Thursday, 

September 9, 2010 

Part II 

Environmental 

Protection Agency 

40 CFR Parts 60 and 63 

National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants From the 

Portland Cement Manufacturing Industry 

and Standards of Performance for 

Portland Cement Plants; Final Rule 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2
54970 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 174 / Thursday, September 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 60 and 63 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2002–0051; EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2007–0877; FRL–9189–2] 

RIN 2060–AO15, 2060–AO42 

National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants From the 

Portland Cement Manufacturing 

Industry and Standards of 

Performance for Portland Cement 

Plants 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is finalizing amendments 

to the National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) 

from the Portland Cement 

Manufacturing Industry and to the New 

Source Performance Standards (NSPS) 

for Portland Cement Plants. 

The final amendments to the NESHAP 

add or revise, as applicable, emission 

limits for mercury, total hydrocarbons 

(THC), and particulate matter (PM) from 

new and existing kilns located at major 

and area sources, and for hydrochloric 

acid (HCl) from new and existing kilns 

located at major sources. The standards 

for new kilns apply to facilities that 

commence construction, modification, 

or reconstruction after May 6, 2009. 

The final amendments to the NSPS 

add or revise, as applicable, emission 

limits for PM, opacity, nitrogen oxides 

(NOX), and sulfur dioxide (SO2) for 

facilities that commence construction, 

modification, or reconstruction after 

June 16, 2008. The final rule also 

includes additional testing and 

monitoring requirements for affected 

sources. 

DATES: These final rules are effective on 

November 8, 2010. The incorporation by 

reference of certain publications listed 

in this rule is approved by the Director 

of the Federal Register on November 8, 

2010. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established two 

separate dockets for these actions: 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2007– 

0877 for the amendments to the NSPS 

and Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2002–0051 for the amendments to the 

NESHAP. All documents in the two 

dockets are listed in the http://www.

regulations.gov index. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

will be publicly available only in hard 

copy. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically in http://www.

regulations.gov or in hard copy at the 

EPA Docket Center, Standards of 

Performance for Portland Cement Plants 

Docket, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 

Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, 

DC. The Public Reading Room is open 

from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, excluding legal 

holidays. The telephone number for the 

Public Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, 

and the telephone number for the 

Docket Center is (202) 566–1742. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Keith Barnett; Office of Air Quality 

Planning and Standards; Sector Policies 

and Programs Division, Metals and 

Minerals Group (D243–02); 

Environmental Protection Agency; 

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711; 

telephone number: (919) 541–5605; fax 

number: (919) 541–5450; e-mail address: 

barnett.keith@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

supplementary information presented in 

this preamble is organized as follows: 

I. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

B. Where can I get a copy of this 

document? 

C. Judicial Review 

II. Background Information on the NESHAP, 

40 CFR Part 63, Subpart LLL 

A. What is the statutory basis for the 

NESHAP in 40 CFR part 63, subpart 

LLL? 

B. Summary of the National Lime 

Association v. EPA Litigation 

C. EPA’s Response to the Remand 

D. Reconsideration of EPA Final Action in 

Response to the Remand 

III. Background Information From the NSPS 

40 CFR Part 60, Subpart F 

IV. Summary of EPA’s Final Action on 

Amendments 

A. What are EPA’s final actions on 40 CFR 

part 63, subpart LLL? 

B. What are EPA’s final actions on 40 CFR 

part 60, subpart F? 

C. What is EPA’s sector-based approach? 

V. Responses to Major Comments 

A. What are the significant comments and 

responses on 40 CFR part 63, subpart 

LLL? 

B. What are the significant comments and 

responses on 40 CFR part 60, subpart F? 

VI. Summary of Cost, Environmental, Energy, 

and Economic Impacts of the Final 

Amendments to Subpart LLL and 

Subpart F 

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

I. National Technology Transfer 

Advancement Act 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions 

To Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations 

K. Congressional Review Act 

I. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

Categories and entities potentially 

regulated by this final rule include: 

Category NAICS 

code 1 Examples of regulated entities 

Industry ................................................................................................................................. 327310 Portland cement manufacturing plants. 

Federal government .............................................................................................................. ................ Not affected. 

State/local/Tribal government ............................................................................................... ................ Portland cement manufacturing plants. 

1 North American Industry Classification System. 

This table is not intended to be 

exhaustive, but rather provides a guide 

for readers regarding entities likely to be 

regulated by this action. To determine 

whether your facility will be regulated 

by this action, you should examine the 

applicability criteria in 40 CFR 60.60 

(subpart F) or in 40 CFR 63.1340 

(subpart LLL). If you have any questions 

regarding the applicability of this final 

action to a particular entity, contact the 

person listed in the preceding FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

B. Where can I get a copy of this 

document? 

In addition to being available in the 

docket, an electronic copy of this final 

action is available on the Worldwide 

Web (WWW) through the Technology 

Transfer Network (TTN). Following 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 174 / Thursday, September 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 54971 

1An area source is a stationary source of HAP 

emissions that is not a major source. A major source 

is a stationary source that emits or has the potential 

to emit 10 tpy or more of any HAP or 25 tpy or more 

of any combination of HAP. 

2Since its publication in the Integrated Urban Air 

Toxics Strategy in 1999, EPA has amended the area 

source category list several times. 

3CAA section 129 refers to the Solid Waste 

Disposal Act (SWDA). However, this Act, as 

amended is commonly referred to as RCRA. 

signature, a copy of this final action will 

be posted on the TTN’s policy and 

guidance page for newly proposed or 

promulgated rules at http:// 

www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg. The TTN 

provides information and technology 

exchange in various areas of air 

pollution control. 

C. Judicial Review 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean 

Air Act (CAA), judicial review of these 

final rules are available only by filing a 

petition for review in the United States 

Court of Appeals for the District of 

Columbia Circuit by November 8, 2010. 

Under section 307(b)(2) of the CAA, the 

requirements established by these final 

rules may not be challenged separately 

in any civil or criminal proceedings 

brought by EPA to enforce these 

requirements. 

Section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA 

further provides that ‘‘[o]nly an 

objection to a rule or procedure which 

was raised with reasonable specificity 

during the period for public comment 

(including any public hearing) may be 

raised during judicial review.’’ This 

section also provides a mechanism for 

EPA to convene a proceeding for 

reconsideration, ‘‘[i]f the person raising 

an objection can demonstrate to EPA 

that it was impracticable to raise such 

objection within [the period for public 

comment] or if the grounds for such 

objection arose after the period for 

public comment (but within the time 

specified for judicial review) and if such 

objection is of central relevance to the 

outcome of the rule.’’ Any person 

seeking to make such a demonstration to 

us should submit a Petition for 

Reconsideration to the Office of the 

Administrator, U.S. EPA, Room 3000, 

Ariel Rios Building, 1200 Pennsylvania 

Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, with 

a copy to both the person(s) listed in the 

preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section, and the Associate 

General Counsel for the Air and 

Radiation Law Office, Office of General 

Counsel (Mail Code 2344A), U.S. EPA, 

1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., 

Washington, DC 20460. 

II. Background Information on the 

NESHAP, 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart LLL 

A. What is the statutory basis for the 

NESHAP in 40 CFR part 63, subpart 

LLL? 

Section 112 of the CAA establishes a 

regulatory process to address emissions 

of hazardous air pollutants (HAP) from 

stationary sources. After EPA has 

identified categories of sources emitting 

one or more of the HAP listed in section 

112(b) of the CAA, section 112(d) 

requires us to promulgate NESHAP for 

those sources. For ‘‘major sources’’ that 

emit or have the potential to emit 10 

tons per year (tpy) or more of a single 

HAP or 25 tpy or more of a combination 

of HAP, these technology-based 

standards must reflect the maximum 

reductions of HAP achievable (after 

considering cost, energy requirements, 

and non-air quality health and 

environmental impacts) and are 

commonly referred to as maximum 

achievable control technology (MACT) 

standards. 

The statute specifies certain minimum 

stringency requirements for MACT 

standards, which are referred to as 

‘‘floor’’ requirements. See CAA section 

112(d)(3). Specifically, for new sources, 

the MACT floor cannot be less stringent 

than the emission control that is 

achieved in practice by the best 

controlled similar source. The MACT 

standards for existing sources can be 

less stringent than standards for new 

sources, but they cannot be less 

stringent than the average emission 

limitation achieved by the bestperforming 12 percent of existing 

sources (for which the Administrator 

has emissions information) in the 

category or subcategory (or the bestperforming five sources for categories or 

subcategories with fewer than 30 

sources). 

In developing MACT, we must also 

consider control options that are more 

stringent than the floor. We may 

establish standards more stringent than 

the floor based on the consideration of 

the cost of achieving the emissions 

reductions, any non-air quality health 

and environmental impacts, and energy 

requirements. CAA section 112(d)(2). 

Section 112(k)(3)(B) of the CAA 

requires EPA to identify at least 30 HAP 

that pose the greatest potential health 

threat in urban areas, and section 

112(c)(3) requires EPA to regulate, 

under section 112(d) standards, the area 

source 1 categories that represent 90 

percent of the emissions of the 30 

‘‘listed’’ HAP (‘‘urban HAP’’). We 

implemented these listing requirements 

through the Integrated Urban Air Toxics 

Strategy (64 FR 38715, July 19, 1999).2

The Portland cement manufacturing 

source category was listed for regulation 

under this 1999 Urban Strategy based on 

emissions of arsenic, cadmium, 

beryllium, lead, and polychlorinated 

biphenyls (PCB). The final NESHAP for 

the Portland Cement Manufacturing 

Industry (64 FR 31898, June 14, 1999) 

included emission limits based on 

performance of MACT for the control of 

THC emissions from area sources. This 

1999 rule fulfills the requirement to 

regulate area source cement kiln 

emissions of PCB (for which THC is a 

surrogate). However, EPA did not 

include requirements for the control of 

the non-volatile metal HAP (arsenic, 

cadmium, beryllium, and lead) from 

area sources in the 1999 rule or in the 

2006 amendments. To fulfill our 

requirements under CAA section 

112(c)(3) and 112(k), EPA is thus setting 

emissions standards for these metal 

HAP from Portland cement 

manufacturing facilities that are area 

sources (using PM as a surrogate). In 

this final rule EPA is promulgating PM 

standards for area sources based on 

performance of MACT, PM being a 

surrogate for these (and other nonvolatile) HAP metals. 

Section 112(c)(6) requires that EPA 

list categories and subcategories of 

sources assuring that sources accounting 

for not less than 90 percent of the 

aggregate emissions of each of seven 

specified HAP are subject to standards 

under section 112(d)(2) or (d)(4). The 

seven HAP are as follows: Alkylated 

lead compounds; polycyclic organic 

matter; hexachlorobenzene; mercury; 

polychlorinated byphenyls; 2,3,7,8- 

tetrachlorodibenzofurans; and 2,3,7,8- 

tetrachloroidibenzo-p-dioxin. Standards 

established under CAA section 112(d)(2) 

must reflect the performance of MACT. 

‘‘Portland cement manufacturing: Nonhazardous waste kilns’’ is listed as a 

source category pursuant to CAA 

section 112(c)(6) due to emissions of 

polycyclic organic matter (POM), 

mercury, and dioxin/furans. Consistent 

with the requirements of CAA section 

112(c)(6), we set MACT standards for 

these pollutants. 63 FR 17838, 17848, 

April 10, 1998; see also 63 FR at 14193 

(March 24, 1998) (area source cement 

kilns’ emissions of mercury, dibenzo-pdioxins and dibenzo-p-furans, POM, 

and PCB are subject to MACT). 

Section 129(a)(1)(A) of the CAA 

requires EPA to establish specific 

performance standards, including 

emission limitations, for ‘‘solid waste 

incineration units’’ generally, and, in 

particular, for ‘‘solid waste incineration 

units combusting commercial or 

industrial waste’’ (CAA section 

129(a)(1)(D)).3


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2
54972 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 174 / Thursday, September 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

4Cement kilns which burn hazardous waste are 

a separate source category, since their emissions of 

many HAP differ from Portland cement kilns’ as a 

result of the hazardous waste inputs. Rules for 

hazardous waste-burning cement kilns are found at 

subpart EEE of part 63. 

5For purposes of the 1999 rule a new greenfield 

kiln is a kiln constructed after March 24, 1998, at 

a site where there are no existing kilns. 

6 In the remainder of the opinion, the Court in 

National Lime Ass’n upheld EPA’s standards for 

PM and dioxin (on grounds that petitioner had not 

properly raised arguments in its opening brief), 

upheld EPA’s use of PM as a surrogate for HAP 

metals, and remanded for further explanation EPA’s 

choice of an analytic method for HCl. 

Section 129 of the CAA defines ‘‘solid 

waste incineration unit’’ as ‘‘a distinct 

operating unit of any facility which 

combusts any solid waste material from 

commercial or industrial establishments 

or the general public.’’ CAA Section 

129(g)(1). CAA Section 129 also 

provides that ‘‘solid waste’’ shall have 

the meaning established by EPA 

pursuant to its authority under the 

Resource Conservation and Recovery 

Act (RCRA). Section 129(g)(6). 

In Natural Resources Defense Council 

v. EPA, 489 F. 3d 1250, 1257–61 (DC 

Cir. 2007), the Court vacated the 

Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste 

Incineration Units (CISWI) Definitions 

Rule, 70 FR 55568 (Sept. 22, 2005), 

which EPA issued pursuant to CAA 

section 129(a)(1)(D). 

In response to the Court’s remand and 

vacatur of the CISWI Definitions rule, 

EPA initiated a rulemaking to identify 

which secondary materials are nonhazardous ‘‘solid waste’’ for purposes of 

subtitle D (non-hazardous waste) of the 

RCRA when burned in a combustion 

unit. See 75 FR 31844 (June 4, 2010). 

Any final definition adopted in that 

rulemaking, in turn, will determine the 

applicability of CAA section 129(a) (i.e., 

any combustion unit that burns any 

non-hazardous secondary material that 

is considered to be a solid waste would 

be subject to CAA section 129 

requirements). 

There is presently no Federal 

regulatory interpretation of ‘‘solid 

waste’’ for EPA to apply under Subtitle 

D of RCRA for purposes of CAA section 

112 and 129. EPA is not prejudging, and 

cannot prejudge the outcome of the 

recently proposed non-hazardous solid 

waste rulemaking. EPA therefore cannot 

reliably determine at this time if the 

non-hazardous secondary materials 

combusted by cement kilns are to be 

classified as solid wastes. Accordingly, 

EPA is basing all determinations as to 

source classification on the emissions 

information now available, as required 

by CAA section 112(d)(3), and will 

necessarily continue to do so until the 

solid waste definition discussed above 

is promulgated. The current data base 

classifies all Portland cement kilns as 

CAA section 112 sources (i.e., subject to 

regulation under CAA section 112). 

We proposed amendments to the 

Portland Cement Manufacturing 

NESHAP on May 6, 2009. See 74 FR 

21136. We received a total of 3,229 

comments from the Portland cement 

industry, environmental groups, State 

environmental agencies and others 

during the comment period. This final 

rule reflects our consideration of all the 

comments we received. Detailed 

responses to the comments not included 

in this preamble are contained in the 

Summary of Public Comments and 

Responses document, which is included 

in the docket for this rulemaking. 

B. Summary of the National Lime 

Association v. EPA Litigation 

On June 14, 1999 (64 FR 31898), EPA 

issued the NESHAP for the Portland 

Cement Manufacturing Industry (40 CFR 

part 63, subpart LLL).4 The 1999 final 

rule established emission limitations for 

PM as a surrogate for non-volatile HAP 

metals (major sources only), dioxins/ 

furans, and for greenfield 5 new sources 

total THC as a surrogate for organic 

HAP. These standards were intended to 

be based on the performance of MACT 

pursuant to CAA sections 112(d)(2) and 

(3). We did not establish limits for THC 

for existing sources and non-greenfield 

new sources, nor for HCl or mercury for 

new or existing sources. We reasoned 

that emissions of these constituents 

were a function of raw material 

concentrations and so were essentially 

uncontrolled, the result being that there 

was no level of performance on which 

a floor could be based. EPA further 

found that beyond the floor standards 

for these HAP were not warranted. 

Ruling on petitions for review of 

various environmental groups, the DC 

Circuit held that EPA had erred in 

failing to establish CAA section 112(d) 

standards for mercury, THC (except for 

greenfield new sources) and HCl. The 

court held that ‘‘[n]othing in the statute 

even suggests that EPA may set 

emission levels only for those * * * 

HAPs controlled with technology.’’ 

National Lime Ass’n v. EPA, 233 F. 3d 

625, 633 (DC Cir. 2000). The court also 

stated that EPA is obligated to consider 

other pollution–reducing measures such 

as process changes and material 

substitution. Id. at 634 (‘‘the absence of 

technology-based pollution control 

devices for HCl, mercury, and total 

hydrocarbons did not excuse EPA from 

setting emission standards for those 

pollutants’’). Later cases go on to hold 

that EPA must account for levels of HAP 

in raw materials and other inputs in 

establishing MACT floors, and further 

hold that sources with low HAP 

emission levels due to low levels of 

HAP in their raw materials can be 

considered best performers for purposes 

of establishing MACT floors. See, e.g., 

Cement Kiln Recycling Coalition v. EPA, 

255 F. 2d 855, 865–66 (DC Cir. 2001); 

Sierra Club v. EPA (‘‘Brick MACT’’), 479 

F. 3d 875, 882–83 (DC Cir. 2007).6

C. EPA’s Response to the Remand 

In response to the National Lime 

Ass’n mandate, on December 2, 2005, 

we proposed standards for mercury, 

THC, and HCl. (More information on the 

regulatory and litigation history may be 

found at 70 FR 72332, December 2, 

2005.) We received over 1,700 

comments on the proposed 

amendments. Most of these comments 

addressed the lack of a mercury 

emission limitation in the proposed 

amendments. On December 20, 2006 (71 

FR 76518), EPA published final 

amendments to the NESHAP. The 2006 

amendments contained a new source 

standard for mercury emissions from 

cement kilns and kilns/in-line raw mills 

of 41 micrograms per dry standard cubic 

meter, or alternatively the application of 

a limestone wet scrubber with a liquidto-gas ratio of 30 gallons per 1,000 

actual cubic feet per minute of exhaust 

gas. The final rule also adopted a 

standard for new and existing sources 

banning the use of utility boiler fly ash 

in cement kilns where the fly ash 

mercury content has been increased 

through the use of activated carbon or 

any other sorbent unless the cement kiln 

seeking to use the fly ash can 

demonstrate that the use of fly ash will 

not result in an increase in mercury 

emissions over its baseline mercury 

emissions (i.e., emissions not using the 

mercury-laden fly ash). EPA also issued 

a THC standard for new cement kilns 

(except for greenfield cement kilns that 

commenced construction on or before 

December 2, 2005) of 20 parts per 

million (corrected to 7 percent oxygen) 

or 98 percent reduction in THC 

emissions from uncontrolled levels. 

EPA did not set a standard for HCl, 

determining that HCl was a pollutant for 

which a threshold had been established, 

and that no cement kiln, even under 

conservative operating conditions and 

exposure assumptions, would emit HCl 

at levels that would exceed that 

threshold level, allowing for an ample 

margin of safety. EPA pointed to CAA 

section 112(d)(4) authority as its 

rationale for not establishing HCl 

emissions limits. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 174 / Thursday, September 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 54973 

7Summary of Comments on December 20, 2006 

Final Rule and Notice of Reconsideration. April 15, 

2009. 

D. Reconsideration of EPA Final Action 

in Response to the Remand 

At the same time we issued the final 

amendments, EPA on its own initiative 

made a determination to reconsider the 

new source standard for mercury, the 

existing and new source standard 

banning cement kiln use of certain 

mercury-containing fly ash, and the new 

source standard for THC (71 FR 76553, 

December 20, 2006). EPA granted 

reconsideration of the new source 

mercury standard both due to 

substantive issues relating to the 

performance of wet scrubbers and 

because information about their 

performance in the industry had not 

been available for public comment at 

the time of proposal; that information is 

now available in the docket. We also 

committed to undertake a test program 

for mercury emissions from cement 

kilns equipped with wet scrubbers that 

would enable us to resolve these issues. 

We further explained that we were 

granting reconsideration of the work 

practice requirement banning the use of 

certain mercury-containing fly ash in 

cement kilns to allow further 

opportunity for comment on both the 

standard and the underlying rationale 

and because we did not feel we had the 

level of analysis we would like to have 

to support a beyond-the-floor 

determination. We granted 

reconsideration of the new source 

standard for THC because the 

information on which the standard was 

based arose after the period for public 

comment. We requested comment on 

the actual standard, whether the 

standard is appropriate for 

reconstructed new sources (if any 

should occur) and the information on 

which the standard is based. We 

specifically solicited data on THC 

emission levels from preheater/ 

precalciner cement kilns. We stated that 

we would evaluate all data and 

comments received, and determine 

whether in light of those data and 

comments it was appropriate to amend 

the promulgated standards. 

EPA received comments on the notice 

of reconsideration from two cement 

companies, three energy companies, 

three industry associations, a technical 

consultant, one State, one 

environmental group, one ash 

management company, one fuels 

company, and one private citizen. As 

part of these comments, one industry 

trade association submitted a petition to 

withdraw the new source MACT 

standards for mercury and THC and one 

environmental group submitted a 

petition for reconsideration of the 2006 

final action. A summary of these 

comments is available in the docket for 

this rulemaking.7

In addition to the reconsideration 

discussed above, EPA received a 

petition from Sierra Club requesting 

reconsideration of the existing source 

standards for THC, mercury, and HCl, 

and judicial petitions for review 

challenging the final amendments. EPA 

granted the reconsideration petition. 

The judicial petitions have been 

combined and are being held in 

abeyance pending the results of the 

reconsideration. 

In March 2007 the DC Circuit Court 

issued an opinion (Sierra Club v. EPA, 

479 F.3d 875 (DC Cir. 2007) (Brick 

MACT)) vacating and remanding CAA 

section 112(d) MACT standards for the 

Brick and Structural Clay Ceramics 

source categories. Some key holdings in 

that case were: 

• Floors for existing sources must 

reflect the average emission limitation 

achieved by the best performing 12 

percent of existing sources, not levels 

EPA considers to be achievable by all 

sources (479 F. 3d at 880–81); 

• EPA cannot set floors of ‘‘no 

control.’’ The Court reiterated its prior 

holdings, including National Lime 

Ass’n, confirming that EPA must set 

floor standards for all HAP emitted by 

the major source, including those HAP 

that are not controlled by at-the-stack 

control devices (479 F. 3d at 883); and 

• EPA cannot ignore non-technology 

factors that reduce HAP emissions, 

including when determining which 

sources are best performers for purposes 

of ascertaining the MACT floor. 

Specifically, the Court held that ‘‘EPA’s 

decision to base floors exclusively on 

technology even though non-technology 

factors affect emissions violates the 

Act.’’ (479 F. 3d at 883). 

Based on the statute, as interpreted in 

the Brick MACT decision, we believe a 

source’s performance resulting from the 

presence or absence of HAP in raw 

materials must be accounted for in 

establishing floors; i.e., a low emitter 

due to low HAP proprietary raw 

materials can still be a best performer. 

In addition, the fact that a specific level 

of performance is not being 

intentionally achieved by the source is 

not a legal basis for excluding the 

source’s performance from 

consideration. Sierra Club v. EPA, 479 

F.3d at 631–34; National Lime Ass’n, 

233 F. 3d at 640. 

The Brick MACT decision also 

reiterated that EPA may account for 

variability in setting floors. However, 

the Court found that EPA erred in 

assessing variability because it relied on 

data from the worst performers to 

estimate best performers’ variability, 

and held that ‘‘EPA may not use 

emission levels of the worst performers 

to estimate variability of the best 

performers without a demonstrated 

relationship between the two.’’ 479 F. 3d 

at 882. 

After considering the implications of 

this decision, EPA granted the petition 

for reconsideration of all the existing 

source standards in the 2006 

rulemaking. 

A second Court opinion of relevance 

to the Portland cement NESHAP 

amended here is Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 

F. 3d 1019 (DC Cir. 2008). In that case, 

the court vacated the regulations 

contained in the General Provisions 

which exempt major sources from CAA 

section 112(d) standards during periods 

of startup, shutdown and malfunction 

(SSM). The regulations (in 40 CFR 

63.6(f)(1) and 63.6(h)(1)) provided that 

sources need not comply with the 

relevant CAA section 112(d) standard 

during SSM events and instead must 

‘‘minimize emissions * * * to the 

greatest extent which is consistent with 

safety and good air pollution control 

practices.’’ The current Portland Cement 

NESHAP references the now-vacated 

rules in the General Provisions. As a 

result of the court’s decision, we are 

removing the references to the vacated 

provisions and addressing SSM in this 

rulemaking. Discussion of this issue 

may be found in Section IV.A. 

III. Background Information on the 

NSPS 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart F 

NSPS implement CAA section 111(b) 

and are issued for categories of sources 

which cause, or contribute significantly 

to, air pollution which may reasonably 

be anticipated to endanger public health 

or welfare. The primary purpose of the 

NSPS is to attain and maintain ambient 

air quality by ensuring that the best 

demonstrated emission control 

technologies are installed as the 

industrial infrastructure is modernized. 

Since 1970, the NSPS have been 

successful in achieving long-term 

emissions reductions in numerous 

industries by assuring cost-effective 

controls are installed on new, 

reconstructed, or modified sources. 

Section 111 of the CAA requires that 

NSPS reflect the application of the best 

system of emission reductions which, 

taking into consideration the cost of 

achieving such emission reductions, any 

non-air quality health and 

environmental impact and energy 

requirements, the Administrator 

determines has been adequately 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2
54974 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 174 / Thursday, September 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

8Run-to-run variability is essentially within-test 

variability, and encompasses variability in 

individual runs comprising the compliance test, 

and includes uncertainties in correlation of 

monitoring parameters and emissions, and 

imprecision of stack test methods and laboratory 

analysis. 72 FR at 54877 (Sept. 27, 2007). Test-totest variability results from variability in pollution 

device control efficiencies over time (depending on 

many factors, including for fabric filters the point 

in the maintenance cycle in which a fabric filter is 

tested). Test-to-test variability can be termed longterm variability. 72 FR at 54878. 

demonstrated. This level of control is 

commonly referred to as best 

demonstrated technology (BDT). EPA 

promulgated Standards of Performance 

for Portland Cement Plants (40 CFR, 

part 61 subpart F) in 1971 ((36 FR 

24876, December 23, 1971). 

Section 111(b)(1)(B) of the CAA 

requires EPA to periodically review and 

revise the standards of performance, as 

necessary, to reflect improvements in 

methods for reducing emissions. We 

have conducted three reviews of the 

standards (39 FR 20793, June 14, 1974; 

39 FR 39874, November 12, 1974; and 

53 FR 50354, December 14, 1988). 

We proposed the current review of the 

Portland Cement Plant NSPS on June 

16, 2008. We received a total of 46 

comments from the Portland cement 

industry, environmental groups, State 

environmental agencies and others 

during the comment period. This final 

rule reflects our consideration of all the 

comments we received. Detailed 

responses to the comments not included 

in this preamble are contained in the 

Summary of Public Comments and 

Responses document which is included 

in the docket for this rulemaking. 

IV. Summary of EPA’s Final Action on 

the Amendments 

In this section we discuss the final 

amendments to 40 CFR part 63 subpart 

LLL and part 60 subpart F, the changes 

since proposal, and the rationale for the 

changes. Responses to specific 

comments may be found in the response 

to comment section of this document or 

in the response to comment documents 

contained in the dockets for this 

rulemaking. 

As a preliminary matter, EPA notes 

that certain portions of the existing rules 

are not being amended substantively but 

are being reprinted, sometimes with 

editorial changes, in today’s regulatory 

text. As explained at proposal, EPA did 

so either for readers’ convenience or to 

make certain non-substantive ‘‘plain 

English’’ changes to rule text. 74 FR at 

21140. The final rule text makes these 

same non-substantive changes (which 

did not occasion public comment), and 

reprints certain existing provisions. 

Provisions from the existing rules which 

do not change substantively include the 

PM emission limits for kilns currently 

subject to the NSPS, the opacity limits 

for raw materials dryers, raw mills, and 

finish mills, and the limits for dioxin 

furan (D/F) for cement kilns. We 

reorganized the testing and monitoring 

requirements of both rules to make them 

more consistent, and modified the rule 

language to better conform with the June 

1, 1998, Executive Memorandum on 

Plain Language in Government Writing. 

A. What are EPA’s final actions on 40 

CFR part 63, subpart LLL? 

1. What are the final actions on 

emission limits under 40 CFR part 63, 

subpart LLL? 

In this action, we are amending the 

emission limits for mercury, THC, and 

PM from new and existing kilns located 

at a major or area source, and for HCl 

from new and existing kilns located at 

major sources. We identify these 

standards below for the emission 

sources in a typical Portland cement 

production process. We have applied 

the limits for existing and new sources 

in this final rule for mercury and THC 

to area sources consistent with CAA 

section 112(c)(6). As noted above, 

mercury is one of the pollutants 

specifically singled out by Congress in 

CAA section 112(c)(6), and THC is a 

surrogate for POM and PCB, which are 

also section 112(c)(6) HAP. See 63 FR 

14193, March 24, 1998 (determination 

to control all THC emissions from the 

source category under MACT 

standards). Finally, Portland cement 

kilns are a listed area source category for 

urban HAP metals pursuant to CAA 

section 112(c)(3), and control of these 

metal HAP emissions (via the standard 

for the PM non-mercury HAP metal 

surrogate) is required to ensure that area 

sources representing 90 percent of the 

area source emissions of urban metal 

HAP are subject to CAA section 112 

control, as required by CAA section 

112(c)(3). The PM standards for area 

sources reflect MACT, as explained 

below. 

a. Changes to Overall Floor Setting 

Procedure 

The MACT floor limits for each of the 

HAP and HAP surrogates (mercury, 

THC, HCl, and PM) are calculated based 

on the performance of the lowest 

emitting (considered best performing in 

this rulemaking) sources in each of the 

MACT floor pools for each HAP or HAP 

surrogate. We ranked all of the sources 

for which we had data based on their 

emissions and identified the lowest 

emitting 12 percent of the sources for 

which we had data, which ranged from 

two kilns for THC to 11 kilns for 

mercury for existing sources. For new 

source MACT, the floor was based on 

the best controlled source. 

In assessing sources’ performance, 

EPA may consider variability both in 

identifying which performers are ‘‘best’’ 

and in assessing their level of 

performance. Brick MACT, 479 F. 3d at 

881–82; see also Mossville Envt’l Action 

Now v. EPA, 370 F.3d 1232, 1241–42 

(DC Cir 2004) (EPA must exercise its 

judgment, based on an evaluation of the 

relevant factors and available data, to 

determine the level of emissions control 

that has been achieved by the best 

performing sources considering these 

sources’ variability). 

Variability in cement kilns’ 

performance has a number of causes. 

For many of the pollutants, notably 

mercury and THC, most kilns do not 

have add-on control devices. The main 

source of variability for these pollutants 

consequently is the differing mercury 

and organic concentrations in the raw 

materials and fuels which are fed to the 

kiln. For particulate matter, which is 

well-controlled by baghouses, the 

variability is chiefly due to variations in 

performance of the control device for 

which both run-to-run and test-to-test 

variability must be accounted.8

In determining the MACT floor limits, 

we first determine the floor, which, as 

explained above, for existing sources is 

the level achieved in practice by the 

average of the top 12 percent of existing 

sources, or the level achieved in 

practice by the best controlled similar 

source for new sources. In this rule, EPA 

is using lowest emissions as the 

measure of best performance. 

We then assess 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 (or calculated inputs in 

the case of mercury). Specifically, the 

MACT floor limit is an upper prediction 

limit (UPL) calculated with the 

Student’s t-test using the TINV function 

in Microsoft Excel®. The Student’s t-test 

has also been used in other EPA 

rulemakings (e.g., NSPS for Hospital/ 

Medical/Infectious Waste Incinerators, 

NESHAP for Industrial, Commercial, 

and Institutional Boilers and Process 

Heaters) in accounting for variability. A 

prediction interval for a future 

observation is an interval that will, with 

a specified degree of confidence, 

contain the next (or some other prespecified) randomly selected 

observation from a population. In other 

words, the prediction interval estimates 

what the upper bound of future values 

will be, based upon present or past 

background samples taken. The UPL 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 174 / Thursday, September 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 54975 

consequently represents the value 

which we can expect the mean of future 

observations (3-run average for HCl, 30- 

day average for mercury, PM, HCl 

(sources not having wet scrubbers or 

otherwise electing CEM-based 

compliance), and THC) to fall below 

within a specified level of confidence, 

based upon the results of an 

independent sample from the same 

population. In other words, if we were 

to randomly select a future test 

condition from any of these sources (i.e., 

average of 3 runs or 30-day average) we 

can be 99 percent confident that the 

reported level will fall at or below the 

UPL value. Use of the UPL is 

appropriate in this rulemaking because 

it sets a limit any single or future source 

can meet based on the performance of 

members of the MACT pool. 

This formula uses a pooled variance 

(in the s 2 term) that encompasses all the 

data-point to data-point variability of 

the best performing sources comprising 

the MACT floor pool for each HAP. 

Where variability was calculated using 

the UPL statistical approach (i.e., for the 

Hg, HCl, and PM standards), we used 

the average (or sample mean) and 

sample standard deviation, which are 

two statistical measures calculated from 

the data distributions for mercury, HCl, 

and PM. The average is a central value 

of a data set, and the standard deviation 

is the common measure of the 

dispersion of the data set around the 

average. We describe in detail in the 

preamble sections on mercury, HCl and 

PM and in the memorandum 

‘‘Development of the MACT Floors for 

the Final NESHAP for Portland 

Cement’’, August 6, 2010’’ how these 

averages were developed. We note here 

that the methodology accounts for both 

short-term and long-term variability and 

encompasses run-to-run and test-to-test 

variability. The formula also applies 

differently depending on how the 

underlying data set is distributed. To 

this end, EPA carefully evaluated the 

data sets for each HAP to ascertain 

whether the data were normally 

distributed, or distributed in some other 

manner (i.e., log normally). After 

applying standard and rigorous 

statistical tests (involving the degree of 

‘‘skewness’’ of the data), we determined 

that the distributions for mercury and 

particulate matter were approximately a 

normal distribution, which in turn 

determined the final form of the UPL 

equation. See Floor Calculations for 

Final Portland Cement NESHAP, August 

6, 2010; see also 75 FR at 32019–20. 

EPA was able to reasonably calculate 

variability for the THC and HCl 

standards without needing to use 

predictive statistics. Specifically, the 

data set for THC contains a sufficient 

number of observations to estimate the 

variability without the need of any type 

of statistical intervals (no UPL needed to 

be calculated). For HCl, although EPA 

applied the UPL formula in developing 

the HCl standard, the key issue for the 

HCl data set is the HCl analytic 

method’s detection limit, which 

ultimately dictated the level of the 

standard. 

At proposal we adopted a form of the 

UPL equation that has been used in a 

previous rulemaking. 69 FR 21233 April 

20, 2004. Commenters stated correctly 

that there was an error in the equation 

used at proposal. As a result of these 

comments, EPA corrected the formula in 

the final rule. The UPL used in the final 

rule is calculated by: 

UPL = x +t ,n s n m 0 99 1 1 1 ( ) . − × ×+ ⎛

⎝

⎜ ⎞

⎠

⎟ 2

Where: 

x ̄ = the mean of the sample data set 

n = the number of test runs 

m = the number of test runs in the 

compliance average 

s2 = observed variance 

t = student t distribution statistic 

This calculation was performed using 

the following Excel functions: 

Normal distribution: 99 percent UPL = 

AVERAGE(Test Runs in Top 12percent) 

+ [STDEV(Test Runs in Top 12percent) 

x TINV(2 x probability, n-1 degrees of 

freedom)*SQRT((1/n)+(1/m))], for a onetailed t-value, probability of 0.01, and 

sample size of n 

This is the same UPL equation that EPA 

used in more recent rulemakings. See 75 

FR 32020 (June 4, 2010) and 75 FR 

31905 (June 4, 2010). The value of ‘‘m’’ 

denotes the number of future 

observations, and it is used to calculate 

an estimate of the variance of the 

average of m-future observations. For 

example, if 30-day averages are used to 

determine compliance (m=30), the 

amount of variability in the 30-day 

average is much lower than the 

variability of the daily measurements in 

the data base, which results in a lower 

UPL for the 30-day average. 

As an illustration of the effects that 

correcting the UPL had on the emission 

limits, we calculated the UPLs for 

mercury and PM using the proposal 

version of the UPL formula, and the 

version used in this final rule. The 

results of these calculations are 

presented in Table 1. Both calculated 

limits are about 20 percent lower when 

the corrected UPL formula is used. 

TABLE 1—COMPARISON EMISSION LIMITS CALCULATED USING PROPOSAL UPL FORMULA VERSUS CORRECTED UPL 

FORMULA FOR EXISTING SOURCES

Proposal 

(uncorrected 

UPL formula) 

Proposal 

(corrected 

UPL formula) 

Mercury, (lb/MM tons feed) [lb/MM tons clinker] ..................................................................................... 29.6 [48.8] 22.5 [37.1] 

PM (lb/ton clinker) .................................................................................................................................... 0.05 0.04 

b. Ramifications of EPA Statistical 

Approach 

A number of commenters maintained 

that this final rule raises the (perceived) 

quandry voiced by Judge Williams in 

his concurring opinion in Brick MACT 

where an achieved level of performance 

for purposes of CAA section 112(d)(3) 

results in a standard which is 

unachievable under CAA section 

112(d)(2) because it is too costly or not 

cost-effective. Brick MACT, 479 F. 3d at 

884–85. EPA is of course mindful of the 

repeated admonitions (with 

accompanying vacaturs and remands) 

from the DC Circuit that MACT floors 

must reflect achieved performance, that 

HAP content of process inputs (raw 

materials and fuels) must be accounted 

for in ascertaining sources’ performance, 

and that costs cannot be considered by 

EPA in ascertaining the level of the 

MACT floor. See, e.g., Brick MACT, 479 

F. 3d at 880–81, 882–83; NRDC v. EPA, 

489 F. 3d 1364, 1376 (DC Cir. 2007) 

(‘‘Plywood MACT’’); see also Cement 

Kiln Recycling Coalition v. EPA, 255 F. 

3d 855, 861–62 (DC Cir. 2001) 

(‘‘achievability’’ requirement of CAA 

section 112(d)(2) cannot override the 

requirement that floors be calculated on 

the basis of what best performers 

actually achieved). EPA is also mindful 

of the need to account for sources’ 

variability (both due to control device 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2ER09SE10.000</MATH>
54976 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 174 / Thursday, September 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

9 Development of The MACT Floors For The Final 

NESHAP For Portland Cement. August 6, 2010. 

10For example, the commenter asserted, without 

providing support, that for the floor kilns the 

standards were ‘‘achieved in practice, but not under 

foreseeable operations’’; ‘‘achieved in practice based 

on limited stack tests’’; ‘‘data shows that proposed 

standard was not achieved in practice when 

malfunction emission [sic] are included in 

compliance determination’’ (although no such data 

were provided to EPA). 

11See Portland Cement Association Comments on 

the NESHAP–Proposed Rule (Docket Number: EPA– 

HQ–OAR–2002–0051) (September 4, 2009) at pp. 

31–35. 

12 Development of The MACT Floors For The 

Final NESHAP For Portland Cement, August 6, 

2010. 

performance and variability in inputs) 

in assessing sources’ performance when 

developing technology-based standards. 

See, e.g., Mossville Environmental 

Action Now v. EPA, 370 F. 3d 1232, 

1242 (DC Cir. 2004); National Lime I, 

627 F. 2d 416,433–34(DC Cir. 1980). 

EPA has carefully developed data for 

each standard, assessing both 

technological controls and HAP inputs 

in doing so. For mercury, EPA used the 

pooled variance from all of the best 

performing kilns in the MACT floor 

pool in order to fully assess these kilns’ 

intra-quarry and other variable mercury 

levels. EPA also used pooled variance to 

assess the variability of HCl and PM 

emissions for the MACT floor pool 

kilns. See 70 FR at 59438 (Oct. 12, 2005) 

(explaining when use of such pooled 

variances can be reasonable). EPA has 

also adopted 30-day averaging periods 

for all of the standards, further allowing 

short term fluctuations to be averaged 

out over the 30-day period. 

The result are floors which reasonably 

estimate the performance over time of 

the best performing sources, as do the 

standards based on those floors. It is 

true that many sources will need to 

install controls to meet these standards, 

and that these controls have significant 

costs (although EPA estimates that the 

rule’s costs are substantially outweighed 

by its benefits). See Section VI below. 

This is part of the expected MACT 

process where, by definition, the 

averaged performance of the very best 

performers sets the minimum level of 

the standard. The Agency believes that 

it has followed the statute and 

applicable case law in developing its 

floor methodology. 

Industry commenters nonetheless 

maintained that EPA had not properly 

accounted for variability of the best 

performing sources because not even 

these sources can meet the standards 

which are predicated on their own 

performance without adding controls. 

This contention lacks a basis in the 

record. For mercury, all performers in 

the MACT floor pool—not just those 

with emissions below the average of the 

best performers— meet the promulgated 

standard (highest 30-day average in 

MACT pool is 41.63 lb/MM tons clinker; 

the standard is 55 lb/MM tons clinker 

(30-day average). In addition, several 

additional kilns, which are not in the 

pool of best performers, meet the 

standards. For THC, all kilns in the pool 

of best performers meet the promulgated 

standard (highest 30-day average in 

MACT pool is 5.68 ppmv; the standard 

is 24 ppmv). In addition, seven 

additional kilns which are not in the 

pool of best performers meet the 

standards. Indeed, nine of the 11 kilns 

for which EPA has CEM data are 

meeting the promulgated standards for 

THC. For PM, all six kilns in the MACT 

pool as well as twelve kilns overall meet 

the promulgated 30-day standard even 

though the measurements in the data 

base are stack tests (i.e., unlike for 

mercury and THC, these are not 

averaged values).9 Virtually all kilns in 

the MACT floor pool are meeting the 

HCl standard, although this is largely 

the result of setting the standard at a 

level reflecting analytic method 

quantitation limits. 

Commenters presented virtually no 

quantified data that floor plants are 

unable to meet the standards. See 

National Association of Metal Finishers 

v. EPA, 719 F. 2d 624, 649 (3d Cir. 1983) 

(unquantified assertions are entitled to 

little if any weight). Rather, their 

comments (comment 2845 at Table 1, 

echoed by many other industry 

commenters) provided narrative 

descriptions purporting to demonstrate 

that floor plants would not be able to 

achieve the standards.10 In those 

instances where commenters provided 

actual data on these plants’ 

performance, EPA took the information 

into account in developing the final 

standards. Indeed, EPA adjusted all of 

the standards based on actual data 

presented. However, EPA is not willing 

to act on pure supposition and 

conjecture regarding variability, 

particularly in the face of record 

information indicating that not only all 

floor plants but a number of additional 

plants are already meeting the 

promulgated standards. 

c. Mercury Limits for Kilns 

i. Floor Determination. We proposed 

mercury emissions limits of 43 lb/ 

million (MM) tons clinker for existing 

sources and 14 lb/MM tons clinker for 

new sources. The proposed floor was 

based on 30 days of data on all kiln 

inputs for 89 kilns. See 74 FR at 21142– 

43. For all kilns but the five equipped 

with wet scrubbers, emissions were 

assumed to equal the total mass of 

mercury fed to each kiln. Scrubberequipped kilns were considered to emit 

all mercury minus an assumed amount 

representing the average performance of 

the wet scrubbers. For kilns that waste 

cement kiln dust (CKD), the mercury 

component of the CKD was subtracted 

from inputs to calculate emissions. Id. 

By conducting a total mass balance for 

mercury and then assuming that all 

mercury inputted is emitted (minus 

conservatively estimated removals for 

scrubber usage and dust wastage), EPA 

made a near worst case assumption as 

to kilns’ mercury emission levels. The 

kilns were then ranked from best to 

worst based on the extrapolated 

mercury emissions, normalized to 

clinker production. EPA further 

proposed that no beyond the floor 

standard was appropriate for either 

existing or new sources. Id. at 21149. 

Since proposal we received updated 

data on certain kilns’ raw materials 

usage and mercury content 11 and used 

that data to revise our average mercury 

emissions estimates from the best 

performing kilns at proposal.12 We have 

also revised upward the floor kilns’ 

projected emissions based on their 

reasonably estimated intra-quarry 

variability (explained further below). As 

a result, estimated emissions from these 

kilns increased, and one of the kilns in 

the group of sources used to set the 

existing source floor is no longer one of 

the best performing kilns. At proposal, 

the average mercury emissions of the 

top 12 percent of the kilns was 27.4 

pounds per million (lb/MM) tons 

clinker, and the average emissions of the 

best performing source were 13.4 lb/MM 

ton clinker. After revising our mercury 

emissions estimates, the averages were 

32 and 14 lb/MM tons clinker, 

respectively, as shown in Table 2. 

TABLE 2—MERCURY MACT FLOOR

Kiln code Mercury emissions 

(lb/MM ton feed) 

1589 .............................. 8.48 

1650 .............................. 9.53 

1315 .............................. 15.26 

1302 .............................. 15.28 

1248 .............................. 16.63 

1259 .............................. 21.33 

1286 .............................. 22.65 

1594 .............................. 25.23 

1435 .............................. 25.51 

1484 .............................. 25.51 

1364 .............................. 25.91 

MACT—Existing Kilns 

Average: lb/MM tons 

feed (lb/MM tons 

clinker) ....................... 19.21 (31.7) 

Total variance ............... 272.3 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 174 / Thursday, September 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 54977 

13Memorandum. Intra-quarry Variability 

Estimate, July 21, 2010. 

14For example, one industry commenter 

submitted core (unground, unprocessed) samples 

from its quarry which samples differed in mercury 

content by approximately one order of magnitude. 

This facility is not a best performer, the samples are 

single measurements (rather than 30-day 

measurements or some longer duration), and 

(unlike the 30-day measurements used as the basis 

for the standard) have not been processed (i.e., 

passed through the quarry crushers and mixed in 

the storage pile which would tend to make the 

material more homogeneous). Therefore, these data 

are not comparable to the data used to set the 

MACT floors. 

15The situation differs from use of limestone from 

a proprietary quarry. Not only have sources used 

the quarry in the past but will necessarily continue 

to do so in the future. 

TABLE 2—MERCURY MACT FLOOR— 

Continued 

Kiln code Mercury emissions 

(lb/MM ton feed) 

UPL: lb/MM tons feed 

(lb/MM tons clinker) .. 32.8 (54.1) 

MACT—New Kilns 

Average: lb/MM tons 

feed (lb/MM tons 

clinker) ....................... 8.48 (14.0) 

Total variance ............... 35.2 

UPL: lb/MM tons feed 

(lb/MM tons clinker) .. 12.3 (20.3) 

As noted above, we are taking into 

account operating variability of the best 

performing kilns, or in the case of new 

source MACT the single best controlled 

kiln, in assessing their performance (i.e., 

both in determining which performers 

are best, and calculating what their 

performance is). When we calculated 

the UPL with 99 percent confidence for 

the best performing sources (or in the 

case of new source MACT the best 

controlled single source), we calculated 

a mercury floor of 55 lb/MM tons 

clinker for existing sources and 21 lb/ 

MM tons clinker for new sources. We 

chose a 30-day averaging period for the 

mercury emission limit. As noted above, 

the use of a 30-day average (as opposed 

to hourly or daily averages) tends to 

reduce variability, and also best reflects 

the nature of the data from which the 

floor was derived and assures that 

several operating cycles of raw mill on 

and off are included in each average. Id. 

at 21144. 

Industry commenters stated that we 

should account for additional sources of 

variability in this floor determination, 

namely intra-quarry variability and 

variability of the mercury content in 

local coals which kilns could utilize. As 

explained below, beyond those 

situations where commenters 

documented that sources actually used 

inputs with greater mercury content 

than used during the 30-day test period 

(see note 11 above), or where further 

intra-quarry mercury variability could 

reasonably be estimated, we did not do 

so. 

EPA is of course aware that limestone 

quarries are immense, and are 

customarily used from periods of 50 to 

100 years. Taking the average of 30 days 

of sampling data from one part of the 

quarry would not necessarily 

encompass all of the different mercury 

levels throughout the quarry. 

Although industry commenters 

originally raised the issue of long term 

intra-quarry variability during the initial 

May 2007 30-day data collection, no 

plant chose to perform additional 

sampling and analysis of their raw 

materials and feed that would have 

allowed this issue to be directly 

addressed. Certain industry commenters 

did point, however, to data from the 30- 

day sampling effort as providing useful 

information on potential intra-quarry 

mercury variability of the two best 

performers. The data come from 30-day 

sampling conducted at four sources 

(three of which are located at a single 

facility), which all quarry limestone 

from a common geologic limestone 

formation.13 All six kilns (the two floor 

kilns, and the other four kilns in the 

immediate vicinity) are in the same city 

and within 9 miles of each other. It is 

a reasonable assumption that variability 

of mercury levels (as opposed to 

mercury levels themselves) across this 

formation are substantially the same and 

therefore that the variability of mercury 

levels in the two best performers’ 

quarries can be adjusted to reflect the 

variability seen in the other quarries 

which are part of the common geologic 

formation. See Brick MACT, 479 F. 3d 

at 881–882 (EPA may look at 

performance of sources which are not 

among the best in estimating variability 

of best performers if there is a 

demonstrated relationship between the 

two). 

EPA further applied these estimates of 

intra-quarry variability to the mercury 

data for the other best performing kilns 

(i.e., applied the same RSD to the other 

best performing sources). EPA did so to 

more robustly characterize long-term 

variability of these sources’ quarries’ 

mercury levels. The fact that intraquarry variability of the two lowest 

emitting sources increased somewhat 

after examination with other quarries in 

the common geologic formation 

confirms that there can be further 

variability. Since the intra-quarry 

variability comes from quarries 

servicing the two lowest emitting kilns, 

EPA would not expect intra-quarry 

variability to be lower for the other best 

performing sources. In no other instance 

did commenters provide data that we 

could use to determine intra-quarry 

variability for kilns in the MACT floor 

pool.14

Commenters also maintained that 

because cement kilns can burn different 

types of coal, variability of coal mercury 

content needs to be factored into 

estimates of sources’ performance. 

Commenters maintained that they 

obtained coal from a ‘‘local market’’ and 

so might eventually use any coal from 

that market. The comments did not 

further link coal to individual mines or 

to other particularized sources. 

Commenters appear to be asking for an 

upward adjustment of the MACT floors 

based on coal they might potentially use 

but never had used. EPA believes that 

allowing for any inputs that might 

conceivably be used in the future, 

including from sources in an area which 

a source has never used to date, goes 

beyond a reasonable estimate of 

performance over time and invites 

inflated estimates of variability based 

only on hypothesized possibilities, not 

on actual behavior.15 EPA not only does 

not believe such methodology is a 

reasonable means of calculating sources’ 

achieved performance, but also believes 

that such an approach creates a perverse 

incentive to build in compliance 

margins based on seeking out more 

polluted inputs. 

For example, the price of lower 

mercury coal may increase as a result of 

this rule (it may be more desirable as a 

means of keeping mercury emissions 

low), so plants may seek out higher 

mercury coal which they otherwise have 

never used. This type of volitional 

activity does not seem to be within the 

ambit of normal variability of process 

inputs. In addition, facilities do have 

choices for coal. As noted in the 

comments, some facilities obtain coals 

from several States, while others appear 

to limit themselves to more local areas. 

However, coal is a commodity that can 

be transported long distances to fuel 

utility boilers. Therefore, we believe 

that a facility should have sufficient 

coals available that they would not be 

compelled to use a higher mercury coal 

just because it happens to be near the 

plant. 

ii. Decision Regarding Whether To 

Create a Subcategory Based on 

Limestone Mercury Content 

EPA may create subcategories which 

distinguish among ‘‘classes, types, and 

sizes of sources.’’ CAA section 112(d)(1). 

EPA reads this provision to provide the 

Agency with discretion to subcategorize, 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2
54978 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 174 / Thursday, September 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

16Letter, C. Lesslie, Ash Grove Cement to P. 

Tsirigotis, U.S. EPA, April 22, 2010. 

and EPA may exercise that discretion if 

sources are rationally distinguishable 

due to some difference in class, type or 

size. See Lignite Energy Council v. EPA, 

198 F. 3d 930, 933 (DC Cir. 1999) (‘‘EPA 

is not required by law to 

subcategorize—section 111[b][2] merely 

states that ‘the Administrator may 

distinguish among classes, types, and 

sizes within categories of new sources’ ’’ 

(emphasis original)). Moreover, as we 

noted at proposal, ‘‘normally, any basis 

for subcategorizing must be related to an 

effect on emissions, rather than to some 

difference among sources which does 

not affect emissions performance.’’ 74 

FR at 21145. EPA may also exercise this 

discretion on a pollutant-specific basis, 

since the difference in class, type or size 

may only have practical significance for 

certain HAP. In this final rule, EPA 

carefully considered the possibility of 

creating different subcategories of 

cement kilns with respect to mercury 

emissions. 

The subcategorization possibilities for 

mercury which we considered and 

rejected at rule proposal were the type 

of kiln, presence of an inline raw mill, 

practice of wasting cement kiln dust, 

total mercury inputs, or geographic 

location. See 74 FR 21144–21145. We 

likewise reject these bases in this final 

rules for the reasons already stated. 

At proposal we also considered 

subcategorizing by the mercury 

concentration of the limestone in the 

kiln’s proprietary quarry. We did not 

propose to create this type of 

subcategory, and also choose not to do 

so in this final rule. 

As we explained at proposal, the facts 

do not indicate sharp disparities in 

limestone mercury content that readily 

differentiate among types of sources for 

most of the facilities for which we have 

data, and thus do not support this 

subcategorization approach for the 

majority of the facilities. See Figure 1 

showing a gradual continuum of 

mercury concentrations in limestone for 

all but two outlying plants. 

Industry commenters who supported 

creating a separate subcategory for the 

two highest mercury emitting sources 

based on limestone mercury content 

agreed with this assessment. Thus, EPA 

sees no technical justification to 

subcategorize by limestone quarry 

mercury content for the majority of the 

source category. 

However, as also shown in Figure 1, 

there is a sharp disparity for two kilns 

which have the highest quarry mercury 

contents. These sources’ mercury 

emissions are also disproportionately 

higher than all other cement kilns’, and 

are related almost entirely to the 

limestone mercury content, not to 

mercury content of other inputs. 

Commenters who supported 

subcategorization by quarry mercury 

levels recommended that EPA create a 

separate source category for these two 

kilns based on their uniquely high 

quarry mercury contents. 

If we were to set a separate 

subcategory for these two kilns, we 

determined that the floor level of 

control would be approximately 2100 

lb/MM tons clinker. Due to the high 

level of this floor, we evaluated a 

beyond-the-floor option of 85 percent 

reduction in emission for the highest 

emitting kiln. This level would 

represent the highest level of mercury 

control believed achievable for the 

highest emitting facility based on test 

data on a pilot mercury control system 

for that facility.16 This level of control 

would result in an emissions limit of 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2ER09SE10.001</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 174 / Thursday, September 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 54979 

17For more information see http://www.epa.gov/ 

mercury/about.htm. 

18Mercury Emission in the U.S. by Source 

Category 1990 to 1993, 2002, and 2005. http:// 

cfpub.epa.gov/eroe/index.cfm?fuseaction=

detail.viewMidImg&ch=46&lShowInd=0&

subtop=341&lv=list.listByChapter&r=188199. 

19Mercury Emission in the U.S. by Source 

Category 1990 to 1993, 2002, and 2005. http:// 

cfpub.epa.gov/eroe/index.cfm?fuseaction=

detail.viewMidImg&ch=46&lShowInd=0&

subtop=341&lv=list.listByChapter&r=188199. 

20 Summary of Environmental And Cost Impacts 

For Final Portland Cement NESHAP And NSPS 

August 6, 2010. 

approximately 500 lb/MM tons clinker. 

This level is over 10 times the level that 

will be required for all other kilns, and 

even exceeds every other kiln’s 

uncontrolled mercury emissions levels 

which range from 20 to 400 lb/MM tons 

clinker. 

Mercury in the air eventually settles 

into water or onto land where it can be 

washed into water. Once deposited, 

certain microorganisms can change it 

into methylmercury, a highly toxic form 

that builds up in fish, shellfish and 

animals that eat fish. Fish and shellfish 

are the main sources of methylmercury 

exposure to humans. Methylmercury 

builds up more in some types of fish 

and shellfish than in others. The levels 

of methylmercury in fish and shellfish 

depend on what they eat, how long they 

live and how high they are in the food 

chain. Mercury exposure at high levels 

can harm the brain, heart, kidneys, 

lungs, and immune system of people of 

all ages. Research shows that most 

people’s fish consumption does not 

cause a health concern. However, it has 

been demonstrated that high levels of 

methylmercury in the bloodstream of 

unborn babies and young children may 

harm the developing nervous system, 

making the child less able to think and 

learn.17 Heightened concern for 

mercury’s toxic effects is reflected 

directly in the structure of section 112 

of the Act. Mercury is one of the 

pollutants identified for MACT-level 

control under the CAA’s air toxics 

provision even (in most instances) when 

emitted by area sources (see CAA 

section 112(c)(6)). 

Thus, creating a high-mercury 

subcategory for two kilns based on 

limestone mercury content would result 

in standards allowing emissions of 500 

lb/MM tons of clinker. Based on 2008 

production rates, this would allow 1,020 

pounds of mercury emissions per year 

from the potential two-plant 

subcategory. To put this in perspective, 

the rest of the industry (92 plants) 

would be allowed to emit 1,012 pounds 

tons of mercury per year (again based on 

2008 production rates), and the two 

high-emitting plants would be allowed 

to emit 1,020 pounds per year. This 

would result in a doubling of mercury 

emissions from this source category 

after the application of MACT. 

Moreover, national mercury emissions 

for industrial sources are approximately 

50 tpy.18 That would mean that these 

two sources alone would constitute 1 

percent of the industrial mercury 

emissions for the U.S. EPA believes it is 

a reasonable exercise of discretion not to 

create a subcategory, where, as here, 

doing so would allow on-going 

emissions of a disproportionately high 

volume of a high-toxicity pollutant. 

Due to mercury’s high toxicity and the 

extremely high mercury emissions that 

would result, the Administrator is thus 

not exercising her discretion to 

subcategorize in setting the final 

mercury emissions limit. In light of this 

decision, it is unnecessary for EPA to 

address the further question of whether 

subcategorizing by raw material content 

of proprietary quarries is permissible 

under section 112 of the Act. 

Although the Agency has concluded 

that it is reasonable to set the same 

mercury standard for all cement kilns, 

we acknowledge the unique challenges 

that the highest emitting sources may 

face in meeting the reductions within 

the regulatory compliance timeline. In 

particular, as discussed at length above, 

the two highest emitting kilns—the 

kilns located in Durkee and 

Tehachapi—have unusually high levels 

of mercury in their proprietary 

limestone quarries, which, as typifies 

this sector, are located proximate to kiln 

operations. The mercury content of 

source material is the key factor in the 

high levels of emissions experienced at 

these kilns and a complicating 

consideration in their ability to achieve 

compliance in a timely manner. 

We also recognize that this challenge 

presents a unique opportunity to 

achieve substantial reductions in this 

naturally occurring, persistent, and 

widespread contaminant in an amount 

and on a schedule that exceeds what 

will be required in the final rule. The 

Agency believes that the two sources in 

question may be able in the near term 

to install aggressive controls, including 

activated carbon injection, that would 

result in dramatic near term reductions 

in mercury emissions (as much as 90 

percent or two tons of mercury 

emissions in the first two years of 

operation). If they were to do so, these 

sources would emit substantially less 

mercury in the next few years than the 

alternative of allowing these facilities to 

continue to emit at current levels for 

three additional years, as would 

otherwise be the case. This would be a 

very substantial reduction in emissions 

of this pollutant. Annual emissions of 

mercury from all sources (not just 

cement kilns) are estimated to be 50 

tpy,19 and emissions from the entire 

source category are approximately 7.5 

tons per year,20 so that a two ton 

reduction is a substantial reduction of 

mercury emissions. 

We understand that one of the two 

high emitting kilns has already installed 

activated carbon injection, but that its 

performance could be further optimized. 

See 74 FR 21148. The other kiln would 

have to install activated carbon injection 

and both kilns would need to install 

dust shuttling. The net benefit to the 

environment and public health would 

extend a number of years beyond the 

MACT compliance deadline. 

If the Durkee and Tehachapi kilns 

were willing to make a near term 

reduction (e.g., 90 percent) in their 

mercury emissions significantly before 

the compliance date in the rule, the 

Agency would consider providing these 

kilns a compliance schedule that 

extends beyond the three to four years 

specified in this rule. The purpose of 

such an approach would be to provide 

a substantial net benefit to the 

environment; therefore ultimate 

compliance with the MACT standard 

would need to be by a date that ensures 

the long term emissions from these 

sources would be significantly lower 

than their emissions from meeting the 

standard on the schedule in the rule. 

Given the nature of mercury and the 

additional reductions that could be 

obtained, the Agency is interested in 

exploring this concept. 

Finally, EPA notes that the same early 

reduction opportunities for mercury do 

not appear to exist for the rest of the 

Portland cement industry. It typically 

takes on the order of three years to 

install activated carbon injection 

technology. One of the high mercury 

plants has recently completed 

installation of ACI and has just 

commenced full scale operation of the 

kiln with ACI installed. The other kiln 

faces fewer installation barriers than 

other kilns. This is because the 

company has tested carbon injection 

and dust shuttling on one of its other 

kilns, and is already using dust 

shuttling to reduce emissions at another 

kiln, and is therefore better positioned 

to rapidly install controls after one year. 

To our knowledge, these circumstances 

are not applicable to the rest of the 

Portland cement source category, and 

could not even be duplicated at all the 

other facilities owned by these 

companies due to limitations in 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2
54980 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 174 / Thursday, September 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

21Summary of Environmental and Cost Impacts 

of Proposed Revisions to Portland Cement NESHAP 

(40 CFR Part 63, subpart LLL), April 15, 2009. 

22 In other words, as noted above, EPA possesses 

sufficient THC data that it is not necessary to 

estimate variability by use of the UPL equation. 

Rather, variability is calculated directly from the 

THC data set comprised of the two lowest emitting 

sources. 

infrastructure available to design and 

build these systems. 

iii. Beyond the Floor Determinations for 

Mercury 

We are basing the final mercury 

standard on the floor level of control. 

When we establish a beyond the floor 

standard we typically identify control 

techniques that have the ability to 

achieve an emissions limit more 

stringent than the MACT floor. Under 

these final amendments, most existing 

kilns would have to have installed both 

a wet scrubber and activated carbon 

injection (ACI) for control of mercury, 

HCl and THC.21 To achieve further 

reductions in mercury beyond what can 

be achieved using wet scrubber and ACI 

in combination, the available options 

would include closing the kiln and 

relocating to a limestone quarry having 

lower mercury concentrations in the 

limestone, transporting low-mercury 

limestone in from long distances, 

switching other raw materials to lower 

the amount of limestone in the feed, 

wasting CKD, and installing additional 

add-on control devices. These options 

were discussed at proposal, and were 

rejected as either technically infeasible 

or not cost-effective. Consideration of 

non-air quality impacts and energy 

requirements do not change this 

conclusion. See 74 FR at 22249–50. We 

received no comments that would cause 

us to change that determination. 

We did receive one comment from an 

environmental group requesting EPA 

explore fuel switching as a beyond the 

floor option. However, EPA thoroughly 

explored fuel switching as a control 

option in the 2006 rulemaking and 

determined that there were problems 

with fuel availability and the costs were 

prohibitive. See 70 FR 72340. EPA is not 

presently aware of facts that would 

justify a different approach in this final 

rule. 

As a result of these analyses, we 

determined that, considering the 

technical feasibility and costs, there is 

no reasonable beyond the floor control 

option, and the final mercury emission 

limit is based on the MACT floor level 

of control. 

c. THC Limits for Kilns and Raw 

Material Dryers 

The limits for existing and new 

sources in this final rule apply to both 

area and major sources. As noted earlier, 

we have applied these limits to area 

sources consistent with CAA section 

112(c)(6). 

i. Floor Determination. EPA proposed 

THC emissions limits of 7 and 6 parts 

per million by volume dry (ppmvd) for 

existing and new sources respectively 

for both cement kilns and raw material 

dryers. The existing source standard 

was based on the performance of the 

best performing 12 percent of cement 

kilns for which we had THC CEMS data. 

At proposal we requested comment on 

the issue of whether or not we should 

base the existing source floor on the best 

performing five kilns, rather than on the 

best performing 12 percent (two kilns). 

Industry commenters supported the use 

of the best five kilns stating that this 

would be in keeping with what 

appeared to be the intent of Congress 

that five kilns should be the minimum 

number of sources on which to set an 

existing source floor. However, other 

commenters noted that a plain reading 

of the statute is that when the source 

category has 30 or more sources, the top 

performing 12 percent for which the 

Administrator has data must be used, 

even if this results in less than five 

facilities due to lack of available data. In 

this final rule we are reaffirming our 

decision at proposal to use the best 

performing 12 percent rather that the 

best performing five facilities because 

we believe this result to be unavoidably 

compelled by the literal language of the 

statute. 

At proposal we set the emissions limit 

based on the 99th percentile of the 

available data. As a result of new data 

received after the comment period, we 

recalculated the averages of the kilns for 

which we had CEMS data and selected 

the best performing two kilns (12 

percent of 15 total kilns) based on their 

average emissions. See Calculations of 

Floors for Final Portland Cement 

NESHAP dated August 6, 2010. Because 

these were large data sets (688 and 274 

readings), we directly calculated the 

99th percentile of the 30-day averages to 

determine the MACT floor which is 24 

ppmvd.22 This is shown in Table 3. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 174 / Thursday, September 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 54981 

For new sources, we analyzed the 

data from the kiln with the lower 

numeric average to determine the 99th 

percentile of its performance. The result 

of this analysis was also a 24 ppmvd 

standard because this kiln had more 

variability (although a lower average 

performance) than the other kiln in the 

data set. This emission limit is based on 

a concentration measured dry, corrected 

to 7 percent oxygen and a 30-day 

average measured using a CEM. 

ii. Additional THC data received too 

late to be considered in this rulemaking. 

In addition to the THC CEMS data just 

discussed, we received another set of 

THC CEMS data from the Portland 

Cement Association (PCA). These data 

were not submitted to EPA until midJune 2010, virtually too late for any 

consideration, much less considered 

analysis. This set consisted of THC 

CEMS data collected over periods 

ranging from 31 to 90 days for 

additional kilns not in the data base 

discussed above, as well as additional 

data from some of the kilns already in 

our data base. These additional data 

increased the total number of kilns with 

THC CEMS data to 30 kilns. The PCA 

also provided a floor analysis on this 

data set and recommended THC 

emissions limits. The data set as 

presented by PCA is shown in Table 4. 

TABLE 4—PORTLAND CEMENT ASSOCIATION: DETERMINATION OF SIZE OF BEST PERFORMING POOL FOR PROPOSED SUBCATEGORIES FOR THC 

[Mid-June 2010 data submission] 

Sub category Estimated U.S. 

population 

Kilns for which 

data are available 

Procedure for selecting pool of best performing kilns 

Existing units 

New units 

Rule Pool size 

Major Non-Commingled Kilns ........ > 30 17 Best 12% .................... 3 Best 1. 

Major Commingled Kilns ................ < 30 7 Best 5 ......................... 5 Best 1. 

Area Kilns ....................................... < 30 6 Work Practices Standard. 

In this analysis, the PCA proposed 

two subcategories: Kilns where the coal 

preparation mill exhaust is comingled 

with the kiln exhaust, and kilns where 

the coal preparation mill has a separate 

stack. The PCA maintains that 

subcategories are needed because 

emissions for the coal preparation mill 

(which are believed to be chiefly 

methane from the coal) will, all other 

things being equal, elevate the THC 

emissions of the kiln exhaust. See also 

74 FR at 21152. The PCA recommended 

floors are shown in Tables 5 and 6 

below: 

TABLE 5—ALTERNATIVE MACT 

FLOORS FOR THC MAJOR NONCOMMINGLED KILNS

Existing 

units 

(ppm) 

New units 

(ppm) 

99th Percentile .. 30 11 

99.9th Percentile 36 12 

TABLE 6—ALTERNATIVE MACT 

FLOORS FOR THC MAJOR COMMINGLED KILNS

Existing 

units 

(ppm) 

New units 

(ppm) 

99th Percentile .. 70 17 

99.9th Percentile 80 20 

However, the PCA MACT analysis 

suffers from one major deficiency 

because it excludes area sources from 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2ER09SE10.002</GPH>
54982 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 174 / Thursday, September 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

the MACT floor analysis, and assumes 

a work practice for these sources. As 

previously noted, THC emissions serve 

as surrogates for POM and PCB 

emissions. CAA section 112(c)(6) 

requires EPA to list, and to regulate 

under standards established pursuant to 

CAA section 112(d)(2) or (d)(4), 

categories of sources accounting for not 

less than 90 percent of emissions of 

these HAP standards established under 

CAA section 112(d)(2) must reflect the 

performance of MACT. Again, as 

explained above, EPA has long since 

determined that area source cement 

kilns’ THC emissions must be controlled 

under CAA section 112 (d)(2) or (d)(4) 

in order to satisfy the 90 percent 

requirement. Therefore, these area 

sources should have been included in 

the MACT floor analysis. 

If this error in the floor analysis is 

corrected, the MACT floor for the kilns 

with comingled exhaust would be 

unchanged from the PCA analysis of 70 

ppmvd for existing and 17 ppmvd for 

new (assuming the statistical 

calculations were done correctly). 

However, this estimate is premised on 

the assumption that there are less than 

30 kilns in this subcategory (so that 5 

sources would be used to establish the 

floor). That assumption is based on data 

provided in the PCA report that 

indicated, of the 87 kilns that provided 

data to PCA on their coal preparation 

stack configurations, 13 had comingled 

exhaust. If there are actually 30 or more 

kilns with this configuration, the MACT 

floor would have to be based on the best 

performing 12 percent of 8 kilns (the 7 

major source comingled kilns plus one 

area source comingled kiln) which 

would be one kiln, Lehigh at Union 

Bridge. If one kiln is used for the 

existing source floor, the existing source 

MACT limit would be 17 ppmvd using 

the 99th percentile. The estimate of 26 

versus 30 or more sources causes a high 

level of uncertainty in this analysis. 

For sources that do not comingle the 

exhaust, the floor would appear to be 

approximately 13 ppmvd when the area 

sources are included in the analysis. 

This is also lower than the floor 

calculated from the long term data set 

out above (and would result in a 

standard roughly 50 percent more 

stringent than that which EPA is 

adopting). 

The PCA analysis also recommended 

a separate subcategory for kilns with 

high limestone outgassing based on the 

information shown below: 

The limestone outgassing factor is 

determined by heating a sample of the 

limestone from the kiln’s proprietary 

quarry to determine the potential for 

THC emissions based on the amount 

and types of organic materials present. 

The premise here is basically the same 

as previously discussed for 

subcategorization by limestone mercury 

content when setting mercury emissions 

limits, because the kiln is tied to its 

limestone quarry. The subcategory 

proposed was for sources with THC 

outgassing ≥ 65 mg/kg. The 

recommended THC emissions limits for 

this subcategory were 170 and 62 

ppmvd for new and existing sources 

respectively. This analysis, however, 

suffers from the same defect previously 

discussed in that for a subcategory with 

only three sources where we have data, 

the best performing 12 percent would be 

one kiln, so the actual limit for new and 

existing would be 62 ppmvd. We 

rejected this option because it suffers 

from the same defects as 

subcategorization by limestone mercury 

content. First, the choice of high versus 

low organics appears arbitrary. A level 

between 75 and 175 could just as easily 

have been chosen. The selection of 65 

appears to be an attempt to move the 

high THC emitting facility into a 

subcategory with a high limit. Second, 

subcategorizing in this manner could 

result in situations where a few facilities 

would be allowed to emit at levels well 

above the remainder of the sources in 

this source category. Third, although the 

two kilns with the highest outgassing 

limestone appear to be outliers (similar 

to the two facilities with unusually high 

limestone mercury contents), we do not 

have data on a majority of the kilns (as 

we do with mercury) and it is possible 

that if we had more data, the two 

facilities that appear to be outliers 

would be part of a gradual continuum, 

which would mean the level we chose 

to separate high and low outgassing 

limestone would be mistaken. 

We also considered combining all the 

THC CEMS data (the more recent PCA 

data, data used at proposal, and data 

received during the comment period 

which would create a data set of 34 

kilns). The results of this analysis was 

a floor (based on the 99th percentile of 

the data) of 24 ppmvd for existing 

sources (the same standard adopted in 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2ER09SE10.003</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 174 / Thursday, September 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 54983 

23Summary of Organic HAP Test Data. August 6, 

2010. 

24 Ibid. 

the final rule) and 3 ppmvd for new 

sources (more stringent than the new 

source standard in the final rule). Given 

the short time available to review the 

PCA data, the uncertainty concerning 

the actual size of one of the 

subcategories, the fact that these data 

would not in our view significantly 

change the levels of the standard for 

most kilns, and the concerns we have 

with subcategorization by limestone 

organic outgassing potential, we 

conclude that there is no compelling 

reason to change our floor 

determination based on this new 

information, which again was submitted 

only days before the final rule 

requirements had to be determined in 

order to meet the court ordered deadline 

for this rule. 

iii. Beyond the floor determination. At 

proposal we evaluated several practices 

and technologies that are available to 

cement kilns to control emissions of 

organic HAP at a level beyond the floor. 

74 FR at 21152. These practices include 

raw materials substitution, ACI systems 

and limestone scrubber and regenerative 

thermal oxidizer (RTO). We rejected 

each of these alternatives based on 

technical limitations or poor costeffectiveness. Consideration of non-air 

quality impacts and energy support this 

determination as well (RTOs in 

particular being associated with 

appreciable energy penalties). 74 FR at 

21152. We received no comments that 

have caused us to change that proposed 

decision. Therefore, we are choosing the 

floor level of control for the final THC 

emissions limit. 

iv. Standards for THC. We are 

establishing the emissions limit for THC 

at the floor level of control. In addition, 

because the final existing source 

standard will be more stringent than the 

new source standard of 50 ppmvd for 

greenfield new sources contained in the 

1999 final rule, we are also removing 

the 50 ppmvd standard for both kilns 

and raw material dryers. 

EPA proposed an alternative floor for 

non-dioxin organic HAP, based on 

measuring the organic HAP itself rather 

than the THC surrogate. This equivalent 

alternative limit would provide 

additional flexibility in determining 

compliance, and it would be 

appropriate for those cases in which 

methane and ethane comprise a 

disproportionately high amount of the 

organic compounds in the feed because 

these non-HAP compounds could be 

emitted and would be measured as THC. 

At proposal we determined that organic 

HAP averaged 24 percent of the THC. 

Since proposal we have reevaluated 

these data and recalculated an average 

organic HAP concentration of 35 

percent. Based on this percentage, and 

the fact that the THC emission limit is 

now 24 ppmvd, we are promulgating an 

alternative organic HAP limit of 9 

ppmvd, corrected to 7 percent oxygen 

(or 19 percent oxygen for raw material 

dryers), for new and existing sources. 

