed to the five lowest, to generate what they believe would be a more accurate
standard. Advocacy also commended the EPA for including the SBAR's recommendation of
an intra-quarry variability factor (IQV) for mercury, and recommended that the EPA
continue to work with the lime manufacturing industry, including its small businesses, to
ensure the best science and methods are being used.
Regarding the oHAP standard, based on an assessment of the available test data, the
EPA identified eight specific pollutants that were consistently emitted by the lime
manufacturing source category. These include formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, toluene,
benzene, xylenes (a mixture of o, m, and p isomers), styrene, ethyl benzene, and
naphthalene. The EPA determined that the emissions data of these eight pollutants best
represent the typical organic HAP emissions of the source category. Furthermore, the EPA
54
-------
determined that controlling the emissions of these eight pollutants from a lime
manufacturing facility would also control the facility's emissions of other organic HAP. For
these reasons, the EPA is finalizing the use of an aggregated emission limit for the eight
organic HAP identified in the data analysis as a surrogate for total organic HAP.
For each of the eight organic HAP, the EPA calculated the emission limit value
equivalent to three times the representative detection level (3xRDL) of the test method.
The total of these was then compared to upper predictive limit (UPL) calculations for the
sum of the eight pollutants. In all cases for both new and existing sources, the 3xRDL value,
which represents the lowest value that can be accurately measured, was above the
calculated UPL. We are accordingly finalizing the MACT floor at this level.
The EPA received adverse comments on the calculations used in setting emissions
limits for oHAP for lime manufacturing facilities. Commenters stated that representative
detection levels calculated by the EPA to develop the proposed 3xRDL aggregate limit for
oHAP contained errors. The EPA reviewed the methodology used to calculate the
representative detection levels and revised its calculations where appropriate. The
aggregate emission limit for oHAP in the final rule includes changes made to the limit based
on this review.
Regarding the IQV, during the proposed rule development, the EPA reviewed the
quarry data provided by the National Lime Association (NLA) in support of an IQV factor
and found the data to be unreliable, and because of this did not include an IQV factor in the
January 5, 2023, proposal. After that proposal, the EPA re-evaluated the data, including
performing a statistical analysis.20 From the analysis, the EPA found a statistical method for
determining the IQV factor, which was included in the supplemental proposal and is now
being finalized.
Finally, Advocacy believes that the EPA does not have enough information to
promulgate its proposed D/F emissions standard and does not believe the proposed
standard is warranted. If the EPA wishes to pursue a D/F emissions standard, Advocacy
20 This statistical analysis is discussed in section 6.2 of the memorandum titled Final Maximum Achievable
Control Technology (MACT) Floor Analysis for the Lime Manufacturing Plants Industry, located in the
docket for this action.
55
-------
recommended adoption of a work practice standard that would allow small businesses to
continue operating without unnecessarily changing their processes or installing costly new
equipment.
In the LEAN decision discussed in Section 6.3.3, the D.C. Circuit held that the EPA
has an obligation to address unregulated HAP emissions from a major source category
when the Agency conducts the 8-year technology review required by CAA section
112(d)(6). Emissions data collected from lime manufacturing kilns in the source category
have demonstrated that HC1, mercury, organic HAP, and D/F are emitted during
manufacturing operations. Because these four pollutants are emitted from the lime
manufacturing source category, and were not previously regulated by the NESHAP,
pursuant to the LEAN decision, the EPA is required to set emission standards as part of the
CAA section 112(d)(6) technology review for the source category. Specifically, EPA is
required to establish new MACT standards pursuant to CAA sections 112(d)(2) and (3).
The EPA disagrees with the comment that the EPA does not have enough data to set
emission standards for D/F. The EPA set the D/F emissions limit at 3xRDL based on an
emissions data gathered during the 2020 RTR, and from a broader understanding of lime
kiln operating temperatures and the mechanisms for D/F formation and reformation. From
this information, the Agency had sufficient information to calculate a UPL standard and
after comparing the UPL to the 3xRDL value, is justified in setting the MACT at 3xRDL.
