FEDERAL REGISTER

Vol. 78 Tuesday,

No. 29 February 12, 2013

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; Final Rule
10006 Federal Register/Vol. 78, No. 29/Tuesday, February 12, 2013/Rules and Regulations

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 60 and 63

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0817; FRL-9758-6]

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: Final rule.

SUMMARY: On July 18, 2012, the EPA

proposed amendments to the National

Emission Standards for Hazardous Air

Pollutants for the Portland Cement

Manufacturing Industry and the

Standards of Performance for Portland

Cement Plants. This final action amends

the national emission standards for

hazardous air pollutants for the Portland

cement industry. The EPA is also

promulgating amendments with respect

to issues on which it granted

reconsideration on May 17, 2011. In

addition, the EPA is amending the new

source performance standard for

particulate matter. These amendments

promote flexibility, reduce costs, ease

compliance and preserve health

benefits. The amendments also address

the remand of the national emission

standards for hazardous air pollutants

for the Portland cement industry by the

United States Court of Appeals for the

District of Columbia Circuit on

December 9, 2011. Finally, the EPA is

setting the date for compliance with the

existing source national emission

standards for hazardous air pollutants to

be September 9, 2015.

DATES: This final rule is effective on

February 12, 2013. The EPA is setting

the compliance date for existing open

clinker storage piles to be February 12,

2014.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a

docket for this action under Docket ID

No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0817. All

documents in the docket are listed in

the http://www.regulations.gov Web

site. Although listed in the index, some

information is not publicly available, for

example, confidential business

information or other information whose

disclosure is restricted by statute.

Certain other material, such as

copyrighted material, will be publicly

available only in hard copy. Publicly

available docket materials are available

either electronically in

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at

the EPA Docket Center, EPA West

Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution

Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The Public

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

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

excluding legal holidays. The telephone

number for the Public Reading Room is

(202) 566-1744, and the telephone

number for the Docket Center is (202)

566-1742.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For

questions about this final action, 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. For information

about the applicability of the NESHAP

or NSPS contact Mr. Patrick Yellin,

Monitoring, Assistance and Media

Programs Division (2227A), Office of

Enforcement and Compliance

Assurance, U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania

Avenue, Washington, DC 20460;

telephone number (202) 654-2970;

email address yellin.patrick@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Acronyms and Abbreviations. The

following acronyms and abbreviations

are used in this document.

APCD air pollution control devices

CAA Clean Air Act

CBI confidential business information

CDX Central Data Exchange

CEMS continuous emission monitoring

systems

CEDRI Compliance and Emissions Data

Reporting Interface

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

CISWI commercial and industrial solid

waste incinerators

CMS continuous monitoring system

COMS continuous opacity monitoring

system

CO 2 carbon dioxide

CPMS continuous parametric monitoring

system

D/F dioxins and furans

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

ESP Electrostatic Precipitators

ERT Electronic Reporting Tool

FR Federal Register

gr/dscf grains per dry standard cubic foot

HAP hazardous air pollutants

Hg mercury

HCl hydrogen chloride

ICR information collection request

Lb/ton pound per ton

MACT maximum achievable control

technology

meHg methylmercury

NAICS North American Industry

Classification System

NAS National Academy of Science

NESHAP National Emissions Standards for

Hazardous Air Pollutants

NHSM Nonhazardous Secondary Materials

NOx Nitrogen Oxides

NRC National Research Council

NSPS new source performance standards

NTTAA National Technology Transfer and

Advancement Act

oHAP Non-dioxin organic hazardous air

pollutants

OMB Office of Management and Budget

PCA Portland Cement Association

PM particulate matter

ppm(v) (d,w) parts per million (by volume)

(dry, wet)

RATA Relative Accuracy Test Audit

RfD reference dose

RIA regulatory impact analysis

RTC Response to Comment

RTO regenerative thermal oxidizers

SIP state implementation plan

SO 2 Sulphur Dioxide

THC total hydrocarbons

tpy tons per year

TTN Technology Transfer Network

gg/m 3 micrograms per cubic meter

UPL Upper Prediction Limit

UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

TEOM Tapered Element Oscillating

Microbalance

VCS voluntary consensus standards

WWW worldwide web

Background Information Document.

On July 18, 2012 (77 FR 42368), the EPA

proposed to amend the Portland cement

manufacturing industry NESHAP and

the Portland cement plant new source

performance standards (NSPS). In this

action, we are taking final action on this

proposal. A summary of the public

comments on the proposal and the

EPA's responses to those comments is

available in Docket ID Number EPAHQ-OAR-2011-0817.

Organization of this Document. The

information presented in this preamble

is organized as follows:

I. General Information

A. Executive Summary

B. Does this action apply to me?

C. Where can I get a copy of this

document?

D. Judicial Review

II. Background Information

A. What is the statutory authority for these

amendments?

B. What actions preceded this final rule?

11. Summary of Final Amendments to

Subpart LLL and Subpart F

A. Reconsideration of Standards

B. Continuously Monitored Parameters for

Alternative Organic HAP Standard (With

THC Monitoring Parameter)

C. Allowing Sources With Dry Caustic

Scrubbers To Comply With HCl Standard

Using Performance Tests

D. Alternative PM Limit

E. Coal Mills

F. NESHAP Compliance Date Extension for

Existing Sources

G. Section 112 Eligibility To Be a New

Source

H. Other Testing and Monitoring Revisions

I. Miscellaneous Amendments

J. Standards During Periods of Startup and

Shutdown
Federal Register/Vol. 78, No. 29/Tuesday, February 12, 2013/Rules and Regulations

K. Reporting for Malfunctions and

Affirmative Defense for Violation of

Emission Standards During Malfunctions

L. What are the compliance dates of the

standards?

M. Open Clinker Storage Piles

IV. Summary of Major Changes Since

Proposal

A. PM Parametric Monitoring

B. Scaling for Continuous Parametric

Monitoring of THC for Alternative OHAP

Standard

C. Work Practice Standard in Lieu of

Numerical Emissions Limits for Periods

of Startup and Shutdown

V. Summary of Significant Comments and

Responses

A. Amendments to Existing Source and

New Source Standards for PM Under

CAA Sections 112(d) and 111(b)

B. Mercury Standard

C. Standards for Fugitive Emissions From

Open Clinker Storage Piles

D. September 9, 2015, Compliance Date for

the Amended Existing Source Standards

E. Eligibility to be a New Source Under

NESHAP

VI. Summary of Cost, Environmental, Energy

and Economic Impacts

A. What are the affected sources?

B. How did EPA evaluate the impacts of

these amendments?

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

K. Congressional Review Act

I. General Information

A. Executive Summary

In this action the EPA is finalizing

amendments to the NESHAP for

Portland cement plants and to the NSPS

for Portland cement plants. These

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). The EPA is retaining the stack

emission standards for mercury,

hydrogen chloride (HCI), and total

hydrocarbons (THC) under the

NESHAP, amending the stack emission

standard for particulate matter (PM)

under the NESHAP, and making a

conforming amendment to the NSPS for

PM. The amendments also include

provisions which account for

commingled HAP emissions from coal

mills that are an integral part of the kiln,

establish a continuous monitoring

regime for parametric monitoring of PM,

set work practice standards for startup

and shutdown, and revise the

compliance date for the PM, mercury,

HCI, THC and clinker storage pile

existing source standards under the

NESHAP. The EPA is also retaining the

affirmative defense for civil penalties for

violations of emission limits occurring

as a result of a malfunction.

These amendments are based on

sound technical and legal justifications,

and result in cost savings and

compliance flexibility for the Portland

cement industry. This result is

consistent with Executive Order 13563.

1. Purpose of the Regulatory Action

a. Need for the Regulatory Action

The EPA is amending the NESHAP for

the Portland cement source category and

the NSPS for Portland cement plants

issued under sections 112(d) and 111(b)

of the Clean Air Act (CAA). The most

significant amendment is to the

NESHAP and NSPS for PM, to correct

monitoring issues with the PM

compliance regime as promulgated in

the 2010 final rule. As a result of this

amendment, the EPA is also setting a

compliance date of September 9, 2015,

for meeting the PM, mercury, HCI and

THC existing source NESHAP.

This final action also addresses the

remand by the DC Circuit in Portland

Cement Ass'n v. EPA, 665 F. 3d 177 (DC

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

court also stayed the open storage

clinker pile standards.

We are also amending various

implementation requirements to provide

more compliance flexibility for affected

sources. In addition, the amendments

address the issues on which the EPA

previously granted reconsideration. See

76 FR 28318 (May 17, 2011).

b. Legal Authority for the Regulatory

Action

These amendments implement

sections 112(d) and 111(b) of the CAA.

Section 112 of the CAA establishes a

regulatory process to address emissions

of hazardous air pollutants (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 112(i)(3)(A) requires

that the compliance date for existing

sources shall be "as expeditiou[s] as

practicable," but not more than 3 years

after a standard's effective date. 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.

2. Summary of Major Provisions

a. PM Emission Standards

As proposed, the EPA is amending the

existing and new source PM standards

in the NESHAP to require manual stack

testing in lieu of PM continuous

emission monitoring systems (CEMS)

for compliance determinations and

requiring that a site-specific parametric

operating level be established using a

PM continuous parametric monitoring

system (CPMS). We are changing the

numeric emissions value of those

standards for existing sources to 0.07

pounds per ton (lb/ton) clinker based on

manual stack testing and 0.02 lb/ton

clinker for new and reconstructed

sources based on manual stack testing.

The PM standards under the NSPS for

modified sources are likewise amended

to 0.07 lb/ton clinker based on manual

stack testing and 0.02 lb/ton clinker for

new and reconstructed sources based on

manual stack testing.

b. Response to Remand

Consistent with the court's remand,

the EPA has removed all of the CISWI

kilns from the database used to set the

2010 existing source standards for PM,

10007
10008 Federal Register/Vol. 78, No. 29/Tuesday, February 12, 2013/Rules and Regulations

mercury, HCI and THC. This analysis

informed the level of the final standards

discussed immediately below.

c. Other Emissions Standards

As proposed, the EPA is changing the

alternative organic HAP (oHAP)

standard from 9 parts per million (ppm)

to 12 ppm. The EPA is not changing the

existing or new source standards for

mercury, THC or HCl.

d. Standards During Startup and

Shutdown

The EPA is amending the emission

standards applicable during periods of

startup and shutdown from numerical

standards to work practice standards.

e. Compliance Dates for NESHAP

As proposed, the EPA is establishing

a compliance date of September 9, 2015,

for existing source standards for PM,

mercury, HCl and THC. The EPA is

establishing February 12, 2014, as the

compliance date for the standards for

existing open clinker storage piles. New

source standards continue to apply to

all sources which commenced

construction or reconstruction after May

6, 2009.

f. Final Action on Reconsideration

The EPA is also taking final action on

the remaining issues on which it

granted reconsideration on May 17,

2011.

3. Cost Impacts of These Amendments

We estimate that revising the means

of demonstrating compliance for the

PM, alternative organic HAP standards

and requiring work practices for open

clinker storage piles will save industry

$52 million annually.

4. Summary of Final Standards

Table 1 shows the final standards for

the Portland Cement Manufacturing

Industry NESHAP and the Portland

Cement Plants NSPS.

TABLE 1-EXISTING AND NEW SOURCE STANDARDS

Pollutant Existing source standard New source standard

M ercury .............................................................. 55 Ib/M M tons clinker ....................................... 2 1 Ib/M M tons clinke r.

T H C .................................................................... 24 ppm vd ..................................... ......... 24 ppm vd .

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

H C I ..................................................................... 3 ppm vd ................................. .......... 3 ppm vd .

Organic HAP (alternative to Total Hydro- 12 ppmvd ......................................................... 12 ppmvd.

carbons).

aAlso applies to NSPS modified sources.

b Also applies to NSPS new and reconstructed sources.

B. Does this action apply to me?

Categories and entities potentially

regulated by this final rule include:

TABLE 2-INDUSTRIAL SOURCE CATEGORIES AFFECTED BY THIS NESHAP AND NSPS FINAL ACTION

Category NAICS code a Examples of regulated entities

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

Federal governm ent .................................. ........................ Not affected.

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

aNorth American Industry Classification System.

Table 2 of this preamble 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 appropriate

person listed in the preceding FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

C. Where can I get a copy of this

document?

In addition to being available in the

docket, an electronic copy of this final

action 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 final

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.govl

ttn/oarpg. The TTN provides

information and technology exchange in

various areas of air pollution control. In

addition, more information can be

obtained at the following address:

http://www.epa.gov/airquality/cement.

D. Judicial Review

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA,

judicial review of this final action is

available only by filing a petition for

review in the court by April 13, 2013.

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

requirements established by the final

rule may not be challenged separately in

any civil or criminal proceedings

brought by the EPA to enforce the

requirements.

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

further provides that "[o]nly an

objection to a rule or procedure which

was raised with reasonable specificity

during the period for public comment

(including any public hearing) may be

raised during judicial review." This

section also provides a mechanism for

the EPA to convene a proceeding for

reconsideration, "[i]f the person raising

an objection can demonstrate to EPA

that it was impracticable to raise such

objection within [the period for public

comment] or if the grounds for such

objection arose after the period for

public comment (but within the time

specified for judicial review) and if such

objection is of central relevance to the

outcome of the rule." Any person

seeking to make such a demonstration to

us should submit a Petition for

Reconsideration to the Office of the

Administrator, U.S. EPA, Room 3000,
Federal Register/Vol. 78, No. 29/Tuesday, February 12, 2013/Rules and Regulations

Ariel Rios Building, 1200 Pennsylvania

Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460, with

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

preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section and the Associate

General Counsel for the Air and

Radiation Law Office, Office of General

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

1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW.,

Washington, DC 20460.

II. Background Information

A. What is the statutory authority for

these 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).

Under section 112(i)(3)(A),

compliance dates for existing sources

shall "be as expeditiou[s] as

practicable", but in no event later than

3 years after the date of publication of

the final rule in the Federal Register.

The EPA may set a revised compliance

date of a MACT standard when

amending that standard, see NRDC v.

EPA, 489 F. 3d 1364, 1373-74 (D.C. Cir.

2007), but any such amended

compliance date must still establish "compliance as expeditiously as

practicable."

Section 111(b) requires the EPA to set

standards for emissions that "reflect the

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 final rule?

The history of this final 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). The Portland Cement

Association (PCA) and several cement

companies filed petitions for

reconsideration of aspects of those

amendments (copies of the petitions are

in the Portland Cement Reconsideration

docket, EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0817). 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 finding 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)), The

NHSM 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). The court did not stay any

of the numerical emission standards,

but did stay the work practice standards

for open clinker storage 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 had done so by

removing all kilns classified as CISWI

units from the data used to establish the

2010 NESHAP standards. The EPA then

recalculated each of the floors based on

this dataset (the 2010 dataset minus

CISWI units) and made beyond-the-floor

determinations based on the

recalculated floors. The EPA believes

that this approach is properly

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, EPA

used the same data as used to establish

the 2010 floors-namely the

performance of the best controlled

similar sources as required by section

112(d)(3).

III. Summary of Final Amendments to

Subpart LLL and Subpart F

As discussed in the preamble of the

proposed rule, 77 FR 42368, in this final

action the EPA is finalizing several

amendments to Subpart LLL and

Subpart F. These amendments are

summarized below.

A. Reconsideration of Standards

As noted above, EPA has responded

to the action of the DC Circuit by

removing all CISWI cement kilns from

the database used to establish the

existing source standards, and

recalculating existing source floors and

standards from that revised database. As

described in the preamble of the

proposal, the EPA had determined

based on the final NHSM rule that there

are 24 cement kilns which combust

solid waste. 77 FR 42372. During the

comment period, one company

provided reliable information in its

comments regarding the materials it

processes indicating that one of these

kilns is, in fact, a cement kiln (meaning

that the EPA had properly classified it

as a cement kiln in the 2010

rulemaking).' After reviewing the

information provided, the EPA agrees

that this source should not be classified

as a CISWI kiln and, therefore, should

not be removed from the Portland

cement kiln database. We received no

other comments concerning the

identification of cement kilns and

CISWI units. There are thus now 23

kilns identified as combusting solid

waste and therefore classified as CISWI

units. As directed by the Court's

decision, we removed these 23 kilns

from the database and recalculated the

floors. This calculation resulted in the

same floors as proposed in the July 2012

proposal.

Consistent with this analysis, the EPA

is finalizing amendments to the

emission standards as follows:

1 The company burns dried biosolids as a fuel

which are not classified as solid wastes. Refer to the

Docket, No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0817-0482.

10009
10010 Federal Register/Vol. 78, No. 29/Tuesday, February 12, 2013/Rules and Regulations

1. PM Emission Standards

The EPA is revising several provisions

of the emission standards for PM as

follows:

0 Changing the compliance basis for

the PM standards from continuous

monitoring with a PM CEMS to a

manual three run stack test, amending

the level and averaging time of the

standard, and requiring a continuous

parametric monitoring system using a

CPMS. As a consequence, the EPA is

also:

* Amending PM standards under the

NESHAP for existing sources to 0.07 lb/

ton clinker based on manual stack

testing, and 0.02 lb/ton clinker for new

and reconstructed sources based on

manual stack testing;

* Amending PM standards under the

NSPS for modified sources to 0.07 lb/

ton clinker based on manual stack

testing and 0.02 lb/ton clinker for new

and reconstructed sources likewise

based on manual stack testing;

* Requiring that sources establish a

site-specific parametric operating limit

for PM, and requiring that the

parametric limit be continuously

monitored using a PM CPMS;

* Requiring that sources retest once a

year to reset the PM CPMS operating

limit;

* Adding a provision that, if a source

exceeds that site-specific parametric

operating limit, it must conduct

corrective action including performing a

Method 5 or 5I performance test within

45 days; in addition, if the source

exceeds that parametric limit four times

in a calendar year, the source is

presumed to be in violation of the PM

emissions standard itself, subject to

rebuttal by the source.

2. Mercury Standard

As proposed, the EPA is establishing

a standard for mercury of 55 pounds per

million (lb/MM) tons clinker for existing

sources and is not changing the

emission standard (21 lb/MM tons

clinker) for new sources. The emission

standard for existing sources is the same

as the 2010 standard but is a beyond the

floor standard.

3. Other Emissions Standards

As the Court requested, the EPA

removed the CISWI units from the

database and re-calculated the standards

for THC and HCl. The standards remain

the same as they were in the final 2010

rule. See also 76 FR 21149, 21152, and

21154 explaining why beyond the floor

standards for THC and HCl are not

justified. The 2010 rules provide an

alternative to the THC standard whereby

sources can meet a limit for non-dioxin

organic HAP by measuring those HAP

directly rather than meeting the

standard for THC (a surrogate for nondioxin organic HAP). As proposed, the

EPA is changing the level of the

alternative non-dioxin organic HAP

standard from 9 ppm to 12 ppm. Table

3 summarizes the Final Existing and

New Source Standards

TABLE 3-EXISTING AND NEW SOURCE STANDARDS a

Pollutant Existing source standard New source standard

M ercury .............................................................. 55 Ib/M M tons clinker ....................................... 2 1 Ib/M M tons clinke r.

T H C .................................................................... 24 ppm vd ..................................... ......... 24 ppm vd .

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

H C I ..................................................................... 3 ppm vd .......................... .... ........... 3 ppm vd.

O rga nic H A P b .................................................... 12 p pm vd ......................................................... 12 pp m vd .

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 HCI standard, the floor is also a 30-day rolling average. b If the source opts to comply with the THC emission limit, this standard does not apply.

B. Continuously Monitored Parameters

for Alternative Organic HAP Standard

(With THC Monitoring Parameter)

In addition to amending the level of

the alternative oHAP standard (i.e., the

standard whereby sources meet a

standard for oHAP rather than for THC),

the EPA is amending the provisions for

the site-specific THC operating

parameter for that alternative standard

(where THC is a site-specific parameter

monitored continuously to show

compliance with the oHAP standard).

The THC operating parameter is

established based on THC levels

measured during the successful stack

test where oHAP are measured directly

to demonstrate compliance. As

amended, if compliance source testing

of oHAP averages a value that is 75

percent or less of the emission limit for

oHAP, the facility is allowed to

establish a THC parametric operating

level corresponding to 75 percent of the

oHAP emission limit. We are adopting

this provision to avoid penalizing

lower-emitting sources by burdening

them with the most stringent parametric

operating levels. The EPA is adopting a

similar provision for continuous PM

parametric monitoring, for the same

reason (see Section IV.A below).

Sources which show oHAP emissions in

compliance, but greater than 75 percent

of the standard, must establish the

average THC concentration measured

during the 3-hour organic HAP test and

use that as the site-specific THC

operating level. Thus, the parametric

monitoring level for THC will be the

level corresponding to oHAP levels of

75 percent of the standard or the THC

level of the oHAP performance test,

whichever is higher.2 Compliance with

the oHAP standard will be shown as a

ratio of three test runs during mill-on

conditions and three test runs during

mill-off conditions, with the percentage

of operating time spent in each

condition determining the ratio. The

parametric operating level will be set

2 If a source believes that monitoring nonmethane THC rather than total THC is a more

reliable indicator of its oHAP emissions, it can

submit an alternative monitoring request pursuant

to the requirements of 40 CFR 63.8(f).

according to average THC values

measured during these same test runs,

or to the default value of 75 percent of

the standard, as just explained. In

addition, the EPA will allow facilities to

extend the testing time of the oHAP

performance test if they believe

extended testing is required to

adequately capture THC variability over

time. This final rule further requires that

the stack test for oHAP be repeated

every 30 months to establish a new sitespecific THC parameter.

C. Allowing Sources With Dry Caustic

Scrubbers To Comply With HCI

Standard Using Performance Tests

The 2010 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. Sources electing to comply by

means of stack tests must establish

continuously monitored parameters

including liquid flow rate, pressure, and

pH. Under this final rule, kilns with dry

scrubbers may also demonstrate
Federal Register/Vol. 78, No. 29/Tuesday, February 12, 2013/Rules and Regulations

compliance with the HCl emissions

limit by means of an initial and periodic

stack test rather than with continuous

compliance monitoring with an HCl

CEMS. If a kiln equipped with a dry

scrubber chooses this alternative, this

final rule requires that the sorbent

injection rate used during a successful

performance test be recorded and then

continuously monitored to show that

the injection rate remains at or above

the rate used during the performance

test.

Where either wet or dry scrubbers are

used, owners and operators may also

establish sulfur dioxide (SO 2) as an

operating parameter, rather than, for

example, sorbent injection rate, liquid

injection rate or pressure drop. If the

owner or operator of a scrubberequipped kiln makes this choice, it must

establish the SO 2 operating limit equal

to the average of the HCl levels recorded

during the HCl performance test, and

meet that operating limit on a 30 day

rolling average basis. If a source exceeds

any established parameter level, it must

retest for HCl in order to verify

compliance with the HCl emissions

standard and must verify or re-establish

the parametric monitoring levels as

well.

At a minimum, a repeat performance

test to confirm compliance with the HCl

emissions limit is required every 30

months.

D. Alternative PM Limit

The 2010 final rule established an

alternative PM limit to accommodate

situations where kilns combine exhaust

gas from various operations. 77 FR

42382. The equation establishing the

alternative limit contained certain

technical errors which the EPA

proposed to correct. As proposed, this

final rule revises the alternative PM

equation so that it includes exhaust gas

flows from all 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

thus finalizing the following equation:

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

+ Q_)/(7000)

Where:

PMalt = The alternative PM emission limit for

commingled sources. 0.0060 = The PM exhaust concentration

(grains per dry standard cubic feet (gr/

dscf)) equivalent to 0.07 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.

Q, = The exhaust flow of the kiln (dscf/ton

feed).

Q = The exhaust flow of the clinker cooler

(dscf/ton feed).

Qab = The exhaust flow of the alkali bypass

(dscf/ton feed).

