## National Em **ission S tandards for** **Hazardous Air**  **Pollutants fr om** **the Portland Cement Manufacturing Industry** 

**Response to Comments Received on Pr oposed Rule**  **Published on May 06, 2009, 74FR 21 135** 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Air Qua lity

Planning and Standards Sector Policies and Programs Division Metals and Minerals Group Research Triangle Park, NC 27711

August 6, 2010i 

## Ta **ble of Contents** 1.0 Introduction

................................ ................................ ................................ .......................... 1 2.0 Proposed Amendments to the Current NESHAP from Portland Cement Manufacturing Industry

................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 34 2.2 General

................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 34 2.2.1 Support

................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 34 2.2.2 Oppose

................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 34 2.3 Overall Approach to Setting MACT Floor Li mits

................................ ................ 35 2.3.1 Variability

and Adequacy

of Data

................................ ............................ 35 2.3.2 Pollutant

- by

- Pollutant MACT Floors

................................ ....................... 40 2.3.3 Lowest Emitters Versus Best Performers

................................ ................. 43 2.3.4 Top 5 versus 12 Percent

................................ ................................ ............ 46 2.3.5 Area Sources in HCL Floor Development

................................ ................ 47 2.3.6 Legal

................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 48 2.3.7 Format of Emission L imits

................................ ................................ ....... 55 2.3.8 Other

................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 58 2.4 General Legal Issues

................................ ................................ ............................. 58 2.4.1 Subcategorization

................................ ................................ ...................... 58 2.4.2 Fly

Ash Ban

................................ ................................ .............................. 60 2.4.4 Other

................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 61 2.5 Mercury

Standards

................................ ................................ ................................ 61 2.5.1 Legal Issues

................................ ................................ ............................... 61 2.5.2 Adequacy

of Floor Determinations (Existing and New)

.......................... 66 2.5.3 Be yond the Floor Determin ations

................................ ............................. 74 2.5.4 Compliance Assurance

................................ ................................ .............. 74 2.5.4.1 Performance Specification 12A, 12B, and Procedure 5

.................. 82 2.5.5 Impacts

................................ ................................ ................................ .... 101 2.6 THC Standards

................................ ................................ ................................ .... 110 2.6.1 Legal Issues

................................ ................................ ............................. 110 2.6.2 Adequacy

of Floor Determinations (Existing and New)

........................ 111 2.6.4 Compliance Assurance

................................ ................................ ............ 119 2.6.5 Impacts

................................ ................................ ................................ .... 127 2.6.6 Other

................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 131 2.7 HCl Standards

................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 131ii 2.7.1 Legal Issues

................................ ................................ ............................. 131 2.7.2 Adequacy

of Floor Determinations (Existing and New)

........................ 135 2.7.4 Compliance Assurance

................................ ................................ ............ 138 2.7.5 Impacts

................................ ................................ ................................ .... 146 2.8 PM Standards

................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 151 2.8.1 Legal Issues

................................ ................................ ............................. 151 2.8.4 Compliance Assurance

................................ ................................ ............ 158 2.8.5 Impacts

................................ ................................ ................................ .... 174 2.8.6 Other

................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 176 2.9 Compliance Dates

................................ ................................ ............................... 178 2.10 Startup, Shutdown, Malfunction (SSM)

................................ ............................. 180 2.11 Econom ic Impacts

................................ ................................ ............................... 186 2.12 Environmental Justice

................................ ................................ ......................... 208 2.13 Open Clinker Piles

................................ ................................ .............................. 210 2.14 Crushing Operations

................................ ................................ ........................... 212 2.15 Coal Mills

................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 212 2.16 Compliance Assurance

................................ ................................ ........................ 214 2.16.1 Flow Rate Monitoring

................................ ................................ ............. 214 2.16.2 Kiln Feed/Clinker Production

................................ ................................ . 214 2.16.3 Electronic Reporting

................................ ................................ ............... 216 2.16.4 Other

................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 216 2.17 Other

