Vol. 77 Wednesday, 

No. 138 July 18, 2012 

Part II 

Environmental Protection Agency 

40 CFR Parts 60 and 63 

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for the Portland 

Cement Manufacturing Industry and Standards of Performance for Portland 

Cement Plants; Proposed Rule 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

42368 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 138 / Wednesday, July 18, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 60 and 63 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–0817; FRL–9692–9] 

RIN 2060–AQ93 

National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants for the 

Portland Cement Manufacturing 

Industry and Standards of 

Performance for Portland Cement 

Plants 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rules on 

reconsideration. 

SUMMARY: The EPA is proposing 

amendments to the National Emission 

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 

for the Portland cement industry for 

Portland cement plants issued under 

sections 112(d) of the Clean Air Act. 

Specifically, the EPA is proposing to 

amend the existing and new source 

standards for particulate matter (PM). 

The EPA is also proposing amendments 

with respect to issues on which it 

granted reconsideration on May 17, 

2011. In addition, the EPA is proposing 

amendments to the new source 

performance standard for PM issued 

pursuant to section 111(b) of the Clean 

Air Act. These proposed amendments 

would promote flexibility, reduce costs, 

and ease compliance burdens. EPA is 

also addressing the remand of the 

emission standards in the NESHAP by 

the D.C. Circuit on December 9, 2011. 

Finally, the EPA is proposing to extend 

the date for compliance with the 

existing source national emission 

standards for hazardous air pollutants to 

September 9, 2015. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before August 17, 2012. Any requests 

for a public hearing must be received by 

July 30, 2012. If the EPA holds a public 

hearing, the EPA will keep the record of 

the hearing open for thirty days after 

completion of the hearing to provide an 

opportunity for submission of rebuttal 

and supplementary information. 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 receives a copy of your 

comments on or before August 17, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID Number EPA– 

HQ–OAR–2011–0817, by one of the 

following methods: 

• Federal Rulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Agency Web site: http:// 

www.epa.gov/oar/docket.html. Follow 

the instructions for submitting 

comments on the EPA Air and Radiation 

Docket Web site. 

• Email: a-and-r-docket@epa.gov. 

Include EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–0817 in 

the subject line of the message. 

• Fax: Fax your comments to: (202) 

566–9744, Attention Docket ID Number 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–0817. 

• Mail: Send your comments to: The 

EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Mailcode: 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania 

Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460, 

Attention: Docket ID Number EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2011–0817. Please include a total 

of two copies. In addition, please mail 

a copy of your comments on the 

information collection provisions to the 

Office of Information and Regulatory 

Affairs, Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB), Attn: Desk Officer for the 

EPA, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, 

DC 20503. 

• Hand Delivery or Courier: In person 

or by courier, deliver comments to the 

EPA Docket Center, EPA West (Air 

Docket), Room 3334, 1301 Constitution 

Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460, 

Attention Docket ID Number EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2011–0817. Such deliveries are 

only accepted during the Docket’s 

normal hours of operation (8:30 a.m. to 

4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

excluding legal holidays), and special 

arrangements should be made for 

deliveries of boxed information. Please 

include two copies. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID Number EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2011–0817. The EPA policy is that all 

comments received will be included in 

the public docket without change and 

may be made available online at http:// 

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 http:// 

www.regulations.gov or email. The 

http://www.regulations.gov Web site is 

an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means the EPA will not know your 

identity or contact information unless 

you provide it in the body of your 

comment. If you send an email 

comment directly to the EPA without 

going through http:// 

www.regulations.gov, your email 

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 

submit an electronic comment, the 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 the EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, the 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. For additional information 

about the EPA public docket, visit the 

EPA Docket Center homepage at http:// 

www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm. 

Docket. The EPA has established a 

docket for this rulemaking under Docket 

ID Number EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–0817. 

All documents in the docket are listed 

in the http://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 http:// 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the EPA Docket Center, EPA West, 

Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. 

NW., Washington, DC. The Public 

Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 

4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

excluding legal holidays. The telephone 

number for the Public Reading Room is 

(202) 566–1744, and the telephone 

number for the EPA Docket Center is 

(202) 566–1742. Note that information 

pertinent to the previous Portland 

cement rulemakings discussed in this 

document is contained in dockets EPA– 

HQ–OAR–2002–0051 and EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2007–0877. 

Public Hearing. If a public hearing is 

held, it will begin at 10:00 a.m. on 

August 2, 2012 and will be held at the 

EPA campus in Research Triangle Park, 

North Carolina, or at an alternate facility 

nearby. Persons interested in presenting 

oral testimony or inquiring as to 

whether a public hearing is to be held 

should contact Ms. Pamela Garrett, 

Office of Air Quality Planning and 

Standards, Sector Policies and Programs 

Division, Metals and Minerals Group 

(D243–01), U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Research Triangle 

Park, North Carolina 27711; email: 

garrett.pamela@epa.gov; telephone 

number: (919) 541–7966. Persons 

interested in presenting oral testimony 

or inquiring as to whether a public 

hearing is to be held should contact Ms. 

Garrett at least 2 days in advance of the 

potential date of the public hearing. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 138 / Wednesday, July 18, 2012 / Proposed Rules 42369 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Sharon Nizich, Office of Air Quality 

Planning and Standards; Sector Policies 

and Programs Division, Minerals and 

Manufacturing Group (D243–04); 

Environmental Protection Agency; 

Research Triangle Park, NC 27111; 

telephone number: (919) 541–2825; fax 

number: (919) 541–5450; email address: 

nizich.sharon@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

information presented in this preamble 

is organized as follows: 

I. General Information 

A. Executive Summary 

B. Does this action apply to me? 

C. What should I consider as I prepare my 

comments to the EPA? 

D. Where can I get a copy of this 

document? 

II. Background Information 

A. What is the statutory authority for these 

proposed amendments? 

B. What actions preceded this proposed 

rule? 

III. Description of Proposed Amendments to 

Subpart LLL and Subpart F 

A. Reconsideration of Standards 

B. Mercury Standard 

C. THC Standard 

D. Proposed Amendments to Existing 

Source and New Source Standards for 

PM Under Section 112(d) and 111(b) 

E. Summary of Proposed Standards 

Resulting From Reconsideration 

F. Standards for Fugitive Emissions From 

Clinker Storage Piles 

G. Affirmative Defense to Civil Penalties 

for Exceedances Occurring During 

Malfunctions 

H. Continuously Monitored Parameters for 

Alternative Organic HAP Standard (With 

THC Monitoring Parameter) 

I. Allowing Sources With Dry Caustic 

Scrubbers to Comply With HCl Standard 

Using Performance Tests 

J. Alternative PM Limit 

K. Standards During Startup and 

Shutdown 

L. Coal Mills 

M. PM Standard for Modified Sources 

Under the NSPS 

N. Proposed NESHAP Compliance Date 

Extension for Existing Sources 

O. Eligibility to be a New Source 

IV. Other Proposed Testing and Monitoring 

Revisions 

V. Other Changes and Areas Where We Are 

Requesting Comment 

VI. Summary of Cost, Environmental, 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 air 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 health effects of these 

pollutants? 

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions 

To Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations 

I. General Information 

A. Executive Summary 

The EPA is proposing amendments to 

the emissions standards for hazardous 

air pollutants (HAP) and to the 

performance standards for Portland 

cement plants. These proposed 

amendments respond to petitions for 

reconsideration filed by the Portland 

cement industry and to a decision by 

the United States Court of Appeals for 

the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. 

Circuit). These amendments, which are 

consistent with the CAA, if adopted, 

will also provide less costly compliance 

options and compliance flexibilities, 

and thereby result in cost savings for the 

Portland cement industry. This result 

would also be consistent with Executive 

Order 13563. The proposed 

amendments include a new compliance 

date for the PM, mercury, HCl, and THC 

existing source standards. 

(1) Purpose of the Regulatory Action 

a. Need for the Regulatory Action. The 

EPA is proposing amendments to the 

national emission standards for 

hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) for 

the Portland cement source category and 

to the new source performance 

standards (NSPS) for Portland cement 

plants issued under sections 112(d) and 

111(b) of the Clean Air Act (CAA). 

Section 112 of the CAA establishes a 

regulatory process to address emissions 

of HAP from stationary sources. After 

the EPA identifies categories of sources 

emitting one or more of the HAP listed 

in section 112(b) of the CAA, section 

112(d) requires the EPA to promulgate 

technology-based NESHAP for those 

sources. Section 111 of the CAA 

requires that NSPS reflect the 

application of the best system of 

emission reductions achievable which, 

taking into consideration the cost of 

achieving such emission reductions, 

and any non-air quality health and 

environmental impact and energy 

requirements, the Administrator 

determines has been adequately 

demonstrated. 

This proposal addresses the remand 

by the D.C. Circuit in Portland Cement 

Ass’n v. EPA, 665 F. 3d 177 (D.C. Cir. 

2011). In that case, the court upheld all 

of the EPA’s methodology for 

establishing the Portland cement 

NESHAP, denied all petitions for review 

challenging the NSPS, but also held that 

the EPA had arbitrarily denied 

reconsideration of the NESHAP to take 

into account the effect of the EPA’s 

Nonhazardous Secondary Materials 

(NHSM) rule on the standards. The 

NHSM rule, issued after the NESHAP 

was promulgated, had the effect of 

reclassifying some cement kilns as 

commercial and industrial solid waste 

incinerators (CISWI) and thus could 

have an effect on the standards. 

The proposal also addresses technical 

issues with respect to the standard for 

PM in both the NESHAP and the NSPS 

that have emerged since these rules’ 

promulgation. We are proposing to 

amend the standard for PM, and also 

proposing to amend various 

implementation requirements in a way 

that would provide more compliance 

flexibilities. In addition, the proposal 

addresses the issues on which the EPA 

previously granted reconsideration. 

b. Legal Authority for the Regulatory 

Action. These proposed amendments 

implement sections 112(d) and 111(b) of 

the CAA. 

(2) Summary of Major Proposed 

Provisions 

a. PM (PM) Emission Standards. The 

EPA is proposing changes to the 

emission standards for PM that 

potentially make available compliance 

alternatives unavailable under the 

promulgated existing source standards. 

The promulgated rule requires 

compliance to be demonstrated using a 

Continuous Emission Monitoring 

System (CEMS) (see section 63.1348 (75 

FR 55056)). Based on the information 

the EPA now has, we believe that it may 

be problematic for a PM CEMS to meet 

the mandated Performance Specification 

11 (PS 11) correlation requirements 

complying with the promulgated PM 

standards. (See section III.D.) As a 

consequence, the EPA is proposing to 

amend the existing and new source PM 

standards in the NESHAP to require 

manual stack testing in lieu of PM 

CEMS for compliance determinations. 

An additional consequence of this 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

42370 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 138 / Wednesday, July 18, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

proposed change of compliance 

measurement methods is that the EPA is 

proposing to change the averaging time 

and numeric emissions value of those 

standards. The EPA is proposing 

amended PM standards under the 

NESHAP for existing sources of 0.07 

pounds per ton (lb/ton) clinker based on 

manual stack testing, (from 0.04 lb/ton 

in the 2010 rule, 30-day average with a 

PM CEMS) and 0.02 lb/ton clinker for 

new sources based on stack testing 

(from 0.01 lb/ton in the 2010 rule, 30- 

day average with a PM CEMS). The EPA 

is proposing amended PM standards 

under the NSPS for modified sources of 

0.07 lb/ton clinker based on manual 

stack testing, (from 0.01 lb/ton in the 

2010 rule, 30-day average with a PM 

CEMS) and 0.02 lb/ton clinker for new 

and reconstructed sources based on 

stack testing (from 0.01 lb/ton in the 

2010 rule, 30-day average with a PM 

CEMS). The EPA is further proposing 

that a site-specific parametric operating 

limit be established, that there be 

continuous monitoring of that 

parametric limit using a PM CPMS, that 

an exceedance of that site-specific 

operating limit be reported as a 

deviation, triggering corrective action 

including conducting a Method 5 

performance test within 45 days. 

Further, multiple deviations from the 

parametric limit can constitute a 

violation of the emissions standard. 

b. Response to Remand. Consistent 

with the court’s remand, the EPA has 

removed all the CISWI kilns from the 

database used to set the 2010 existing 

source standards for PM, mercury, 

hydrochloric acid and total 

hydrocarbons (THC). The EPA then 

recalculated existing source floors for 

each of these pollutants, and 

determined what standards to propose 

in light of that analysis. This analysis 

informed the level of the proposed 

standards for PM just discussed. The 

resulting standards are discussed 

immediately below. 

c. Other Emissions Standards. The 

EPA is not proposing any changes to the 

existing source standards for mercury, 

total THC or hydrogen chloride (HCl). 

The reasons are set out in sections III A, 

B and C below. 

With respect to new source standards, 

under section 112(d)(3) of the CAA, new 

source floors can be based on the 

performance of the ‘‘best controlled 

similar source.’’ A CISWI cement kiln is 

a similar source for purposes of this 

provision. The EPA, therefore, is not 

proposing to amend any of the new 

source floors or standards for mercury, 

THC or HCl where the best performing 

source in the database used to set the 

standards was a CISWI cement kiln. 

The EPA is also proposing to amend 

the alternative standard for organic 

HAP, whereby organic HAP are 

measured directly. To avoid a situation 

where the alternative organic standard 

level is lower than the practical 

quantitation limit of the relevant 

analytic methods, the EPA is proposing 

to increase the alternative organic HAP 

standard from 9 parts per million (ppm) 

to 12 ppm. See additional discussion in 

section III.H below. 

d. Standards during Startup and 

Shutdown. In the final 2010 NESHAP, 

the EPA established specific numerical 

standards for startup and shutdown for 

each pollutant to be measured using a 

CEMS over an accumulative 7-day 

rolling average. Because raw materials 

(the source of most cement kiln air 

emissions) are not introduced into 

cement kilns during startup and 

shutdown, cement kilns’ emissions 

during these periods should be 

appreciably lower than the level of the 

standards. The EPA is, therefore, 

proposing that sources monitor 

compliance with these standards via 

recordkeeping. 

e. Proposed Compliance Dates. The 

EPA is proposing that the compliance 

date for all existing source standards 

including standards for PM, mercury, 

HCl and THC, clinker piles and the 

standards for startup and shutdown be 

extended to September 9, 2015. The 

EPA believes that the proposed change 

to the PM standard makes possible 

compliance alternatives unavailable 

under the promulgated existing source 

standards) and that an extension until 

September 9, 2015, is the period in 

which these new compliance strategies 

can be implemented most expeditiously. 

f. The EPA is also taking action on the 

remaining issues on which it granted 

reconsideration on May 17, 2011. 

(3) Costs and Benefits 

The following table 1 summarizes the 

costs and emissions reductions of this 

proposed action. 

TABLE 1—COSTS AND EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS RELATIVE TO THE 2010 RULE abcde

Proposed amendment Capital cost Annualized cost Emissions 

reduction 

Revised PM standard ..................................................... ¥$18,640,106 ¥$4,200,000 ¥135 tons/yr (emissions increase). 

Replace PM CEMS with PM CPMS ............................... 0 ¥7,980,000 0 

Total ......................................................................... ¥18,640,106 ¥12,180,000 

aSee section III below for further discussion of impacts of the proposed amendments. 

b Negative numbers indicate cost savings or emissions increase. All costs are in 2005 dollars. 

cWe also estimate that there will be a one-time cost of $25,000 for each facility to develop the calculation that will allow them to demonstrate 

compliance during periods of startup and shutdown. dEmissions reductions are the total relative to the 2010 rule once full compliance is achieved in 2015. 

eFull compliance costs will not occur until September 9, 2015. 

The cost information in Table 1 is in 

2005 dollars at a discount rate of 7 

percent. The net change in annualized 

costs in 2015 is a $12.2 million savings 

compared to the 2010 rule. The EPA did 

not have sufficient information to 

quantify the overall change in benefits 

or costs for 2013 to 2015 that might arise 

due to the proposed change in 

compliance dates. 

4. Summary of Proposed Standards 

The following Table 2 shows the 

proposed standards. 

TABLE 2—PROPOSED EXISTING AND NEW SOURCE STANDARDS

Pollutant Existing source standard New source standard 

Mercury ............................................................... 55 lb/MM tons clinker ....................................... 21 lb/MM tons clinker. 

THC .................................................................... 24 ppmvd ......................................................... 24 ppmvd. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 138 / Wednesday, July 18, 2012 / Proposed Rules 42371 

1Section 112(d)(7) states that ‘‘[n]o other 

emission standard * * * under this section shall be 

interpreted, construed or applied to diminish or 

replace the requirements of a more stringent 

emission limitation or other applicable requirement 

established pursuant to section 7411 of this title, 

part C or D of this subchapter, or other authority 

of this chapter or a standard issued under State 

authority.’’ This provision indicates that a section 

112(d) standard does not ‘‘trump’’ any standard 

established under other authority which is more 

stringent. Section 112(d)(7) does not bar the EPA 

from amending section 112(d) standards to correct 

technical deficiencies. 

TABLE 2—PROPOSED EXISTING AND NEW SOURCE STANDARDS—Continued 

Pollutant Existing source standard New source standard 

PM ...................................................................... 0.07 lb/ton clinker (3-run test average) ........... 0.02 lb/ton clinker (3-run test average). 

HCl ...................................................................... 3 ppmvd ........................................................... 3 ppmvd. 

Organic HAP (alternative to Total Hydrocarbon) 12 ppmvd ......................................................... 12 ppmvd. 

B. Does this action apply to me? 

Categories and entities potentially 

regulated by this final rule include: 

Category NAICS 

Code 1 Examples of regulated entities 

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

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

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

1 North American Industry Classification System. 

This table is not intended to be 

exhaustive, but rather provides a guide 

for readers regarding entities likely to be 

regulated by this action. To determine 

whether your facility will be regulated 

by this action, you should examine the 

applicability criteria in 40 CFR 60.60 

(subpart F) or in 40 CFR 63.1340 

(subpart LLL). If you have any questions 

regarding the applicability of this final 

action to a particular entity, contact the 

person listed in the preceding FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

C. What should I consider as I prepare 

my comments to the EPA? 

Submitting CBI 

Do not submit information containing 

CBI to the EPA through http:// 

www.regulations.gov or email. Clearly 

mark the part or all of the information 

that you claim to be CBI. For CBI 

information on a disk or CD–ROM that 

you mail to the EPA, mark the outside 

of the disk or CD–ROM as CBI and then 

identify electronically 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 CBI 

must be submitted for inclusion in the 

public docket. If you submit a CD–ROM 

or disk that does not contain CBI, mark 

the outside of the disk or CD–ROM 

clearly that it does not contain CBI. 

Information not marked as CBI will be 

included in the public docket and the 

EPA’s electronic public docket without 

prior notice. Information marked as CBI 

will not be disclosed except in 

accordance with procedures set forth in 

40 CFR part 2. Send or deliver 

information identified as CBI only to the 

following address: Roberto Morales, 

OAQPS Document Control Officer 

(C404–02), Office of Air Quality 

Planning and Standards, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 

27711, Attention Docket ID Number 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–0817. 

D. Where can I get a copy of this 

document? 

In addition to being available in the 

docket, an electronic copy of this 

proposal will also be available on the 

World Wide Web (WWW) through the 

EPA’s Technology Transfer Network 

(TTN). Following signature by the EPA 

Administrator, a copy of this proposed 

action will be posted on the TTN’s 

policy and guidance page for newly 

proposed or promulgated rules at the 

following address: http://www.epa.gov/ 

ttn/oarpg. The TTN provides 

information and technology exchange in 

various areas of air pollution control. 

II. Background Information 

A. What is the statutory authority for 

these proposed amendments? 

Section 112 of the CAA establishes a 

regulatory process to address emissions 

of HAP from stationary sources. After 

the EPA has identified categories of 

sources emitting one or more of the HAP 

listed in section 112(b) of the CAA, 

section 112(d) requires us to promulgate 

NESHAP for those sources. For ‘‘major 

sources’’ that emit or have the potential 

to emit 10 tons per year (tpy) or more 

of a single HAP or 25 tpy or more of a 

combination of HAP, these technologybased standards must reflect the 

maximum reductions of HAP achievable 

(after considering cost, energy 

requirements and non-air quality health 

and environmental impacts) and are 

commonly referred to as maximum 

achievable control technology (MACT) 

standards. 

The statute specifies certain minimum 

stringency requirements for MACT 

standards, which are referred to as 

‘‘floor’’ requirements. See CAA section 

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

the MACT floor cannot be less stringent 

than the emission control that is 

achieved in practice by the best 

controlled similar source. The MACT 

standards for existing sources can be 

less stringent than standards for new 

sources, but they cannot be less 

stringent than the average emission 

limitation achieved by the bestperforming 12 percent of existing 

sources (for which the Administrator 

has emissions information) in the 

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

subcategories with fewer than 30 

sources. 

In developing MACT, we must also 

consider control options that are more 

stringent than the floor. We may 

establish standards more stringent than 

the floor based on the consideration of 

the cost of achieving the emissions 

reductions, any non-air quality health 

and environmental impacts, and energy 

requirements. See CAA section 

112(d)(2).1

Section 111(b) requires the EPA to set 

standards for emissions that ‘‘reflect the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

42372 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 138 / Wednesday, July 18, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

2The EPA has also conducted a bounding 

analysis of potential floors by removing from the 

data base all cement kilns that burn any type of 

secondary material for energy recovery (so that 

there is no possibility that any CISWI kiln is in the 

bounding analysis database). Under this analysis, 

the existing source section 112 floor for HCl was 

unchanged, the existing source floor for PM was 

essentially unchanged, the existing source floor for 

THC becomes more stringent (as in the April 25, 

2011, analysis), and the existing source mercury 

floor increases from 55 lb/MM ton clinker to 66 lb/ 

MM ton clinker. However, even in this case, a 

beyond-the-floor mercury limit of 55 lb/MM tons 

clinker would be cost effective and the EPA would 

propose the same standards as under this proposal 

if this bounding analysis were used in place of the 

analysis described in the text. The EPA, thus, does 

not believe that the precise count of CISWI kilns 

will affect the outcome of this rulemaking. See 

Bounding Analysis for Portland Cement MACT 

Floors, May 14, 2012. 

3The EPA is thus not reopening the new source 

standards (with the exception of the PM standard, 

degree of emission limitation achievable 

through the application of the best 

system of emission reduction.’’ See CAA 

section 111(a)(1). In contrast to the 

NESHAP floor setting process, NSPS 

requires the EPA to take into account 

the ‘‘cost of achieving’’ emissions 

reductions, as well as health, 

environmental, and energy 

considerations. Id. 

B. What actions preceded this proposed 

rule? 

The history of this proposed rule, 

commencing with the 1999 standards 

and proceeding through the 

amendments issued in September 2009, 

is set out in detail in 75 FR 54970 (Sept 

9, 2010). Various parties filed petitions 

for reconsideration of aspects of those 

amendments. On May 17, 2011, the EPA 

granted reconsideration of various 

issues, and denied the petitions to 

reconsider as to the remaining issues. 

See 76 FR 28318 (May 17, 2011). On 

December 9, 2011, the D.C. Circuit 

issued an opinion upholding the 

NESHAP itself (as well as the section 

111 NSPS), but found that the EPA had 

arbitrarily failed to grant 

reconsideration to consider the effect of 

the EPA’s NHSM rule on the standards 

(76 FR 15456 (March 21, 2011)), which 

rule had the effect of reclassifying some 

cement kilns as commercial and solid 

waste incinerators. See Portland Cement 

Ass’n v. EPA, 665 F. 3d 177, 186–189 

(D.C. Cir. 2011). That court did not stay 

the standards for PM, mercury, HCl or 

THC, but did stay the standard for 

clinker piles pending the conclusion of 

the reconsideration process. See 665 F. 

3d at 194. 

In this action, the EPA is responding 

to the court’s remand. For existing 

sources, the EPA is doing so by 

removing all kilns classified as 

commercial and industrial solid waste 

incinerators from the data used to 

establish the 2010 NESHAP standards. 

The EPA is then recalculating each of 

the floors based on this revised dataset 

and making beyond-the-floor 

determinations based on the 

recalculated floors. The EPA believes 

that this approach is fully responsive to 

the court’s remand. See 665 F. 3d at 188 

where the court referred favorably to 

this type of recalculation. For new 

sources, the EPA is basing floors on the 

performance of the best performing 

similar source. 

III. Description of Proposed 

Amendments to Subpart LLL and 

Subpart F 

A. Reconsideration of Standards 

As just noted, in Portland Cement 

Association v. EPA, the D.C. Circuit 

upheld all of the EPA’s methodology for 

establishing the Portland cement 

NESHAP, but remanded the standards 

so that the EPA could account for the 

effects of the EPA’s NHSM rule. This 

rule, adopted after promulgation of the 

Portland cement NESHAP, had the 

effect of reclassifying certain cement 

kilns as commercial and industrial 

incinerators because they combust 

‘‘solid waste’’ as defined by that rule. 

See 665 F. 3d at 185–189. 

Applying that definition, the EPA has 

determined that there are 24 cement 

kilns which combust solid waste. See 76 

FR 28322 and Memorandum 

‘‘Combustion in a Cement Kiln and 

Cement Kilns’ Use of Tires as Fuel’’ 

(April 25, 2011) (‘‘April 25 

memorandum’’); see also 76 FR 80452 

(Dec. 23, 2011) where the EPA 

identified 23 of the 24 kilns as 

commercial incinerators as were 

identified in the April 25 memorandum. 

The 24th kiln was identified as a CISWI 

kiln after development of the April 25, 

2011, memorandum, but the addition of 

this kiln did not affect the calculations 

contained in the May 17, 2011 notice 

(CISWI Data Revisions since 

Reconsideration Proposal, docket EPA– 

HQ–OAR–2003–0119). Although the 

EPA has proposed to reconsider certain 

narrow aspects of the NHSM rule, see 76 

FR 80598 (Dec. 23, 2011), this count 

remains unchanged by any of the issues 

being considered in the reconsideration 

of the NHSM rule. This is because either 

the types of secondary materials being 

addressed in that reconsideration are 

not combusted by cement kilns or the 

EPA has already accounted for those 

materials in its April 25 memorandum 

analysis. See 76 FR 28319 (May 17, 

2011). Specifically, in the NHSM 

reconsideration proposal, the EPA 

proposed to clarify that clean cellulosic 

biomass and clean construction and 

demolition wood are not solid wastes 

when burned for energy recovery and 

that unused, off-specification tires are 

not wastes when burned for energy 

recovery. The EPA’s analysis underlying 

its April 25, 2011, memorandum already 

reflects that these non-hazardous 

secondary materials are not wastes 

when burned by cement kilns for energy 

recovery. The EPA expects the 

reconsideration of the NHSM rule to be 

completed before taking final action on 

this proposed rule and the EPA will 

account for any changes resulting from 

the reconsidered final NHSM rule when 

it takes final action here.2

1. Existing Source Floors. We 

removed the 24 CISWI kilns from the 

database used to establish existing 

source standards and recalculated floors 

for existing sources. Under this analysis, 

the existing source floor for mercury 

increased from 55 lb/million (MM) tons 

clinker to 58 lb/MM tons clinker, the 

existing source floor for PM increased 

from 0.04 lb/ton clinker to 0.05 lb/ton 

clinker, the existing source floor for 

THC decreased to 15 parts per million 

by volume, dry (ppmvd), and the 

existing source floor for HCl stayed the 

same at 3 ppmvd. 

As explained in section B below, the 

EPA is proposing to establish a beyond 

the floor standard for mercury of 55 lb/ 

MM tons clinker. Moreover, for reasons 

independent of this analysis, the EPA is 

proposing to amend the existing and 

new source NESHAP for PM. See 

section D below. The EPA is not 

proposing to amend the HCl standard or 

the THC standard. 

2. New Source Standards. With 

respect to new source standards, the 

EPA does not believe that any 

reclassification and reanalysis is 

necessary under the court’s opinion. 

New source floors can be based on the 

performance of ‘‘the best controlled 

similar source’’, as opposed to existing 

source floors which must reflect 

performance of sources ‘‘in the category 

or subcategory’’. See CAA section 

112(d)(3) and (d)(3)(A). A CISWI cement 

kiln is similar to a non-CISWI cement 

kiln since the device is a cement kiln. 

Equally important, burning secondary 

materials for energy recovery does not 

significantly alter a cement kiln’s HAP 

emission profile. See 76 FR 28320 (May 

17, 2011) (documenting both the basis 

for this conclusion and the cement 

industry’s agreement with it).3 4

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 138 / Wednesday, July 18, 2012 / Proposed Rules 42373 

which the EPA is proposing to amend). We will 

take comment on whether CISWI cement kilns can 

be considered a ‘‘similar source’’ under section 

112(d)(3) and whether retention of the 2010 new 

source standards on this basis is consistent with the 

D.C. Circuit’s opinion. The EPA will not consider 

comments challenging the data and methodology 

for the new source standards since these are 

unchanged from the 2010 rule and the EPA is not 

reexamining any of these issues. 

4 If the EPA were to reconsider the new source 

standards by removing the 24 CISWI kilns from the 

database, then the mercury new source floor 

increased from 21 to 24 lb/MM tons clinker, the 

THC new source floor decreased from 24 to 11 parts 

per million by volume dry (ppmvd), and the PM 

and HCl new source floor stayed the same at 0.01 

lb/ton clinker and 3 ppmvd, respectively (see 

Memorandum, Revised Portland Cement NESHAP 

with CISWI kilns removed, March 21, 2011). 

However, as explained in the text, because CISWI 

cement kilns are ‘‘similar sources’’ for purposes of 

establishing NESHAP new source standards, the 

EPA is not relying on this analysis here. 

5For purposes of comparing the relative 

variability of the THC CEMS data for each of the 

kilns in our THC data set, we used the ratio of the 

99th percentile for each kiln divided by its daily 

average. A ratio of 1.0 indicates no variability. As 

the ratio increases, variability increases. See 

Portland Cement Reconsideration TSD, section 8.4, 

which is available in this rulemaking docket. 

B. Mercury Standard 

1. New Source Standard. As 

explained above, the new source 

standard is based on the performance of 

the best performing similar source. 

2. Existing Source Standard. As noted 

above, the recalculated existing source 

floor is 58 lb/MM tons clinker 

produced. The EPA is proposing a 

beyond-the-floor standard of 55 lb/MM 

ton clinker produced, the level of the 

2010 final standard. As described 

below, the only difference in cost 

between the two levels is the 

incremental cost of removing slightly 

more mercury, which is estimated at 

$2,000/lb of mercury removed. This is 

because the control equipment needed 

for mercury would not alter, would not 

need to be sized differently, and would 

need to perform on average nearly 

identically at either a 55 lb/MM tons 

clinker or a 58 lb/MM tons clinker level. 

That is, in planning compliance, kilns 

would calibrate to achieve an average 

performance of 34.1 lb/MM tons clinker 

for a standard of 58 lb/MM tons clinker, 

and 31.7 for a standard of 55 lb/MM 

tons clinker, which translates to an 

additional reduction of 2.4 lb/MM tons 

of clinker per year. This equates to an 

estimated 180 pounds of nationwide 

mercury emissions per year, 

incremental to the recalculated floor. To 

achieve this additional reduction, we 

estimated an additional cost of 

approximately $355,000 for the 

industry, the cost of purchasing 

additional carbon injection materials. 

This equates to a cost-effectiveness of 

$2,000/lb of mercury reduction per year. 

This is the incremental cost of going 

from the recalculated floor of 58 lb/MM 

tons clinker to the proposed 55 lb/MM 

tons clinker. Because this is the same 

level as the 2010 rule, there are no 

incremental costs or emissions impacts 

when compared to the 2010 rule. See 

section 8.2, Portland Cement 

Reconsideration Technical Support 

Document. Moreover, this reduction is 

highly cost-effective. A cost 

effectiveness value of $2,000/lb. 

mercury is considerably less than values 

the EPA have found to be cost effective 

for removal of mercury in other air 

toxics rules. For example, in the 

National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants: Mercury 

Emissions from Mercury Cell ChlorAlkali Plants, the cost effectiveness was 

found to be between $13,000 to $31,000 

per pound for the individual facilities 

(see Supplemental proposed rule, 76 FR 

13858 (March 14, 2011)). The EPA also 

does not see any adverse energy or nonair quality health or environmental 

consequences of a 55 lb/MM tons 

clinker beyond-the-floor standard. 

We are not proposing a beyond the 

floor level below 55 lb/MM tons clinker 

for the same reasons given in the 2010 

final rule—in particular the possibility 

that a lower standard could force some 

kilns to find alternative sources of 

limestone, at enormous cost and 

disruption. See 75 FR 54980 (September 

9, 2010). 

C. THC Standard 

The THC data for the 2010 standard 

consist of CEMS data for 15 kilns. After 

removing the four CISWI kilns, nine 

kilns remain. Thus, the MACT floor 

kilns consisted of 12 percent of these 

nine kilns, or two kilns. The top two 

kilns were Suwannee and Holcim. As 

explained above, when CISWI sources 

are removed from the database for the 

2010 standards, the existing source floor 

for THC becomes more stringent from 24 

ppmvd to 15 ppmvd, and the new 

source standard would drop from 24 

ppmvd to 11 ppmvd. This change 

results from removing from the database 

a CISWI cement kiln (the Lehigh Union 

Bridge kiln) with the lowest daily 

average performance but with more 

associated variability than the other 

kilns with the next highest daily average 

performance. See also 76 FR 28322 (May 

17, 2011) n. 11 and 665 F. 3d at 188. 

However, notwithstanding this 

calculation, the EPA is not proposing to 

reduce the level of either the new source 

or the existing source THC standard. 

1. New Source Standard. As just 

explained, the new source standard can 

be based on performance of a ‘‘best 

controlled similar source’’, so there is 

no reason under the statute or the 

court’s remand to amend the new source 

THC standard. The standard is also 

technically appropriate. See 75 FR 

54981 (September 9, 2010) (explaining 

basis for the THC new source standard, 

which discussion is summarized below 

for the readers’ convenience). Removing 

the CISWI Union Bridge kiln as the best 

performing new source would leave the 

Suwannee kiln as the lowest emitter 

based on its daily average THC 

emissions. See Portland Cement 

Reconsideration Technical Support 

Document (TSD), section 8.4, which is 

available in this rulemaking docket. 