The specific organic compounds that 

will be measured to determine 

compliance with the alternative to the 

THC limit are benzene, toluene, styrene, 

xylene (ortho-, meta-, and para-), 

acetaldehyde, formaldehyde, and 

naphthalene. These were the organic 

HAP species that were measured along 

with THC in the cement kiln emissions 

tests that were reviewed. Nearly all of 

these organic HAP species also were 

identified in an earlier analysis of the 

organic HAP concentrations in THC in 

which the average concentration of 

organic HAP in THC was 35 percent.23

The alternative standard will be based 

on organic HAP average concentration 

of organic HAP in THC was 35 

percent.24 The alternative standard will 

be based on organic HAP emission 

testing and concurrent THC CEMS 

measurements that will establish a site 

specific THC limit that will demonstrate 

compliance with the total organic HAP 

limit. The site specific THC limit will be 

measured as a 30 day rolling average. 

iv. THC Emissions from Raw Material 

Dryers. As we noted at proposal, some 

plants may dry their raw materials in 

separate dryers prior to or during 

grinding. See 74 FR at 21153; see also 

63 FR at 14204. This drying process can 

potentially lead to organic HAP and 

THC emissions in a manner analogous 

to the release of organic HAP and THC 

emissions from kilns when hot kiln gas 

contacts incoming feed materials. The 

methods available for reducing THC 

emissions (and organic HAP) is the 

same technology described for reducing 

THC emissions from kilns and in-line 

kiln/raw mills. Based on the similarity 

of the emissions source and controls, we 

proposed to set the THC emissions limit 

of materials dryers at the same levels as 

the kilns. 

Commenters noted that stand alone 

raw materials dryers have higher gas 

flows relative to the amounts of fuels 

burned. This results in higher oxygen 

concentrations, typically as high as 19 

percent. They also noted that raw 

material dryers may have higher THC 

and lower HAP emissions because raw 

materials dryers operate at lower 

temperature than kilns (since the dryer 

only needs to operate at the temperature 

needed to remove free water), and that 

the residence times for dryers is 

considerably longer than for kilns. 

However, although we agree that the 

exhaust oxygen contents of raw material 

dryers may be higher than occurs with 

a cement kiln, there are reasons to 

believe that dryers actually emit less 

hydrocarbons than kilns. Operating at 

lower temperatures, we would expect 

any hydrocarbons that are emitted from 

dryers to be only those with the highest 

volatility, and therefore that the 

potential for emissions of organic HAP 

would be less for dryers than for kilns. 

However, the longer residence times 

could tend to increase emissions. 

Therefore, making any conclusions on 

the emission of dryers relative to kilns 

is difficult. We also note that we are 

allowing dryers to also use the 

alternative organic HAP emissions limit, 

so if the surmise that organic HAP 

emissions are low relative to the cement 

kilns is correct, this alternative should 

be very viable for these sources. 

In short, we received no data 

indicating that the same limit as for 

kilns was infeasible, or that would 

otherwise allow us to set a different 

THC emissions limit for raw materials 

dryers. Therefore, in these final 

amendments we are setting the THC 

emissions limit at the same level as the 

cement kiln’s, which is 24 ppmvd 

measured as propane. 

However, because raw material dryers 

have high oxygen contents due to their 

inherent operation characteristics (and 

not due to the addition of dilution air), 

referencing the raw material dryer 

standard to 7 percent oxygen would 

actually result in a more stringent 

standard than for cement kilns. For 

example, given the typical oxygen 

contents of kiln exhaust (7 to 12 

percent), a kiln just meeting the THC 

limit of 24 ppmvd would have an actual 

stack measurement of approximately 16 

to 24 ppmvd. If the raw material dryer 

standard is referenced to the same 

oxygen level, they would have to meet 

a measured THC limit of approximately 

3 ppmvd. For this reason, we are 

referencing the oxygen level of the 

standard for raw materials dryers to 19 

percent oxygen, which is the typical 

oxygen level found in the exhaust of 

these devices. 

d. Hydrochloric Acid Emissions From 

Kilns 

In the proposed rule we based the 

proposed HCl emission limit for major 

sources on HCl data measured at 27 

kilns using Method 321. The data in 

ppmvd corrected to 7 percent oxygen 

(O2) were ranked by emissions level and 

the top 12 percent (4 kilns) lowest 

emitting kilns identified as best 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2
54984 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 174 / Thursday, September 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

25Memorandum. EPA Method 321 Detection 

Limits and Minimum Quantification Limit, July 26, 

2010. 

performing existing sources. The 

calculated MACT floors were 2 ppmvd 

and 0.1 ppmvd respectively. 

i. Floor Determination. Subsequent to 

proposal, we received comments that 

indicated we had inappropriately (albeit 

inadvertently) included certain natural 

area sources in the MACT floor analysis. 

We have removed those natural area 

sources from the floor analysis. In 

addition, many of the source tests were 

not actually EPA Method 321 tests; 

others lacked important quality 

assurance information. As a result, we 

issued letters under CAA section 114 

authority requiring facilities that were 

major sources and that had previously 

submitted data to retest their facilities. 

We used this new data set to calculate 

a MACT floor. The data from the best 

performing three sources, as determined 

by average emissions during the test, are 

shown below in Table 7. 

TABLE 7—HCL MACT FLOOR

Kiln 

HCl emissions 

(ppmvd at 7% 

O2) 

1 .......................................... 0 .34 

2 .......................................... 0 .44 

3 .......................................... 0 .46 

MACT—Existing 

Average (Top 3) ................. 0 .41 

Variance .............................. 0 .02 

UPL ..................................... 0 .52 

MACT—New 

Average .............................. 0 .34 

Variance .............................. 0 .0 

UPL ..................................... 0 .34 

However, these measurements are 

very close to the detection limit for 

analytic method 321 actually calculated 

in the field for HCl—from 0.2 to 0.3 

parts per million by volume (ppmv) as 

measured in the stack.25 The expected 

measurement imprecision for an 

emissions value occurring at or near the 

method detection level is in fact about 

40 to 50 percent. This large measure of 

analytic uncertainty decreases as 

measured values increase: Pollutant 

measurement imprecision decreases to a 

consistent relative 10 to 15 percent for 

values measured at a level about three 

times the method detection level. See 

American Society of Mechanical 

Engineers, Reference Method Accuracy 

and Precision (ReMAP): Phase 1, 

Precision of Manual Stack Emission 

Measurements, CRTD Vol. 60, February 

2001. Thus, if the value equal to three 

times the representative method 

detection level were greater than the 

calculated floor emissions limit, we 

would conclude that the calculated floor 

emissions limit does not account 

entirely for measurement variability. 

That is the case here with HCl. The 

calculated standard (not accounting for 

the inherent analytical variability in the 

measurements) is 0.52 ppm (see Table 7 

above). In order to account for 

measurement variability, we multiplied 

the highest reported minimum detection 

level for the analytic method by a factor 

of three which results in a level of 0.9 

ppmv. This represents the lowest level 

that can be reliably measured using this 

test method, and we therefore believe 

that it is the lowest level we can set as 

the MACT limit taking the appropriate 

measurement variability into account. 

Converting this level to a dry basis at 7 

percent oxygen results in a floor of 3 

ppmvd for both new and existing 

sources. As explained further below, we 

are using a CEM to measure this 

standard, and it is a 30-day average. 

ii. Beyond the Floor Determination. At 

proposal we examined the use of a 

packed bed scrubber, which was 

assumed to have a higher HCl removal 

efficiency than the spray tower 

limestone scrubbers typically used in 

this industry. Considering the high 

costs, high cost-effectiveness and small 

additional emissions reduction (and 

adverse cross-media impacts), we did 

not believe that a beyond-the-floor 

standard for HCl is justified. We 

received no comment that would change 

that decision. In addition, the current 

HCl floor limit is actually set at the 

lowest level we believe can be 

accurately quantified by the applicable 

test method. Therefore, a lower standard 

could not be reliably quantified. For 

these reasons we selected the floor level 

of control as MACT for HCl for major 

sources. 

iii. Compliance Mechanisms. As 

proposed, kilns equipped with wet 

scrubbers may demonstrate compliance 

by means of stack testing at intervals of 

30 months, plus utilize continuous 

monitoring of specified parameters. All 

other kilns are required to use a CEMS, 

with compliance based on a 30-day 

rolling average. Although the 

underlying data were obtained via stack 

tests, rather than with continuous 

monitors, EPA believes that because the 

HCl standard is established at a level 

higher than all measured values (to 

account for the inability to reliably 

measure any lower standard) and 

measured based on 30-day averages, it 

provides an ample compliance margin. 

iv. Determination not to Establish a 

Risk-Based Standard for HCl. At 

proposal, EPA elected not to exercise its 

discretion under CAA section 112(d)(4) 

and proposed a major source standard 

for HCl based on MACT. The primary 

basis for not setting a health-based 

standard was that setting a MACT 

standard for HCl not only controlled 

HCl but also co-controlled other HAP 

(such as HF, Chlorine (Cl2), and 

hydrogen cyanide (HCN)) and criteria 

pollutants yielding very substantial 

environmental benefits. However, we 

also requested comment on whether we 

had the legal authority to establish a 

standard for HCl, and, if so, whether we 

should exercise our discretion to do so. 

74 FR at 21154. After considering 

comments, EPA has decided not to 

exercise its discretion to establish a riskbased standard for HCl under CAA 

section 112(d)(4), opting instead to 

promulgate a standard for HCl based on 

the performance of MACT in this final 

rule. This section discusses the basis for 

that decision. 

Setting technology-based MACT 

standards for HCl will result in 

significant reductions in emissions of 

other pollutants, most notably SO2, and 

would likely also result in additional 

reductions in emissions of mercury, 

along with condensable PM, ammonia, 

and semi-volatile compounds. The 

additional reductions of SO2 alone 

attributable to the MACT standard for 

HCl are estimated to be 124,000 tons per 

year in the third year following 

promulgation of the proposed HCl 

standard. These are substantial 

reductions with substantial public 

health benefits. SO2 emissions are 

associated with a variety of human 

health, ecosystem, and visibility effects. 

75 FR at 35525–27 (June 22, 2010). Even 

more significantly, SO2 is also a 

precursor to PM2.5. Reducing SO2

emissions also reduces PM2.5 formation, 

human exposure, and the incidence of 

PM2.5-related health effects, among them 

premature mortality and cardiovascular 

and respiratory morbidity. See detailed 

discussion of PM2.5 health effects in the 

text at Table 13 below. 

For these rules the SO2 reductions 

represent a large fraction of the total 

monetized benefits from reducing PM2.5, 

but it is not possible to isolate the 

portion if the total monetized benefits 

attributable to the emission reductions 

of SO2 resulting from the application of 

HCl controls. The benefits models 

assume that all fine particles, regardless 

of their chemical composition, are 

equally potent in causing premature 

mortality because there is no clear 

scientific evidence that would support 

the development of differential effects 

estimates by particle type. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 174 / Thursday, September 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 54985 

26See S. Rep. No. 101–228, 101st Cong. 1st sess. 

at 172. EPA consequently does not accept the 

argument that it cannot consider reductions of 

criteria pollutants in determining whether to 

exercise its discretion to adopt a risk-based 

standard under section 112(d)(4). There appears to 

be no valid reason that EPA must ignore controls 

which further the health and environmental 

outcomes at which section 112(d) of the Act is 

fundamentally aimed. 

27We further note that HCl is not the only acid 

gas HAP emitted by Portland cement plants. 

Hydrogen fluoride, HCN, ammonia, and chlorine 

may also present and were not accounted for in the 

risk analysis. Setting an HCl standard under 

112(d)(2) and (3) allows the Agency to also address 

these other HAPs as they are co-controlled by wet 

scrubbers along with HCl. 

28 ‘‘Sensitive subgroups’’ may refer to particular 

life stages, such as children or the elderly, or to 

those with particular medical conditions, such as 

asthmatics. 

We estimate the number of premature 

mortalities avoided each year due to the 

reductions in PM2.5 exposure 

attributable to this standard to be in the 

thousands. RIA Table 6–3. We also 

estimate there to be over 2800 instances 

of annual cardiovascular and respiratory 

morbidity cases avoided, and hundreds 

of thousands of work loss days avoided. 

Id. The monetized benefits just from 

premature mortality avoided 

attributable to PM2.5 reductions from 

this standard are estimated to be $7.4 

billion to $18 billion at the three percent 

discount rate and $6.7 billion to $17 

billion at a seven percent discount rate, 

nearly an order of magnitude higher 

than the rule’s estimated social costs. 

See Table 13 below. Although MACT 

standards may directly regulate only 

HAPs and not criteria pollutants, 

Congress did recognize, in the 

legislative history to section 112(d)(4), 

that MACT standards would have the 

collateral benefit of controlling criteria 

pollutants as well and viewed this as an 

important benefit of the air toxics 

program.26 The EPA believes these 

health and environmental benefits to be 

large and important and fully in keeping 

with the paramount goal of the Clean 

Air Act ‘‘to protect and enhance the 

quality of the Nation’s air’’ (CAA section 

101(b)(1)), and so is adopting MACT 

standards for HCl.27

Commenters from industry urged EPA 

to retain a risk-based standard but did 

not challenge EPA’s finding or 

quantification that there would be these 

enormous health and environmental 

benefits to setting a standard reflecting 

MACT to control HCl. The commenters 

nonetheless urged EPA to retain a riskbased standard, noting that EPA had 

done so in the predecessor to this rule 

and for other source categories, and that 

HCl is a threshold pollutant within the 

meaning of CAA section 112(d)(4) so 

that there is a technical basis for such 

a standard. These arguments do not 

persuade the Agency to forego the very 

significant benefits just outlined. 

However, even if (contrary to the 

analysis just set out) EPA were inclined 

to adopt a risk-based standard here, 

there would be technical obstacles to 

doing so, as described at the final part 

of this section. 

As we noted in the proposed rule, as 

a general matter, CAA section 112(d) 

requires MACT standards at least as 

stringent as the MACT floor to be set for 

all HAP emitted from major sources. 

However, CAA section 112(d)(4) 

provides that for HAP with established 

health thresholds, EPA has the 

discretionary authority to consider such 

health thresholds with an ample margin 

of safety when establishing emission 

standards under CAA section 112(d). 

This provision is intended to allow EPA 

to establish emission standards other 

than technology-based MACT standards 

in cases where a less stringent emission 

standard will still ensure that the health 

threshold will not be exceeded, with an 

ample margin of safety. In order to 

exercise this discretion, EPA must first 

conclude that the HAP at issue has an 

established health threshold and must 

then provide for an ample margin of 

safety when considering the health 

threshold to set an emission standard. 

We discussed this issue at length in the 

recent proposed Industrial Boiler 

MACT. See 75 FR at 32020–33 (June 4, 

2010) (declining to propose a risk-based 

standard for HCl emissions). 

The legislative history of section 

112(d)(4) indicates that Congress did not 

intend for this provision to provide a 

mechanism for EPA to delay issuance of 

emission standards for sources of HAPs. 

The legislative history also indicates 

that a health-based emission limit under 

section 112(d)(4) should be set at the 

level at which no observable effects 

occur, with an ample margin of safety. 

S. Rep. 101–228 at 171–72. The 

legislative history further states that 

employing a section 112(d)(4) standard 

rather than a conventional MACT 

standard ‘‘shall not result in adverse 

environmental effects which would 

otherwise be reduced or eliminated.’’ Id. 

It is clear that EPA may exercise its 

discretionary authority under 112(d)(4) 

only with respect to pollutants with an 

established health threshold. Where 

there is an established threshold, EPA 

has, in the proposed rule on industrial 

boilers, interpreted section 112(d)(4) to 

allow us to weigh additional factors, 

beyond any established health 

threshold, in making a judgment 

whether to set a standard for a specific 

pollutant based on the threshold, or 

instead follow the traditional path of 

developing a MACT standard after 

determining a MACT floor (75 FR 

32030). In deciding whether to exercise 

its discretion for a threshold pollutant 

for a given source category, EPA has 

interpreted section 112(d)(4) to allow us 

to take into account factors such as the 

following: The potential for cumulative 

adverse health effects due to concurrent 

exposure to other HAPs with similar 

biological endpoints, from either the 

same or other source categories, where 

the concentration of the threshold 

pollutant emitted from the given source 

category is below the threshold; the 

potential impacts on ecosystems of 

releases of the pollutant; and reductions 

in criteria pollutant emissions and other 

co-benefits that would be achieved via 

the MACT standard—the decisive factor 

here. Each of these factors is directly 

relevant to the health and 

environmental outcomes at which 

section 112 of the Clean Air Act is 

fundamentally aimed. If EPA does 

determine that it is appropriate to set a 

standard based on a health threshold, 

we must develop emission standards 

that will ensure the public will not be 

exposed to levels of the pertinent HAP 

in excess of the health threshold, with 

an ample margin of safety. 

Since any emission standard under 

section 112(d)(4) must consider the 

established health threshold level, with 

an ample margin of safety, in this 

rulemaking EPA has considered the 

adverse health effects of the HAP acid 

gases, beginning with HCl. Research 

indicates that HCl is associated with 

chronic respiratory toxicity. In the case 

of HCl, this means that chronic 

inhalation of HCl can cause tissue 

damage in humans. Among other things, 

it is corrosive to mucous membranes 

and can cause damage to eyes, nose, 

throat, and the upper respiratory tract as 

well as pulmonary edema, bronchitis, 

gastritis, and dermatitis. Considering 

this respiratory toxicity, EPA has 

established a chronic reference 

concentration (RfC) for the inhalation of 

HCl of 20 μg/m3. (See http://www.epa.

gov/ncea/iris/subst/0396.htm.) An RfC 

is defined as an estimate (with 

uncertainty spanning perhaps an order 

of magnitude) of a continuous 

inhalation exposure to the human 

population (including sensitive 

subgroups 28) that is likely to be without 

an appreciable risk of deleterious effects 

during a lifetime. The IRIS health 

assessment evaluated chronic noncancer risks and did not include an 

evaluation of carcinogenic effects (on 

which there are very limited studies). 

As a reference value for a single 

pollutant, RfCs do not reflect any 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2
54986 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 174 / Thursday, September 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

29Although the decision not to set a standard in 

2006 was based on the authority of section 

112(d)(4), we note that the statute in fact states: ‘‘the 

Administrator may consider such threshold level, 

with an ample margin of safety, when establishing 

emission standards under this subsection.’’ Section 

112(d)(4), emphasis added. 

30 In the previous study EPA also evaluated 

dispersion modeling results against an acute 

exposure guideline level (AEGL) below which acute 

effects would not be expected to occur. However, 

even given the uncertainties mentioned for short 

term HCl emissions, that analysis indicated that 

chronic effects would be of the most concern. 

31 Derivation of a Health-Based Stack Gas 

Concentration Limit for HCl in Support of the 

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 

Pollutants from the Portland Cement Manufacturing 

Industry, April 10, 2009. 

32 It should be noted that large amounts of sitespecific information both on kiln operation and 

local meteorological information is needed to obtain 

meaningful results from AERSCREEN and other 

dispersion models. This information is in the ready 

possession of the industrial sources themselves, but 

for unknown reasons, was not provided by industry 

to EPA either as part of the 2006 PCA analysis or 

in response to subsequent data solicitations by EPA. 

potential cumulative or synergistic 

effects of an individual’s exposure to 

multiple HAPs or to a combination of 

HAPs and criteria pollutants. Similarly, 

an RfC evaluation does not focus on 

potential environmental impacts. 

With respect to the potential health 

effects of HCl, we know the following: 

1. Chronic exposure to concentrations 

at or below the RfC is not expected to 

cause chronic respiratory effects; 

2. Little research has been conducted 

on its carcinogenicity. The one 

occupational study of which we are 

aware found no evidence of 

carcinogenicity; 

3. There is a significant body of 

scientific literature addressing the 

health effects of acute exposure to HCl 

(California Office of Health Hazard 

Assessment, 2008. Acute Toxicity 

Summary for Hydrogen Chloride, http://

www.oehha.ca.gov/air/hot_spots/2008/

AppendixD2_final.pdf#page=112 EPA, 

2001). However, we currently lack 

information on the peak short-term 

emissions of HCl from cement kilns 

which might allow us to determine 

whether a chronic health-based 

emission standard for HCl would ensure 

that acute exposures will not pose 

health concerns. 

4. We are aware of no studies 

explicitly addressing the toxicity of 

mixtures of HCl with other respiratory 

irritants. However, many of the other 

HAPs (and criteria pollutants) emitted 

by cement kilns also are respiratory 

irritants, and in the absence of 

information on interactions, EPA 

assumes an additive cumulative effect 

(Supplementary Guidance for 

Conducting Health Risk Assessment of 

Chemical Mixtures. http://cfpub.epa.

gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.

cfm?deid=20533). 

Cement kilns also emit other acid 

gases along with HCl, including 

chlorine (Cl2), HCN and hydrogen 

fluoride (HF), all of which are HAPs. 

Like HCl, these HAP gases have 

established chronic health thresholds 

below which they are not expected to 

pose any significant risk of chronic 

respiratory effects, have no evidence to 

suggest that they may pose carcinogenic 

effects, and have an established body of 

literature regarding acute respiratory 

health effects. They are also controlled 

during the process of controlling HCl 

emissions from cement kilns using a wet 

scrubber. As such, their health impacts 

must be taken into account when 

considering a health-based emission 

limit for HCl. 

In the 2006 final rule, EPA did not set 

any standard for HCl.29 The Agency 

reasoned that no further control was 

necessary for Portland cement emissions 

of HCl because HCl is a ‘‘health 

threshold pollutant’’ and human health 

is protected with an ample margin of 

safety at current HCl emission levels. 71 

FR at 76527. Underlying this conclusion 

was EPA’s analysis of a tiered screening 

study of dispersion modeling of cement 

facilities’ worst-case and actual HCl 

emissions. This study was conducted by 

the Portland Cement Association for 

about two-thirds of operating U.S. 

cement plants. Dispersion modeling 

results were evaluated against the RfC 

for HCl.30 The screening analysis 

involved making conservative 

assumptions regarding HCl emission 

concentrations and plants’ operating 

conditions (greater concentrations than 

known to be emitted and perpetual 

operation at maximum capacity). All 

plants in the analysis, with five 

exceptions, had HCl levels well below a 

Hazard Quotient (HQ) level of 1.0, the 

ratio of exposure (or modeled 

concentration) to the health reference 

value or threshold level. The remaining 

five plants in the analysis had HQ levels 

greater than 1.0 assuming maximum 

emissions, but less than 1.0 when their 

actual emissions were used in the 

dispersion models. Id. at 76528–29. 

At proposal of these amendments, 

recognizing that the 2006 determination 

was deficient, if for no other reason 

because it failed to establish any 

emission standard whatever, EPA 

conducted its own analysis to determine 

what numerical standard for HCl would 

be necessary to at least assure that, for 

the sources in the controlled category or 

subcategory, persons exposed to 

emissions of HCl would not experience 

the adverse health effects on which the 

threshold is based. In order to determine 

this level, in the proposed rule we 

conducted a risk analysis of the same 68 

facilities analyzed by PCA using a 

screening level dispersion model 

(AERSCREEN). Using the site specific 

stack parameters provided by the PCA 

and conservative meteorological 

conditions (taken from the PCA 

analysis), the AERSCREEN modeling 

predicted the highest long term ground 

level concentration surrounding each 

facility, and used this concentration to 

back calculate the highest allowable HCl 

emissions rate that could occur without 

exceeding the allowable RfC. The results 

of this analysis indicated that an HCl 

emission limit of 23 ppmv or less (an 

order of magnitude higher than the 

MACT standard) would result in no 

exceedances of the RfC for HCl for any 

of the facilities assessed.31

Based on further consideration, EPA 

now believes that the 2006 PCA study 

and analysis has the following 

deficiencies. First of all, not all cement 

plants were evaluated (the PCA study 

covered about two thirds of the plants 

in the source category), and among 

those not evaluated were cement plants 

with the most likelihood of posing risk 

at ground level from HCl emissions due 

to use of positive pressure baghouses 

with monovents or multiple short 

stacks. Secondly, the analysis did not 

consider the impacts of the co-emitted 

acid gases, an important consideration 

in determining an ample margin of 

safety. In addition, no data were 

provided, nor do we have data, on other 

pollutants in the vicinity of these 

cement facilities, or background 

concentration data for HCl to determine 

cumulative impacts of HCl emissions for 

these facilities.32 EPA’s analysis of 2009 

could not improve on the PCA study, 

given the lack of robust emissions data 

for Cl2, HF, and HCN, and the lack of 

any additional data for the cement kilns 

not included in the original study. As a 

result, EPA cannot ensure that the 

resulting derivation of 23 ppmv as a 

possible health-based emission standard 

for HCl would result in chronic ambient 

levels of acid gases that would not pose 

significant health risks. EPA has no data 

that would allow us to extend that 

analysis to cover all acid gases and all 

facilities. 

In addition to potential health 

impacts, EPA has evaluated the 

potential for environmental impacts 

when considering whether to exercise 

discretion under section 112(d)(4). 

When HCl gas encounters water in the 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 174 / Thursday, September 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 54987 

33Calculation of PM MACT Floor Based on Data 

in 1998 Proposal. July 7, 2010. 

atmosphere, it forms an acidic solution 

of HCl. In areas where the deposition of 

acids derived from emissions of sulfur 

and nitrogen oxides are causing aquatic 

and/or terrestrial acidification, with 

accompanying ecological impacts, the 

deposition of HCl could exacerbate 

these impacts. Being mindful of the 

explicit legislative history, and in 

keeping with past EPA practice, it is 

appropriate to consider potential 

adverse environmental effects in 

addition to adverse health effects when 

setting an emission standard for HCl 

under section 112(d)(4). The coemissions of HF, HCN, and Cl2 from 

cement kilns could serve to further 

aggravate these environmental 

acidification impacts, but EPA has no 

data to determine these impacts. 

Although the PCA analysis did not 

include an assessment of potential 

environmental effects, for the 2006 final 

Portland cement rule, EPA conducted 

its own analysis of potential effects of 

cement kilns’ HCl emissions to wildlife, 

aquatic life, and other natural resources. 

The Agency concluded at the time that 

acute and chronic exposures to expected 

HCl concentration around cement kilns 

are not expected to result in adverse 

environmental toxicity effects. Id. at 

76529. EPA accordingly declined to 

establish any standard for HCl. 

At this time, we now believe the 

ecological risk analysis performed in 

2006 is insufficient, as it was merely a 

literature review and not a formal 

ecological assessment, and, as discussed 

in the previous paragraphs, it did not 

cover the impacts of the other acid 

gases, nor did it cover about one third 

of the existing cement plants. No 

additional information was provided 

during the comment period which 

addressed these various technical 

issues, notwithstanding EPA’s 

solicitation of data. 

Consequently, although EPA is 

declining to adopt a section 112(d)(4) 

risk-based standard for HCl emissions 

from Portland cement facilities for the 

sound policy reasons discussed herein, 

we further note that there remain 

technical issues as to the 

appropriateness of such a standard even 

if EPA were inclined to exercise that 

discretion. We also do not view 

ourselves as bound by the technical 

determinations made in the 2006 

rulemaking for the reasons just 

explained. 

EPA also has concluded that the facts 

here are distinguishable from those in 

other rulemakings in which it exercised 

its discretionary authority under section 

112(d)(4). In the case of the Pulp and 

Paper MACT (63 FR at 18765 (April 15, 

1998)), the risk analysis indicated, at the 

95 percent confidence interval, that the 

maximum concentration predicted to 

which people were estimated to be 

exposed was 0.3 g/m3, 60 times less 

than the inhalation reference 

concentration. This is a much lower 

value than present in the Portland 

cement risk analysis discussed above. In 

the case of the Lime Manufacturing 

NESHAP (67 FR at 78054 (Dec. 20, 

2002)), there are two key distinctions. 

First, the technical information 

available to EPA covered 100 percent of 

all lime kilns in the U.S., which is not 

the case for the Portland cement risk 

analysis. Second, EPA did a worst case 

analysis as a supplement to the industry 

analysis and determined that the highest 

hazard index under that scenario was 

0.21. Based on the EPA analysis 

determining a health based limit for 

Portland cement, if we were to allow the 

same level of risk as we determined in 

Lime NESHAP analysis, the health 

based emission limit would be 2 

ppmvd, which is almost the same level 

as the MACT standard we are finalizing 

in this action. 

EPA also considers the alternative 

standard for total chlorine in the 

Hazardous Waste Combustor MACT (70 

FR at 59555 (Oct. 12, 2005)) to be 

distinguishable. That rule, under the 

authority of section 112(d)(4) establishes 

a site-specific risk-based standard for 

total chlorine (of which HCl is the 

largest component), whereby, in lieu of 

meeting the MACT standard, sources 

may emit total chlorine at higher levels 

if they demonstrate that their emissions 

of total chlorine from all hazardous 

waste combustor sources at a facility do 

not exceed both acute (one-hour) and 

chronic (annual) exposure thresholds. 

The demonstration must account for all 

relevant site-specific conditions, or be 

based on worst-case screening 

assumptions. If sources satisfy these 

criteria, the amount of their total 

chlorine emissions is still capped by the 

technology-based limit to which these 

sources were previously subject. The 

site-specific demonstrations, 

applicability to all combustor sources at 

a facility, use of acute and chronic 

health benchmarks, and capping of 

emission limits are all unique to that 

rule. 

e. PM Emissions From Kilns 

Particulate matter serves as a 

surrogate for non-volatile metal HAP (a 

determination upheld for this source 

category in National Lime Ass’n, 233 F. 

3d at 637–39). Existing and new major 

sources are presently subject to a PM 

limit of 0.3 lb/ton of feed which is 

equivalent to 0.5 lb/ton clinker. EPA is 

amending this standard for major 

sources, and also adding PM standards 

for existing and new area source cement 

kilns. In all instances, EPA is revising 

these limits because they do not 

represent MACT, but rather a level 

which is achievable by the bulk of the 

industry. See 63 FR at 14198 (March 24, 

1998); see also 233 F. 3d at 633 

(indicating that the standards for PM 

were likely legally deficient but that the 

argument had not been properly 

preserved for the court to adjudicate). 

This is not legally permissible. Brick 

MACT, 479 F. 3d at 880–81. EPA thus 

does not accept the argument of some 

commenters that EPA may only amend 

promulgated MACT standards by means 

of the periodic review procedures of 

section 112(d)(6), which does not 

include re-determining floor levels. 

Section 112(d)(6)does not indicate that 

it is the exclusive means of amending 

MACT standards, and in particular does 

not speak to a situation where an 

original floor was palpably short of 

statutory requirements and where that 

floor became the ultimate standard. EPA 

consequently believes it has discretion 

to reconsider and redo the MACT floor 

analysis for PM, and to amend the 

standard as appropriate. 

Other commenters suggested that 

even if EPA has such discretion, it 

would (or should) be limited to a 

reanalysis of the original database for 

the 1999 rule and so should not 

consider kilns’ subsequent performance. 

Were EPA to take that approach here, 

the floor (and standard) for PM would 

be more stringent than the floor (and 

standard) in this rule.33 Because EPA 

considers the database for the current 

rule to be more representative of 

performance capabilities of best 

performing kilns than the sparser 1999 

database, EPA is basing its 

determination on the more 

representative data. 

EPA is setting a PM standard based on 

MACT for existing and new area source 

cement kilns. As noted at proposal, 

Portland cement kilns are a listed area 

source category for urban HAP metals 

pursuant to section 112(c)(3), and 

control of these metal HAP emissions 

(via the standard for the PM metal 

surrogate) is required to ensure that area 

sources representing 90 percent of the 

area source emissions of urban metal 

HAP are subject to section 112 control, 

as required by section 112(c)(3). EPA 

has determined that this standard 

should reflect MACT, rather than GACT, 

because there is no essential difference 

between area source and major source 

cement kilns with respect to emissions 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2
54988 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 174 / Thursday, September 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

34Available at http://www.epa.gov/ttncaaa1/t1/ 

fr_notices/certcfin.pdf. 

of either HAP metals or PM. Thus, the 

factors that determine whether a cement 

kiln is major or area are typically a 

function of the source’s HCl or 

formaldehyde emissions, rather than its 

emissions of HAP metals. As a result, 

there are kilns that are physically quite 

large that are area sources, and kilns 

that are small that are major sources. 

Both large and small kilns have similar 

HAP metal and PM emissions 

characteristics and controls. 

Given that EPA is developing major 

and area source standards for PM at the 

same time in this rulemaking, a 

common control strategy consequently 

appears warranted for these emissions. 

We thus have included all cement kilns 

in the floor calculations for the final PM 

standard, and have developed common 

PM limits based on MACT for both 

major and area sources. 

i. Floor Determination. At proposal 

we had compiled PM stack test data for 

45 kilns from the period 1998 to 2007. 

EPA ranked the data by emissions level 

and the lowest emitting 12 percent, 6 

kilns, was used to develop the proposed 

existing source MACT floors of 0.085 

and 0.08 lb/ton clinker for new and 

existing sources respectively. 

Commenters noted that we had 

omitted some of the data already 

submitted to EPA in developing the 

MACT floor. In addition, we noted for 

two of the best performing facilities we 

had only one emissions test. Therefore 

we requested these sources to submit 

additional PM emission test data and 

the source sent two additional PM 

emissions tests for each kiln to allow us 

to better characterize emissions 

variability. We modified the PM data 

base to reflect these submissions. 

Another change made since proposal is 

that we have changed the compliance 

requirement to require a PM CEMS. This 

requires that we establish an averaging 

period. We chose a period of 30 days 

(rolling average) to be consistent with 

requirements for mercury and THC, and 

because PM emissions on a lb/ton basis 

are affected by raw mill cycles (typically 

encompassed within 30-days, see 74 FR 

at 21144) for kilns with in-line raw 

mills. We have converted the 

concentrations obtained from 3-hour 

tests into 30-day values by means of the 

UPL equation previously described. It 

should be noted that due to the longer 

averaging periods, the actual limit will 

be a lower number compared to the 

shorter compliance interval in the 

proposed rule (30 days versus a three 

hour test). This damping of variability 

when a longer averaging period is used 

is well established where continuous 

monitors have been used to measure 

emissions, and is also accounted for in 

the ‘‘m’’ term of the UPL equation. The 

results of the new MACT analysis are 

shown in Table 8. 

TABLE 8—PM MACT FLOOR

Kiln PM emissions 

(lb/ton clinker) 

1 ........................................ 0 .01 

2 ........................................ 0 .01 

3 ........................................ 0 .01 

4 ........................................ 0 .03 

5 ........................................ 0 .04 

6 ........................................ 0 .04 

MACT—Existing 

Average ............................ 0 .02 

Variance ............................ 0 .001 

UPL ................................... 0 .04 

MACT—New 

Average ............................ 0 .01 

Variance ............................ 0 .00001 

UPL ................................... 0 .01 

EPA proposed use of PM CEMS as an 

alternative to using a bag leak detector, 

and also solicited comment on requiring 

their use generally. 74 FR at 21157. As 

we noted there, performance 

specifications for PM CEMS are now 

available, and continuous monitors 

‘‘give a far better measure of sources’ 

performance over time than periodic 

stack tests’’. After considering the public 

comments, EPA continues to believe 

that this is the case. See also further 

discussion of this issue at Section A.3 

of this preamble below. 

EPA does not agree with the comment 

that use of a CEM renders the standard 

more stringent and so results in floors 

(and standards) more stringent than 

those achieved by average of the best 

performing sources. First, the 

continuous collection of data used to 

assess compliance with this standard 

does not create a limit more stringent 

that otherwise allowed. As discussed in 

the preamble to the Credible Evidence 

Rule, ‘‘* * * continuous monitoring of 

the standards (has) no effect on the 

stringency of the standard * * * ’’ (62 

FR at 8326, February 24, 1997). 

Further, a statistically-based 

adjustment to account for emissions 

variability, and which, in this case, 

increases the numerical value of the 

standard (and its longer averaging 

period) by fifty percent, does not make 

the standard more stringent. Finally, 

increasing the averaging period beyond 

the duration associated with conducting 

a performance test (typically three 

hours) to 30 days normally makes a 

standard more lenient because there is 

more opportunity to average out 

individual results. As mentioned in the 

description of the Salo and Pederson 

memoranda cited in Section 4.1.2.1 of 

the Credible Evidence Rule Response to 

Comment Document, ‘‘* * * (t)he effect 

of the change from a 3-hour averaging 

time to a 30-day averaging time is to 

make the standard more lenient 

*** ’’.34

ii. Beyond the Floor Determination. 

EPA did not propose beyond-the-floor 

standards for PM. This was because the 

cost effectiveness of adopting beyondthe-floor controls was several orders of 

magnitude greater than EPA has 

accepted for PM reductions in other 

rules where standards allow 

consideration of costs, and because the 

incremental amount of PM removed was 

very small (3 tpy nationwide). 

Consideration of non-air quality issues 

did not change this conclusion. 74 FR 

at 21155. Commenters did not challenge 

this analysis. EPA accordingly is not 

adopting beyond-the-floor standards for 

PM. 

The final PM emissions limit for 

existing sources is 0.04 pounds per ton 

(lb/ton) clinker for and 0.01 lb/tons 

clinker for new sources (30-day 

average). Kilns where the clinker cooler 

gas is combined with the kiln exhaust 

and sent to a single control device for 

energy efficiency purposes (i.e., to 

extract heat from the clinker cooler 

exhaust) will be allowed to adjust the 

PM standard to an equivalent level 

accounting for the increased gas flow 

due to combining of kiln and clinker 

cooler exhaust (an action for which EPA 

received no adverse comment). See 74 

FR at 21156 and 73 FR at 64090–91 

(Oct. 28, 2008) (explaining the 

equivalency of this standard and the 

energy efficiency benefits resulting from 

combining these gas flows). The PM 

standard is a 30-day rolling average and 

is measured with a CEM. 

iii. Compliance Alternative for 

Comingled Kiln/Clinker Cooler Exhaust. 

As we noted at proposal, some kilns 

combine the clinker cooler gas with the 

kiln exhaust and send the combined 

emissions to a single control device. 

There are significant energy savings 

(and attendant greenhouse gas emission 

reductions) associated with this 

practice, since heat can be extracted 

from the clinker cooler exhaust. 

However, there need to be different 

conversion factors from concentration to 

mass per unit clinker in these cases to 

allow for the increased gas flow, which 

result in a different PM emissions limit. 

We proposed adjustment factors that 

would account for these differences and 

create a site specific PM emission limit 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 174 / Thursday, September 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 54989 

35Telecon with Tuyet-Le Pham, South Coast Air 

Quality Management District. June 29, 2010. 

of this situation. See 74 FR 21155–56 

and 21184. We received no comments 

on these factors and are thus adopting 

them as proposed, except that the 

factors have been changed to account for 

changes in the underlying kiln and 

clinker cooler emissions limits. Note 

that adjustments would also be 

necessary for kilns subject to the NSPS 

PM limit. Thus, we are including a cross 

reference for the NSPS to the 

appropriate section of the NESHAP rule. 

f. Opacity Standards for Kilns and 

Clinker Coolers 

We are removing all opacity standards 

for kilns and clinker coolers because 

these sources will be required to 

monitor compliance with the PM 

emissions limits by more accurate 

means. Although some commenters 

requested retention of opacity as a 

backup standard, and others as an 

alternative, none of these comments 

offered any convincing information or 

other justification for perpetuating a less 

reliable compliance methodology. 

Though we have preserved some 

regulation text, any kiln or clinker 

cooler that uses a PM CEMS to monitor 

compliance with the PM emission limit 

is exempt from opacity standards. 

g. PM Standard for Clinker Coolers 

In addition to amending the PM 

standard for kilns we are similarly 

amending the PM emissions limit for 

clinker coolers. Fabric filters are the 

usual control for both cement kilns and 

clinker coolers. As EPA noted in our 

proposed revision to the NSPS (73 FR 

34078, June 16, 2008), we believe that 

the current clinker cooler controls can 

meet the same level of PM control that 

can be met by the cement kiln. No 

commenter challenged this. One 

commenter did state that PM limits for 

clinker coolers should not be changed, 

but we disagree with that comment for 

the reasons previously discussed on the 

PM limit for kilns. Therefore, we are 

setting the same PM emissions limits 

and compliance requirements for both 

clinker coolers and kilns. 

h. Standards for Open Clinker Piles 

At proposal we noted that open 

clinker piles were currently 

unregulated, and that hexavalent 

chromium emissions had been detected 

in fugitive dust from these piles. See 74 

FR at 21163. We requested comment 

and information as to how common the 

practice of open clinker storage is, 

appropriate ways to detect or measure 

fugitive emissions (ranging from openpath techniques to continuous digital or 

intermittent manual visible emissions 

techniques), any measurements of 

emissions of hexavalent chromium (or 

other HAP) from these open storage 

piles, potential controls to reduce 

emissions, or any other factors we 

should consider. 

Commenters did not provide data on 

this practice. Industry commenters 

stated emission were de minimis and 

should not be regulated. Other 

commenters noted that the fact that we 

know these sources emit HAP is 

sufficient to necessitate regulation. 

We agree that these operations do 

emit HAP and that regulation of these 

sources is necessary. See National Lime, 

233 F. 3d at 640 (upholding EPA 

position that de minimis exceptions are 

not to be read into the MACT standard 

setting process). Because the emissions 

in question are fugitive dust for which 

measurement is not feasible since (by 

definition) the emissions are not emitted 

through a conveyance or other device 

which allows their measurement (see 

section 112 (h)(1) and (2)(A)), we are 

adopting the work practice standards 

and opacity emissions limits contained 

in Rule 1156 as amended by the South 

Coast Air Quality Management District 

on March 6, 2009 and incorporating 

them into this rule. There are only two 

plants which EPA can state definitively 

have open storage piles and are 

complying with Rule 1156, so these 

existing regulatory standards would 

constitute a floor level of control (and 

EPA does not believe beyond-the-floor 

controls are needed, since utilizing 

some type of enclosure should well 

control fugitive emissions). A summary 

of the requirements are as follows: 

If clinker material storage and 

handling activities occur more than 

1,000 feet from the facility propertyline, 

Æ Utilize a three-sided barrier with 

roof, provided the open side is covered 

with a wind fence material of a 

maximum 20 percent porosity, allowing 

a removable opening for vehicle access. 

The removable wind fence for vehicle 

access may be removed only during 

minor or routine maintenance activities, 

the creation or reclamation of outside 

storage piles, the importation of clinker 

from outside the facility, and 

reclamation of plant clean-up materials. 

The removable opening shall be less 

than 50 percent of the total surface area 

of the wind fence and the amount of 

time shall be minimized to the extent 

feasible; 

Æ Storage and handling of material 

that is immediately adjacent to the 

three-sided barrier due to space 

limitations inside the structure shall be 

contained within an area next to the 

structure with a wind fence on at least 

two sides, with at least a 5 foot 

freeboard above the top of the storage 

pile to provide wind sheltering, and 

shall be completely covered with an 

impervious tarp, revealing only the 

active disturbed portion during material 

loading and unloading activities; 

Æ Storage and handling of other 

active clinker material shall be 

conducted within an area surrounded 

on three sides by a barrier or wind 

fences with one side of the wind fence 

facing the prevailing wind and at least 

a 5-foot freeboard above the top of the 

storage pile to provide wind sheltering. 

The clinker shall remain completely 

covered at all times with an impervious 

tarp, revealing only the active disturbed 

portion during material loading and 

unloading activities. The barrier or wind 

fence shall extend at least 20 feet 

beyond the active portion of the 

material at all times; and 

Æ Inactive clinker material may be 

alternatively stored using a continuous 

and impervious tarp, covered at all 

times, provided records are kept 

demonstrating the inactive status of 

such stored material. 

• If clinker material storage and 

handling activities occur 1,000 feet or 

less from the facility property-line these 

activities must be in an enclosed storage 

area. 

In the SCAQMD regulation, there are 

different requirements for active vs. 

inactive open clinker piles. An inactive 

pile is one that had not been disturbed 

for 30 consecutive days. In addition, the 

ACAQMD rule has different 

requirements for clinker piles that are 

1,000 feet or less form the facility 

property-line. This 1000 foot criterion 

was a mutually agreed number among 

the stakeholders (both industry and 

environmental groups) involved in 

developing the regulation.35 Given the 

lack of additional data, we saw no 

reason to change these criterion. More 

information on this rule is available at 

http://www.aqmd.gov/hb/gb_cal95.html. 

Industry commenters also maintained 

that regulation of open storage piles 

would violate a 2001 settlement 

agreement between EPA and the 

industry in which EPA agreed that the 

1999 rule did not apply to fugitive 

emission sources. But nothing in that 

settlement agreement prevents EPA 

from amending its regulations if it is 

appropriate to do so (nor could EPA 

legally bind itself in such a way). The 

agreement in fact states that ‘‘[n]othing 

in this Agreement shall be construed to 

limit or modify EPA’s discretion to alter, 

amend, or revise, or to promulgate 

regulations that supersede, the 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2
54990 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 174 / Thursday, September 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

36RACT/BACT/LAER Clearing house Report for 

Portland Cement. November 25, 2009. 

regulations identified in section III of 

this Agreement.’’ Consequently, EPA’s 

action today properly amends the 

current regulation, and does not violate 

any provisions of the settlement 

agreement. 

i. Format of the Normalized Standards 

in the NESHAP and the NSPS 

Emission limits are typically 

normalized to some type of production 

or raw material input value because this 

allows comparison (and ultimately the 

ability to set a single standard) for 

different sized facilities. As we noted at 

the NSPS proposal, the current NSPS 

and limits (and NESHAP limits before 

today’s amendments) for PM are 

expressed on a pound of PM per ton (lb/ 

ton) of dry feed input format. See 73 FR 

at 34075–76. In this final NESHAP (and 

NSPS) we are adopting a new 

normalizing parameter of lb/ton of 

clinker—i.e., normalizing based on kiln 

output rather than input for both PM 

and mercury. 

We noted at proposal of the NSPS that 

adopting an output-based standard 

avoids rewarding a source for becoming 

less efficient, i.e., requiring more feed to 

produce a unit of product, therefore 

promoting the most efficient production 

processes. 73 FR at 34076. EPA 

therefore proposed that all of the NSPS 

(for PM, NOx, and SO2) be normalized 

by ton of clinker produced, and later 

proposed the same parameter for the 

two standards in the NESHAP which are 

normalized, mercury and PM. 73 FR at 

34076; 74 FR at 21140. 

In this final NESHAP (and NSPS) we 

are therefore adopting a new 

normalizing parameter of lb/ton of 

clinker—i.e. normalizing based on kiln 

output rather than input—for mercury 

and PM in the NESHAP, and for PM, 

NOx, and SO2 in the NSPS. Commenters 

either supported this proposal, or did 

not question that normalizing by output 

promotes more efficient production. 

However, commenters from industry 

raised technical objections and concerns 

to the proposal. They maintained that 

the measurement of kiln output is not as 

exact as the measurement of kiln input, 

and that many kilns have not installed 

clinker measuring equipment. These 

objections do not necessitate 

normalizing by inputs. Most 

commenters also stated that kiln feed 

could be accurately measured and also 

indicated that most facilities currently 

derive reasonable feed-to-clinker 

conversion factors from these 

measurements. Kilns already calculate 

clinker production in this way when 

required to meet emissions limits 

normalized by clinker production, as 

many NSR and PSD permits for cement 

kilns presently do.36

Since it appears from comments that 

the equipment to accurately measure 

clinker is not typically installed in this 

industry, we must assume these 

facilities use a feed-to-clinker 

conversion factor to calculate clinker 

production on whatever time basis is 

necessary (e.g., daily, hourly, etc.). 

Therefore, we have modified the rule 

language to more clearly provide the 

option allowing facilities to measure 

feed inputs and to use their site specific 

feed/clinker ratio to calculate clinker 

production (and to make clear that no 

prior approval from a regulatory 

authority is necessary to do so). 

Facilities would be allowed to use a 

constant feed/clinker ratio in accord 

with their usual cycles for determining 

such ratios, typically on a monthly basis 

when clinker inventories are reconciled. 

Commenters were nonetheless 

concerned that because clinker/feed 

ratios change somewhat and are only redetermined at the end of a cycle, a slight 

change in clinker/feed ratio, determined 

at the end of the cycle, could show lack 

of compliance without even an 

opportunity to alter operation. To 

obviate this legitimate concern, the rule 

provides that facilities are not required 

to retroactively update clinker 

production estimates after recomputing 

feed/clinker ratios. We would not 

expect that the clinker/feed ratio will 

change significantly from month to 

month, so we do not see this as creating 

a situation where facilities will be able 

to have large amounts of excess 

emissions but still be considered in 

compliance (especially since the 30-day 

standards are all rolling averages). 

So, for these reasons above we are 

adopting emission limits normalized by 

kiln output for PM in both the NESHAP 

and the NSPS, for mercury in the 

NESHAP, and for NOX and SO2 in the 

NSPS (the same analysis applying to the 

limits in the NSPS). 

2. What are the final operating limits 

under subpart LLL? 

EPA is eliminating the restriction, 

adopted in the 2006 rule, on the use of 

fly ash where the mercury content of the 

fly ash has been increased through the 

use of activated carbon once the kiln has 

complied with a numerical mercury 

emissions limit. Given the emission 

limitation for mercury, whereby kilns 

must continuously meet the mercury 

emission limits described above 

(including when using these materials) 

there does not appear to be a need for 

such a provision. This provision is 

removed once a kiln is in compliance 

with the mercury limitations adopted in 

this. We are removing the requirement 

at compliance, rather than when the 

rule takes effect, to prevent the 

possibility of additional mercury 

emissions between the rule’s effective 

date and the required compliance date. 

However, once the rule takes effect EPA 

is removing the requirement to maintain 

the amount of cement kiln dust wasted 

during testing of a control device, and 

the provision requiring that kilns 

remove from the kiln system sufficient 

amounts of dust so as not to impair 

product quality for the same reasons. In 

this case, we do not see immediate 

removal of these provisions as creating 

a likelihood of increased mercury 

emissions prior to the compliance date. 

3. What are the final testing and 

monitoring requirements under subpart 

LLL? 

Kilns will be required to meet the 

following changed monitoring/testing 

requirements: 

• CEMS (PS–12A) or sorbent trap 

monitors (PS–12B) to continuously 

measure mercury emissions, along with 

Procedure 5 for ongoing quality 

assurance. 

• CEMS meeting the requirement of 

PS–8 to measure THC emissions for 

existing sources. (New sources are 

already required to monitor THC with 

such a CEMS). Kilns meeting the 

organic HAP alternative to the THC 

limit will still be required to 

continuously monitor THC (based on 

the results of THC monitoring done 

concurrently with the Method 320 test), 

and will also be required to test 

emissions using EPA Method 320 or 

ASTM D6348–03 every 30 months to 

identify the organic HAP component of 

their THC emissions. 

• Installation and operation of a PM 

CEMS that meets the requirements of 

PS–11. 

• CEMS meeting the requirements of 

PS–15 will be required to demonstrate 

compliance with the HCl standard for 

all kilns except those using a caustic 

scrubber. If a facility is using a caustic 

scrubber to meet the standard, EPA Test 

Method 321 and ongoing continuous 

parameter monitoring of the scrubber 

may be used in lieu of a CEMS to 

demonstrate compliance. The M321 test 

must be repeated every 30 months. 

Raw material dryers that are existing 

sources will also be required to install 

and operate CEMS meeting the 

requirement of PS–8 to measure THC 

emissions. (New raw material dryer 

sources are already required to monitor 

THC with a CEMS). Raw material dryers 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 174 / Thursday, September 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 54991 

meeting the organic HAP alternative to 

the THC limit will still be required to 

continuously monitor THC (based on 

the results of THC monitoring done 

concurrently with the Method 320 test), 

and will also be required to test 

emissions using EPA Method 320 or 

ASTM D6348–03 every 30 months to 

identify the organic HAP component of 

their THC emissions. 

New or reconstructed raw material 

dryers and raw or finish mills will be 

subject to longer Method 22 and, 

potentially, to longer Method 9 tests. 

The increase in test length duration is 

necessary to better reflect the operating 

characteristics of sources subject to the 

rule. EPA has included the costs 

associated with increased test duration 

in its estimates of the rule’s costs. 

The requirements above are the same 

as those proposed with the following 

exceptions. 

For kilns and clinker coolers, EPA 

proposed to require bag leak detection 

systems for fabric filters and an ESP 

predictive model to monitor 

performance of an ESP. In this final rule 

we are requiring the use of a PM CEMS 

for all PM control devices. We did 

receive comments on technical issues 

associated with PM CEMS, which we 

have addressed in the Comments and 

Responses Document in the docket to 

this rulemaking. As explained earlier, 

we continue to believe that these 

devices provide the most positive 

indication that a facility is actually 

complying with the PM emissions limit. 

We also note that we promulgated a 

requirement for PM CEMS in the 1999 

final rule but deferred the compliance 

date until the establishment of 

performance specifications. These 

specifications have now been 

established as EPA Performance 

Specification 11. 

In the proposed rule we specified that 

THC CEMS must meet the requirements 

of performance specification 8A. 

Commenters correctly pointed out 

certain deficiencies of the 8A method as 

applied to this source category. In 

response to those comments we have 

changed the requirement to PS–8. 

Where periodic performance tests are 

required for HCl we changed the test 

frequency to 30 months because a 

commenter noted both chlorine inputs 

and scrubber performance may change 

significantly over five years. For similar 

reasons we changed the testing 

frequency for the organic HAP option to 

30 months. We believe aligning the test 

schedules for all pollutants (dioxin 

furan, organic HAP, and HCl) to the 

same testing schedule will allow for 

more efficient use of testing resources. 

4. Standards for Startup and Shutdown 

As noted above, the United States 

Court of Appeals for the District of 

Columbia Circuit vacated portions of 

two provisions in EPA’s CAA section 

112 regulations governing the emissions 

of HAP during periods of SSM. Sierra 

Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (DC Cir. 

2008), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 1735 (U.S. 

2010). Specifically, the Court vacated 

the SSM exemption contained in 40 

CFR 63.6(f)(1) and 40 CFR 63.6(h)(1), 

that are part of a regulation, commonly 

referred to as the ‘‘General Provisions 

Rule,’’ that EPA promulgated under 

section 112 of the CAA. When 

incorporated into CAA section 112(d) 

regulations for specific source 

categories, these two provisions exempt 

sources from the requirement to comply 

with the otherwise applicable CAA 

section 112(d) emission standard during 

periods of SSM. 

The effect of the vacatur is that the 

cross-reference to 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) and 

40 CFR 63.6(h)(1) in Table 2 to subpart 

LLL no longer operates to incorporate an 

SSM exemption. 

In light of the Sierra Club decision, 

EPA proposed to require that sources be 

in continuous compliance with 

emissions limits at all times, even 

during startup, shutdown, and 

malfunction. 74 FR at 21161–62. We 

proposed that these sources meet the 

same standards at all times. Id. We also 

specifically asked for information on 

emissions during startup, shutdown, 

and malfunction. 

In these final amendments we have 

eliminated the cross-reference to the 

vacated General Provisions’ exemptions 

contained in Table 1 of current subpart 

LLL. In establishing the standards in 

this rule, EPA has taken into account 

cement kilns’ operating properties 

during startup and shutdown periods 

and, for the reasons explained below, 

has established different standards for 

those periods. EPA is not setting 

separate standards for malfunctions so 

that, for the reasons explained below, 

the standard that applies during normal 

operations applies during periods of 

malfunctions. We have also revised 

Table 2 (the General Provisions table) in 

several respects. For example, we have 

eliminated the General Provisions’ 

requirement that the source develop an 

SSM plan. We have also removed 

certain recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements related to the SSM 

exemption. EPA has attempted to ensure 

that we have not incorporated into the 

regulatory text any provisions that are 

inappropriate, unnecessary, or 

redundant in the absence of the SSM 

exemption. 

Startup is the period of time between 

when fuel is first introduced into a 

cement kiln that is not firing fuel, and 

when the kiln temperatures are within 

normal operating limits, the kiln is 

using its normal operating fuel, and the 

kiln is producing clinker. During kiln 

startup, fuel is first introduced into the 

kiln to raise the kiln to the appropriate 

operating temperatures. In the case of a 

cold start the fuel is typically a natural 

gas or distillate fuel. Once the kiln 

reaches certain temperatures, the 

normal operation fuel is introduced. 

After the kiln reaches stable operating 

temperatures, kiln feed is introduced in 

low amounts which are gradually 

increased. Because the kiln feed is a 

significant source of most kiln 

emissions (HAP and otherwise) we 

would consequently expect that kiln 

emissions, on a concentration basis, 

would not be any higher during startup 

than during normal operations, with any 

potential short-term emission spikes 

due to transient conditions or release of 

emissions from materials left in the kiln 

from the last operating period being 

accommodated through an averaging 

period. Indeed, on a pure concentration 

basis, kiln emissions over time would 

likely be lower than during normal 

operation given the lesser volume of 

inputs being processed, and (at startup) 

the cleaner fuel being used to heat the 

kiln to normal operating conditions. 

Notwithstanding that stack 

concentrations over time would likely 

be the same or less than during normal 

operation, in some cases, the manner in 

which the standard is expressed is not 

appropriate during startup. Most 

particularly, the mercury and PM 

standards are normalized to kiln 

production (amount of pollutant 

allowed being linked to a ton of clinker 

produced). During startup, production is 

by definition either non-existent or very 

low. Even where there is a modest 

amount of production during startup, 

relationships between HAP 

concentration and amount of product 

are skewed so as to make this means of 

measurement inappropriate. In addition, 

normalized standards require accurate 

measurements of kiln volumetric flow 

rate (used to convert concentration into 

mass) and kiln flow rate, which changes 

in important ways from normal values 

during startup. When considered along 

with such phenomena as varying kiln 

stack moisture contents and flow rate, 

flow rate measurements are significantly 

less accurate during startup than during 

normal operation. 

For these reasons, we are establishing 

standards for mercury and PM by 

converting the normal operation 

standards to a concentration basis. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2
54992 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 174 / Thursday, September 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

These conversions are as follows: 55 lb 

mercury/MM tons clinker is equivalent 

to 10 micrograms per dry standard cubic 

meter (ug/dscm); 21 lb mercury/MM 

tons clinker is equivalent to 4 ug/dscm; 

0.04 lb PM/ton clinker is equivalent to 

0.004 grains per dry standard cubic foot 

(gr/dscf); and 0.01 lb PM/ton clinker is 

equivalent to 0.0008 gr/dscf. Mercury 

and PM would be measured during 

startup with a CEMS (as during normal 

operation) and the concentration 

standard would be met on the basis of 

7-day averages. We do not believe a 30- 

day average is appropriate for these 

periods because they are of short 

duration, and it might take a period of 

1 year or more to accumulate 30 days of 

startup operation. We considered an 

averaging period equal to the time 

period of each startup, but that would 

have meant different averaging periods 

for each event. Therefore, we chose 7 

days as a period short enough to 

accumulate the data necessary to 

calculate the average over a reasonable 

period (certainly less than a year) but 

long enough to allow averaging out any 

transient spikes that may occur. In this 

way, short-term spikes which occur 

during startup would be averaged 

against the lower concentrations which 

otherwise typically maintained. A 

consequence of this compliance regime 

(as for the standards which apply during 

normal operation), is that a source (at 

least initially) cannot determine 

compliance based on any single startup 

(or shutdown) event. Seven days of data 

will need to be averaged. 

All of the discussion above applies to 

THC emissions during startup: Feed (the 

main source of THC emissions) is 

introduced gradually so THC emissions 

should ordinarily be lower, cleaner fuels 

are initially used to heat the kiln to 

normal temperatures, etc. The difference 

is that the THC standard is already 

expressed as a concentration, so the 

measurement difficulties with a 

normalized standard do not exist. 

However, during normal operation the 

THC standard is corrected to a specified 

oxygen concentration to avoid the 

situation where a facility uses dilution 

air to lower the measured concentration. 

At startup, oxygen concentrations may 

be higher than during normal operation, 

and may also fluctuate more. This could 

have the effect of actually making the 

standard more stringent during startup. 

Consequently, EPA is adopting the same 

concentration standard for THC during 

startup as applies during normal 

operation, but is removing the oxygen 

concentration correction factor. The 

standard is measured with a CEMS and 

is based on a 7-day average so, that, 

again the lower concentrations which 

ordinarily maintain at startup should 

balance out any transient events that 

occur because the kiln is not yet in 

steady state mode. 

HCl is also expressed as an unnormalized stack concentration 

corrected to a specific oxygen 

concentration. Where measured with a 

CEMS, EPA knows of no reason the 

same standard as applies during normal 

operation should not be met during 

startup, except that the averaging period 

would be 7 days and the oxygen 

correction factor would be removed for 

the reasons noted above. However, for 

those units equipped with wet 

scrubbers, sources may choose to 

demonstrate compliance by means of 

stack testing and parametric monitoring. 

See Section IV.A.3. In such a 

circumstance, there are no parameters to 

measure because HCl will not be 

emitted. This is because HCl is emitted 

only as kilns begin burning normal fuel, 

not the natural gas or distillate used as 

a fuel during startup. Consequently, 

EPA is providing that emissions of HCl 

shall be zero at all such times as 

distillate or natural gas is used to fire 

the kiln (and that is the parameter 

which would be measured). 

The current standard for dioxins and 

furans is expressed either as a 

concentration, or a combination of 

concentration and temperature control 

at the inlet to the PM control device. 

Continuous compliance is determined 

based on demonstrating the measured 

temperature at the inlet to the PM 

control device does not exceed the limit 

established during dioxin compliance 

testing. This is because higher PM 

control inlet temperature can increase 

dioxin emissions. See 63 FR 14196, 

March 24, 1998. Based on a comment 

indicating that there can be an increase 

in short-term temperature fluctuations 

during startup (and shutdown), EPA is 

indicating in the startup standard that 

temperature measurements can increase 

by 10 percent during these periods. 

Shutdown is the period of time 

between when kiln raw material feed is 

shutoff and gas flow through the kiln 

ceases. Shutdown operations are in 

many ways a mirror image of startup. 

During shutdown, the same transient 

conditions and low product production 

rates occur as during startup. Cement 

kilns cannot be immediately shut off. 

Even after the feed is stopped, gas flow 

must be continued through the kiln and 

the kiln continues to rotate to prevent 

kiln overheating and/or warping. 

Moreover, the concerns about inability 

to have normalized standards or 

standards with oxygen correction 

factors, air pollution control inlet 

temperature variability, and lack of 

measureable HCl emissions when the 

kiln is fired with distillate or natural gas 

and is not HCl CEM-equipped, all apply 

at shutdown for the same reasons as at 

startup. For this reason, we are setting 

the same limits for kilns during 

shutdown operations as during startup. 

Periods of startup, normal operations, 

and shutdown are all predictable and 

routine aspects of a source’s operations. 

In the proposed rule, EPA expressed the 

view that there are different modes of 

operation for any stationary source, and 

that these modes generally include 

startup, normal operations, shutdown, 

and malfunctions. 74 FR at 21162. 

However, after considering the issue of 

malfunctions more carefully, EPA 

believes that malfunctions are 

distinguishable from startup, shutdown 

and normal operations. Malfunction is 

defined as a ‘‘sudden, infrequent, and 

not reasonably preventable failure of air 

pollution control and monitoring 

equipment, process equipment or a 

process to operate in a normal or usual 

manner * * *’’ (40 CFR 63.2). EPA has 

determined that malfunctions should 

not be viewed as a distinct operating 

mode or condition and, therefore, any 

emissions that occur at such times do 

not need to be factored into 

development of CAA section 112(d) 

standards, which, once promulgated, 

apply at all times. In Mossville 

Environmental Action Now v. EPA, 370 

F.3d 1232, 1242 (DC Cir. 2004), the 

court upheld as reasonable standards 

that had factored in variability of 

emissions under all operating 

conditions. However, nothing in section 

112(d) or in caselaw requires that EPA 

anticipate and account for the 

innumerable types of potential 

malfunction events in setting emission 

standards. See, Weyerhaeuser v Costle, 

590 F.2d 1011, 1058 (DC Cir. 1978) (’’In 

the nature of things, no general limit, 

individual permit, or even any upset 

provision can anticipate all upset 

situations. After a certain point, the 

transgression of regulatory limits caused 

by ‘uncontrollable acts of third parties,’ 

such as strikes, sabotage, operator 

intoxication or insanity, and a variety of 

other eventualities, must be a matter for 

the administrative exercise of case-bycase enforcement discretion, not for 

specification in advance by regulation.’’) 

Further, it is reasonable to interpret 

section 112(d) as not requiring EPA to 

account for malfunctions in setting 

emissions standards. For example, we 

note that Section 112 uses the concept 

of ‘‘best performing’’ sources in defining 

MACT, the level of stringency that 

major source standards must meet. 

Applying the concept of ‘‘best 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 174 / Thursday, September 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 54993 

37See also 74 FR at 21158 n. 41 citing other 

statutory provisions indicating that the phrase ‘‘first 

proposes’’ can have a number of meanings. 

performing’’ to a source that is 

malfunctioning presents significant 

difficulties. The goal of best performing 

sources is to operate in such a way as 

to avoid malfunctions of their units. 

Moreover, even if malfunctions were 

considered a distinct operating mode, 

we believe it would be impracticable to 

take malfunctions into account in 

setting CAA section 112(d) standards for 

this (or any other) source category. As 

noted above, by definition, malfunctions 

are sudden and unexpected events and 

it would be difficult to set a standard 

that takes into account the myriad 

different types of malfunctions that can 

occur across all sources in the category. 

Moreover, malfunctions can vary in 

frequency, degree, and duration, further 

complicating standard setting. 

In the event that a source fails to 

comply with the applicable CAA section 

112(d) standards as a result of a 

malfunction event, EPA would, of 

course, determine an appropriate 

response based on, among other things, 

the good faith efforts of the source to 

minimize emissions during malfunction 

periods, including preventative and 

corrective actions, as well as root cause 

analyses to ascertain and rectify excess 

emissions. EPA would also consider 

whether the source’s failure to comply 

with the CAA section 112(d) standard 

was, in fact, ‘‘sudden, infrequent, not 

reasonably preventable’’ and was not 

instead ‘‘caused in part by poor 

maintenance or careless operation.’’ 40 

CFR 63.2 (definition of malfunction). 

In response to comments urging that 

EPA not apply the same standards to 

malfunctions as to normal operation, 

EPA recognizes that even equipment 

that is properly designed and 

maintained can sometimes fail and that 

such failure can sometimes cause (or in 

the case of 30-day averages, contribute 

to) an exceedance of the relevant 

emission standard. (See, e.g., State 

Implementation Plans: Policy Regarding 

Excessive Emissions During 

Malfunctions, Startup, and Shutdown 

(Sept. 20, 1999); Policy on Excess 

Emissions During Startup, Shutdown, 

Maintenance, and Malfunctions (Feb. 

15, 1983)). EPA is therefore adding to 

the final rule an affirmative defense to 

civil penalties for exceedances of 

emission limits that are caused by 

malfunctions. See 40 CFR 63.1341 

(defining ‘‘affirmative defense’’ to mean, 

in the context of an enforcement 

proceeding, a response or defense put 

forward by a defendant, regarding 

which the defendant has the burden of 

proof, and the merits of which are 

independently and objectively 

evaluated in a judicial or administrative 

proceeding). We also added other 

regulatory provisions to specify the 

elements that are necessary to establish 

this affirmative defense; the source must 

prove by a preponderance of the 

evidence that it has met all of the 

elements set forth in 63.1344. (See 40 

CFR 22.24). The criteria ensure that the 

affirmative defense is available only 

where the event that causes an 

exceedance of the emission limit meets 

the narrow definition of malfunction in 

40 CFR 63.2 (sudden, infrequent, not 

reasonable preventable and not caused 

by poor maintenance and or careless 

operation). The criteria also are 

designed to ensure that steps are taken 

to correct the malfunction, to minimize 

emissions in accordance with section 

63.1348(d) and to prevent future 

malfunctions. In any judicial or 

administrative proceeding, the 

Administrator may challenge the 

assertion of the affirmative defense and, 

if the respondent has not met its burden 

of proving all of the requirements in the 

affirmative defense, appropriate 

penalties may be assessed in accordance 

with Section 113 of the Clean Air Act 

(see also 40 CFR Part 22.77). 

5. What are EPA’s final actions on 

compliance dates? 

For existing sources we proposed a 

compliance date of 3 years after the 

promulgation of the new emission limits 

for mercury, THC, PM, and HCl to take 

effect. This is the maximum period 

allowed by law. See section 112(i)(3)(A). 

We continue to believe a 3 year 

compliance period is justified because 

most facilities will have to install 

emissions control devices (and in some 

cases multiple devices) to comply with 

the proposed emissions limits. 

Therefore, we have retained a 3 year 

compliance data in this final rule. 

For new sources, the compliance date 

will be the effective date of this final 

rule or startup, whichever is later. 

Because this is a major rule as defined 

by the Congressional Review Act, the 

effective date of the rule is 60 days after 

publication of the Federal Register. 

In determining the proposal date that 

determines if a source is existing or 

new, we have decided to select the 

proposal date of these final 

amendments, which is May 6, 2009, for 

all the standards. 

At proposal, we considered three 

possible dates, including March 24, 

1998; December 5, 2005; and the 

proposal date of these final 

amendments, which was May 6, 2009. 

As we noted at proposal, Section 112 

(a)(4) of the Act states that a new source 

is a stationary source if ‘‘the 

construction or reconstruction of which 

is commenced after the Administrator 

first proposes regulations under this 

section establishing an emissions 

standard applicable to such source.’’ 

‘‘First proposes’’ could refer to the date 

EPA first proposes standards for the 

source category as a whole, or could 

refer to the date the agency first 

proposes standards under a particular 

rulemaking record or first proposes the 

particular standards at issue. The 

definition is also ambiguous with regard 

to whether it refers to a standard for the 

source as a whole, or to a HAP-specific 

standard (so that there could be 

different new source standards for 

different HAP which are regulated at 

different times).37 At proposal we chose 

the date of December 5, 2005, as the 

proposal date that determines if a source 

is new or existing for the mercury, HCl, 

and THC, and the May 6, 2009, date for 

PM. 

After consideration of comments on 

the selection of the date for mercury, 

THC, and HCl, we believe that the May 

6, 2009, date for all pollutants is more 

in keeping with the evident intent of 

Section 112(a)(4) that source should 

have sufficient notice that new source 

controls requirements can be considered 

in the initial design. We accept 

commenters’ argument that sources 

coming into existence between the 

proposed date of the 2006 standards and 

the May 6, 2009, proposal date of these 

amendments would have no reasonable 

means of ascertaining the standards’ 

final content and so lacked notice of 

what controls and strategies to adopt. 

Since this is antithetical to the policy 

underlying new source standards, EPA 

is adopting May 6, 2009, as the date 

which determines if a source is existing 

or new. 

We note that there are currently 

sources subject to new source limits for 

mercury and THC contained in the 

December 20, 2006, rule. However, the 

mercury the new source standards in 

this final rule are significantly different 

than the limits in the December 20, 

2006, rule, and we do not see how the 

affected sources could have anticipated 

this change prior to proposal of these 

amendments. Accordingly, we have 

selected a date that allows these 

facilities to design and install the 

required control equipment. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2
54994 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 174 / Thursday, September 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

B. What are EPA’s final actions on 40 

CFR part 60, subpart F? 

1. What are the final kiln and clinker 

cooler emissions limits under 40 CFR 

part 60, subpart F? 

For ‘‘new’’ affected facilities 

constructed, modified, or reconstructed 

after June 16, 2008, the final emission 

limits amend the existing rules as 

follows: 

• Change the format of the PM 

emission limits from lb/ton of dry feed 

to lb/ton of clinker product; 

• Reduce the PM emission limit for 

kilns from 0.3 lb/ton of dry feed to 0.01 

lb/ton of clinker; 

• Set a limit on NOX emissions from 

kilns of 1.50 lb/ton of clinker; and 

• Set a limit on SO2 emissions from 

kilns of 0.4 lb/ton of clinker, or, as an 

alternative, demonstrate a reduction in 

SO2 emissions from the kiln of at least 

90 percent; and 

• Reduce the PM emissions limit for 

clinker coolers from 0.1 lb/ton dry feed 

to 0.01 lb/ton of clinker. 

The emission limits for affected 

facilities constructed, modified, or 

reconstructed before June 16, 2008, 

remain unchanged in this subpart. The 

rationale for these actions is discussed 

below. 

a. NOX Limits for Kilns 

EPA proposed an NOX limit of 1.5 lb/ 

ton of clinker based on application of 

Selective Non-Catalytic Reduction 

(SNCR) to a new precalciner kiln. At 

proposal we also considered a level of 

1.95 lb/ton clinker based on the use of 

SNCR control technology, and a limit of 

0.5 lb/ton clinker based on the use of 

selective catalytic reduction (SCR) 

technology. 

After evaluation of the comments, we 

have decided to adopt the level of 1.5 

lb/ton clinker in this final rule, as 

proposed. In general, commenters 

agreed with the selection of SNCR as the 

basis of the standard (i.e., it represents 

the performance of BDT). However, 

there was disagreement over the 

appropriate emission limit that 

represents BDT. 

Industry commenters requested a 

higher limit, claiming that site specific 

properties of raw materials could create 

a situation where application of SNCR 

technology to a well designed preheater/ 

precalciner kiln could not achieve the 

level of 1.5 lb/ton clinker without high 

ammonia injection rates that would 

result in significant ammonia emissions. 

To support their arguments they noted 

that EPA based the 1.5 lb/ton clinker 

level on the assumption that a well 

designed new preheater/precalciner kiln 

could meet a level of 3.0 lb/ton clinker 

without SNCR, so that this 3.0 lb/ton 

clinker should be the baseline from 

which performance of SNCR is 

evaluated. 73 FR at 34079. They pointed 

to several newer kilns that had difficulty 

meeting a level of 3.0 lb/ton clinker 

without SNCR, and attributed this 

difficulty to ‘‘hard to burn’’ raw 

materials at certain sites. 

We have rejected the industry 

argument that 1.5 lb/ton clinker is not 

achievable for all new kilns using SNCR 

technology for the following reasons. 

First, the commenters note some kilns 

without SNCR cannot meet an NOX

level of 3.0 lb/ton clinker. However, 

they did not provide the actual levels of 

NOX emissions the sources were 

designed to meet. The NOX emissions 

for a new preheater/precalciner kiln are 

primarily a function of precalciner 

design. Though two kilns may have the 

same basic precalciner design, certain 

site specific design parameters will also 

affect NOX emissions. A precalciner 

designed to meet a level above 3.0 lb/ 

ton clinker, will not necessarily be 

designed exactly the same way as one 

designed to meet 3.0 lb/ton clinker. We 

are also aware that there are kiln 

precalciner designs that were installed 

that do not represent best design. We 

thus do not believe that these kilns’ 

performance alters the baseline from 

which performance of SNCR is 

evaluated. In addition, we have enough 

examples of new preheater/precalciner 

kilns in various locations in the country 

to indicate to us that an NOX limit of 3.0 

lb/ton clinker is generally achievable, 

regardless of location, if the precalciner 

is properly designed. For example, 

several kilns in Florida and a kiln in 

California have NOX emissions below 

2.0 lb/ton clinker with no add-on 

controls. According to our information, 

raw materials in Florida can be 

considered ‘‘hard to burn’’ because of the 

significantly different hardness of 

Florida limestone and silica (limestone 

being soft which create a fine grind, the 

silica being harder which creates a more 

coarse grind) creates problems with size 

distribution for the raw material 

necessitating more fuel use and higher 

kiln temperatures with a consequent 

increase in NOX emissions. Additional 

test data for two plants with reported 

‘‘hard to burn’’ mix were 1.89 and 2.4 lb/ 

ton. Given these facts, we believe the 

assumption that a new kiln without 

add-on controls can meet a level of 3.0 

lb/ton clinker over the long term is very 

reasonable and so should represent a 

baseline for application of SNCR 

performance. See also 73 FR at 34079 

noting many other examples of kilns 

without end-of-stack controls burning 

hard-to-burn inputs meeting a level of 

2.5 lb/ton of clinker. 

