[6560
- 50
- P] ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63 [ EPA-HQ-OAR- 2002 - 0051 ; FRL - ]

RIN 2060 -AO15 National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants From

the Portland Cement Manufacturing Industry AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: EPA is proposing amendments to the current National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) from the Portland Cement Manufacturing Industry . These proposed amendme nts would add or revise, as applicable, emission limits for mercury, total hydrocarbons (THC), and particulate matter (PM) from kilns and in
- line kiln/raw mills located at a major or an area source, and hydrochloric acid (HCl) from kilns and in
line kiln/r aw mills located at major sources. These proposed amendments also would remove four provisions in the current regulation: the operating limit for the average hourly recycle rate for cement kiln dust, and the requirement that cement kilns only use certain type of utility boiler fly ash. They would also remove the opacity limits for kilns and clinker coolers and the 50 parts per million volume dry ( ppmvd ) THC emission limit for new greenfield sources.2

DATES: Comments must be rece ived on or before [INSERT DATE 60 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. If any one contacts EPA by [INSERT DATE 10 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] requesting to speak at a public hearing, EPA will hold a public hearing on [INSERT DATE 15 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION OF THIS PROPOSED RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, comments on the information collection provisions are best assured of having full effect if the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) receive s a copy of your comments on or before [INSERT DATE 30 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA- HQ - OAR- 200 2
- 0 051 , by one of the following methods:

• http://www.regulations.gov : Follow the on
- line instructions for submitting comments.

• E -mail: a - and
- r - docket@epa.gov .

• Fax: (202 ) 566
- 9744 .

• Mail: U.S. Postal Service, send comments to: EPA Docket Center (6102T), National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutant From the Portland Cement Manufacturing Industry Docket, Docket ID No. EPA
- HQ OAR- 200 2
- 0051 , 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20460. Please include a total of two copies. In addition, please mail a copy of your comments on the3 information collection provisions to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Attn : Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th St., NW, Washington, DC 205 03.

• Hand Delivery: In person or by courier, deliver comments to: EPA Docket Center (6102T), Standards of Performance (NSPS) for Portland Cement Plants Docket, Docket ID No. EPA
- HQ - OAR- 2007
- 0877, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washingt on, DC 20004. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket’s normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. Please include a total of two copies. Instructions : Direct your comments to Docke t ID No. EPAHQ - OAR- 200 2
- 0 051 . EPA’s policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at www.regulations.gov , including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or e -mail. The www.regulations.gov website is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact4

information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e
-mail comment directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov , your e -mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submi t an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD
- ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for c larification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. Docket : All documents in the docket are listed in the www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center, National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants f rom the Portland Cement Manufacturing Industry Docket, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, DC. The5

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 Re ading 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 Gr oup (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 information presented in this preamble is organized as follows: I. General Information A. Does this action apply to me? B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments to EPA? C. Where can I get a copy of this document? D. When would a public hearing occur? II. Backgr ound Information A. What is the statutory authority for these proposed amendments? 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. Summary of Proposed Amendments to Subpart LLL A. Emissions Limits B. Operating Limits C. Testing and Monitoring Requirements I V. Rationale for Propos ed Amendments to Subpart LLL A. MACT Floor Determination Procedure for all Pollutants B . Determination of MACT for Mercury Emissions from Major and Area Sources6

C . Determination of MACT for THC Emissions from Major and Area Sources D . Determination of MACT for HCl Emissions from Major Sources E . Determination of MACT for PM Emissions from Major and Area Sources F . Selection of Compliance Provisions G . Selection of Compliance Dates H . Discussion of EPA’s Sector Based Approach for Cement Manufacturing I. Other Changes and Areas Where We are Requesting Comment V. Summary of Comments and Responses on Notice of Reconsideration and EPA Final Action in Response to Remand A. Petition to Withdraw Final Standards B. Petition to Reconsider Final Standards C. New Source MACT for Mer cury Emissions and Related Requirements D. New Source MACT for THC Emissions and Related Requirements E. C ement Kiln Dust Requirements F. Fly Ash Requirements G. Compliance Dates for C ement Kiln Dust and Fly Ash Provisions H. Research and Technology V I . Summary of Cost, Environmenta l, Energy, and Economic Impacts of Proposed Amendments A. What are the affected sources? B. How are the impacts for this proposal evaluated? C. What are the a ir quality impacts? D . What are the water quality impacts? E . What are the solid waste impacts? F . What are the secondary impacts? G . What are the energy impacts? H . What are the cost impacts? I. What are the economic impacts? J. What are the benefits? VI I . 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 Use7

I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low
Income Populations
I. General Information A. Does this action apply to me ? Categories and entities poten tially regulated by this proposed rule include:

Category NAICS code 1 Examples of regulated entities Industry.... 327310 Portland c ement plants Federal government... Not affected. State/local/tribal government... Portland c ement 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 would be regulated by this p roposed action, you should examine the applicability criteria in 40 CFR 6 3 . 1340 (subpart LLL ). If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this proposed action to a particular entity, contact the person listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments to EPA ? Do not submit information containing CBI to EPA through www.regulations.gov or e -mail. Send or deliver information8

identified as CBI only to the following address: Roberto Morales, OAQPS Document Control Officer (C404
- 02), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, Attention Docket ID No. EPA
HQ - OAR- 200 2
- 0051 . Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD
- ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD
- ROM as CBI and then identify e lectronically within the disk or CD
- ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CB I must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. C. Where can I get a copy of this document ? In addition to being available in the docket , an electronic copy of this proposed action is available on the Worldwide Web (WWW) through the Technology Transfer Network (TTN). Following signature, a copy of this proposed 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.9

D. When would a public hearing occur ? If anyone contacts EPA requesting to speak at a public hearing by [INSERT DATE 10 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], a public hearing will be held on [INSERT DATE 15 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. P ersons interested in presenting oral testimony or inquiring as to whether a public hearing is to be held should contact Mr. Keith Barnett, listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section, at least 2 days in advance of the hearing. II. Background Information A. What is the statutory authority for these proposed amendments ? Section 112(d) of the C lean Air Act (CAA ) requires EPA to set emissions standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAP) emitted by major stationary sources based on performance of the maximum achievable control technology ( MACT ) . The MACT standards for existing sources must be at least as stringent as the average emissions l imitation achieved by the best performing 12 percent of existing sources or the best performing 5 sources for source categories with less than 30 sources (CAA section 112(d)(3)(A) and (B)). This level of minimum stringency is called the MACT floor. For new sources, MACT standards must be at least as stringent as the control level achieved in practice by the best controlled similar source (CAA section 112(d)(3)).10

EPA also must consider more stringent "beyond
- the
- floor" control options. When considering beyond
- the
- floor options, EPA must consider not only the maximum degree of reduction in emissions of HAP , but must take int o account costs, energy, and nonair environmental impacts when doing so. 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 p ortland cement source category was listed as a source category for regulation under th is 1999 Strategy based on emissions of arsenic, cadmium, beryllium, lead, and polychlorinated biphenyl s . The final NESHAP for the Portland Cement Manufactu ring I ndustry (64 FR 31898, June 14, 1999) included emission limits based on performance of MACT for the control of THC emissions from area sources . This rule fulfills

1 An 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 tons per year (tpy) or more of any HAP or 25 tpy or more of any combination of HAP. 2 Since its publication in the Integrated Urban Air Toxics Strategy in 1999, EPA has amended the area source category list several times.11

the requirement to regulate area source cement kiln emissions of polychlorinated biphenyls (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 section 112(k), EPA is proposing to regulate emissions of these metal HAP from portland cement manufacturing facilities that are area sources (using particulate matter as a surrogate) . In this proposal, EPA i s proposing PM standards for area sources based on performance of MACT. Section 112(c)(6) requires EPA to list, and to regulate under standards established pursuant to section 112(d)(2) or (d)(4), categories of sources accounting for not less than 90 pe rcent of emissions of each of seven specific HAP: alkylated lead compounds ; polycyclic organic matter ; hexachlorobenzene ; mercury; polychlorinated byphenyls ; 2,3,7, 8
- tetrachlorodibenzofurans ; and 2,3,7,8
- tetrachloroidibenzo
-p dioxin. Standards establishe d under CAA 112(d)(2) must reflect the performance of MACT. “P ortland cement manufacturing : non hazardous waste kilns” is listed as a source category for regulation under section 112(d)(2) pursuant to the section 112(c)(6) requirements due to emissions of polycyclic organic matter, mercury, and dioxin/furans (63 FR 17838 , 17848, April12

10, 1998 ); see also 63 FR at 14193 (March 24, 1998) (area source cement kilns’ emissions of mercury, dibenzo
-p - dioxins and dibenzo
-p - furans, polycyclic organic matter, and polychlorinated biphenyls are subject to MACT). B. Summary of the National Lime Association v. EPA Litigation On June 14, 1999 (64 FR 31898 ), EPA issued the NESHAP for the Portlan d Cement Manufacturing Industry (40 CFR part 63, subpart LLL). 5 The 1999 final rule established emission limitations for PM as a surrogate for non
- vol atile HAP metals (major sources only) , dioxins/furans, and for greenfield 6 new
sources total THC as a surrogate for organic HAP . These standards were intended to be based on the performance of MACT pursuant to 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 essent ially uncontrolled, the result being that there was no level of

5 Cement k ilns 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 f ound at subpart EEE of part 63. 6 For 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.13

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 D.C. Circuit held that EPA had erred in failing to establish section 112 (d) standards for mercury, THC (except for greenfield new sources) and hydrochloric acid. 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 (D.C. Cir. 2000). The court also stated that EPA is obligated to consider other pollution

– reducing measures such as process changes and material sub stitution. Id . at 634. 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 materi als can be considered best performers for purposes of establishing MACT floors. See, e.g., Sierra Club v. EPA ( Brick MACT ), 479 F. 3d 875, 882
- 83 (D.C. Cir. 2007). 7

7 In the remainder of the opinion, the court in National Lime Ass’n upheld EPA’s standards for particulate matter and dioxin (on grounds that petitioner had no t properly raised arguments in its opening brief), upheld EPA’s use of particulate matter as a surrogate for HAP metals, and remanded for further explanation EPA’s choice of an analytic method for hydrochloric acid.14

C. EPA’s Response to the Remand In response to the National Lime Ass’n mandate, on December 2, 2005, we propos ed 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 national emission standards for these HAP. The final amendments c ontain 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 liquid
- to - 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 fo r new cement kilns (except for g reenfield cement kilns that commenced construction on or before15

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 worst case operating conditions and exposure assumptions, would emit HCl at levels that would exceed that threshold level, allowing for an ample margin of safety. D . Reconsideration of EPA Final Action in Response to the Remand At the same time we issued the final amendments , EPA itself determined to reconsider the new source standard for mercury, the existing and new source standard banning cement kiln use of certain mercury
- containing fly as h, 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 . We also commi tted to undertake a test program for mercury emissions from cement kilns equipped with wet scrubbers that would enable us to resolve the se 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 allow16

further opportunity for comment on both the standard and the underlying rationale and because we did not fe e l we had the level of analysis we would like 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 is appropriate to amend the promulgated standards. EPA received comments on the notice of reconsideration from cement plants , energy companies, industry association s , a technical consultant, one State, one environmental group, 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. We have carefully considered these comments in the development of these proposed amendments. Section V of this17

preamble summarizes the comments on the notice of reconsideration and EPA’s responses. In addition to the reconsideration discussed above, EPA received a petition f rom 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 D.C. Circuit court issued an opinion ( Sierra Club v. EPA , 479 F.3d 875 (D.C. Cir. 2007) ( Brick MACT ) ) vacating and remanding section 112(d) MACT standards for the Brick and Structural Clay Ceramics source categories. Some of the 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 ;

 EPA cannot set floors of “no control.” The Court reiterated its prior holdings, includi ng 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 devices18

 EPA cannot ignore non
- technology factors that reduce HAP emissions. Specifically, the Court held that “EPA’s decision to base floors exclusively on technology even though non
- technology factors affect emissions violates the Act.” Based on the Brick MACT decision, we believe a source’s performance resulting from the presence or absence of HAP in raw materials must be accoun ted 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 spec ific level of performance is unintended is not a legal basis for excluding the source’s p erformance from consideration. National Lime Ass’n , 233 F. 3d at 640. The Brick MACT decision also stated that EPA may account for variability in setting floors. However, the c ourt 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 t he best performers without a demonstrated relationship between the two.” 479 F. 3d at 882. The majority opinion in the Brick MACT case does not address the possibility of subcategorization to address differences in the HAP content of raw materials. However, Judge19

William’s concurrence opined that EPA’s ability to create subcategories for sources of different classes, size, or type (section 112 (d)(1)) may provide a means out of the seeming paradox of floor standards being achieved in practice yet be unachievable where they reflect differences in raw material HAP levels to which other sources may lack access . Id .at 884
- 85. 9 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 is also relevant to this proposal. In Sierra Club v. EPA , 551 F. 3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008) the court vacated the regulations contained in the General Provisions which exempt major sources from MACT standards during periods of startup , shutdown and malfunction (SSM)). The regulations (in 40 C.F.R. 63.6(f)(1) and 63.6(h)(1)) provided that sources need not comply with the relevant section 112(d) standard during SSM events and instead must “minimize emissions . . . to the

9 “What if meeting the ‘floors’ is extremely or even prohibitively costly for particular plants because of conditions specific to those plants (e.g., adopt ion of the necessary technology requires very costly retrofitting, or the required technology cannot, given local inputs whose use is essential, achieve the ‘floor’)? For these plants, it would seem that what has been ‘achieved’ under § 112(d)(3) would not be ‘achievable’ under § 112(d)(2) in light of the latter's mandate to EPA to consider cost. ...[O]ne legitimate basis for creating additional subcategories must be the interest in keeping the relation between ‘achieved’ and ‘achievable’ in accord with common sense and the reasonable meaning of the statute. “20

greatest extent which is consistent with safety and good air pollution control practices.” The Portland Cement NESHAP does not contain specific provisions covering operation during SSM operating modes; rather it references the now
- vacated rules in the General Pr ovisions. As a result of the court decision vacating those general provisions , we are required to address them in this rulemaking. Discussion of this issue may be found in Section IV.G. III. Summary of Proposed Amendments to Subpart LLL This section presents the proposed amendments to the Portland Cement NESHAP. In the section presenting the amended rule language, there is some language that it not amendatory, but is presented for the reader’s convenience . We are not reopening or otherwise c onsidering unchanged rule language presented for the reader’s convenience, and will not accept comments on such language.
A. Emissions L imits We are proposing the following new emission limits in this action . Kilns and In
- line Kiln/Raw mills Mercury . For cement kilns or in
- line kilns/ raw mills an emission s limit of 43 lb/million(MM) tons clinker for existing21

sources and 14 lb/MM tons clinker for new sources . Both proposed limits are based on an averaging period of 30 day s. THC . For cement kilns or in
- line kilns/raw mills an emissions limit of 7 parts per million by volume ( ppmv ) for existing sources and 6 ppmvd for new sources, measured dry as propane and corrected to 7 percent oxygen, measure d on a 30 day average in each case . Because the proposed existing source standard would be more stringent than the new source standard of 50 ppmv contained in the 1999 final rule for g reenfield new
sources , we are also proposing to remove the 50 ppmv standard. As an alternative to the THC standard, we are proposing that the cement kilns or in
- line kilns/raw mills can meet a standard of 2 ppmv total combined organic HAP for existing
sources or 1 ppmv total organic HAP combined for new sources, measured dry and corrected to 7 percent oxygen. The alternative standard would be based on organic HAP emi ssion testing that would establish a site specific THC limit that would demonstrate compliance with the total organic HAP limit. The site specific THC limit would be measured as a 30 day rolling average . PM . For cement kilns or cement kilns/in

- line raw mills an emissions limit of 0.0 85 pounds per ton ( lb/ton ) clinker for existing sources and 0.0 80 lb/ tons clinker for new sources . Kilns and kiln/in

- line raw mills where the clinker cooler gas is combined with the kil n exhaust and sent to a single control22

device for energy efficiency purposes (i.e. , to extract heat from the clinker cooler exhaust) would be allowed to adjust the PM standard upward based on the relative gas flow s from the kiln and the clinker cooler exhaust. Opacity . We are proposing to remove 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. Hydrochloric Acid. For cement kilns or cement kilns/in

line raw mills an emissions limit of 2 ppmv for existing sources and 0.1 ppmv for new sources, measured dry and corrected to 7 percent oxygen. For facilities that are requ ired to use a continuous emissions monitoring system ( CEMS ) , there would be a 30 day averaging period. Clinker Coolers For clinker coolers a PM emissions limit of 0.0 85 lb/ton clinker for existing sources and 0.0 80 lb/tons clinker for new
sources. Raw Material Dryers THC . For raw materials dryers an emissions limit of 7 ppmv for existing sources and 6 ppmv for new sources, measured dry as propane and corrected to 7 percent oxygen, measure d on a 30 day rolling average . Because the proposed existing source standard would be more stringent than the new source standard of 50 ppmv23

contained in the 1999 final rule for Greenfield new sources, we are also proposing to remove the 50 ppmv standard. As an alternative to the THC standard, the raw material dryer can meet a standard of 2 ppmv total combined organic HAP for existing sources or 1 ppmv total organic HAP combined for new sources, measured dry and corrected to 7 percent oxygen. The alternative standard would be b ased on organic HAP emission testing that would establish a site specific THC limit that would demonstrate compliance with the total organic HAP limit. The site specific THC limit would be measured as a 30 day rolling average . B. Operating Limits

EPA is proposing to eliminate the restriction on the use of fly ash where the mercury content of the fly ash has been increased through the use of activated carbon. Given the proposed emission limitation for mercury, whereby kilns or cement kilns/in

- line raw mills 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. For the same reason, EPA is proposing to remove 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.24

C. Testing and Monitoring Requirements We are proposing the following changes in testing and monitoring requirements: Kilns and kiln/in

- line raw mills would be required to meet the following changed monitoring/testing requirements:

 CEMS (PS
- 12A) or sorbent trap monitors ( PS - 12B ) to continuously measure mercury emissions.

 CEMS meeting the requirement of PS - 8A to measure THC emissions for existing sources (n ew sources are already required to monitor THC with a CEM ) . Kilns and kiln/in

line raw mills meeting the organic HAP alternative to the THC limit would still be required to continuously monitor THC , and would also be required to test emission s using E PA Method 320 every five years to identify the organic HAP component of their THC emissions.

 I nstallation and operat ion of a bag leak detection system to demonstrate compliance with the PM emissions limit . If electrostatic precipitators ( ESP ) are us ed for PM control an ESP predictive model to monitor the performance of ESP controlling PM emission s from kilns would be required. As
an alternative EPA is proposing that sources may use a PM CEMS that meets the requirements of PS
- 11 .
 CEMS meeting the requirements of PS
- 15 would be required to demonstrate compliance with the HCl standard. If a25

facility is using a caustic scrubber to meet the standard, EPA Test Method 321 may used in lieu of a CEMS to demonstrate compliance. The M321 test must be repeated every 5 years . For c linker c oolers , EPA i s proposing use of a bag leak detection system to demonstrate compliance with the proposed PM emissions limit. If an ESP is used for PM control on clinker coolers, an ESP predictive model to monitor the performance of ESP controlling PM emission s from kil ns would be required. As an alternative , EPA is proposing that a PM CEMS that meets the requirements of PS
- 11 may be used. Raw material dryers that are existing sources would be required to install and operate CEMS meeting the requirement of PS - 8A to measure THC emissions . (New sources are already required to monitor THC with a CEM ). Raw material dryers meeting the organic HAP alternative to the THC limit would still be required to continuously monitor THC , and would also be required to test emissions using EPA Method 320 every five years to identify the organic HAP component of their THC emissions. IV. Rationale for Proposed Amendments to Subpart LLL A. MACT Floor Determination Procedure for all Pollutants The MACT floor limits for each of the HAP and HAP surrogates (mercury, total hydrocarbons, HCl, and particulate matter) are calculated based on the performance of the lowest26

emitting (best performing) sources in each of the MACT pool sources. 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 performing source. The MACT floor limit is calculated from a formula that is a modified prediction limit, designed to estimate a MACT floor level that is achievable by the average of the best performing sources (i.e., those in the MACT pool) if the best performing sources were able to replicate the compliance tests in our data base. Specifically, the MACT floor limit is an upper prediction limit (UPL) calculated from: 10

UPL = xp + t * (VT ) 0.5 where Xp = average of the best performing MACT pool sources, t = Student’s t
- factor evaluated at 99 percent confidence, and vT = total variance determined as the sum of the within
- source varianc e and the between
- source variance.

10 More details on the calculation of the MACT floor limits are given in the technical memo in the docket and also in “Technical Support Document for HWC MACT Standards, Volume III: Selection of MACT Standards.” U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. September 2005. Pages 7
- 5 to 7
- 7.27

The between
- source variance is the variance of the average of the best performing source averages. The within
- source variance is the variance of the MACT source average considering “m” number of future individual test runs used to make up the average to determine compliance. The value of “m” is used to reduce the variability to account for the lower variability when averaging o f individual runs is used to determine compliance in the future. For example, if 30
- day avera ges are used to determine compliance (m=30), the variability based 30
- day averages 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. B . Determination of MACT for Mercury Emi ssions from Major and Area Sources The limits for existing and new sources we are proposing here apply to both area and major new sources. These limits would also apply to area sources consistent with section 112(c)(6) of the Act, as EPA determined in the original rule. See 63 FR at 14193. 1. Floor Determination Selection of existing source floor Cement kilns’ emissions of mercury reflect exclusively the amounts of mercury in each kilns’ feedstock and fuel inputs. The amounts of mercury in these inputs vary by site. In many28

cases the majority of the mercury emissions result from the mercury present as a trace contaminant in the limestone, which typically comes f rom a propriety quarry located adjacent to the plant. Limestone is the single largest input, by mass , to a cement kiln’s total mass input , typically making up 80 percent of that loading. Mercury is also found as a trace contaminant in the other inputs to the kiln such as the additives that supply the required silica, alumina , and iron. Mercury is also present in the coal and petroleum coke typically used to fuel cement kilns. Mercury levels in limestone can vary significantly, both within a single quarry and between quarries. Since quarries are proprietary (one facility cannot access another’s limestone), this variability is inherent and site
- specific. Mercury levels in additives and fuels likewise vary significantl y, although mercury emiss ions attributable to limestone often dominate the total due to the larger amount of mass input contributed by limestone (see further discussion of this issue at Other Options EPA considered in Setting Floor for Mercury below). The first step in establishing a MACT standard is to determine the MACT floor. A necessary step in doing so is determining the amount of HAP emitted. In the case of mercury emitted by cement kilns, this is not necessarily a straightforward undertaking. Si ngle stack measurements29

represent a snapshot in time of a source’s emissions, always raising questions of how representative such emissions are of the source’s emissions over time. This problem is compounded in the case of cement kilns, because cement kil ns do not emit mercury uniformly. For all kilns, the mercury content of the feed and fuels varies significantly from day
- to - day and even hour
- to - hour. For modern preheater and preheater/ precalciner kilns this problem is compounded because these kiln have in
- line raw mills. With in
- line raw mills, mercury is captured in the ground raw meal in the in
- line raw mill and this raw meal (containing mercury) is returned as feed to the kiln. Mercury emissions may remain low during such recycling operations. However, as part of normal operation of a k iln raw mills must be periodically shut down for maintenance, and mercury
- containing exhaust gases from the kiln are then bypassed directly to the main APCD device resulting in significantly increased mercury emissions at the stack. The result is that at any given time, mercury emissions from such cement kilns are either low or high, but rarely in equilibrium, so that single stack tests are likely to either underestimate or overestimate cement kilns’ performance over time. Put another way, we believe that single short term stack test data (typically a few hours) are probably not indicative of long term emissions performance, and so are not the best indicator of performance over time. With these30

facts in mind, we carefully considered a lternatives other than use of single short
- term stack test results to quantify kilns’ performance for mercury. An alternative to short term stack test data would be to use mercury continuous monitoring data over a longer time period. Because no cement k ilns in the United States have continuous mercury monitors , this option was not available. However, mercury is an element, and can neither be created nor destroyed in a cement kiln. Therefore, all the mercury that enters a kiln has to leave the k iln in some fashion. The available data indicate that almost no mercury leaves the kiln as part of the clinker (product). Therefore, over the long term all the mercury leaves the kiln as a stack emission with three exceptions: 1. If instead of returning all particulate captured in the

particulate control device to the kiln, the source instead removes some of it from the circuit entirely, i.e. , the kiln wastes some cement kiln dust (CKD) ; or 2. The kiln is equipped with an alkali bypass, which means all

CKD captured in the alkali bypass PM control is wasted, and/or; 3. If the kiln has a wet scrubber (usually for SO 2 control),

the scrubber will remove some mercury which will end up in the gypsum generated by the scrubber.31

Based on these facts we determined the most accurate method available to us to determine long term mercury emissions performance was to do a total mass balance. We did so by obtaining data on all the kiln mercury inputs (i.e. , all raw materials and all fuels) for a large group of kilns, and assuming all mercury that enters the kiln is emitted with the three exceptions noted above. Pursuant to letters mandating data gathering, issued under the authority of section 114, we obtained 30 days of daily data on kiln mercury concentrations in each individual raw material, fuel, and CKD for 89 kilns , along with annual mass inputs and the amount of material collected in the PM control device (or alkali PM control device) that is wasted rather th an returned to the kiln. These data were submitted to EPA as daily concentrations for the inputs, i.e., samples of all inputs were taken daily and analyzed daily for their mercury content. We took the daily averages, calculated a mean concentration, and multiplied the mean concentration by annual materials use to calculate an annual mercury emission for each of the 89 kilns. If the facility wasted CKD, we subtracted out the annual mercury that left the system in the CKD. If the facility had a wet scrubber (the only control device currently in use among the sampled kilns with any substantial mercury capture efficiency), we subtracted out the annual mercury attributable to use of the32

scrubber. There are five cement kilns using wet scrubbers and EPA has removal efficiencies for four of these kilns (based on inlet/outlet testing conducted at EPA’s reque st concurrent with the input sampling) . We attributed a removal efficiency for the fifth kiln based on the average removal efficiency of the other four kilns. For each kiln, we took this ( calculated ) annual emission and then divided by total inputs to calculate an average emission factor