This kiln has higher average emissions 

than the Union Bridge kiln (that is, its 

daily average emissions are higher than 

the Union Bridge kiln). This kiln thus 

emits more THC than the Union Bridge 

kiln, so the EPA identified the kiln 

emitting less THC on average—the 

Union Bridge kiln—to be the best 

performer. The Suwannee kiln has less 

measured variability than the Union 

Bridge kiln, but also has hundreds of 

fewer observations. For this reason, the 

EPA considered the Union Bridge kiln 

to be more representative of variability, 

and used its 99th percentile 

performance as the measure of 

performance of the best performing 

similar source in establishing the new 

source standard. See 75 FR 54981 

(September 9, 2010).5

2. Under the calculation described 

above, the existing source floor would 

be reduced from 24 ppmvd to 15 

ppmvd. Subject to any comments the 

EPA receives on this proposed action, 

the EPA believes that such a floor level 

would not be technically appropriate. It 

omits the variability of the similar 

source with the best average 

performance for THC (the Union Bridge 

kiln), and so may not be fully 

representative of variability of best 

performing sources. As noted above, 

cement kiln HAP emissions are not 

appreciably affected by burning 

secondary materials for energy recovery 

so the Union Bridge’s variability is 

representative of cement kiln variability. 

In addition, as noted above, the number 

of daily observations for the Union 

Bridge kiln is among the most robust in 

the database, containing over 3 times 

the number of observations as the next 

best performing cement kiln. Thus, 

there is a ‘‘demonstrated relationship’’ 

between the variability of the Union 

Bridge kiln and the variability of the 

best performing sources in the existing 

source floor pool. Sierra Club v. EPA, 

479 F. 3d 875, 882 (D.C. Cir. 2007). The 

EPA consequently believes it is 

technically justified to consider the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

42374 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 138 / Wednesday, July 18, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

6The EPA estimates that each thermal oxidizer 

emits an added increment of 0.02 tons of CO2 for 

each ton of clinker produced. A typical kiln 

producing 1.2 million tons of clinker per year and 

controlled by an RTO would emit an additional 

24,000 tons of CO2 per year. See RTO Secondary 

Impacts, May 16, 2012, in this rulemaking docket. 

7The EPA is also proposing to amend the 

alternative standard for organic HAP under which 

organic HAP is measured directly. See section I 

below. 

8On November 15, 2011, Holcim (US) Inc., a 

domestic cement company, submitted a petition for 

reconsideration to the EPA requesting that the EPA 

reconsider and stay the NESHAP PM standard. The 

basis for the petition was CEMS data for PM from 

four of Holcim’s kilns (some of which are either 

waste-burning or hazardous waste burning). 

Petition pp. 5–6. This information was collected 

commencing in January 2011. Since the information 

in the petition was gathered outside the time period 

mandated by section 307(d)(7)(B) of the Act—even 

assuming it was impractical to raise the objection 

during the public comment period, the grounds 

arose outside the time period for judicial review 

which ended in November 2010. Thus, the EPA 

believes that it is not compelled to grant this 

petition. Moreover, as discussed in the text below, 

because the EPA is proposing to no longer use a 

CEMS-based regime for the PM standard, the 

Holcim information is no longer of direct relevance 

in setting the level of the PM standard. A further 

issue with the data is that they were not obtained 

using CEMS calibrated according to PS–11, the 

protocol specified in the rule. Accordingly, the EPA 

is not basing its proposal of a revised PM standard 

on these data. The EPA is not, however, taking final 

action on the Holcim petition at this time, but 

intends to do so in conjunction with the issuance 

of the final reconsideration rule. 

On January 17 2012, LaFarge Cement submitted 

a petition for reconsideration containing no new 

data or information but arguing that the Holcim 

petition justified reconsideration of the standards. 

The EPA believes that this petition is subsumed by 

the Holcim petition. 

Union Bridge kiln’s variability in 

estimating the variability of the best 

performing cement kilns for THC 

emissions. 

If the variability of the Union Bridge 

kiln is included along with the 

variability of the two best performing 

cement kilns, and applied to the two 

best performing cement kilns’ 

performance, the floor would be 24 

ppm, which the EPA is proposing as a 

floor. See Portland Cement 

Reconsideration TSD, section 8.4. This 

is the level of the 2010 standard. 

3. Beyond the floor standards. The 

EPA is not proposing a beyond the floor 

THC standard for existing cement kiln 

sources. The reasons given in the 

rulemaking remain valid. See 75 54983 

(September 9, 2010); 74 FR 21153 (May 

6, 2009). We especially note that a more 

stringent standard for THC would force 

the increased use of energy-intense 

control technologies like regenerative 

thermal oxidizers (RTO) which have 

negative environmental implications, 

notably increased emission of carbon 

dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse 

gases, as well as increased emissions of 

nitrogen oxide (NOX), carbon monoxide, 

sulfur dioxide (SO2) and PM10. See 74 

FR 21153 (May 6, 2009).6 These devices 

are also extremely costly and not costeffective. See 74 FR 21153 (May 6, 

2009). For a description of the costs, 

energy requirements and environmental 

impacts of RTO, see Summary of 

Environmental and Cost Impacts for 

Final Portland Cement NESHAP and 

NSPS, August 6, 2010, docket no. EPA– 

HQ–OAR–2002–0051–3438. For all 

these reasons, the EPA does not 

consider a beyond-the-floor standard for 

THC to be justified under section 

112(d)(2). Consequently, the EPA is not 

proposing a beyond-the-floor standard 

for THC for existing sources.7

D. Proposed Amendments to Existing 

Source and New Source Standards for 

PM Under Section 112(d) and 111(b) 

Based largely on developments which 

have occurred after the EPA granted 

reconsideration on certain aspects of the 

NESHAP 8, the EPA is proposing 

revisions to the testing and monitoring 

methods used to demonstrate 

continuous compliance with the 

existing and new source PM emissions 

standards and is proposing changes to 

the averaging time, level, and 

compliance demonstration for those 

standards. The EPA has also removed 

all CISWI kilns from the data base used 

to establish the standards for PM and 

used this revised data base in 

determining the level of the standard, 

consistent with the court’s remand. We 

explain these proposed changes below. 

In comments to the 2009 proposal, 

industry commenters maintained that 

there were several problems with 

implementing the monitoring 

requirements to demonstrate 

compliance using a PM CEMS and with 

the requirements to conduct a periodic 

audit of the PM CEMS in accordance 

with Performance Specification (PS) 11 

of appendix B and Procedure 2 of 

appendix F to part 60. The EPA 

responded to these comments in the 

2010 final rule. See 75 FR 55007 

(September 9, 2010); NESHAP Response 

to Comment Document pp. 163–166. 

Since that time, the Portland cement 

industry has identified further technical 

issues associated with the current PM 

CEMS technology in satisfying PS 11 

correlation requirements that have 

emerged as the industry has attempted 

to develop a CEMS-based compliance 

strategy for PM pursuant to the 2010 

NESHAP. 

1. PS 11. The EPA has continued to 

review the application of PM CEMS in 

relation to the procedures and 

acceptance criteria of PS 11, the 

protocol mandated by the promulgated 

rule. See section 63.1350(b)(1). PS 11 is 

structured differently than other PS that 

apply to validating the performance of 

gaseous pollutant CEMS. This is 

primarily because the pollutant, PM, is 

defined entirely by the test method 

specified by regulation to measure it. As 

the industry commenters note, there are 

no independent standard reference 

materials for PM concentrations as there 

are for gaseous pollutants (e.g., NIST 

traceable compressed gases for 

validating SO2 or NOX instrumental 

measurements). The only reference 

standard for determining the PM 

concentration in an air or stack gas 

sample is the reference test method. In 

the case of the Portland cement 

NESHAP (and NSPS), the rule specifies 

the EPA Method 5 for measuring 

filterable PM concentration or mass rate 

(e.g., in mg/dscm or lb/hr). 

PS 11 provides procedures and 

acceptance criteria for validating the 

performance of several types of PM 

CEMS technologies. Although there are 

multiple instrument and data reporting 

operational performance checks in PS 

11 that are similar in concept to those 

for gaseous pollutant CEMS, there is the 

principal PM CEMS performance 

requirement that is distinctly different. 

That requirement is the development of 

a site-specific PM CEMS correlation or 

mathematical response curve. There is a 

key procedural element to developing 

that correlation. That is, PS 11 requires 

that the source conduct multiple stack 

test runs using an EPA PM test method 

(e.g., Method 5) and simultaneously 

collect corresponding PM CEMS output 

data. PS 11, section 8.6, requires at least 

five test runs at each of three different 

operating (i.e., low, mid, and high PM 

concentration) conditions that range 

from 25 to 100 percent of allowable 

emissions, if possible, for a total of 15 

or more test runs. Then the source must 

use the test method data and the 

corresponding PM CEMS output data to 

develop an equation (i.e., a calculated 

linear or nonlinear curve) that will be 

used to define the relationship between 

the PM CEMS output and the test 

method measured PM concentrations. 

Each site-specific correlation must meet 

several PS 11 acceptance criteria 

including limits on confidence interval 

and tolerance interval equating to ±25 

percent of the applicable emissions 

limit. 

2. Discussion of Technical Issues. A 

particular challenge in applying PM 

CEMS to source emissions monitoring is 

in measuring the very low PM 

concentrations associated with a low 

applicable emissions limits for PM 

precisely enough to meet the PS 11 

correlation requirements. In addition to 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 138 / Wednesday, July 18, 2012 / Proposed Rules 42375 

9US EPA, CEMS Cost Model, July 2006. 

10Memorandum, from C. Oldham to B. Schell, 

Particulate Matter Continuous Emission Monitoring 

System (PM CEMS) Capabilities, June 13, 2012. 

11We also note that PS 11 provides for means to 

minimize the effects of changing particle sizes, for 

example by developing multiple correlation curves, 

each of which requires 15 Method 5 test runs. The 

EPA did not consider such an approach in 

promulgating the rule and again, further technical 

work is needed to ascertain if such an approach 

would yield reliable results. 

measurement uncertainty inherent in 

PM CEMS data, the measurement 

uncertainty associated with the 

reference test method (e.g., Method 5) is 

a significant contributor to successful 

development of a PM CEMS correlation 

regardless of the type of PM CEMS used. 

As noted above, PS 11 specifies 

acceptable criteria for a correlation 

directly related to the applicable 

emissions limit. The Portland cement 

NESHAP PM emissions limit for 

existing sources of 0.04 lb/ton of clinker 

equates to 5 to 8 mg/dscm, depending 

on production rate (assuming a typical 

total gas flow rate per clinker 

production rate). For a PM CEMS set up 

to measure compliance with a 5 to 8 mg/ 

dscm equivalent limit, the inherent 

uncertainty associated with a 1 hour 

Method 5 measurement (±0.6 to 1.2 mg/ 

dscm) would constitute more than half 

of the ±25 percent of the applicable PS 

11 acceptance threshold (i.e., ±1.2 to 2.0 

mg/dscm) of the mid-level PS 11 

correlation test (i.e. the correlation for 

the middle of the three PS 11 correlation 

points). 

Although one can improve the 

method detection capabilities of the 

Method 5 or other filterable PM test 

method by increasing sampling volume 

and run time, uncertainties in 

measurement would remain. For 

example to achieve a practical 

quantitation limit of 1 mg/dscm, one 

would need to conduct a test run of 6 

hours or longer. The measurement 

uncertainty associated with a 6-hour 

Method 5 test runs at this concentration 

would be ±0.01 to 0.2 mg/dscm. At this 

level, the uncertainty associated with 

the PM test method measurements alone 

would be about half of the correlation 

limit allowed in PS 11. The PS 11 

correlation calculations would also have 

to account for any PM CEMS 

measurement uncertainty. 

Factoring in the inherent PM CEMS 

response variability and the uncertainty 

associated with the representative 

sampling (e.g., PM and flow 

stratification), we agree with 

commenters that trying to satisfy PS 11 

at such low concentrations using 1 hour 

Method 5 test runs could be 

problematic. The same issue arises for 

the new source standard because of the 

lower limit of the new source standard. 

The industry also argued that the 

variable raw feed material and chemical 

additives used in cement production 

will lead to changes in particle size, 

refractive index, particle density, and 

other physical characteristics of the 

particulate in the exhaust stream. This 

is important, according to the 

comments, because correlations 

developed for the light scatter and 

scintillation PM CEMS technology may 

be adversely affected by these physical 

changes in particles irrespective of 

changes in mass emissions rates or 

concentrations. 

In developing the 2010 final rule, the 

EPA assumed that cement kilns would 

be using light-scatter or scintillation PM 

CEMS.9 The output or response of these 

light based detectors is a function of the 

index of refraction or photoelectric 

effects and the size distribution of the 

particles in the exhaust stream. In 

addition to being more sensitive than 

opacity monitors, light based detectors 

provide several degrees of design 

freedom not applicable to opacity 

monitors. PM CEMS manufacturers 

account for characteristics such as light 

wavelength, scattering angle, and solid 

angle of detection in designing 

instruments with desired response 

features. These types of PM CEMS can 

be reliably calibrated per PS 11 where 

the relative characteristics (e.g., 

distribution of size, shape, and 

constituents) of the PM in the exhaust 

remain relatively constant. Such may be 

the case, for example, where the PM 

being measured is predominantly 

combustion ash from burning fossil 

fuels in a boiler or an electricity 

generating unit. 

The dominant sources of PM from a 

cement kiln are not from fuel 

combustion but from processing raw 

materials. Cement kilns process mostly 

limestone with naturally occurring 

variability in component percentages. 

See 74 FR 21142 (May 6, 2009); 75 FR 

54977 (September 9, 2010). Cement kiln 

operators also add other chemical 

additives in variable concentrations to 

produce certain product characteristics. 

See 74 FR 21142. As noted in the EPA’s 

technology background documents (e.g., 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/emc/cem/ 

pmcemsknowfinalrep.pdf and http:// 

www.epa.gov/ttn/emc/cem/r4703-02- 

07.pdf), the correlations developed for 

light-scatter or scintillation PM CEMS 

devices may be adversely affected when 

there are changes in the particle 

structure, size, and other physical 

characteristics of the emissions. These 

changes in emissions characteristics can 

occur with the variability inherent in 

the composition of fuels and raw feed 

materials, with use of mixed multiple 

fuels, or with addition of chemical 

additives in various proportions.10

This is an issue of special import for 

cement kilns. One can expect significant 

variations in particle size distribution 

and other particle characteristics in 

Portland cement kiln exhaust because of 

the complicating effects of variable 

content feed materials and chemical 

additives. That means that correlations 

developed for one set of conditions may 

not apply with changes in feed materials 

or under other operating conditions 

(e.g., different chemical additives). 

The EPA has investigated whether PM 

CEMS that work on principles other 

than light scattering could effectively 

measure cement kiln PM and be 

calibrated per PS 11 requirements. 

There is at least one other PM CEMS 

technology, beta attenuation PM CEMS, 

also referred to as beta gauge technology 

that is much less sensitive to changes in 

particle characteristics than are light 

based detectors. The beta attenuation 

PM CEMS extracts a sample for the 

stack gas and collects the PM on a filter 

tape. The device periodically advances 

the tape from the sampling mode to an 

area where the sample is exposed to 

Beta radiation. The detector measures 

the amount of beta radiation emitted by 

the sample and that amount can be 

directly related to the mass of PM on the 

filter. 

The majority of PM CEMS devices 

used to date by cement kilns are based 

on light scatter or scintillation 

detection. We understand that a few 

Portland cement operators have applied 

beta attenuation devices. Since the EPA 

premised the rule on use of a different 

type of PM CEMS, since there is 

minimal operating experience with beta 

gauge PM CEMS in this industry, and 

because we are not aware that the 

experience includes a beta gauge PM 

CEMS calibrated per PS 11, the EPA 

believes that some type of research 

effort involving testing would be needed 

before predicating a PM standard on use 

of a beta gauge PM CEMS. Such an effort 

is likely to take several years to 

implement.11

These issues exacerbate the 

uncertainties of calibrating PM CEMS at 

the level of the 2010 p.m. standards 

noted above. Using data from longer 

Method 5 test runs will improve the 

probability of a PM CEMS meeting PS 

11 correlation requirements but will 

also raise practicality concerns 

potentially without completely 

resolving the problems. Given the 

combination of the low emissions 

concentrations PM CEMS measurement 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

42376 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 138 / Wednesday, July 18, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

uncertainty factors discussed above, the 

variability in composition of cement 

PM, and need for extraordinarily long 

test runs to reduce Method 5 

uncertainty to a level that compensates 

sufficiently for the PM CEMS 

measurement uncertainty, the EPA 

believes that this correlation will not be 

technically or practically achievable for 

a significant number of cement kiln 

sources. 

3. A monitoring approach alternative 

to PM CEMS and PS 11. To address 

technical issues associated with PM 

CEMS meeting PS 11 correlation 

requirements at low PM emissions 

concentrations from cement kilns and 

the potentially variable PM emissions 

characteristics expected from Portland 

cement kilns, the EPA is proposing to 

change the compliance basis for the PM 

emissions limit from PM CEMS and the 

30-day average emissions calculation. 

For monitoring continuous compliance, 

the rule would require PM CEMS 

equipment but, as explained below, that 

equipment would be used for 

continuous parametric monitoring 

rather than for direct measure of 

compliance with the numerical PM 

emissions limit. 

The EPA is proposing to change the 

means of demonstrating compliance 

from PM CEMS to Method 5 stack 

testing. In applying Method 5, PM is 

withdrawn isokinetically from the 

source and collected on a glass fiber 

filter maintained at a temperature of 120 

± 14 °C (248 ± 25°F). The PM mass, 

which includes any material that 

condenses at or above the filtration 

temperature, is determined 

gravimetrically after the removal of 

uncombined water. Compliance with 

the numerical emissions limit is then 

based on an average of three 2-hour test 

runs rather than a 30-day average 

determined from PM CEMS data. The 

numerical level of the standard would 

change to reflect the different averaging 

period. See 75 FR 54988 (September 9, 

2010) (explaining that more 

measurements of a properly designed 

and operated control device decreases 

measured variability since there are 

likely to be more measurements at the 

mean of performance); see also 75 FR 

54975 (September 9, 2010) (explaining 

how this phenomenon is reflected in the 

Upper Prediction Limit (UPL) equation 

used to project variability, since the m 

term (i.e., the number of measurements) 

in the equation becomes larger with 

more observations resulting in a larger 

denominator and hence lower ultimate 

level). By changing from a 30-day 

average with potentially 720 hourly 

values to a three-run test average 

producing three test run values, we 

reviewed and revised the calculation of 

the PM emissions floor and standard, 

and consistent with the court’s remand, 

removed all CISWI kilns from the 

database in doing so. In calculating the 

PM MACT floor, the best performing 

kilns used in the analysis changed as a 

result of removing the kilns identified as 

CISWI kilns. 

In addition, we realized that in the 

original analysis PM emissions data for 

a single kiln were inadvertently treated 

as test results for three different kilns. 

After making that correction and after 

eliminating kilns identified as CISWI, 

the number of kilns in the data set was 

reduced from 45 kilns to 28 kilns. 

Therefore, the best performing 12 

percent was represented by four kilns. 

As a result of removing the CISWI kilns, 

two kilns which were not best 

performers in the 2010 dataset are now 

best performers. See TSD section 8.3 

and Appendices E and F. 

As in the 2009 proposal, we used 

individual test run data from our best 

performing kilns and calculated the 

99th confidence UPL. Rather than using 

m = 30 in the equation as we did in the 

2010 final rule where compliance was 

based on a 30 day rolling average, see 

75 FR 54988 (September 9, 2010), we 

used m = 3 consistent with the proposed 

requirement to determine compliance 

using a three run Method 5 test. Under 

this analysis, we determined the revised 

proposed PM MACT floor to be 0.07 lb/ 

ton clinker produced when based on the 

three run Method 5 test. Beyond-thefloor standards do not appear to be 

justified for the same reasons given in 

the 2010 final rule. See 75 FR 54988 

(September 9, 2010). We are, therefore, 

proposing this emissions limit for the 

kiln and clinker cooler and an initial 

and annual compliance test using 

Method 5 to demonstrate compliance. 

These issues affecting the existing 

source PM limit also apply to the new 

source PM limit. Based on this revised 

compliance regime, the new source floor 

would change from 0.01 lb/ton clinker 

produced, to 0.02 lb/ton clinker 

produced, based on a three run average 

from a Method 5 stack test. See Portland 

Cement Reconsideration TSD, section 

8.3. The best performing kiln used to set 

the MACT floor for new sources in the 

2010 rule was a cement kiln, not a 

CISWI kiln, so the same kiln was used 

for this analysis. The difference is that 

because a 3-run test would be used to 

determine compliance rather than a 30- 

day rolling average, the calculation of 

the 99th confidence UPL used m = 3 

rather than 30, which results in a floor 

of 0.02 lb/ton clinker. The EPA is not 

proposing a beyond-the-floor standard 

for the reasons given at 75 FR 54988 

(September 9, 2010). 

As indicated above, the EPA is further 

proposing to use PM CEMS technology 

for continuous parametric monitoring of 

the proposed PM standards. The EPA 

has developed requirements for 

continuously monitoring operating 

parameters in instances where 

compliance is based on non-continuous 

measurements, as would now be the 

case for PM. This implements section 

114(a)(3) of the CAA which requires 

major sources to use enhanced 

monitoring for compliance 

certifications. The EPA’s historic 

approach has been to require monitoring 

of a control device operating condition 

(e.g., electrical power, water flow rate, 

pH) the limit of which is based on a 

periodic compliance test with the 

compliance test method. The use of a 

continuous parametric monitoring 

system (CPMS) based on PM CEMS 

technology (PM CPMS) is a significant 

step closer to direct measurement of 

emissions in units of the emissions limit 

and an improvement over less direct 

monitoring of a process control device 

conditions. 

Specifically, this proposal recognizes 

the value of PM monitoring technology 

sensitive to changes in PM emissions 

concentrations and use of such a tool to 

assure continued good operation of PM 

control equipment. This approach 

avoids the PM CEMS calibration (i.e., PS 

11 correlation) issues that can be 

exacerbated for Portland cement 

installations. PM CEMS technology can 

be effective in monitoring control device 

performance (see, e.g., 77 FR 9371 

(February 16, 2012)) where the EPA 

established PM CPMS parametric 

operating limits for electricity 

generating units). 

As a result, this proposed rule would 

require the installation and operation of 

a PM CPMS for parametric monitoring 

associated with the proposed PM 

standard. The source owner would not 

have to meet PS 11 requirements but 

would have to prepare and submit for 

approval, if requested by a permitting 

authority, a site-specific monitoring 

plan to apply sound practices for 

installing, calibrating and operating the 

PM CPMS. 

Current PM CPMS have an operating 

principle based on in-stack or extractive 

light scatter, light scintillation or beta 

attenuation. The source owner or 

operator would need to examine the fuel 

and process conditions of his stack as 

well as the capabilities of these devices 

before selecting a particular CPMS 

technology. The reportable 

measurement output from the PM CPMS 

may be expressed as milliamps, stack 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 138 / Wednesday, July 18, 2012 / Proposed Rules 42377 

concentration or other raw data signal. 

For the purposes of this proposed rule, 

the source owner would establish an 

operating limit based on the highest PM 

CPMS hourly value collected during the 

most recent PM compliance test (or 

other stack tests accepted as a legitimate 

basis for compliance, as explained 

below). The source would collect PM 

CPMS data continuously and calculate a 

30 operating day rolling average PM 

CPMS output value from the hourly PM 

CPMS data collected during process 

operating hours and compare that 

average to the site specific operating 

limit. For these reasons (i.e., 30 days to 

mitigate the effects of measurement and 

emissions variability and using the 

highest hourly average from the stack 

testing), the EPA believes that use of the 

PM CPMS for parametric monitoring 

should not pose the same technical 

issues as those underlying the proposed 

decision to base compliance on PM 

CEMS measurements. 

We are proposing a number of 

consequences if the kiln PM monitoring 

parameter is exceeded. First, the source 

owner will have 48 hours to conduct an 

inspection of the control device and to 

take action to restore the controls if 

necessary and 45 days to conduct a new 

PM Method 5 compliance test to verify 

ongoing compliance with the PM limit. 

Within 60 days complete the emissions 

sampling, sample analyses and 

verification that the source is in 

compliance with the emissions limit in 

accordance with the test procedures in 

either section 60.64 or 63.1349(b)(1). 

Also, determine an operating limit 

based on the PM CPMS data collected 

during the performance test. Compare 

the recalculated operating limit with the 

existing operating limit and, as 

appropriate, adjust the numerical 

operating limit to reflect compliance 

performance. Adjustments may include 

applying the most recently established 

highest of the three test run hourly 

averages or combining the data collected 

over multiple performance tests to 

establish a more representative value. 

Apply the reverified or adjusted 

operating limit value from that time 

forward. 

Second, the EPA is proposing that this 

proposed rule limit the number of 

deviations of the site-specific CPMS 

limit leading to follow up performance 

tests in any 12-month process operating 

period and an excess of this number be 

considered to be a violation of the 

standard. This presumption could be 

rebutted by the source, but would 

require more than a Method 5 test to do 

so (e.g., results of physical inspections). 

This additional information is necessary 

since a Method 5 test could not be 

conducted following the discovery of 

deviations and would not necessarily 

represent conditions identical to those 

when the deviations occurred. The basis 

for this part of the proposal is that the 

site-specific CPMS limit could represent 

an emissions level higher than the 

proposed numerical emissions limit 

since the PM CPMS operating limit 

corresponds to the highest of the three 

runs collected during the Method 5 

performance test. Second, the PM CPMS 

operating limit reflects a 30-day average 

that should represent an actual 

emissions level lower than the three test 

run numerical emissions limit since 

variability is mitigated over time. See 75 

FR 54988 (September 9, 2010); 54975– 

76. Consequently, we believe that there 

should be few if any deviations from the 

30-day parametric limit and there is a 

reasonable basis for presuming that 

deviations that lead to multiple 

performance tests to represent poor 

control device performance and to be a 

violation of the standard. 

Therefore, the EPA is proposing that 

PM CPMS deviations leading to more 

than four required performance tests in 

a 12-month process operating period to 

be presumed a violation of this 

standard, subject to the source’s ability 

to rebut that presumption with 

information about process and control 

device operations in addition to the 

Method 5 performance test results. 

Finally, the EPA is proposing that the 

NSPS for PM established pursuant to 

section 111(bb) also be revised so that 

these limits are no longer CEMS-based 

and reflect the resulting different 

numerical values and averaging times. 

Although the NSPS for PM rests on a 

justification independent of the 

NESHAP PM standard (see PCA v. EPA, 

665 F. 3d at 192–93), the technical 

issues associated with the use of PM 

CEMS in this industry are common to 

both standards and the proposed 

amendments, therefore, appear 

appropriate for the NSPS as well. The 

EPA believes that these proposed 

requirements represent Best 

Demonstrated Available Technology for 

new cement kilns given that the 

standards remain predicated on the 

performance of the best industry 

performers and the costs remain those 

already found to be reasonable. See id. 

at 191–92 discussing and upholding the 

EPA’s NSPS for PM. 

E. Summary of Proposed Standards 

Resulting From Reconsideration 

The EPA is proposing the following 

revised MACT standards: 

TABLE 3—PROPOSED EXISTING AND NEW SOURCE FLOORS AND STANDARDS a

Pollutant Existing source standard New source standard 

Mercury .............................................................. 55 lb/MM tons clinker ....................................... 21 lb/MM tons clinker. 

THC ................................................................... 24 ppmvd .......................................................... 24 ppmvd. 

PM ..................................................................... 0.07 lb/ton clinker (3-run test average) ............ 0.02 lb/ton clinker (3-run test average). 

HCl ..................................................................... 3 ppmvd ............................................................ 3 ppmvd. 

Organic HAP ...................................................... 12 ppmvd .......................................................... 12 ppmvd. 

aStandards for mercury and THC are based on a 30-day rolling average. The standard for PM is based on a three run test. If using a CEMS 

to determine compliance with the HCl standard, the floor is also a 30-day rolling average. Organic HAP standards are discussed in section H 

below. 

F. Standards for Fugitive Emissions 

From Clinker Storage Piles 

In the September 2010 rule, the 

agency established work practice 

requirements to reduce fugitive 

emissions from outdoor clinker storage 

piles. The agency had information that 

these storage piles emit HAP in the form 

of fugitive PM containing HAP metals, 

so that regulation of these sources was 

necessary. Because the emissions in 

question were fugitive dusts for which 

measurement was not feasible, the 

agency adopted work practices as the 

standard, specifically the work practice 

standards and opacity emissions limits 

contained in California’s South Coast 

Air Quality Management District Rule 

1156 as amended on March 6, 2009. 

Because there were only two plants 

which we could state definitively had 

open storage piles and both were 

complying with Rule 1156, we believed 

that the regulatory standards under Rule 

1156 constituted the floor level of 

control. The current promulgated work 

practices consist of providing varying 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

42378 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 138 / Wednesday, July 18, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

degrees of enclosures or barriers to 

prevent wind erosion of the storage 

piles. See generally 75 FR 54989 

(September 9, 2010). 

In their reconsideration petition, the 

cement industry maintained that the 

EPA did not provide sufficient notice of 

the standards it might adopt for clinker 

storage piles. We agreed and granted 

reconsideration. See 76 FR 28325 (May 

17, 2011). The D.C. Circuit stayed the 

standard pending the conclusion of the 

EPA’s reconsideration. See 665 F. 3d at 

189. 

Industry also noted, correctly, that 

more than two plants are potentially 

affected by clinker pile standards, so 

that the California rule is not necessarily 

a floor level of control. To evaluate 

which work practices are currently used 

in the industry, we requested data from 

the industry on currently used work 

practices. We also undertook a review of 

state permits to determine the level of 

controls to which open clinker piles are 

currently subject. Based on this 

information, the EPA is proposing to 

amend the work practices for clinker 

storage piles. 

1. What is a clinker pile? 

Clinker storage is necessary to allow 

near continuous kiln operation and 

intermittent grinding and processing of 

the clinker. Clinker storage is also 

necessary in the event of unplanned or 

planned kiln shutdowns. Cement plants 

use silos, domes or other enclosure for 

clinker storage. Additional clinker 

storage may also be necessary to 

accommodate extended shutdown 

periods for kiln maintenance and/or 

market conditions. When the 

conventional enclosed storage is not 

adequate, clinker may be stored in 

outdoor piles. Unlike automated 

systems for drawing down clinker from 

enclosed silos, these temporary outdoor 

storage piles are drawn down using 

equipment such as front end loaders or 

other reclaiming equipment. Outdoor 

clinker storage may be temporary, 

lasting a few days or weeks and up to 

several months. There are also open 

clinker piles that have been in existence 

for years and are essentially permanent. 

2. What are the proposed standards? 

We are proposing amended standards 

that will control HAP metal emissions 

from open clinker piles. Because the 

emissions are fugitive, we are proposing 

work practices instead of an emissions 

limit since it is ‘‘not feasible to prescribe 

or enforce an emission standard’’ for 

these emissions because, as fugitive 

emissions, they are not ‘‘emitted 

through a conveyance designed and 

constructed to emit or capture such 

pollutant’’. See CAA section 112 

(h)(2)(A). The work practices would 

apply to any open clinker piles 

regardless of the quantity of clinker or 

the length of time that the clinker pile 

is in existence. 

According to industry stakeholders, 

virtually all Title V permits oblige 

cement plant operators to ‘‘minimize’’ 

fugitive emissions including those from 

open clinker piles. See Portland Cement 

Reconsideration TSD, section 2, which 

is available in this rulemaking docket. 

Our examination of relevant permits 

indicates that some permits establish an 

opacity limit not to be exceeded in 

conjunction with materials 

management. Others contain a ‘‘no 

visible emissions’’ limitation at the 

fence line of the facility. Industry 

stakeholders state that to minimize 

fugitive emissions from open clinker 

piles, plants employ a number of 

practices, the most common being to use 

water sprays to form a concrete-like 

crust on the exposed surface of the 

clinker pile. Clinker has cement like 

properties and when exposed to water 

will hydrate and harden. The crust 

formed by this practice is very effective 

at reducing fugitive emissions as long as 

the pile is not disturbed. Another 

common practice is to cover clinker 

piles with tarps, which may be held 

down with tires, which effectively 

minimizes fugitive emissions. Some 

plants also use foam sprays on the 

exposed surface of the pile, forming a 

coating which reduces or prevents 

fugitive emissions. 

Based on our review of 88 state Title 

V permits, all but one permit required 

one or a combination of the following 

control measures to reduce fugitive 

emissions generally: Work practices, 

opacity or visible emission limits, 

prohibitions against open clinker piles 

and some type of general duty 

requirements to minimize fugitive dust 

emissions. Eight of the permits 

contained requirements specific to open 

or outdoor clinker piles. Eighteen 

permits contained standards that 

restricted emissions more generally 

from outdoor storage piles including 

opacity and visible emissions limits and 

general duty requirements to not 

produce PM or dust emissions at the 

property line. Seventy-seven permits 

contained facility-wide restrictions that 

applied to a variety of fugitive sources 

at the cement facilities (e.g. roads, 

storage, raw materials). In only one 

permit was it not clear that there were 

requirements to minimize fugitive dust 

emissions. 

With the exception of total enclosure 

of all open clinker piles, the EPA 

believes that the control measures in the 

permits are equally effective in reducing 

fugitive emissions. These measures are, 

therefore, consistent with section 112(d) 

controls and reflect a level of 

performance analogous to a MACT floor. 

See CAA section 112(h)(1) (in 

promulgating work practices, the EPA is 

to adopt standards ‘‘which in the 

Administrator’s judgment [are] 

consistent with section (d) or (f) of this 

section.’’) The option of full enclosures, 

somewhat analogous to a beyond-thefloor standard under section 112(d)(2), 

would be extremely costly with 

minimum associated emissions 

reductions incremental to the measures 

already undertaken (which already 

reduce most or all of the fugitive 

emissions from these piles). The EPA, 

therefore, is not proposing to mandate 

such a practice. Industry cost estimates 

for a full enclosure with a capacity of 

50,000 tons of clinker range from 

$10–$25 million in capital cost and 

$400,000–$500,000 annual operating 

cost (See Portland Cement Association, 

Clinker Piles, September 7, 2011, 

available in the rulemaking docket). We 

also are not proposing opacity or visible 

emission standards, for several reasons. 

