1

MEMO to DOCKET

SUBJECT: “Communications on Errors_PCA August 2015

FROM: Sharon Nizich, US EPA OAQPS SPPD, Minerals and Manufacturing Group

DATE: August 31, 2015

The following emails were received from representatives of the Portland Cement 

Association concerning errors they found in the final rule dated July 27, 2015 ((80 FR 

44772). All of these issues are related to monitoring requirements in the rule.

From: HolmesAems@aol.com

Sent: Friday, August 07, 2015 10:00 AM

To: Nizich, Sharon; Barnett, Keith

Cc: Fruh, Steve

Subject: Re: Portland Cement NESHAP

Sharon, Can we have a call on Monday to discuss these items? I am available all day. Also, 

I am in the process of writing up a fourth issue and can discuss that one as well. Thanks, 

John

In a message dated 7/24/2015 3:45:15 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, HolmesAems@aol.com 

writes:

Sharon and Keith,

PCA has begun its review of the final rule and appreciates the agency’s consideration and 

response to comments that we filed. However, there are three unanticipated changes 

that are of concern. While other issues may surface as we study the final rule 

in more detail, I wanted to share these three concerns with you now so that we can 

consider the best way to address them. Here is an overview of each of the three concerns. 

I would be happy to follow up with a phone conversation.

Changes to Performance Specification 8A

Under the current rule, the THC CEMS is to conform to performance specification (PS) 8A. 

PS 8A is specific to the use of a Flame Ionization Detector (FID) as the measurement 

technology. PS 8 is not. Because some of the industry was considering the use of non-FID 

methods, PCA asked that PS 8 be added as an alternative. The addition of PS 8 was 

proposed in November, PCA supported that proposal, and PS 8 now appears as an 

alternative. 
2

What surprised us was the alteration of requirements for on-going QA for monitors 

certified under PS 8A that appears in the final rule but was not in the November proposal. 

The rule now contains the following change to the use of PS 8A:

“The THC continuous emissions monitoring systems certified under 

Performance Specification 8A, conduct relative accuracy test audits required under 

Procedure 1 in accordance with Performance Specification 8, Sections 8 and 11 using 

Method 25A in appendix A to 40 CFR part 60 as the reference method; the relative 

accuracy must meet the criteria of Performance 

Specification 8, Section 13.2.”

This change presents several serious concerns, not the least of which is that it was not 

proposed and there was no opportunity to comment on this change. We note that the 

absence of RATA requirements in Performance Specification 8A is not an omission. The 

introduction to Section 6 of PS 8A states: “The test procedures described in this section are 

in lieu of a RATA and ACA.” When PS 8A was created, it was understood that at relatively 

low THC concentrations, a RATA comparison of an FID instrument in the CEMS to another 

FID instrument via Method 25A would not ensure the accuracy of either instrument. FID 

analyzers have instrument-specific responses to various organic compounds present in the 

effluent and are simply calibrated relative to propane. 

Unlike SO2, NO or other gas analyzers, FID analyzers do measure a specific compound in 

the effluent and are not amenable to a relative accuracy test specification. The calibration 

drift test and the calibration error test that are in Section 6 of PS 8A are appropriate and 

reasonable. This change will create significant costs with no improvement in accuracy. 

The cement industry is facing an added cost of an ineffective requirement. 

The test procedures that are in PS 8A are practical and effective and don’t need to be 

changed. However, if the agency feels that there is a deficiency in PS 8A, the correct 

action is to develop a proposal to change to PS 8A and sent it out for comment. A last 

minute edit to a final rule that goes into effect in a few months is not an appropriate 

means of changing a standardized performance specification.

Changes to Performance Specification 15

We have a similar concern with a last minute change to the application of requirements 

for FTIR-based HCl CEMS certified in accordance with PS 15 under this rule. While we and 

you have spent considerable time over the last year on the new alternative Performance 

Specification 18, including the span value and calibration requirements that would apply to 

any CEMS certified by a method other than PS 15, there was no proposal or discussion of 

changing the requirements for monitors certified under PS 15. In the proposed rule issued 

in November at 63.1350(l)(1), there is language that is in the current rule and was not 

changed (emphasis added):
3

“The span value and calibration requirements in paragraphs (l)(1)(i) and (ii) below apply to 

HCL CEMS other than those installed and certified under PS 15.”