– the average projected emission rate for each kiln. We then ranked each kiln from lowest average emission factor to highest. The resulting emissions factors for 87 of the 89 ranged (relatively continuously) from 7 to 300 pounds of mercury per million tons of feed . Two kilns showed considerabl y higher numbers, approximately 1200 and 2000 pounds per ton of feed. These two facilities have atypically high mercury conten ts in the limestone in their proprietary quarries which are the most significant contributors to the high mercury emis sions. Based on these data and ranking methodology, the existing source MACT floor would be the average of the lowest emitting 12 percent of the kiln s for which we have data , whi ch would be the 11 kilns with lowest emissions (as calculated), shown in Table 1. Table 1 . Mercury MACT F loor33

Kiln code Mercury emissions (lb/MM ton feed) 1233 7.14 1650 10.83 1589 11.11 1302 14.51 1259 15.16 1315 15.41 1248 18.09 1286 21.12 1435 22.89 1484 22.89 1364 23.92

MACT - Existing Kilns Average: lb/MM tons feed (lb/MM tons clinker) 16.6 (27.4) Variability (t*vT 0.5 ) 9 .52 99th percentile: lb/MM tons feed (lb/MM tons clinker) 26 (4 3 ) MACT - New Kilns Average: lb/MM tons feed (lb/MM tons clinker) 7 .1 (11.8 ) Variability (t*vT 0.5 ) 1.3 99th percentile: lb/MM tons feed (lb/MM tons clinker) 8.4 ( 14 ) The average emission rate for these kilns is 16.6 pound s per million tons ( lb/MM ) tons feed (2 7.4 lb/MM tons clinker). The emission rate of the single lowest emitting source is 7. 1 lb/MM tons feed ( 11.8 lb/MM tons clinker). As previously discussed above, we account for variability in setting floors, not only because variability is an element of per formance, but because it is reasonable to assess best34

performance over time. Here, for example, we know that the 11 lowest emitting kiln emission estimates are averages, and that the actual emissions will vary over time. If we do not account for this var iability, we would expect that even the kilns that perform better than the floor on average would potentially exceed the floor emission levels a significant part of the time

-- meaning that their performance was assessed incorrectly in the first instance. For the 11 lowest emitting kilns, we calculated a daily emission rate using the daily concentration values and annual materials inputs divided by each kiln’s operating days. 11 The results are shown in Table 1 and represent the average performance of each kiln over the 30
- day period. We then calculated the average performance of the 11 lowest emitting kilns (17 lb/MM tons of feed) and the variances of the daily emission rates for each kiln which is a direct measure of the variability o f the data set. This variability includes the day
to - day variability in the total mercury input to each kiln and variability of the sampling and analysis methods over the 30
- day period, and it includes the variability resulting form site
- to -

11 In the daily calculations, we treated the CKD removal as if it was a control device, and applied the overall percent reduction rather that using the daily CKD concentration value. We used this approach because if we used daily CKD removal values , some day s showed negative mercury emissions rates. This is because of the mercury recycling issues discussed above.35

site differ ences for the 11 lowest emitters. We calculated the MACT floor ( 26 lb/MM tons feed) based on the UPL ( upper 99 th percentile ) as described earlier from the average performance of the 11 lowest emitting kilns , Students t
- factor, and the total variability, which was adjusted to account for the lower variability when using 30 day averages. EPA also has some information which tends to corroborate the variability factor used to calculate the floor for mercury. These data are not emissions data; they are data on the total mercury content of feed materials over periods of 12 months or longer. Because mercury emissions directly correlate with mercury content of feed materials , we believe an analysis of the variability of the feed materials is an accurate surroga te for the variability of mercury emissions over time. These long term data are from multiple kiln s from a single company that are not ranked among the lowest emitters , but are no netheless germane as a crosscheck on variability of mercury content of feed materials (including whether 30 days of sampling, coupled with statistically derived variability of that data set and a 99 th percentile, adequately measures that variability) . One way of comparing the variability among different data sets with different average values is to calculate the relative standard deviation s (RSD), which is the standard deviation divided by the mean. If the RSD are comparab le, then one can36

conclude that the variability among the data sets is comparable. The results of such an analysis are given in Table 2 below . The long term data represent long term averages of feed material mercury content based on 12 months of data or more, whereas the MACT data sets are for 30 consecutive days of data. The RSD of the long term data are comparable to and within the same range
as the RSD for the MACT data. This comparison sugge sts our method of calculating variability in the proposed floor by using variances/99 th percentile UPL appears to adequately encompass sources’ long
- term variability. Table 2 . Comparison of Long- Term Kiln Feed Mercury Concentration at Essroc Plants with the Feed Mercury Concentration Data for the MACT Floor Kilns PPM Hg in Feed Kiln Mean Standard Deviation RSD Source 1248 a 0.021 0.002 0.10 MACT floor kilnb 1589 a 0.021 0.002 0.10 MACT floor kiln 1435 0.012 0.002 0.16 MACT floor kiln 1484 0.012 0.002 0.16 MACT floor kiln 1233 0.011 0.002 0.16 MACT floor kiln 1650 0.025 0.005 0.22 MACT floor kiln Speed 0.055 0.016 0.29 Essroc c 1286 0.006 0.002 0.32 MACT floor kiln 1364 0.006 0.002 0.32 MACT floor kiln San Juan 0.322 0.108 0.34 Essroc Bessemer 0.021 0.007 0.35 Essroc Logansport 0.022 0.008 0.37 Essroc Naz III 0.016 0.010 0.61 Essroc Naz I 2.974 1.838 0.62 Essroc 1302 0.006 0.004 0.68 MACT floor kiln 1315 0.006 0.004 0.68 MACT floor kiln Martinsburg 0.023 0.017 0.89 Essroc 1259 0.008 0.007 0.89 MACT floor kiln Picton 0.075 0.078 1.05 Essroc37

a Same feed sample applied to multiple kilns at the plant b MACT floor kilns ’ variabilities are all based on approximately 30 days of data
c Essroc kiln ’s variabili t ies are all based on 12 months to three years of data.
We are proposing to express the floor as a 30 day rolling average . There are two reasons for doing so. First, as explained earlier, daily variations in mercury emissions at the stack for all kilns with in
- line raw mills is greater than daily variability of mercury levels in inputs. This is because mercury is emitted in high concentrations during mill
- off conditions, but in lower concentrations when mercury is recycled to the kiln via the raw mill (‘mill
- on’). We believe that 30 days is the minimum averaging time that allows for this mill
on/mill

- off variation. Second, a 30 day rolling average is tied to our proposed implementation regime, which in turn is based on the means by which the data used to generate the standard were developed. As explained above, the proposed floor reflects 30 days of sampling which are averaged, corresponding to the proposed 30
- day averaging period. EPA is also proposing to monitor compliance by means of daily monitoring via a CEMS , so that the propos ed implementation regime likewise mirrors the means by which the38

underlying data were gathered and used in developing the standard. Critical to this variability calculation is the assumption that EPA is adequately accounting for variable mercury content in kiln inputs. 12 As noted, we did so based on 30
- days of continuous sampling of all kiln inputs, plus use of a further statisti cal variability factor (based on that data set) and use of the 99 th percentile UPL. The 30
- day averaging time in the standard is a further means of accounting for variability , and accords with the data and methodology EPA used to develop the floor level . We solicit comment on the accuracy of this analysis. The most pertinent information, would of course be further sampling data of inputs to specific kilns (especially data from sampling over a longer period than 30
- days). 13 EPA also expressly solicits further information regarding potential

12 Since only five kilns have stack control devices, variability of performance of these controls (wet scrubbers), although important, plays a les s critical role in this analysis. 13 Some advance commenters have posited a larger variability factor to reflect the historic known variation in mercury content in limestone and other inputs, as reflected in various geological surveys. However, at issue is not variability for the source category as a whole, but specific sources’ variability. So any resort to information not coming directly from a best performer’s own operating history must be accompanied by an explanation of its relevance for best performe r’s variability in ordered to be conside red relevant. See 479 F. 3d at 881
- 82 .39

substitutability of non
- limestone kilns inputs and whether kilns actually utilize inputs other than those reflected in the 30
- day sampling ef fort comprising EPA’s present data base for mercury , and if so, what mercury levels are in these inputs . S election of new source floor Based on Table 1 , the average associated with the single lowest emitting kiln is 7 lb/ MM ton s feed (12 lb/MM tons clinke r) . Applying the UPL formula discussed earlier based on the daily emissions for the best performing kiln, we calculated its 99 th percentile UPL of performance, which results in a new source MACT level of 8.4 lb/MM tons feed ( 14 lb/MM tons clinker). Because this new source floor is on a different basis than the standard EPA promulgated in December 2006, which was a 41 μ g/dscm not to be exceeded standard, it is diff icult to directly compare the new source floor proposed in this action to the December 2006 standard. The December 2006 new source mercury emissions limit was based on the performance of wet scrubber
equipped cement kilns. In our curre nt analysis these wet scrubber
- equipped kilns were among the lowest emitting kilns, but not the l owest emitting kiln used to establish this proposed new source limit. Based on this fact, we believe this proposed
new source floor (and standard, since EPA is not proposing a40

beyond
- the
- floor standard) is approximately 30 percent lower that the December 2006 standard. Other Options EPA Considered in Setting Floors for Mercury EPA may create subcategories which distinguish among “classes, types, and sizes of sources”. Section 112 (d)(1). EPA has carefully considered that possibility in considering pot ential standards for mercury emitted by portland cement kilns. Were EPA to do so, each subcategory would have its own floor and standard, reflecting performance of the sources within that subcategory. EPA may create a subcategory applicable to a single HAP, rather than to all HAP emitted by the source category, if the facts warrant (so that , for example, a subcategory for kilns emitting mercury, but a single category for kilns emitting HCl, is legally permissible with a proper factual basis). 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. The subcategorization possibilities for mercury which we considered are the type of kiln, pr esence of an inline raw mill, practice of wasting cement kiln dust, mercury concentration of limestone in the kiln’s proprietary quarry, or geographic location. Mercury emissions are not affected by kiln type41

( i.e., wet or dry, pre
- calcining or not) becau se none of these distinctions have a bearing on the amount of mercury inputted to the kiln or emitted by it. In contrast, the presence of an in
line raw mill affects mercury emissions in the short term because the in
- line raw mill tends to collect mercury in the exhaust gas and transfer it to the kiln feed. However, since (as discussed above) the raw mill must be shutdown periodically for maintenance while the kiln continues to operate, all or most of the collected mercury simply gets emitted during the raw mill shutdown and total mercury emissions over time are not changed. The practice of wasting cement kiln dust does affect emissions. This practice means that a portion of the material collected on the PM control device is removed from the kiln system , rather than recycled to the kiln. Some of the mercury condenses on the PM collected on the PM control device, so wasting CKD also removes some mercury from the kiln system (and therefore it is not emitted) . However, since this practice could be conside red to “control” mercury, subcategorization by CKD wasting would be the same as subcategorizing by control device, which is not permissible. See 69 FR at 403 (Jan. 5, 2004). There is no variation in kiln location ( i.e., geographical distinction) which would justify subcategorization. We examined the geographical distribution of mercury emissions and total42

mercury and found no correlation. For example, no one region of the country has kiln s that tend to be all low or hi gh emitting kilns. We also rejected subcategorization by total mercury inputs. Subcategorization by this method would inevitability result in a situation where kiln s with higher total mercury inputs woul d have higher emission limits. This is because total mercury inputs are directly correlated with mercury emissions. So a facility that currently has lower mercury inputs could potentially simply substitute a higher mercury raw material without any requirement to control the additional mercury. I n addition, fuels and other additives are non
- captive situations, and thus do not readily differentiate kilns by “ size, class, or type ” . Finally, because of the direct correlation of mercury emissions and mercury inputs, subcategorization by total mercur y inputs could potentially be viewed as a similar situation to subcategorization by control device. The subcategorization option that we believe is most pertinent would be to subcategorize by the facilit y’s proprietary limestone quarry. All cement plan s have a limestone quarry located adjacent to or very close to the cement plant. This quarry supplies limestone only to its associated plant, and is not accessible to other plants. Typically quarries are developed to provide 50 to 100 years of limestone, and the43

cement kiln is located based on the location of the quarry. See 70 FR at 72333. For this reason, we believe that a facility’s propriety quarry is an inherent part of the process such that the kiln and the quarry together can be viewed as the affected source. Also, the amount of mercury in the proprietary quarry can significantly affect mercury emission because (as noted above) limestone makes up about 80 percent of the total inputs to the kiln. Thus, kilns with mercury above a given level might be considered a different type or class of kiln because their process necessarily requires the use of that higher
-mercury input. The facts, however, do not obviously indicate sharp disparities in limestone mercury content that readily differentiate s among types of sources. Figure 1 presents the average mercury contents of the proprietary quarries on the 89 kilns in EPA’s present data base.44

Figure 1. Average Mercury Concentration of Limestone These data, as we presently evaluate them, do not readily support a subcategorization approach

– putting aside for the moment the high mercury limestone kilns (at the far right of the distribution tail in Figure 1) which are discussed separately. As shown in Figure 1, mercury levels in limestone are more of a continuum with no immediately evident breakpoints (again, putting aside the high
-mercury limestone kilns). Mor e important, kilns with quarries with varied mercury content can and do have similar mercury emissions, and in many instances, limestone mercury is not the dominant source of mercury in the kilns’ emissions notwithstanding that limestone is the principal Average Mercury

Content of Limestone

0.00 200.00 400.00 600.00 800.00 1000.00 1200.00

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Kiln Number Avg ppb Hg in Limestone45

volumetric input. Thus for about 55 percent of the kilns (49 of 89), non
- limestone mercury accounted for greater than 50 percent of the kiln’s mercury emissions . 15 For nearly 70 percent of the kilns (62 of 89), limestone mercury accounted for at least one
third of total mercury emissions.

Table 3. O rigins of Mercury in Portland Cement

Manufacturing Random number kiln code Percent Hg

from other raw materials Percent Hg

from fuels Percent Hg

from limestone Total %

1356 91 1 8 10 0 1538 89 1 10 100 1630 84 2 15 100 1530 53 32 1 5 100 1610 10 73 17 10 0 1494 54 28 17 100 1560 76 5 18 100 1219 71 8 20 100 1335 55 21 25 100 1597 49 26 25 100 1437 50 25 25 100 1559 19 55 26 100 1246 65 9 26 100 1316 65 9 26 100 1308 1 72 27 100 1521 1 72 27 100 1536 0 73 2 7 100 1520 34 38 27 100 1253 60 11 29 100 1639 60 11 29 100 1390 60 11 29 100 1323 60 11 29 100

15 In certain instances, percentages of non
- limestone mercury are high because limestone mercury content was low. However, in many instances, non
- limestone mercury contributions exceeded those from limestone even where limestone mercury contribution was r elatively high. See Table 3.46

1663 60 11 29 100 1655 13 57 30 100 1591 13 57 30 100 1582 13 57 30 100 1364 2 66 32 100 1286 2 65 33 100 1436 15 50 3 5 100 1396 61 4 35 100 1443 57 5 38 100 1660 11 50 39 100 1371 16 44 40 100 1619 16 43 40 100 1594 12 46 42 100 1331 12 44 44 100 1417 3 53 44 100 1240 3 53 44 100 1233 41 14 46 100 1638 3 48 48 100 1635 41 7 52 100 1220 40 6 53 100 1294 41 5 54 100 1256 41 5 54 100 1350 41 5 54 100 1343 41 5 54 100 1604 22 23 55 100 1327 21 23 57 100 1259 23 20 57 100 1615 21 21 58 100 1375 21 20 59 100 1448 17 24 59 100 1337 17 24 59 100 1481 35 5 60 100 1435 25 13 62 100 1484 25 13 62 100 1463 13 25 62 100 1421 27 11 62 100 1439 11 27 63 100 1415 29 7 63 100 1200 5 32 63 100 1218 5 32 63 100 1226 11 26 64 100 1589 30 5 64 100 1268 4 31 65 100 1225 11 23 66 100 1643 1 33 67 10047

1674 1 32 67 100 1592 11 21 68 100 1650 3 28 68 100 1251 16 13 70 100 1265 16 11 73 100 1315 7 19 74 100 1239 17 8 74 100 1302 7 17 76 100 1686 19 6 76 100 1248 17 6 76 100 1419 16 8 77 100 1692 13 8 79 100 1693 7 13 80 100 1324 1 16 83 100 1339 8 9 84 100 1376 5 8 87 100 1690 5 8 87 100 1688 5 8 87 100 1609 13 0 87 100 1581 9 3 88 100 1647 5 7 89 1 00 1629 8 0 92 1 00 These data seem to indicate that although quarry mercury content is important, other non
-proprietary inputs can and do affect mercury emissions as well, often to an equal or greater extent. Quarries with similar limestone mercury content can and do have very different mercury emissions. These facts, plus the general continuum in the limestone mercury data, seem to mi tigate against subcategorizing on this basis for the great bulk of industry sources. Moreover, as stated above, subcategorization is limi ted by the CAA to size, class, or type of source. Both EPA and advance commenters applied various statistical analyses to the mercury48

limestone quarry data set and these analyses indicated that there could be populations of quarries that were statistically different. However, it is unclear to us that a statistical difference in a popu lation is necessarily the same as a distinction by size, class, or type. More compelling facts, at least in our present thinking, are the apparent continuum of limestone mercury levels, and the fact that limestone mercury levels are less of a driver of me rcury emission levels than one would expect if this is to be the basis for subcategorization across a broad set of the facilities. EPA is also concerned that subcategorization by quarry mercury content may allow some higher
- emitting facilities to do relat ively less for compliance were they to be part of a separate subcategory where mercury levels of best performers were comparatively high. (Of course, these levels could be reduced by adopting standards reflecting beyond
- the
- floor determinations.) Converse ly, the case could occur where a lower emitter might be subject to a greater degree of control than a high emitter. For example, if we were to establish a subcategory at 20 ppb mercury in the limesto ne, at kilns at just below the 20 ppb level might be required to apply mercury controls while kilns just above the 20 ppb level, which would likely include kilns that would determine the floor level of control, would have to do nothing to meet the mercury standard.49

Much of this analysis, however, does not apply to the kilns at the far end of the distribution, especially the two facilities shown in Figure 1 which have the highest quarry mercury contents which quarries appear to be outliers from the general population. These sources’ mercury emissions are rela ted almost entirely to the limestone mercury content, not to other inputs. In addition, we noted that if we set up a separate subcategory for these fac ilities, even if we proposed a beyond
- the
- floor standard based on the best estimated performance of control for these two facilities, their emissions limit would potentially be 500 to 800 lb/MM tons clinker, which is well above any other kiln, even when un controlled, in our data base, and 8 to 13 times the floor established for other existing sources (assuming no further subcategorization). EPA is not proposing to create a separate subcategory for these high mercury sources. Mercury is a dangerous neurotoxin singled out for special control under the Act’s air toxics provision (see section 112 (c) (6)), and kilns in a high
-mercury subcategory, no matter how well controlled, would still be allowed to emit large amounts (at least pending a section 112(f) residual risk determination)). EPA is also mindful of the holding of Brick MACT and other de cisions that EPA must account for raw material HAP contributions in establishing MACT floors, and the fact that raw materials may be proprietary or otherwise50

not obtainable category
- wide does not relieve EPA of that obligation. See, e.g. 479 F. 3d at 882
- 83. There are also competing considerations here, both legal and equitable. There is legal support for sources limited to a particular type of high
- HAP feedstock being a legitimate candidate for subcategorization. Thus, the concurring opini on in Brick MACT would expressly countenance subcategorization in situations involving sources’ dependence on high
- HAP raw materials to avoid situations where a level of performance achieved by some sources proves unachievable by other sources
even after application of best technological controls, viewing such sources as of a different type than others in the source category. 479 F. 3d at 884
- 85. A further equitable
c onsideration is that one of the high mercury kilns here has voluntarily entered i nto an enforceable agreement to install activated carbon (the best control technology currently available so far as is known) to control its mercury emissions and this agreement appears to have the support of directly affected stakeholders (local citizen g roups, regional and state officials). 17 The company is poised to begin installation of the control technology. However, neither EPA nor the company believe s that this source could physically achieve the level of

17 Minutes of meeting between EPA and representatives of Ash Grove Cement. February 27, 2009.51

the mercury floor derived from a single source category approach . Closure of this kiln due to a technically infeasible standard for mercury , and possibly several of the other highest mercury kilns , thus is a possible consequence . EPA repeats that it is not proposing any subcategories for mercury due to the nature of the HAP at issue, and EPA’s desire to adopt a clearly legally defensible standard . Nonetheless, this remains an issue EPA intends to evaluate carefully based on public comment , and expressly solicits comment addressing al l aspects of determinations whether or not to subcategorize. These comments should address not only the issue of a high
mercury subcategory (addressing plants in the upward right
- hand tail of the distributional curve in Figure 1), but other sources as wel l. EPA also solicits comment regarding non
- limestone inputs to cement kilns, and whether there is any potential basis for considering a subcategorization approach (which passes legal muster) involving such materials. 18 Other Alternatives Considered f or Mercury Standard

18 One of these high
-mercury sources suggested that because it is an area source, EPA develop a mercury standard for it based upon Generally Available Control Technology (GACT) rather than MACT. See section 112 (d)(5) of the Act. Aside from questions about whether use of activated carbon is a generally available control technology here, EPA has already determined that all cement kilns’ mercury emissions are subject to MACT under authority of section 112(c) (6). See 63 FR at 14193.52

EPA is proposing to rank sources by emission level in determining which are best performing. We also considered another option of ranking best performers based on their relative mercury removal efficiency, and presenting a standard
so - derived as an alternative to the standard based on ranking by lowest emissions. There is some sta tutory support for adopting per cent reduction/removal efficiency methodologies. The MACT floor for new sources is to be based on the performance of the “best controlled” similar source, the term “control” can be read to mean control efficiency. It can also be argued that the critical terms of section 112 (d)(3)
-- "best controlled" (new) /"best performing" (existing)

-- do not specify whether "best" is t o be measured on grounds of control efficiency or emission level. See Sierra Club v. EPA , 167 F.3d 658, 661 (" average emissions limitation achieved by the best performing 12 percent of units' * * * on its own says nothing about how the performance of the best units is to be calculated"). Existing floors determined and expressed in terms of control effic iency
are also arguably consistent with the requirement that the floor for existing sources reflect "average emission limitation achieved", since "emission limitation" includes standards which limit the "rate" of emissions on a continuous basis

—something
which percent reduction standards would do. CAA section 302(k). There are also instances , where Congress express ed performance53

solely in terms of numerical limits, rather than performance efficiency , suggesting that Congress was aware of the distinction and capable of delineating it . See CAA section 129(a)(4). 19 There are also arguments that percent reduction standards are not legally permissible. The Brick MACT opinion states in dicta that best performers are those emitting the least HAP (se e 479 F. 3d at 880 referring to (“section [112 (d)(3)] requires floors based on emission levels actually achieved by best performers (those with the lowest emission levels)”). 20 More important, the opinion stresses that raw material inputs must be accounted for in determining MACT floors. Id. at 882
- 83 . A problem with per cent r eduction standard s is that they downplay the role of HAP inputs on emissions by allowing more HAP to be emitted provided a given level of removal efficiency reflecting the average of best removal efficiencies is achieved. That would certainly be the case for portland cement kilns. For these reasons , EPA is not proposing alternative standard s f or mercury expressed as per cent reduction reflecting the average of

19 See also section 112(i)( 5)(A), which allows sources that achieve early reductions based on measured rates of removal efficiency a reprieve from MACT. 20 The issue of whether best performers can be based on source’s removal efficiency was not presented in Brick MACT , or any of the other decided cases.54

the best removal efficiencies. EPA solicits comment on this alternative from both a legal and policy standpoint, however. 2. Beyond the Floor Determination We are not proposing any beyond
- the
- floor standards for mercury. 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 the proposed amendments, most ex isting 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 ava ilable 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 limesto ne in the feed, wasting CKD, and installing additional add
- on control devices. For reasons discussed further below we believe that all but the latter option (add
- on controls) cannot be evaluated as the basis of a national potential beyond the floor standard because the data to perform this type of analysis for

21 Summary of Environmental and Cost Impacts of Proposed Revisions to Portland Cement NESHAP (40 CFR Part 6 3 , subpart LLL), April 17, 2009.55

each facility do not exist . For that reason, we estimated the cost and incremental reduction in mercury emissions associated with installing another control device in series to the other controls . The add
- on controls considered included a wet scrubber and ACI. Because ACI is less costly and is expected to have a higher removal efficiency as well as being potentially capable of potentially removing elemental mercury (using halogenated carbon) which a scrubber cannot remove, we selected ACI as the beyond
- the
- floor control option . We estimated the costs and emission reductions for a 1.2 million tpy kiln as it would be representative of the impacts of other kilns. Annualized costs for an additional ACI system would be $1.254 million per year. The quantity of mercury leaving the upstr eam controls would be an estimated 3.3 lb/yr. Assuming a 90 percent control efficiency, the additional ACI system would remove about 3.0 lb/yr of mercury for a cost

- effectiveness of approximately $420,000 per lb of mercury reduction. A 90 percent removal efficiency may be optimistic given the lower level of mercury entering the device and a removal efficiency on the order of 70 percent is more likely. At this efficiency, the additional mercury controlled would be 2.3 lb/yr for a cost effectiveness of app roximately $540,000 per pound of mercury removed. At either control efficiency, we believe cost of between $420,000 and $540,000 per pound of mercury removed is56

not justified and we are therefore not selecting this beyond
the
- floor option. There are two potential feasible process changes that have the potential to affect mercury emissions. These are removing CKD from the kiln system and s ubstituting raw materials , including fly ash, or fossil fuels with lower
-mercury inputs . Although substituting low
-me rcury materials and fuel may be feasible for some facilities, this alternative would depend on site
- specific circumstances and, therefore, must be evaluated on a site
-by
- site basis and EPA’s current view is that it would not be a uniformly applicable (or quantifiable) control measure on which a national standard could be based (although as noted earlier, EPA is expressly soliciting quantified comment regarding potential substitutability of non
- limestone kiln inputs). Based on material ba lance data (feed and fuel usage, control device catch recycling and wasting, and mercury concentrations) that we gathered with our survey of 89 kilns, 58 percent of kilns waste some amount of CKD whi le 42 percent waste
none. Among kilns that waste CKD, the percentage reduction in mercury emissions by wasting CKD ranged from 0.13 percent to 82 percent, with an average of 16.5 percent and median of 7 percent. For kilns that waste some CKD, CKD as a percentage of total feed ranges from 0.16 percent to 13.7 pe rcent, with a mean57

of 4.5 percent. Any additional emission reductions that can be achieved by wasting CKD depend on several site
- specific factors including:

 The concentration of mercury in raw feed and fuel materials.