No additional test data supporting a work practice was provided by stakeholders
during rule development or during the public comment period. Furthermore, in accordance
with section 112(h) of the Clean Air Act (CAA), in order to promulgate a work practice
standard the EPA must determine if it is "not feasible to prescribe or enforce an emission
standard", which means any situation in which the Administrator determines that (1) a
hazardous air pollutant or pollutants cannot be emitted through a conveyance designed
and constructed to emit or capture such pollutant, or that any requirement for, or use of,
such a conveyance would be inconsistent with any Federal, State or local law, or (2) the
application of measurement methodology to a particular class of sources is not practicable
due to technological and economic limitations.
56
-------
The EPA has evidence that D/F emissions from lime kilns are emitted from the stack
and can be tested at the stack, which conflicts with condition (1). Furthermore, D/F
emissions test data for the lime manufacturing source category indicate levels above the
detection limit. As a result, criterion (2) is not met. Therefore, the EPA cannot legally set a
work practice standard.
More detailed responses to Advocacy's comments and other comments received can
be found in the document, Summary of Public Comments and Responses for National
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Lime Manufacturing Plants Amendments,
available in the docket for this rulemaking.
6.3.6 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 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 an IRFA and FRFA,
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. This final rule is expected to have significant economic impacts on both of the
small businesses in this source category.
6.3.7 Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance Requirements
This final 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.
57
-------
6.3.8 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, and
promulgated March 7,1978, 40 CFR part 60 subpart HH. That rule limits particulate matter
(PM) emissions from rotary and lime hydrator kilns.
6.3.9 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. As
previously noted, the IRFA appears in the RIA for the supplemental proposal, available in
the docket for this rulemaking.
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 could 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. In response to these
recommendations as well as comments received on the supplemental proposal, the EPA
evaluated several regulatory alternatives to determine if they could accomplish the stated
objectives of the Clean Air Act while minimizing any significant economic impact of the
final rule on small entities. Discussion of these alternatives is provided below.
6.3.9.1 Health-based standard for HCl
The Panel recommended 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 noted 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
58
-------
HC1 resulting from kiln emissions were well below the health effects threshold established
in the EPA Integrated Risk Information System. Therefore, the Panel believed these data
are sufficient to allow EPA to consider the health impacts threshold when setting an HC1
emissions limit, which would be an important step to lessen the impact of the rule on small
businesses.
In response to this recommendation, the EPA solicited public comment on this issue
in the supplemental proposal. As previously discussed in Section 6.3.5, the EPA received
valid arguments from both opponents and proponents of the use of a health-based
standard for HC1. Based on the comments received, and on further review of the potential
use of an HBEL as described in the February 9, 2024, supplemental proposal, the EPA has
decided not to promulgate an HBEL for HCL in the Lime Manufacturing NESHAP at this
time.
6.3.9.2 Aggregated organic HAP emission standard
The Panel recommended the EPA consider and take comment on an overall organic
HAP limit rather than a THC limit. The January 5, 2023, proposed rule used THC as a
surrogate for establishing an emissions limit for organic HAP. The Panel noted 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 eight 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 benzene, and napthalene. The EPA believes that the emissions data of these
eight pollutants best represents the typical organic HAP emissions of the source category.
Furthermore, the EPA believes that controlling the emissions of these eight 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
59
-------
the eight pollutants would also be effective controls for all organic HAP. For this reason, in
the February 9, 2024, supplemental proposal the EPA proposed an aggregated emission
standard of the eight organic HAP identified in the data analysis as a surrogate for total
organic HAP. The EPA is finalizing the aggregated emission standard in this action.
6.3.9.3 Use of Intra-quarry variability factor in setting mercury emissions limit
The Panel recommended that the EPA consider intra-quariy 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.21 The EPA is aware that limestone quarries are immense and are
customarily used from periods of 50 to 100 years. The Panel noted 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 noted 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
both new and existing sources to 27 lb/MMton for new sources, and 34 lb/MMton for
existing sources in the quicklime subcategory. The EPA is finalizing these changes in this
action.