PCA supported this specific language in its comments. However, we now find that the final 

rule has changed this language. It now says (emphasis added):

“The span value and calibration requirements in paragraphs (l)(1)(i) and (ii) of this section 

apply to all HCl CEMS used under this subpart.”

The extension of these requirements to HCl CEMS certified under PS 15 was not proposed 

and we were given no opportunity to comment. This is a significant change.

 

An HCl CEMS certified under PS 15 had no specified span values and no requirements to 

perform above span calibration checks. The span could simply be set at a sufficiently high 

value to include all expected measurement concentrations. Only a zero and single upscale 

HCl standard were required for daily operation. These changes would potentially require 

cement plant operators that chose the PS15, Appendix F, Procedure 1 approach to now (1) 

purchase new calibration standards at 2-3 ppm, and 5-6 ppm HCl for quarterly audits 

which are less reliable than higher level gases, (2) purchase and install additional high level 

gases for above span calibrations, and modify calibration manifolds and calibration 

sequences to allow their use, (3) develop and implement special DAS programming to 

automate above span calibration sequences because the time when these procedures 

must be performed cannot be predicted, and interface the DAS activation of the above 

span calibrations with the HCl CEMS operation, (4) implement DAS programming for data 

normalization that is not now available in the existing DAS systems, and (5) revise 

monitoring plans and QA plans that have already been created. 

 

Elimination of Option to Test for oHAPs after an Inline Coal Mill

As you are aware, if a kiln has kiln exhaust routed to an inline coal mill, the emissions from 

that mill’s outlet must be accounted for. Our concern is with an unanticipated language 

change that presents significant practical concerns for determining oHAP emissions 

associated with an inline coal mill. For THC, the rule provides an option to determine THC 

emissions either at the inlet or outlet of the coal mill. This makes sense. If the grinding of 

the coal is releasing significant amounts of THC into the exhaust, the THC at the outlet 

could be very high and it will not be a reflection of the kiln exhaust which is being 

regulated. Measuring upstream of the coal mill allows one to avoid this distortion of the 

level of kiln related THC emissions. On the other hand, if there is no significant THC 

coming from the coal, testing the cleaner coal mill outlet (after the baghouse) will be 

easier. Under the oHAP alternative to the THC limit, one must also account for the oHAP 

in the kiln gases going to any inline coal mill. In the November proposed rule, a sentence 

on this topic was added at 63.1349(b)(7)(v) stating:
4

“If your kiln has an inline coal mill, and you are required to measure at the coal mill inlet, 

you must also measure oHAP at the coal mill inlet and calculate a weighted average for all 

emission sources including the inline coal mill and the alkali bypass.”

We read this to mean that the agency wanted consistency in the measurement location 

for THC and oHAP. If one needed to measure THC at the inlet of the coal mill to avoid coal 

related THC distortions, then the agency wanted the oHAP measurement to be on the 

same basis. We did not read this to exclude measurement of oHAP at the coal mill outlet. 

However, in the final rule, this language has been changed. It now reads:

“If your kiln has an inline coal mill and/or an alkali bypass with separate stacks, you are 

required to measure and account for oHAP emissions from their separate stacks. You are 

required to measure oHAP at the coal mill inlet and you must measure oHAP at the alkali 

bypass outlet. You must then calculate a flow weighted average oHAP concentration for 

all the emissions source including the inline coal mill and the alkali bypass.”

This language eliminates the option of measuring oHAP at the outlet of the coal mill. This 

is problematic for several reasons. First, some kiln owners have found that it is not safe to 

try to sample before the coal mill. Second, the particulate loading can be so high prior to 

the mill that oHAP testing cannot be done, because the Method 18 and Method 320 

sampling equipment cannot handle the very high dust loading. In these instances, 

sampling after the dust collector on the coal mill exhaust is the only viable option. Lastly, 

testing has shown that in some instances oHAP is removed through adsorption to the coal 

and that control can only be accounted for by testing at the coal mill outlet. PCA members 

need the option to test oHAP emissions at either the outlet or inlet of an inline coal mill, as 

is presently the case for THC emissions. 