 The concentration of mercury in the CKD.

 The amount of CKD already being wasted.

 The dynamics of mercury recirculation and accumulation
- Internal loops for mercury exist between the control device and kiln feed storage and the kiln for long dry and wet kilns. For preheater and precalciner kilns, there is usually an additional internal loop involving the in
- line raw mill. These internal loops and the distribution of mercury throughout the process are not predictable and can only be determined empirically.

 Mercury speciation may affect the extent to which mercury accumulates in the CKD, with particulate and oxidized mercury more likely to accumulate while elemental mercury is likely emitted and not affected by CKD wasting. Reducing mercury emissions through the wasting of CKD may be feasible for some kilns that do not already waste CKD or by wasting additional CKD for some kilns that already practice CKD wasting. However the degree to which CKD can be used to reduce mercury emissions cannot be accurately estimated due to sever al58

factors. For example, increasing the amount of CKD wasted would result in a reduction in the mercury concentration of the CKD, so that, over time, the effectiveness of wasting CKD decreases. We do not have long
- term data to quantify the relationship b etween amount of CKD wasted, CKD mercury concentration and emissions. The ability to reduce mercury emissions by wasting more CKD also is affected by the mercury species present. The particulate and oxidized species of mercury can accumulate in CKD, but not the elemental form. Therefore wasting CKD will not necessarily control elemental mercury. We do not have data that would allow us to quantify the effect of mercury speciation. By wasting CKD, additional raw materials would be required to replace the CKD as well as additional fuel to calcine the additional raw materials, thereby offsetting to some extent the benefits of wasting CKD. There is the further potential consideration of additional waste generation, an adverse cross media impact EPA is requ ired to consider is making beyond
- the
floor determinations. The interaction of these factors is complex and has not been adequately studied. One cement plant has investigated the potential to reduce mercury emissions by wasting CKD. This facility , usin g mercury CEMS and material balance information , estimated that wasting 100 percent of CKD when the raw mill is off (about 19,000 tons59

of CKD or 16 percent of total baghouse catch, or 1 percent of total feed) would reduce mercury emissions by about 4 perce nt. They did not estimate the reductions in mercury emissions by wasting more CKD. As with the potential to reduce mercury emissions using raw materials substitution, the effectiveness of CKD wasting in reducing emissions may provide cement plants the ability to reduce mercury emissions but it will have to be determined on a site
-by
- site basis. Because the degree to which mercury emissions can be reduced by material substitutions or through the wasting of CKD are si t e specific, these process
- related work practices were not considered as beyond
- the
- floor options. As a result of these analyses, we determined that, considering the technical feasibility and costs, there is no reasonable beyond the floor control option, an d are proposing a mercury emission limit based on the MACT floor level of control. C . Determination of MACT for THC Emissions from Major and Area Sources The limit s for existing and new sources we are proposing here appl y to both area and major new sources . We have applied these limit s to area sources consistent with section 112(c)(6) . See 63 FR 14193 (THC as a surrogate for the 112 ( c ) (6) HAP polycyclic organic matter and polychlorinated biphenyls, plus60

determination to control all THC emissions from the source category under MACT standards). 1. Floor Determination Selection of existing source floor For reasons previously discussed in the initial proposal of the Portland Cement NESHAP (63 FR 14197, March 24, 1998), we are proposing to use THC as a surrogate for non
- dioxin organic HAP that are emitted from the kiln (as is the current rule). The THC data used to develop the MACT floor were obtained from 12 kilns using CEMS to continuously measure the concentration of THC exiting each kiln’s stack. Only k i lns 1 ( regenerative thermal oxidizer (RTO) ) and kilns 11 and 12 (ACI) have THC emissions controls which remove or destroy THC . We also obtained THC data from manual stack tests, typically based on 3 one hour run s per test. The CEMS data are superior to the results of a single stack test for characterizing the long term performance and in determining the best performing kilns with respect to THC emissions for several reasons . The manual stack test is of short duration and only represents a snapshot in time; consequently, it provides no information on the variability in emissions over time due to changes in raw material feed or in kiln operating conditions. In contrast, the CEMS data include measurements that range from 31 consecutive days to almost 900 da ys of operation for the various kilns.61

This extended duration of the CEMS test data gives us confidence that fo r any particular kiln CEMS data will captur e the variability associated with the long
- term THC emissions data , and thus give the most accurate r epresentation of a source’s performance . In addition, a MACT standard based on CEMS data would be consistent with the way we are proposing to implement the THC emission limit (i.e., by requiring continuous monitoring with a THC CEMS).
I n order to set MACT fl o ors we are ranking the kiln s based on the average THC emissions levels (in ppmv) achieved ( i.e., each kiln’s averaged performance, averaged over the number of available measurements . This ranking is shown in Table 4 .

Table 4 . Summary of THC CEMS Da ta and MACT Floor Kiln Average Number of readings Kiln type In line raw mill Kiln 1 4.0 35 Preheater/precalciner yes Kiln 2 5.6 695 Wet no Kiln 3 6.8 692 Long dry no Kiln 4 6.8 31 Preheater/precalciner yes Kiln 5 11.1 702 Long dry no Kiln 6 23.7 470 Preheater/precalciner no Kiln 7 45.0 742 Preheater/precalciner yes Kiln 8 51.6 774 Preheater/precalciner yes Kiln 9 51.9 843 Preheater/precalciner yes Kiln 10 62.8 880 Preheater/precalciner yes Kiln 11 and Kiln 12 Combined 748.1 790 Wet no Existing Source Average ( ppmvd at 4.862

7% O2, propane) Variability (t*vT 0.5 ) 1.9 Existing Source 99 th percentile ( ppmvd at 7% O2, propane) 7

New Source Average ( ppmvd at 7% O2, propane) 4.0

Variability (t*vT 0.5 ) 1 .5 New Source 99 th percentile ( ppmvd at 7% O2, propane) 6

The average performance of the best performing 12 percent of kilns ( 2 kilns) is 4.8 ppmvd THC (a daily average expressed as propane at 7 percent oxygen) . We calculated variability based on the variances of the two lowest emitting kilns . This includes day
- to - day variability at the same kiln, variability among the two lowest emitting kilns, and because one dataset included 695 daily measurements, it represent s long term variability at a single kiln. We calculated the MACT floor ( 7 ppmvd ) based on the UPL ( upper 99 th percentile ) as described earlier from the average performance of the 2 lowest emitting kilns , Students t - factor, and the total variability, which was63

adjusted to account for the lower variabil ity when using 30 day averages. Selection of new source MACT floor The new source MACT floor would be the best performing similar source accounting for variability, which would be 6 ppmvd . We used the same procedure in estimating variability for the new source based on the 35 observations reported. In this case the proposed new and existing source MACT floors are almost identical because the best performing 12 percent of kilns (for which we have emissions information) is only two sources. The reason we look to the best performing 12 percent of sourc es is that the cement kiln source category consists of 30 or more kilns. Section 112 (d)(3) states that if the source category or subcategory contains 30 or more sources then the best performing 12 percent of the kilns for which the administrator has data must be used to set the existing source MACT floor. However, in cases where there are 30 or more sources but little emission data this results in only a few kilns setting the existing source floor with the result that the new and existing source MACT floors are almost identical. In contrast, if this source category had less than 30 sources, we would be required to use the top five best performing sources,64

rather than the two that comprise the top 12 percent. Section 112 (d)(3)(B). We are seeking comment on whether, with the facts of this rulemaking, we should consider reading the intent of Congress to allow us to consider five sources rather than just two. First, it seems evident that Congress was concerned that floor determinations should reflect a minimum quantum of data: at least data from five sources for source categories of less than 30 sources (assuming that data from five sources exist). Second, it does not appear that this concern would be any less for source categories with 30 or more sources. The concern , in fact, would appear to be greater. That is, floors for categories with 30 or greater sources should not be based on a smaller number of best performing sources than source categories of fewer than 30 sources. 22 We note further that if we were to use five sources as best THC performers here, the existing source floor would be 10 ppmvd . We are specifically requesting comment on interpretive and factual issues relating to the proposed THC floors, and also reitera te requests for further THC performance data, especially from kilns equipped with CEMs.

22 As noted, basing the proposed existing source THC floor on data from two sources (i.e. 12 percent of the 15 sources for which we have CEM data) largely eliminates the distinction between new and existing source THC floors. Yet this is an important statutory distinction.65

EPA is also proposing 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 rare 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. A previous study that compared total organic HAP to THC found that the organic HAP was 23 percent of the THC. We also analyzed additional data s ubmitted during the development of this proposed rule that included simultaneous measure of organic HAP species and THC. Data were available from five tests, and the organic HAP averaged 24 percent of the THC. Based on these analyses, we are proposing an equivalent alternative emission limit for organic HAP species of 2 ppmv (i.e., 24 percent of 7 ppmv ) for existing sources and 1 ppmvd for new 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 emissions tests that were reviewed. Nearly all of these organic HAP species were identified in an earlier analysis of the66

organic HAP concentrations in THC in which the average concentration of organic HAP in THC was 23 percent. Other Options Considere d We also examined the THC results to determine if subcategorization by type of kiln was warranted and concluded that the data were insufficient for determining that a distinguishable difference in performance exists based on the type of kiln. The top per forming kilns in Table 4 include various types: wet, long dry, and preheater/precalciner kilns; older (wet kilns) and newer (precalciner kilns); and those with and without in
- line raw mills. Although the type of kiln and the design and operation of its c ombustion system may have a minor effect on THC emissions, the composition of the feed and the presence of organic compounds in the feed materials apparently have a much larger effect. For example, organic compounds in the feed materials may volatilize an d be emitted before the feed material reaches the high temperature combustion zone of the kiln where they would have otherwise been destroyed. We also evalua t ed creating separate sub categories for kilns with in
- li n e raw mill s and those without . With an i n - li n e raw mill kiln , exh aust i s used to dry the raw materials during the grinding of the raw meal. This drying step can result in some organic material being volatilized, thus increasing the THC emissions in the kiln exhaust. This means that kilns with in
-67

line raw mills would, on average, have higher emissions than kiln s without in
- line raw mills. The existence, or absence, of a raw mill is believed to have a distinct effect on emissions of THC, as one would expect. It is difficult to generalize that difference because the effect of the raw mill will vary based on the specific organ ic constituents of the raw materials. In tests at one facility, THC emission s , on average, were 35 percent higher with the raw mill on than when the raw mill was off. 24 This physical difference could justify subcategorization based on the presence of an in
- line raw mill. There are also potential policy reasons for doing so . If we were not to subcategorize, this might discourage the use of in
- line raw
mills because, to meet a THC standard, in
- line raw mill
- equipped kilns would potentially have to utilize An RTO. Use of RTOs has various significant adverse environmental consequences, including increase in emissions of criteria pollut ants, and significant extra energy utilization with attendant increases in greenhouse gas emissions. 25

24 Email and attachments. B. Gunn, National Cement Company of Alabama to K. Barnett. USEPA. March 12, 2009. THC Mill on/Mill Off Variability 25 Summary of Environmental and Cost Impacts of Proposed Revisions to Portland Cement NESHAP (40 CFR Part 6 3 , subpart LLL), April 15, 2009.68

EPA has performed floor calculations for subcategories of kilns with and without in
- line raw mills. The result of that calculation, where we were usi ng the top 12 percent, was that the floor for kilns with in
- line raw mills were actually lower than those without, which is atypical: sources with in
- line raw mills will typically have higher emissions because of the extra volatilization. We believe this anomalous result is the artifact of the small data set used to calculate the existing source MACT floor. Based on these res ults, we have concluded that the current data are not sufficient to allow us to subcategorize by the presence of an i n - line raw mill , but would consider subcategoriz ing if additional data become available . We are specifically requesting comment on subcate gorization by the presence or absence of an in
- line raw mill and requesting data on this issue. 2. Beyond the Floor Determination Practices and technologies that are available to cement kilns to control emissions of organic HAP include raw materials mat erial substitution, ACI systems and limestone scrubber and RTO. We do not think it is appropriate to develop a beyond
- the
floor control option based on material substitution , the feasibility of which can only be determined on a site
-by
- site basis. We also think the proposed limits for THC will encourage69

kiln owners and operators to consider material substitution without the need for specific requirements to do so. We examined the use of either ACI syst ems or RTO (with a dedicated wet scrubber) 26 as the basis for potential beyond
- the
floor THC standards f or existing and new sources. ( We did not examine other beyond
- the
- floor regulatory option s for existing
or new sources because there are no controls that would, on average, generate a greater THC reduction than a combination of a wet scrubber/RTO. ) These technologies are currently in limited use in the source category. At one facility, activated carbon is in jected into the flue gas and collected in the PM control device. The activated carbon achieved a THC emission s reduction of approximately 50 percent, and the collected carbon is then injected into the kiln in a location that insures destruction of the col lected THC. The THC emissions from this facility are the highest for any facility for which we have data due to very unusual levels of organic material in the limestone and may not be representative of the performance that can be achieved by kilns with mo re typical THC emissions. 27 ACI has been demonstrated in other source categories, such as various types of waste incinerators including municipal waste

26 A wet scrubber is ne e ded as a pretreatment step before gases are amenab l e to destruction in an RTO. 27 The same facility that uses ACI has a second control scheme for THC consisting of a wet scrubber/RTO in series. However, this system has not operated more that a few months at a time .70

incinerators , to reduce dioxin/furan by over 95 percent (Chi and Chang, Environmental Science and Techno logy, vol 39, issue 20, October 2005; Roeck and Sigg, Environmental Protection, January 1996). The actual performance of ACI systems on cement kiln THC emissions are expected to be less than that achieved on dioxin/furan emissions as kiln flue gases are a mixture of volatile and semi volatile organic compounds, which vary according to the organic constituents of raw materials. We have therefore conservatively estimated that ACI systems can reduce THC emissions by 75 to 80 percent. A second facility has a continuously operated limestone scrubber followed by an RTO . This facility has been emission tested and showed volatile organic compound (VOC), which are essentially the same as THC, emission levels of 4 ppmv (at 7 percent oxygen), and currently has a permit limit for VOC of approximately 9 ppmv. The RTO has a guaranteed destruction efficiency of 98 percent of the combined emissions of carbon monoxide and THC. Based on this information, we believe this facility represents the best possible control per formance to reduce THC emissions. In assessing the potential beyond
- the
- floor options for THC, we first determined that most ex isting kilns would have to install an ACI system for control of THC and/or mercury. A few kilns would be expected to install an RT O in order to get the THC proposed reductions. To evaluate the feasibility of beyond
-71

the
- floor controls, we assumed that a kiln already expected to install an ACI system would install in series an RTO including a wet scrubber upstream of the RTO to pro tect the RTO. We estimated the costs and emission reductions for a 1.2 million tpy kiln as the cost effectiveness of the beyond
- the
- floor option would be similar for all kilns. Annualized costs for an additional RTO system would be $1.44 million per year. The quantity of THC leaving the upstream controls would be an estimated 18 tpy. At higher THC concentrations, for example 15 ppmv and above, an RTO will have a removal efficiency of about 98 percent. This mass of THC leaving the device up stream of and entering the RTO is equivalent to a THC concentration of about 3 ppmv. At this low level, an RTO’s removal efficiency is expected to be no better than 50 percent. At a 50 percent control efficiency, the RTO would reduce THC emission by abou t 9 tpy for a cost
- effectiveness of approximately $157,000 per ton of THC removal. If the organic HAP fraction of the THC is 24 percent, 2 tpy of organic HAP would be removed at a cost effectiveness of approximately $656,000 per ton of organic HAP removed. At a cost effectiveness of $157,000 per ton of THC and $656,000 per ton of organic HAP, we believe the cost of the additional emis sion reduction is not justified (this is a far higher level than EPA has deemed justi fied in other MACT standards, for example) . In addition to the high cost of72

control, the additional energy requirements, 7.3 million kwh/yr and 87,800 MMBtu/yr, would be significant. Increased greenhouse gas emissions attributab le to this energy use would be on the order of 1 2 ,000 tpy per source. The additional energy demands would also result in increased emissions of NOx (21 tpy), CO, (8 .5 tpy), SO 2 (28 tpy), and PM10 (1 tpy) per source . Becau se of the high costs and minimal reductions in THC and organic HAP as well as the secondary impacts and additional energy requirements, we are not selecting this beyond
- the
- floor option. Therefore we are proposing for cement kilns an existing source THC emissions limit of 7 ppmvd and a new source limit of 6 ppmvd , measured as propane and corrected to 7 percent oxygen. We are also proposing for an alternative organic HAP emissions limit of 2 ppmvd for existing kilns and 1 ppmvd for new kilns. THC Standard for Raw Material Dryers Some plants may dry their raw materials in separate dryers prior to or during grinding. See 63 FR at 14204 . This drying process can potentially lead to organic HAP and THC emissions in a manner analogous to the releas e of organic HAP and THC emissions from kilns when hot kiln gas contacts incoming feed materials. The method s 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 are also73

proposing to set the THC emission limit of materials dryers at 7 ppmvd (existing sources) and 6 ppmvd (new sources). The current NESHAP has an emissions limit of 50 ppmvd for new g reenfield sources. The limit is less stringent than the proposed changes in the THC emissions limits for new (as well as existing) sources. For that reason, we are proposing to remove the 50 ppmvd emissions limit for this rule. D . Determinati on of MACT for HCl Emissions from Major Sources In developing the MACT floor for HCl, we collected over 40 HCl emissions measurements from stack tests based on EPA Methods 321 and 26 . Studies have suggested that Method 26 is biased significantly low due to a scrubbing effect in the front half of the sampling train (see 63 FR at 14182). Because of this bias, we used the HCl data measured at 27 kilns using Method 321 in determining the p roposed floors for existing and new sources. The data in ppmv corrected to 7 percent oxygen ( O 2 ) were ranked by emissions level and the top 12 percent (4 kilns) lowest emitting kilns identified . 30 The top 4 kilns were limited to major sources, and to sour ces where we had a minimum of three test run s to allow us to account for variability in setting the

30 EPA notes that this floor determination, like the one for THC discussed in the preceding section, raises the issue of whether a floor determination for source categories with 30 sources or greater should be based on the performance of less than five sources. We solicited comment on that issue in the preceding section and repeat the solicitation here.74

floor. (Note that neither of these decisions significantly change d the final result of the floor calculation). The se emissions data are shown in Table 5 . The average of the four lowest emitting kilns is 0. 31 ppmvd . The variability for the 4 lowest emitting kilns includes the run
- to - run variability of three runs for each stack test and the variability across the 4 lowest emitting kilns. We calculated the MACT floor (2 ppmvd) based on the upper 99 th percentile UPL from the average performance of the 4 lowest emitting kilns and their variances as described earlier. Table 5. HCl MACT F loor Kiln HCl Emissions (ppmvd @ 7% O 2 ) 1 0.02 2 0.02 3 0.22 4 0.97

MACT

– Existing Average 0.31 Variability (t*vT 0.5 ) 1.94 99 th percentile 2 MACT

– New Average 0.02 Variability (t*vT 0.5 ) 0.12 99 th percentile 0.1
MACT for new kilns is based on the performance of the lowest emitting kiln. The average HCl emissions for the lowest emitting kiln in this data set is 0.02 ppmv. Using the same statistical technique to apply run - to - run variability for that75

kiln ’ s emissions data, the HCl MACT floor for new kilns is 0.1 4 ppmvd at 7 percent O 2 . For facilities that do not use wet scrubbers to meet the HCl limit, these s tandards would be based on a 30
- day rolling average, consistent with the proposed use of CEMS ( i.e., continuous measurements) for compliance. See section E below. It should be noted that these emission limits are below the published detection level of the test method (EPA test method 321) . This issue is further discussed in section IV.I. Beyond the Floor Standard for HCl Based on the HCl emissions data, most kilns (both existing and new) would have to install limestone scrubbers in order to comply with the proposed floors for HCl. Scrubbers are expected to reduce HCl emissions by an average of at least 99 percent. Scrubbers added to reduce HCl emissions will also reduce emissions of SO 2 and w ill remove oxidized mercury as well. In examining a beyond
- the
- floor option for HCl, we evaluated the use of a more efficient HCl scrubber . 32 We assumed
a spray chamber scrubber is sufficient to meet the MACT floor,

32 We could identify no other add
- on control options for acid gas removal that would achieve emissions reduction beyond the floor level of control. Other potentials options for reducing HCl emissions would involve changes in raw materials and fuels to lower chlorine
- containing materials. The feasibility of switching raw materials, as discussed elsewhere, would involve site
- specific evaluations for ea ch cement facility and, therefore, cannot be applied uniformly throughout the industry.76

and that scrubber is expected to remove HCl at an efficiency of 99 percent (as just noted) . However, we estimate that a packed
bed scrubber would have removal efficiency greater than a spray chamber due to its increased surface area and opportunity for contact between the scrubbing liquid and the acid gases. We estimated the costs and emission reductions for a 1.2 million tpy kiln as the cost
- effectiveness results would be similar for all kilns. Annual costs for a packed bed scrubber for a 1.2 million tpy kiln would be approximately $2.2 million. Assuming a control efficiency of 99.9 percent, the incremental emission reduction using the beyond
- the
- floor packed
-bed scrubber, that is, the reduction in HCl emissions after initial control by the MACT floor control (a spray ch amber scrubber), would be about 2.4 tpy. At an annual cost of $2.2 million, the cost effectiveness is $929,000 per ton of HCl removed. Adverse n on - air quality impacts, such as energy costs, water impacts, and solid waste impacts would be expected to be similar for both the floor and beyond
- the
- floor level of control . Considering the high co sts, high cost effectiveness and small additional emissions reduction (and adverse cross
media impacts) , we do not believe that a beyon d
- the
- floor standard for HCl is justified. Other Alternatives for HCl standards77

One option to HCl standards that we considered would be to set a standard that used SO 2 as a surrogate for HCl. The reason to allow this option would be that some kilns alre ady have SO 2 controls and monitors. Acid gas controls that remove SO 2 also remove HCl at equal or greater efficiency. However, we are not proposing this option because we have no data to demonstrate a direct link between HCl emissions and SO 2 emissions

– that is , it is unclear that ranking best HCl performers based on SO 2 emissions would in fact identify lowest emitters or best controlled HCl sources. We are requesting comment on the efficacy of using SO 2 as a surrogate for HCl, and data demonstrating that SO 2 is or is not a good surrogate for HCl. We also considered the possibility of proposing a health
based standard for HCl. Section 112(d)(4) allows the Administrator to set a health based standard for a limited set of HAP: “pollutants for which a health threshold has been established”. EPA may consider that threshold, with an ample margin of safety, in establishing standards under section 112 (d). In the 2006 rule, EPA relied on this authority in declining to establish a standard for HCl, finding that no source in the category would emit HCl at levels which would exceed the No Observed Effect Level for HCl with an ample safety margin. 71 FR at 76527
- 29 .78 However, we are not proposing a health
-based standard . This decision is based on the fact that, in addition to the direct effect of reducing HCl emissions, setting a MACT standard for HCl is anticipated to result in a significant amount of control for other pollutants emitted by cement kilns, most notably SO 2 and other acid gases, along with condensable PM, ammonia, and semi
- volatile compounds. For example, the additional reductions of SO 2 alone attributable to the proposed MACT standard for HCl are 1 0 5,000 tpy. 34 These are sub stantial reductions considering the low number of facilities. Although MACT standards may only address HAP, not criteria pollutants, Congress fully expected MACT standards to have the collateral benefit of controlling criteria pollutants as well, and viewed this as an important benefit of the air toxics program. S. Rep. No. 101
- 228 101 st Cong. 1 st sess. at 172. It therefore is appropriate that EPA consider such benefits in determining whether to exercise its discretionary section 112 (d)(4) authority. It should also be noted that the CAA gives EPA the option to create a health
-based standard for threshold pollutants . Generally, without adequate evidence that a pollutant may be a carcinogen (and therefore likely being a non
- threshold pollutant), EPA has assumed there is an effect threshold. For HCl, the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) indicates 34 Summary of Environmenta l and Cost Impacts of Proposed Revisions to Portland Cement NESHAP (40 CFR Part 63, subpart LLL), April 15, 2009.79

that EPA has derived an inhalation reference concentration for HCl of 20 μ g/m3
. L ong - term exposure at or below this level is believed to be without appreciable risk of chronic non - cancer effects. However, HCl h as not been evaluated by the IRIS program to determine its carcinogenicity. Additionally, the International Agency for Research and Cancer (IARC) found HCl not classifiable as a carcinogen to humans due to inadequate evidence in humans and lab animals. 37 We request comment on the evidence necessary to determine whether a HAP, in this case HCl, is or is not a threshold pollutant, and any additional data on the carcinogenicity of HCl, and other information on HCl health and environmental 38 effects we should consi der. Commenters should also address the issue of other environmental benefits which might result from control of HCl at a MACT level, including control of other acid gases and control of secondary PM ( i.e., PM condensing from acid gases). We will conside r these comments in making an ultimate determination as to whether to adopt a health
-based standard for HCl . Finally, we determined that even if we opted to set a health based standard, we would still need to set a numerical