– Miscellaneous Comments

................................ ................................ ...... 219



## List of **Ta bles**  1

- 1. List of Commenters on Proposed Amendments to the Current NESHAP from the Portland Cement Manufacturing Industry , Proposed May 06, 2009 (74 FR 21135)

........... 2iii 

## Acronyms and **Abbr eviatio**  **ns**

μg micrograms ACFM actual cubic feet per minute ACI activated carbon injection ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials AWMA Air and Waste Management Association BACT best available control technology BART best available retrofit te chnology BAT best available technology BLD bag leak detector BLDS bag leak detection sy stem BOD biochemical ox ygen demand BTEX benzene, toluene, eth ylbenzene, xylene CAA Clean Air Act CAM compliance assurance monitoring CAMR Clean Air Marke ts Rule CARB California Air Resources Board CASAC Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee CD calibration drift CEMS continuous emission monitoring s ys tem CI BO Council of Industrial Boiler Owners CKD cement kiln dust CMM continuous mercury mon itor CO carbon monoxide CO 2 carbon dioxide COMS continuous opacity monitoring s ys tem CWA Clean Water Act D/F dioxin and furan DAS data acquisition sy stem dscf/t dry

standard cubic feet per ton dscfm dry

standard cubic feet per minute EGU coal

- and oil

- fired electric utility steam generating unit EO executive order EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency EPRI Electric Power Research Instituteiv

ESP electrostatic precipitators FID flame ionization detectors FTIR fourier transfo rm infrared spectroscop y GACT generall y available control technology GC

- MS

- MS gas chromatograph y- mass spectrometry gr/dscf grains per dry standard cubic feet HAP hazardous air pollutants HCl hydrogen chloride IS IS Industrial Sectors Integrated Solutions lb/MWh pound per megawatt hour lb/t pound per ton lb/TBtu pound per trillion British thermal unit LW S limestone wet scrubbers MACT maximum achievable control technology MMbtu million British thermal units NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards NaOH sodium hydroxide NESHAP National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants NI ST National Institute of Standards and Technology NOEL no observable effects level NO x nitrogen oxides NSPS New Source Performance Standards NSR New Source Review OAQPS Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards OSW Office of Solid Waste PCA Portland Cement Association PCDF polychlorinated dibenzofuran PH/PC preheater/precalciner PM particulate matter PM 2.5 PM with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to a nominal 2.5 μ PMD particulate matter detectors PMDS particulate matter detection sy stems POLVI TEC Polysius Environmental Technology POM polycyclic organic matter ppmv parts per million by volume ppmvd parts per million by volume dryv

PQL practical quantitation limit PS Performance Specification PSD Prevention of Significant Deterioration QA quality

assurance RATA relative accuracy test audits RCA response correlation audit RCRA Resource Conse rvation and Recovery Act RIA Regulatory Impact Analyses RRA relative response audit RTO regenerative thermal oxidizer SBREFA Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act scfm standard cubic feet per minute SCR selective catal yt ic reductio n SO 2 sulfur dioxide SO 3 sulfur trioxide SRE sy stem removal efficiency SSM startup, shutdown and malfunction STMS sorbent trap monitoring system sy ngy p sy

nthetic gy p sum TDS total dissolved solids THC total hydrocarbons Tl thallium TNMHC total non

- methane h ydrocarbons tpd tons per day tpy tons per year TSS total suspended solids UBA The Federal Environment Agency (Umweltbundesamt) Mandate and Organization UPL upper prediction limit U.S. United States UTL upper tolerance lim it VOC volatile organic compound μm micrometers1 

### 1.0 **Introduction** The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or the Agency) requested comment on May 06, 2009 (74 FR 21135), on a proposed amendments to the current National Emission Standards for Haz ardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) from the Portland Cement Manufacturing Industry . These proposed amendments would add or revise, as applicable, emission limits for mercury , total hydrocarbons (THC), and particulate matter (PM) from kilns and in

- line kiln/raw mills located at a major or an area source, and hydrochloric acid (HCl) from kilns and in