As I said earlier, I would be happy to discuss these concerns further at your earliest 

convenience.

John Holmes

From: HolmesAems@aol.com

Sent: Monday, August 10, 2015 8:10 AM

To: Nizich, Sharon

Cc: jimpeeler@mindspring.com

Subject: Above Span Language Changes for Subpart LLL 

Sharon. 
5

Here is a description of the additional issue I mentioned last week. I have asked Jim Peeler 

to join us on the call at 10 am. We have another new issue which we can discuss and 

provide a write up later. 

John

There are two places in the revised Subpart LLL regulation where there is what appears to 

be some “unintended language” which applies to the weekly above span linearity. One is

for Hg measurements and the other is for HCl measurements. Both are similar, but are not 

exactly the same. For the Hg monitoring, the sentence of concern is found at the end of 

63.1350(k)(2)(ii) and it says: “In this manner values measured by the Hg CEMS during the 

above span linearity challenge exceeding +/-20 percent of the certified value of the 

reference gas must be normalized using Equation 22.”

It says that the values measured during the above span linearity challenge need to be 

adjusted. Values measured “during” the linearity challenge are measurements of the high 

level reference gas. It is the monitoring data exceeding the span value that need 

adjusting. Deleting the sentence would remove the confusion. The preceding sentence in 

this section directs the reader to what must be done. The sentence in question is merely 

commentary. Alternatively, the sentence could be re-written as follows:

“In this manner all hourly average values exceeding the span value measured by the Hg 

CEMS during the week following the above span linearity challenge when the CEMS 

response is exceeding +/-20 percent of the certified value of the reference gas must be 

normalized using Equation 22.”

One consideration is whether the normalization should apply to the week period before or 

after the weekly above span linearity check. Importantly, choosing the week following 

avoids situations where the normalization of CEMS data would result in the need to overwrite the hourly averages in the DAS files and the 30-day rolling averages computed by the 

DAS at the end of each day and then manually re-compute 30-day rolling averages for each 

day in the prior week as well as the potential for the adjustment to result in a retroactive 

non-compliance period.

For HCl monitoring the same sentence of concern is not included. If the agency chooses 

the make the edits shown above, then the last sentence in the HCl section at 

63.1350(l)(ii)(B) could benefit from revisions parallel to those suggested above:

“Any HCl CEMS above span linearity challenge response exceeding +/-20 percent of the 

certified value of the reference gas requires that all above span data hourly averages 

during the week following the above span linearity challenge must be normalized using 

Equation 23.”
6

In a message dated 8/7/2015 10:43:03 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, 

Nizich.Sharon@epa.gov writes:

Let’s discuss issues with John Holmes on the final amendments published July 27th. 

John, please also send your fourth issue and I will distribute, before call. Thanks.

Call in is 919 541 1590

Dated Tuesday August 11th, from Sharon Nizich to John Holmes:

Thank you. This was a simple typo. The two sentences should have been removed, as 

reflected in the response to comments. The technical correction notice will remove

them. Thanks.

Sharon Nizich

Environmental Engineer

U.S. EPA/OAR/OAQPS

Sector Policies and Programs Division (SPPD)

109 TW Alexander Dr. (D243-04)

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711

(919) 541-2825 – Office

(919) 541-5450 – Fax

From: HolmesAems@aol.com [mailto:HolmesAems@aol.com] 

Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 2015 11:05 AM

To: Nizich, Sharon; Barnett, Keith

Cc: jimpeeler@mindspring.com; tharman@cement.org

Subject: Subpart LLL Data Substitution/Hourly Average Determination During Hg and HCl 

Abo

Sharon and Keith,

Here is a write up on the additional issue we discussed on yesterday's call. If you have any 

questions, please let Jim and me know.
7

New language in the Subpart LLL final amendments creates the possibility for recording 

non-representative Hg and/or HCl emission averages and significantly complicates data 

acquisition system (DAS) programing issues. These provisions should be modified. PCA 

previously commented that it was inappropriate to require data substitution for hours 

during above span calibration checks. EPA’s response to comments document indicates 

EPA’s agreement on this issue and states that actions were taken to accommodate PCA’s 

comments on this matter, but the opposite appears in the final amendments.