21 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.
60
-------
6.3.9.4 Subcategories for HCl emissions limit
The Panel recommended 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 noted
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 supported 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 retained the subcategories and in
response to a public comment added a vertical kiln (VK): dolomitic lime (DL), dead-burned,
dolomitic lime (DB) subcategory. The EPA is finalizing these subcategories in this action.
6.3.9.5 Work practice standard for dioxins/furans
The panel recommended that the EPA consider and take comment on setting a work
practice standard for dioxins/furans in place of a numeric limit. The panel believed 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 believed 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 did 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
operations. As previously noted in Section 6.3.5, no additional test data supporting a work
practice was provided by stakeholders, during rule development, nor was provided during
61
-------
the public comment period. In accordance with section 112(h) of the Clean Air Act (CAA), a
work practice can only be promulgated if it is technically and economically feasible to
measure emissions. Because the EPA has actual measured emissions data, a work practice
standard is not allowed. In addition, the EPA does not have data to support a work practice
based on the best performing sources. Therefore, the EPA cannot consider a work practice
standard as an alternative to an emission standard.
6.3.9.6 Additional flexibility added to rule
The EPA is finalizing an emissions averaging compliance alternative that allows lime
manufacturing facilities to demonstrate compliance with the HC1 and mercury standards by
averaging emissions of each pollutant across existing kilns located at the same facility.
Under this emissions averaging compliance alternative, a facility with more than one
existing kiln may average emissions across the kilns located at the facility provided that the
emissions averaged do not exceed the limits included in Table 31.
Table 31 Emissions Averaging Compliance Alternative For HC1 and Mercury
Emissions Averaging
Pollutant Kiln Type1 Stone Produced2 Alternative Limit Unit of Measure
Hydrogen Chloride SR DL, DB 2.1 lb/ton stone produced
SR
QL
0.47
lb/ton stone produced
PR
DL, DB
0.36
lb/ton stone produced
PR
QL
0.087
lb/ton stone produced
VK
DL, DB
0.36
lb/ton stone produced
VK QL 0.019 lb/ton stone produced
Mercury All All 31 lb/MMton stone produced
Note:
1 - Straight rotary kiln (SR), preheater rotary kiln (PR), vertical kiln (VK)
2 - Dolomitic lime (DL), quick lime (QL), dead burned dolomitic lime (DB)
The emission limits included in Table 31 reflect a 10 percent adjustment factor to
the MACT floor standard. We expect this emission limit would result in reductions of HC1
and mercury greater than those achieved by application of the MACT floor on a unit-by-unit
basis.
62
-------
The emissions averaging program has restrictions. First, emissions averaging is not
allowed between HCL and mercury emissions. Second, emissions averaging is only
permissible among individual existing affected units at a single lime manufacturing plant.
Third, emissions averaging is only permitted among kilns in the same subcategory. Lastly,
new affected sources cannot use emissions averaging for compliance purposes.
We are finalizing a requirement for each facility intending to use this emissions
averaging program to develop an emissions averaging plan that identifies: (1) all units in
the averaging group; (2) the control technology installed; (3) the process parameter(s) that
will be monitored; (4) the specific control technology or pollution prevention measure to
be used; (5) the test plan for measuring the HAP being averaged; and (6) the operating
parameters to be monitored for each control device.
6.4 Economic Impact Modeling
This final rule requires lime manufacturers to meet emission standards for the
release of HAP 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.
63
-------
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.
Affected Facilities Unaffected Facilities Market
a) Baseline Equilibrium
Affected Facilities Unaffected Facilities Market
b) With-Regulation Equilibrium
Figure 1 Market Equilibrium without and with Regulation
64
-------
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.
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:
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:
Eq. 1
qLm = a(p- cdomys*om
Eq. 2
65
-------
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 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 = BPsf°r Eq. 3
where B is a parameter that calibrates the supply equation to replicate baseline production
and Łf0ris an estimate of the foreign supply elasticity.