Second, although we based our 1.5 lb/ 

ton clinker level on an SNCR emission 

reduction of 50 percent, there are 

numerous examples of SNCR systems 

achieving emission reductions greater 

than 50 percent and as high as 80 

percent or more. Id. These reductions 

were achieved without appreciable 

ammonia slip. So even if a new kiln 

were to emit at levels above 3.0 lb/ton 

clinker without end-of-stack controls, 

application of SNCR would allow such 

a kiln to meet the 1.5 lb/ton clinker 

level. For example, a new kiln emitting 

at 4.0 lb/ton clinker would only need an 

emission reduction of 63 percent to 

meet the 1.5 lb/ton clinker level for 

NOX. 

Finally, the NOX limit is based on a 

30-day averaging period to be consistent 

with the averaging periods for other 

regulated kiln pollutants, and to allow 

for averaging of raw mill on and off 

emissions. See 74 FR at 21144. 

Compared to other averaging options 

(hourly or daily), this longer averaging 

time allows additional operating 

flexibility to meet the limit. 

Based on comments received, we also 

considered setting an NOX limit lower 

than 1.5 lb/ton clinker based on 

performance of SNCR. However, we also 

rejected that option. We do have data 

that indicate that some cement kilns are 

below 1.5 lb/ton clinker, but we do not 

believe the current data support that any 

new kiln, regardless of location (and 

consequent raw material inputs), could 

meet a level that low. 

At proposal we also considered an 

NOX emissions level of 0.5 lb/ton 

clinker based on performance of SCR. 

We rejected that option because at that 

time we did not believe that SCR was 

sufficiently demonstrated technology for 

this industry. We are aware that there 

have been three cement kilns in Europe 

that have successfully used SCR, and 

that SCR technology is a demonstrated 

control technology for NOX control for 

other source categories, such as utility 

boilers. We also are aware that that one 

domestic cement company has agreed to 

install SCR technology on one kiln as 

part of a settlement agreement. 

However, we continue to question if 

SCR technology would be effective at all 

locations where new kilns might be 

installed. The main concern is the 

potential for dust buildup on the 

catalyst, which can be influenced by site 

specific raw material characteristics 

present in the facility’s proprietary 

quarry, such as trace contaminants that 

may produce a stickier particulate than 

is experienced at sites where the 

technology has been installed. This 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 174 / Thursday, September 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 54995 

38Section 111(b) specifically indicates that 

standards may be expressed as numerical limits or 

as percent reductions. 

39Summary of Cement Kiln Wet Scrubber and 

Lime Injection Design and Performance Data, May 

29, 2008. 

buildup could reduce the effectiveness 

of the SCR technology, and make 

cleaning of the catalyst difficult 

resulting in kiln downtime and 

significant costs. We were unable to 

estimate these costs and did not include 

these costs in our overall cost estimates 

for SCR. For these reasons, we have not 

selected SCR technology as the basis of 

BDT. We will continue to follow this 

technology as it is applied in the U.S., 

and will reconsider this decision in the 

next review of this standard. 

Kilns equipped with alkali bypasses 

cannot be expected to meet the NOX

limit for the portion of the exhaust that 

goes to bypass. Bypass gases are quickly 

cooled and do not remain at a 

temperature long enough to treat using 

an SNCR system. For that reason, we 

have revised the rule to clarify that for 

kilns with an alkali bypass, only the 

main kiln exhaust gases are subject to 

the NOX limit. Because all kilns do not 

require an alkali bypass and the bypass 

gas stream is a small fraction of the total 

kiln exhaust gas flow, any additional 

NOX emission resulting from this 

exclusion will be minimal. 

b. SO2 Limits for Kilns 

EPA proposed an emissions limit of 

1.33 lb/ton clinker or 90 percent 

emissions reduction SO2 based on the 

performance of a limestone wet scrubber 

applied to a kiln with high sulfur raw 

materials. 73 FR at 34080. Commenters 

noted that this level was considerably 

above the level of many of the recent 

best available control technology 

(BACT) determinations, and was also 

above the level actually achieved by the 

facility EPA used as the basis of this 

proposed standard. 

At the time EPA proposed the 1.33 lb/ 

ton clinker limit, we also considered a 

limit of 0.4 lb/ton clinker based on the 

average of recent BACT determinations 

for cement kilns. We chose the higher 

limit at proposal because the 0.4 lb/ton 

limit would have resulted in new kilns 

with moderate sulfur content raw 

materials experiencing a cost per ton of 

SO2 removed of $6,000. However, we 

have changed our proposed decision for 

two reasons. First, as a result of the 

NESHAP requirement to meet a HCl 

emissions level of 3 ppmvd, we estimate 

that all new kilns will have to install 

wet scrubbers for HCl control. See 

section VI below. Hence, the cost of 

meeting the 0.4 lb/ton clinker limit in 

the NSPS is minimal, only the cost of 

the SO2 CEM. Second, since proposal 

we have revised our costs for dry lime 

injection, which is the most costeffective control technology for 

controlling a moderate sulfur raw 

material kiln to the 0.4 lb/ton clinker 

level. Based on our revised information, 

the cost of meeting a 0.4 lb/ton clinker 

emission limit now ranges from $470 to 

$1430/ton SO2 for a kiln with high or 

moderate sulfur raw materials, even if 

these costs are attributed to the NSPS 

rather than to the NESHAP. Kilns with 

low sulfur raw materials can meet the 

0.4 lb/ton clinker level with no add-on 

controls. We consider these to be 

reasonable costs, comparable with other 

costs for SO2 control EPA has deemed 

reasonable such as those in the Clean 

Air Interstate Rule. See 70 FR at 25201 

(May 12, 2005). So, even if a new 

facility is able to meet the NESHAP HCl 

limit without any acid gas controls, the 

cost per ton to meet a 0.4 lb/ton SO2

NSPS limit is still reasonable. 

In the proposal, we considered a SO2

emissions level of 0.2 lb/ton clinker. 

However, this level adds little 

environmental benefit beyond the 0.4 

lb/ton limit, and for many facilities 

would not be achievable based on the 

use of wet scrubber technology, which 

means these facilities would opt for the 

90 percent emission reduction 

alternative (discussed below). For these 

reasons, we did not choose this level as 

BDT. 

We also proposed a 90 percent 

reduction as an alternative limit to the 

1.33 lb/ton emissions limit. We are 

retaining this alternative in the final 

rule.38 The alternative 90 percent 

reduction is to account for situations 

where the sulfur content of the raw 

materials is so high that, even with the 

most efficient SO2 control, a kiln cannot 

meet the 0.4 lb/ton of clinker emissions 

limit. Design and performance data 

indicate the 90 percent control is 

continuously achievable for a well 

designed and operated wet scrubber.39

Compliance with the 90 percent 

reduction would be determined by 

continuously monitoring SO2 at the 

control device inlet and outlet. 

Continuous monitoring of SO2 at the 

inlet and outlet is a positive 

demonstration that the standard is being 

continuously met. 

c. PM Emissions Limits for Kilns and 

Clinker Coolers 

We proposed a PM emissions limit of 

0.86 lb/ton clinker based on fabric filters 

using membrane bags. This specific 

level was chosen because it is 

representative of the performance of this 

technology and was equivalent to the 

new source limit contained in the 

Hazardous Waste Combustor (HWC) 

NESHAP for cement kilns burning 

hazardous waste. This rationale is no 

longer applicable, since EPA is 

reassessing the PM limit in the HWC 

NESHAP. See USEPA Motion for 

Voluntary Remand in # 05–1441 (DC 

Circuit, August 29, 2008). 

As previously discussed in section 

IV.A., in this action we are setting PM 

limits under the Portland Cement 

NESHAP of 0.04 lb/ton clinker for 

existing sources and 0.01 lb/ton clinker 

for new sources based on a 30 day 

rolling average. We project that new 

cement kilns meeting the 0.01 lb/ton 

clinker limit will be using the same 

technology which formed the basis of 

the proposed NSPS PM limit, namely 

fabric filters and membrane bags. It 

should also be noted that we estimate 

that many new facilities will need to 

install fabric filters in series as part of 

mercury controls. This means that a 

new kiln will install PM controls 

required to meet the 0.01 lb/ton limit in 

any case, so establishing the same limit 

for PM in the NSPS not only is 

technically justified, but has no cost. We 

also assessed the costs of installing and 

operating fabric filters with membrane 

bags at proposal, and found this to be 

a cost-effective control technology in 

any case. 73 FR at 34077. The 

technology would now be evaluated as 

more cost-effective than at proposal, 

since greater PM reductions will result 

from its use. Therefore, we are 

establishing an NSPS PM limit of 0.01 

lb/ton clinker in this final NSPS, 

averaged over 30 days (rolling average) 

and measured with a CEM. For reasons 

previously discussed, we are setting the 

same limit for clinker coolers. See 

section IV.A.g of this preamble above. 

See section V for a discussion on 

measuring compliance with a PM CEM. 

d. Change in Format of the Standard 

From lb/ton Feed to lb/ton Clinker 

The change in format of the standard 

from feed to lb/ton clinker was actually 

proposed in the NSPS. However, this 

issue was also raised in response to the 

proposed PM and mercury limits in the 

NESHAP, and was previously discussed 

in section IV.A.1.i. 

e. Applicability of NSPS Limits to 

Modified Kilns 

At proposal we had one set of 

emission limits for PM, SO2 and NOX

that were applicable to all new, 

reconstructed, and modified kilns. 

Commenters expressed concerns of the 

ability of a modified kiln to meet the 

same limits as a newly constructed kiln. 

The PM and SO2 limits are based on 

control technologies that can be applied 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2
54996 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 174 / Thursday, September 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

to any kiln type and achieve the same 

control levels that would be expected 

with a new kiln at similar costs. We see 

no issue here as to technical feasibility. 

However, this is not necessarily the case 

with NOX. New preheater/precalciner 

kilns with staged combustion achieve 

NOX levels in the 2.0 to 3.0 lb/ton 

clinker range. As discussed above, in 

developing the NOX limit, we assumed 

this level as baseline in assessing the 

level achievable with SNCR, which is 

the technology basis of BDT. However, 

older kiln designs can have much higher 

NOX levels, ranging from 2.0 to 8.0 lb/ 

ton clinker. Kilns in the higher end of 

the range might need to achieve an 80 

percent emissions reduction to meet the 

1.5 lb/ton clinker NOX limit. Industry 

commenters requested that EPA either 

exempt modification from the NSPS, or 

set separate limits. 

In this final rule we are still including 

modified kilns as an affected source. 

The suggestion that modified kilns be 

outright exempted from these NSPS 

revisions appears legally strained, given 

that modified sources are a type of new 

source for which EPA is obligated to 

develop, and review and revise as 

appropriate. Moreover, if we were to 

exempt modified kilns, then such 

sources would be free to increase 

emissions without application of BDT, a 

particular concern with respect to 

pollutants like NOX which are not 

presently regulated by the NSPS. This 

would undermine the basis of section 

111 standards, where Congress wanted 

to assure that BDT was applied to 

modified sources qualifying as ‘‘new.’’ 

The purpose of the Act is to enhance the 

Nation’s air quality (CAA section 101 

(b)(1)), and new source performance 

standards under section 111 serve that 

goal. Asarco v. EPA, 578 F. 2d 319, 327 

(DC Cir. 1978). Commenters had also 

claimed that other regulatory programs, 

most notably new source review, would 

result in a site specific BACT 

determination if emissions increased. 

Though we are always mindful of the 

interrelationship of different EPA 

regulatory programs and their effects, 

we do not see this as sufficient reason 

not to establish a NOX emissions limits 

for modified kilns. 

We further investigated whether we 

should set a different NOX emissions 

limit for modified kilns. However, we 

believe the BDT is the same, and are 

therefore establishing the 1.5 lb/ton 

clinker as the limit for modified kilns. 

We have two reasons for doing so. First, 

we note that there are kilns of older 

design that meet levels below 1.5 lb/ton 

clinker, and in some cases below 1.0 lb/ 

ton clinker, with SNCR control. 

Therefore, modified kilns would not 

necessarily be unable to meet the 1.5 lb/ 

ton clinker limit. However, sources 

always have the option of adding 

sufficient NOX control to avoid an 

hourly emissions increase and avoid 

thus triggering the modification 

provision. Cf. Asarco, 578 F. 2d at 328 

(‘‘the operator of an existing facility can 

make any alternations he wishes in the 

facility without becoming subject to the 

NSPS as long as the level of emissions 

from the altered facility does not 

increase. Thus, the level of emissions 

before alterations take place, rather than 

the strict NSPS, effectively defines the 

standard that an altered facility must 

meet’’; the Court did not rule on the 

validity of these unchallenged 

provisions (id. at n. 32)). The NOX

controls available to cement kilns which 

could be utilized to prevent an increase 

in NOX emissions, in addition to SNCR, 

are conversion to indirect firing, midkiln fuel injection, mid-kiln air 

injection, and substitution of steel slag 

for some limestone. 

f. Regulation of VOC/CO 

We are not establishing limits for CO 

or volatile organic compound (VOC) 

emissions from cement kilns. VOC 

emissions from new cement kilns will 

mainly result from organics in the raw 

materials. Organic constituents in the 

raw materials can be driven off in the 

kiln preheater prior to reaching 

temperature zone that would result in 

combustion. All new cement kilns will 

be subject to a continuous 24 ppmvd 

THC emissions limit by the Portland 

Cement NESHAP previously discussed. 

Because most of the THC are also VOC, 

the THC limit also directly limits VOC, 

and serves as the baseline for the NSPS 

analysis. This limit is also the new 

source limit based on the best 

performing source. Therefore we 

determined that no additional 

regulation of VOC emissions is 

necessary or feasible. 

Emissions of CO can come from two 

sources, unburned fuel from the 

precalciner and CO evolved from the 

raw materials by the same mechanism 

as the THC emissions. Unburned fuel 

represents an economic loss to the 

facility. Therefore, new precalciners are 

designed to combust fuel as efficiently 

as possible, and CO emissions from fuel 

combustion are minimized, regardless of 

any potential emission limit. 

Emissions of CO evolved from raw 

materials can be significant if there are 

substantial levels of organics in the raw 

material. As noted at proposal, the only 

control technology identified to reduce 

CO emissions is a RTO (which also 

would concurrently reduce any VOC 

emissions). However, we believe 

application of an RTO as BDT for CO 

would result in significant cost and 

adverse energy impacts. Therefore, we 

determined that no additional 

regulation of CO emissions is feasible. 

We also noted that in no cases had 

add-on controls for CO (or VOC) been 

required as BACT under new source 

review. 

g. Regulation of Greenhouse Gases 

(GHGs) 

In the proposal we did not propose 

standards of performance covering 

GHGs due to concerns about ‘‘issues 

related to the regulation of GHGs under 

the CAA’’ and noted that we were in the 

process of evaluating avenues for 

addressing such concerns. See 73 FR at 

34,084. These concerns were 

specifically related to the Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration and Title V 

permitting programs and the 

unmanageable permitting burden that 

we anticipated would arise should 

GHGs become subject to these programs 

as a result of regulation under the Act. 

Since that time, we have issued 

regulations for GHG emissions under 

the CAA through the light duty vehicle 

rule (75 FR 25324, (May 7, 2010)) and 

have finalized the greenhouse gas 

‘‘tailoring’’ rule (75 FR 31514 (June 3, 

2010)) and the Johnson memo 

reconsideration (75 FR 17004 (April 2, 

2010)). As a result of these actions, as 

of January 2, 2011, GHGs will become 

‘‘subject to regulation’’ under the Act. 

Accordingly, the Agency has now 

finalized a framework addressing the 

concerns that were the basis of our 

decision not to propose standards of 

performance for GHG emissions from 

this industry at the time we proposed 

this 8-year review action. 

Today’s final rule does not include a 

standard of performance for GHG. There 

are two reasons for this. First, we did 

not propose such a standard. 

Promulgating such a standard without 

providing opportunity to comment on it 

would not be a logical outgrowth of the 

proposal and would, accordingly, 

violate the norms of notice and 

comment rulemaking. Second, we do 

not yet have adequate information about 

GHG emissions sufficient to set a 

standard. This information forms the 

basis of standards of performance, 

which must take into account 

achievability and cost of such controls. 

This is not the end of the matter. To 

the contrary, based on our current 

knowledge we believe that it may be 

appropriate for the Agency to set a 

standard of performance for GHGs. We 

have historically declined to propose 

standards for a pollutant where it is 

emitting in low amounts or where we 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 174 / Thursday, September 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 54997 

determined that a BDT analysis would 

result in no control. National Lime 

Assoc’n v. EPA, 627 F.2d at 426. Based 

on current information we do not 

believe such circumstances are present 

here. Without prejudging the outcome of 

a future regulatory process, we note the 

following considerations. 

First, Portland cement is one of the 

largest stationary source categories of 

GHG emissions, ranking as the third 

highest U.S. source of CO2 emissions. 

Second, based on our initial evaluation 

it appears that there are cost-effective 

control strategies for this source 

category that would provide an 

appropriate basis for establishing a 

standard of performance for GHG 

emissions. See 73 FR 44491, July 30, 

2008. These control strategies include, 

for example, energy efficiency measures, 

reductions in cement clinker content, 

and raw materials substitution. There 

may be other cost-effective controls as 

well. 

Based upon this preliminary 

evaluation, the Agency is working 

towards a proposal for GHG standards 

from Portland cement facilities. We are 

not, however, proposing such standards 

at this time because in order to develop 

proposed standards we need additional 

information on site specific factors that 

affect performance of these controls, 

where they are currently applied, and 

control costs. We would also solicit 

information on overall facility energy 

management practices. To this end, the 

Agency will be sending out information 

requests to fill these information gaps so 

that we are able to propose a standard 

addressing GHGs in a timeframe that 

would allow the regulated community 

to make sound investment decisions in 

response to these MACT and NSPS 

requirements. 

2. What is our final action on the other 

emission limits in the NSPS? 

We did not propose changes to the 

other emissions limits in the NSPS, 

such as materials handling operations. 

We received one comment 

recommending that we promulgate 

NSPS limits for clinker storage piles, 

raw materials handling, and baghouse 

fall-out. Open clinker piles are being 

regulated as part of the NESHAP as 

previously discussed. Materials 

handling operations are currently 

regulated under NESHAP. We believe 

baghouse fall out would be regulated as 

part of materials handling standards. 

3. What other changes are being 

promulgated? 

As previously noted, cement kilns are 

potentially subject to both the NSPS and 

the Portland Cement NESHAP (40 CFR 

part 63, subpart LLL). In § 63.1356 of 

subpart LLL, we exempt any source 

subject to that subpart from applicable 

standards under the NSPS and the 

Metallic Minerals Processing NSPS 

(subpart OOO). That language was 

appropriate because the NSPS only 

regulated PM, and the PM limits in the 

NSPS and NESHAP were identical. At 

proposal, where the proposed new 

source PM limits in the NSPS and 

NESHAP were different, we proposed to 

add language in both the NSPS and the 

NESHAP to state that when there are 

emissions standards for a specific 

pollutant that apply to an affected 

source in both the NESHAP and the 

NSPS, the source should comply with 

the most stringent limit, and is not 

subject to the less stringent limit. 

This proposed language is still 

applicable even though in this final rule 

we are setting identical new source PM 

standards in the NSPS and NESHAP 

rule. For example, a cement kiln that is 

an existing source under NESHAP 

subject to the 0.04 lb/ton clinker 

emissions limit could potentially 

become modified under NSPS and also 

be subject to the 0.01 lb/ton clinker 

emissions limit. In addition, there is 

always a possibility that other situation 

may occur where a source is subject to 

differing emission limits under NSPS 

and NESHAP as a result of rule changes. 

4. What are the final testing 

requirements under subpart F? 

There are no PM, NOX or SO2

compliance testing requirements; 

compliance is based on the use of a 

continuous emissions monitor (see 

below). 

5. What are the final monitoring 

requirements under subpart F? 

To demonstrate compliance with the 

PM emission limits, we are amending 

the monitoring requirements to require 

the installation and operation of a PM 

CEMS. The reason for this decision was 

previously discussed. Because this 

requirement is also part of the Portland 

Cement NESHAP, it will also apply to 

existing kilns currently subject to the 

NSPS. Consequently, affected facilities 

under this rule are not subject to an 

opacity standard to monitor compliance 

with the final PM standard. The PM 

CEMS must be installed and operated in 

accordance with the requirements of 

§ 60.63(g). 

We are also adding monitoring 

requirements for all emission sources 

that are subject to the 10 percent opacity 

standard—that is, emission sources 

other than the kiln and clinker cooler. 

We are requiring that they meet the 

monitoring requirements for these same 

emission points contained in the 

Portland Cement NESHAP, 40 CFR part 

63, subpart LLL in order to make the 

two rules consistent. 

Under the final amendments, 

compliance with the emission limits for 

NOX and SO2 are also determined using 

continuous emissions monitoring 

systems (CEMS). The requirements for 

the installation, operation, and 

calibration of each CEM, including 

minimum data requirements, are 

specified in the requirements in 

§ 60.63(k) and (l). Under the final 

amendments, the owner or operator of 

kilns that elect to comply with the 

alternative SO2 emission limit of 90 

percent reduction are required to 

continuously monitor SO2 emissions at 

the scrubber inlet as well as the outlet. 

These are the same requirements 

proposed. We received no comments on 

the NOX monitoring provisions. 

Commenters objected to the SO2

monitoring requirement for facilities 

that do not require SO2 controls, 

suggesting stack tests every five years 

instead. However, in these cases, it is 

possible that a source might change a 

raw material and significantly increase 

SO2 emissions beyond the standard. If 

monitoring is not in place, these excess 

emissions could be unchecked for five 

years before they were discovered. We 

believe the cost of the SO2 monitor 

($56,000) is reasonable to prevent these 

excess emissions. These monitors are 

well established technology that are 

already installed on over 30 cement 

kilns, including those without SO2

controls. 

C. What is EPA’s sector-based 

approach? 

Sector-based approaches are based on 

integrated assessments that consider 

multiple pollutants in a comprehensive 

and coordinated manner to manage 

emissions and CAA requirements. One 

of the many ways we can address sectorbased approaches is by reviewing 

multiple regulatory programs together 

whenever possible. This approach 

essentially expands the technical 

analyses on costs and benefits of 

particular technologies, to consider the 

interactions of rules that regulate 

sources. The benefit of multi-pollutant 

and sector-based analyses and 

approaches include the ability to 

identify optimum strategies, considering 

feasibility, costs, and benefits across the 

different pollutant types while 

streamlining administrative and 

compliance complexities and reducing 

conflicting and redundant requirements, 

resulting in added certainty and easier 

implementation of control strategies for 

the sector under consideration. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2
54998 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 174 / Thursday, September 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

In order to benefit from a sector-based 

approach for the cement industry, EPA 

analyzed how the NESHAP under 

reconsideration relates to other 

regulatory requirements currently under 

review for Portland cement facilities. In 

this analysis we looked at how the 

different control requirements that 

result from these requirement interact, 

including the different regulatory 

deadlines and control equipment 

requirement that result, the different 

reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, and opportunities for 

States to account for reductions 

resulting for this rulemaking in their 

State implementation plans. The 

requirements analyzed affect HAP and/ 

or criteria pollutant emissions from 

cement kilns and cover the NESHAP 

reconsideration, area source NESHAP, 

and the NSPS revision and their 

collateral impacts on other programs 

such as New Source Review (NSR), 

Regional Haze and the National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS). 

As a result of the sector-based 

approach, this rulemaking will reduce 

conflicting and redundant requirements 

by setting the same PM emission limit 

requirement for both the Cement 

NESHAP and the Cement NSPS. Also 

the sector-based approach facilitated the 

streamlining of monitoring, record 

keeping and reporting requirements on 

both rules reducing administrative and 

compliance complexities associated 

with complying with both regulations. 

In addition, the sector-based approach 

promotes a comprehensive control 

strategy that maximizes the co-control of 

multiple regulated pollutants (i.e., 

mercury and HCl) while obtaining SO2

and PM2.5 emission reductions as cobenefits. These collateral SO2 and PM2.5

emission reductions may be considered 

for ‘‘netting’’ and ‘‘offsets’’ purposes 

under the major NSR program or as 

credits that could help areas around the 

country with attainment of the SO2 or 

PM2.5 NAAQS. 

For more information on our sector’s 

analyses, its benefits and interaction 

with NSR, NAAQS and Regional Haze 

please refer to the preamble of the 

proposal of this rule (74 FR 21159–61). 

V. Responses to Major Comments 

This section presents a summary of 

responses to major comments. A 

summary of the comments received and 

our responses to those comments may 

be found in Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2007–0877 for subpart F and 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2002– 

0051 for subpart LLL. 

A. What are the significant comments 

and responses on 40 CFR part 63, 

subpart LLL? 

Comment: Many industry commenters 

(2830, 2832, 2836, 2841, 2844, 2845, 

2858, 2859, 2863, 2864, 2874, 2890, 

2908, 2910, 2914, 2915, 2916, and 2917) 

stated that setting MACT floors on a 

pollutant-by-pollutant basis violates the 

law and results in MACT floors that 

bear no relation to emission limits that 

are being achieved at the best 

performing existing sources. According 

to industry commenters, this method 

violates the plain language and intent of 

section 112(d) of the Clean Air Act 

(CAA) and its effect is a MACT floor 

that reflects a standard that no one plant 

in existence currently achieves. Industry 

commenters 2832, 2841, 2844, 2845, 

2846, 2910, 2914, 2915, and 2916 stated 

that section 112(d)’s use of the terms 

best-performing and existing clearly 

means that sources in a category or 

subcategory that are used to set the 

MACT floor are to be real, not 

theoretical or hypothetical, sources (42 

U.S.C. 7412(d), 2006 and Northeast 

Maryland Waste Disposal Authority, 358 

F.3d at 954). They further contend that 

the phrase achieved in practice can only 

mean that Congress intended actual 

sources, performing under real-life 

conditions, to be the benchmark for 

determining the MACT floors. 

Furthermore, the language of the statute 

does not speak in terms of the bestperforming source or sources for each 

listed pollutant or group of pollutants 

(42 U.S.C. 7412(d)). Rather, the focus is 

on the best existing source or sources for 

all pollutants, and what these sources 

truly can achieve on an overall basis. 

Industry commenters argue that EPA’s 

pollutant-by-pollutant methodology is 

also at odds with the legislative history 

underlying section 112(d) (S. Rep. No. 

228, 101st Cong., 1st Sess. 169, 1989). 

According to the industry 

commenters, the focus on overall 

performance is not surprising because in 

the 1990 CAA Amendments Congress 

abandoned section 112’s previous focus 

on individual pollutant standards, and 

adopted the technology-based multipollutant approach to regulating toxics 

in use under the Clean Water Act 

(CWA). See S. Rep. No. 228, 101st 

Cong., 1st Sess. 133–34 (1989). Thus, if 

one source can achieve a firm degree of 

control for one pollutant but not for 

another, there may be no justification 

for including it in the set of sources 

from which the floor is calculated 

(Tanners’ Council of America v. Train, 

540 F.2d 1188, 1193 (4th Cir. 1976) 

deeming CWA effluent limitations 

guidelines not achievable where plants 

in EPA’s database were capable of 

meeting the limitations for some, but 

not all, of the pollutant parameters). 

Some industry commenters (2845, 

2910) stated that EPA’s previous use of 

a pollutant-by-pollutant analysis was 

based on authorities not applicable to 

the CAA. EPA attempted to defend its 

practice of establishing pollutant-bypollutant MACT standards by citing 

Chemical Mfr. Ass’n. v EPA, 870 F.2d 

177, 239 (1989), clarified 885 F.2d 253, 

264 (5th Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 495 

U.S. 910, (1990), a case where the Court 

held that, under the CWA, best available 

technology (BAT) referred to the single 

best-performing plant on a pollutant-bypollutant basis. 

According to industry commenters 

2845 and 2910, EPA’s reliance on 

Chemical Mfr. Ass’n is misplaced as the 

CAA’s procedure regarding the selection 

of MACT technologies differs on a 

textual basis from the CWA’s procedure 

for identifying best available 

technology. Under the CWA, BAT 

standards are to be set based on the best 

practicable control technology currently 

available. 33 U.S.C. 

1311(b)(1)(A)(i)(2006). This has led to 

pollutant-by-pollutant determinations. 

The CAA more narrowly limits the basis 

for MACT designation to what has been 

achieved at existing sources, not what 

could be hypothetically achievable on a 

per-pollutant basis. 

One industry commenter (2890) stated 

that EPA appears to be forgetting that 

the floor is only the first step in the 

process. Once EPA has established a 

floor based on physical sources, it is 

directed to go back and look at options 

beyond the floor. Those beyond the floor 

options would include the best control 

for each pollutant on every source. By 

correcting the floor approach, EPA 

would also correct the issue identified 

by Judge Williams in his concurring 

opinion to the Brick vacatur, where a 

floor that is designed to represent what 

has been achieved is more stringent 

than what would be deemed achievable 

under a MACT. 

Response: We disagree with the 

commenters who object to setting 

MACT floors on a pollutant-by pollutant 

basis. Contrary to the commenters’ 

suggestion, section 112(d)(3) does not 

mandate a total facility approach. A 

reasonable interpretation of section 

112(d)(3) is that MACT floors may be 

established on a HAP-by-HAP basis, so 

that there can be different pools of best 

performers for each HAP. Indeed, as 

illustrated below, the total facility 

approach not only is not compelled by 

the statutory language but can lead to 

results so arbitrary that the approach 

may simply not be legally permissible. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 174 / Thursday, September 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 54999 

40Another industry commenter (2859) stated that 

it had three sources which were best performers for 

mercury and three other sources which were best 

performers for PM but that each would need to 

make upgrades for the pollutant not currently fully 

controlled. EPA views this as another least common 

denominator example whereby each of the floors 

would be diluted due to the coincidence that 

facilities are not optimizing control of all their 

emitted pollutants. See also Petitioners Brief in 

Medical Waste Institute et al. v. EPA, No. 09–1297 

(DC Cir.) pointing out, in this context, that ‘‘the best 

performers for some pollutants are the worst 

performers for others’’ (p. 34) and ‘‘[s]ome of the best 

performers for certain pollutants are among the 

worst performers for others.’’ 

41This example could have been more extreme. 

One of the ultra-high mercury emitting sources is 

nearly a best performer for HCl (it is just outside 

the pool of three best performers). Inclusion as a 

best performer, under some methodologies, would 

have added these mercury emissions to the pool of 

‘‘best performers’’, even though, for mercury, 

performance is the worst. 

42Since industry commenters argued that the 

statute can only be read to allow floors to be 

determined on a single source basis, commenters 

offered no view of why their reading could be 

viewed as reasonable in light of the statute’s goals 

and objectives. It is not evident how any statutory 

goal is promoted by an interpretation that allows 

floors to be determined in a manner likely to result 

in floors reflecting emissions from worst or 

mediocre performers. 

Section 112(d)(3) is ambiguous as to 

whether the MACT floor is to be based 

on the performance of an entire source 

or on the performance achieved in 

controlling particular HAP. Congress 

specified in section 112(d)(3) the 

minimum level of emission reduction 

that could satisfy the requirement to 

adopt MACT. For new sources, this 

floor level is to be ‘‘the emission control 

that is achieved in practice by the best 

controlled similar source.’’ For existing 

sources, the floor level is to be ‘‘the 

average emission limitation achieved by 

the best performing 12 percent of the 

existing sources’’ for categories and 

subcategories with 30 or more sources, 

or ‘‘the average emission limitation 

achieved by the best performing 5 

sources’’ for categories and subcategories 

with fewer than 30 sources. This 

language does not address whether floor 

levels can be established HAP-by-HAP 

or by any other means. The existing 

source MACT floor achieved by the 

average of the best performing 12 

percent can reasonably be read as 

referring to the source as a whole or to 

performance as to a particular HAP. The 

reference in the new source MACT floor 

provision to ‘‘emission control achieved 

by the best controlled similar source’’ 

can mean emission control as to a 

particular HAP or emission control 

achieved by a source as a whole. 

Industry commenters also stressed 

that section 112(d) requires that floors 

be based on actual performance from 

real facilities, pointing to such language 

as ‘‘existing source’’, ‘‘best performing’’, 

and ‘‘achieved in practice’’. EPA agrees 

that this language refers to sources’ 

actual operation, but we repeat that the 

language says nothing about whether it 

is referring to performance as to 

individual HAP or to single facility’s 

performance for all HAP. Industry 

commenters also said that Congress 

could have mandated a HAP-by-HAP 

result by using the phrase ‘‘for each 

HAP’’ at appropriate points in section 

112(d). Doing so would have removed 

ambiguity from section 112(d), but does 

not compel any inference that Congress 

was sub-silentio mandating a different 

result when it left the provision 

ambiguous on this issue. The argument 

that MACT floors set HAP-by-HAP are 

based on the performance of a 

hypothetical facility, so that the 

limitations are not based on those 

achieved in practice, just re-begs the 

question of whether section 112(d)(3) 

refers to whole facilities or individual 

HAP. All of the limitations in the floors 

in this rule of course reflect sources’ 

actual performance and were achieved 

in practice. 

The reason EPA has long adopted the 

interpretation that the existing and new 

source MACT floors are to be applied on 

a HAP-by-HAP basis are that a whole 

plant approach likely yields least 

common denominator floors—that is 

floors reflecting mediocre or no control, 

rather than performance which is the 

average of what best performers have 

achieved. See 61 FR at 173687 (April 19, 

1996); 62 FR at 48363–64 (September 

15, 1997) (same approach adopted 

under the very similar language of 

section 129(a)(2)). For example, if the 

best performing 12 percent of facilities 

for HAP metals did not control organics 

as well as a different 12 percent of 

facilities, the floor for organics and 

metals would end up not reflecting best 

performance. For new sources, not only 

would the floor reflect unoptimized 

control, but EPA would have to make 

some type of value judgment between 

control of organics and metals just to 

decide which source was best 

controlled.40

Commenters provided no description 

of how their total facility approach 

would work in practice. Would a source 

that is a best performer for PM and 

worst for other HAP be in the pool? 

Would there be some overall summing 

of where the kiln fell for each pollutant? 

Would there have to be value judgments 

made among pollutants (is being a best 

performer for mercury worth more than 

for PM in a ranking process)? EPA 

evaluated an approach whereby every 

kiln was ranked for performance for 

each HAP and the results were summed 

with the lowest overall score being the 

best performer, and next lowest the 

second best, etc. (among other things 

yielding a tie for best performer with no 

non-arbitrary way to break the tie). 

Using this approach, and with the three 

lowest ranked kilns as the average of the 

best performers, standards (after 

applying the UPL equation) would be 

approximately 65 lb/MM tons of clinker 

for mercury, 90 ppm for THC (nearly 

four fold increase), and 0.12 for PM 

(over an order of magnitude increase). 

All but one kiln in the data base already 

meets the THC standard, 21 of 89 kilns 

would meet the mercury limit, and 27 

of 46 kilns have stack test measurements 

less than the 30-day value for PM. See 

memorandum, ‘‘Total Facility Approach 

for Setting MACT Floors’’, August 6, 

2010.41 These inflated values, and 

especially the drastically inflated THC 

and PM values, simply do not reflect 

best performance. 

These types of results are at odds with 

Congress’ purpose in adopting MACT 

floors. The central purpose of the 

amended air toxics provisions was to 

apply strict technology-based emission 

controls on HAPs. See, e.g., H. Rep. No. 

952, 101st Cong. 2d sess. 338. The 

floor’s specific purpose was to assure 

that consideration of economic and 

other impacts not be used to ‘‘gut the 

standards. While costs are by no means 

irrelevant, they should by no means be 

the determining factors. There needs to 

be a minimum degree of control in 

relation to the control technologies that 

have already been attained by the best 

existing sources.’’ A Legislative History 

of the Clean Air Act Vol. II at 2897 

(statement of Rep. Collins). An 

interpretation that the floor level of 

control must be limited by the 

performance of devices that only control 

some of these pollutants effectively 

‘‘guts the standards’’ by including worse 

performers in the averaging process, 

whereas EPA’s interpretation promotes 

the evident Congressional objective of 

having the floor reflect the average 

performance of best performing sources. 

Since Congress has not spoken to the 

precise question at issue, and the 

Agency’s interpretation effectuates 

statutory goals and policies in a 

reasonable manner, its interpretation 

must be upheld. See Chevron v. NRDC, 

467 U.S. 837 (1984).42

It is true that legislative history can 

sometimes be so clear as to give clear 

meaning to what is otherwise 

ambiguous statutory text. As just 

explained, EPA’s HAP-by-HAP 

approach fulfills the evident statutory 

purpose and is supported by the most 

pertinent legislative history. A few 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2
55000 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 174 / Thursday, September 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

43One industry commenter cited Tanners’ 

Council of America v. Train, 540 F. 2d 1188, 1193 

(4th Cir. 1976) for the proposition that technologybased effluent limitation guidelines under the Clean 

Water Act are not considered achievable ‘‘where 

plants in EPA’s database were ‘capable of meeting 

the limitation for some, but not all, of the pollutant 

parameters’ ’’. Tanners’ Council involved a situation 

where EPA established standards for one source 

category based on a transfer of performance 

information from a different, unrelated source 

category. 540 F. 2d at 1192–93. Since the 

wastewater from the category from which the limits 

were transferred was easier to treat than tannery 

wastewater, the court was skeptical of EPA’s 

undocumented assertions that the transfer of 

performance data (with certain upward 

adjustments) was permissible. Id. None of these 

circumstances apply here. EPA is not transferring 

performance from another category, but basing 

limits on documented performance of cement kilns. 

In addition, as noted in earlier preamble text, all of 

the kilns in the pool of best performers for each 

HAP is meeting the limit for that HAP, a strong 

showing of technical feasibility and technical 

achievability. Cf. CPC International v. Train, 540 F. 

2d 1329, 1333 (8th Cir. 1976); American Meat Inst. 

v. EPA, 526 F. 2d 442, 458, 459 (7th Cir. 1975). 

Further, as discussed in the final part of this 

comment response, EPA has closely examined and 

is unaware of any situation whereby optimized 

performance for one HAP interferes with or 

otherwise precludes or impedes optimized 

performance for another. 

industry commenters nonetheless 

indicated that a HAP-by-HAP approach 

is inconsistent with legislative history to 

section 112(d), citing to page 169 of the 

Senate Report. Since this Report was to 

a version of the bill which did not 

include a floor provision at all (much 

less the language at issue here), it is of 

no relevance. National Lime II, 233 F. 

3d at 638. 

Other industry commenters pointed 

out correctly that the section 112(d) air 

toxic provisions were modeled on the 

technology-based control scheme for 

water toxics in the Clean Water Act. S. 

Rep. No. 228, 101st Cong. 2d sess. 

133–34. However, a HAP-by-HAP 

approach to standard setting has 

actually been adopted and upheld under 

the Clean Water Act. Section 

301(b)(2)(A) of the Clean Water Act 

requires plants to control discharges of 

toxic pollutants to a degree reflecting 

performance of ‘‘best available 

technology economically achievable.’’ In 

Chemical Manufacturers Ass’n v. EPA, 

870 F. 2d 177, 238 (5th Cir. 1989) the 

Court held that this requirement could 

permissibly be applied on a pollutantby-pollutant basis: 

The legislative history of the CWA 

indicates that the ‘‘best available technology’’ 

refers to the single best performing plant in 

an industrial field. The EPA urges that 

because the Act and the legislative history do 

not provide more particular guidance, it was 

free to determine the ‘‘best’’ plant on a 

pollutant-by-pollutant basis. The Supreme 

Court has stated that ‘‘it is by now 

commonplace that ‘when faced with a 

problem of statutory construction, this Court 

shows great deference to the interpretation 

given the statute by the officers or agency 

charged with its administration.’’’ This Court 

defers to the EPA’s interpretation of the Act. 

The EPA’s interpretation of the Act is 

rational and is not precluded by the 

legislative history’’ (internal citations 

omitted). 

The Court reaffirmed its holding on this 

issue at 885 F. 253, 264 (5th Cir. 1989). 

Industry commenters stated that the 

Clean Water Act requirement of Best 

Available Technology Economically 

Achievable and Best Practicable 

Technology is not the same as the Clean 

Air Act’s requirement of maximum 

achievable control technology. These 

distinctions do not seem pertinent to the 

issue at hand. Both statutes require 

technology-based performance to 

control all toxics discharged or emitted, 

and both require standards to be 

achievable. The legislative history to 

section 112(d) makes clear that the CAA 

provisions are modeled after those in 

the Water Act (as industry commenters 

correctly noted). EPA does not see any 

more certainty in the CWA than in the 

Clean Air Act on this point and believes 

its interpretation that a pollutant-bypollutant approach is justified is as 

reasonable under section 112(d)(3) of 

the CAA as it is under section 301(b)(2) 

of the Clean Water Act.43

Industry commenters also noted that 

EPA retains the duty to investigate and, 

if justifiable, to adopt beyond the floor 

standards, so that potential least 

common denominator floors resulting 

from the whole facility approach would 

not have to ‘‘gut the standards.’’ That 

EPA may adopt more stringent 

standards based on what is ‘‘achievable’’ 

after considering costs and other factors 

is irrelevant to how EPA is required to 

set MACT floors. MACT floors must be 

based on the emission limitation 

achieved by the best performing 12 

percent of existing sources, and, for new 

sources, on the level achieved by the 

best controlled similar source, and EPA 

must make this determination without 

consideration of cost. At best, standards 

reflecting a beyond-the-floor level of 

performance will have to be costjustified; at worst, standards will remain 

at levels reflecting mediocre 

performance. Under either scenario, 

Congress’ purpose in requiring floors is 

compromised. 

EPA notes, however, that if optimized 

performance for different HAPs is not 

technologically possible due to 

mutually inconsistent control 

technologies (for example, metals 

performance decreases if organics 

reduction is optimized), then this would 

have to be taken into account by EPA in 

establishing a floor (or floors). The 

Senate Report indicates that if certain 

types of otherwise needed controls are 

mutually exclusive, EPA is to optimize 

the part of the standard providing the 

most environmental protection. S. Rep. 

No. 228, 101st Cong. 1st sess. 168 

(although, as noted, the bill 

accompanying this Report contained no 

floor provisions). It should be 

emphasized, however, that ‘‘the fact that 

no plant has been shown to be able to 

meet all of the limitations does not 

demonstrate that all the limitations are 

not achievable.’’ Chemical 

Manufacturers Association v. EPA, 885 

F. 2d at 264 (upholding technologybased standards based on best 

performance for each pollutant by 

different plants, where at least one plant 

met each of the limitations but no single 

plant met all of them). 

All available data for cement kilns 

indicate that there is no technical 

problem achieving the floor levels for 

each HAP simultaneously, using the 

MACT floor technology. For most kilns, 

compliance with the mercury limits will 

be accomplished using activated carbon 

injection followed by a second PM 

control consisting of a fabric filter. 

There is no technical impediment to 

using this same system for control of 

THC (or organic HAP). Note that the ACI 

system would have to be installed 

downstream of the existing PM control, 

therefore there would be no effect on the 

cement kiln dust collected in the 

existing PM control. One industry 

commenter claimed that carbon is not 

effective on mercury and THC at the 

same time. However, we see no basis for 

that statement as long as the correct type 

of carbon is used. Another industry 

commenter claimed ACI increases 

dioxin emissions. Considering the fact 

that ACI can actually be used to remove 

dioxins from kiln exhaust gas, we see no 

basis for that statement either. 

After the ACI system, a wet scrubber 

can be used for HCl control. We would 

expect the wet scrubber to be the 

downstream control because it creates a 

moisture laden exhaust that would 

require reheating to then apply ACI. 

Again, there is no technical impediment 

to adding a wet scrubber after the ACI 

system, and the two control devices 

should not interfere with each other’s 

performance. If the facility required an 

RTO to meet the THC limit, the RTO 

would be installed downstream of the 

wet scrubber in order to protect the RTO 

from any acid gases in the kiln exhaust. 

The wet scrubber/RTO combination has 

been demonstrated in cement kiln 

applications. 

In order to meet the PM standard a 

facility could choose to modify their 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 174 / Thursday, September 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 55001 

existing PM control to meet the new 

limit, or design the baghouse 

downstream of the ACI injection point 

to meet the PM limit. 

Though we have described some 

fairly complicated control scenarios, 

there are simpler applications of control 

technology that would likely be utilized 

successfully. One example would be 

simultaneous injection of alkaline 

materials (lime or sodium compounds) 

and activated carbon downstream of the 

existing PM control device followed by 

collection with a fabric filter. This type 

of injection scheme would potentially 

control acid gases (HCl and SO2), THC 

(or organic HAP) mercury, and PM. 

Industry commenters made much of 

the fact that no single facility is 

presently achieving all of the HAP 

limits proposed. But this only shows 

that plants will need to reduce their 

emissions of certain HAP to meet 

standards reflecting average of best 

industry performers for that HAP. 

Impacts of Pollutant-by-Pollutant 

Approach 

Comment: Industry commenters 2831, 

2844, 2845, and 2874 stated that in 

evaluating the economic cost of 

achieving emission reductions, looking 

at one plant’s emission control of only 

one pollutant to the exclusion of all 

other emission controls produces a 

disjointed view of cost implications and 

compliance feasibility. While an 

individual MACT floor for one pollutant 

might not appear cost-prohibitive, when 

combined with all of the other MACT 

floors for other pollutants, the total cost 

implications could become especially 

onerous. While the CAA was authored 

with the intent of reducing air pollution, 

Congress did not intend to disrupt the 

productive capacity of the United States 

through the promulgation of 

economically unachievable standards. 

42 U.S.C. 7401(b)(1)(2006). By setting 

MACT floors individually and ignoring 

the collective cost implications of the 

entire NESHAP, EPA would effectively 

disregard the CAA’s requirement that air 

pollution control be advanced while 

promoting the nation’s productive 

capacity. Id. 

Response: EPA is forbidden by law 

from considering costs in determining 

MACT floors. NRDC v. EPA, 489 F. 3d 

1364, 1376 (DC Cir. 2007); National 

Lime, 233 F. 3d at 640. Although one of 

the overall goals of the Act is to protect 

and enhance the quality of the Nation’s 

air and resources so as to promote the 

public health and welfare and the 

productive capacity of the population,’’ 

CAA section 101 (b) (1), this overall goal 

does not somehow authorize EPA to 

adopt floors that either consider costs 

(overall or otherwise) or to base floors 

on other than what best performers 

achieve. 

2.3.3 Lowest Emitters as Best 

Performers 

Comment: One industry commenter 

(2834) stated that the Brick MACT 

ruling of the DC Circuit Court reinforces 

earlier holdings in National Lime 

Association vs. EPA. The Court again 

held that floors are to be based on the 

emission level actually achieved by the 

best performers (those with lowest 

emission levels), not the emission level 

achievable by all sources. 

Response: In this rule, EPA is 

choosing as best performers those 

sources with lowest emissions of each 

HAP, on a normalized basis, with 

sources’ variability taken into account 

in assessing which had the lowest 

emissions. 

Comment: Many industry commenters 

(2841, 2844, 2845, 2846, 2858, and 

2914) stated that EPA established its 

proposed floors equating best 

performing sources with those that have 

the lowest emissions for particular 

HAPs even though there are other ways 

to measure performance and, in some 

cases, other methodologies may comply 

with the statute where the ‘‘lowest 

emitter’’ approach does not. Industry 

commenter 2845 noted that equating 

best performer with lowest emitter 

contravenes a Congressional directive 

that, in developing MACT standards, 

EPA cannot require substitution of raw 

materials in mineral processing 

industries, such as cement 

manufacturing, quoting the Joint 

Explanatory Statement of the Committee 

of Conference for the 1990 CAA 

Amendments stated: For categories and 

subcategories of sources of [HAPs] 

engaged in mining, extraction, 

beneficiation, and processing of 

nonferrous ores, concentrates, minerals, 

metals, and related in-process materials, 

the Administrator shall not consider the 

substitution of, or other changes in, 

metal- or mineral-bearing raw materials 

that are used as feedstocks or material 

inputs * * * in setting emission 

standards, work practice standards, 

operating standards or other 

prohibitions or requirements or 

limitations under this section for such 

categories and subcategories. H.R. Rep. 

No. 101–952, at 339 (1990). According 

to the industry commenters, enormous 

amounts of limestone are fed into a kiln 

to manufacture clinker, and it is costprohibitive to import limestone from 

further away. If the plant’s quarry 

contains limestone with high 

concentrations of mercury or high 

concentrations of organics, the kilns 

will emit more mercury or THC and 

potentially more organic HAPs. Because 

limestone with high mercury or organic 

emissions will result in higher HAP 

emissions, and it is not cost-effective to 

import limestone from far away, 

equating the lowest emitters with the 

best performing sources makes no sense 

in the context of cement facilities. It also 

would be squarely in opposition to the 

Joint Explanatory Statement. 

Response: The industry commenter is 

citing to the ‘‘Joint Explanatory 

Statement’’ that accompanied the 

Conference Committee Report to the 

1990 Clean Air Act Amendments. This 

legislative history is of limited utility 

here. As explained at 353 F. 3d 388: 

‘‘The Joint Explanatory Statement 

describes how the differences between 

the Senate and House were resolved in 

the Conference Committee * * *. The 

Joint Explanatory Statement may be 

helpful in determining Congress’s 

intent, but does not carry the same 

weight as the Conference Committee 

Report itself.’’ See id. at 236–37. If there 

were some ambiguity in the statute, the 

Joint Conference Committee Report 

could shed some light on Congress’ 

intent, but there is no exception to 

section 112(d)(2)(A)’s requirement that 

EPA consider ‘‘substitution of materials’’ 

for each source category. Thus, the 

statement cannot be read to negate the 

express statutory command that MACT 

is to be based on, among other things, 

measures, processes, or systems which 

reduce the volume of pollutant 

emissions through substitution of 

materials or other process 

modifications. Indeed, EPA’s attempts 

to identify best performers by ignoring 

the contribution of raw material inputs 

have been soundly rejected. Brick 

MACT, 489 F. 3d at 882–883. In fact, 

brick and ceramic production, like 

Portland cement production, involves 

extraction of mined material from a 

quarry located proximate to the 

production facility because transport of 

raw material over long distances is 

‘‘infeasible’’. 489 F. 3d at 879. The 

language from the Joint Explanatory 

Statement no more allows EPA to ignore 

raw material contribution to Portland 

cement plants’ HAP emissions than it 

did raw material HAP contributions to 

brick and ceramic plants’ HAP 

emissions. 

Comment: Industry commenter 2844 

stated that EPA could interpret section 

112(d)(3) as Brick MACT appears to do, 

as one unitary concept meaning sources 

with the lowest emission levels, or EPA 

can interpret it as a more complex 

concept that EPA may determine the 

emission control (using any of the 

various definitions in the CAA) that 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2
55002 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 174 / Thursday, September 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

sources have achieved in practice (as 

estimated by reasonably predictive 

variability factors) and rank them 

according to their relative emissions 

levels (i.e., a quantitative measure of 

achievement). Having done so, the 

Agency can then evaluate each of the 

lowest emitters in terms of whether they 

meet the Agency’s criteria for best 

controlled similar source. With regard to 

best controlled, EPA may evaluate this 

from a purely quantitative angle (lowest 

emissions) or from more qualitative 

aspects, reduction efficiency, 

environmental and health (or crossmedia) impacts, cost-effectiveness of 

reductions achieved, impacts on other 

HAP or pollutant emissions, and so on. 

Industry commenter 2845 provided 

several examples of judicial MACT 

decisions endorsing a technology 

approach to setting the standards, in 

which EPA selected the best performing 

sources based on the relative 

performance of air pollution control 

technology. 

Industry commenter 2844 stated that 

EPA also has the discretion to define 

best performers as sources other than 

those with the lowest achieved emission 

levels. In the current proposal, the many 

difficulties associated with evaluating 

the impact of HAP content in the raw 

material inputs to mercury emission 

control and other factors could support 

a decision by the agency to establish a 

standard based on efficiency (i.e., a 

percent reduction standard) if not for 

the source category as a whole, then 

such a standard might be established for 

a particular subcategory as relevant, or 

as an alternative compliance strategy. 

EPA’s discretion is sufficiently broad to 

encompass many reasonable decisions 

identifying and estimating the emission 

control of best performing sources on 

bases other than lowest emissions data, 

assuming the floor for the standard is 

based on a reasonable methodology 

estimating the percent reduction 

achieved in practice by the best 

performing sources under the 

reasonably foreseeable worst operating 

conditions. 

Industry commenter 2844 stated that 

before EPA can determine a floor, EPA 

must define the following terms in 

regard to the selection of a best 

performer for new sources: Emission 

control; Achieved in practice; Best 

controlled; and Similar source. 

To set the floor for existing sources, 

the industry commenter stated that EPA 

should define the following terms: 

Average emission limitation; Achieved; 

and Best performing. 

Response: EPA must make 

determinations in each standard as to 

each of these terms and has done so 

here. In this rule, EPA is determining 

that the best controlled similar source is 

the source with the lowest emissions of 

the HAP in question on a normalized 

basis (for mercury and PM), and on a 

concentration basis (for THC and HCl) 

considering variability in determining 

both which source is best controlled and 

in estimating its achieved performance. 

EPA is adopting the same approach for 

existing sources in determining which 

are the 12 percent of best performing 

sources and the performance they 

achieve. This approach accounts for all 

HAP inputs and outputs (i.e., accounts 

for HAP in all raw material and feed 

inputs as well as all emission controls), 

and is consistent with the case law. 

With regard to the comment stating 

that the standard could be expressed as 

a per cent reduction, the industry 

commenter did not explain how this can 

be done without negating the 

contribution of HAPs in feed and fuel 

input into plant performance. Most 

particularly, for HAP which are 

uncontrolled, mercury being the chief 

example in this rule, there is no removal 

efficiency to evaluate. Moreover, even 

for HAP which are controlled, plants 

with higher removal efficiencies may 

also be the highest emitters if the levels 

of the inputs to the control device is 

high. For these reasons, EPA is not 

evaluating best performers based on 

removal efficiencies in this rule. 

Comment: Industry commenters 2832, 

2846, and 2890 stated that rather than 

selecting sources with the lowest 

emissions for particular HAP as best 

performing sources, EPA could use the 

relative performance of air pollution 

control technology to select the best 

performing sources, applying the best 

reasonable method for determining bestperformers, which does not necessarily 

have to equate to lowest emissions. 

Response: EPA discussed this issue at 

some length at proposal. See 74 FR at 

21149. The problem with equating best 

performance with performance of 

pollution control alone is that it ignores 

the contribution of raw materials and 

fuels to HAP emissions. Basing 

standards exclusively on performance of 

control technology is legally permissible 

when the control technology is the sole 

factor influencing performance, which 

is not the case here. National Lime, 233 

F. 3d at 633–34. EPA thus is not 

adopting these industry commenters’ 

approach. See previous response as 

well. 

Comment: Several industry 

commenters (2845, 2846, 2874, and 

2915) stated that EPA is proposing to 

calculate MACT floors by averaging the 

top 12 percent of sources for which 

CEMS data are available (even if that 

amounts to less than 30 sources), rather 

than by considering the top 12 percent 

of sources for which EPA has emissions 

information. As a result, EPA is 

proposing to establish the MACT floor 

based on data from only 2 sources. The 

industry commenters stated that CAA 

section 112(d) obligates EPA to set the 

MACT floor looking at no fewer than 5 

sources, recognizing the value of relying 

on the maximum amount of data 

available. 

Industry commenter 2841 stated that 

the use of a minimum of five facilities 

should be adopted in the establishment 

of THC standards as well as the other 

standards in this proposed regulation. 

The establishment of requirements 

based on a small amount of data would 

run counter to the intent of the CAA in 

utilizing data that is truly representative 

of the best-performing facilities 

throughout an entire industry. 

Industry commenter 2841 stated that 

in previous MACT rulemakings, EPA 

used the five best performing facilities 

if the number of facilities was less than 

30. Consistent with these prior 

rulemakings, the industry commenter 

stated that this approach should be used 

for this proposed Portland Cement 

NESHAP rule and that EPA needs 

additional data points in order to 

appropriately set limits for the industry 

as a whole. 

Response: EPA believes that it has 

discretion to use the data which most 

accurately measure sources’ 

performance, which for THC case are 

data obtained from CEM-equipped 

sources. EPA also believes that it has a 

reasoned technical basis for not 

combining CEMS data with non-CEM 

data, since this would be a classic 

apples-to-oranges comparison due to the 

difference in measuring times and 

methods. EPA does not agree that 

section 112 (d)(3) mandates a minimum 

of 5 sources in all instances, 

notwithstanding the incongruity of 

having less data to establish floors for 

larger source categories than is 

mandated for smaller ones. The literal 

language of the provision appears to 

compel this result. 

Comment: One environmental 

advocacy group commenter (2898) 

supported EPA’s decision to not rank 

best performers based on their relative 

mercury removal efficiency. Relying on 

mercury removal efficiency in setting 

the MACT floor for the Portland cement 

manufacturing industry would 

downplay the role of HAP inputs on 

emissions. EPA characterizes Brick 

MACT’s statement that best performers 

are those emitting the least HAP as 

appearing arguably in dicta. However, 

the Brick MACT Court itself 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 174 / Thursday, September 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 55003 

characterizes the statement as the 

holding of the Cement Kiln case. Brick 

MACT, 479 F.3d at 880 (relying on 

Cement Kiln’s holding that § 7412(d)(3) 

requires floors based on the emission 

level actually achieved by the best 

performers or those with the lowest 

emission levels). The proposed 

alternative of setting the MACT floor on 

the basis of percentage of emission 

reduction achieved by sources would 

minimize, if not eliminate, the 

consideration of cleaner inputs in 

setting MACT floors, as EPA 

acknowledges, and is therefore contrary 

to statutory dictates and case law. 

Response: EPA agrees that the chief 

legal issue with a percent reduction 

approach for expressing floors is that it 

undervalues the role of HAP inputs. 

EPA is not adopting that approach in 

this rulemaking. 

Comment: Several industry trade 

association commenters (2831 and 2901) 

stated that EPA retains considerable 

discretion on how to set MACT floors. 

The commenters supported the 

Agency’s authority to set floor standards 

based on control efficiency, or any 

method as long as their method 

reasonably estimates the performance of 

the relevant best performing plants. 

There is nothing in the Court’s decisions 

that requires EPA to use the straightemissions approach favored in this rule. 

The commenter stated that the Court has 

expressly decided that a straight 

emissions or arithmetical methodology 

is not required. EPA’s technology based 

approach that estimated performance 

rather than deriving the standards 

through an arithmetic-straight emissions 

approach is supported by the Courts, as 

long as it results in a reasonable 

estimate of the performance of the best 

controlled units. According to the 

commenter (2901), Brick MACT does 

not endorse a straight emissions 

approach; nor could it. To do so would 

mean that the Brick MACT Court was 

overturning the Chevron step one 

holding in Sierra Club and National 

Lime II, something that it cannot do. 

Response: EPA is adopting the 

straight emissions (so-called) approach 

in this rulemaking and believes that the 

approach is permissible under the statue 

and case law. Commenters also did not 

convincingly address the issue of how 

the alternative approaches they mention 

account for HAP inputs. Moreover, 

Sierra Club and National Lime II make 

clear that a straight emissions approach 

may not be mandated under the 

language of the statute, but also make 

clear that there must be a reasoned basis 

for estimating which performers are 

best. National Lime II, and later Brick 

MACT further make clear that 

contribution of HAP inputs in raw 

materials and fuels must be accounted 

for in making best performer 

determinations. See 233 F. 3d at 634, 

639; 479 F. 3d at 882–83. Each panel 

viewed these holdings as consistent 

with the Chevron analysis in Sierra 

Club. 233 F. 3d at 631–32, 633–34; 479 

F. 3d at 878. 

Comment: One industry commenter 

(2844) stated that the CAA requires that 

lawfully promulgated NESHAP 

standards must be achievable. Section 

112(d)(2) of the Act requires EPA to 

establish emission standards for HAPs 

that require the maximum degree of 

reduction in emissions taking into 

consideration the cost of the emission 

reduction and non-air quality health 

and environmental impacts and energy 

requirements, that the EPA 

Administrator determines is achievable 

for new or existing sources. Further, 

House Rep. 101–490, Part 1 (328) stated 

that ‘‘The Committee expects MACT to 

be meaningful, so that MACT will 

require substantial reductions in 

emissions from uncontrolled levels. 

However, MACT is not intended to 

require unsafe control measures, or to 

drive sources to the brink of shutdown.’’ 

The commenter noted that the proposed 

Portland cement proposed NESHAP 

standards do not comply with § 112’s 

achievability requirements. 

Response: The industry commenter 

refers to legislative history to versions of 

the 1990 amendments which did not 

include floor requirements, so it is not 

directly applicable in interpreting the 

enacted provisions. Moreover, as held 

repeatedly by the DC Circuit, the 

‘‘achievability’’ requirement in section 

112 (d)(2) does not alter the minimum 

level of stringency requirements 

mandated by section 112 (d)(3)’s 

requirements. See, e.g., Cement Kiln 

Recycling Coalition, 255 F. 3d at 861– 

62. 

Comment: Industry commenter 2844 

stated that EPA’s conclusion that 

section 112(d)(3) and/or Brick MACT 

requires or even permits the Agency to 

ignore the achievability requirements of 

section 112(d)(2) is an unreasonable 

reading of the statute and of Brick 

MACT. The Agency retains more than 

sufficient discretion to devise NESHAP 

standards that successfully bridge the 

tension between achieved and 

achievable in section 112’s standardsetting provisions by appropriately 

using both subcategorization and 

variability methodologies. 

Response: EPA believes that 

variability needs to be assessed in order 

to accurately measure both which 

performers are best and what their 

performance is. However, authority to 

subcategorize is discretionary and need 

not be exercised where there are rational 

grounds not to do so, such as not 

authorizing emissions of large amounts 

of a dangerous neurotoxin. See also 

previous response. 

Comment: Industry commenter 2844 

stated that EPA’s floor setting 

methodology does not comply with 

three of Brick MACT’s requirements: 

Floors must be based on emissions 

achieved in practice by best-performing 

sources; EPA’s use of variability factors 

and methodologies to adjust reported 

emissions data must be based on 

demonstrated relationships, so that the 

floor setting methodology serves to 

reasonably estimate or predict the 

performance of the best performing 

sources; and EPA must consider the 

impact of nontechnology factors, such 

as raw material and fuel inputs, on a 

source’s emission control levels. 

Industry commenter 2844 stated that 

in the Portland cement proposal, EPA 

set MACT floor levels that reflect the 

specific conditions at the time the data 

were generated and do not include any 

of the operational variability. The 

commenter suggests that EPA must look 

beyond its snap shots of performance to 

make a reasoned evaluation and 

estimation of all operating conditions 

and factors that might impact the level 

of actual emissions from those kilns in 

practice, and adjust their reported short 

term test data appropriately. EPA can 

and should adjust raw emissions results 

to estimate sources’ achieved emissions 

levels when setting MACT floors and 

standards. Since Brick MACT, EPA’s 

methodology now must be able to 

reasonably estimate the impacts of 

variability associated with both 

technological and nontechnological 

factors over the full range of 

circumstances. 

Response: EPA disagrees that it has 

based the floors for any of the HAP on 

snapshot levels of performance and has 

not accounted for potential variability in 

sources’ performance. Each of the floors 

reflects a reasonable estimate of what 

the best performing sources (or source) 

will achieve over time. Also, each of the 

floors considers the impact of nontechnology factors, notably HAP inputs 

in raw materials and fuels, on the 

source’s emissions. 

Specifically, for mercury the standard 

reflects 30 days of data for all mercury 

inputs, reasonable estimates of control 

device performance (for the few 

controlled sources), plus a reasonable 

statistical methodology to account for 

variability (including variability of 

mercury content of kiln inputs). EPA 

also used a pooled variability factor 

(pooling variability for all kilns in the 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2
55004 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 174 / Thursday, September 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

MACT pool), which increased 

variability estimates. Where 

commenters provided data showing that 

kilns’ performance was underestimated 

because different inputs were used 

outside the sampling period, EPA 

adjusted those emissions estimates. EPA 

also used data on variability of kilns 

quarrying limestone from the same 

geologic formation as two of the best 

performing kilns to estimate intraquarry variability of those two best 

performing kilns, and further applied 

this variability as part of the pooled 

variability. See IV.A.1.c of this preamble 

and 74 FR at 21142–44. 

The standard for THC reflects 

hundreds of observations gathered 

continuously over time using a CEMS 

yielding a data set from which 

variability can be calculated directly. 

See IV.A.1.d of this preamble. 

The floors for HCl are set at the 

minimum reliable quantification level, 

which is a factor of three above the 

actual measured levels, and are 

averaged over 30 days as well. EPA 

believes this fully accounts for 

performance variability. 

Floors for PM are based on multiple 

stack measurements which have been 

adjusted by reasonable statistical 

methodologies to account for variability. 

See IV.A.1.f of this preamble, 

responding to the argument that 

measurement by means of a CEM makes 

the standard more stringent. Moreover, 

the PM standard reflects performance of 

fabric filters with membrane bags, 

which are known to perform 

independent of inputs and to have 

relatively small operating variability. 72 

FR at 54879 (Sept. 27, 2007); 70 FR at 

59449 (Oct. 12, 2005). 

Consequently, for each HAP, EPA is 

assessing sources’ performance over 

time in a reasonable manner and is not 

ignoring their operating variability. 

Comment: Industry commenter 2844 

also stated that EPA adopted a floor 

setting methodology that is based on 

using lowest reported emission results 

with minimal variability adjustments to 

estimate emission control achieved in 

practice by best performing sources. 

EPA considered test-to-test variability, 

but did not consider the inherent 

variability due to raw materials, product 

mix, fuels, operating conditions and 

plant types. The industry commenter 

stated that EPA has not evaluated or 

validated whether its methodology 

accurately estimates emissions control 

achieved in real world circumstances at 

sources. 

Response: This industry comment is 

inaccurate on a number of counts. First, 

the statistical methodology used to 

estimate variability depends on the 

distribution of data to which the 

formula is applied. Any variation in that 

data—be it due to differences in raw 

material concentration, fuel 

composition, or device operation—is 

thereby accounted for. Indeed, the data 

base for mercury consists virtually 

entirely of raw material and fuel 

mercury levels from which emissions 

are projected on a worst case, mass 

balance basis (since virtually no kiln 

controls its mercury emissions). 

Consequently, EPA’s methodology does 

evaluate variability of inputs as well as 

product mix, fuels, operating 

conditions, and does not just evaluate 

control device operating variability as 

the commenter maintains. Second, for 

mercury and THC, EPA gathered data 

over time, as explained in the preamble 

and in the previous response. Third, for 

mercury, industry had ample 

opportunity to provide longer term 

sampling data and (with a few 

exceptions, which EPA evaluated and 

accepted) did not do so. Fourth, use of 

a pooled variability factor (which for 

mercury includes the reasonably 

estimated long-term intra-quarry 

variability of the two best performers 

extrapolated to all other sources in the 

MACT pool) further accounts for long 

term variability. 

Comment: Industry commenter 2844 

stated that EPA cannot evaluate floors 

using methodologies that focus 

exclusively on technology if the 

resulting standards do not reflect actual 

average limitation[s] achieved (Brick 

MACT, 479 F.3d at 882). The industry 

commenter concludes that Brick MACT 

requires EPA to address the role of nontechnological factors that impact 

emissions in setting floors and EPA 

must develop a methodology that 

accurately estimates the actual 

emissions achieved in practice by the 

best performing sources under a variety 

of operating conditions, taking into 

consideration testing and technological 

and non-technological variability. As 

proof that EPA failed to properly 

account for sources’ variability in 

setting the standards, the industry 

commenter (and industry commenter 

2845) included a chart purporting to 

demonstrate that the kilns comprising 

the pool of best performers for each 

HAP could not themselves meet the 

proposed standard. 

Response: EPA believes that its 

methodology reasonably estimates the 

variability of the best performing 

sources, taking into account both 

technological (emission control device) 

and non-technological (varying inputs) 

variability. EPA disagrees that the 

record shows that the kilns comprising 

the MACT pool for each floor cannot 

themselves meet the promulgated 

standards (see previous response). In 

fact, for each pollutant, the record 

indicates that every kiln in the MACT 

pool (not just the kilns below the 

average of the best performers) would be 

in compliance. See section IV.A.1.b 

above. 

Comment: One industry commenter 

(2845) stated that case law and policy 

dictate that EPA must consider 

variability in establishing MACT 

standards, and the approach used by 

EPA in Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration (PSD) permitting should 

also apply in establishing MACT 

standards. To evaluate the emission 

limits achieved by existing sources, EPA 

is required to develop methodologies for 

estimating the variability associated 

with all factors that impact a source’s 

emissions, including process, 

operational and non-technological 

variables (see Nat’l Lime Ass’n v. EPA, 

627 F.2d 416, 443, DC Cir. 1980). While 

Courts have affirmed EPA’s authority to 

choose a methodology designed to 

estimate emissions in setting the MACT 

floor, the Courts have also made clear 

that EPA’s method must allow a 

reasonable inference as to the 

performance of the top 12 percent of 

units (Cement Kiln Recycling Coalition 

v. EPA, 255 F.3d 855, 862 (DC Cir. 

2001)) (citing Sierra Club v. EPA, 167 

F.3d 658, 663, DC Cir. 1999). 

Accordingly, the Court of Appeals for 

the DC Circuit has stated that EPA must 

show not only that it believes its 

methodology provides an accurate 

picture of the relevant sources’ actual 

performance, but also why its 

methodology yields the required 

estimate (Cement Kiln Recycling 

Coalition, 255 F.3d at 862). 

Response: EPA agrees that sources’ 

variability should be accounted for both 

in determining which sources are best 

performers and what their achieved 

performance is. EPA also believes that it 

has reasonably accounted for sources’ 

variability here, including both 

variability in inputs and operating 

variability. 

Comment: Industry commenters 2844, 

2845, and 2916 objected to EPA’s 

interpretation of CAA Sections 112(d)(2) 

and 112(d)(3) and the Brick MACT 

opinion (Industry commenter 2845 

provided a white paper as an appendix 

to their comments for the HWIMI MACT 

proposal, dated December 01, 2008.). 

The paper, titled ‘‘Implications of the 

Brick MACT Decision on EPA’s 

Discretion in Setting MACT Floors,’’ 

discusses variability at some length. The 

paper’s main points were: 

• The Agency has chosen to focus on 

setting MACT floors based on lowest 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 174 / Thursday, September 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 55005 

emitting sources derived from limited 

test results that are not appropriately 

adjusted to account for stack test 

variability. 

• The Brick MACT decision holds 

that EPA must base MACT floors on 

achieved emissions control rather than 

control technology, but it does not 

require EPA to ignore operational 

variability in determining those floors. 

Variability methodologies must 

reasonably estimate or predict emissions 

or variability through a demonstrated 

relationship between the data used and 

the performance intended to be 

estimated. Non-technological factors 

(i.e., raw materials and fuel) must be 

considered in determining emission 

control achieved by best performers. It 

is within EPA’s discretion to define the 

best performing sources. 

• EPA should estimate variability in 

determining achieved emissions. The 

Agency can and must seek appropriate 

data from regulated entities and other 

stakeholders, and to develop 

appropriate fact-based estimating 

methodologies on the data available. 

Response: EPA largely agrees with 

these general points and believes that it 

has adhered to these concepts in the 

final rule. EPA has also implored, and 

in many instances, compelled (through 

section 114 letters) industry to provide 

additional data to better gauge sources’ 

performance. 

Comment: A number of commenters 

including 2844 and 2845 argued that 

EPA should use an Upper Tolerance 

limit (UTL) rather than Upper Predictive 

Limit (UPL) statistical methodology to 

assess variability. 

Response: EPA disagrees. An Upper 

Tolerance Limit is ordinarily utilized for 

large data sets and is intended to assure 

that predicted values are lower than a 

single highest observation. R. (Gibbons, 

Statistical Tolerance Limits for GroundWater Monitoring,Vol. 29, No. 4, 

Ground Water, July–August, 1991) This 

methodology is intended to produce 

values that do not underestimate 

variability but for this reason tends to 

produce inflated predictions when 

applied to data sets containing multiple 

observations, which is the case for the 

MACT pools for each HAP in this 

rulemaking. This methodology would 

therefore overestimate performers’ 

variability as applied in this rulemaking 

and EPA is therefore not utilizing it. 

EPA understands that they no longer 

regard use of UTL statistical 

methodology as necessitated here. 

Comment: Several industry 

commenters (2832 and 2859) opposed 

the approach taken by EPA in its 

beyond-the-floor MACT analysis. 

Among other things, EPA failed to 

consider the creation of incremental 

greenhouse gas emissions associated 

with the construction, installation and 

operation of new emissions control 

equipment, and the minimal 

incremental environmental benefit 

associated with those controls. Also, 

EPA failed to consider the cost of carbon 

credit purchases by the industry. 

Response: In all cases we declined to 

adopt beyond-the-floor standards based 

on consideration of costs, technical 

feasibility, and consideration of nonair 

environmental impacts. Evaluating 

other disbenefits for an option already 

rejected would have no purpose. 

Comment: Many industry commenters 

(2830, 2845, 2846, 2855, 2858, 2859, 

2879, 2887, and 2890) stated that CEMS 

are not a proven technology and should 

not be required to determine 

compliance. 

Industry commenters 2588, 2844, 

2845, 2846, 2858, and 2890 stated that 

EPA has no data showing that mercury 

CEMS are feasible on cement kilns and 

that emissions from cement kilns will 

likely be outside of the range of the 

current CEMS technology. The industry 

commenters stated that EPA must 

evaluate mercury CEMS through longterm field trials at cement plants in 

accordance with the proposed 

performance specifications and quality 

assurance procedures before imposing 

this regulatory requirement. The 

industry commenters proposed a massbalance approach for monitoring, which 

is accurate and was used by EPA in 

setting the mercury standard. 

Industry commenter 2855 stated that 

mercury sorbent trap monitoring 

systems have not been evaluated 

through long term field trials at cement 

plants in the United States (U.S.) in 

accordance with the proposed 

performance specifications and quality 

assurance procedures, so the reliability 

and performance of these measurement 

systems and the adequacy of the 

technical specifications cannot be 

determined. 

Industry commenters 2855 and 2900 

disagreed with EPA’s interpretation of 

the operating experience with mercury 

CEMS in Germany. The industry 

commenters stated that mercury CEMS 

are inaccurate and difficult to maintain. 

Further, mercury CEMS operating in 

Germany are subject to monitoring 

regulations that are different than the 

U.S. regulations and are used in a 

different regulatory context than that 

proposed by EPA. The monitors used in 

Germany, or those available from other 

European or Asian manufacturers were 

not able to demonstrate acceptable 

performance in the Electric Power 

Research Institute (EPRI) Trimble 

County Mercury CEMS study. 

Industry commenter 2855 stated that 

there is no legitimate technical basis on 

which to establish detailed performance 

specifications or quality assurance (QA) 

requirements for these CEMS. There is 

no legitimate technical basis to 

conclude that these CEMS could meet 

such requirements over any extended 

period when installed and operated at a 

cement plant. The industry commenter 

recommended that EPA evaluate the 

performance of mercury CEMS at 

cement kiln systems and acquire the 

information necessary to serve as the 

basis for technical specifications and 

requirements. After such information is 

available and analyzed, EPA should repropose appropriate and demonstrated 

performance specifications and quality 

assurance procedures for mercury CEMS 

to monitor kiln and kiln/in-line raw mill 

mercury emissions. 