37 (see http://www.inchem.org/documents/iarc/vol54/03

- hydrochloric
- acid.html ). 38 See S. Rep. No. 101
- 228, 101 st Cong. 1 st sess. a t 175 indicating that EPA is to consider environmental effects as well as health effects under section 112 (d)(4).80

emission limit given that secti on 112(d)(4) still requires that an actual emission standard be in place. In order to determine this level, we conducted a risk analysis of 68 facilities using a screening level dispersion model (AERSCREEN). Utilizing site specific stack parameters and worst - case meteorological conditions, AERSCREEN predicted the highest ground level concentration surrounding each facility. The results of this analysis indicated that an emission limit of 23 ppmv or less would result in no exceedances of the NOEL for HCl with a margin of safety . Although, as discussed above, EPA is not proposing a health
-based standard, EPA solicits comment on the level of 23 ppmv (as a not
- to - exceed standard) should EPA decide to pursue the option of a health
-based standard. E . Determination of MACT for PM Emissions from Major and Area Sources Existing and new major sources are pres ently subject to a PM limit of 0.3 lb/ton of feed which is equivalent to 0.5 lb/ton clinker. EPA is proposing to amend this standard, and also is proposing PM standards for existing and new area source cement kilns. In all instances, PM serves as a surrogate for nonvolatile metal HAP (a determination upheld in National Lime Ass’n , 233 F. 3d at 637
- 39). EPA is proposing to revise these limits because they do not appear to represent MACT, but rather a level which is achievable by the bulk of the industry. See 6 381

FR at 14198 . This is not legally permissible. Brick MACT , 479 F. 3d at 880
- 81. We 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 floor . As for the previous floors , we calculated the variances of each kiln and accounted for variability by determining the 99 th percentile UPL as described earlier . The average performance for each of the lowest emitting kilns was generally based on the average of 3 runs which comprise a stack test. Consequently, the variability represents the short term variability at a kiln (e .g., a 3 hour stack test period) and the variability across the 6 lowest emitting kilns. (This analysis is consistent with the way we would propose to determine compliance, i.e., conduct 3 runs to perform a stack test.) For the lowest emitting kiln (whose performance was used to establish the new source floor) , there were only 3 runs with results that were relatively close together, which is inadequate to estimate the kiln’s long term variability . However, we know the 6 lowest emitting kilns are equipped with fabric filters that are similar with respect to performance because they are similar in design and operati on, and the larger dataset provides a much better estimate of the variability associated with a properly operated fabric filter .82

Consequently, for the proposed new source floor, we used the average performance of the lowest emitting kiln and the variability associated with the best fabric filters to assess the best performing kiln’s variability . The emissions for the top six kilns ranged from 0.005 to 0.008 lb/ton clinker. Accounting for variability as described above, we ca lculated an existing source MACT floor of 0.0 85 lb/ton clinker. For new kilns, the limit is based on the best lowest emitting kiln, which has emissions of 0.005 lb/ton clinker. Accounting for variability results in a calculated new source MACT floor of 0.0 80 lb/ton clinker. The PM emissions data are summarized in Tabl e 6 . Table 6 . PM MACT F loor Kiln PM Emissions (lb/ton clinker) 1 0.005 2 0.0075 3 0.0075 4 0.0081 5 0.01 08 6 0.023 2

MACT - Existing Average 0. 010 Variability (t*vT 0.5 ) 0. 0 75 99 th percentile 0. 0 85 MACT - New Average 0.0 05 Variability (t*vT 0.5 ) 0.0 75 99 th percentile 0. 0 80 EPA is also proposing to set a PM standard based on MACT for existing and new area source cement kilns. Portland cement83

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 is proposing that this standard reflect MACT, rather than GACT, because there is no essential difference between area source and major source cement kilns with respect to emissions of either HAP metals or PM. A common control strategy consequently is warranted for these emissions. 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. We thus have included all cement kil ns in the floor calculations for the proposed PM standard, and have developed common PM limits based on MACT for both major and area sources. Consideration of Beyond
- the
- Floor Standards There is very little difference in the proposed floor levels for PM for either new or existing sources, and we believe that a well
-performing baghouse represents the best performance84

for PM. To evaluate beyond
- the
- floor controls , we examined the feasibility of replacing an existing ESP or baghouse with a new baghouse equipped with membrane bags which might result in a slightly better performance for PM (reflected in the modest increment between the proposed floors for new and existing sources) . We estimated the costs and emission reductions for a 1.2 million tpy kiln. The cost - effectiveness results will be similar for all kilns. Under the MACT floor, baseline emissions of 0.34 lb/ton of clinker are reduced to 0.0 85 lb/ton of clinker, a reduction in PM emission of 51 tpy. Further reducing emissions down to the proposed PM limit for new sources would incrementally reduce emissions by an additional 3 tpy. The
annualized cost of a baghouse with membrane bags would be $1.73 million per year, or a cost effectiveness of $576,000/ton of PM (far greater than any PM reduction EPA h as ever considered ach ievable under section 112 (d)(2) or warranted under other provisions of the Act which allow consideration of cost) . Assuming that the metal HAP portion of total PM is 1 percent, the cost effectiveness would be about $58 million per ton of metal HAP. Based on these cost s and the small resulting emission reductions, we believe a PM beyond
- the
- floor standard is not justified for existing sources and not technically feasible for
new sources . Other Standards for PM85

Emissions from fabric filters or ESP are typically measured as a concentration (grains per dry standard cubic feet) and then converted to the desired format using standard conversions (54,000 dry cubic feet per minute of exhaust gas per ton of feed, 1.65 tons of feed per ton of clinker). All of the data used to set the proposed PM emissions limit were converted in that fashion. Therefore, the basis of the proposed PM standard is actually a concentration level. There are certain cases where this conversion must be adjusted, however. Some k ilns and kiln/in

- line raw mills 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) associat ed 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 the case where clinker cooler gas is combined with the kiln exhaust the standard would need to be adjusted to allow for the increased gas flow. If this allowance is not made, then the effective level of the PM standard would be reduced (the result being that the proposed standard would not properly reflect best performin g kilns’ performance, and also discouraging use of a desirab le energy efficiency measure). Therefore, we are proposing that facilities that combine the kiln and clinker cooler gas flows86

prior to the PM control would be allowed to convert the equivalent concentration standards (which are 0.00 67 or 0.00 63 for new and existing sources , respectively) to a lb/ton clinker standard using their combined gas flows (dry standard cubit feet per ton of feed). It should be noted that this provision will not result in any additional PM emissions to the atmosphere compared to the same kiln if it did not combine the clinker cooler and kiln exhaust, and may actually decrease emissions slightly due to improvements in overall process efficiency. In addition to proposing to amend the PM standard for kilns
we are also proposing to similarly amend 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 Standards of Performance for Portland Cement Plants (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. Therefor e, we are proposing as MACT the same PM emissions limits for both clinker coolers and kilns. In sum, because we believe that the costs of a beyond
- the
floor standard for PM are not justified, we are proposing a PM standard for existing kilns and clinker coolers of 0.0 85 lb/ton of clinker, and for new kilns and clinker coolers of 0.0 80 lb/ton of clinker.87

F . Selection of Compliance Provisions For compliance with the mercury emissions standards we are proposing to require CEMS (either instrument based or sorbent trap based). As we have previously noted, we do not believe that short term emission tests provide a good indication of lon g term mercury emissions . We c onsidered the option of measuring and analyzing the raw materials, as was done to gather the data used to develop the proposed standards . However, that data gathering was done b ased on a daily analysis of all inputs to the kiln . If we were to make that the compliance option and require daily analyses, the cost would be comparable to the cost of a mercury monitor. If we were to allow less frequent analyses to r educe costs, then we are concerned that the accuracy may be reduced (and the standard would no longer be implemented in the same manner as it was developed) . In addition, in order to meet the proposed mercury emission limits, we anticipate that many facil ities will install add
- on controls, which will create another variable that would make the measurement of mercury inputs as a surrogate for a continuous stack measurement less accurate. In order to determine an outlet emissions rate based on input measurements, the control device would have to be tested under various operating conditions to insure that the removal efficiency could be accurately calculated, and parametric control device monitoring88

would be required. Given issues related to input monitoring, and the cost associated with control device mo nitoring, plus a desire to implement the standard in a manner matching its means of development , we believe that a continuous mercury measure at the stack is the preferred option, and are proposing that
source s demonstrate compliance with mercury monitors meeting the requirements of PS
- 12A or PS
- 12B. Generally, we propose and promulgate monitoring system performance specifications and performance test methods in accordance with their development, independent of publication of source category emissions control regulations. There are circumstances dictating that we publish such measurement procedures and requirements simultaneously with an emissions regulation because of integral technical relationships and because such a combination is convenient and cost
- effective. Such combined publication also allows commenters to prepare comprehensive comments on not only the performance specifications or test methods but also on their specific applications. In today's notice, we propose to amend 40 CFR part 60, appendix B by adding Performance Specification 12A

– Specifications and Test Procedures For Total Vapor Phase Mercury Continuous Emission Monitoring Sy stems in Stationary Sources and Performance Specification 12B
- Specifications and Test89

Procedures For Monitoring Total Vapor Phase Mercury Emissions from Stationary Sources Using a S orbent Trap Monitoring System. We published versions of these performance specifications with the electric utility mercury MACT rule. On March 14, 2008, the DC Circuit Court issued a mandate to vacate the Clean Air Mercury Rule which included that MACT rule clouding the status of these measurement procedures. We are republishing the performance specifications today to clarify the status of those procedures particularly in their applicability to source categories in addition to coal
- fired electric utilities. In this case, our analyses show that mercury emissions from p ortland cement kilns exhibit most, if not all , of the same physical and chemical characteristics as mercury emissions from coal
- fired electric utilities. Sin ce Performance Specifications 12A and 12B are suitable for use in measurin g emissions from p ortland cement kilns , we also believe that these measurement procedures with minor revision also apply to other sources. We believe that the simultaneous proposal of these performance specifications revised to reflect broad applicability with today's Portland C ement MACT proposal is appropriate. The combined notice of proposals is cost
- effective , and affords commenters the ability to provide comprehensive comments." We are aware that there are currently no cement kilns in the U.S. that have continuous mercury monitors. However, there90

are numerous utility boilers that have certified mercury CEMS . We see no technical basis to say that continuous mercu ry monitors will not work as well on a cement kiln as they do o n a utility boiler. In addition, there are 34 cement kilns that have operating continuous mercury monitors in Germany. 43 For demonstrating compliance with the proposed THC emission s limit we a re propos ing the use o f a CEMS meeting the requirements of PS
- 8A. This requirement already exist s for new kilns. There are existing kiln s that already have THC CEMS , and indeed, EPA used CEMS data from these kilns as the basis for the proposed standards. As previously noted, changes in raw materials can materially affect THC emissions without any obvious indication that emissions have changed. For this
reason , and to be consistent with the means by which EPA developed the proposed standard, we believe (subject to consideration of public comment) a CEMS is necessary to insure continuous compliance. If a source chooses to comply with the alternative organic HAP emissions limit, rather then the THC limit, we are not planning to propose the use of a continuous monitor to directly
measure organic HAP because organic HAP monitors are not

43 Email and attachment. M. Bernicke, Federal Environme nt Agency to A. Linero, Florida Department of Environmental Protection. February 8, 2009.91

available for this application. We are proposing to u se EPA Method 320 to determine the actual organic HAP content of the THC at a specific facility. If Method 320 indicates compliance with the alternative organic HAP standard, then the THC emissions measures using a CEMS would become tha t site’s THC limit (assuming that the THC emissions measured during the testing exceed the MACT floor values of 7 ppmvd for existing sources and 6 ppmvd for new sources). For demonstrating compliance with the proposed PM emissions limit, we are proposing the installation and operation of a bag leak detection system, along with stack testing using method conducted at a frequency of five years. If an ESP is used for PM control an ESP predictive model to monitor the performance of ESP controlling PM emissions from kilns would be required, as well as a stack performance test conducted at a frequency of five years. As an alternative a PM CEMS that meets the requirements of PS
- 11 may be used. We are also proposing to eliminate the current requirement of using an opacity monitor to demonstrate continuous requirement with a PM standard for kilns and clinker coolers . We previously proposed use of bag leak detection systems for PM as part of our review of the Portl and Cement Standards for Performance under section 111 of the Act (73 FR 34072, June 16, 2008). Our rationale for extending the requirement to92

existing kilns is that given the stringent level of the proposed PM emissions limits we do not believe that opacity is an accurate indicator of compliance with the proposed PM emissions limit. In addition, we are removing the opacity standard and opacity continuous monitoring requirements for any source that uses a PM CEMS or bag leak detector to determine compliance with a PM standard. (Some opacity requirements, such as those for materials handling operations, will remain in place). For demonstrating compliance with the HCl emissions limit we are proposing the use of a CEMS that meets the requirements of PS
- 15 if the source does not use a limestone wet scrubber for HCl control. As with mercury and THC, HCl emissions can be significantly a ffected by inputs to the kiln without any visible indications. For this reason we believe that a continuous method of compliance is warranted. If the source uses a limestone wet scrubber for HCl control, we believe that HCl emissions will be minimal even if kiln inputs change because limestone wet scrubbers are highly efficient in removing HCl. For this reason we are proposing to require sources using a limestone wet scrubber to perform an initial compliance test using EPA Test Method 321, and to test every 5 years thereafter. These EPA Test Method 321 testing requirements would also apply to sources using CEMS . In addition, for sources with in
- line raw mills that are not us ing a wet scrubber for HCl control, we93

are proposing to require testing with raw mill on and raw mill off. Our review of the available data where a kiln was tested with raw mill on/raw mill off indicated that the change in raw mill operating conditio ns ha d a significant influence in HCl emissions. We are specifically requesting comment on our assumption that a wet scrubber will consistently maintain a low level of HCl emissions, even if feed conditions change, and thus it is appropriate to use a s hort term performance test rather then a continuous monitor for kilns that install wet scrubbers. One option we considered would be to require SO 2 monitoring in lieu of HCl monitoring. The reason to allow this option would be that some kilns already have SO 2 monitors, and this monitoring technology is le s s expensive and more mature than HCl monitors. If a source is using a wet scrubber for HCl control, then indication that the scrubber is removing SO 2 are also a positive indication s that HCl is being removed. However, we are not proposing this because we have no data to demonstrate a di rect link between HCl emission s and SO 2 emissions. For example, if a source has a scrubber
- equipped kiln and note s an SO 2 emissions increase, is the increase due to a drop off in scrubber performance or to an increase in sulfur compounds in the raw materials? If it is simply a change in raw materials sulfur conten t , the n the change may have no relevance to HCl emissions. If the SO 2 emission increas e is due to a reduction in94

scrubber efficiency, then the change in SO 2 emission might mean that HCl emission have changed. We are requesting comment on the efficacy of using SO 2 as a surrogate for HCl for purposes of monitoring compliance , and data demon strating whether SO 2 is a good surrogate for HCl for this purpose . On e issue in using a CEMS to measure compliance with these proposed standards is whether the use of a continuous monitor result s in an increase in the stringency of the standard, if that standard was developed based on short term emissions tests or other data and is a not
- to - exceed standard. Mercury data
were obtained f rom thirty daily samples of fuel and raw materials plus statistical techniques to account for further variability in inputs, operation, and measurement . The proposed hydrogen chloride emissions limit were derived using statistical techniques to account for variability i n components such as fuel and raw material, process operation, and measurement procedures. The proposal would require direct, continuous measurement of mercury and, for those facilities not using a wet scrubber as a control device , hydrogen chloride. Compli ance with these emissions limit s for these facilities is determined by assessing the thirty day average emissions with the appropriate emissions limit. With respect to mercury, as explained in section above, not only do continuous monit oring and 30
- day averaging accord well with the means used to gather these underlying data,95

but continuous monitoring and 30
- day averaging are needed because cement kilns do not emit mercury in relatively equal amounts day
-by
- day but, due to the mill
- on/mi ll
- off phenomenon, in varying small and large amounts. With respect to hydrogen chloride, u se of a thirty day average provides a way to account for the potential short term variability inherent in values obtained from continuous data collection and analys is , so that CEM-based compliance, in combination with 30
- day averaging, does not make the proposed standard more stringent than a not
- to exceed standard based on stack testing. Therefore, subject to consideration of public comment, we believe the use of
co ntinuous monitoring techniques for mercury and HCl, in combination with 30
- day averaging times, is appropriate. G . Selection of Compliance Dates For existing sources we are proposing a compliance date of 3 years after the promulgation of the new emission limits for mercury, THC, PM, and HCl ta ke effect. This is the maximum time period allowed by law. See section 112(i)(3)(A). We believe a 3 year compliance period is justified because most facilities will have to install emissions control devices (and in some
case s multiple devices) to comply with the proposed emissions limits. In the December 2006 rule amendments we included operating requirements relating to the amount of cement kiln dust wasted96

versus dust recycled, and also a requirement that the source certify that any f ly ash used as a raw material did not come f rom a boiler using sorbent to remove mercury f rom the boiler’s exhaust. The removal of these requirements would take effect once the affected source is required to comply with a numerical mercury limit. For new source s, the compliance dat e will be the date of publication of the final rule or startup, whichever is late r. In determining the proposal date that determines if a source is existing or new , we are retaining the date of December 5, 2005 for HCl , THC , and mercury , i.e., any source that commenced construction after December 5, 2005 , is a new source for purposes of the emission standards changed in these amendments. For PM , we are proposing that the date that determines if a source is existing or new will be [ INSERT THE DATE OF PUBLICTION OF THESE AMENDMENTS IN THE FEDERAL REGIATER]. In proposing this determination, we considered three possible dates, including March 24, 1998; December 5, 2005; and the proposal date of these amendments. 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 proposes97

standards for the source category as a whole, or could refer to the date the agency first proposes standards under a particular rulemaking record. 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). We believe that the section 112 (a)(4) definition can be read to apply pollutant
-by
-pollutant, and that the provision applies to the rulemaking record under which a standard is developed. The evident intent of the definition plus the
substantive new source provisions is that it is technically more challenging and potentially more costly to retrofit a control system to an existing source than to incorporate controls when a source is initially designed. Consequently, new source standards should apply to sources which are being newly constructed or reconstructed in fact. See 71 FR at 76540
- 541. If, for example , we were t o choose March 24, 1998, as the date to delineate existing versus new sources, then numerous kilns that would be required to meet new source standards would have to retrofit controls that they could not have reasonably anticipated at the time the source wa s originally designed. 46

46 Two other provisions of the Act are pertinent here as well. Section 112(i ) (1) requires preconstruction review for, among98

We also considered selecting the proposal date of these amendments as the date that delineates new and existing sources but, for HAP other than PM, rejected that option. The mercury and THC standards being proposed here arise out o f the rulemaking proposed on December 5, 2007. This notice is issued in response to petitions for reconsideration of the standards from that rulemaking. The proposed standard for HCl likewise arises out of the December 2007 rulemaking and its reconsideration, and EPA proposed standards for HCl in that rulemaking. See 70 FR at 72335
- 37. Thus, it is reasonable to view the December 2005 proposal as the date on which EPA first proposed standards for HCl as pa rt of this rulemaking. For PM, the choices are the 1998 date on which EPA proposed PM standards, or the date of this proposal (the first date EPA proposed revision to the PM standard, based on a new rulemaking other sources, all new sources subject to a new source standard. Such preconstruction review would be impossible if new sources incl uded sources which began operation pursuant to an historic new source standard, which standard was later amended. Such a source would, of course, have already been operating. In addition, section 111(a)(2) defines “new source” as a stationary source “the construction or reconstruction of which is commenced after the publication of regulations (or, if earlier, proposed regulations” prescribing a standard of performance under this section”. Such standard must be reviewed periodically at least every 8 years . EPA’s longstanding interpretation of this provision is that only sources commencing construction (or which are reconstructed) after the date of a revised new source performance standard would be subject to that revised standard. There seems no evident reason to interpret the section 112 (a)(4) definition differently from the section 111(a)(2) definition.99

record). Subject to consideration of public comment, we believe the appropriate date is the date of this proposal. See 71 FR at 76540
- 41 (applying new source standards to sources which began operation many years in the past is inconsistent with idea that new source standards may be more stringent because they can be implemented at time of initial design of the source, thus avoiding retrofit expense). We are establishing a compliance date for the THC emissions limit for new sources as December 21, 2009 or the effective date of these amendments, whichever is later. A new s ource which commenced construction after December 2, 2005 and before December 20, 2006 would have three years f rom the date of publication of the final amendments to comply. See section 112(i)(2). H. Discussion of EPA’s Sector Based Approach for Cement Manufacturing What is a Sector -Based Approach? Sector -based approaches are based on integrated assessments that consider multiple pollutants in a comprehensive and coordinate manner to mana ge emissions and CAA requirements. One of the many ways we can address sector
-based approaches is by reviewing multiple regulatory programs together whenever possible. This approach essentially expands the technical analyses on costs and benefits of particular technologies, to100

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 all pollutant types

– criteria, toxics and others
- - 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. Portland Cement Sector -Based Approach Multiple regulatory requirements currently apply to the cement industry sector. 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 p ortland cement facilities. The requirements analyzed affect HAP and/or criteria pollutant emissions from cement kilns and cover the NESHAP reconsideration, area source NESHAP, NESHAP technology review and residual r isk, and the New Source Performance Standard (NSPS) revision. The results of our analyses are described below. The first relationship is the interaction between the NESHAP THC standard and the co
-benefits for VOC and carbon monoxide (CO) control. The THC limit for new sources in the1 01

NESHAP will also control VOC and CO to the limit of technical feasibility. For this reason the proposed NSPS relies on the THC NESHAP limit for new sources to represent best demonstrated technology (BDT) for VOC and CO for th is source category. See 73 FR 34082. Another interaction relates to the more stringent PM emission limit being proposed under the NESHAP reconsideration. As noted, there is a legal requirement to regulate listed urban HAP metals from area source cement kilns under section 112(c)(3), and we are proposing PM standards for area source cement kilns pursuant to that obligation. 47 In addition, we are required under CAA section 112(f) to evaluate the residual risk for toxic air pollutants emitted by this source category and to perform a technology review for this source category under section 112(d)(6). Revisions to the PM standard for new and existing major sources under the NESHAP will maximize environmental benefits due to the achievement of greater PM emissi on reductions and will also reduce the possibility for additional control requirements as we consider the implication these revisions have in developing future requirements under residual risk and technology review increasing certainty to this sector.