- line kiln/raw mills located at major sources. These proposed amendments also would remove the following four provisions in the current regulation: the operating limi t for the average hourly recycle rate for cement kiln dust; the requirement that cement kilns only use certain type of utility boiler fly ash; the opacity

limits for kilns and clinker coolers; and the 50 parts per million by volume dry

(ppmvd) THC emission limit for new greenfield sources. EPA is also proposing standards which would apply during startup, shutdown, and operating modes for all of the current §112 standards applicable to cement kilns. Finally , EPA is proposing performance specifications for us e of mercury CEMS, which specifications would be generall y applicable and so could apply to sources from categories other than, and in addition to, portland cement, and updating recordkeeping and testing requirements. A 60

- day comment period (ending July 0 6, 2009) was initially

provided for the public to submit comments to EPA regarding the proposed amendments. Following a request for an extension to the comment period, the comment period was extended to September 4, 2009. A total of 16,055 sets of comments were received by EPA regarding the proposed information collection request. Some of the comment sets were signed or submitted on behalf of multiple commenters. Also, in some cases duplicate comment sets from the same commenter were submitted to EPA’s Air and Radiation Docket. Table 1

- 1 lists the names of the commenters, the commenters’ affiliations, and the Air and Radiation Docket entry number for each of the comment sets submitted to EPA. Some commenters also submitted supplemental information and data t o support their comments. This document presents EPA’s response to each substantive comment received by EPA on the proposed amendments. The comment summaries are grouped b y topic in sections.2

**Table 1**
**- 1. List of Commenters on Proposed Amendments to the Cu**  **rrent NESHAP from the Portland Cement Manufacturing Industry, Proposed**  **May 06, 2009 (74**  **FR 21135)**
**Docket No. EPA**
**- HQ** 
**** **OAR**
**- 2002** 
**- 0051**  **Date Received Commenter Name and Affiliation**  2137 May

20, 2009 EarthJustice Mass Mailing Campaign 2138 May

21, 2009 Craig S. Campbell

Vice President, Environment and Government Affairs Larfarge North America

– Cement Division 2142 June 09, 2009 Nancy Wittenberg Assistant Commissioner State of New Jersey Dept of Environmental Protection 2144 June 16, 2009 A. A. Linero, Program Admi nistrator Special Projects Section Florida Dept of Environmental Protection 2145 June 18, 2009 George Morris Organizer, North Texas Environmental Meetup 2146 June 19, 2009 J. Manion, Private Citizen 2147 June 19, 2009 Multiple Comment Letters to EPA

