Document OzBzDJy5KBd3zQ0XK1vnm9MgQ

REGULATORY BACKGROUND EPA's regulation of hazardous air pollutants ("HAPs") from lime manufacturing started two decades ago when, in 2004, EPA promulgated the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Lime Manufacturing Plants. (40 CFR 63.7080-7083.) In so doing, EPA noted that: "the purpose of the final NESHAP is to protect public health by reducing emissions of HAP from lime manufacturing plants." 69 Fed, Reg. 394, 395 (Jan. 5, 2004). EPA carefully evaluated the lime manufacturing sector and regulated HAP emissions by establishing a particulate matter ("PM") standard as a surrogate for non-volatile and semi-volatile metal HAPs. As part of this evaluation EPA addressed all four of the additional HAPs emitted by the lime industry: HCI, mercury, oHAP, and D.'F. Based on this evaluation, EPA found that new regulations were not necessary for any of those additional HAPs based on the best available science. EPA's 2004 rule was not challenged by the lime industry or any environmental groups. In 2020, EPA issued a final nile to fulfill its obligations under CAA sections 112(d)(6) and (0(2), or the "risk and technology review" ("RTR"). Here, EPA found that "risks are acceptable and that the current NESHAP provides an ample margin of safety to protect public health" and therefore found that it was unnecessary to set standards for HCI, mercury, organics, or BF, fulfilling its 112(0(2) obligation. National Emission Standardsfor Hazardous Air Pollutants: Lime Manufacturing Plants Residual Risk and Technology Review, 85 Fed. Reg. 44960 (July 24, 2020). EPA further determined that "[t]here are no developments in practices, processes, or control technologies that necessitate revisions to the standards," Fulfilling its 1 12(d)(6) obligation. Id. In the rulemaking process that led to EPA's 2024 Lime Rule, EPA performed a full risk assessment for all four pollutants (HCI, mercury, oHAP, and D F), and yet again determined that emissions of all these pollutants from the lime industry presented an acceptable risk with an ample margin of safety, without any additional controls. NLA provided detailed comments explaining why EPA should decline to set new standards, or in the alternative, should set standards that were reasonable, less costly and more likely achievable by the industry. Nevertheless, EPA promulgated the final Lime Rule imposing onerous, unreasonable and extremely costly standards for all four of these pollutants. EPA's own regulatory impact analysis found that the rule would cost in excess of $2 billion for the lime industry, while the benefits are too negligible to monetize. This is because since even without additional controls risks are already acceptable with an ample margin of safety, the Lime Rule provides no benefits. NLA strongly supports EPA's plan to reconsider this final regulation, for numerous legal and technical reasons previously raised in NLA's comments during the notice and comment period preceding the Lime Rule, in NLA's lawsuit, and in NLA's petition for reconsideration. 2 Sierra Club FOIA 2025-EPA-04883 ED_018388_00000258-00003 SC_EVERSPLIT0006049