Industry commenter 2855 disagreed 

with EPA’s interpretation that mercury 

CEMS can be applied to the cement 

industry based on successful use on 

utility boilers. The commenter 

evaluated the following issues: 

Number of Installations in the Utility 

Industry—There are 35–40 continuous 

mercury monitors (CMMs) installed and 

certified to date (not yet with a National 

Institute of Standards and Technology 

(NIST) traceable calibration source). 

NIST Certification—In mercury CEMS 

certification requirements outlined in 

Performance Specification (PS)–12A, it 

states that all calibration and span gases 

must be NIST certified. The draft 

protocols were just released by NIST in 

July 2009. The major vendors of 

mercury CEMS are just now advertising 

NIST-certified calibration sources. 

Therefore, none of the mercury CEMS 

that have been previously installed are 

certified. NIST does not currently 

directly certify oxidized mercury 

calibrations. The Interim EPA 

Traceability Protocols now in place 

provide for certification of evaporative 

generators by certification of the 

individual components of the calibrator. 

Therefore, the language used in Section 

7.0 that refers to a NIST trace oxidized 

mercury calibrator needs to be clarified 

or changed. 

Difficulties Encountered in the Utility 

Industry—The industry commenter gave 

examples of power plants’ difficulties 

with mercury CEMS. 

Installation on Wet Stacks—Installing 

a mercury CEMS on a wet stack can 

result in problems: Plugging, corrosion, 

and buildup of solids. Although wet 

scrubbers are not currently common in 

the cement industry, under the 

proposed rule, they may be required to 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2
55006 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 174 / Thursday, September 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

a greater extent, and many of these same 

problems with mercury CEMS 

potentially could occur for the cement 

industry as well. 

Data Output Requirements—There is 

no need for dry basis measurements 

under the proposed rule and the 

language in either Subpart LLL should 

be included to provide an exemption 

from this requirement for cement plants 

or PS–12A should be revised. This 

language needs to be clarified by EPA. 

Cost—The industry commenter 

provided information about CEMS costs, 

estimating that if mercury CEMS were 

installed on all non-waste-burning U.S. 

cement facilities, the total capital costs 

would be approximately $45 million, 

with annual operating costs being about 

$25 million. 

Industry commenter 2901 stated that 

CEMS should not be used as a 

compliance method for cement plants 

for the following reasons: 

EPA reported in 1997 on an 

experiment where CEMS were installed 

on a cement kiln burning hazardous 

waste. The Agency found substantial 

problems regarding mercury CEMS 

measurement accuracy and precision, 

deciding not to require Mercury CEMS 

at cement plants. The industry 

commenter stated that the primary issue 

is whether there is a NIST traceable 

standard that can be used to calibrate 

the unit. Because compliance is based 

on the production rate and on using a 

30-day average, it is difficult to know 

what range to calibrate these units. 

The reliability of CEMS on cement 

kiln stacks has not been demonstrated 

in the U.S., where standards and 

requirements are different. 

Demonstrations in the U.S. at coal-fired 

power plants have different conditions 

than those at cement kilns. 

There is no legal imperative for EPA 

to require CEMS. Under the CAA, EPA’s 

monitoring requirements must provide a 

reasonable assurance of compliance 

with emission standards Sierra Club v. 

EPA, 353 F.3d 976, 990–991 (DC Cir 

2004) (Copper Smelters) citing Natural 

Res. Def. Council, Inc. v. EPA, 194 F.3d 

130, (DC Cir 1999). 

Response: Several commenters 

questioned the applicability of current 

continuous instrumental gaseous 

mercury CEMS technologies to cement 

kilns. Several commenters also raised 

technical issues about specific 

performance criteria in Performance 

Specification 12A (PS 12A) for gaseous 

Hg CEMS and expressed concern as to 

the availability of National institute of 

Standards and Technology (NIST) 

traceable Hg gas standards. NIST has 

recently completed certification of a 

‘‘NIST Prime’’ elemental mercury gas 

generator at concentrations of 41, 68, 85, 

105, 140, 185, 230, 287, and 353 μg/m3

and mercury gas generator vendors may 

now submit elemental mercury gas 

generators for certification to serve as 

‘‘Vendor Primes’’. Therefore NIST 

traceable mercury gas standards can 

now be made available in 

concentrations that exceed the 

equivalent mass standards for both 

existing and new kilns by between one 

and two orders of magnitude, thus 

providing the capability to accurately 

report excursions well beyond either 

standard. We have provided responses 

to the comments on specific 

performance criteria regarding PS 12A 

in the response to comments document, 

and in several instances PS 12A has 

been revised in response to those 

comments. The Agency believes that the 

now revised PS 12A is fully capable of 

properly measuring the performance of 

gaseous Hg CEMS in many applications, 

including cement kilns. 

Regarding the applicability of the 

current commercially available gaseous 

Hg CEMS to cement kilns, and to wet or 

high moisture stacks in particular, we 

have considered the potential physical 

and chemical characteristics of such 

kiln stacks and does not consider them 

to be substantively different from those 

of other source categories, particularly 

utility boilers, where technical solutions 

have been deployed to enable the 

successful application, certification, and 

operation of gaseous Hg CEMS. One of 

several U.S. Hg CEMS manufacturers 

advises they have now installed 

approximately 400 Hg CEMS units on 

coal-fired power plants to meet 

regulatory requirements, including some 

with flue gas desulfurization systems 

with the higher stack gas moisture levels 

typical of these systems. These 

installations have included performance 

guarantees for system certification and 

the manufacturer also indicated a 

willingness to guarantee the 

performance of their units on cement 

kiln stacks. 

We recognize that each source will 

experience their own particular learning 

curve as with any new instrument, but 

if the source should experience an 

apparently insurmountable problem 

with a particular installation, they still 

have the option to either petition the 

Administrator for consideration of an 

alternative testing approach under 

§ 63.7(f) or to monitor Hg using a 

sorbent trap monitoring system by 

Performance Specification 12B (PS 12B). 

We disagree with the comment that PS 

12 B requires further demonstration. 

The same technology (Method 30B, 40 

CFR Part 60, Appendix A) was 

successfully used on several cement 

kilns in the process of collecting data to 

establish the emission limits in this rule 

with good precision and accuracy, and 

has also been widely deployed in the 

data collection program for the current 

MACT rule development program for 

utility boilers. EPA also believes that the 

growing body of evidence of the 

successful use of Hg CEMS in the utility 

industry in the U.S. is further evidence 

that Hg CEMS can be used in the cement 

kiln industry. In addition to the 

knowledge regarding the use of Hg 

CEMS on cement kilns in Europe, EPA 

is aware of two instances where Hg 

CEMS have been installed on cement 

kilns in the U.S., with specific evidence 

of successful execution of seven day 

calibration drift checks, linearity 

(measurement error tests, as well as 

relative accuracy testing. 

Comment: Industry commenter 2845 

stated that EPA should require that 

compliance with HCl limits should be 

measured by periodic stack tests. 

Because the HCl floors were developed 

from HCl stack test data, the standard 

for HCl should be based on periodic 

stack testing. EPA must evaluate valid 

data from Method 321/ASTM D6348 

stack tests instead of the data contained 

in Table 5 of the proposal. Using CEMS 

to measure compliance effectively 

makes the standard more stringent than 

what has been achieved by the bestperforming sources. If CEMS 

compliance demonstration is retained, 

then the limit for CEMS compliance 

must be raised to reflect the added 

variability that will be measured by the 

CEMS. While continuous measurement 

will capture variability of emissions 24 

hours per day, 7 days per week over the 

full range of process and control system 

operating conditions over the life of the 

plant and its associated quarry, the stack 

test is merely a snapshot in time. By 

definition, a stack test contains no 

parameter related to variability other 

than that obtained during the three 

hours of testing. In addition to the 

inherent variability of HCl emissions, a 

CEMS standard must also consider the 

inaccuracy of the CEMS as determined 

(and allowed) relative to the required 

stack test methods, the uncertainty of 

calibration standards/materials, and 

other factors affecting the sampling, 

transport, and analysis of HCl which is 

a highly reactive compound. 

Response: HCl CEMS will be 

measuring HCl with the same 

technology that was used in the period 

stack tests (M321) used to set the 

standard. An allowance for variability 

has been built in through the process of 

setting the standard, including setting 

the standard based on the 99th 

percentile UPL and increasing the 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 174 / Thursday, September 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 55007 

44See Section 4.1.2.1 of the Credible Evidence 

Rule Response to Comment Document, available at 

http://www.epa.gov/ttncaaa1/t1/fr_notices/

certcfin.pdf. 

standard to the practical quantitation 

limit of the analytic method. 

Comment: Two industry commenters 

(2845 and 2859) said that EPA has not 

promulgated any regulations requiring 

PM CEMS at any source category due to 

its inability to address fundamental 

technical and policy issues and must 

resolve these issues through rulemaking 

before requiring PM CEMS at any 

cement plants. Furthermore EPA has not 

performed a legitimate technical 

analysis of emissions variability and 

compliance determination uncertainty 

to allow the use of PM CEMS for 

determining continuous compliance 

with a PM limit at cement plants. 

The use of PM CEMS in Europe and 

other countries does not constitute a 

valid basis for application of PM CEMS 

at cement plants in the United States. 

Light scattering, light transmission, and 

extractive beta attenuation instruments 

are all inferential measurement devices 

and a correlation must be established to 

relate the device output to the actual PM 

concentration, then the accuracy and 

bias of the reference test and the 

uncertainty of the statistical correlation, 

as well as the stability of the correlation 

must be considered. Under the German 

TUV and the European monitoring 

standard (EN 14181) these uncertainties 

are considered; emissions are not 

considered to exceed the allowable limit 

until the lower bound of the confidence 

interval and/or tolerance interval 

exceeds the emission limit; emission 

standards may contain different 

averaging periods requiring different 

levels of conformance; and when a 

problem is encountered, the emphasis is 

on resolving the emission problem 

rather than direct enforcement and 

collection of financial penalties. All of 

these considerations place the European 

monitoring program in an entirely 

different regulatory context than the 

proposed PM monitoring requirements. 

Response: We reject the industry 

commenters’ assertions that PM CEMS 

have not been required via rulemaking 

because of unresolved fundamental 

technical or policy issues. Concerns 

about PM CEMS were identified and 

addressed prior to the January 2004 

publication of Performance 

Specification 11 and Quality Assurance 

Procedure 2 for PM CEMS (69 FR 1786, 

January 12, 2004). As mentioned in that 

rule’s preamble, ‘‘* * * we believe that 

the PM CEMS field demonstrations 

completed to date encompass a range of 

operating conditions and emission 

characteristics * * *’’ including those 

exhibited by sources such as cement 

kilns. 

Moreover, we disagree with the 

assertion that our analysis of PM 

emissions variability is not legitimate, 

yielding an overly-stringent PM 

emissions limit. The PM limit is based 

on our analysis of PM emissions from 

test data, adjusted from an hourly to a 

30-day averaging period and further 

adjusted for variability. As mentioned in 

the preamble to the Credible Evidence 

Rule (62 FR 8314, February 24, 1997), 

we have addressed and continue to 

address concerns about perceived 

‘‘* * * limited number and distribution 

of test runs and the inherent variability 

in levels of emissions * * *’’ by a 

number of approaches, including 

changing emissions averaging periods. 

Certainly a statistically-based 

adjustment to account for emissions 

variability, and which, in this case, 

increases the numerical value of the 

standard (and its longer averaging 

period) by fifty percent, does not make 

the standard more stringent. 

Finally, the continuous collection of 

data used to assess compliance with this 

twice-adjusted standard does not create 

a limit more stringent that otherwise 

allowed. As discussed in the preamble 

to the Credible Evidence Rule, ‘‘* * * 

continuous monitoring of the standards 

(has) no effect on the stringency of the 

standard * * *’’ (62 FR at 8326, 

February 24, 1997). 

Rather, consistent with the 

rulemaking description process given in 

Section 4.1.1 of the Credible Evidence 

Rule Response to Comment Document, 

we used our ‘‘* * * judgment, based on 

available information, to establish 

emissions standards at (appropriate) 

levels where the standards can be met 

on a continuous basis by a well operated 

and maintained source that employs 

best demonstrated technology * * *’’ 44

Comment: Two industry commenters 

(2845 and 2859) had the following 

comments concerning technical issues 

associated with application of PM 

CEMS. EPA has not addressed nor 

resolved the primary technical issues 

limiting the effective application of PM 

CEMS at cement plants including: 

• Inability to generate a sufficiently 

wide range of PM concentrations to 

establish an acceptable correlation (i.e., 

calibration), 

• Accuracy and precision limitations 

of reference method at PM levels 

necessary to generate valid correlation, 

and 

• Subsequent changes in effluent 

matrix and/or PM (i.e., particle size 

distribution, refractive index, particle 

density, etc.) that influence the stability 

of the correlation and hence, the 

relationship between the output of the 

inferential measurement device relative 

to actual PM concentration. 

Valid PM CEMS correlations cannot 

be established for PM CEMS at cement 

plants due to limitations of process 

operation and control equipment in 

conjunction with the proposed emission 

limitation. The requirements in 

Appendix A, PS–11 for the PM CEMS 

correlation and in Appendix F, 

Procedure 2 do not provide a 

sufficiently reliable means to determine 

compliance with emission limitations. 

Response: We have not identified 

problems cited by the commenters at 

existing installations. In fact, PS–11 and 

Procedure 2 are working well. We note 

that PS–11 has several features to 

address correlation issues. For example, 

PS–11 provides for the addition of a 

zero point, which enhances the ability 

to provide a calibration. We note that 

PS–11 has several features to address 

correlation issues due to any limitations 

of process operation and control 

equipment. PS–11 provides for the 

addition of a zero point. For example, if 

control equipment operations cannot be 

varied adequately to achieve higher PM 

concentrations, resulting in a cluster of 

data points at a very low level and 

making it difficult to achieve PS–11 

criteria, then an artificial data point may 

be selected at zero that allows the 

correlation curve to be developed that 

meets the correlation criteria. It also 

strongly suggests the use of paired trains 

to insure that accuracy and precision is 

obtained. Changes in the effluent matrix 

could potentially be a problem with 

light scattering technologies but this has 

not been shown to be a problem with 

existing installations. This would not be 

a problem with beta attenuation 

monitors. Factors that influence the 

stability of the correlation are addressed 

in Procedure 2 (40 CFR, Appendix F). 

Procedure 2 describes the required 

audits to insure that subsequent 

measurements are stable and within 

acceptable limits, thereby ensuring 

reliable and stable compliance 

measurement data. 

Comment: Two industry commenters 

(2845 and 2859) had the following 

comments concerning PS–11 and 

Procedure 2. The requirements at 

§ 63.1349 for PM CEMS are incomplete 

and ambiguous and EPA has failed to 

specify important QA frequencies and 

other information relevant to the 

implementation of PM CEMS in 

accordance with PS–11 and Procedure 

2. The proposed Subpart LLL revisions 

fail to address critical elements 

including the following sections of 

PS–11 and Procedure 2: 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2
55008 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 174 / Thursday, September 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

• PS–11 3.20, species reference 

method as method defined in applicable 

regulations (Method 5 with 250 °F 

filtration temperature) but this is 

inadequate for low concentrations 

where Method 5I should be used, and is 

inapplicable to sources with PM that 

condenses between the stack 

temperature (mill on and mill off, if 

applicable) and 250 °F where Method 17 

should be used or ASTM D 6831. 

• PS–11, 6.2 You must ensure that the 

averaging time, the number of 

measurements in an average, the 

minimum data availability, and the 

averaging period for your CEMS 

conform to those specified in the 

applicable regulation—but none are 

specified. 

• When using PS–11, 6.5 Your CEMS 

must sample the stack effluent such that 

the averaging time, the number of 

measurements in an average, the 

minimum sampling time, and the 

averaging procedure for reporting and 

determining compliance conform to 

those specified in the applicable 

regulation—but none are specified. 

• Procedure 2, 10.3 You must 

conduct a response correlation audit 

(RCA) and a relative response audit 

(RRA) at the frequency specified in the 

applicable regulation * * * but none 

are specified. 

• Procedure 2, 10.3, You must 

perform an RRA at the frequency 

specified in the applicable regulation 

* * * but none is specified. 

• When using Procedure 2, 10.3(7) 

You must perform an RCA at the 

frequency specified in the applicable 

regulation * * * but none is specified. 

• When using Procedure 2, 10.9 You 

must report the accuracy results for your 

PM CEMS at the frequency specified in 

the applicable regulation * * * but 

none is specified. 

Response: We recognize that PS–11 

does not specify a reference method; we 

have revised the final rule to specify 

Method 5 or Method 5I (40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A) as the reference method. 

Facilities with issues in application of 

these reference methods, may petition 

the Administrator for alternatives or 

modifications under § 60.8(b) or 

§ 63.7(f). The averaging times and data 

reduction specifications have been 

added to §§ 60.63(c) and 63.1350(b) of 

the rule. There are no specific data 

availability requirements, §§ 60.63(g) 

and 63.1348(b) require that monitoring 

be conducted at all times the affected 

source is operating except for periods of 

monitoring system malfunctions, 

repairs, or quality assurance/quality 

control activities. The language of the 

final rule has been revised to specify the 

frequency of the Relative Response 

Audits (annually) and the Response 

Correlation Audits (every three years), 

for specifics, see §§ 60.63(c)(2) and 

63.1350(b)(2). Absolute Correlation 

Audits are required by Procedure 2 on 

a quarterly basis. 

Comment: One environmental 

advocacy group commenter (2786) 

stated that EPA should not eliminate 

opacity standards in the proposed rule. 

The commenter stated that there are 

benefits to having an opacity standard 

in conjunction with a particulate matter 

standard. Opacity measurements can be 

made by anyone who is trained to 

measure opacity, which can include 

members of the public and not just 

inspectors, and opacity measurements 

are a cheaper method of getting more 

frequent measurements. 

Response: We disagree. Given the 

sensitivity of the BLD and PM CEMs, we 

find the opacity requirements to be 

redundant. 

Comment: One environmental 

advocacy group commenter (2898) 

stated that EPA should require PM 

CEMS and retain the opacity monitoring 

requirements. EPA is proposing 

installation and operation of a BLD 

system, along with stack testing using 

EPA Method 5 conducted at a frequency 

of five years for demonstrating 

compliance with the proposed PM 

emissions limit. As an alternative, a PM 

CEMS that meets the requirements of 

PS–11 may be used, and EPA is 

proposing to eliminate the current 

requirement of using an opacity 

monitor. The proposed rule solicits 

comment on making the use of a PM 

CEMS a requirement. The commenter 

stated that EPA should both require 

CEMS and retain the use of opacity 

monitors. 

EPA should abandon the BLD system 

requirement outlined in the proposed 

rule and mandate the use of PM CEMS 

instead. The agency previously 

concluded that PM CEMS is a superior 

monitoring technology that can be 

implemented at a reasonable price. EPA 

has found that BLD systems, standing 

alone, are inadequate to verify 

compliance and has also found that 

continuous opacity monitors (COMS) 

operate as a useful check on PM 

emissions and proper operation of PM 

CEMS. 

Providing a superior level of 

compliance assurance is not the only 

benefit of PM CEMS. EPA has 

acknowledged that the assumptions to 

assure compliance are fewer and less 

conservative (direct measure of the 

standard is the top of the monitoring 

hierarchy), CEMS mean facilities need 

to monitor only one emissions 

parameter to assure compliance rather 

than multiple operating limits, often 

relevant to more than one standard, and 

that the cost of installing PM CEMS 

technology is reasonable. 

Response: We would support the use 

of multi-metal CEMS, should they 

become available. We have not yet seen 

evidence that COMS are well-suited for 

continuous compliance as are BLD or 

PM CEMS, so that requiring their use as 

a backup system would add monitoring 

costs to no special environmental 

benefit. 

Comment: Several industry 

commenters (2832 and 2859) opposed 

the proposed requirement to install 

CEMS in order to satisfy compliance 

assurance monitoring (CAM) for 

selected pollutants. Instead, the 

commenter proposed that CAM 

requirements be satisfied using periodic 

stack testing to the extent that stack 

testing is requested or required by State 

air permits. According to EPA’s 

proposal, the MACT floor for new and 

existing sources in this industry will be 

determined by stack testing results of 

sources within the MACT pool. If EPA 

were to finalize a numeric emissions 

limitation based on this approach to 

setting the new and existing MACT 

floors, that limitation will be based on 

the same stack testing data. CEMs will 

have played no role in this process. It 

stands to reason that compliance 

assurance should be based on stack 

testing results, and not a CEMS data that 

has played no part in this process. 

One industry trade association 

commenter (2916) stated that EPA can 

achieve a reasonable assurance of 

compliance without the use of CEMS. 

The requirement to use CEMS is 

unreasonably costly and unnecessary, 

given that other reliable means of 

showing compliance are available for all 

relevant pollutants. Raw material 

sampling and kiln parametric 

monitoring, in conjunction with 

periodic testing, would work well for 

THC and HCI. The sorbent trap method 

for mercury is a good alternative to 

mercury CEMS and should be retained 

in the final rule. EPA should refrain 

from requiring PM CEMS in the final 

rule. Bag leak detection systems and 

parametric monitoring of ESPs are 

proven methods for assuring ongoing 

compliance with PM limits. 

Response: We disagree. In the case of 

THC, emissions may change 

significantly due to a process change 

without any advance indication. In 

addition, the THC emission limits were 

established using data from CEMS, and 

the standard itself is a 30-day average, 

requiring 30 monthly measurements 

(only practically obtainable with a 

CEM). Therefore, CEMS are the obvious 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 174 / Thursday, September 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 55009 

compliance assurance choice. In the 

case of mercury emissions, short term 

test data do not necessarily reflect the 

long term emissions. In addition, the 

performance of the available mercury 

controls may be significantly affected by 

operational factors. To devise a test plan 

to clearly establish the performance of 

mercury control under all conditions 

would be difficult, and for that reason 

it would be difficult to establish the 

proper control device operating 

parameters and operating limits. 

Therefore, mercury CEMS are essential 

in demonstrating continuous 

compliance with the mercury emissions 

limits. If the facility does not have a wet 

scrubber, changes in raw materials, or 

fuels could significantly increase 

emissions without any indications 

unless a CEMS is used. 

B. What are the significant comments 

and responses on 40 CFR part 60, 

subpart F? 

Comment: Several State and 

environment advocacy group 

commenters (62, 65, and 69) objected to 

EPA not proposing standards for 

greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions under 

the proposed NSPS. One State 

commenter (62) criticizes EPA’s 

decision to not propose any NSPS for 

GHG emissions from Portland cement 

plants. The commenter states that even 

though the Courts have confirmed that 

GHGs are air pollutants subject to 

regulation under the CAA, EPA has not 

issued any such standards, instead 

issuing an Advance Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking (ANPR) that seeks public 

comment on whether to regulate GHG 

emissions under the CAA at all. State 

commenter 62 protests this course of 

action, and requests that EPA revise the 

proposed rule to include NSPS for GHG 

emissions. 

According to State commenter 62, 

EPA’s failure to propose NSPS for GHGs 

in the proposed rule violates section 111 

of the CAA (42 U.S.C. 7411), which 

requires EPA to determine whether GHG 

emissions emitted by cement plants may 

endanger public health or welfare, and 

to promulgate NSPS for each air 

pollutant emitted by cement plants that 

contributes significantly to global 

warming pollution. The State 

commenter states that as the second 

largest industrial source of carbon 

dioxide emissions in the United States 

(emitting 45.7 million metric tons of 

carbon dioxide in 2006), the cement 

industry contributes significantly to 

GHG emissions and there can be no 

serious dispute that GHG emissions 

endanger public health and/or welfare. 

The ANPR that EPA issued instead is no 

substitute for action and does not 

commit to regulating GHG emissions 

from any source. State and 

environmental advocacy group 

commenters 65 and 69 submitted 

several exhibits in support of their 

comments. A summary of the comments 

is presented here. To review the entire 

comment, please refer to the comment at 

www.regulations.gov. The State and 

environmental advocacy group 

commenters state that: 

• EPA is required by section 111 to 

promulgate NSPS for all pollutants 

emitted by a regulated source category 

including CO2 emission from cement 

plants and EPA’s assertion that section 

111 does not compel the agency to 

regulate CO2 emissions is contrary to the 

Act’s plain language. 

• Congress has expressly directed that 

NSPS address the emissions of ‘‘any’’ air 

pollutant, a term that plainly 

encompasses CO2. 

• At a minimum, in directing that 

NSPS be established for sources that 

cause, or contribute significantly to air 

pollution which may reasonably be 

anticipated to endanger public health 

and welfare, Congress showed that it 

meant to require limits on emissions of 

any pollutants that cause or contribute 

to such endangerment. Because cement 

plants emit CO2 in such amounts that 

those emissions significantly contribute 

to ‘‘air pollution which may reasonably 

be anticipated to endanger public health 

or welfare,’’ EPA is legally required to 

issue standards of performance limiting 

those emissions. EPA cannot rationally 

assert that cement plant CO2 emissions 

do not meet these criteria, and the 

Agency’s refusal to promulgate 

standards of performance is therefore 

unlawful. 

• EPA’s contention that it can refuse 

to regulate CO2 emissions on the basis 

of interactions with other CAA 

provisions is impossible to reconcile 

with section 111, because that section 

clearly contemplates that EPA will 

adopt standards of performance 

covering pollutants that have not 

previously been subject to regulation 

under the Act. 

• Cement plants’ emissions of CO2

cause, or contribute significantly to, air 

pollution which may reasonably be 

anticipated to endanger public health or 

welfare and significantly contribute to 

global climate change. 

• There are existing technologies that 

can reduce emissions of CO2 from 

cement plants. In addition to the 

suggested technologies, other measures 

that would also have CO2 reduction 

benefits include shifting from high 

carbon content fuels, such as coal, to 

lower carbon content fossil fuels, such 

as natural gas. 

• Section 111(d) of the Act provides 

that EPA shall require States to 

implement and enforce standards of 

performance for existing sources when 

the pollutant at issue is not regulated as 

a criteria pollutant or hazardous air 

pollutant. 

• EPA must also consult with the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service and National 

Marine Fisheries Service to insure that 

the final rule is not likely to jeopardize 

recently-listed endangered species. 

Response: Due to issues related to the 

regulation of GHGs under the CAA, no 

standards of performance for GHGs were 

included in the proposal and none are 

being included in the final amendments. 

Promulgating a standard without first 

proposing it does not follow the 

accepted process of proposal and public 

comment that is required of EPA 

rulemakings. Also, we have not gathered 

the information we need on GHG 

emissions and control strategies for the 

Portland cement industry. EPA’s 

decisions and plans for regulating GHG 

from this industry are discussed earlier 

in this document (see section IV.B.1.g). 

Comment: Several private, State and 

environmental advocacy group 

commenters (59, 60, 63, 68, 70, 71, 72) 

approve of the proposed limits for NOX

or believe more stringent limits are 

appropriate. One private commenter 

(59) states that the proposed standard is 

unjustifiably high, and will allow for 

greater NOX emissions than can be 

achieved with the installation of off-theshelf pollution control technology. The 

commenter recommends a standard of 

no greater than 0.5 lb NOX/ton clinker 

and states that SCR is an effective and 

proven technology to reduce NOX

emissions from cement kilns and can 

reduce NOX emissions from cement 

kilns by greater than 90 percent, 

consistent with what has been observed 

with SCR in other industries. According 

to the private commenter, SCR can 

achieve this performance with costeffectiveness of approximately $1,500– 

$3,800/ton NOX, easily within 

regulatory cost thresholds for many NOX

control programs. Regarding concerns 

over dust and plugging, the commenter 

cites three recent installations of SCR on 

cement kilns that show that SCR 

vendors can properly design and install 

units which manage the dust and 

successfully operate for many years. The 

commenter stated that numerous SCR 

companies believe that they can design 

and supply SCR systems for NOX

control at cement plants where they will 

have to guarantee performance levels in 

legal contracts, and thus they would be 

at significant financial risk to advertise 

and sell an SCR system that was 

actually going to fail. The effectiveness 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2
55010 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 174 / Thursday, September 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

of the technology to reduce NOX and 

other pollutant emissions from cement 

kilns, as demonstrated by the SCR 

installations on cement kilns in Europe 

and the numerous SCR installations on 

other heavy industries like coal-fired 

power plants and waste incinerators, is 

supported by the marketing, technical 

assessments, and reports prepared by 

numerous experts on this subject, 

including: Three (3) cement companies, 

five (5) SCR manufacturers, an 

independent blue ribbon panel, the U.S. 

EPA (twice), and the European IPPC. 

State commenter 68 believes that EPA’s 

proposed NOX limit of 1.5 lb/ton clinker 

underestimates the reductions that are 

achievable with SCR technology and 

recommends that SCR be identified as 

BDT for this sector and is ‘‘the regulated 

future’’ for cement kilns. The commenter 

states that the agency has noted that 

hybrid combinations of SNCR and SCR 

could be used in new cement kilns to 

achieve greater reductions than would 

be possible with SNCR alone. SCR is 

also named by EPA as available 

technology for cement kilns in the 

Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Final 

Clean Air Visibility Rule or the 

Guidelines for Best Available Retrofit 

Technology (BART) Determinations 

Under the Regional Haze Regulations. 

As far back as 1999, EPA included SCR 

in a list of control technologies available 

for both dry and wet cement 

manufacturing processes, as did a 

Pechan & Associates Report prepared for 

EPA’s Office of Air Quality Planning 

and Standards in September 2005. 

Therefore, SCR technology for the 

cement manufacturing sector has been 

considered feasible technology by EPA 

for some time. 

One State commenter (60) states that 

the NOX emission limit should be 

lowered to 1.0 lb/ton of clinker on a 24 

hour rolling average for new PH/PC 

kilns and a limit added of 2.0 lb/ton of 

clinker on a 24-hour rolling average if 

reconstruction or modification of the 

kiln commences after June 16, 2008, and 

the final configuration is a long wet kiln 

or a long dry kiln. The State commenter 

states that the recommendations 

regarding PH and PH/C kilns should 

apply equally to projects at greenfield 

sites and brownfield sites stating that 

many of the advances in NOX control in 

the U.S. and Europe have been made at 

brownfield sites whether they have 

involved new kilns or reconstruction or 

modification of existing kilns. 

To support the State commenters 

recommended limits for NOX, the 

commenter provided the following 

information and included several 

supporting documents as attachments to 

the comments: 

• A long-term value of 1.46 pounds 

per ton (lb/ton) of NOX clinker was 

achieved with no add-on control 

equipment when not accounting for slag 

use and 1.38 lb/ton when accounting for 

slag use at TXI Kiln 5 (a PH/C kiln) in 

Midlothian, Texas. 

• A long-term value of 1.98 lb/ton 

was achieved with no add-on control 

equipment at Cemex Sta. Cruz (a PC/H 

kiln) in Davenport, California. The 

project involved an improvement to an 

existing calciner (commissioned in 

1997) on an existing kiln to comply with 

an existing NOX limitation. 

• Titan America (a PH/C kiln) in 

Medley Florida and Giant Cement in 

South Carolina where average values of 

1.62 and 1.88 lb NOX/ton were 

documented for new kilns with no addon control equipment at brownfield 

sites. 

• The results from the existing 

SCANCEM (an affiliate of Lehigh) 

Sko ̈vde PH kiln where emissions were 

reduced from 4.4 lb NOX/ton (1995) by 

installation of a SNCR system and 

which achieved 0.72 lb/ton in 2005. 

• The results from the existing 

SCANCEM Slite PH/C kilns where 

emissions were reduced from 4.0 lb 

NOX/ton (1995) by installation of an 

SNCR system and which achieved 1.01 

lb/ton in 2005. 

• The results from the existing Radici 

Cementeria di Monselice PH kiln where 

emission reductions to values as low as 

0.20 lb NOX/ton were demonstrated by 

installation of a SCR system. The 

supplier guaranteed reduction of 90 

percent and realized reductions as high 

as 97 percent. 

State commenter 60 states that based 

on the foregoing, reductions on the 

order of 75 percent are achieved by 

well-designed SNCR systems and 90 

percent by SCR. Given that a new kiln 

can be designed such that emissions can 

be controlled to values between 1.5 and 

2 lb/ton before add-on control, 1 lb/ton 

is achievable by SNCR. Given a kiln 

with less sophisticated design or 

particularly difficult raw materials 

achieving 3 to 5 lb/ton, SNCR or SCR or 

a combination of the two can reduce 

emissions to values much less than 1 lb/ 

ton. The commenter states that the 

proposed averaging time of 30 days is a 

tremendous concession to the industry. 

The availability of reagent injection 

makes it easier to achieve the proposed 

standard on a 24-hour basis. The lowest 

permit limit for a project under 

construction in the United States 

applies to the Drake Cement in Arizona. 

The value is equivalent to 1.14 lb/ton on 

a 24-hour basis. A contract was awarded 

to F.L. Smidth who developed the 

calciner that achieves 2 lb/ton or less at 

TXI, Titan and Cemex as discussed 

above. The limit will be achievable 

using an SNCR system. 

State commenter (60) states that 

because long wet and long dry kilns use 

much more energy to make a ton of 

clinker, a higher NOX limit may be 

acceptable for these kilns. State 

commenter 60 agrees with EPA’s 

assumption that new projects triggering 

the NSPS will actually result in a PH/ 

C kiln. A project that might trigger a 

prevention of significant deterioration 

(PSD) review at a long kiln will 

probably incorporate emissions control 

measures to avoid PSD and a BACT 

determination for NOX and SO2. The 

measures to avoid PSD will also likely 

avoid the short-term emissions increases 

that would otherwise trigger the NSPS. 

Finally, with respect to the 

reconstruction provisions, it is not 

likely that a company will actually 

invest 50 percent of the value of an 

existing long kiln without taking the 

opportunity to make it much more 

energy efficient through conversion to a 

PH/C kiln. The State commenter states 

that a separate standard for long kilns 

will avoid the unnecessary relaxation of 

the limits applicable to PH and PH/C 

kilns. The State commenter listed the 

following NOX reduction technologies 

that have been demonstrated for long 

kilns and submitted supporting 

documentation as attachments to the 

comment: 

• Conversion from direct to indirect 

firing in conjunction with the 

installation of a multi-channel (Low 

NOX) burner; 

• Mid-kiln fuel injection (including 

tires); 

• Near mid-kiln pressurized air 

injection; 

• SNCR at long kilns; and 

• Combination of SNCR with air 

injection. 

One State commenter (63) described 

the advances in technology for 

controlling NOX emissions, especially 

SNCR and SCR, from Portland cement 

plants, and requests EPA consider the 

technological improvements and their 

applications when establishing NOX

emission limits. The State commenter 

states that EPA continues to play a 

crucial role in encouraging innovation 

and in mobilizing supply chains to 

deliver technologies that improve our 

air quality and environment including 

the continued tightening of emission 

limits. This encourages the industries 

such as the cement industry to work 

closely with equipment and component 

suppliers to ensure significant 

reductions in emissions in a timely and 

economical manner. The commenter 

states that with the improved processes 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 174 / Thursday, September 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 55011 

that lower uncontrolled NOX emissions 

and with the addition of SCR, NOX

limits of 0.25–0.5 lb NOX/ton clinker are 

achievable. 

One State commenter (70) supports 

the proposed level for new, modified 

and reconstructed kilns of 1.50 lb/ton of 

clinker for NOX. Facilities can meet the 

1.50 lb/ton of clinker for NOX, with 

SNCR alone or with SCR (either as a 

supplement or as an alternative to 

SNCR). 

One State commenter (71) states that 

if new or modified systems would likely 

use the preheater/precalciner 

configuration, then what is achievable 

must be looked at and then apply the 

effect of the controls. If this approach is 

followed, the appropriate NOX emission 

limit should be in the range of 1.14 lb/ 

ton of clinker. According to State 

commenter 71, the traditional long dry 

cement kilns can attain a NOX emission 

level of 2.73 lb/ton of clinker without 

utilizing SNCR control technology. 

Based on an SNCR control efficiency of 

50 percent, a NOX emission level of 1.3 

lb/ton of clinker is achievable. As a 

result, cement kilns with SNCR control 

technology can achieve a NOX emission 

level between 1.14 and 1.3 lb/ton of 

clinker. However, this State commenter 

believes that the NOX emission level 

from cement kilns can be further 

reduced by utilizing SCR control 

technology. State commenter 71 states 

that EPA dismisses the SCR technology 

used in Europe and concedes that some 

mechanical problems were experienced 

in the early stages with plugging but 

these problems were resolved and the 

system remained in service for four 

years at the Solnhofen facility in 

Germany. According to the commenter, 

waste disposal should not be an issue 

because the spent catalyst could be 

added to the process as a source of 

alumina. State commenter 71 previously 

conducted a Best Available Retrofit 

Control Technology (BARCT) 

assessment for a cement plant in our 

area and recommended SCR as the 

BARCT for this facility. 

One environmental advocacy group 

commenter (72) states that the NSPS 

emission rate for NOX from cement 

plants should be lowered to 0.5 lb/ton 

of clinker on a 24 hour rolling average 

because of the ability of current plant 

designs to achieve very low rates of NOX

emissions without the addition of addon pollution controls. Currently 

available add-on controls can reduce 

NOX emission levels below the 

proposed 1.5 lbs of NOX per ton of 

clinker. There is a considerable 

operational experience with SNCR that 

shows it’s capable of reducing NOX

emissions to 1 lb or less/ton of clinker 

when combined with a moderndesigned kiln. SCR has been 

demonstrated in the utility industry and 

Europe and can further reduce 

emissions. 

Response: The starting point for the 

NOX limit was the emission level that 

could be achieved with no add-on 

control device for NOX. To achieve the 

lowest NOX levels without add-on 

controls involves the use of state-of-theart combustion technologies in 

conjunction with PH/PC kilns. In 

developing the proposed limits for NOX, 

we used emissions data showing that 

three recently permitted kilns had 

achieved average NOX levels of 1.62, 

1.88, and 1.97 lb/ton of clinker through 

the use of combustion technologies such 

as low-NOX burners and staged 

combustion in the calciner (SCC). We 

assumed that through advanced 

combustion technology, an emission 

level of 2.5 lb/ton of clinker was 

generally achievable. Following 

proposal, commenters supporting the 

limit, commenters recommending lower 

limits, and commenters recommending 

higher limits submitted additional data 

on NOX emissions from U.S. kilns as 

well as kilns operating in other 

countries. The data are summarized 

below. 

TABLE 9—CEMENT KILN NOX EMISSIONS DATA

Kiln Kiln type Process controls Add-on controls 

NOX emissions 

before add-on 

control 

(lb/ton clinker) 

TXI, Midlothian, TX, Kiln 5 (2003) ............................ PH/PC ..................... LNB, slag ........................ None ....................... 1.38 

............................ LNB ................................. None ....................... 1.46 

Cemex, Santa Cruz, CA (2006–2007) ..................... PH/PC ..................... SCC ................................ None ....................... 1.98 

Titan America, Medley, FL (2007, 2008) ................. PH/PC ..................... SCC ................................ None ....................... 1.62 

Giant Cement, Harleyville, SC (2006, 2007) ........... PH/PC ..................... SCC ................................ None ....................... 1.88 

TXI Riverside, CA ..................................................... Long Dry ................. Combustion, Process ...... None ....................... 1.5 

Long Dry ................. Combustion, Process ..... None ....................... 1.5 

Lafarge Sugar Creek, MO (2004–2005) .................. PH/PC ..................... LNB, SCC ....................... None ....................... 3.58 

Lafarge Calera, AL (2006–2007) ............................. PH/PC ..................... LNB, SCC ....................... None ....................... 2.06 

Lafarge, Alexandria, Egypt (2007) ........................... PH/PC ..................... LNB, SCC ....................... None ....................... 2.03 

Lafarge, Richmond, Canada (2007) ......................... PH/PC ..................... LNB, SCC ....................... None ....................... 2.64 

Lafarge, Port La Nouvelle, France (2007) ............... PH/PC ..................... LNB, SCC ....................... None ....................... 2.65 

Lafarge, Ewekoro, Nigeria (2007) ............................ PH/PC ..................... LNB, SCC ....................... None ....................... 3.38 

Lafarge, Kujawy, Poland (2007) ............................... PH/PC ..................... LNB, SCC ....................... None ....................... 3.4 

Lafarge, Harleyville, U.S. (2007) .............................. PH/PC ..................... LNB, SCC ....................... None ....................... 3.48 

Lafarge, Tetouan, Morocco (2007) .......................... PH/PC ..................... LNB, SCC ....................... None ....................... 4.07 

.............................................................................. ............................ .................................... AVG ........................ 2.41 

The average uncontrolled NOX

emissions for the listed kilns are 2.4 lb/ 

ton of clinker. If the result for the long 

dry kiln is removed, the average is 2.5 

lb/ton. This result is consistent with the 

baseline NOX level used by EPA in the 

development of the proposed NOX

limits. To allow for variations in 

process, fuel or feed, EPA selected a 

baseline level of 3.0 lb/ton of clinker. 

To arrive at the emissions limit for 

NOX, we evaluated two add-on control 

technologies for BDT: SNCR and SCR. 

EPA agrees that SCR is a promising 

technology for the control of NOX

emissions from Portland cement plants. 

The Agency also agrees that SCR is an 

attractive control alternative in that it 

has the advantage of reducing emissions 

of other pollutants in addition to 

reducing NOX by 80 to 90 percent. 

However, although SCR has been 

demonstrated at a few cement plants in 

Europe and has been demonstrated on 

coal-fired power plants in the U.S., the 

Agency is not satisfied that it has been 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2
55012 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 174 / Thursday, September 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

sufficiently demonstrated as an off-theshelf control technology that is readily 

applicable to cement kilns. The 

experience with SCR use on coal-fired 

power plants in the U.S. is not directly 

transferrable to Portland cement plants 

with the main difference being the 

lower dust loadings at power plants 

than would occur at cement plants. 

(Note this is not an issue for CEMS 

because they can be located downstream 

of the PM controls.) The experience at 

European kilns showed long periods of 

trial and error before the technology was 

operating properly. In particular, 

problems with the high-dust 

installations and the resulting fouling of 

the catalyst were problematic. This and 

other problems were eventually 

overcome, although at one of the early 

facilities to add SCR, the use of the SCR 

was discontinued in favor of a selective 

noncatalytic reduction (SNCR) system 

while the facility owners and operators 

gathered additional data to assess the 

advantages and disadvantages of the 

SCR system in comparison to the SNCR 

system. 

State commenters also noted that it 

would be possible to combine SNCR 

and SCR technology on the same kiln, 

thereby significantly reducing the 

amount of catalyst required. This could 

reduce the problem with catalyst 

fouling. We see no technical 

impediment to combining SNCR and 

SCR technology. But at the same time 

we have no data on this combined 

system to assess its effectiveness or 

potential for catalyst fouling. 

At this time we therefore do not agree 

with the commenters that SCR can be 

considered best demonstrated 

technology and as a result have not 

established a NOX emission limit based 

on that technology. 

We determined SNCR to be BDT and 

applied a control efficiency for the 

SNCR to the baseline uncontrolled level 

to determine the appropriate NOX level 

consistent with application of BDT. As 

discussed in the preamble to the 

proposed rule, SNCR performance 

varies depending on various factors, but 

especially the normalized molar ratio 

(NMR), or the molar ratio of ammonia 

injected to NOX- higher removal 

efficiencies are associated with a higher 

NMR. SNCR performance has been 

shown to range from 20 to 80 percent 

NOX removal. At proposal we used an 

efficiency of 50 percent as 

representative of SNCR performance on 

average. Since then, additional 

information on SNCR performance has 

become available including data 

supplied by State commenters as well as 

a 2008 report by the Portland Cement 

Association. These data are summarized 

below. Reported removal efficiencies 

range from 25 to over 90 percent. 

According to a 2008 PCA report, 

ammonia slip occurs at molar ratios 

generally above 1.0. The graph below 

illustrates the relationship between the 

ammonia molar ratio, or NMR, and the 

performance of SNCR. EPA also 

examined the data to determine if 

uncontrolled NOX emissions affected 

SNCR performance since SNCR 

performance has been shown to improve 

with higher uncontrolled NOX levels, 

but the data here did not show any 

effect between initial NOX concentration 

and SNCR performance. Using the data 

below, the average removal efficiency of 

SNCR is 60 percent. Thus, EPA believes 

the 50 percent removal efficiency used 

to establish the NOX emission limit is a 

reasonable estimate of the SNCR 

performance that allows for an operating 

margin considering reasonable worstcase conditions that can be expected 

within the industry or source category 

as a whole. This operating margin 

should be sufficient to allow facilities 

where a greater than 50 percent 

reduction may be necessary to meet the 

1.5 lb/ton clinker limit to increase 

ammonia injection to achieve greater 

than 50 percent reduction without 

causing ammonia slip. 

TABLE 10—SNCR NOX REMOVAL EFFICIENCY

Kiln 

NOX emissions before 

SNCR 

(lb/ton clinker) 

NOX emissions with 

SNCR 

(lb/ton clinker) 

Removal 

efficiency 

(%) 

Ammonia 

molar ratio 

SCANCEM Skovde, Sweden (1995,2005) ...................................................... 4.4 0.7 84 1–1.2 

SCANCEM Slite, Sweden(1995,2005) ............................................................ 4.0 1.0 75 1.2–1.4 

Ash Grove, Durkee OR (1994 test) ................................................................. 4.75 1.0 > 80 for most ........................

Suwannee American (2008) ............................................................................ Not reported 1.4 ........................ ........................

Florida Rock ..................................................................................................... 3.1 1.7 47 0.1–0.65 

3.8 2.2 42 0–1 

1 ....................................................................................................................... 7.0 3.2 55 0.7 

2 ....................................................................................................................... 4.3 3.0 30 0.7 

3 ....................................................................................................................... 4.6 2.3 50 0.7 

4 ....................................................................................................................... 4.0 2.0 50 0.6–0.7 

5 ....................................................................................................................... 3.8 2.9 25 ........................

6 ....................................................................................................................... 4.0 2.4 40 0.25 

6 ....................................................................................................................... 4.0 2.0 50 0.5 

7 ....................................................................................................................... 3.4 1.7 50 0.5 

7 ....................................................................................................................... 3.6 0.9 75 0.8 

7 ....................................................................................................................... 3.2 0.6 81 1 

8 ....................................................................................................................... 5.0 0.4 92 1.0–1.2 

8 ....................................................................................................................... 5.0 1.1 78 1.0–1.2 

9 ....................................................................................................................... ........................ 0.9 80–85 1.2–1.4 

AVG. ................................................................................................................ 4.2 1.7 60 ........................


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 174 / Thursday, September 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 55013 

Comment: Several industry 

commenters (64, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78) 

commented on the difficulty of 

consistently achieving the NOx limit of 

1.5 lb/ton clinker limit over time and at 

all new kiln locations and favored a 

higher limit or no limit. They state that 

it is important to note that consistent, 

long term compliance with this 

proposed limit may be difficult to 

achieve and there will be instances 

where compliance may not be possible 

at all. According to the industry 

commenters, different factors can 

influence NOX emissions such as: 

(1) Fuel type/quality—Lower volatility 

solid fuels such as petcoke produce 

higher NOX emissions. Also, any 

problems with fuel quality as delivered 

to the plant can have a negative impact 

on NOX emissions; 

(2) Raw mix burnability—Harder 

burnability will give higher NOX

emissions. Burnability is dependent on 

raw mix chemistry, fineness, and 

chemical deviation (impacted by 

homogeneity and operation of the 

quarry, which can vary over extended 

periods of time); 

(3) Kiln bypass system—The size of 

the bypass for a given plant (if needed), 

and consequently the bypass emissions, 

depends on the chemistry of the raw 

mix and fuel(s) and the product 

standards that must be maintained to 

comply with regulations; 

(4) Size/type of the preheater—New 

in-line calciners will normally give the 

lowest NOX emissions; however, in 

cases where the type of fuel(s) used 

dictates the need for a separate calciner 

(such as may be applied to utilize waste 

materials), NOX emissions will be 

higher. In addition, sometimes a new 

project will consist of upgrading an 

existing pyro system. In many of these 

cases the layout of the existing 

equipment is such that it cannot be 

modified to perform as well as a brand 

new calciner system, and will therefore 

have higher NOX emissions; 

(5) Sub-standard operation and 

maintenance of the kiln system—This is 

the responsibility of the cement 

producer, but it is also expected that 

NOX emissions will increase slightly 

over a typical campaign between annual 

maintenance stoppages due to normal 

‘‘wear and tear’’ of the system; and 

(6) SNCR efficiency and slippage— 

The ability of an SNCR system to reduce 

NOX emissions is not the same for all 

systems, especially for an existing pyro 

system that has been upgraded (due to 

potential lack of an optimum injection 

point) or a very large pyro system (due 

to lack of optimum mixing of ammonia 

and preheater gas). 

One industry commenter (75) states 

that although the removal efficiency of 

SNCR can theoretically be improved by 

increasing the quantity of ammonia 

injection, there is a practical limit to 

this approach. As ammonia injection 

rates increase, the potential formation of 

a secondary plume due to ‘‘ammonia 

slip’’ increases. In addition, sulfur in the 

raw materials results in SO2 and SO3 in 

the exhaust, which decreases the 

efficiency of ammonia injection and 

leads to operational issues such as 

solids accumulation and plugging 

downstream of the SNCR. As the 

industry commenter noted in the permit 

application for its proposed kiln, 

facilities with lower BACT emission 

limits are also those facilities with lower 

sulfur raw materials, notably plants 

located in Florida, thereby improving 

the efficiency of SNCR. Given the 

baseline NOX emissions expected at a 

new plant, industry commenter 75 

would need a control level of at least 70 

percent to meet the proposed limit of 

1.5 lb/ton. Industry commenter (75) is 

not confident that this can be done with 

SNCR. Therefore, the industry 

commenter recommends that the NOX

standard be established at 1.95 lb/ton, 

which reflects a level of control 

achievable with the use of SNCR by all 

facilities without introducing the 

negative effects associated with pushing 

for high control levels. 

One industry commenter (76) states 

that assuming a facility is already 

operating with best combustion 

practices (i.e., indirect fired fuel supply 

systems, low primary air burners, etc.) 

then the burnability of the raw mix has 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2ER09SE10.004</GPH>
55014 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 174 / Thursday, September 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

the greatest single impact on NOX

emissions. Statistically speaking, most 

preheater precalciner cement kiln plants 

worldwide emit an uncontrolled NOX

emission of 3.8 to 4.2 lb NOX/ton of 

clinker. With a 50 percent NOX

reduction rate from the application of 

SNCR technology, a controlled emission 

rate of 1.9 to 2.1 lb NOX/ton of clinker 

could be expected for most kilns. As 

such, a 1.95 lb NOX/t clinker limit for 

all new kiln applications seems 

achievable. The issues arise when 

people arbitrarily apply the 50 percent 

reduction potential of SNCR to lower 

baseline emission numbers. (i.e., at a 3.2 

lb NOX/ton of clinker uncontrolled 

emission, SNCR could reduce it to 1.6 

lb NOX/ton of clinker). While this might 

be true on an isolated case basis, it 

would be unwise to approach such a 

low level for a new NSPS limit for all 

new kilns because of the issue of 

burnability. In some cases it might be 

possible to reduce the baseline NOX

levels with integrated control systems, 

such as Multi-Stage Combustion (MSC) 

installed on low NOX calciner system; 

but here again, the practicality of 

sustaining stable, continuous operation 

while simultaneously reducing the 

baseline NOX by 10 to 30 percent is very 

site specific. Industry commenter 76 

believes that a controlled emission rate 

of 1.95 lb NOX/ton of clinker can be 

achieved by all new kiln applications 

providing SNCR is used as the principle 

measure to control NOX emissions, but 

excluding that portion of gases that may 

be extracted through a bypass system. 

One industry commenter (77) believes 

that under the worst-cast combinations 

of raw materials, fuels and cement 

specifications and with the application 

of SNCR technology, a controlled 

emission rate of 2.0 lbs of NOX per ton 

of cement clinker can be achieved by all 

new kiln applications. However, if the 

kiln must incorporate a bypass for 

alkalis, chlorides or sulfur, the NSPS 

limits must allow for increased NOX

emissions on a plant by plant basis due 

to the fact that bypass amounts can be 

anywhere from 5 percent to 100 percent 

in size. 

One industry commenter (78) states 

that very few kilns with alkali bypasses 

would have a chance of meeting the 

proposed limit long-term. One industry 

commenter (83) requested that EPA 

clarify whether the NOX limit applies 

only to a kiln’s main stack or both the 

main and bypass stacks. 

One industry commenter (73) believes 

that EPA failed to appropriately 

consider variables that affect 

uncontrolled NOX emissions from 

preheater/precalciner kilns employing 

SCC and LNB on an industry-wide 

basis. As a consequence, EPA relied 

upon a limited database that did not 

reflect these variables and then made 

assumptions reflecting an incomplete 

understanding of variability in 

uncontrolled NOX that result from them. 

Industry commenter (73) recommends 

that EPA revise its proposed baseline 

NOX emission standard from 1.5 to 2.0 

lb/ton of clinker, and allow for 

adjustments of the standard upward 

from this value when bypasses are used, 

unusually hard burning raw mixes are 

used, or specific clinker types (such as 

oil well clinker) that require non-typical 

burning methods is being produced. 

When bypasses, hard burning mixes 

and/or clinker specifications require 

non-typical operational parameters, an 

adjustment factor should be allowed 

and evaluated on a case-by-case basis. 

The fact that individual kilns may be 

able to achieve a NOX emission rate as 

proposed (or even lower rates) is not 

determinative of what is an appropriate 

standard for the NSPS. 

Industry commenter (73) states that 

fuel volatility plays a major role in NOX

emission control. The uncontrolled NOX

generated in the precalciner alone can 

vary by as much as 1.4 g/kg of clinker 

(2.8 lb/ton clinker) based on fuel 

volatility. Industry commenter (73) 

states that modern preheater/precalciner 

kilns fire approximately 55–65 percent 

of their fuel in the precalciner. The 

nitrogen content in the fuel is the main 

factor affecting fuel NOX formation. The 

fuel NOX produced in the precalciner is 

not directly proportional to the nitrogen 

content of the fuel. It also depends on 

the chemical form of the nitrogen in the 

fuel and the volatility of the fuel. 

Typically, fuel nitrogen in coals used by 

PH/PC kilns varies between 1.0 and 2.0 

percent. This difference can impact the 

uncontrolled NOX by as much as 1.5 lb/ 

ton of clinker. 

Industry commenter 73 states that a 

PH/PC kiln system uses hot gases from 

the kiln to both dry and heat the raw 

materials prior to calcination. The 

effectiveness of this system is related to 

the moisture content of the raw 

materials and their ability to absorb heat 

from the gases. If additional heat is 

required to dry or heat the raw 

materials, gases from a separate fuelfired furnace or the clinker cooler are 

ducted to the raw mill. As a result, the 

moisture content of the raw materials 

directly influences the NOX emission 

rates. High moisture materials require 

additional energy to dry the materials in 

the raw mill and/or preheater. This 

increased need for energy contributes to 

the amount of NOX emitted if the excess 

energy comes from burning additional 

fuel. Some plants may have up to 20– 

25 percent moisture content in their raw 

mix—which results in a 15 to 20 percent 

increase in the kiln’s specific heat 

consumption, as compared to a 

‘‘standard’’ raw mix that contains 

approximately 5 percent moisture. This 

additional energy need results in the 

combustion of more fuel which 

ultimately results in more uncontrolled 

NOX. 

On NOX emissions from alkali 

bypasses, commenter 73 states that 

because the gases within the bypass are 

not allowed to remain in the optimal 

SNCR temperature range, SNCR is not a 

feasible control option for these gases. 

The commenter shows (in graph form in 

their comments) that for a certain size 

kiln, bypassing 25 percent of its kiln 

gases will have an incremental increase 

of approximately 0.42 lb/ton of clinker 

in the controlled NOX emission rate. 

Industry commenter 73 states that the 

three major kiln suppliers require a 

cement company to provide detailed 

information on raw materials (including 

moisture content), fuels, and clinker 

quality specifications prior to preparing 

a quotation and specifying emission 

guarantees. Uncontrolled 30-day average 

NOX emissions can vary from less than 

1.6 to greater than 4.6 lb/ton of clinker. 

SNCR has been demonstrated to reduce 

NOX emissions from cement kilns; 

however, SNCR has not been used on 

cement kilns for an extended period of 

time. High removal efficiencies such as 

those stated in the preamble (i.e., 63 

percent at an ammonia-to-NOX ratio of 

1.0) may result in adverse product 

quality or environmental impacts that 

are undesirable. In addition, the use of 

SNCR on larger kilns (>2,000,000 ton/yr 

capacity) may not be as effective due to 

the larger calciner duct diameter and the 

inability of the ammonia-reagent to mix 

thoroughly with the combustion gases. 

Based on limited data, removal 

efficiencies of 25–50 percent appear to 

be achievable without these adverse 

impacts. Therefore, industry Commenter 

73 believes that since NSPS is 

applicable to all new or reconstructed 

kilns, a reasonable baseline NSPS limit 

taking into account typical operating 

conditions and limitations stated above 

is 2.0 lb/ton of clinker. However, when 

non-typical conditions exist (bypass, 

hard burning mixes, and specific 

clinkers that require non-typical 

burning methods), an adjustment 

upward from the baseline value is 

appropriate and should be made on a 

case-by-case basis. 

Industry Commenters (64, 73) stated 

that the proposed NOX limitations are 

substantially more stringent than the 

most stringent NOX limit that applies to 

cement plants in Europe, which 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 174 / Thursday, September 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 55015 

converts to approximately 2.5 lb/ton of 

clinker produced although EPA asserts 

that this should be considered the 

‘‘baseline level of control that would 

occur with no additional regulatory 

action.’’ The industry commenter states 

that there are several problems with that 

analysis: (1) It does not appear that this 

conclusion is based on a ‘‘statistically 

sound’’ analysis, as the statute requires; 

and (2) If the NSPS were set at 2.5 lbs 

of NOX per ton of clinker, then all 

affected facilities would have to meet 

the limitation continuously, rather than 

the ‘‘average’’ performance of all affected 

facilities being at or below 2.5 lb/ton. 

Therefore, it would appear from EPA’s 

rationale that setting an emission 

standard of 2.5 lb/ton would require 

some facilities, even if they have SCC 

and low-NOX burners, to implement 

additional NOX controls in order to 

comply continuously with that standard 

throughout the life of the facility. 

The industry commenter states that 

there may be substantial differences 

between the NOX emissions that can be 

achieved by new, greenfield kilns and 

what can be achieved by 

‘‘reconstructed,’’ brownfield kilns. NOX

emissions are a function of fuel type and 

of raw material type, as described above. 

Reconstructed cement plants usually 

will have little or no control over their 

raw materials and may have limited 

control over the fuel they can use. 

The industry commenter states that 

EPA also needs to address the 

achievability of NOX limitations at 

cement plants that have bypass stacks to 

control alkalinity because EPA has not 

presented any basis for concluding that 

SNCR is a demonstrated technology for 

meeting the proposed limits for facilities 

with bypass systems. 

Likewise, while EPA acknowledges 

that burnability may have a significant 

influence on NOX emissions, EPA has 

not explained how these differences are 

reflected in its analysis of the BDT and 

the proposed new NOX limits. Cement 

plants with hard-to-burn raw materials 

face much greater challenges in meeting 

a NOX limit and applying SNCR. 

Industry commenter (64) agrees with 

EPA that SCR has not been 

demonstrated on preheater/precalciner 

kilns and that there are substantial 

unresolved issues about the potential for 

use of SCR at such cement plants. 

Industry commenter (64) also notes that, 

in addition to the cost which EPA 

identified as a disadvantage of a low 

dust SCR system, there would be 

substantial adverse energy usage and 

GHG consequences of re-heating the flue 

gas for a low-dust SCR system. 

Industry commenter (64) also believes 

that EPA has not given adequate 

consideration to ammonia slip from the 

use of SCNR. EPA seems to 

acknowledge that it does not have data 

on how ammonia slip will contribute to 

condensable PM emissions, and what if 

anything could be done to mitigate that 

contribution. EPA has not conducted a 

sufficient technical analysis to support 

new NOX emission limits that would 

effectively require use of SNCR without 

addressing the ammonia slip issues. 

Ammonia slip may be a particular 

problem when SNCR is applied to 

particular designs, such as pyro systems 

that have been modified or that are 

particularly large. The inability of these 

systems to promote the reaction of 

ammonia with NOX also reduces 

potential control efficiency of SNCR on 

these systems. 

Industry commenter (64) believes that 

the best approach is for EPA not to 

amend the NSPS to include NOX limits. 

If EPA nevertheless insists on including 

NOX in the revised subpart F NSPS, 

then industry commenter (64) 

recommends that for preheater/ 

precalciner kilns (whether constructed 

at Greenfield or brownfield sites), a NOX

emission floor of 1.95 lb/ton of clinker 

be established as the NSPS limit. This 

limit would then be modified on a caseby-case basis to account for site-specific 

factors such as the presence of a bypass 

stack/duct or difficult to burn limestone 

or fuels, likely resulting in an emission 

limit in excess of the recommended 

floor. 

Response: The previous response 

addresses the industry commenters’ 

concerns regarding the appropriateness 

of the NOX emissions limit. Based on 

the data received prior to proposal as 

well as data submitted after proposal, 

we feel confident that a well designed 

preheater/precalciner kiln using low 

NOX process technology such as LNB 

and SCC will be able to achieve a NOX

emission level of 3 lb/ton of clinker or 

less and using a well designed and 

operated SNCR system will achieve 

NOX removal efficiencies of at least 50 

percent without excess ammonia slip. 

But should a case occur where NOX

emissions prior to application of SNCR 

are above 3.0 lb/ton clinker, we have set 

the limit sufficiently high that a facility 

could increase the NMR for SNCR to 

achieve removal efficiencies above 50 

percent without causing excessive 

ammonia slip. Referring to Figure 2 

above on NMR verses removal 

efficiency, we note that a NMR of 1 

results in a removal efficiency above 75 

percent, where a NRR of 1 equates to a 

point where excessive ammonia slip can 

occur. 

The industry commenters point to 

numerous factors that can influence 

NOX emissions, fuel volatility and type 

of fuel nitrogen being two factors 

mentioned. However, we note that 

facilities have a choice of fuels. If their 

current fuel creates a high NOX

situation, then they may need to modify 

their fuel choice. They again raise the 

issue of burnability but in the context of 

certain product types. Again we note 

that there are numerous facilities that 

achieve NOX levels well below 3.0 lb/ 

ton clinker located at various locations, 

some of which have ‘‘hard to burn’’ raw 

materials. The industry commenters 

provided no data to substantiate that the 

burnability issues associated with 

product types are any more severe that 

burnability issues associated with 

different raw materials. Given these 

different locations, we would surmise 

that they also use different coals and 

possible other fuels. Given the breadth 

of the data, we find it unlikely that we 

have not sufficiently covered all the 

variables that affect NOX emissions. 

And also given the operating margin we 

have applied for SNCR (50 percent 

reduction on average versus a potential 

reduction of 75 percent), we continue to 

believe that the 1.5 lb/ton clinker 

emission limit is achievable under any 

reasonable foreseeable conditions 

without resulting in excessive ammonia 

slip (and the attendant potential to 

produce PM2.5). Industry commenters 

note that a larger kiln may have 

problems with ammonia distribution 

and an attendant reduction in SNCR 

efficiency. However, they provided no 

data to substantiate that claim, and we 

note that some of the kilns achieving 

levels well below 3.0 lb/ton clinker are 

above 1 million tpy in size. For larger 

kilns, it should be possible to use a split 

exhaust dust if necessary to achieve the 

required ammonia distribution. 

Some industry comments expressed 

concern that sources will have to 

actually be able to reduce emissions to 

below the NOX limit in order to not 

exceed the limit. In proposing the NOX

limits, EPA took this into consideration 

when it set the NOX limit as a 30-day 

average as opposed for example to a 24- 

hr limit. Doing so accommodates 

occasional daily excursions and 

accounts for operational variability. 

EPA agrees with the industry 

commenters that kilns equipped with 

alkali bypasses cannot be expected to 

meet the NOX limit for the portion of the 

exhaust that goes to bypass. Bypass 

gases are quickly cooled and do not 

remain at a temperature long enough to 

be treated using an SNCR systems. EPA 

has revised the rule to clarify that for 

kilns with alkali bypasses, only the 

main kiln exhaust gases are subject to 

the NOX limit. Because all kilns do not 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2
55016 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 174 / Thursday, September 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

require an alkali bypass and the bypass 

gas stream is a small fraction of the total 

kiln exhaust gas flow, the emission of 

NOX from the bypass will be minimal. 

Comment: Several State and 

environmental advocacy group 

commenters (60, 68, 70, 71, 72) stated 

that the proposed limits for SO2 were 

not sufficiently stringent. State 

commenter (60) recommends deleting 

the 90 percent reduction option, 

revising the limit for SO2 to 0.5 lb/ton 

clinker on a 24-hr rolling average if the 

kiln is a PH or PH/PC kiln and adding 

a limit of 1.0 lb/ton clinker on a 24-hr 

rolling average if the kiln is a long wet 

or long dry kiln. State commenter (72) 

concurs on reducing the limit to 0.5 lb/ 

ton for PH/PC kilns. State commenter 

(60) states that for PH and PH/C kilns 

the limit should apply equally to 

projects at greenfield sites and to 

projects at brownfield sites. Industry 

commenter (60) cites kiln performance 

at brownfield sites that have involved 

new kilns and reconstructed or 

modified of existing kilns. 

Cement plants in Florida emit on the 

order of 0.10 lb SO2/ton clinker. 

Although these kilns use low-sulfur feed 

materials, all use coal and rely on the 

fuel SO2 control that is inherent in the 

PH and PH/C designs. The steps include 

reaction with alkali and incorporation 

into the clinker in the burning zone, dry 

scrubbing with finely divided lime in 

the calcination zone and moist 

limestone scrubbing in the raw mill. 

State commenters (60) and (72) cite the 

performance of the kilns used by EPA to 

establish the proposed limit. The key 

kiln (kiln 5 at TXI Midlothian, TX) upon 

which EPA based the proposed SO2

standard of 1.33 lb/ton has actually 

operated at 0.37 to 0.57 lb/ton. 

State commenters (60) and (72) state 

that raw materials in the Midlothian 

area are known to be high-sulfur and the 

TXI kiln has a wet scrubber to reduce 

(non-fuel) SO2 emissions. The limit for 

kiln 5 is now approximately 0.95 lb/ton 

following a production increase 

authorized by the Texas Commission on 

Environmental Quality (TCEQ). TXI 

Midlothian Kiln 5 and two other PH/C 

kilns (Kilns 1 and 2) operated by Holcim 

in the same city are controlled by wet 

scrubbers. All three have wet scrubbers 

yet there is a vast difference in 

performance between the TXI Kiln 5 

and the Holcim Kilns 1 and 2. The 

commenter presented data on the SO2

performance of the 3 scrubber 

controlled kilns. According to the 

commenter, the TXI Kiln 5 can 

consistently achieve SO2 emissions less 

than 0.5 lb/ton if required by a permit 

limit. The higher SO2 values for the 

Holcim kilns (>4 lb/ton) represent the 

first year of joint operation. Thereafter, 

Holcim Kilns 1 and 2 were operated at 

levels between 2 and 3 lb/ton. The 

commenter states that they can choose 

to run one to four pumps providing 

reductions in SO2 emissions ranging 

from 51 percent with a single pump in 

operation to 91 percent with four pumps 

in operation. 

State commenters (60) and (72) state 

that the Ash Grove Chanute PH/C kiln 

in Kansas achieves less than 0.30 lb 

SO2/ton despite high sulfur in the raw 

materials without even using a wet 

scrubber. State commenter (60) states 

that this performance is attained using 

important innovations (The F.L. Smidth 

DeSOx system and Envirocare 

Micromist Lime system) not yet 

assessed by EPA. Attachments provided 

as part of the comment describe these 

technologies. State commenter (60) 

states that without controls, the 

proposed Chanute kiln would emit SO2

at the high rate of 12 lb/ton from raw 

material sources alone (i.e., exclusive of 

fuel SO2). According to state commenter 

(60), using the described technology, 

actual emissions from the Ash Grove 

Chanute kiln are less than 0.25 lb SO2/ 

ton. 

According to State commenter (60), 

the Holcim Siggenthal PH kiln in 

Switzerland achieves approximately 

0.05 lb SO2/ton using the POLVITEC 

coke filter installed in the 1990’s. The 

POLVITEC system is used with various 

concurrent operational practices to 

control NH3 (from an SNCR system), 

SO2, PM and metals. Among several 

functions, the coke filter captures the 

non-fuel SO2 generated in the PH. The 

coke is subsequently crushed and then 

burned with fuel in the main kiln 

burner. The SO2 from the PH then 

behaves like fuel SO2 and is 

incorporated into the clinker. Further 

details are available in an attachment 

submitted with the comment. The State 

commenter also states that SO2

emissions would be significantly less 

than 0.10 lb/ton of clinker. According to 

the State commenter, the Siggenthal 

plant emits much less SO2 than the 

average of Holcim cement plants in 

Switzerland and clearly less than 0.10 lb 

SO2/ton. 

State commenters (60) and (72) state 

that the Holcim Untervaz plant in 

Switzerland achieves between 0.04 and 

0.21 lb SO2/ton using a wet scrubber 

despite, according to State commenter 

(72), the presence in the limestone of 

iron sulfide. Holcim initially installed a 

dry scrubber at the Untervaz plant in the 

late 1980’s. Recent data provided by the 

State commenter indicate significant 

reductions in SO2 emissions since 2002 

largely due to the replacement of the 

older dry scrubber with a more efficient 

and economic wet scrubber. 

According to State commenter (60), 

the areas where medium sulfur raw 

materials are present can implement 

programs similar to the Ash Grove 

installation without installing large wet 

scrubbers, dry scrubbers or coke filters. 

Finally selective mining of the available 

raw materials with respect to sulfur 

content is an important SO2 control 

strategy for any new project. In 

summary, State commenter (60) 

recommends an NSPS SO2 limit of 0.50 

lb/ton of clinker on a 24-hour basis for 

PH and PH/C kilns. State commenter 

(60) states that because long wet and 

long dry kilns use more energy to make 

a ton of clinker, a higher SO2 limit may 

be acceptable. State commenter (60) 

agrees with EPA’s assumption that new 

projects triggering the NSPS will result 

in a PH/C kiln. According to the State 

commenter, projects that might trigger a 

PSD review at a long wet or long dry 

kiln will probably incorporate emissions 

control measures to avoid PSD and a 

BACT determination. The measures to 

avoid PSD will also likely avoid the 

short-term emissions increases that 

would otherwise trigger the NSPS. With 

respect to the reconstruction provisions, 

the commenter states that it is not likely 

that a company will actually invest 50 

percent of the (undepreciated) value of 

an existing long kiln without taking the 

opportunity to make it much more 

energy efficient through conversion to a 

PH/C kiln. Nevertheless, the State 

commenter states that it is advisable to 

separate out the (unlikely) long kiln 

projects that trigger the NSPS without 

resulting in PH or PH/C kilns in order 

to avoid the unnecessary relaxation of 

the limits applicable to the much more 

likely PH and PH/C kilns. According to 

the State commenter, scrubbers are 

available for long kilns just as they are 

available for PH and PH/C kilns. Other 

suggested strategies cited by the 

commenter include (1) Near mid-kiln 

pressurized air injection; and (2) Chains 

near the entrance of the kiln that can 

improve contact between the incoming 

wet limestone and the SO2-laden 

exhaust gases containing both raw 

material and fuel sulfur. 

State commenter (60) states that good 

SO2 control will make it possible to 

employ more aggressive NOX control 

and that the control of NOX and SO2

will also minimize the formation of 

ozone and fine PM in the environment. 

State commenters (68, 70, 71) stated 

that State and local experts, who have 

had long experience with this industry, 

believe that the proposed NSPS limit for 

SO2 does not reflect what most plants 

are capable of achieving. Even taking 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 174 / Thursday, September 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 55017 

into account regional variability in the 

pyritic sulfur content of the raw 

materials, these State commenters find 

that most cement kilns already achieve 

lower SO2 emissions than the 1.33 lb/ 

ton of clinker proposed. 

State commenter (70) stated that after 

addressing raw materials in their most 

recent BACT review, SO2 limitations 

were 0.9 lb/ton of clinker (30-day 

average) and 1.6 lb/ton of clinker (24-hr 

average); considerably lower than the 

1.33 lb/ton of clinker (30 day average) 

proposed. 

Response: Most kilns have low SO2

emissions because of the widespread 

availability of raw materials with low to 

moderate sulfur levels and the inherent 

scrubbing effects of modern PH/PC kilns 

with in-line raw mills. In fact, these two 

reasons have been cited as BACT in 

several NSR reviews. Sulfur in the fuel 

is typically not a problem because the 

sulfur content is relatively low and the 

sulfur has ample opportunity to react 

with clinker and dust both in the kiln 

and raw mill before the exhaust gases 

are discharged to the atmosphere. The 

sulfur that usually results in higher SO2

emissions is due to pyritic sulfur 

contained in the raw materials, 

especially the limestone. Where kilns 

have high levels of pyritic sulfur in their 

raw feed, wet scrubbers may be 

necessary to meet the limit for SO2.

We note that in our analysis of the 

NESHAP, all new kilns will have to 

apply wet scrubbers to meet the HCl 

emissions limit. If this indeed occurs 

then costs of wet scrubbing to meet the 

SO2 will be negligible. Even in the 

absence of the NESHAP requirements, 

the application of a wet scrubber to a 

kiln that has high uncontrolled SO2

emissions is a cost effective approach to 

reducing SO2 emissions. At higher 

uncontrolled emission levels, wet 

scrubbers achieve emission reductions 

of 90 to 95 percent. However, at lower 

uncontrolled SO2 levels, removal 

efficiency declines resulting in an 

increase in cost-effectiveness. But at this 

point other cost-effective control 

techniques, such as lime injection, are 

available. Based on these facts, we have 

lowered the SO2 emission limit in this 

final rule to 0.4 lb/ton clinker or a 90 

percent reduction in SO2 emissions, 

which addresses the comments that the 

proposed SO2 limit was too high. 

Comment: Several industry 

commenters (64, 74, 75) expressed 

concerns that the proposed limits for 

SO2 are too stringent. One industry 

commenter (64) recommends that EPA 

not include SO2 limitations because 

EPA recognizes that there are only ‘‘a 

few locations’’ where the raw materials 

contain high levels of sulfur, and in 

those few situations State regulations 

already impose SO2 emission 

limitations that require the type of 

technology EPA proposes as the basis 

for the proposed SO2 limitations. The 

industry commenter states that EPA 

assumes that one out of five new kilns 

will be sited where the raw materials are 

high in sulfur, requiring an SO2

scrubber or a lime injection system 

when in fact at existing plants there 

have only been a handful of situations 

where high-sulfur materials have been 

determined to justify wet scrubbers. 

According to the industry commenter, 

of 28 BACT determinations for SO2 for 

cement kilns since 1998 reported in the 

RACT/BACT/LAER Clearinghouse 

(RBLC), only 5 were based on wet 

scrubbers, and 1 specified a dry 

scrubber or hydrated lime injection 

while the majority required no add-on 

controls because of low-sulfur raw 

materials or reliance on the inherent 

process absorption of SO2. The industry 

commenter states that the preamble 

information that the fact that only 5 

kilns out of 178 kilns currently use a 

wet scrubber indicates that uncontrolled 

SO2 emissions are rarely high enough to 

justify add-on controls. 