If work practices are properly 

implemented, we believe fugitive 

emissions, including visible emissions, 

from clinker piles will be effectively 

controlled. Such emission limits would 

also be redundant with work practice 

requirements. Moreover, in many cases, 

the temporary, short-term nature of 

clinker piles would make it impractical 

to implement an emissions monitoring 

program that would be more effective 

than the proposed work practices. 

We are proposing that one or more of 

the following control measures be used 

when adding clinker to a pile, during 

on-going clinker storage, and when 

reclaiming the clinker for processing, to 

minimize to the greatest extent 

practicable fugitive dust emissions from 

open clinker storage piles: Locating the 

source inside a partial enclosure (such 

as a three sided structure with tarp), 

installing and operating a water spray or 

fogging system, applying appropriate 

chemical dust suppression agents on the 

pile, use of a wind barrier or use of a 

tarp. The owner or operator must select, 

from the list provided, the control 

measure or combination of control 

measures that are most appropriate for 

the site conditions. We are allowing the 

owner or operator to select the most 

appropriate control measure or 

combination of measures for their 

situation. 

We are proposing that the owner or 

operator must include as part of their 

operations and maintenance plan 

(required in § 63.1347) the fugitive dust 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 138 / Wednesday, July 18, 2012 / Proposed Rules 42379 

control measures that they will 

implement to control fugitive dust 

emissions from open clinker piles. 

These control measures would apply to 

the addition of clinker to the pile, ongoing clinker storage and reclaiming the 

clinker for processing. 

We are proposing the same standards 

for new sources as existing sources. In 

the case of a clinker storage pile, there 

is no essential difference between ‘new’ 

and ‘existing’. These piles generally 

reflect temporary storage situations, and 

are not analogous to building a one-time 

stationary structure where there are 

opportunities for newly-constructed 

entities that do not exist for existing 

entities. The EPA consequently is 

proposing the same standards for both. 

G. Affirmative Defense to Civil Penalties 

for Exceedances Occurring During 

Malfunctions 

In response to comments, the EPA 

added to the September 9, 2010, final 

rule an affirmative defense to civil 

penalties for exceedances of emissions 

limits that are caused by malfunctions. 

Various environmental advocacy 

groups, as well as the Portland Cement 

Association (PCA), indicated that there 

had been insufficient notice of this 

provision. The EPA agreed and granted 

reconsideration. See 76 FR 28325 (May 

17, 2011). We are proposing to retain the 

affirmative defense on reconsideration. 

This provision seeks to balance a 

tension, inherent in many types of air 

regulation, to ensure adequate 

compliance while simultaneously 

recognizing that despite the most 

diligent of efforts, emission limits may 

be exceeded under circumstances 

beyond the control of the source. The 

EPA must establish emission standards 

that ‘‘limit the quantity, rate, or 

concentration of emissions of air 

pollutants on a continuous basis.’’ See 

42 U.S.C. 7602(k) (defining ‘‘emission 

limitation and emission standard’’). See 

generally Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 

1019, 1021 (D.C. Cir. 2008) Thus, the 

EPA is required to ensure that section 

112 emissions limitations are 

continuous. The affirmative defense for 

malfunction events meets this 

requirement by ensuring that even 

where there is a malfunction, the 

emission limitation is still enforceable 

through injunctive relief. Although 

‘‘continuous’’ limitations, on the one 

hand, are required, there is also case law 

indicating that in many situations it is 

appropriate for the EPA to account for 

the practical realities of control 

technology. For example, in Essex 

Chemical v. Ruckelshaus, 486 F.2d 427, 

433 (D.C. Cir. 1973), the D.C. Circuit 

acknowledged that in setting standards 

under CAA section 111 ‘‘variant 

provisions’’ such as provisions allowing 

for upsets during startup, shutdown and 

equipment malfunction ‘‘appear 

necessary to preserve the reasonableness 

of the standards as a whole and that the 

record does not support the ‘never to be 

exceeded’ standard currently in force.’’ 

See also, Portland Cement Association 

v. Ruckelshaus, 486 F.2d 375 (D.C. Cir. 

1973). Though intervening case law 

such as Sierra Club v. EPA and the CAA 

1977 amendments undermine the 

relevance of these cases today, they 

support the EPA’s view that a system 

that incorporates some level of 

flexibility is reasonable. The affirmative 

defense simply provides for a defense to 

civil penalties for excess emissions that 

are proven to be beyond the control of 

the source. By incorporating an 

affirmative defense, the EPA has 

formalized its approach to upset events. 

In a Clean Water Act setting, the Ninth 

Circuit required this type of formalized 

approach when regulating ‘‘upsets 

beyond the control of the permit 

holder.’’ Marathon Oil Co. v. EPA, 564 

F.2d 1253, 1272–73 (9th Cir. 1977); see 

also, Mont. Sulphur & Chem. Co. v. 

United States EPA, 2012 U.S. App. 

LEXIS 1056 (Jan 19, 2012) (rejecting 

industry argument that reliance on the 

affirmative defense was not adequate). 

But see, Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Costle, 590 

F.2d 1011, 1057–58 (D.C. Cir. 1978) 

(holding that an informal approach is 

adequate). The affirmative defense 

provisions give the EPA the flexibility to 

both ensure that its emission limitations 

are ‘‘continuous’’ as required by 42 

U.S.C. § 7602(k), and account for 

unplanned upsets and thus support the 

reasonableness of the standard as a 

whole. 

Petitions filed by environmental 

advocacy groups question the EPA’s 

authority to promulgate the affirmative 

defense arguing, among other things, 

that the affirmative defense is 

inconsistent with the provisions of CAA 

sections 113(e) and 304(b) governing 

penalty assessment and citizen suits, 

respectively. The EPA’s view is that the 

affirmative defense is not inconsistent 

with CAA section 113(e) or 304. Section 

304 gives district courts’ jurisdiction ‘‘to 

apply appropriate civil penalties.’’ 

Section 113(e)(1) identifies the factors 

that the Administrator or a court shall 

take into consideration in determining 

the amount of a penalty to be assessed, 

once it has been determined that a 

penalty is appropriate. The affirmative 

defense regulatory provision is not 

relevant to the amount of any penalty to 

be assessed. If a court determines that 

the affirmative defense elements have 

been established, then a penalty is not 

appropriate and penalty assessment 

pursuant to the section 113(e)(1) factors 

does not occur. 

In exercising its authority under 

section 112 to establish emission 

standards (at a level that meets the 

stringency requirements of section 112), 

the EPA necessarily defines conduct 

that constitutes a violation. The EPA 

view is that the affirmative defense is 

part of the emission standard and 

defines two categories of violation. If 

there is a violation of the emission 

standard and the source demonstrates 

that all the elements of the affirmative 

defense are met, only injunctive relief is 

available. All other violations of the 

emission standard are subject to 

injunctive relief and penalties. A citizen 

suit claim under section 304 allows 

citizens to commence a civil action 

against any person alleged to be in 

violation of ‘‘an emission standard or 

limitation under this chapter.’’ The 

CAA, however, allows the EPA to 

establish such ‘‘enforceable emission 

limitations.’’ Thus, the citizen suit 

provision clearly contemplates 

enforcement of the standards that are 

defined by the EPA. As a result, where 

the EPA defines its emissions 

limitations and enforcement measures 

to allow a source the opportunity to 

prove its entitlement to a lesser degree 

of violation (not subject to penalties) in 

narrow, specified circumstances, as the 

EPA did here, penalties are not 

‘‘appropriate’’ under section 304. 

The EPA solicits comments on this 

issue of the EPA’s authority to 

promulgate an affirmative defense. The 

EPA’s view is that an affirmative 

defense to civil penalties for 

exceedances of applicable emission 

standards during periods of malfunction 

appropriately balances competing 

concerns. On the one hand, citizen 

enforcers are concerned about 

additional complications in their 

enforcement actions. On the other hand, 

industrial sources are concerned about 

being penalized for violations caused by 

malfunctions that they could not have 

prevented and were otherwise 

appropriately handled (as reflected in 

the affirmative defense criteria). The 

EPA has used its section 301(a)(1) 

authority to issue regulations necessary 

to carry out the Act in a manner that 

appropriately balances these competing 

concerns. However, the EPA also 

solicits comment on alternatives to, or 

variations on, the affirmative defense 

provisions promulgated in the 2010 

final rule. 

In its petition for reconsideration, the 

PCA expressed support for the 

affirmative defense, but maintains that 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

42380 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 138 / Wednesday, July 18, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

‘‘the affirmative defense process that 

EPA codified in the final rules is 

cumbersome and will be exceedingly 

difficult for facilities to employ.’’ The 

EPA is soliciting comment on the terms 

and condition of the affirmative defense. 

In recent rules promulgated under 

section 112 and 129, the EPA has 

revised certain terms and conditions of 

the affirmative defense in response to 

concerns raised by various commenters. 

The EPA is proposing to adopt those 

same revisions in this proposed rule. 

The EPA is proposing to revise the 

affirmative defense language to delete 

‘‘short’’ from section 63.1344(a)(1)(i), 

because other criteria in the affirmative 

defense require that the source assure 

that the duration of the excess emissions 

‘‘were minimized to the maximum 

extent practicable.’’ The EPA is also 

proposing to delete the term ‘‘severe’’ in 

the phrase ‘‘severe personal injury’’ in 

63.1344(a)(4) because we do not think it 

is appropriate to make the affirmative 

defense available only when bypass was 

unavoidable to prevent severe personal 

injury. In addition, the EPA is proposing 

to revise section 63.1344(a)(8) to add 

‘‘consistent with good air pollution 

control practice for minimizing 

emissions.’’ The EPA is also proposing 

to revise the language of 63.1344(a)(9) to 

clarify that the purpose of the root cause 

analysis is to determine, correct and 

eliminate the primary cause of the 

malfunction. The root cause analysis 

itself does not necessarily require that 

the cause be determined, corrected or 

eliminated. However, in most cases, the 

EPA believes that a properly conducted 

root cause analysis will have such 

results. Further, the EPA is proposing to 

revise 63.1344(b) to state that ‘‘[t]he 

owner or operator seeking to assert an 

affirmative defense shall submit a 

written report to the Administrator in a 

semiannual report with all necessary 

supporting documentation, that it has 

met the requirements set forth in section 

63.1354(c) of this subpart.’’ This report 

must be included in the first semiannual 

report, required by section 

63.1354(b)(9), after the initial 

occurrence of the violation of the 

relevant standard. If the semiannual 

report is due less than 45 days after the 

initial occurrence of the violation, the 

affirmative defense report may be 

included in the second semiannual 

report due after the initial occurrence of 

the violation of the relevant standard. 

See proposed regulatory text for other 

proposed minor wording changes to 

improve clarity. 

H. Continuously Monitored Parameters 

for Alternative Organic HAP Standard 

(With THC Monitoring Parameter) 

In the September 2010 final rule, the 

EPA promulgated an alternative 

standard for non-dioxin organic HAP, 

based on measuring the organic HAP 

itself rather than the THC surrogate. 

Section 63.1343(b)(1) provides two 

options for meeting a standard for 

organic HAP. One is to meet a THC 

standard of 24 ppmvd; the other is to 

meet a limit of 9 ppmvd of total organic 

HAP. This equivalent alternative 

standard is intended to provide 

additional flexibility in determining 

compliance, and it would be 

appropriate for those cases in which 

methane and ethane comprise a 

disproportionately high amount of the 

organic compounds in the feed because 

these non-HAP compounds could be 

emitted and would be measured as THC. 

The specific organic compounds that are 

to be measured to determine compliance 

with the equivalent alternative standard 

are benzene, toluene, styrene, xylene 

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

formaldehyde and naphthalene. 

Compliance with the equivalent 

alternative standard under the 

September 2010 standard will be 

determined through organic HAP 

emissions testing using EPA Method 18 

or 320, as appropriate for the compound 

of interest. The 2010 rule further 

requires that each source complying 

with the alternative standard establish a 

site-specific THC limit to be met 

continuously. The site-specific THC 

limit will be measured as a 30 day 

rolling average, with an annual 

compliance test requirement. It would 

be correlated with the organic HAP limit 

and is therefore not tied to the THC 

standard of 24 ppmvd. We granted 

reconsideration on the level of this sitespecific THC limit used as a 

continuously monitored parameter for 

those sources selecting the alternative 

HAP compliance method. See 76 FR 

28318 (May 17, 2011). 

Since THC includes compounds that 

are not considered to be hazardous, 

either of the two standards are 

considered to be reasonable. 

While the September 2010 final rule 

required an organic HAP limit of 9 

ppmvd, a recent review of the method 

detection limits used to measure organic 

HAP revealed that three times the 

representative method detection level 

(3*RMDL) is actually 12 ppmvd, 

therefore, we propose to revise the 

alternative organic HAP limit to 12 

ppmvd. As discussed in the final rule, 

the expected measurement imprecision 

for an emissions value at or near the 

method detection level is about 40 to 50 

percent and decreases to a consistent 10 

to 15 percent for values that are three 

times the method detection level. See 75 

FR 54984 (September 9, 2010); see also 

section D above. Thus, measured values 

less than three times the representative 

method detection level are highly 

uncertain and therefore not reasonable 

for compliance determinations. The 

3*RMDL of 12 ppmvd was determined 

as follows: we determined method 

detection capabilities for Method 320 

and Method 18 as appropriate for the 

various compounds (e.g., Method 320 

for aldehydes, Method 18 for aromatic 

hydrocarbons (arenes)). This approach 

is consistent with procedures practiced 

by the better performing testing 

companies and laboratories using 

sensitive analytical procedures. We 

determined for each of the organic HAP 

the expected method detection level for 

the respective method based on internal 

experience and method capabilities 

reported by testing companies. With 

these reported values, we identified the 

resulting mean of the method detection 

levels, adjusted them for dilution and 

moisture, summed them, and then 

multiplied the sum by three to 

determine the representative detection 

level (RDL). The resulting RDL value 

was found to be 11.2 ppmvd @ 7 percent 

oxygen (O2), dry. This value is greater 

than the final 9 ppmvd @ 7 percent O2, 

dry, in the final rule. We are, therefore, 

proposing to adjust the total organic 

HAP limit to 12 ppmvd @ 7 percent O2, 

dry (rounded up from the 11.2 ppm 

RDL). At this level, we believe that 

currently available emissions testing 

procedures and technologies can be 

used to provide measurements of 

sufficient certainty for sources to 

demonstrate compliance. A detailed 

discussion of the use of the RDL to 

arrive at the proposed organic HAP limit 

is found in the Portland Cement 

Reconsideration TSD, section 3, which 

can be found in the docket for this 

rulemaking. 

A consequence of this analysis is that 

the accuracy of the analytic methods for 

organic HAP appear to be insufficient to 

allow sources to scale up their sitespecific THC limit based on the degree 

to which the measured organic HAP 

levels were below the organic HAP 

limit—the organic HAP limit, even as 

proposed to be revised, is at the reliable 

limit of detection as just explained. 

Therefore, this proposed rule retains the 

provision whereby the site-specific THC 

operating parameter is established at the 

same time the performance test is 

conducted for organic HAP. If the sitespecific THC operating parameter is 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 138 / Wednesday, July 18, 2012 / Proposed Rules 42381 

exceeded, then the kiln would have to 

be retested to determine compliance 

with the organic HAP limit. This 

proposed rule would further require that 

the tests for organic HAP and THC be 

repeated annually to establish a new 

annual site-specific THC parameter 

reflecting the organic HAP level. We 

also are proposing, similar to the PM 

compliance test procedure, that the 

highest 1-hour average THC 

concentration measured during the 3- 

hour organic HAP test, be used as the 

site-specific THC parameter, and are 

allowing facilities to extend the testing 

time (or number of tests) if they believe 

extended testing is required to 

adequately capture THC variability over 

time. The EPA specifically solicits 

comment on the changes on the organic 

HAP limit. In addition, we solicit 

comment on if it would it be 

appropriate to allow sources to scale up 

their site-specific THC limit based on 

the degree to which the measured 

organic HAP levels are below the 

organic HAP limit. 

I. Allowing Sources With Dry Caustic 

Scrubbers To Comply With HCl 

Standard Using Performance Tests 

To demonstrate compliance with the 

HCl emissions limit, the September 

2010 final rule allows sources equipped 

with wet scrubbers to comply with the 

HCl standard by means of periodic 

performance tests rather than with 

continuous monitoring of HCl with a 

CEMS (see § 63.1349(b)(6)). We 

reasoned that a source that uses a 

limestone wet scrubber for HCl control 

will have minimal HCl emissions even 

if kiln inputs change because limestone 

wet scrubbers are more efficient in 

removing HCl than they are required to 

be, to meet the standard. Sources 

electing to comply by means of stack 

tests must establish continuously 

monitored parameters including liquid 

flow rate, pressure and pH. Sources 

using a limestone wet scrubber are 

required to perform an initial 

compliance test using Method 321 in 

Appendix A to 40 CFR part 63 and to 

test every 30 months thereafter. 

In their petition, industry 

stakeholders indicated that this 

compliance option should not be 

limited to wet scrubber equipped units, 

but should also be available for units 

equipped with caustic scrubbers, in part 

because some sources will be equipped 

with dry scrubbers (due to water 

shortages) and should have the same 

operating flexibilities as wet scrubber 

equipped kilns. 

A recent review of data from a vendor 

of acid gas controls using a standard 

hydrated lime and a high performance 

hydrated lime at a U.S. cement 

manufacturing plant, revealed that HCl 

removal from dry scrubbers on kilns 

ranged from 90 to 95 percent HCl 

removal, depending on lime injection 

rates (Lhoist North America, Cement 

Industry Experience, DSI for Acid Gas 

Control, October 5, 2011). The results 

also showed the plant could meet the 3 

ppm HCl limit. The EPA also evaluated 

HCl removal efficiency using dry 

sprayer absorber with a fabric filter as 

part of the electric utility generating 

MACT rulemaking. Removal efficiencies 

ranged from 95 percent to nearly 100 

percent with an average of about 99.8 

percent (Hutson to Nizich, HCl control 

using SDA/FF, November 29, 2011). In 

addition, information from the National 

Lime Association (http://www.lime.org/ 

uses_of_lime/environmental/ 

flue_gas.asp) and the Institute for Clean 

Air Companies (http://www.icac.com/ 

i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=3401) 

report HCl emissions reductions using 

dry lime injection technology of 95 to 99 

percent from coal-fired boilers in the 

electric utility industry, from municipal 

waste-to-energy facilities and from other 

industries. In the secondary aluminum 

industry, reductions in HCl emissions 

greater than 99 percent have been 

achieved (National Lime Association, 

Flue Gas Desulfurization, http:// 

www.lime.org/uses_of_lime/ 

environmental/flue_gas.asp). 

Given these high reported removal 

efficiencies, we propose to extend the 

same option provided to kilns equipped 

with wet scrubbers to dry scrubberequipped kilns. Thus, kilns with either 

type of scrubber could demonstrate 

compliance with the HCl limit by means 

of an initial and periodic stack test 

rather than with continuous compliance 

monitoring with a CEMS. In order to 

assure that the dry lime injection 

equipment is operated effectively 

between tests, the proposed amendment 

would require that the lime injection 

rate used during the performance test 

demonstrating compliance with the HCl 

limit be recorded and then continuously 

monitored between performance tests to 

show that the injection rate remains at 

or above the rate used during the 

performance test. 

We are also proposing an additional 

alternative for all kilns equipped with a 

dry or wet scrubber (and, under this 

proposal, could therefore do periodic 

HCl performance testing and parametric 

monitoring). Where either wet or dry 

scrubbers are used, we are proposing 

that an owner or operator would have 

the option of using SO2 monitoring as a 

continuously monitored parameter for 

purposes of compliance monitoring. 

Because HCl is a water-soluble 

compound and because it has a large 

acid dissociation constant (i.e., HCl is a 

strong acid), it will be more rapidly and 

readily removed than SO2 from a gas 

stream treated with either caustic 

sorbents (e.g., lime, limestone) or plain 

water. We acknowledge that at proposal 

(see 74 FR 21154, May 6, 2009) we 

rejected setting a standard (as opposed 

to a continuously monitored parameter) 

that used SO2 as a surrogate for HCl 

because we had no data that 

demonstrated a direct link between HCl 

emissions and SO2 emissions. However, 

pilot-scale tests by the EPA at its Multipollutant Control Research Facility 

support the use of the more easily 

measured SO2 as a surrogate for HCl 

where either wet or dry scrubbers are 

used. See Docket item EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2009–0234–3893. Further, we are aware 

that there are existing kilns equipped 

with SO2 CEMS and that this 

monitoring technology is less expensive 

and more mature than HCl CEMS. Thus, 

we are proposing that SO2 is an 

indicator for HCl compliance, and that 

monitoring the emissions of SO2 will 

provide a reliable indication of HCl 

removal, making SO2 monitoring an 

appropriate parameter for monitoring 

continuing compliance. 

Owners or operators of kilns equipped 

with dry or wet scrubbers that choose to 

use SO2 monitoring would need to 

conduct an initial performance test for 

HCl and establish the SO2 operating 

limit equal to the highest 1 hour average 

recorded during the HCl performance 

test, so that there is an indication of 

proper operation of the HCl control 

device. The owner or operator of a kiln 

controlled using either a dry or wet 

scrubber that chooses to monitor SO2

would not be required to also establish 

continuously monitored parameters 

reflecting the performance test results, 

such as lime injection rate for a dry 

scrubber and liquid flow rate, pressure 

and pH for a wet scrubber. Deviation 

from any established parameter level or 

established SO2 operating level would 

trigger a requirement to retest for HCl in 

order to verify compliance with the HCl 

limits and to verify or re-establish the 

parameter levels. 

At a minimum, a repeat performance 

test to confirm compliance with the HCl 

emissions limit and to reset the SO2

limit and monitoring parameters is 

required every 5 years. We are 

requesting comment on the efficacy of 

continuously monitoring SO2 as a 

continuously monitored parameter in 

lieu of continuously monitoring HCl 

control device parameters, and also 

solicit comment on testing every 30 

months for HCl for purposes of 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

42382 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 138 / Wednesday, July 18, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

12Note that this figure would change 

correspondingly if the EPA were to amend the 

existing source PM standard. The same is true of the 

PM term in the new source equation. 

monitoring compliance with the HCl 

emissions limit. 

J. Alternative PM Limit 

Some kilns combine kiln exhaust gas 

with exhaust gas from other unit 

operations, such as the clinker cooler, as 

an energy saving practice. The 

September 2010 final rule sought to 

accommodate commingled flows from 

the kiln and clinker cooler by providing 

a site specific PM limit. See section 

63.1343(b)(2). In its reconsideration 

petition, the PCA pointed out, however, 

that other flows besides the exhaust gas 

flow from the clinker cooler can be 

commingled as well. The petitioner 

provided the example of coal mill 

exhaust and exhaust from an alkali bypass as instances of additional flows 

that can be commingled with the 

exhaust gas flow from the kiln. The 

petitioner observed that without an 

allowance for these additional flows, the 

site specific PM limit is stricter than the 

EPA intended (since the PM 

concentration will be divided by a lower 

number in the implementing equation), 

and penalizes the energy-saving practice 

of commingling these flows. 

The agency agreed with the petitioner 

that the alternative PM equations for 

existing and new sources contained in 

the final rule do not adequately account 

for commingled exhaust gas flows from 

sources other than the clinker cooler, 

and granted reconsideration for this 

reason. See 76 FR 28325 (May 17, 2011). 

We believe that although the form of the 

equation is correct, the equation is not 

written to accommodate sources other 

than exhaust gases from the clinker 

cooler. We are proposing to revise the 

equation so that it includes exhaust gas 

flows for all potential sources that 

would potentially be combined, 

including exhausts from the kiln, the 

alkali bypass, the coal mill, and the 

clinker cooler, for an existing kiln, the 

EPA is proposing the following 

equation: 

PMalt = 0.0060 × 1.65 × (Qk + Qc + Qab

+ Qcm)/(7000) 

Where: 

PMalt = The alternative PM emission limit for 

commingled sources. 

0.006 = The PM exhaust concentration (gr/ 

dscf) equivalent to 0.07 lb per ton clinker 

where clinker cooler and kiln exhaust 

gas are not combined.12

1.65 = The conversion factor of lb feed per 

lb clinker. 

Qk = The exhaust flow of the kiln (dscf/ton 

raw feed). 

Qc = The exhaust flow of the clinker cooler 

(dscf/ton raw feed). 

Qab = The exhaust flow of the alkali bypass 

(dscf/ton raw feed). 

Qcm = The exhaust flow of the coal mill (dscf/ 

ton raw feed). 

7000 = The conversion factor for grains (gr) 

per lb. 

If exhaust gases for any of the sources 

contained in the equation are not 

commingled and are exhausted through 

a separate stack, their value in the 

equation would be zero. The alternative 

PM equation for new sources is 

identical to the existing source equation 

except the PM exhaust concentration 

used in the equation is 0.002 grains per 

dry standard cubic foot, which is 

equivalent to the new source PM limit 

of 0.02 lb/ton clinker. 

K. Standards During Startup and 

Shutdown 

In the final NESHAP, the EPA 

established separate standards for 

startup and shutdown which differ from 

the main standards. These standards 

require kilns to meet numerical limits 

for each pollutant regulated by the rule, 

each standard to be measured using a 

CEMS over an accumulative 7-day 

rolling average. 75 FR 54991 (September 

9, 2010). Industry petitioned the EPA to 

reconsider these standards claiming lack 

of notice, but the EPA denied these 

petitions because the agency had 

already provided ample opportunity for 

comment which petitioners had used. 

See 76 FR 28323 (May 17, 2011). The 

D.C. Circuit dismissed all challenges to 

these startup and shutdown provisions 

(see 665 F 3d at 189). The EPA did grant 

reconsideration on several technical 

issues related to startup and 

shutdown—certain aspects of CEMbased monitoring of mercury and PM 

during startup and shutdown—issues 

which would be moot if the EPA adopts 

the approach proposed below—and 

having an HCl limit of zero for kilns not 

equipped with CEMS (see 76 FR 28325 

(May 17, 2011)). 

The EPA is proposing to retain the 

startup and shutdown standards for 

mercury and THC, to amend the startup 

and shutdown standards for PM to be 

consistent with the proposed numeric 

levels in this proposal, and to amend 

the level of the startup and shutdown 

standard for HCl to be 3 ppm in all 

circumstances. 

The EPA is further proposing to 

clarify that startup begins when the 

kiln’s induced fan is turned on and 

continues until continuous raw material 

feed is introduced into the kiln. 

Shutdown begins when feed to the kiln 

is halted. Thus, during startup and 

shutdown, as defined, a kiln would not 

be firing coal or coke and would not be 

introducing feed material into the kiln 

continuously. HAP emissions from 

cement kilns are attributable almost 

entirely to one or the other of these 

feeds, with raw materials contributing 

the great preponderance. In addition, 

kilns burn fuels during startup and 

shutdown which are cleaner than coal 

and coke (natural gas is used for the 

most of the startup). Thus, HAP 

emissions during startup and shutdown 

necessarily should be far less than the 

numerical limits in the standards since 

the kiln will not be introducing raw 

materials, and will be burning fuels 

which are cleaner than its normal fuels. 

Accordingly, the EPA is further 

proposing to change the means of 

monitoring for compliance with the 

startup and shutdown standards. Rather 

than require monitoring by a CEM or by 

stack testing, the EPA is proposing that 

a source keep records of the volumes of 

fuels introduced into the kiln during 

startup and shutdown to verify that raw 

materials are not introduced into the 

kiln, although, by definition, if raw 

materials are introduced continuously 

into the kiln, the kiln is not operating 

in startup and shutdown and the 

monitoring requirements of the main 

standards would therefore apply. Kiln 

owners and operators would then make 

conservative assumptions as to the 

combustion efficiency of the kiln so as 

to reasonably estimate destruction of 

organics, and include mass balance 

calculations showing that the startup/ 

shutdown standards would not be 

exceeded. 

These proposed recordkeeping 

requirements would serve as the basis 

for compliance monitoring. The EPA 

believes that these proposed 

recordkeeping requirements are both 

sufficient to yield reliable information 

for the startup and shutdown periods, 

and to establish a source’s compliance 

or non-compliance with the startup and 

shutdown standards. The EPA also 

believes that this proposed requirement 

would satisfy the requirements of 40 

CFR section 70.6(c)(1) which requires 

that Title V permits shall contain 

‘‘monitoring * * * requirements 

sufficient to assure compliance with the 

terms and conditions of the permit.’’ 

The EPA is further proposing that the 

standard for HCl during startup and 

shutdown be 3 ppmvd under all 

circumstances, and thus is proposing to 

eliminate the current provision that the 

startup and shutdown standard be zero 

for kilns measuring compliance by 

means other than a CEM. As shown in 

the petitions for reconsideration, HCl 

can be formed even when normal fuels 

and raw materials are not being 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 138 / Wednesday, July 18, 2012 / Proposed Rules 42383 

introduced into the kiln (for example, 

from residual chlorides in the kiln 

refractory). See PCA Petition for 

Reconsideration Exh. 1. Consequently, 

the promulgated limit of zero is 

technically inappropriate, and the EPA 

is proposing to amend it to 3 ppmvd, 

the same standard which applies in all 

other operating modes. Monitoring 

during startup and shutdown would be 

accomplished by recordkeeping, as 

explained above. 

The EPA also solicits comment on 

whether the numeric standards during 

startup and shutdown should be 

amended to provide work practices, 

rather than numeric standards. Work 

practices could require operation of 

emission control devices during startup 

and shutdown, minimizing the time 

periods of startup/shutdown, and 

following manufacturer’s best practices. 

We rejected work practices for startup 

and shutdown periods in the 2010 final 

rule because the commenters requesting 

such standard failed to demonstrate 

why it is ‘‘not feasible * * * to 

prescribe or enforce an emission 

standard’’ for mercury, THC, PM and 

HCl during startup and shutdown at 

cement kilns, within the meaning of 

section 112(h) of the Act. See NESHAP 

from the Portland Cement 

Manufacturing Industry Response to 

Comments Received on Proposed Rule 

Published on May 6, 2009, 74 FR 21135, 

August 6, 2010 at p. 184. 

L. Coal Mills 

Cement kilns burn coal as their main 

fuel, and mill the coal before firing it. 

From the standpoint of air emissions, 

these coal mills are sometimes 

physically distinct from the cement 

kiln, generating emissions solely 

attributable to the coal mill and emitting 

exhaust through a dedicated stack. 

However, some kilns are configured so 

that coal mill emissions are commingled 

with kiln exhaust and the emissions are 

discharged through the main kiln stack. 

Finally, there are some configurations 

whereby kiln emissions are routed to 

the coal mill and discharged through the 

coal mill stack. This part of the 

preamble discusses the regulatory 

treatment of these different scenarios. 

First, the EPA has promulgated new 

source performance standards (40 CFR 

part 60 subpart Y) for coal mills. See 74 

FR 51952 (October 8, 2009). These 

standards apply to coal mills, including 

coal mills at cement manufacturing 

facilities, which emit through a 

dedicated stack. Subpart Y standards do 

not apply to coal mills at cement 

facilities whose only heat source is kiln 

exhaust. See section 60.251(j) 

(definition of indirect thermal dryer). 

This leaves ambiguous, or partially 

ambiguous, the regulatory treatment of 

the second and third situations 

mentioned above: A kiln whose coal 

emissions are discharged through the 

main kiln stack, and the coal mill which 

receives some exhaust from the cement 

kiln so that some portion of the coal 

mill exhaust can reflect cement kiln 

emissions. Because we did not address 

these issues in the 2010 final NESHAP 

for Portland cement kilns, we granted 

reconsideration in order to do so. See 76 

FR 28326 (May 17, 2011). 

A cement kiln which commingles 

emissions from its coal mill with all 

other emissions and discharges through 

kiln emission points would have to 

meet all of the NESHAP. In the case of 

PM, the additional flow from the coal 

mill would be accounted for in the 

equation used to determine PM 

contributions from commingled flows. 

See section K above. 

In the case of a coal mill which 

receives and discharges some of the 

cement kiln exhaust, the regulatory 

concern is that this re-routing of kiln 

exhaust not result in uncontrolled HAP 

emissions. 

Our basic principle for this situation 

could be that the kiln demonstrate that 

it is meeting all of the NESHAP 

standards for pollutants not regulated 

under the subpart Y coal mill standard, 

that is mercury, THC and HCl. Because 

the subpart Y standards contain a PM 

standard predicated on use of fabric 

filter control technology, we do not 

believe it necessary to account for 

diverted PM emissions. 

We are soliciting comment on the 

following compliance mechanism for 

the mercury, THC and HCl standards in 

this situation: The sum of the mercury, 

THC and HCl in the kiln exhaust 

diverted to the coal mill, and the kiln 

exhaust exhausted in the main kiln 

stack, must not exceed the subpart LLL 

NESHAP emission limits for each 

respective HAP or HAP surrogate. 

Under this approach, the rule could 

contain requirements to document the 

contribution of the emissions diverted 

to the coal mill. With respect to THC 

and HCl, because coal may be a source 

of these emissions, we are soliciting 

comment on a requirement that 

performance tests for THC and HCl be 

performed upstream of the coal mill. For 

mercury, we are soliciting comment on 

a requirement that tests be required 

downstream to account for any mercury 

removal in the coal mill air pollution 

control device (APCD), and to avoid 

double counting emissions of mercury 

from mercury that becomes re-entrained 

in the coal, which is then burned by the 

cement kiln (which emissions are 

otherwise accounted for in the 

NESHAP). 

We note further that an analogous 

situation is when a cement kiln has an 

alkali bypass which receives and 

exhausts emissions from the kiln. We 

are proposing that these emissions be 

subject to controls reflecting the same 

principle—the total emissions of the 

kiln and alkali bypass must meet the 

subpart LLL NESHAP. We are also 

proposing to use the same monitoring 

procedures to document compliance. 

The one (slight) exception is for PM. 

Because there is no independent PM 

standard for an alkali bypass (unlike the 

situation for coal mills, where subpart Y 

regulates PM emissions), the summed 

PM emissions from the kiln and alkali 

bypass would have to be equal to or less 

than the PM limit in the subpart LLL 

NESHAP. Tests for PM from the alkali 

bypass would be downstream of the 

alkali bypass APCD to account for those 

emission reductions. Though we are not 

proposing the coal mill requirements in 

this action, we have placed the 

appropriate regulatory text in the 

proposed rule language to allow 

comment on actual rule language. 