Q m = The exhaust flow of the coal mill (dscf/

ton 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 gr/dscf,

which is equivalent to the new source

PM limit of 0.02 lb/ton clinker.

E. Coal Mills

The EPA discussed at length in the

preamble to the proposed rule a

potential regulatory regime to cover

situations where a portion of the kiln

exhaust is ducted to the coal mill. See

77 FR 42383-85; see also the regulatory

text at 77 FR 42398, 42402-06, 42408-

09. To assure that cement kilns do not

exhaust untreated HAP through coal

mills, and to assure accurate accounting

of commingled emissions so that cement

kilns are not penalized for commingling

emissions where it makes sense to do

so, the EPA is finalizing rules applicable

to kiln/coal mill emissions for two

configurations. In one, a portion of the

kiln exhaust is ducted to a coal mill,

and then the coal mill exhaust is

commingled with remaining kiln

exhaust and discharged through the

main kiln stack. In the other, a portion

of the kiln exhaust is routed through the

coal mill and discharged through the

coal mill stack.

In the case of a coal mill that receives

and discharges a portion of the cement

kiln exhaust, this final rule requires that

the sum of the mercury, THC and HCl

in the kiln exhaust diverted to the coal

mill, and the kiln exhaust exhausted

from the main kiln stack, must not

exceed the subpart LLL emission limits

for each respective HAP or HAP

surrogate. The facility must document

the contribution of the emissions

diverted to the coal mill. For mercury,

the rule allows tests to be performed

downstream of the coal mill to take

advantage of any mercury removal that

occurs in the coal mill air pollution

control device, and to avoid double

counting emissions from mercury that

becomes re-entrained in the coal. For

THC and HCl, the rule allows tests to be

performed upstream of the coal mill to

avoid any THC or HCl that might be

emitted by the coal. For owners and

operators who believe that the impact of

the testing location (upstream or

downstream of the coal mill) would not

result in their exceeding the kiln

mercury, THC or HCl emissions limits

and wish to conduct all their THC, HCl

and mercury testing at a single location,

this final rule allows testing either

upstream or downstream of the coal

mill. For sources complying with the

alternate organic HAP limit, the facility

would not be required to test for THC

emissions, but would test for the organic

HAP and add that concentration to the

remaining emission points to estimate

their total emissions for organic HAP.

A cement kiln that commingles

emissions from its coal mill with all

other kiln exhaust emissions and

discharges through a single stack could

simply meet the kiln emission limits. 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 D above. In this

configuration, the source would also

have the option of monitoring and/or

testing kiln exhaust gases prior to the

introduction of the coal mill exhaust

gas, and testing the kiln gas diverted to

the coal mill. In this case this final rule

requires that the sum of the mercury,

THC (or organic HAP if the source

chooses the alternative organic HAP

limit), and HCl in the kiln exhaust

diverted to the coal mill plus the kiln

exhaust measured in the main kiln

exhaust must not exceed the subpart

LLL emission limits for each respective

HAP or HAP surrogate.

The same provisions for coal mills

also apply to kilns equipped with an

alkali bypass. The one minor exception

is that for PM, the summed PM

emissions from the kiln and alkali

bypass must be equal to or less than the

PM limit in subpart LLL. Tests for PM

from the alkali bypass must be

conducted downstream of the alkali

bypass air pollution control devices

(APCD) to account for those emission

reductions.

With regard to PM, the EPA stated at

proposal that where a coal mill receives

and discharges a portion of the cement

kiln exhaust, the kiln owner operator

would have to demonstrate compliance

with the 40 CFR 60 subpart Y standard

for PM. Although the subpart Y

standard is numerically higher than the

subpart LLL PM standard, EPA assumed

that control would be to the same level

because the subpart Y PM standard is

predicated on use of fabric filer control

technology. 77 FR 42383/2. However, a

commenter pointed out accurately that

this proposal contravened the basic

principle EPA indicated it was adopting

here of not allowing diverted kiln

emissions to meet a more lenient

standard than required by the NESHAP,

10011
10012 Federal Register/Vol. 78, No. 29/Tuesday, February 12, 2013/Rules and Regulations

and further indicated that EPA had

failed to show that these diverted PM

emissions were controlled as required

by section 112(d)(2) and (3) of the Act.

EPA agrees with this comment, and

accordingly is indicating in the final

rule that commingled emissions in this

situation would be required to meet the

subpart LLL NESHAP for PM. Because

coal mill stacks are controlled with

fabric filters, we project that they can

meet the subpart LLL numeric standard

without further controls. See 77 FR

42383. Coal mill stacks will be required

to meet annual PM performance testing

and combine the measured emissions

with PM emissions from the separated

alkali stack, bypass stack, and/or main

kiln as required in sections 60.62(b)(3),

63.1349 and 63.1350 of this rule.

This final rule also states that sources

equipped with an alkali bypass stack or

sources that exhaust kiln gases to a coal

mill that exhausts through a separate

stack are not required to install CEMS

on these stacks. Instead of installing a

CEMS, such sources may use the results

of the initial and subsequent

performance test to demonstrate

compliance with the PM, THC, HCl and

mercury emissions limits. Note that for

the main kiln exhaust, the CEMS

requirements remain.

We expand on these monitoring

provisions below.

1. Mercury

Although mercury from the kiln stack

is monitored using a CEMS, mercury

emissions from the coal mill are based

on a periodic performance test and use

of the gas flow rate to the coal mill.

Performance tests for mercury must be

conducted annually unless and until the

tested mercury levels are below the

method detection limits for two

consecutive years, after which tests may

be conducted every 30 months. The

performance test results must be

summed with the emissions from the

kiln stack to determine compliance. The

coal mill exhaust mercury emissions are

calculated on a mass basis using the

measured mercury concentration and

the coal mill exhaust gas flow. The coal

mill exhaust flow is established using a

continuous monitoring system (CMS), or

the design maximum flow rate. Mass

mercury emissions from the coal mill

would be summed with the hourly

mercury emissions from the kiln

measured by the mercury CEMS. Hourly

mercury emissions are then summed to

calculate the rolling 30-day mass

mercury emissions. This number is then

divided by the corresponding 30 days of

clinker production to determine the 30-

day rolling average. This final rule

provides equations for summing

emissions from the coal mill with the

mercury emissions from the kiln to

determine continuous compliance. To

see an example calculation, see Section

4 of the Portland Cement

Reconsideration Technical Support

Document (developed for the proposal),

docket item EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0817-

0225.

2. THC and HCl

In this case, site specific kiln stack

emission limits (to be continuously

monitored) are to 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. In order to

determine the flow rates and

concentrations of THC and HCl in the

coal mill and alkali bypass streams, the

source must test every 30 months using

the appropriate test method. For HCl,

the performance test must 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 is required. With these data,

the concentration of THC and HCl that

must be monitored by the kiln CEMS in

order to demonstrate compliance with

the kiln MACT limit can be calculated

using the equations in this final rule. As

with mercury, the coal mill flow rate

used to calculate the allowable main

kiln stack THC and HCI concentrations

can be based on a CMS, or on the

maximum design flow rate. The sum of

the kiln CEMS and the maximum

emissions from the coal mill or alkali

bypass must be at or below the subpart

LLL limits for THC and HCl. See Section

4 of Portland Cement Reconsideration

Technical Support Document

(developed for the proposal), docket

item EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0817-0225,

for an example calculation.

Also, as a result of these revisions, the

EPA is revising the definition of kiln to

include inline coal mills and adding a

definition of inline coal mill.

F. NESHAP Compliance Date Extension

for Existing Sources

This final rule establishes that the

compliance date for the amended PM

standard, and for the THC, mercury and

HCl standards, for existing sources for

kilns, clinker coolers and raw material

dryers is September 9, 2015. This final

rule also establishes February 12, 2014,

as the compliance date for the existing

open clinker storage pile work practice

standards. A detailed discussion of

these compliance dates can be found in

Section V.D. below.

G. Section 112 Eligibility To Be a New

Source

The EPA is not changing the date for

new source eligibility under the

NESHAP. Thus, a source that

commenced construction or

reconstruction after May 6, 2009, would

remain subject to the section 112 new

source standards. A more detailed

discussion of this topic can be found

below in Section V.E.

H. Other Testing and Monitoring

Revisions

In this action we are finalizing the

proposed corrections and clarifications

to the 2010 rule including changes to:

Equations for calculating rolling

operating day emissions rates;

procedures that include extraneous

wording; and cross references and

typographical errors in the rule. 3

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 performance

specification (PS) 15. This final rule also

removes from the standard the oxygen

correction factors for raw material

dryers and makes minor, nonsubstantive changes to the sections and

paragraphs below:

* 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).

* Section 60.64(b)(2).

* Section 60.66.

* Section 63.1340(b)(1) and (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), 1(2), (m)(3), (m)(10) and (11), (o)

and (p).

* Section 63.1352(b).

* Section 63.1356.

* In addition, we are adding

requirements in section 63.1348(a), that

3

We note that these changes required the agency

to reprint sections of regulatory text. See e.g.

63.1348(a)(3)(i). In reprinting these passages, EPA

has not reopened, reconsidered, or otherwise

reevaluated the substance of these provisions but

rather is only making the needed technical

alteration.
Federal Register/Vol. 78, No. 29/Tuesday, February 12, 2013/Rules and Regulations

a cement kiln that becomes subject to

the rule after having been subject to the

CISWI regulations, must meet all the

initial compliance testing requirements

even if they were previously subject to

Subpart LLL.

L Miscellaneous Amendments

We are also finalizing amendments to

clarify various requirements in this final

rule including issues of applicability,

treatment of multiple sources that vent

to a single stack, third party

certification, definitions and use of bag

leak detection systems when PM CPMS

are in use.

For raw material, clinker or finished

product storage bins, we have clarified

that the requirements of this final rule

apply only at facilities that are a major

source (see section 63.1340(b)(6)) and

that affected sources that are subject to

subpart 000 (standards for nonmetallic

mineral processing) are not subject to

the requirements of subpart LLL (see

section 63.1340(c)).

With regard to the NSPS, to clarify the

recordkeeping and reporting

requirement in section 60.65(a) to

submit excess emission reports, we have

added to section 60.61 of the NSPS a

definition of "excess emissions" to

mean "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." To clarify what data are

used in the calculation of emissions, or

used in the calculation of parametric

levels that are used to demonstrate

continuous compliance, we added to

this section a definition of "operating

day" to mean "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." The definition for

"operating day" in section 63.1341 of

the NESHAP is revised to be consistent

with the above definition. We also

became aware that some raw material

dryers may be used to dry materials

other than kiln feed and we have

revised the definition of "raw material

dryer" in recognition of that fact.

J. Standards During Periods of Startup

and Shutdown

In the 2010 final NESHAP, the EPA

established separate standards for

periods of startup and shutdown which

differ from the main standards that

apply during steady state operations. In

this action, based on comments received

and the EPA's reconsideration of several

technical issues related to startup and

shutdown, the EPA is adopting work

practices in place of these numerical

standards. The rationale and provisions

for the work practice standards are

discussed in detail in section IV.C.

The EPA is also clarifying the

operating conditions during which these

standards apply, including a definition

of "startup" and "shutdown". Under the

amended definition, startup begins

when the kiln's induced fan is turned

on and fuel combustion is occurring in

the main burner of the kiln. Startup

ends when feed has been continuously

fed to the kiln for at least 120 minutes

or when the kiln feed rate exceeds 60

percent of the kiln design limitation

rate. Shutdown begins when continuous

feed to the kiln is halted and ends when

continuous kiln rotation ceases.

The startup and shutdown-related

changes include:

e Adding a definition of startup and

shutdown in section 63.1341, as

described;

e Adding section 63.1346(f)

describing work practice standards to be

met during periods of startup and

shutdown;

e Revising section 63.1347 to require

that startup and shutdown procedures

be included in the facility's operation

and maintenance plan;

e Adding section 63.1355(f) requiring

records of each startup and shutdown

including the date, time and duration

and the quantity of feed and fuel added

to the kiln during startup and

shutdown;

e Adding section 63.1348(b)(9)

requiring continuous compliance by

operating all air pollution control

devices during periods of startup and

shutdown.

K. Reporting for Malfunctions and

Affirmative Defense for Violation of

Emission Standards During

Malfunctions

The EPA added to the September 9,

2010, final NESHAP rule an affirmative

defense to civil penalties for violations

of emissions limits that are caused by

malfunctions. Various environmental

advocacy groups, as well as the PCA,

indicated that there had been

insufficient notice of this provision. The

EPA agreed and granted

reconsideration. See 76 FR 28325 (May

17, 2011). This action finalizes the

EPA's decision to retain the affirmative

defense on reconsideration.

The EPA is retaining in the final

NESHAP rule an affirmative defense to

civil penalties for violations of emission

standards that are caused by

malfunctions. See 40 CFR 63.1341

(defining "affirmative defense" to mean,

in the context of an enforcement

proceeding, a response or defense put

forward by a defendant, regarding

which the defendant has the burden of

proof, and the merits of which are

independently and objectively

evaluated in a judicial or administrative

proceeding). We are also revising some

of the regulatory provisions that specify

the elements that are necessary to

establish this affirmative defense as

proposed with minor changes from

proposal described later in this section.

The source must prove by a

preponderance of the evidence that it

has met all of the elements set forth in

section 63.1344. (See 40 CFR 22.24).

The criteria are designed in part to

ensure that the affirmative defense is

available only where the event that

causes a violation of the emission

standard meets the narrow definition of

malfunction in 40 CFR 63.2 (sudden,

infrequent, not reasonably preventable

and not caused by poor maintenance or

careless operation). For example, to

successfully assert the affirmative

defense, the source must prove by a

preponderance of the evidence that the

violation "[w]as caused by a sudden,

infrequent, and unavoidable failure of

air pollution control, process

equipment, or a process to operate in a

normal or usual manner * * *." The

criteria also are designed to ensure that

steps are taken to correct the

malfunction, to minimize emissions in

accordance with section 63.1344 and to

prevent future malfunctions.

Similar to actions taken in several

other recent NESHAP amendments (see

National Emissions Standards for

Hazardous Air Pollutants From

Secondary Lead Smelting, 77 FR 556,

January 5, 2012, National Emission

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutant

Emissions for Shipbuilding and Ship

Repair (Surface Coating), and National

Emission Standards for Wood Furniture

Manufacturing Operations, 76 FR 72050,

November 21, 2011), the EPA included

an affirmative defense in the 2010 final

rule and is retaining it in this rule (see

section 63.1344). The affirmative

defense provisions give the EPA the

flexibility to both ensure that its

emission standards 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. In addition to the

authority cited in support of the

affirmative defense in the preamble to

the proposed rule, the EPA notes that a

recent court decision further supports

10013
10014 Federal Register/Vol. 78, No. 29/Tuesday, February 12, 2013/Rules and Regulations

the EPA's authority to promulgate an

affirmative defense. The United States

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

recently upheld the EPA's view that an

affirmative defense provision is

consistent with section 113(e) of the

Clean Air Act. Luminant Generation Co.

LLC v. United States EPA, 2012 U.S.

App. LEXIS 21223 (5th Cir. Oct. 12,

2012) (upholding the EPA's approval of

affirmative defense provisions in a CAA

State Implementation Plan). As

discussed in the preamble to the

proposed rule (77 FR 42379), the EPA's

view is that an affirmative defense to

civil penalties for exceedances of

applicable emission standards during

periods of malfunction appropriately

resolves an underlying tension inherent

in many types of air regulation, to

ensure continuous compliance while

simultaneously recognizing that despite

the most diligent of efforts, emission

limits may be exceeded under

circumstances beyond the control of the

source. See generally, Virginia v.

Browner, 80 F.3d 869, 878 (4th Cir.

1996) (the EPA's interpretation that

resolved a tension within the CAA is

reasonable). 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.

We are promulgating revisions to the

affirmative defense provisions in section

40 CFR 63.1344 as described at proposal

(77 FR 42380) and making some minor

additional revisions. The phrase "emission limit" was changed to

"emission standards" to reflect that the

affirmative defense could be applicable

to certain work practice standards. The

phrase, "Off-shift and overtime labor

were used, to the extent practicable to

make these repairs" was removed. The

term "notification" to "reporting" was

changed to reflect that the root cause

analysis required under affirmative

defense would be submitted with other

periodic reporting. The term "and

monitoring" was deleted because

monitoring malfunctions are defined

differently than malfunctions of process

and control units and the affirmative

defense is intended to apply to

malfunctions to affected units that cause

a failure to meet an emission standard.

The word "however" was removed to

incorporate more plain language into

the regulation. The phrase "the

respondent fails" was removed and

replaced with "you fail" to incorporate

more plain language into the regulation.

The word "its" was replaced with

"your" to incorporate more plain

language into the regulation. The phrase "all of the" was replaced with "your"

also to incorporate more plain language

into the regulation. The phrase "air

pollution control practice" was

shortened to "good practices" to

incorporate more plain language into

the regulation. In addition, the written

report required when asserting an

affirmative defense was changed from a

separate "semiannual" report to a report

that is submitted with the first periodic

compliance, deviation report or excess

emission report due after the event.

We are finalizing the reporting and

recordkeeping associated with

violations due to malfunctions as

described at proposal (77 FR 42388) and

making some minor additional revisions

as described below.

e Revising section 63.1354(b)(vii) for

reporting and recordkeeping violations

due to malfunctions. The phrase

"failure to meet a standard" was used to

replace "deviation" in the requirement

to report violations of the standard. This

was changed because the EPA is not

finalizing a definition of deviation in

this subpart and the term is not defined

in the general provisions.

e Revising section 63.1354(c) for

reporting a failure to meet a standard

due to a malfunction. In addition, the

phrase "failure to meet a standard" was

used to replace "deviation" in the

requirement to report violations of the

standard. This was changed because the

EPA is not finalizing a definition of

deviation in this subpart and the term

is not defined in the general provisions.

* Revising section 63.1355(f)

addressing recordkeeping during startup

and shutdown. The proposed

recordkeeping requirement applicable to

startup and shutdown assumed that a

numerical emission standard was

applicable during startup and

shutdown. In finalizing the work

practice standards in 63.1346(f) there

will no longer be a numerical emission

standard applicable during startup and

shutdown. As such the recordkeeping

requirement must change to reflect the

content of the work practice standard.

Records must be kept of the date, time

and duration of the periods when the

work practice is applicable, as well as

the fuel and feed data to demonstrate

compliance with the work practice

standard.

L. What are the compliance dates of the

standards?

During the comment period,

comments were received that confirmed

the need for additional compliance

time, since the revised standards can

result in different compliance strategies

relative to the 2010 final rule. Thus, as

proposed, this final rule establishes the

compliance date for the amended

existing source standards including

standards for PM, mercury, HCI and

THC to be September 9, 2015. The

existing source compliance date for the

requirements for open clinker storage

piles is February 12, 2014. New sources

which commenced construction or

reconstruction after May 6, 2009, would

remain subject to the new source

standards and a compliance date of

February 12, 2013, or startup, whichever

is later.

M. Open Clinker Storage Piles

The EPA has added work practice

requirements for open clinker storage

piles that will reduce fugitive dust

emissions from these sources. This final

rule also contains a definition of open

clinker storage piles and requires that a

source's operation and maintenance

plan include the steps the facility will

take to minimize fugitive dust emissions

from open clinker storage piles. A

detailed discussion of these

requirements can be found in section

V.C below.

IV. Summary of Major Changes Since

Proposal

A. PM Parametric Monitoring

Changes to PM Parametric

Monitoring. The EPA proposed the use

of PM CPMS for continuous monitoring

of PM emissions as a 30-day rolling

average established by identifying the

average PM CPMS response

corresponding to the highest 1-hour PM

compliance test. Failure to meet this 30-

day rolling average would result in

retesting, and more than four

exceedances from the parametric limit

in a year would be presumed (subject to

possibility of rebuttal by the source) to

be a violation of the emission standard

itself. See 77 FR 42377. Industry

commented that this requirement would

trigger unnecessary retests for many

facilities, especially for the loweremitting sources. The issue of increased

compliance burden falling on the lower

emitting sources is legitimate. Sources

with especially low PM limits in their

performance test would be most at risk

of exceeding a parametric limit due to

a few emission spikes, even though they

would still be operating well under the

actual PM compliance limit. We also

received comment that the highest PM

performance test run may represent, in

some circumstances, a number higher

than the PM emissions standard. To

avoid this eventuality we have changed

the final rule to require setting the PM

operating limit equivalent to the average

of the three PM performance tests,

which constitutes the demonstration of

compliance with the standard. To avoid
Federal Register/Vol. 78, No. 29/Tuesday, February 12, 2013/Rules and Regulations

penalizing lower emitting facilities, the

EPA has modified the way PM CPMS

operating limits are established. Sources

whose compliance with the PM

emission standard are shown to be 75

percent or below the emission limit in

the PM method 5 compliance test will

set their PM parametric operating limit

to be a 30-day rolling average equivalent

to that 75 percent level. In a recent rule

(76 FR 15736, March 21, 2011), the EPA

established 75 percent of the limit as a

number that allows for compliance

flexibility and is simultaneously

protective of the emission standard, and

the same technical basis is applicable

here as well. Sources whose compliance

with the PM emission standard are

above 75 percent of the emission limit

will establish their operating limit as a

30-day rolling average equal to the

average PM CPMS values recorded

during the PM compliance test. It

should be noted that this provision

affects the allowable level of the

parametric limit, but does not change

the PM emission limit that must be met.

B. Scaling for Continuous Parametric

Monitoring of THC for Alternative

OHAP Standard

As explained in section III.B above,

the EPA is adopting a scaling approach

for parametric monitoring of THC under

the alternative organic HAP standard

which is conceptually similar to the one

just discussed for parametric monitoring

of PM. This provision affects the

allowable level of the THC parametric

limit, but does not change the oHAP

emission limit that must be met.

The EPA proposed the use of THC

monitoring in conjunction with organic

HAP compliance testing to determine a

parametric operating limit option for

monitoring continuous compliance with

the alternative organic HAP standard. In

the proposed rule the organic HAP

parametric operating limit was

established by correlating the highest of

three organic HAP test results with the

corresponding average THC

concentration recorded by a parametric

THC monitor. Industry commented that

this requirement would trigger

unnecessary retests for many facilities,

especially for the best performing

sources. Not wishing to penalize those

sources showing good performance, and

simultaneously wanting to be protective

of the emission standard, the EPA is

changing the way parametric THC

operating levels are established. Sources

whose compliance with the organic

HAP emission standard are shown to be

below 75 percent of the emission limit

will set their operating limit to be a 30-

day rolling average equivalent to that 75

percent level. Sources whose

compliance with the organic HAP

emission standard are at or above 75

percent of the emission limit will

establish their operating limit as a 30-

day rolling average equal to the average

parametric THC values recorded during

the organic HAP compliance test.

Sources with an in-line kiln/raw mill

will use the fraction of time the raw mill

is on and the fraction of time that the

raw mill is off, and calculate this limit

as a weighted average of the THC levels

measured during raw mill on and raw

mill off testing.

C. Work Practice Standard in Lieu of

Numerical Emissions Limits for Periods

of Startup and Shutdown

Under section 112(h) of the Act, the

EPA may adopt a work practice

standard in lieu of a numerical emission

standard only if it is "not feasible in the

judgment of the Administrator to

prescribe or enforce an emission

standard for control of a hazardous air

pollutant". This phrase is defined in the

Act to apply to any situation "in which

the Administrator determines that

* * * the application of measurement

methodology to a particular class of

sources is not practicable due to

technological and economic

limitations." CAA section 112(h)(1) and

(2). In adopting numerical limits for

startup and shutdown in the 2010 final

NESHAP, the EPA rejected comments

that it should adopt work practices as a

standard during startup and shutdown.

This was largely because the

commenters had not addressed the issue

of whether the requirements of section

112(h) had been met. See docket item

EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0051-3464, pp.