The industry commenter states that 

EPA acknowledges in the preamble that 

EPA is not obligated to promulgate 

NSPS for every pollutant emitted by 

sources in the source category. 

According to the industry commenter, 

the fact that very few cement kilns have 

been required to employ add-on 

controls for SO2 is evidence that there 

are few instances where cement kilns 

are contributing to SO2 NAAQS 

nonattainment, so there is no need for 

an SO2 NSPS to address ambient air 

quality problems. 

Industry commenter (64) states that 

allowing State and site-specific 

requirements to address SO2 at plants 

with high-sulfur raw materials would 

address weaknesses in EPA’s proposed 

SO2 standards. For example, although 

EPA assumes that the proposed SO2

standards will require add-on controls 

only at facilities with high-sulfur raw 

materials, EPA has proposed a limit of 

1.33 lb of SO2 per ton of clinker, 

whereas the average emission rate from 

just 18 data points from tests at facilities 

with moderate levels of sulfur in raw 

materials was 1.3 lb/ton. EPA’s 

assumption that facilities with low and 

moderate levels of sulfur in raw 

materials would not have to install 

controls to meet the proposed SO2

standards is not justified by those data. 

Requiring facilities with moderate 

uncontrolled SO2 emission levels to use 

add-on controls for SO2 would result in 

excessively high costs per ton of SO2

removed, as EPA has recognized. Also, 

the energy penalty associated with wet 

scrubbers could more appropriately be 

evaluated on a case-by-case basis, where 

it can be weighed against factors such as 

the level of uncontrolled SO2 emissions 

at the particular plant and the need for 

further SO2 reductions at that location 

for attainment and maintenance of SO2

ambient air quality standards. 

Industry commenter (64) states that 

because there is so little experience with 

add-on SO2 controls, EPA has relatively 

little data about the performance of 

those controls, and is proposing NSPS 

for SO2 based solely on a recent BACT 

determination. The few kilns that will 

be subject to the proposed subpart F 

NSPS can be addressed through 

requirements for SO2 control derived 

through the RACT process or through 

NSR. 

Industry commenter (64) states that if 

EPA persists in setting SO2 standards, 

there are a number of problems with the 

standards as proposed. For example, the 

percentage reduction alternative does 

not indicate that it is to be calculated on 

a 30-day basis or how the percentage 

reduction is to be calculated. The 

industry commenter infers from the 

monitoring provisions that EPA intends 

for a source to compare the SO2

concentration at the inlet to the scrubber 

to the SO2 concentration at the outlet 

from the scrubber, but this does not 

reflect the substantial reduction in SO2

emissions that occurs from contact with 

alkaline materials in the process. The 

industry commenter states that cement 

plants with moderate uncontrolled SO2

emissions may have to install controls 

and the 90 percent reduction standard 

likely would be unachievable when 

applied to the relatively low inlet 

concentrations to the control device. 

The industry commenter states that it is 

even less clear how EPA would apply 

the percentage reduction standard to 

cement plants that choose to use lime 

injection. 

Industry commenter (64) states that 

the proposed regulations lack any 

discussion of whether the SO2

limitations apply during periods of 

startup, shutdown, and malfunction. 

Since substantial reduction of SO2

occurs naturally in the cement-making 

process because of the alkaline nature of 

the raw feed, industry commenter (64) 

states it would be reasonable to provide 

an exemption so that a wet scrubber or 

a lime injection system need not be 

operating, or operating at maximum 

efficiency, during periods of startup, 

shutdown, or malfunction. The industry 

commenter states that several recent 

BACT determinations involving 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2
55018 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 174 / Thursday, September 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

scrubbers include special provisions for 

startup, shutdown, or malfunction. 

Industry commenter (64) states that 

the proposed limits for SO2 appear 

inconsistent with their stated 

technology basis, when compared to 

actual experience and to BACT 

determinations. According to the 

commenter, the majority of BACT 

determinations in the past 10 years that 

rely only on inherent SO2 reduction 

established limits higher than 1.33 lb/ 

ton of clinker, except for plants in 

Florida, where the BACT 

determinations often recognized that 

raw materials are low in sulfur. 

According to the industry commenter, 

NSPS should be based on demonstrated 

technology that can be applied to the 

sector as a whole, rather than based on 

raw materials that are available only in 

a limited area of the country. These 

BACT determinations also undermine 

EPA’s stated assumption that 1.3 lb/ton 

represents a ‘‘moderate uncontrolled 

SO2 emission rate’’ and 13 lb/ton would 

be ‘‘a high uncontrolled SO2 emission 

level,’’ since almost all BACT 

determinations for plants other than 

those in Florida imposed SO2 emission 

limits based on no add-on controls 

higher than 1.3 lb/ton, and a number 

were higher than 13 lb/ton. 

Industry commenter (64) states that if 

EPA insists on promulgating NSPS for 

SO2, it is essential that the standards 

retain the proposed option of meeting 

either a pounds per ton of clinker or a 

percentage reduction limit; but both 

limits should be higher than proposed. 

According to the commenter, the three 

wet scrubbers operated by Holcim were 

not designed to achieve 90 percent 

reduction, and the one BACT 

determination that contains an 

estimated percentage reduction in the 

RBLC uses 85 percent reduction. 

Importantly, cement plants in arid 

venues may not have the option to use 

a wet scrubber because of water 

restrictions. Especially if EPA persists in 

applying the revised NSPS to existing, 

modified or reconstructed facilities, wet 

scrubbers cannot be considered 

demonstrated available technology for 

all facilities in the source category. EPA 

does not, and industry commenter (64) 

believes EPA cannot, support a 90 

percent reduction requirement using dry 

scrubbers or lime injection. According 

to the industry commenter, to qualify as 

a limit based on demonstrated 

technology, the limit should be 

achievable at all types of plants, raw 

materials, and locations, and should be 

based on actual performance data rather 

than what is ‘‘reportedly’’ achievable or 

anticipated. 

Industry commenter (64) states that 

1.33 lb/ton does not represent even the 

technology basis—alkaline wet scrubber 

on high-sulfur raw materials—that EPA 

has identified. The industry commenter 

states that EPA describes one kiln where 

uncontrolled SO2 emissions are ‘‘about 

13 lb/ton of clinker.’’ Achieving 90 

percent reduction of that uncontrolled 

emission rate would just meet the 

proposed mass limit, with no margin of 

compliance. And in any event, at least 

four of the BACT determinations for 

cement kilns in the past 10 years 

reported in the RBLC reflect 

uncontrolled SO2 emission rates over 

20.0 lb/ton. The proposed limit of 1.33 

lb/ton thus does not reflect a limit that 

has been demonstrated as achievable 

applying wet scrubber technology to the 

range of sulfur contents present in 

cement plant raw materials. 

One industry commenter (74) states 

that the proposed SO2 limit may be 

achievable in most cases but different 

plants will require different solutions to 

achieve that limit. Due to the large 

variations in the elemental and pyritic 

sulfur from plant to plant, industry 

commenter (74) does not believe that it 

is fair to have a set SO2 limit for all 

plants. Each plant’s limit should be 

considered on a case-by-case basis 

considering the elemental or pyritic 

sulfur level in the raw materials and a 

reasonable target for the cost per short 

ton of removal to determine the controls 

that are used. In some cases this will 

give a limit lower than 1.33 lb/ton 

clinker and in other cases it will give a 

higher limit. 

One industry commenter (75) states 

that: (1) Given the range of pyritic sulfur 

in our raw material, we would need to 

have a wet scrubber to meet this limit; 

(2) Lime injection is an effective control 

with less secondary impacts on water 

supply and energy use; and (3) A limit 

of 4 lb/ton of clinker should be adopted. 

This would allow greater use of lime 

injection, providing significant SO2

reductions while avoiding secondary 

adverse environmental impacts and 

energy use of wet scrubbing. The 

industry commenter does not believe 

that the proposed limit adequately 

reflects the inherent variability of kiln 

emission rates, which are dictated by 

the characteristics of the raw feed to a 

kiln. Industry commenter (75)’s kiln 

feed is locally mined raw materials used 

for over 100 years, with plans to 

continue the present mining operation 

for many years in the future. The 

standard, as proposed, would impose 

economic and environmental impacts 

beyond those considered by EPA. 

Response: EPA disagrees with the 

industry commenter that the Agency is 

under no obligation to set standards for 

SO2 as evidenced by the lack of any SO2

limits previously or the infrequent need 

for scrubbers (5 out of 20 new kilns 

expected to need scrubbers). The 

absence of SO2 limits in the NSPS 

previously was due to the lack of a 

demonstrated add-on control technology 

applied to cement kilns during EPA’s 

last review of the NSPS in 1988. Since 

then, wet scrubbers have been installed 

on no less than five kilns and operate 

continuously. Other scrubbers, dry and 

wet, are installed on other kilns and 

operate as needed. In reference to the 

industry commenters’ observations 

regarding permitted kilns in the RBLC 

database, EPA notes that three kilns for 

which scrubbers are reported as an addon control device have permit limits far 

in excess of the NSPS SO2 limits 

indicating a clear need for national 

standards for SO2 emissions from 

cement kilns. Furthermore, controlling 

SO2 emissions will control emissions of 

condensable fine particulate matter, 

leading to very significant 

environmental benefits. See Table 13 in 

Section VI. Control is consequently in 

keeping with the ultimate goals of the 

Act in general and section 111 in 

particular: protecting and enhancing the 

Nation’s air quality. See Asarco v. EPA, 

578 F. 2d at 327. 

In response to the industry 

commenters’ argument that kilns 

utilizing raw materials with moderate 

sulfur levels may have to install controls 

to comply with the SO2 limit, EPA 

agrees that in a few instances those kilns 

may need to reduce their SO2 emissions. 

However, these kilns only need 

moderate reductions in SO2 and have 

options other than adding wet scrubbers 

(assuming no wet scrubbers are needed 

to meet the NESHAP HCl standard). In 

addition to the inherent scrubbing that 

occurs with the raw mill, cement plants 

can and do also practice careful 

selection of their raw materials to avoid 

high sulfur materials. There are cement 

plants that already limit the sulfur in 

their raw materials through their mining 

practices and through screening the raw 

materials they purchase. Owners and 

operators also reduce SO2 emissions by 

not burning sulfur-containing coal and 

by burning natural gas during kiln 

preheating, shutdown and during other 

maintenance periods when the kiln and/ 

or raw mill are down. In those instances 

when some additional reduction is 

necessary, a less expensive alternative 

to wet scrubbing is lime injection. Lime 

injection can achieve up to 70 percent 

reduction and may only be necessary 

during periods of higher SO2 emissions, 

for example when the raw mill is off. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 174 / Thursday, September 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 55019 

In response to the industry 

commenter’s questions of how the 90 

percent reduction is to be determined, 

they are correct that the reduction is to 

be measured across the scrubber (in 

other words, measurements must be 

made to measure the SO2 entering the 

scrubber and the SO2 exiting the 

scrubber). Like the SO2 standard, the 

rule states explicitly that the 90 percent 

reduction is to be based on a 30-day 

average. In the case of lime injection, 

EPA believes this add-on control will 

only be used in situations requiring a 

modest reduction in SO2 emissions and 

these kilns will be able to meet the SO2

emissions limit. 

EPA disagrees with the industry 

commenter’s suggestion that EPA 

provide some allowance for periods of 

startup, shutdown or malfunction as 

SO2 emissions are affected by whether 

the raw mill is operating or not. The 

industry commenter requested that EPA 

allow that during these periods, 

scrubbers or lime injection systems need 

not operate or at least need not operate 

at maximum efficiency. The industry 

commenter provided no data to indicate 

that, given the long averaging periods, a 

facility’s raw mill up time versus down 

time is significantly affected by periods 

of startup and shutdown. In fact, the 

reason for the 30 day averaging period 

was specifically to allow a long enough 

averaging period that the higher 

emissions that occur for SO2 when the 

raw mill is down could be averages with 

long periods when the raw mill is 

operating. 

EPA disagrees with the industry 

commenter’s statement that the 

proposed limits for SO2 appear 

inconsistent with their stated 

technology bases, when compared to 

actual experience and to BACT 

determinations. The standard was based 

on the performance of a scrubberequipped kiln that processed high sulfur 

limestone. The alternative to the SO2

emission limit is to demonstrate a 90 

percent removal efficiency across the 

scrubber. EPA could not ignore the 

performance of this control technology, 

i.e., wet scrubbers, which are currently 

used full time at 5 cement plants. In 

reviewing the RBLC database, it is 

obvious that, in some cases, permit 

limits are not as stringent as they could 

be. One entry in the RBLC database even 

stated that the permit limit did not 

account for the reduction that would be 

achieved by the scrubber installed to 

control SO2. 

We note that industry commenters 

have stated that some new facilities may 

be located in areas where there is not 

sufficient water to operate a wet 

scrubber. However, we are not 

mandating the use of wet scrubber 

technology in these regulations, and we 

believe that sufficient alternative 

controls exist for SO2 controls that this 

issue would not preclude a facility from 

meeting these emissions limits. As 

previously noted, these alternative 

technologies include dry lime injection, 

injection of sodium compounds, 

selective mining, injection of a finely 

divided lime slurry, use of lower sulfur 

fuels, and careful screening of 

purchased raw materials. Regarding the 

industry commenter’s statements that 

the emission limit and alternative 

percent reduction should be less 

stringent, EPA notes that the kiln upon 

which the emission limit was based 

actually operates at levels under 0.6 lb/ 

ton clinker based on information 

supplied by another commenter (60). 

The same industry commenter states 

that the limit for the kiln was reduced 

in 2007 from 1.33 to 0.95 lb/ton 

following a production increase 

authorized by the Texas Commission on 

Environmental Quality. To support its 

statement that a 90 percent removal 

efficiency is too high, the industry 

commenter noted that three Holnam 

(now Holcim) plants use scrubbers that 

are designed to operate at less than 90 

percent efficiency. Our data for the 

scrubbers at the Texas plant shows that 

the removal efficiency depends on the 

number of pumps in operation, with 91 

percent efficiency when all four pumps 

are operating. The scrubbers at the 

Holnam facility in Michigan have not 

operated continuously due to various 

issues encountered. We also note that 

SO2 scrubbers in the utility industry 

have consistently achieved 90 percent 

SO2 since the 1970s. We see no 

technical reason that the same removal 

levels are not achievable in the cement 

industry. Therefore, where add-on 

controls are necessary to comply, 

scrubbers designed to achieve at least a 

90 percent efficiency or greater are 

expected to be able to meet the 90 

percent efficiency alternative; cement 

plants may be able to meet the emission 

limit by utilizing scrubbers with less 

than 90 percent efficiency or with lime 

injection if the uncontrolled SO2 levels 

are at moderate levels (assuming that 

wet scrubbers are not needed to comply 

with other requirements, such as the 

HCl standard in the NESHAP). 

EPA does not agree with the industry 

commenter that the limit of 1.33 lb/ton 

based on uncontrolled SO2 emissions of 

13 lb/ton of clinker and a 90 percent 

reduction leaves no margin for 

compliance. First, there are scrubbers 

with efficiencies higher than 90 percent 

removal efficiency, which, even if they 

can’t meet the 1.33 (or the 0.4) lb/ton 

clinker emission limit, will be able to 

consistently meet 90 percent removal. 

Secondly, based on an industry 

commenter, the SO2 emissions from a 

PH/PC kiln are not likely to be as high 

as 13 lb/ton of clinker due to the 

scrubbing effects of the raw mill, but 

more in the range of 4–5 lb/ton of 

clinker (75). This is supported by data 

from a 2001 survey of cement plants 

showing that average SO2 emissions 

from PH kilns was 1.39 lb/ton of clinker 

(maximum of 6.54) and from PC kilns 

was 1.92 lb/ton of clinker (maximum of 

8.83). Based on these data, use of a wet 

scrubber should be able to meet the 

proposed SO2 limit of 1.33 and the final 

limit of 0.4 lb/ton clinker. In some 

cases, a less expensive control such as 

lime injection may be adequate. 

Regarding the industry commenters 

reference to determinations reported in 

the RBLC that reflect uncontrolled SO2

emission rates over 20.0 lb/ton, these 

rates (if they are accurate) are associated 

with old wet kilns that do not have 

inline raw mills. In the case of one the 

two Michigan kilns, the quarries raw 

materials are known to have extremely 

high sulfur contents that are not seen at 

other locations. However, even if this 

location decided to build a new kiln, or 

to modify or reconstruct an existing 

kiln, they would still have the option to 

meet the 90 percent removal option. 

In response to the industry 

commenter that states it is not fair to 

have a set SO2 limit for all plants and 

that each plant’s limit should be 

considered on a case-by-case basis, EPA 

points out that the standards gives 

plants an alternative to the SO2 limit 

recognizing, just as the industry 

commenter states, that some plants may 

not be able to meet the SO2 limit due to 

the presence of pyritic sulfur in its 

limestone. Where plants cannot meet 

the SO2 limit, they have the option of 

complying with the alternative limit of 

showing a 90 percent reduction in SO2

emissions. 

EPA disagrees with one industry 

commenter’s suggestion of setting the 

SO2 limit at 4 lb/ton clinker in order to 

allow greater use of lime injection 

systems. Given that there are costeffective controls to achieve much lower 

levels, a limit of 4 lb/ton clinker simply 

cannot be considered BDT. We also note 

that EPA does not specify the type of 

control that must be used to meet the 

limit, or, for that matter, that any 

specific control has to be used. Plant 

owners may use any add-on control, 

such as lime injection if a control is 

necessary, or process control, such as 

selective mining, or a combination of 

add-on and process controls to meet the 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2
55020 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 174 / Thursday, September 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

limit. The industry commenter states 

that it mined its materials locally for 

over 100 years and plans to continue to 

do so. However, almost all cement 

plants in the country could make a 

similar statement, and it has no 

relevance and does not change the facts 

that cost-effective SO2 controls are 

available to achieve SO2 emission levels 

of 0.4 lb/ton clinker. 

Comment: One industry commenter 

(64) supports EPA’s decision not to set 

separate limits for condensable PM, 

PM2.5, or PM10 stating that these 

fractions of PM will be adequately 

controlled by facilities utilizing control 

equipment sufficient to meet the 

proposed limits for PM. The industry 

commenter also concurs that EPA does 

not have adequate data on the emissions 

or the demonstrated capability of 

various control technologies to meet any 

specified level of these fractions of PM. 

The industry commenter states that they 

are not aware of any demonstrated or 

emerging technology that would provide 

better control of PM2.5, PM10, or 

condensable PM emissions specifically. 

Response: The PM limits address 

filterable PM, including PM2.5 and PM10, 

but not condensable PM. EPA does not 

currently have sufficient information on 

emissions of condensable PM from 

cement kilns to set emission limits and 

the limited information we do have is 

highly uncertain. We also believe that 

these emissions will be controlled via 

controls on HCl in the NESHAP and SO2

in the NSPS. EPA has recently 

promulgated a new test method for 

condensable PM (Method 202) which 

will allow for more reliable assessments 

of condensable PM. We anticipate that 

better data will be available at the time 

of the next review of the NSPS. 

Comment: Several industry 

commenters (64, 73, 74, 83) expressed 

concerns over the proposed NSPS for 

PM of 0.086 lb/ton of clinker. Industry 

commenter (64) states that the proposed 

limit of 0.086 lb/ton of clinker is not 

supported by the data available from 

new plants with the identified 

technology: It does not allow for 

deterioration of performance over time, 

and it does not allow for an adequate 

margin of compliance. Industry 

commenters believe that EPA used 

insufficient data to develop the standard 

and failed to consider situations where 

gases from kilns, clinker coolers, and 

coal mills are combined for energy 

recovery purposes. Industry commenter 

(73) has spoken to major suppliers of 

cement kiln systems and believes that 

baghouse technology with membrane 

bags is capable of achieving a 

continuous outlet grain loading rate of 

0.010 gr/dscf. Applying EPA’s factors 

for standardized volumetric flow and 

feed-to-clinker ratio (54,000 dscf/ton of 

feed and 1.65 tons feed/ton clinker), an 

appropriate NSPS PM standard would 

be 0.127 lb/ton of clinker for cement 

kilns and clinker coolers. Industry 

commenter (73) and (74) also believe 

that when clinker cooler and kiln gases 

are combined, the standard for these 

systems should be additive. 

The industry commenters stated that 

the standards must be set at a level that 

recognizes that there will be some 

deterioration in performance over time. 

According to the industry commenters, 

in most cases, emission rates achieved 

immediately after installation of 

pollution control equipment will not be 

representative of the performance over 

the life of the source, as the bags and the 

baghouse itself age and experience 

normal wear, even with proper 

operation and maintenance. Industry 

commenter (73) agrees with EPA that 

‘‘fabric filters control generally to the 

same concentration irrespective of the 

PM loading to the filter inlet, though 

some variability in PM emissions from 

fabric filters does occur due to seepage 

and leakage.’’ It is the seepage and 

leakage that becomes an issue as 

baghouses age. Industry commenter (64) 

states that the PM stack testing data 

used by EPA in their analyses were 

obtained from kiln-baghouse systems 

that had operated for less than 5 years 

and, therefore, EPA has not 

demonstrated that they have proposed a 

limit that new sources can sustain long 

term. EPA has recognized this in 

numerous other rulemakings, including 

in setting emission standards for 

hazardous air pollutants at new cement 

kilns burning hazardous waste where 

they amended the PM limits for new 

sources in that NESHAP based on data 

demonstrating that the original PM 

standard was ‘‘overly stringent in that it 

does not fully reflect the variability of 

the best performing source over time.’’ 

Response: As noted in the previous 

comments on the NESHAP PM limit, we 

have reevaluated the performance of PM 

controls for this source category and 

have determined that the appropriate 

NESHAP new source standard is 0.1 lb/ 

ton clinker based on a 30 day rolling 

average. Because all new sources will be 

required to meet this limit, we see no 

reason to set a different limit for the 

NSPS. We note the industry 

commenter’s performance concerns. 

However, in setting the NESHAP limit 

we reviewed test data from a number of 

facilities. Some facilities had average 

emissions as low as 0.007 lb/ton clinker 

based on short term testing, and the 

average of the best performing five 

facilities was 0.019 lb/ton (based on 

multiple short term testing). Based on 

this information, we believe that if the 

PM control is properly designed and 

maintained, PM levels well below the 

level we proposed, or the levels 

suggested by the commenter are 

possible. In addition, the data discussed 

were short term tests. Compliance will 

be based on a 30-day rolling average, 

which allows facilities to average out 

potential short term transients. 

VI. Summary of Cost, Environmental, 

Energy, and Economic Impacts 

A. What are the impacts of the final 

amendments to subpart LLL and subpart 

F? 

We are presenting a combined 

discussion of the estimates of the 

impacts for these final amendments to 

40 CFR part 60, subpart F and 40 CFR 

part 63, subpart F. The cost, 

environmental, and economic impacts 

presented in this section are expressed 

as incremental differences between the 

impacts of a Portland cement plant 

complying with the amendments to 40 

CFR 63 subpart LLL 40 CFR part 60 

subpart F and the baseline, i.e., the 

standards before these amendments. 

The impacts are presented for the year 

2013, which will be the year that all 

existing kilns will have to be in 

compliance, and also the year that will 

represent approximately 5 years of new 

kiln construction subject to the 

amended NSPS emissions limits. The 

analyses and the documents referenced 

below can be found in Docket ID Nos. 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2007–0877 and EPA– 

HQ–OAR–2002–0051. 

1. What are the affected sources? 

We expect that by 2013, the year 

when all existing sources will be 

required to come into compliance, there 

will be 100 Portland cement 

manufacturing facilities located in the 

U.S. and Puerto Rico that we expect to 

be affected by these final amendments. 

Of these facilities, approximately 5 are 

complete new greenfield facilities. 

These facilities will operate 158 cement 

kilns and associated clinker coolers. We 

have no estimate of the number of raw 

material dryers that are separate from 

the kilns. 

Based on capacity expansion data 

provided by the Portland Cement 

Association, we anticipate that by 2013 

there will be 16 kilns and their 

associated clinker coolers subject to 

NESHAP new source emission limits for 

mercury, HCl, and THC, and seven kilns 

and clinker coolers subject to the 

amended NSPS for NOX and SO2. Some 

of these new kilns will be built at 

existing facilities and some at new 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 174 / Thursday, September 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 55021 

45See Industrial Sector Integrated Solutions 

Model and Review of ISIS Documentation Packages 

dated August, 2010. 

greenfield facilities. The location of the 

kiln (greenfield or currently existing 

facility) has no bearing on our estimated 

cost and environmental impacts (since 

there are no longer separate standards 

for so-called greenfield new sources). 

As previously noted there are two 

kilns with unusually high mercury 

emissions that we believe cannot meet 

the mercury emissions limit without 

using more than one control technique. 

In developing the cost impacts, we 

assume that they would require 

multiple mercury controls. The only 

mercury controls available for which we 

have detailed cost data are ACI and wet 

scrubbers, so we costed both controls to 

develop what we consider to be a 

reasonable cost estimate for these 

facilities. This does not imply that we 

believe these facilities will specifically 

use a combination of a wet scrubber and 

ACI to meet the mercury limit, but we 

do believe the combination of these 

control results in a reasonable estimate 

of cost. 

2. How are the impacts for this proposal 

evaluated? 

For these final Portland Cement 

NESHAP amendments, EPA utilized 

three models to evaluate the impacts of 

the regulation on the industry and the 

economy. Typically in a regulatory 

analysis, EPA determines the regulatory 

options suitable to meet statutory 

obligations under the CAA. Based on 

the stringency of those options, EPA 

then determines the control 

technologies and monitoring 

requirements that sources might 

rationally select to comply with the 

regulation. This analysis is documented 

in an Engineering Analysis. The 

selected control technologies and 

monitoring requirements are then 

evaluated in a cost model to determine 

the total annualized control costs. The 

annualized control costs serve as inputs 

to an Economic Impact Analysis model 

that evaluates the impacts of those costs 

on the industry and society as a whole. 

The Economic Impact Analysis model 

uses a single-period static partialequilibrium model to compare a prepolicy cement market baseline with 

expected post-policy outcomes in 

cement markets. This model was used 

in previous EPA analyses of the 

Portland cement industry (EPA, 1998; 

EPA, 1999b). The benchmark time 

horizon for the analysis is assumed to be 

short and producers have some 

constraints on their flexibility to adjust 

factors of production. This time horizon 

allows us to capture important 

transitory impacts of the program on 

existing producers. The model uses 

traditional engineering costs analysis as 

‘‘exogenous’’ inputs (i.e., determined 

outside of the economic model) and 

computes the associated economic 

impacts of the final regulation. 

For the Portland Cement NESHAP, 

EPA also utilized the Industrial Sector 

Integrated Solutions (ISIS) model which 

conducts both the engineering cost 

analysis and the economic analysis in a 

single modeling system. The ISIS model 

is a dynamic and integrated model that 

simulates potential decisions made in 

the cement industry to meet an 

environmental policy under a regulatory 

scenario. ISIS simultaneously estimates 

(1) optimal industry operation to meet 

the demand and emission reduction 

requirements, (2) the suite of control 

technologies needed to meet the 

emission limit, (3) the engineering cost 

of controls, and (4) economic impacts of 

demand response of the policy, in an 

iterative loop until the system achieves 

the optimal solution. The peer review of 

the ISIS model can be found in the 

docket.45 This model was revised based 

on peer review comments and 

comments on the proposed rule and was 

used to develop cost and economic 

impacts of the final rule. 

In a Technical Memo to the docket, 

we provide a comparison of these 

models to provide an evaluation of how 

the differences between the models may 

impact the resulting estimates of the 

impacts of the regulation. For example, 

the Engineering Analysis and Economic 

Impact Analysis evaluate a snapshot of 

implementation of the final rule in a 

given year (i.e., 2013, based on 2005 

dollars) while ISIS evaluates impacts of 

compliance dynamically over time (i.e., 

2005–2013). In general, given the 

optimization nature of ISIS, ISIS 

accounts for more flexibility when 

estimating the impacts of the regulation. 

For example, when optimizing to meet 

an emission limit, ISIS allows for the 

addition of new kilns, as well as kiln 

retirements, replacements, expansions 

and the installation of controls. In the 

Engineering Analysis the existing kiln 

population is assumed to be constant 

even though normal kiln retirements 

occur. Based on these differences, the 

total control costs from the Engineering 

Analysis are higher than the total 

control cost estimated in ISIS. 

We have not yet developed ISIS 

modules to calculate non-air 

environmental impacts and energy 

impacts. Therefore, these sections only 

contain impacts calculated by the 

traditional engineering methods. 

In addition, we have not yet 

developed ISIS modules to calculate 

non-air environmental impacts and 

energy impacts. Therefore, these 

sections only contain impacts calculated 

by the traditional engineering methods. 

3. What are the air quality impacts? 

For the Portland Cement NESHAP 

and NSPS, we estimated the emission 

reductions that will occur due to the 

implementation of the final emission 

limits. EPA estimated emission 

reductions based on both the control 

technologies selected by the engineering 

analysis and the ISIS model. These 

emission reductions are based on the 

estimated kiln population in 2013. 

Under the final limit for mercury, we 

have estimated that the emissions 

reductions will be 14,700 lb/yr for kilns 

subject to the exiting source emissions 

limits. For kilns subject to new source 

emissions limits, the emissions 

reductions will be 1,900 lb/year in 2013. 

Under the final limits for THC, we 

have estimated that the emissions 

reductions will be 9,800 tpy for kilns 

subject to existing source limits, which 

represents an organic HAP reduction of 

3,400 tpy. For kilns subject to new 

source limits, THC emissions will be 

reduced by 720 tpy. This represents an 

organic HAP reduction of 250 tpy. 

Under the final limit for HCl, we have 

estimated that emissions will be 

reduced by 4,700 tpy for kilns subject to 

exiting source limits and 1,100 tpy for 

kiln subject to new source limits. 

The final emission limits for PM 

represent a lowering of the PM limit 

from 0.5 lb/ton of clinker to .04 lb/ton 

of clinker for existing kilns and for new 

kilns, a lowering to 0.01 lb/ton of 

clinker. These new limits are based on 

30-day rolling averages measured with a 

CEM. We have estimated that PM 

emissions will be reduced by 9,500 tpy 

for kilns subject to the existing source 

limits and 2,000 tpy for kilns subject to 

the new source limit. These estimates 

include only direct PM reductions, and 

do not include secondary PM reductions 

that occur as a result of concurrent 

control of SO2 discussed below. The PM 

emission reductions that occur as a 

result of the final NSPS limits are 

included in the totals shown above 

since the final NSPS PM limit is equal 

to the new source NESHAP limit. 

The control strategies likely adopted 

to meet the final standards for mercury, 

THC and HCl will also result in 

concurrent control of SO2 emissions. 

For kilns that use an RTO to comply 

with the THC emissions limit, it is 

necessary to install an alkaline scrubber 

upstream of the RTO to control acid gas 

and to provide additional control of PM 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2
55022 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 174 / Thursday, September 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

46Summary of Responses to Requests for Water 

Impacts Information. August 5, 2010. 

and to avoid plugging and fouling of the 

RTO. Scrubbers will also be used to 

control HCl and mercury emissions. 

Reductions in SO2 emissions associated 

with controls for mercury, THC and HCl 

are estimated at 230 tpy, 11,200 tpy, and 

98,400 tpy, respectively, so that total 

reduction in SO2 emissions from 

existing kilns will be an estimated 

95,500 tpy. The SO2 emission reduction 

totals also include the reduction that 

will result from the final NSPS limit for 

SO2. If we were to break out the NSPS 

SO2 reduction separately, a new 1.2 

million tpy kiln equipped with a 

scrubber will reduce SO2 emissions by 

190 tpy on average or about 14,300 tpy 

in 2013. 

These controls will also reduce 

ambient concentrations of secondary 

PM2.5 as well. This is PM that results 

from atmospheric transformation 

processes of precursor gases, including 

SO2. Note that the PM emission 

reductions above do not reflect 

reductions in secondary PM formation. 

For these rules, the reduction in 

secondary PM formation represents a 

large fraction of the total reduction in 

ambient levels of PM, which is 

discussed in the benefits section of the 

preamble below. However, with the data 

available, we are unable to estimate the 

fraction of ambient PM reduction 

resulting specifically from the reduction 

in SO2 emissions. 

Under the final limit for NOX, we 

estimated that the emission reduction 

for a 1.2 million tpy model kiln will be 

600 tpy. The nationwide emissions 

reduction 5 years after promulgation of 

the final standards was estimated at 

6,600 tpy. 

In addition to this traditional 

estimation of emission reductions, EPA 

employed the ISIS model to estimate 

emission reductions from the NESHAP 

and NSPS. The estimation of emission 

reductions in the ISIS model accounts 

for the optimization of the industry and 

includes the addition of new kilns, kiln 

retirements, replacements, and 

expansions as well as installation of 

controls. Using the ISIS model, in 2013 

we estimate reductions of 12,627 lbs of 

mercury, 10,809 tons of THC, 4,307 tons 

of HCl, 5,729 tons of PM (does not 

include reductions in secondary PM), 

and 80,245 tons of SO2, and 14,159 tons 

of NOX compared to emissions that 

would occur in 2013 in the absence of 

the NESHAP and NSPS. As noted, the 

ISIS model estimates lower SO2

reductions because the model optimizes 

kiln retirements, replacements, and 

expansions as well as installation of 

controls. We did not determine ambient 

PM benefits based on the ISIS model’s 

predicted emission reductions. 

However, even with this lower SO2

reduction estimate, the secondary PM 

impacts would likely constitute a 

majority of the total ambient PM 

impacts. More information on the ISIS 

Model and results can be found in the 

ISIS TSD and in a Technical Memo to 

the docket. 

Under the final standards, new 

monitoring requirements are being 

added. Particulate matter CEMS are 

being required on kilns and clinker 

coolers. For cement kilns, CEMS are 

required for measurement of THC, NOX

and SO2. For kilns that do not have wet 

scrubbers, CEMS are required to 

monitor HCl emissions. Continuous 

emission measurement (CEMS or 

sorbent traps) are required for 

measurement of mercury emissions. 

There is insufficient data to quantify the 

emissions reduction that will result 

from these requirements. However, 

emissions reductions will occur as a 

result of the availability of continuous 

information on kiln and control device 

performance and a reduction in the 

length of time that operations are 

outside of acceptable conditions. Also, 

periods of excursions from acceptable 

conditions will be identified more 

quickly with continuous monitoring 

than with less frequent approaches, thus 

reducing the duration of such 

excursions. 

4. What are the water quality impacts? 

We estimated no water quality 

impacts for the proposed amendments. 

The requirements that might result in 

the use of alkaline scrubbers will 

produce a scrubber slurry liquid waste 

stream. However, we assume the 

scrubber slurry produced will be 

dewatered and added back into the 

cement-making process as gypsum. 

Water from the dewatering process will 

be recycled back to the scrubber. The 

four facilities (five kilns) that currently 

use wet scrubbers in this industry report 

no water releases at any time.46 We 

requested comment in the Portland 

Cement NEHSAP proposal on the 

potential for water releases due to wet 

scrubber system purges and any 

regulations that might apply. Though 

commenters raised concerns of the 

possibility of water impacts, they did 

not provide a rationale of why it would 

be expected when it is not occurring at 

the four facilities that currently use wet 

scrubbers, due to their on-site reuse of 

water. If discharges did occur, there 

would be a potential for water quality 

issues. But given these facts, we believe 

our estimate of no water quality impacts 

resulting from production of waste 

water by wet scrubbers is reasonable. 

The addition of scrubbers will 

increase water usage by about 4,200 

million gallons per year. For a new 1.2 

million tpy kiln, water usage will be 72 

million gallons per year or 630 million 

gallons by 2013 for all kilns subject to 

new source limits for HCl and NSPS 

limits. 

We did receive comments that in 

some areas there is not sufficient water 

available to support this increase in 

water use. We do not have sufficient 

data to perform an analysis of this 

situation, but we note that other less 

water intensive controls (dry injection 

of various sorbents, spray dryers) are 

available for control of HCl. This is 

further discussed in the cost impacts 

section. 

5. What are the solid waste impacts? 

The potential for solid waste impacts 

are associated with greater PM control 

for kilns, waste generated by ACI 

systems and solids resulting from solids 

in scrubber slurry water. As explained 

above, we have assumed little or no 

solid waste is expected from the 

generation of scrubber slurry because 

the solids from the slurry are used in the 

finish mill as a raw material. All of the 

facilities currently using wet scrubber 

use mix the gypsum created in the 

scrubber with clinker in the finish mill. 

A commenter noted that the synthetic 

gypsum can be difficult to dewater, but 

currently operating facilities seem to 

have solved this issue. Another 

commenter notes that facilities with low 

SO2 levels may produce such small 

amounts of gypsum. Theoretically, this 

could result in a situation where it is 

impractical to dewater the gypsum, and 

it must be land filled. However, we 

anticipate that the total amounts of 

waste will not be significant and the 

cost impact (compared to the total 

scrubber costs) will be minimal. 

The PM captured in the kiln fabric 

filter (cement kiln dust) is essentially 

recaptured raw material, intermediate 

materials, or product. Based on the 

available information, it appears that 

most captured PM is typically recycled 

back to the kilns to the maximum extent 

possible. Therefore we estimate that any 

additional PM captured will also be 

recycled to the kiln to the extent 

possible. 

Where equipped with an alkali 

bypass, the bypass will have a separate 

PM control device and that PM is 

typically disposed of as solid waste. An 

alkali bypass is not utilized on all kilns. 

Where one is present, the amount of 

solid waste generated from the alkali 

bypass is minimal, usually about 1 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 174 / Thursday, September 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 55023 

percent of total CKD in control devices, 

because the bypass gas stream is a small 

percentage of total kiln exhaust gas flow 

and the bypass gas stream does not 

contact the feed stream in the raw mill. 

Waste collected in the polishing 

baghouse associated with ACI that 

might be added for mercury or THC 

control cannot be recycled to the kiln 

and will be disposed of as solid waste. 

An estimated 122,000 tpy of solid waste 

will be generated from the use of ACI 

systems on existing kilns. A typical new 

kiln subject to new source mercury 

standards equipped with an ACI system 

will be expected to generate 1,800 tons 

of solid waste per kiln or, assuming all 

16 of the kilns subject to new source 

standards will add ACI systems, about 

35,000 tpy in the year 2013. 

In addition to the solid waste impacts 

described above, there is a potential for 

an increase in solid waste generation if 

a facility elects to control its mercury 

emissions by increasing the amount of 

CKD wasted rather than returned to 

process. This will be a site-specific 

decision, and we have no data to 

estimate the potential solid waste that 

may be generated by this practice. 

However, we expect the total amount to 

be small for two reasons. First, wasting 

cement kiln dust for mercury control 

represents a significant expense to a 

facility because it will be essentially 

wasting either raw materials or product. 

We anticipate this option will not be 

used if the amount of CKD wasted will 

be large. Second, we believe that cement 

manufacturers will add the additional 

CKD to the finish mill to the maximum 

extent possible rather than waste the 

material. 

6. What are the secondary impacts? 

Indirect or secondary air quality 

impacts include impacts that will result 

from the increased electricity usage 

associated with the operation of control 

devices as well as water quality and 

solid waste impacts (which were just 

discussed) that will occur as a result of 

these final revisions. We estimate these 

final revisions will increase emissions 

of criteria pollutants from utility boilers 

that supply electricity to the Portland 

cement facilities. We estimate increased 

energy demand associated with the 

installation of scrubbers, ACI systems, 

and RTO. The increases for kilns subject 

to existing source standards are 

estimated to be 1,700 tpy of NOX, 900 

tpy of CO, 3,000 tpy of SO2 and about 

90 tpy of PM. For kilns subject to new 

source standards, increases in secondary 

air pollutants are estimated to be 440 

tpy of NOX, 230 tpy of CO, 760 tpy of 

SO2 and 20 tpy of PM. We also 

estimated increases of CO2 to be 0.9 

million tpy for kilns subject to existing 

source standards and 209,000 tpy for 

kilns subject to new source standards. 

The increase in electricity usage for 

the pumps used in the SNCR system to 

deliver reagent to the kiln are negligible. 

7. What are the energy impacts? 

The addition of alkaline scrubbers, 

ACI systems, and RTO added to comply 

with the final amendments will result in 

increased energy use due to the 

electrical requirements for the scrubber 

and ACI systems and increased fan 

pressure drops, and natural gas to fuel 

the RTO. We estimate the additional 

national electrical demand to be 800 

million kWhr per year and the natural 

gas use to be 1.2 million MMBtu per 

year for kilns subject to existing source 

standards. For kilns subject to new 

source standards, the electrical demand 

is estimated to be 199 million kWhr per 

year. 

8. What are the cost impacts? 

Under the final amendments, existing 

kilns are expected to add one or more 

control devices to comply with the final 

emission limits. In addition, kiln and 

clinker coolers will be required to 

install varying numbers of CEMS or 

continuous emissions monitors. We 

performed two separate cost analyses for 

this final rule. In the engineering cost 

analysis, we estimated the cost of the 

final amendments based on the type of 

control device that was assumed to be 

necessary to comply with the final 

emission standards. Based on baseline 

emissions of mercury, THC, HCl and PM 

for each kiln and the removal efficiency 

necessary to comply with the final 

emission limit for each HAP, an 

appropriate control device was 

identified. In assigning control devices 

to each kiln where more than one 

control device will be capable of 

reducing emissions of a particular HAP 

below the limit, we assumed that the 

least costly control will be installed. For 

example, if a kiln could use either a 

scrubber or ACI to comply with the final 

limit for mercury, it was assumed that 

ACI will be selected over a scrubber 

because an ACI system will be less 

costly. ACI also is expected to achieve 

a higher removal efficiency than a 

scrubber for mercury (90 percent versus 

80 percent). In some instances, a more 

expensive technology was considered 

appropriate because the selected control 

reduced emissions of multiple 

pollutants. For example, even though 

ACI will be less costly than a scrubber 

for controlling mercury, if the kiln also 

had to reduce HCl (and, for new kilns 

subject to the NSPS amendments SO2) 

emissions, we assumed that a scrubber 

will be applied to control HCl as well 

as mercury because ACI will not control 

HCl. However, for many kilns, our 

analysis assumes that multiple controls 

will have to be added because more 

than one control will be needed to 

control all HAP. For example, ACI may 

be considered necessary to meet the 

limits for THC/organic HAP and/or 

mercury. For the same kiln, a scrubber 

will also be required to reduce HCl 

emissions. In this case we allocate the 

cost of the control to controlling 

mercury emissions, not to the cost of 

controlling HCl emissions. In addition, 

once we assigned a particular control 

device, in most cases we assumed 

mercury, HCl and THC/organic HAP 

emissions reductions will equal the 

control device efficiency, and not the 

minimum reduction necessary to meet 

the emissions limit. We believe this 

assumption is warranted because it 

matches costs with actual emissions 

reductions. In the case of PM, we 

assumed the controlled facility will emit 

at the average level necessary to meet 

the standard (i.e., we assumed for PM 

that the controlled facility will emit at 

0.01 lb/ton clinker, the average emission 

level, not 0.04 lb/ton clinker, the actual 

emissions limit), because the final 

emissions levels are extremely low. 

As previously discussed, in the case 

of the two facilities that require mercury 

emission reduction of 98 percent or 

more, we estimated the cost impacts by 

costing the two mercury control for 

which we have cost data, ACI and wet 

scrubbers. We believe this estimate is a 

conservative estimate of the costs these 

facilities will ultimately incur to meet 

the mercury emissions limit, based on 

the fact that they may be able to meet 

the limit using dust shuttling and/or 

treatment of cement kiln dust, which, 

based on the limited amount and size of 

equipment required, is expected to have 

lower costs than wet scrubbing. 

In a separate analysis performed using 

the ISIS model, we input into ISIS the 

baseline and controlled emissions rates 

for each pollutant, along with the 

maximum percent reduction achievable 

for a particular control technology, and 

allowed ISIS to base the control 

required on optimizing total production 

costs. In addition, the ISIS model 

accounts for normal kiln retirements 

that will occur even in the absence of 

any regulatory action (i.e., as new kilns 

come on-line, older, less efficient and 

more costly to operate kilns are retired). 

In the first cost analysis, total national 

annual costs assume that all kilns 

currently operating continue to operate 

while 20 new kilns come on-line. In the 

ISIS model, the two highest mercury 

emitting kilns requiring a 98+ percent 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2
55024 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 174 / Thursday, September 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

mercury control are assumed to shut 

down in 2013 because no single 

mercury control applied to these kilns 

can meet a 98+ percent mercury 

reduction. 

Table 11 presents the resulting add-on 

controls each approach estimated was 

necessary to meet the final emissions 

limits. 

TABLE 11—CONTROL INSTALLATION COMPARISON

LWS ACI LWS + ACI MB FF WS + RTO RTO SNCR 

Engineering Analysis ............................................... 115 151 2 28 0 10 0 7 

ISIS Model ............................................................... 30 42 29 6 2 6 15 7 

In the engineering analysis, we 

estimated the total capital cost of 

installing alkaline scrubbers and ACI 

systems for mercury control, including 

monitoring systems, will be $339 

million with an annualized cost of $113 

million. Most of the ACI systems 

installed for mercury control will also 

control organic HAP and THC. Where 

ACI does not provide sufficient control 

of organic HAP and THC, RTO/wet 

scrubbers are used. The estimated 

capital cost of installing RTO/wet 

scrubbers to reduce THC emissions will 

be $253 million with annualized cost of 

$49 million. The capital cost of adding 

scrubbers for the control of HCl is 

estimated to be $1,882 million with an 

annualized cost of $261 million. The 

capital cost of adding membrane bags to 

existing fabric will be $57 million with 

annualized cost of $16 million. The total 

capital cost for the final amendments for 

kilns subject to existing source 

emissions limits will be an estimated 

$2.2 billion with an annualized cost of 

$377 million. 

The estimated emission control 

capital cost per new 1.2 million tpy kiln 

is $3.2 million and the annualized costs 

are estimated at $1.2 million for 

mercury and THC/organic HAP control, 

and $3.6 million for HCl control. 

Because the new kiln will be equipped 

with a baghouse even in the absence of 

the rule and because the ACI system, 

which includes a polishing baghouse, 

will be installed for mercury and 

organic HAP control, there will be no 

additional cost for PM control. Under 

the NSPS, 7 new kilns will install SNCR 

to control NOX and add NOX CEMS at 

a capital cost of $19.6 million and an 

annualized cost of $10.9 million. The 

control of SO2 under the NSPS will be 

accomplished by wet scrubbers installed 

for HCl control under the NESHAP so 

that no control costs are attributable to 

the NSPS. There will be SO2 monitoring 

cost estimated at $1.1 million capital 

cost and $0.3 million annualized cost 

for the 7 new kilns subject to the NSPS. 

Flow monitoring devices are needed in 

conjunction with CEMS for NOX and 

SO2. Capital costs for flow monitoring 

devices will be $0.25 million capital 

and $0.1 million annualized costs. 

National annualized cost by the end of 

the fifth year for all new kilns will be 

an estimated $80.6 million. 

In the ISIS results, we are not able to 

separate costs by pollutant because the 

model provides an overall optimization 

of the production and air pollution 

control costs. The total annual costs of 

the ISIS model for the NESHAP and 

NSPS are $350 million in 2013. This 

estimate is significantly lower than the 

total costs estimated by traditional 

methods. 

It should be noted that for cases 

where more than a 50 percent reduction 

in HCl was required, we costed a wet 

scrubber. We note that some 

commenters have stated that some new 

and existing facilities may be located in 

areas where there is not sufficient water 

to operate a wet scrubber. However, in 

this rule we are not mandating wet 

scrubber control technology. Other 

control techniques are available 

(hydrated finely ground lime, spray 

dryers, fuel and additive switching) that 

we believe would allow a cement kiln 

to meet the HCl emission limits in areas 

where sufficient water for a wet 

scrubber is not available. However, we 

do not have data available on costs for 

these alternatives controls or 

techniques, some of which would be 

site specific. We would anticipate that 

costs of these techniques would be no 

more expensive that a wet scrubber. 

Therefore we believe that by costing wet 

scrubber technology in these situations 

we have not underestimated costs. 

9. What are the economic impacts? 

EPA employed both a partialequilibrium economic model and the 

ISIS model to analyze the impact on the 

industry and the economy. 

The Economic Impact Analysis model 

estimates the average national price for 

Portland cement could be 5.4 percent 

higher with the NESHAP and NSPS, or 

$4.50 per metric ton, while annual 

domestic production may fall by 11 

percent, or 10 million tons per year. 

Because of higher domestic prices, 

imports are expected to rise by 3 million 

metric tons per year. Operating profits 

fall by $241 million. 

Precise job effect estimates cannot be 

estimated with certainty. Ideally, 

whenever a regulatory change results in 

a reallocation of labor or other factors of 

production in an economy, a general 

equilibrium approach should be applied 

to estimate the attendant economic 

impacts. Unfortunately, time and 

resource constraints prevented the 

creation of a model with the spatial and 

sectoral resolution necessary to analyze 

the final rule. However, Morgenstern et 

al. (2002) provides a theoretical 

framework which allows us to 

approximate some of the relevant 

general equilibrium effects by 

identifying three economic mechanisms 

by which pollution abatement activities 

can indirectly influence: Higher 

production costs raise market prices, 

higher prices reduce consumption, and 

employment within an industry falls 

(‘‘demand effect’’); pollution abatement 

activities require additional labor 

services to produce the same level of 

output (‘‘cost effect’’); and postregulation production technologies may 

be more or less labor intensive (i.e., 

more/less labor is required per dollar of 

output) (‘‘factor-shift effect’’). 

Several empirical studies, including 

Morgenstern et al. (2002), suggest the 

net employment decline is zero or 

economically small (e.g., Cole and 

Elliot, 2007; Berman and Bui, 2001). 

However, others show the question has 

not been resolved in the literature 

(Henderson, 1996; Greenstone, 2002). 

Morgenstern et al. use a 6-year panel 

(U.S. Census data for plant-level prices, 

inputs [(including labor], outputs, and 

environmental expenditures) to 

econometrically estimate the production 

technologies and industry-level demand 

elasticities. Their identification strategy 

leverages repeat plant-level observations 

over time and uses plant-level and year 

fixed effects (e.g., dummy variables for 

plant and years). After estimating their 

model, Morgenstern show and compute 

the change in employment associated 

with an additional $1 million ($1987) in 

environmental spending. Their 

estimates cover four manufacturing 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 174 / Thursday, September 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 55025 

47To place this reduction in context, it is similar 

to the decline experienced during the latest 

economic downturn; approximately 2,000 jobs (see 

Appendix A, Table A–3). 

48Since Morgenstern’s analysis reports 

environmental expenditures in 1987 dollars, we 

make an inflation adjustment to the engineering 

cost analysis using the consumer price index 

((195.3/113.6) = 0.6). 

industries (pulp and paper, plastics, 

petroleum, and steel) and Morgenstern 

et al. present results separately for the 

cost, factor shift, and demand effects, as 

well as the net effect. They also estimate 

and report an industry-wide average 

parameter that combines the four 

industry-wide estimates and weight 

them by each industry’s share of 

environmental expenditures. 

Historically, EPA has most often 

estimated employment changes 

associated with plant closures due to 

environmental regulation or changes in 

output for the regulated industry (EPA, 

1999a; EPA, 2000). This partial 

equilibrium approach focuses only on 

the ‘‘demand’’ portion of the projected 

change in employment and neglects 

other employment changes. EPA 

provides this estimate because it 

employs the most detailed modeling for 

the industry being regulated even if it 

does not capture all types of 

employment impacts. In addition to the 

employment effects identified by 

Morgenstern et al., we also expect that 

the substitutes for cement (e.g., asphalt) 

would expand production as consumers 

shift away from cement to other 

products. This would also lead to 

increased employment in those 

industries. Focusing only on the 

‘‘demand effect’’, it can be seen that the 

estimate from the historical approach is 

within the range presented by the 

Morgenstern ‘‘demand effect’’ portion. 

This strengthens our comfort in the 

reasonableness of both estimates. In 

April of this year, EPA started including 

an estimate based on the Morgenstern 

approach because it is thought to be a 

broader measure of the employment 

impacts of this type of environmental 

regulation. Thus, this analysis goes 

beyond what EPA has typically done 

because the parameters estimated in the 

Morgenstern paper were used to 

estimate all three effects (‘‘demand,’’ 

‘‘cost,’’ and ‘‘factor shift’’). This transfer 

of results from the Morgenstern study is 

uncertain but avoids ignoring the ‘‘cost 

effect’’ and the ‘‘factor-shift effect.’’ 

Using the historical approach, we 

calculated ‘‘demand effect’’ employment 

changes by assuming that the number of 

jobs declines proportionally with the 

economic model’s simulated output 

changes. As shown in Table 3–10, using 

this limited approach, the employment 

falls by an 1,500 jobs, or approximately 

¥10 percent.47 By comparison, using 

the Morgenstern approach, we estimate 

that the net employment effects could 

range between 600 job losses to 1,300 

job gains. 

EPA has solely used this historical 

estimate in the past as a measure of the 

projected employment change 

associated with a regulation. However 

there are a number of serious 

shortcomings with this approach. First, 

and foremost, the historical approach 

only looks at the employment effects on 

the regulated industry from reduced 

output. Second, to arrive at that 

estimate, EPA needed to string together 

a number of strong assumptions. The 

employment impacts are independent of 

the performance of the overall economy. 

This rule takes effect in three years. If 

the economy is strong, the demand for 

cement strong, it is unlikely that any 

contraction in the industry will take 

place, even with the regulation. Second, 

we assume that all plants have the same 

limited ability to pass on the higher 

costs. In reality, plants should be 

modeled as oligopolists for each of their 

regional markets. Finally, EPA assumed 

that employment is directly 

proportional to output. This is unlikely, 

and biases the results towards higher 

employment losses. The Morgenstern 

methodology is a more complete 

consideration of probable impacts of a 

regulation on the economy. 

TABLE 12—JOB LOSSES/GAINS ASSOCIATED WITH THE FINAL RULE

Method 1,000 Jobs 

Partial equilibrium model (demand effect only) ............................................................................................................................. ¥1.5 

Literature-based estimate (net effect [A + B + C below]) ............................................................................................................. 0.3 

(¥0.6 to +1.3). 

A. Literature-based estimate: Demand effect ......................................................................................................................... ¥0.8 

(¥1.7 to +0.1). 

B. Literature-based estimate: Cost effect ............................................................................................................................... 0.5 

(+0.2 to +0.9). 

C. Literature-based estimate: Factor shift effect .................................................................................................................... 0.6 

(+0 to +1.2). 

We calculated a similar ‘‘demand 

effect’’ estimate that used the 

Morgenstern paper. EPA selected this 

paper because the parameter estimates 

(expressed in jobs per million [$1987] of 

environmental compliance 

expenditures) provide a transparent and 

tractable way to transfer estimates for an 

employment effects analysis. Similar 

estimates were not available from other 

studies. To do this, we multiplied the 

point estimate for the total demand 

effect (¥3.56 jobs per million [$1987] of 

environmental compliance expenditure) 

by the total environmental compliance 

expenditures used in the partial 

equilibrium model. For example, the 

jobs effect estimate for is estimated to be 

807 jobs (¥3.56 × $378 million × 0.6).48

Demand effect results are provided in 

Table 12. It is not appropriate to 

substitute the data from that approach 

in to the Morgenstern due to the 

incompatibilities of the underlying data. 

Since the result from the historical 

approach is within the confidence 

bounds for the Morgenstern results for 

the ‘‘demand effect’’, we are comfortable 

that the more general Morgenstern result 

is a good representation of the change in 

employment. 

We also present the results of using 

the Morgenstern paper to estimate 

employment ‘‘cost’’ and ‘‘factor-shift’’ 

effects. Although using the Morgenstern 

parameters to estimate these ‘‘cost’’ and 

‘‘factor-shift’’ employment changes is 

uncertain, it is helpful to compare the 

potential job gains from these effects to 

the job losses associated with the 

‘‘demand’’ effect. Table 12 shows that 

using the ‘‘cost’’ and ‘‘factor shift’’ 

employment effects may offset 

employment loss estimates using either 

‘‘demand’’ effect employment losses. 

The 95 percent confidence intervals are 

shown for all of the estimates based on 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2
55026 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 174 / Thursday, September 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

49 In addition to the ten plants identified that 

could temporarily idle or permanently shut down, 

there are two plants with unusually high mercury 

emissions that cannot meet the mercury emission 

limit using any single control system. However, we 

are assuming that they will apply multiple controls 

to meet the limit and have accounted for multiple 

controls in our cost analysis. 

50Roman et al., 2008. Expert Judgment 

Assessment of the Mortality Impact of Changes in 

Ambient Fine Particulate Matter in the U.S. 

Environ. Sci. Technol., 42, 7, 2268–2274. 

the Morgenstern parameters. As shown, 

at the 95 percent confidence level, we 

cannot be certain if net employment 

changes are positive or negative. 

Although the Morgenstern paper 

provides additional information about 

the potential job effects of 

environmental protection programs, 

there are several qualifications EPA 

considered as part of the analysis. First, 

EPA has used the weighted average 

parameter estimates for a narrow set of 

manufacturing industries (pulp and 

paper, plastics, petroleum, and steel). 

Absent other data and estimates, this 

approach seems reasonable and the 

estimates come from a respected peerreviewed source. However, EPA 

acknowledges the final rule covers an 

industry not considered in the original 

empirical study. By transferring the 

estimates to the cement sector, we make 

the assumption that estimates are 

similar in size. In addition, EPA 

assumes also that Morgenstern et al.’s 

estimates derived from the 1979–1991 

are still applicable for policy taking 

place in 2013, almost 20 years later. 

Second, the economic impact model 

only considers near-term employment 

effects in the cement industry where 

production technologies are fixed. As a 

result, the economic impact model 

places more emphasis on the short-term 

‘‘demand effect,’’ whereas the 

Morgenstern paper emphasizes other 

important long-term responses. For 

example, positive job gains associated 

with ‘‘factor shift effects’’ are more 

plausible when production choices 

become more flexible over time and 

industries can substitute labor for other 

production inputs. Third, the 

Morgenstern paper estimates rely on 

sector demand elasticities that are 

different (typically bigger) from the 

demand elasticity parameter used in the 

cement model. As a result, the demand 

effects are not directly comparable with 

the demand effects estimated by the 

cement model. Fourth, Morgenstern 

identifies the industry average as 

economically and statistically 

insignificant effect (i.e., the point 

estimates are small, measured 

imprecisely, and not distinguishable 

from zero). EPA acknowledges this fact 

and has reported the 95 percent 

confidence intervals in Table 12. Fifth, 

Morgenstern’s methodology assumes 

large plants bear most of the regulatory 

costs. By transferring the estimates, EPA 

assumes a similar distribution of 

regulatory costs by plant size and that 

the regulatory burden does not 

disproportionately fall on smaller 

plants. 

EPA identified ten domestic plants 

with significant utilization changes that 

could temporarily idle until market 

demand conditions improve. It should 

be noted that some of these plant may 

be idled even in the absence of this 

action based on a review of recent 

history of this industry. The plants are 

small capacity plants with unit 

compliance costs close to $8 per ton and 

$241 million total change in operating 

profits. Since these plants account for 

approximately 8 percent of domestic 

capacity, a decision to permanently shut 

down these plants will reduce domestic 

supply and lead to additional projected 

market price increases. If any plants 

closed or idled there would also be a 

savings from not having to incur 

pollution control costs. A rough 

estimate of the change in social cost if 

all ten were to idle or close is a 

reduction in social cost of $24 million.49

The estimated domestic social cost of 

the final amendments is $926 to $950 

million. There is an estimated $121 

million surplus gain for other countries 

producing cement. The social cost 

estimates are significantly higher than 

the engineering analysis estimates, 

which estimated annualized costs of 

$466 million. This is a direct 

consequence of EPA’s assumptions 

about existing domestic plants’ pricing 

behavior. Under baseline conditions 

without regulation, the existing 

domestic cement plants are assumed to 

choose a production level that is less 

than the level produced under perfect 

competition. The imposition of 

additional regulatory costs tends to 

widen the gap between price and 

marginal cost in these markets and 

contributes to additional social costs. 

For more detail see the Regulatory 

Impact Analysis (RIA). 

Using the ISIS model, we estimated 

12 kilns (9 million tons of capacity) may 

be idled as a result of this final 

rulemaking. ISIS estimates a range of 

1,105–1,134 jobs lost associated with 

the capacity idling. In ISIS, kilns are 

modeled producing at their capacity 

levels after taking into consideration 

normal downtime days. If the kilns 

owners decide to operate the kilns at a 

lower utilization rate a lower the 

number of kilns idling is expected to be 

lower. 

As a result of this action, ISIS projects 

cement industry revenues are projected 

to decline by 4.5 percent, or $421 

million. We estimate cement demand to 

drop 5.7 percent in 2013 or 7.0 million 

tons as a result of this action. The drop 

in demand will affect the domestic 

production and imports. Domestic 

production may fall by 9.6 percent or 

9.0 million tons in 2013 compared to 

the baseline. Imports are likely to rise by 

2.0 million tons. ISIS estimates that the 

average national price for Portland 

cement in 2013 could be 6.8 percent 

higher, or $5.79 per metric ton. More 

information on this model can be found 

in the ISIS TSD and in a Technical 

Memo to the docket. 

10. What are the benefits? 

We estimated the monetized benefits 

of this final regulatory action to be $7.4 

billion to $18 billion (2005$, 3 percent 

discount rate) in the implementation 

year (2013). The monetized benefits of 

the final regulatory action at a 7 percent 

discount rate are $6.7 billion to $16 

billion (2005$). Using alternate 

relationships between PM2.5 and 

premature mortality supplied by 

experts, higher and lower benefits 

estimates are plausible, but most of the 

expert-based estimates fall between 

these two estimates.50 A summary of the 

avoided health benefits and the 

associated monetized benefits estimates 

at discount rates of 3 percent and 7 

percent are provided in Table 13 of this 

preamble. 

TABLE 13—SUMMARY OF THE AVOIDED HEALTH INCIDENCES AND MONETIZED PM2.5 BENEFITS ESTIMATES FOR THE FINAL

PORTLAND CEMENT NESHAP AND NSPS 

Avoided health 

incidences 

Monetized benefits 

(millions of 2005$, 

3% discount rate) 

Monetized benefits 

(millions of 2005$, 

7% discount rate) 

Avoided Premature Mortality ................................................................... 960 to 2,500 .............. $7,600 to $19,000 ..... $6,900 to $17,000. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 174 / Thursday, September 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 55027 

51U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2010. 

Proposed RIA for the Transport Rule. Prepared by 

Office of Air and Radiation. June. Available on the 

Internet at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/ria.html. 

52 In June 2009, EPA’s Office of Air and Radiation 

revised the VSL used in air regulations to be 

consistent with the estimate used by the rest of the 

agency. Until updated guidance is available, EPA 

determined that a single peer-reviewed estimate 

applied consistently across the agency best reflects 

the advice it has received. 

53Pope et al., 2002. ‘‘Lung Cancer, 

Cardiopulmonary Mortality, and Long-Term 

Exposure to Fine Particulate Air Pollution.’’ Journal 

of the American Medical Association 287:1132– 

1141. 

54Laden et al., 2006. ‘‘Reduction in Fine 

Particulate Air Pollution and Mortality.’’ American 

Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine. 

173: 667–672. 

TABLE 13—SUMMARY OF THE AVOIDED HEALTH INCIDENCES AND MONETIZED PM2.5 BENEFITS ESTIMATES FOR THE FINAL

PORTLAND CEMENT NESHAP AND NSPS—Continued 

Avoided health 

incidences 

Monetized benefits 

(millions of 2005$, 

3% discount rate) 

Monetized benefits 

(millions of 2005$, 

7% discount rate) 

Avoided Morbidity: 

Chronic Bronchitis ............................................................................. 650 ............................ $19 ............................ $19. 

Acute Myocardial Infarction .............................................................. 1,500 ......................... $11 ............................ $11. 

Hospital Admissions, Respiratory ..................................................... 240 ............................ $0.2 ........................... $0.2. 

Hospital Admissions, Cardiovascular ............................................... 500 ............................ $0.9 ........................... $0.9. 

Emergency Room Visits, Respiratory ............................................... 1,000 ......................... $0.03 ......................... $0.03. 

Acute Bronchitis ................................................................................ 1,500 ......................... $0.01 ......................... $0.01. 

Work Loss Days ............................................................................... 130,000 ..................... $1.2 ........................... $1.2. 

Asthma Exacerbation ........................................................................ 17,000 ....................... $0.06 ......................... $0.06. 

Minor Restricted Activity Days .......................................................... 750,000 ..................... $3.0 ........................... $3.0. 

Lower Respiratory Symptoms .......................................................... 18,000 ....................... $0.02 ......................... $0.02. 

Upper Respiratory Symptoms .......................................................... 14,000 ....................... $0.03 ......................... $0.03. 

Note: All estimates are for the implementation year (2013), and are rounded to two significant figures so numbers may not sum across rows. 

All fine particles are assumed to have equivalent health effects. Benefits from reducing hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) are not included. These 

estimates do not include the energy disbenefits of $210 to $470 million. 

These benefits estimates represent the 

human health benefits associated with 

reducing exposure to fine particulate 

matter (PM2.5). The PM reductions are 

the result of emission limits on PM as 

well as emission limits on other 

pollutants, including hazardous air 

pollutants (HAPs) for the NESHAP and 

criteria pollutants for the NSPS. To 

estimate the human health benefits, we 

used the environmental Benefits 

Mapping and Analysis Program 

(BenMAP) model to quantify the 

changes in PM2.5-related health impacts 

and monetized benefits based on 

changes in air quality. This approach is 

consistent with the recently proposed 

Transport Rule RIA.51

For this final rule, we have expanded 

and updated the analysis since the 

proposal in several important ways. 

Using the Comprehensive Air Quality 

Model with extensions (CAMx) model, 

we are able to provide cement sectorspecific air quality impacts attributable 

to the emission reductions anticipated 

from this final rule. We believe that this 

modeling provides a superior 

representation of the geographic 

distribution of air quality impacts than 

the national average benefit-per-ton 

estimates used for the proposal analysis. 

Furthermore, CAMx modeling allows us 

to model the reduced mercury 

deposition that would occur as a result 

of the estimated reductions of mercury 

emissions. 

Although we are unable to model 

mercury methylation and human 

consumption of mercury-contaminated 

fish, the mercury deposition maps 

provide an improved qualitative 

characterization of the mercury benefits 

associated with this final rulemaking. 

Lastly, we added qualitative 

descriptions of the benefits categories 

that we are unable to quantify and 

monetize, including the benefits of 

reducing hazardous air pollutants and 

ecosystem effects. 

In addition, the PM2.5 benefits for this 

final rulemaking reflect EPA’s current 

interpretation of the economic literature 

on mortality valuation by using the 

value-of-a-statistical life (VSL) based on 

a meta-analysis of 26 studies.52 The 

PM2.5 benefits are generally consistent 

with the methodology used in the 

proposal after adjusting for the revised 

VSL, and these estimates reflect EPA’s 

decision to remove the arbitrarily 

assumed threshold from the health 

impact function. 

For these rules the SO2 reductions 

represent a large fraction of the total 

monetized benefits from reducing PM2.5, 

but it is not possible to isolate the 

portion if the total monetized benefits 

attributable to the emission reductions 

of SO2 resulting from the application of 

HCl controls. The benefits models 

assume that all fine particles, regardless 

of their chemical composition, are 

equally potent in causing premature 

mortality because there is no clear 

scientific evidence that would support 

the development of differential effects 

estimates by particle type. 

For context, it is important to note 

that the magnitude of the PM2.5 benefits 

is largely driven by the concentration 

response function for premature 

mortality. Experts have advised EPA to 

consider a variety of assumptions, 

including estimates based both on 

empirical (epidemiological) studies and 

judgments elicited from scientific 

experts, to characterize the uncertainty 

in the relationship between PM2.5

concentrations and premature mortality. 

For this final rulemaking we cite two 

key empirical studies, one based on the 

American Cancer Society cohort 

study 53 and the extended Six Cities 

cohort study.54

Alternate models identified by experts 

describing the relationship between 

PM2.5 and premature mortality would 

yield higher and lower estimates 

depending upon the assumptions that 

they made, but most of the expert-based 

estimates fall between the two 

epidemiology-based estimates (Roman 

et al. 2008). 

EPA strives to use the best available 

science to support our benefits analyses. 

We recognize that interpretation of the 

science regarding air pollution and 

health is dynamic and evolving. The 

question of whether or not to assume a 

threshold in calculating the benefits 

associated with reductions in PM2.5 is 

an issue that affects the benefits 

calculations not only for this rule but for 

many other EPA rulemakings and 

analyses. Due to these implications, we 

solicited comment on appropriateness 

of both the no-threshold and threshold 

model for PM benefits analysis as part 

of the proposal of this rule. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2
55028 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 174 / Thursday, September 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

55U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. 

EPA). 2009. Integrated Science Assessment for 

Particulate Matter (Final Report). EPA–600–R–08– 

139F. National Center for Environmental 

Assessment—RTP Division. December. Available on 

the Internet at http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/ 

recordisplay.cfm?deid=216546. 

56U.S. Environmental Protection Agency— 

Science Advisory Board (U.S. EPA–SAB). 2010. 

Review of EPA’s DRAFT Health Benefits of the 

Second Section 812 Prospective Study of the Clean 

Air Act. EPA–COUNCIL–10–001. June. Available on 

the Internet at http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/ 

sabproduct.nsf/0/ 

72D4EFA39E48CDB28525774500738776/$File/ 

EPA-COUNCIL-10-001-unsigned.pdf. 

Three commenters did not support 

adopting a no-threshold model because 

it would obscure the greater uncertainty 

associated with calculated premature 

mortality at low PM concentrations and 

because it would be premature prior to 

the conclusion of the PM NAAQS 

review. 

Shortly after the end of the comment 

period, EPA finalized the Integrated 

Science Assessment for Particulate 

Matter,55 which was reviewed twice by 

EPA’s Clean Air Scientific Advisory 

Committee, and concluded that the 

scientific literature consistently finds 

that a no-threshold log-linear model 

most adequately portrays the PMmortality concentration-response 

relationship while recognizing potential 

uncertainty about the exact shape of the 

concentration-response function. In 

addition, the Human Health 

Subcommittee of EPA’s Science 

Advisory Board recently concluded, 

‘‘The HES fully supports EPA’s decision 

to use a no-threshold model to estimate 

mortality reductions. This decision is 

supported by the data, which are quite 

consistent in showing effects down to 

the lowest measured levels. Analyses of 

cohorts using data from more recent 

years, during which time PM 

concentrations have fallen, continue to 

report strong associations with 

mortality. Therefore, there is no 

evidence to support a truncation of the 

CRF [concentration-response 

function].’’ 56

After reviewing the public comments 

in conjunction with our review of the 

scientific literature and the Science 

Advisory Board’s comments, we have 

determined that the no-threshold model 

is the most appropriate model for 

assessing the mortality benefits 

associated with reducing PM2.5

exposure. Consistent with this recent 

scientific advice, we are replacing the 

previous threshold sensitivity analysis 

with a new ‘‘Lowest Measured Level’’ 

(LML) assessment. While an LML 

assessment provides some insight into 

the level of uncertainty in the estimated 

PM mortality benefits, EPA does not 

view the LML as a threshold and 

continues to quantify PM-related 

mortality impacts using a full range of 

modeled air quality concentrations. 

Most of the estimated PM-related 

benefits in this rule accrue to 

populations exposed to higher levels of 

PM2.5. Using the Pope et al. (2002) 

study, about 94 percent occur among 

populations with baseline exposure to 

annual mean PM2.5 levels at or above 7.5 

μg/m3. Using the Laden et al. (2006) 

study, about 58 percent occur among 

populations with baseline exposure to 

annual mean PM2.5 levels at or above 10 

μg/m3. It is important to emphasize that 

we have high confidence in PM2.5- 

related effects down to the lowest LML 

of the major cohort studies. This fact is 

important, because as we estimate PMrelated mortality among populations 

exposed to levels of PM2.5 that are 

successively lower, our confidence in 

the results diminishes. However, our 

analysis shows that the great majority of 

the impacts occur at higher exposures. 

It should be emphasized that the 

monetized benefits estimates provided 

above do not include benefits from 

several important benefit categories, 

including reducing other air pollutants, 

ecosystem effects, and visibility 

impairment. The benefits from reducing 

other pollutants have not been 

monetized in this analysis, including 

reducing 4,400 tons of NOX, 5,800 tons 

of hydrochloric acid, 5,200 tons of 

organic HAPS, and over 16,000 pounds 

of mercury each year. In addition, we 

were unable to quantify the additional 

emission reductions that would occur if 

cement facilities temporarily idle or 

reduce capacity utilization as a result of 

this regulation, or the unquantifiable 

amount of reductions in condensable 

PM. Although we do not have sufficient 

information or modeling available to 

provide monetized estimates for this 

rulemaking, we include a qualitative 

assessment of the health effects of these 

air pollutants in the RIA for this rule, 

which is available in the docket. 

In addition, the monetized benefits 

estimates provided in Table 13 do not 

reflect the disbenefits associated with 

increased electricity usage from 

operation of the control devices. We 

estimate that the increases in emissions 

of NOX, SO2, PM, and CO2 would have 

disbenefits valued at $210 million to 

$470 million at a 3% discount rate. The 

total monetized benefits estimates of 

$7.4 billion to $18 billion (2005$, 3 

percent discount rate) and $6.7 billion 

to $17 billion (2005$, 7% discount rate) 

reflect these energy disbenefits. 

This analysis does not include the 

type of detailed uncertainty assessment 

found in the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS RIA or 

2008 Ozone NAAQS RIA. However, the 

benefits analyses in these RIAs provide 

an indication of the sensitivity of our 

results to various assumptions, 

including the use of alternative 

concentration-response functions and 

the fraction of mortality impacts at low 

PM2.5 levels. 

The social costs of this rulemaking are 

estimated at $880 million (2005$) in the 

year of full implementation, and the 

benefits are estimated at $7.4 billion to 

$18 billion (2005$, 3 percent discount 

rate) for that same year. The benefits at 

a 7 percent discount rate are $6.7 billion 

to $16 billion (2005$). Thus, net benefits 

of this rulemaking are estimated at $6.5 

billion to $17 billion (2005$, 3 percent 

discount rate). The net benefits at a 7 

percent discount rate are $5.8 billion to 

$16 billion (2005$). Using alternate 

relationships between PM2.5 and 

premature mortality supplied by 

experts, higher and lower benefits 

estimates are plausible, but most of the 

expert-based estimates fall between 

these two estimates. EPA believes that 

the benefits are likely to exceed the 

costs by a significant margin even when 

taking into account the uncertainties in 

the cost and benefit estimates. 

A final issue on benefits concerns the 

air impacts of increases in imports. 

When a regulation leads to increases in 

imports and only the domestic emission 

changes are considered in a benefit 

analysis, the question of the impact of 

emissions from the increased 

production in other countries should be 

examined. The extra emissions may 

have an impact on the regulating 

country (the U.S.) and the other 

countries. The location of these extra 

emissions and the pollutants involved 

are both important. Our economic 

modeling does not involve estimates of 

the origin of the imports. We also do not 

have information about the level of 

control for facilities in other countries. 

Thus, estimating disbenefits associated 

with these increased emissions in other 

countries was beyond what we were 

able to do in this analysis. 