The issues of concern appear in two locations in the final amendments:

· Under the third option for quality assurance of Hg CEMS data that exceed the span 

value at §63.1350(k)(2)(iii) the new language includes:

“If the ‘‘above span’’ calibration is conducted during the period when measured 

emissions are above span and there is a failure to collect at least one valid data point in 

an hour due to the calibration duration, then you must determine the emissions 

average for that missed hour as the average of hourly averages for the hour preceding 

the missed hour and the hour following the missed hour. In an hour where an ‘‘above 

span’’ calibration is being conducted and one or more data points are collected, the 

emissions average is represented by the average of all valid data points collected in 

that hour.”

· Similar language is found at §63.1350(l)(1)(ii)(C) with the revisions indicated in the 

EPA redline version:

“If the “above span” calibration is conducted during the period when measured 

emissions are above span and there is a failure to collect the one data point in an hour 

due to the calibration duration, then you must determine the emissions average for 

that missed hour as the average of hourly averages for the hour preceding the missed 

hour and the hour following the missed hour. In an hour where an “above span” 

calibration is being conducted and one or more data points are collected, the 

emissions average is represented by the average of all valid data points collected in 

that hour. 

Issues with Using Limited Data to Determine a Valid Hour

1. For both Hg and HCl, the requirement to determine the value representing the 

hourly average based on one or more valid data points may well lead to a highly nonrepresentative hourly value because emission concentrations may be highly transitory 

during the mill off period and the use of one data point may greatly over estimate or 

under estimate the true value.
8

2. Standard DAS programs validate each hour of data based on the requirements in the 

general provisions which require that CEMS sample, analyze and record measurement 

values at least once each 15 minute period, and that hourly averages are computed 

from at least one measurement in each 15-minute quadrant of the hour, except for 

hours when quality assurance activities are performed in which case the average may 

be determined from data in two quadrants of the hour. These are well established 

data validation rules that have been widely implemented. The new language would 

require complex reprograming the DAS so that it would automatically recognize that 

the CEMS status was in the “above span” mode and then circumvent its normal 

validation requirements and compute an average from all values which may represent 

a single one-minute data point or many data points. The re-programing is not 

trivial. This new approach is also not appropriate because:

a. The DAS would need to maintain duplicative records of valid hours for 

calculating emissions and for determining monitor downtime because the new 

language does not change the requirements for valid hours used to determine 

and report CEMS downtime.

b. These special data calculation requirements apply to those users that select 

one of the three options for QA of Hg and/or HCl above span data. Therefore 

the determination of average Hg and/or HCl emissions would be inconsistent 

between cement plant operators choosing different options.

Issues with Data Substitution

1. The new requirement to substitute the average of the hour before and the hour 

following a missing hour of Hg or HCl CEMS data when above span calibration checks 

are performed has a much wider impact in the final amendments because it is now 

applied to both Hg and HCl CEMS. (Previously it applied only to HCl CEMS certified and 

operated under PS18/Procedure 6. Many more cement kilns will use Hg CEMS than 

will use PS18/P6 HCl CEMS.)

2. PCA has submitted comments objecting to the previous HCl data substitution 

requirement in several previous Subpart LLL rulemakings. Most recently, PCA 

submitted comments to the Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0817 in response to the 

EPA’s proposed rule published in the Federal Register on November 19, 2014, at 79 

Fed. Reg. 68821. The following is a restatement of comment 8(f):

f. “The missing data substitution requirement in (l)(1)(ii)(C) should be removed 

because it is inconsistent with the procedures specified for the other two HCl 

options for quality assurance of “above span” HCl data. Furthermore, missing 

data substitution requirements are not included in any Part 60 or Part 63 

regulations. Therefore, the last sentence in this section (shown below) should 

be deleted:
9

“If the ‘above span’ calibration is conducted during the period when 

measured emissions are above span and there is a failure to collect the 

required minimum number of data points in an hour due to the 

calibration duration, then you must determine the emissions average 

for that missed hour as the average of hourly averages for the hour 

preceding the missed hour and the hour following the missed hour.”