183-84. The EPA later denied petitions

to reconsider this issue on the grounds

that the agency had already provided

ample opportunity for comment on the

issue, which petitioners had used. See

76 FR at 28323. The DC Circuit

dismissed all challenges to the startup

and shutdown provisions in the

NESHAP (665 F 3d at 189). The EPA

granted reconsideration on several

technical issues related to startup and

shutdown-specifically, monitoring of

mercury and PM during startup and

shutdown and having an HCl limit of

zero for kilns not equipped with CEMS

(see 76 FR at 28325), but these issues are

no longer relevant based on the

approach adopted in this final rule.

In the proposed reconsideration rule,

the EPA proposed to retain the

numerical standards, but to use

recordkeeping rather than

measurements to document compliance

with the numerical standard. 77 FR

42382-83. EPA further solicited

comment "on whether the numeric

standards during startup and shutdown

should be amended to provide work

practices", and suggested what potential

work practices might be. Id. at 42383.

Some commenters supported retention

of numerical standards, stating that

nothing in the record supports a

decision by the EPA that numeric

standards are not feasible to measure.

However, these commenters provided

no supporting technical data. We also

received comments opposing numeric

limits and supporting work practices in

their stead. Commenters stated that any

numeric limit should be based on actual

data gathered during startup and

shutdown, which the proposed limits

are not, and that measurement of

emissions during startup and shutdown

poses significant technical problems,

mainly based on CEMS calibration

issues, and the duration of startups and

shutdowns.

Industry has presented information

specific to the cement industry to the

EPA on technical issues associated with

cement kilns measuring PM, mercury,

THC and HCl during periods of startup

and shutdown. See docket item EPAHQ-OAR-2011-0817-0237[1] and PCA

Meeting 9-15-11 monitoring

presentation in the docket for this

rulemaking, as well as their public

comments. EPA has continued to

evaluate these data. In light of all of

these public comments and further

evaluation of the data, the EPA has

decided to establish work practice

standards in lieu of numeric standards

during startup and shutdown periods.

The EPA is doing so because the

application of measurement

methodology is not practicable for

technological and economic reasons.

See CAA section 112(h)(2)(B).

The operation of kilns at cement

manufacturing plants is different from

many other sources. Kiln startups can

last days, during which time fuels are

switched and temperatures and

moisture conditions fluctuate

substantially. Also, cement kilns have

two types of inputs-raw feed that is

changed into clinker in the kiln, and

kiln fuel. The cement kiln is sized to

accommodate not just exhaust gas flow

from combustion, but the gases evolved

from the calcination of limestone and

moisture that evaporates from the kiln

feed. As a result of these factors, the

difference in gas flow characteristics of

a cement kiln during steady state

operation and startup/shutdown is more

pronounced than that for other

combustion source categories. In

addition, cement kilns begin

introducing feed as part of the startup

process which further exacerbates the

transient and fluctuating nature of these

10015
10016 Federal Register/Vol. 78, No. 29/Tuesday, February 12, 2013/Rules and Regulations

operations not only because of the

impact of this feed on the exhaust gases,

but because raw materials and fuels are

introduced at opposite ends of the kiln,

which results in countercurrent flow of

the solid material in the kiln and kiln

exhaust gas, increasing the turbulence,

transience and fluctuating conditions.

The result is that conditions change

constantly when cement kilns are in

startup or shutdown mode. These

conditions make stack measurements,

both manual and continuous, for this

source category unreliable because the

constant shifting in conditions prevents

any stack measurement from being

representative of anything but

conditions at that precise moment. For

that reason manual stack tests, which

take place over a period of a few hours,

would not be presenting accurate

information, since they would not be

reliably measuring conditions across the

duration of the test.

There is no way to craft a testing

regime to compensate for these testing

issues at each kiln in a manner that can

produce reliable and replicable results.

Such modifications would be specific to

that individual startup event-i.e. ad

hoc and therefore not of general

applicability or utility in showing

compliance. Continuous measurements

conducted during these periods for

cement kilns are also subject to

inaccuracies resulting from these

rapidly changing conditions. The

temperature changes of greater than one

thousand degrees Fahrenheit, flue gas

moisture changes greater than 20

percent, and gas flow changes over

several thousand cubic feet per minute,

as well as other factors such as flue gas

molecular weight swings, combine to

create a complex matrix of measurement

variables not accounted for in a cement

kiln CEMS installation. That is, CEMS

for PM, HCl, Hg, and THC are not able

to reliably accommodate all of these

transient shifting variables when

measuring cement kiln startup and

shutdown emissions. As noted above,

these issues are further exacerbated by

the fact that cement kilns have multiple

inputs (fuel and feed), and the clinker

production process generates higher gas

flows than would be expected based on

just the fuel inputs. This fact also means

that flue gas flow rates cannot be

accurately calculated from fuel inputs

alone.

The EPA regards situations where a

measurement may yield a value which

is analytically suspect, which is the case

for cement kilns during startup and

shutdown for the reasons just described,

as being a situation where measurement

is not "technologically practicable"

within the meaning of section

112(h)(2)(B) of the Act. Unreliable

measurements raise issues of

practicability and of feasibility and

enforceability (see section 112(h)(1)). 4

The EPA is not finalizing its proposed

approach of setting numerical emission

limits for startup and shutdown and

requiring that sources certify

compliance with those limits by keeping

certain records certifying that they used

certain fuels and did not introduce feed

into the kiln. Under the proposal,

sources would have had to certify

compliance with the standards for the

various organics based on assumed

combustion conditions. As pointed out

persuasively in the public comments,

combustion conditions during startup

and shutdown are too widely varying to

either reliably measure or calculate

emissions because combustion

conditions change widely during startup

and shutdown, sources indicated that

they could not certify compliance based

on an assumed combustion condition.

See docket item EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-

0817-0506, p. 11 ("Until ideal

combustion conditions can be met in

the combustion chamber (adequate

temperature and turbulence), the

combustion process will be incomplete.

While this should not impact fuelderived hazardous air pollutants

(chlorine and mercury), it will impact

the emissions of organics and possibly

PM"). In light of the measurement

issues noted above and the fact that

sources could not certify compliance

under the proposed approach, the EPA

is not finalizing the proposed approach

of setting numerical limits for startup

and shutdown and allowing sources to

certify compliance with the limits by

maintaining certain records.

Instead, for the reasons explained

above, the EPA is establishing work

practice standards to demonstrate

compliance with startup and shutdown.

The work practices that apply during

startup and shutdown are as follows:

* During startup the kiln must

initially use any one or combination of

the following clean fuels: Natural gas,

synthetic natural gas, propane, distillate

oil, synthesis gas, and ultra-low sulfur

diesel until the kiln reaches a

temperature of 1200 degrees Fahrenheit.

* Combustion of the primary kiln fuel

may commence once the kiln

temperature reaches 1200 degrees

Fahrenheit.

4 The application of measurement methodology

during cement kiln startup and shutdown would

also not be "practicable due to * * * economic

limitation" within the meaning of section

112(h)(2)(B) since it would just result in cost

expended to produce analytically suspect

measurements.

* All air pollution control devices

must be turned on and operating prior

to combusting any fuel.

* You must keep records as specified

in § 63.1355 during periods of startup

and shutdown.

For the purpose of identifying when

the kiln is in a startup/shutdown mode

and subject to work practices and when

the kiln is subject to numerical emission

limits, we are defining the beginning

and ending of startup and shutdown. At

proposal we defined startup as when the

kiln's induced fan is turned on and

shutdown was defined as beginning

when feed to the kiln is halted.

Commenters noted that a kiln may have

the induced draft (ID) fan operating

even when the kiln is completely

shutdown, no fuel is being burned, and

there is no potential for emissions.

Therefore, we changed the startup

definition to be when a shutdown kiln

turns on the ID fan and begins firing fuel

in the main burner, because this is the

point where the potential for emissions

to occur begins. Startup ends when feed

is being continuously introduced into

the kiln for at least 120 minutes or until

the feed rate exceeds 60 percent of the

kiln design limitation rate. We added

the duration/load element to the

definition of startup because during

startup a kiln must begin adding feed

material to achieve steady state

operation. After feed is first introduced

it requires up to two hours or sufficient

feed to achieve 60 percent of maximum

operation to achieve a representative

steady-state condition. (See meeting

notes, PCA November 28, 2012, in the

docket for this rulemaking). Shutdown

begins when continuous feed to the kiln

is halted and ends when the kiln

rotation ceases.

We believe these work practices,

which include the requirement that all

air pollution control devices be

operating, will ensure that emissions

during startup and shutdown will be

lower than the standards that apply

during steady state operations, given use

of cleaner fuels, minimal raw material

inputs, and operation of all control

devices during these periods. See 77 FR

42382 (noting that emissions during

startup and shutdown would be

expected to be lower than during steady

state operations for these reasons).
Federal Register/Vol. 78, No. 29/Tuesday, February 12, 2013/Rules and Regulations

V. Summary of Significant Comments

and Responses

A. Amendments to Existing Source and

New Source Standards for PM Under

CAA Sections 112(d) and 111(b)

1. Changes to Level and Averaging Time

of Existing Source NESHAP

The EPA proposed to amend the

existing and new source standards for

PM. The floor for the existing source

standards increased from 0.04 lb/ton

clinker to 0.05 lb/ton clinker as a result

of removing CISWI kilns from the

database. See Section 8.3, Portland

Cement Reconsideration Technical

Support Document, June 15, 2012,

Docket item EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-

0817-0225; see also 77 FR 42372/3.

Second, the EPA proposed to change the

compliance regime for the standard

from use of PM CEMS to stack testing,

a consequence being that the standard

would no longer be expressed as a 30-

day average but rather as the average of

three test runs. The EPA thus proposed

to express the recalculated floor (i.e.

0.05 lb/ton clinker 30-day average

resulting from the reanalysis) as .07 lb/

ton of clinker (average of three test

runs). The 0.07 lb/ton clinker standard

expresses the recalculated floor (i.e. 0.05

lb/ton clinker) as a not-to-exceed value

based on stack testing, using the Upper

Prediction Limit equation to do so. See

Portland Cement Reconsideration

Technical Support Document, June 15,

2012, Docket item EPA-HQ-OAR2011-0817-0225. 5

The EPA further proposed to use

CPMS for continuous parametric

monitoring. This system responds to

changes in PM concentration and

generates a corresponding milliamp

output signal. 77 FR 42376-77. The

proposed PM parametric level was

correlated to the highest recorded value

during three test runs. A source would

meet this site-specific level on a 30-day

rolling average. Failure to meet this 30-

day rolling average would result in

retesting, and more than four deviations

from the parametric level in a year

would be presumed (subject to

possibility of rebuttal by the source) to

be a violation of the emission standard

itself. See 77 FR 42377.

5 One commenter inaccurately stated that the

proposed rule would essentially double the PM

standard. As just explained, the existing source

floor (and standard) increased from 0.04 30-day

average to 0.05 lb/ton clinker 30-day average as a

result of removing CISWI kilns. As a not-to-exceed

standard, that same level is expressed as 0.07 lb/

ton clinker, the higher level reflecting the greater

variability involved when basing the standard on

the average of the three test runs rather than on 30

days of measurements.

Our proposal to change the

compliance regime from use of CEMS to

stack tests reflected technical issues

related to a PM CEMS' reliability with

measuring the Portland cement PM

standard. Specifically, the EPA

discussed the reliability of

measurements, obtained using PM

CEMS calibrated as required by the

mandated PS 11, below the level of the

2010 standard or the level of the

recalculated PM floor. See 77 FR 42374-

76. The EPA's judgment at proposal was

that as a result of PM measurement

uncertainties, "this correlation will not

be technically or practically achievable

for a significant number of cement kiln

sources." Id. at 42376.

One commenter challenged the

necessity of amending the standard to a

stack test regime (apparently not

realizing that the existing source

standard also changed as a result of

removing CISWI kilns from the

database). First, the commenter

maintained that the EPA has no

authority to voluntarily change a

promulgated MACT standard to make

the standard less stringent, based on the

language of section 112(d)(7). The

commenter further maintained that the

EPA had not definitively shown that PM

CEMS calibrated pursuant to PS 11

could not be used to reliably measure

the Portland cement PM standard.

Specifically, the commenter stated that

the various problems identified by the

EPA at proposal are amenable to

resolution by testing longer and more

often, and argued that the EPA

essentially admitted as much at

proposal. The commenter noted that

other technical problems, like the

difficulty of accounting for varied

particle sizes, could be resolved by

using a beta gauge CEMS. The

commenter dismissed the EPA's

technical reservations on these issues as

arbitrary speculation. The commenter

also stated that PM CEMS are already in

successful use by cement plants both in

this country and overseas. The

commenter further believed that the

EPA could resolve these technical issues

by amending the PM CEMS Performance

Specification rather than by amending

the averaging time of the PM standard

and changing its compliance basis.

In response, we note first that we do

not accept the commenter's legal

argument based on section 112(d)(7).

Section 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 111 of this title, part C or D of

this subchapter, or other authority of

this chapter or a standard issued under

State authority." Although the

commenter maintained that this

provision unambiguously bars the EPA

from amending the promulgated

NESHAP to make it less stringent, we

disagree. Indeed, it is hard to read the

statutory language in such a way. On its

face, the provision indicates that a

section 112(d) standard does not

supplant more stringent standards

issued under some authority other than

section 112(d). Nor does the

commenter's interpretation make sense.

It would bar the EPA from amending a

section 112(d) standard that was

technically deficient or incorrect. This

cannot have been Congress' intent when

adopting the technology-based section

112(d) MACT regime.6 Moreover, when

Congress adopted anti-backsliding

provisions in the CAA, it did so

explicitly. See CAA sections 172(e);

110(1); and 193. There is no such

explicit language in section 112(d)(7).

Thus, the EPA does not read section

112(d)(7) as precluding amendments to

MACT standards which result in

numerically less stringent standards,

provided of course, that such standards

are technically justified and otherwise

consistent with the requirements of the

Act.

The commenter is also mistaken in

asserting that sources can simply utilize

PM CEMS not correlated to PS 11. The

PS 11 requirements apply to all PM

CEMS used by a cement kiln. See

sections 63.1349(b)(1)(A) and 1350

(b)(1) from the 2010 final rule (75 FR

55057, 55059).7

With regard to the technical issues

raised by this commenter, the EPA

explained in detail at proposal the

problems of correlating PM CEMS under

PS 11 at cement plants (see 77 FR

42374-42377). These obstacles are not

resolvable simply by measuring more

often and longer, as the commenter

maintains. Extending the duration of the

Method 5 test gives this reference

method additional opportunity to

collect more sample mass, but this is no

guarantee that the time added to the test

will collect enough particulate mass to

resolve detection issues, especially

when testing is conducted at the better

performing (lower emitting) sources.

Longer test runs inherently increase the

variability of the PM CEMS data

collected during the test, which may

cause further difficulties with the

6 The commenter cites no legislative history to

support its reading, nor is EPA aware of any.

7 It also makes no sense to use PM CEMS not

subject to a uniform calibration protocol. The

results obtained would not be comparable.

10017
10018 Federal Register/Vol. 78, No. 29/Tuesday, February 12, 2013/Rules and Regulations

correlation between instrument and

reference method. Nor does conducting

a higher number of reference method

tests resolve the difficulties with PS 11

correlation created by greater

uncertainty in the reference method at

low levels. Put another way, more tests

with high uncertainty and poor

correlation do not improve the

likelihood of passing PS 11 as there is

no expectation of improving the

mathematical relationship between the

reference test and the instrument.

Furthermore, PS 11 section 8.6 requires

a minimum number of fifteen tests to

develop a correlation curve, with no

limit to the maximum number.

Considering more than 15 tests when

developing the correlation creates much

difficulty in developing a precise

mathematical relationship. Sources are

allowed to discard 5 runs for any reason

they wish, but must present at least 15

test runs for the correlation calculation.

Id. As a source increases the number of

test runs beyond 20, any additional runs

must be included in the correlation

equation and at that point the ability of

a source to satisfy PS 11 becomes more

hampered with every test run.

The EPA noted that special problems

are posed by the size and variability of

cement kiln-generated particulate. The

EPA also noted that the standard lightscintillation type of PM CEMS would

likely encounter higher variability for

the same PM concentration, and have

difficulty satisfying correlation

protocols as a result. The EPA noted

that beta gauge CEMS could potentially

resolve at least some issues related to

cement particle variability but noted

further that these devices were largely

untested in the cement industry, and

none (so far as the EPA is aware) has

successfully completed a PS 11

certification. See 77 FR 42375/3. The

commenter maintains that the existence

of beta gauge CEMS resolves all

questions as to their reliability in the

cement industry, but the EPA reiterates,

as it did at proposal, that there needs to

be some assurance of the reliability of

that methodology to certify with PS 11

at low levels (as required by this final

rule). That information does not

presently exist. The commenter states

that the EPA is being speculative as to

potential difficulties with a different

CEMS technology, but relative to

Portland cement sources, it would be

speculative to assume that beta gauge

CEMS would successfully pass a PS 11

certification to reliably and quantifiably

measure compliance with the NESHAP,

especially at the very low PM levels at

some of the sources in the cement

source category.

The commenter also maintains that

Tapered Element Oscillating

Microbalance (TEOM) devices could be

used in place of light scintillation PM

CEMS. A TEOM is a device that uses a

very thin, tapered, element vibrating at

a known frequency that has a first

principle relationship to the

measurement of mass. Particles that

impact the element also impact the

harmonic vibration of the sensor which

can be translated to a measurement of

the particle mass. This is a more direct

approach to measuring the actual mass

of PM in stack gas, and has shown

promise to operate very consistently at

low levels in laboratory conditions.

Several TEOMs are currently used for

monitoring ambient PM levels at several

non-cement, non-domestic industry

installations. TEOMs that are capable of

measuring stack gas are not currently

available for sale in the U.S., though this

may change in future years. Even so,

with a monitor capable of more direct

mass measurement of PM in stack gas,

using PS 11 to certify one against

Method 5 may be problematic at low PM

concentrations. The EPA currently has

no data to assess TEOM capabilities

versus Method 5 at very low PM

concentrations such as those presented

by the better performing sources in this

category. Were TEOM instrumentation

commercially available, the EPA would

need to conduct a re-evaluation of PM

CEMS technology that included TEOM

data to determine if this instrument

could overcome the challenges posed by

calibration with Method 5 at the very

low PM levels emitted by some of the

sources in the cement source category.

As just explained, it is not speculation,

but rather legitimate engineering

caution that makes it appropriate not to

require compliance with a rule based on

an untested measurement methodology.

The commenter further maintains that

rather than amend the standard to

change the compliance test

methodology and averaging time, the

EPA should revise PS 11 instead,

evidently assuming that a revision can

be done rapidly. The commenter's

assumption is mistaken. Performance

specification development is a process

that takes multiple years and involves

data collection on types of technologies,

field testing, comparison to reference

measurement methodology, workgroup

and stakeholder meetings, peer review,

rule proposal and public comment

period, as well as comment response

and final promulgation of the

Performance Specification. With the

development of PA 12A for Mercury

CEMS, the EPA invested a budget in

excess of one million dollars to conduct

technology and field studies, as well as

to refine the analytical techniques and

work through stakeholder concerns

prior to proposal of the Performance

Specification. The process from

inception to final promulgation took

over 5 years to complete. PS 11, at issue

here, was over 3 years in development,

from concept to final promulgation, and

involved a budget of $250,000. Based on

this past history, it is likely to result in

a delay of 3 years or more were the EPA

to delay promulgation of this final rule

until we could undertake the process to

research, propose and finalize solutions

to PS 11 that may ameliorate some of

the issues vis-a-vis the cement industry

now present. Furthermore, such a

process would not address the issues

relating to measurement uncertainties

using Method 5 at low PM

concentration levels near its detection

limit (i.e. below its practical

quantitation limit of 3 mg), and so there

would remain significant technological

hurdles to clear before the EPA could

require the use of PM CEMS in respect

to this final rule.

The commenter points to PM CEMS

use by European cement kilns. This is

a misplaced comparison. The European

calibration and certification of this

instrumentation is completely different

than PS 11 requirements developed by

the EPA. European monitoring is

certified in a laboratory environment,

and calibrated on site by the instrument

vendor when installed. The EPA has a

long history of requiring CEMS

installations in the USA to meet more

rigorous calibration and performance

specification certification through a

series of comparisons to reference

Method 5 test measurements conducted

on the stack with the flue gas matrix at

the facility, not in a controlled

laboratory. For a PM CEMS, this would

be a correlation developed with Method

5 as described in PS 11. The two

certification regimes differ greatly in

approach and simply adapting European

certification standards to USA facilities

does nothing to mitigate this difference.

In summary, the EPA has carefully

considered the issue and it is our

engineering judgment that the PS 11

correlation will not be technically or

practically achievable for a significant

number of cement kiln sources. This is

due to the combination of the low

emissions concentrations, PM CEMS

measurement uncertainty factors, the

variability in composition of cement

PM, and need for extraordinarily long

test runs to reduce Method 5

uncertainty to a level that provides

normal measurement confidence (i.e.

greater than the 3 mg practical

quantitation level of Method 5), plus the
Federal Register/Vol. 78, No. 29/Tuesday, February 12, 2013/Rules and Regulations

compounding uncertainties associated

with source operational variability. The

EPA further recognizes that these

problems in developing PS 11

correlations are most likely to adversely

affect the lowest emitting sources in the

category and are more likely to result in

violations of the rule more often for

these sources than for sources operating

with higher PM emissions. This result

would obviously be environmentally

counterproductive. We are therefore

amending the standard to be based on

stack testing, and expressing the

standard as a not-to-exceed (i.e., stack

test Method 5 or 51) standard of 0.07 lb/

ton clinker.8

Additional responses regarding these

issues, including responses to issues

raised in the comments from industry,

are found in sections 3 and 4 of the

Response to Comment document, which

is found in the docket for this

rulemaking.

2. Issues Related to Use of CPMS for

Parametric Monitoring

To document continuous compliance

with the Method 5 standard (i.e.,

parametric monitoring designed to

monitor proper operation of PM

controls), the EPA proposed that PM be

monitored continuously using a CPMS.

See 77 FR 42376-77. The parametric

limit was to reflect the highest of the

three method 5 test runs from the stack

test, and would be averaged over 30-

days. The EPA further proposed

corrective action requirements in the

event of exceeding the 30-day rolling

average parametric limit, and a

rebuttable presumption that four such

exceedances in a calendar year showed

a violation of the emission standard

itself.

With respect to the use of CPMS

technology, the EPA has recognized that

PM CEMS technology cannot meet PS

11 requirements in all Portland cement

installations, yet the EPA has also

recognized that PM CEMS sensors are

more sensitive and better at detecting

small differences in PM concentration

than other technologies such as opacity

monitors (http://www.epa.gov/ttn/emcl

cem/pmcemsknowfina1rep.pdj) In

considering the use of PM CEMS at

Portland cement facilities we find that

while using PM CEMS technology for

continuous quantitative measurement of

PM concentration as correlated to

Method 5 with PS 11 is frequently not

Because the EPA believes that these same issues

pertain to measurements of the section 111(b) new

source performance standard for modified sources,

and because further controls would be both costly

and not cost effective (see section V.A.3 below), the

EPA is adopting the same amendment for modified

new sources under the NSPS.

achievable (as stated in the preceding

subsection of this preamble), using the

same technology for continuous

qualitative measurement of PM

emissions is practicable in every

instance. Given the information we have

that shows PM CEMS technology to be

more sensitive to in-stack PM

concentration differences than opacity

monitors and nepheolmeters, the EPA

sees a distinct advantage in using these

technologies for continuous parametric

PM monitoring, rather than measuring

some other parameter.