However, another limitation of our 

analysis produces a bias in the opposite 

direction. The economic impact analysis 

estimated a 10 million ton decrease in 

domestic production. No emission 

reductions were estimated as a result of 

this change in production. The benefit 

analysis was based on emission 

reductions associated with control being 

applied to all facilities with no change 

in capacity utilization. The increase in 

imports was estimated to be 3 million 

tons. Thus we omitted an emission 

reduction associated with a 10 million 

ton decrease in production in this 

country while also omitting an increase 

in emissions for an increase in 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 174 / Thursday, September 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 55029 

production in other countries of less 

than a third of the domestic decrease. Of 

course the net result of these two 

omissions depends on the relative 

emission rates of the countries involved. 

Analysis of benefits for either of these 

two types of emissions is beyond the 

current scope of the benefit analysis. 

For more information, please refer to 

the RIA for this final rule that is 

available in the docket. 

VII. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

Under section 3(f)(1) of Executive 

Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 

1993), this action is an ‘‘economically 

significant regulatory action’’ because it 

is likely to have an annual effect on the 

economy of $100 million or more. 

Accordingly, EPA submitted this action 

to the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) for review under E.O. 12866 and 

any changes made in response to OMB 

recommendations have been 

documented in the docket for this 

action. In addition, EPA prepared a 

Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) of the 

potential costs and benefits associated 

with this action. 

When estimating the PM2.5-related 

human health benefits and compliance 

costs in Table 14 below, EPA applied 

methods and assumptions consistent 

with the state-of-the-science for human 

health impact assessment, economics 

and air quality analysis. EPA applied its 

best professional judgment in 

performing this analysis and believes 

that these estimates provide a 

reasonable indication of the expected 

benefits and costs to the nation of this 

rule. The Regulatory Impacts Analysis 

(RIA) available in the docket describes 

in detail the empirical basis for EPA’s 

assumptions and characterizes the 

various sources of uncertainties 

affecting the estimates below. 

When characterizing uncertainty in 

the PM-mortality relationship, EPA has 

historically presented a sensitivity 

analysis applying alternate assumed 

thresholds in the PM concentrationresponse relationship. In its synthesis of 

the current state of the PM science, 

EPA’s 2009 Integrated Science 

Assessment (ISA) for Particulate Matter 

concluded that a no-threshold log-linear 

model most adequately portrays the PMmortality concentration-response 

relationship. In the RIA accompanying 

this rule, rather than segmenting out 

impacts predicted to be associated 

levels above and below a ‘‘bright line’’ 

threshold, EPA includes a ‘‘lowestmeasured-level (LML)’’ that illustrates 

the increasing uncertainty that 

characterizes exposure attributed to 

levels of PM2.5 below the LML for each 

study. Figures provided in the RIA show 

avoided PM mortality impacts predicted 

relative to the baseline PM2.5 levels 

experienced by the population receiving 

the PM2.5 mortality benefit, as well as 

the lowest air quality levels measured in 

each of the epidemiology cohort studies. 

This information allows readers to 

determine the portion of PM-related 

mortality benefits occurring above or 

below the LML of each study; in 

general, our confidence in the size of the 

estimated reduction PM2.5-related 

premature mortality decreases in areas 

where annual mean PM2.5 levels are 

further below the LML in the cohort 

studies. Using the Pope et al. (2002) 

study, about 94 percent occur among 

populations with baseline exposure to 

annual mean PM2.5 levels at or above 7.5 

μg/m3. Using the Laden et al. (2006) 

study, about 58 percent occur among 

populations with baseline exposure to 

annual mean PM2.5 levels at or above 10 

μg/m3. While the LML analysis provides 

some insight into the level of 

uncertainty in the estimated PM 

mortality benefits, EPA does not view 

the LML as a threshold and continues to 

quantify PM-related mortality impacts 

using a full range of modeled air quality 

concentrations. 

Table 14 shows the results of the cost 

and benefits analysis for this rule. 

TABLE 14—SUMMARY OF THE MONETIZED BENEFITS, SOCIAL COSTS, AND NET BENEFITS FOR THE FINAL PORTLAND

CEMENT NESHAP AND NSPS IN 2013 

[Millions of 2005$] 1

3% Discount rate 7% Discount rate 

Final NESHAP and NSPS 

Total Monetized Benefits 2 ................................. $7,400 to $18,000 ............................................ $6,700 to $16,000. 

Total Social Costs 3 ........................................... $926 to $950 .................................................... $926 to $950. 

Net Benefits ....................................................... $6,500 to $17,000 ............................................ $5,800 to $15,000 

Non-monetized Benefits .................................... 4,400 tons of NOX (includes energy disbenefits). 

5,200 tons of organic HAPs. 

5,900 tons of HCl. 

16,400 pounds of mercury. 

Health effects from HAPs, NO2, and SO2 exposure. 

Ecosystem effects. 

Visibility impairment. 

Final NSPS only 

Total Monetized Benefits 2 ................................. $510 to $1,300 ................................................. $460 to $1,100. 

Total Social Costs 3 ........................................... $72 .................................................................... $72. 

Net Benefits ....................................................... $440 to $1,200 ................................................. $390 to $1,000. 

Non-monetized Benefits .................................... 6,600 tons of NOX. 

520 tons of HCl. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2
55030 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 174 / Thursday, September 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE 14—SUMMARY OF THE MONETIZED BENEFITS, SOCIAL COSTS, AND NET BENEFITS FOR THE FINAL PORTLAND

CEMENT NESHAP AND NSPS IN 2013—Continued 

[Millions of 2005$] 1

3% Discount rate 7% Discount rate 

Health effects from HAPs, NO2, and SO2 exposure. 

Ecosystem effects. 

Visibility impairment. 

Final NESHAP only 

Total Monetized Benefits 2 ................................. $7,400 to $18,000 ............................................ $6,700 to $16,000. 

Total Social Costs 3 ........................................... $904 to $930 .................................................... $904 to $930. 

Net Benefits ....................................................... $6,500 to $17,000 ............................................ $5,800 to $16,000. 

Non-monetized Benefits .................................... 5,200 tons of organic HAPs. 

5,900 tons of HCl. 

16,000 pounds of mercury. 

Health effects from HAPs, SO2 exposure. 

Ecosystem effects. 

Visibility impairment. 

Alternative: More Stringent NSPS and Final NESHAP 

Total Monetized Benefits 2 ................................. $7,400 to $18,000 ............................................ $6,700 to $16,000. 

Total Social Costs 3 ........................................... $955 to $979 .................................................... $955 to $979. 

Net Benefits ....................................................... $6,500 to $17,000 ............................................ $5,700 to $15,000. 

Non-monetized Benefits .................................... 7,800 tons of NOX (includes energy disbenefits). 

5,200 tons of organic HAPs. 

5,900 tons of HCl. 

16,400 pounds of mercury. 

Health effects from HAPs, NO2, and SO2 exposure. 

Ecosystem effects. 

Visibility impairment. 

1All estimates are for the implementation year (2013), and are rounded to two significant figures. 

2The total monetized benefits reflect the human health benefits associated with reducing exposure to PM2.5 through reductions of directly emitted PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors such as NOX and SO2. It is important to note that the monetized benefits include many but not all health effects 

associated with PM2.5 exposure. Benefits are shown as a range from Pope et al. (2002) to Laden et al. (2006). These models assume that all 

fine particles, regardless of their chemical composition, are equally potent in causing premature mortality because there is no clear scientific evidence that would support the development of differential effects estimates by particle type. The total monetized benefits include the energy 

disbenefits. 3The methodology used to estimate social costs for one year in the multimarket model using surplus changes results in the same social costs 

for both discount rates. 

For more information on the benefits 

analysis, please refer to the RIA for this 

rulemaking, which is available in the 

docket. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

1. Subpart F 

The information requirements in the 

final amendments to subpart F have 

been submitted for approval to the 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction 

Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The 

Information Collection Request (ICR) 

document prepared by EPA has been 

assigned EPA ICR number 2307.01. 

The final amendments to the NSPS for 

Portland cement plants apply to affected 

facilities constructed, modified, or 

reconstructed after June 16, 2008. The 

owner or operator of a new kiln is 

required to keep daily records of clinker 

production, install and operate PM 

CEMS, and operate NOX and SO2 CEMS. 

These requirements are based on the 

recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements in the NSPS General 

Provisions (40 CFR part 60, subpart A) 

which are mandatory for all operators 

subject to new source performance 

standards. These recordkeeping and 

reporting requirements are specifically 

authorized by section 114 of the CAA 

(42 U.S.C. 7414). All information 

submitted to EPA pursuant to the 

recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements for which a claim of 

confidentiality is made is safeguarded 

according to EPA policies set forth in 40 

CFR part 2, subpart B. 

The annual burden for this 

information collection averaged over the 

first 3 years of this ICR is estimated to 

total 2,559 labor-hours per year at a cost 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 174 / Thursday, September 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 55031 

of $240,064 per year. The annualized 

capital costs are estimated at $45,626 

per year and operation and maintenance 

costs are estimated at $52,450 per year. 

Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). 

An agency may not conduct or 

sponsor, and a person is not required to 

respond to a collection of information 

unless it displays a currently valid OMB 

control number. The OMB control 

numbers for EPA’s regulations are listed 

in 40 CFR part 9. When this ICR is 

approved by OMB, the Agency will 

publish a technical amendment to 40 

CFR part 9 in the Federal Register to 

display the OMB control number for the 

approved information collection 

requirements contained in this final 

rule. 

2. Subpart LLL 

The information collection 

requirements in this final rule have been 

submitted for approval to the OMB 

under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The Information 

Collection Request (ICR) document 

prepared by EPA has been assigned EPA 

ICR number 1801.07. 

In most cases, new and existing kilns 

and in-line kiln/raw mills at major and 

area sources that are not already subject 

to emission limits for THC, mercury, 

and PM will become subject to the 

limits and associated compliance 

provisions in the current rule. Sources 

will have to install and operate CEMS 

for mercury, PM, and THC. Records of 

all calculations and data will be 

required. New compliance procedures 

will also apply to area sources subject 

to a PM limit in a format of lbs/ton of 

clinker. Cement plants also will be 

subject to new limits for HCl and 

associated compliance provisions which 

include compliance tests using EPA 

Method 321 and continuous monitoring 

for HCl for facilities that do not use a 

wet scrubber for HCl control. These 

requirements are based on the 

recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements in the NESHAP General 

Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A) 

which are mandatory for all operators 

subject to national emission standards. 

These recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements are specifically authorized 

by section 114 of the CAA (42 U.S.C. 

7414). All information submitted to EPA 

pursuant to the recordkeeping and 

reporting requirements for which a 

claim of confidentiality is made is 

safeguarded according to EPA policies 

set forth in 40 CFR part 2, subpart B. 

The annual burden for this 

information collection averaged over the 

first 3 years of this ICR is estimated to 

total 79,790 labor-hours per year at a 

cost of $7.75 million per year. The 

average annualized capital costs are 

estimated at $61.7 million per year and 

average operation and maintenance 

costs are estimated at $192,578 per year. 

Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). 

An agency may not conduct or 

sponsor, and a person is not required to 

respond to a collection of information 

unless it displays a currently valid OMB 

control number. The OMB control 

numbers for EPA’s regulations are listed 

in 40 CFR part 9. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

generally requires an agency to prepare 

a regulatory flexibility analysis of any 

rule subject to notice and comment 

rulemaking requirements under the 

Administrative Procedure Act or any 

other statute unless the agency certifies 

that the rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. Small entities 

include small businesses, small 

organizations, and small governmental 

jurisdictions. 

For purposes of assessing the impact 

of this rule on small entities, small 

entity is defined as: (1) A small business 

whose parent company has no more 

than 750 employees depending on the 

size definition for the affected NAICS 

code (as defined by Small Business 

Administration (SBA) size standards 

found at http://www.sba.gov/idc/ 

groups/public/documents/ 

sba_homepage/serv_sstd_tablepdf.pdf); 

(2) a small governmental jurisdiction 

that is a government of a city, county, 

town, school district, or special district 

with a population of less than 50,000; 

and (3) a small organization that is any 

not-for-profit enterprise which is 

independently owned and operated and 

is not dominant in its field. 

1. Subpart F 

After considering the economic 

impact of this final rule on small 

entities, I certify that this action will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

We estimate that 3 of the 26 existing 

Portland cement entities are small 

entities which will not incur any 

impacts under these final amendments 

unless an affected facility is 

constructed, modified, or reconstructed. 

Based on our economic analysis, 7 new 

kilns may be constructed during the 

next five years that will be subject to 

these NSPS amendments. One of these 

kilns may be operated by a Portland 

cement entity that is classified as a 

small entity according to the SBA small 

business size standards. Of these 7 

kilns, this small entity is expected to 

incur an annualized compliance cost of 

between 1.0 and 3.0 percent of sales to 

comply with the final action. 

Although this final rule will not have 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities, 

EPA nonetheless has tried to reduce the 

impact of this rule on small entities by 

the selection of an emission level based 

on highly cost-effective controls and 

specifying monitoring requirements that 

are the minimum to insure compliance. 

In the case where there are overlapping 

standards between this NSPS and the 

Portland Cement NESHAP, we have 

exempted sources from the least 

stringent requirement thereby 

eliminated overlapping monitoring, 

testing and reporting requirements by 

requiring that the source comply with 

only the more stringent of the standards. 

2. Subpart LLL 

After considering the economic 

impact of this final rule on small 

entities, I certify that this action will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

We estimate that up to 3 of the 26 

existing Portland cement plants are 

small entities. 

EPA performed a screening analysis 

for impacts on the three affected small 

entities by comparing compliance costs 

to entity revenues. EPA’s analysis found 

that the ratio of compliance cost to 

company revenue for one small entity (a 

Tribal government) will have an 

annualized cost of less than 1 percent of 

sales. The other two small businesses 

will have an annualized cost of between 

1 and three percent of sales. 

Although this final rule will not 

impact a substantial number of small 

entities, EPA nonetheless has tried to 

reduce the impact of this rule on small 

entities by setting the final emissions 

limits at the MACT floor, the least 

stringent level allowed by law. In the 

case where there are overlapping 

standards between this NESHAP and 

the Portland Cement NSPS, we have 

exempted sources from the least 

stringent requirement thereby 

eliminating the overlapping monitoring, 

testing and reporting requirements by 

requiring that the source comply with 

only the more stringent of the standards. 

In addition, we applied MACT for HCl 

emissions to major sources only. The 

reduced compliance costs for two of the 

three small entities by a factor of 4. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act (UMRA), 2 U.S.C 1531– 

1538, requires Federal agencies, unless 

otherwise prohibited by law, to assess 

the effects of their regulatory actions on 

State, local, and Tribal governments and 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2
55032 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 174 / Thursday, September 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

the private sector. Federal agencies must 

also develop a plan to provide notice to 

small governments that might be 

significantly or uniquely affected by any 

regulatory requirements. The plan must 

enable officials of affected small 

governments to have meaningful and 

timely input in the development of EPA 

regulatory proposals with significant 

Federal intergovernmental mandates 

and must inform, educate, and advise 

small governments on compliance with 

the regulatory requirements. 

1. Subpart F 

This rule does not contain a Federal 

mandate that may result in expenditures 

of $100 million or more for State, local, 

and Tribal governments, in the 

aggregate, or the private sector in any 

one year. As discussed earlier in this 

preamble, the estimated expenditures 

for the private sector in the fifth year 

after promulgation are $50 million. 

Thus, this final rule is not subject to the 

requirements of section 202 and 205 of 

the UMRA. 

This final action is also not subject to 

the requirements of section 203 of the 

UMRA because it contains no regulatory 

requirements that might significantly or 

uniquely affect small governments. This 

final action contains no requirements 

that apply to such governments, 

imposes no obligations upon them, and 

will not result in expenditures by them 

of $100 million or more in any one year 

or any disproportionate impacts on 

them. 

2. Subpart LLL 

This rule contains a Federal mandate 

that may result in expenditures of $100 

million or more for State, local, and 

Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or 

the private sector in any one year. 

Accordingly, EPA has prepared under 

section 202 of the UMRA a written 

statement which is summarized below. 

In developing this rule, EPA 

consulted with small governments 

under a plan developed pursuant to 

section 203 of UMRA concerning the 

regulatory requirements in the rule that 

might significantly or uniquely affect 

small governments. EPA has determined 

that this final action contains regulatory 

requirements that might significantly or 

uniquely affect small governments 

because we identified one of the 

facilities affected by the final rule as 

Tribally owned. EPA developed a plan 

to permit this Tribal entity to have 

meaningful and timely input into its 

development. 

Consistent with the intergovernmental 

consultation provisions of section 204 of 

the UMRA, EPA initiated consultations 

with the governmental entities affected 

by this rule. EPA directly contacted the 

facility in question to insure it was 

appraised of this rulemaking and 

potential implications. This facility 

indicated it was aware of the 

rulemaking and was participating in 

meetings with the industry trade 

association concerning this rulemaking. 

The facility did not indicate any special 

issues other than those expressed by the 

industry in general, We are assuming 

that they have the same concerns as 

those expressed by the other nonTribally owned facilities during the 

development of this final rule. 

Subsequent to proposal, EPA again 

contacted the Tribal Government by 

letter with an offer of consultation. We 

received no response to that letter. 

Consistent with section 205, EPA has 

identified and considered a reasonable 

number of regulatory alternatives. EPA 

carefully examined regulatory 

alternatives, and selected the lowest 

cost/least burdensome alternative that 

EPA deems adequate to address 

Congressional concerns and to 

effectively reduce emissions of mercury, 

THC and PM. EPA has considered the 

costs and benefits of the final rule, and 

has concluded that the costs will fall 

mainly on the private sector 

(approximately $479 million). EPA 

estimates that an additional facility 

owned by a Tribal government will 

incur approximately $1.2 million in 

costs per year. Furthermore, we believe 

it is unlikely that State, local and Tribal 

governments would begin operating 

large industrial facilities, similar to 

those affected by this rulemaking 

operated by the private sector. EPA has 

selected regulatory alternatives that 

represent the MACT floor level of 

control, which is the least stringent 

level allowed by law. 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, 

August 10, 1999), requires EPA to 

develop an accountable process to 

ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by 

State and local officials in the 

development of regulatory policies that 

have federalism implications.’’ ‘‘Policies 

that have federalism implications’’ is 

defined in the Executive Order to 

include regulations that have 

‘‘substantial direct effects on the States, 

on the relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government.’’ 

These two final rules do not have 

federalism implications. They will not 

have substantial direct effects on the 

States, on the relationship between the 

national government and the States, or 

on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132. None of the 

affected facilities are owned or operated 

by State governments. Thus, Executive 

Order 13132 does not apply to these 

final rules. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

Subject to the Executive Order 13175 

(65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000) EPA 

may not issue a regulation that has 

Tribal implications, that imposes 

substantial direct compliance costs, and 

that is not required by statute, unless 

the Federal government provides the 

funds necessary to pay the direct 

compliance costs incurred by Tribal 

governments, or EPA consults with 

Tribal officials early in the process of 

developing the regulation and develops 

a Tribal summary impact statement. 

1. Subpart F 

This final action does not have Tribal 

implications, as specified in Executive 

Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 

2000). It will not have substantial direct 

effects on Tribal governments, on the 

relationship between the Federal 

government and Indian Tribes, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities between the Federal 

government and Indian Tribes, as 

specified in Executive Order 13175. The 

final rule imposes requirements on 

owners and operators of specified 

industrial facilities and not Tribal 

governments. The only Tribally owned 

source is not affected by the 

amendments to subpart F. Thus, 

Executive Order 13175 does not apply 

to this action. 

2. Subpart LLL 

EPA has concluded that this action 

will have Tribal implications, because it 

will impose substantial direct 

compliance costs on Tribal 

governments, and the Federal 

government will not provide the funds 

necessary to pay those costs. One of the 

facilities affected by this final rule is 

Tribally owned. We estimate this 

facility will incur direct compliance 

costs that are between 1 to 3 percent of 

sales. Accordingly, EPA provides the 

following Tribal summary impact 

statement as required by section 5(b). 

EPA consulted with Tribal officials 

early in the process of developing this 

regulation to provide them meaningful 

and timely input into its development. 

EPA directly contacted the facility in 

question to insure it was appraised of 

this rulemaking and potential 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 174 / Thursday, September 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 55033 

implications. This facility indicated it 

was aware of the rulemaking and was 

participating in meetings with the 

industry trade association concerning 

this rulemaking. The facility did not 

indicate any specific concern, and we 

are assuming that they have the same 

concerns as those expresses by the other 

non-Tribally owned facilities during the 

development of this rule. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 

(62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) as 

applying to those regulatory actions that 

concern health or safety risks, such that 

the analysis required under section 5– 

501 of the Executive Order has the 

potential to influence the regulation. 

This action is not subject to Executive 

Order 13045 because it is based solely 

on technology performance. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This rule is not a ‘‘significant energy 

action’’ as defined in Executive Order 

13211, (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) 

because it is not likely to have a 

significant adverse effect on the supply, 

distribution, or use of energy. Further, 

we have concluded that this rule is not 

likely to have any adverse energy 

effects. This rule will result in the 

addition of control equipment and 

monitoring systems for existing and new 

sources. 

The final rule under subpart F will 

result in the addition of alkaline 

scrubbers to certain kilns to reduce SO2

emissions. We estimate the additional 

electrical demand to be 6.9 million 

kWhr per year by the end of the 2013. 

We estimate that under the final 

subpart LLL rule the additional 

electrical demand will be 1 billion kWhr 

per year and the natural gas use will be 

1.2 million MMBtu for existing sources. 

At the end of 2013, electrical demand 

from new sources will be 180 million 

kWhr per year. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (‘‘NTTAA’’), Public Law 

104–113 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs 

EPA to use voluntary consensus 

standards (VCS) in its regulatory 

activities unless to do so would be 

inconsistent with applicable law or 

otherwise impractical. Voluntary 

consensus standards are technical 

standards (e.g., materials specifications, 

test methods, sampling procedures, and 

business practices) that are developed or 

adopted by VCS bodies. NTTAA directs 

EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, 

explanations when the Agency decides 

not to use available and applicable VCS. 

Consistent with the NTTAA, EPA 

conducted searches through the 

Enhanced NSSN Database managed by 

the American National Standards 

Institute (ANSI). We also contacted VCS 

organizations, and accessed and 

searched their databases. 

1. Subpart F 

This final rulemaking involves 

technical standards. EPA has decided to 

use the VCS ASME PTC 19.10–1981, 

‘‘Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses,’’ for its 

manual methods of measuring the 

content of the exhaust gas. These parts 

of ASME PTC 19.10–1981 are acceptable 

alternatives to EPA Methods 3B, 6, 6A, 

7, and 7C. This standard is available 

from the American Society of 

Mechanical Engineers (ASME), Three 

Park Avenue, New York, NY 10016– 

5990. 

While the Agency has identified 12 

other VCS as being potentially 

applicable to this rule, we have decided 

not to use these VCS in this rulemaking. 

The use of these VCS would have been 

impractical because they do not meet 

the objectives of the standards cited in 

this rule. See the docket for this rule for 

the reasons for these determinations. 

2. Subpart LLL 

This final rulemaking involves 

technical standards. EPA will use 

ASTM D6348–03, ‘‘Determination of 

Gaseous Compounds by Extractive 

Direct Interface Fourier Transform 

(FTIR) Spectroscopy,’’ as an acceptable 

alternative to EPA Method 320 

providing the following conditions are 

met: 

(1) The test plan preparation and 

implementation in the Annexes to 

ASTM D 6348–03, Sections A1 through 

A8 are mandatory; 

(2) In ASTM D6348–03 Annex A5 

(Analyte Spiking Technique), the 

percent R must be determined for each 

target analyte (Equation A5.5). In order 

for the test data to be acceptable for a 

compound, percent R must be 

70≤R≤130. If the percent R value does 

not meet this criterion for a target 

compound, the test data is not 

acceptable for that compound and the 

test must be repeated for that analyte 

(i.e., the sampling and/or analytical 

procedure should be adjusted before a 

retest). The percent R value for each 

compound must be reported in the test 

report, and all field measurements must 

be corrected with the calculated percent 

R value for that compound by using the 

following equation: Reported Result = 

Measured Concentration in the Stack × 

100 ÷ percent R. 

While the Agency has identified eight 

other VCS as being potentially 

applicable to this rule, we have decided 

not to use these VCS in this rulemaking. 

The use of these VCS would have been 

impractical because they do not meet 

the objectives of the standards cited in 

this rule. See the docket for this rule for 

the reasons for these determinations. 

Under 40 CFR 60.13(i) of the NSPS 

General Provisions and 63.7 (f) of the 

NESHAP General Provisions, a source 

may apply to EPA for permission to use 

alternative test methods or alternative 

monitoring requirements in place of any 

required testing methods, performance 

specifications, or procedures in the final 

rule and amendments. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations 

Executive Order (EO) 12898 (59 FR 

7629) (February 16, 1994) establishes 

Federal executive policy on 

environmental justice. Its main 

provision directs Federal agencies, to 

the greatest extent practicable and 

permitted by law, to make 

environmental justice part of their 

mission by identifying and addressing, 

as appropriate, disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their programs, 

policies, and activities on minority 

populations and low-income 

populations in the United States. 

EPA has determined that this rule will 

not have disproportionately high and 

adverse human health or environmental 

effects on minority or low-income 

populations because it increases the 

level of environmental protection for all 

affected populations without having any 

disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects 

on any population, including any 

minority or low-income populations. 

Additionally, the Agency has reviewed 

this rule to determine if there was 

existing disproportionately high and 

adverse human health or environmental 

effects on minority or low-income 

populations that could be mitigated by 

this rulemaking. An analysis of 

demographic data showed that the 

average of populations in close 

proximity to the sources, and thus most 

likely to be affected by the sources, were 

similar in demographic composition to 

national averages. 

In determining the aggregate 

demographic makeup of the 

communities near affected sources, EPA 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2
55034 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 174 / Thursday, September 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

57U.S. GAO (Government Accountability Office). 

Demographics of People Living Near Waste 

Facilities. Washington DC: Government Printing 

Office; 1995. 

58Mohai P, Saha R. ‘‘Reassessing Racial and 

Socio-economic Disparities in Environmental 

Justice Research’’. Demography. 2006;43(2): 383– 

399. 

59Mennis J. ‘‘Using Geographic Information 

Systems to Create and Analyze Statistical Surfaces 

of Populations and Risk for Environmental Justice 

Analysis’’. Social Science Quarterly, 2002;83(1): 

281–297. 

60Bullard RD, Mohai P, Wright B, Saha R, et al. 

Toxic Waste and Race at Twenty 1987–2007. United 

Church of Christ. March, 2007. 

61The results of the demographic analysis are 

presented in ‘‘Review of Environmental Justice 

Impacts’’, June 2010, a copy of which is available 

in the docket. 

used census data at the block group 

level to identify demographics of the 

populations considered to be living near 

affected sources, such that they have 

notable exposures to current emissions 

from these sources. In this approach, 

EPA reviewed the distributions of 

different socio-demographic groups in 

the locations of the expected emission 

reductions from this rule. The review 

identified those census block groups 

within a circular distance of a half, 3, 

and 5 miles of affected sources and 

determined the demographic and socioeconomic composition (e.g., race, 

income, education, etc.) of these census 

block groups. The radius of 3 miles (or 

approximately 5 kilometers) has been 

used in other demographic analyses 

focused on areas around potential 

sources.57 58 59 60 EPA’s demographic 

analysis has shown that these areas in 

aggregate have similar proportions of 

American Indians, African-Americans, 

Hispanics, Whites, and ‘‘Other and 

Multi-racial’’ populations, and similar 

proportions of families with incomes 

below the poverty level as the national 

average.61

EPA defines ‘‘Environmental Justice’’ 

to include meaningful involvement of 

all people regardless of race, color, 

national origin, or income with respect 

to the development, implementation, 

and enforcement of environmental laws, 

regulations, and polices. 

This final action establishes national 

emission standards for new and existing 

cement kilns. EPA estimates that there 

are 100 facilities covered by this rule. 

The final rule will reduce emissions of 

all the listed hazardous air pollutants 

emitted from this source category. This 

includes emissions of cadmium, HCl, 

lead, Hg, and organic hazardous air 

pollutants. Adverse health effects from 

these pollutants include cancer, 

irritation of the lungs, skin, and mucus 

membranes, effects on the central 

nervous system, and damage to the 

kidneys, and acute health disorders. The 

rule will also result in substantial 

reductions of criteria pollutants such as 

NOX, PM (total and fine), and SO2. SO2

and NO2 are precursors for the 

formation of PM2.5 and ozone. Reducing 

these emissions will reduce ozone and 

PM2.5 formation and associated health 

effects, such as adult premature 

mortality, chronic and acute bronchitis, 

asthma, and other respiratory and 

cardiovascular diseases. (Please refer to 

the RIA contained in the docket for this 

rulemaking.) 

K. Congressional Review Act 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. EPA will submit a 

report containing this rule and other 

required information to the U.S. Senate, 

the U.S. House of Representatives, and 

the Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the rule in 

the Federal Register. A major rule 

cannot take effect until 60 days after it 

is published in the Federal Register. 

This action is a ‘‘major rule’’ as defined 

by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). These final rules will 

be effective November 8, 2010. 

List of Subjects 

40 CFR Part 60 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedure, 

Air pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

40 CFR Part 63 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedure, 

Air pollution control, Hazardous 

substances, Incorporation by reference, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Dated: August 6, 2010. 

Lisa P. Jackson, 

Administrator. 

■ For the reasons stated in the preamble, 

title 40, chapter I, of the Code of Federal 

Regulations is amended as follows: 

PART 60—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 60 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 23 U.S.C. 101; 42 U.S.C. 7401– 

7671q. 

Subpart A—[Amended] 

■ 2. Section 60.17 is amended by 

revising paragraph (h)(4) to read as 

follows: 

§ 60.17 Incorporations by reference. 

* * * * * 

(h) * * * 

(4) ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10–1981, 

Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses [Part 10, 

Instruments and Apparatus], IBR 

approved for § 60.56c(b)(4) of subpart 

Ec, § 60.63(f)(2) and (f)(4) of subpart F, 

§ 60.106(e)(2) of subpart J, 

§§ 60.104a(d)(3), (d)(5), (d)(6), (h)(3), 

(h)(4), (h)(5), (i)(3), (i)(4), (i)(5), (j)(3), 

and (j)(4), 60.105a(d)(4), (f)(2), (f)(4), 

(g)(2), and (g)(4), 60.106a(a)(1)(iii), 

(a)(2)(iii), (a)(2)(v), (a)(2)(viii), (a)(3)(ii), 

and (a)(3)(v), and 60.107a(a)(1)(ii), 

(a)(1)(iv), (a)(2)(ii), (c)(2), (c)(4), and 

(d)(2) of subpart Ja, tables 1 and 3 of 

subpart EEEE, tables 2 and 4 of subpart 

FFFF, table 2 of subpart JJJJ, and 

§ 60.4415(a)(2) and (a)(3) of subpart 

KKKK of this part. 

* * * * * 

Subpart F—[Amended] 

■ 3. Section 60.62 is revised to read as 

follows: 

§ 60.62 Standards. 

(a) On and after the date on which the 

performance test required to be 

conducted by § 60.8 is completed, you 

may not discharge into the atmosphere 

from any kiln any gases which: 

(1) Contain particulate matter (PM) in 

excess of: 

(i) 0.30 pound per ton of feed (dry 

basis) to the kiln if construction, 

reconstruction, or modification of the 

kiln commences after August 17, 1971 

but on or before June 16, 2008. 

(ii) 0.01 pound per ton of clinker on 

a 30-operating day rolling average if 

construction, reconstruction, or 

modification of the kiln commenced 

after June 16, 2008. An operating day 

includes all valid data obtained in any 

daily 24-hour period during which the 

kiln operates and excludes any 

measurements made during the daily 

24-hour period when the kiln was not 

operating. 

(2) Exhibit greater than 20 percent 

opacity, except that this opacity limit 

does not apply to any kiln subject to a 

PM limit in paragraph (a)(1) of this 

section that uses a PM continuous 

emissions monitoring system (CEMS). 

(3) Exceed 1.50 pounds of nitrogen 

oxide (NOX) per ton of clinker on a 30- 

operating day rolling average if 

construction, reconstruction, or 

modification of the kiln commences 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 174 / Thursday, September 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 55035 

after June 16, 2008, except this limit 

does not apply to any alkali bypass 

installed on the kiln. An operating day 

includes all valid data obtained in any 

daily 24-hour period during which the 

kiln operates and excludes any 

measurements made during the daily 

24-hour period when the kiln was not 

operating. 

(4) Exceed 0.4 pounds of sulfur 

dioxide (SO2) per ton of clinker on a 30- 

operating day rolling average if 

construction, reconstruction, or 

modification commences after June 16, 

2008, unless you are demonstrating a 90 

percent SO2 emissions reduction 

measured across the SO2 control device. 

An operating day includes all valid data 

obtained in any daily 24-hour period 

during which the kiln operates, and 

excludes any measurements made 

during the daily 24-hour period when 

the kiln was not operating. 

(b) On and after the date on which the 

performance test required to be 

conducted by § 60.8 is completed, you 

may not discharge into the atmosphere 

from any clinker cooler any gases 

which: 

(1) Contain PM in excess of: 

(i) 0.10 pound per ton of feed (dry 

basis) to the kiln if construction, 

reconstruction, or modification of the 

clinker cooler commenced after August 

17, 1971 but on or before June 16, 2008. 

(ii) 0.01 pound per ton of clinker on 

a 30-operating day rolling average if 

construction, reconstruction, or 

modification of the clinker cooler 

commences after June 16, 2008. An 

operating day includes all valid data 

obtained in any daily 24-hour period 

during which the kiln operates, and 

excludes any measurements made 

during the daily 24-hour period when 

the kiln was not operating. 

(2) Exhibit 10 percent opacity, or 

greater, except that this opacity limit 

does not apply to any clinker cooler 

subject to a PM limit in paragraph (b)(1) 

of this section that uses a PM CEMS. 

(3) If the kiln and clinker cooler 

exhaust are combined for energy 

efficiency purposes and sent to a single 

control device, the appropriate kiln PM 

limit may be adjusted using the 

procedures in § 63.1343(b) of this 

chapter. 

(4) If the kiln has a separate alkali 

bypass stack, you must combine the PM 

emissions from the bypass stack with 

the PM emissions from the main kiln 

exhaust to determine total PM 

emissions. 

(c) On and after the date on which the 

performance test required to be 

conducted by § 60.8 is completed, you 

may not discharge into the atmosphere 

from any affected facility other than the 

kiln and clinker cooler any gases which 

exhibit 10 percent opacity, or greater. 

(d) If you have an affected source 

subject to this subpart with a different 

emission limit or requirement for the 

same pollutant under another regulation 

in title 40 of this chapter, you must 

comply with the most stringent 

emission limit or requirement and are 

not subject to the less stringent 

requirement. 

■ 4. Section 60.63 is revised to read as 

follows: 

§ 60.63 Monitoring of operations. 

(a) [Reserved] 

(b) Clinker production monitoring 

requirements. For any kiln subject to an 

emissions limitation on PM, NOX, or 

SO2 emissions (lb/ton of clinker), you 

must: 

(1) Determine hourly clinker 

production by one of two methods: 

(i) Install, calibrate, maintain, and 

operate a permanent weigh scale system 

to measure and record weight rates of 

the amount of clinker produced in tons 

of mass per hour. The system of 

measuring hourly clinker production 

must be maintained within ±5 percent 

accuracy. 

(ii) Install, calibrate, maintain, and 

operate a permanent weigh scale system 

to measure and record weight rates of 

the amount of feed to the kiln in tons 

of mass per hour. The system of 

measuring feed must be maintained 

within ±5 percent accuracy. Calculate 

your hourly clinker production rate 

using a kiln specific feed-to-clinker ratio 

based on reconciled clinker production 

determined for accounting purposes and 

recorded feed rates. This ratio should be 

updated monthly. Note that if this ratio 

changes at clinker reconciliation, you 

must use the new ratio going forward, 

but you do not have to retroactively 

change clinker production rates 

previously estimated; 

(2) Determine, record, and maintain a 

record of the accuracy of the system of 

measuring hourly clinker or feed 

production before initial use (for new 

sources) or within 30 days of the 

effective date of this rule (for existing 

sources). During each quarter of source 

operation, you must determine, record, 

and maintain a record of the ongoing 

accuracy of the system of measuring 

hourly clinker or feed production. 

(3) Record the daily clinker 

production rates and kiln feed rates; and 

(4) Develop an emissions monitoring 

plan in accordance with paragraphs 

(i)(1) through (i)(4) of this section. 

(c) You must monitor PM emissions of 

a kiln or clinker cooler subject to a PM 

emissions limit in § 60.62(a)(1)(ii) or 

(b)(1)(ii) according to the applicable 

requirements below: 

(1) Install and operate a PM CEMS in 

accordance with Performance 

Specification 11 of appendix B and 

Procedure 2 of appendix F to part 60 of 

this chapter. The performance test 

method and the correlation test method 

for Performance Specification 11 shall 

be Method 5 or Method 5i of appendix 

A to this part. The owner or operator 

must also develop an emissions 

monitoring plan in accordance with 

paragraphs (i)(1) through (i)(4) of this 

section. 

(2) Perform Relative Response Audits 

annually and Response Correlation 

Audits every 3 years. 

(3) Collect readings at least every 15 

minutes in order to calculate the 30- 

operating day rolling average to 

determine PM emissions. Calculate the 

30-operating day rolling average using 

equation 1 of this section: 

30-operating day rolling average = 1 (Eq. minutes n PM

i

n

15

=1

∑ 1)

Where: 

PM15 minutes = PM emissions from a 15-minute 

period. 

n = number of 15 minute periods with valid 

data over the preceding 30 operating 

days. 

(d) You must install, operate, 

calibrate, and maintain an instrument 

for continuously monitoring and 

recording the concentration by volume 

of NOX emissions into the atmosphere 

for any kiln subject to the NOX

emissions limit in § 60.62(a)(3). If the 

kiln has an alkali bypass, NOX

emissions from the alkali bypass do not 

need to be monitored, and NOX

emission monitoring of the kiln exhaust 

may be done upstream of any comingled 

alkali bypass gases. 

(e) You must install, operate, 

calibrate, and maintain an instrument 

for continuously monitoring and 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2ER09SE10.006</MATH>
55036 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 174 / Thursday, September 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

recording the concentration by volume 

of SO2 emissions into the atmosphere 

for any kiln subject to the SO2 emissions 

limit in § 60.62(a)(4). If you are 

complying with the alternative 90 

percent SO2 emissions reduction 

emission limit, you must also 

continuously monitor and record the 

concentration by volume of SO2 present 

at the wet scrubber inlet. 

(f) You must install, operate, and 

maintain according to Performance 

Specification 2 (40 CFR part 60, 

appendix B) and the requirements in 

paragraphs (f)(1) through (5) of this 

section each CEMS required under 

paragraphs (c), (d) and (e) of this 

section. 

(1) The span value of each NOX

monitor must be set at 125 percent of 

the maximum estimated hourly 

potential NOX emission concentration 

that translates to the applicable 

emission limit at full clinker production 

capacity. 

(2) You must conduct performance 

evaluations of each NOX monitor 

according to the requirements in 

§ 60.13(c) and Performance 

Specification 2 of Appendix B to part 

60. The owner or operator must use 

Methods 7, 7A, 7C, 7D, or 7E of 

appendix A–4 to part 60 for conducting 

the relative accuracy evaluations. The 

method ASME PTC 19.10–1981, ‘‘Flue 

and Exhaust Gas Analyses,’’ 

(incorporated by reference—see § 60.17) 

is an acceptable alternative to EPA 

Method 7 or 7C of Appendix A–4 to part 

60. 

(3) The span value for the SO2

monitor must be set at 125 percent of 

the maximum estimated hourly 

potential SO2 emission concentration 

that translates to the applicable 

emission limit at full clinker production 

capacity. 

(4) You must conduct performance 

evaluations of each SO2 monitor 

according to the requirements in 

§ 60.13(c) and Performance 

Specification 2 of Appendix B to part 

60. You must use Methods 6, 6A, or 6C 

of Appendix A–4 to part 60 for 

conducting the relative accuracy 

evaluations. The method ASME PTC 

19.10–1981, ‘‘Flue and Exhaust Gas 

Analyses,’’ (incorporated by reference— 

see § 60.17) is an acceptable alternative 

to EPA Method 6 or 6A of Appendix A– 

4 to part 60. 

(5) You must comply with the quality 

assurance requirements in Procedure 1 

of Appendix F to part 60 for each 

monitor, including quarterly accuracy 

determinations for monitors, and daily 

calibration drift tests. 

(g) For each CEMS required under 

paragraphs (c) through (e) of this 

section: 

(1) You must operate the monitoring 

system and collect data at all required 

intervals at all times the affected source 

is operating, except for periods of 

monitoring system malfunctions, repairs 

associated with monitoring system 

malfunctions, and required monitoring 

system quality assurance or quality 

control activities (including, as 

applicable, calibration checks and 

required zero and span adjustments). 

(2) You may not use data recorded 

during the monitoring system 

malfunctions, repairs associated with 

monitoring system malfunctions, or 

required monitoring system quality 

assurance or control activities in 

calculations used to report emissions or 

operating levels. A monitoring system 

malfunction is any sudden, infrequent, 

not reasonably preventable failure of the 

monitoring system to provide valid data. 

Monitoring system failures that are 

caused in part by poor maintenance or 

careless operation are not malfunctions. 

An owner or operator must use all the 

data collected during all other periods 

in assessing the operation of the control 

device and associated control system. 

(3) You must meet the requirements of 

§ 60.13(h) when determining the 1-hour 

averages of emissions data. 

(h) You must install, operate, 

calibrate, and maintain instruments for 

continuously measuring and recording 

the pollutant per mass flow rate to the 

atmosphere for each kiln subject to the 

PM emissions limits in § 60.62(a)(1)(i) 

and (ii), the NOX emissions limit in 

§ 60.62(a)(3), or the SO2 emissions limit 

in § 60.62(a)(4) according to the 

requirements in paragraphs (h)(1) 

through (10) of this section. 

(1) The owner or operator must install 

each sensor of the flow rate monitoring 

system in a location that provides 

representative measurement of the 

exhaust gas flow rate at the sampling 

location of the NOX, SO2 or PM CEMS, 

taking into account the manufacturer’s 

recommendations. The flow rate sensor 

is that portion of the system that senses 

the volumetric flow rate and generates 

an output proportional to that flow rate. 

(2) The flow rate monitoring system 

must be designed to measure the 

exhaust gas flow rate over a range that 

extends from a value of at least 20 

percent less than the lowest expected 

exhaust flow rate to a value of at least 

20 percent greater than the highest 

expected exhaust gas flow rate. 

(3) The flow rate monitoring system 

must have a minimum accuracy of 5 

percent of the flow rate. 

(4) The flow rate monitoring system 

must be equipped with a data 

acquisition and recording system that is 

capable of recording values over the 

entire range specified in paragraph 

(h)(2) of this section. 

(5) The signal conditioner, wiring, 

power supply, and data acquisition and 

recording system for the flow rate 

monitoring system must be compatible 

with the output signal of the flow rate 

sensors used in the monitoring system. 

(6) The flow rate monitoring system 

must be designed to complete a 

minimum of one cycle of operation for 

each successive 15-minute period. 

(7) The flow rate sensor must have 

provisions to determine the daily zero 

and upscale calibration drift (CD) (see 

sections 3.1 and 8.3 of Performance 

Specification 2 in Appendix B to part 60 

of this chapter for a discussion of CD). 

(i) Conduct the CD tests at two 

reference signal levels, zero (e.g., 0 to 20 

percent of span) and upscale (e.g., 50 to 

70 percent of span). 

(ii) The absolute value of the 

difference between the flow monitor 

response and the reference signal must 

be equal to or less than 3 percent of the 

flow monitor span. 

(8) You must perform an initial 

relative accuracy test of the flow rate 

monitoring system according to section 

8.2 of Performance Specification 6 of 

Appendix B to part 60 of the chapter, 

with the exceptions noted in paragraphs 

(h)(8)(i) and (ii). 

(i) The relative accuracy test is to 

evaluate the flow rate monitoring 

system alone rather than a continuous 

emission rate monitoring system. 

(ii) The relative accuracy of the flow 

rate monitoring system shall be no 

greater than 10 percent of the mean 

value of the reference method data. 

(9) You must verify the accuracy of 

the flow rate monitoring system at least 

once per year by repeating the relative 

accuracy test specified in paragraph 

(h)(8). 

(10) You must operate the flow rate 

monitoring system and record data 

during all periods of operation of the 

affected facility including periods of 

startup, shutdown, and malfunction, 

except for periods of monitoring system 

malfunctions, repairs associated with 

monitoring system malfunctions, and 

required monitoring system quality 

assurance or quality control activities 

(including, as applicable, calibration 

checks and required zero and span 

adjustments. 

(i) Development and Submittal (Upon 

Request) of Monitoring Plans. If you 

demonstrate compliance with any 

applicable emission limit through 

performance stack testing or other 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 174 / Thursday, September 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 55037 

emissions monitoring, you must 

develop a site-specific monitoring plan 

according to the requirements in 

paragraphs (i)(1) through (4) of this 

section. This requirement also applies to 

you if you petition the EPA 

Administrator for alternative monitoring 

parameters under paragraph (h) of this 

section and § 63.8(f). If you use a BLDS, 

you must also meet the requirements 

specified in paragraph § 63.1350(m)(10) 

of this chapter. 

(1) For each continuous monitoring 

system (CMS) required in this section, 

you must develop, and submit to the 

permitting authority for approval upon 

request, a site-specific monitoring plan 

that addresses paragraphs (i)(1)(i) 

through (iii) of this section. You must 

submit this site-specific monitoring 

plan, if requested, at least 60 days before 

the initial performance evaluation of 

your CMS. 

(i) Installation of the CEMS sampling 

probe or other interface at a 

measurement location relative to each 

affected process unit such that the 

measurement is representative of 

control of the exhaust emissions (e.g., 

on or downstream of the last control 

device); 

(ii) Performance and equipment 

specifications for the sample interface, 

the pollutant concentration or 

parametric signal analyzer, and the data 

collection and reduction systems; and 

(iii) Performance evaluation 

procedures and acceptance criteria (e.g., 

calibrations). 

(2) In your site-specific monitoring 

plan, you must also address paragraphs 

(i)(2)(i) through (iii) of this section. 

(i) Ongoing operation and 

maintenance procedures in accordance 

with the general requirements of 

§ 63.8(c)(1), (c)(3), and (c)(4)(ii); 

(ii) Ongoing data quality assurance 

procedures in accordance with the 

general requirements of § 63.8(d); and 

(iii) Ongoing recordkeeping and 

reporting procedures in accordance with 

the general requirements of § 63.10(c), 

(e)(1), and (e)(2)(i). 

(3) You must conduct a performance 

evaluation of each CMS in accordance 

with your site-specific monitoring plan. 

(4) You must operate and maintain 

the CMS in continuous operation 

according to the site-specific monitoring 

plan. 

■ 5. Section 60.64 is revised to read as 

follows: 

§ 60.64 Test methods and procedures 

(a) In conducting the performance 

tests required in § 60.8, you must use 

reference methods and procedures and 

the test methods in appendix A of this 

part or other methods and procedures as 

specified in this section, except as 

provided in § 60.8(b). 

(b) Compliance with the PM standards 

in § 60.62 is determined using the 

procedures specified in § 60.63. 

(1) The PM emission rate is calculated 

using Equation 2 of this section: 

E C Q PK = ( ) S S /( ) (Eq. 2)

Where: 

E = emission rate of particulate matter, lb/ton 

of kiln feed; 

Cs = concentration of particulate matter, gr/ 

scf; 

Qs = volumetric flow rate of effluent gas, 

where Cs and Qs are on the same basis 

(either wet or dry), dscf/hr; 

P = total kiln feed (dry basis) rate, ton/hr. For 

kilns constructed, modified or 

reconstructed on or after June 16, 2008, 

p = total kiln clinker production rate; and 

K = conversion factor, 7000 gr/lb. 

(2) Suitable methods shall be used to 

determine the kiln feed rate (P), except 

fuels. 

(3) Method 9 and the procedures in 

§ 60.11 must be used to determine 

opacity. 

(4) Any sources other than kilns 

(including associated alkali bypass and 

cooler) subject to the 10 percent opacity 

limit must follow the appropriate 

monitoring procedures in § 63.1350(f), 

(m)(1) through (4), (m)(10) through (11), 

(o), and (p) of this chapter. 

(5) If your kiln is not equipped with 

a PM CEMS meeting the requirements of 

Performance Specification 11 of 

Appendix B to part 60, and the kiln 

(including any associated alkali bypass 

and clinker cooler) was constructed, 

modified or reconstructed on or after 

June 16, 2008, you must conduct a 

performance test every 5 years following 

the initial performance test. Kilns 

(including any associated alkali bypass 

and clinker cooler) constructed, 

reconstructed, or modified after August 

17, 1971 but on or before June 16, 2008 

must conduct a performance test every 

5 years if not equipped with a PM CEMS 

meeting the requirements of 

Performance Specification 11 of 

Appendix B to part 60. 

(c) You must calculate and record the 

30-operating day rolling emission rate of 

NOX and SO2 as the total of all hourly 

emissions data for a cement kiln in the 

preceding 30 days, divided by the total 

tons of clinker produced in that kiln 

during the same 30-operating day period 

using Equation 3 of this section: 

E C Q PK = ( ) S S /( ) Eq. 3

Where: 

E = emission rate of NOX or SO2, lb/ton of 

clinker production; 

Cs = concentration of NOX or SO2, gr/scf; 

Qs = volumetric flow rate of effluent gas, 

where Cs and Qs are on the same basis 

(either wet or dry), scf/hr; 

P = total kiln clinker production rate, ton/hr; 

and 

K = conversion factor, 7000 gr/lb. 

(d) As of December 31, 2011 and 

within 60 days after the date of 

completing each performance 

evaluation or test, as defined in § 63.2, 

conducted to demonstrate compliance 

with this subpart, you must submit the 

relative accuracy test audit data and 

performance test data, except opacity 

data, to EPA by successfully submitting 

the data electronically to EPA’s Central 

Data Exchange (CDX) by using the 

Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) (see 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/ 

ert_tool.html/). 

■ 6. Section 60.66 is revised to read as 

follows: 

§ 60.66 Delegation of authority. 

(a) This subpart can be implemented 

and enforced by the U.S. EPA or a 

delegated authority such as a State, 

local, or Tribal agency. You should 

contact your U.S. EPA Regional Office 

to find out if this subpart is delegated 

to a State, local, or Tribal agency within 

your State. 

(b) In delegating implementation and 

enforcement authority to a State, local, 

or Tribal agency, the approval 

authorities contained paragraphs (b)(1) 

through (4) of this section are retained 

by the Administrator of the U.S EPA 

and are not transferred to the State, 

local, or Tribal agency. 

(1) Approval of an alternative to any 

non-opacity emissions standard. 

(2) Approval of a major change to test 

methods under § 60.8(b). A ‘‘major 

change to test method’’ is defined in 40 

CFR 63.90. 

(3) Approval of a major change to 

monitoring under § 60.13(i). A ‘‘major 

change to monitoring’’ is defined in 40 

CFR 63.90. 

(4) Approval of a major change to 

recordkeeping/reporting under § 60.7(b) 

through (f). A ‘‘major change to 

recordkeeping/reporting’’ is defined in 

40 CFR 63.90. 

Appendix B—[Amended] 

■ 7. Appendix B to 40 CFR Part 60 is 

amended as follows: 

■ a. Revise Performance Specification 

12A. 

■ b. Add Performance Specification 

12B. 

Appendix B to Part 60—Performance 

Specifications 

* * * * * 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2ER09SE10.007</MATH> ER09SE10.008</MATH>
55038 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 174 / Thursday, September 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

Performance Specification 12A— 

Specifications and Test Procedures for Total 

Vapor Phase Mercury Continuous Emission 

Monitoring Systems in Stationary Sources 

1.0 Scope and Application 

1.1 Analyte. The analyte measured by 

these procedures and specifications is total 

vapor phase mercury (Hg) in the flue gas, 

which represents the sum of elemental Hg 

(Hg°, CAS Number 7439–97–6) and oxidized 

forms of gaseous Hg (Hg∂2), in concentration 

units of micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m3). 

1.2 Applicability. 

1.2.1 This specification is for evaluating 

the acceptability of total vapor phase Hg 

continuous emission monitoring systems 

(CEMS) installed at stationary sources at the 

time of or soon after installation and 

whenever specified in the regulations. The 

Hg CEMS must be capable of measuring the 

total concentration in μg/m3 of vapor phase 

Hg, regardless of speciation, and recording 

that concentration at standard conditions on 

a wet or dry basis. These specifications do 

not address measurement of particle bound 

Hg. 

1.2.2 This specification is not designed to 

evaluate an installed CEMS’s performance 

over an extended period of time nor does it 

identify specific calibration techniques and 

auxiliary procedures to assess the CEMS’s 

performance. The source owner or operator, 

however, is responsible to calibrate, 

maintain, and operate the CEMS properly. 

The Administrator may require, under 

section 114 of the Clean Air Act, the operator 

to conduct CEMS performance evaluations at 

other times besides the initial performance 

evaluation test. See §§ 60.13(c) and 63.8(e)(1). 

1.2.3 Mercury monitoring approaches not 

entirely suited to these specifications may be 

approvable under the alternative monitoring 

or alternative test method provisions of 

§ 60.13(i) and § 63.8(f) or § 60.8(b)(3) and 

§ 63.7(f), respectively. 

2.0 Summary of Performance Specification 

Procedures for determining CEMS relative 

accuracy, linearity, and calibration drift are 

outlined. CEMS installation and 

measurement location specifications, data 

reduction procedures, and performance 

criteria are included. 

3.0 Definitions 

3.1 Continuous Emission Monitoring 

System (CEMS) means the total equipment 

required to measure a pollutant 

concentration. The system generally consists 

of the following three major subsystems: 

3.2 Sample Interface means that portion 

of the CEMS used for one or more of the 

following: sample acquisition, sample 

transport, sample conditioning, and 

protection of the monitor from the effects of 

the stack effluent. 

3.3 Hg Analyzer means that portion of the 

Hg CEMS that measures the total vapor phase 

Hg mass concentration and generates a 

proportional output. 

3.4 Data Recorder means that portion of 

the CEMS that provides a permanent 

electronic record of the analyzer output. The 

data recorder may provide automatic data 

reduction and CEMS control capabilities. 

3.5 Span Value means the measurement 

range as specified in the applicable 

regulation or other requirement. If the span 

is not specified in the applicable regulation 

or other requirement, then it must be a value 

approximately equivalent to two times the 

emission standard. Unless otherwise 

specified, the span value may be rounded up 

to the nearest multiple of 10. 

3.6 Measurement Error Test means a test 

procedure in which the accuracy of the 

concentrations measured by a CEMS at three 

or more points over its measurement range is 

evaluated using reference gases. For Hg 

CEMS, elemental and oxidized Hg (Hg0 and 

mercuric chloride, HgCl2) gas standards of 

known concentration are used for this 

procedure. 

3.7 Measurement Error (ME) means the 

absolute value of the difference between the 

concentration indicated by the CEMS and the 

known concentration of a reference gas, 

expressed as a percentage of the span value, 

when the entire CEMS, including the 

sampling interface, is challenged. 

3.8 Calibration Drift (CD) means the 

absolute value of the difference between the 

CEMS output response and either an upscale 

Hg reference gas or a zero-level Hg reference 

gas, expressed as a percentage of the span 

value, when the entire CEMS, including the 

sampling interface, is challenged after a 

stated period of operation during which no 

unscheduled maintenance or repair took 

place. 

3.9 Relative Accuracy Test Procedure 

means a test procedure consisting of at least 

nine test runs, in which the accuracy of the 

concentrations measured by a CEMS is 

evaluated by comparison against concurrent 

measurements made with a reference method 

(RM). Relative accuracy tests repeated on a 

regular, on-going basis are referred to as 

relative accuracy test audits or RATAs. 

3.10 Relative Accuracy (RA) means the 

absolute mean difference between the 

pollutant concentrations determined by the 

CEMS and the values determined by the RM 

plus the 2.5 percent error confidence 

coefficient of a series of tests divided by the 

mean of the RM tests. Alternatively, for 

sources with an average RM concentration 

less than 5.0 micrograms per standard cubic 

meter (μg/scm), the RA may be expressed as 

the absolute value of the difference between 

the mean CEMS and RM values. 

4.0 Interferences [Reserved] 

5.0 Safety 

The procedures required under this 

performance specification may involve 

hazardous materials, operations, and 

equipment. This performance specification 

may not address all of the safety problems 

associated with these procedures. It is the 

responsibility of the user to establish 

appropriate safety and health practices and 

determine the applicable regulatory 

limitations prior to performing these 

procedures. The CEMS user’s manual and 

materials recommended by the RM should be 

consulted for specific precautions to be 

taken. 

6.0 Equipment and Supplies 

6.1 CEMS Equipment Specifications. 

6.1.1 Data Recorder Scale. The Hg CEMS 

data recorder output range must include the 

full range of expected Hg concentration 

values in the gas stream to be sampled 

including zero and the span value. 

6.1.2 The Hg CEMS design should also 

provide for the determination of CD and ME 

at a zero value (zero to 20 percent of the span 

value) and at upscale values (between 50 and 

100 percent of the span value). The Hg CEMS 

must be constructed to permit the 

introduction of known concentrations of Hg 

and HgCl2 separately into the sampling 

system of the CEMS immediately preceding 

the sample extraction filtration system such 

that the entire CEMS can be challenged. 

6.2 Reference Gas Delivery System. The 

reference gas delivery system must be 

designed so that the flowrate exceeds the 

sampling system flow requirements of the 

CEMS and that the gas is delivered to the 

CEMS at atmospheric pressure. 

6.3 Other equipment and supplies, as 

needed by the reference method used for the 

Relative Accuracy Test Procedure. See 

Section 8.6.2. 

7.0 Reagents and Standards 

7.1 Reference Gases. Reference gas 

standards are required for both elemental and 

oxidized Hg (Hg and mercuric chloride, 

HgCl2). The use of National Institute of 

Standards and Technology (NIST)-traceable 

standards and reagents is required. The 

following gas concentrations are required. 

7.1.1 Zero-level. 0 to 20 percent of the 

span value. 

7.1.2 Mid-level. 50 to 60 percent of the 

span value. 

7.1.3 High-level. 80 to 100 percent of the 

span value. 

7.2 Reference gas standards may also be 

required for the reference methods. See 

Section 8.6.2. 

8.0 Performance Specification Test 

Procedure 

8.1 Installation and Measurement 

Location Specifications. 

8.1.1 CEMS Installation. Install the CEMS 

at an accessible location downstream of all 

pollution control equipment. Place the probe 

outlet or other sampling interface at a point 

or location in the stack (or vent) 

representative of the stack gas concentration 

of Hg. Since the Hg CEMS sample system 

normally extracts gas from a single point in 

the stack, a location that has been shown to 

be free of stratification for Hg or, 

alternatively, SO2 is recommended. If the 

cause of failure to meet the RA test 

requirement is determined to be the 

measurement location and a satisfactory 

correction technique cannot be established, 

the Administrator may require the CEMS to 

be relocated. Measurement locations and 

points or paths that are most likely to provide 

data that will meet the RA requirements are 

described in Sections 8.1.2 and 8.1.3 below. 

8.1.2 Measurement Location. The 

measurement location should be (1) at least 

two equivalent diameters downstream of the 

nearest control device, point of pollutant 

generation or other point at which a change 

of pollutant concentration may occur, and (2) 

at least half an equivalent diameter upstream 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 174 / Thursday, September 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 55039 

from the effluent exhaust. The equivalent 

duct diameter is calculated according to 

Method 1 in appendix A–1 to this part. 

8.1.3 Hg CEMS Sample Extraction Point. 

Use a sample extraction point either (1) no 

less than 1.0 meter from the stack or duct 

wall, or (2) within the centroidal velocity 

traverse area of the stack or duct cross 

section. This does not apply to cross-stack, 

in-situ measurement systems. 

8.2 Measurement Error (ME) Test 

Procedure. Sequentially inject each of at least 

three elemental Hg reference gases (zero, 

mid-level, and high level, as defined in 

Section 7.1), three times each for a total of 

nine injections. Inject the gases in such a 

manner that the entire CEMS is challenged. 

Do not inject the same gas concentration 

twice in succession. At each reference gas 

concentration, determine the average of the 

three CEMS responses and subtract the 

average response from the reference gas 

value. Calculate the measurement error (ME) 

using Equation 12–1 by expressing the 

absolute value of the difference between the 

average CEMS response (A) and the reference 

gas value (R) as a percentage of the span (see 

example data sheet in Figure 12A–1). For 

each elemental Hg reference gas, the absolute 

value of the difference between the CEMS 

response and the reference value must not 

exceed 5 percent of the span value. If this 

specification is not met, identify and correct 

the problem before proceeding. Repeat the 

measurement error test procedure using 

oxidized Hg reference gases. For each 

oxidized Hg reference gas, the absolute value 

of the difference between the CEMS response 

and the reference value shall not exceed 10 

percent of the span value. If this specification 

is not met, identify and correct the problem 

before proceeding. 

ME

R A

Span = x − (Equation 12A-1) 100

8.3 Seven-Day Calibration Drift (CD) Test 

Procedure. 

8.3.1 CD Test Period. While the affected 

facility is operating normally, or as specified 

in an applicable regulation, determine the 

magnitude of the CD once each day (at 24- 

hour intervals, to the extent practicable) for 

7 consecutive unit operating days according 

to the procedures in Sections 8.3.2 and 8.3.3. 

The 7 consecutive unit operating days need 

not be 7 consecutive calendar days. Use 

either Hg° or HgCl2 standards for this test. 

8.3.2 The purpose of the CD measurement 

is to verify the ability of the CEMS to 

conform to the established CEMS response 

used for determining emission 

concentrations or emission rates. Therefore, 

if periodic automatic or manual adjustments 

are made to the CEMS zero and upscale 

response settings, conduct the CD test 

immediately before these adjustments, or 

conduct it in such a way that the CD can be 

determined. 

8.3.3 Conduct the CD test using the zero 

gas specified and either the mid-level or 

high-level gas as specified in Section 7.1. 

Sequentially introduce the reference gases to 

the CEMS at the sampling system of the 

CEMS immediately preceding the sample 

extraction filtration system. Record the CEMS 

response (A) for each reference gas and, using 

Equation 12A–2, subtract the corresponding 

reference value (R) from the CEMS value, and 

express the absolute value of the difference 

as a percentage of the span value (see also 

example data sheet in Figure 12A–2). For 

each reference gas, the absolute value of the 

difference between the CEMS response and 

the reference value must not exceed 5 

percent of the span value. If these 

specifications are not met, identify and 

correct the problem before proceeding. 

CD

R A

Span = x − (Equation 12A-2) 100

8.4 Relative Accuracy (RA) Test 

Procedure. 

8.4.1 RA Test Period. Conduct the RA test 

according to the procedure given in Sections 

8.4.2 through 8.4.6 while the affected facility 

is operating normally, or as specified in an 

applicable subpart. The RA test may be 

conducted during the CD test period. 

8.4.2 Reference Methods (RM). Unless 

otherwise specified in an applicable subpart 

of the regulations, use Method 29, Method 

30A, or Method 30B in appendix A–8 to this 

part or American Society of Testing and 

Materials (ASTM) Method D6784–02 

(incorporated by reference, see § 60.17) as the 

RM for Hg concentration. For Method 29 and 

ASTM Method D6784–02 only, the filterable 

portion of the sample need not be included 

when making comparisons to the CEMS 

results. When Method 29, Method 30B, or 

ASTM D6784–02 is used, conduct the RM 

test runs with paired or duplicate sampling 

systems and use the average of the vapor 

phase Hg concentrations measured by the 

two trains. When Method 30A is used, paired 

sampling systems are not required. If the RM 

and CEMS measure on a different moisture 

basis, data derived with Method 4 in 

appendix A–3 to this part must also be 

obtained during the RA test. 

8.4.3 Sampling Strategy for RM Tests. 

Conduct the RM tests in such a way that they 

will yield results representative of the 

emissions from the source and can be 

compared to the CEMS data. The RM and 

CEMS locations need not be immediately 

adjacent. Locate the RM measurement points 

in accordance with section 8.1.3 of 

Performance Specification 2 (PS 2) in this 

appendix. It is preferable to conduct moisture 

measurements (if needed) and Hg 

measurements simultaneously, although 

moisture measurements that are taken within 

an hour of the Hg measurements may be used 

to adjust the Hg concentrations to a 

consistent moisture basis. In order to 

correlate the CEMS and RM data properly, 

note the beginning and end of each RM test 

period for each paired RM run (including the 

exact time of day) on the CEMS chart 

recordings or other permanent record of 

output. 

8.4.4 Number and Length of RM Test 

Runs. Conduct a minimum of nine RM test 

runs. When Method 29, Method 30B, or 

ASTM D6784–02 is used, only test runs for 

which the paired RM trains meet the relative 

deviation criteria (RD) of this PS must be 

used in the RA calculations. In addition, for 

Method 29 and ASTM D6784–02, use a 

minimum sample time of 2 hours and for 

Methods 30A and 30B use a minimum 

sample time of 30 minutes. 

Note: More than nine sets of RM test runs 

may be performed. If this option is chosen, 

RM test run results may be excluded so long 

as the total number of RM test run results 

used to determine the CEMS RA is greater 

than or equal to nine. However, all data must 

be reported including the excluded test run 

data. 

8.4.5 Correlation of RM and CEMS Data. 

Correlate the CEMS and the RM test data as 

to the time and duration by first determining 

from the CEMS final output (the one used for 

reporting) the integrated average pollutant 

concentration for each RM test period. 

Consider system response time, if important, 

and confirm that the results are on a 

consistent moisture basis with the RM test. 

Then, compare each integrated CEMS value 

against the corresponding RM value. When 

Method 29, Method 30B, or ASTM D6784–02 

is used, compare each CEMS value against 

the corresponding average of the paired RM 

values. 

8.4.6 Paired RM Outliers. 

8.4.6.1 When Method 29, Method 30B, or 

ASTM D6784–02 is used, outliers are 

identified through the determination of 

relative deviation (RD) of the paired RM tests. 

Data that do not meet the RD criteria must 

be flagged as a data quality problem and may 

not be used in the calculation of RA. The 

primary reason for performing paired RM 

sampling is to ensure the quality of the RM 

data. The percent RD of paired data is the 

parameter used to quantify data quality. 

Determine RD for paired data points as 

follows: 

RD

C C

C +C x a b

a b

= − (Equation 12A-3) 100

Where: 

Ca and Cb are the Hg concentration values 

determined from the paired samples. 

8.4.6.2 The minimum performance 

criteria for RM Hg data is that RD for any data 

pair must be ≤ 10 percent as long as the mean 

Hg concentration is greater than 1.0 μg/m3. If 

the mean Hg concentration is less than or 

equal to 1.0 μg/m3, the RD must be ≤ 20 

percent or ≤ 0.2 μg/m3 absolute difference. 

Pairs of RM data exceeding these RD criteria 

should be eliminated from the data set used 

to develop a Hg CEMS correlation or to assess 

CEMS RA. 

8.4.7 Calculate the mean difference 

between the RM and CEMS values in the 

units of micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m3), 

the standard deviation, the confidence 

coefficient, and the RA according to the 

procedures in Section 12.0. 

8.5 Reporting. At a minimum (check with 

the appropriate EPA Regional Office, State or 

local Agency for additional requirements, if 

any), summarize in tabular form the results 

of the CD tests, the linearity tests, and the RA 

test or alternative RA procedure, as 

appropriate. Include all data sheets, 

calculations, charts (records of CEMS 

responses), reference gas concentration 

certifications, and any other information 

necessary to confirm that the CEMS meets 

the performance criteria. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2ER09SE10.009</MATH> ER09SE10.010</MATH> ER09SE10.011</MATH>
55040 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 174 / Thursday, September 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

9.0 Quality Control [Reserved] 

10.0 Calibration and Standardization 

[Reserved] 

11.0 Analytical Procedure 

For Method 30A, sample collection and 

analysis are concurrent. For the other RM, 

post-run sample analyses are performed. 

Refer to the RM employed for specific 

analytical procedures. 

12.0 Calculations and Data Analysis 

Calculate and summarize the RA test 

results on a data sheet similar to 

Figure 12A–3. 

12.1 Consistent Basis. All data from the 

RM and CEMS must be compared in units of 

micrograms per standard cubic meter (μg/ 

scm), on a consistent and identified moisture 

basis. The values must be standardized to 

20°C, 760 mm Hg. 

12.1.1 Moisture Correction (as 

applicable). If the RM and CEMS measure Hg 

on a different moisture basis, they will need 

to be corrected to a consistent basis. Use 

Equation 12A–4a to correct data from a wet 

basis to a dry basis. 

Concentration

Concentration

B (dry)

(wet)

ws

= ( ) 1− (Equation 12A-4a)

Use Equation 12A–4b to correct data from 

a dry basis to a wet basis. 

Concentration Concentration B (wet) = × (dry) ws ( ) 1 (Equation 12A- −4b)

Where: 

Bws is the moisture content of the flue gas 

from Method 4, expressed as a decimal 

fraction (e.g., for 8.0 percent H2O, 

Bws= 0.08). 

12.2 Arithmetic Mean. Calculate d, the 

arithmetic mean of the differences (di) of a 

data set as follows: 

d = n di

i

n 1 (Equation 12A-5)

=

∑1

Where: 

n = Number of data points. 

12.3 Standard Deviation. Calculate the 

standard deviation, Sd, as follows: 

S

d

d

n

n d

i

i

n i

i

n

=

−

⎡

⎣

⎢ ⎤

⎦

⎥

−

⎡

⎣

⎢

⎢

⎢

⎢

⎢

⎢

⎢

⎢

⎤

⎦

⎥

⎥

⎥

⎥

⎥

⎥

⎥

⎥

=

=

∑

∑ 2

1

1

2

1

2

1 (Equation 12A-6)

Where:

d Algebraic sum of the individual d i

i

n

=

∑ =

1

ifferences di .

12.3 Confidence Coefficient (CC). 

Calculate the 2.5 percent error confidence 

coefficient (one-tailed), CC, as follows: 

CC t S

n

d = 0 975. (Equation 12A-7)

12.4 Relative Accuracy. Calculate the RA 

of a set of data as follows: 

RA

d CC

RM = x

⎢ + ⎣ ⎥

⎦ (Equation 12A-8) 100

Where: 

|d| = Absolute value of the mean of the 

differences (from Equation 12A–5) 

|CC| = Absolute value of the confidence 

coefficient (from Equation 12A–7) 

RM = Average reference method value 

13.0 Method Performance 

13.1 Measurement Error (ME). For Hg0, 

the ME must not exceed 5 percent of the span 

value at the zero-, mid-, and high-level 

reference gas concentrations. For HgCl2, the 

ME must not exceed 10 percent of the span 

value at the zero-, mid-, and high-level 

reference gas concentrations. 

13.2 Calibration Drift (CD). The CD must 

not exceed 5 percent of the span value on any 

of the 7 days of the CD test. 

13.3 Relative Accuracy (RA). The RA of 

the CEMS must be no greater than 20 percent 

of the mean value of the RM test data in 

terms of units of μg/scm. Alternatively, if the 

mean RM is less than 5.0 μg/scm, the results 

are acceptable if the absolute value of the 

difference between the mean RM and CEMS 

values does not exceed 1.0 μg/scm. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2ER09SE10.012</MATH> ER09SE10.013</MATH> ER09SE10.014</MATH> ER09SE10.015</MATH> ER09SE10.016</MATH> ER09SE10.017</MATH>
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 174 / Thursday, September 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 55041 

14.0 Pollution Prevention [Reserved] 

15.0 Waste Management [Reserved] 

16.0 Alternative Procedures [Reserved] 

17.0 Bibliography 

17.1 40 CFR part 60, appendix B, 

‘‘Performance Specification 2—Specifications 

and Test Procedures for SO2 and NOX

Continuous Emission Monitoring Systems in 

Stationary Sources.’’ 

17.2 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, 

‘‘Method 29—Determination of Metals 

Emissions from Stationary Sources.’’ 

17.3 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, 

‘‘Method 30A—Determination of Total Vapor 

Phase Mercury Emissions From Stationary 

Sources (Instrumental Analyzer Procedure). 

17.4 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, 

‘‘Method 30B—Determination of Total Vapor 

Phase Mercury Emissions From Coal-Fired 

Combustion Sources Using Carbon Sorbent 

Traps.’’ 

17.5 ASTM Method D6784–02, ‘‘Standard 

Test Method for Elemental, Oxidized, 

Particle-Bound and Total Mercury in Flue 

Gas Generated from Coal-Fired Stationary 

Sources (Ontario Hydro Method).’’ 

18.0 Tables and Figures 

TABLE 12A–1—T-VALUES

na t0.975 na t0.975 na t0.975

2 ...................................... 12.706 7 ..................................... 2.447 12 ................................... 2.201 

3 ...................................... 4.303 8 ..................................... 2.365 13 ................................... 2.179 

4 ...................................... 3.182 9 ..................................... 2.306 14 ................................... 2.160 

5 ...................................... 2.776 10 ................................... 2.262 15 ................................... 2.145 

6 ...................................... 2.571 11 ................................... 2.228 16 ................................... 2.131 

aThe values in this table are already corrected for n–1 degrees of freedom. Use n equal to the number of individual values. 

FIGURE 12A–1—ME DETERMINATION

Date Time Reference 

gas value (μg/m3) 

CEMS 

measured 

value (μg/m3) 

Absolute 

difference 

(μg/m3) 

ME 

(% of span value) 

Zero level 

Average 

Mid level 

Average 

High level 

Average 

FIGURE 12A–2—7-DAY CALIBRATION DRIFT DETERMINATION

Date Time Reference 

gas value (μg/m3) 

CEMS 

measured 

value (μg/m3) 

Absolute 

difference 

(μg/m3) 

CD 

(% of span value) 

Zero level 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2
55042 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 174 / Thursday, September 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

FIGURE 12A–2—7-DAY CALIBRATION DRIFT DETERMINATION—Continued 

Date Time Reference 

gas value (μg/m3) 

CEMS 

measured 

value (μg/m3) 

Absolute 

difference 

(μg/m3) 

CD 

(% of span value) 

Upscale 

(Mid or High) 

FIGURE 12A–3—RELATIVE ACCURACY TEST DATA

Run No. Date Begin time End time RM value 

(μg/m3) 

CEMS value 

(μg/m3) 

Difference 

(μg/m3) 

Run used? 

(Yes/No) RD1

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

Average Values 

Arithmetic Mean Difference: 

Standard Deviation: 

Confidence Coefficient: 

T-Value: 

% Relative Accuracy: 

| (RM)avg ¥ (CEMS)avg | : 

1 Calculate the RD only if paired samples are taken using RM 30B, RM 29, or ASTM 6784–08. Express RD as a percentage or, for very low 

RM concentrations (≤ 1.0 μg/m3), as the absolute difference between Ca and Cb. 