3. The “Response to Comments Final Reconsideration May 2015” under “10. Quality 

assurance of mercury CEMS data above the span value” page 8 (second to last 

paragraph) states:

“With respect to the issue of data substitution in (l)(1)(ii)(C), the EPA agrees with the 

reasons stated by the commenter and has removed the requirement for missing data 

substitution.” 

Similarly, the same document under “11. HCL CEMS requirements” page 13 (sixth 

paragraph) states:

“And with respect to the issue of data substitution in (l)(1)(ii)(C), the EPA agrees with 

the reasons provided by the commenter and has removed the requirement for missing 

data substitution.” 

4. There was a similar data substitution issue in Subpart F requirements of the same 

series of rulemakings regarding the calculation of SO2 and NOx 30-day rolling 

averages. The preamble of the proposed technical amendments (Federal Register / 

Vol. 79, No. 223 / Wednesday, November 19, 2014 page 68824 states:

We propose to remove 40 CFR 60.64(c)(2), which applied when sources did not have 

valid 15-minute CEMS data. This provision allowed for inclusion of the average 

emission rate from the previous hour for which data were available. This provision was 

inadvertently added to the final rule, but this substitution is not an allowable action. 

We solicit comment on removal of this subsection.

The EPA red-line and the final published regulation show that the proposed data 

substitution requirement in 60.64(c)(2) was removed.

Recommendation

Deleting the language in §63.1350(k)(2)(iii) and §63.1350(l)(1)(ii)(C) specifically cited 

above eliminates the conflicts with Part 63 Subpart A General Provision requirements 

for Hg and HCl CEMS data reduction and the determination of valid hours, avoids 

recording and use of non-representative emission values, avoids complex DAS 

programing, avoids inconsistent approaches for operators choosing different QA 

options, and eliminates concerns about data substitution in Part 60 and Part 63 

regulations. Very little data will be affected as cement kiln operators try to arrange 
10

above span calibration procedures in a manner to maximize CEMS data availability to 

avoid monitor downtime.

From: Jim Peeler <jimpeeler@mindspring.com>

Sent: Friday, August 14, 2015 6:46 AM

To: Nizich, Sharon; HolmesAems@aol.com

Cc: Barnett, Keith; Johnson, Steffan

Subject: RE: errors found in the final July notice

Sharon Nizich:

I agree that the six changes indicated below correctly resolve the associated issues. In 

your items 3 and 6, the last two sentences are removed from (k)(2)(iii) and (l)(1)(ii)(C) 

respectively as shown below.

I believe there is an additional typographical error that should be corrected. 63.1349 

includes: “(4) THC emissions test. (i) If you are subject to limitations on THC emissions, you 

must operate a CEMS in 

accordance with the requirements in § 63.1350(i). For the purposes of conducting the 

accuracy and quality assurance evaluations for CEMS, the THC span value (as propane) is 

50 ppmvd ....” Because the 

THC measurement is on a wet basis, I think that ppmv or ppmvw is appropriate. (The 

section on the OHAP requirement includes: “(iv) If your organic HAP emissions are below 

75 percent of the organic HAP 

standard and you determine your operating limit with paragraph (b)(7)(vii) of this section 

your THC CEMS must be calibrated and operated on a measurement scale no greater than 

180 ppmvw, as carbon, 

or 60 ppmvw as propane. This is correct as written.)

Regarding the outstanding PS8A RATA issues, we look forward to speaking with you after 

you have discussed this with the HWC project team.

If we come across additional errors we will let you know.

Thanks, 

Jim Peeler, Emission Monitoring Inc.

252 586-7938

From: Nizich, Sharon [mailto:Nizich.Sharon@epa.gov] 

Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2015 8:00 AM 

To: HolmesAems@aol.com; jimpeeler@mindspring.com 

Cc: Barnett, Keith; Johnson, Steffan 
11

Subject: errors found in the final July notice

Hello John and JimThese are the tech correction areas that we see as an issue. Please let me know if you 

have any more. This will be our last correction notice. I plan to process this mid to late 

next week – thanks!