47 Memo from K. Barnett, EPA to Sharon Nizich, EPA. Extension of Portland Cement NESHAP PM limits to Area Sources. May 2008.102

T o reduce conflicting and redundant requirements for the cement industry regarding the control of PM emissions, EPA is proposing to place language in both the NESHAP and the NSPS making it clear that if a particular source has two different requirements for the same pollutant, they are to comply with the most stringent emission limit, and are not subject to the less stringent limit. Another issue being addressed as part of our cement sector strategy is condensable PM. Particulate emissions consist of both a filterable fraction and a condensable fraction. The condensable fraction exists as a gas in an exhaust stream and condenses to form particulate once the gas enters the ambient air. In this rulemaking, AP
- 42 emission factors were used to calculate emiss ion reductions of PM2.5 fil terable due to the PM standard. 48 There are insufficient data to assess if the cement industry is a significant source of condensable PM. The measurement of condensable PM is important to EPA's goal of reducing ambient air concen trations of PM2.5 . While the Agency supports reducing condensable PM emissions, the amount of condensable PM captured by Method 5 (the PM compliance test method specified in the NSPS) is small relative to methods that specifically target condensable PM, s uch as Method 202 (40 CFR

48 AP 42, Fifth Edition, Volume I Chapter 11: Mineral Products Industry. Section 11.6 January 1995 p. 11.6
- 15103

part 51, Appendix M). Since promulgation of Method 202 in 1991, EPA has been working to overcome problems associated with the accuracy of Method 202 and plans to promulgate improvements in the future. In order to assist in future sector strategy development, we are conside ring any data available on the levels of condensable PM emitted by the cement industry; any condensable PM emission test data collected using EPA Conditional Method 39, EPA Method 202 (40 CFR part 51, Appendix M), or their equivalent, factors affecting tho se condensable PM emissions, and potential controls. Another benefit of evaluating regulator y requirements across pollutants in the context of a sector approach is addressing the relationship between the regulatory requirements for SO 2 , mercury, and HCl emissions. Although SO 2 emission reductions would be required in the proposed NSPS, mercury and HCl emissions reduction are required in the Portland Cement NESHAP reconsideration. The integrated analysis of these regulatory requirements showed that alkaline wet scrubbers achieve emission reductions for SO 2 , mercury, and HCl from cement kilns. Th is control technology maximizes the co
-benefits of emission reductions while minimizing cost. For example, a new facility that under the NSPS determines a moderate level of SO 2 reduction might consider using a lime injection system because it is lower cost . However, if the same facility would have to104

use some type of add
- on control to meet the NESHAP new source mercury and/or HCl emission limits, instead of considering each standard in isolation, would determine that the cheapest overall alternative might be to use a wet scrubber for controlling SO 2 , mercury, and/or HCl. By coordinating requirements at the same time, the facility can determine which control technology minimizes the overall cost of air pollution control and can avoid stranded costs associated with piecemeal investments in individual control equipment for SO 2 , mercury, and/or HCl. The integrated sector
-based analysis for the cement industry also showed that SO 2 emission reductions from existing sources are possible as co
-ben efits if wet scrubbers are employed to control either mercury and/or HCl from existing sources under the NESHAP. We evaluated the co
-benefits of the use of wet scrubbers in reducing SO 2 and the effects on PM2.5 and PM2.5 nonattainment areas (NAA), including the co
-benefits of reducing SO 2 in mandatory Federal Class I areas (Class I areas) 50
. Another interaction addressed in the context of the sector approach is monitoring requirements. To ensure that our sector

50 Areas designated as mandatory Class I Federal areas are those national parks exceeding 6000 acres, wilderness areas and national memorial parks exceeding 5000 acres, and all international parks which were in existence on August 7, 1977. Visibility has been identified as an important value in 156 of these areas. See 40 CFR part 81, subpart D.105

strategy reduces administrative and compliance complexities associated with complying with multiple regulations, our rulemaking recognizes that where monitoring is required, methods and reporting requirements should be consistent in the NSPS and NESHAP where the po llutants and emission sources have similar characteristics. New Source Review and the Cement Sector -based Approach The proposed MACT requirements for cement facilities have a potential to result in emissions reductions of air pollutants that are regulate d under the CAA’s major new source review (NSR) program. Specifically, operating a wet scrubber to meet MACT requiremen ts for mercury and/or HCl at a p ortland cement plant has the added environmental benefit of reducing large amounts of SO 2 , a regulated N SR pollutant. For a typical wet scrubber, with a 90 percent removal efficiency for SO 2 , this could result in an annual reduction of thousands of tons of SO 2 from an uncontrolled kiln (reduction will vary greatly depending on the type and age of the kiln, sulfur content of feed materials, and fuel type). These collateral SO 2 and other criteria pollutant emissions reductions resulting from the application of MACT may be considered for “netting” and “offsets” purposes under the major NSR program. The term “ netting” refers to the process of considering certain previous and prospective emissions changes at an106

existing major source over a contemporaneous period to determine if a “net emissions increase” will result from a proposed modification. If the “net emi ssions increase” is significant, then major NSR applies. Section 173(a)(1)(A) of the Act requires that a major source or major modification planned in a nonattainment area obtain emissions offsets as a condition for approval. These offsets are generally obtained from existing sources located in the vicinity of the proposed source and must offset the emissions increase from the new source or modification and provide a net air quality benefit. An emissions reduction must be “surplus,” among other things, to be creditable for NSR netting and offset purposes. Typically emission reduction required by the CAA are not considered surplus. For example, emissions reductions already required by an NSPS, or those that are relied upon in a State implementation plan (SIP) for criteria pollutant attainment purposes (e.g., Reasonable Available Control Technology, reasonable further progress, or an attainment demonstration), are not creditable for NSR offsets (or netting) since thi s would be “double counting” of the re ductions. Also, any emissions reductions already counted in previous major modification “netting” may not be used as offsets. However, emissions reductions that are in excess of, or incidental to the MACT standards, are not precluded from being surplus even though they107

result from compliance with a CAA requirement. Therefore, provided such reductions are not being double counted, they may qualify as surplus and can either be used either as netting credits at the source or be sold as emissions offsets to o ther sources in the same non
- attainment area provided the reductions meet all other otherwise applicable CAA requirements for being a creditable emission reduction for use as an offset or for netting purposes. Since SO 2 is presumed a PM2.5 precursor in a ll p revention of
s ignificant deterioration and nonattainment areas unless a state specifically demonstrates that it is not a precursor, SO 2 may be used as a emission reduction credit for either SO 2 or PM2.5 , at an offset ratio is 40
- to - 1 (40 tons of SO 2 to 1 ton of PM2.5 ) See 72 FR 28321
- 28350 (May 16, 2008). Given that many states have concerns over a lack of direct PM2.5 emissions offsets for areas that are designated nonattainment for PM2.5 , cement plants that generate creditable reductions of SO 2 from applying MACT controls may realize a financial benefit if they can sell the emissions credits as SO 2 and/or PM2.5 offsets. While it is difficult to quantify the exact financial benefit, since offset prices are market driven and vary widely the U.S . , we know that prices for PM2.5 emissions credits can reach $40,000 in some nonattainment areas, and may still be higher in others. For the sake of approximation, using108

$20,000 for an average price per ton of a PM2.5 offset, a cement plant that creates a 2,000 tons per year reduction in SO 2 can potentially sell the emissions credits for as much as $1,000,000 per year (i.e., 2000 tpy ÷ 40_ratio × $20,000/ton), as long as the reductions are creditable and surplus. National Ambient Air Quality Standards Po rtland cement kilns emit several pollutants regulated under the NAAQS, including PM2.5 , SO 2 , NO x , and precursors to ozone. In addition, several pollutants emitted from cement kilns are transformed in the atmosphere into PM2.5 , including SO 2 , NO x , and VOC. Emissions of NO x and VOC are also precursors to ozone. Thus, implementation of the Cement NESHAP, which could lead to substantial reductions in criteria pollutants and precursor emissions as co
-benefits, could help areas around the country attain the NAAQS. Screening analyses showed that 23 cement facilities were located in 24hr PM2.5 NAA and 39 facilities in Ozone NAA. Control strategies for reducing emissions of THC, mercury, HCl, and PM from cement plants under the Cement NESHAP have the co
bene fits of reducing SO 2 and direct PM2.5 emissions. These co
benefits could provide states with emission reductions for areas required to have attainment plans. Regional Haze, Reasonable Progress, and the Cement Sector -based Strategy109

The Cement NESHAP can a lso have an impact on regional haze. Under section 169A of the CAA, States must develop SIPs to address regional haze. The purpose of the regional haze program is the prevention of any future, and the remedying of any existing, impairment of visibility i n mandatory Class I areas which impairment results from manmade air pollution Under the regional haze regulations, the first Regional Haze SIPs were due in December , 2007 (40 CFR 51.308(b)); these SIP submittals must address several key elements, including Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART), Reasonable Progress, and long
- term strategies. Screening analyses showed that there are 14 cement facilities within a distance of 50 km Class 1 Areas. A potential benefit for cement facilities utilizing wet scrubbers to comply with this rule is a level of certainty for satisfying a facility’s BART requirements for SO 2 under the regional haze program. This rule may establish a framework for States to include certain control measures or other requirements in their regional haze SIPs where such a program would be “better than BART.” A facility must comply with BART as expeditiously as practicable but no later than 5 years after the regional haze SIP is approved. A state may be able to rely on this rule to sati sfy the BART requirements for a NESHAP affected source utilizing a wet scrubber if (1) the compliance date for a source subject to this NESHAP falls within the BART compliance110

timeframe, (2) the proposed controls are more cost effective than the controls that would constitute BART, and (3) the visibility benefits of the controls are at least as effective as BART. States may also allow sources to “average” emissions across any set of BART
- eligible emissions units within a fence
- line, provided the emissions reductions from each pollutant being controlled for BART are equal to those reductions that would be obtained by simply controlling each of the BART
- eligible units that constitute the BART
- eligible source (40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)). This averaging technique may also be advantageous to cement facilities subject to this NESHAP that also have BART
- subject
sources. Under the regional haze rule, States may develop an alternative “better than BART” program in lieu of source
-by
source BART. The alternative program mu st achieve greater reasonable progress than BART would toward the national visibility goal. The alternative program may allow more time for compliance than source
-by
- source BART would have allowed. Any reductions relied on for a better than BART analysis must be surplus as of the baseline year the State relies on for purposes of developing its regional haze SIP (i.e., 2002) and can include111

reductions from non
- BART and BART sources. 51 Visibility analyses must verify that the alternative program, on average , gets greater visibility improvement than BART and that no degradation in visibility on the best days occurs (40 CFR 51.308(e)(3)). EPA believes that emissions units at cement sources found to be subject to BART and that will be required to install contr ols or otherwise achieve emissions reductions per the regional haze regulations can benefit from this Cement NESHAP to potentially satisfy the regional haze requirements. EPA will need to demonstrate that the implementation of the cement NESHAP will resul t in SO 2 emissions reductions and related visibility improvements that are greater than reductions achieved through the application of BART controls. If EPA demonstrates that the SO 2 emissions reductions and visibility and air quality improvements resulti ng from the rule are better than BART, this demonstration, when incorporated into the Regional Haze SIP, is anticipated to fulfill federal regulatory requirements associated with BART requirements for cement facilities. Additionally, the level of control achieved through the Cement NESHAP may contribute toward, and possibly achieve, the visibility improvements needed to satisfy the reasonable

51November 18, 2002 memo from EPA’s Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards entitled “2002 Base Year Emission Inventory SIP Planning: 8
- hr Ozone, PM2.5, and Regional Haze Programs."112

progress requirements of the regional haze rule for cement facilities through the first Regional Haze pl anning period. States can submit the relevant regional haze SIP amendments once this rule becomes final. Health Benefits of Reducing Emissions from Portland Cement Kilns Implementation of the Cement NESHAP, which could lead to substantial reductions in PM2.5 , SO 2 , and toxic air pollutants, could reduce numerous health effects. Section VI. J of this preamble provides a summary of the monetized human health benefits of this proposed regulation based on the Regulatory Impact Analysis available in this docket that includes more detail regarding the costs and benefits of this proposed regulation. As mentioned before, p ortland cement kilns emit several pollutants with known human health effects, including PM2.5 , SO 2 , NO x , and precursors to ozone. Exposure to PM2.5 is associated with significant respiratory and cardiac health eff ects, such as premature mortality, chronic bronchitis, nonfatal heart attacks, hospital admissions, emergency department visits, asthma attacks, and work loss days. USEPA, Air Quality Criteria for Particulate matter, chapter 9.2 (October 2004). Exposure to SO 2 and NO x is associated with increased respiratory effects, including asthma attacks, hospital admissions, and emergency department visits. Exposure to ozone is associated with113

significant respiratory health effects, such as premature mortality, hosp ital admissions, emergency department visits, acute respiratory symptoms, school loss days. In addition, p ortland cement kilns emit toxic air pollutants, including mercury and HCl. Exposure to high levels of mercury is associated with central nervous s ystem damage, kidney damage, blindness, deafness, speech difficulties, and developmental effects. Acute inhalation exposure to hydrochloric acid is associated with irritation of mucous membranes, inflammation, and fluid accumulation in the lungs. We wel come comments and suggestions related the interactions of this proposed NESHAP and other regulatory requirements in the context of the sector
-based considerations described above. I . Other Changes and Area s Where We are Requesting C omment Startup, Shutdown and Malfunction . The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit recently vacated EPA ’s rules exempting major sources from otherwise applicable emission standards during periods of startup, shutdown and malfunction. Sierra Club v. EPA , F.3d (2008). A consequence is that EPA must develop section 112(d) standards for these operating conditions for previously
- exempted major sources. Portland cement kilns are among these previously
- exempted source categories. For purposes of this proposed rule, this means that that these114

sources must now either meet generally applicable emission standards at all times, or EPA must develop section 112 (d) standards for cement kilns when operating under startup, shutdown or malfunction conditions. E PA is not now at a point where it can propose quantitative standards for cement kilns operating in startup, shutdown and malfunction modes. Accordingly, the Agency solicits comment, including available data, addressing this issue. In addition, there is likely to be a difference in standards depending on which of the modes is at issue. Startup and shutdown are both somewhat controlled operating modes for cement kilns (although occurring over different time periods) , though we believe that shutdowns can vary (planned or emergency) and startups can be from a cold or a hot kiln . Malfuncti on conditions are (by definition) unanticipated occurrences for which control strategies are mainly r eactive. EPA thus requests that commenters differentiate among the five operating modes in addressing this issue. EPA notes further that it may notice data receive d on this issue for further public comment as part of this rulemaking. Data used to set existing source floors. The emissions standards included in the proposed rule were calculated using the emissions information available to the Administrator, in accordance with EPA’s interpretation of the requirements of115

section 112(d)(3) of the Act . In developing this proposed rule,
we specifically sought data from as many kiln s as possible given the time constraints when we began ou r data collection process. Given that there are 152 kilns in this sour ce category, the 12 percent representing the best performing kilns would be 19 kilns. However, in some cases we have emission data from as few
as 12 cement kilns , which means that existing source floors were proposed using as few as 2 kilns (although we are soliciting comment on an alternative interpretation that would allow EPA to base floors on a minimum of five sources’ performance in all instances where those data exist. EPA knows that more emissions information from other kilns, both with and without similar process and control characteristics , would lead to a better characterization of emissions from the entire population of cement kilns, as well as a better description of intra
- source, inter
- source, and test method variability, and that statistical techniques can be employed to provide the expected distributio n of emissions for the cement kiln population . E PA thus requests commenters to provide additional emissions information on cement kilns ’ performance. HCl Test Data and Methods. In some instances, the emissions standards included in the proposed rule were calculated using emissions information provided to EPA that appears to be below detection levels established more than 15116

years ago. More specifically, Method 321 identifies a practical lower quantification range for hydrogen chloride from 1000 to 5000 parts per billion for a specific path length and test conditions. Many of the best performing sources with respect to HCl emissions report both values and detection levels below 1000 parts per billion. While it is not surprising that detection levels should decrease as improvements in analytical methods occur over time, EPA does not have the emissions information and other data necessary to assess independently the new, lower detection levels, some as low as 20 parts per billion. Without additional data or detection limit calculations, EPA could maintain the old detection limit, accept the source
provided limit, or modify the source
-provided limit to an expected new acceptable level. Selection of an appropriate detection limit is no trivial matter, as the detection limit could impact how the available data would be used in average emissions calculations. EPA could choose not to use any data below the detection limit in calculations. EPA could als o choose to set all data below the detection limit at a value corresponding to one
- half the detection limit for average calculation purposes, reasoning that any amount of emissions between zero and the detection limit could occur when the detection limit i s recorded. Indeed, this approach, setting all data below the detection limit at a value corresponding to one
-117

half the detection limit, was chosen by the sources that provided emissions information to EPA. EPA could also set all data below the detection limit at a value corresponding to the detection limit, or to zero, for average calculation purposes. Finally, EPA could apply statistical techniques to available emissions information both above and below the detection limit to provide the expected distribution of HCl emissions for the cement kiln population. A further issue, with any of these possible approaches, would be to assess sources’ operating variability. EPA based the HCl emissions limitations contained in the proposal using the source
-provided detection limits and setting all data below the detection limit at a value corresponding to
one - half the detection limit for average calculation purposes. This approach is consistent with the emissions information supplied by sources to EPA. See also Rybachek v. EPA , 904 F. 2d 1276, 1296 (9 th Cir. 1990)(upholding use of this approach in setting technology
-based Clean Water Act effluent limitation guideline standards). Should EPA receive additional emissions information sufficient to calculate detection limits from already
- received data or emissions information including detection limit calculations from other sources, EPA would be able to ascertain and revise, if necess ary, the new detection limits and to calculate a different HCl standard .118

EPA requests additional HCl emissions information, including such information as needed to calculate detection limits, as well as detection limit calculations. Moreover, EPA requests comments on which way , if any, to set the emission detection limit and to handle emissions informat ion below the detection limit are suitable for use in this pro ceeding. For those commenters who believe EPA’s proposed emission detection limit and process to handle values below the detection limit may not be suitable, EPA requests commenters to provide their views of acceptable detection limits and processes that use values below the detection limits to calculate averages, as well as examples of sample calculations using those processes. We are also requesti ng comment on the same issues relating to the use of a CEMS meeting the requirements of PS
- 15 to measure HCl emissions. Submission of Emissions Test Results to EPA. Compliance test data are necessary for many purposes including compliance determinations, development of emission factors, and determining annual emission rates . EPA has found it burdensome and time consuming to collect emi ssion test data because of varied locations for data storage and varied data storage methods . One improvement that has occurred in recent years is the availability of stack test reports in electronic format as a replacement for burdensome paper copies .119

In this action, we are taking a step to improve data accessibility for stack tests ( and in the future continuous monitoring data ) . Portland c ement sources will have the option of submitting to WebFIRE ( an EPA electronic data base ) , an electronic copy o f annual stack test as well as process data . Data ent ry requires only access to the I nternet and is expected to be completed by the stack testing company as part of the work that they are contracted to perform. This option would become available as of December 31, 2011. Please note that the proposed option to submit source test data electronically to EPA would not require any additional performance testing. In addition, when a facility e lects to submit performance test data to WebFIRE, there would be no additional requirements for data compilation; instead, we believe industry would greatly benefit from improved emissions factors, fewer information requests, and better regulation development as discussed below. Because the information that would be reported is already required in the existing test methods and is necessary to evaluate the conformance to the test method, facilities would already be collecting and compiling these dat a. One major advantage of electing to submit source test data through the Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT), which was developed with input from stack testing companies (who already collect and compile performance test data electronically), is120

that it would provide a standardized method to compile and store all the documentation required by this proposed rule. Another important benefit of submitting these data to EPA at the time the source test is conducted is that it will substantially reduce the effort involved in data collection activities in the future. Specifically, because EPA would already have adequate source category data to conduct residual risk assessments or technology reviews, there would be fewer data collection requ ests (e.g., s ectio n 114 letters). This results in a reduced burden on both affected facilities (in terms of reduced manpower to respond to data collection requests) and EPA (in terms of preparing and distributing data collection requests). Finally, another benefit of elec ting to submit these data to WebFIRE electronically is that these data will greatly improve the overall quality of the existing and new emissions factors by supplementing the pool of emissions test data upon which the emission factor is based and by ensuring that data are more representative of current industry operational procedures. A common complaint we hear from industry and regulators is that emissions factors are out
- dated or not representative of a particular source category. Re ceiving most performance test results would ensure that emissions factors are updated and more accurate. In summary, receiving these test data already collected for other purposes and using them in the emissions121

factors development program will save industry, S tate/local/tribal agencies, and EPA time and money. As mentioned earlier, the electronic data base that will be used is EPA’s WebFIRE, which is a Web site accessible through EPA’s TTN. The WebFIRE Web site was constructed to store emissions test data for use in developing emission factors. A description of the WebFIRE data base can be found at http://cfpub.epa.gov/ oarweb/index.cfm?action=fire.main . The ERT will be able to transmit the electronic report through EPA’s Central Data Exchange (CDX) network for storage in the WebFIRE data base. Although ERT is not the only electronic interface that can be used to submit source test data to the CDX for entry into WebFIRE, it makes submittal of data very straightforward and easy. A description of the ERT can be found at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/ ert

_ tool.html . The ERT can be used to document the conduct of stack tests data for various pollutants including PM (EPA Method 5 of appendix A

– 3), Mercury (EPA Method 29 of appendix A

– 8), and HCl (EPA Method 321 of appendix A

– 8). Presently, the ERT does not handle di oxin/furan stack test data (EPA Method 23 of appendix A

– 7), but the tool is b eing upgraded to handle dioxin/ furan stack test data. The ERT does not currently accept opacity data or CEMS data. EPA specifically requests comment on the utility of this elec tronic reporting option and the burden that owners and122

operators of portland cement facilities estimate would be associated with this option. Definition of affected source . In the final amendments published on December 20, 2006 , we indicated that we were changing paragraph (c) in § 63.1340 to clarify that crushe rs were part of the affected source for this rule (71 FR 76532). However, we omitted the rule language changes to that paragraph. This language has been added to this pr oposed rule. V. Summary of Comments and Responses on Notice of Reconsideration and EPA Final Action in Response to Remand This section presents a summary of comments received on the final action published on December 20, 2006. We are not responding to these comments in this proposed action. We will provide responses to these comments, and other comments received on these proposed amendments, when we take final action on this proposal. A. Petition to Withdraw Final Standards Commment: One commenter petitioned EPA to withdraw the new source standards for mercury and THC, as well as the provision in § 63.1344(i) concerning the allowable CKD recycle rate because of procedural defects and the lack of record support. Several commenters agree that EPA should withdraw the standards for the same reasons given in the petition.123

The commenter stated that the proposed rule was silent on the possibility of issuing a new source standard for mercury based on a wet scrubber, a new source standard for T HC based on an RTO, and the operating limit for new and reconstructed kilns in § 63.1344(i). EPA violated CAA section 307(d)(3) and (d)(5) by not proposing these requirements and not providing an opportunity for comment. The commenter also alleged that
comments filed by the public did not lead EPA to the positions taken in the final rule. Therefore, EPA cannot argue that the final standards represent a “logical outgrowth” of the proposal. EPA application of the reconsideration process does not cure thes e defects. EPA lacks authority to initiate reconsideration on its own through CAA section 307(d)(7)(B); this provision clearly is designed for a process in response to request by another person. There appears to be no precedent for this action and EPA di d not cite any precedent. The commenter also argued that the standards lack record support and are therefore arbitrary and capricious under CAA section 307(d)(9)(A). EPA conceded in the final rule and notice of reconsideration that it was unclear whether the new source standards for mercury and THC are “achievable” or appropriate (see pages 12
- 14). For the provision concerning the CKD recycle rate, EPA provided no explanation as to whether it was possible to continually “not exceed the average hourly CKD recycle rate124

during mercury performance testing” or whether any cement kiln has achieved this result in practice. Because EPA did not point to any “best controlled” existing source that has achieved such a recycle rate, the provision violates the MACT floor requirements for new sources in CAA section 112(d)(3). EPA in effect promulgated a beyond the floor standard without considering the required criteria (including costs) in CAA section 112(d)(2). EPA also did not demonstrate that the requirement is achievable, did not provide a “statement of basis and purpose” for the requirement, or an explanation of the reasons for changes from the proposal in this regard, as required by CAA section 307(d)(6)(A). According to the commenter, EPA’s promulgation of these standards, coupled with the notice for reconsideration, has created significant uncertainty and will require construction delays until the issues are resolved or installation of the technologies regardless of whether they are necessary; either will result in financial harm to several companies. B. Petition to Reconsider Final Standards One commenter petitioned EPA to reconsider the work practice standards for mercury and THC, the decision not to set standards for HCl, and the decisions not to set beyond
- the
- floor standards for mercury and THC.125

Comment : The commenter argued that the work practice standards for mercury and THC are unlawful. The D.C. Circuit Court remanded the cement kiln rule with instructions to set MACT floor standards fo r HCl, mercury, and THC. However, EPA set work practice standards instead of emission standards. The commenter asserted that the work practice standards are not and do not purport to be emission standards. The CAA makes it entirely clear that for the pu rpose of section 112, a work practice standard is not an emission standard. Section 112(h) provides that “if it is not feasible ... to prescribe or enforce an emission standard for the control of a hazardous air pollutant or pollutants, the agency may in lieu thereof, promulgate a design, equipment, work practice, or operational standard . . .” The clarity of section 112 on this point is not diminished by section 302(k)’s definition of “emission standard” to include a work practice standard. Section 112( h) is the more specific provision with respect to section 112 standards. Reading “emission standard” to include work practice standards would nullify the distinction that section 112(h) draws between the two, and essentially render section 112(h) meaningl ess and surplus. Because the only requirements EPA established for emissions of mercury and THC from existing kilns are work practice standards rather than emission standards, the final rule violates National Lime’s mandate to set emission standards.126