In using a PM CEMS as a CPMS to

conduct continuous qualitative

monitoring of PM concentration in the

stack, we are not interested in specific

output information from the instrument

(e.g. lbs/ton clinker). We only need to

know that PM concentration increases

or decreases. The signal output from the

instrument need not be correlated to PM

concentration through PS 11 trials to

achieve this, but rather we can accept

the native signal output from the

instrument, as is, in milliamps, and

track that signal to determine trends in

PM emissions. In this final rule we are

requiring PM CPMS instruments to

employ a 4-20 milliamp output, which

is a standard electronic signal output

common to many CEMS. 9 With a PM

CPMS the milliamp output would not

represent an opacity value, but like an

opacity analyzer, the milliamps would

increase as PM concentration increases

and decrease as PM concentration

decreases. We can then monitor the

milliamp signal while conducting a

Method 5 performance test and correlate

the average milliamp signal to the

average PM concentration during the

testing. This relationship is notably

coarser in terms of understanding the

precise PM concentration in the stack,

but the instrument's sensitivity to

changing PM concentration in the stack,

and its changing milliamp signal output,

does not deteriorate and may still be

employed to qualitatively monitor PM

emissions.

The EPA received numerous

comments about our proposed PM

CPMS parametric monitoring approach.

Industry commenters maintained that

sources would have to continually retest

unnecessarily, since CPMS measure an

increase in PM CPMS values. This

increase in PM CPMS values would (or

9 For example, an opacity instrument uses a series

of filters to calibrate the analyzer and produce a "percent opacity" output. Twenty five percent

opacity likely correlates to a milliamp value near

eight milliamps, or 4 milliamps plus 25 percent of

the difference between 4 and 20 milliamps (again,

4 milliamps). Fifty percent opacity would represent

a signal near 12 milliamps, and so on, with 20

milliamps representing a signal of 100 percent

opacity.

at least, could) denote a modest rise in

PM emissions, but actual stack

emissions of PM could still be well

below the limit. The EPA recognizes

this concern as creating additional

burden for facilities exhibiting good

control of their PM emissions (see

section IV.A above), and, therefore, we

have modified the process by which a

source would establish and comply with

their PM CPMS operating limit in this

final rule. In doing so we considered

scaling options for PM CPMS signals, as

they correspond with PM emissions,

that were proposed by industry but

found the options presented were not

protective enough of the emission

standard. After extensive analysis (see

S. Johnson, memo to docket number

EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0817,

"Establishing an Operating Limit for PM

CPMS", November 2012), we are

promulgating a scaling factor of 75

percent of the emission limit as a

benchmark. See section IV.A above. As

in the proposed rule, every source will

need to conduct an annual Method 5

test to determine compliance with the

PM emissions limit, and during this

testing will also monitor their PM CPMS

milliamp output. Sources which emit

PM less than 75 percent of their

emission limit will be able to scale their

PM CPMS milliamp output to determine

where their PM CPMS would intersect

75 percent of their allowed PM

emissions, and set their operating level

at that milliamp output. This alleviates

many re-testing concerns for sources

that operate well below the emission

limit and provides them with greater

operational flexibility while still

assuring continuous compliance with

the PM stack emission standard. It also

creates an incentive for sources to select

high efficiency PM controls when

sources are evaluating potential

compliance strategies.

For sources whose Method 5

compliance tests place them at or above

75 percent of the emission standard,

their operating level will be the average

PM CPMS milliamp output during the

three Method 5 test runs. This means

their operating level is the milliamp

output that correlates to their PM

compliance determination, and not the

highest average 1 hour run value that

was in the proposed rule. Now that we

are adopting a scaling factor, we no

longer believe that it is also appropriate

to establish the parametric limit based

on the highest of the three runs (which

moreover, could reflect a level higher

than the level of the standard).

Moreover, as noted below, we believe

that on balance the 30 days of averaged

10019
10020 Federal Register/Vol. 78, No. 29/Tuesday, February 12, 2013/Rules and Regulations

CPMS measurements provides ample

operating cushion.

In a recent rule (76 FR 15736, March

21, 2011), the EPA established 75

percent of the limit as a number that

allows for compliance flexibility and is

simultaneously protective of the

emission standard. In this final rule we

are utilizing that value so as not to

impose unintended and costly retest

requirements for the lowest emitting

sources and to provide for more cost

effective, continuous, PM parametric

monitoring across the Portland cement

sector. This approach was selected from

among many considered as it provides

the greatest amount of flexibility while

demonstrating continuous compliance

for sources which are the lower emitters

in the category and is also effective in

holding higher emitters to the emission

standard. With this parametric

monitoring approach in place we expect

sources to evaluate control options that

provide excellent PM emissions control

and provide them greater operational

flexibility below the standard.

One commenter maintained that the

use of a CPMS for parametric

monitoring would be "egregious" since

the milliamp output of the CPMS

allowed a source to select operational

parameters of tangential relation to PM

emissions and would therefore not

provide useful information as to proper

PM control. The commenter also stated

that monitoring of opacity would be

preferable. An industry commenter

likewise requested that continuous

opacity monitors or bag leak detectors

be used rather than CPMS.

The EPA does not agree with these

comments. First, the milliamp output of

the CPMS reliably and sensitively

indicates increasing or decreasing PM

concentration in the stack. Where PM

controls are failing, the PM CPMS signal

will indicate the increasing

concentration of PM in the stack. A

source will need to monitor the trend

from the PM CPMS daily reading to

maintain compliance with the 30-day

emission standard. Indeed, the EPA has

sufficient confidence that four

exceedances of the CPMS continuous

measurements is a presumptive

violation of the emission standard itself.

Moreover, the CPMS is considerably

more sensitive than an opacity monitor

or bag leak detector at detecting

fluctuations in PM level. An opacity

monitor determines the percent of a

light signal that is occluded across the

stack diameter. Opacity analyzers

operate on a zero to 100 percent scale,

meaning they are capable of registering

PM that completely occludes the far

stack wall from the instrument light

source. This amount of PM is roughly

equivalent to a complete failure of the

emission control device. A properly

operating control device will emit five

percent opacity or less, which is barely

visible to the naked eye and on the low

end of the opacity monitor capability.

PM emissions that increase opacity two

percent at this level may well exceed

the emission standard, yet they only

mildly deflect the opacity monitor

output. This same 2 percent opacity

increase is capable of registering

changes of several milliamps on a PM

CPMS when operating on the scale

provided in this final rule. With several

decimal fractions available between

each milliamp to track signal output,

and three or four milliamps representing

1 percent opacity, the PM CPMS has a

clear advantage in low PM

concentration measurement over

continuous opacity monitoring systems.

Regarding baghouse leak detectors, the

EPA has no information that shows

them operating on the same sensitivity

level as PM CPMS technology, and we

do not require baghouse leak detection

systems on sources where PM CPMS are

in use for this reason.

Industry commenters objected to the

proposal that 4 calendar year

exceedances 10 from the parametric limit

would be a presumptive violation of the

emission standard. Again, the EPA does

not agree. First, the EPA may

permissibly establish such a

presumption by rule, assuming there is

a reasonable factual basis to do so. See

Hazardous Waste Treatment Council v.

EPA, 886 F. 2d 355, 367-68 (DC Cir.

1989) explaining that such

presumptions can legitimately establish

the elements of the agency's prima facie

case in an enforcement action. Second,

there is a reasonable basis here for the

presumption that four exceedances (i.e.

increases over the parametric operating

limit) in a calendar year are a violation

of the emission standard. The

parametric monitoring limit is

established as a 30-day average of the

averaged test value in the performance

test, or the 75th percentile value if that

is higher. In either instance, the 30-day

averaging feature provides significant

leeway to the owner operator not to

1

0 In the proposed rule, the EPA referred to a

measurement higher than the parametric limit as a

"deviation" and proposed a definition of deviation.

See 77 FR 42398. The EPA is not including this

terminology in this final rule. The term "deviation"

is not in the Portland cement NESHAP rules (which

date back to 1998), and has not proved necessary

in practice. More important, the rule itself states

what the consequences of measurements which

exceed a parametric limit are (i.e. retesting, and in

some instances, a presumptive violation of the

emission standard itself), so that no further general

regulatory provision (i.e. a generalized definition of

'deviation' or similar term) is necessary.

deviate from the parametric operating

level since the 30 measurements will

significantly dampen variability in the

single measurement (average of three

test runs) that produced the parametric

value. See 77 FR 42377/2 and sources

there cited. The EPA acknowledges that

the difference was even greater between

the parametric level and the emission

standard in the proposed rule (which

was based on the highest measured test

run). The EPA believes that the 30-day

averaging feature plus the 75-percent

scaling feature for the lower emitting

sources now provides a sufficient

operating cushion. See 77 FR 42377.

3. Existing Source Beyond the Floor

Determination

The EPA proposed to use the floor

levels for PM as the standard, rejecting

more stringent standards on the grounds

of poor cost effectiveness (after

considering non-air environmental

impacts and energy implications of a

more stringent standard as well). See 77

FR 42376. One commenter argued that

the EPA should adopt a beyond the floor

standard for PM, maintaining that such

a standard was justified under the

factors set out in section 112 (d)(2).

The EPA disagrees, and is not

adopting a beyond the floor standard.

After considering the cost of the

emission reductions attributable to such

a standard, and the associated non-air

and energy impacts of such a standard,

the EPA determines that the standard is

not "achievable" within the meaning of

section 112 (d)(2). Specifically, the EPA

estimates that a beyond the floor

standard set at the level of the original

(2010 final rule) standard would only

result in 138 tpy-nationwide-of PM

reduction (a value not questioned by

any of the commenters). See Final

Portland Cement Reconsideration

Technical Support Document, December

20, 2012. We further estimate that the

cost of achieving this modest

incremental reduction would be

approximately $37 million (the

estimated cost savings attributable to the

amended PM standard (including

savings attributable to ancillary PM

controls related to collection of PM from

the control of Hg, THC, and HCl). See

Final Portland Cement Reconsideration

Technical Support Document, December

20, 2012, included in the rule docket,

EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0817. These total

costs are high compared to the small

nationwide emission reductions, and

the cost effectiveness of these

reductions is correspondingly high:

approximately $268,000 per ton of PM

removed. This is significantly higher

cost effectiveness for PM than the EPA

has accepted in other NESHAP
Federal Register/Vol. 78, No. 29/Tuesday, February 12, 2013/Rules and Regulations

standards. See 76 FR 15704 (March 21,

2011) (rejecting $48,501 per ton of PM

as not cost effective for PM emitted by

CISWI energy recovery units); see also

72 FR 53814, 53826 (Sept. 20, 2007)

(proposing (and later accepting) cost

effectiveness of $10,000 per ton for PM

as reasonable in determining Generally

Available Control Technology, and

noting that the EPA had viewed cost

effectiveness only as high as

approximately $31,000 per ton as

reasonable under its Title II program for

mobile sources). A beyond the floor

standard at the level of the 2010

standard would also involve slightly

higher energy use, although this is not

a major factor in EPA's decision. EPA is

therefore not adopting a beyond the

floor standard for PM at the level of the

2010 standard. A standard even more

stringent would likewise not be

justified. See 76 FR 54988.11

4. New Source PM Standard Under

Section 112(d)(3)

One commenter challenged the

methodology the EPA used in the 2010

rulemaking to establish the new source

floor and standard, maintaining that for

new plants, the EPA's floors must reflect

the emission level achieved by the

single best performing kiln in the

category, not the best performing kiln

for which the EPA happens to have

emissions information. See section

112(d)(3). The EPA did not reopen the

methodology by which new source

floors for this industry are determined.

See 77 FR 42373 n. 3 ("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.") In any case, if the issue is

(against the EPA's view) deemed to be

reopened, CAA section 112(d)(3)

indicates that new source floors are to

be based on "the emission control that

11 The commenter's argument that section 112

(d)(2)'s requirement that the EPA consider "the cost

of achieving such emission reduction" limits the

EPA to considerations of economic achievability,

and not cost effectiveness, is misplaced. See

Husqvarna AB v. EPA, 254 F. 3d 195, 200 (DC Cir.

2001) (cost effectiveness properly considered in

evaluating cost of compliance under CAA section

213, a technology-based provision similar to section

112 (d)(2)). The commenter's further argument that

the requirement in section 112 (d)(2) for standards

to result in "the maximum degree of reduction in

emissions of hazardous air pollutants * * *

achievable" considering cost and other factors

constrains the EPA's ability to consider costeffectiveness or otherwise balance the statutory

factors has likewise been rejected. See Sierra Club

v. EPA, 325 F. 3d 374, 378 (DC Cir. 2003) (the EPA

was left with great discretion in determining how

to balance such factors when considering

technology-based standards which are to result in

maximum reductions achievable).

is achieved in practice by the best

controlled similar source, as determined

by the Administrator" (emphasis

supplied). This language affords

considerable discretion for the agency to

base the NESHAP new source floors on

performance of sources for which the

agency has emissions information.

B. Mercury Standard

The EPA explained at proposal that

reanalysis of the mercury floor, after

removing CISWI kilns, resulted in a

floor of 58 lb/MM tons clinker

produced-slightly higher than the

previously calculated floor and standard

of 55 lb/MM tons clinker produced. The

EPA further proposed to adopt 55

lb/MM tons clinker produced as a

beyond-the-floor standard. See 77 FR

42373. The new source standard was

unchanged since the standard was based

on the performance of the best

performing similar source.

The EPA is adopting the standards as

proposed. One commenter challenged

the appropriateness of adopting a

beyond-the-floor standard, not for the

industry as a whole, but for itself. As to

this individual plant (Ash Grove,

Durkee), the commenter maintained that

the cost of attaining the three additional

lb/MM ton clinker produced reduction

(i.e., the difference between 58 and 55

lb/MM tons clinker produced) was

greater than the EPA estimated because

it would require more than just

additional carbon in an activated carbon

injection system to achieve the

incremental difference. According to the

commenter, they have performed

extensive testing and the addition of

activated carbon per million actual

cubic feet per minute of exhaust gas has

little or no impact on mercury

emissions. The commenter states that

for plants such as Ash Grove's Durkee

plant, there is no known add-on control

technology at this time that will assure

achievement of the standard on a

continuous basis.

We note first that the commenter is

somewhat over-estimating the

incremental reduction of mercury

actually needed. To achieve the

emission standard, sources will need to

operate their processes and controls so

that they can achieve the average

emissions level used in setting the

existing source limit of 55 lb/MM tonthe so-called design level. See e.g. 77 FR

42389/3 (estimating emissions

attributable to this final rule based on

design levels); see also discussion of

design values in section VI.B below.

That level is 31.7 lb/MM ton for the

standard of 55 lb/MM ton. See 75 FR

54976/3. The average for the 58 lb/MM

ton is 34.1 lb/MM ton. The additional

reduction needed is therefore 2.4 lb/MM

tons, not 3 lb/MM tons as stated by the

commenter.

As the EPA has acknowledged

repeatedly, due to the high levels of

mercury in their limestone, mercury

emissions from the Ash Grove Durkee

plant are not typical of other plants in

the industry. See, e.g. 75 FR 54978-79.

As a result, this plant faces a

particularly great challenge in meeting

the mercury standard, whether the

standard is 55 or 58 lb/MM tons.

Because of their unique situation, we do

not believe that the difficulties this

facility is having in meeting the mercury

standards can be generalized to the rest

of the industry. Section 112(d)(2) of the

Act posits an industry-wide standard.

Having said this, our cost analysis

conducted for the 2009 proposal and

2010 final rule assumed that this plant

would have to install multiple control

systems in order to meet the limit for

mercury. See Docket item EPA-HQOAR-2002-0051-3438. Therefore, if in

this particular case the activated carbon

injection (ACI) system cannot achieve

the small additional reductions

required, then the facility has other

mercury control options available such

as further dust shuttling, or treating

cement kiln dust to remove mercury.

Dust shuttling entails moving dust from

within the kiln to other parts of the

process and is considered a closed loop

process, thereby not causing any waste

impacts. In addition, any costs

associated with dust shuttling have

already been accounted for in the cost

estimates the EPA has developed for

this particular facility.

The commenter alluded to control

performance data that it shared with the

EPA. We note that the commenter has

provided pilot scale data as part of the

2010 rulemaking (see Docket item EPAHQ-OAR-2002-0051-2073), but has not

provided data on the effects of

increasing carbon injection on mercury

emissions for a full scale facility. We

note that in the electric utility industry,

where there is significantly more

experience with ACI, it is well

established that higher carbon injection

rates increase mercury removal

(Sjostrom, S.; Durham, M.; Bustard, J.

Martin, C.; "Activated Carbon Injection

for Mercury Control: Overview", FUEL,

89, 6, 1320 (2010)). There is no data to

indicate that ACI systems in the cement

industry would behave differently than

those in the utility industry. Given the

lack of data on the efficacy of increasing

carbon injection rates on mercury

removal for full scale cement

operations, we cannot conclude that

increasing carbon injection is not a

10021
10022 Federal Register/Vol. 78, No. 29/Tuesday, February 12, 2013/Rules and Regulations

reasonable approach for increasing

mercury removal efficiency.

C. Standards for Fugitive Emissions

From Open Clinker Storage Piles

The EPA proposed that cement kilns

control fugitive emissions from open

clinker storage piles, defined at proposal

as "any clinker storage pile that is not

completely enclosed in a building or

structure". These piles would be

controlled through the use of work

practices which minimized emissions

by means of (among others) partial

enclosure, damping down the pile by

chemical or physical means or shielding

piles from wind. These work practices

were drawn from permits for existing

cement kilns, and every cement kiln

appears to already be utilizing some

type of work practice to minimize

fugitive emissions from open clinker

storage piles. See 77 FR 42378. Cement

kiln sources were allowed to select from

among the specified work practices and

choose those most suitable for its

operations.

For both new and existing sources,

the NESHAP is amended to require that

one or more of the control measures

identified in the rule be used to

minimize fugitive dust emissions from

open clinker storage piles. The work

practices would apply to open clinker

storage piles regardless of the quantity

of clinker or the length of time that the

clinker pile is in existence.

In addition, the owner or operator

must include as part of their operations

and maintenance plan (required in

§ 63.1347) the location of their open

clinker storage piles and the fugitive

dust control measures as specified in

this rule that will be implemented to

control fugitive dust emissions from

open clinker piles. We agree with

comments received that the list of

allowed work practices reflects all of the

available practices documented in

cement kiln facility operating permits to

control clinker storage pile fugitive

emissions. The size, type and duration

of a clinker pile may warrant different

types of work practices. The final rule

requires that one or more of a variety of

work practices need to be employed,

recognizing that the source will use the

work practices that will be effective for

the particular piles. Thus, the EPA has

revised the list of work practices to be

consistent with those listed in the

proposal preamble. These are: Use of

partial enclosures, using a water spray

or fogging system, applying appropriate

dust suppression agents, using a wind

barrier and using a tarp. Commenters

also requested that the EPA allow other

work practices if approved by the

delegated authority. Our regulations

already provide procedures for sources

to seek approval of alternative work

practices. See section 112(h)(3) as

implemented by 40 CFR 63.8(f).

Several industry commenters stated

that the definition of clinker pile is

problematic as proposed because it was

not limited by size or duration.

Commenters note that it is not

uncommon for small amounts of clinker

to be dropped, or to fall off a frontloader onto the ground when being

moved from a kiln to a storage location

or from such a location to the grinding

mill. Because these are small amounts of

clinker, it is also not uncommon that

these small quantities of clinker will

remain where they were dropped and

may not be picked up or removed until

the necessary manpower becomes

available; in some cases this could be

multiple days. Another industry

commenter noted that because of the

short-term duration of temporary clinker

stockpiles, the use of work practices

similar to those proposed for clinker

storage piles is not feasible. The

industry trade association suggested the

following definition: "Open clinker

storage pile means an outdoor,

unenclosed accumulation of clinker on

the ground, which contains in excess of

50,000 tons of clinker, and is utilized for

a continuous period in excess of 180

days." Under this suggested approach,

only a clinker storage pile meeting this

definition would be subject to the work

practice standards.

We are not adopting this approach.

We believe that the potential to emit

may be different at different sites for a

variety of reasons such as weather and

traffic conditions. Nor did the

commenter provide information

indicating that open clinker storage

piles of less than 50,000 tons or stored

for less than 180 days are unlikely to

produce fugitive emissions. Indeed, as a

result of weather, traffic or other

conditions, smaller piles stored for

shorter periods have the evident

potential to emit substantial levels of

fugitive emissions. Nor is any such

uniformly applicable distinction based

on duration evident. Clinker piles can

be temporary but be replaced by a new

pile at the same (or nearby) location a

few days later, with no essential

difference in fugitive emissions.

Nonetheless, we believe that the

commenter is correct that spills are

unavoidable, and that work practices

designed for non-temporary piles cannot

feasibly be applied in such

circumstances. The commenter is also

correct that work practices used for nontemporary piles would be misapplied to

temporary piles attributable to cleaning

storage structures. For these reasons, the

definition of "open storage pile"

excludes these types of piles.

Specifically, the definition of open

clinker storage pile does not include

temporary piles of clinker that are the

result of accidental spillage or

temporary use of outdoor storage while

clinker storage buildings are being

cleaned. This final rule defines

"temporary" to mean piles that remain

in place for 3 days or less from their

generation (3 days accommodating

weekend scheduling). This is sufficient

time to either pick these spills up (the

applicable work practice for these spills)

or to cover them to prevent fugitive

emissions.

These final amendments will result in

a cost savings to the industry as

compared to the 2010 rule. As a result

of requiring work practices instead of

enclosures, we estimate that there will

be a savings of $8.25 million annually.

See Final Portland Cement

Reconsideration Technical Support

Document, December 20, 2012, in this

rulemaking docket.

D. September 9, 2015, Compliance Date

for the Amended Existing Source

Standards

The EPA proposed to establish

September 9, 2015, as the compliance

date for the amended existing source

NESHAP standards. The basic reason for

the proposed compliance date was that

the proposed change in the PM standard

made possible different compliance

alternatives for all of the stack emission

standards, and that it could legitimately

take two years from the original

compliance date to implement these

new compliance strategies. See 77 FR

42385-87. Further, the amended

compliance date would apply to all of

the stack emission standards due to the

interrelatedness of the standards: the

mercury, THC and HCl standards all

typically involve some element of PM

generation and capture and so the

controls must be integrated with PM

control strategies. Id. at 42386.

The record for this final rule supports

the need for the September 9, 2015

compliance date. With respect to PM

control, as the EPA explained at

proposal, plants now have the option of

retaining electrostatic precipitators

(ESP) with modification or downstream

polishing baghouses, rather than

replacing ESP with baghouses. Plants

may also size baghouses differently

(with or without incorporation of

upstream or downstream polishing

elements). The various types of sorbent

injection strategies to control organics,

mercury and HCl, are affected by the PM

limits (and vice versa). Based on the

facts of this record for this source
Federal Register/Vol. 78, No. 29/Tuesday, February 12, 2013/Rules and Regulations

category, the type, size and alternatives to use of Residual Thermal regime takes time. Specifically, plants

aggressiveness of the controls for these Oxidizers. See generally, Final Portland will need to conduct engineering

HAP, as well as the PM controls, are not Cement Reconsideration Technical studies, determine the most costonly interdependent but can all change Support Document, section 3.1, effective control strategy, seek contract

as a result of the amended PM standard. December 2012, in the docket for this bids, purchase equipment, install and

In addition, the amended alternative rulemaking. test the new equipment. Below is an

oHAP standard affords additional Determining, developing, installing, estimate of a timeline for a cement kiln

compliance alternatives for control of testing and otherwise implementing a to undertake these steps.

non-dioxin organic HAP, including different comprehensive HAP control

TIME NEEDED To PREPARE FOR COMPLIANCE

[Docket item EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0817-0505-Al]

Steps in preparing for compliance Time period

N e w e n g ine e ring stud y ................................................................................................................................................... Ja n u a ry- A p ril 2 0 13 .

S e lection of techno logy p rovide rs .................................................................................................................................. A pril- A ug ust 20 13 .

T echno logy p rocurem ent ................................................................................................................................................ A ug ust- D ece m be r 20 13 .

Detailed technology design and final engineering ......................................................................................................... January-June 2014.