We expand on these monitoring 

provisions below. 

1. Mercury. Although mercury from 

the main stack is monitored using a 

CEMS, there is no need for such 

monitoring for the gas streams from the 

coal mill. The gas stream to the coal mill 

is small in comparison to the kiln 

exhaust, operation of the coal mill is 

intermittent, and the cost of requiring 

additional CEMS for coal mills would 

be overly burdensome. Instead, the 

performance tests for mercury could be 

conducted at such a coal mill once per 

year, and, as explained above, that the 

tests be conducted downstream of the 

coal mill. Performance tests for mercury 

could be conducted using either 

Methods 29 or 30B in Appendix A–8 to 

40 CFR Part 60. These performance tests 

could be required annually until the 

tested mercury levels are below the 

method detection limits for two 

consecutive years, after which tests may 

be conducted every 30 months. If test 

results at any time exceed the method 

detection limit, annual performance 

testing could again be required until 

mercury levels are below the method 

detection limit for two consecutive 

years. The results of the performance 

test could then be summed with the 

emissions from the kiln stack to 

determine compliance with the mercury 

emissions limit. Since kiln stack 

emissions are measured continuously 

with a CEMS, the coal gas emissions 

could be normalized on both a CEMS 

and production basis (lb/MM ton 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

42384 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 138 / Wednesday, July 18, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

13The proposed approach is conceptually similar 

to that for PM from multiple sources discussed in 

K. above—an equation which accounts for the flowweighted concentration of PM from all sources. 

clinker) in order to be summed with the 

kiln stack emissions. To do so, the flow 

rate to the coal mill could be 

continuously monitored. Using the 

results of the annual performance test 

and the continuous flow rate from the 

coal mill, the owner or operator could 

develop a mercury hourly mass 

emission rate for the coal mill. Hourly 

mercury emissions from the coal mill 

could be summed with the mercury 

emissions from the kiln to determine 

continuous compliance as follows: 

((Qab×Cab) + (Qcm×Ccm) + (Qks×Cks))/ 

P ≤ MACT Limit 

Where: 

Qab = Alkali bypass flow rate (volume/hr) 

Cab = Alkali bypass concentration (lb/dscf) 

Qcm = Coal mill flow rate (volume/hr) 

Ccm = Coal mill concentration (lb/dscf) 

Qks = Kiln stack flow rate (volume/hr) 

Cks = Kiln stack concentration (lb/dscf) 

P = Kiln production rate (million tons 

clinker/hr) 

MACT Limit = Limit for mercury (55 lb 

mercury/MM tons clinker) 

This equation requires all values to be 

at or corrected to 7 percent O2. 

Thus, if the normalized test results at 

the coal mill control device outlet 

shows mercury emissions of 10 lb/MM 

tons clinker, emissions from the kiln 

should be less than 45 lb/MM tons of 

clinker to be in compliance with the 

proposed kiln mercury emissions limit. 

See section 63.1350(k)(5). 

For kilns also equipped with an alkali 

bypass, the same procedure as that for 

the coal mill would apply. Where a 

portion of kiln gases are diverted to a 

coal mill and to an alkali bypass, 

emissions from the coal mill and alkali 

bypass would be tested, normalized and 

summed and with the mercury 

emissions from the kiln to determine 

compliance with the emissions limit. 

2. THC and HCl. Because THC and 

HCl are concentration-based limits, the 

compliance demonstration could differ 

in certain details from the procedure 

described above for the production 

based limits for mercury. Kiln stack 

emission limits (to be continuously 

monitored) could be calculated taking 

into consideration the volumetric 

exhaust gas flow rates and 

concentrations of all applicable effluent 

streams (kiln stack, coal mill, and alkali 

bypass) for the kiln unit as follows: 

Where: 

Qab = Alkali bypass flow rate (volume/hr) 

Cab = Alkali bypass concentration (ppmvd) 

Qcm = Coal mill flow rate (volume/hr) 

Ccm = Coal mill concentration (ppmvd)e 

Qks = Kiln stack flow rate (volume/hr) 

Cks = Kiln stack concentration (ppmvd) 

MACT Limit = Limit for THC or HCl (ppmvd) 

This equation requires all values to be at or 

corrected to 7 percent O2.13

In order to determine the flow rates 

and concentrations of THC and HCl in 

the coal mill and alkali bypass streams, 

the source could test annually using the 

appropriate test method and could 

monitor the flow rate of the kiln stack 

with CMS. For HCl, the performance 

test could be performed using Method 

321 in Appendix A to 40 CFR Part 63. 

For measurement of THC, Method 25A 

in Appendix A–7 to 40 CFR Part 60 

could be required. With these data, the 

concentration of THC and HCl that must 

be monitored in the CEMS in order to 

demonstrate compliance with the kiln 

MACT limit under this proposal can be 

calculated by solving for Cks (kiln stack 

concentration) from the equation above, 

as shown: 

This equation is based on the 

following: 

• The total allowable mass emissions 

of THC and HCl for the kiln unit can be 

determined with the sum of all flow 

rates (coal mill, alkali bypass and kiln 

stack) and the applicable NESHAP limit 

(THC or HCl) concentration. This yields 

the total allowable mass emissions per 

unit of time for the kiln unit according 

to the MACT limits and the site specific 

flow rates for the coal mill, alkali bypass 

and kiln stack. 

• By testing the coal mill and alkali 

bypass streams for concentration and 

flow rate, the actual mass of THC and 

HCl emitted per unit of time can be 

determined. 

• Subtracting the actual mass 

emissions of THC and HCl leaving the 

coal mill and alkali by pass from the 

total allowable mass emissions for the 

kiln unit determines the remainder of 

allowable mass emissions that can be 

emitted through the kiln stack. 

• With knowledge of the flow rate at 

the kiln stack (measured by CMS) and 

the allowable mass emissions (i.e. 

remainder) that can be emitted through 

the kiln stack, a site specific 

concentration can be determined. The 

equation above provides a simplified 

approach to determining this value. 

The following example indicates how 

compliance could be demonstrated. In 

this example, we assume a kiln stack, 

coal mill and alkali bypass with the 

following volumetric flow rates and 

THC concentrations: 

Effluent stream Flow THC concentration Notes MACT LIMIT 

rate (ppmvd) (ppmvd) 

(dscm/hr) (@7% O2) (@7% O2) 

Alkali Bypass ...................................... Qab 38,233 Cab 56 Determined through test ..................... 24 

Coal Mill .............................................. Qcm 57,349 Ccm 56 Determined through test.

Kiln Stack ............................................ Qks 286,746 Cks ? Flow rate monitored by CMS.


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2ep18jy12.000</GPH> EP18JY12.001</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 138 / Wednesday, July 18, 2012 / Proposed Rules 42385 

With the simplified equation 

provided above, the THC value that 

must not be exceeded in the kiln stack 

(verified with CEMS) is determined as 

follows: 

Using the equation above, Cks is less 

than or equal to 13.3 ppmvd @ 7 percent 

O2. This value could be monitored by a 

CEMS in order to demonstrate 

compliance with the NESHAP limit— 

i.e., to demonstrate that the summed 

values are less than or equal to the 

standard of 24 ppmvd. 

The requirements for THC and HCl 

could be essentially the same as that for 

mercury (except that limits are 

concentration based as opposed to 

production-normalized mass based): the 

flow-weighted averages of THC and HCl 

could be less than or equal to the 

subpart LLL NESHAP. The kiln stack 

emissions are measured by a CEMS (for 

THC) or by other applicable means (for 

HCl). The flow-weighted contributions 

from other sources (the alkali bypass 

and the kiln exhaust diverted to the coal 

mill) could be assessed by annual 

testing and applied continuously with 

flow being measured continuously 

(explained further in the next 

paragraph). As noted above, testing of 

the kiln exhaust diverted to the coal 

mill could be conducted upstream of the 

coal mill for THC and HCl so that only 

the kiln exhaust contribution is 

assessed. 

To monitor compliance continuously, 

the gas flow rate from the coal mill 

could be monitored continuously. This 

flow rate measured during the annual 

performance test could be the maximum 

flow rate allowed during the year. If a 

higher flow rate is observed, the owner/ 

operator could retest THC and HCl to 

obtain a new flow-weighted 

concentration which would be summed 

with the kiln main stack THC or HCl 

concentration to determine whether the 

kiln is still in compliance. Because of 

this requirement, the owner/operator 

should perform their test at a flow rate 

that would cover the range of conditions 

expected. 

3. PM. As explained above, in the 

situation where a cement kiln diverts 

some exhaust to an integrated coal mill, 

the coal mill could meet the subpart Y 

standards, and the kiln could meet the 

subpart LLL NESHAP standard but 

would not have to account for the 

diverted exhaust in doing so. In all other 

situations, PM contribution from a coal 

mill (or from an alkali bypass) could be 

accounted for via the equation 

discussed in section J above. If the alkali 

bypass discharges separately, it would 

have to sum its PM emissions with 

those from the main stack and the 

summed emissions would have to be 

less than or equal to the subpart LLL 

NESHAP standard for PM. 

As a result of this revision, we would 

also include a revised definition of 

‘‘kiln’’ to clarify that coal mills using 

kiln exhaust gases in their operation are 

considered to be an integral part of the 

kiln (and hence subject to these 

standards). We would also include a 

definition for ‘‘in-line coal mill’’ for 

those coal mills using kiln exhaust gases 

in their process. The definition would 

exclude coal mills with a heat source 

other than the kiln or coal mills using 

exhaust gases from the clinker cooler. 

M. PM Standard for Modified Sources 

Under the NSPS 

The EPA adopted the level of the new 

source standard under the NESHAP as 

the NSPS for both new and modified 

kilns and clinker coolers. See 75 FR 

54996 (September 9, 2010). As the PCA 

noted in its reconsideration petition, 

there need not be functional 

equivalence between the NESHAP and 

NSPS PM limits for modified kilns and 

clinker coolers. The PCA also noted that 

the NSPS for modified kilns and clinker 

coolers could have associated costs 

which need to be accounted for 

pursuant to CAA section 111(a)(1). 

Since such kilns and clinker coolers 

would not be subject to the section 

112(d) new source standard, any costs 

for such modified kilns and clinker 

coolers to control PM to the new source 

limit could not be attributed to the 

section 112(d) new source limit. In 

addition, the PCA noted that existing 

Portland cement kilns cannot be 

assumed to find ways to avoid triggering 

the NSPS modification criteria when 

making physical or operational changes 

due to the stringency of the newly 

adopted standards for PM. 

The EPA believes that the PCA’s 

arguments on this point have merit. 

Under the September 2010 final 

NESHAP, existing kilns and clinker 

coolers are subject to the PM limit of 

0.04 lb/ton clinker. If the kiln or clinker 

cooler undergoes modification, it would 

continue to be subject to 0.04 lb/ton 

limit, but would now be subject as well 

to the NSPS limit of 0.01 lb/ton clinker. 

Notwithstanding that there are 

independent justifications under section 

111 that could justify this result (see 

PCA v. EPA, 665 F 3d at 190–91), the 

EPA believes, subject to consideration of 

comment, that it is more appropriate for 

modified kilns and clinker coolers to 

meet the NESHAP PM limit for existing 

sources. We are proposing that existing 

kilns and clinker coolers that are subject 

to the NESHAP existing source 

emissions limit would continue to be 

subject to that limit and not to the more 

stringent limit for new sources under 

the NSPS. This would be a limit of 0.07 

lb per ton clinker, three-run average 

based on Method 5 stack testing as 

explained in section D above. The 

parametric monitoring using a CPMS 

would likewise apply, as would the 

requirement of annual stack tests. We 

have justified the PM standard for 

modified kilns and clinker coolers 

under section 111 and need not repeat 

that rationale here. See PCA v. EPA, 655 

F. 3d at 190–91. This analysis continues 

to apply when the standards are based 

on stack tests rather than CEMS and no 

longer use a 30-day averaging period. 

The EPA also finds that the costs of 

meeting the incrementally more 

stringent proposed new source limit of 

0.02 lb/ton clinker (three-run average) 

are not justified for modified kilns and 

clinker coolers. For an existing kiln to 

reduce emissions from 0.07 to 0.02 lb/ 

ton clinker would result in a modest 

reduction in PM emissions at a cost of 

more than $21,000 per ton of PM 

reduced (the extra cost being 

attributable to more frequent 

replacement of bags) and greater still if 

sources are able to comply with the 

proposed limit by using controls other 

than a fabric filter or different types of 

fabric filters. 

N. Proposed NESHAP Compliance Date 

Extension for Existing Sources 

Under section 112 (i)(a)(3) of the Act, 

the EPA may reset compliance dates for 

section 112 (d) emission standards if the 

EPA amends the standards themselves 

(as opposed to amending some ancillary 

feature of the standards relating to 

implementation). See NRDC v. EPA, 489 

F. 3d 1364, 1373–74 (D.C. Cir. 2007). 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP18JY12.002</GPH>
42386 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 138 / Wednesday, July 18, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

14This date would be approximately 2 years and 

10 months from the December 20, 2012, signature 

date for final action called for in the draft 

settlement agreement between EPA and PCA. See 

77 FR 27055 (May 8, 2012). 

15 If the EPA were to adopt a THC standard of 15 

ppmvd (see section III.C.2 above), an extension of 

3 years from the date of final action would be 

needed since many kilns’ control strategies for 

organics controlled would be fundamentally 

altered. 

16The EPA did not believe this possible under the 

2010 PM standard, and costed polishing filters in 

all instances. See EPA–HQ–OAR–2002–0051–3438. 

Such a resetting would be appropriate if 

the standards are changed in such a way 

as to warrant more time for compliance, 

either to develop necessary controls or 

to otherwise significantly alter control 

strategy. Cf. PCA v. EPA, 655 F. 3d at 

189. (Staying NESHAP standards for 

clinker piles because ‘‘the standards 

could likely change substantially. Thus, 

industry should not have to build 

expensive new containment structures 

until the standard is finally 

determined’’). The EPA believes that 

may be the case here. Subject to 

consideration of public comment, the 

proposed amendments to the PM 

standard could significantly alter 

compliance strategies for all of the 

regulated HAP. The EPA is accordingly 

proposing that the compliance date for 

the PM, THC, mercury and HCl 

standards for existing sources for kilns, 

clinker coolers and raw material dryers 

be extended until September 10, 2015, 

a 2-year extension of the current 

compliance date.14 We believe that this 

date would require compliance ‘‘as 

expeditiously as practicable’’ as 

required by section 112 (i)(3)(A) of the 

Act.15

The EPA is proposing to amend the 

standards for PM, changing the 

compliance regime from CEMS-based to 

stack-test based, changing the averaging 

time for compliance, and changing the 

level of the standard. These proposed 

changes, in and of themselves, may 

occasion the need for additional time to 

study the possibility of different control 

strategies than are available under the 

2010 final rule. 

The EPA believes that different 

compliance strategies may now be 

available. The 2010 PM standard is 

achievable but requires the most 

advanced fabric filters, membrane bags, 

frequent bag replacement and 

maintenance. See Docket item EPA– 

HQ–OAR–2002–0051–3438. The 

proposed standard of 0.07 lb/ton of 

clinker (3-run stack test) may be 

achievable by other means. Potential 

compliance strategies include use of 

electrostatic precipitators (ESP) (or an 

ESP with a polishing baghouse or 

cyclone), or using a different type of 

baghouse. Baghouses could, for 

example, be sized smaller, could use 

cloth rather than membrane bags, or 

could use other variants The proposed 

change in the PM limit may also allow 

some sources to comply using their 

existing PM control device. As a result, 

they may be able to cancel a planned 

upgrade to membrane fabric filters or a 

replacement of their existing device 

with a new one. The PM standard also 

applies to clinker coolers, and sources 

may be able to meet the 0.07 lb/ton 

clinker standard with an existing 

control device for a clinker cooler. See 

PCA, The Impact of a Change in the 

Cement NESHAP PM limit on 

Compliance Strategies and Schedules, 

April 9, 2012; and PCA letter, 

Implications of Altered PM Limit on 

PCA Technology Analysis, May 24, 

2012. We note that in the database for 

the 2010 standards, six cement kilns 

with ESP already were meeting the 0.07 

lb/ton clinker standard for PM which 

we are proposing here. See Portland 

Cement Reconsideration TSD, Section 9. 

The proposal to amend the standard for 

PM has implications for all of the 

standards, not just those for PM. The 

standards for mercury, HCl and THC all 

rely (or may rely) on control strategies 

involving injection and removal of 

added particulates, whether in the form 

of activated carbon, or dry or wet 

sorbent injectant. See Docket item EPA– 

HQ–OAR–2002–0051–3438, section 2. A 

change in the PM standard thus affects 

these collateral PM control strategies as 

well. For example, it may be possible for 

a single PM control device to meet the 

proposed 0.07 lb/ton clinker standard 

and also control the auxiliary PM 

collected from control of the other HAP, 

making polishing filters unnecessary.16

Conversely, a central baghouse to meet 

a 0.07 lb/ton clinker standard may be 

sized smaller, but this may necessitate 

adding polishing filters to capture PM 

from control of the other HAP. 

New compliance strategies require 

time to implement. New engineering 

studies are needed, potential suppliers 

identified, and a new bidding/ 

procurement process undertaken. 

Significant plant redesign, in the form of 

new ductwork and new fan design, and 

changes in the main control equipment 

may be needed. See U.S. EPA, 

Engineering and Economic Factors 

Affecting the Installation of Control 

Technologies for Multipollutant 

Strategies, October 2002. Depending on 

the type of control, this normally 

requires 15–27 months. Multiple control 

systems will take longer. Id. Installation 

of controls at cement kilns normally 

occurs during winter months (to 

coincide with kiln outages during low 

production seasons). Putting this 

together, it tentatively appears that 

summer of 2015 would be an 

expeditious compliance date, and the 

EPA is proposing to extend the existing 

source compliance date until September 

9, 2015. 

The EPA also solicits comment on a 

shorter extension. The industry here is 

not starting from scratch. There should 

be on-going planning to meet the 

standards promulgated in 2010 which 

could shorten the time needed to come 

into compliance with these proposed 

revised standards (should the EPA 

adopt them). Moreover, as explained 

below, we calculate that sources will 

need to design controls to meet virtually 

the same average performance for PM 

under the proposed standard of 0.07 lb/ 

ton clinker (Method 5) as they would 

under the promulgated standard of 0.04 

lb/ton clinker (30-day average). Again, 

this could dovetail with on-going 

compliance efforts and shorten the time 

needed to come into compliance with a 

revised standard. Consequently, the 

EPA solicits comment on a compliance 

extension until September 2014 (1 year 

from the current compliance date). This 

type of extension would recognize that 

additional time for compliance is 

needed, and accommodate cement kilns’ 

operating cycle (leaving winter months 

for control equipment deployment), but 

recognize that the industry is not 

starting from scratch. Commenters 

should take into account that individual 

sources could still apply to permit 

writers for an additional extension of 

one year under section 112 (i)(3)(B) in 

instances where it is not possible to 

install control equipment within the 

specified period. 

Notwithstanding that we believe that 

the proposed PM standard may create 

new and lower cost opportunities for 

compliance, we believe the overall 

emission reductions from the standard 

to be roughly the same (except that full 

compliance will not occur until 

September 9, 2015 as noted below). We 

believe that sources will still need to 

design to meet essentially the same 

daily average as they would under the 

2010 standard. That is, sources do not 

design to meet a standard, but rather to 

meet a level comfortably lower. They do 

so in order to provide a compliance 

margin on those days where emissions 

rise due to inherent and uncontrollable 

variability. See Docket item EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2002–0051–3438, section 2. The 

difference is too small to be reliably 

quantified. We have recalculated a 

design value (i.e. the level to which 

kilns would design to meet the existing 

source standard) under the proposal. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 138 / Wednesday, July 18, 2012 / Proposed Rules 42387 

The calculated design value, which 

reflects the average PM emissions from 

the sources used to establish the floor in 

this proposed rule, would be 0.02655 lb/ 

ton clinker vs. a calculated design value 

of 0.02296 lb/ton clinker under the final 

rule. See Portland Cement 

Reconsideration TSD section 9. These 

calculations are not so precise as to 

reliably predict to the third decimal 

point to the right of zero, so this 

difference should be viewed as 

suggesting a directional difference in the 

standards. Viewed as a type of 

bounding, directional difference, the 

difference in design values would be 

approximately 1.7 percent. 

TABLE 4—COMPARISON OF NATIONWIDE PM EMISSIONS FROM 2010 RULE TO THIS PROPOSED RULE

[TSD, section 9] 

2010 rule Proposed rule Increment 

Emissions limit (lb/ton clinker .................. 0.04 30-day average ............................... 0.07 average of three one-hour stack 

tests.

NA 

MACT average emissions for compliance 

(lb/ton clinker.

0.02296 .................................................... 0.02655 .................................................... 0.00359 

2010 baseline emissions (tons/yr) ........... 10,326 ...................................................... 10,326 ...................................................... NA 

Nationwide emissions reduction (tons/yr) 9,489 ........................................................ 9,354 ........................................................ ¥135 

Under the proposed revisions, full 

compliance would occur in September, 

2015, along with the costs and benefits 

associated with full compliance. 

However, because facilities will begin 

installing or retrofitting controls prior to 

the full compliance date, the full 

benefits and costs would be phased-in 

over 2 years with the full benefits and 

costs realized by 2015. 

O. Eligibility To Be a New Source 

The EPA is not proposing a new date 

for new source eligibility. Thus, a 

source which commenced construction, 

modification, or reconstruction after 

May 6, 2009, would remain subject to 

the new source standard. Section 

112(a)(4) of the Act defines a new 

source as a stationary source ‘‘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.’’ 

The EPA views the new source 

compliance date trigger (the date the 

EPA ‘‘first proposes regulations * * *.’’) 

to be the date the rulemaking record 

under which a standard is developed is 

proposed. See 74 FR 21158 (May 6, 

2009). (This interpretation was not 

challenged in the underlying 

rulemaking and the EPA is not 

reopening it here, but rather is applying 

it.) Here the key record information is 

what new sources would need to do to 

comply and whether there is any 

change. It is the EPA’s initial technical 

judgment that new sources would have 

to adopt the same control strategy—use 

of the same size fabric filter with 

membrane bags—under an amended 

standard of 0.02 lb/ton clinker (stack 

test) as they would under the 

promulgated standard of 0.01 lb/ton 

clinker (30-day average). A standard of 

0.02 lb/ton clinker (stack test) remains 

very stringent and cannot be met (in the 

EPA’s view) without using 

appropriately optimized baghouses and 

membrane bags. If this is correct (and 

the EPA solicits comment on the issue), 

then new sources would not need 

additional time and would follow 

through on their present control 

strategies. We also have performed the 

same type of analysis regarding the 

design value to which new sources 

would need to design under this 

proposal, reflecting the average 

performance of the best performing 

similar source. We believe that there 

would be no change, corroborating our 

engineering judgment that new sources 

will adopt the same control strategy 

under the proposed standard as under 

the promulgated standard. See Portland 

Cement Reconsideration TSD section 9. 

Consequently, the EPA is not proposing 

to alter the new source eligibility date 

of May 6, 2009. 

IV. Other Proposed Testing and 

Monitoring Revisions 

Following the September 2010 

promulgation of the final rule, we found 

the following errors and omissions in 

the testing and monitoring provisions 

and are proposing to correct them. 

• Equations for calculating rolling 

operating day emissions rates. 

• Definition or procedures that 

include extraneous wording. 

• Incorrect units in equations. 

• Cross references and typographical 

errors in the rule. 

We are proposing revisions that will 

clarify that data collected as part of 

relative accuracy test audits and 

performance tests are to be submitted to 

the EPA using their Electronic Reporting 

Tool. For sources that are required to 

monitor HCl emissions with a CEMS, 

we are revising the requirements for 

using HCl CEMS to define the span 

value for this source category, to include 

quality assurance measures for data 

collected under ‘‘mill off’’ conditions, 

and to clarify use of PS 15. 

In the September 9, 2010, final rule 

we noted that raw material dryers have 

high O2 contents due to their inherent 

operation characteristics (and not due to 

the addition of dilution air). Referencing 

the raw material dryer standard to 7 

percent O2 would actually result in a 

more stringent standard than for cement 

kilns. For example, given the typical O2

contents of kiln exhaust (7 to 12 

percent), a kiln just meeting the THC 

limit of 24 ppmvd would have an actual 

stack measurement of approximately 16 

to 24 ppmvd. If the raw material dryer 

standard is referenced to the same O2

level, they would have to meet a 

measured THC limit of approximately 3 

ppmvd. For this reason, we referenced 

the O2 level of the standard for raw 

materials dryers to 19 percent O2, which 

is the typical O2 level found in the 

exhaust of these devices. However 

industry commented that, due to these 

high O2 contents, the inherit 

measurement errors present in O2

monitors causes high variability in the 

correction factor, even with a 19 percent 

reference value, and in some cases 

results in a negative factor. Given these 

errors and the fact that raw materials 

dryers operate at such high O2

concentrations during normal operation 

we are removing the O2 correction 

factors for raw material dryers. 

The EPA is also proposing minor, 

non-substantive changes to the 

provisions listed below. These changes 

are largely for ease of readability or 

clarity, and do not reopen, reassess or 

otherwise reconsider these provisions’ 

substance. The minor editorial and 

clarifying changes were made in the 

following sections and paragraphs: 

• Section 60.62(d). 

• Section 60.63(b)(1)(i) and (ii), (b)(2), 

(f)(1), (2), (4), (5), (h)(1) and (6) through 

(9), (i). 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

42388 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 138 / Wednesday, July 18, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

• Section 60.64(b)(2). 

• Section 60.66. 

• Section 63.1340(b)(6) through (8). 

• Section 63.1346(a) and (c) through 

(e). 

• Section 63.1348(a)(2), (3)(i) through 

(iii), (a)(4)(i)(A), (a)(4)(ii) and (iv). 

• Section 63.1348(b)(1)(i), (iii) and 

(iv). 

• Section 63.1348(b)(3), (5), (6)(i), (8) 

and (c)(2)(iv). 

• Section 63.1349(a), (b)(3), (d)(1) and 

(d)(2) and (e). 

• Section 63.1350(d)(1)(i) and (ii), (f), 

(f)(2)(i) and (iii), (f)(3), (f)(4), (g)(1) and 

(2), (k), (m)(10) and (11), (o) and (p). 

• Section 63.1352(b). 

• Section 63.1356. 

V. Other Changes and Areas Where We 

Are Requesting Comment 

We are also proposing amendments to 

clarify various requirements in this 

proposed rule including issues of 

applicability, treatment of multiple 

sources that vent to a single stack, third 

party certification, definitions, startup/ 

shutdown reporting requirements, 

malfunctions and use of bag leak 

detection systems when PM CPMS are 

in use. We are also proposing to revise 

the definition of raw material dryer to 

clarify that they may be used for 

removing the moisture from materials 

other than kiln feed. 

The EPA is proposing to amend 

63.1354(c) for reporting startup, 

shutdown and malfunctions when 

sources fail to meet a standard. We are 

proposing language that requires 

sources that deviate from a standard 

during startup, shutdown or 

malfunction to report the information 

concerning such events in semi-annual 

compliance reports. We are proposing 

that the report must contain the number, 

duration and cause of such events 

(including unknown cause, if 

applicable), list the affected source or 

equipment, the date and time that each 

event started and stopped, an estimate 

of the volume of each regulated 

pollutant emitted over the emission 

limit for which the source failed to meet 

a standard, and a description of the 

method used to estimate the emissions. 

We note that while malfunction 

events may also be reported under 

provisions related to assertion of an 

affirmative defense, this separate 

malfunction reporting requirement is 

not redundant of the affirmative defense 

reporting requirement because reporting 

of malfunctions under the affirmative 

defense is not mandatory and would 

occur only if a source chooses to take 

advantage of the affirmative defense. 

Changes to recordkeeping 

requirements. The EPA is also 

proposing to amend section 63.1355(f) 

for recordkeeping for events of startup 

and shutdown. Currently (f) requires a 

record of the occurrence and duration of 

each startup or shutdown. The EPA is 

proposing to refine this requirement 

based on the requirements applicable 

during periods of startup and shutdown. 

Given that some affected sources under 

subpart LLL are subject to a different 

standard during startup and shutdown, 

it will be important to know when such 

startup and shutdown periods begin and 

end in order to determine compliance 

with the appropriate standard. Thus, the 

EPA is proposing to require that affected 

sources subject to emission standards 

during startup or shutdown that differs 

from the emission standard that applies 

at all other times (i.e., mercury and PM) 

must record the occurrence and 

duration of such periods. The EPA is 

also proposing to add a requirement that 

sources record an estimate of the 

volume of emissions over the standard 

if the affected source fails to meet a 

standard during either startup or 

shutdown, and record the estimating 

technique. 

The EPA is also proposing to amend 

(g)(1) to obtain similar information on 

malfunction events. Currently this 

paragraph requires the creation and 

retention of a record of the occurrence 

and duration of each malfunction of 

process, air pollution control and 

monitoring equipment. The EPA is 

proposing that this requirement apply 

only to malfunctions that cause a failure 

to meet an applicable standard and is 

requiring that the source record date 

and time of the malfunction rather than 

‘‘occurrence.’’ The EPA is also 

proposing to add to (g) the requirement 

that sources keep records that include a 

list of the affected source or equipment, 

an estimate of the volume of each 

regulated pollutant emitted over the 

standard for which the source failed to 

meet a standard, and a description of 

the method used to estimate the 

emissions. The EPA is proposing to 

require that sources keep records of this 

information to ensure that there is 

adequate information to determine 

compliance during malfunction events, 

to allow the EPA to determine the 

severity of the failure to meet the 

standard, and to provide data that may 

document how the source met the 

general duty to minimize emissions 

during recorded malfunction events. 

VI. Summary of Cost, Environmental, 

Energy and Economic Impacts of 

Proposed Amendments 

A. What are the affected sources? 

As noted in the promulgated rule, the 

EPA estimates that by 2013 there will be 

100 Portland cement manufacturing 

facilities located in the U.S. and Puerto 

Rico that are expected to be affected by 

that rule, and, that approximately 5 of 

those facilities are complete new 

greenfield facilities. All these facilities 

will operate 158 cement kilns and 

associated clinker coolers. Of these 

kilns, 24 are CISWI kilns and have been 

removed from our data set used to 

establish existing source floors. Based 

on capacity expansion data provided by 

the PCA, by 2013 there will be 16 kilns 

and their associated clinker coolers 

subject to NESHAP new source 

emission limits for mercury, HCl and 

THC, and seven kilns and clinker 

coolers subject to the amended NSPS for 

NOX and SO2. Some of these new kilns 

will be built at existing facilities and 

some at new greenfield facilities. 

B. How are the impacts for this proposal 

evaluated? 

For these proposed amendments, we 

determined whether additional control 

measures, work practices and 

monitoring requirements would be 

required by cement manufacturing 

facilities to comply with the proposed 

amendments. For any additional control 

measure, work practice or monitoring 

requirement we determined the 

associated capital and annualized cost 

that would be incurred by facilities 

required to implement the measures. 

Finally, we considered the extent to 

which any facility in the industry would 

find it necessary to implement the 

additional measures in order to comply 

with the proposed amendments. Using 

this approach, we assessed potential 

impacts from the proposed revisions. 

These proposed amendments affect 

the 2010 rule and are expected to result 

in lower costs for the Portland cement 

industry. We are evaluating the impacts 

of these proposed amendments relative 

to the impacts estimated for the 2010 

final rule. As explained in section N 

above, the proposed amendment to the 

PM standard affords alternative 

compliance opportunities for existing 

sources which are less costly. These 

could be utilizing existing PM control 

devices rather than replacing them (for 

example, retaining an ESP or a smaller 

baghouse), or supplementing existing 

PM control rather than replacing it 

(putting polishing controls ahead of the 

primary PM control device). 

Compliance strategies for the other 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 138 / Wednesday, July 18, 2012 / Proposed Rules 42389 

HAP, all of which involve some element 

of PM control, also may be affected. Cost 

savings from these alternatives could be 

significant. For example, we have 

performed a case study from the data set 

used in the 2010 impacts analysis. 

Under this proposed rule, an estimated 

21 ESP-equipped kilns no longer need 

to install membrane bags on a 

downstream polishing Fabric Filter (FF), 

and one FF retain their standard fabric 

bags rather than replacing them with 

membrane bags. The difference in 

annual cost for PM control under the 

proposal scenario and the more 

stringent 2010 scenario is $4.2 million 

per year. That is, under this proposed 

rule, the annual cost of compliance will 

be $4.2 million less than under the 2010 

rule under this scenario (see Portland 

Cement Reconsideration TSD, section 

9). The EPA is not presently able to 

further quantify potential costs of the 

proposed changes to the emission 

standards. This is because the agency 

lacks the site-specific information 

necessary to make the engineering 

determinations as to how individual 

sources may choose to comply. There 

are also certain costs, and cost savings, 

associated with other aspects of the 

proposal. There may be a minor 

difference in costs of stack testing for 

PM and use of a CPMS, rather than use 

of a PM CEMS. However, since the PM 

CEMS would be calibrated based on 

stack testing, and the CPMS is the same 

type of device as a PM CEMS, the EPA 

does not believe there is any significant 

cost difference between these 

provisions. 

The proposed revisions to the 

alternative organic HAP standard (from 

9 ppm to 12 ppm, reflecting the analytic 

method practical quantitation limit) 

would not require additional controls or 

monitoring. The EPA accordingly does 

not estimate that there would be any 

cost (or emission reduction benefit) 

associated with this proposal. 

The proposed revisions for open 

clinker storage piles codify current 

fugitive dust control measures already 

required by most states, thus no impacts 

are expected. These proposed standards 

would be significantly less expensive 

than the controls for open piles in the 

2010 final rule, which required 

enclosures. 

Although we are reproposing the 

affirmative defense provisions, impacts 

were not accounted for in the 2010 

rulemaking. Thus, we have estimated 

the additional industry burden 

associated with the affirmative defense 

provisions. We estimate the additional 

cost is $3,142 per year for the entire 

industry. See Supporting Statement in 

the docket. One of the proposed 

revisions would allow sources that 

control acid gases, including HCl, with 

dry caustic scrubbers to use periodic 

performance testing and parameter 

monitoring rather than with HCl CEMS. 