Performance Specification 12B— 

Specifications and Test Procedures for 

Monitoring Total Vapor Phase Mercury 

Emissions From Stationary Sources Using a 

Sorbent Trap Monitoring System 

1.0 Scope and Application 

The purpose of Performance Specification 

12B (PS 12B) is to establish performance 

benchmarks for, and to evaluate the 

acceptability of, sorbent trap monitoring 

systems used to monitor total vapor-phase 

mercury (Hg) emissions in stationary source 

flue gas streams. These monitoring systems 

involve continuous repetitive in-stack 

sampling using paired sorbent media traps 

with periodic analysis of the time-integrated 

samples. Persons using PS 12B should have 

a thorough working knowledge of Methods 1, 

2, 3, 4, 5 and 30B in appendices A–1 through 

A–3 and A–8 to this part. 

1.1 Analyte. The analyte measured by 

these procedures and specifications is total 

vapor phase Hg in the flue gas, which 

represents the sum of elemental Hg (Hg0, 

CAS Number 7439–97–6) and gaseous forms 

of oxidized Hg (i.e., Hg+2) in mass 

concentration units of micrograms per dry 

standard cubic meter (μg/dscm). 

1.2 Applicability 

1.2.1 These procedures are only intended 

for use under relatively low particulate 

conditions (e.g., monitoring after all 

pollution control devices). This specification 

is for evaluating the acceptability of total 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 174 / Thursday, September 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 55043 

vapor phase Hg sorbent trap monitoring 

systems installed at stationary sources at the 

time of, or soon after, installation and 

whenever specified in the regulations. The 

Hg monitoring system must be capable of 

measuring the total concentration of vapor 

phase Hg (regardless of speciation), in units 

of μg/dscm. 

1.2.2 This specification contains routine 

procedures and specifications designed to 

evaluate an installed sorbent trap monitoring 

system’s performance over time; Procedure 5 

of appendix F to this part contains additional 

procedures and specifications which may be 

required for long term operation. In addition, 

the source owner or operator is responsible 

to calibrate, maintain, and operate the 

monitoring system properly. The 

Administrator may require the owner or 

operator, under section 114 of the Clean Air 

Act, to conduct performance evaluations at 

other times besides the initial test to evaluate 

the CEMS performance. See § 60.13(c) and 

63.8(e)(1). 

2.0 Principle 

Known volumes of flue gas are 

continuously extracted from a stack or duct 

through paired, in-stack, pre-spiked sorbent 

media traps at appropriate nominal flow 

rates. The sorbent traps in the sampling 

system are periodically exchanged with new 

ones, prepared for analysis as needed, and 

analyzed by any technique that can meet the 

performance criteria. For quality-assurance 

purposes, a section of each sorbent trap is 

spiked with Hg0 prior to sampling. Following 

sampling, this section is analyzed separately 

and a specified minimum percentage of the 

spike must be recovered. Paired train 

sampling is required to determine method 

precision. 

3.0 Definitions 

3.1 Sorbent Trap Monitoring System 

means the total equipment required for the 

collection of gaseous Hg samples using 

paired three-partition sorbent traps. 

3.2 Relative Accuracy Test Procedure 

means a test procedure consisting of at least 

nine runs, in which the accuracy of the total 

vapor phase Hg concentrations measured by 

the sorbent trap monitoring system is 

evaluated by comparison against concurrent 

measurements made with a reference method 

(RM). Relative accuracy tests repeated on a 

regular, on-going basis are referred to as 

relative accuracy test audits or RATAs. 

3.3 Relative Accuracy (RA) means the 

absolute mean difference between the 

pollutant (Hg) concentrations determined by 

the sorbent trap monitoring system and the 

values determined by the reference method 

(RM) plus the 2.5 percent error confidence 

coefficient of a series of tests divided by the 

mean of the RM tests. Alternatively, for low 

concentration sources, the RA may be 

expressed as the absolute value of the 

difference between the mean sorbent trap 

monitoring system and RM values. 

3.4 Relative Deviation (RD) means the 

absolute difference of the Hg concentration 

values obtained with a pair of sorbent traps 

divided by the sum of those concentrations, 

expressed as a percentage. RD is used to 

assess the precision of the sorbent trap 

monitoring system. 

3.5 Spike Recovery means the mass of Hg 

recovered from the spiked trap section, 

expressed as a percentage of the amount 

spiked. Spike recovery is used to assess 

sample matrix interference. 

4.0 Interferences [Reserved] 

5.0 Safety 

The procedures required under this 

performance specification may involve 

hazardous materials, operations, and 

equipment. This performance specification 

may not address all of the safety problems 

associated with these procedures. It is the 

responsibility of the user to establish 

appropriate safety and health practices and 

determine the applicable regulatory 

limitations prior to performing these 

procedures. 

6.0 Equipment and Supplies 

6.1 Sorbent Trap Monitoring System 

Equipment Specifications. 

6.1.1 Monitoring System. The equipment 

described in Method 30B in appendix A–8 to 

this part must be used to continuously 

sample for Hg emissions, with the 

substitution of three-section traps in place of 

two-section traps, as described below. A 

typical sorbent trap monitoring system is 

shown in Figure 12B–1. 

6.1.2 Three-Section Sorbent Traps. The 

sorbent media used to collect Hg must be 

configured in traps with three distinct and 

identical segments or sections, connected in 

series, to be separately analyzed. Section 1 is 

designated for primary capture of gaseous Hg. 

Section 2 is designated as a backup section 

for determination of vapor-phase Hg 

breakthrough. Section 3 is designated for 

quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) 

purposes. Section 3 must be spiked with a 

known amount of gaseous Hg0 prior to 

sampling and later analyzed to determine the 

spike (and hence sample) recovery efficiency. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2
55044 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 174 / Thursday, September 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

6.1.3 Gaseous Hg0 Sorbent Trap Spiking 

System. A known mass of gaseous Hg0 must 

be spiked onto section 3 of each sorbent trap 

prior to sampling. Any approach capable of 

quantitatively delivering known masses of 

Hg0 onto sorbent traps is acceptable. Several 

technologies or devices are available to meet 

this objective. Their practicality is a function 

of Hg mass spike levels. For low levels, NISTcertified or NIST-traceable gas generators or 

tanks may be suitable, but will likely require 

long preparation times. A more practical, 

alternative system, capable of delivering 

almost any mass required, employs NISTcertified or NIST-traceable Hg salt solutions 

(e.g., Hg(NO3)2). With this system, an aliquot 

of known volume and concentration is added 

to a reaction vessel containing a reducing 

agent (e.g., stannous chloride); the Hg salt 

solution is reduced to Hg0 and purged onto 

section 3 of the sorbent trap by using an 

impinger sparging system. 

6.1.4 Sample Analysis Equipment. Any 

analytical system capable of quantitatively 

recovering and quantifying total gaseous Hg 

from sorbent media is acceptable provided 

that the analysis can meet the performance 

criteria in Table 12B–1 in Section 9 of this 

performance specification. Candidate 

recovery techniques include leaching, 

digestion, and thermal desorption. Candidate 

analytical techniques include ultraviolet 

atomic fluorescence (UV AF); ultraviolet 

atomic absorption (UV AA), with and 

without gold trapping; and in-situ X-ray 

fluorescence (XRF). 

7.0 Reagents and Standards 

Only NIST-certified or NIST-traceable 

calibration gas standards and reagents must 

be used for the tests and procedures required 

under this performance specification. The 

sorbent media may be any collection material 

(e.g., carbon, chemically treated filter, etc.) 

capable of quantitatively capturing and 

recovering for subsequent analysis, all 

gaseous forms of Hg in the emissions from 

the intended application. Selection of the 

sorbent media must be based on the 

material’s ability to achieve the performance 

criteria contained in this method as well as 

the sorbent’s vapor phase Hg capture 

efficiency for the emissions matrix and the 

expected sampling duration at the test site. 

8.0 Performance Specification Test 

Procedure 

8.1 Installation and Measurement 

Location Specifications. 

8.1.1 Selection of Monitoring Site. 

Sampling site information should be 

obtained in accordance with Method 1 in 

appendix A–1 to this part. Place the probe 

inlet at a point or location in the stack (or 

vent) downstream of all pollution control 

equipment and representative of the stack gas 

concentration of Hg. A location that has been 

shown to be free of stratification for Hg or, 

alternatively, SO2 is recommended. An 

estimation of the expected stack Hg 

concentration is required to establish a target 

sample flow rate, total gas sample volume, 

and the mass of Hg0 to be spiked onto section 

3 of each sorbent trap. 

8.1.2 Pre-sampling Spiking of Sorbent 

Traps. Based on the estimated Hg 

concentration in the stack, the target sample 

rate and the target sampling duration, 

calculate the expected mass loading for 

section 1 of each sorbent trap (see Section 

12.1 of this performance specification). The 

pre-sampling spike to be added to section 3 

of each sorbent trap must be within ± 50 

percent of the expected section 1 mass 

loading. Spike section 3 of each sorbent trap 

at this level, as described in Section 6.1.3 of 

this performance specification. For each 

sorbent trap, keep a record of the mass of Hg0

added to section 3. This record must include, 

at a minimum, the identification number of 

the trap, the date and time of the spike, the 

name of the analyst performing the 

procedure, the method of spiking, the mass 

of Hg 0 added to section 3 of the trap (μg), and 

the supporting calculations. 

8.1.3 Pre-monitoring Leak Check. Perform 

a leak check with the sorbent traps in place 

in the sampling system. Draw a vacuum in 

each sample train. Adjust the vacuum in each 

sample train to ∼15′′ Hg. Use the gas flow 

meter to determine leak rate. The leakage rate 

must not exceed 4 percent of the target 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2ER09SE10.005</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 174 / Thursday, September 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 55045 

sampling rate. Once the leak check passes 

this criterion, carefully release the vacuum in 

the sample train, then seal the sorbent trap 

inlet until the probe is ready for insertion 

into the stack or duct. 

8.1.4 Determination of Flue Gas 

Characteristics. Determine or measure the 

flue gas measurement environment 

characteristics (gas temperature, static 

pressure, gas velocity, stack moisture, etc.) in 

order to determine ancillary requirements 

such as probe heating requirements (if any), 

sampling rate, proportional sampling 

conditions, moisture management, etc. 

8.2 Monitoring. 

8.2.1 System Preparation and Initial Data 

Recording. Remove the plug from the end of 

each sorbent trap and store each plug in a 

clean sorbent trap storage container. Remove 

the stack or duct port cap and insert the 

probe(s) with the inlet(s) aligned 

perpendicular to the stack gas flow. Secure 

the probe(s) and ensure that no leakage 

occurs between the duct and environment. 

Record initial data including the sorbent trap 

ID, start time, starting gas flow meter 

readings, initial temperatures, set points, and 

any other appropriate information. 

8.2.2 Flow Rate Control. Set the initial 

sample flow rate at the target value from 

section 8.1.1 of this performance 

specification. Then, for every operating hour 

during the sampling period, record the date 

and time, the sample flow rate, the gas flow 

meter reading, the stack temperature (if 

needed), the flow meter temperatures (if 

needed), temperatures of heated equipment 

such as the vacuum lines and the probes (if 

heated), and the sampling system vacuum 

readings. Also, record the stack gas flow rate 

and the ratio of the stack gas flow rate to the 

sample flow rate. Adjust the sampling flow 

rate to maintain proportional sampling, i.e., 

keep the ratio of the stack gas flow rate to 

sample flow rate within ± 25 percent of the 

reference ratio from the first hour of the data 

collection period (see section 12.2 of this 

performance specification). The sample flow 

rate through a sorbent trap monitoring system 

during any hour (or portion of an hour) that 

the unit is not operating must be zero. 

8.2.3 Stack Gas Moisture Determination. 

If data from the sorbent trap monitoring 

system will be used to calculate Hg mass 

emissions, determine the stack gas moisture 

content using a continuous moisture 

monitoring system or other means acceptable 

to the Administrator, such as the ones 

described in § 75.11(b) of this chapter. 

Alternatively, for combustion of coal, wood, 

or natural gas in boilers only, a default 

moisture percentage from § 75.11(b) of this 

chapter may be used. 

8.2.4 Essential Operating Data. Obtain 

and record any essential operating data for 

the facility during the test period, e.g., the 

barometric pressure for correcting the sample 

volume measured by a dry gas meter to 

standard conditions. At the end of the data 

collection period, record the final gas flow 

meter reading and the final values of all other 

essential parameters. 

8.2.5 Post-monitoring Leak Check. When 

the monitoring period is completed, turn off 

the sample pump, remove the probe/sorbent 

trap from the port and carefully re-plug the 

end of each sorbent trap. Perform a leak 

check with the sorbent traps in place, at the 

maximum vacuum reached during the 

monitoring period. Use the same general 

approach described in section 8.1.3 of this 

performance specification. Record the 

leakage rate and vacuum. The leakage rate 

must not exceed 4 percent of the average 

sampling rate for the monitoring period. 

Following the leak check, carefully release 

the vacuum in the sample train. 

8.2.6 Sample Recovery. Recover each 

sampled sorbent trap by removing it from the 

probe and seal both ends. Wipe any 

deposited material from the outside of the 

sorbent trap. Place the sorbent trap into an 

appropriate sample storage container and 

store/preserve it in an appropriate manner. 

8.2.7 Sample Preservation, Storage, and 

Transport. While the performance criteria of 

this approach provide for verification of 

appropriate sample handling, it is still 

important that the user consider, determine, 

and plan for suitable sample preservation, 

storage, transport, and holding times for 

these measurements. Therefore, procedures 

in recognized voluntary consensus standards 

such as those in ASTM D6911–03 ‘‘Standard 

Guide for Packaging and Shipping 

Environmental Samples for Laboratory 

Analysis’’ should be followed for all samples. 

8.2.8 Sample Custody. Proper procedures 

and documentation for sample chain of 

custody are critical to ensuring data integrity. 

Chain of custody procedures in recognized 

voluntary consensus standards such as those 

in ASTM D4840–99 ‘‘Standard Guide for 

Sample Chain-of-Custody Procedures’’ 

should be followed for all samples (including 

field samples and blanks). 

8.3 Relative Accuracy (RA) Test 

Procedure 

8.3.1 For the initial certification of a 

sorbent trap monitoring system, a RA Test is 

required. Follow the basic RA test procedures 

and calculation methodology described in 

Sections 8.4.1 through 8.4.7 and 12.4 of PS 

12A in this appendix, replacing the term 

‘‘CEMS’’ with ‘‘sorbent trap monitoring 

system’’. 

8.3.2 Special Considerations. The type of 

sorbent material used in the traps must be the 

same as that used for daily operation of the 

monitoring system; however, the size of the 

traps used for the RA test may be smaller 

than the traps used for daily operation of the 

system. Spike the third section of each 

sorbent trap with elemental Hg, as described 

in section 8.1.2 of this performance 

specification. Install a new pair of sorbent 

traps prior to each test run. For each run, the 

sorbent trap data must be validated according 

to the quality assurance criteria in Table 

12B–1 in Section 9.0, below. 

8.3.3 Acceptance Criteria. The RA of the 

sorbent trap monitoring system must be no 

greater than 20 percent of the mean value of 

the RM test data in terms of units of μg/scm. 

Alternatively, if the RM concentration is less 

than or equal to 5.0 μg/scm, then the RA 

results are acceptable if the absolute 

difference between the means of the RM and 

sorbent trap monitoring system values does 

not exceed 1.0 μg/scm. 

9.0 Quality Assurance and Quality Control 

(QA/QC) 

Table 12B–1 summarizes the QA/QC 

performance criteria that are used to validate 

the Hg emissions data from a sorbent trap 

monitoring system. Failure to achieve these 

performance criteria will result in 

invalidation of Hg emissions data, except 

where otherwise noted. 

TABLE 12B–1—QA/QC CRITERIA FOR SORBENT TRAP MONITORING SYSTEM OPERATION AND CERTIFICATION

QA/QC test or specification Acceptance criteria Frequency Consequences if not met 

Pre-monitoring leak check ............. ≤4% of target sampling rate ......... Prior to monitoring ........................ Monitoring must not commence 

until the leak check is passed. 

Post-monitoring leak check ............ ≤4% of average sampling rate ..... After monitoring ............................ Invalidate the data from the 

paired traps or, if certain conditions are met, report adjusted 

data from a single trap (see 

Section 12.7.1.3). 

Ratio of stack gas flow rate to 

sample flow rate.

Hourly ratio may not deviate from 

the reference ratio by more 

than ± 25%..

Every hour throughout monitoring 

period.

Invalidate the data from the 

paired traps or, if certain conditions are met, report adjusted 

data from a single trap (see 

Section 12.7.1.3). 

Sorbent trap section 2 breakthrough.≤5% of Section 1 Hg mass .......... Every sample ................................ Invalidate the data from the 

paired traps or, if certain conditions are met, report adjusted 

data from a single trap (see 

Section 12.7.1.3). 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2
55046 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 174 / Thursday, September 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE 12B–1—QA/QC CRITERIA FOR SORBENT TRAP MONITORING SYSTEM OPERATION AND CERTIFICATION—Continued 

QA/QC test or specification Acceptance criteria Frequency Consequences if not met 

Paired sorbent trap agreement ...... ≤10% Relative Deviation (RD) if 

the average concentration is > 

1.0 μg/m3.

≤20% RD if the average concentration is ≤ 1.0 μg/m3.

Every sample ................................ Either invalidate the data from the 

paired traps or report the results from the trap with the 

higher Hg concentration. 

Results also acceptable if absolute difference between concentrations from paired traps is 

≤ 0.03 μg/m3.

Spike Recovery Study ................... Average recovery between 85% 

and 115% for each of the 3 

spike concentration levels.

Prior to analyzing field samples 

and prior to use of new sorbent 

media.

Field samples must not be analyzed until the percent recovery 

criteria has been met. 

Multipoint analyzer calibration ....... Each analyzer reading within ± 

10% of true value and r2≥0.99.

On the day of analysis, before 

analyzing any samples.

Recalibrate until successful 

Analysis of independent calibration 

standard..

Within ± 10% of true value ........... Following daily calibration, prior to 

analyzing field samples.

Recalibrate and repeat independent standard analysis until 

successful. 

Spike recovery from section 3 of 

both sorbent traps.

75–125% of spike amount ............ Every sample ................................ Invalidate the data from the 

paired traps or, if certain conditions are met, report adjusted 

data from a single trap (see 

Section 12.7.1.3). 

Relative Accuracy .......................... RA ≤20.0% of RM mean value; or 

if RM mean value ≤5.0 μg/scm, 

absolute difference between 

RM and sorbent trap monitoring 

system mean values ≤1.0 μg/ 

scm.

RA specification must be met for 

initial certification.

Data from the system are invalid 

until a RA test is passed. 

Gas flow meter calibration ............. An initial calibration factor (Y) has 

been determined at 3 settings; 

for mass flow meters, initial calibration with stack gas has been 

performed. For subsequent calibrations, Y within ± 5% of average value from the most recent 

3-point calibration.

At 3 settings prior to initial use 

and at least quarterly at one 

setting thereafter.

Recalibrate meter at 3 settings to 

determine a new value of Y. 

Temperature sensor calibration ..... Absolute temperature measured 

by sensor within ± 1.5% of a 

reference sensor.

Prior to initial use and at least 

quarterly thereafter.

Recalibrate; sensor may not be 

used until specification is met. 

Barometer calibration ..................... Absolute pressure measured by 

instrument within ± 10 mm Hg 

of reading with a NIST-traceable barometer.

Prior to initial use and at least 

quarterly thereafter.

Recalibrate; instrument may not 

be used until specification is 

met. 

10.0 Calibration and Standardization 

10.1 Gaseous and Liquid Standards. Only 

NIST certified or NIST-traceable calibration 

standards (i.e., calibration gases, solutions, 

etc.) must be used for the spiking and 

analytical procedures in this performance 

specification. 

10.2 Gas Flow Meter Calibration. The 

manufacturer or supplier of the gas flow 

meter should perform all necessary set-up, 

testing, programming, etc., and should 

provide the end user with any necessary 

instructions, to ensure that the meter will 

give an accurate readout of dry gas volume 

in standard cubic meters for the particular 

field application. 

10.2.1 Initial Calibration. Prior to its 

initial use, a calibration of the flow meter 

must be performed. The initial calibration 

may be done by the manufacturer, by the 

equipment supplier, or by the end user. If the 

flow meter is volumetric in nature (e.g., a dry 

gas meter), the manufacturer, equipment 

supplier, or end user may perform a direct 

volumetric calibration using any gas. For a 

mass flow meter, the manufacturer, 

equipment supplier, or end user may 

calibrate the meter using a bottled gas 

mixture containing 12 ± 0.5% CO2, 7 ± 0.5% 

O2, and balance N2, or these same gases in 

proportions more representative of the 

expected stack gas composition. Mass flow 

meters may also be initially calibrated onsite, using actual stack gas. 

10.2.1.1 Initial Calibration Procedures. 

Determine an average calibration factor (Y) 

for the gas flow meter, by calibrating it at 

three sample flow rate settings covering the 

range of sample flow rates at which the 

sorbent trap monitoring system typically 

operates. Either the procedures in section 

10.3.1 of Method 5 in appendix A–3 to this 

part or the procedures in section 16 of 

Method 5 in appendix A–3 to this part may 

be followed. If a dry gas meter is being 

calibrated, use at least five revolutions of the 

meter at each flow rate. 

10.2.1.2 Alternative Initial Calibration 

Procedures. Alternatively, the initial 

calibration of the gas flow meter may be 

performed using a reference gas flow meter 

(RGFM). The RGFM may be either: (1) A wet 

test meter calibrated according to section 

10.3.1 of Method 5 in appendix A–3 to this 

part; (2) A gas flow metering device 

calibrated at multiple flow rates using the 

procedures in section 16 of Method 5 in 

appendix A–3 to this part; or (3) A NISTtraceable calibration device capable of 

measuring volumetric flow to an accuracy of 

1 percent. To calibrate the gas flow meter 

using the RGFM, proceed as follows: While 

the sorbent trap monitoring system is 

sampling the actual stack gas or a 

compressed gas mixture that simulates the 

stack gas composition (as applicable), 

connect the RGFM to the discharge of the 

system. Care should be taken to minimize the 

dead volume between the sample flow meter 

being tested and the RGFM. Concurrently 

measure dry gas volume with the RGFM and 

the flow meter being calibrated for a 

minimum of 10 minutes at each of three flow 

rates covering the typical range of operation 

of the sorbent trap monitoring system. For 

each 10-minute (or longer) data collection 

period, record the total sample volume, in 

units of dry standard cubic meters (dscm), 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 174 / Thursday, September 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 55047 

measured by the RGFM and the gas flow 

meter being tested. 

10.2.1.3 Initial Calibration Factor. 

Calculate an individual calibration factor Yi 

at each tested flow rate from section 10.2.1.1 

or 10.2.1.2 of this performance specification 

(as applicable), by taking the ratio of the 

reference sample volume to the sample 

volume recorded by the gas flow meter. 

Average the three Yi values, to determine Y, 

the calibration factor for the flow meter. Each 

of the three individual values of Yi must be 

within ±0.02 of Y. Except as otherwise 

provided in sections 10.2.1.4 and 10.2.1.5 of 

this performance specification, use the 

average Y value from the three level 

calibration to adjust all subsequent gas 

volume measurements made with the gas 

flow meter. 

10.2.2 Initial On-Site Calibration Check. 

For a mass flow meter that was initially 

calibrated using a compressed gas mixture, 

an on-site calibration check must be 

performed before using the flow meter to 

provide data. While sampling stack gas, 

check the calibration of the flow meter at one 

intermediate flow rate typical of normal 

operation of the monitoring system. Follow 

the basic procedures in section 10.2.1.1 or 

10.2.1.2 of this performance specification. If 

the onsite calibration check shows that the 

value of Yi, the calibration factor at the tested 

flow rate, differs by more than 5 percent from 

the value of Y obtained in the initial 

calibration of the meter, repeat the full 3- 

level calibration of the meter using stack gas 

to determine a new value of Y, and apply the 

new Y value to all subsequent gas volume 

measurements made with the gas flow meter. 

10.2.3 Ongoing Quality Control. 

Recalibrate the gas flow meter quarterly at 

one intermediate flow rate setting 

representative of normal operation of the 

monitoring system. Follow the basic 

procedures in section 10.2.1.1 or 10.2.1.2 of 

this performance specification. If a quarterly 

recalibration shows that the value of Yi, the 

calibration factor at the tested flow rate, 

differs from the current value of Y by more 

than 5 percent, repeat the full 3-level 

calibration of the meter to determine a new 

value of Y, and apply the new Y value to all 

subsequent gas volume measurements made 

with the gas flow meter. 

10.3 Calibration of Thermocouples and 

Other Temperature Sensors. Use the 

procedures and criteria in section 10.3 of 

Method 2 in appendix A–1 to this part to 

calibrate in-stack temperature sensors and 

thermocouples. Calibrations must be 

performed prior to initial use and at least 

quarterly thereafter. At each calibration 

point, the absolute temperature measured by 

the temperature sensor must agree to within 

±1.5 percent of the temperature measured 

with the reference sensor, otherwise the 

sensor may not continue to be used. 

10.4 Barometer Calibration. Calibrate the 

barometer against another barometer that has 

a NIST-traceable calibration. This calibration 

must be performed prior to initial use and at 

least quarterly thereafter. At each calibration 

point, the absolute pressure measured by the 

barometer must agree to within ±10 mm Hg 

of the pressure measured by the NISTtraceable barometer, otherwise the barometer 

may not continue to be used. 

10.5 Calibration of Other Sensors and 

Gauges. Calibrate all other sensors and 

gauges according to the procedures specified 

by the instrument manufacturer(s). 

10.6 Analytical System Calibration. See 

section 11.1 of this performance 

specification. 

11.0 Analytical Procedures 

The analysis of the Hg samples may be 

conducted using any instrument or 

technology capable of quantifying total Hg 

from the sorbent media and meeting the 

performance criteria in section 9 of this 

performance specification. 

11.1 Analyzer System Calibration. 

Perform a multipoint calibration of the 

analyzer at three or more upscale points over 

the desired quantitative range (multiple 

calibration ranges must be calibrated, if 

necessary). The field samples analyzed must 

fall within a calibrated, quantitative range 

and meet the necessary performance criteria. 

For samples that are suitable for aliquotting, 

a series of dilutions may be needed to ensure 

that the samples fall within a calibrated 

range. However, for sorbent media samples 

that are consumed during analysis (e.g., 

thermal desorption techniques), extra care 

must be taken to ensure that the analytical 

system is appropriately calibrated prior to 

sample analysis. The calibration curve 

range(s) should be determined based on the 

anticipated level of Hg mass on the sorbent 

media. Knowledge of estimated stack Hg 

concentrations and total sample volume may 

be required prior to analysis. The calibration 

curve for use with the various analytical 

techniques (e.g., UV AA, UV AF, and XRF) 

can be generated by directly introducing 

standard solutions into the analyzer or by 

spiking the standards onto the sorbent media 

and then introducing into the analyzer after 

preparing the sorbent/standard according to 

the particular analytical technique. For each 

calibration curve, the value of the square of 

the linear correlation coefficient, i.e., r2, must 

be ≥ 0.99, and the analyzer response must be 

within ±10 percent of reference value at each 

upscale calibration point. Calibrations must 

be performed on the day of the analysis, 

before analyzing any of the samples. 

Following calibration, an independently 

prepared standard (not from same calibration 

stock solution) must be analyzed. The 

measured value of the independently 

prepared standard must be within ±10 

percent of the expected value. 

11.2 Sample Preparation. Carefully 

separate the three sections of each sorbent 

trap. Combine for analysis all materials 

associated with each section, i.e., any 

supporting substrate that the sample gas 

passes through prior to entering a media 

section (e.g., glass wool, polyurethane foam, 

etc.) must be analyzed with that segment. 

11.3 Spike Recovery Study. Before 

analyzing any field samples, the laboratory 

must demonstrate the ability to recover and 

quantify Hg from the sorbent media by 

performing the following spike recovery 

study for sorbent media traps spiked with 

elemental mercury. Using the procedures 

described in sections 6.2 and 12.1 of this 

performance specification, spike the third 

section of nine sorbent traps with gaseous 

Hg0, i.e., three traps at each of three different 

mass loadings, representing the range of 

masses anticipated in the field samples. This 

will yield a 3 × 3 sample matrix. Prepare and 

analyze the third section of each spiked trap, 

using the techniques that will be used to 

prepare and analyze the field samples. The 

average recovery for each spike concentration 

must be between 85 and 115 percent. If 

multiple types of sorbent media are to be 

analyzed, a separate spike recovery study is 

required for each sorbent material. If multiple 

ranges are calibrated, a separate spike 

recovery study is required for each range. 

11.4 Field Sample Analyses. Analyze the 

sorbent trap samples following the same 

procedures that were used for conducting the 

spike recovery study. The three sections of 

each sorbent trap must be analyzed 

separately (i.e., section 1, then section 2, then 

section 3). Quantify the total mass of Hg for 

each section based on analytical system 

response and the calibration curve from 

section 11.1 of this performance 

specification. Determine the spike recovery 

from sorbent trap section 3. The spike 

recovery must be no less than 75 percent and 

no greater than 125 percent. To report the 

final Hg mass for each trap, add together the 

Hg masses collected in trap sections 1 and 2. 

12.0 Calculations, Data Reduction, and 

Data Analysis 

12.1 Calculation of Pre-Sampling Spiking 

Level. Determine sorbent trap section 3 

spiking level using estimates of the stack Hg 

concentration, the target sample flow rate, 

and the expected monitoring period. 

Calculate Mexp, the expected Hg mass that 

will be collected in section 1 of the trap, 

using Equation 12B–1. The pre-sampling 

spike must be within ±50 percent of this 

mass. 

M Q t C x exp s s est = [ ] (Equation 12B-1) − 10 3

Where: 

Mexp = Expected sample mass (μg) 

Qs = Sample flow rate (L/min) 

ts = Expected monitoring period (min) 

Cest = Estimated Hg concentration in stack gas 

(μg/m3) 

10¥3 = Conversion factor (m3/L) 

Example calculation: For an estimated 

stack Hg concentration of 5 μg/m3, a target 

sample rate of 0.30 L/min, and a monitoring 

period of 5 days: 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2ER09SE10.018</MATH>
55048 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 174 / Thursday, September 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

Mexp = (0.30 L/min)(1440 min/day)(5 

days)(10¥3 m3/L)(5 μg/m3) = 10.8 μg 

A pre-sampling spike of 10.8 μg ±50 

percent is, therefore, appropriate. 

12.2 Calculations for Flow-Proportional 

Sampling. For the first hour of the data 

collection period, determine the reference 

ratio of the stack gas volumetric flow rate to 

the sample flow rate, as follows: 

R KQ

F ref

ref

ref

= (Equation 12B-2)

Where: 

Rref = Reference ratio of hourly stack gas flow 

rate to hourly sample flow rate 

Qref = Average stack gas volumetric flow rate 

for first hour of collection period (scfh) 

Fref = Average sample flow rate for first hour 

of the collection period, in appropriate 

units (e.g., liters/min, cc/min, dscm/min) 

K = Power of ten multiplier, to keep the value 

of Rref between 1 and 100. The 

appropriate K value will depend on the 

selected units of measure for the sample 

flow rate. 

Then, for each subsequent hour of the 

data collection period, calculate ratio of 

the stack gas flow rate to the sample 

flow rate using Equation 12B–3: 

R KQ

F h

h

h

= (Equation 12B-3)

Where: 

Rh = Ratio of hourly stack gas flow rate to 

hourly sample flow rate 

Qh = Average stack gas volumetric flow rate 

for the hour (scfh) 

Fh = Average sample flow rate for the hour, 

in appropriate units (e.g., liters/min, cc/ 

min, dscm/min) 

K = Power of ten multiplier, to keep the value 

of Rh between 1 and 100. The 

appropriate K value will depend on the 

selected units of measure for the sample 

flow rate and the range of expected stack 

gas flow rates. 

Maintain the value of Rh within ±25 

percent of Rref throughout the data collection 

period. 

12.3 Calculation of Spike Recovery. 

Calculate the percent recovery of each 

section 3 spike, as follows: 

%R

M

Ms

= ×3 100 (Equation 12B-4)

Where: 

%R = Percentage recovery of the presampling spike 

M3 = Mass of Hg recovered from section 3 of 

the sorbent trap, (μg) 

Ms = Calculated Hg mass of the pre-sampling 

spike, from section 8.1.2 of this 

performance specification, (μg) 

12.4 Calculation of Breakthrough. 

Calculate the percent breakthrough to the 

second section of the sorbent trap, as follows: 

%B

M

M

= ×2

1

100 (Equation 12B-5)

Where: 

%B = Percent breakthrough 

M2 = Mass of Hg recovered from section 2 of 

the sorbent trap, (μg) 

M1 = Mass of Hg recovered from section 1 of 

the sorbent trap, (μg) 

12.5 Calculation of Hg Concentration. 

Calculate the Hg concentration for each 

sorbent trap, using the following equation: 

C M

Vt

=

*

(Equation 12B-6)

Where: 

C = Concentration of Hg for the collection 

period, (μg/dscm) 

M* = Total mass of Hg recovered from 

sections 1 and 2 of the sorbent trap, (μg) 

Vt = Total volume of dry gas metered during 

the collection period, (dscm). For the 

purposes of this performance 

specification, standard temperature and 

pressure are defined as 20 °C and 760 

mm Hg, respectively. 

12.6 Calculation of Paired Trap 

Agreement. Calculate the relative deviation 

(RD) between the Hg concentrations 

measured with the paired sorbent traps: 

RD

C C

C +C x a b

a b

= − (Equation 12B-7) 100

Where: 

RD = Relative deviation between the Hg 

concentrations from traps ‘‘a’’ and ‘‘b’’ 

(percent) 

Ca = Concentration of Hg for the collection 

period, for sorbent trap ‘‘a’’ (μg/dscm) 

Cb = Concentration of Hg for the collection 

period, for sorbent trap ‘‘b’’ (μg/dscm) 

12.7 Calculation of Relative Accuracy. 

Calculate the relative accuracy as described 

in Section 12.4 of PS 12A in this appendix. 

12.8 Data Reduction. Typical monitoring 

periods for normal, day-to-day operation of a 

sorbent trap monitoring system range from 

about 24 hours to 168 hours. For the required 

RA tests of the system, smaller sorbent traps 

are often used, and the ‘‘monitoring period’’ 

or time per run is considerably shorter (e.g., 

1 hour or less). Generally speaking, to 

validate sorbent trap monitoring system data, 

the acceptance criteria for the following five 

QC specifications in Table 12B–1 above must 

be met for both traps: (a) the post-monitoring 

leak check; (b) the ratio of stack gas flow rate 

to sample flow rate; (c) section 2 

breakthrough; (d) paired trap agreement; and 

(e) section 3 spike recovery. 

12.8.1 For routine day-to-day operation of 

a sorbent trap monitoring system, when both 

traps meet the acceptance criteria for all five 

QC specifications, the two measured Hg 

concentrations must be averaged 

arithmetically and the average value must be 

applied to each hour of the data collection 

period. 

12.8.2 To validate a RA test run, both 

traps must meet the acceptance criteria for all 

five QC specifications. However, as specified 

in Section 12.8.3 below, for routine day-today operation of the monitoring system, a 

monitoring period may, in certain instances, 

be validated based on the results from one 

trap. 

12.8.3 For the routine, day-to-day 

operation of the monitoring system, when 

one of the two sorbent trap samples or 

sampling systems either: (a) Fails the postmonitoring leak check; or (b) has excessive 

section 2 breakthrough; or (c) fails to 

maintain the proper stack flow-to-sample 

flow ratio; or (d) fails to achieve the required 

section 3 spike recovery, provided that the 

other trap meets the acceptance criteria for 

all four of these QC specifications, the Hg 

concentration measured by the valid trap 

may be multiplied by a factor of 1.111 and 

then used for reporting purposes. Further, if 

both traps meet the acceptance criteria for all 

four of these QC specifications, but the 

acceptance criterion for paired trap 

agreement is not met, the owner or operator 

may report the higher of the two Hg 

concentrations measured by the traps, in lieu 

of invalidating the data from the paired traps. 

12.8.4 Whenever the data from a pair of 

sorbent traps must be invalidated and no 

quality-assured data from a certified backup 

Hg monitoring system or Hg reference 

method are available to cover the hours in 

the data collection period, treat those hours 

in the manner specified in the applicable 

regulation (i.e., use missing data substitution 

procedures or count the hours as monitoring 

system down time, as appropriate). 

13.0 Monitoring System Performance 

These monitoring criteria and procedures 

have been successfully applied to coal-fired 

utility boilers (including units with postcombustion emission controls), having vaporphase Hg concentrations ranging from 0.03 

μg/dscm to approximately 100 μg/dscm. 

14.0 Pollution Prevention [Reserved] 

15.0 Waste Management [Reserved] 

16.0 Alternative Procedures [Reserved] 

17.0 Bibliography 

17.1 40 CFR Part 60, Appendix B, 

‘‘Performance Specification 2—Specifications 

and Test Procedures for SO2 and NOX

Continuous Emission Monitoring Systems in 

Stationary Sources.’’ 

17.2 40 CFR Part 60, Appendix B, 

‘‘Performance Specification 12A— 

Specifications and Test Procedures for Total 

Vapor Phase Mercury Continuous Emission 

Monitoring Systems in Stationary Sources.’’ 

Appendix F—[Amended] 

■ 8. Appendix F to 40 CFR part 60 is 

amended to add and reserve Procedures 

3 and 4, and add Procedure 5, to read 

as follows: 

Appendix F to Part 60—Quality 

Assurance Procedures 

* * * * * 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2ER09SE10.019</MATH> ER09SE10.020</MATH> ER09SE10.021</MATH> ER09SE10.022</MATH> ER09SE10.023</MATH> ER09SE10.024</MATH>
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 174 / Thursday, September 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 55049 

Procedure 3. [Reserved] 

Procedure 4. [Reserved] 

Procedure 5. Quality Assurance 

Requirements for Vapor Phase Mercury 

Continuous Emissions Monitoring Systems 

and Sorbent Trap Monitoring Systems Used 

for Compliance Determination at Stationary 

Sources 

1.0 Applicability and Principle 

1.1 Applicability. The purpose of 

Procedure 5 is to establish the minimum 

requirements for evaluating the effectiveness 

of quality control (QC) and quality assurance 

(QA) procedures as well as the quality of data 

produced by vapor phase mercury (Hg) 

continuous emissions monitoring systems 

(CEMS) and sorbent trap monitoring systems. 

Procedure 5 applies to Hg CEMS and sorbent 

trap monitoring systems used for 

continuously determining compliance with 

emission standards or operating permit limits 

as specified in an applicable regulation or 

permit. Other QA/QC procedures may apply 

to other auxiliary monitoring equipment that 

may be needed to determine Hg emissions in 

the units of measure specified in an 

applicable permit or regulation. 

Procedure 5 covers the measurement of Hg 

emissions as defined in Performance 

Specification 12A (PS 12A) and Performance 

Specification 12B (PS 12B) in appendix B to 

this part, i.e., total vapor phase Hg 

representing the sum of the elemental (Hg°, 

CAS Number 7439–97–6) and oxidized 

(Hg∂2) forms of gaseous Hg. 

Procedure 5 specifies the minimum 

requirements for controlling and assessing 

the quality of Hg CEMS and sorbent trap 

monitoring system data submitted to EPA or 

a delegated permitting authority. You must 

meet these minimum requirements if you are 

responsible for one or more Hg CEMS or 

sorbent trap monitoring systems used for 

compliance monitoring. We encourage you to 

develop and implement a more extensive QA 

program or to continue such programs where 

they already exist. 

You must comply with the basic 

requirements of Procedure 5 immediately 

following successful completion of the initial 

performance test described in PS 12A or PS 

12B in appendix B to this part (as 

applicable). 

1.2 Principle. The QA procedures consist 

of two distinct and equally important 

functions. One function is the assessment of 

the quality of the Hg CEMS or sorbent trap 

monitoring system data by estimating 

accuracy. The other function is the control 

and improvement of the quality of the CEMS 

or sorbent trap monitoring system data by 

implementing QC policies and corrective 

actions. These two functions form a control 

loop: When the assessment function 

indicates that the data quality is inadequate, 

the quality control effort must be increased 

until the data quality is acceptable. In order 

to provide uniformity in the assessment and 

reporting of data quality, this procedure 

explicitly specifies assessment methods for 

calibration drift, system integrity, and 

accuracy. Several of the procedures are based 

on those of PS 12A and PS 12B in appendix 

B to this part. Because the control and 

corrective action function encompasses a 

variety of policies, specifications, standards, 

and corrective measures, this procedure 

treats QC requirements in general terms to 

allow each source owner or operator to 

develop a QC system that is most effective 

and efficient for the circumstances. 

2.0 Definitions 

2.1 Mercury Continuous Emission 

Monitoring System (Hg CEMS) means the 

equipment required for the determination of 

the total vapor phase Hg concentration in the 

stack effluent. The Hg CEMS consists of the 

following major subsystems: 

2.1.1 Sample Interface means that portion 

of the CEMS used for one or more of the 

following: sample acquisition, sample 

transport, sample conditioning, and 

protection of the monitor from the effects of 

the stack effluent. 

2.1.2 Hg Analyzer means that portion of 

the Hg CEMS that measures the total vapor 

phase Hg concentration and generates a 

proportional output. 

2.1.3 Data Recorder means that portion of 

the CEMS that provides a permanent 

electronic record of the analyzer output. The 

data recorder may provide automatic data 

reduction and CEMS control capabilities. 

2.2 Sorbent Trap Monitoring System 

means the total equipment required for the 

collection of gaseous Hg samples using 

paired three-partition sorbent traps as 

described in PS 12B in appendix B to this 

part. 

2.3 Span Value means the measurement 

range as specified for the affected source 

category in the applicable regulation and/or 

monitoring performance specification. 

2.4 Zero, Mid-Level, and High Level 

Values means the reference gas 

concentrations used for calibration drift 

assessments and system integrity checks on 

a Hg CEMS, expressed as percentages of the 

span value (see section 7.1 of PS 12A in 

appendix B to this part). 

2.5 Calibration Drift (CD) means the 

absolute value of the difference between the 

CEMS output response and either the upscale 

Hg reference gas or the zero-level Hg 

reference gas, expressed as a percentage of 

the span value, when the entire CEMS, 

including the sampling interface, is 

challenged after a stated period of operation 

during which no unscheduled maintenance, 

repair, or adjustment took place. 

2.6 System Integrity (SI) Check means a 

test procedure assessing transport and 

measurement of oxidized Hg by a Hg CEMS. 

In particular, system integrity is expressed as 

the absolute value of the difference between 

the CEMS output response and the reference 

value of either a mid- or high-level mercuric 

chloride (HgCl2) reference gas, as a 

percentage of span, when the entire CEMS, 

including the sampling interface, is 

challenged. 

2.7 Relative Accuracy (RA) means the 

absolute mean difference between the 

pollutant concentrations determined by a 

continuous monitoring system (e.g., Hg 

CEMS or sorbent trap monitoring system) and 

the values determined by a reference method 

(RM) plus the 2.5 percent error confidence 

coefficient of a series of tests divided by the 

mean of the RM tests. Alternatively, for 

sources with an average RM concentration 

less than 5.0 micrograms per standard cubic 

meter (μg/scm), the RA may be expressed as 

the absolute value of the difference between 

the mean CEMS and RM values. 

2.8 Relative Accuracy Test Audit (RATA) 

means an audit test procedure consisting of 

at least nine runs, in which the accuracy of 

the total vapor phase Hg concentrations 

measured by a CEMS or sorbent trap 

monitoring system is evaluated by 

comparison against concurrent 

measurements made with a reference test 

method. 

2.9 Quarterly Gas Audit (QGA) means an 

audit procedure in which the accuracy of the 

total vapor phase Hg concentrations 

measured by a CEMS is evaluated by 

challenging the CEMS with a zero and two 

upscale reference gases. 

3.0 QC Requirements 

3.1 Each source owner or operator must 

develop and implement a QC program. At a 

minimum, each QC program must include 

written procedures which should describe in 

detail, complete, step-by-step procedures and 

operations for each of the following activities 

(as applicable): 

(a) Calibration drift (CD) checks of Hg 

CEMS. 

(b) CD determination and adjustment of Hg 

CEMS. 

(c) Weekly system integrity check 

procedures for Hg CEMS. 

(d) Routine operation, maintenance, and 

QA/QC procedures for sorbent trap 

monitoring systems. 

(e) Routine and preventive maintenance 

procedures for Hg CEMS (including spare 

parts inventory). 

(f) Data recording, calculations, and 

reporting. 

(g) Accuracy audit procedures for Hg 

CEMS and sorbent trap monitoring systems 

including sampling and analysis methods. 

(h) Program of corrective action for 

malfunctioning Hg CEMS and sorbent trap 

monitoring systems. 

These written procedures must be kept on 

record and available for inspection by the 

responsible enforcement agency. Also, as 

noted in Section 5.2.4, below, whenever 

excessive inaccuracies of a Hg CEMS occur 

for two consecutive quarters, the source 

owner or operator must revise the current 

written procedures or modify or replace the 

CEMS or sorbent trap monitoring system to 

correct the deficiency causing the excessive 

inaccuracies. 

4.0 Calibration Drift (CD) Assessment 

4.1 CD Requirement. As described in 40 

CFR 60.13(d) and 63.8(c), source owners and 

operators of Hg CEMS must check, record, 

and quantify the CD at two concentration 

values at least once daily (approximately 24 

hours) in accordance with the method 

prescribed by the manufacturer. The Hg 

CEMS calibration must, as minimum, be 

adjusted whenever the daily zero (or lowlevel) CD or the daily high-level CD exceeds 

two times the limits of the applicable PS in 

appendix B of this part. 

4.2 Recording Requirement for Automatic 

CD Adjusting CEMS. CEMS that 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2
55050 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 174 / Thursday, September 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

automatically adjust the data to the corrected 

calibration values (e.g., microprocessor 

control) must either be programmed to record 

the unadjusted concentration measured in 

the CD prior to resetting the calibration, if 

performed, or to record the amount of 

adjustment. 

4.3 Criteria for Excessive CD. If either the 

zero (or low-level) or high-level CD result 

exceeds twice the applicable drift 

specification in section 13.2 of PS 12A in 

appendix B to this part for five, consecutive, 

daily periods, the CEMS is out-of-control. If 

either the zero (or low-level) or high-level CD 

result exceeds four times the applicable drift 

specification in PS 12A during any CD check, 

the CEMS is out-of-control. If the CEMS is 

out-of-control, take necessary corrective 

action. Following corrective action, repeat 

the CD checks. 

4.3.1 Out-Of-Control Period Definition. 

The beginning of the out-of-control period is 

the time corresponding to the completion of 

the fifth, consecutive, daily CD check with a 

CD in excess of two times the allowable limit, 

or the time corresponding to the completion 

of the daily CD check preceding the daily CD 

check that results in a CD in excess of four 

times the allowable limit. The end of the outof-control period is the time corresponding to 

the completion of the CD check following 

corrective action that results in the CD’s at 

both the zero (or low-level) and high-level 

measurement points being within the 

corresponding allowable CD limit (i.e., either 

two times or four times the allowable limit 

in the applicable PS in appendix B). 

4.3.2 CEMS Data Status During Out-ofControl Period. During the period the CEMS 

is out-of-control, the CEMS data may not be 

used either to determine compliance with an 

emission limit or to meet a minimum data 

availability requirement specified in an 

applicable regulation or permit. 

5.0 Data Accuracy Assessment 

5.1 Hg CEMS Audit Requirements. For 

each Hg CEMS, an accuracy audit must be 

performed at least once each calendar 

quarter. Successive quarterly audits must, to 

the extent practicable, be performed no less 

than 2 months apart. The audits must be 

conducted as follows: 

5.1.1 Relative Accuracy Test Audit 

(RATA). A RATA of the Hg CEMS must be 

conducted at least once every four calendar 

quarters, except as otherwise noted in section 

5.1.4 of this appendix. Perform the RATA as 

described in section 8.5 of PS 12A in 

appendix B to this part. Calculate the results 

according to section 12.4 of PS 12A. 

5.1.2 Quarterly Gas Audit. A quarterly gas 

audit (QGA) may be conducted in three of 

four calendar quarters, but in no more than 

three quarters in succession. To perform a 

QGA, challenge the CEMS with a zero-level 

and two upscale level audit gases of known 

concentrations, first of elemental Hg and then 

of oxidized Hg, within the following ranges: 

Audit point Audit range 

1 .................. 20 to 30% of span value. 

2 .................. 50 to 60% of span value. 

Sequentially inject each of the three audit 

gases (zero and two upscale), three times 

each for a total of nine injections. Inject the 

gases in such a manner that the entire CEMS 

is challenged. Do not inject the same gas 

concentration twice in succession. 

Use elemental Hg and oxidized Hg 

(mercuric chloride, HgCl2) audit gases that 

are National Institute of Standards and 

Technology (NIST)-certified or NISTtraceable following an EPA Traceability 

Protocol. If audit gas cylinders are used, do 

not dilute gas when challenging the Hg 

CEMS. For each reference gas concentration, 

determine the average of the three CEMS 

responses and subtract the average response 

from the reference gas value. Calculate the 

measurement error at each gas level using 

Equation 12A–1 in section 8.2 of PS 12A. 

5.1.3 Relative Accuracy Audit (RAA). As 

an alternative to the QGA, a RAA may be 

conducted in three of four calendar quarters, 

but in no more than three quarters in 

succession. To conduct a RAA, follow the 

RATA test procedures in section 8.5 of PS 

12A in appendix B to this part, except that 

only three test runs are required. 

5.1.4 Alternative Quarterly Audits. 

Alternative quarterly audit procedures may 

be used as approved by the Administrator for 

three of four calendar quarters. One RATA is 

required at least every four calendar quarters, 

except in the case where the affected facility 

is off-line (does not operate) in the fourth 

calendar quarter since the quarter of the 

previous RATA. In that case, the RATA must 

be performed in the quarter in which the unit 

recommences operation. Also, quarterly gas 

audits (or RAAs, if applicable) are not 

required for calendar quarters in which the 

affected facility does not operate. 

5.2 Sorbent Trap Monitoring System 

Audit Requirements. For each sorbent trap 

monitoring system, a RATA must be 

conducted at least once every four calendar 

quarters, except as otherwise noted in section 

5.1.4 of this appendix. Perform the RATA as 

described in section 8.3 of PS 12B in 

appendix B to this part. Calculate the results 

according to section 12.4 of PS 12A. 

5.3 Excessive Audit Inaccuracy. If the 

results of a RATA, QGA, or RAA exceed the 

applicable criteria in section 5.3.3, the Hg 

CEMS or sorbent trap monitoring system is 

out-of-control. If the Hg CEMS or sorbent trap 

monitoring system is out-of-control, take 

necessary corrective action to eliminate the 

problem. Following corrective action, the 

source owner or operator must audit the 

CEMS or sorbent trap monitoring system 

using the same type of test that failed to meet 

the accuracy criterion. For instance, a RATA 

must always be performed following an outof-control period resulting from a failed 

RATA. Whenever audit results show the Hg 

CEMS or sorbent trap monitoring system to 

be out-of-control, the owner or operator must 

report both the results of the failed test and 

the results of the retest following corrective 

action showing the CEMS to be operating 

within specifications. 

5.3.1 Out-Of-Control Period Definition. 

The beginning of the out-of-control period is 

the hour immediately following the 

completion of a RATA, RAA, QGA or system 

integrity check that fails to meet the 

applicable performance criteria in section 

5.3.3, below. The end of the out-of-control 

period is the time corresponding to the 

completion of a subsequent successful test of 

the same type. 

5.3.2 Monitoring Data Status During OutOf-Control Period. During the period the 

monitor is out-of-control, the monitoring data 

may not be used to determine compliance 

with an applicable emission limit or to meet 

a minimum data availability requirement in 

an applicable regulation or permit. 

5.3.3 Criteria for Excessive Audit 

Inaccuracy. Unless specified otherwise in an 

applicable regulation or permit, the criteria 

for excessive inaccuracy are: 

(a) For the RATA, the allowable RA in the 

applicable PS in appendix B (e.g., PS 12A or 

PS 12B). 

(b) For the QGA, ±15 percent of the average 

audit value or ±0.5 μg/m3, whichever is 

greater. 

(c) For the RAA, ±20 percent of the three 

run average or ±10 percent of the applicable 

standard, whichever is greater. 

5.3.4 Criteria for Acceptable QC 

Procedures. Repeated excessive inaccuracies 

(i.e., out-of-control conditions resulting from 

the quarterly audits) indicates the QC 

procedures are inadequate or that the CEMS 

or sorbent trap monitoring system is 

incapable of providing quality data. 

Therefore, whenever excessive inaccuracies 

occur for two consecutive quarters, the 

source owner or operator must revise the QC 

procedures (see Section 3) or modify, repair, 

or replace the CEMS or sorbent trap 

monitoring system. 

6.0 Reporting Requirements 

6.1 Data Assessment Report. At the 

reporting interval specified in the applicable 

regulation or permit, report for each Hg 

CEMS and/or sorbent trap monitoring system 

the accuracy assessment results from Section 

5, above. For Hg CEMS, also report the CD 

assessment results from Section 4, above. 

Report this information as a Data Assessment 

Report (DAR), and include the appropriate 

DAR(s) with the emissions report required 

under the applicable regulation or permit. 

6.2 Contents of the DAR. At a minimum, 

the DAR must contain the following 

information: 

6.2.1 Facility name and address including 

identification of source owner/operator. 

6.2.2 Identification and location of each 

Hg CEMS and/or sorbent trap monitoring 

system. 

6.2.3 Manufacturer, model, and serial 

number of each Hg CEMS and/or sorbent trap 

monitoring system. 

6.2.4 CD Assessment for each Hg CEMS, 

including the identification of out-of-control 

periods. 

6.2.5 System integrity check data for each 

Hg CEMS. 

6.2.6 Accuracy assessment for each Hg 

CEMS and/or sorbent trap monitoring 

system, including the identification of out-ofcontrol periods. The results of all required 

RATAs, QGAs, RAAs, and audits of auxiliary 

equipment must be reported. If an accuracy 

audit shows a CEMS or sorbent trap 

monitoring system to be out-of-control, report 

both the audit results that caused the out-ofcontrol period and the results of the retest 

following corrective action, showing the 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 174 / Thursday, September 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 55051 

monitoring system to be operating within 

specifications. 

6.2.6. Summary of all corrective actions 

taken when the Hg CEMS and/or sorbent trap 

monitoring system was determined to be outof-control. 

6.3 Data Retention. As required in 40 CFR 

60.7(d) and 63.10(b), all measurements from 

CEMS and sorbent trap monitoring systems, 

including the quality assurance data required 

by this procedure, must be retained by the 

source owner for at least 5 years. 

7.0 Bibliography 

7.1 Calculation and Interpretation of 

Accuracy for Continuous Emission 

Monitoring Systems (CEMS). Section 3.0.7 of 

the Quality Assurance Handbook for Air 

Pollution Measurement Systems, Volume III, 

Stationary Source Specific Methods. EPA– 

600/4–77–027b. August 1977. U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency. Office of 

Research and Development Publications, 26 

West St. Clair Street, Cincinnati, OH 45268. 

PART 63—[AMENDED] 

■ 9. The authority citation for part 63 

continues to read as follows: 

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

■ 10. Section 63.14 is amended by 

revising paragraph (b)(54) to read as 

follows: 

§ 63.14 Incorporations by reference. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(54) ASTM D6348–03, Standard Test 

Method for Determination of Gaseous 

Compounds by Extractive Direct 

Interface Fourier Transform Infrared 

(FTIR) Spectroscopy, incorporation by 

reference (IBR) approved for 

§ 63.1349(b)(4)(iii) of subpart LLL and 

table 4 to subpart DDDD of this part as 

specified in the subpart. 

* * * * * 

Subpart LLL—[Amended] 

■ 11. Section 63.1340 is revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 63.1340 What parts of my plant does this 

subpart cover? 

(a) The provisions of this subpart 

apply to each new and existing portland 

cement plant which is a major source or 

an area source as defined in § 63.2. 

(b) The affected sources subject to this 

subpart are: 

(1) Each kiln including alkali 

bypasses, except for kilns that burn 

hazardous waste and are subject to and 

regulated under subpart EEE of this part; 

(2) Each clinker cooler at any portland 

cement plant; 

(3) Each raw mill at any portland 

cement plant; 

(4) Each finish mill at any portland 

cement plant; 

(5) Each raw material dryer at any 

portland cement plant; 

(6) Each raw material, clinker, or 

finished product storage bin at any 

portland cement plant; 

(7) Each conveying system transfer 

point including those associated with 

coal preparation used to convey coal 

from the mill to the kiln at any portland 

cement plant; 

(8) Each bagging and bulk loading and 

unloading system at any portland 

cement plant; and 

(9) Each open clinker pile at any 

portland cement plant. 

(c) Crushers are not covered by this 

subpart regardless of their location. 

(d) If you are subject to any of the 

provisions of this subpart you are also 

subject to title V permitting 

requirements. 

■ 12. Section 63.1341 is amended by 

adding definitions for ‘‘Affirmative 

defense,’’ ‘‘Clinker,’’ ‘‘Crusher,’’ 

‘‘Enclosed storage pile,’’ ‘‘Inactive clinker 

pile,’’ ‘‘New source,’’ ‘‘Operating day,’’ 

‘‘Sorbent,’’ ‘‘Total organic HAP’’ and 

‘‘Totally enclosed conveying system 

transfer point’’ in alphabetic order, and 

revising the definition of ‘‘Kiln’’ to read 

as follows: 

§ 63.1341 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

Affirmative defense means, in the 

context of an enforcement proceeding, a 

response or defense put forward by a 

defendant, regarding which the 

defendant has the burden of proof, and 

the merits of which are independently 

and objectively evaluated in a judicial 

or administrative proceeding. 

* * * * * 

Clinker means the product of the 

process in which limestone and other 

materials are heated in the kiln and is 

then ground with gypsum and other 

materials to form cement. 

* * * * * 

Crusher means a machine designed to 

reduce large rocks from the quarry into 

materials approximately the size of 

gravel. 

* * * * * 

Enclosed storage pile means any 

storage pile that is completely enclosed 

in a building or structure consisting of 

a solid roof and walls. 

* * * * * 

Inactive clinker pile is a pile of clinker 

material that has not been disturbed, 

removed, and/or added to as a result of 

loading, unloading, and/or transferring 

activities for 30 (thirty) consecutive 

days. 

* * * * * 

Kiln means a device, including any 

associated preheater or precalciner 

devices, inline raw mills, or alkali 

bypasses that produces clinker by 

heating limestone and other materials 

for subsequent production of portland 

cement. Because the inline raw mill is 

considered an integral part of the kiln, 

for purposes of determining the 

appropriate emissions limit, the term 

kiln also applies to the exhaust of the 

inline raw mill. 

* * * * * 

New source means any source that 

commenced construction after May 6, 

2009, for purposes of determining the 

applicability of the kiln, clinker cooler 

and raw material dryer emissions limits 

for mercury, PM, THC, and HCl, and the 

requirements for open clinker storage 

piles. 

* * * * * 

Operating day means any daily 24- 

hour period during which the kiln 

operates. For 30-day rolling averages, 

operating days include only days of 

normal operation and do not include 

periods of operation during startup or 

shutdown. For 7-day rolling averages, 

operating days include only days of 

operation during startup and shutdown 

and do not include periods of normal 

operation. Data attributed to an 

operating day includes all valid data 

obtained during the daily 24-hour 

period and excludes any measurements 

made when the kiln was not operating. 

* * * * * 

Sorbent means activated carbon, lime, 

or any other type of material injected 

into kiln exhaust for the purposes of 

capturing and removing any hazardous 

air pollutant. 

* * * * * 

Total organic HAP means, for the 

purposes of this subpart, the sum of the 

concentrations of compounds of 

formaldehyde, benzene, toluene, 

styrene, m-xylene, p-xylene, o-xylene, 

acetaldehyde, and naphthalene as 

measured by EPA Test Method 320 of 

appendix A to this part or ASTM 

D6348–03. Only the measured 

concentration of the listed analytes that 

are present at concentrations exceeding 

one-half the quantitation limit of the 

analytical method are to be used in the 

sum. If any of the analytes are not 

detected or are detected at 

concentrations less than one-half the 

quantitation limit of the analytical 

method, the concentration of those 

analytes will be assumed to be zero for 

the purposes of calculating the total 

organic HAP for this subpart. 

* * * * * 

Totally enclosed conveying system 

transfer point means a conveying 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2
55052 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 174 / Thursday, September 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

system transfer point that is enclosed on 

all sides, top, and bottom. 

* * * * * 

■ 13. Section 63.1343 is revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 63.1343 What standards apply to my 

kilns, clinker coolers, raw material dryers, 

and open clinker piles? 

(a) General. The provisions in this 

section apply to each kiln and any alkali 

bypass associated with that kiln, clinker 

cooler, and raw material dryer. All 

dioxin D/F, HCl, and total hydrocarbon 

(THC) emission limits are on a dry basis. 

The D/F, HCl and THC limits for kilns 

are corrected to 7 percent oxygen except 

during periods of startup and shutdown. 

The raw material dryer THC limits are 

corrected to 19 percent oxygen except 

during startup and shutdown. During 

startup and shutdown no oxygen 

correction is applied. All (THC) 

emission limits are measured as 

propane. Standards for mercury, PM, 

and THC are based on a 30-day rolling 

average, except for periods of startup 

and shutdown, where the standard is 

based on a 7-day rolling average. The 

30-day and 7-day periods mean 30 and 

7 consecutive operating days, 

respectively, where an operating day is 

any daily 24-hour period during which 

the kiln operates. Data attributed to an 

operating day includes all valid data 

obtained during the daily 24-hour 

period and excludes any measurements 

made when the kiln was not operating. 

If using a CEMS to determine 

compliance with the HCl standard, this 

standard is based on a 30-day rolling 

average, except for periods of startup 

and shutdown, where the standard is 

based on a 7-day rolling average. You 

must ensure appropriate corrections for 

moisture are made when measuring 

flowrates used to calculate particulate 

matter (PM) and mercury emissions. 

(b)(1) Kilns, clinker coolers, raw 

material dryers, raw mills, and finish 

mills. The emission limits for these 

sources are shown in table 1 below. 

TABLE 1—EMISSIONS LIMITS FOR KILNS (ROWS 1–8), CLINKER COOLERS (ROWS 9–12), RAW MATERIAL DRYERS (ROWS

13–15), RAW AND FINISH MILLS (ROW 16) 

If your source is And the operating 

mode is: And if is located Your emissions limits are: 

And the units of the 

emissions limit are: 

The oxygen correction factor is: 

1. .......... An existing kiln ....... Normal operation ... At a major or area 

source.

PM—0.04 ...............

D/F—0.21 ...............

Mercury—55 ..........

THC—242,3 ............

lb/ton clinker ...........

ng/dscm (TEQ) ......

lb/MM tons clinker ..

ppmvd ....................

NA. 

7 percent. 

NA. 

7 percent. 

2. .......... An existing kiln ....... Normal operation ... At a major source .. HCl—3 ................... ppmvd .................... 7 percent. 

3. .......... An existing kiln ....... Startup and shutdown.At a major or area 

source.

PM—0.004 .............

D/F—0.21 ...............

Mercury—10 ..........

THC—242,3 ............

gr/dscf ....................

ng/dscm (TEQ) ......

ug/dscm .................

ppmvd ....................

NA. 

NA. 

NA. 

NA. 

4. .......... An existing kiln ....... Startup and shutdown.At a major source .. HCl—34 .................. ppmvd .................... NA. 

5. .......... A new kiln .............. Normal operation ... At a major or area 

source.

PM—0.01 ...............

D/F—0.21 ...............

Mercury—21 ..........

THC—242,3 ............

lb/ton clinker ...........

ng/dscm (TEQ) ......

lb/MM tons clinker ..

ppmvd ....................

NA. 

7 percent. 

NA. 

7 percent. 

6. .......... A new kiln .............. Normal operation ... At a major source .. HCl—34 .................. ppmvd .................... 7 percent. 

7. .......... A new kiln .............. Startup or shutdown At a major or area 

source.

PM—0.0008 ...........

D/F—0.21 ...............

Mercury—4 ............

THC—242,3 ............

gr/dscf ....................

ng/dscm (TEQ) ......

ug/dscm .................

ppmvd ....................

NA. 

NA. 

NA. 

NA. 

8. .......... A new kiln .............. Startup and shutdown.At a major source .. HCl—3 ................... ppmvd .................... NA. 

9. .......... An existing clinker 

cooler.

Normal operation ... At a major or area 

source.

PM—0.04 ............... lb/ton clinker ........... NA. 

10. .......... An existing clinker 

cooler.

Startup and shutdown.At a major or area 

source.

PM—0.004 ............. gr/dscf .................... NA. 

11. .......... A new clinker cooler.Normal operation ... At a major or area 

source.

PM—0.01 ............... lb/ton clinker ........... NA. 

12. .......... A new clinker cooler.Startup and shutdown.At a major or area 

source.

PM—0.0008 ........... gr/dscf .................... NA. 

13. .......... An existing or new 

raw material 

dryer.

Normal operation ... At a major or area 

source.

THC—242,3 ............ ppmvd .................... 19 percent. 

14. .......... An existing or new 

raw material 

dryer.

Startup and shutdown.At a major or area 

source.

THC—242,3 ............ ppmvd .................... NA. 

15. .......... An existing or new 

raw material 

dryer.

All operating modes At a major source .. Opacity—10 ........... percent ................... NA. 

16. .......... An existing or new 

raw or finish mill.

All operating modes ................................ Opacity—10 ........... percent ................... NA. 

1 If the average temperature at the inlet to the first particulate matter control device (fabric filter or electrostatic precipitator) during the D/F performance test is 400 °F or less this limit is changed to 0.4 ng/dscm (TEQ). 2 Measured as propane. 

3Any source subject to the 24 ppmvd THC limit may elect to meet an alternative limit of 9 ppmvd for total organic HAP. If the source demonstrates compliance with the total organic HAP under the requirements of § 63.1349 then the source’s THC limit will be adjusted to equal the 

average THC emissions measured during the organic HAP compliance test. 4 If the kiln does not have a HCl CEM, the emissions limit is zero. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 174 / Thursday, September 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 55053 

(2) When there is an alkali bypass 

associated with a kiln, the combined PM 

emissions from the kiln or in-line kiln/ 

raw mill and the alkali bypass stack are 

subject to the PM emissions limit. 

Existing kilns that combine the clinker 

cooler exhaust with the kiln exhaust for 

energy efficiency purposes and send the 

combined exhaust to the PM control 

device as a single stream may meet an 

alternative PM emissions limit. This 

limit is calculated using the equation 1 

of this section: 

PMalt = + ( ) Qc 0 004 . / x 1.65 x Q (Eq. 1) 7000 k

Where: 

0.004 is the PM exhaust concentration (gr/ 

dscf) equivalent to 0.04 lb per ton clinker 

where clinker cooler and kiln exhaust 

gas are not combined. 

1.65 is the conversion factor of lb feed per 

lb clinker 

Qk is the exhaust flow of the kiln (dscf/ton 

raw feed) 

Qc is the exhaust flow of the clinker cooler 

(dscf/ton raw feed). 

For new kilns that combine kiln 

exhaust and clinker cooler gas the limit 

is calculated using the equation 2 of this 

section: 

PMalt = + ( ) Qc 0 0008 . / x 1.65 x (Q (Eq. 2) 7000 k

Where: 

0.0008 is the PM exhaust concentration (gr/ 

dscf) equivalent to 0.01 lb per ton clinker 

where clinker cooler and kiln exhaust 

gas are not combined 

1.65 is the conversion factor of lb feed per 

lb clinker 

Qk is the exhaust flow of the kiln (dscf/ton 

raw feed) 

Qc is the exhaust flow of the clinker cooler 

(dscf/ton raw feed). 

(c) If clinker material storage and 

handling activities occur more than 

1,000 feet from the facility property-line 

you must comply with the following: 

(1) Utilize a three-sided barrier with 

roof, provided the open side is covered 

with a wind fence material of a 

maximum 20 percent porosity, allowing 

a removable opening for vehicle access. 

The removable wind fence for vehicle 

access may be removed only during 

minor or routine maintenance activities, 

the creation or reclamation of outside 

storage piles, the importation of clinker 

from outside the facility, and 

reclamation of plant clean-up materials. 

The removable opening must be less 

than 50 percent of the total surface area 

of the wind fence and the amount of 

time must be minimized to the extent 

feasible. 

(2) Contain storage and handling of 

material that is immediately adjacent to 

the three-sided barrier within an area 

next to the structure with a wind fence 

on at least two sides, with at least a 5- 

foot freeboard above the top of the 

storage pile to provide wind sheltering, 

and completely cover the material with 

an impervious tarp, revealing only the 

active disturbed portion during material 

loading and unloading activities. 

(3) Storage and handling of other 

active clinker material must be 

conducted within an area surrounded 

on three sides by a barrier or wind 

fences with one side of the wind fence 

facing the prevailing wind and at least 

a 5-foot freeboard above the top of the 

storage pile to provide wind sheltering. 

The clinker must remain completely 

covered at all times with an impervious 

tarp, revealing only the active disturbed 

portion during material loading and 

unloading activities. The barrier or wind 

fence must extend at least 20 feet 

beyond the active portion of the 

material at all times. 

(4) Inactive clinker material may be 

alternatively stored using a continuous 

and impervious tarp, covered at all 

times, provided records are kept 

demonstrating the inactive status of 

such stored material. 

(d) If clinker material storage and 

handling activities occur 1,000 feet or 

less from the facility property-line these 

activities must be in an enclosed storage 

area that meets the emissions limits 

specified in § 63.1345. 

■ 14. Section 63.1344 is revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 63.1344 Affirmative defense for 

exceedance of emission limit during 

malfunction. 

In response to an action to enforce the 

standards set forth in paragraph 

§ 63.1343(b) you may assert an 

affirmative defense to a claim for civil 

penalties for exceedances of such 

standards that are caused by 

malfunction, as defined at 40 CFR 63.2. 

Appropriate penalties may be assessed, 

however, if the respondent fails to meet 

its burden of proving all of the 

requirements in the affirmative defense. 

The affirmative defense shall not be 

available for claims for injunctive relief. 

(a) To establish the affirmative 

defense in any action to enforce such a 

limit, the owners or operators of 

facilities must timely meet the 

notification requirements in paragraph 

(b) of this section, and must prove by a 

preponderance of evidence that: 

(1) The excess emissions: 

(i) Were caused by a sudden, short, 

infrequent, and unavoidable failure of 

air pollution control and monitoring 

equipment, process equipment, or a 

process to operate in a normal or usual 

manner, and 

(ii) Could not have been prevented 

through careful planning, proper design 

or better operation and maintenance 

practices; and 

(iii) Did not stem from any activity or 

event that could have been foreseen and 

avoided, or planned for; and 

(iv) Were not part of a recurring 

pattern indicative of inadequate design, 

operation, or maintenance; and 

(2) Repairs were made as 

expeditiously as possible when the 

applicable emission limitations were 

being exceeded. Off-shift and overtime 

labor were used, to the extent 

practicable to make these repairs; and 

(3) The frequency, amount and 

duration of the excess emissions 

(including any bypass) were minimized 

to the maximum extent practicable 

during periods of such emissions; and 

(4) If the excess emissions resulted 

from a bypass of control equipment or 

a process, then the bypass was 

unavoidable to prevent loss of life, 

severe personal injury, or severe 

property damage; and 

(5) All possible steps were taken to 

minimize the impact of the excess 

emissions on ambient air quality, the 

environment and human health; and 

(6) All emissions monitoring and 

control systems were kept in operation 

if at all possible; and 

(7) Your actions in response to the 

excess emissions were documented by 

properly signed, contemporaneous 

operating logs; and 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2er09se10.025</MATH> er09se10.026</MATH>
55054 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 174 / Thursday, September 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

(8) At all times, the facility was 

operated in a manner consistent with 

good practices for minimizing 

emissions; and 

(9) The owner or operator has 

prepared a written root cause analysis to 

determine, correct, and eliminate the 

primary causes of the malfunction and 

the excess emissions resulting from the 

malfunction event at issue. The analysis 

shall also specify, using best monitoring 

methods and engineering judgment, the 

amount of excess emissions that were 

the result of the malfunction. 

(b) Notification. The owner or 

operator of the facility experiencing an 

exceedance of its emission limit(s) 

during a malfunction shall notify the 

Administrator by telephone or facsimile 

(FAX) transmission as soon as possible, 

but no later than two business days after 

the initial occurrence of the 

malfunction, if it wishes to avail itself 

of an affirmative defense to civil 

penalties for that malfunction. The 

owner or operator seeking to assert an 

affirmative defense shall also submit a 

written report to the Administrator 

within 30 days of the initial occurrence 

of the exceedance of the standard in 

§ 63.1343(b) to demonstrate, with all 

necessary supporting documentation, 

that it has met the requirements set forth 

in paragraph (a) of this section. 

■ 15. Section 63.1345 is revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 63.1345 Emissions limits for affected 

sources other than kilns; in-line kiln/raw 

mills; clinker coolers; new and 

reconstructed raw material dryers; and raw 

and finish mills, and open clinker piles. 

The owner or operator of each new or 

existing raw material, clinker, or 

finished product storage bin; conveying 

system transfer point; bagging system; 

and bulk loading or unloading system; 

and each existing raw material dryer, at 

a facility which is a major source subject 

to the provisions of this subpart must 

not cause to be discharged any gases 

from these affected sources which 

exhibit opacity in excess of ten percent. 

16. Section 63.1346 is revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 63.1346 Operating limits for kilns. 

(a) The owner or operator of a kiln 

subject to a D/F emission limitation 

under § 63.1343 must operate the kiln 

such that the temperature of the gas at 

the inlet to the kiln particulate matter 

control device (PMCD) and alkali bypass 

PMCD, if applicable, does not exceed 

the applicable temperature limit 

specified in paragraph (b) of this 

section. The owner or operator of an inline kiln/raw mill subject to a D/F 

emission limitation under § 63.1343 

must operate the in-line kiln/raw mill, 

such that: 

(1) When the raw mill of the in-line 

kiln/raw mill is operating, the 

applicable temperature limit for the 

main in-line kiln/raw mill exhaust, 

specified in paragraph (b) of this section 

and established during the performance 

test when the raw mill was operating is 

not exceeded, except during periods of 

startup/shutdown when the temperature 

limit may be exceeded by no more than 

10 percent. 

(2) When the raw mill of the in-line 

kiln/raw mill is not operating, the 

applicable temperature limit for the 

main in-line kiln/raw mill exhaust, 

specified in paragraph (b) of this section 

and established during the performance 

test when the raw mill was not 

operating, is not exceeded, except 

during periods of startup/shutdown 

when the temperature limit may be 

exceeded by no more than 10 percent. 

(3) If the in-line kiln/raw mill is 

equipped with an alkali bypass, the 

applicable temperature limit for the 

alkali bypass specified in paragraph (b) 

of this section and established during 

the performance test, with or without 

the raw mill operating, is not exceeded, 

except during periods of startup/ 

shutdown when the temperature limit 

may be exceeded by no more than 10 

percent. 

(b) The temperature limit for affected 

sources meeting the limits of paragraph 

(a) of this section or paragraphs (a)(1) 

through (a)(3) of this section is 

determined in accordance with 

§ 63.1349(b)(3)(iv). 

(c) For an affected source subject to a 

D/F emission limitation under § 63.1343 

that employs sorbent injection as an 

emission control technique you must 

operate the sorbent injection system in 

accordance with paragraphs (c)(1) and 

(c)(2) of this section. 

(1) The three-hour rolling average 

activated sorbent injection rate must be 

equal to or greater than the sorbent 

injection rate determined in accordance 

with § 63.1349(b)(3)(vi). 