Equipm ent fabrication and pe rm itting ............................................................................................................................. June- D ecem be r 2014.

C onstruction and tying into existing operation ............................................................................................................... January-M ay 2015.

T echno logy com m issio ning ............................................................................................................................................ June-A ug ust 20 15 .

One commenter, sharply opposing

any change in compliance date,

maintained that all of this reasoning is

hypothetical and that such a

consequential extension could not

legitimately rest on speculation. The

EPA disagrees that this analysis is

speculative. First, the EPA's engineering

judgment is that the changes in the PM

standard and alternative oHAP

standard, open up different compliance

alternatives from those under the 2010

rule. The EPA has indicated what those

alternatives can be, and the time needed

to determine, purchase, install and test

them. Comments from the affected

industry are consistent with the EPA's

engineering judgment as to the type of

different compliance approaches now

available for existing sources.

The EPA's engineering determinations

as to the time needed for cement kilns

to implement a different multi-HAP

control strategy here are moreover

consistent with the agency's longstanding analysis (i.e. analysis not

specific to the cement industry) of the

time needed to install multipollutant

control systems. See US EPA,

Engineering and Economic Factors

Affecting the Installation of Control

Technologies for Multipollutant

Strategies, EPA-600/R-02/073, October

2002) (cited at 77 FR 42386). Therefore,

the EPA estimated that it is normal for

the development and implementation of

new compliance measures to take

between 15-27 months for single

control systems, and longer for systems

involving multiple controls for HAP and

criteria pollutants, as is the case here.

The record to this rule also contains

a survey of 92 of the 97 domestic

cement kilns currently in operation.

These survey results document, on a

kiln by kiln basis, alternative

engineering strategies now available to

these kilns as a result of the amended

PM standard and also documents the

time each kiln estimates would be

needed to carry out these new

compliance strategies. See Comments of

PCA, Appendix D (EPA-HQ-OAR2011-0817-0505). For example, kiln

B 12 has the option of modifying its ESP

system using a hybrid ESP/baghouse

filter system, or of using a cyclone

upstream of the ESP. Steps needed to

implement these possibilities include

main stack evaluation, cooler stack

testing, and evaluation, vendor/

contractor selection, final design,

equipment procurement and fabrication,

startup and commissioning, and

demonstrating compliance. The plant

has already commenced some of these

steps, but provides reasonable time

estimates for why it would take until

September 2015 to complete them. Kiln

Q1 3 expects to be able to retain its ESP

system (whereas it could not under the

2010 final rule), but needs to resize its

dust conveying system, upgrade the

ESP, and utilize a larger activated

carbon injection system differently from

planned (since an ESP will not capture

mercury as would a baghouse). Steps

involved in developing and

implementing a system include

reviewing the structural integrity of the

existing ESP, obtaining proposals on

ESP upgrades, relocating an existing

12 For competitiveness reasons, kilns in this

survey are identified by letter. The survey results

are consistent with the EPA's engineering

understanding and judgment, and the EPA has no

reason to dispute the overall survey results

(although some details may be open to question).

13 These examples were chosen at random by the

EPA from the survey information provided in the

comment.

stack adjacent to the existing ESP,

complete stack design, order equipment

for ESP upgrades, order a new stack,

contract construction, perform

necessary construction, modify the ESP

as needed, evaluate CEMS performance

and conduct stack testing and make any

adjustments to the integrated control

system. Again, reasonable timelines for

carrying out these steps are provided.

Neither the EPA nor the industry has

said definitively what each kiln will do

and how long it will take. Until the

standards are finalized, no such

definitive pronouncement is possible.

However, the record is quite specific

that additional control strategies are

now possible; what the range of those

new control strategies are; that the

strategies are interrelated so that the

standards for PM, organics, mercury and

HCI are all implicated; and the time

needed to carry out the various

strategies. Thus, the commenter is

mistaken that the record regarding the

need for a compliance date of

September 2015 is merely conjectural.

The EPA solicited comment on the

possibility of a shorter extension for the

stack emission standards, noting that by

virtue of the 2010 final rule, the

industry was not starting from scratch

but could already undertake compliance

steps. See 77 FR 42386/3. The survey

results referred to above confirm that

this is the case, since a number of plants

(to their credit) indicated that they have

taken preliminary steps toward

compliance such as conducting stack

testing, and testing various control

strategies (e.g., survey results for kilns

A, F and G). Nonetheless, many

commenters made the evident point that

this preliminary work could only go so

far when there was uncertainty about

10023
10024 Federal Register/Vol. 78, No. 29/Tuesday, February 12, 2013/Rules and Regulations

the final standard and uncertainty

around which standard would

determine their final control strategy.

Moreover, even those plants which had

begun preliminary compliance steps

indicated (with specific timelines

provided) that the remaining work

would legitimately stretch through the

summer of 2015.

This same record refutes those

comments maintaining that an even

longer compliance extension is needed.

Not only is this inconsistent with the

EPA's own estimates, but the industry

survey results document that no further

time is needed. See CAA section

112(i)(3)(A) (compliance with CAA

section 112(d) standards to be as

expeditious as practicable). Therefore,

the EPA is revising the compliance date

for existing sources for PM, THC, HCI,

and Hg to be September 9, 2015.

However, the EPA is establishing

February 12, 2014, as the compliance

date for the standards for existing open

clinker piles. These standards are not

inter-related to the stack emission

standards, and so need not be on the

same timeline. The work practices we

are adopting as the standards reflect

practices already in place throughout

the entire industry. The time needed to

come into compliance consequently is

to establish a reporting and

recordkeeping apparatus, and in some

instances to obtain approval (after

appropriate demonstration) to use work

practices not enumerated in the

standard. The EPA estimates that these

various steps should not exceed twelve

months. Since section 112(i)(3)(A)

requires compliance to be as

expeditious as practicable, the EPA is

establishing a 12 month compliance

period for these standards.

A compliance date for an amended

standard must still be "as expeditiou[s]

as practicable" and not more than 3

years. We believe a compliance

extension is appropriate where, as here,

for the stack emission standards, the

amended result in a compliance regime

differs from the initial rule and

additional time is needed to develop,

install, and implement the controls

needed to meet the amended standard.

The EPA has shown that to be the case

here, as explained above.

The Sierra Club in its comments also

argued that the EPA could not change

the 2013 compliance date in the 2010

final rule as a matter of law. The

commenter rests this argument on CAA

sections 112(d)(7) and 112(i)(3)(A). We

have responded above to the argument

based on section 112(d)(7). Section

112(d)(7) simply is not an antibacksliding provision (or, at the least,

does not have to be interpreted that

way).

CAA Section 112(i)(3)(A) states in

relevant part:

"[a]fter the effective date of any

emissions standard, limitation or

regulation * * * the Administrator

shall establish a compliance date or

dates for each category or subcategory of

existing sources, which shall provide for

compliance as expeditiously as

practicable, but in no event later than 3

years after the effective date of such

standard".

In NRDC v. EPA (Plywood MA CT),

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

the court held that "only the effective

date of Section 112 emissions standards

matters when determining the

maximum compliance date." 489 F. 3d

at 1373 (emphasis original). The EPA,

therefore, lacked authority to extend the

compliance date when it was only

adjusting reporting terms. Id. at 1374.

The opinion implies, however, that the

EPA may reset the compliance date

when the EPA amends the actual

standard, as here. If the statute provided

an absolute bar on the EPA extending an

effective date, there was no reason for

the court to distinguish the situation

where the EPA amends some ancillary

feature of the rule from the situation

where the EPA amends the actual

standard. 14

The reason it makes sense for the EPA

to have the authority to reestablish a

compliance date when it amends a

MACT standard is evident. In a

technology-based regime like section

112(d), if the technology basis of the

standard changes with a change of the

standard, it takes time to adopt the

revised controls. This result fits the

statutory text.

14 Sierra Club maintains that because the

revisions to the PM standard leave that standard

nearly as stringent as the 2010 standard, all that has

effectively changed is the standard's averaging time.

Sierra Club likens this situation to the amendments

to ancillary provisions like reporting at issue in

Plywood MACT. This is incorrect. First, as

explained in section V.A. above, the standard did

increase numerically as a result of removing

commercial incinerators from the database.

Portland Cement Reconsideration Technical

Support Document, June 15, 2012, Docket item

EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0817-0225. Second, although

the amended PM standard is relatively as stringent

as the 2010 standard (75 FR 54988/2 and 77 FR

42389/3), it nonetheless affords different

compliance options for all of the standards, as

explained above and in further detail in the

Response to Comment document. The standard

allows flexibility for those days when emissions

increase as a result of normal operating variability,

without significantly affecting the long-term average

performance for PM and affords different

compliance opportunities as a result. Nor does the

commenter consider the amendment to the

alternative oHAP standard, which amendment

likewise affords new compliance opportunities.

Where the EPA has amended an

existing source MACT standard, the

compliance date for that amended

standard must be as expeditious as

practicable, and no later than 3 years

from its effective date. Sierra Club

argues that the original standard (the

one that has been amended) must

nonetheless take effect, but that

standard no longer exists. It has been

amended. Moreover, the result of Sierra

Club's approach would force sources to

install one technology and rip it out in

short order to install another. Congress

cannot have mandated this result. See

PCA v. EPA, 655 F. 3d at 189 (staying

NESHAP standards for clinker pilesthat is, effectively extending their

compliance date-because "the

standards could likely change

substantially. Thus, industry should not

have to build expensive new

containment structures until the

standard is finally determined.") 1516

Moreover, in the extreme case where the

initial standard was outright technically

infeasible by any source (and was

amended by the EPA to correct this

defect), Sierra Club's reading would

leave sources with literally no legitimate

compliance option. 1 7 Technology-based

standards simply do not work this way.

15 In a variant of this argument, Sierra Club

maintains that in a situation where the compliance

date for an initial existing source MACT standard

has not yet passed and the EPA amended that

standard to make it more stringent, the EPA would

nonetheless leave the predecessor less stringent

standard in place and require compliance with it.

Although this situation has not arisen, the EPA

would presumably be governed by the same

principle noted by the PCA court: is the technology

basis for the standard changing in such a way as

to require more time for compliance and in a way

that negates the compliance strategy of the initial

rule. (Of course, if the compliance date of a

standard has already occurred and a standard is

later amended, that compliance date would not

change retroactively.)

16 Sierra Club maintains that PCA is

distinguishable because it involved a standard

which the EPA was compelled to change. First, the

comment is factually mistaken. The EPA had

granted reconsideration of the clinker pile

standards but had not indicated that the standards

would be amended. See 76 FR 28325/1 (May 17,

2011). Nor did the court indicate that the pile

standards must change. Rather, "[b]ecause EPA will

now be receiving comments for the first time, the

standards could likely change substantially." 655 F.

3d at 189 (emphasis supplied). Thus, the court

effectively reset the compliance date because of a

potential future change in the rule which could

result in a compliance regime which differed from

that in the 2010 final rule. This is directly parallel

to the situation now presented by the amended PM

and alternative oHAP standards.

17 An example is the startup and shutdown

standard for HCl in the 2010 final rule. The EPA

established this standard as zero on the mistaken

assumption that no chlorine could be present in the

kiln during there periods. See 76 FR 28325

(granting consideration on this basis). The

commenter's approach would leave this technically

infeasible standard and its compliance date in place

without recourse.
Federal Register/Vol. 78, No. 29/Tuesday, February 12, 2013/Rules and Regulations

E. Eligibility To Be a New Source Under

NESHAP

CAA section 112(a)(4) states that a

new source is a stationary source if "the

construction or reconstruction of which

is commenced after the Administrator

first proposes regulations under this

section establishing an emissions

standard applicable to such source." As

we explained previously, there is some

ambiguity in the language "first

proposes" and such language could

refer to different dates in different

circumstances, such as the first time the

Agency proposes any standards for the

source category, the first time the

Agency proposes standards under a

particular rulemaking record for the

source category, or the first time the

Agency proposes a particular standard.

In the proposed reconsideration rule,

the EPA proposed to retain May 6, 2009,

as the date which determines new

source eligibility and solicited comment

on this issue. Industry commenters

stated that we should change the date

for determining new source status from

May 9, 2009 to July 18, 2012, the date

of the proposed reconsideration rule. In

support, they asserted that they will not

know what the final standards are until

we finalize the reconsideration rule. We

disagree with the commenters'

suggestion and are retaining the May 6,

2009 date as the date that determines

whether a source is a new source under

CAA section 112(a)(4).

As we explained at proposal, it is

reasonable to retain the May 6, 2009

date as the date the Agency "first

proposed" standards for this source

category. This is the date that EPA first

proposed these standards under this

particular rulemaking record. Today's

action is a reconsideration action, and

although it revises the particulate matter

new source standard, it is premised on

the same general rulemaking record. It

is thus reasonable to view the date EPA

"first proposes" standards to be the May

2009 date. Further, industry

commenters essentially advocate an

approach whereby any time the Agency

changes a new source standard, in any

way, on reconsideration, the new source

trigger date would change. Such a result

is not consistent with Congress' intent

in defining the term "new source" in

section 112(a)(4), to be the date the

Agency "first proposes" standards.

Furthermore, EPA notes that the new

source standards finalized today are

ones that will be met, in our view, using

the same or similar control technologies

as would be used to meet the standards

issued in May 2010, and commenters

have not disputed this conclusion. See

77 FR 42387.

VI. Summary of Cost, Environmental,

Energy and Economic Impacts

A. What are the affected sources?

As noted in the proposed 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

this final rule, and that approximately 5

of those facilities are new greenfield

facilities. All these facilities will operate

156 cement kilns and associated clinker

coolers. Of these kilns, 23 are CISWI

kilns. These 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

PM, mercury, HCl and THC, and 7 kilns

and clinker coolers subject to the

amended NSPS for nitrogen oxide and

SO 2 . Some of these new kilns will be

built at existing facilities and some at new greenfield facilities.

B. How did the EPA evaluate the

impacts of these amendments?

For these final amendments, we

determined whether additional control

measures, work practices and

monitoring requirements would be

required by cement manufacturing

facilities to comply with the amended

rules, incremental to the 2010 final

standards (since any other comparison

would result in double counting). 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 any of the additional

measures in order to comply with these

final amendments. Using this approach,

we assessed potential impacts from the

proposed revisions.

These final amendments to the 2010

rule are expected to result in lower costs

for the Portland cement industry. The

final amendment to the PM standard

affords alternative, less costly

compliance opportunities for existing

sources. See section V.D above. 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, for

instance). Compliance strategies for the

other HAP, all of which involve some

element of PM control, also may be

affected. Cost savings from these

alternatives could be significant. There

are also potential cost savings associated

with the amended oHAP alternative

standard (which now may be a viable

compliance alternative for some sources

since issues of reliable analytic

measurement have been resolved).

Following proposal, industry submitted

kiln specific information on likely

changes in compliance strategy resulting

from the proposed amendments so that

we are now better able to estimate

potential savings resulting from the final

amendments. Based on an industry

survey of 18 Portland cement facilities

(20 kilns) after proposal (see Docket

item EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0817-0505,

Appendix D), it appears that the

amendments may have the following

effects, which may result in savings in

capital and annual costs associated with

implementing control technologies for

these pollutants:

* Regenerative thermal oxidizers

(RTO) may not need to be installed due

to the amended oHAP alternative.

* Carbon injection rates may be

lowered or not required for THC control.

* Existing PM controls (ESP and

baghouse) may not need to be replaced,

but may instead be upgraded.

* Additional PM controls may not

have to be implemented.

* Polishing and hybrid filter

configurations may be implemented

instead of total replacements.

There are also certain costs, and cost

savings, associated with other

provisions of the final amendments.

There may be a difference in costs of

stack testing for PM and use of a CPMS,

rather than use of a PM CEMS. In

addition, there are cost savings when

changing from a PM CEMS compliance

demonstration to a CPMS

demonstration. For example as part of

the PS 11 calibration requirements, a

minimum of 15 Method 5 test runs are

required to develop a correlation curve,

with no limit to the maximum number

of test runs. Omitting the need for these

multiple test runs will save the facility

a minimum of $20,000 per kiln (each

Method 5 test costs $5,000). At a savings

of $20,000 per kiln, nationwide savings

for 133 new and existing kilns, would

be $2.7 million per year. However, the

CPMS is the same type of device as a

PM CEMS, so the capital cost of the

CPMS would not be significantly

different than the CEMS device.

The final revisions to the alternative

organic HAP standard (from 9 ppm to 12

ppm, reflecting the analytic method

practical quantitation limit) would

allow more sources to select this

compliance alternative and demonstrate

compliance without needing to install

10025
10026 Federal Register/Vol. 78, No. 29/Tuesday, February 12, 2013/Rules and Regulations

very expensive and energy-intensive

RTO. In addition, providing parametric

monitoring flexibilities (not present in

the 2010 final rule) will provide lower

costs for the better-performing sources

in the industry. See section IV.B above.

We have quantified these savings (see

Final Portland Cement Reconsideration

Technical Support Document, December

20, 2012, Section 3).

The revisions to the standard for open

clinker storage piles codify current

fugitive dust control measures already

required by most states, so no impacts

are expected. These final standards

would be significantly less expensive

than the controls for open piles in the

2010 final rule, which required

enclosures in all instances. We estimate

that the savings to industry over the

2010 rule will be $8.25 million

annually. See Final Portland Cement

Reconsideration Technical Support

Document, December 20, 2012, in this

rulemaking docket.

We have estimated the additional

industry cost associated with the

affirmative defense to civil penalties

provisions. We estimate the additional

cost is $3,258 per year for the entire

industry. See Supporting Statement in

the docket.

One of the final revisions would allow

sources that control HCl with dry

scrubbers to use periodic performance

testing and parametric monitoring rather

than monitoring compliance with an

HCl CEMS. This will provide those

sources with additional flexibility in

complying with the HCl standard.

The 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 revision.

The amendments provide for work

practices rather than numerical

standards during periods of startup and

shutdown. The work practice standards

reflect common industry practices, so

there should be no costs associated with

them. There should also be substantial

savings associated with the work

practices.

At an annual cost of about $51,000

per year ($22,800 per Method 30B test

for mercury + $8,000 per year for

Method 25A test for THC + $20,000 per

year for Method 321 test for HCl), the

final 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 revisions would make existing

kilns that undergo a modification, as

defined by NSPS, subject to a PM

standard of 0.07 lb/ton clinker, 3-run

average. There may be less costly

compliance alternatives under the

amended standard, similar to

alternatives available under the

amended existing source NESHAP for

PM.

C. What are the air quality impacts?

In these final amendments, emission

limits for mercury, THC and HCl are

unchanged from the 2010 rule. Thus,

there is no change in emissions from the

2010 rule for these HAP and HAP

surrogates. The alternative HAP organic

standard is being amended to 12 ppm,

which is the analytic method practical

quantitation limit based on the

performance test method detection limit

of 4 ppm. The impact on emission levels

due to this change is not clear since

measuring below the quantitation limit

does not yield a value with enough

certainty to represent the actual level.

Thus, a measurement below 12 ppm

could very well actually be 12 ppm or

something less. For PM, the limit for

existing sources changes from 0.04 lb/

ton clinker 30-day average to 0.07 lb/ton

clinker based on stack testing. The PM

limit for new sources also changed: To

0.02 lb/ton clinker stack test from 0.01

lb/ton clinker 30-day average. The final

changes in the PM standards, while not

significant in absolute terms, may result

in a small increase in total nationwide

emissions by allowing slightly more

variability, although, as noted at

proposal, we estimate that design values

will be essentially identical under the

2010 and this final standard. 77 FR

42389. 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. As a practical matter,

plants operate to comply with this lower

average emissions level (the so-called

design level), rather than the emissions

limit, so that on those days where there

is normal operating variability they do

not exceed the emissions limit. See 77

FR 42386-87. Under the 2010 rule, the

average PM emissions from the existing

floor kilns were 0.02296 lb/ton clinker.

Under the amended standard, 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 as 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 this

final rule of 0.00359 lb/ton clinker

compared to the 2010 rule, nationwide

emissions of PM would increase by 138

tons per year (0.00359 x 76,664,662/

2000). Thus, the EPA estimates that the

main effect of this final 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. Nonetheless, as

explained in section V.D above, this

change does allow for changes in

compliance strategies in the form of

types, sizes and sequencing of treatment

trains.

Emission reductions under the 2010

rule and this final rule, in 2015, are

compared in Table 4.

TABLE 4-COMPARISON OF NATIONWIDE PM EMISSIONS FROM 2010 RULE TO FINAL RULE IN 2015

Kiln type 2010 rule Final rule Increment

Em issions lim it (lb/ton clinker .............................. Existing ......................... 0.04 ........ ......... 0.07 .............................. NA

(30-day average with a (3-run stack test)

CEMS).

MACT average emissions for compliance (lb/ton Existing ......................... 0.02296 ........................ 0.02655 ........................ 0.00359

clinker.

2010 baseline em issions (C ISW I kilns rem oved) ....................................... 11,433 .......................... 11,433 .......................... NA

(tons/yr).

Nationw ide em issions reduction (tons/yr) ........... Total ............................. 10,540 .......................... 10,402 .......................... - 138
Federal Register/Vol. 78, No. 29/Tuesday, February 12, 2013/Rules and Regulations

One commenter noted that the

compliance extension will result in two

additional years of HAP emissions at

pre-standard levels, noting especially

the emission of PM, noting further that

fine PM (PM2.

5) is causally associated

with mortality and serious morbidity

effects at a population level. See, e.g., 77

FR 38909 (June 29, 2012). We note first

that these rules are technology-based,

not risk-based, and that there are

compelling reasons to amend the PM

standard and to establish new

compliance dates for existing sources as

a result of technological limitations with

the 2010 rule PM standard, and the new

compliance opportunities afforded as a

result of the amendment to that

standard. See section V.D above. We

also question the commenter's premise

that all of the predicted emission

reductions and benefits would accrue if

the existing source CEM-based PM

standards took effect in September 2013.

As explained at length in section V.A

above and in other comment responses,

PM CEMS would not reliably measure

the level of the PM standard in many

instances. One cannot assume the full

range of emission reductions (and

consequent health benefits) would

accrue in the real world if the emission

measurements themselves are uncertain.

Thus, in a meaningful sense, today's

amendments result in a regime where

the required emission reductions will be

reliably measured, so that the rule's

health benefits will reliably occur.

D. What are the water quality impacts?

At proposal, we believed that none of

the amendments being proposed would

have significant impacts on water

quality and that to the extent that the

revision affecting dry caustic scrubbers

encourages their use, some reduction in

water consumption may occur although

we had no information upon which to

base a quantified estimate. We received

no comments questioning this

assessment. Further, in reviewing the

industry survey information on the

impacts of the proposed changes, only

1 of the 20 kilns for which information

was provided was considering the

addition of a wet scrubber, although it

was also evaluating a dry scrubber (see

docket item EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0817-

0505, Appendix D, kiln S). Therefore,

we continue to believe that these final

amendments will not significantly

impact water quality.

E. What are the solid waste impacts?

None of the amendments being

finalized with this final rule are

expected to have any solid waste

impacts. 18

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 amendments. Because we are

finalizing revisions that slightly reduce

the stringency of the existing source

emission limits for PM from the

promulgated 2010 limits, we project that

some facilities will 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. The survey results

discussed in section V.D above confirm

the EPA's engineering judgment. Other

facilities in the survey that were not

able to meet the THC limit or the

alternative organic HAP limit in the

2010 rule were considering the

installation of RTO. Because some of

these facilities may now meet the limit

without the installation of an RTO, we

have estimated a reduction of 24,702

tons per year less CO 2 emissions being

emitted to the atmosphere (equivalent to

2 less RTO's being installed). As a result

of the organic HAP limit being revised

from 9 ppm to 12 ppm, these sources

responded that they now had other less

costly alternatives. The additional

compliance time was also cited as a

factor that would gives sources the

additional time they needed to consider

other HAP control alternatives to RTO.