The commenter also argues that the work practice standards, if they could be viewed as emission standards, do not satisfy the MACT floor requirements in section 112(d)(3); EPA did not purport the work practices reflect the relevant best sources’ emission leve ls or the best performing 12 percent of kilns, which EPA has never identified. The commenter also stated that the work practices do not satisfy section 112(h) because EPA did not claim that was not feasible to prescribe or enforce an emission standard for either pollutant. EPA could not make this claim because both pollutants are emitted from kiln stacks and it is technologically or economically impractical to measure the emissions. Comment : The commenter alleges that EPA’s refusal to set any emission standards for HCl is unlawful. The commenter claimed that section 112(d)(4), which EPA cited as its authority for declining to set emission standards for HCl, does not excuse EPA from setting standards for a pollutant but merely provides that it is there as an established health threshold for a pollutant, EPA may consider that threshold, with an ample margin of safety when establishing emission standards. According to the commenter, EPA confirmed that it did not know whether or not HCl causes cancer. Because EPA does not know whether HCl is carcinogenic, EPA has not identified a health threshold below which HCl does not cause cancer. Therefore, EPA can not invoke127

section 112(d)(4) with respect to HCl. The commenter also stated that EPA’s attempts to rely on its statements about HCl in previous rules are unfounded. The 1998 rule on which EPA primarily relies classified HCl as a Group D pollutant (one for which EPA lacks data about carcinogenicity) . Classification of a pollutant in Group D merely underscores that EPA cannot support a finding that a pollutant is a threshold pollutant with respect to cancer. In addition, the 1998 rule made the Group D classification only for the purposes of that rul e and not for any other actions. The commenter also pointed out that EPA has not identified a threshold for non
- cancer effects. The threshold EPA claimed to have identified as the reference dose concentration (RfC), i.e., the long term threshold, must be a level below which no adverse health effects occur. The level that EPA claims is a threshold does not meet this requirement because it was based on a single animal study which used only one dose, looked only at respiratory effects, not effects on other b odily systems, and identified only a lowest observed adverse effects level at which adverse effects did occur, not a threshold at which adverse effects do not occur. The commenter stated that EPA effectively acknowledged that exposure to HCl does damage p eople’s heath (71 FR 76542). Congress intended EPA to apply section 112(d)(4)128

where there is no risk of adverse health effects. Tissue damage is an adverse health effect. The commenter stated that EPA’s reliance on a risk assessment prepared by an indust ry trade association is unlawful and arbitrary. The record does not show any attempt to verify the data, methodology, or results and the analysis gives no indication when the data was obtained, whether it reflects ongoing conditions, whether it accounts f or potential emissions and modifications, whether the assumptions and emissions levels in the analysis are representative, or why one
- third of the plants are not included. The commenter also argued that analysis did not adequately show that HCl emissions from the kilns covered by study are below the RfC. According to the commenter, the analysis uses default rather than kiln
- specific data for all but one variable to estimate HCl emissions and concentrations. Even if the study showed conclusively that HCl levels were at or below the RfC, the absence of data and mischaracterization of background levels prevents EPA from showing that it has provided an ample margin of safety as required by CAA section 112(d)(4). According to the commenter, the analysis misch aracterized background emissions and provides no reason to believe that HCl background levels in areas where kilns operate is not higher or that background levels have not increased compared to 1996 and 1999 values, does not account for129

variability, and do es not adequately account for co
- location of industrial facilities. The analysis of background levels for short
- term hazard quotient is similarly flawed. The commenter also criticized the application of a rural parameter to all kilns, which is not the ca se for many kilns. Section 112(d)(4) also requires that the standards do not have any adverse environmental effects. No ecological assessment was conducted for the analysis or by EPA. In fact, the analysis does not even claim there would be no impacts, o nly that any deleterious effects were likely to be localized rather than widespread. Comment : The commenter criticized EPA’s beyond
- the
- floor determination for mercury emissions. According to the commenter, EPA conducted beyond
- the
- floor analyses fo r all “demonstrated” contr ol techniques excluding all of the techniques raised in public comments except for ACI and wet scrubbers. EPA’s claim that it can ignore technologies if the Agency does not believe that they are “demonstrated control techniques f or the cement industry” is unlawful. Section 112(d)(2) requires beyond
- the
- floor standards to reflect the maximum degree of reduction that is achievable through the full range of potential reduction measures. There is no precondition that control technol ogies must be demonstrated in the industry to be regulated.130

EPA’s rejection of ACI as not cost
- effective based on new cost estimates is unlawful and arbitrary for all the reasons given in comments on the proposed rule. EPA’s rejection of ACI is also unlawful and arbitrary because: (1) EPA alludes to increased energy use but does not say what increase would occur and why that justifies rejection of ACI; and (2) EPA alludes to increased solid waste generation, but does not say why the specific amount gen erated weighs against beyond
- the
- floor standards or why it is preferable for mercury to be emitted to the air rather than contained in solid waste . The Agency must explain the relevance of a specific statutory factor to beyond the floor analysis and how c onsideration of that factor supports its conclusion. Although EPA acknowledged that ACI reduces THC, the cost effectiveness analysis remains arbitrary because EPA never determined the cost effectiveness of ACI with respect to all the HAP it controls (incl uding polychlorinated biphenyls , polycyclic organic matter , and benzene). Further, the analysis mistakenly assumes that the same ACI device would have to be purchased separately with respect to each HAP, when the device is a single investment that would r educe many pollutants. In addition, EPA did not explain why it considers the amount of THC that would be reduced as “small” (30 to 117 tpy per kiln is significant) or why such a reduction is not justified. Finally, EPA’s claim131

that it can reject a beyond
- the
- floor measure , not because the measure is not “achievable” , but because it does not view the cost as “justified” is unlawful for the reasons given in previous comments. Comment : EPA’s rejection of a beyond
- the
- floor standard banning the use of utility boiler fly ash where such use increases mercury emissions is unlawful and arbitrary. EPA claims that this measure is not “justified” because of cost, energy, and non
- air environmental impacts. The CAA requires EPA to set final standards reflecting the maximum degree of reduction that is “achievable” considering costs and other factors, not the degree of reduction that EPA thinks is “justified” in light of those factors. And, bec ause EPA admitted that it did not know what the costs of this measure would be, reliance on cost arguments to reject the provision is arbitrary. Also arbitrary is EPA’s reliance on non
- air impacts (the increased amount of utility boiler ash that would have to be otherwise disposed of). EPA did not explain why: (1) the need for utility boilers to dispose of their ash would be a worse problem than the release to the air of the mercury contained in the ash; (2) all the ash that is currently used in kilns would require disposal when it can be used in concrete without going to the kiln; (3) kilns that are currently using fly ash would have to use raw materials if the use of fly ash132

that increases mercury emissions were banned; (4) the undetermined amount of mining necessary for an undetermined number of kilns that had to stop using any fly ash would be a worse problem than the mercury emissions that result from the use of the fly ash such that the concern about additional mining weighs against the beyond the floor measure. EPA also cites energy concerns as a reason for rejecting the beyond the floor measure but does not identify or explain them. Comment : The commenter criticized EPA’s beyond
- the
- floor determination for THC emissions. EPA rejected beyond
- the
- floor standards based on ACI and wet scrubbers combined with RTO (scrubber/RTO) based on the costs per ton of THC removed and organic HAP removed and alleged concerns about increased energy use and adverse non
- air quality health and environmental impact s. EPA also rejected optimized combustion practices because it lacks the data to evaluate reductions and the use of a carbon coke system because the Agency considered scrubber/RTO and therefore does not have to consider other options that are not already in use in this country. EPA’s claim that it can reject a beyond
- the
- floor measure not because it has determined that the measure is not “achievable” but because the cost is not justified is unlawful for the reasons given in comments on the proposed rule. Further, EPA’s contention that beyond
- the
- floor standards based on ACI and scrubber/RTO would not be justified133

on cost grounds is not explained. The cost of reducing THC as a surrogate for all the non
- dioxin organic HAP from the kilns is reasonable and well within the ranges EPA has found acceptable for other rules. EPA can not look past the cost of the THC reduction as the reason for rejecting the measure. If THC is not a valid surrogate, EPA should find a different surrogate or establish separate limi ts for each pollutant. It is arbitrary to choose a surrogate for some purposes but not others. In addition, EPA cost effectiveness estimates for organic HAP are unexplained, unsupported by the record, and arbitrary. EPA did not explain its assumption th at organic HAP comprise 5 percent of the THC, which organic HAP it is counting, or the quantity of emissions from these HAP. In addition, determining the cost effectiveness of all non
- dioxin organic HAP on a single cost per ton basis is not warranted because these HAP emissions vary in quantity and toxicity. EPA also does not provide any basis for its arguments about energy use and solid waste or why these impacts make the beyond the floor measure either unachievable (the statutory standard) or unjustifie d (EPA’s preferred standard). EPA’s rejection of optimized combustion controls is arbitrary and unlawful. According to the commenter, EPA argues that it does not even have to consider potential reduction measures if it does not already have data for them . EPA cannot134

frustrate section 112(d)(2) requirements by declining to collect information. Congress required the maximum degree of reduction that is achievable through all potential reduction measures, not the maximum degree of reduction achievable throu gh measures for which the Agency deigns to collection information. EPA’s rejection of carbon coke technology is arbitrary because the Agency provided no rationale basis for its conclusion. EPA rejected carbon coke technology because it is used by a kiln in another country. No language in the CAA suggests that EPA may refuse to consider a technology because it is not already in use in this country or because the Agency has considered some other technology. C. New Source MACT for Mercury Emissions and Re lated Requirements Comment : One commenter states that new cement kilns are not likely to install wet scrubbers in areas where the raw materials are low in sulfides. The commenter recommends that EPA include an alternative standard for new kilns that allows the owner or operator to average mercury emissions over all modes of the raw mill operation on a monthly basis to achieve the same limit in the final rule. Comment : One commenter explained that a 3 to 9 hour stack test on a cement kiln cannot prov ide an accurate or representative estimate of long
- term mercury emissions. The135

rate of mercury emissions from a modern precalciner kiln is constantly changing. Even a 1 week test can not provide a representative picture of long
- term (1 year) mercury emis sions from these systems. Comment : One commenter asks that EPA require more representative mercury monitoring such as the periodic use of EPA Method 324 (Sorbent Trap) or mercury CEMS at all cement kilns based on their mercury emission profiles and raw ma terial practices. Comment : One commenter points to high mercury emissions in 2004 with reduced emissions in 2005 from one cement plant in California and one cement plant in Oregon based on the most recent toxic release inventory submittals. The commenter asks EPA how mercury was reduced at these sites in 2005 and how they will be reduced at these sites in the future and for EPA to determine whether the concepts used by the plants can be used in more kilns. Comment : One commenter pointed out that mercury emissions from cement plants are higher than the entire mercury budgets for future coal
- fired power plants emissions in numerous States. The revisions made after reconsideration must be at least as stringent as the December 2006 final rule. Another commenter states that EPA has not effectively controlled mercury emissions136

from cement kilns; new and existing kilns should have the most stringent requirements. D. New Source MACT for THC Emissions and Related Requirements Comment : One commenter objected to the MACT floor for new kilns based on the single application of a wet scrubber and RTO. According to the commenter, EPA stated that two facilities have attempted to use the technology; at one facility the systems did not opera te continuously due to significant operational problems caused by the site specific constituents in the flue gas but the technology operates continuously and effectively at the second facility. The commenter claimed that the standard is based on a technol ogy that has not been demonstrated to work in all applications. In addition, the technology at the second facility has not worked continuously and effectively as EPA claimed. According to the commenter, the technology has experienced operational and main tenance problems at both facilities. The commenter stated that EPA’s evaluation of the MACT floor is flawed and should be reevaluated. Comment : Some commenters disagreed with EPA’s cost estimates for wet scrubber/RTO technology. One commenter stated that the capital costs at the two facilities referenced by EPA for a 1 million tpy kiln are $18 to $25 million for wet scrubbers and $15 to $20 million for RTO compared to EPA’s estimate of $10.7 million.137

One commenter stated that requiring the wet scrubbe r/RTO technologies for new sources may make new construction economically infeasible and that neither the wet scrubbing nor RTO technologies have been required based on permitting/new source review requirements. Another commenter stated that the
new sourc e MACT requirements for THC (wet scrubber/RTO) will have a negative impact on the local watershed which can not afford the additional 58.5 million gallons of water per year for a wet scrubber. Comment : One commenter alleges that EPA’s statement on
cons ultation with Indian Tribes (no tribes were consulted about the rule because it would have no impact on them) is inaccurate because the commenter is constructing a new source on the Moapa Pauite Indian Reservation. E. C eme n t Kiln Dust Requirements Comment : One commenter said the CKD provision in § 63.1344(h) is unworkable because it codifies as “static” a practice that varies from plant to plant. The primary purpose of removing CKD from the kiln system is to manage the concentration of alkali compo unds in the clinker and subsequent cement. The amount of CKD removed varies according to the chemistry of the raw material feed. In addition, alkali specifications have changed as a result of State requirements, resulting in changes in the amount of CKD removed. And, plants138

that use a preheater/precalciner design do not remove CKD from the kiln system (and the material is not considered to be generated at these plants) while other plants using long dry or long wet technology remove CKD from the system bu t return it as a component of the raw material mix. Another commenter explained that removing CKD from the kiln system recycling loop is critical to the efficient control of mercury emissions. Another commenter stated that the CKD provision, as written, could be interpreted to require removal of CKD from the system. Unnecessary removal would create a new solid waste problem and reduced the energy efficiency of the process if the amount of raw materials going into the process had to increase as a result o f the CKD being removed. Finally one commenter requests that EPA clarify the CKD provision for existing sources in § 63.1344(h). EPA explained in the preamble that a facility must remove CKD from the system “at the point product quality is adversely affec ted.” The comment asks whether “the point” is a point in time, point in the cement manufacturing process, or point on the continuum of cement product chemistry. Also, what “product quality” standard is meant (i.e., ASTM, American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials, ANSI, or another standards organization)? Is there a need for different compliance139

approaches to suit the various types of cement (e.g., Type 1, Type V) produced by an individual facility? F. Fly Ash Requirements Comment : Some commenters urged EPA to stand by its decision not to ban all fly ash but object to the fly ash provision as promulgated. According to the commenters, the ban could result in increased landfilling of the ash. The prohibition was adopted without prop er notice and comment and EPA adopted the ban based on consultations with one industry sector without discussing it with the sector most affected (coal burning power industry). The commenters also disagreed with EPA’s explanation that the fly ash prohibit ion could be imposed without any immediate impacts because utilities will not be installing ACI or other forms of sorbent injection until at least 2010. The commenters believed that adverse effects are likely as early as 2007 when plants begin testing or plants must comply with State regulations. The commenters stated the prohibition was inflexible because it does not allow for exceptions regardless of the emission control technologies used at the kiln. If there is justification for a ban on the use of mercury - enhanced fly ash in kilns with no controls, EPA failed to address the need for a ban at kilns with controls (i.e., wet scrubbers, ACI, fabric filters). The provision allowing the kiln to demonstrate that140

the fly ash will not increase mercury emissi ons over baseline levels puts the burden and cost of testing the emissions on the cement plant. The cement plant could easily avoid the burden by using alternative feedstock, possibly with higher mercury concentrations. It is unrealistic to expect the cement industry to spend resources on the testing especially if the kiln already has emission controls and no testing requirements apply to any other feedstock. EPA should amend § 63.1344(g) to exclude plants already subject to a mercury standard as follows: No kiln and in
- line kiln/raw mill 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 if it will result in an increase of mercury input to the process unless the facility desiring to use the fly ash is already subject to a mercury standard (either an emission or input limitation) or unless the facility can demonstrate that the use of that fly ash will not result in an increase in mercury emission s over baseline emissions (i.e., emissions not using the fly ash). The facility has the burden of providing there has been no emissions increase over baseline. This change would allow kilns that have installed emission controls to rely on them without additional testing, demonstrations, or certifications and would not penalize one feedstock from one industry sectors while favoring other feedstocks that may contain higher mercury concentrations. C omment : One commenter pointed out that the final rule inc ludes a ban only on fly ash derived from power plants that use ACI to reduce mercury emissions. The commenter recommends141

that EPA expand the scope of the limited fly ash ban to address high loss on ignition (LOI) or selective catalytic reduction ( SCR )
- aff ected fly ash laden with mercury. Such fly ash should be treated in a like manner to ash containing activated carbon. Expanded mercury measurement and removal strategies should be incorporated if use of such fly ash is allowed at cement plants. The commenter provides information explaining how fly ash can become enriched with mercury due to combustion controls for nitrogen oxide ( NOX ) (i.e., low NOX burners, separate overfire air, reburn) and SCR. High emissions of mercury may result from power plant fl y ash where ACI is not use d to control mercury emissions. Another commenter stated that cement kilns combusting fly ash containing higher LOI fly ash after the ash has been beneficiated generally by electrostatic separation can emit higher levels of mercur y. Cement kilns are currently burning beneficiated high LOI fly ash. Re
- use of higher LOI beneficiated fly ash through combustion in cement kilns should be further evaluated. Comment : One commenter objected to EPA’s assumption that the TOXECON system ( which collects fly ash before sorbents are injected) will work for all power plants and be economically feasible; this technology has not be tested on medium and high sulfur bituminous coal and may not be effective. The commenter142

disagreed with EPA’s stat ement in the preamble that “technology is being developed that would allow the mineral
- rich portion of the fly ash to be separated from the high carbon/high mercury portion.” According to the commenter, the record does not identify these technologies by n ame or document s the cost. The commenter is aware of fly ash beneficiation technologies that remove carbon from fly ash so it can be used in concrete, but it is unclear whether these technologies can remove activated carbon containing adsorbed mercury. Comment : Two commenters stated that the certification requirements for fly ash contaminated by activated carbon are too burdensome. The commenters objected to the requirement in § 63.1344(o) for facilities to obtain from the fly ash supplier a certification for each shipment of fly ash. The amount of fly ash used varies considerably, but some plants receive numerous shipments on a daily basis. The commenters recommend that the rule require each supplier to provide an initial certification confirming that the fly ash does not contain activated carbon used to capture mercury. A new certification could be required annually or if the treatment method was changed. G . Compliance Dates for C ement Kiln Dust and Fly Ash Provisions Comment : Several commenters asked EPA to clarify the compliance dates for the CKD recycle rate provision for existing sources in § 63.1344(h), the CKD recycle rate provision for new143

and reconstructed sources in § 63.1344(i), and the provision on fly ash use in § 63 .1344(g). The commenters recommend that EPA allow 1 year to comply with the fly ash provision for existing sources in § 63.1344(g) and CKD recycle rate provision for existing sources in § 63.1344(h). That would make the compliance dates for these requireme nts consistent with the compliance date for existing sources to meet the THC good combustion practices (December 20, 2007) in § 63.1351(c). One commenter ask s that EPA revise the compliance date for the CKD recycle rate provision for new and reconstructed kilns in § 63.1344(i). Since EPA never proposed the provision, the final rule is more stringent than the proposal and sources commencing construction between December 2, 2005 , and December 20, 2006 , should be given 3 years to comply. H . Research and Techn ology Comment : One commenter requests EPA to conduct further research on the concept of bypassing mercury
- enriched dust from PM control devices or raw meal to clinker product. ASTM and ASSHTO now allow intergrinding of 5 percent limestone with clinker to make Type I cement product. Type II cement can have any greater amounts of other constituents. There is the possibility that some dust or meal can be used to substitute milled clinker without harming the quality of the product. Some144

plants may be abl e to use this approach to bleed mercury from the process. Comment : One commenter, an ash management company, is investing in beneficiation technology with the goal of utilization of the fly ash as is done now in Europe. This commenter asked EPA to assemble a technical record on the effects and uses of sorbents (and other approaches) to facilitate increased utilization. Comment : One commenter identified SCR as an add
- on control that can reduce THC and dioxins/furans ( D/F ) and convert mercury in the ceme nt process into more collectible forms for subsequent bypass strategies. Two other commercially available strategies rely on catalysts to reduce NOX , THC, or D/F. One proven technology reacts ammonia with NOX in the presence of a catalyst with concurrent D/F and THC destruction. The second uses catalytic material fibers that are woven and layered with standard baghouse fabric such that both the catalytic destruction of D/F and particulate control are achieved. The fabric filter technology is described a t www.environment.power.alstom.com/home/ by following the links to Industry Solutions/Products/Fabric Filters/Remedia Filter Bags. EPA should review the role of SCR at some kilns as a THC and D /F control strategy in its reconsideration of the final rule. SCR145

and catalytic fabric filters should be considered in EPA’s multi
-pollutant evaluation of the cement industry. VI. Summary of Cost, Environmental, Energy, and Economic Impacts of Proposed Amendments A. What are the affected sources? There are currently 93 portland c ement manufacturing facilities located in the U.S. and Puerto Rico that we expect to be affected by these proposed amendments. In 2005, these facilities operate d 152 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 20 new kilns and associ ated clinker coolers will be built in the five years after the promulgation of final standards representing 24 million tpy of clinker capacity. Some of these new kilns will be built at existing facilities and some at new greenfield facilities. The locati on of the kiln (greenfield or currently existing facility) has no bearing on our estimated cost and environmental impacts. We based new kiln impacts on a 1.2 million tpy clinker kiln. This kiln is the smallest size anticipated for new kilns based on kil ns built in the last five years or currently under construction. Using the smallest anticipated kiln size provides146

a conservative estimate of costs because control costs per unit of capacity tend to be higher for smaller kilns. B. How are the impacts for this proposal evaluated? For the se proposed Portland C ement NESHAP amendments , the EPA utilize d three models to evaluate the impacts of the regulation on the industry and the economy. Typically in a regulatory analysis, EPA determines the regulatory opt ions 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 may be selected to comply with the regulation. This is conducted 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 partial
- equilibrium model to compare a pre
-policy cement market baseline with expected post
-policy outcomes in cement markets. This model was used i n previous EPA analyses of the p ortland cement i ndustry (EPA, 1998 ; EPA, 1999b ). The benchmark time horizon for the analysis is assumed to be short and producers have some c onstraints on their flexibility to adjust147

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., de termined outside of the economic model) and computes the associated economic impacts of the proposed regulation. For the Portland C ement NESHAP, EPA also employs 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. More information on this model can be found in the ISIS T echnical S upport Document (TSD) . The peer review of the ISIS model will be available at http://www.epa.gov/ttn at a future date. In a Technical Memo to the docket, we provide a comparison of these models to provide an evaluation of how the differences148

between the models may impact the resulting estimates of the impacts of the regulation. For ex ample, the Engineering Analysis and Economic Impact Analysis evaluate a snapshot of implementation of the proposed rule in a given year (i.e., 20 18, based on 2005 dollars) while ISIS evaluates impacts of compliance dynamically over time (i.e., 2013
- 2018) . 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, and 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. Overall , we anticipate the total control costs from the Engi neering Analysis to be higher than that of ISIS . With higher cost estimates serving as the basis for the Economic Impact Analysis along with other modeling differences, we expect the results presented from the EIA model will be higher in impact than those presented by ISIS. 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 methods149

C . What are the air quality impacts ? For the proposed Portland C ement NESHAP, EPA estimated the emission reductions that would occur due to the implementation of the proposed emission limits. EPA estimated emission reductions based on the control technologies selected b y the engineering analysis. These emission reductions are based on 2005 emission baselines. Under the proposed limit for mercury, we have estimated that the emissions reductions would be 1 3,400 lb/yr for existing kilns. Based on our 1.2 million tpy model kiln, mercury emissions would be reduced by 149 lb/yr for each new kiln, or about 3,000 lb/yr 5 years after promulgation of the final standards. Under the proposed limits for THC, we have estimated that the emissions reductions would be 14,00 0 tpy for existing kilns, which represent an organic HAP reduction of 3,360 tpy. For new kilns, THC emissions would be reduced by 39 tpy per kiln or about 800 tpy 5 years after promulgation of the final standard. This represents an organic HAP reduction of 192 tpy. Under the proposed limit for HCl, we have estimated that emissions would be reduced by 3,000 tpy for existing kilns. Emissions of HCl from new kilns would be 45 tpy per kiln or 900 tpy 5 years after promulgation of the final standards.150

The proposed emission limits for PM represent a lowering of the PM limit from 0.5 lb/ton of clinker to 0.085 lb/ton of clinker for existing kilns and for new kiln s, a lowering to 0.080 lb/ton of clinker. We have estimated that PM emissions would be reduced by 10,300 tpy for existing kilns. For new kilns, emission reductions would be 160 tpy per kiln, or about 3,200 tpy 5 years after promulgation of the final standards. The proposed standards for mercury, THC and HCl will also result in concurrent control of SO 2 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 and to avoid plugging and fouling of the RTO. Scrubbers will also be used to control HCl and mercury emissions. Reductions in SO 2 emissions associated with controls for mercury, THC and HCl are e stimated at 1,600 tpy, 11,700 tpy, and 1 06 ,000 tpy, respectively. Total reduction in SO 2 emissions from existing kilns would be an estimated 1 19 , 3 00 tpy. A new 1.2 million tpy kiln equipped with a scrubber will reduce SO 2 emissions by 1, 000 tpy on average or about 20,000 tpy in the fifth year after promulgation of the final standards. These controls will also reduce emissions of secondary PM2.5 (and coarse PM

– PM 10
- 2.5 as well ). This is PM that results from151

atmospheric transformation processes of precurso r gases, including SO 2 . In addition to this traditional estimation of emission reductions, EPA employed the ISIS model to estimate emission reductions. The estimation of emission reductions in the ISIS model accounts for the optimiza tion 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 12,000 lbs of mercury, 11,951 tons of THC, 2,791 tons of HCl, 10,554 tons of PM and 163,309 tons of SO 2 compared to total emissions in 2005. More information on the ISIS model and results can be found in the ISIS T SD and i n a Technical Memo to the docket . D . 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 w ill 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 that currently use wet scrubbers in this industry report no water releases at any time. However, if the use of scrubbers becomes more widespread there could be a potential for a water release due to system purges.152

We are requesting comment on what, if any, regulations might apply, and if we should a dd any requirements to this rule to prevent or control these purges. The addition of scrubbers will increase water usage by about 2,789 million gallons per year. For a new 1.2 million tpy kiln, water usage will be 36 million gallons per year or 720 million gallons per year 5 years after promulgation of the final standards. We note that some preproposal 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, we are not mandating the use of wet scrubber technology in these regulations, and we believe that sufficient alternative controls exist for mercury and acid gas controls that this issue would not preclude a facility from meeting these proposed emi ssions limits. However, we are also soliciting comment on this issue. E . 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, little or no solid waste is expected from the generation of scrubber slurry . The PM captured in the kil n fabric filter (cement kiln dust) is essentially recaptured raw material, intermediate materials, or product. Captured PM is153

typically recycled back to the kilns to the maximum extent possible. We estimate that any additional PM captured would also be recycled to the kiln because facilities minimize CKD disposed of as solid waste to the minimum required to maint ain product quality. Increasing the amount of PM capture should not affect the minimum amount of PM required to be wasted. 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 required on all kilns. Where one is present, the amount of solid waste generated from the alkali bypass is minimal, usually about 1 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 would be disposed of as solid waste. An estimated 1 20,400 tpy of solid waste would be generated from the use of ACI systems on existing kilns. Each new kiln equipped with an ACI system would be expected to generate 1,800 tons of solid waste per kiln or, assuming 14 of the 20 new kilns would add ACI systems, about 25,000 tpy in the fift h year after promulgation of the final standards.154