6.4.2.2 Demand
Market demand is the sum of domestic and foreign demand, or:
QD = Rdom + Rfor Eq- 4
where qd0m represents domestic demand and qfor represents exports to foreign
consumers.
Domestic demand is expressed as follows:
qdom = cpv°om 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:
qfor = DPrif°r Eq. 6
where D is parameter that calibrates the demand equation to replicate lime exports and
t]for 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,
66
-------
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.
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
67
-------
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:
A PS = A P * 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.
6.4.2.5 Baseline Data and Elasticity Estimates
The "baseline" for a regulatory impact analysis is a business-as-usual scenario that
represents the world in the absence of the regulatory action under examination. Lacking
the data to produce a full dynamic model of the lime sector capable of projecting demand in
future periods, the EPA implemented a static, one-period model for the lime market with a
compliance cost shock that effects equilibrium quantities and prices in the market. U.S.
Geological Survey (USGS) data on quantities and and prices from a recent year serve as
baseline data, as described in Table 32. USGS surveys all domestic producers of lime,
including facilities that are subject to the requirements of this rule, as well as facilities not
categorized as a major source of HAP emissions and therefore not subject to the
requirements of this rule.
To estimate a model of this type at a firm or facility level, 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
68
-------
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. The EPA further assumes that
the price and quantity information drawn from USGS reflects full compliance with the Lime
Manufacturing NESHAP from January 5, 2004 (69 FR 394) and the RTR from July 24, 2020
(85 FR 44960).
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 32 to characterize the market in 2021. Domestic
production and import and export quantities for lime were collected from the USGS.22 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.
Table 32 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.
22 We obtained unrounded "Salient Statistics—United States" figures from USGS for 2021 (L. Apodaca, USGS,
personal communication, September 22, 2023).
69
-------
20,000
18,000
16,000
14,000
12,000
1 10,000
O 8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
0
» •
<»>>>¦
^^^,C?'V5'V5'v5'v5
-------
6.4.2.6 Control Cost Inputs
As described in Chapter 3 of this RIA, the EPA developed compliance cost estimates
for kilns subject to the final 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 34 for the final amendments and the beyond-the-floor option that was not selected.
Table 34 National Engineering Control Cost Estimates (millions of 2022 dollars)
Total Capital
Investment
Non-capital Annual
Costs
Total Annualized Costs
Final Amendments
484
117
167
Beyond-the-Floor Option
1,016
159
265
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 Final Cost Impacts for the Lime
Manufacturing Plants Industry, 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
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.
71
-------
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 35, the price of lime increases 5.5 percent under the final amendments and 8.9
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 35 National-Level Market Impacts of the Final Amendments and Beyond-the-
Floor Option: 2021
Final Amendments
Beyond-the-Floor Option
Baseline
Change Change(%]
Change Change(%]
Price ($/metric ton in 2022$) 148
8.2 5.5
r4.9,9.11 T3.3,6.11
13.1 8.9
T8.1,15.61 T5.5,10.51
"c IT Domestic Production 15,700
TO TO
-212 -1.4
T-445, -951 r-2.8, -0.61
-344 -2.2
[-710, -2611 T-4.5,-1.61
2 ^ Imports 323
P. a
37 11.5
ri2, 931 T3.7, 28.81
61 18.9
ri9,1561 T5.9, 48.31
— o
^ u Exports 335
e h
-22 -6.6
r-48, -71 r-14.3, -2.11
-33 -9.9
r-72,-111 r-21.5, -3.31
TO CD
o> S Domestic Consumption 15,700
-164 -1.0
f-349,-661 [-2.2, -0.41
-261 -1.7
[-548, -1081 r-3.5, -0.71
Note: Point estimates are presented for the assumed elasticities. As a sensitivity analysis, elasticities were
allowed to be [i] half their originally assumed elasticity, [ii] equal to their originally assumed
elasticity, or (iii) double their originally assumed elasticity. With three options per elasticity, this
results in 81 (or 3 '] combinations. The same estimation procedure was used that 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.