(2) You must either: 

(i) Maintain the minimum activated 

carbon injection carrier gas flow rate, as 

a three-hour rolling average, based on 

the manufacturer’s specifications. These 

specifications must be documented in 

the test plan developed in accordance 

with § 63.7(c), or 

(ii) Maintain the minimum activated 

carbon injection carrier gas pressure 

drop, as a three-hour rolling average, 

based on the manufacturer’s 

specifications. These specifications 

must be documented in the test plan 

developed in accordance with § 63.7(c). 

(d) Except as provided in paragraph 

(e) of this section, for an affected source 

subject to a D/F emission limitation 

under § 63.1343 that employs carbon 

injection as an emission control 

technique you must specify and use the 

brand and type of sorbent used during 

the performance test until a subsequent 

performance test is conducted, unless 

the site-specific performance test plan 

contains documentation of key 

parameters that affect adsorption and 

the owner or operator establishes limits 

based on those parameters, and the 

limits on these parameters are 

maintained. 

(e) For an affected source subject to a 

D/F emission limitation under § 63.1343 

that employs carbon injection as an 

emission control technique you may 

substitute, at any time, a different brand 

or type of sorbent provided that the 

replacement has equivalent or improved 

properties compared to the sorbent 

specified in the site-specific 

performance test plan and used in the 

performance test. The owner or operator 

must maintain documentation that the 

substitute sorbent will provide the same 

or better level of control as the original 

sorbent. 

(f) No kiln may use as a raw material 

or fuel any fly ash where the mercury 

content of the fly ash has been increased 

through the use of activated carbon, or 

any other sorbent, unless the facility can 

demonstrate that the use of that fly ash 

will not result in an increase in mercury 

emissions over baseline emissions (i.e., 

emissions not using the fly ash). The 

facility has the burden of proving there 

has been no emissions increase over 

baseline. Once the kiln must comply 

with a mercury limit specified in 

§ 63.1343, this paragraph no longer 

applies. 

■ 17. Section 63.1347 is revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 63.1347 Operation and maintenance plan 

requirements. 

(a) You must prepare, for each 

affected source subject to the provisions 

of this subpart, a written operations and 

maintenance plan. The plan must be 

submitted to the Administrator for 

review and approval as part of the 

application for a part 70 permit and 

must include the following information: 

(1) Procedures for proper operation 

and maintenance of the affected source 

and air pollution control devices in 

order to meet the emission limits and 

operating limits of §§ 63.1343 through 

63.1348; 

(2) Corrective actions to be taken 

when required by paragraph 

§ 63.1350(f)(3); 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 174 / Thursday, September 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 55055 

(3) Procedures to be used during an 

inspection of the components of the 

combustion system of each kiln and 

each in-line kiln raw mill located at the 

facility at least once per year. 

(b) Failure to comply with any 

provision of the operations and 

maintenance plan developed in 

accordance with this section is a 

violation of the standard. 

■ 18. Section 63.1348 is revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 63.1348 Compliance requirements. 

(a) Initial compliance requirements. 

For an affected source subject to this 

subpart, you must demonstrate initial 

compliance with the emissions 

standards and operating limits by using 

the test methods and procedures in 

§§ 63.1349 and 63.7. 

(1) PM compliance. If you are subject 

to limitations on PM emissions under 

§ 63.1343(b), you must demonstrate 

initial compliance with the PM 

emissions standards by using the test 

methods and procedures in 

§ 63.1349(b)(1). 

(i) You must demonstrate initial 

compliance by conducting a 

performance test as specified in 

§ 63.1349(b)(1)(i). 

(ii) Compliance with the PM 

emissions standard must be determined 

based on the first 30 operating days you 

operate a PM CEMS. 

(2) Opacity compliance. If you are 

subject to the limitations on opacity 

under § 63.1345, you must demonstrate 

initial compliance with the opacity 

emissions standards by using the 

performance test methods and 

procedures in § 63.1349(b)(2). The 

maximum 6-minute average opacity 

exhibited during the performance test 

period must be used to determine 

whether the affected source is in initial 

compliance with the standard. 

(3) D/F compliance. 

(i) If you are subject to limitations on 

D/F emissions under § 63.1343(b), you 

must demonstrate initial compliance 

with the D/F emissions standards by 

using the performance test methods and 

procedures in § 63.1349(b)(3). The 

owner or operator of a kiln with an inline raw mill must demonstrate initial 

compliance by conducting separate 

performance tests while the raw mill is 

operating and the raw mill is not 

operating. The D/F concentration must 

be determined for each run and the 

arithmetic average of the concentrations 

measured for the three runs must be 

calculated to determine compliance. 

(ii) If you are subject to a D/F 

emission limitation under § 63.1343(b), 

you must demonstrate initial 

compliance with the temperature 

operating limits specified in § 63.1344 

by using the performance test methods 

and procedures in § 63.1349(b)(3)(ii) 

through (b)(3)(iv). The average of the 

run temperatures will determine the 

applicable temperature limit. 

(iii) If activated carbon injection is 

used and you are subject to a D/F 

emission limitation under § 63.1343(b), 

you must demonstrate initial 

compliance with the activated carbon 

injection rate operating limits specified 

in § 63.1344 by using the performance 

test methods and procedures in 

§ 63.1349(b)(3)(v). The average of the 

run injection rates will determine the 

applicable injection rate limit. 

(iv) If activated carbon injection is 

used, you must also develop a carrier 

gas parameter during the performance 

test conducted under § 63.1349(b)(3) 

that meets the requirements of 

§ 63.1349(b)(3)(vi). Compliance is 

demonstrated if the system is 

maintained within ± 5 percent accuracy 

during the performance test. 

(4)(i) THC compliance. If you are 

subject to limitations on THC emissions 

under § 63.1343(b), you must 

demonstrate initial compliance with the 

THC emissions standards by using the 

performance test methods and 

procedures in § 63.1349(b)(4)(i). The 

average THC concentration obtained 

during the first 30 operating days must 

be used to determine initial compliance. 

(ii) Total organic HAP emissions tests. 

If you elect to demonstrate compliance 

with the total organic HAP emissions 

limit under § 63.1343(b) in lieu of the 

THC emissions limit, you must 

demonstrate initial compliance with the 

total organic HAP emissions standards 

by using the performance test methods 

and procedures in § 63.1349(b)(4)(iii) 

and (b)(4)(iv). 

(iii) If you are demonstrating initial 

compliance, you must conduct the 

separate performance tests as specified 

in § 63.1349(b)(4)(iii) while the raw mill 

kiln is operating and while the raw mill 

of the kiln is not operating. 

(iv) The average total organic HAP 

concentration measured during the 

initial performance test specified by 

§ 63.1349(b)(4)(iii) must be used to 

determine initial compliance. 

(v) The average THC concentration 

measured during the initial performance 

test specified by § 63.1349(b)(4)(iv) must 

be used to determine the site-specific 

THC limit. This limit should be a 

weighted average of the THC levels 

measured during raw mill on and raw 

mill off testing. 

(5) Mercury compliance. If you are 

subject to limitations on mercury 

emissions in § 63.1343(b), you must 

demonstrate initial compliance with the 

mercury standards by using the 

performance test methods and 

procedures in § 63.1349(b)(5). You must 

demonstrate initial compliance by 

operating a mercury CEMS or a sorbent 

trap based integrated monitor. The first 

30 operating days of daily mercury 

concentration data must be used to 

determine initial compliance. 

(6) HCl compliance. If you are subject 

to limitations on HCl emissions under 

§ 63.1343(b), you must demonstrate 

initial compliance with the HCl 

standards by using the performance test 

methods and procedures in 

§ 63.1349(b)(6). 

(i) For an affected source that is 

equipped with a wet scrubber or tray 

tower, you must demonstrate initial 

compliance by conducting a 

performance test as specified in 

§ 63.1349(b)(6)(i). The HCl 

concentration must be determined for 

each run and the arithmetic average of 

the concentrations measured for the 

three runs must be calculated to 

determine compliance. You must also 

have established appropriate sitespecific parameter limits. 

(ii) For an affected source that is not 

equipped with a wet scrubber or tray 

tower, you must demonstrate initial 

compliance by operating a CEMS as 

specified in § 63.1349(b)(6)(ii). The 

average hourly HCl concentration 

obtained during the first 30 operating 

days must be used to determine initial 

compliance. 

(b) Continuous compliance 

requirements. You must demonstrate 

continuous compliance with the 

emissions standards and operating 

limits by using the performance test 

methods and procedures in §§ 63.1350 

and 63.8 for each affected source. 

(1) General requirements. 

(i) You must monitor and collect data 

according to § 63.1350 and the sitespecific monitoring plan required by 

§ 63.1350(o). 

(ii) Except for periods of monitoring 

system malfunctions, repairs associated 

with monitoring system malfunctions, 

and required monitoring system quality 

assurance or quality control activities 

(including, as applicable, calibration 

checks and required zero and span 

adjustments), you must operate the 

monitoring system and collect data at all 

required intervals at all times the 

affected source is operating. Any period 

for which data collection is required 

and the operation of the CEMS is not 

otherwise exempt and for which the 

monitoring system is out-of-control and 

data are not available for required 

calculations constitutes a deviation from 

the monitoring requirements. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2
55056 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 174 / Thursday, September 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

(iii) You may not use data recorded 

during monitoring system malfunctions, 

repairs associated with monitoring 

system malfunctions, or required 

monitoring system quality assurance or 

control activities in calculations used to 

report emissions or operating levels. A 

monitoring system malfunction is any 

sudden, infrequent, not reasonably 

preventable failure of the monitoring 

system to provide valid data. 

Monitoring system failures that are 

caused in part by poor maintenance or 

careless operation are not malfunctions. 

The owner or operator must use all the 

data collected during all other periods 

in assessing the operation of the control 

device and associated control system 

(iv) Clinker production. If you are 

subject to limitations on PM emissions 

(lb/ton of clinker) or mercury (lb/MM 

tons of clinker) under § 63.1343(b), you 

must demonstrate continuous 

compliance with the PM emissions 

standards by determining the hourly 

production rate of clinker according to 

the requirements of § 63.1350(d). 

(2) PM compliance. If you are subject 

to limitations on PM emissions under 

§ 63.1343(b), you must demonstrate 

continuous compliance with the PM 

emissions standards by using the 

monitoring methods and procedures in 

§ 63.1350(b) and (d). 

(i) PM CEMS. You must demonstrate 

continuous compliance with the PM 

emissions standards by using the 

monitoring methods and procedures in 

§ 63.1350(b) for each affected source 

subject to PM emissions limitations. 

Continuous compliance is demonstrated 

by a 30-day rolling average PM 

emissions in lb/ton clinker, except for 

periods of startup and shutdown, where 

the compliance is demonstrated based 

on a 7-day rolling average. 

(3) Opacity compliance. If you are 

subject to the limitations on opacity 

under § 63.1345, you must demonstrate 

continuous compliance with the opacity 

emissions standards by using the 

monitoring methods and procedures in 

§ 63.1350(f). 

(i) Continuous compliance is 

demonstrated by conducting specified 

visible emissions observations and 

follow up opacity readings, as indicated 

in § 63.1350(f)(1) and (f)(2). The 

maximum 6-minute average opacity 

exhibited during the performance test 

period must be used to determine 

whether the affected source is in 

compliance with the standard. 

Corrective actions must be initiated 

within one hour of detecting visible 

emissions. 

(ii) COMS. If you install a COMS in 

lieu of conducting the daily visible 

emissions testing, you must demonstrate 

continuous compliance by operating 

and maintaining the COMS such that it 

meets the requirements of 

§ 63.1350(f)(4)(i). 

(iii) BLDS. If you install a BLDS on a 

raw mill or finish mill in lieu of 

conducting the daily visible emissions 

testing, you must demonstrate 

continuous compliance by operating 

and maintaining the BLDS such that it 

meets the requirements of 

§ 63.1350(f)(4)(ii). 

(4) D/F compliance. If you are subject 

to a D/F emission limitation under 

§ 63.1343(b), you must demonstrate 

continuous compliance with the 

temperature operating limits specified 

in § 63.1346 by using the installing, 

operating, and maintaining a continuous 

monitor to record the temperature of 

specified gas streams such that it meets 

the requirements of § 63.1350(g). 

Continuous compliance is demonstrated 

by a 3-hour rolling average temperature. 

(5)(i) Activated carbon injection 

compliance. If activated carbon 

injection is used and you are subject to 

a D/F emission limitation under 

§ 63.1343(b), you must demonstrate 

continuous compliance with the 

activated carbon injection rate operating 

limits specified in § 63.1346 by 

installing, operating, and maintaining a 

continuous monitor to record the rate of 

activated carbon injection that meets the 

requirements of § 63.1350(h)(1). 

Continuous compliance is demonstrated 

by a 3-hour rolling average injection 

rate. 

(ii) If you are subject to a D/F 

emission limitation under § 63.1343(b), 

you must demonstrate continuous 

compliance with the activated carbon 

injection system gas parameter by 

installing, operating, and maintaining a 

continuous monitor to record the gas 

parameter that meets the requirements 

of § 63.1350(h)(2). Continuous 

compliance is demonstrated by a 3-hour 

rolling average of the parameter value. 

(6) THC compliance. If you are subject 

to limitations on THC emissions under 

§ 63.1343(b), you must demonstrate 

continuous compliance with the THC 

emissions standards by using the 

monitoring methods and procedures in 

§ 63.1350 (i) and (j). Continuous 

compliance is demonstrated by a 30-day 

rolling average THC concentration, 

except for periods of startup and 

shutdown, where the standard is based 

on a 7-day rolling average. 

(7) Mercury compliance. If you are 

subject to limitations on mercury 

emissions in § 63.1343(b), you must 

demonstrate continuous compliance 

with the mercury standards by using the 

monitoring methods and procedures in 

§ 63.1350(k). Continuous compliance is 

demonstrated by a 30-day rolling 

average mercury emission rate in lb/MM 

tons clinker, except for periods of 

startup and shutdown, where the 

standard is based on a 7-day rolling 

average mercury concentration. 

(8) HCl compliance. If you are subject 

to limitations on HCl emissions under 

§ 63.1343(b), you must demonstrate 

continuous compliance with the HCl 

standards by using the performance test 

methods and procedures in 

§ 63.1349(b)(6). 

(i) For an affected source that is not 

equipped with a wet scrubber or tray 

tower, you must demonstrate 

continuous compliance by using the 

monitoring methods and procedures in 

§ 63.1350(l)(1). Continuous compliance 

is demonstrated by a 30-day rolling 

average HCl concentration, except for 

periods of startup and shutdown, where 

the standard is based on a 7-day rolling 

average. 

(ii) For an affected source that is 

equipped with a wet scrubber or tray 

tower, you must demonstrate 

continuous compliance by using the 

monitoring methods and procedures in 

§ 63.1350(l)(2). Continuous compliance 

is demonstrated by a 30-day rolling 

average of the required parameters, 

except for periods of startup and 

shutdown, where the standard is based 

on a 7-day rolling average. 

(c) Changes in operations. 

(1) If you plan to undertake a change 

in operations that may adversely affect 

compliance with an applicable 

standard, operating limit, or parametric 

monitoring value under this subpart, the 

source must conduct a performance test 

as specified in § 63.1349(b). 

(2) In preparation for and while 

conducting a performance test required 

in § 63.1349(b), you may operate under 

the planned operational change 

conditions for a period not to exceed 

360 hours, provided that the conditions 

in (c)(2)(i) through (c)(2)(iv) of this 

section are met. You must submit 

temperature and other monitoring data 

that are recorded during the pretest 

operations. 

(i) You must provide the 

Administrator written notice at least 60 

days prior to undertaking an operational 

change that may adversely affect 

compliance with an applicable standard 

under this subpart for any source, or as 

soon as practicable where 60 days 

advance notice is not feasible. Notice 

provided under this paragraph must 

include a description of the planned 

change, the emissions standards that 

may be affected by the change, and a 

schedule for completion of the 

performance test required under 

paragraph (c)(1) of this section, 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 174 / Thursday, September 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 55057 

including when the planned operational 

change period would begin. 

(ii) The performance test results must 

be documented in a test report 

according to § 63.1349(a). 

(iii) A test plan must be made 

available to the Administrator prior to 

performance testing, if requested. 

(iv) The performance test must be 

conducted completed within 360 hours 

after the planned operational change 

period begins. 

(d) General duty to minimize 

emissions. At all times you must operate 

and maintain any affected source, 

including associated air pollution 

control equipment and monitoring 

equipment, in a manner consistent with 

safety and good air pollution control 

practices for minimizing emissions. 

Determination of whether such 

operation and maintenance procedures 

are being used will be based on 

information available to the 

Administrator which may include, but 

is not limited to, monitoring results, 

review of operation and maintenance 

procedures, review of operation and 

maintenance records, and inspection of 

the source. 

■ 19. Section 63.1349 is revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 63.1349 Performance testing 

requirements. 

(a) Performance test results must be 

documented in complete test reports 

that contain the information required by 

paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(10) of this 

section, as well as all other relevant 

information. As described in 

§ 63.7(c)(2)(i), the site-specific plan to be 

followed during performance testing 

must be made available to the 

Administrator prior to testing, if 

requested. 

(1) A brief description of the process 

and the air pollution control system; 

(2) Sampling location description(s); 

(3) A description of sampling and 

analytical procedures and any 

modifications to standard procedures; 

(4) Test results; 

(5) Quality assurance procedures and 

results; 

(6) Records of operating conditions 

during the performance test, preparation 

of standards, and calibration 

procedures; 

(7) Raw data sheets for field sampling 

and field and laboratory analyses; 

(8) Documentation of calculations; 

(9) All data recorded and used to 

establish parameters for monitoring; and 

(10) Any other information required 

by the performance test method. 

(b)(1) PM emissions tests. 

(i)(A) If you are subject to the 

limitations on emissions of PM, you 

must install, operate, calibrate, and 

maintain a PM CEMS in accordance 

with the requirements in § 63.1350(b). 

(B) You must determine, record, and 

maintain a record of the accuracy of the 

volumetric flow rate monitoring system 

according to the procedures in 

§ 63.1350(m)(5). 

(C) The initial compliance test must 

be based on the first 30 operating days 

in which the affected source operates 

using a CEMS. Hourly PM concentration 

and stack gas volumetric flow rate data 

must be obtained. 

(ii) You must determine the clinker 

production rate using the methods in 

§ 63.1350(d). 

(iii) The emission rate, E, of PM (lb/ 

ton of clinker) must be computed for 

each run using equation 3 of this 

section: 

E C Q PK = ( ) S S /( ) (Eq. 3)

Where: 

E = emission rate of particulate matter, lb/ton 

of clinker production; 

Cs = concentration of particulate matter, gr/ 

scf; 

Qs = volumetric flow rate of effluent gas, 

where Cs and Qs are on the same basis 

(either wet or dry), scf/hr; 

P = total kiln clinker production rate, ton/hr; 

and 

K = conversion factor, 7000 gr/lb. 

(iv) When there is an alkali bypass 

associated with a kiln, the main exhaust 

and alkali bypass of the kiln must be 

tested simultaneously and the combined 

emission rate of particulate matter from 

the kiln and alkali bypass must be 

computed for each computed for each 

run using equation 4 of this section: 

E

C C

K P c

sk sb = ⎡( ) + ( ) ⎣ ⎤ Qsk Qsb ⎦ (Eq. 4)

Where: 

Ec = combined emission rate of particulate 

matter from the kiln or in-line kiln/raw 

mill and bypass stack, lb/ton of kiln 

clinker production; 

Csk = concentration of particulate matter in 

the kiln or in-line kiln/raw mill effluent 

gas, gr/scf; 

Qsk = volumetric flow rate of kiln or in-line 

kiln/raw mill effluent gas, where Csk and 

Qsk are on the same basis (either wet or 

dry), scf/hr; 

Csb = concentration of particulate matter in 

the alkali bypass gas, gr/scf; 

Qsb = volumetric flow rate of alkali bypass 

effluent gas, where Csb and Qsb are on the 

same basis (either wet or dry), scf/hr; 

P = total kiln clinker production rate, ton/hr; 

and 

K = conversion factor, 1000 g/kg (7000 gr/lb). 

(2) Opacity tests. If you are subject to 

limitations on opacity under this 

subpart, you must conduct opacity tests 

in accordance with Method 9 of 

appendix A–4 to part 60 of this chapter. 

The duration of the Method 9 

performance test must be 3 hours (30 6- 

minute averages), except that the 

duration of the Method 9 performance 

test may be reduced to 1 hour if the 

conditions of paragraphs (b)(2)(i) 

through (b)(2)(ii) of this section apply. 

For batch processes that are not run for 

3-hour periods or longer, compile 

observations totaling 3 hours when the 

unit is operating. 

(i) There are no individual readings 

greater than 10 percent opacity; 

(ii) There are no more than three 

readings of 10 percent for the first 1- 

hour period. 

(3) D/F emissions tests. If you are 

subject to limitations on D/F emissions 

under this subpart, you must conduct a 

performance test using Method 23 of 

appendix A–7 to part 60 of this chapter. 

The owner or operator of a kiln or inline kiln/raw mill equipped with an 

alkali bypass must conduct 

simultaneous performance tests of the 

kiln or in-line kiln/raw mill exhaust and 

the alkali bypass. However, the owner 

or operator of an in-line kiln/raw mill 

may conduct a performance test of the 

alkali bypass exhaust when the raw mill 

of the in-line kiln/raw mill is operating 

or not operating. 

(i) Each performance test must consist 

of three separate runs conducted under 

representative conditions. The duration 

of each run must be at least 3 hours, and 

the sample volume for each run must be 

at least 2.5 dscm (90 dscf). 

(ii) The temperature at the inlet to the 

kiln or in-line kiln/raw mill PMCD, and, 

where applicable, the temperature at the 

inlet to the alkali bypass PMCD must be 

continuously recorded during the 

period of the Method 23 test, and the 

continuous temperature record(s) must 

be included in the performance test 

report. 

(iii) Hourly average temperatures 

must be calculated for each run of the 

performance test. 

(iv) The run average temperature must 

be calculated for each run, and the 

average of the run average temperatures 

must be determined and included in the 

performance test report and will 

determine the applicable temperature 

limit in accordance with § 63.1344(b). 

(v)(A) If sorbent injection is used for 

D/F control, the rate of sorbent injection 

to the kiln or in-line kiln/raw mill 

exhaust, and where applicable, the rate 

of sorbent injection to the alkali bypass 

exhaust, must be continuously recorded 

during the period of the Method 23 test 

in accordance with the conditions in 

§ 63.1350(m)(9), and the continuous 

injection rate record(s) must be included 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2er09se10.027</MATH> er09se10.028</MATH>
55058 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 174 / Thursday, September 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

in the performance test report. Sorbent 

injection rate parameters must be 

determined in accordance with 

paragraphs (b)(3)(vi) of this section. 

(B) The performance test report must 

include the brand and type of sorbent 

used during the performance test. 

(C) The owner or operator must 

maintain a continuous record of either 

the carrier gas flow rate or the carrier 

gas pressure drop for the duration of the 

performance test. If the carrier gas flow 

rate is used, the owner or operator must 

determine, record, and maintain a 

record of the accuracy of the carrier gas 

flow rate monitoring system according 

to the procedures in appendix A to part 

75 of this chapter. If the carrier gas 

pressure drop is used, the owner or 

operator must determine, record, and 

maintain a record of the accuracy of the 

carrier gas pressure drop monitoring 

system according to the procedures in 

§ 63.1350(m)(6). 

(vi) The run average sorbent injection 

rate must be calculated for each run and 

the average of the run average injection 

rates must be determined and included 

in the performance test report and will 

determine the applicable injection rate 

limit in accordance with § 63.1344(c)(1). 

(4)(i) THC CEMS relative accuracy 

test. 

(A) If you are subject to limitations on 

THC emissions, you must operate a 

continuous emissions monitoring 

system (CEMS) in accordance with the 

requirements in § 63.1350(1). For the 

purposes of conducting the accuracy 

and quality assurance evaluations for 

CEMS, the THC span value (as propane) 

is 50 ppmvd. You demonstrate 

compliance with a RATA when the 

accuracy between the CEMS and the test 

audit is within 20 percent or when the 

test audit results are within 10 percent 

of the standard 

(B) The initial compliance test must 

be based on the first 30 operating days 

of operation in which the affected 

source operates using a CEMS. 

(ii) Total organic HAP emissions tests. 

Instead of conducting the performance 

test specified in paragraph (b)(4)(i) of 

this section, you may conduct a 

performance test to determine emissions 

of total organic HAP by following the 

procedures in paragraphs (b)(4)(iii) 

through (b)(4)(iv) of this section. 

(iii) Method 320 of appendix A to this 

part or ASTM D6348–03 (incorporated 

by reference—See § 63.14) must be used 

to determine emissions of total organic 

HAP. Each performance test must 

consist of three separate runs under the 

conditions that exist when the affected 

source is operating at the representative 

performance conditions in accordance 

with § 63.7(e). Each run must be 

conducted for at least 1 hour. 

(iv) At the same time that you are 

conducting the performance test for 

total organic HAP, you must also 

determine THC emissions by operating 

a CEMS in accordance with the 

requirements of § 63.1350(j). The 

duration of the performance test must be 

3 hours and the average THC 

concentration (as calculated from the 1- 

minute averages) during the 3-hour test 

must be calculated. 

(5) Mercury emissions tests. If you are 

subject to limitations on mercury 

emissions, you must operate a mercury 

CEMS in accordance with the 

requirements of § 63.1350(k). The initial 

compliance test must be based on the 

first 30 operating days in which the 

affected source operates using a CEMS. 

Hourly mercury concentration and stack 

gas volumetric flow rate data must be 

obtained. If you use a sorbent trap 

monitoring system, daily data must be 

obtained with each day assumed to 

equal the daily average of the sorbent 

trap collection period covering that day. 

(i) If you are using a mercury CEMS, 

you must install, operate, calibrate, and 

maintain an instrument for 

continuously measuring and recording 

the exhaust gas flow rate to the 

atmosphere according to the 

requirements in § 63.1350(k)(4). 

(ii) The emission rate must be 

computed by dividing the average 

mercury emission rate by the clinker 

production rate during the same 30-day 

rolling period using the equation 5 of 

this section: 

E = ( ) C Q PK s s /( ) (Eq. 5)

Where: 

E = emission rate of mercury, lb/million tons 

of clinker production; 

Cs = concentration of mercury, g/scm; 

Qs = volumetric flow rate of effluent gas, 

where Cs and Qs are on the same basis 

(wet or dry), scm/hr; 

P = total kiln clinker production rate, million 

ton/hr; and 

K = conversion factor, 1000 g/kg (454 g/lb). 

(6) HCl emissions tests. For a source 

subject to limitations on HCl emissions 

you must conduct performance testing 

by one of the following methods: 

(i)(A) If the source is equipped with 

a wet scrubber, or tray tower, you must 

conduct performance testing using 

Method 321 of appendix A to this part 

unless you have installed a CEMS that 

meets the requirements § 63.1350(l)(1) . 

(B) You must establish site specific 

parameter limits by using the CPMS 

required in§ 63.1350(l)(1). Measure and 

record the pressure drop across the 

scrubber and/or liquid flow rate and pH 

in intervals of no more than 15 minutes 

during the HCl test. Compute and record 

the 24-hour average pressure drop, pH, 

and average scrubber water flow rate for 

each sampling run in which the 

applicable emissions limit is met. 

(ii)(A) If the source is not controlled 

by a wet scrubber, you must operate a 

CEMS in accordance with the 

requirements of § 63.1350(l)(1). The 

initial performance test must be the first 

30 operating days you use the CEMS. 

(B) The initial compliance test must 

be based on the 30 operating days in 

which the affected source operates using 

a CEMS. Hourly HCl concentration and 

stack gas volumetric flow rate data must 

be obtained. 

(c) Performance test frequency. Except 

as provided in § 63.1348(b), 

performance tests are required for 

affected sources that are subject to a 

dioxin, total organic HAP, or HCl, 

emissions limit and must be repeated 

every 30 months except for pollutants 

where that specific pollutant is 

monitored using CEMS. 

(d) Performance test reporting 

requirements. 

(1) You must submit the information 

specified in paragraphs (d)(1)(i) and 

(d)(2) of this section no later than 60 

days following the initial performance 

test. All reports must be signed by the 

facility’s manager. 

(i) The initial performance test data as 

recorded under paragraph (b) of this 

section. 

(ii) The values for the site-specific 

operating limits or parameters 

established pursuant to paragraphs 

(b)(3), (b)(4)(iii), (b)(5)(ii), and (b)(6)(i) of 

this section, as applicable, and a 

description, including sample 

calculations, of how the operating 

parameters were established during the 

initial performance test. 

(2) As of December 31, 2011 and 

within 60 days after the date of 

completing each performance 

evaluation or test, as defined in § 63.2, 

conducted to demonstrate compliance 

with this subpart, you must submit the 

relative accuracy test audit data and 

performance test data, except opacity 

data, to EPA by successfully submitting 

the data electronically to EPA’s Central 

Data Exchange (CDX) by using the 

Electronic Reporting Tool(ERT) (see 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/ 

ert_tool.html/). 

(e) Performance tests must be 

conducted under such conditions as the 

Administrator specifies to the owner or 

operator based on representative 

performance of the affected source for 

the period being tested. Upon request, 

you must make available to the 

Administrator such records as may be 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2ER09SE10.029</MATH>
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 174 / Thursday, September 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 55059 

necessary to determine the conditions of 

performance tests. 

20. Section 63.1350 is revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 63.1350 Monitoring requirements. 

(a) All continuous monitoring data for 

periods of startup and shutdown must 

be compiled and averaged separately 

from data gathered during periods of 

normal operation. 

(b) PM monitoring requirements for 

sources using PM CEMS. 

(1) For a kiln or clinker cooler subject 

to emissions limitation on particulate 

matter emissions in § 63.1343(b) and 

using a PM CEMS, you must install and 

operate a continuous emissions monitor 

in accordance with Performance 

Specification 11 of appendix B and 

Procedure 2 of appendix F to part 60 of 

this chapter. The performance test 

method and the correlation test method 

for Performance Specification 11 must 

be Method 5 or Method 5i of appendix 

A to Part 60 of this chapter. You must 

also develop an emissions monitoring 

plan in accordance with paragraphs 

(o)(1) through (o)(4) of this section. 

(2) You must perform Relative 

Response Audits annually and Response 

Correlation Audits every 3 years. 

(3) If you are using a PM CEMS, you 

must install, operate, calibrate, and 

maintain an instrument for 

continuously measuring and recording 

the exhaust gas flow rate to the 

atmosphere according to the 

requirements in paragraphs (n)(1) 

through (n)(10) of this section. 

(4) In order to calculate the 30-day or 

7-day rolling average, collect readings at 

least every 15 minutes. Sum the hourly 

data to daily data and then into a 30-day 

rolling average. You must use all data, 

except those recorded during 

monitoring system malfunctions, repairs 

associated with monitoring system 

malfunctions, or required monitoring 

system quality assurance or control 

activities, in calculations. 

(c) [Reserved] 

(d) Clinker production monitoring 

requirements. If you are subject to an 

emissions limitation on particulate 

matter, mercury, NOX, or SO2 emissions 

(lb/ton of clinker), you must: 

(1) Determine hourly clinker 

production by one of two methods: 

(i) Install, calibrate, maintain, and 

operate a permanent weigh scale system 

to measure and record weight rates in 

tons-mass per hour of the amount of 

clinker produced. The system of 

measuring hourly clinker production 

must be maintained within ±5 percent 

accuracy. 

(ii) Install, calibrate, maintain, and 

operate a permanent weigh scale system 

to measure and record weight rates in 

tons-mass per hour of the amount of 

feed to the kiln. The system of 

measuring feed must be maintained 

within ±5 percent accuracy. Calculate 

your hourly clinker production rate 

using a kiln specific feed to clinker ratio 

based on reconciled clinker production 

determined for accounting purposes and 

recorded feed rates. This ratio must be 

updated monthly. Note that if this ratio 

changes at clinker reconciliation, you 

must use the new ratio going forward, 

but you do not have to retroactively 

change clinker production rates 

previously estimated. 

(2) Determine, record, and maintain a 

record of the accuracy of the system of 

measuring hourly clinker production (or 

feed mass flow if applicable) before 

initial use (for new sources) or within 

30 days of the effective date of this rule 

(for existing sources). During each 

quarter of source operation, you must 

determine, record, and maintain a 

record of the ongoing accuracy of the 

system of measuring hourly clinker 

production (or feed mass flow). 

(3) Record the daily clinker 

production rates and kiln feed rates; and 

(4) Develop an emissions monitoring 

plan in accordance with paragraphs 

(o)(1) through (o)(4) of this section. 

(e) [Reserved] 

(f) Opacity monitoring requirements. 

If you are subject to a limitation on 

opacity under § 63.1345, you must 

conduct required emissions monitoring 

in accordance with the provisions of 

paragraphs (f)(1)(i) through (f)(1)(vii) of 

this section and in accordance with the 

operation and maintenance plan 

developed in accordance with 

§ 63.1347. You must conduct emissions 

monitoring in accordance with 

paragraphs (f)(2)(i) through (f)(2)(iii) of 

this section and in accordance with the 

operation and maintenance plan 

developed in accordance with (p)(1) 

through (p)(4) of this section. You must 

also develop an opacity emissions 

monitoring plan in accordance with 

paragraphs (o)(1) through (o)(4) and 

paragraph (o)(5), if applicable, of this 

section. 

(1)(i) You must conduct a monthly 10- 

minute visible emissions test of each 

affected source in accordance with 

Method 22 of appendix A–7 to part 60 

of this chapter. The performance test 

must be conducted while the affected 

source is in operation. 

(ii) If no visible emissions are 

observed in six consecutive monthly 

tests for any affected source, the owner 

or operator may decrease the frequency 

of performance testing from monthly to 

semi-annually for that affected source. If 

visible emissions are observed during 

any semi-annual test, you must resume 

performance testing of that affected 

source on a monthly basis and maintain 

that schedule until no visible emissions 

are observed in six consecutive monthly 

tests. 

(iii) If no visible emissions are 

observed during the semi-annual test for 

any affected source, you may decrease 

the frequency of performance testing 

from semi-annually to annually for that 

affected source. If visible emissions are 

observed during any annual 

performance test, the owner or operator 

must resume performance testing of that 

affected source on a monthly basis and 

maintain that schedule until no visible 

emissions are observed in six 

consecutive monthly tests. 

(iv) If visible emissions are observed 

during any Method 22 performance test, 

of appendix A–7 to part 60 of this 

chapter, you must conduct five 6- 

minute averages of opacity in 

accordance with Method 9 of appendix 

A–4 to part 60 of this chapter. The 

Method 9 performance test, of appendix 

A–4 to part 60 of this chapter, must 

begin within 1 hour of any observation 

of visible emissions. 

(v) The requirement to conduct 

Method 22 visible emissions monitoring 

under this paragraph do not apply to 

any totally enclosed conveying system 

transfer point, regardless of the location 

of the transfer point. ‘‘Totally enclosed 

conveying system transfer point’’ must 

mean a conveying system transfer point 

that is enclosed on all sides, top, and 

bottom. The enclosures for these 

transfer points must be operated and 

maintained as total enclosures on a 

continuing basis in accordance with the 

facility operations and maintenance 

plan. 

(vi) If any partially enclosed or 

unenclosed conveying system transfer 

point is located in a building, you must 

have the option to conduct a Method 22 

performance test, of appendix A–7 to 

part 60 of this chapter, according to the 

requirements of paragraphs (f)(1)(i) 

through (f)(1)(iv) of this section for each 

such conveying system transfer point 

located within the building, or for the 

building itself, according to paragraph 

(f)(1)(vii) of this section. 

(vii) If visible emissions from a 

building are monitored, the 

requirements of paragraphs (f)(1)(i) 

through (f)(1)(iv) of this section apply to 

the monitoring of the building, and you 

must also test visible emissions from 

each side, roof, and vent of the building 

for at least 10 minutes. 

(2)(i) For a raw mill or finish mill, you 

must monitor opacity by conducting 

daily visual emissions observations of 

the mill sweep and air separator 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2
55060 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 174 / Thursday, September 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

particulate matter control devices 

(PMCD) of these affected sources in 

accordance with the procedures of 

Method 22 of appendix A–7 to part 60 

of this chapter. The duration of the 

Method 22 performance test must be 6 

minutes. 

(ii) Within 24 hours of the end of the 

Method 22 performance test in which 

visible emissions were observed, the 

owner or operator must conduct a 

follow up Method 22 performance test 

of each stack from which visible 

emissions were observed during the 

previous Method 22 performance test. 

(iii) If visible emissions are observed 

during the follow-up Method 22 

performance test required by paragraph 

(a)(5)(ii) of this section from any stack 

from which visible emissions were 

observed during the previous Method 22 

performance test required by paragraph 

(a)(5)(i) of the section, you must conduct 

a visual opacity test of each stack from 

which emissions were observed during 

the follow up Method 22 performance 

test in accordance with Method 9 of 

appendix A–4 to part 60 of this chapter. 

The duration of the Method 9 test must 

be 30 minutes. 

(3) Corrective actions. If visible 

emissions are observed during any 

Method 22 visible emissions test 

conducted under paragraphs (f)(1) or 

(f)(2) of this section, you must initiate, 

within one-hour, the corrective actions 

specified in the site specific operating 

and maintenance plan provisions in 

§ 63.1347. 

(4) The requirements under paragraph 

(f)(2) of this section to conduct daily 

Method 22 testing do not apply to any 

specific raw mill or finish mill equipped 

with a continuous opacity monitoring 

system (COMS) or bag leak detection 

system (BLDS). 

(i) If the owner or operator chooses to 

install a COMS in lieu of conducting the 

daily visual emissions testing required 

under paragraph (f)(2) of this section, 

then the COMS must be installed at the 

outlet of the PM control device of the 

raw mill or finish mill and the COMS 

must be installed, maintained, 

calibrated, and operated as required by 

the general provisions in subpart A of 

this part and according to PS–1 of 

appendix B to part 60 of this chapter. 

(ii) If you choose to install a BLDS in 

lieu of conducting the daily visual 

emissions testing required under 

paragraph (f)(2) of this section, the 

requirements in paragraphs (m)(1) 

through (m)(4), (m)(10) and (m)(11) of 

this section apply. 

(g) D/F monitoring requirements. If 

you are subject to an emissions 

limitation on D/F emissions, you must 

comply with the monitoring 

requirements of paragraphs (g)(1) 

through (g)(6) and paragraphs (m)(1) 

through (m)(4) of this section to 

demonstrate continuous compliance 

with the D/F emissions standard. You 

must also develop an emissions 

monitoring plan in accordance with 

paragraphs (p)(1) through (p)(4) of this 

section. 

(1) You must install, calibrate, 

maintain, and continuously operate a 

continuous monitor to record the 

temperature of the exhaust gases from 

the kiln, in-line kiln/raw mill, and alkali 

bypass, if applicable, at the inlet to, or 

upstream of, the kiln, in-line kiln/raw 

mill and/or alkali bypass PMCDs. 

(i) The temperature recorder response 

range must include zero and 1.5 times 

the average temperature established 

according to the requirements in 

§ 63.1349(b)(3)(iv). 

(ii) The calibration reference for the 

temperature measurement must be a 

National Institute of Standards and 

Technology calibrated reference 

thermocouple-potentiometer system or 

alternate reference, subject to approval 

by the Administrator. 

(iii) The calibration of all 

thermocouples and other temperature 

sensors must be verified at least once 

every three months. 

(2) You must monitor and 

continuously record the temperature of 

the exhaust gases from the kiln, in-line 

kiln/raw mill, and alkali bypass, if 

applicable, at the inlet to the kiln, inline kiln/raw mill and/or alkali bypass 

PMCD. 

(3) The required minimum data 

collection frequency must be one 

minute. 

(4) Each hour, calculate the three-hour 

average temperature for the previous 3 

hours of process operation using all of 

the one-minute data available (i.e., the 

CMS is not out-of-control.) 

(5) When the operating status of the 

raw mill of the in-line kiln/raw mill is 

changed from off to on or from on to off, 

the calculation of the three-hour rolling 

average temperature must begin anew, 

without considering previous 

recordings. 

(h) Monitoring requirements for 

sources using sorbent injection. If you 

are subject to an operating limit on D/ 

F emissions that employs carbon 

injection as an emission control 

technique, you must comply with the 

additional monitoring requirements of 

paragraphs (h)(1) and (h)(2) and 

paragraphs (m)(1) through (m)(4) and 

(m)(9) of this section. You must also 

develop an emissions monitoring plan 

in accordance with paragraphs (p)(1) 

through (p)(4) of this section. 

(1) Install, operate, calibrate, and 

maintain a continuous monitor to record 

the rate of activated carbon injection. 

The accuracy of the rate measurement 

device must be ±1 percent of the rate 

being measured. 

(i) Verify the calibration of the device 

at least once every three months. 

(ii) Each hour, calculate the threehour rolling average activated carbon 

injection rate for the previous 3 hours of 

process operation using all of the oneminute data available (i.e., the CMS is 

not out-of-control.) 

(iii) When the operating status of the 

raw mill of the in-line kiln/raw mill is 

changed from off to on or from on to off, 

the calculation of the three-hour rolling 

average activated carbon injection rate 

must begin anew, without considering 

previous recordings. 

(2)(i) Install, operate, calibrate, and 

maintain a continuous monitor to record 

the activated carbon injection system 

carrier gas parameter (either the carrier 

gas flow rate or the carrier gas pressure 

drop) established during the D/F 

performance test in accordance with 

§ 63.1349(b)(3). 

(ii) Each hour, calculate the threehour rolling average of the selected 

parameter value for the previous 3 hours 

of process operation using all of the oneminute data available (i.e., the CMS is 

not out-of-control.) 

(i) THC Monitoring Requirements. If 

you are subject to an emissions 

limitation on THC emissions, you must 

comply with the monitoring 

requirements of paragraphs (i)(1) and 

(i)(2) and (m)(1) through (m)(4) of this 

section. You must also develop an 

emissions monitoring plan in 

accordance with paragraphs (p)(1) 

through (p)(4) of this section. 

(1) You must install, operate, and 

maintain a THC continuous emission 

monitoring system in accordance with 

Performance Specification 8 of 

appendix B to part 60 of this chapter 

and comply with all of the requirements 

for continuous monitoring systems 

found in the general provisions, subpart 

A of this part. The owner or operator 

must operate and maintain each CEMS 

according to the quality assurance 

requirements in Procedure 1 of 

appendix F in part 60 of this chapter. 

(2) For sources equipped with an 

alkali bypass stack, instead of installing 

a CEMS, you may use the results of the 

initial or subsequent performance test to 

demonstrate compliance with the THC 

emission limit. 

(j) Total organic HAP monitoring 

requirements. If you are complying with 

the total organic HAP emissions limits, 

you must continuously monitor THC 

according to paragraph (i)(1) and (2) or 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 174 / Thursday, September 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 55061 

in accordance with Performance 

Specification 15 of appendix B to part 

60 of this chapter and comply with all 

of the requirements for continuous 

monitoring systems found in the general 

provisions, subpart A of this part. You 

must operate and maintain each CEMS 

according to the quality assurance 

requirements in Procedure 1 of 

appendix F in part 60 of this chapter. In 

addition, your must follow the 

monitoring requirements in paragraphs 

(m)(1) through (m)(4) of this section. 

You must also develop an emissions 

monitoring plan in accordance with 

paragraphs (p)(1) through (p)(4) of this 

section. 

(k) Mercury monitoring requirements. 

If you have a kiln or in-line kiln/raw 

mill subject to an emissions limitation 

on mercury emissions, you must install 

and operate a mercury continuous 

emissions monitoring system (Hg 

CEMS) in accordance with Performance 

Specification 12A of appendix B to part 

60 of this chapter or a sorbent trapbased integrated monitoring system in 

accordance with Performance 

Specification 12B of appendix B to part 

60 of this chapter. You must 

continuously monitor mercury 

according to paragraphs (k)(1) through 

(k)(3) and (m)(1) through (m)(4) of this 

section. You must also develop an 

emissions monitoring plan in 

accordance with paragraphs (p)(1) 

through (p)(4) of this section. 

(1) The span value for any Hg CEMS 

must include the intended upper limit 

of the mercury concentration 

measurement range during normal ‘‘mill 

on’’ operation which may be exceeded 

during ‘‘mill off’’ operation or other 

short term conditions lasting less than 

24 consecutive kiln operating hours. 

However, the span should be at least 

equivalent to approximately two times 

the emissions standard and it may be 

rounded to the nearest multiple of 10 

μg/m3 of total mercury. 

(2) You must operate and maintain 

each Hg CEMS or sorbent trap-based 

integrated monitoring system according 

to the quality assurance requirements in 

Procedure 5 of appendix F to part 60 of 

this chapter. 

(3) Relative accuracy testing of 

mercury monitoring systems under 

Performance Specification 12A, 

Performance Specification 12B, or 

Procedure 5 must be at normal operating 

conditions with the raw mill on. 

(4) If you use a mercury CEMS, you 

must install, operate, calibrate, and 

maintain an instrument for 

continuously measuring and recording 

the exhaust gas flow rate to the 

atmosphere according to the 

requirements in paragraphs (n)(1) 

through (n)(10) of this section. 

(l) HCl Monitoring Requirements. If 

you are subject to an emissions 

limitation on HCl emissions in 

§ 63.1343, you must continuously 

monitor HCl according to paragraph 

(l)(1) and (2) and paragraphs (m)(1) 

through (m)(4) of this section. You must 

also develop an emissions monitoring 

plan in accordance with paragraphs 

(p)(1) through (p)(4) of this section. 

(1) Continuously monitor compliance 

with the HCl limit by operating a 

continuous emission monitor in 

accordance with Performance 

Specification 15 of appendix B to part 

60 of this chapter. You must operate and 

maintain each CEMS according to the 

quality assurance requirements in 

Procedure 1 of 40 CFR of appendix F to 

part 60 of this chapter except that the 

Relative Accuracy Test Audit 

requirements of Procedure 1 must be 

replaced with the validation 

requirements and criteria of sections 

11.1.1 and 12.0 of Performance 

Specification 15, or 

(2) Install, operate, and maintain a 

CMS to monitor wet scrubber 

parameters as specified in paragraphs 

(m)(5) and (m)(7) of this section. 

(m) Parameter monitoring 

requirements. If you have an operating 

limit that requires the use of a CMS, you 

must install, operate, and maintain each 

continuous parameter monitoring 

system (CPMS) according to the 

procedures in paragraphs (n)(1) through 

(4) of this section by the compliance 

date specified in § 63.1351. You must 

also meet the applicable specific 

parameter monitoring requirements in 

paragraphs (m)(5) through (m)(11) that 

are applicable to you. 

(1) The CMS must complete a 

minimum of one cycle of operation for 

each successive 15-minute period. You 

must have a minimum of four 

successive cycles of operation to have a 

valid hour of data. 

(2) You must conduct all monitoring 

in continuous operation at all times that 

the unit is operating. 

(3) Determine the 3-hour block 

average of all recorded readings. 

(4) Record the results of each 

inspection, calibration, and validation 

check. 

(5) Liquid flow rate monitoring 

requirements. If you have an operating 

limit that requires the use of a flow 

measurement device, you must meet the 

requirements in paragraphs (m)(5)(i) 

through (iv) of this section. 

(i) Locate the flow sensor and other 

necessary equipment in a position that 

provides a representative flow. 

(ii) Use a flow sensor with a 

measurement sensitivity of 2 percent of 

the flow rate. 

(iii) Reduce swirling flow or abnormal 

velocity distributions due to upstream 

and downstream disturbances. 

(iv) Conduct a flow sensor calibration 

check at least semiannually. 

(6) Specific pressure monitoring 

requirements. If you have an operating 

limit that requires the use of a pressure 

measurement device, you must meet the 

requirements in paragraphs (m)(6)(i) 

through (vi) of this section. 

(i) Locate the pressure sensor(s) in a 

position that provides a representative 

measurement of the pressure. 

(ii) Minimize or eliminate pulsating 

pressure, vibration, and internal and 

external corrosion. 

(iii) Use a gauge with a minimum 

tolerance of 1.27 centimeters of water or 

a transducer with a minimum tolerance 

of 1 percent of the pressure range. 

(iv) Check pressure tap pluggage 

daily. 

(v) Using a manometer, check gauge 

calibration quarterly and transducer 

calibration monthly. 

(vi) Conduct calibration checks any 

time the sensor exceeds the 

manufacturer’s specified maximum 

operating pressure range or install a new 

pressure sensor. 

(7) Specific pH monitoring 

requirements. If you have an operating 

limit that requires the use of a pH 

measurement device, you must meet the 

requirements in paragraphs (m)(7)(i) 

through (iii) of this section. 

(i) Locate the pH sensor in a position 

that provides a representative 

measurement of scrubber effluent pH. 

(ii) Ensure the sample is properly 

mixed and representative of the fluid to 

be measured. 

(iii) Check the pH meter’s calibration 

on at least two points every 8 hours of 

process operation. 

(8) [Reserved] 

(9) Mass flow rate (for sorbent 

injection) monitoring requirements. If 

you have an operating limit that 

requires the use of equipment to 

monitor sorbent injection rate (e.g., 

weigh belt, weigh hopper, or hopper 

flow measurement device), you must 

meet the requirements in paragraphs 

(m)(9)(i) through (iii) of this section. 

(i) Locate the device in a position(s) 

that provides a representative 

measurement of the total sorbent 

injection rate. 

(ii) Install and calibrate the device in 

accordance with manufacturer’s 

procedures and specifications. 

(iii) At least annually, calibrate the 

device in accordance with the 

manufacturer’s procedures and 

specifications. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2
55062 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 174 / Thursday, September 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

(10) Bag leak detection monitoring 

requirements. If you elect to use a fabric 

filter bag leak detection system to 

comply with the requirements of this 

subpart, you must install, calibrate, 

maintain, and continuously operate a 

bag leak detection system as specified in 

paragraphs (m)(10)(i) through (viii) of 

this section. 

(i) You must install and operate a bag 

leak detection system for each exhaust 

stack of the fabric filter. 

(ii) Each bag leak detection system 

must be installed, operated, calibrated, 

and maintained in a manner consistent 

with the manufacturer’s written 

specifications and recommendations 

and in accordance with the guidance 

provided in EPA–454/R–98–015, 

September 1997. 

(iii) The bag leak detection system 

must be certified by the manufacturer to 

be capable of detecting particulate 

matter emissions at concentrations of 10 

or fewer milligrams per actual cubic 

meter. 

(iv) The bag leak detection system 

sensor must provide output of relative 

or absolute particulate matter loadings. 

(v) The bag leak detection system 

must be equipped with a device to 

continuously record the output signal 

from the sensor. 

(vi) The bag leak detection system 

must be equipped with an alarm system 

that will alert an operator automatically 

when an increase in relative particulate 

matter emissions over a preset level is 

detected. The alarm must be located 

such that the alert is detected and 

recognized easily by an operator. 

(vii) For positive pressure fabric filter 

systems that do not duct all 

compartments of cells to a common 

stack, a bag leak detection system must 

be installed in each baghouse 

compartment or cell. 

(viii) Where multiple bag leak 

detectors are required, the system’s 

instrumentation and alarm may be 

shared among detectors. 

(11) For each BLDS, the owner or 

operator must initiate procedures to 

determine the cause of every alarm 

within 8 hours of the alarm. The owner 

or operator must alleviate the cause of 

the alarm within 24 hours of the alarm 

by taking whatever corrective action(s) 

are necessary. Corrective actions may 

include, but are not limited to the 

following: 

(i) Inspecting the fabric filter for air 

leaks, torn or broken bags or filter 

media, or any other condition that may 

cause an increase in PM emissions; 

(ii) Sealing off defective bags or filter 

media; 

(iii) Replacing defective bags or filter 

media or otherwise repairing the control 

device; 

(iv) Sealing off a defective fabric filter 

compartment; 

(v) Cleaning the bag leak detection 

system probe or otherwise repairing the 

bag leak detection system; or 

(vi) Shutting down the process 

producing the PM emissions. 

(n) Continuous emissions rate 

monitoring system. You must install, 

operate, calibrate, and maintain 

instruments, according to the 

requirements in paragraphs (n)(1) and 

(2) of this section, for continuously 

measuring and recording the pollutant 

per mass flow rate to the atmosphere 

from sources subject to an emissions 

limitation that has a pounds per ton of 

clinker unit. 

(1) You must install each sensor of the 

flow rate monitoring system in a 

location that provides representative 

measurement of the exhaust gas flow 

rate at the sampling location of the 

mercury or PM CEMS, taking into 

account the manufacturer’s 

recommendations. The flow rate sensor 

is that portion of the system that senses 

the volumetric flow rate and generates 

an output proportional to that flow rate. 

(2) The flow rate monitoring system 

must be designed to measure the 

exhaust flow rate over a range that 

extends from a value of at least 20 

percent less than the lowest expected 

exhaust flow rate to a value of at least 

20 percent greater than the highest 

expected exhaust flow rate. 

(3) The flow rate monitoring system 

must have a minimum accuracy of 5 

percent of the flow rate or greater. 

(4) The flow rate monitoring system 

must be equipped with a data 

acquisition and recording system that is 

capable of recording values over the 

entire range specified in paragraph 

(n)(1) of this section. 

(5) The signal conditioner, wiring, 

power supply, and data acquisition and 

recording system for the flow rate 

monitoring system must be compatible 

with the output signal of the flow rate 

sensors used in the monitoring system. 

(6) The flow rate monitoring system 

must be designed to complete a 

minimum of one cycle of operation for 

each successive 15-minute period. 

(7) The flow rate sensor must have 

provisions to determine the daily zero 

and upscale calibration drift (CD) (see 

sections 3.1 and 8.3 of Performance 

Specification 2 in appendix B to Part 60 

of this chapter for a discussion of CD). 

(i) Conduct the CD tests at two 

reference signal levels, zero (e.g., 0 to 20 

percent of span) and upscale (e.g., 50 to 

70 percent of span). 

(ii) The absolute value of the 

difference between the flow monitor 

response and the reference signal must 

be equal to or less than 3 percent of the 

flow monitor span. 

(8) You must perform an initial 

relative accuracy test of the flow rate 

monitoring system according to Section 

8.2 of Performance Specification 6 of 

appendix B to Part 60 of the chapter 

with the exceptions in paragraphs 

(n)(8)(i) and (n)(8)(ii) of this section. 

(i) The relative accuracy test is to 

evaluate the flow rate monitoring 

system alone rather than a continuous 

emission rate monitoring system. 

(ii) The relative accuracy of the flow 

rate monitoring system shall be no 

greater than 10 percent of the mean 

value of the reference method data. 

(9) You must verify the accuracy of 

the flow rate monitoring system at least 

once per year by repeating the relative 

accuracy test specified in paragraph 

(n)(8). 

(10) You must operate the flow rate 

monitoring system and record data 

during all periods of operation of the 

affected facility including periods of 

startup, shutdown, and malfunction, 

except for periods of monitoring system 

malfunctions, repairs associated with 

monitoring system malfunctions, and 

required monitoring system quality 

assurance or quality control activities 

(including, as applicable, calibration 

checks and required zero and span 

adjustments). 

(o) Alternate monitoring requirements 

approval. You may submit an 

application to the Administrator for 

approval of alternate monitoring 

requirements to demonstrate 

compliance with the emission standards 

of this subpart, except for emission 

standards for THC, subject to the 

provisions of paragraphs (n)(1) through 

(n)(6) of this section. 

(1) The Administrator will not 

approve averaging periods other than 

those specified in this section, unless 

you document, using data or 

information, that the longer averaging 

period will ensure that emissions do not 

exceed levels achieved during the 

performance test over any increment of 

time equivalent to the time required to 

conduct three runs of the performance 

test. 

(2) If the application to use an 

alternate monitoring requirement is 

approved, you must continue to use the 

original monitoring requirement until 

approval is received to use another 

monitoring requirement. 

(3) You must submit the application 

for approval of alternate monitoring 

requirements no later than the 

notification of performance test. The 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 174 / Thursday, September 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 55063 

application must contain the 

information specified in paragraphs 

(m)(3)(i) through (iii) of this section: 

(i) Data or information justifying the 

request, such as the technical or 

economic infeasibility, or the 

impracticality of using the required 

approach; 

(ii) A description of the proposed 

alternative monitoring requirement, 

including the operating parameter to be 

monitored, the monitoring approach 

and technique, the averaging period for 

the limit, and how the limit is to be 

calculated; and 

(iii) Data or information documenting 

that the alternative monitoring 

requirement would provide equivalent 

or better assurance of compliance with 

the relevant emission standard. 

(4) The Administrator will notify you 

of the approval or denial of the 

application within 90 calendar days 

after receipt of the original request, or 

within 60 calendar days of the receipt 

of any supplementary information, 

whichever is later. The Administrator 

will not approve an alternate monitoring 

application unless it would provide 

equivalent or better assurance of 

compliance with the relevant emission 

standard. Before disapproving any 

alternate monitoring application, the 

Administrator will provide: 

(i) Notice of the information and 

findings upon which the intended 

disapproval is based; and 

(ii) Notice of opportunity for you to 

present additional supporting 

information before final action is taken 

on the application. This notice will 

specify how much additional time is 

allowed for you to provide additional 

supporting information. 

(5) You are responsible for submitting 

any supporting information in a timely 

manner to enable the Administrator to 

consider the application prior to the 

performance test. Neither submittal of 

an application, nor the Administrator’s 

failure to approve or disapprove the 

application relieves you of the 

responsibility to comply with any 

provision of this subpart. 

(6) The Administrator may decide at 

any time, on a case-by-case basis that 

additional or alternative operating 

limits, or alternative approaches to 

establishing operating limits, are 

necessary to demonstrate compliance 

with the emission standards of this 

subpart. 

(p) Development and submittal (upon 

request) of monitoring plans. If you 

demonstrate compliance with any 

applicable emission limit through 

performance stack testing or other 

emissions monitoring, you must 

develop a site-specific monitoring plan 

according to the requirements in 

paragraphs (p)(1) through (4) of this 

section. This requirement also applies to 

you if you petition the EPA 

Administrator for alternative monitoring 

parameters under paragraph (n) of this 

section and § 63.8(f). If you use a BLDS, 

you must also meet the requirements 

specified in paragraph (o)(5) of this 

section. 

(1) For each continuous monitoring 

system (CMS) required in this section, 

you must develop, and submit to the 

permitting authority for approval upon 

request, a site-specific monitoring plan 

that addresses paragraphs (o)(1)(i) 

through (iii) of this section. You must 

submit this site-specific monitoring 

plan, if requested, at least 60 days before 

your initial performance evaluation of 

your CMS. 

(i) Installation of the CMS sampling 

probe or other interface at a 

measurement location relative to each 

affected process unit such that the 

measurement is representative of 

control of the exhaust emissions (e.g., 

on or downstream of the last control 

device); 

(ii) Performance and equipment 

specifications for the sample interface, 

the pollutant concentration or 

parametric signal analyzer, and the data 

collection and reduction systems; and 

(iii) Performance evaluation 

procedures and acceptance criteria (e.g., 

calibrations). 

(2) In your site-specific monitoring 

plan, you must also address paragraphs 

(o)(2)(i) through (iii) of this section. 

(i) Ongoing operation and 

maintenance procedures in accordance 

with the general requirements of 

§ 63.8(c)(1), (c)(3), and (c)(4)(ii); 

(ii) Ongoing data quality assurance 

procedures in accordance with the 

general requirements of § 63.8(d); and 

(iii) Ongoing recordkeeping and 

reporting procedures in accordance with 

the general requirements of § 63.10(c), 

(e)(1), and (e)(2)(i). 

(3) You must conduct a performance 

evaluation of each CMS in accordance 

with your site-specific monitoring plan. 

(4) You must operate and maintain 

the CMS in continuous operation 

according to the site-specific monitoring 

plan. 

(5) BLDS monitoring plan. Each 

monitoring plan must describe the items 

in paragraphs (o)(5)(i) through (v) of this 

section. At a minimum, you must retain 

records related to the site-specific 

monitoring plan and information 

discussed in paragraphs (m)(1) through 

(4), (m)(10) and (m)(11) of this section 

for a period of 5 years, with at least the 

first 2 years on-site; 

(i) Installation of the BLDS; 

(ii) Initial and periodic adjustment of 

the BLDS, including how the alarm setpoint will be established; 

(iii) Operation of the BLDS, including 

quality assurance procedures; 

(iv) How the BLDS will be 

maintained, including a routine 

maintenance schedule and spare parts 

inventory list; 

(v) How the BLDS output will be 

recorded and stored. 

■ 21. Section 63.1351 is revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 63.1351 Compliance dates. 

(a) Except as noted in paragraph (b) of 

this section, the compliance date for an 

owner or operator of an existing affected 

source subject to the provisions of this 

subpart is June 14, 2002. 

(b) The compliance date for existing 

sources with the PM, mercury, THC, 

and HCl emissions limits in § 63.1343(b) 

which became effective in November 8, 

2010 will be September 9, 2013. 

(c) Except as noted in paragraph (d) of 

this section, the compliance date for an 

owner or operator of an affected source 

subject to the provisions of this subpart 

that commences new construction or 

reconstruction after March 24, 1998, is 

June 14, 1999, or upon startup of 

operations, whichever is later. 

(d) The compliance date for new 

sources with the PM, mercury, THC, 

and HCl emissions limits in § 63.1343(b) 

is November 8, 2010 or startup, 

whichever is later. 

■ 22. Section 63.1352 is revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 63.1352 Additional test methods. 

(a) If you are conducting tests to 

determine the rates of emission of HCl 

from kilns and associated bypass stacks 

at portland cement manufacturing 

facilities, for use in applicability 

determinations under § 63.1340, you 

may use Method 320 or Method 321 of 

appendix A of this part. 

(b) Owners or operators conducting 

tests to determine the rates of emission 

of specific organic HAP from raw 

material dryers, kilns and in-line kiln/ 

raw mills at Portland cement 

manufacturing facilities, solely for use 

in applicability determinations under 

§ 63.1340 of this subpart are permitted 

to use Method 320 of appendix A to this 

part, or Method 18 of appendix A to part 

60 of this chapter. 

■ 23. Section 63.1354 is amended by 

adding paragraphs (b)(9)(vi) and (c) to 

read as follows: 

§ 63.1354 Reporting requirements. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(9) * * * 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2
55064 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 174 / Thursday, September 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

(vi) Monthly rolling average mercury, 

THC, PM, and HCl (if applicable) 

emissions levels in the units of the 

applicable emissions limit for each kiln, 

clinker cooler, and raw material dryer. 

* * * * * 

(c) The semiannual report required by 

paragraph (b)(9) of this section must 

include the number, duration, and a 

brief description for each type of 

malfunction which occurred during the 

reporting period and which caused or 

may have caused any applicable 

emission limitation to be exceeded. The 

report must also include a description of 

actions taken by an owner or operator 

during a malfunction of an affected 

source to minimize emissions in 

accordance with § 63.1348(d), including 

actions taken to correct a malfunction. 

■ 24. Section 63.1355 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (e) and paragraph (f) 

and adding paragraph (g) to read as 

follows: 

§ 63.1355 Recordkeeping requirements. 

* * * * * 

(e) You must keep records of the daily 

clinker production rates and kiln feed 

rates. 

(f) You must keep records of the 

occurrence and duration of each startup 

or shutdown. 

(g)(1) You must keep records of the 

occurrence and duration of each 

malfunction of operation (i.e., process 

equipment) or the air pollution control 

and monitoring equipment. 

(2) You must keep records of actions 

taken during periods of malfunction to 

minimize emissions in accordance with 

§ 63.1348(d) including corrective 

actions to restore malfunctioning 

process and air pollution control and 

monitoring equipment to its normal or 

usual manner of operation. 

■ 25. Section 63.1356 is revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 63.1356 Sources with multiple emission 

limits or monitoring requirements. 

If an affected facility subject to this 

subpart has a different emission limit or 

requirement for the same pollutant 

under another regulation in title 40 of 

this chapter, the owner or operator of 

the affected facility must comply with 

the most stringent emission limit or 

requirement and is exempt from the less 

stringent requirement. 

■ 26. Table 1 to Subpart LLL of Part 63 

is revised to read as follows: 

TABLE 1 TO SUBPART LLL OF PART 63—APPLICABILITY OF GENERAL PROVISIONS

Citation Requirement Applies to 

subpart LLL Explanation 

63.1(a)(1)–(4) .......................... Applicability ............................ Yes.

63.1(a)(5) ................................ ................................................ No ....................... [Reserved]. 

63.1(a)(6)–(8) .......................... Applicability ............................ Yes.

63.1(a)(9) ................................ ................................................ No ....................... [Reserved]. 

63.1(a)(10)–(14) ...................... Applicability ............................ Yes.

63.1(b)(1) ................................ Initial Applicability Determination.No ....................... § 63.1340 specifies applicability. 

63.1(b)(2)–(3) .......................... Initial Applicability Determination.Yes.

63.1(c)(1) ................................ Applicability After Standard 

Established.

Yes.

63.1(c)(2) ................................ Permit Requirements ............. Yes ..................... Area sources must obtain Title V permits. 

63.1(c)(3) ................................ ................................................ No ....................... [Reserved]. 

63.1(c)(4)–(5) .......................... Extensions, Notifications ....... Yes. 

63.1(d) .................................... ................................................ No ....................... [Reserved]. 

63.1(e) .................................... Applicability of Permit Program.Yes.

63.2 ......................................... Definitions .............................. Yes ..................... Additional definitions in § 63.1341. 

63.3(a)–(c) .............................. Units and Abbreviations ........ Yes.

63.4(a)(1)–(3) .......................... Prohibited Activities ............... Yes.

63.4(a)(4) ................................ ................................................ No ....................... [Reserved]. 

63.4(a)(5) ................................ Compliance date ................... Yes.

63.4(b)–(c) .............................. Circumvention, Severability ... Yes.

63.5(a)(1)–(2) .......................... Construction/Reconstruction Yes.

63.5(b)(1) ................................ Compliance Dates ................. Yes.

63.5(b)(2) ................................ ................................................ No ....................... [Reserved]. 

63.5(b)(3)–(6) .......................... Construction Approval, Applicability.Yes.

63.5(c) ..................................... ................................................ No ....................... [Reserved]. 

63.5(d)(1)–(4) .......................... Approval of Construction/Reconstruction.Yes.

63.5(e) .................................... Approval of Construction/Reconstruction.Yes.

63.5(f)(1)–(2) ........................... Approval of Construction/Reconstruction.Yes.

63.6(a) .................................... Compliance for Standards 

and Maintenance.

Yes.

63.6(b)(1)–(5) .......................... Compliance Dates ................. Yes.

63.6(b)(6) ................................ ................................................ No ....................... [Reserved]. 

63.6(b)(7) ................................ Compliance Dates ................. Yes.

63.6(c)(1)–(2) .......................... Compliance Dates ................. Yes.

63.6(c)(3)–(4) .......................... ................................................ No ....................... [Reserved]. 

63.6(c)(5) ................................ Compliance Dates ................. Yes.

63.6(d) .................................... ................................................ No ....................... [Reserved]. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 174 / Thursday, September 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 55065 

TABLE 1 TO SUBPART LLL OF PART 63—APPLICABILITY OF GENERAL PROVISIONS—Continued 

Citation Requirement Applies to 

subpart LLL Explanation 

63.6(e)(1)–(2) .......................... Operation & Maintenance ..... No ....................... See § 63.1348(d) for general duty requirement. Any reference to § 63.6(e)(1)(i) in other General Provisions or in 

this subpart is to be treated as a cross-reference to 

§ 63.1348(d). 

63.6(e)(3) ................................ Startup, Shutdown Malfunction Plan.No.

63.6(f)(1) ................................. Compliance with Emission 

Standards.

No ....................... Compliance obligations specified in subpart LLL. 

63.6(f)(2)–(3) ........................... Compliance with Emission 

Standards.

Yes.

63.6(g)(1)–(3) .......................... Alternative Standard .............. Yes.

63.6(h)(1) ................................ Opacity/VE Standards ........... No ....................... Compliance obligations specified in subpart LLL. 

63.6(h)(2) ................................ Opacity/VE Standards ........... Yes.

63.6(h)(3) ................................ ................................................ No ....................... [Reserved]. 

63.6(h)(4)–(h)(5)(i) .................. Opacity/VE Standards ........... Yes.

63.6(h)(5)(ii)–(iv) ..................... Opacity/VE Standards ........... No ....................... Test duration specified in subpart LLL. 

63.6(h)(6) ................................ Opacity/VE Standards ........... Yes.

63.6(h)(7) ................................ Opacity/VE Standards ........... Yes.

63.6(i)(1)–(14) ......................... Extension of Compliance ...... Yes.

63.6(i)(15) ............................... ................................................ No ....................... [Reserved]. 

63.6(i)(16) ............................... Extension of Compliance ...... Yes.

63.6(j) ...................................... Exemption from Compliance Yes.

63.7(a)(1)–(3) .......................... Performance Testing Requirements.Yes ..................... § 63.1349 has specific requirements. 

63.7(b) .................................... Notification ............................. Yes.

63.7(c) ..................................... Quality Assurance/Test Plan Yes.

63.7(d) .................................... Testing Facilities .................... Yes.

63.7(e)(1) ................................ Conduct of Tests ................... No ....................... See § 63.1349(e). Any reference to 63.7(e)(1) in other General Provisions or in this subpart is to be treated as a 

cross-reference to § 63.1349(e). 

63.7(e)(2)–(4) .......................... Conduct of tests .................... Yes.

63.7(f) ..................................... Alternative Test Method ........ Yes.

63.7(g) .................................... Data Analysis ........................ Yes.

63.7(h) .................................... Waiver of Tests ..................... Yes.

63.8(a)(1) ................................ Monitoring Requirements ...... Yes.

63.8(a)(2) ................................ Monitoring .............................. No ....................... § 63.1350 includes CEMS requirements. 

63.8(a)(3) ................................ ................................................ No ....................... [Reserved]. 

63.8(a)(4) ................................ Monitoring .............................. No ....................... Flares not applicable. 

63.8(b)(1)–(3) .......................... Conduct of Monitoring ........... Yes.

63.8(c)(1)–(8) .......................... CMS Operation/Maintenance Yes ..................... Temperature and activated carbon injection monitoring data 

reduction requirements given in subpart LLL. 

63.8(d) .................................... Quality Control ....................... Yes, except for 

the reference 

to the SSM 

Plan in the last 

sentence.

63.8(e) .................................... Performance Evaluation for 

CMS.

Yes.

63.8(f)(1)–(5) ........................... Alternative Monitoring Method Yes ..................... Additional requirements in § 63.1350(l). 

63.8(f)(6) ................................. Alternative to RATA Test ...... Yes.

63.8(g) .................................... Data Reduction ...................... Yes.

63.9(a) .................................... Notification Requirements ..... Yes.

63.9(b)(1)–(5) .......................... Initial Notifications ................. Yes.

63.9(c) ..................................... Request for Compliance Extension.Yes.

63.9(d) .................................... New Source Notification for 

Special Compliance Requirements.

Yes.

63.9(e) .................................... Notification of Performance 

Test.

Yes.

63.9(f) ..................................... Notification of VE/Opacity 

Test.

Yes ..................... Notification not required for VE/opacity test under 

§ 63.1350(e) and (j). 

63.9(g) .................................... Additional CMS Notifications Yes.

63.9(h)(1)–(3) .......................... Notification of Compliance 

Status.

Yes.

63.9(h)(4) ................................ ................................................ No ....................... [Reserved]. 

63.9(h)(5)–(6) .......................... Notification of Compliance 

Status.

Yes.

63.9(i) ...................................... Adjustment of Deadlines ....... Yes.

63.9(j) ...................................... Change in Previous Information.Yes.


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2
55066 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 174 / Thursday, September 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE 1 TO SUBPART LLL OF PART 63—APPLICABILITY OF GENERAL PROVISIONS—Continued 

Citation Requirement Applies to 

subpart LLL Explanation 

63.10(a) .................................. Recordkeeping/Reporting ...... Yes.

63.10(b)(1) .............................. General Recordkeeping Requirements.Yes.

63.10(b)(2)(i)–(ii) ..................... General Recordkeeping Requirements.No ....................... See § 63.1355(g) and (h). 

63.10(b)(2)(iii) ......................... General Recordkeeping Requirements.Yes.

63.10(b)(2)(iv)–(v) ................... General Recordkeeping Requirements.No.

63.10(b)(2)(vi)–(ix) .................. General Recordkeeping Requirements.Yes.

63.10(c)(1) .............................. Additional CMS Recordkeeping.Yes ..................... PS–8A supersedes requirements for THC CEMS. 

63.10(c)(1) .............................. Additional CMS Recordkeeping.Yes ..................... PS–8A supersedes requirements for THC CEMS. 

63.10(c)(2)–(4) ........................ ................................................ No ....................... [Reserved]. 

63.10(c)(5)–(8) ........................ Additional CMS Recordkeeping.Yes ..................... PS–8A supersedes requirements for THC CEMS. 

63.10(c)(9) .............................. ................................................ No ....................... [Reserved]. 

63.10(c)(10)–(15) .................... Additional CMS Recordkeeping.Yes ..................... PS–8A supersedes requirements for THC CEMS. 

63.10(d)(1) .............................. General Reporting Requirements.Yes.

63.10(d)(2) .............................. Performance Test Results ..... Yes.

63.10(d)(3) .............................. Opacity or VE Observations .. Yes.

63.10(d)(4) .............................. Progress Reports .................. Yes.

63.10(d)(5) .............................. Startup, Shutdown, Malfunction Reports.No ....................... See § 63.1354(c) for reporting requirements. Any reference 

to § 63.10(d)(5) in other General Provisions or in this 

subpart is to be treated as a cross-reference to 

§ 63.1354(c). 

63.10(e)(1)–(2) ........................ Additional CMS Reports ........ Yes.

63.10(e)(3) .............................. Excess Emissions and CMS 

Performance Reports.

Yes ..................... Exceedances are defined in subpart LLL. 

63.10(f) ................................... Waiver for Recordkeeping/ 

Reporting.

Yes.

63.11(a)–(b) ............................ Control Device Requirements No ....................... Flares not applicable. 

63.12(a)–(c) ............................ State Authority and Delegations.Yes.

63.13(a)–(c) ............................ State/Regional Addresses ..... Yes.

63.14(a)–(b) ............................ Incorporation by Reference ... Yes.

63.15(a)–(b) ............................ Availability of Information ...... Yes.

Appendix A to Part 63—[Amended] 

■ 27. Section 1.3.2 of Method 321 of 

Appendix A to Part 63—Test Methods is 

revised to read as follows: 

Appendix A to Part 63—Test Methods 

* * * * * 

Test Method 321—Measurement of Gaseous 

Hydrogen Chloride Emissions at Portland 

Cement Kilns by Fourier Transform Infrared 

(FTIR) Spectroscopy 

* * * * * 

1.3.2 The practical lower quantification 

range is usually higher than that indicated by 

the instrument performance in the laboratory, 

and is dependent upon (1) the presence of 

interfering species in the exhaust gas (notably 

H2O), (2) the optical alignment of the gas cell 

and transfer optics, and (3) the quality of the 

reflective surfaces in the cell (cell 

throughput). Under typical test conditions 

(moisture content of up to 30 percent, 10 

meter absorption path length, liquid 

nitrogen-cooled IR detector, 0.5 cm¥1

resolution, and an interferometer sampling 

time of 60 seconds) a typical lower 

quantification range for HCl is 0.1 to 1.0 

ppm. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2010–21102 Filed 9–8–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2