This will provide those sources with 

additional flexibility in complying with 

the HCl standards. The proposed 

revision to the alternative PM emissions 

limit provisions merely recognizes that 

sources other than the clinker cooler 

may combine their exhaust with the kiln 

exhaust gas and corrects the equation 

for calculating the alternative limit. 

Therefore, there should be no impacts 

from this proposed revision. The 

proposal to use recordkeeping as the 

monitoring mechanism for the startup 

and shutdown standards should also 

result in cost savings because facilities 

in the industry already keep records on 

feed and fuel usage and they will not 

have to install and operate CEMS for 

these periods. CEMS for monitoring all 

HAP or HAP surrogates could cost each 

facility $569,000 in capital cost and 

annualized costs of $198,000. See EPA– 

HQ–OAR–2002–0051–3438. 

The proposed revisions for new 

testing and monitoring of coal mills that 

use kiln exhaust gases to dry coal and 

exhaust through a separate stack are not 

expected to have significant impacts. 

The proposed revision would make 

existing kilns that undergo a 

modification, as defined by NSPS, 

subject to the NESHAP PM standard for 

existing source rather than the PM limit 

for new sources. This proposed revision 

is correcting an inadvertent conflict 

between the two rules and will not 

result in any impacts. 

C. What are the air quality impacts? 

In these proposed amendments, 

emission limits for mercury, THC and 

HCl are unchanged from the 2010 rule. 

Thus, we expect no change in emissions 

from the 2010 rule for these HAP and 

HAP surrogates. The alternative HAP 

organic standard would be amended to 

12 ppm, but as this reflects the practical 

quantitative limit of detection, it is not 

clear if additional emissions are 

associated with the proposed standard 

since a lower standard would not be 

measured reliably. 

For PM, the limit for existing sources 

would change from 0.04 lb/ton clinker 

to 0.07 lb/ton clinker. The PM limit for 

new sources also would be changed to 

0.02 lb/ton clinker from 0.01 lb/ton 

clinker. The standard would be 

measured on a 3-run basis rather than 

on a 30-day basis with a CEMS. The 

proposed changes in the PM standards, 

while not considered significant in 

absolute terms, may result in a small 

increase in total nationwide emissions 

by allowing slightly more variability, 

although we estimate that design values 

will be essentially identical under the 

2010 and proposed standard. See 

section III.N above. As explained in the 

impacts analysis for the 2010 rule (see 

Docket item EPA–HQ–OAR–2002– 

0051–3438), emission reductions were 

estimated by comparing baseline 

emissions to the long-term average 

emissions of the MACT floor kilns. The 

average emissions, rather than the 

emissions limit, must be used because 

to comply with the limit all or most of 

the time, emissions need to be reduced 

to the average of the MACT floor kilns. 

Under the 2010 rule, the average PM 

emissions from the existing floor kilns 

were 0.02296 lb/ton clinker. Under the 

reconsideration, the average PM 

emissions of the existing floor kilns is 

calculated to be 0.02655 lb/ton clinker 

although, as noted, this difference is less 

than the normal analytic variability in 

PM measurement methods and so must 

be viewed as directional rather than 

precisely quantitative. The average 

emissions for new kilns did not change 

and we believe new sources will have 

to adopt identical control strategies as 

under the promulgated standards. We, 

therefore, are not estimating an emission 

increase from new kilns. For existing 

kilns, with an increase in PM emissions 

under the proposed rule of 0.00359 lb/ 

ton clinker compared to the 2010 rule, 

nationwide emissions of PM would 

increase by 135 tons per year (0.00359 

× 75,355,116/2000). Thus, the EPA 

estimates that the main effect of this 

proposed rule for PM will be to provide 

flexibility for those days when 

emissions increase as a result of normal 

operating variability, but would not 

significantly alter long-term average 

performance for PM. 

Emission reductions under the 2010 

rule and the proposed rule, in 2015, are 

compared in Table 5. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

42390 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 138 / Wednesday, July 18, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 5—COMPARISON OF NATIONWIDE PM EMISSIONS FROM 2010 RULE TO PROPOSED RULE IN 2015 

Kiln type 2010 rule Proposed rule Increment 

Emissions limit (lb/ton clinker) Existing .................................. 0.04 (30-day average with a 

CEMS).

0.07 (3-run stack test) ........... NA 

MACT average emissions for 

compliance (lb/ton clinker).

Existing .................................. 0.02296 .................................. 0.02655 .................................. 0.00359 

2010 baseline emissions 

(tons/yr).

................................................ 10,326 .................................... 10,326 .................................... NA 

Nationwide emissions reduction (tons/yr).Total ....................................... 9,489 ...................................... 9,354 ...................................... ¥135 

The EPA did not have sufficient 

information to quantify the overall 

change in emissions for 2013 to 2015 

that might arise due to the proposed 

change in compliance dates. The EPA 

encourages comment on all aspects of 

our analysis. 

D. What are the water quality impacts? 

None of the amendments being 

proposed will have significant impacts 

on water quality. To the extent that the 

proposed revision affecting dry caustic 

scrubbers encourages their use, some 

reduction in water consumption may 

occur although we have no information 

upon which to base an estimate. 

E. What are the solid waste impacts? 

None of the amendments being 

proposed today are expected to have 

any solid waste impacts. 

F. What are the secondary impacts? 

Indirect or secondary air quality 

impacts include impacts that will result 

from the increased electricity usage 

associated with the operation of control 

devices as well as water quality and 

solid waste impacts (which were just 

discussed) that will occur as a result of 

these proposed revisions. Because we 

are proposing revisions that reduce the 

stringency of the existing source 

emission limits PM from the 

promulgated 2010 limits, we believe 

that some facilities may be able to alter 

their strategy for complying with the 

standards for the four pollutants to 

achieve compliance at a lower cost than 

possible under the original standard. 

These types of determinations will be 

made for each facility based on sitespecific characteristics such as process 

type, equipment age, existing air 

pollution controls, raw material and fuel 

characteristics, economic factors and 

others. Therefore, we are not able to 

reliably predict secondary impacts for 

individual facilities or for the industry 

as a whole. 

G. What are the energy impacts? 

As discussed in the preceding section, 

because of the proposed revisions to the 

PM emission limits, some facilities may 

be able to develop more cost effective 

compliance strategies. However, we 

cannot accurately predict the extent to 

which these site-specific compliance 

strategies may increase or decrease 

energy demands. 

H. What are the cost impacts? 

Under the cost scenario discussed 

above, we estimate that there could be 

savings of $12.2 million associated with 

alternative compliance strategies for 

meeting amended PM standards and 

making corresponding adjustments in 

compliance strategies for the other HAP. 

Table 6 summarizes the costs and 

emissions reductions of this proposed 

action. 

TABLE 6—COSTS AND EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS RELATIVE TO THE 2010 RULE abcde

Proposed amendment Capital cost Annualized 

cost Emissions reduction 

Revised PM standard ................................................... ¥$18,640,106 ¥$4,200,000 ¥135 tons/yr (emissions increase) 

Replace PM CEMS with PM CPMS ............................. 0 ¥7,980,000 0 

Total ....................................................................... ¥18,640,106 ¥12,180,000 

a See section III below for further discussion of impacts of the proposed amendments. b Negative numbers indicate cost savings or emissions increase. All costs are in 2005 dollars. c We also estimate that there will be a one-time cost of $25,000 for each facility to develop the calculation that will allow them to demonstrate 

compliance during periods of startup and shutdown. d Emissions reductions are the total relative to the 2010 rule once full compliance is achieved in 2015. e Full compliance costs will not occur until September 9, 2015. 

The cost information in Table 6 is in 

2005 dollars at a discount rate of 7 

percent. The EPA did not have 

sufficient information to quantify the 

overall change in benefits or impacts in 

emissions for 2013 to 2015. 

Though we are not proposing the coal 

mill monitoring requirements in this 

action, if we required it, sources with 

integral coal mills that exhaust through 

a separate exhaust could potentially 

incur a capital cost of $36,000 to install 

a continuous flow meter. The 

annualized cost of a flow meter is 

$11,000. We do not have information on 

the number of such coal mills in the 

industry that would allow us to 

calculate nationwide costs. We also 

estimate that there will be a one-time 

cost of $25,000 for each facility to 

develop the calculation that will allow 

them to demonstrate compliance during 

periods of startup and shutdown. With 

the proposed change to PM CPMS 

instead of CEMS, it is estimated that the 

elimination of the PS correlation tests 

will result in a savings of $60,000 per 

kiln. 

I. What are the health effects of these 

pollutants? 

In this section, we provide a 

qualitative description of benefits 

associated with reducing exposure to 

PM2.5, HCl and mercury. Controls 

installed to reduce HAP would also 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 138 / Wednesday, July 18, 2012 / Proposed Rules 42391 

17U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. 

EPA). 2009. Integrated Science Assessment for 

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

139F. National Center for Environmental 

Assessment–RTP Division. Available on the 

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

recordisplay.cfm?deid=216546. 18U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. 

EPA). 2011. Regulatory Impact Analysis for the 

Federal Implementation Plans to Reduce Interstate 

Transport of Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone in 

27 States; Correction of SIP Approvals for 22 States. 

Office of Air and Radiation, Research Triangle Park, 

NC. Available on the Internet at http://www.epa.gov

/airtransport/pdfs/FinalRIA.pdf. 19Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease 

Registry (ATSDR). Medical Management Guidelines 

for Hydrogen Chloride. Atlanta, GA: U.S. 

Department of Health and Human Services. 

Available online at http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/mmg/ 

mmg.asp?id=758&tid=147#bookmark02. 

20U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. 

EPA). 1995. Integrated Risk Information System File 

of Hydrogen Chloride. Research and Development, 

National Center for Environmental Assessment, 

Washington, DC. This material is available 

electronically at http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/ 

0396.htm. 

21National Research Council (NRC). 2000. 

Toxicological Effects of Methylmercury. 

Washington, DC: National Academies Press. 

22U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. 

EPA). 1997. Mercury Study Report to Congress, 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0234–3054. December. 

Available on the Internet at http://www.epa.gov/hg/ 

report.htm. 

23Amorim, M.I.M., D. Mergler, M.O. Bahia, H. 

Dubeau, D. Miranda, J. Lebel, R.R. Burbano, and M. 

Lucotte. 2000. Cytogenetic damage related to low 

levels of methyl mercury contamination in the 

Brazilian Amazon. An. Acad. Bras. Science. 72(4): 

497–507. 

reduce ambient concentrations of PM2.5

as a co-benefit. Reducing exposure to 

PM2.5 is associated with significant 

human health benefits, including 

avoiding mortality and morbidity from 

cardiovascular and respiratory illnesses. 

Researchers have associated PM2.5

exposure with adverse health effects in 

numerous toxicological, clinical and 

epidemiological studies (U.S. EPA, 

2009).17 When adequate data and 

resources are available and an RIA is 

required, the EPA generally quantifies 

several health effects associated with 

exposure to PM2.5 (e.g., U.S. EPA, 

2011).18 These health effects include 

premature mortality for adults and 

infants, cardiovascular morbidities such 

as heart attacks, hospital admissions, 

and respiratory morbidities such as 

asthma attacks, acute and chronic 

bronchitis, hospital and emergency 

department visits, work loss days, 

restricted activity days, and respiratory 

symptoms. Although the EPA has not 

quantified certain outcomes including 

adverse effects on birth weight, pre-term 

births, pulmonary function and other 

cardiovascular and respiratory effects, 

the scientific literature suggests that 

exposure to PM2.5 is also associated with 

these impacts (U.S. EPA, 2009). PM2.5

also increases light extinction, which is 

an important aspect of visibility (U.S. 

EPA, 2009). 

Hydrogen chloride (HCl) is a corrosive 

gas that can cause irritation of the 

mucous membranes of the nose, throat 

and respiratory tract. Brief exposure to 

35 ppm causes throat irritation, and 

levels of 50 to 100 ppm are barely 

tolerable for 1 hour.19 The greatest 

impact is on the upper respiratory tract; 

exposure to high concentrations can 

rapidly lead to swelling and spasm of 

the throat and suffocation. Most 

seriously exposed persons have 

immediate onset of rapid breathing, blue 

coloring of the skin and narrowing of 

the bronchioles. Exposure to HCl can 

lead to RADS, a chemically- or irritantinduced type of asthma. Children may 

be more vulnerable to corrosive agents 

than adults because of the relatively 

smaller diameter of their airways. 

Children may also be more vulnerable to 

gas exposure because of increased 

minute ventilation per kilograms and 

failure to evacuate an area promptly 

when exposed. Hydrogen chloride has 

not been classified for carcinogenic 

effects.20

Mercury in the environment is 

transformed into a more toxic form, 

methylmercury (MeHg). Because 

mercury is a persistent pollutant, MeHg 

accumulates in the food chain, 

especially the tissue of fish. When 

people consume these fish, they 

consume MeHg. In 2000, the NAS Study 

was issued which provides a thorough 

review of the effects of MeHg on human 

health (NRC, 2000).21 Many of the peerreviewed articles cited in this section 

are publications originally cited in the 

MeHg Study. In addition, the EPA has 

conducted literature searches to obtain 

other related and more recent 

publications to complement the material 

summarized by the NRC in 2000. 

In its review of the literature, the 

National Academy of Science (NAS) 

found neurodevelopmental effects to be 

the most sensitive and best documented 

endpoints and appropriate for 

establishing an oral reference dose (RfD) 

(National Research Council (NRC), 

2000); in particular NAS supported the 

use of results from neurobehavioral or 

neuropsychological tests. The NAS 

report noted that studies in animals 

reported sensory effects as well as 

effects on brain development and 

memory functions and support the 

conclusions based on epidemiology 

studies. The NAS noted that their 

recommended endpoints for an RfD are 

associated with the ability of children to 

learn and to succeed in school. They 

concluded the following: ‘‘The 

population at highest risk is the 

children of women who consumed large 

amounts of fish and seafood during 

pregnancy. The committee concludes 

that the risk to that population is likely 

to be sufficient to result in an increase 

in the number of children who have to 

struggle to keep up in school.’’ 

The NAS summarized data on 

cardiovascular effects available up to 

2000. Based on these and other studies, 

the NRC concluded that ‘‘Although the 

data base is not as extensive for 

cardiovascular effects as it is for other 

end points (i.e. neurologic effects) the 

cardiovascular system appears to be a 

target for MeHg toxicity in humans and 

animals.’’ The NRC also stated that 

‘‘additional studies are needed to better 

characterize the effect of methylmercury 

exposure on blood pressure and 

cardiovascular function at various stages 

of life.’’ 

Additional cardiovascular studies 

have been published since 2000. The 

EPA did not to develop a quantitative 

dose-response assessment for 

cardiovascular effects associated with 

MeHg exposures, as there is no 

consensus among scientists on the doseresponse functions for these effects. In 

addition, there is inconsistency among 

available studies as to the association 

between MeHg exposure and various 

cardiovascular system effects. The 

pharmacokinetics of some of the 

exposure measures (such as toenail 

mercury levels) are not well understood. 

The studies have not yet received the 

review and scrutiny of the more wellestablished neurotoxicity data base. 

The Mercury Study 22 noted that 

MeHg is not a potent mutagen but is 

capable of causing chromosomal 

damage in a number of experimental 

systems. The NAS concluded that 

evidence that human exposure to MeHg 

caused genetic damage is inconclusive; 

they note that some earlier studies 

showing chromosomal damage in 

lymphocytes may not have controlled 

sufficiently for potential confounders. 

One study of adults living in the 

Tapajo ́ s River region in Brazil (Amorim 

et al., 2000) reported a direct 

relationship between MeHg 

concentration in hair and DNA damage 

in lymphocytes; as well as effects on 

chromosomes.23 Long-term MeHg 

exposures in this population were 

believed to occur through consumption 

of fish, suggesting that genotoxic effects 

(largely chromosomal aberrations) may 

result from dietary, chronic MeHg 

exposures similar to and above those 

seen in the Faroes and Seychelles 

populations. 

Although exposure to some forms of 

mercury can result in a decrease in 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

42392 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 138 / Wednesday, July 18, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

24Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease 

Registry (ATSDR). 1999. Toxicological Profile for 

Mercury. U.S. Department of Health and Human 

Services, Public Health Service, Atlanta, GA. 

25U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 

2002. Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) on 

Methylmercury. National Center for Environmental 

Assessment. Office of Research and Development. 

Available online at http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/ 

0073.htm. 

26 International Agency for Research on Cancer 

(IARC). 1994. IARC Monographs on the Evaluation 

of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans and their 

Supplements: Beryllium, Cadmium, Mercury, and 

Exposures in the Glass Manufacturing Industry. 

Vol. 58. Jalili, H.A., and A.H. Abbasi. 1961. 

Poisoning by ethyl mercury toluene sulphonanilide. 

Br. J. Indust. Med. 18(Oct.):303–308 (as cited in 

NRC 2000). 

immune activity or an autoimmune 

response (ATSDR, 1999), evidence for 

immunotoxic effects of MeHg is limited 

(NRC, 2000).24

Based on limited human and animal 

data, MeHg is classified as a ‘‘possible’’ 

human carcinogen by the International 

Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC, 

1994) and in IRIS (U.S. EPA, 2002).25 26

The existing evidence supporting the 

possibility of carcinogenic effects in 

humans from low-dose chronic 

exposures is tenuous. Multiple human 

epidemiological studies have found no 

significant association between mercury 

exposure and overall cancer incidence, 

although a few studies have shown an 

association between mercury exposure 

and specific types of cancer incidence 

(e.g., acute leukemia and liver cancer) 

(NRC, 2000). 

There is also some evidence of 

reproductive and renal toxicity in 

humans from MeHg exposure. However, 

overall, human data regarding 

reproductive, renal, and hematological 

toxicity from MeHg are very limited and 

are based on either studies of the two 

high-dose poisoning episodes in Iraq 

and Japan or animal data, rather than 

epidemiological studies of chronic 

exposures at the levels of interest in this 

analysis. 

VII. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 

51735, October 4, 1993), this action is a 

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ because 

it raises novel legal or policy issues. 

Accordingly, the EPA submitted this 

action to the OMB for review under 

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 (76 

3821, January 21, 2011) and any changes 

made in response to OMB 

recommendations have been 

documented in the docket for this 

action. A RIA was prepared for the 

September 2010 final rule and can be 

found at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/

regdata/RIAs/portlandcementfinal

ria.pdf. The benefits, cost and economic 

analysis for the first year of full 

compliance for the 2010 final rule are 

expected to be little changed for the first 

year of full compliance 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 the EPA has been assigned 

the EPA ICR number 1801.10 for the 

NESHAP and 1051.12 for the NSPS. The 

information requirements are based on 

notification, recordkeeping and 

reporting requirements in the NESHAP 

General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, 

subpart A), which are mandatory for all 

operators subject to national emissions 

standards. These recordkeeping and 

reporting requirements are specifically 

authorized by CAA section 114 (42 

U.S.C. 7414). All information submitted 

to the EPA pursuant to the 

recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements for which a claim of 

confidentiality is made is safeguarded 

according to agency policies set forth in 

40 CFR part 2, subpart B. 

We are proposing new paperwork 

requirements for the Portland Cement 

Manufacturing source category in the 

form of a requirement to incorporate 

fugitive dust control measures for 

clinker piles into their existing 

operations and maintenance plan. We 

are also proposing to use recordkeeping 

as the means of monitoring compliance 

with the startup and shutdown 

standards. 

For this proposed rule, the EPA is also 

proposing to add an affirmative defense 

to the estimate of burden in the ICR. To 

provide the public with an estimate of 

the relative magnitude of the burden 

associated with an assertion of the 

affirmative defense position adopted by 

a source, the EPA has provided 

administrative adjustments to this ICR 

to show what the notification, 

recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements associated with the 

assertion of the affirmative defense 

might entail. The EPA’s estimate for the 

required notification, reports and 

records for any individual incident, 

including the root cause analysis, totals 

$3,142 and is based on the time and 

effort required of a source to review 

relevant data, interview plant 

employees, and document the events 

surrounding a malfunction that has 

caused an exceedance of an emissions 

limit. The estimate also includes time to 

produce and retain the record and 

reports for submission to the EPA. The 

EPA provides this illustrative estimate 

of this burden because these costs are 

only incurred if there has been a 

violation and a source chooses to take 

advantage of the affirmative defense. 

Given the variety of circumstances 

under which malfunctions could occur, 

as well as differences among sources’ 

operation and maintenance practices, 

we cannot reliably predict the severity 

and frequency of malfunction-related 

excess emissions events for a particular 

source. It is important to note that the 

EPA has no basis currently for 

estimating the number of malfunctions 

that would qualify for an affirmative 

defense. Current historical records 

would be an inappropriate basis, as 

source owners or operators previously 

operated their facilities in recognition 

that they were exempt from the 

requirement to comply with emissions 

standards during malfunctions. Of the 

number of excess emissions events 

reported by source operators, only a 

small number would be expected to 

result from a malfunction (based on the 

definition above), and only a subset of 

excess emissions caused by 

malfunctions would result in the source 

choosing to assert the affirmative 

defense. Thus we believe the number of 

instances in which source operators 

might be expected to avail themselves of 

the affirmative defense will be 

extremely small. 

With respect to the Portland Cement 

Manufacturing source category, the 

emissions controls are operational 

before the associated emission source(s) 

commence operation and remain 

operational until after the associated 

emission source(s) cease operation. 

Also, production operations would not 

proceed or continue if there is a 

malfunction of a control device and the 

time required to shut down production 

operations (i.e., on the order of a few 

hours or a day) is small compared to the 

averaging time of the emission 

standards (i.e., monthly averages). Thus, 

we believe it is unlikely that a control 

device malfunction would cause an 

exceedance of any emission limit. 

Therefore, sources within this source 

category are not expected to have any 

need or use for the affirmative defense 

and we believe that there is no burden 

to the industry for the affirmative 

defense provisions in this proposed 

rule. 

We expect to gather information on 

such events in the future and will revise 

this estimate as better information 

becomes available. We estimate 86 

regulated entities are currently subject 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 138 / Wednesday, July 18, 2012 / Proposed Rules 42393 

to subpart LLL and will be subject to all 

proposed standards. The annual 

monitoring, reporting and 

recordkeeping burden for this collection 

(averaged over the first 3 years after the 

effective date of the standards) for these 

amendments to subpart LLL is estimated 

to be $352,814 per year. This includes 

496 labor hours per year at a total labor 

cost of $47,806 per year, and total nonlabor capital and operation and 

maintenance costs of $305,008 per year. 

This estimate includes reporting and 

recordkeeping associated with the 

proposed requirements for startup and 

shutdown and outdoor clinker piles. 

The total burden for the federal 

government (averaged over the first 3 

years after the effective date of the 

standard) is estimated to be 263 hours 

per year at a total labor cost of $11,885 

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 the EPA’s regulations in 40 

CFR 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, the EPA has 

established a public docket for this 

proposed rule, which includes this ICR, 

under Docket ID number EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2011–0817. Submit any comments 

related to the ICR to the EPA and OMB. 

See the ADDRESSES section at the 

beginning of this notice for where to 

submit comments to the EPA. Send 

comments to OMB at the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs, 

Office of Management and Budget, 725 

17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503, 

Attention: Desk Office for the EPA. 

Since OMB is required to make a 

decision concerning the ICR between 30 

and 60 days after July 18, 2012, a 

comment to OMB is best assured of 

having its full effect if OMB receives it 

by August 17, 2012. The final rule will 

respond to any OMB or public 

comments on the information collection 

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 depending on the 

size definition for the affected NAICS 

code, as defined by the Small Business 

Administration size standards; (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-forprofit enterprise which is independently 

owned and operated and is not 

dominant in its field. 

We estimate that 3 of the 26 existing 

Portland cement entities are small 

entities. After considering the economic 

impacts of this proposed rule on small 

entities, I certify that this action will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

Of the three affected small entities, all 

are expected to incur an annual 

compliance cost of less than 1.0 percent 

of sales to comply with this proposed 

rule (reflecting potential controls on 

piles, which are likely to have lower 

cost when compared to the 2010 rule 

requirements because these plants 

already have requirements for control of 

piles in their Title V permits). 

Although this proposed rule will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities, 

the EPA nonetheless has tried to reduce 

the impact of this proposed rule on 

small entities. For example, we are 

proposing to expand the provision that 

allows periodic HCl performance tests 

as an alternative to CEMS for sources 

equipped with wet scrubbers to also 

apply to those sources that use dry 

sorbent injection. This proposed rule 

would add an option for sources using 

wet or dry scrubbers for HCl control that 

also use a CEMS for SO2. These sources 

would now have the option of using 

their SO2 CEMS in conjunction with a 

periodic stack test to demonstrate 

compliance with the HCl standard. We 

continue to be interested in the 

potential impacts of the proposed rule 

on small entities and welcome 

comments on issues related to such 

impacts. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

This action does not contain a federal 

mandate under the provisions of Title II 

of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 1531–1538 for 

state, local or tribal governments or the 

private sector. The action imposes no 

enforceable duties on any state, local or 

tribal governments or the private sector. 

Thus, this action is not subject to the 

requirements of sections 202 or 205 of 

the UMRA. 

This proposed rule is also not subject 

to the requirements of section 203 of 

UMRA because it contains no regulatory 

requirements that might significantly or 

uniquely affect small governments 

because it contains no requirements that 

apply to such governments nor does it 

impose obligations upon them. 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

This proposed action 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 

action. 

In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, 

and consistent with the EPA policy to 

promote communications between the 

EPA and state and local governments, 

the EPA specifically solicits comment 

on this proposed action from state and 

local officials. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

This action does not have tribal 

implications, as specified in Executive 

Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 

2000). Under the provisions of this 

proposed rule, there may be an increase 

in mercury emissions and metal HAP 

emissions although any increase will be 

minimal because the same control 

technology that is necessary under the 

current NESHAP will be needed to meet 

the proposed emissions limits. The 

more stringent limitations of fugitive 

dust emissions from open clinker piles 

may result in decreased risk to Indian 

tribal populations. Thus, Executive 

Order 13175 does not apply to this 

action. 

The 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 

The EPA interprets Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) as 

applying to those regulatory actions that 

concern health or safety risks, such that 

the analysis required under section 5– 

501 of the Executive Order has the 

potential to influence the regulation. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

42394 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 138 / Wednesday, July 18, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

This action is not subject to Executive 

Order 13045 because it is based solely 

on technology performance. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This proposed action is not a 

‘‘significant energy action’’ as defined in 

Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355 

(May 22, 2001)), because it is not likely 

to have a significant adverse effect on 

the supply, distribution, or use of 

energy. The proposed amendments do 

not require the use of additional 

controls as compared to the 2010 rule 

and may allow the industry to reduce its 

cost of compliance by increasing the 

industry’s flexibility to institute 

different and less costly control 

strategies than under the 2010 rule. 

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 

the EPA to use voluntary consensus 

standards (VCS) in its 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 adopted by VCS 

bodies. NTTAA directs the EPA to 

provide Congress, through OMB, 

explanations when the agency decides 

not to use available and applicable VCS. 

This proposed rulemaking does not 

involve technical standards. Therefore, 

the EPA is not considering the use of 

any voluntary consensus standards. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations 

Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629) 

(February 16, 1994) establishes federal 

executive policy on environmental 

justice. Its main provision directs 

federal agencies, to the greatest extent 

practicable and permitted by law, to 

make environmental justice part of their 

mission by identifying and addressing, 

as appropriate, disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their programs, 

policies and activities on minority 

populations and low-income 

populations in the United States. 

An analysis of demographic data was 

prepared for the 2010 final rule and can 

be found in the docket for that 

rulemaking (EPA-docket no. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2002–0051–3415). The impacts of 

the 2010 rule, which assumed full 

compliance, are expected to be 

unchanged as a result of this action. 

Therefore, beginning from the date of 

full compliance, the EPA has 

determined that this proposed rule will 

not have disproportionately high and 

adverse human health or environmental 

effects on minority or low-income 

populations because it does not affect 

the level of protection provided to 

human health or the environment. The 

full benefits of this proposed rule will 

not result until 2015 due to the 

proposed amended compliance date. 

The EPA has determined that the 

proposed amended compliance date 

will not result in disproportionately 

high and adverse human health or 

environmental effects on minority or 

low-income populations because the 

demographic analysis showed that the 

average of populations in close 

proximity to the sources, and thus most 

likely to be affected by the sources, were 

similar in demographic composition to 

national averages. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Parts 60 

and 63 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Hazardous 

substances, Incorporation by reference, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Dated: June 22, 2012. 

Lisa P. Jackson, 

Administrator. 

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 60—[AMENDED] 

1. The authority citation for part 60 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart A—[Amended] 

2. Section 60.17 is amended by 

revising paragraph (h)(4) to read as 

follows: 

§ 60.17 Incorporations by reference. 

* * * * * 

(h) * * * 

(4) ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10–1981, 

Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses [Part 10, 

Instruments and Apparatus] (issued 

August 31, 1981), IBR approved for 

§ 60.56c(b) of subpart Ec, § 60.63(f) of 

subpart F, § 60.106(e) of subpart J, 

§ 60.104a(d), (h), (i) and, (j), 

§ 60.105a(d), (f), and (g), § 60.106a(a), 

and § 60.107a(a), (c), (d), and (e) of 

subpart Ja, tables 1 and 3 of subpart 

EEEE, tables 2 and 4 of subpart FFFF, 

table 2 of subpart JJJJ, § 60.4415(a) of 

subpart KKKK, § 60.2145(s) and, (t), 

§ 60.2710(s) (t), and (w), § 60.2730(q), 

§ 60.4900(b), § 60.5220(b), tables 1 and 2 

to subpart LLLL, tables 2 and 3 to 

subpart MMMM, § 60.5406(c) and 

§ 60.5413(b). 

* * * * * 

Subpart F—[Amended] 

3. Section 60.61 is amended by 

adding paragraphs (e) and (f) to read as 

follows: 

§ 60.61 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

(e) Excess emissions means, with 

respect to this subpart, results of any 

required measurements outside the 

applicable range (e.g., emissions 

limitations, parametric operating limits) 

that is permitted by this subpart. The 

values of measurements will be in the 

same units and averaging time as the 

values specified in this subpart for the 

limitations. 

(f) Operating day means a 24-hour 

period beginning at 12:00 midnight 

during which the kiln operates at any 

time. For calculating rolling 30-day 

average emissions, an operating day 

does not include the hours of operation 

during startup or shutdown. 

4. Section 60.62 is amended by: 

a. Revising paragraphs (a)(1) and 

(a)(2); 

b. Adding paragraph (a)(1)(iii) 

c. Removing paragraph (b)(1)(i); 

d. Redesignating paragraph (b)(1)(ii) 

as paragraph (b)(1)(i); 

e. Revising paragraph (b)(1); 

f. Removing paragraph (b)(2); 

g. Redesignating paragraphs (b)(3) and 

(4) as (2) and (3); 

h. Revising paragraph (d); 

The revisions and deletion read as 

follows: 

§ 60.62 Standards. 

(a) * * * 

(1) Contain particulate matter (PM) in 

excess of: 

(i) [Reserved] 

(ii) 0.02 pound per ton of clinker if 

construction or reconstruction of the 

kiln commenced after June 16, 2008. 

(iii) Kilns that have undergone a 

modification may not discharge into the 

atmosphere any gases which contain PM 

in excess of 0.07 pound per ton of 

clinker. 

(2) [Reserved] 

* * * * * 

(b) On and after the date on which the 

performance test required to be 

conducted by § 60.8 is completed, you 

may not discharge into the atmosphere 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 138 / Wednesday, July 18, 2012 / Proposed Rules 42395 

from any clinker cooler any gases 

which: 

(1) Contain PM in excess of: 

(i) 0.02 pound per ton of clinker if 

construction or reconstruction of the 

clinker cooler commences after June 16, 

2008. 

(ii) Clinker coolers that have 

undergone a modification may not 

discharge into the atmosphere any gases 

which contain PM in excess of 0.07 

pound per ton of clinker. 

* * * * * 

(d) If you have an affected source 

subject to this subpart with a different 

emissions limit or requirement for the 

same pollutant under another regulation 

in title 40 of this chapter, you must 

comply with the most stringent 

emissions limit or requirement and are 

not subject to the less stringent 

requirement. 

5. Section 60.63 is amended by: 

a. Revising paragraphs (b)(1)(i) and 

(b)(1)(ii); 

b. Adding paragraph (b)(1)(iii); 

c. Revising paragraphs (b)(2) and 

(b)(3); 

d. Removing paragraph (b)(4); 

e. Revising paragraphs (c) through (f); 

f. Revising paragraph (g) introductory 

text; 

g. Revising paragraph (g)(2); 

h. Revising paragraph (h) introductory 

text; 

i. Revising paragraphs (h)(1) and 

(h)(6); 

j. Revising paragraph (h)(7) 

introductory text; 

k. Revising paragraph (h)(8) 

introductory text; 

l. Revising paragraph (h)(9); 

m. Revising paragraph (i) introductory 

text; and 

n. Revising paragraph (i)(1) and 

(i)(1)(i). 

The revisions, addition, and deletions 

read as follows: 

§ 60.63 Monitoring of operations. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(i) Install, calibrate, maintain, and 

operate a permanent weigh scale system 

to measure and record weight rates of 

the amount of clinker produced in tons 

of mass per hour. The system of 

measuring hourly clinker production 

must be maintained within ±5 percent 

accuracy or 

(ii) Install, calibrate, maintain, and 

operate a permanent weigh scale system 

to measure and record weight rates of 

the amount of feed to the kiln in tons 

of mass per hour. The system of 

measuring feed must be maintained 

within ±5 percent accuracy. Calculate 

your hourly clinker production rate 

using a kiln specific feed-to-clinker ratio 

based on reconciled clinker production 

rates determined for accounting 

purposes and recorded feed rates. This 

ratio should be updated monthly. Note 

that if this ratio changes at clinker 

reconciliation, you must use the new 

ratio going forward, but you do not have 

to retroactively change clinker 

production rates previously estimated. 

(iii) For each kiln operating hour for 

which you do not have data on clinker 

production or the amount of feed to the 

kiln, use the value from the most recent 

previous hour for which valid data are 

available. 