– Submission of 19 citizen letters 2148 June 23, 2009 E. Eggleston, Private Citizen 2149 June 26, 2009 Anonymous public comment 2150 June 26 2009 K. D. Haglund, Private Citizen 2151 June 30, 2009 Anonymous public comment 2152 June 30, 2009 Anonymous public comment 2153 June 30, 2009 Anonymous public comment 2154 June 30, 2009 Anonymous public comment 2155 June 30, 2009 Karen Nicholson, President League of Women Voters of Texas 2156 July 09, 2009 M. Wassenich 2157 July 09, 2009 Fort Worth Mayor, M ike Moncrief 2158 July 21, 2009 Ed & Carol Soph, Private Citizens 2159 July 21, 2009 Joan Eddy, Private Citizen 2160 July 22, 2009 Ellis Gilleland, Private Citizen 2161 July 22, 2009 Liz Walley, Private Citizen 2162 July 22, 2009 Fran Gloor, Private C itizen 2163 July 22, 2009 Mary Faler, Private Citizen 2164 July 22, 2009 Anne Randolph, Private Citizen 2165 July 22, 2009 Sr. Elizabeth Riebschlaeger, Private Citizen 2166 July 22, 2009 Emily Willoughby, Private Citizen 2167 July 22, 2009 Edward and Elisabeth B a la, Private Citizens 2168 July 23, 2009 Tara West, Private Citizen 2169 July 27, 2009 Emily Bergeron, Private Citizen 2170 July 27, 2009 Christopher Ebey, Private Citizen 2171 July 27, 2009 Evelyn Shepard, Private Citizen3 **Table 1**
**- 1. (con**  **tinued)**
**Docket No. EPA**
**- HQ** 
**** **OAR**
**- 2002** 
**- 0051**  **Date Received Commenter Name and Affiliation**  2172 July 27, 2009 Estela Moreno, Private Citizen 2173 June 28, 2009 Fabian Mendez, Private Citizen 2174 July 28, 2009 Leyland DelRe, Private Citizen 2175 July 28, 20 09 Linda Sears, Private Citizen 2176 July 28, 2009 Elaine Fassel, Private Citizen 2177 July 28, 2009 Barbara Besold, Private Citizen 2178 July 28, 2009 Mark Warford, Private Citizen 2179 July 28, 2009 Brian Dodge, Private Citizen 2180 July 28, 2009 Kym Fraher, Private Citizen 2181 July 28, 2009 Betty J. Walters, Private Citizen 2182 July 28, 2009 Barbara Fitzpatrick, Private Citizen 2183 July 29, 2009 Robert Brennan, Private Citizen 2184 July 29, 2009 Virginia Velez, Private Citizen 2185 July 29, 2009 Brenon Duff, Private Citizen 2186 July 29, 2009 Patricia Mullen, Private Citizen 2187 July 29, 2009 Virginia Catanese, Private Citizen 2188 July 29, 2009 Sabine Axt, Private Citizen 2189 July 29, 2009 V. Catanese 2190 July 29, 2009 Maureen Nealon , Private Citizen 2191 July 29, 2009 Richard McGonagle, Private Citizen 2192 July 29, 2009 James Davies, Private Citizen 2193 July 29, 2009 Althea Day, Private Citizen 2194 July 29, 2009 Tim Mullins, Private Citizen 2195 July 29, 2009 Sandy Schmidt, P rivate Citizen 2196 July 29, 2009 Terrence and Elizabeth McCloskey, Private Citizens 2197 July 29, 2009 Careen Jennings, Private Citizen 2198 July 29, 2009 Carolyn Bell, Private Citizen 2199 July 29, 2009 Cindy Cohen, Private Citizen 2200 July 29, 200 9 Charles R Shelly, Private Citizen 2201 July 29, 2009 Tria Shaffer, Private Citizen 2202 July 29, 2009 Charles Trost, Private Citizen 2203 July 29, 2009 Mary Crider, Private Citizen 2204 July 29, 2009 Christopher Walter, Private Citizen 2205 July 29, 2009 Cynthia Crutcher, Private Citizen 2206 July 29, 2009 Paula Katz, Private Citizen 2207 July 29, 2009 Arnold Simmel, Private Citizen 2208 July 29, 2009 Carlene Meeker, Private Citizen 2209 July 29, 2009 Robert Elliott, Private Citizen 2210 July 29 , 2009 Patricia Gorospe, Private Citizen4 **Table 1**
**- 1. (con**  **tinued)**
**Docket No. EPA**
**- HQ** 
**** **OAR**
**- 2002** 
**- 0051**  **Date Received Commenter Name and Affiliation**  2211 July 29, 2009 James Carrell, Private Citizen 2212 July 29, 2009 Tim Nistler, Private Citizen 2213 July 29, 2009 Marcia Brelsford, Private Citizen 2214 July 29, 2009 Alexis Raney, Private Citizen 2215 July 29, 2009 My ra Bailes, Private Citizen 2216 July 29, 2009 Judith Sanders, Private Citizen 2217 July 29, 2009 Maija Dravnieks, Private Citizen 2218 July 29, 2009 William Reeves, Private Citizen 2219 July 29, 2009 David McIntosh, Earthjustice 2220 July 2 9, 2009 Pat Westwater