As the industry survey highlights, these

types of determinations will be made for

each facility based on site-specific

characteristics such as process type,

equipment age, existing air pollution

controls, raw material and fuel

characteristics, economic factors and

others. In general, this survey indicates

that the combination of the revised

limits for PM and organic HAP as well

as the September 2015 compliance date

will give sources the opportunity to

develop less costly and less aggressive

compliance strategies. We do not have

enough information to quantify the

impact of overall secondary impacts,

18 Although dust shuttling is likely to be one

element of mercury compliance strategy, the

amount of dust shuttling would not increase

incremental to the 2010 final rule since the

standards for new and existing sources are the same

in the 2010 final rule and these amendments.

Moreover, as explained in section V.B above, even

with respect to the high mercury feed source, dust

shuttling entails moving dust from within the kiln

to other parts of the process and is considered a

closed loop process, thereby not causing any waste

impacts.

(with the exception of the CO 2

reductions noted above), but we believe

the impacts would in fact be reduced

relative to the 2010 rule since less

energy is expected to be needed for

facilities that can retain and upgrade

their current controls, instead of for

example, installing additional controls

in series.

G. What are the energy impacts?

As discussed in the preceding section,

because of the final revisions to the PM

emission limits, the organic HAP limits

and the compliance date extension,

some facilities will develop more cost

effective and less energy intensive

compliance strategies. For three of the

facilities (five kilns) that were part of

the industry survey, all five kilns

required significant changes to meet the

2010 THC standard, in part because they

were not pursuing the alternative

organic HAP alternative standard due to

analytic measurement uncertainties. See

docket item EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0817-

0505, Appendix D (kilns A, C and D,

and F and G). Prior to the proposed

revisions, all five of the kilns were

considering RTO as a control option as

well as other options including catalytic

ceramic filtration, a relatively new

technology and as yet, not completely

demonstrated technology for the cement

industry. In response to the survey of

what changes, if any, the facilities

would make in response to the proposed

revisions, all three facilities indicated

that the amended organic HAP limit or

the September 2015 compliance date

allowed them to consider the use of less

capital intensive alternatives and to

continue testing alternatives for THC

reduction other than the highly energyintensive RTO for the five kilns

involved. Although we cannot

accurately predict for the entire industry

the extent to which these site-specific

compliance strategies may affect energy

demands, the industry survey results

indicate a trend toward less energy

intensive strategies than RTO, and as

noted above, we predict a reduction in

CO 2 emissions due to less energy use as

a result of two fewer kilns installing

RTOs.

H. What are the cost impacts?

Under the cost scenario discussed

above, we estimate that there could be

savings of approximately $52 million

associated with alternative compliance

strategies for meeting amended PM

standards, making corresponding

adjustments in compliance strategies for

the organic HAP and requiring work

practice for open clinker storage piles.

Table 5 summarizes the costs and

emissions reductions of this final action.

10027
10028 Federal Register/Vol. 78, No. 29/Tuesday, February 12, 2013/Rules and Regulations

TABLE 5-SUMMARY OF THE COSTS AND EMISSION REDUCTIONS OF THE FINAL AMENDMENTS TO THE PORTLAND CEMENT

MANUFACTURING INDUSTRY NESHAP RELATIVE TO THE 2010 RULEabcde

PM emissions PM emissions Emission

Proposed amendment Annualized cost reduction reduction

2010 rule 2012 rule change tpy

Revised PM , oHAP standard ..................... ($42.2 m illion) f ........................................... 10,540 tons ...... 10,402 tons ...... 138 increase.

Replace PM CEMS with PM CPMS ....... ($2.7 million) ............................................. 0.

C oa l M ill T esting ........................................ $ 1 .3 m illio n ............................................. .. 0 .

Open clinker storage pile work practices ... ($8.25 m illion) ........................................... 0.

T ota l .................................................... ($5 1 .85 m illio n).

a Parentheses indicate cost savings. All costs are in 2005 dollars.

bWe also estimate that there will be a one-time cost of $25,000 for each facility to revise their operation and maintenance plan to include procedures to minimize emissions during periods of startup and shutdown. c Emissions reductions are the total once full compliance is achieved in 2015. d Full compliance costs will not occur until September 9, 2015.

eNote emission reductions published in the 2010 rule included CISWI kilns, but the reductions in this table reflect reductions since CISWI kilns

were removed from the database.

f Includes cost savings due to revised PM standard.

The cost information in Table 5 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.

With regard to the coal mill

monitoring requirements in this action,

sources with integral coal mills that

exhaust through a separate exhaust

would potentially incur a capital cost of

$36,000 to install a continuous flow

meter. The annualized cost of a flow

meter is $11,000. Because this final rule

allows the use of maximum design flow

rate instead of installing flow meters, we

believe that most facilities will take

advantage of this and will not incur

these costs. Annual testing at these coal

mills for mercury, THC and HCI will

cost about $51,000 ($22,800 per Method

30B test for mercury + $8,000 per year

for Method 25A test for THC + $20,000

per year for Method 321 test for HCI).

Using information supplied by the

industry (see docket item EPA-HQOAR-2011-0817-0612), approximately

26 facilities would be affected by these

requirements for an annual cost of $1.3

million. Costs for coal mills to meet the

PM limits for this NESHAP are not

included, since all equipment and

monitoring are in place to meet

requirements of Subpart Y and thus are

not considered additional costs.

With the final change to PM CPMS

instead of CEMS, it is estimated that the

elimination of the PS correlation tests

will result in a savings of $20,000 per

kiln.

L What are the health effects of these

pollutants?

In this section, we provide a

qualitative description of benefits

associated with reducing exposure to

PM 2.5, HCl and mercury. Controls

installed to reduce HAP would also

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). 1 9 When adequate data and

resources are available and a regulatory

impact analysis (RIA) is required, the

EPA generally quantifies several health

effects associated with exposure to

PM2 .5 (e.g., U.S. EPA, 2011).20 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

19 U.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.govlncealcfmlrecordisplay.cfm?

deid=216546.

20 U.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.

an important aspect of visibility (U.S.

EPA, 2009).

HC 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.21 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 chemicallyor irritant-induced 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. HCl has

not been classified for carcinogenic

effects. 22

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 National

21 Agency 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.govlmmgl

mmg.asp?id=758&tid=147#bookmarkO2.

22 U.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.govlirislsubstl

0396.htm.
Federal Register/Vol. 78, No. 29/Tuesday, February 12, 2013/Rules and Regulations

Academy of Science (NAS) Study was

issued which provides a thorough

review of the effects of MeHg on human

health (National Research Council

(NRC), 2000).23 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 NAS

found neurodevelopmental effects to be

the most sensitive and best documented

endpoints and appropriate for

establishing an oral reference dose (RID)

(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 RID 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

23 National Research Council (NRC). 2000.

Toxicological Effects of Methylmercury.

Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

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 24 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

Tapaj6s 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.2 5 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

immune activity or an autoimmune

response (ATSDR, 1999), evidence for

immunotoxic effects of MeHg is limited

(NRC, 2000).26

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 Integrated Risk Information

System (IRIS) (U.S. EPA, 2002).2728 The

24 U.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.govlhgl

report.htm.

25Amorim, M.IM., 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.

26 Agency 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.

27 U.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.govlirislsubstl

0073.htm. 2 8 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.

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 Office of Management and

Budget (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. An RIA was prepared for the

September 2010 final rule and can be

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

regdata/RIAs/

portlandcementfinalria.pdf. http://

www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/regdata/RIAs/

portlandcementfinalria.pdf.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

The information collection

requirements in this final rule have been

submitted for approval to the OMB

under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44

U.S.C. 3501, et seq.

The Information Collection Request

(ICR) document prepared by the EPA

has been assigned the EPA ICR number

1801.11 for the NESHAP; there are no

additional recordkeeping and reporting

requirements for the NSPS. The

information requirements are based on

notification, recordkeeping and

reporting requirements in the NESHAP

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

NRC 2000).

10029
10030 Federal Register/Vol. 78, No. 29/Tuesday, February 12, 2013/Rules and Regulations

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 finalizing new paperwork

requirements for the Portland Cement

Manufacturing source category in the

form of a requirement to incorporate

work practices for periods of startup and

shutdown and fugitive dust control

measures for clinker piles into their

existing operations and maintenance

plan.

This final rule also includes new

paperwork requirements for

recordkeeping of malfunctions, as

described in 40 CFR 63.454(g)

(conducted in support of the affirmative

defense provisions, as described in 40

CFR 63.456).

When a malfunction occurs, sources

must report the event according to the

applicable reporting requirements of 40

CFR part 63, subpart LLL. An

affirmative defense to civil penalties for

violations of emission limits that are

caused by malfunctions is available to a

source if it can demonstrate that certain

criteria and requirements are satisfied.

The criteria ensure that the affirmative

defense is available only where the

event that causes a violation of the

emission limit meets the narrow

definition of malfunction in 40 CFR 63.2

(sudden, infrequent, not reasonable

preventable and not caused by poor

maintenance and or careless operation)

and where the source took necessary

actions to minimize emissions. In

addition, the source must meet certain

notification and reporting requirements.

For example, the source must prepare a

written root cause analysis and submit

a written report to the Administrator

documenting that it has met the

conditions and requirements for

assertion of the affirmative defense.

The EPA is adding the paperwork and

recordkeeping associated with the

affirmative defense to civil penalties for

malfunctions 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

the ICR that 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

$3,258, 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 a violation 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

violations caused by malfunctions

would result in the source choosing to

assert the affirmative defense. Thus, we

expect the number of instances in which

source operators might be expected to

avail themselves of the affirmative

defense will be extremely small. For this

reason, we estimate no more than two

such occurrences per year for all sources

subject to subpart LLL over the 3-year

period covered by this ICR. We expect

to gather information on such events in

the future and will revise this estimate

as better information becomes available.

We estimate 86 facilities will be

subject to all final standards. The

remaining 14 facilities will only be

subject to the open clinker pile

standards in this action. The annual

monitoring, reporting and

recordkeeping cost for this source

(averaged over the first three years after

the effective date of the standards) for

these amendments to subpart LLL is

estimated to be $352,814 per year for the

industry. This includes 496 labor hours

per year at a total labor cost of $47,806

per year, and total non-labor capital and

operation and maintenance costs of

$305,008 per year. This estimate

includes reporting and recordkeeping

associated with the requirements for

open clinker storage piles. The total

burden to the federal government

(averaged over the first three years after

the effective date of the standard) as a

result of these amendments 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.

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 based on the size

definition for the affected NAICS code

(327310), 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-for-profit 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 and comprise 3 plants. After

considering the economic impacts of

this final rule on small entities, I certify

that this action will not have a

significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities. 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 these amendments to the

2010 final 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
Federal Register/Vol. 78, No. 29/Tuesday, February 12, 2013/Rules and Regulations

control of open clinker storage piles in

their title V permits).

Although this final rule will not have

a significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities, the

EPA nonetheless adopted amendments

which should reduce the impact of this

final rule on small entities. For example,

we are expanding the provision that

allows periodic HCI performance tests

as an alternative to HCI CEMS for

sources equipped with wet scrubbers to

also apply to those sources that use dry

scrubbers. This final rule also adds an

option for sources using wet or dry

scrubbers for HCI control to use SO 2 as

a monitored parameter. If these sources

already have a CEMS for SO 2, then this

will provide operational flexibility.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

This rule does not contain a Federal

mandate that may result in expenditures

of $100 million or more for State, local

and tribal governments, in the aggregate,

or the private sector in any one year. As

discussed earlier in this preamble, there

is an actual savings to the industry of

$52 million per year. Thus, this final

rule is not subject to the requirements

of section 202 and 205 of the UMRA.

This final action is also not subject to

the requirements of section 203 of the

UMRA because it contains no regulatory

requirements that might significantly or

uniquely affect small governments. This

final action contains no requirements

that apply to such governments,

imposes no obligations upon them, and

will not result in expenditures by them

of $100 million or more in any one year

or any disproportionate impacts on

them.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

This final 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.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation

and Coordination With Indian Tribal

Governments

This action may have tribal

implications, as specified in Executive

Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9,

2000). The EPA is aware of one tribally

owned Portland cement facility

currently subject to subpart LLL and

that will be subject to this final rule.

The provisions of this final rule are not

expected to impose new substantial

direct compliance costs on Tribal

governments since the same control

technologies that are necessary under

the current NESHAP will be needed to

meet the final emissions limits. The

EPA has tried to reduce the impact of

this final rule on Tribal owned facilities.

For example, we are expanding the

provision that allows periodic HCl

performance tests as an alternative to

HCI CEMS for sources equipped with

wet scrubbers to also apply to those

sources that use dry sorbent injection

(i.e., dry scrubbing systems). This final

rule adds an option for sources using

wet or dry scrubbers for HCI control to

use SO2 as a monitored parameter. If

these sources already have a CEMS for

SO 2, then this will provide operational

flexibility.

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.

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 final 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 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.

L 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 final 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 (See docket item EPA-HQOAR-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 final rule will not

have disproportionately high and

adverse human health or environmental

effects on minority or low-income

populations because it increases the

level of environmental protection for all

affected populations without having any

disproportionately high and adverse

human health or environmental effects

on any population, including any

minority or low-income populations. In

addition, the full benefits of this final

rule will not result until 2015 due to the

final amended compliance date but 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.

K. Congressional Review Act

The Congressional Review Act, 5

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

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides

that, before a rule may take effect, the

agency promulgating the rule must

submit a rule report, which includes a

copy of the rule, to each House of the

10031
10032 Federal Register/Vol. 78, No. 29/Tuesday, February 12, 2013/Rules and Regulations

Congress and to the Comptroller General

of the United States. The EPA will

submit a report containing this final rule

and other required information to the

U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of

Representatives and the Comptroller

General of the United States prior to

publication of the rule in the Federal

Register. A major rule cannot take effect

until 60 days after it is published in the

Federal Register. This action is not a "major rule" as defined by 5 U.S.C.

804(2). This final rule will be effective

on February 12, 2013.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Hazardous

substances, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements.

Dated: December 20, 2012.

Lisa P. Jackson,

Administrator.

For the reasons stated in the

preamble, title 40, chapter I, of the Code

of Federal Regulations is amended as

follows:

PART 60-[AMENDED]

m 1. The authority citation for part 60

continues to read as follows:

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

7671q.

Subpart F-[AMENDED]

* 2. 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. * * * * *

* 3. Section 60.62 is amended by:

* a. Removing and reserving paragraph

(a)(1)(i), revising paragraph (a)(1)(ii) and

adding paragraph (a)(1)(iii);

* b. Removing and reserving paragraph

(a)(2);

m c. Revising paragraphs (b)(1)(i) and

(ii);

* d. Removing paragraph (b)(2);

m e. Redesignating paragraphs (b)(3) and

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

* f. Revising newly designated

paragraph (b)(3); and

* g. Revising paragraph (d).

The revisions read as follows:

§ 60.62 Standards.

(a) * * * (1) * * *

(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.

(b) * * *

(1) * * *

(i) 0.02 pound per ton of clinker if

construction or reconstruction of the

clinker cooler commences after June 16,

2008.

(ii) 0.07 pound per ton of clinker if

the clinker cooler has undergone a

modification.

(3) If the kiln has a separated alkali

bypass stack and/or an inline coal mill

with a separate stack, you must combine

the PM emissions from the bypass stack

and/or the inline coal mill stack with

the PM emissions from the main kiln

exhaust to determine total PM

emissions.

(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.

* 4. Section 60.63 is amended by:

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

(ii);

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

m c. Revising paragraphs (b)(2) and (3);

* d. Removing paragraph (b)(4);

m 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 (6);

* j. Revising paragraph (h)(7)

introductory text;

* k. Revising paragraph (h)(8)

introductory text;

* 1. Revising paragraph (h)(9);

m m. Revising paragraph (i) introductory

text; and

E n. Revising paragraph (i)(1)

introductory text and (i)(1)(i).

The revisions and addition 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. You will conduct your

performance test using Method 5 or

Method 5I at appendix A-3 to part 60

of this chapter. You must also monitor

continuous performance through use of
Federal Register/Vol. 78, No. 29/Tuesday, February 12, 2013/Rules and Regulations

a PM continuous parametric monitoring

system (PM CPMS).

(2) For your PM CPMS, you will

establish a site-specific operating limit.

If your PM performance test

demonstrates your PM emission levels

to be below 75 percent of your emission

limit you will use the average PM CPMS

value recorded during the PM

compliance test, the milliamp

equivalent of zero output from your PM

CPMS, and the average PM result of

your compliance test to establish your

operating limit equivalent to 75 percent

of the standard. If your PM compliance

test demonstrates your PM emission

levels to be at or above 75 percent of

your emission limit you will use the

average PM CPMS value recorded

during the PM compliance test

demonstrating compliance with the PM

limit to establish your operating limit.

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.

(i) Your PM CPMS must provide a 4-

20 milliamp output and the

establishment of its relationship to

manual reference method measurements

must be determined in units of

milliamps.

(ii) Your PM CPMS operating range

must be capable of reading PM

concentrations from zero to a level

equivalent to two times your allowable

emission limit. If your PM CPMS is an

auto-ranging instrument capable of

multiple scales, the primary range of the

instrument must be capable of reading

PM concentration from zero to a level

equivalent to two times your allowable

emission limit.

(iii) During the initial performance

test or any such subsequent

performance test that demonstrates

compliance with the PM limit, record

and average all milliamp output values

from the PM CPMS for the periods

corresponding to the compliance test

runs (e.g., average all your PM CPMS

output values for three corresponding 2-

hour Method 5I test runs).

(3) Determine your operating limit as

specified in paragraphs (c)(4)(i) through

(c)(5) of this section. If your PM

performance test demonstrates your PM

emission levels to be below 75 percent

of your emission limit you will use the

average PM CPMS value recorded

during the PM compliance test, the

milliamp equivalent of zero output from

your PM CPMS, and the average PM

result of your compliance test to

establish your operating limit. If your

PM compliance test demonstrates your

PM emission levels to be at or above 75

percent of your emission limit you will

use the average PM CPMS value

recorded during the PM compliance test

to establish your operating limit. You

must verify an existing or establish a

new operating limit after each repeated

performance test. You must repeat the

performance test at least annually and

reassess and adjust the site-specific

operating limit in accordance with the

results of the performance test.

(4) If the average of your three Method

5 or 5I compliance test runs are below

75 percent of your PM emission limit,

you must calculate an operating limit by

establishing a relationship of PM CPMS

signal to PM concentration using the PM

CPMS instrument zero, the average PM

CPMS values corresponding to the three

compliance test runs, and the average

PM concentration from the Method 5 or

5I compliance test with the procedures

in (c)(4)(i)(A) through (D) of this section.

(i) Determine your PM CPMS

instrument zero output with one of the

following procedures.

(A) Zero point data for in-situ

instruments should be obtained by

removing the instrument from the stack

and monitoring ambient air on a test

bench.

(B) Zero point data for extractive

instruments should be obtained by

removing the extractive probe from the

stack and drawing in clean ambient air.

(C) The zero point can also can be

obtained by performing manual

reference method measurements when

the flue gas is free of PM emissions or

contains very low PM concentrations

(e.g., when your process is not

operating, but the fans are operating or

your source is combusting only natural

gas) and plotting these with the

compliance data to find the zero

intercept.

(D) If none of the steps in paragraphs

(c)(4)(i)(A) through (C) of this section

are possible, you must use a zero output

value provided by the manufacturer.

(ii) Determine your PM CPMS

instrument average in milliamps, and

the average of your corresponding three

PM compliance test runs, using

equation 1.

' n 1 i

,Y=

7 :' (Eq. 1)

Where:

X1 = The PM CPMS data points for the three

runs constituting the performance test,

Y1 = The PM concentration value for the

three runs constituting the performance

test, and

n = The number of data points.

(iii) With your PM CPMS instrument

zero expressed in milliamps, your three

run average PM CPMS milliamp value,

and your three run average PM

concentration from your three PM

performance test runs, determine a

relationship of lb/ton-clinker per

milliamp with equation 2.

R= (x Y- Z)

Where:

R = The relative lb/ton clinker per milliamp

for your PM CPMS.

Y1 = The three run average PM lb/ton

clinker.

X1 = The three run average milliamp output

from you PM CPMS.

z = the milliamp equivalent of your value from Equation 2 above in

instrument zero determined from (c)(4)(i) Equation 3, below. This sets your

of this section. operating limit at the PM CPMS output

(iv) Determine your source specific value corresponding to 75 percent of

30-day rolling average operating limit your emission limit.

using the lb/ton-clinker per milliamp

(Eq. 2)

10033
10034 Federal Register/Vol. 78, No. 29/Tuesday, February 12, 2013/Rules and Regulations

0 1=z+(0.75 (L)) / R (Eq. 3)

Where:

01 = The operating limit for your PM CPMS

on a 30-day rolling average, in

milliamps.

L = Your source emission limit expressed in

lb/ton clinker.

z = Your instrument zero in milliamps,

determined from (1)(i).

R = The relative lb/ton-clinker per milliamp

for your PM CPMS, from Equation 2.

(5) If the average of your three PM

compliance test runs is at or above 75

percent of your PM emission limit you

must determine your operating limit by

averaging the PM CPMS milliamp

output corresponding to your three PM

performance test runs that demonstrate

compliance with the emission limit

using Equation 4.

010 ;-- z.x1

(Eq. 4)

Where:

X1 = The PM CPMS data points for all runs

i.

n = The number of data points.

Oh = Your site specific operating limit, in

milliamps.

(6) To determine continuous

compliance, you must record the PM

CPMS output data for all periods when

the process is operating, and use all the

PM CPMS data for calculations when

the source 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 (milliamps) on a 30

operating day rolling average basis,

updated at the end of each new kiln

operating day. Use Equation 5 to

determine the 30 kiln operating day

average.

EHpv,

30kiln operating day average= ' n

n

Where:

Hpvi = The hourly parameter value for hour

i.

n = The number of valid hourly parameter

values collected over 30 kiln operating

days.

(7) Use EPA Method 5 or Method 5I

of appendix A to part 60 of this chapter

to determine PM emissions. For each

performance test, conduct at least 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 an existing source

limit. Calculate the average of the

results from three consecutive runs to

determine compliance. You need not

determine the particulate matter

collected in the impingers ("back half")

of the Method 5 or Method 5I

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.

(8) For PM performance test reports

used to set a PM CPMS operating limit,

the electronic submission of the test

report must also include the make and

model of the PM CPMS instrument,

serial number of the instrument,

analytical principle of the instrument

(e.g. beta attenuation), span of the

instruments primary analytical range,

milliamp value equivalent to the

instrument zero output, technique by

which this zero value was determined,

and the average milliamp signals

corresponding to each PM compliance

test run.

(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 S02

emissions into the atmosphere for any

kiln subject to the S02 emissions limit

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

with the alternative 90 percent SO 2

emissions reduction emissions limit,

you must also continuously monitor and

record the concentration by volume of

SO 2 present at the wet scrubber inlet.

(f) The NOx and SO 2 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 GEMS

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 referencesee § 60.17) is an acceptable alternative

to Method 7 or 7C of appendix A-4 to

this part.

(3) The span value for the SO 2 CEMS

monitor is the SO 2 emission

concentration that corresponds to 125

percent of the applicable emissions

limit at full clinker production capacity

(Eq. 5)
Federal Register/Vol. 78, No. 29/Tuesday, February 12, 2013/Rules and Regulations

and the expected maximum fuel sulfur

content.

(4) You must conduct performance

evaluations of each SO 2 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 referencesee § 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 SO 2 CEMS, including quarterly

accuracy determinations for monitors,

and daily calibration drift tests.

(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 (iii) and

(b)(1)(i) and (ii), the NOx emissions

limit in § 60.62(a)(3), or the SO 2

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 SO 2 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. To

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

§ 60.13(3)(i). 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);

u 5. Section 60.64 is revised 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)(1)You must demonstrate

compliance with the PM standards in

§ 60.62 using EPA method 5 or method

51.