(2) Determine, record, and maintain a 

record of the accuracy of the system of 

measuring hourly clinker production 

rates or feed rates before initial use (for 

new sources) or by the effective 

compliance date of this rule (for existing 

sources). During each quarter of source 

operation, you must determine, record, 

and maintain a record of the ongoing 

accuracy of the system of measuring 

hourly clinker production rates or feed 

rates. 

(3) If you measure clinker production 

directly, record the daily clinker 

production rates; if you measure the 

kiln feed rates and calculate clinker 

production, record the daily kiln feed 

and clinker production rates. 

(c) PM Emissions Monitoring 

Requirements. (1) For each kiln or 

clinker cooler subject to a PM emissions 

limit in § 60.62, you must demonstrate 

compliance through an initial 

performance test and you must monitor 

continuous performance through use of 

a PM continuous parametric monitoring 

system (PM CPMS). 

(2) For your PM CPMS, you will 

establish a site-specific operating limit 

corresponding to the highest 1-hour 

average PM CPMS output value 

recorded during the performance test 

demonstrating compliance with the PM 

limit. You will conduct your 

performance test using Method 5 at 

appendix A–3 to part 60 of this chapter. 

You will use the PM CPMS to 

demonstrate continuous compliance 

with your operating limit. You must 

repeat the performance test annually 

and reassess and adjust the site-specific 

operating limit in accordance with the 

results of the performance test. 

(d) You must install, operate, 

calibrate, and maintain a CEMS 

continuously monitoring and recording 

the concentration by volume of NOX

emissions into the atmosphere for any 

kiln subject to the NOX emissions limit 

in § 60.62(a)(3). If the kiln has an alkali 

bypass, NOX emissions from the alkali 

bypass do not need to be monitored, and 

NOX emission monitoring of the kiln 

exhaust may be done upstream of any 

commingled alkali bypass gases. 

(e) You must install, operate, 

calibrate, and maintain a CEMS for 

continuously monitoring and recording 

the concentration by volume of SO2

emissions into the atmosphere for any 

kiln subject to the SO2 emissions limit 

in § 60.62(a)(4). If you are complying 

with the alternative 90 percent SO2

emissions reduction emissions limit, 

you must also continuously monitor and 

record the concentration by volume of 

SO2 present at the wet scrubber inlet. 

(f) The NOX and SO2 CEMS required 

under paragraphs (d) and (e) of this 

section must be installed, operated and 

maintained according to Performance 

Specification 2 of appendix B of this 

part and the requirements in paragraphs 

(f)(1) through (5) of this section. 

(1) The span value of each NOX CEMS 

monitor must be set at 125 percent of 

the maximum estimated hourly 

potential NOX emission concentration 

that translates to the applicable 

emissions limit at full clinker 

production capacity. 

(2) You must conduct performance 

evaluations of each NOX CEMS monitor 

according to the requirements in 

§ 60.13(c) and Performance 

Specification 2 of appendix B to this 

part. You must use Methods 7, 7A, 7C, 

7D, or 7E of appendix A–4 to this part 

for conducting the relative accuracy 

evaluations. The method ASME PTC 

19.10–1981, ‘‘Flue and Exhaust Gas 

Analyses,’’ (incorporated by reference— 

see § 60.17) is an acceptable alternative 

to Method 7 or 7C of appendix A–4 to 

this part. 

(3) The span value for the SO2 CEMS 

monitor is the SO2 emission 

concentration that corresponds to 125 

percent of the applicable emissions 

limit at full clinker production capacity 

and the expected maximum fuel sulfur 

content. 

(4) You must conduct performance 

evaluations of each SO2 CEMS monitor 

according to the requirements in 

§ 60.13(c) and Performance 

Specification 2 of appendix B to this 

part. You must use Methods 6, 6A, or 

6C of appendix A–4 to this part for 

conducting the relative accuracy 

evaluations. The method ASME PTC 

19.10–1981, ‘‘Flue and Exhaust Gas 

Analyses,’’ (incorporated by reference— 

see § 60.17) is an acceptable alternative 

to Method 6 or 6A of appendix A–4 to 

this part. 

(5) You must comply with the quality 

assurance requirements in Procedure 1 

of appendix F to this part for each NOX

and SO2 CEMS, including quarterly 

accuracy determinations for monitors, 

and daily calibration drift tests. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

42396 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 138 / Wednesday, July 18, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

(g) For each CPMS or CEMS required 

under paragraphs (c) through (e) of this 

section: 

* * * * * 

(2) You may not use data recorded 

during the monitoring system 

malfunctions, repairs associated with 

monitoring system malfunctions, or 

required monitoring system quality 

assurance or control activities in 

calculations used to report emissions or 

operating levels. A monitoring system 

malfunction is any sudden, infrequent, 

not reasonably preventable failure of the 

monitoring system to provide valid data. 

Monitoring system failures that are 

caused in part by poor maintenance or 

careless operation are not malfunctions. 

An owner or operator must use all the 

data collected during all other periods 

in reporting emissions or operating 

levels. 

* * * * * 

(h) You must install, operate, 

calibrate, and maintain instruments for 

continuously measuring and recording 

the stack gas flow rate to allow 

determination of the pollutant mass 

emissions rate to the atmosphere for 

each kiln subject to the PM emissions 

limits in § 60.62(a)(1) (ii) and (b)(1)(ii), 

the NOX emissions limit in § 60.62(a)(3), 

or the SO2 emissions limit in 

§ 60.62(a)(4) according to the 

requirements in paragraphs (h)(1) 

through (10), where appropriate, of this 

section. 

(1) The owner or operator must install 

each sensor of the flow rate monitoring 

system in a location that provides 

representative measurement of the 

exhaust gas flow rate at the sampling 

location of the NOX and/or SO2 CEMS, 

taking into account the manufacturer’s 

recommendations. The flow rate sensor 

is that portion of the system that senses 

the volumetric flow rate and generates 

an output proportional to that flow rate. 

* * * * * 

(6) The flow rate monitoring system 

must be designed to measure a 

minimum of one cycle of operational 

flow for each successive 15-minute 

period. 

(7) The flow rate sensor must be able 

to determine the daily zero and upscale 

calibration drift (CD) (see sections 3.1 

and 8.3 of Performance Specification 2 

in appendix B to this part for a 

discussion of CD). 

* * * * * 

(8) You must perform an initial 

relative accuracy test of the flow rate 

monitoring system according to section 

8.2 of Performance Specification 6 of 

appendix B to this part, with the 

exceptions noted in paragraphs (h)(8)(i) 

and (ii) of this section. 

* * * * * 

(9) You must verify the accuracy of 

the flow rate monitoring system at least 

once per year by repeating the relative 

accuracy test specified in paragraph 

(h)(8) of this section. 

* * * * * 

(i) Development and Submittal (Upon 

Request) of Monitoring Plans. If you 

demonstrate compliance with any 

applicable emissions limit through 

performance stack testing or other 

emissions monitoring (including PM 

CPMS), you must develop a site-specific 

monitoring plan according to the 

requirements in paragraphs (i)(1) 

through (4) of this section. This 

requirement also applies to you if you 

petition the EPA Administrator for 

alternative monitoring parameters under 

paragraph (h) of this section and 

§ 63.8(f). If you use a bag leak detector 

system (BLDS), you must also meet the 

requirements specified in paragraph 

§ 63.1350(m)(10) of this chapter. 

(1) For each continuous monitoring 

system (CMS) required in this section, 

you must develop, and submit to the 

permitting authority for approval upon 

request, a site-specific monitoring plan 

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

through (iii) of this section. You must 

submit this site-specific monitoring 

plan, if requested, at least 30 days before 

the initial performance evaluation of 

your CMS. 

(i) Installation of the CMS sampling 

probe or other interface at a 

measurement location relative to each 

affected process unit such that the 

measurement is representative of 

control of the exhaust emissions (e.g., 

on or downstream of the last control 

device); 

* * * * * 

6. Section 60.64 is amended to read as 

follows: 

§ 60.64 Test methods and procedures 

(a) In conducting the performance 

tests and relative accuracy tests required 

in § 60.8, you must use reference 

methods and procedures and the test 

methods in appendix A of this part or 

other methods and procedures as 

specified in this section, except as 

provided in § 60.8(b). 

(b) You must demonstrate compliance 

with the PM standards in § 60.62 

according to paragraphs (b)(1)(i) through 

(iv) of this section. 

(1)(i) In using a PM CPMS to 

demonstrate compliance, you must 

establish your PM CPMS operating limit 

and determine compliance with it 

according to paragraphs (b)(1)(ii) 

through (iv) of this section. 

(ii) During the initial performance test 

or any such subsequent performance 

test that demonstrates compliance with 

the PM limit, record all hourly average 

output values (e.g., milliamps, stack 

concentration, or other raw data signal) 

from the PM CPMS for the periods 

corresponding to the test runs (e.g., 

three 1-hour average PM CPMS output 

values for three 1-hour test runs). 

(iii) Determine your operating limit as 

the highest 1-hour average PM CPMS 

output value recorded during the 

performance test. You must verify an 

existing or establish a new operating 

limit after each repeated performance 

test. 

(iv) To determine continuous 

compliance, you must record the PM 

CPMS output data for all periods when 

the process is operating and the PM 

CPMS is not out-of-control. You must 

demonstrate continuous compliance by 

using all quality-assured hourly average 

data collected by the PM CPMS for all 

operating hours to calculate the 

arithmetic average operating parameter 

in units of the operating limit (e.g., 

milliamps, PM concentration, raw data 

signal) on a 30 operating day rolling 

average basis, updated at the end of 

each new kiln operating day. Use 

Equation 2 to determine the 30 kiln 

operating day average. 

Where: Hpvi = The hourly parameter value for hour 

i and 

n = The number of valid hourly parameter 

values collected over 30 kiln operating 

days. 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2ep18jy12.003</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 138 / Wednesday, July 18, 2012 / Proposed Rules 42397 

(2) Use Method 9 and the procedures 

in § 60.11 to determine opacity. 

(3) Any sources other than kilns 

(including associated alkali bypass and 

clinker cooler) that are major sources as 

defined in § 63.2 of this chapter and that 

are subject to the 10 percent opacity 

limit must follow the appropriate 

monitoring procedures in § 63.1350(f), 

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

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

(c) Calculate and record the rolling 30 

kiln operating day average emission rate 

daily of NOX and SO2 according to the 

procedures in paragraphs (i) through (ii) 

of this section. 

(i) Calculate the rolling 30 kiln 

operating day average emissions 

according to equation 3: 

Where: 

E30D = 30 kiln operating day average emission 

rate of NOX or SO2, lb/ton of clinker; 

Ci = Concentration of NOX or SO2 for hour 

i, ppm; 

Qi = volumetric flow rate of effluent gas for 

hour i, where 

Ci and Qi are on the same basis (either wet 

or dry), scf/hr; 

Pi = total kiln clinker produced during 

production hour i, ton/hr; and 

k = conversion factor, 1.194 × 10¥7 for NOX

and 1.660 × 10¥7 for SO2.

n = number of kiln operating hours over 30 

kiln operating days, n = 1 to 720. 

(ii) For each kiln operating hour for 

which you do not have at least one valid 

15-minute CEMS data value, use the 

average emissions rate (lb/hr) from the 

most recent previous hour for which 

valid data are available. 

(d)(1) Within 60 days after the date of 

completing each performance test(see 

§ 60.8) as required by this subpart you 

must submit the results of the 

performance tests conducted to 

demonstrate compliance under this 

subpart to the EPA’s WebFIRE database 

by using the Compliance and Emissions 

Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI) that is 

accessed through the EPA’s Central Data 

Exchange (CDX)(www.epa.gov/cdx). 

Performance test data must be submitted 

in the file format generated through use 

of the EPA’s Electronic Reporting Tool 

(ERT) (see http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ 

ert/index.html). Only data collected 

using test methods on the ERT Web site 

are subject to this requirement for 

submitting reports electronically to 

WebFIRE. Owners or operators who 

claim that some of the information being 

submitted for performance tests is 

confidential business information (CBI) 

must submit a complete ERT file 

including information claimed to be CBI 

on a compact disk or other commonly 

used electronic storage media 

(including, but not limited to, flash 

drives) to the EPA. The electronic media 

must be clearly marked as CBI and 

mailed to U.S. EPA/OAPQS/CORE CBI 

Office, Attention: WebFIRE 

Administrator, MD C404–02, 4930 Old 

Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703. The same 

ERT file with the CBI omitted must be 

submitted to the EPA via CDX as 

described earlier in this paragraph. At 

the discretion of the delegated authority, 

you must also submit these reports, 

including the confidential business 

information, to the delegated authority 

in the format specified by the delegated 

authority. 

(2) Within 60 days after the date of 

completing each CEMS performance 

evaluation test (see § 60.13), you must 

submit the relative accuracy test audit 

data electronically into the EPA’s 

Central Data Exchange by using the 

Electronic Reporting Tool as mentioned 

in paragraph (d)(1) of this section. Only 

data collected using test methods 

compatible with ERT are subject to this 

requirement to be submitted 

electronically to the EPA’s CDX. 

(3) All reports required by this 

subpart not subject to the requirements 

in paragraphs (d)(1) and (2) of this 

section must be sent to the 

Administrator at the appropriate 

address listed in § 63.13. The 

Administrator or the delegated authority 

may request a report in any form 

suitable for the specific case (e.g., by 

commonly used electronic media such 

as Excel spreadsheet, on CD or hard 

copy). The Administrator retains the 

right to require submittal of reports 

subject to paragraph (d)(1) and (2) of 

this section in paper format. 

7. Section 60.65 is revised to read as 

follows: 

§ 60.65 Recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements. 

(a) Each owner or operator required to 

install a CPMS or CEMS under sections 

§ 60.63(c)–(e) shall submit reports of 

excess emissions. The content of these 

reports must comply with the 

requirements in § 60.7(c). 

Notwithstanding the provisions of 

§ 60.7(c), such reports shall be 

submitted semiannually. 

(b) Each owner or operator of facilities 

subject to the provisions of § 60.63(c)– 

(e) shall submit semiannual reports of 

the malfunction information required to 

be recorded by § 60.7(b). These reports 

shall include the frequency, duration, 

and cause of any incident resulting in 

deenergization of any device controlling 

kiln emissions or in the venting of 

emissions directly to the atmosphere. 

(c) The requirements of this section 

remain in force until and unless the 

Agency, in delegating enforcement 

authority to a State under section 111(c) 

of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7411, 

approves reporting requirements or an 

alternative means of compliance 

surveillance adopted by such States. In 

that event, affected sources within the 

State will be relieved of the obligation 

to comply with this section, provided 

that they comply with the requirements 

established by the State. 

8. Section 60.66 is amended by 

revising paragraph (b) introductory text 

to read as follows: 

§ 60.66 Delegation of authority. 

* * * * * 

(b) In delegating implementation and 

enforcement authority to a State, local, 

or tribal agency, the approval authorities 

contained in paragraphs (b)(1) through 

(4) of this section are retained by the 

Administrator of the U.S EPA and are 

not transferred to the State, local, or 

tribal agency. 

* * * * * 

PART 63—[AMENDED] 

9. The authority citation for part 63 

continues to read as follows: 

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

10. Section 63.14 is amended by 

revising paragraph (b)(54) to read as 

follows: 

§ 63.14 Incorporations by reference. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(54) ASTM D6348–03, Standard Test 

Method for Determination of Gaseous 

Compounds by Extractive Direct 

Interface Fourier Transform Infrared 

(FTIR) Spectroscopy, approved 2003, 

IBR approved for § 63.1349(b) of subpart 

LLL, table 4 to subpart DDDD, and table 

8 of subpart HHHHHHH of this part. 

* * * * * 

Subpart LLL—[Amended] 

11. Section 63.1340 is amended by 

a. Revising paragraphs (b)(6) through 

(b)(9); and 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2ep18jy12.004</GPH>
42398 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 138 / Wednesday, July 18, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

b. Revising paragraph (c). 

The revisions read as follows: 

§ 63.1340 What parts of my plant does this 

subpart cover? 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(6) Each raw material, clinker, or 

finished product storage bin at any 

portland cement plant that is a major 

source; 

(7) Each conveying system transfer 

point including those associated with 

coal preparation used to convey coal 

from the mill to the kiln at any portland 

cement plant that is a major source; 

(8) Each bagging and bulk loading and 

unloading system at any portland 

cement plant that is a major source; and 

(9) Each open clinker storage pile at 

any portland cement plant. 

(c) Onsite sources that are subject to 

standards for nonmetallic mineral 

processing plants in subpart OOO, part 

60 of this chapter are not subject to this 

subpart. Crushers are not covered by 

this subpart regardless of their location. 

* * * * * 

12. Section 63.1341 is amended by: 

a. Deleting definitions of ‘‘Enclosed 

storage pile,’’ and ‘‘Inactive clinker 

pile;’’ 

b. Adding a definition for 

‘‘Deviation,’’ ‘‘In-line coal mill,’’ ‘‘Open 

clinker storage pile,’’ and ‘‘Startup and 

shutdown;’’ in alphabetical order and 

c. Revising definitions for ‘‘Kiln,’’ 

‘‘New source,’’ ‘‘Operating day,’’ ‘‘Raw 

material dryer,’’ and ‘‘Total organic 

HAP,’’ in alphabetical order. 

The deletions, additions and revisions 

read as follows: 

§ 63.1341 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

Deviation means any instance in 

which an affected source subject to this 

subpart, or an owner or operator of such 

a source: (i) Fails to meet any 

requirement or obligation established by 

this subpart including, but not limited 

to, any emission limit, operating limit, 

work practice standard, or monitoring 

requirement; or (ii) Fails to meet any 

term or condition that is adopted to 

implement an applicable requirement in 

this subpart and that is included in the 

operating permit for any affected source 

required to obtain such a permit. A 

deviation is not always a violation. 

* * * * * 

In-line coal mill means those coal 

mills using kiln exhaust gases in their 

process. Coal mills with a heat source 

other than the kiln or coal mills using 

exhaust gases from the clinker cooler are 

not an in-line coal mill. 

* * * * * 

Kiln means a device, including any 

associated preheater or precalciner 

devices, inline raw mills, inline coal 

mills or alkali bypasses that produces 

clinker by heating limestone and other 

materials for subsequent production of 

portland cement. Because the inline raw 

mill and inline coal mill are considered 

an integral part of the kiln, for purposes 

of determining the appropriate 

emissions limit, the term kiln also 

applies to the exhaust of the inline raw 

mill and the inline coal mill. 

* * * * * 

New source means any source that 

commenced construction after May 6, 

2009, for purposes of determining the 

applicability of the kiln, clinker cooler 

and raw material dryer emissions limits 

for mercury, PM, THC, and HCl. 

* * * * * 

Open clinker storage pile means any 

clinker storage pile that is not 

completely enclosed in a building or 

structure. 

Operating day means any 24-hour 

period beginning at 12:00 midnight 

during which the kiln operates for any 

time. For calculating the rolling 30-day 

average emissions, kiln operating days 

do not include the hours of operation 

during startup or shutdown. 

* * * * * 

Raw material dryer means an impact 

dryer, drum dryer, paddle-equipped 

rapid dryer, air separator, or other 

equipment used to reduce the moisture 

content of feed or other materials. 

* * * * * 

Startup and shutdown means the 

periods of kiln operation that do not 

include normal operations. Startup 

begins when the kiln’s induced fan is 

turned on and continues until 

continuous feed is introduced into the 

kiln. Shutdown begins when feed to the 

kiln is halted. 

* * * * * 

Total organic HAP means, for the 

purposes of this subpart, the sum of the 

concentrations of compounds of 

formaldehyde, benzene, toluene, 

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

acetaldehyde, and naphthalene as 

measured by EPA Test Method 320 or 

Method 18 of appendix A to this part or 

ASTM D6348–03 or a combination of 

these methods, as appropriate. When 

using ASTM D6348–03, the following 

conditions must be met: (1) The test 

plan preparation and implementation in 

the Annexes to ASTM D6348–03, 

Sections A1 through A8 are mandatory; 

(2) For ASTM D6348–03 Annex A5 

(Analyte Spiking Technique), the 

percent (%) R must be determined for 

each target analyte (see Equation A5.5); 

(3) For the ASTM D6348–03 test data to 

be acceptable for a target analyte, %R 

must be 70% ≥ R ≤ 130%; and (4) The 

%R value for each compound must be 

reported in the test report and all field 

measurements corrected with the 

calculated %R value for that compound 

using the following equation: 

If measurement results for any pollutant 

are reported as below the method 

detection level (e.g., laboratory 

analytical results for one or more 

sample components are below the 

method defined analytical detection 

level), you must use the method 

detection level as the measured 

emissions level for that pollutant in 

calculating the total organic HAP value. 

The measured result for a multiple 

component analysis (e.g., analytical 

values for multiple Method 18 fractions) 

may include a combination of method 

detection level data and analytical data 

reported above the method detection 

level. The owner or operator of an 

affected source may request the use of 

other test methods to make this 

determination under paragraphs 

63.7(e)(2)(ii) and (f) of this part. 

* * * * * 

13. Section 63.1343 is revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 63.1343 What standards apply to my 

kilns, clinker coolers, raw material dryers, 

and open clinker piles? 

(a) General. The provisions in this 

section apply to each kiln and any alkali 

bypass associated with that kiln, clinker 

cooler, and raw material dryer. All D/F, 

HCl, and total hydrocarbon (THC) 

emissions limit are on a dry basis. The 

D/F, HCl, and THC limits for kilns are 

corrected to 7 percent oxygen. All THC 

emissions limits are measured as 

propane. Standards for mercury and 

THC are based on a rolling 30-day 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP18JY12.014</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 138 / Wednesday, July 18, 2012 / Proposed Rules 42399 

average. If using a CEMS to determine 

compliance with the HCl standard, this 

standard is based on a rolling 30-day 

average. You must ensure appropriate 

corrections for moisture are made when 

measuring flow rates used to calculate 

mercury emissions. The 30-day period 

means 30 consecutive kiln operating 

days excluding periods of startup and 

shutdown. All emissions limits for 

kilns, clinker coolers, and raw material 

dryers currently in effect that are 

superseded by the limits below continue 

to apply until the compliance date of 

the limits below, or until the source 

certifies compliance with the limits 

below, whichever is earlier. 

(b) Kilns, clinker coolers, raw material 

dryers, raw mills, and finish mills. 

(1) The emissions limits for these 

sources are shown in Table 1 below. PM 

limits for existing kilns also apply to 

kilns that have undergone a 

modification as defined in subpart A of 

part 60 of title 40. 

TABLE 1—EMISSIONS LIMITS FOR KILNS, CLINKER COOLERS, RAW MATERIAL DRYERS, RAW AND FINISH MILLS

If your source is a (an): And the operating mode 

is: And if is located at a: Your emissions limits are: 

And the units of 

the emissions 

limit are: 

The oxygen 

correction 

factor 

percent is: 

1. Existing kiln .................... Normal operation .............. Major or area source ........ PM 1 0.07 ................ lb/ton clinker ....... NA 

D/F 2 0.2 .................. ng/dscm .............. 7 

Mercury 55 .............. lb/MMtons clinker NA 

THC 3 4 24 ................ ppmvd ................. 7 

2. Existing kiln .................... Normal operation .............. Major source ..................... HCl 3 ....................... ppmvd ................. 7 

3. Existing kiln .................... Startup and shutdown ....... Major or area source ........ PM 0.04 ................... gr/dscf ................. NA 

D/F 0.2 .................... ng/dscm (TEQ) ... NA 

Mercury 10 .............. ug/dscm .............. NA 

THC 24 .................... ppmvd ................. NA 

4. Existing kiln .................... Startup and shutdown ....... Major source ..................... HCl 3 ....................... ppmvd ................. NA 

5. New kiln ......................... Normal operation .............. Major or area source ........ PM 0.02 ................... lb/ton clinker ....... NA 

D/F 1 0.2 .................. ng/dscm .............. 7 

Mercury 21 .............. lb/MM tons clinker NA 

THC 3 4 24 ............... ppmvd ................. 7 

6. New kiln ......................... Normal operation .............. Major source ..................... HCl 3 ....................... ppmvd ................. 7 

7. New kiln ......................... Startup and shutdown ....... Major or area source ........ PM 0.0008 ............... gr/dscf ................. NA 

D/F 0.2 .................... ng/dscm (TEQ) ... NA 

Mercury 4 ................ ug/dscm .............. NA 

THC 24 .................... ppmvd ................. NA 

8. New kiln ......................... Startup and shutdown ....... Major source ..................... HCl 3 ....................... ppmvd ................. NA 

9. Existing clinker cooler .... Normal operation .............. Major or area source ........ PM 0.07 ................... lb/ton clinker ....... NA 

10. Existing clinker cooler .. Startup and shutdown ....... Major or area source ........ PM 0.004 ................. gr/dscf ................. NA 

11. New clinker cooler ....... Normal operation .............. Major or area source ........ PM 0.02 ................... lb/ton clinker ....... NA 

12. New clinker cooler ....... Startup and shutdown ....... Major or area source ........ PM 0.0008 ............... gr/dscf ................. NA 

13. Existing or new raw 

material dryer.

Normal operation .............. Major or area source ........ THC 3 4 24 ............... ppmvd ................. NA 

14. Existing or new raw 

material dryer.

Startup and shutdown ....... Major or area source ........ THC 24 .................... ppmvd ................. NA 

15. Existing or new raw or 

finish mill.

All operating modes .......... Major source ..................... Opacity 10 ............... percent ................ NA 

16. Open clinker storage 

piles.

All operating modes .......... Major or area source ........ Work practices 

(63.1343(c)).

NA ....................... NA 

1The initial and subsequent PM performance tests are performed using Method 5 and consists of three 1-hr tests. 

2 If the average temperature at the inlet to the first PM control device (fabric filter or electrostatic precipitator) during the D/F performance test 

is 400 °F or less this limit is changed to 0.040 ng/dscm. 3 Measured as propane. 

4Any source subject to the 24 ppmvd THC limit may elect to meet an alternative limit of 12 ppmvd for total organic HAP. 

(2) When there is an alkali bypass 

associated with a kiln, the combined PM 

emissions from the kiln and the alkali 

bypass stack are subject to the PM 

emissions limit. Existing kilns that 

combine the clinker cooler exhaust and/ 

or coal mill 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 equation 1 of 

this section: 

Where: 

PMalt = Alternative PM emission limit for 

commingled sources. 

0.006 = The PM exhaust concentration (gr/ 

dscf) equivalent to 0.070 lb per ton 

clinker where clinker cooler and kiln 

exhaust gas are not combined. 

1.65 = The conversion factor of lb feed per 

lb clinker. 

Qk = The exhaust flow of the kiln (dscf/ton 

raw feed). 

Qc = The exhaust flow of the clinker cooler 

(dscf/ton feed). 

Qab = The exhaust flow of the alkali bypass 

(dscf/ton feed). 

Qcm = The exhaust flow of the coal mill 

(dscf/ton feed). 

7000 = The conversion factor for grains (gr) 

per lb. 

For new kilns that combine kiln exhaust 

and clinker cooler gas the limit is calculated 

using the equation 2 of this section: 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP18JY12.005</GPH>
42400 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 138 / Wednesday, July 18, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

Where: 

PMalt = Alternative PM emission limit for 

commingled sources. 

0.002 = The PM exhaust concentration (gr/ 

dscf) equivalent to 0.020 lb per ton 

clinker where clinker cooler and kiln 

exhaust gas are not combined. 

1.65 = The conversion factor of lb feed per 

lb clinker. 

Qk = The exhaust flow of the kiln (dscf/ton 

feed). 

Qc = The exhaust flow of the clinker cooler 

(dscf/ton feed). 

Qab = The exhaust flow of the alkali bypass 

(dscf/ton feed). 

Qcm = The exhaust flow of the coal mill 

(dscf/ton feed). 

7000 = The conversion factor for gr per lb. 

(c) Open Clinker Piles. The owner or 

operator of an open clinker pile must 

prepare and operate in accordance with 

the fugitive dust emissions control 

measures, described in their operation 

and maintenance plan (see § 63.1347 of 

this subpart), that is appropriate for the 

site conditions as specified in 

paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of this 

paragraph. 

(1) The operations and maintenance 

plan must identify and describe the 

fugitive dust emissions control 

measures the owner or operator will use 

to minimize fugitive dust emissions 

from each open clinker storage pile. 

(2) For open clinker storage piles, the 

operations and maintenance plan must 

specify that one or more of the following 

control measures will be used to 

minimize to the greatest extent 

practicable fugitive dust from open 

clinker storage piles: Locating the 

source inside a partial enclosure, 

installing and operating a water spray or 

fogging system, applying appropriate 

chemical dust suppression agents on the 

source, use of a wind barrier, 

compaction, or use of a vegetative cover. 

The owner or operator must select, for 

inclusion in the operations and 

maintenance plan, the fugitive dust 

control measure or measures listed in 

this paragraph that are most appropriate 

for site conditions. The plan must also 

explain how the measure or measures 

selected are applicable and appropriate 

for site conditions. In addition, the plan 

must be revised as needed to reflect any 

changing conditions at the source. 

(d) Emission limits in effect prior to 

September 9, 2010. Any source defined 

as an existing source in § 63.1351, and 

that was subject to a PM, mercury, THC, 

D/F, or opacity emissions limit prior to 

September 9, 2010, must continue to 

meet the limits shown in Table 2 to this 

section until September 9, 2015. 

* * * * * 

14. Section 63.1344 is amended by 

revising the section heading and 

revising the section to read as follows: 

§ 63.1344 Affirmative defense for violation 

of emissions limit during malfunction. 

In response to an action to enforce the 

standards set forth in paragraph 

§ 63.1343(b) you may assert an 

affirmative defense to a claim for civil 

penalties for violations of such 

standards that are caused by 

malfunction, as defined at 40 CFR 63.2. 

Appropriate penalties may be assessed, 

however, if the respondent fails to meet 

its burden of proving all of the 

requirements in the affirmative defense. 

The affirmative defense shall not be 

available for claims for injunctive relief. 

(a) To establish the affirmative 

defense in any action to enforce such a 

standard, you must timely meet the 

notification requirements in paragraph 

(b) of this section, and must prove by a 

preponderance of evidence that: 

(1) The violation: 

(i) Was caused by a sudden, 

infrequent, and unavoidable failure of 

air pollution control and monitoring 

equipment, process equipment, or a 

process to operate in a normal or usual 

manner, and 

(ii) Could not have been prevented 

through careful planning, proper design 

or better operation and maintenance 

practices; and 

(iii) Did not stem from any activity or 

event that could have been foreseen and 

avoided, or planned for; and 

(iv) Was not part of a recurring pattern 

indicative of inadequate design, 

operation, or maintenance; and 

(2) Repairs were made as 

expeditiously as possible when a 

violation occurred. Off-shift and 

overtime labor were used, to the extent 

practicable to make these repairs; and 

(3) The frequency, amount and 

duration of the violation (including any 

bypass) were minimized to the 

maximum extent practicable; and 

(4) If the violation resulted from a 

bypass of control equipment or a 

process, then the bypass was 

unavoidable to prevent loss of life, 

personal injury, or severe property 

damage; and 

(5) All possible steps were taken to 

minimize the impact of the violation on 

ambient air quality, the environment 

and human health; and 

(6) All emissions monitoring and 

control systems were kept in operation 

if at all possible consistent with safety 

and good air pollution control practices; 

and 

(7) Your actions in response to the 

violation were documented by properly 

signed, contemporaneous operating 

logs; and 

(8) At all times, the affected source 

was operated in a manner consistent 

with good air pollution control practice 

for minimizing emissions; and 

(9) A written root cause analysis has 

been prepared, the purpose of which is 

to determine, correct, and eliminate the 

primary causes of the malfunction and 

the violation resulting from the 

malfunction event at issue. The analysis 

shall also specify, using best monitoring 

methods and engineering judgment, the 

amount of any emissions that were the 

result of the malfunction. 

(b) Report. The owner or operator 

seeking to assert an affirmative defense 

shall submit a written report to the 

Administrator with all necessary 

supporting documentation, that it has 

met the requirements set forth in 

paragraph (a) of this section. This 

affirmative defense report shall be 

included in the semiannual report 

required by section 63.1354(b)(9). The 

affirmative defense report shall be 

included in the first semiannual, 

deviation report or excess emission 

report otherwise required after the 

initial occurrence of the violation of the 

relevant standard (which may be the 

end of any applicable averaging period). 

If such compliance, deviation report or 

excess the semiannual report is due less 

than 45 days after the initial occurrence 

of the violation, the affirmative defense 

report may be included in the second 

semiannual compliance, deviation 

report or excess emission report due 

after the initial occurrence of the 

violation of the relevant standard. 

15. Section 63.1345 is amended by 

revising the section heading and 

revising the section to read as follows: 

§ 63.1345 Emissions limits for affected 

sources other than kilns; clinker coolers; 

new and reconstructed raw material dryers; 

and open clinker piles. 

The owner or operator of each new or 

existing raw material, clinker, or 

finished product storage bin; conveying 

system transfer point; bagging system; 

bulk loading or unloading system; raw 

and finish mills; and each existing raw 

material dryer, at a facility which is a 

major source subject to the provisions of 

this subpart must not cause to be 

discharged any gases from these affected 

sources which exhibit opacity in excess 

of 10 percent. 

16. Section 63.1346 is amended by: 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP18JY12.006</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 138 / Wednesday, July 18, 2012 / Proposed Rules 42401 

a. Revising paragraph (a) introductory 

text; 

b. Revising paragraph (a)(1); and 

c. Revising paragraphs (c) through (f). 

The revisions read as follows: 

§ 63.1346 Operating limits for kilns. 

(a) The owner or operator of a kiln 

subject to a D/F emissions limitation 

under § 63.1343 must operate the kiln 

such that the temperature of the gas at 

the inlet to the kiln PM control device 

(PMCD) and alkali bypass PMCD, if 

applicable, does not exceed the 

applicable temperature limit specified 

in paragraph (b) of this section. The 

owner or operator of an in-line kiln/raw 

mill subject to a D/F emissions 

limitation under § 63.1343 must operate 

the in-line kiln/raw mill, such that: 

(1) When the raw mill of the in-line 

kiln/raw mill is operating, the 

applicable temperature limit for the 

main in-line kiln/raw mill exhaust, 

specified in paragraph (b) of this section 

and established during the performance 

test when the raw mill was operating, is 

not exceeded, except during periods of 

startup/shutdown when the temperature 

limit may be exceeded by no more than 

10 percent. 