- Jong, Private Citizen 2221 July 29, 2009 Wayne Horlacher, Private Citizen 2222 July 29, 2009 Wendy Snyder, Private Citizen 2223 July 29, 2009 Mercedes Michalski, Private Citizen 2224 July 29, 2009 Kristen Holtvedt, Private Citizen 2225 July 29, 2009 Kathryn Rose, Private Citizen 2226 July 29, 2009 Michael Nola, Private Citizen 2227 July 29, 2009 Carol Collier, Private Citizen 2228 July 29, 2009 David Bridgeman, Private Citizen 2229 July 29, 2009 Burnell Vincent, Private Citize n 2230 July 30, 2009 Winfield Solin Coleman, Private Citizen 2231 July 30, 2009 M. Fitzsimmons, Private Citizen 2232 July 30, 2009 Sergio Monteiro, Private Citizen 2233 July 30, 2009 Liza Elliott, Private Citizen 2234 July 30, 2009 Margaret Lange, Pri vate Citizen 2235 July 30, 2009 Marcia Maroon, Private Citizen 2236 July 30, 2009 Carla Rowton, Private Citizen 2237 July 30, 2009 Magdalena Hoersch, Private Citizen 2238 July 30, 2009 Nancy Thompson, Private Citizen 2239 July 30, 2009 Michael Ochs, P rivate Citizen 2240 July 30, 2009 Nasus Aransu, Private Citizen 2241 July 30, 2009 Nathan Drozd, Private Citizen 2242 July 30, 2009 Nathan Huerkamp, Private Citizen 2243 July 30, 2009 Anita Yandle, Private Citizen 2244 July 30, 2009 Lara Boeck, Privat e Citizen 2245 July 30, 2009 Lynne Hardesty, Private Citizen 2246 July 30, 2009 Terry Jensen, Private Citizen 2247 July 30, 2009 Maureen Porter, Private Citizen 2248 July 30, 2009 Padmaja Iyer, Private Citizen 2249 July 30, 2009 Paula Thornton, Privat e Citizen5 **Table 1**
**- 1. (con**  **tinued)**
**Docket No. EPA**
**- HQ** 
**** **OAR**
**- 2002** 
**- 0051**  **Date Received Commenter Name and Affiliation**  2250 July 30, 2009 Nancy Minges, Private Citizen 2251 July 30, 2009 Martha P. Nochimson, Private Citizen 2252 July 30, 2009 Nick Heath, Private Citizen 2253 July 30, 2009 Pat Okerlund, Private Citizen 2254 July 30, 2009 David Harris, Private Citizen 2255 July 30, 2009 Keith Wells, Private Citizen 2256 July 31, 2009 Sherman Murray, Private Citizen 2257 August 03, 2009 Rick Breckenridge, Private Citizen 2258 August 03, 2009 Christy M. Woo, Private Citizen 2259 August 03, 2009 Donna Carr, M D, Private Citizen 2260 August 03, 2009 Dot Snowden, Private Citizen 2261 August 03, 2009 Ed Dickie, Private Citizen 2262 August 03, 2009 Virginia Kilgore, Private Citizen 2263 August 03, 2009 Jane Voisard, Private Citizen 2264 August 03, 2009 Bradley Esdale, Private Citizen 2265 August 03, 2009 Joen Mein, Private Citizen 2266 August 04, 2009 Zia Shields, Private Citizen 2267 August 04, 2009 Amanda Moore, Private Citizen 2268 August 04, 2009 Laura Arntz, Private Citizen 2269 August 04, 2009 Polly Bunce, Private Citizen 2270 August 04, 2009 Linda Mulka, Private Citizen 2271 August 04, 2009 Penelope Summers, Private Citizen 2272 August 05, 2009 Angel Lugo Santiago, APCAS, Inc. 2273 August 05, 2009 Cynthia Erville, Private Citizen 2274 August 05, 2009 Arvin Eyre, Private Citizen 2275 August 05, 2009 Paul Haseman, Private Citizen 2276 August 05, 2009 Pamela Ruediger, Private Citizen 2277 August 05, 2009 Carol Edwards, Private Citizen 2278 August 05, 2009 Quilla Miralia, Private Citizen 2279 Au gust 05, 2009 Robert Burns, Private Citizen 2280 August 05, 2009 Linda McCracken, Private Citizen 2281 