In addition to the solid waste impacts described above , these is a potential for an increa se in solid waste if a facility elects to control mercury emission by increasing the amount of CKD wasted rather than returned t o process. This will be a site
- specific decision , and we have no data to estimate the potential solid waste that may be generat ed 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 they are essentially wasting either raw materials or product. So we anticipate this option will not be used if the amount of CKD wast ed would be large. Second, we believe that cement manufacturers will add the additional CKD to the finish mill to the maximum extent possible rather then waste the materia l. F . What are the secondary impacts ? Indirect or secondary air quality impacts include impacts that would 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 would occur as a result of these proposed revisions. We estimate these proposed revisions would increase emission s of criteria pollutants from utility boilers that supply electricity to the portland cement facilities. We estimate incr eased energy demand associated with the155

installation of scrubbers, ACI systems, and RTO. The increases for existi ng kilns are estimated to be 1,7 00 tpy of NO x , 8 00 tpy of CO, 3,000 tpy of SO 2 and about 8 0 tpy of PM. For new kilns ( assuming that o f the 20 new kilns to start up in the 5 years following promulgation of the final standard 20 will add alkaline scrubbers, 2 will add an RTO, 14 will install ACI systems, and 20 will install membrane bags instead of cloth bags in their baghouses), increase s in secondary air pollutants are estimated to be 400 tpy of NO x , 200 tpy of CO, 700 tpy of SO 2 and 20 tpy of PM. We also estimated increases of greenhouse gas emissions (chiefly CO 2 ) to be 800,000 tpy (existing kilns ) and 200,000 tpy (new kilns). G . What are the energy impacts ? The addition of alkaline scrubbers, ACI systems, and RTO added to comply with the proposed 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 nat ional electrical demand to be 73 0 million kWhr per year and the natural gas use to be 700,000 MMBtu per year for existing kilns. For n ew kilns, assuming of the 20 new kilns to start up in the 5 years following promulgation of the final standard that 20 will add alkaline scrubbers, 2 will add an RTO, and 14 will install ACI systems, the electrical demand is estimated to be 180156

million kWh r per year and the natural gas use to be 175,000 MMBtu per year. H . What are the cost impacts ? Under the proposed amendments, existing kilns are expected to add one or more control devices to comply with the proposed emission limits. In addition, e ach kiln would be required to install CEMS to monito r mercury, THC and HCl while bag leak detector (BLD) would be required to monitor performance of all baghouses. We performed two separate cost analyses for this proposed rule. In the engineering cost analysis we estimated the cost of the proposed amendments based on the type of control device that was assumed to be necessary to comply with the proposed emission standards. Based on baseline emissio ns of mercury, THC, HCl and PM for each kiln and the removal efficiency necessary to comply with the proposed emission limit for each HAP, an appropriate control device was identified. In assigni ng control devices to each kiln where more than one control devi ce would be capable of reducing emissions of a particular HAP below the l imit, we assumed that the least costly control would be installed. For example, if a kiln could use either a scrubber or ACI to comply with the proposed limit for mercury, it was assumed that ACI would be selected over a scrubber because an ACI system would be less costly. ACI also is expected to achieve a higher removal157

efficiency than a scrubber fo r mercury. In some instances, a more expensive technology was considered appropriate because the selected control reduced emissions of mu ltiple pollutants. For example, even though ACI would be less costly than a scrubber for controlling mercury, if the kiln also had to reduce HCl emissions, we assumed that a scrubber would be applied to control HCl as well as mercury because ACI woul d 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 a ll HAP. For example, ACI may be considered necessary to meet the limits for THC and/or mercury. For the same kiln, a scrubber would also be required to reduce HCl emissions. In this case we would allocate the cost of the control to controlling HCl emissions, not to the cost of controlling mercury emissions. In addition, once we assigned a particular control device in most cases we assumed mercury and THC emissions reductions would equal the control device efficiency, and not the minimum reduction necessary to meet the emissions limit. We believe this assumption is warranted because it ma tches costs with actual emissions reductions. In the case of PM and HCl, we assumed the controlled facility would emit at the average level necessary to meet the standard (i.e., we assumed for PM that the controlled facility would emit at 0.01 lb/ton clin ker, the average emission158

level, not 0.0 85 lb/ton clinker, the actual emissions limit), because the proposed emission s levels are extremely low. In a separate analysis performed using the ISIS model, we input into ISIS the baseline and controlled emiss ions 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 kil n retirements that would occur even in the absence of any regulatory action ( i.e., as new kiln 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 kiln s currently operating continue to operate while 20 new kilns
come on - line. Table 8 presents the resulting add
- on controls each approach estimated was necessary to meet the proposed emissions limits. Table 8 . Control Installation Comparison

LSW ACI LWS+ACI RTO MB FF WS+RTO Engineering Analysis 5 36 111 0 10 5 12 ISIS Model 4 26 93 14 0 0 0

In the engineering analysis we estimated the total capital cost of installing alkaline scrubbers and ACI systems for mercury control, including monitoring systems, would be $71159

million with annualized cost of $27 million. The estimated capital c ost of installing ACI systems and RTO/scrubbers to reduce THC emissions would be $355 million with annualized cost of $110 million. The capital cost of adding scrubbers for the control of HCl is estimated to be $766 million with annualized
c ost of $124 million. The capital cost of adding membrane bags to existing baghouse and the replacement of E SP’s with baghouses would be $56 million with annualized cost of $17 million. The total capital cost for the proposed amendments would be an
e stimated $1.23 billion with an annualized cost of $275 million. The estimated emission control capital cost per new 1.2 million tpy kiln is $16.6 million and the annualized costs are estimated at $1.25 million for mercury control, $1.0 million for THC control, $1.8 million for HCl control and $270,000 for PM control. National annualized cost by the end of the fifth year will be an estimated $86.4 million. In the ISIS results, we are not able to separate costs by pollutant because the model does an overall optimization of the production and air pollution control costs. The total annual costs of the ISIS model are $167 million in 2013, and are anticipated to increase to $180 million in 2018. These impacts assume that in 2013 7 n ew kilns are installed and net 10 kilns are retired. These retirements include two kilns that we have determined may close due to not be ing able to meet the mercury160

emission limits due to unusually high mercury contents in their proprietary quarries ( i.e., the mercury content of the raw material at limestone quarries). I . What are the economic impacts? EPA employed both a partial
- equilibrium 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 p ortland cement could be 4 percent higher with the NESHAP, or $3.30 per metric ton, wh ile annual domestic production may fall by 8 percent, or 7 million tons per year. Because of higher domestic prices, imports are expected to rise by 2 million metric tons per year. As domestic production falls, cement industry revenues are projected to decline by 4 percent , or $340 million. Overall, net production costs also fall by $140 million with compliance cost increases ($240 million) offset by cost reductions associated with lower cement production. Operating profits fall by $200 million, or 16 pe rcent. Other projected impacts include reduced demand for labor. Employment falls by approximately 8 percent , or 1,200 employees. EPA identified six domestic plants with negative operating profits and significant utilization changes that could temporarily idle until market demand conditions improve. The plants are small capacity plants with unit161

compliance cost s close to $5 per ton and $50 million total change in operating profits. Since these plants account for approximately 2.5 percent of domestic capacity, a decision to permanently shut down these plants would reduce domestic supply and lead to additional pr ojected market price increases. The estimated domestic social cost of the proposed amendments is $684 million. There is an estimated $89 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 $370 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 estimate cement demand to drop 2.9 percent in 2013 or 3.9 million tons with an average annual drop in demand at 2.3 percent or 3. 2 milli on tons per year during the 2013
- 2018 time period. The drop in demand will affect the level of imports, and imports are likely to rise slightly over the162

policy horizon. In 2013, imports rise 2 . 6 percent or 0. 92 million tons with an annual average of 2.3 percent or 0. 89 million tons per year throughout the 2013
- 2018. ISIS estimates the average national price for portland cement in the 2013
- 2018 time period to be 0. 2 percent higher with the NESHAP, or $0.20 per metric ton. However, some markets could see an increase by up to 4.5 percent. Total annualized control cost for the proposed NESHAP amendments is projected to be $167 million in 2013, and is expected to increase to $180 million in 2 018, as additional new units come online to meet the projected increase in demand. With respect to the baseline case in 2013, ISIS identified a net retirement of 5. 2 million tons of capacity. The retirements affect 10 kilns at 8 facilities. As a result of the proposed NESHAP amendments, the cost to produce a ton of cement (production, imports, transportation and control technology) increases from $56.11 per ton at baseline to $5 7 . 83 per ton as a result of these proposed amendments ($1.72/ ton) , resulting in an increase of about 3 percent over the analysis period of 2013 to 2018. With respect to baseline in 2013 ISIS projects the revenue of the cement industry to fall by 8 percent or about $615 million. More informatio n on this model can be found in the ISIS TSD and in a Technical Memo to the docket. J. What are the benefits ?163

We estimate the monetized benefits of this proposed NESHAP to be $4.4 billion to $11 billion (2005$ , 3 percent discount rate ) in the year of full implementation (2013); 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 the two estimates we present above. 59 The benefits at a 7 percent discount rate are $4.0 billion to $9.7 billion (2005$). We base the estimate of human health benefits derived from the PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursor emission reductions on the approach and methodology laid out in the T SD that accompanied the RIA for the revision to the National Ambient Air Quality Standard for Ground
- level Ozone (NAAQS), March 2008 with several updates explained below . We generated estimates that represent the total monetized human health benefit s (the sum of premature mortality and morbidity) of reducing PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursor emission s. A summary of the monetized benefits estimates at discount rates of 3 percent and 7 percent is in Table 7 of this preamble.

59 Roman 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

– 2274.164

Table 7 . Summary of the Monetized Benefits Estimates for the Proposed Portland Cement NESHAP

Pollutant Emission

reductions (tons) Total

monetized benefits (millions of 2005 dollars, 3% Discount) 1 Total monetized benefits (millions of 2005 dollars, 7 percent Discount) 1 Direct PM2.5 6, 3 00 $1, 2 00 to $2, 8 00 $1,000 to

$2, 5 00 PM2.5 precursors 1 40 ,000 $3, 3 00 to $ 8 , 0 00 $3, 0 00 to

$7 ,2 00 Grand total: $ 4 , 4 00 to $1 1 ,000 $4, 0 00 to

$ 9,7 00 1All estimates are for the analysis year (full implementation, 2013), and are rounded to two significant figures so numbers may not sum across rows. PM2.5 precursors reflect emission reductions of SOx. All fine particles are assumed to have equivalent health effects, and the monetized benefits incorporate the conversion from precursor emissions to ambient fine particles. These monetized benefits do not include HAP reductions , additional emission reduc tions 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 . The specific estimates of benefits per ton of pollutant reductions inc luded in this analysis are largely driven by the concentration response function for premature mortality . Experts have advised EPA to consi der 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. F or this proposed NESHAP we cite two key empirical studies, one based on the165

American Cancer Society cohort study 62 and the extended Six Cities cohort study 63 . Alternate models identified by experts describing the relationship between PM2.5 and premature mortality would yield higher and lower estimates , but most of the expert
based estimates fall between the two epidemiology
-based estimates (Roman et al. 2008). EPA has incorporated several updates to the benefit
-per-ton estimates, including two technical updates and removing the assumption regarding thresholds in the health impact function. Removing thresholds is supported by a wide body of peer
-reviewed literature on the health effects of short and longer term PM exposures. Approximately 75 percent of the difference between the old methodology and the new methodology for this rule is due to removing thresholds with 25 percent due to the two technical updates, but this percentage would vary depending on the combination of emission reductions from different sources and PM2.5 precursor pollutants. For more information on the updates to the benefit
-per - ton estimates, please refer to the RIA for this proposed rule that is available in the docket. To generate the benefit
-per - ton estimates, we used a model to convert emissions of direct PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors into

62 Pope 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 63 Laden et al, 2006. “Reduction in Fine Particulate Air Pollution and Mortality.” American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine. 173: 667
- 672166

changes in PM2.5 air quality and another model to estimate the changes in human health based on that change in air quality. Finally, the monetized health benefits were divided by the emission reductions to create the benefit
-per - ton estimates. Even though all fine particles are assumed to have equivalent health effects, the benefit
-per - ton estimates vary between precursors because each ton of precursor reduced has a different propensity to form PM2.5 . For example, SOX has a lower benefit
per - ton estimate than direct PM2.5 because it does not form as much PM2.5 , thus the exposure would be lower, and the monetized health benefits would be lower. This analysis does not include the type of detailed uncertainty assessment found in the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS RIA b ecause we lack the necessary air quality input and monitoring data to run the benefits model. However, the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS benefits analysis provides an indication of the sensitivity of our results to the use of alternative concentration response functio ns, including those derived from the PM expert elicitation study. The annualized costs of this rulemaking are estimated at $694 million (2005$) in the year of full implementation, and the benefits are estimated at $4.4 billion to $11 billion (2005$ , 3 percent discount rate) for that same year. The benefits at a 7 percent discount rate are $4.0 billion to $9.7 billion (2005$).167

Thus, net benefits of this rulemaking are estimated at $3.7 billion to $11 billion (2005$ , 3 percent discount rate ); 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 the two estimates we present above. The net benefits at a 7 percent discount rate are $3.3 billion to $9.0 billion (2005$). 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. It should be noted that the benefits estimates provided above do es not include benefits from improved visibility, coarse PM emission reductions, or other hazardous air pollutants such as mercury and hydrochloric acid, additional emission reductions that would occur if cement facilities temporarily idle or reduce capacity util ization as a result of this regulation, or the unquantifiable amount of reductions in condensable PM. We do not have sufficient information or modeling available to provide such estimates for this rulemaking. For more information, please refer to the RI A for this proposed rule that is available in the docket. VI I . Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review168

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this actio n is a “ significant regulatory action” because it may raise novel legal or policy issues. Accordingly, EPA submitted this action to OMB for review under Executive Order 12866, and any changes made in response to OMB recommendations have been documented in the docket for this action. B. Paperwork Reduction Act The information collection requirements in this proposed 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 would become subject to the limits and associated compliance provisions in the current rule. New compliance provisions for mercury would remove the current requirement for an initial performance test coupled with monitoring of the carbon injection rate. Instead, plants would monitor mercury emissions by determining the monthly and rolling 12
-month mercury throughput using a material balance procedure. The procedure would require daily sampling of process inputs (feed, baghouse dust, fuels) and analysis of the mercury concentration in a monthly composite sample. Records of all169

calculations and data would be required. New compliance procedures would also apply to area sources subject to a PM limit in a format of lbs/ton of clinker. The owner or operator would be required to install and operate a weight measurement system and keep daily records of clinker production instead of the current requirement to install and operate a PM CEMS . The owner or operator would be required to conduct an initial PM performance test and repeat performance tests every 5 years . Cement plants a lso would 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 bas ed on the recordkeeping and reporting requirements in the NESHAP General Provisions (40 CFR part 6 3 , subpart A) which are mandatory for all operators subject to
n ational 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 44,656 labor
- hours per year at a cost of $4.1 million per year. The170

average annualized capital costs are estimated at $53.7 million per year and average operation and maintenance costs are estimated at $174,000 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. To comment on the Agency’s need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, EPA has established a public docket for this proposed rule, which includes this ICR, under Docket ID number EPA
- HQ - OAR- 200 2
- 0 051 . Submit any comments related to the ICR for this proposed rule to EPA and OMB. See ADDRESSES section at the beginning of this document for where to submit comments to EPA. Send comments to OMB at the Office of Informati on and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17 th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Office for EPA. Since OMB is required to make a decision concerning the ICR between 30 and 60 days after [INSERT DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], a comment to OMB is best assured of having its full effect if OMB receives it by [INSERT DATE 30 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. The final rule will respond to any OMB or public171

comments on the information collecti on requirements contained in this proposal. C. Regulatory Flexibility Act The Regulatory Flexibility Act 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 (as defined by Small Business Administratio n (SBA) size standards for the p ortland cement industry, NAICS 327310); (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. After considering the economic impact of this proposed rule on small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small172

entities. We estimate that up to 4 of the 44 existing portland cement plants are small entities. One of the entities burns hazardous waste in its kiln and is not impacted by this proposed rule. 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 two small entities (including a tribal government) would have an annua lized cost of between 1 percent and 3 percent of sales. One small business would have an annualized cost of 4.8 percent of sales. In addition to the screening analysis, EPA also examined small entity effects after accounting for market adjustments. Under this assumption, the entities recover some of the regulatory program costs as the market price adjusts in response to higher cement production costs. Even after accounting for these adjustments, small entity operating profits fall by $4 million, or 9 perce nt . All three affected facilities are projected to continue to operate under with
- regulation conditions. EPA also evaluated small business impacts using the ISIS model. There are a total of 7 kilns identified to be associated with small business facilit ies affected by this proposal. ISIS identified one of these kilns to retire in 2013 as a result of the proposed NESHAP. A second kiln reduces its utilization by173

56 percent in 2013 but recovers later in the 2013 to 2018 time frame as the demand increases. All the remaining small business kilns operate at full capacity throughout the 2013 to 2018 time frame. Although this proposed rule will not impact a substantial number of small entities, EPA nonetheless has tried to reduce the impact of this proposed rule on small entities by setting the proposed 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 proposing that the source comply with only the more stringent of the standards. We continue to be interested in the potential impacts of this proposed rule on small entities and welcome comments on issues related to such impacts. 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 b y law, to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. Federal agencies must also develop a plan to provide notice to small governments that might be significantly or174

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. 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. Consistent with the intergovernmental consultation provisions of section 204 of the UMRA EPA has already initiated consultations with the governmental entities affected by this rule. 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 affe ct small governments. EPA has determined that this proposed action contains regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments because one of the facilities affected by the proposed rule is tribally owned. EPA consulted w ith tribal officials early in the process of developing this regulation to permit them to have meaningful and timely input into its175

development. EPA directly contacted the facility in question to insure they were apprised of this rulemaking and pote ntial implications. This facility indicated they were aware of the rulemaking and were participating in meeting 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 proposed rule. 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 considere d the costs and benefits of the proposed rule, and has concluded that the costs will fall mainly on the private sector (approximately $273 million). EPA estimates that an additional facility owned by a tribal government will incur approximately $2.1 millio n in costs per year. Furthermore, we think 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. E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism176

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.” This proposed rule does not have federalism implications. It 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 this pr oposed rule . In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent with EPA policy to promote communications between EPA and State and local governments, EPA specifically solicits comment on this proposed action from State and local officials. F. Executi ve Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments177

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 cost s, 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 proposed regu lation and develops a tribal summary impact statement. 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 fund s necessary to pay those costs. One of the facilities affected by this proposed 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 permit them to have meaningful and timely input into its devel opment. EPA directly contacted the facility in question to insure they were apprised of this rulemaking and potential implications. This facility indicated they were aware of the rulemaking and were participating in178

meeting with the indus try 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 propose d rule . EPA specifically solicits additional comment on this proposed action from tribal officials. G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying to t hose regulatory actions that concern health or safety risks, such that the analysis required under section 5
- 501 of the Order has the potential to influence the regulation. This proposed action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is based
s olely on technology performance. H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use This proposed rule is not a “significant energy action” as defined in Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (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 conclu ded that this proposed rule is not likely to have any adverse energy179

effects . This proposal will result in the addition of control equipment and monitoring systems for existing and new sources. We estimate the additional electrical demand to be 784 milli on kWhr per year and the natural gas use to be 672 million cubic feet for existing sources. At the end of the fifth year following promulgation, electrical demand from new sources will be 180 million kWhr per year and natural gas use will be 171 million cubic feet. I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (“NTTAA”), Public Law No. 104
- 113 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS) in i ts regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. VCS are technical standards ( e.g. , materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adop ted by VCS bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and applicable VCS. These proposed amendments involve technical standards. The EPA proposes to cite Performance Specifications 8A of 40 CFR part 60appendix B for THC, 12A and 12B of 40 CFR part 60 appendix B for mercury and 15 of 40 CFR part 60 appendix B for HCl continuous monitor operation and maintenance. In addition180

EPA proposes to use the following test method s to determine compliance: EPA Method 5 of 40 CFR Appendix B for PM; EPA Method 321 of 40 CFR Appendix B for HCl; and EPA Method 320 of 40 CFR Appendix B for organic HAP. Consistent with the NTTAA, EPA conducted searches through the Enhanced NSSN Databa se managed by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI). We also contacted VCS organizations, and accessed and searched their databases. J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low
- Income Populations Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 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 the se proposed amendments w ill not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minorit y or low
- incomeNational Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants From the Portland Cement Manufacturing Industry

Page 181 of 217 populations because they would increase the level of environmental protection for all affected populations without having any disproportionatel y high and adverse human health or environmental effects on any population, including any minority or low
- income population. These proposed standards would reduce emissions of mercury, THC, HCl, and PM from portland cement plants located at major and area sources , decreasing the amount of such emissions to which all affected populations are exposed. List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 6 3 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, Incorporation by reference, and Reporting and
recor dkeeping requirements.

Dated:

Lisa P. Jackson , Administrator.182

For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as follows: PART 63 -- [AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq . Subpart LLL

— [Amended] 2 . Section 63.1340 is amended as follows: a. B y revising paragraph (a) ; b. By revising paragraphs (b)(1) through ( b ) (8) ; and c. By revising paragraph ( c ) . § 63.1340 Applicability and designation of affected sources. (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) * * * (1) Each kiln and each in
- line kiln/raw mill, including alkali bypasses, except for kilns and in
- line kiln/raw mills 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 ;183

(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 t o convey coal from the mill to the kiln at any portland cement plant; and (8) Each bagging and bulk loading and unloading system at any portland cement plant. (c) Crushers are not covered by this subpart regardless of their location . * * * * * 3 . Section 63.1341 is amended by adding definitions for “Clinker , ” “Crusher,” “New Source” and “Total organic HAP” in alphabetic order to read as follows: §6 3.1341 Definitions. * * * * * 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. * * * * * C rusher means a machine designed to reduce large rocks from the quarry into materials approximately the size of gravel.