(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 subject to the 10

percent opacity limit must follow the

appropriate monitoring procedures in

§ 63.1350(f), (m)(1)through (4), (10) and

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

(c) Calculate and record the rolling 30

kiln operating day average emission rate

daily of NOx and S02 according to the

procedures in paragraphs (c)(1) and (2)

of this section.

(1) Calculate the rolling 30 kiln

operating day average emissions

according to equation 6:

n-,

E0=k i=

(Eq. 6)

10035
10036 Federal Register/Vol. 78, No. 29/Tuesday, February 12, 2013/Rules and Regulations

Where:

E3OD = 30 kiln operating day average emission

rate of NOx or S02, lb/ton of clinker.

Ci = Concentration of NOx or S02 for hour

i, ppm.

Q = Volumetric flow rate of effluent gas for

hour i, where

Ci and Q are on the same basis (either wet

or dry), scf/hr.

P = 30 days of clinker production during the

same time period as the NOx or S02

emissions measured, tons.

k = Conversion factor, 1.194 X 10 7 for

NOx and 1.660 X 10 7 for S02, lb/scf/

ppm.

n = Number of kiln operating hours over 30

kiln operating days.

(2) 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) (http://www.epa.govl

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.htm]).

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, flash drive or other

commonly used electronic storage

media 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 CBI, to the delegated

authority in the format specified by the

delegated authority. For any

performance test conducted using test

methods that are not listed on the ERT

Web site, you must submit the results of

the performance test to the

Administrator at the appropriate

address listed in § 63.13.

(2) Within 60 days after the date of

completing each CEMS performance

evaluation test as defined in § 63.2, you

must submit relative accuracy test audit

(RATA) data to the EPA's CDX by using

CEDRI in accordance with paragraph

(d)(1) of this section. Only RATA

pollutants that can be documented with

the ERT (as listed on the ERT Web site)

are subject to this requirement. For any

performance evaluations with no

corresponding RATA pollutants listed

on the ERT Web site, you must submit

the results of the performance

evaluation to the Administrator at the

appropriate address listed in § 63.13.

(3) For PM performance test reports

used to set a PM CPMS operating limit,

the electronic submission of the test

report must also include the make and

model of the PM CPMS instrument,

serial number of the instrument,

analytical principle of the instrument

(e.g. beta attenuation), span of the

instruments primary analytical range,

milliamp value equivalent to the

instrument zero output, technique by

which this zero value was determined,

and the average milliamp signals

corresponding to each PM compliance

test run.

(4) 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.

* 6. 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) through (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)

through (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.

* 7. 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-NATIONAL EMISSION

STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR

POLLUTANTS FOR SOURCE

CATEGORIES

* 8. The authority citation for part 63

continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart LLL-[Amended]

. 9. Section 63.1340 is amended by

revising paragraphs (b)(1), (b)(6) through

(9), and (c) to read as follows:

§ 63.1340 What parts of my plant does this

subpart cover?

(b) ...

(1) Each kiln including alkali

bypasses and inline coal mills, except

for kilns that burn hazardous waste and

are subject to and regulated under

subpart EEE of this part;

(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
Federal Register/Vol. 78, No. 29/Tuesday, February 12, 2013/Rules and Regulations

(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 000, part

60 of this chapter are not subject to this

subpart. Crushers are not covered by

this subpart regardless of their location.

* 10. Section 63.1341 is amended by:

m a. Removing definitions of "Enclosed

storage pile," and "Inactive clinker

pile";

* b. Adding a definition for "In-line coal

mill," "Open clinker storage pile,"

"Startup," and "Shutdown" in

alphabetical order; and

m c. Revising definitions for "Kiln,"

"New source," "Operating day," "Raw

material dryer," and "Total organic

HAP,".

The additions and revisions read as

follows:

§63.1341 Definitions.

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 or

reconstruction 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 a

clinker storage pile on the ground for

more than three days 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.

Shutdown means the cessation of kiln

operation. Shutdown begins when feed

to the kiln is halted and ends when

continuous kiln rotation ceases.

Startup means the time from when a

shutdown kiln first begins firing fuel

until it begins producing clinker.

Startup begins when a shutdown kiln

turns on the induced draft fan and

begins firing fuel in the main burner.

Startup ends when feed is being

continuously introduced into the kiln

for at least 120 minutes or when the

feed rate exceeds 60 percent of the kiln

design limitation rate, whichever occurs

first.

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. 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

' 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 Al

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 percent R must be 70 percent > R < 130

percent; and (4) The percent R value for each

compound must be reported in the test report and

all field measurements corrected with the

calculated percent R value for that compound using

the following equation: Reported Result = The

measured concentration in the stack divided by the

calculated percent R value and then the whole term

multiplied by 100.

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.

* 11. 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 storage piles?

(a) General. The provisions in this

section apply to each kiln and any alkali

bypass associated with that kiln, clinker

cooler, raw material dryer, and open

clinker storage pile. All D/F, HCl, and

total hydrocarbon (THC) emissions limit

are on a dry basis. The D/F, HCI, 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 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.

10037
10038 Federal Register/Vol. 78, No. 29/Tuesday, February 12, 2013/Rules and Regulations

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

If your source is a And the operating . . Your emissions limits And the units of the The oxygen

And if is located at a. : eisoslmtae correction (an): mode is: are: emissions limit are: factor is:

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

D/F2 0.2 ................... ng/dscm (TEQ) ........ 7 percent.

Mercury 55 ............... Ib/MM tons clinker ... NA.

THC 3 4 24 ................ ppm vd ...................... 7 percent.

2 .............. Existing kiln ............. Norm al operation ..... Major source ........ HCI 3 ....................... ppmvd ...................... 7 percent.

3 .............. Existing kiln ............. Startup and shut- Major or area source W ork practices ......... NA ............................ NA.

down. (63.1346(f))

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

D/F2 0.2 ................... ng/dscm (TEQ) ........ 7 percent.

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

THC 3 4 24 ................ ppm vd ...................... 7 percent.

5 .............. New kiln ................... Norm al operation ..... Major source ............ HCl 3.............. ppmvd ...................... 7 percent.

6 .............. New kiln ................... Startup and shut- Major or area source W ork practices ......... NA ............................ NA.

down. (63.1346(f))

7 .............. Existing clinker cool- Normal operation ..... Major or area source PM 0.07 ................... lb/ton clinker ............ NA.

er.

8 .............. Existing clinker cool- Startup and shut- Major or area source W ork practices ......... NA ............................ NA.

er. down. (63.1348(b)(9))

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

10 ............ New clinker cooler ... Startup and shut- Major or area source W ork practices ......... NA ............................ NA.

down. (63.1348(b)(9))

11 ............ Existing or new raw Normal operation ..... Major or area source THC 3 4 24 ................ ppmvd ...................... NA.

material dryer.

12 ............ Existing or new raw Startup and shut- Major or area source Work practices ......... NA ............................ NA.

material dryer. down. (63.1348(b)(9))

13 ............ Existing or new raw All operating modes Major source ............ Opacity 10 ............... percent ..................... NA.

or finish mill.

1 The initial and subsequent PM performance tests are performed using Method 5 or 51 and consist 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 0.40 ng/dscm (TEQ). 3 Measured as propane. 4 Any 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

and/or an inline coal mill with a

separate stack associated with a kiln, the

combined PM emissions from the kiln

and the alkali bypass stack and/or the

inline coal mill stack are subject to the

PM emissions limit. Existing kilns that

combine the clinker cooler exhaust and/

or coal mill exhaust with the kiln

exhaust 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:

PM alt = (0.0060 x 1.65) (Qk + Qc + Qab + Qc m)/(7000) (Eq. 1)

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 ton feed per

ton clinker.

Q1 = The exhaust flow of the kiln (dscf/ton

feed).

Q. = The exhaust flow of the clinker cooler

(dscf/ton feed).

Qab = The exhaust flow of the alkali bypass

(dscf/ton feed).

Qm = 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:

PMalt = (0.0020 x 1.65) (Qk + Q, + Qab + Qcm)/(7000)

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 ton feed per

ton clinker.

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

feed).

Q. = The exhaust flow of the clinker cooler

(dscf/ton feed).

Qab = The exhaust flow of the alkali bypass

(dscf/ton feed).

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

ton feed).

7000 = The conversion factor for gr per lb.

(c) Open clinker storage pile. The

owner or operator of an open clinker

storage 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) through

(Eq. 2)
Federal Register/Vol. 78, No. 29/Tuesday, February 12, 2013/Rules and Regulations

(3) of this section. The operation and

maintenance plan must also describe

the measures that will be used to

minimize fugitive dust emissions from

piles of clinker, such as accidental

spillage, that are not part of open clinker

storage piles.

(1) The operation and maintenance

plan must identify and describe the

location of each current or future open

clinker storage pile and 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, use

of a wind barrier, compaction, use of

tarpaulin or other equally effective

cover or use of a vegetative cover. You

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.

(3) Temporary piles of clinker that

result from accidental spillage or clinker

storage cleaning operations must be

cleaned up within 3 days.

(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.

* 12. Section 63.1344 is revised to read

as follows:

§ 63.1344 Affirmative Defense for Violation

of Emission Standards During Malfunction.

In response to an action to enforce the

standards set forth in § 63.1343(b) and

(c) and § 63.1345 and 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

if you fail to meet your burden of

proving all of the requirements in the

affirmative defense. The affirmative

defense shall not be available for claims

for injunctive relief.

(a) Assertion of affirmative defense.

To establish the affirmative defense in

any action to enforce such a standard,

you must timely meet the reporting

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 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; 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) All of the 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 practices 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 first periodic

compliance, 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 emission report is due less than

45 days after the initial occurrence of

the violation, the affirmative defense

report may be included in the second

compliance, deviation report or excess

emission report due after the initial

occurrence of the violation of the

relevant standard.

* 13. Section 63.1345 is revised to read

as follows:

§63.1345 Emissions limits for affected

sources other than kilns; clinker coolers;

new and reconstructed raw material dryers.

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.

* 14. Section 63.1346 is amended by:

* a. Revising paragraph (a) introductory

text;

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

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

and

* d. Adding paragraph (g)

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 and shutdown when the

10039
10040 Federal Register/Vol. 78, No. 29/Tuesday, February 12, 2013/Rules and Regulations

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 for D/

F control, you must operate the sorbent

injection system in accordance with

paragraphs (c)(1) and (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 is in compliance

with a mercury emissions limit

specified in § 63.1343, this paragraph no

longer applies.

(g) During periods of startup and

shutdown you must meet the

requirements listed in (g)(1) through (4)

of this section.

(1) During startup you must use any

one or combination of the following

clean fuels: natural gas, synthetic

natural gas, propane, distillate oil,

synthesis gas (syngas), and ultra-low

sulfur diesel (ULSD) until the kiln

reaches a temperature of 1200 degrees

Fahrenheit.

(2) Combustion of the primary kiln

fuel may commence once the kiln

temperature reaches 1200 degrees

Fahrenheit.

(3) All air pollution control devices

must be turned on and operating prior

to combusting any fuel.

(4) You must keep records as

specified in § 63.1355 during periods of

startup and shutdown.

H 15. 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

operations and maintenance plan must

address periods of startup and

shutdown;

* * * * *

*16. Section 63.1348 is amended by:

ma. Revising paragraphs (a)

introductory text and (a)(1) and (2);

* b. Adding two sentences to paragraph

(a)(3)(i);

m c. Revising paragraph (a)(3)(ii);

* d. Revising paragraphs (a)(3)(iii) and

(iv);

m e. Revising paragraphs (a)(4) through

(8);

* f. Revising paragraph (b); and

* g. Revising paragraph (c)(2)(iv).

The revisions and additions 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. Any

cement kiln that has been subject to the

requirements of subpart CCCC or

subpart DDDD of 40 CFR Part 60, and

is now electing to cease burning

nonhazardous solid waste and become

subject to this subpart, must meet all the

initial compliance testing requirements

each time it becomes subject to this

subpart, even if it was previously

subject to this subpart.

NOTE to paragraph (a): The first day

of the 30 operating day performance test

is the first day after the compliance date

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. The source has

the option of performing the compliance

test earlier then the compliance date if

desired.

(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) * * *

(i) * * * The owner or operator of a

kiln with an in-line 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 TEQ concentration for each run and

calculate the arithmetic average of the

TEQ 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
Federal Register/Vol. 78, No. 29/Tuesday, February 12, 2013/Rules and Regulations

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

by using the performance test methods

and procedures in § 63.1349(b)(3)(v).

(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 performance test 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. 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.

(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)(7.

(iii) If you are demonstrating initial

compliance, you must conduct the

separate performance tests as specified

in § 63.1349(b)(7) while the raw mill of

the inline kiln/raw mill is operating and

while the raw mill of the inline kiln/raw

mill is not operating.

(iv) The average total organic HAP

concentration measured during the

separate initial performance test

specified by § 63.1349(b)(7) must be

used to determine initial compliance.

(v) The average THC concentration

measured during the initial performance

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

used to determine the site-specific THC

limit. Using the fraction of time the

inline kiln/raw mill is on and the

fraction of time that the inline kiln/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 using one of the two

approaches in § 63.1349(b)(7)(vii) or

(viii) depending on the level of organic

HAP measured during the compliance

test.

(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 or sorbent trap

monitoring system after the compliance

date of this rule.

(i) 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 monitoring system 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.

(ii) For example, a sorbent trap

monitoring system 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) HCI Compliance. If you are subject

to limitations on HCI emissions under

§ 63.1343(b), you must demonstrate

initial compliance with the HCI

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 may

demonstrate initial compliance by

conducting a performance test as

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

determine the HCI concentration for

each run and calculate the arithmetic

average of the concentrations measured

for the three runs to determine

compliance. You must also establish

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 HCI values

obtained during the first 30 kiln

operating days that occur after the

compliance date of this rule to

determine initial compliance.

(7) Commingled Exhaust

Requirements. If the coal mill exhaust is

commingled with kiln exhaust in a

single stack, you may demonstrate

compliance with the kiln emission

limits by either:

(i) Performing required emissions

monitoring and testing on the

commingled coal mill and kiln exhaust,

or

(ii) Perform required emission

monitoring and testing of the kiln

exhaust prior to the reintroduction of

the coal mill exhaust, and also testing

the kiln exhaust diverted to the coal

mill. All emissions must be added

together for all emission points, and

must not exceed the limit per each

pollutant as listed in $63.1343(b).

(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 site-specific

monitoring plan required by

§ 63.1350(p).

(ii) Except for periods of startup and

shutdown, 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

10041
10042 Federal Register/Vol. 78, No. 29/Tuesday, February 12, 2013/Rules and Regulations

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.

(iv) Clinker Production. If you are

subject to limitations on mercury

emissions (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 of

§ 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) THC must be measured either

upstream of the coal mill or in the coal

mill stack.

(7) Mercury Compliance. (i) 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 monitoring system 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 day 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 trap

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).

(ii) Mercury must be measured either

upstream of the coal mill or in the coal

mill stack.

(8) HCI 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 may demonstrate compliance using

the monitoring methods and procedures

in § 63.1350(l)(2).

(iii) HCl may be measured either

upstream of the coal mill or in the coal

mill stack.

(iv) As an alternative to paragraph

(b)(8)(ii) of this section, you may use an

SO 2 CEMS to establish an SO 2 operating

level during your initial and repeat HCl

performance tests and monitor the SO 2

level using the procedures in

§ 63.1350(1)(3).

(9) Startup and Shutdown

Compliance. In order to demonstrate

continuous compliance during startup

and shutdown, all air pollution control

devices must be operating.

(c) * * *

(2) * * *

(iv) The performance test must be

completed within 360 hours after the

planned operational change period

begins.

* * * * *

* 17. Section 63.1349 is amended by:

* a. Revising paragraph (a) introductory

text;

* b. Revising paragraph (b)(1);

m c. Revising paragraph (b)(3)

introductory text;

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

(vi);

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

(6);

* f. Adding paragraph (b)(7) and (8); and

* g. Revising paragraphs (c), (d)(1)

introductory text, (d)(1)(ii), (d)(2), and

(e).

The revisions and additions 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 (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.

For purposes of determining exhaust gas

flow rate to the atmosphere from an

alkali bypass stack or a coal mill stack,

you must either install, operate,

calibrate and maintain an instrument for

continuously measuring and recording

the exhaust gas flow rate according to

the requirements in paragraphs

§ 63.1350(n)(1) through (10) of this

subpart or use the maximum design

exhaust gas flow rate. For purposes of

determining the combined emissions

from kilns equipped with an alkali

bypass or that exhaust kiln gases to a

coal mill that exhausts through a

separate stack, instead of installing a

CEMS on the alkali bypass stack or coal

mill stack, you may use the results of

the initial and subsequent performance

test to demonstrate compliance with the

relevant emissions limit.

(b)(1) PM emissions tests. The owner

or operator of a kiln subject to

limitations on PM emissions shall

demonstrate initial compliance by

conducting a performance test using

Method 5 or Method 5I at appendix A3 to part 60 of this chapter. You must
Federal Register/Vol. 78, No. 29/Tuesday, February 12, 2013/Rules and Regulations

also monitor continuous performance

through use of a PM continuous

parametric monitoring system (PM

CPMS).

(i) For your PM CPMS, you will

establish a site-specific operating limit.

If your PM performance test

demonstrates your PM emission levels

to be below 75 percent of your emission

limit you will use the average PM CPMS

value recorded during the PM

compliance test, the milliamp

equivalent of zero output from your PM

CPMS, and the average PM result of

your compliance test to establish your

operating limit. If your PM compliance

test demonstrates your PM emission

levels to be at or above 75 percent of

your emission limit you will use the

average PM CPMS value recorded

during the PM compliance test to

establish your operating limit. 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.

(A) Your PM CPMS must provide a 4-

20 milliamp output and the

establishment of its relationship to

manual reference method measurements

must be determined in units of

milliamps.

(B) Your PM CPMS operating range

must be capable of reading PM

concentrations from zero to a level

equivalent to three times your allowable

emission limit. If your PM CPMS is an

auto-ranging instrument capable of

multiple scales, the primary range of the

instrument must be capable of reading

PM concentration from zero to a level

equivalent to three times your allowable

emission limit.

(C) During the initial performance test

or any such subsequent performance

test that demonstrates compliance with

the PM limit, record and average all

milliamp output values from the PM

CPMS for the periods corresponding to

the compliance test runs (e.g., average

all your PM CPMS output values for

three corresponding 2-hour Method 5I

test runs).

(ii) Determine your operating limit as

specified in paragraphs (b)(1)(iii)

through (iv) of this section. If your PM

performance test demonstrates your PM

emission levels to be below 75 percent

of your emission limit you will use the

average PM CPMS value recorded

during the PM compliance test, the

milliamp equivalent of zero output from

your PM CPMS, and the average PM

result of your compliance test to

establish your operating limit. If your

PM compliance test demonstrates your

PM emission levels to be at or above 75

percent of your emission limit you will

use the average PM CPMS value

recorded during the PM compliance test

to establish your operating limit. You

must verify an existing or establish a

new operating limit after each repeated

performance test. You must repeat the

performance test at least annually and

reassess and adjust the site-specific

operating limit in accordance with the

results of the performance test.

(iii) If the average of your three

Method 5 or 5I compliance test runs is

below 75 percent of your PM emission

limit, you must calculate an operating

limit by establishing a relationship of

PM CPMS signal to PM concentration

using the PM CPMS instrument zero,

the average PM CPMS values

corresponding to the three compliance

test runs, and the average PM

concentration from the Method 5 or 5I

compliance test with the procedures in

(a)(1)(iii)(A) through (D) of this section.

(A) Determine your PM CPMS

instrument zero output with one of the

following procedures.

(1) Zero point data for in-situ

instruments should be obtained by

removing the instrument from the stack

and monitoring ambient air on a test

bench.

(2) Zero point data for extractive

instruments should be obtained by

removing the extractive probe from the

stack and drawing in clean ambient air.

(3) The zero point may also be

established by performing manual

reference method measurements when

the flue gas is free of PM emissions or

contains very low PM concentrations

(e.g., when your process is not

operating, but the fans are operating or

your source is combusting only natural

gas) and plotting these with the

compliance data to find the zero

intercept.

(4) If none of the steps in paragraphs

(a)(1)(iii)(A)(1) through (3) of this

section are possible, you must use a zero

output value provided by the

manufacturer.

(B) Determine your PM CPMS

instrument average in milliamps, and

the average of your corresponding three

PM compliance test runs, using

equation 3.

x = ;LA )],

i=1

n

i;-i (Eq. 3)

Where:

X1 = The PM CPMS data points for the three

runs constituting the performance test.

Y1 

= The PM concentration value for the

three runs constituting the performance

test.

n = The number of data points.

(C) With your instrument zero

expressed in milliamps, your three run

average PM CPMS milliamp value, and

your three run PM compliance test

average, determine a relationship of lb/

ton-clinker per milliamp with Equation

4.

R= (Eq. 4) 4

(X 1 - Z)

Where: z = The milliamp equivalent of your

R = The relative lb/ton-clinker per milliamp instrument zero determined from

for your PM CPMS. (b)(1)(iii)(A).

Y1 

= The three run average lb/ton-clinker PM

concentration. (D) Determine your source specific 30-

X1 = The three run average milliamp output day rolling average operating limit using

from you PM CPMS. the lb/ton-clinker per milliamp value

from Equation 4 in Equation 5, below.

This sets your operating limit at the PM

CPMS output value corresponding to 75

percent of your emission limit.

10043
10044 Federal Register/Vol. 78, No. 29/Tuesday, February 12, 2013/Rules and Regulations

0.75(L) R- (Eq. 5)

Where:

01 = The operating limit for your PM CPMS

on a 30-day rolling average, in

milliamps.

L = Your source emission limit expressed in

lb/ton clinker.

z = Your instrument zero in milliamps,

determined from (1)(i).

R = The relative lb/ton-clinker per milliamp

for your PM CPMS, from Equation 4.

(iv) If the average of your three PM

compliance test runs is at or above 75

percent of your PM emission limit you

must determine your operating limit by

averaging the PM CPMS milliamp

output corresponding to your three PM

performance test runs that demonstrate

compliance with the emission limit

using Equation 6.

n

n (Eq. 6)

Where:

X1 = The PM CPMS data points for all runs

i.

n = The number of data points.

Oh = Your site specific operating limit, in

milliamps.

(v) To determine continuous

operating compliance, you must record

the PM CPMS output data for all periods

when the process is operating, and use

all the PM CPMS data for calculations

when the source 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 (milliamps) on a 30

operating day rolling average basis,

updated at the end of each new kiln

operating day. Use Equation 7 to

determine the 30 kiln operating day

average.

n

Hpv

30kiln operatingday = n

Where:

Hpvi = The hourly parameter value for hour

1.

n = The number of valid hourly parameter

values collected over 30 kiln operating

days.

(vi) For each performance test,

conduct at least three separate test 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 an existing source limit. Calculate

the average of the results from three

consecutive runs, including applicable

sources as required by (D)(viii), to

determine compliance. You need not

determine the particulate matter

collected in the impingers ("back half")

of the Method 5 or Method 5I

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.

(vii) For PM performance test reports

used to set a PM CPMS operating limit,

the electronic submission of the test

report must also include the make and

model of the PM CPMS instrument,

serial number of the instrument,

analytical principle of the instrument

(e.g. beta attenuation), span of the

instruments primary analytical range,

milliamp value equivalent to the

instrument zero output, technique by

which this zero value was determined,

and the average milliamp signals

corresponding to each PM compliance

test run.

(viii) When there is an alkali bypass

and/or an inline coal mill with a

separate stack associated with a kiln, the

main exhaust and alkali bypass and/or

inline coal mill must be tested

simultaneously and the combined

emission rate of PM from the kiln and

alkali bypass and/or inline coal mill

must be computed for each run using

Equation 8 of this section.