Under the final amendments, domestic production is estimated to decline by
212,000 metric tons (1.4 percent), imports are estimated to increase by 37,000 metric
tons (11.5 percent), and exports are estimated to decline by 22,000 metric tons (6.6
percent), resulting in an estimated net decline in the quantity of lime distributed to the
domestic market by about 164,000 metric tons (1.0 percent). Under the beyond-the-
floor option, these impacts are more pronounced. Domestic production is estimated to
decline by 344,000 metric tons (2.2 percent), imports are estimated to increase by
72
-------
61,000 metric tons (18.9 percent), and exports are estimated to decline by 33,000
metric tons (9.9 percent), resulting in an estimated net decline in the quantity of lime
distributed to the domestic market of about 261,000 metric tons (1.7 percent).
Although foreign lime suppliers are estimated to gain under the final 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 36, the economic model estimates a partial equilibrium
estimate of the total social cost of $166 million for the final amendments and $261 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 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 $132 million in consumer surplus under the final amendments and
foreign consumers are projected to lose $3 million in consumer surplus. Domestic producer
surplus is estimated to decline by $34 million. Foreign producers are estimated to gain
from the regulation with producer surplus increasing by about $3 million. Under the
73
-------
beyond-the-floor option, domestic consumers are projected to lose $209 million in
consumer surplus and foreign consumers are projected to lose $4 million in consumer
surplus. Domestic producer surplus is estimated to decline by $53 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 $5 million under this option. Under
both the final amendments and beyond-the-floor option, foreign producers benefit from
the higher prices associated with additional control costs on domestic producers and the
fact that they do not have to incur the costs. As shown in Table 36, the majority of costs
associated with the final amendments and beyond-the-floor option are passed on to
consumers.
Table 36 Distribution of Social Costs Associated with the Final Amendments and
Beyond-the-Floor Option (millions 2022$)
Change in Consumer Surplus
Domestic
Foreign
Final Amendments
-132
-3
Beyond-the-Floor Option
-209
-4
Change in Producer Surplus
Domestic
Foreign
-34
3
-53
5
Total Surplus Change
-166
-261
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
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
74
-------
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. However, the EPA does not an economic model capable of evaluating potential
region-level economic impacts for the lime sector.
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.
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
75
-------
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
final 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.
76
-------
7 COMPARISON OF COSTS AND BENEFITS
7.1 Results
The net benefits for the final amendments to the NESHAP for Lime Manufacturing
facilities are presented in Table 37. This table includes the present values (PV) and the
equivalent annualized values (EAV) of the final amendments and the beyond-the-floor
option from Table 18 and Table 20. Because the EPA estimated the compliance costs of the
final 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. Furthermore, the estimates of compliance costs used in the net benefits
analysis may provide an incomplete characterization of the true costs of the rule, as
discussed in Section 3.5. However, the changes will have beneficial effects on air quality
and public health for populations exposed to emissions from lime manufacturing facilities.
Table 37 Summary of Benefits, Costs and Net Benefits for the Final Amendments and
Beyond-the-Floor Option from 2024 to 2043 (Million 2022$)
Final Amendments
Beyond-the-Floor Option
2% Discount Rate
2% Discount Rate
PV EAV
PV EAV
Monetized Benefits
N/A
N/A
Total Annual Costs
$2,380 $145
$3,590 $220
Net Benefits
N/A
N/A
• 884tpyofHCl
• 1,453 tpy of HC1
• 0.23 tpy of mercury
• 0.24 tpy of mercury
Non-Monetized
• 8 tpy of organic HAP
• 8 tpy of organic HAP
Benefits
• 0.000000047 tpy of D/F
• 0.000000047 tpy of D/F
• Health effects of reduced
• Health effects of reduced
exposure to HC1, mercury,
exposure to HC1, mercury,
organic HAP, and D/F
organic HAP, and D/F
• Environmental impacts from
• Environmental impacts from
increased solid waste and
increased solid waste and
wastewater associated with
wastewater associated with
Non-Monetized
Disbenefits
emissions controls
emissions controls
• Climate and health impacts
• Climate and health impacts
associated with increased
associated with increased
emissions from electricity
emissions from electricity
generation needed for
generation needed for
emissions controls
emissions controls
Note: Potential unquantified impacts may include downtime for the affected kilns, which may lead to lost
revenue for producers who are affected by the rule.