1. Section 63.1349(b)(7)(v), we will be changing 2nd sentence to: “You are required to 

measure oHAP at the coal mill inlet or outlet and you must also measure oHAP at the alkali 

bypass outlet.”

Section 63.1350 –

2. (k)(2)(ii) last sentence will be changed to read: “In this manner all hourly average values 

exceeding the span value measured by the Hg CEMS during the week following the above 

span linearity challenge when the CEMS response exceeds +/-20 percent of the certified 

value of the reference gas must be normalized using Equation 22.”

3. (k)(2)(iii), last sentence will be removed: If the “above span” calibration is conducted 

during the period when measured emissions are above span and there is a failure to 

collect at least one valid data point in an hour due to the calibration duration, then you 

must determine the emissions average for that missed hour as the average of hourly 

averages for the hour preceding the missed hour and the hour following the missed hour. 

In an hour where an “above span” calibration is being conducted and one or more data 

points are collected, the emissions average is represented by the average of all valid data 

points collected in that hour.

4. (l)(1) last sentence to read: “The span value and calibration requirements in paragraphs 

(l)(1)(i) and (ii) of this section apply to HCl CEMS other than those installed and certified 

under 

PS-15.”

5. (l)(1)(ii)(B) – last sentence to read: “Any HCl CEMS above span linearity challenge 

response exceeding +/-20 percent of the certified value of the reference gas requires that 

all above span hourly averages during the week following the above span linearity 

challenge must be normalized using Equation 23.”

6. (1)(1)(ii)(C) last sentence will be removed: If the “above span” calibration is conducted 

during the period when measured emissions are above span and there is a failure to 

collect at least one valid data point in an hour due to the calibration duration, then you 

must determine the emissions average for that missed hour as the average of hourly 

averages for the hour preceding the missed hour and the hour following the missed hour. 

In an hour where an “above span” calibration is being conducted and one or more data 

points are collected, the emissions average is represented by the average of all valid data 

points collected in that hour.
12

Sharon Nizich

Environmental Engineer

U.S. EPA/OAR/OAQPS

Sector Policies and Programs Division (SPPD)

109 TW Alexander Dr. (D243-04)

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711

(919) 541-2825 – Office

(919) 541-5450 – Fax

From: HolmesAems@aol.com

Sent: Friday, August 28, 2015 2:33 PM

To: Nizich, Sharon

Cc: Barnett, Keith

Subject: Clarification of Performance Test Frequency Requirements

Sharon, 

One more issue has surfaced that I am hoping you can correct/clarify in the technical 

corrections package. It has to do with the performance testing intervals. In the PCA 

comments we asked that the annual testing be allowed to happen within 13 months and

the 30 month interval be with 31 months so that folks could test at the same time each 

interval, rather than having to move the test up on the calendar to be sure the interval is 

not missed. The response to comments said that this was accepted. However, the rule 

has an apparent window of time in which the testing must be done. For example, it now 

says that annual testing must be done within a window of 11 to 13 months. 

We are concerned that under this language testing earlier than the 11th month could be 

viewed as a violation. Cement kilns are not always running and are purposefully taken 

down for extended periods of time for any number of reasons, primarily inventory control 

or planned major maintenance. At times, we cannot work around a performance testing 

requirement that must occur within a specific timeframe. We can, however, perform the 

test early to avoid the downtime period. However, as written this is currently not allowed 

under the regulation. 

With this in mind, we ask that you implement the following clarification which I believe 

does not modify the intend of the rule but avoids an odd situation where testing earlier 

than the 11 to 13 month period would be viewed as a violation. We propose that the 

following be used in 40 CFR 63.1349(c):“Performance test frequency. Performance tests 

are required at regular intervals for affected sources that are subject to a dioxin, organic 

HAP or HCl emissions limit. These performance tests are required every 30 months and 

must be completed no later than 31 calendar months after the previous performance test, 

except where that specific pollutant is monitored using a CEMS. 
13

Performance tests for PM are required every 12 months and they must be completed no 

later than 13 calendar months after the previous performance test.”

Thanks, John Holmes