EC= EK+E+E

P

(Eq. 8)

Where:

Ec = Combined hourly emission rate of PM

from the kiln and bypass stack and/or

inline coal mill, 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.

Ec = Hourly PM emissions from the inline

coal mill stack, lb.

P = Hourly clinker production, tons.

(ix) 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.

(Eq. 7)
Federal Register/Vol. 78, No. 29/Tuesday, February 12, 2013/Rules and Regulations

(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) THC emissions test. (i) If you are

subject to limitations on THC emissions,

you must operate a CEMS in accordance

with the requirements in § 63.1350(i).

For the purposes of conducting the

accuracy and quality assurance

evaluations for CEMS, the THC span

value (as propane) is 50 ppmvd and the

reference method (RM) is Method 25A

of appendix A to part 60 of this chapter.

(ii) 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).

(iii) 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 9:

(MACT Limit x (Qab + Qcm + Qks)) - (Qab x Cab) - (Qcrn x Ccon)

Qks

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).

(iv) THC must be measured either

upstream of the coal mill or the coal

mill stack.

(v) Instead of conducting the

performance test specified in paragraph

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

performance test to determine emissions

of total organic HAP by following the

procedures in paragraphs (b)(7) of this

section.

(5) Mercury Emissions Tests. If you

are subject to limitations on mercury

emissions, you must operate a mercury

CEMS or a sorbent trap monitoring

system 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 or a sorbent trap monitoring

system 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

Equation 10 of this section:

n

I Ci Q,

E3 D (Eq. 10) P

Where:

E3OD = 30-day rolling emission rate of

mercury, lb/MM tons clinker.

Ci = Concentration of mercury for operating

hour i, gg/scm.

Qi = Volumetric flow rate of effluent gas for

operating hour i, where Ci and Q are on

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

hr.

k = Conversion factor, 1 lb/454,000,000 pg.

n = Number of kiln operating hours in a 30

kiln operating day period.

P = 30 days of clinker production during the

same time period as the mercury

emissions measured, million tons.

(6) HCI 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). For kilns

with inline raw mills, testing should be

conducted for the raw mill on and raw

mill off conditions.

(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(1).

(iii) As an alternative to paragraph

(b)(6)(i)(B) of this section, you may

choose to monitor SO 2 emissions using

a CEMS in accordance with the

Cks = ((Eq. 9)

10045
10046 Federal Register/Vol. 78, No. 29/Tuesday, February 12, 2013/Rules and Regulations

requirements of § 63.1350(l)(3). You

must establish an SO 2 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

exhausted through a separate stack, you

must calculate a kiln-specific HCl limit

using Equation 11:

(MAC Limit x (Qab + Qcm + Qks)) - (Qab x Cab) - (Qcm x Ccm)

Qks

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).

(7) Total Organic HAP Emissions

Tests. Instead of conducting the

performance test specified in paragraph

(a)(4) of this section, you may conduct

a performance test to determine

emissions of total organic HAP by

following the procedures in paragraphs

(a)(7)(i) through (v) of this section.

(i) 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.

(ii) 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 THC CEMS in

accordance with the requirements of

§ 63.1350(j). The duration of the

performance test must be at least 3

hours and the average THC

concentration (as calculated from the 1-

minute averages) during the 3-hour test

must be calculated. You must establish

your THC operating limit and determine

compliance with it according to

n X

T=1

Where:

= The THC CEMS average values in

ppmvw.

Xi= The THC CEMS data points for all three

runs i.

paragraphs (a)(7)(vii)through (viii)of this

section. It is permissible to extend the

testing time of the organic HAP

performance test if you believe extended

testing is required to adequately capture

THC variability over time.

(iii) If your source has an in-line kiln/

raw mill you must use the fraction of

time the raw mill is on and the fraction

of time that the raw mill is off and

calculate this limit as a weighted

average of the THC levels measured

during raw mill on and raw mill off

testing.

(iv) If your organic HAP emissions are

below 75 percent of the organic HAP

standard and you determine your

operating limit with paragraph

(b)(7)(vii) of this section your THC

CEMS must be calibrated and operated

on a measurement scale no greater than

180 ppmvw, as carbon, or 60 ppmvw as

propane.

(v) Your THC CEMS measurement

scale must be capable of reading THC

concentrations from zero to a level

equivalent to two times your highest

THC emissions average determined

during your performance test, including

mill on or mill off operation. Note: This

may require the use of a dual range

instrument to meet this requirement and

paragraph (b)(7)(iv) of this section.

(vi) Determine your operating limit as

specified in paragraphs (a)(7)(vii) and

(viii) of this section. If your organic HAP

performance test demonstrates your

average organic HAP emission levels are

below 75 percent of your emission limit

(9 ppmv) you will use the average THC

n

i=21

Yi= The sum of organic HAP concentrations

for test runs i. and

n = The number of data points.

(B) You must use your three run

average THC CEMS value, and your

three run average organic HAP

T, = (*X

value recorded during the organic HAP

performance test, and the average total

organic HAP result of your performance

test to establish your operating limit. If

your organic HAP compliance test

results demonstrate your average

organic HAP emission levels are at or

above 75 percent of your emission limit,

your operating limit is established as the

average THC value recorded during the

organic HAP performance test. You

must establish a new operating limit

after each performance test. You must

repeat the performance test no later than

30 months following your last

performance test and reassess and adjust

the site-specific operating limit in

accordance with the results of the

performance test.

(vii) If the average organic HAP

results for your three Method 18 and/or

Method 320 performance test runs are

below 75 percent of your organic HAP

emission limit, you must calculate an

operating limit by establishing a

relationship of THC CEMS signal to the

organic HAP concentration using the

average THC CEMS value corresponding

to the three organic HAP compliance

test runs and the average organic HAP

total concentration from the Method 18

and/or Method 320 performance test

runs with the procedures in

(a)(7)(vii)(A) and (B) of this section.

(A) Determine the THC CEMS average

values in ppmvw, and the average of

your corresponding three total organic

HAP compliance test runs, using

Equation 12.

q. 12)

concentration from your three Method

18 and/or Method 320 compliance tests

to determine the operating limit. Use

equation 13 to determine your operating

limit in units of ppmvw THC, as

propane.

(Eq. 13)

Cks = (Eq. 11)
Federal Register/Vol. 78, No. 29/Tuesday, February 12, 2013/Rules and Regulations

Where:

T1 The 30-day operating limit for your THC

CEMS, ppmvw.

Y1 The average organic HAP concentration

from Eq. 12, ppmv.

Xa The average THC CEMS concentration

from Eq. 12, ppmvw.

(viii) If the average of your three

organic HAP performance test runs is at

or above 75 percent of your organic HAP value is below your current operating

emission limit, you must determine limit, you may opt to retain your current

your operating limit using Equation 14 operating limit, but you must still

by averaging the THC CEMS output submit all performance test and THC

values corresponding to your three CEMS data according to the reporting

organic HAP performance test runs that requirements in paragraph (d)(1) of this

demonstrate compliance with the section.

emission limit. If your new THC CEMS

T.= 'n X,. =z (Eq. 14)

Where:

X1 The THC CEMS data points for all runs i.

Y1 The organic HAP total value for runs

i. n =The number of data points.

Th = Your site specific operating limit, in

ppmvw THC.

(ix) If your kiln has an inline kiln/raw

mill, you must conduct separate

performance tests while the raw mill is

operating ("mill on") and while the raw

mill is not operating ("mill off"). 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 compliance testing with

Equation 15.

R= (y*t) + (x* (1-t))

Where:

R = Operating limit as THC, ppmvw.

y = Average THC CEMS value during mill on

operations, ppmvw.

t Percentage of operating time with mill on.

x Average THC CEMS value during mill off

operations, ppmvw.

(1-t) = Percentage of operating time with mill

off.

(x) To determine continuous

compliance with the THC operating

limit, you must record the THC CEMS

output data for all periods when the

process is operating and the THC CEMS

is not out-of-control. You must

demonstrate continuous compliance by

using all quality-assured hourly average

data collected by the THC CEMS for all

operating hours to calculate the

arithmetic average operating parameter

in units of the operating limit (ppmvw)

on a 30 operating day rolling average

basis, updated at the end of each new

kiln operating day. Use Equation 16 to

determine the 30 kiln operating day

average.

n

>L7pvi

3Okiln operating day =-

n

Where:

Hpvi = The hourly parameter value for hour

i, ppmvw.

n = The number of valid hourly parameter

values collected over 30 kiln operating

days.

(xi) Use EPA Method 18 or Method

320 of appendix A to part 60 of this

chapter to determine organic HAP

emissions. For each performance test,

conduct at least 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. If your source has an

in-line kiln/raw mill you must conduct

three separate test runs with the raw

mill on, and 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 with the mill off.

Conduct each Method 18 test run to

collect a minimum target sample

equivalent to three times the method

detection limit. Calculate the average of

the results from three runs to determine

compliance.

(xii) 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.

(8) HCl Emissions Tests with S02

Monitoring. If you choose to monitor

SO 2 emissions using a CEMS to

demonstrate HCI compliance, follow the

procedures in (b)(8)(i) through (ix) of

this section and in accordance with the

requirements of § 63.1350(l)(3). You

must establish an SO 2 operating limit

equal to the average of the SO 2

emissions recorded during the HCl stack

test. This operating limit will apply only

for demonstrating HCl compliance.

(i) Use Method 321 of appendix A to

this part to determine emissions of HCl.

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 one hour.

(ii) At the same time that you are

conducting the performance test for

HCl, you must also determine a sitespecific SO2 emissions limit by

(Eq. 15)

(Eq. 16)

10047
10048 Federal Register/Vol. 78, No. 29/Tuesday, February 12, 2013/Rules and Regulations

operating an S02 CEMS in accordance

with the requirements of § 63.1350(1).

The duration of the performance test

must be three hours and the average S02

concentration (as calculated from the

1-minute averages) during the 3-hour

test must be calculated. You must

establish your S02 operating limit and

determine compliance with it according

to paragraphs (b)(8)(vii) and (viii)of this

section.

(iii) If your source has an in-line kiln/

raw mill you must use the fraction of

time the raw mill is on and the fraction

of time that the raw mill is off and

calculate this limit as a weighted

average of the S02 levels measured

during raw mill on and raw mill off

testing.

(iv) Your S02 CEMS must be

calibrated and operated according to the

requirements of § 60.63(f).

(v) Your S02 CEMS measurement

scale must be capable of reading S02

concentrations consistent with the

requirements of § 60.63(f), including

mill on or mill off operation.

(vi) If your kiln has an inline kiln/raw

mill, you must conduct separate

performance tests while the raw mill is

operating ("mill on") and while the raw

mill is not operating ("mill off"). 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 compliance testing with

Equation 17.

R= (y*t) +x* (t-I)

Where:

R = Operating limit as SO2, ppmvw.

y = Average S02 CEMS value during mill on

operations, ppmvw.

t Percentage of operating time with mill on,

expressed as a decimal.

x Average S02 CEMS value during mill off

operations, ppmvw.

t - 1 = Percentage of operating time with mill

off, expressed as a decimal.

(vii) To determine continuous

compliance with the S02 operating

limit, you must record the S02 CEMS

output data for all periods when the

process is operating and the S02 CEMS

is not out-of-control. You must

demonstrate continuous compliance by

using all quality-assured hourly average

data collected by the S02 CEMS for all

operating hours to calculate the

arithmetic average operating parameter

in units of the operating limit (ppmvw)

on a 30 operating day rolling average

basis, updated at the end of each new

kiln operating day. Use Equation 18 to

determine the 30 kiln operating day

average.

n

YHp v,

30kiln operating day =

n

Where:

Hpvi = The hourly parameter value for hour

i, ppmvw.

n = The number of valid hourly parameter

values collected over 30 kiln operating

days.

(viii) Use EPA Method 321 of

appendix A to part 60 of this chapter to

determine HCl emissions. For each

performance test, conduct at least 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. If

your source has an in-line kiln/raw mill

you must conduct three separate test

runs with the raw mill on, and 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 with

the mill off.

(ix) If the S02 level exceeds by 10

percent or more your site-specific S02

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 S02

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 HCl limit and to

verify or re-establish your site-specific

S02 emissions limit.

(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, organic HAP 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 are

repeated every 12 months.

(d) Performance Test Reporting

Requirements. (1) You must submit the

information specified in paragraphs

(d)(1) and (2) of this section no later

than 60 days following the initial

performance test. All reports must be

signed by a responsible official.

(ii) The values for the site-specific

operating limits or parameters

established pursuant to paragraphs

(b)(1), (3), (6), and (7) 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/ttnl

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.

* 18. Section 63.1350 is amended by:

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

* b. Revising paragraph (f) introductory

text;

(Eq. 17)

(Eq. 18)
Federal Register/Vol. 78, No. 29/Tuesday, February 12, 2013/Rules and Regulations

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

through (f)(1)(vi);

* d. Revising paragraphs (f)(2)(i) and (f)(2)(iii);

m 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. Revising paragraph (k);

* k. Revising paragraph (1);

* 1. Revising paragraph (in) introductory

text;

mm. Revising paragraphs (m)(3) and

(rn)(7)(i);

m n. Revising introductory text for

paragraphs (m)(9) and (in) (10);

* o. Revising paragraph (m)(10)(i)

through (m)(10)(vii), and paragraph (mn)(11)(vM;

* p. Revising introductory text for

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

* q. Removing and reserving paragraph

(n)(3); and

m r. Revising introductory text for

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

The revisions and additions 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 violation.

(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 or Method 5I at appendix A3 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 using the

procedures in § 63.1349(b)(1) (i) through

(vi) of this subpart. You must also repeat

the test if you change the analytical

range of the instrument, or if you

replace the instrument itself or any

principle analytical component of the

instrument that would alter the

relationship of output signal to in-stack

PM concentration.

(ii) To determine continuous

compliance, you must use 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

(milliamps) on a 30 operating day

rolling average basis, updated at the end

of each new kiln operating day.

(iii) For any exceedance of the 30

process operating day PM CPMS average

value from the established operating

parameter limit, you must:

(A) Within 48 hours of the

exceedance, visually inspect the APCD;

(B) If inspection of the APCD

identifies the cause of the exceedance,

take corrective action as soon as

possible and return the PM CPMS

measurement to within the established

value; and

(C) Within 30 days of the exceedance

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 PM CPMS operating limit

within 45 days. You are not required to

conduct additional testing for any

exceedances that occur between the

time of the original exceedance and the

PM emissions compliance test required

under this paragraph.

(iv) PM CPMS exceedances leading to

more than four required performance

tests in a 12-month process operating

period (rolling monthly) constitute a

presumptive violation of this subpart.

(2) [Reserved]

(c) [Reserved]

(d) Clinker production monitoring

requirements. In order to determine

clinker production, 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 hourly kiln feed

and clinker production rates.

(4) Develop an emissions monitoring

plan in accordance with paragraphs

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

(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 (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 (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 minutes

of opacity observations, recorded at 15-

second intervals, 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) Any totally enclosed conveying

system transfer point, regardless of the

location of the transfer point is not

required to conduct Method 22 visible

emissions monitoring under this

10049
10050 Federal Register/Vol. 78, No. 29/Tuesday, February 12, 2013/Rules and Regulations

paragraph. 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 (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 (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,

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 three

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) 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 an

integrated sorbent trap 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

(5) of this section. You must also

develop an emissions monitoring plan

in accordance with paragraphs (p)(1)

through (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 and may be rounded up to the

nearest multiple of 5 gg/m 3 of total

mercury or higher level if necessary to

include Hg concentrations which may

occur (excluding concentrations during

in-line raw "mill off" operation). 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. Engineering judgments

made and calculations used to

determine the corresponding span

concentration from the emission

standard shall be documented in the

site-specific monitoring plan and

associated records.

(2) In order to quality assure data

measured above the span value, you

must use one of the two options in

paragraphs (k)(2)(i) and (ii) of this

section.

(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 gg/m 3 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) Quality assure any data above the

span value established in paragraph

(k)(1) of this section using the following

procedure. Any time two consecutive

one-hour average measured

concentration of Hg exceeds the span

value you must, within 24 hours before

or after, 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 between 50 and 150

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
Federal Register/Vol. 78, No. 29/Tuesday, February 12, 2013/Rules and Regulations

certified value of the reference gas, then the span during the 24-hour period CEMS response to the reference gas as

you must normalize the one-hour preceding or following the "above span" shown in equation 19:

average stack gas values measured above calibration for reporting based on the Hg

Certified reference gas value

Measured value of reference gas

= Normalized stack gas result

x Measured stack gas result

Only one 'above span' calibration is

needed per 24 hour period.

(3) You must operate and maintain

each Hg CEMS or an integrated sorbent

trap monitoring system according to the

quality assurance requirements in

Procedure 5 of appendix F to part 60 of

this chapter. During the RATA of

integrated sorbent trap monitoring

systems required under Procedure 5,

you may apply the appropriate

exception for sorbent trap section 2

breakthrough in (k)(3)(i) through (iv) of

this section:

(i) For stack Hg concentrations >1 jig/

dscm, <10% of section 1 mass;

(ii) For stack Hg concentrations <1 jig/

dscm and >0.5 jig/dscm, <20% of

section 1 mass;

(iii) For stack Hg concentrations <0.5

jig/dscm and >0.1 jig/dscm, <50% of

section 1 mass; and

(iv) For stack Hg concentrations <0.1

jig/dscm, no breakthrough criterion

assuming all other QA/QC

specifications are met.

(4) Relative accuracy testing of

mercury monitoring systems under PS

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

conducted at normal operating

conditions. If a facility has an inline raw

mill, the testing must occur with the

raw mill on.

(5) If you use a Hg CEMS or an

integrated 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 paragraphs (n)(1)

through (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 those stacks

by following the procedures in (k)(5)(i)

through (iv) of this section:

(i) Develop a mercury hourly mass

emissions rate by conducting annual

performance tests using Method 29, or

Method 30B, to measure the

concentration of mercury in the gases

exhausted from the alkali bypass and

coal mill.

(ii) On a continuous basis, determine

the mass emissions of mercury in lb/hr

from the alkali bypass and coal mill

exhausts by using the mercury hourly

emissions rate, the exhaust gas flow rate

and hourly mercury emission rate to

calculate hourly mercury emissions in

lb/hr.

(iii) 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.

(iv) 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

sorbent trap monitoring system

conforming to PS 12B, you may use a

monitoring period at least 24 hours but

no longer than 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).

(1) HCI 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 (1)(1) or (2) and paragraphs

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

your kiln is controlled using a wet or

dry scrubber or tray tower, you

alternatively may parametrically

monitor S0 2 emissions continuously

according to paragraph (1)(3) of this

section. You must also develop an

emissions monitoring plan in

accordance with paragraphs (p)(1)

through (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 a 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 (1)(1)(i) and

(ii) of this section 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

inline raw "mill on" operation. The

span value should be a concentration

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.

Engineering judgments made and

calculations used to determine the

corresponding span concentration from

the emission standard shall be

documented in the site-specific

monitoring plan and associated records.

(ii) In order to quality assure data

measured above the span value, you

must use one of the two options in

paragraphs (1)(1)(ii)(A) and (B) of this

section.

(A) Include a second span that

encompasses the HCl emission

concentrations expected to be

(Eq. 19)

10051
10052 Federal Register/Vol. 78, No. 29/Tuesday, February 12, 2013/Rules and Regulations

encountered during "mill off"

conditions. This second span may be

rounded to a multiple of

5 gg/m 3 of total HCl. The requirements

of the appropriate HCl monitor

performance specification, shall be

followed for this second span with the

exception that a RATA with the mill off

is not required.

(B) Quality assure any data above the

span value established in paragraph

(1)(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

Certified referenc

meet the requirements of the applicable

performance specification and be of a

concentration level between 50 and 100

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

'above span' calibration is conducted

during the period when measured

e gas value x Measured stack gas re:,

Measured value ot reterence gas

= Normalized stack gas result

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

HCI 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 HCI CEMS response to the

reference gas as shown in Equation 20:

suit

(Eq. 20)

Only one 'above span' calibration is

needed per 24-hour period.

(2) Install, operate, and maintain a

CMS to monitor wet scrubber or tray

tower parameters, as specified in

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

and dry scrubber, as specified in

paragraph (m)(9) of this section.

(3) If the source is equipped with a

wet or dry scrubber or tray tower, and

you choose to monitor S02 emissions,

monitor S02 emissions continuously

according to the requirements of

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

F of this chapter. If S02 levels increase

above the 30-day rolling average S02

operating limit established during your

performance test, you must:

(i) As soon as possible but no later

than 48 hours after you exceed the

established S02 value conduct an

inspection and take corrective action to

return the S02 emissions to within the

operating limit; and

(ii) Within 60 days of the exceedance

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 reestablish the SO 2 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 (CPMS) 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 (11) that are

applicable to you. * * * * *

(3) Determine the 1-hour block

average of all recorded readings. * * * * *

(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
Federal Register/Vol. 78, No. 29/Tuesday, February 12, 2013/Rules and Regulations

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.

(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

(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 (11) of this section for

a period of 5 years, with at least the first

2 years on-site;

* 19. Section 63.1351 is amended by

revising paragraphs (c) and (d) and

adding paragraph (e) to read as follows:

§63.1351 Compliance dates.

(c) The compliance date for existing

sources for all the requirements that

became effective on February 12, 2013,

except for the open clinker pile

requirements will be September 9, 2015.

(d) The compliance date for new

sources is February 12, 2013, or startup,

whichever is later.

(e) The compliance date for existing

sources with the requirements for open

clinker storage piles in § 63.1343(c) is

February 12, 2014.

* 20. 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.

* 21. Section 63.1353 is amended by

adding paragraph (b)(6) to read as

follows:

§63.1353 Notification Requirements.

(b) * * *

(6) Within 48 hours of an exceedance

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(b)

and 63.9(e) do not apply to retesting

required for exceedances under this

subpart.

* 22. Section 63.1354 is amended by:

m a. Removing and reserving paragraphs

(b)(4) and (5);

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

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

* d. Revising paragraph (c).

The revisions 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 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).

You must use the appropriate electronic

reporting form in CEDRI or provide an

alternate electronic file consistent with

the 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 violation of

an emissions standard or established

operating parameter limit, the date,

duration and description of each

violation and the specific actions taken

for each violation including inspections,

corrective actions and repeat

performance tests and the results of

those actions.

(c) Reporting a failure to meet a

standard due to a malfunction. For each

failure to meet a standard or emissions

limit caused by a malfunction at an

affected source, you must report the

failure 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.

* 23. Section 63.1355 is amendedby

revising paragraphs (f) and (g)(1) and

adding paragraph (h) to read as follows:

§63.1355 Recordkeeping Requirements.

(f) You must keep records of the date,

time and duration of each startup or

shutdown period for any affected source

that is subject to a standard during

startup or shutdown that differs from

the standard applicable at other times,

and the quantity of feed and fuel used

during the startup or shutdown period.

(g)(1) You must keep records of 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

10053
10054 Federal Register/Vol. 78, No. 29/Tuesday, February 12, 2013/Rules and Regulations

the method used to estimate the

emissions.

* * * * *

(h) For each exceedance from an

emissions standard or established

operating parameter limit, you must

keep records of the date, duration and

description of each exceedance and the

specific actions taken for each

exceedance including inspections,

corrective actions and repeat

performance tests and the results of

those actions.

* 24. Section 63.1356 is revised 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.

* 25. Section 63.1357 is amended by

revising paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) to 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. * * * * *

* 26. Table 3 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:

TABLE 3-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 .............. Your operations and maintenance plan must address periods of startup

and shutdown. See §63.1347(a)(1).

63.7(b) .............. Notification period ............................ Yes ............ Except for repeat performance test caused by an exceedance. See

§ 63.1353(b)(6)

63.9(e) .............. Notification of performance test ...... Yes ............ Except for repeat performance test caused by an exceedance. See

§ 63.1353(b)(6)

[FR Doe. 2012-31633 Filed 2-11-13; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P