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 final rule. This is not to imply that
there are no benefits of the amendments. Rather, it is a reflection of the difficulties in modeling the
77
-------
health effects and monetizing the benefits of reducing HAP emissions from this source category with
the data currently available.
If a regulation is expected to have a "substantial" impact on capital investment,
Circular A-4 (U.S. OMB, 2023) recommends the Agency evaluate the robustness of the net
benefits. Specifically, Circular A-4 recommends conducting a supplemental analysis that
examines the sensitivity of the net benefits estimates to the default assumption regarding
capital investment impacts using a shadow price of capital approach. The recommended
sensitivity analyses includes two cases where: 1) all costs displace capital investment that
is evaluated by multiplying the costs by a shadow price of capital and leaving benefits
unadjusted, and 2) all benefits induce capital investment that is evaluated by multiplying
the benefits by a shadow price of capital and leavings costs unadjusted. In implementing
the sensitivity analysis, the updated Circular A-4 recommends a default value of 1.2 for the
shadow price of capital.
This sensitivity analysis is hampered by the absence of monetized benefits for this
rule. As previously stated, this does not imply that there are no benefits of the amendments
but is instead 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. Nonetheless, the net benefits for this rule are uncertain for the two cases
described above as well as for the primary analysis. However, if all costs displace capital
investment, then using the shadow capital approach discussed above, the unknown net
benefits may be 20 percent or more lower.
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 (U.S. EPA, 2017) and other
sources, and 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 final rule does not dictate that controls must be installed
to control pollutants, and companies may find alternative methods to comply with the
78
-------
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 amendments 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 maybe 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. Recent market trends indicate that the production of lime
has been relatively steady in recent years, with imports accounting for a very small portion
of overall consumption. Product pricing has increased in recent years due to increased
costs of production, indicating that facilities are able to pass along at least part of their
increased costs to consumers (USGS, 2024). Table 5 in Section 2.4 shows that the iron and
steel industry is the largest consumer of lime. While the iron and steel industry has also
been subject to recent rulemaking, the EPA is unaware of any interactions between the
Lime Manufacturing NESHAP and the Iron and Steel NESHAP. Furthermore, there are many
other uses of lime. It is reasonable to assume that recent years are indicative of the
industry over the time horizon of this analysis. While this is a strong assumption, the EPA
lacks a more detailed facility-level model that accounts for market and technological
dynamics.
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
79
-------
estimate the emissions reductions due to the final rule. 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
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 final rule.
80
-------
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 Profile 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 Profile 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
81
-------
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
82
-------
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
83
-------
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
84
-------
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. (2010). Recommended Toxicity Equivalence Factors (TEFs) for Human Health Risk
Assessments of 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin and Dioxin-Like Compounds. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Risk Assessment Forum, Washington, DC.
EPA/600/R-10/005.
https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi/P1009HJ9.PDF?Dockey=P1009HJ9.PDF
U.S. EPA. (2017). EPA Air Pollution Control Cost Manual. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 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
U.S. EPA. (2019). Residual Risk Assessment for the Lime Manufacturing Source Category in
Support of the 2019 Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle
Park, NC. https://www.regulations.gov/document/EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0015-0033
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
USGS. (2024). Mineral Commodity Summaries 2024: Lime. U.S. Geological Survey.
https://pubs.usgs.gov/periodicals/mcs2024/mcs2024-lime.pdf
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. (2023). Circular A-4, Regulatory Analysis. U.S. Office of Management and Budget,
November 9, 2023. https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-
content/uploads/2023/ll/CircularA-4.pdf
85
-------
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
86
-------
United States Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards Publication No. EPA-452/R-24-014
Environmental Protection Health and Environmental Impacts Division June 2024
Agency Research Triangle Park, NC
------- |