* * * * * 

(c) For an affected source subject to a 

D/F emissions limitation under 

§ 63.1343 that employs sorbent injection 

as an emission control technique you 

must operate the sorbent injection 

system in accordance with paragraphs 

(c)(1) and (c)(2) of this section. 

(1) The rolling three-hour average 

activated sorbent injection rate must be 

equal to or greater than the sorbent 

injection rate determined in accordance 

with § 63.1349(b)(3)(vi). 

(2) You must either: 

(i) Maintain the minimum activated 

carbon injection carrier gas flow rate, as 

a rolling three-hour average, based on 

the manufacturer’s specifications. These 

specifications must be documented in 

the test plan developed in accordance 

with § 63.7(c), or 

(ii) Maintain the minimum activated 

carbon injection carrier gas pressure 

drop, as a rolling three-hour average, 

based on the manufacturer’s 

specifications. These specifications 

must be documented in the test plan 

developed in accordance with § 63.7(c). 

(d) Except as provided in paragraph 

(e) of this section, for an affected source 

subject to a D/F emissions limitation 

under § 63.1343 that employs carbon 

injection as an emission control 

technique you must specify and use the 

brand and type of sorbent used during 

the performance test until a subsequent 

performance test is conducted, unless 

the site-specific performance test plan 

contains documentation of key 

parameters that affect adsorption and 

the owner or operator establishes limits 

based on those parameters, and the 

limits on these parameters are 

maintained. 

(e) For an affected source subject to a 

D/F emissions limitation under 

§ 63.1343 that employs carbon injection 

as an emission control technique you 

may substitute, at any time, a different 

brand or type of sorbent provided that 

the replacement has equivalent or 

improved properties compared to the 

sorbent specified in the site-specific 

performance test plan and used in the 

performance test. The owner or operator 

must maintain documentation that the 

substitute sorbent will provide the same 

or better level of control as the original 

sorbent. 

(f) No kiln may use as a raw material 

or fuel any fly ash where the mercury 

content of the fly ash has been increased 

through the use of activated carbon, or 

any other sorbent, unless the facility can 

demonstrate that the use of that fly ash 

will not result in an increase in mercury 

emissions over baseline emissions (i.e., 

emissions not using the fly ash). The 

facility has the burden of proving there 

has been no emissions increase over 

baseline. Once the kiln must comply 

with a mercury emissions limit 

specified in § 63.1343, this paragraph no 

longer applies. 

17. Section 63.1347 is amended by 

revising paragraph (a)(1) to read as 

follows: 

§ 63.1347 Operation and maintenance plan 

requirements. 

(a) * * * 

(1) Procedures for proper operation 

and maintenance of the affected source 

and air pollution control devices in 

order to meet the emissions limits and 

operating limits, including fugitive dust 

control measures for open clinker piles, 

of §§ 63.1343 through 63.1348. Your 

operation and maintenance plan must 

address periods of startup and 

shutdown; 

* * * * * 

18. Section 63.1348 is amended by: 

a. Revising paragraph (a) introductory 

text; 

b. Removing paragraphs (a)(1)(i) and 

(ii); 

c. Revising paragraphs (a)(1) through 

(a)(6); 

d. Revising paragraph (b); and 

e. Revising paragraph (c)(2)(iv). 

The revisions read as follows: 

§ 63.1348 Compliance requirements. 

(a) Initial Performance Test 

Requirements. For an affected source 

subject to this subpart, you must 

demonstrate compliance with the 

emissions standards and operating 

limits by using the test methods and 

procedures in §§ 63.1349 and 63.7. 

Note: The first day of the 30 operating day 

performance test is the first day following 

completion of the field testing and data 

collection that demonstrates that the CPMS 

or CEMS has satisfied the relevant CPMS 

performance evaluation or CEMS 

performance specification (e.g., PS 2, 12A, or 

12B) acceptance criteria. The performance 

test period is complete at the end of the 30th 

consecutive operating day. See § 63.1341 for 

definition of operating day and 

§ 63.1348(b)(1) for the CEMS operating 

requirements. 

(1) PM Compliance. If you are subject 

to limitations on PM emissions under 

§ 63.1343(b), you must demonstrate 

compliance with the PM emissions 

standards by using the test methods and 

procedures in § 63.1349(b)(1). 

(2) Opacity Compliance. If you are 

subject to the limitations on opacity 

under § 63.1345, you must demonstrate 

compliance with the opacity emissions 

standards by using the performance test 

methods and procedures in 

§ 63.1349(b)(2). Use the maximum 6- 

minute average opacity exhibited during 

the performance test period to 

determine whether the affected source is 

in compliance with the standard. 

(3) D/F Compliance. 

(i) If you are subject to limitations on 

D/F emissions under § 63.1343(b), you 

must demonstrate compliance with the 

D/F emissions standards by using the 

performance test methods and 

procedures in § 63.1349(b)(3). The 

owner or operator of a kiln with an inline raw mill must demonstrate 

compliance by conducting separate 

performance tests while the raw mill is 

operating and while the raw mill is not 

operating. Determine the D/F 

concentration for each run and calculate 

the arithmetic average of the 

concentrations measured for the three 

runs to determine continuous 

compliance. 

(ii) If you are subject to a D/F 

emissions limitation under § 63.1343(b), 

you must demonstrate compliance with 

the temperature operating limits 

specified in § 63.1346 by using the 

performance test methods and 

procedures in § 63.1349(b)(3)(ii) through 

(b)(3)(iv). Use the arithmetic average of 

the temperatures measured during the 

three runs to determine the applicable 

temperature limit. 

(iii) If activated carbon injection is 

used and you are subject to a D/F 

emissions limitation under § 63.1343(b), 

you must demonstrate compliance with 

the activated carbon injection rate 

operating limits specified in § 63.1346 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

42402 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 138 / Wednesday, July 18, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

by using the performance test methods 

and procedures in § 63.1349(b)(3)(v). 

The average of the run injection rates 

will determine the applicable injection 

rate limit. 

(iv) If activated carbon injection is 

used, you must also develop a carrier 

gas parameter (either the carrier gas flow 

rate or the carrier gas pressure drop) 

during the initial and updated during 

any subsequent performance test 

conducted under § 63.1349(b)(3) that 

meets the requirements of 

§ 63.1349(b)(3)(vi). Compliance is 

demonstrated if the system is 

maintained within +/¥ 5 percent 

accuracy during the performance test 

determined in accordance with the 

procedures and criteria submitted for 

review in your monitoring plan required 

in section 63.1350(p). 

(4)(i) THC Compliance. 

(A) If you are subject to limitations on 

THC emissions under § 63.1343(b), you 

must demonstrate compliance with the 

THC emissions standards by using the 

performance test methods and 

procedures in § 63.1349(b)(4)(i). You 

must use the average THC concentration 

obtained during the first 30 kiln 

operating days after the compliance date 

of this rule to determine initial 

compliance. 

(B) For sources equipped with an 

alkali bypass stack or that exhaust kiln 

gases to a coal mill that exhausts 

through a separate stack, instead of 

installing a CEMS, you may use the 

results of the initial and subsequent 

performance test to demonstrate 

compliance with the THC emissions 

limit. 

(ii) Total Organic HAP Emissions 

Tests. If you elect to demonstrate 

compliance with the total organic HAP 

emissions limit under § 63.1343(b) in 

lieu of the THC emissions limit, you 

must demonstrate compliance with the 

total organic HAP emissions standards 

by using the performance test methods 

and procedures in § 63.1349(b)(4)(iii) 

and (b)(4)(iv). 

(iii) If you are demonstrating initial 

compliance, you must conduct the 

separate performance tests as specified 

in § 63.1349(b)(4)(iii) while the raw mill 

kiln is operating and while the raw mill 

of the kiln is not operating. 

(iv) The average total organic HAP 

concentration measured during the 

separate initial performance test 

specified by § 63.1349(b)(4)(iii) must be 

used to determine initial compliance. 

(v) The average THC concentration 

measured during the initial performance 

test specified by § 63.1349(b)(4)(iv) must 

be used to determine the site-specific 

THC limit. Using the fraction of time the 

raw mill is on and the fraction of time 

that the raw mill is off, calculate this 

limit as a weighted average of the THC 

levels measured during raw mill on and 

raw mill off testing. 

(5) Mercury Compliance. If you are 

subject to limitations on mercury 

emissions in § 63.1343(b), you must 

demonstrate compliance with the 

mercury standards by using the 

performance test methods and 

procedures in § 63.1349(b)(5). You must 

demonstrate compliance by operating a 

mercury CEMS or a sorbent trap based 

CEMS. Compliance with the mercury 

emissions standard must be determined 

based on the first 30 operating days you 

operate a mercury CEMS after the 

compliance date of this rule. 

In calculating a 30 operating day 

emissions value using an integrating 

sorbent trap CEMS, assign the average 

Hg emissions concentration determined 

for an integrating period (e.g., 7 day 

sorbent trap sample) to each relevant 

hour of the kiln operating days spanned 

by each integrated sample. Calculate the 

30 kiln operating day emissions rate 

value using the assigned hourly Hg 

emissions concentrations and the 

respective flow and production rate 

values collected during the 30 kiln 

operating day performance test period. 

Depending on the duration of each 

integrated sampling period, you may not 

be able to calculate the 30 kiln operating 

day emissions value until several days 

after the end of the 30 kiln operating 

day performance test period. 

For example, a sorbent trap CEMS 

producing an integrated 7-day sample 

will provide Hg concentration data for 

each hour of the first 28 kiln operating 

days (i.e., four values spanning 7 days 

each) of a 30 operating day period. The 

Hg concentration values for the hours of 

the last 2 days of the 30 operating day 

period will not be available for 

calculating the emissions for the 

performance test period until at least 

five days after the end of the subject 

period. 

(6) HCl Compliance. If you are subject 

to limitations on HCl emissions under 

§ 63.1343(b), you must demonstrate 

initial compliance with the HCl 

standards by using the performance test 

methods and procedures in 

§ 63.1349(b)(6). 

(i) For an affected source that is 

equipped with a wet scrubber, tray 

tower or dry scrubber, you must 

demonstrate initial compliance by 

conducting a performance test as 

specified in § 63.1349(b)(6)(i). You must 

determine the HCl concentration for 

each run and calculate the arithmetic 

average of the concentrations measured 

for the three runs to determine 

compliance. You must also have 

established appropriate site-specific 

operational parameter limits. 

(ii) For an affected source that is not 

equipped with a wet scrubber, tray 

tower or dry scrubber, you must 

demonstrate initial compliance by 

operating a CEMS as specified in 

§ 63.1349(b)(6)(ii). You must use the 

average of the hourly HCl concentration 

obtained during the first 30 kiln 

operating days that occur after the 

compliance date of this rule to 

determine initial compliance. 

(iii) For sources equipped with an 

alkali bypass stack or that exhaust kiln 

gases to a coal mill that exhausts 

through a separate stack, instead of 

installing a CEMS, you may use the 

results of the initial and subsequent 

performance test to demonstrate 

compliance with the HCl emissions 

limit. 

(iv) As an alternative to paragraph (i), 

you may use an SO2 CEMS to establish 

an SO2 operating level during your 

initial and repeat HCl performance tests 

as specified in § 63.1349(b)(6)(iii). 

(b) Continuous Monitoring 

Requirements. You must demonstrate 

compliance with the emissions 

standards and operating limits by using 

the performance test methods and 

procedures in §§ 63.1350 and 63.8 for 

each affected source. 

(1) General Requirements. 

(i) You must monitor and collect data 

according to § 63.1350 and the sitespecific monitoring plan required by 

§ 63.1350(p). 

(ii) Except for periods of monitoring 

system malfunctions, repairs associated 

with monitoring system malfunctions, 

and required monitoring system quality 

assurance or quality control activities 

(including, as applicable, calibration 

checks and required zero and span 

adjustments), you must operate the 

monitoring system and collect data at all 

required intervals at all times the 

affected source is operating. 

(iii) You may not use data recorded 

during monitoring system malfunctions, 

repairs associated with monitoring 

system malfunctions, or required 

monitoring system quality assurance or 

control activities in calculations used to 

report emissions or operating levels. A 

monitoring system malfunction is any 

sudden, infrequent, not reasonably 

preventable failure of the monitoring 

system to provide valid data. 

Monitoring system failures that are 

caused in part by poor maintenance or 

careless operation are not malfunctions. 

You must use all the data collected 

during all other periods in assessing the 

operation of the control device and 

associated control system. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 138 / Wednesday, July 18, 2012 / Proposed Rules 42403 

(iv) Clinker Production. If you are 

subject to limitations on PM emissions 

(lb/ton of clinker) or mercury (lb/MM 

tons of clinker) under § 63.1343(b), you 

must determine the hourly production 

rate of clinker according to the 

requirements of § 63.1350(d). 

(2) PM Compliance. If you are subject 

to limitations on PM emissions under 

§ 63.1343(b), you must use the 

monitoring methods and procedures in 

§ 63.1350(b) and (d). 

(3) Opacity Compliance. If you are 

subject to the limitations on opacity 

under § 63.1345, you must demonstrate 

compliance using the monitoring 

methods and procedures in § 63.1350(f) 

based on the maximum 6-minute 

average opacity exhibited during the 

performance test period. You must 

initiate corrective actions within one 

hour of detecting visible emissions 

above the applicable limit. 

(i) COMS. If you install a COMS in 

lieu of conducting the daily visible 

emissions testing, you must demonstrate 

compliance using a COMS such that it 

is installed, operated, and maintained in 

accordance with the requirements of 

§ 63.1350(f)(4)(i). 

(ii) Bag leak determination system 

(BLDS). If you install a BLDS on a raw 

mill or finish mill in lieu of conducting 

the daily visible emissions testing, you 

must demonstrate compliance using a 

BLDS that is installed, operated, and 

maintained in accordance with the 

requirements of § 63.1350(f)(4)(ii). 

(4) D/F Compliance. If you are subject 

to a D/F emissions limitation under 

§ 63.1343(b), you must demonstrate 

compliance using a CMS that is 

installed, operated and maintained to 

record the temperature of specified gas 

streams in accordance with the 

requirements of § 63.1350(g). 

(5)(i) Activated Carbon Injection 

Compliance. If you use activated carbon 

injection to comply with the D/F 

emissions limitation under § 63.1343(b), 

you must demonstrate compliance using 

a CMS that is installed, operated, and 

maintained to record the rate of 

activated carbon injection in accordance 

with the requirements § 63.1350(h)(1). 

(ii) If you use activated carbon 

injection to comply with the D/F 

emissions limitation under § 63.1343(b), 

you must demonstrate compliance using 

a CMS that is installed, operated and 

maintained to record the activated 

carbon injection system gas parameter 

in accordance with the requirements 

§ 63.1350(h)(2). 

(6) THC Compliance. (i) If you are 

subject to limitations on THC emissions 

under § 63.1343(b), you must 

demonstrate compliance using the 

monitoring methods and procedures in 

§ 63.1350(i) and (j). 

(ii) For sources equipped with an 

alkali bypass stack or that exhaust kiln 

gases to a coal mill that exhausts 

through a separate stack, instead of 

installing a CEMS, you may use the 

results of the initial and subsequent 

performance test to demonstrate 

compliance with the THC emissions 

limit. THC must be measured upstream 

of the coal mill. 

(7) Mercury Compliance. If you are 

subject to limitations on mercury 

emissions in § 63.1343(b), you must 

demonstrate compliance using the 

monitoring methods and procedures in 

§ 63.1350(k). 

If you use an integrated sorbent trap 

Hg CEMS to determine ongoing 

compliance, use the procedures 

described in § 63.1348(a)(5) to assign 

hourly mercury concentration values 

and to calculate rolling 30 operating 

data emissions rates. Since you assign 

the mercury concentration measured 

with the sorbent trap to each relevant 

hour respectively for each operating day 

of the integrated period, you may 

schedule the sorbent change periods to 

any time of the day (i.e., the sorbent trap 

replacement need not be scheduled at 

12:00 midnight nor must the sorbent 

trap replacements occur only at integral 

24-hour intervals). 

(8) HCl Compliance. If you are subject 

to limitations on HCl emissions under 

§ 63.1343(b), you must demonstrate 

compliance using the performance test 

methods and procedures in 

§ 63.1349(b)(6). 

(i) For an affected source that is not 

equipped with a wet scrubber, tray 

tower or a dry sorbent injection system, 

you must demonstrate compliance using 

the monitoring methods and procedures 

in § 63.1350(l)(1). 

(ii) For an affected source that is 

equipped with a wet scrubber, tray 

tower or a dry sorbent injection system, 

you must demonstrate compliance using 

the monitoring methods and procedures 

in § 63.1350(l)(2). 

(iii) For sources equipped with an 

alkali bypass stack or that exhaust kiln 

gases to a coal mill that exhausts 

through a separate stack, instead of 

installing a CEMS, you may use the 

results of the initial and subsequent 

performance test to demonstrate 

compliance with the HCl emissions 

limit. 

(iv) As an alternative to paragraph (ii), 

you may use an SO2 CEMS to establish 

an SO2 operating level during your 

initial and repeat HCl performance tests 

and monitor the SO2 level using the 

procedures in § 63.1350(l)(3). 

(c) * * * 

(2) * * * 

(iv) The performance test must be 

completed within 360 hours after the 

planned operational change period 

begins. 

* * * * * 

19. Section 63.1349 is amended by: 

a. Revising paragraph (a) introductory 

text; 

b. Revising paragraph (b)(1); 

c. Revising paragraph (b)(3) 

introductory text; 

d. Revising paragraphs (b)(3)(v) and 

(b)(3)(vi); 

e. Revising paragraphs (b)(4), (b)(5), 

and (b)(6); and 

f. Revising paragraphs (c), (d) and (e). 

The revisions read as follows: 

§ 63.1349 Performance testing 

requirements. 

(a) You must document performance 

test results in complete test reports that 

contain the information required by 

paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(10) of this 

section, as well as all other relevant 

information. As described in 

§ 63.7(c)(2)(i), you must make available 

to the Administrator prior to testing, if 

requested, the site-specific test plan to 

be followed during performance testing. 

* * * * * 

(b)(1) PM Emissions Tests. 

(i) The owner or operator of a kiln 

subject to limitations on PM emissions 

shall demonstrate initial compliance by 

conducting a performance test as 

specified in paragraphs (b)(1)(ii) of this 

section. 

(A) In using a PM CPMS to 

demonstrate compliance, you must 

establish your PM CPMS operating limit 

and determine compliance with it 

according to paragraphs (b)(1)(i)(B) 

through (D) and (b)(1)(ii) and (iii) of this 

section. 

(B) During the initial performance test 

or any such subsequent performance 

test that demonstrates compliance with 

the PM limit, record all hourly average 

output values (e.g., milliamps, stack 

concentration, or other raw data signal) 

from the PM CPMS for the periods 

corresponding to the test runs (e.g., 

three 1-hour average PM OK CPMS 

output values for three 1-hour test runs). 

(C) Determine your operating limit as 

the highest 1-hour average PM CPMS 

output value recorded during the 

performance test. You must verify an 

existing or establish a new operating 

limit after each repeated performance 

test. You must repeat the performance 

test annually and reassess and adjust the 

site-specific operating limit in 

accordance with the results of the 

performance test. 

(D) To determine continuous 

compliance, you must record the PM 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

42404 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 138 / Wednesday, July 18, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

CPMS output data for all periods when 

the process is operating and the PM 

CPMS is not out-of-control. You must 

demonstrate continuous compliance by 

using all quality-assured hourly average 

data collected by the PM CPMS for all 

operating hours to calculate the 

arithmetic average operating parameter 

in units of the operating limit (e.g., 

milliamps, PM concentration, raw data 

signal) on a 30 operating day rolling 

average basis, updated at the end of 

each new kiln operating day. Use 

Equation 3 to determine the 30 kiln 

operating day average. 

Where: 

Hpvi = The hourly parameter value for hour 

i and n is the number of valid hourly 

parameter values collected over 30 kiln 

operating days. 

(ii) Use EPA Method 5 of appendix A 

to part 60 of this chapter to determine 

PM emissions. For each performance 

test, conduct three separate runs under 

the conditions that exist when the 

affected source is operating at the 

highest load or capacity level reasonably 

expected to occur. Conduct each test 

run to collect a minimum sample 

volume of 2 dscm for determining 

compliance with a new source limit and 

1 dscm for determining compliance 

with a existing source limit. Calculate 

the average of the results from three 

runs to determine compliance. You 

need not determine the PM collected in 

the impingers (‘‘back half’’) of the 

Method 5 particulate sampling train to 

demonstrate compliance with the PM 

standards of this subpart. This shall not 

preclude the permitting authority from 

requiring a determination of the ‘‘back 

half’’ for other purposes. 

(iii) When there is an alkali bypass 

associated with a kiln, the main exhaust 

and alkali bypass of the kiln must be 

tested simultaneously and the combined 

emission rate of PM from the kiln and 

alkali bypass must be computed for each 

run using equation 4 of this section. For 

purposes of calculating the combined 

kiln and alkali bypass emissions, you 

may use the results of the initial and 

subsequent Method 5 performance test 

for the alkali bypass, instead of 

installing a CEMS, to demonstrate 

compliance with the PM emissions 

limit. 

Where: 

EC = Combined hourly emission rate of PM 

from the kiln and bypass stack, lb/ton of 

kiln clinker production; 

EK = Hourly emissions of PM emissions from 

the kiln, lb; 

EB = Hourly PM emissions from the alkali 

bypass stack, lb; 

P = Hourly clinker production, tons. 

(iv) The owner or operator of a kiln 

with an in-line raw mill and subject to 

limitations on PM emissions shall 

demonstrate initial compliance by 

conducting separate performance tests 

while the raw mill is under normal 

operating conditions and while the raw 

mill is not operating. 

* * * * * 

(3) D/F Emissions Tests. If you are 

subject to limitations on D/F emissions 

under this subpart, you must conduct a 

performance test using Method 23 of 

appendix A–7 to part 60 of this chapter. 

If your kiln or in-line kiln/raw mill is 

equipped with an alkali bypass, you 

must conduct simultaneous 

performance tests of the kiln or in-line 

kiln/raw mill exhaust and the alkali 

bypass. You may conduct a performance 

test of the alkali bypass exhaust when 

the raw mill of the in-line kiln/raw mill 

is operating or not operating. 

* * * * * 

(v)(A) If sorbent injection is used for 

D/F control, you must record the rate of 

sorbent injection to the kiln exhaust, 

and where applicable, the rate of 

sorbent injection to the alkali bypass 

exhaust, continuously during the period 

of the Method 23 test in accordance 

with the conditions in § 63.1350(m)(9), 

and include the continuous injection 

rate record(s) in the performance test 

report. Determine the sorbent injection 

rate parameters in accordance with 

paragraphs (b)(3)(vi) of this section. 

(B) Include the brand and type of 

sorbent used during the performance 

test in the performance test report. 

(C) Maintain a continuous record of 

either the carrier gas flow rate or the 

carrier gas pressure drop for the 

duration of the performance test. If the 

carrier gas flow rate is used, determine, 

record, and maintain a record of the 

accuracy of the carrier gas flow rate 

monitoring system according to the 

procedures in appendix A to part 75 of 

this chapter. If the carrier gas pressure 

drop is used, determine, record, and 

maintain a record of the accuracy of the 

carrier gas pressure drop monitoring 

system according to the procedures in 

§ 63.1350(m)(6). 

(vi) Calculate the run average sorbent 

injection rate for each run and 

determine and include the average of 

the run average injection rates in the 

performance test report and determine 

the applicable injection rate limit in 

accordance with § 63.1346(c)(1). 

(4)(i) THC Emissions Test. 

(A) If you are subject to limitations on 

THC emissions, you must operate a 

continuous emissions monitoring 

system (CEMS) in accordance with the 

requirements in § 63.1350(i). For the 

purposes of conducting the accuracy 

and quality assurance evaluations for 

CEMS, the THC span value (as propane) 

is 50 ppmvd and the reference method 

(RM) is Method 25A of appendix A to 

part 60 of this chapter. 

(B) Use the THC CEMS to conduct the 

initial compliance test for the first 30 

kiln operating days of kiln operation 

after the compliance date of the rule. 

See 63.1348(a). 

(C) If kiln gases are diverted through 

an alkali bypass or to a coal mill and 

exhausted through a separate stack, you 

must calculate a kiln-specific THC limit 

using equation 5: 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP18JY12.007</GPH> EP18JY12.008</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 138 / Wednesday, July 18, 2012 / Proposed Rules 42405 

Where: 

Cks = Kiln stack concentration (ppmvd) 

Qab = Alkali bypass flow rate (volume/hr) 

Cab = Alkali bypass concentration (ppmvd) 

Qcm = Coal mill flow rate (volume/hr) 

Ccm = Coal mill concentration (ppmvd) 

Qks = Kiln stack flow rate (volume/hr) 

(D) For sources equipped with an 

alkali bypass stack or that exhaust kiln 

gases to a coal mill that exhausts 

through a separate stack, instead of 

installing a CEMS, you may use the 

results of the initial and subsequent 

performance test to demonstrate 

compliance with the THC emissions 

limit. THC must be measured upstream 

of the coal mill. 

(ii) Total Organic HAP Emissions 

Tests. Instead of conducting the 

performance test specified in paragraph 

(b)(4)(i) of this section, you may conduct 

a performance test to determine 

emissions of total organic HAP by 

following the procedures in paragraphs 

(b)(4)(iii) through (b)(4)(iv) of this 

section. 

(iii) Use Method 320 of appendix A to 

this part, Method 18 of Appendix A of 

part 60, ASTM D6348–03 or a 

combination to determine emissions of 

total organic HAP. Each performance 

test must consist of three separate runs 

under the conditions that exist when the 

affected source is operating at the 

representative performance conditions 

in accordance with § 63.7(e). Each run 

must be conducted for at least 1 hour. 

You must conduct the performance test 

while the raw mill of the kiln is 

operating and while the raw mill of the 

kiln is not operating. 

(iv) At the same time that you are 

conducting the performance test for 

total organic HAP, you must also 

determine a site-specific THC emissions 

limit by operating a CEMS in 

accordance with the requirements of 

§ 63.1350(j). The duration of the 

performance test must be 3 hours and 

the highest 1-hour average THC 

concentration (as calculated from the 1- 

minute averages) during the 3-hour test 

must be calculated. Using the fraction of 

time the raw mill is on and the fraction 

of time that the raw mill is off, calculate 

this limit as a weighted average of the 

THC levels measured during raw mill 

on and raw mill off testing. 

(v) You must repeat the performance 

test for organic HAP according to 

paragraph (b)(4)(iii) and (iv) of this 

section no later than 12 months after 

your last test to confirm compliance 

with the organic HAP emissions limit 

and to re-establish your site-specific 

THC emissions limit. 

(vi) If the THC level exceeds by 10 

percent or more your site-specific THC 

emissions limit, you must 

(A) As soon as possible but no later 

than 30 days after the exceedance, 

conduct an inspection and take 

corrective action to return the THC 

CEMS measurements to within the 

established value; and 

(B) Within 90 days of the exceedance 

or at the time of the annual compliance 

test, whichever comes first, conduct 

another performance test to determine 

compliance with the organic HAP limit 

and to verify or re-establish your sitespecific THC emissions limit. 

(5) Mercury Emissions Tests. If you 

are subject to limitations on mercury 

emissions, you must operate a mercury 

CEMS in accordance with the 

requirements of § 63.1350(k). The initial 

compliance test must be based on the 

first 30 kiln operating days in which the 

affected source operates using a mercury 

CEMS after the compliance date of the 

rule. See § 63.1348(a). 

(i) If you are using a mercury CEMS 

or a sorbent trap monitoring system, you 

must install, operate, calibrate, and 

maintain an instrument for 

continuously measuring and recording 

the exhaust gas flow rate to the 

atmosphere according to the 

requirements in § 63.1350(k)(5). 

(ii) Calculate the emission rate using 

the equations 6 of this section: 

Where: 

E30D = 30-day rolling emission rate of 

mercury, lb/MM tons clinker; 

Ci = Concentration of mercury for operating 

hour i, mg/scm; 

Qi = Volumetric flow rate of effluent gas for 

operating hour i, where Cs and Qs are on 

the same basis (either wet or dry), scm/ 

hr; 

K = Conversion factor, 1 lb/454,000,000 mg; 

n = Number of kiln operating hours in a 30 

kiln operating day period, n = 1 to 720. 

(6) HCl Emissions Tests. For a source 

subject to limitations on HCl emissions 

you must conduct performance testing 

by one of the following methods: 

(i)(A) If the source is equipped with 

a wet scrubber, tray tower or dry 

scrubber, you must conduct 

performance testing using Method 321 

of appendix A to this part unless you 

have installed a CEMS that meets the 

requirements § 63.1350(l)(1). 

(B) You must establish site specific 

parameter limits by using the CPMS 

required in § 63.1350(l)(1). For a wet 

scrubber or tray tower, measure and 

record the pressure drop across the 

scrubber and/or liquid flow rate and pH 

in intervals of no more than 15 minutes 

during the HCl test. Compute and record 

the 24-hour average pressure drop, pH, 

and average scrubber water flow rate for 

each sampling run in which the 

applicable emissions limit is met. For a 

dry scrubber, measure and record the 

sorbent injection rate in intervals of no 

more than 15 minutes during the HCl 

test. Compute and record the 24-hour 

average sorbent injection rate and 

average sorbent injection rate for each 

sampling run in which the applicable 

emissions limit is met. 

(ii)(A) If the source is not controlled 

by a wet scrubber, tray tower or dry 

sorbent injection system, you must 

operate a CEMS in accordance with the 

requirements of § 63.1350(l)(1). See 

§ 63.1348(a). 

(B) The initial compliance test must 

be based on the 30 kiln operating days 

that occur after the compliance date of 

this rule in which the affected source 

operates using a HCl CEMS. Hourly HCl 

concentration data must be obtained 

according to § 63.1350(l). 

(iii) As an alternative to paragraph (i), 

you may choose to monitor SO2

emissions using a CEMS in accordance 

with the requirements of § 63.1350(l)(3). 

You must establish an SO2 operating 

limit equal to the highest 1 hour average 

recorded during the HCl stack test. This 

operating limit will apply only for 

demonstrating HCl compliance. 

(iv) If kiln gases are diverted through 

an alkali bypass or to a coal mill and 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP18JY12.009</GPH> EP18JY12.010</GPH>
42406 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 138 / Wednesday, July 18, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

exhausted through a separate stack, you must calculate a kiln-specific HCl limit 

using equation 7: 

Where: 

Cks = Kiln stack concentration (ppmvd) 

Qab = Alkali bypass flow rate (volume/hr) 

Cab = Alkali bypass concentration (ppmvd) 

Qcm = Coal mill flow rate (volume/hr) 

Ccm = Coal mill concentration (ppmvd) 

Qks = Kiln stack flow rate (volume/hr) 

(c) Performance Test Frequency. 

Except as provided in § 63.1348(b), 

performance tests are required at regular 

intervals for affected sources that are 

subject to a dioxin or HCl emissions 

limit and must be repeated every 30 

months except for pollutants where that 

specific pollutant is monitored using 

CEMS. Tests for PM and total organic 

HAP are repeated every 12 months. 

(d) Performance Test Reporting 

Requirements. 

(1) You must submit the information 

specified in paragraphs (d)(1) and (d)(2) 

of this section no later than 60 days 

following the initial performance test. 

All reports must be signed by a 

responsible official. 

(i) The initial performance test data as 

recorded under paragraph (b) of this 

section. 

(ii) The values for the site-specific 

operating limits or parameters 

established pursuant to paragraphs 

(b)(3), (b)(4)(iii), (b)(5)(ii), and (b)(6)(i) of 

this section, as applicable, and a 

description, including sample 

calculations, of how the operating 

parameters were established during the 

initial performance test. 

(2) As of December 31, 2011 and 

within 60 days after the date of 

completing each performance 

evaluation or test, as defined in § 63.2, 

conducted to demonstrate compliance 

with any standard covered by this 

subpart, you must submit the relative 

accuracy test audit data and 

performance test data, except opacity 

data, to the EPA by successfully 

submitting the data electronically to the 

EPA’s Central Data Exchange (CDX) by 

using the Electronic Reporting 

Tool(ERT) (see http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ 

chief/ert/ert_tool.html/). 

(e) Conditions of performance tests. 

Conduct performance tests under such 

conditions as the Administrator 

specifies to the owner or operator based 

on representative performance of the 

affected source for the period being 

tested. Upon request, you must make 

available to the Administrator such 

records as may be necessary to 

determine the conditions of 

performance tests. 

20. Section 63.1350 is amended by: 

a. Revising paragraphs (a) through (d); 

b. Revising paragraph (f) introductory 

text; 

c. Revising paragraphs (f)(1)(iv) 

through (f)(1)(vi); 

d. Revising paragraphs (f)(2)(i) and 

(f)(2)(iii); 

e. Revising paragraphs (f)(3) and (f)(4); 

f. Revising paragraph (g)(1) 

introductory text; 

g. Revising paragraphs (g)(2) and 

(g)(4); 

h. Revising paragraph (h)(1)(ii); 

i. Revising paragraphs (i)(1) and (i)(2); 

j. Adding paragraph (i)(3); 

k. Revising paragraph (k); 

l. Revising paragraph (l); 

m. Revising paragraph (m) 

introductory text; 

n. Revising paragraph (m)(7)(i); 

o. Revising introductory text for 

paragraphs (m)(9); 

p. Revising paragraph (m)(10), and 

paragraph (m)(11)(v); 

q. Revising introductory text for 

paragraphs (n), (o), and (p); 

r. Removing and reserving paragraph 

(n)(3); and 

s. Revising introductory text for 

paragraphs (p)(1), (p)(2), and (p)(5). 

The revisions read as follows: 

§ 63.1350 Monitoring requirements. 

(a)(1) Following the compliance date, 

the owner or operator must demonstrate 

compliance with this subpart on a 

continuous basis by meeting the 

requirements of this section. 

(2) All continuous monitoring data for 

periods of startup and shutdown must 

be compiled and averaged separately 

from data gathered during other 

operating periods. 