* * * * * *184

New Source means any source that commences construction after December 2, 2005 for purposes of determining the applicability of the kiln in
- line raw mill/kiln, clinker cooler and raw material dryer emissions limits for mercury , THC, and HCl. New source means any source that commences construction after [INSERT THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THIS PROPOSED RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] for purposes of determining the applicability of the kiln in
- line raw mill/kiln AND clinker cooler emissions limits for PM . * * * * * Total organic HAP means, for the purposes of this subpart, the sum of the concentrations of compounds of formaldehyde, benzene, toluene, s tyrene, m- xylene, p
- xylene, o
- xylene, acetaldehyde, and naphthalene as measur ed by EPA Test Method 25 or 25A. 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 o f those analytes will be assumed to be zero for the purposes of calculating the total organic HAP for this subpart. * * * * * 4 . Section 6 3 . 1343 is amended :185

a. By r evising paragraph (a ); b. By revising paragraph (b) introductory text, c. By revising paragraph (b) (1) ; d . By a dding paragraphs (b)(4) through (b)(6);
e . By r evising paragraph (c) introductory text ; f. By revising paragraph s (c)(1) , (c)(4) and (c)(5) ; and g . By a dding paragraph (c)(6) , h . By r emoving paragraphs (d) and (e) to read as follows: §6 3.1343 Standards for kilns and in - line kiln/raw mills . (a) General . The provisions in this section apply to each kiln, each in
- line kiln/raw mill, and any alkali bypass associated with that kiln or in
- line kiln/raw mill. All dioxin furan (D/F) and THC emission limits are on a dry basis, corrected to 7 p ercent oxygen. All total hydrocarbon (THC) emission limits are measured as propane. (b) Existing kiln s located at major or area sources . No owner or operator of an existing kiln or an existing in
- line kiln/raw mill located at a facility that is subject to the provisions of this subpart shall cause to be discharged into the atmosphere from these affected sources, any gases which: (1) Con tain particulate matter (PM) in excess of 0.0 85 pounds per ton of clinker. When there is an alkali bypass associated with a kiln or in
- line kiln/raw mill, the combined PM emissions from the kiln or in
- line kiln/raw mill and the alkali186

bypass stack are sub ject to this emission limit. Kiln, or in
line kiln/raw mills 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 and alternative PM emissions limit. This limit is calculated using the following equation: PM alt = 0. 0 0 67 x 1.65 x (Q k + Q c )/7000 (Eq. 1) Where: 0. 0 0 67 is the PM exhaust concentration equivalent to 0.0 85 lb per ton clinker where clinker cooler and kiln exhaust gas are not combined. Q k is the exhaust flow of the kiln (dscf/ton raw feed) Q c is the exhaust flow of the clinker cooler (dscf/ton raw feed) * * * * * (4) Contain THC in e xcess of 7 ppmv or total organic HAP in excess of 2 ppmv from the main exhaust of the kiln or in
- line kiln/raw mill . (5) Contain mercury (Hg) in excess of 43 lb per million tons of clinker . When there is an alkali bypass associated with a kiln or in
- line kiln/raw mill, the combined Hg emissions from the kiln or in
- line kiln/raw mill and the alkali bypass are subject to this emission limit.187

(6) Contain hydrogen chloride (HCl) in excess of 2 ppmv from the main exhaust of the kiln or in
- line kiln/raw mill if the kiln or in
- line kiln/raw mill is located at a major source of HAP emissions . (c) New or reconstructed kilns located at major or area
sources . No owner or operator of a new or recons tructed kiln or new or reconstructed inline kiln/raw mill located at a facility subject to the provisions of this subpart shall cause to be discharged into the atmosphere from these affected sources any gases which: (1) Contain PM in excess of 0.0 80 poun ds per ton of clinker. When there is an alkali bypass associated with a kiln or in
- line kiln/raw mill, the combined PM emissions from the kiln or in
- line kiln/raw mill and the alkali bypass stack are subject to this emission limit. Kiln, or in
- line kiln/ raw mills 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 following equation: PM alt = 0.0 0 63 x 1.65 x (Q k + Q c )/7000 (Eq. 2) Where: 0.0 0 63 is the PM exhaust concentration equivalent to 0.0 80 lb per ton clinker where clinker cooler and kiln exhaust gas are not combined.188 Q k is the exhaust flow of the kiln (dscf/ton raw feed) Q c is the exhaust flow of the clinker cooler (dscf/ton raw feed) * * * * * (4) Contain THC in excess of 6 ppmv, or total organic HAP in excess of 1 ppmv, from the main exhaust of the kiln, or main exhaus t of the in
- line kiln/raw mill. (5) Contain Hg from the main exhaust of the kiln, or main exhaust of the in
- line kiln/raw mill, in excess of 14 lb/million tons of clinker . When there is an alkali bypass associated with a kiln, or in
- line kiln/raw mill, the combined Hg emissions from the kiln or in
- line kiln/raw mill and the alkali bypass are subject to this emission limit. (6) Contain HCl in excess of 0.1 ppmv from the main exhaust of the kiln, or main exhaust of the in
- line kiln/raw mill if the kiln or in
- line kiln/raw mill is located at a major source of HAP emissions. 5 . Section 63.1344 is amended :
a . By r evising paragraph (c) introductory text , b. By r evising paragraphs (d) and (e); and b. By r emoving paragraphs (f),(g) (h) and (i) to read as follows : §63.1344 Operating limits for kilns and in - line kiln/raw mills.189

* * * * * (c) The owner or operator of an affected source subject to a D/F emission limitatio n under §63.1343 that employs carbon injection as an emission control technique must operate the carbon injection system in accordance with paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of this section. * * * * * (d) Except a s provided in paragraph (e) of this sectio n, the owner or operator of an affected source subject to a D/F emission limitation under §63.1343 that employs carbon injection as an emission control technique must specify and use the brand and type of activated carbon 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) The owner or operator of an affected source subject to a D/F emission limitation under §63.1343 that employs carbon injection as an emission control technique may substitute, at any time, a different brand or type of activa ted carbon provided that the replacement has equivalent or improved properties compared to the activated carbon specified in the site
- specific performance test plan and used in the performance test. The190

owner or operator must maintain documentation that the substitute activated carbon will provide the same or better level of control as the original activated carbon. 6 . Section 63.1345 is amended by revising paragraph (a) introductory text and paragraph (a)(1) to read as follows: § 63.1345 Standards for clinker coolers . (a) No owner or operator of a new or existing clinker cooler at a facility which is a major source or an area source subject to the provision of this subpart shall cause to be discharged into the atmosphere from the cli n ker cooler any ga ses which: (1) Contain PM in excess of 0.0 85 lb per ton of clinker for existing sources or 0.0 80 lb per ton of clinker for new
sources . * * * * * 7 . Section 63.1346 is revised to read as follows: § 63.1346 Standards for raw material dryers. (a) Raw material dryers that are located at facilities that are major sources can not discharge to the atmosphere any gases which : (1) Exhibit opacity greater then 10 percent; or (2) Contain THC in excess of 7 ppmv (existing sources) or 6 ppmv (new sources) , on a dry basis as propane corrected to 7 percent oxygen .191

(b) Raw Material dryers located at a facility that is an area source must not discharge to the atmosphere any gases which contain THC in excess of 7 ppmv (existing sources) or 6 ppmv (new sources) , on a dry basis as propane corrected to 7 percent oxygen . 8 . Section 63.1349 is amended :
a. By r evising paragraph (b) introductory text ; b. By revising paragraphs (b)(1) introductory text , (b)(1)(ii), (iii), (iv) and (vii); c. By revising paragraphs (b) (4) and (b)(5); d . By a dding paragraph (b)(6 ) ;
e . By revising paragraph (c); f . By a dding paragraph (f) ; and g . By adding paragraph (g) to read as follows: §63.1349 Performance testing requirements. * * * * * (b) Performance tests to demonstrate initial compliance with this subpart shall be conducted as specified in paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(7) of this section. (1) The owner or operator of a kiln subject to limitations
on PM emissions that is not equipped with a PM CEMS shall demonstrate initial compliance by conducting a performance test as specified in paragraphs (b)(1)(i) through (b)(1)(iv) of this section. The owner or operator of an in
- line kiln/raw mill192

subject to limitations on PM emissions that is not equipped with a PM CEMS shall demonstrate initial compliance by conducting separate performance tests as specified in paragraphs (b)(1)(i) through (b)(1)(iv) of this section while the raw mill of the in
line kiln/raw mill is under normal opera ting conditions and while the raw mill of the in
- line kiln/raw mill is not operating. The owner or operator of a clinker cooler subject to limitations on PM emissions shall demonstrate initial compliance by conducting a performance test as specified in pa ragraphs (b)(1)(i) through (b)(1)(iii) of this section. The owner or operator shall determine the opacity of PM emissions exhibited during the period of the Method 5 (40 CFR part 60, appendix A
- 3) performance tests required by paragraph (b)(1)(i) of this section as required in paragraphs (b)(1)(v) through (vi) of this section. The owner or operator of a kiln or inline kiln/raw mill subject to limitations on PM emissions that is equipped with a PM CEMS shall demonstrate initial compliance by conducting a performance test as specified in paragraph (b)(1)(vii ) of this section. * * * * * (ii) The owner or operator must install, calibrate, maintain and operate a permanent weigh scale system, or use another method approved by the Administrator, to measure and record weight rates in tons
-mass per hour of the amount of193

clinker produced. The system of measuring hourly clinker production must be maintained within ±5 percent accuracy. The use of a system that directly measures kiln feed rate and uses a conversion factor to determine the clinker production rate is an
acc eptable method. (iii) The emission rate, E, of PM (1b/ton of clinker) shall be computed for each run using equation 1 of this section:



##    PK Q C E sd

s 

###  (Eq. 3 ) Where: E = emission rate of particulate matter, kg/metric ton (lb/ton) of clinker production; C s = concentration of particulate matter, g/dscm (gr/dscf); Q sd = volumetric flow rate of effluent gas, dscm/hr (dscf/hr); P = total kiln clinker production rate, metric ton/hr (ton/hr); and K = conversion factor, 1000 g/kg (7000 gr/lb). (iv) Where there is an alkali bypass associated with a kiln or in
- line kiln/raw mill, the main exhaust and alkali bypass of the kiln or in
- line kiln/raw mill shall be tested simultaneously and the combined emission rate of particulate matter from the kiln or in
- line raw mill and alkali bypass shall be computed for each run using equation 2 of this section:194 

##   

PK Q C Q C E sdb sb sdk k s c 

###   (Eq. 4 ) Where: E c = combined emission rate of particulate matter from the kiln or in
- line kiln/raw mill and bypass stack, kg/metric ton (lb/ton) of kiln clinker production; C sk = concentration of particulate matter in the kiln or in
- line kiln/raw mill effluent gas, g/dscm (gr/dscf); Q sdk = volumetric flow rate of kiln or in
- line kiln/raw mill effluent gas, dscm/hr (dscf/hr); C sb = concentration of particulate matter in the alkali bypass gas, g/dscm (gr/dscf); Q sdb = volumetric flow rate of alkali bypass effluent gas, dscm/hr (dscf/hr); P = total kiln clinker production rate, metric ton/hr (ton/hr); and K = conversion factor, 1000 g/kg (7000 gr/lb). conversion factor, 1000 g/kg (7000 gr/lb). * * * * * (vii) The owner or operator of a kiln or in
- line kiln/raw mill subject to limitations on emissions of PM that is equipped with a PM CEMS shall demonstrate initial compliance by operating the CEMS in accordance with Performance Specification 11 (40 CFR part 60, appendix B). The duration of the test shall be 3195

hours. The owner or operator shall calculate the PM emission rate in kg/metric ton ( lb/ton ) of clinker using Equation 1 or 2 of this section. The owner or operator of an in
- line kiln/raw mill shall conduct separate performance tests while the raw mill of the in
- line kiln/raw mill is under normal operati ng conditions and while the raw mill of the in
- line kiln/raw mill is not operating. The owner or operator shall continuously measure kiln feed rate, volumetric flow rate, and clinker production during the period of the test. * * * * * (4)(i) The owner or operator of an affected source subject to limitations on emissions of THC shall demonstrate initial compliance with the THC limit by operating a continuous emission monitor in accordance with Performance Specification 8A (40 CFR part 60, appendix B). The duration of the performance test shall be 24 hours . The owner or operator shall calculate the daily average THC concentration ( as calculated from the one minute averages ) during the performance test. The owner or operator of an in
- line kiln/raw mill shall demonstrate initial compliance by conducting separate performance tests while the raw mill of the in
- line kiln/raw mill is under normal operating conditions and while the raw mill of the in
- line kiln/raw mill is not operating.196

(ii) As an alternative to complying with the THC limit, the owner or ope rator may comply with the limits for total organic HAP, as defined in § 63.1341, by following the procedures in (b)(4)(ii) through (b)(4)(vi) of this section. (iii) The owner or operator of a kiln complying with the alternative emissions limits for total organic HAP in § 63.1343 shall demonstrate initial compliance by conducting a performance test as specified in paragraphs (b)(4)(ii) through (b)(4)(vi) of this section. The owner or operator of an in
- line kiln/raw mill complying with the emissions limits f or total organic HAP in § 63.1343 shall demonstrate initial compliance by conducting separate performance tests as specified in paragraphs (b)(4)(ii) through (b)(4)(vi) of this section while the raw mill of the in
line kiln/raw mill is under normal operatin g conditions and while the raw mill of the in
- line kiln /raw mill is not operating. (iv) Method 320 of appendix A to this part alone or in combination with method 18 of appendix A to part 60 of this chapter shall be used to determine emission s of total organic HAP. Each performance test shall 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 shall be conducted for at197

least 1 hour. The average of the three runs shall be used to determine initial compliance. (v) At the same time that the owner or operator is determining compliance with the emissions limits for total organic HAP, the owner or operator shall also determine THC emissions by operating a continuous emis sion monitor in accordance with Performance Specification 8A of appendix B to part 60 of this chapter. The dur ation of the test shall be three hours, and the average THC concentra tion (as calculated from the
one -minute averages) during the three
- hour test shall be calculated. The THC concentration measured during the initial performance test for total organic HAP will be used to monitor compliance subsequent to the initial performance test. (vi) Emissions tests to determine complianc e with total inorganic HAP limits shall be repeated annually, beginning one year from the date of the initial performance tests. (5) The owner or operator of a kiln or in
- line kiln/raw mill subject to an emission limitation for mercury in § 63.1343 shall demonstrate initial compliance with the mercury limit by complying with the requirements of (b)(5)(i) through (b)(5)(vi) of this section. (i) Operate a continuous emission monitor in accordance with Performance Specification 12A ( 40 CFR part 60, appen dix B ). The duration of the performance test shall be a calendar month.198

For each calendar month in which the kiln or in
- line kiln/raw mill operates, hourly Hg concentration data, stack gas volumetric flow rate data shall be obtained. The owner or operator of an in
- line kiln/raw mill shall demonstrate initial compliance by operating a continuous emission monitor while the raw mill of the in
- line kiln/raw mill is under normal operating conditions and while the raw mill of the in
- line kiln/raw mill is not operating. (ii) Owner s or operator s using a mercury CEMS 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 § 60.63(m) of this chapter. (iii) The owner or operator shall determine comp liance with the Hg limitations by dividing the average Hg concentration by the clinker production rate during the same calendar month using the Equation 3 of this section:



##    PK Q C E sd

s 

###  (Eq. 5 ) Where: E = emission rate of mercury , kg/metric ton (lb/million tons) of clinker production; C s = concentration of mercury, g/dscm (g/dscf);199

Q sd = volumetric flow rate of effluent gas, dscm/hr (dscf/hr); P = total kiln clinker production rate, metric ton/hr (million ton/hr); and K = conversion factor, 1000 g/kg (454 g/lb). (6 ) The owner or operator of an affected source subject to limitations on emissions of HCl shall demonstrate initial compliance with the HCl limit by one of the following methods: (i) If your source is equipped with a wet scrubber such as a spray tower, packed bed, or tray tower, use Method 321 of appendix A to this part. A repeat test must be performed every 5 years to demonstrate continued compliance. (i i ) If your source is not controlled by a wet s crubber, you must operate a continuous emission monitor in accordance with Performance Specification 15 of appendix B of part 60. The duration of the performance test shall be 24 hours . The owner or operator shall calculate the daily average HCl concentr ation (as calculated from the one -minute averages ) during the performance test. The owner or operator of an in
- line kiln/raw mill shall demonstrate initial compliance by conducting separate performance tests while the raw mill of the in
- line kiln/raw mill is under normal operating conditions and while the raw mill of the in
- line kiln/raw mill is not operating. (c) Except as provided in paragraph (e) of this section, performance tests are required for existing kilns or in
- line200

kiln/raw mills that are subject to a PM, THC, HCl or mercury emissions limit and must be repeated every 5 years except for pollutants where that specific pollutant is monitored using a CEMS. * * * * * ( f ) The owner or operator of an affected facility shall submit the information specified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(4) of this section no later than 60 days following the initial performance test. All reports shall be signed by the facilities manager. (1) The initial performance test data as recorded under §60.56c(b)(1) through (b)(14), as applicable. (2) The values for the site
- specific operating parameters established pursuant to §60.56c(d), (h), or (j), as applicable, and a description, including sample calculations, of how the operating paramete rs were established during the initial performance test. ( 3 ) For each affected facility as defined in §60.50c(a)(3) . (4) That uses a bag leak detection system, analysis and supporting documentation demonstrating conformance with EPA guidance and specifications for bag leak detection systems in §60.57c(h).201

(g) For affected facilities, as defined in §60.50c(a)(3) and (4), that choose to submit an electronic copy of stack test reports to EPA’s WebFIRE data base, as of December 31, 2011, the
owner o r operator of an affected facility shall enter the test data into EPA’s data base using the Electronic Reporting Tool located at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/ert

_ tool.html. 9. Section 63.1350 is amended : a. By revising paragraph (g) introductory text; b. By revising paragraph (h) introductory text;
c. By revising paragraph (h)(2) through (h)(4); d. By revising paragraph (k); b. By revising paragraphs (m ) introductory text;
e. By revising paragraph (n),(o) and (p); and
c. By adding new paragraph (q) and (r) to read as follows: §63.1350 Monitoring requirements. * * * * * (g) The owner or operator of an af fected source subject to an emissions limitation on D /F emissions that employs carbon injection as an emission control technique shall comply with the monitoring requirements of paragraphs (f)(1) through (f)(6) and (g)(1) through (g)(6) of this section to demonstrate continuous compliance with the D/F emission s standard. * * * * *202

(h) The owner or operator of an affected source subject to a limitation on THC emissions under this subpart shall comply with the monitoring requirements of paragraphs (h)(1) through (h)(3) of this section to demonstrate continu ous compliance with the THC emission standard: * * * * * ( 2 ) For existing facilities complying with the THC emissions limi ts of § 63.1343 , the 30 day average THC concentration in any gas discharged from the main exhaust of a kiln, or in
- line kiln/raw mill, must not exceed their THC emissions limit , reported as propane, corrected to seven percent oxygen. (3) For new or reconstructed facilities complying with the THC emission limits of § 63.1343 , the 30 day average THC concentration in any gas discharge d from the main exhaust of a kiln or in
- line kiln/raw mill must not exceed their THC emission limit, reported as propane, corrected to seven percent oxygen. (4) For new or reconstructed facilities complying with the THC emission limits of § 63.1346 , any daily average THC concentration in any gas discharged from a raw material dryer must not exceed their THC emission limit, reported as propane, corrected to seven percent oxygen. * * * * *203

(k) The owner or operator of an affected source subject to a particulate matter standard under § 63.1343 using a fabric filter for PM control must install, operate, and maintain a bag leak detection system according to paragraphs ( k )(1) through (k) (3) of this section. (1) Each ba g leak detection system must meet the specifications and requirements in paragraphs ( k )(1)(i) through ( k )(1)(viii) of this section. (i) The bag leak detection system must be certified by the manufacturer to be capable of detecting PM emissions at concent rations of 1 milligram per dry standard cubic meter (0.00044 grains per actual cubic foot) or less. (ii) The bag leak detection system sensor must provide output of relative PM loadings. The owner or operator shall continuously record the output from the bag leak detection system using electronic or other means (e.g., using a strip chart recorder or a data logger). (iii) The bag leak detection system must be equipped with an alarm system that will sound when the system detects an increase in relative par ticulate loading over the alarm set point established according to paragraph ( k )(1)(iv) of this section, and the alarm must be located such that it can be heard by the appropriate plant personnel.204

(iv) In the initial adjustment of the bag leak detection
s ystem, you must establish, at a minimum, the baseline output by adjusting the sensitivity (range) and the averaging period of the device, the alarm set points, and the alarm delay time. (v) Following initial adjustment, you shall not adjust the averaging period, alarm set point, or alarm delay time without approval from the Administrator or delegated authority except as provided in paragraph ( k )(1)(vi) of this section. (vi) Once per quarter, you may adjust the sensitivity of the bag leak detection system to account for seasonal effects, including temperature and humidity, according to the procedures identified in the site
- specific monitoring plan required by paragraph ( k )(2) of this section. (vii) You must install the bag leak detection sensor downstream of the fabric filter. (viii) Where multiple detectors are required, the system’s instrumentation and alarm may be shared among detectors. (2) You must develop and submit to the Administrator or delegated authority for approval a site
- specific monitoring plan for each bag leak detection system. You must operate and maintain the bag leak detection system according to the site
specific monitoring plan at all times. Each monitoring plan must describe the items in paragraphs ( k )(2)(i) through205

( k ) ( 2)(vi) of this section. At a minimum you must retain records related to the site
- specific monitoring plan and information discussed in paragraphs ( k )(2)(i) through ( k ) ( 2)(vi) of this section for a period of 2 years on
- site and 3 years off
- site; (i) Installation of the bag leak detection system; (ii) Initial and periodic adjustment of the bag leak detection system, including how the alarm set
-point will be established; (iii) Operation of the bag leak detection system, including quality assurance procedures; (iv) How the bag leak detection system will be maintained, including a routine maintenance schedule and spare parts inventory list; (v) How the bag leak detection system output will be recorded and stored; and (vi) Corrective action procedures as specified in paragraph ( k )(3) of this section. In approving the site
specific monitoring plan, the Administrator or delegated authority may allow owners and operators more than 3 hours to alleviate a specific condition that causes an alarm if the owner or operator identifies in the monitoring plan this specific condition as one that could lead to an alarm, adequately explains why it is not feasible to alleviate this condition206

within 3 hours of the time the alarm occurs, and demonstrates that the requested time will en sure alleviation of this condition as expeditiously as practicable. (3) For each bag leak detection system, you must initiate procedures to determine the cause of every alarm within 1 hour of the alarm. Except as provided in paragraph ( k )(2)(vi) of this section, you must alleviate the cause of the alarm within 3 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, to rn 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. (4) The owner or operator of a kiln or clinker cooler using a PM continuous emission monitoring system ( CEMS ) to207

demonstrate compliance with the particulate matter emission limit in §6 3 . 1343 must install, certify, operate, and maintain the CEMS as specified in paragraphs ( p )( 1 ) through ( p )(3) of thi s section. * * * * * (m) The requirements under paragraph (e) of this section to conduct daily Method 22 testing shall not apply to any specific raw mill or finish mill equipped with a continuous opacity monitor system (COMS ) or bag leak detection system (BLDS). If the owner or operator chooses to install a COM in lieu of conducting the daily visual emissions testing required under paragraph (e) of this section, then the COM must be installed at the outlet of the PM control device of the raw mill or finish mill, and the COM 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. The 6
-miunute average opacity for any 6
-minute block period must not exceed 10 percent. If the owner or operator chooses to install a BLDS in lieu of conducting the daily visual emissions testing required under paragraph (e ) of this section, the requirements in paragraphs (k)(1) through(k)(3) of this section apply to each BLDS. * * * * *208

(n) The owner or operator of a kiln or in
- line kiln raw mill shall install a CEMS to continuously measure mercury emission rate s in accordance with Performance Specification 12A ( 40 CFR part 60, appendix B ). The owner or op erator shall operate and maintain each CEMS according to the quality assurance requirements in Procedure 1 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix F. (o) The owner or operator of any portland cement plant subject to the PM limit (lb/ton of clinker) for new or existing
area sources in §63.1343(d) or (e) shall: (1) I nstall, calibrate, maintain and operate a permanent weigh scale system, o r use another method approved by the Administrator, 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. The use of a system that directly measures kiln feed rate and uses a conversion fac tor to determine the clinker production rate is an acceptable method. (2) Record the daily clinker production rates and kiln feed rates. (p) The owner or operator of a kiln or clinker cooler using a PM continuous emission monitoring system (CEMS) to demon strate compliance with the particulate matter emission limit in §6 3.1343 must install, certify, operate, and maintain the CEMS209

as specified in paragraphs ( p )( 1 ) through ( p )(3) of this section. (1) The owner or operator must conduct a performance evaluation of the PM CEMS according to the applicable requirements of §60.13, Performance Specification 11 of appendix B of part 60, and Procedure 2 of appendix F to part 60. (2) During each relative accuracy test run of the CEMS required by Performan ce Specification 11 of appendix B to part 60, PM and oxygen (or carbon dioxide) data must be collected concurrently (or within a 30
- to 60
-minute period) during operation of the CEMS and when conducting performance tests using the following test methods: (i ) For PM, Method 5 or 5B of appendix A- 5 to part 60 or Method 17 of appendix A- 6 to part 60. (ii) For oxygen (or carbon dioxide), Method 3, 3A, or 3B of appendix A- 2 to part 60, as applicable. (3) Procedure 2 of appendix F to part 60 for quarterly accuracy determinations and daily calibration drift tests. The owner or operator must perform Relative Response Audit s annually and Response Correlation Audits every 3 years. (q) The owner or operator of an affected source subject to limitations on emissions of HCl shall :210

(i) Continuously monitor compliance with the HCl limit by operating a continuous emission monitor in accordance with Performance Specification 15 of part 60, appendix B. The owner or operator shall operat e and maintain each CEMS according to the quality assurance requirements in Procedure 1 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix F, or (ii) Monitor your wet scrubber parameters as specified in 40 CFR part 63 subpart SS. (r ) The owner or operator complying with the total organic HAP emissions limits of §63.1343 shall continuously monitor THC according to paragraphs ( r )(1) through ( r )(3) of this section to demonstrate continuous compliance with the emission limits for total organic HAP. (1) Install, operate and maintain a THC continuous emission monitoring system in accordance with Performance Specification 8A, of appendix B to part 60 of this chapter and comply with all of the requirements for continuous monitoring found in the general provisions, subpart A of the part. (2) C alculate the three
- hour average THC concentration as the average of 180 successive one -minute average THC readings. The three
- hour average THC concentration shall not exceed the average THC concentration established during the initial performance tests for total organic HAP .211

1 0 . Section 63.1351 is amended by revising paragraph (d) and adding paragraph s (e) and (f) to read as follows: §63.1351 Compliance dates. * * * * * ( d) The compliance date for a new source which commenced construction after December 2, 2005, and before December 20, 2006 to meet the THC emission limit of 6 ppmvd or the mercury standard of 14 lb/MM tons clinker will be December 21, 2009 , or the effective da te of these amendments, whichever is later. (e) The compliance data for existing sources with the revised PM, mercury, THC, and HCl emissions limits will be 3 years from the effective data of these amendments. (f) The compliance dat e for new sources not subject to paragraph (d) of this section will be the effective date of the final rule or startup, whichever is later. 1 1 . Section 63.1354 is amended by adding paragraph (b)(9)(vi) to read as follows: §63.1354 Reporting requirements. * * * * * (b ) * * * (9) * * * (vi) Monthly rolling average mercury concentration for each kiln and in
- line kiln/raw mill. * * * * *212

1 2 . Section 63.1355 is amended by revising paragraph (e) to read as follows: §63.1355 Recordkeeping requirements . * * * * * (e) You must keep records of the daily clinker production rates and kiln feed rates for area sources. * * * * * 1 3 . Section 63.135 6 is revised to read as follows: §63.1356 Sources with multiple emission l imits 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. 1 4 . 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 Comment 63.1(a)(1)

– (4) Applicability Yes213

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]214

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] 63.6(e)(1)

– (2) Operation & Maintenance Yes 63.6(e)(3) Startup, Shutdown Malfunction Plan Yes 63.6(f)(1)

– (3) Compliance with Emission Standards Yes 63.6(g)(1)

– (3) Alternative Standard Yes 63.6(h)(1)

– (2) Opacity/VE Standards Yes 63.6(h)(3) No d] 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 Yes215

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)

– (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 63.8(e) Performance Evaluation for CMS Yes Performance specification supersedes requirements for THC CEMS. 63.8(f)(1)

– (5) Alternative Monitoring Method Yes Additional requirements in §63.1350(l).216

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 63.10(a) Recordkeeping/Reporting Yes 63.10(b) General Requirements Yes 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 requirements217
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 Yes 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