(3) For each existing unit that is 

equipped with a CMS, maintain the 

average emissions or the operating 

parameter values within the operating 

parameter limits established through 

performance tests. 

(4) Any instance where the owner or 

operator fails to comply with the 

continuous monitoring requirements of 

this section is a deviation. 

(b) PM Monitoring Requirements. 

(1)(i) PM CPMS. You will use a PM 

CPMS to establish a site-specific 

operating limit corresponding to the 

results of the performance test 

demonstrating compliance with the PM 

limit. You will conduct your 

performance test using Method 5 at 

appendix A–3 to part 60 of this chapter. 

You will use the PM CPMS to 

demonstrate continuous compliance 

with this operating limit. You must 

repeat the performance test annually 

and reassess and adjust the site-specific 

operating limit in accordance with the 

results of the performance test. 

(ii) To determine continuous 

compliance, you must record the PM 

CPMS output data for all periods when 

the process is operating and the PM 

CPMS is not out-of-control. You must 

demonstrate continuous compliance by 

using all quality-assured hourly average 

data collected by the PM CPMS for all 

operating hours to calculate the 

arithmetic average operating parameter 

in units of the operating limit (e.g., 

milliamps, PM concentration, raw data 

signal) on a 30 operating day rolling 

average basis, updated at the end of 

each new kiln operating day. 

(iii) For any deviation of the 30 

process operating day PM CPMS average 

value from the established operating 

parameter limit, you must 

(A) Within 48 hours of the deviation, 

visually inspect the APCD; 

(B) If inspection of the APCD 

identifies the cause of the deviation, 

take corrective action as soon as 

possible, and return the PM CPMS 

measurement to within the established 

value; and 

(C) Within 45 days of the deviation or 

at the time of the annual compliance 

test, whichever comes first, conduct a 

PM emissions compliance test to 

determine compliance with the PM 

emissions limit and to verify or reestablish the CPMS operating limit. You 

are not required to conduct additional 

testing for any deviations that occur 

between the time of the original 

deviation and the PM emissions 

compliance test required under this 

paragraph. 

(iv) PM CPMS deviations from the 

operating limit leading to more than 

four required performance tests in a 12- 

month process operating period (rolling 

monthly) constitute a separate violation 

of this subpart. 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP18JY12.011</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 138 / Wednesday, July 18, 2012 / Proposed Rules 42407 

(2) Kilns equipped with an alkali 

bypass. If kiln gases are diverted 

through an alkali bypass, you must 

account for the PM emitted from the 

alkali bypass stack by following the 

procedures in (b)(2)(i) through (v) of this 

section: 

(i) You must install, operate, calibrate, 

and maintain an instrument for 

continuously measuring and recording 

the exhaust gas flow rate to the 

atmosphere from the alkali bypass stack 

according to the requirements in 

paragraphs (n)(1) through (n)(10) of this 

section. 

(ii) Develop a PM emissions factor by 

conducting annual performance tests 

using Method 5 to measure the 

concentration of PM in the gases 

exhausted from the alkali bypass stack. 

(iii) On a continuous basis, determine 

the mass emissions of PM in pounds per 

hour from the alkali bypass exhaust by 

using the PM emissions factor and the 

continuously measured exhaust gas flow 

rates. 

(iv) Sum the hourly PM emissions 

from the kiln and alkali bypass to 

determine total hourly PM emissions. 

Using hourly clinker production, 

calculate the hourly emissions rate in 

pounds per ton of clinker to determine 

your 30 day rolling average. 

(v) If you monitor compliance using a 

PM CPMS, you must determine 

compliance according to paragraphs 

(b)(3)(v)(A) through (C) of this section: 

(A) Conduct an annual performance 

test using Method 5 to determine total 

PM emissions from the alkali bypass 

and kiln. 

(B) To determine continuous 

compliance, you must establish your 

PM CPMS operating limit according to 

paragraph (b)(1) of this section. 

(C) You must establish the maximum 

exhaust gas flow rate for the alkali 

bypass during your annual performance 

test. You must continuously monitor the 

flow rate until the next performance 

test. If there is a deviation of the 

monitored flow rate from the maximum 

established during your last 

performance test by more than 10 

percent, you must retest the kiln and 

alkali bypass to determine compliance. 

(c) [Reserved] 

(d) Clinker Production Monitoring 

Requirements. If you are subject to an 

emissions limitation on PM or mercury 

emissions (lb/ton of clinker), you must: 

(1) Determine hourly clinker 

production by one of two methods: 

(i) Install, calibrate, maintain, and 

operate a permanent weigh scale system 

to measure and record weight rates in 

tons-mass per hour of the amount of 

clinker produced. The system of 

measuring hourly clinker production 

must be maintained within ±5 percent 

accuracy, or 

(ii) Install, calibrate, maintain, and 

operate a permanent weigh scale system 

to measure and record weight rates in 

tons-mass per hour of the amount of 

feed to the kiln. The system of 

measuring feed must be maintained 

within ±5 percent accuracy. Calculate 

your hourly clinker production rate 

using a kiln specific feed to clinker ratio 

based on reconciled clinker production 

determined for accounting purposes and 

recorded feed rates. Update this ratio 

monthly. Note that if this ratio changes 

at clinker reconciliation, you must use 

the new ratio going forward, but you do 

not have to retroactively change clinker 

production rates previously estimated. 

(iii) [Reserved] 

(2) Determine, record, and maintain a 

record of the accuracy of the system of 

measuring hourly clinker production (or 

feed mass flow if applicable) before 

initial use (for new sources) or by the 

effective compliance date of this rule 

(for existing sources). During each 

quarter of source operation, you must 

determine, record, and maintain a 

record of the ongoing accuracy of the 

system of measuring hourly clinker 

production (or feed mass flow). 

(3) If you measure clinker production 

directly, record the daily clinker 

production rates; if you measure the 

kiln feed rates and calculate clinker 

production, record the daily kiln feed 

and clinker production rates. 

(4) Develop an emissions monitoring 

plan in accordance with paragraphs 

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

(e) [Reserved] 

(f) Opacity Monitoring Requirements. 

If you are subject to a limitation on 

opacity under § 63.1345, you must 

conduct required opacity monitoring in 

accordance with the provisions of 

paragraphs (f)(1)(i) through (f)(1)(vii) of 

this section and in accordance with 

your monitoring plan developed under 

§ 63.1350(p). You must also develop an 

opacity monitoring plan in accordance 

with paragraphs (p)(1) through (p)(4) 

and paragraph (o)(5), if applicable, of 

this section. 

(1) * * * 

(iv) If visible emissions are observed 

during any Method 22 performance test, 

of appendix A–7 to part 60 of this 

chapter, you must conduct 30 opacity 

observations in accordance with Method 

9 of appendix A–4 to part 60 of this 

chapter. The Method 9 performance test, 

of appendix A–4 to part 60 of this 

chapter, must begin within 1 hour of 

any observation of visible emissions. 

(v) The requirement to conduct 

Method 22 visible emissions monitoring 

under this paragraph do not apply to 

any totally enclosed conveying system 

transfer point, regardless of the location 

of the transfer point. The enclosures for 

these transfer points must be operated 

and maintained as total enclosures on a 

continuing basis in accordance with the 

facility operations and maintenance 

plan. 

(vi) If any partially enclosed or 

unenclosed conveying system transfer 

point is located in a building, you must 

conduct a Method 22 performance test, 

of appendix A–7 to part 60 of this 

chapter, according to the requirements 

of paragraphs (f)(1)(i) through (f)(1)(iv) 

of this section for each such conveying 

system transfer point located within the 

building, or for the building itself, 

according to paragraph (f)(1)(vii) of this 

section. 

* * * * * 

(2)(i) For a raw mill or finish mill, you 

must monitor opacity by conducting 

daily visible emissions observations of 

the mill sweep and air separator PM 

control devices (PMCD) of these affected 

sources in accordance with the 

procedures of Method 22 of appendix 

A–7 to part 60 of this chapter. The 

duration of the Method 22 performance 

test must be 6 minutes. 

* * * * * 

(iii) If visible emissions are observed 

during the follow-up Method 22 

performance test required by paragraph 

(f)(2)(ii) of this section from any stack 

from which visible emissions were 

observed during the previous Method 22 

performance test required by paragraph 

(f)(2)(i) of the section, you must then 

conduct an opacity test of each stack 

from which emissions were observed 

during the follow up Method 22 

performance test in accordance with 

Method 9 of appendix A–4 to part 60 of 

this chapter. The duration of the 

Method 9 test must be 30 minutes. 

(3) If visible emissions are observed 

during any Method 22 visible emissions 

test conducted under paragraphs (f)(1) 

or (f)(2) of this section, you must 

initiate, within one hour, the corrective 

actions specified in your operation and 

maintenance plan as required in 

§ 63.1347. 

(4) The requirements under paragraph 

(f)(2) of this section to conduct daily 

Method 22 testing do not apply to any 

specific raw mill or finish mill equipped 

with a COMS or BLDS. 

(i) If the owner or operator chooses to 

install a COMS in lieu of conducting the 

daily visible emissions testing required 

under paragraph (f)(2) of this section, 

then the COMS must be installed at the 

outlet of the PM control device of the 

raw mill or finish mill and the COMS 

must be installed, maintained, 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

42408 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 138 / Wednesday, July 18, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

calibrated, and operated as required by 

the general provisions in subpart A of 

this part and according to PS–1 of 

appendix B to part 60 of this chapter. 

(ii) If you choose to install a BLDS in 

lieu of conducting the daily visible 

emissions testing required under 

paragraph (f)(2) of this section, the 

requirements in paragraphs (m)(1) 

through (m)(4), (m)(10) and (m)(11) of 

this section apply. 

(g) * * * 

(1) You must install, calibrate, 

maintain, and continuously operate a 

CMS to record the temperature of the 

exhaust gases from the kiln and alkali 

bypass, if applicable, at the inlet to, or 

upstream of, the kiln and/or alkali 

bypass PMCDs. 

* * * * * 

(2) You must monitor and 

continuously record the temperature of 

the exhaust gases from the kiln and 

alkali bypass, if applicable, at the inlet 

to the kiln and/or alkali bypass PMCD. 

* * * * * 

(4) Calculate the rolling three-hour 

average temperature using the average of 

180 successive one-minute average 

temperatures. See § 63.1349(b)(3). 

* * * * * 

(h) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(ii) Each hour, calculate the threehour rolling average activated carbon 

injection rate for the previous 3 hours of 

process operation. See § 63.1349(b)(3). 

* * * * * 

(i) * * * 

(1) You must 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 systems 

found in the general provisions, subpart 

A of this part. The owner or operator 

must operate and maintain each CEMS 

according to the quality assurance 

requirements in Procedure 1 of 

appendix F in part 60 of this chapter. 

(2) For sources equipped with an 

alkali bypass stack or that exhaust kiln 

gases to a coal mill that exhausts 

through a separate stack, instead of 

installing a CEMS, you may use the 

results of the initial and subsequent 

performance test to demonstrate 

compliance with the THC emissions 

limit. 

(3) Performance tests on alkali bypass 

and coal mill stacks must be conducted 

using Method 25A in appendix A to 40 

CFR part 60 and repeated annually. 

* * * * * 

(k) Mercury Monitoring Requirements. 

If you have a kiln subject to an 

emissions limitation on mercury 

emissions, you must install and operate 

a mercury continuous emissions 

monitoring system (Hg CEMS) in 

accordance with Performance 

Specification 12A (PS 12A) of appendix 

B to part 60 of this chapter or a sorbent 

trap-based integrated monitoring system 

in accordance with Performance 

Specification 12B (PS 12B) of appendix 

B to part 60 of this chapter. You must 

monitor mercury continuously 

according to paragraphs (k)(1) through 

(k)(5) of this section. You must also 

develop an emissions monitoring plan 

in accordance with paragraphs (p)(1) 

through (p)(4) of this section. 

(1) You must use a span value for any 

Hg CEMS that represents the mercury 

concentration corresponding to 

approximately two times the emissions 

standard rounded up to the nearest 

multiple of 5 mg/m3 of total mercury. As 

specified in PS 12A, Section 6.1.1, the 

data recorder output range must include 

the full range of expected Hg 

concentration values which would 

include those expected during ‘‘mill 

off’’ conditions. 

(2) In order to quality assure data 

measured above the span value, you 

must use one of the options in 

paragraphs (k)(2)(i) through (k)(2)(iii) 

below. 

(i) Include a second span that 

encompasses the Hg emission 

concentrations expected to be 

encountered during ‘‘mill off’’ 

conditions. This second span may be 

rounded to a multiple of 5 mg/m3 of total 

mercury. The requirements of PS–12A, 

shall be followed for this second span 

with the exception that a RATA with 

the mill off is not required. 

(ii) Conduct an additional ‘above 

span’ daily calibration using a Hg 

reference gas standard at a 

concentration level between 50 and 85 

percent of the highest hourly Hg 

concentration expected during ‘‘mill 

off’’ conditions. The ‘above span’ 

reference gas must meet the 

requirements of PS 12A, Section 7.1 and 

be introduced at the probe. The ‘above 

span’ calibration is successful if the 

value measured by the Hg CEMS is 

within 20 percent of the certified value 

of the reference gas. Record and report 

the results of this procedure as you 

would for a daily calibration. 

(iii) If you choose not to conduct an 

additional daily calibration, then quality 

assure any data above the span value 

established in paragraph (k)(1) of this 

section using the following procedure. 

Any time the one hour average 

measured concentration of Hg exceeds 

the span value you must, within 24 

hours, introduce a higher, ‘above span’ 

Hg reference gas standard to the Hg 

CEMS. The ‘above span’ reference gas 

must meet the requirements of PS 12A, 

Section 7.1, must be of a concentration 

level greater than 80 percent of the 

highest hourly concentration measured 

during the period of measurements 

above span, and must be introduced at 

the probe. Record and report the results 

of this procedure as you would for a 

daily calibration. The ‘above span’ 

calibration is successful if the value 

measured by the Hg CEMS is within 20 

percent of the certified value of the 

reference gas. If the value measured by 

the Hg CEMS exceeds 20 percent of the 

certified value of the reference gas, then 

you must normalize the one-hour 

average stack gas values measured above 

the span during the 24-hour period 

preceding the ‘above span’ calibration 

for reporting based on the Hg CEMS 

response to the reference gas as follows: 

(3) You must operate and maintain 

each Hg CEMS or sorbent trap-based 

integrated monitoring system according 

to the quality assurance requirements in 

Procedure 5 of appendix F to part 60 of 

this chapter. 

(4) Relative accuracy testing of 

mercury monitoring systems under PS 

12A, PS 12B, or Procedure 5 must be 

conducted at normal operating 

conditions with the raw mill on. 

(5) If you use a Hg CEMS or a sorbent 

trap-based integrated monitoring 

system, you must install, operate, 

calibrate, and maintain an instrument 

for continuously measuring and 

recording the exhaust gas flow rate to 

the atmosphere according to the 

requirements in paragraphs (n)(1) 

through (n)(10) of this section. If kiln 

gases are diverted through an alkali 

bypass or to a coal mill and exhausted 

through separate stacks, you must 

account for the mercury emitted from 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP18JY12.012</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 138 / Wednesday, July 18, 2012 / Proposed Rules 42409 

those stacks by following the procedures 

in (k)(5)(i) through (v) of this section: 

(i) You must install, operate, calibrate, 

and maintain an instrument for 

continuously measuring and recording 

the exhaust gas flow rate to the 

atmosphere according to the 

requirements in paragraphs (n)(1) 

through (n)(10) of this section. 

(ii) Develop a mercury hourly mass 

emissions rate by conducting annual 

performance tests using Method 29 to 

measure the concentration of mercury in 

the gases exhausted from the alkali 

bypass and coal mill. 

(iii) On a continuous basis, determine 

the mass emissions of mercury in 

pounds per hour from the alkali bypass 

and coal mill exhausts by using the 

mercury hourly emissions rate and the 

continuously measured exhaust gas flow 

rates. 

(iv) Sum the hourly mercury 

emissions from the kiln, alkali bypass 

and coal mill to determine total mercury 

emissions. Using hourly clinker 

production, calculate the hourly 

emissions rate in pounds per ton of 

clinker to determine your 30 day rolling 

average. 

(v) If mercury emissions from the coal 

mill are below the method detection 

limit for two consecutive annual 

performance tests, you may reduce the 

frequency of the performance tests of 

coal mills to once every 30 months. If 

the measured mercury concentration 

exceeds the method detection limit, you 

must revert to testing annually until two 

consecutive annual tests are below the 

method detection limit. 

(6) If you operate an integrated 

sampling Hg CEMS conforming to PS 

12B, you may use a monitoring period 

from 24 hours to 168 hours in length. 

You should use a monitoring period that 

is a multiple of 24 hours (except during 

relative accuracy testing as allowed in 

PS 12B). 

(l) HCl Monitoring Requirements. If 

you are subject to an emissions 

limitation on HCl emissions in 

§ 63.1343, you must monitor HCl 

emissions continuously according to 

paragraph (l)(1) or (2) and paragraphs 

(m)(1) through (m)(4) of this section or, 

if your kiln is controlled using a wet or 

dry scrubber or tray tower, you 

alternatively may monitor SO2

emissions continuously according to 

paragraph (l)(3) of this section. You 

must also develop an emissions 

monitoring plan in accordance with 

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

section. 

(1) If you monitor compliance with 

the HCl emissions limit by operating an 

HCl CEMS, you must do so in 

accordance with Performance 

Specification 15 (PS 15) of appendix B 

to part 60 of this chapter, or, upon 

promulgation, in accordance with any 

other performance specification for HCl 

CEMS in appendix B to part 60 of this 

chapter. You must operate, maintain, 

and quality assure an HCl CEMS 

installed and certified under PS 15 

according to the quality assurance 

requirements in Procedure 1 of 

appendix F to part 60 of this chapter 

except that the Relative Accuracy Test 

Audit requirements of Procedure 1 must 

be replaced with the validation 

requirements and criteria of sections 

11.1.1 and 12.0 of PS 15. If you install 

and operate an HCl CEMS in accordance 

with any other performance 

specification for HCl CEMS in appendix 

B to part 60 of this chapter, you must 

operate, maintain and quality assure the 

HCl CEMS using the procedure of 

appendix F to part 60 of this chapter 

applicable to the performance 

specification. You must use Method 321 

of appendix A to part 63 of this chapter 

as the reference test method for 

conducting relative accuracy testing. 

The span value and calibration 

requirements in paragraphs (l)(1)(i) and 

(l)(1)(ii) below apply to HCl CEMS other 

than those installed and certified under 

PS 15. 

(i) You must use a span value for any 

HCl CEMS that represents the intended 

upper limit of the HCl concentration 

measurement range during normal ‘‘mill 

on’’ operation. The span value should 

be equivalent to approximately two 

times the emissions standard and it may 

be rounded to the nearest multiple of 5 

ppm of HCl. The HCl CEMS data 

recorder output range must include the 

full range of expected HCl concentration 

values which would include those 

expected during ‘‘mill off’’ conditions. 

(ii) In order to quality assure data 

measured above the span value, you 

must use one of the two options in 

paragraphs (l)(1)(ii)(A) and (l)(1)(ii)(B) 

below. 

(A) Conduct an additional ‘above 

span’ daily calibration using a HCl 

reference gas standard at a 

concentration level between 50 and 85 

percent of the highest hourly HCl 

concentration expected during ‘‘mill 

off’’ conditions. The ‘above span’ 

reference gas must meet the 

requirements of the applicable 

performance specification and be 

introduced at the probe. The ‘above 

span’ calibration is successful if the 

value measured by the HCl CEMS is 

within 20 percent of the certified value 

of the reference gas. If the value 

measured by the HCl CEMS is not 

within 20 percent of the certified value 

of the reference gas, then you must 

normalize the stack gas values measured 

above span as described in paragraph 

(l)(1)(ii)(C) below. Record and report the 

results of this procedure as you would 

for a daily calibration. 

(B) If you choose not to conduct an 

additional calibration on a daily basis, 

then quality assure any data above the 

span value established in paragraph 

(l)(1)(i) of this section using the 

following procedure. Any time the 

average measured concentration of HCl 

exceeds or is expected to exceed the 

span value for greater than two hours 

you must, within a period 24 hours 

before or after the ‘above span’ period, 

introduce a higher, ‘above span’ HCl 

reference gas standard to the HCl CEMS. 

The ‘above span’ reference gas must 

meet the requirements of the applicable 

performance specification and be of a 

concentration level greater than or equal 

to 80 percent of the highest hourly 

concentration measured during the 

period of measurements above span, 

and must be introduced at the probe. 

Record and report the results of this 

procedure as you would for a daily 

calibration. The ‘above span’ calibration 

is successful if the value measured by 

the HCl CEMS is within 20 percent of 

the certified value of the reference gas. 

If the value measured by the HCl CEMS 

is not within 20 percent of the certified 

value of the reference gas, then you 

must normalize the stack gas values 

measured above span as described in 

paragraph (l)(1)(ii)(C) below. If the 

‘above span’ calibration is conducted 

during the period when measured 

emissions are above span and there is a 

failure to collect the required minimum 

number of data points in an hour due to 

the calibration duration, then you must 

determine the emissions average for that 

missed hour as the average of hourly 

averages for the hour preceding the 

missed hour and the hour following the 

missed hour. 

(C) In the event that the ‘above span’ 

calibration is not successful (i.e., the 

HCl CEMS measured value is not within 

20 percent of the certified value of the 

reference gas), then you must normalize 

the one-hour average stack gas values 

measured above the span during the 24- 

hour period preceding or following the 

‘above span’ calibration for reporting 

based on the HCl CEMS response to the 

reference gas as follows: 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

42410 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 138 / Wednesday, July 18, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

(2) Install, operate, and maintain a 

CMS to monitor wet scrubber or tray 

tower parameters, as specified in 

paragraphs (m)(5) and (m)(7) of this 

section, and dry scrubber, as specified 

in paragraph (m)(8) of this section. 

(3) If the source is equipped with a 

wet or dry scrubber or tray tower, and 

you choose to monitor SO2 emissions, 

monitor SO2 emissions continuously 

according to the requirements of 

§ 60.63(e) through (f) of part 60 subpart 

F of this chapter. If SO2 levels increase 

above the 1 hour average SO2 operating 

limit established during your 

performance test, you must 

(i) As soon as possible but no later 

than 48 hours after you deviate from the 

established SO2 value conduct an 

inspection and take corrective action to 

return the SO2 emissions to within the 

operating limit; and 

(ii) Within 60 days of the deviation or 

at the time of the next compliance test, 

whichever comes first, conduct an HCl 

emissions compliance test to determine 

compliance with the HCl emissions 

limit and to verify or re-establish the 

SO2 CEMS operating limit. 

(m) Parameter Monitoring 

Requirements. If you have an operating 

limit that requires the use of a CMS, you 

must install, operate, and maintain each 

continuous parameter monitoring 

system (CMS) according to the 

procedures in paragraphs (m)(1) through 

(4) of this section by the compliance 

date specified in § 63.1351. You must 

also meet the applicable specific 

parameter monitoring requirements in 

paragraphs (m)(5) through (m)(11) that 

are applicable to you. 

* * * * * 

(7) * * * 

(i) Locate the pH sensor in a position 

that provides a representative 

measurement of wet scrubber or tray 

tower effluent pH. 

* * * * * 

(9) Mass Flow Rate (for Sorbent 

Injection) Monitoring Requirements. If 

you have an operating limit that 

requires the use of equipment to 

monitor sorbent injection rate (e.g., 

weigh belt, weigh hopper, or hopper 

flow measurement device), you must 

meet the requirements in paragraphs 

(m)(9)(i) through (iii) of this section. 

These requirements also apply to the 

sorbent injection equipment of a dry 

scrubber. 

* * * * * 

(10) Bag leak detection monitoring 

requirements. If you elect to use a fabric 

filter bag leak detection system to 

comply with the requirements of this 

subpart, you must install, calibrate, 

maintain, and continuously operate a 

BLDS as specified in paragraphs 

(m)(10)(i) through (viii) of this section. 

(i) You must install and operate a 

BLDS for each exhaust stack of the 

fabric filter. 

(ii) Each BLDS must be installed, 

operated, calibrated, and maintained in 

a manner consistent with the 

manufacturer’s written specifications 

and recommendations and in 

accordance with the guidance provided 

in EPA–454/R–98–015, September 1997. 

(iii) The BLDS must be certified by 

the manufacturer to be capable of 

detecting PM emissions at 

concentrations of 10 or fewer milligrams 

per actual cubic meter. 

(iv) The BLDS sensor must provide 

output of relative or absolute PM 

loadings. 

(v) The BLDS must be equipped with 

a device to continuously record the 

output signal from the sensor. 

(vi) The BLDS must be equipped with 

an alarm system that will alert an 

operator automatically when an increase 

in relative PM emissions over a preset 

level is detected. The alarm must be 

located such that the alert is detected 

and recognized easily by an operator. 

(vii) For positive pressure fabric filter 

systems that do not duct all 

compartments of cells to a common 

stack, a BLDS must be installed in each 

baghouse compartment or cell. 

* * * * * 

(11) * * * 

(v) Cleaning the BLDS probe or 

otherwise repairing the BLDS; or 

* * * * * 

(n) Continuous Flow Rate Monitoring 

System. You must install, operate, 

calibrate, and maintain instruments, 

according to the requirements in 

paragraphs (n)(1) through (10) of this 

section, for continuously measuring and 

recording the stack gas flow rate to 

allow determination of the pollutant 

mass emissions rate to the atmosphere 

from sources subject to an emissions 

limitation that has a pounds per ton of 

clinker unit. 

* * * * * 

(3) [Reserved] 

* * * * * 

(o) Alternate Monitoring 

Requirements Approval. You may 

submit an application to the 

Administrator for approval of alternate 

monitoring requirements to demonstrate 

compliance with the emission standards 

of this subpart, except for emission 

standards for THC, subject to the 

provisions of paragraphs (o)(1) through 

(o)(6) of this section. 

* * * * * 

(p) Development and Submittal (Upon 

Request) of Monitoring Plans. If you 

demonstrate compliance with any 

applicable emissions limit through 

performance stack testing or other 

emissions monitoring, you must 

develop a site-specific monitoring plan 

according to the requirements in 

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

section. This requirement also applies to 

you if you petition the EPA 

Administrator for alternative monitoring 

parameters under paragraph (o) of this 

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

you must also meet the requirements 

specified in paragraph (p)(5) of this 

section. 

(1) For each CMS required in this 

section, you must develop, and submit 

to the permitting authority for approval 

upon request, a site-specific monitoring 

plan that addresses paragraphs (p)(1)(i) 

through (iii) of this section. You must 

submit this site-specific monitoring 

plan, if requested, at least 30 days before 

your initial performance evaluation of 

your CMS. 

* * * * * 

(2) In your site-specific monitoring 

plan, you must also address paragraphs 

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

* * * * * 

(5) BLDS Monitoring Plan. Each 

monitoring plan must describe the items 

in paragraphs (p)(5)(i) through (v) of this 

section. At a minimum, you must retain 

records related to the site-specific 

monitoring plan and information 

discussed in paragraphs (m)(1) through 

(4), (m)(10) and (m)(11) of this section 

for a period of 5 years, with at least the 

first 2 years on-site; 

* * * * * 

21. Section 63.1351 is amended by: 

a. Revising paragraphs (c) and (d); and 

b. Adding paragraph (e). 

The revisions and addition read as 

follows: 

§ 63.1351 Compliance dates. 

* * * * * 

(c) The compliance date for existing 

sources for all the requirements that 

become effective on [DATE 60 DAYS 

AFTER PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL 

RULE IN THE Federal Register] will be 

September 9, 2015.]. 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP18JY12.013</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 138 / Wednesday, July 18, 2012 / Proposed Rules 42411 

(d) The compliance date for new 

sources is May 6, 2009 or startup, 

whichever is later. 

(e) The compliance date for existing 

and new sources with the requirements 

for open clinker storage piles in 

§ 63.1343(c) is [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER 

PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE 

IN THE Federal Register] or startup, 

whichever is later. 

22. Section 63.1352 is amended by 

revising paragraph (b) to read as follows: 

§ 63.1352 Additional test methods. 

* * * * * 

(b) Owners or operators conducting 

tests to determine the rates of emission 

of specific organic HAP from raw 

material dryers, and kilns at Portland 

cement manufacturing facilities, solely 

for use in applicability determinations 

under § 63.1340 of this subpart are 

permitted to use Method 320 of 

appendix A to this part, or Method 18 

of appendix A to part 60 of this chapter. 

23. Section 63.1353 is amended by 

adding paragraph (b)(6) to read as 

follows: 

§ 63.1353 Notification Requirements. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(6) Within 48 hours of a deviation that 

triggers retesting to establish 

compliance and new operating limits, 

notify the appropriate permitting agency 

of the planned performance tests. The 

notification requirements of § 63.7(e) 

and 63.9(e) do not apply to retesting 

required for deviations under this 

subpart. 

* * * * * 

24. Section 63.1354 is amended by: 

a. Removing and reserving paragraphs 

(b)(4) and (5); 

b. Revising paragraph (b)(9)(vi); 

c. Adding paragraph (b)(9)(vii); and 

d. Revising paragraph (c). 

The revisions, addition, and deletion 

read as follows: 

§ 63.1354 Reporting requirements. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(9) * * * 

(vi) For each PM, HCl, Hg, and THC 

CEMS or Hg sorbent trap monitoring 

system, within 60 days after the 

reporting periods, you must submit 

reports to EPA’s WebFIRE database by 

using the Compliance and Emissions 

Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI) that is 

accessed through EPA’s Central Data 

Exchange (CDX) (www.epa.gov/cdx). 

You must use the appropriate electronic 

reporting form in CEDRI or provide an 

alternate electronic file consistent with 

EPA’s reporting form output format. For 

each reporting period, the reports must 

include all of the calculated 30- 

operating day rolling average values 

derived from the CEMS or Hg sorbent 

trap monitoring systems. 

(vii) In response to each deviation 

from an emissions standard or 

established operating parameter limit, 

the date, duration and description of 

each deviation and the specific actions 

taken for each deviation including 

inspections, corrective actions and 

repeat performance tests and the results 

of those actions. 

* * * * * 

(c) Reporting deviations due to 

startup, shutdown or malfunctions. For 

each deviation from a standard or 

emission limit caused by a startup, 

shutdown, or malfunction at an affected 

source, you must report the deviation in 

the semi-annual compliance report 

required by 63.1354(b)(9). The report 

must contain the date, time and 

duration, and the cause of each event 

(including unknown cause, if 

applicable), and a sum of the number of 

events in the reporting period. The 

report must list for each event the 

affected source or equipment, an 

estimate of the volume of each regulated 

pollutant emitted over the emission 

limit for which the source failed to meet 

a standard, and a description of the 

method used to estimate the emissions. 

The report must also include a 

description of actions taken by an owner 

or operator during a malfunction of an 

affected source to minimize emissions 

in accordance with § 63.1348(d), 

including actions taken to correct a 

malfunction. 

* * * * * 

25. Section 63.1355 is amended by: 

a. Revising paragraphs (f) and (g)(1); 

and 

b. Adding paragraph (h). 

The revisions read as follows: 

§ 63.1355 Recordkeeping requirements. 

* * * * * 

(f) The date, time and duration of each 

startup or shutdown which causes the 

source to exceed any applicable 

emission limitation, and (f)(i) through 

(iii) of this section; 

(i) The date, time, and duration of 

each startup or shutdown period, for 

any affected source that is subject to an 

emission standard during startup or 

shutdown that differs from the emission 

standard applicable at other times. 

(ii) The quantity and type of raw feed 

and fuel used during the startup or 

shutdown period. 

(iii) An estimate of the volume of each 

regulated pollutant emitted over the 

emission limit during startup or 

shutdown, with a description of the 

method used to estimate emissions. 

(g)(1) The date, time and duration of 

each malfunction that causes an affected 

source to fail to meet an applicable 

standard; if there was also a monitoring 

malfunction, the date, time and duration 

of the monitoring malfunction; the 

record must list the affected source or 

equipment, an estimate of the volume of 

each regulated pollutant emitted over 

the standard for which the source failed 

to meet a standard, and a description of 

the method used to estimate the 

emissions. 

* * * * * 

(h) For each deviation from an 

emissions standard or established 

operating parameter limit, you must 

keep records of the date, duration and 

description of each deviation and the 

specific actions taken for each deviation 

including inspections, corrective actions 

and repeat performance tests and the 

results of those actions. 

* * * * * 

26. Section 63.1356 is amended by 

revising the section heading and the 

section text to read as follows: 

§ 63.1356 Sources with multiple emissions 

limit or monitoring requirements. 

If an affected facility subject to this 

subpart has a different emissions 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 emissions limit or 

requirement and is exempt from the less 

stringent requirement. 

27. Section 63.1357 is amended by: 

a. Revising paragraph (a)(1); and 

b. Revising paragraph (a)(2). 

The revisions read as follows: 

§ 63.1357 Temporary, conditioned 

exemption from particulate matter and 

opacity standards. 

(a) * * * 

(1) Any PM and opacity standards of 

part 60 or part 63 of this chapter that are 

applicable to cement kilns and clinker 

coolers. 

(2) Any permit or other emissions or 

operating parameter or other limitation 

on workplace practices that are 

applicable to cement kilns and clinker 

coolers to ensure compliance with any 

PM and opacity standards of this part or 

part 60 of this chapter. 

* * * * * 

28. Table 1 to Subpart LLL of Part 63 

is revised by revising the entries for 

63.6(e)(3), 63.7(b), and 63.9(e) to read as 

follows: 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

42412 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 138 / Wednesday, July 18, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 1 TO SUBPART LLL OF PART 63—APPLICABILITY OF GENERAL PROVISIONS

Citation Requirement Applies to 

Subpart LLL Explanation 

*******

63.6(e)(3) ................................................ Startup, Shutdown Malfunction Plan ...... No ..................... Startup and shutdown plans addressed 

in § 63.1347. 

* * * * * * * 

63.7(b) ..................................................... Notification period ................................... Yes ................... Except for repeat performance test 

caused by a deviation. See 

§ 63.1353(b)(6). 

* * * * * * * 

63.9(e) ..................................................... Notification of performance test ............. Yes ................... Except for repeat performance test 

caused by a deviation. See 

§ 63.1353(b)(6). 

* * * * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2012–16166 Filed 7–17–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2