August 05, 2009 Rainbow Di Benedetto, Private Citizen 2282 August 05, 2009 Randolph Worsham, Private Citizen 2283 August 05, 2009 Jerry Rosenkoetter, Private Citizen 2284 August 05, 2009 M. Kissinger, Private Citizen 2285 August 05, 2009 Pete Richardson, Private Citizen 2286 August 05, 2009 Robert Posch, Private Citizen 2287 August 05, 2009 Robin Chandler, Private Citizen 2288 August 05, 2009 Rose Bertrand, Private Citizen6 **Table 1**
**- 1. (con**  **tinued)**
**Docket No. EPA**
**- HQ** 
**** **OAR**
**- 2002** 
**- 0051**  **Date Received Commenter Name and Affiliation**  2289 August 05, 2009 Robert Ouradnik, Private Citizen 2290 August 05, 2009 Ann Weiner, Private Citizen 2291 August 05, 2009 Rob Sadler, Private Citizen 2292 August 05, 2009 Marjorie Rhodes, Private Citizen 2293 August 05, 20 09 Salma Mushir, Private Citizen 2294 August 05, 2009 Sandy Justis, Private Citizen 2295 August 05, 2009 Sandra Carrubba, Private Citizen 2296 August 05, 2009 M.A. McDonald, Private Citizen 2297 August 05, 2009 Scott Brooks, Private Citizen 2298 Augus t 05, 2009 Eugene L. Stackle, Baker County Economic Development 2299 August 05, 2009 Robert Marquis, Private Citizen 2300 August 05, 2009 Ray Brammer, Private Citizen 2301 August 05, 2009 Mark Lea, Private Citizen 2302 August 06, 2009 Seth Edelman, Pri vate Citizen 2303 August 06, 2009 Steven Gaber, Private Citizen 2304 August 06, 2009 Martin Pall, Private Citizen 2305 August 06, 2009 Daniel Salomon, Private Citizen 2306 August 06, 2009 Randy Juras, Private Citizen 2307 August 06, 2009 Kristin Reed, Private Citizen 2308 August 07, 2009 Fred Osterholtz, Private Citizen 2309 August 07, 2009 Dave Kisor, Private Citizen 2310 August 07, 2009 Gretchen Goodman, Private Citizen 2311 August 07, 2009 Anne Rehm, Private Citizen 2312 August 07, 2009 Gina Gi acona, Private Citizen 2313 August 07, 2009 Ginny Lentz, Private Citizen 2314 August 07, 2009 Virginia Juliano, Private Citizen 2315 August 07, 2009 Ellie McCaffrey, Private Citizen 2316 August 07, 2009 Patricia Mann, Private Citizen 2317 August 07, 2 009 Georgia Yelton, Private Citizen 2318 August 07, 2009 Jan Scott, Private Citizen 2319 August 07, 2009 Patricia Heithaus, Private Citizen 2320 August 07, 2009 Irvin Uphoff, Private Citizen 2321 August 07, 2009 Linda Burlingame, Private Citizen 2322 August 07, 2009 Annie Steele, Private Citizen 2323 August 07, 2009 Iman Latifpour, Private Citizen 2324 August 07, 2009 Ian Smith, Private Citizen 2325 August 07, 2009 John Ferriday, Private Citizen 2326 August 07, 2009 Jerry Comer, Private Citizen 23 27 August 07, 2009 Joan Eliasoph, Private Citizen7 **Table 1**
**- 1. (con**  **tinued)**
**Docket No. EPA**
**- HQ** 
**** **OAR**
**- 2002** 
**- 0051**  **Date Received Commenter Name and Affiliation**  2328 August 07, 2009 Jeremy Halinen, Private Citizen 2329 August 07, 2009 Jack Lockhart, Private Citizen 2330 August 07, 2009 Joanne Beeman, Private Citizen 2331 August 07, 2009 John Abrams, Private Citizen 2332 August 07, 2009 Susan Virostek, Private Citizen 2333 August 07, 2009 Janet Rees, Private Citizen 2334 August 07, 2009 Katherine Blum Russell, Private Citizen 2335 August 07, 2009 Judith Emerson, Private Citizen 2336 August 07, 2009 Kim berly Jarvis, Private Citizen 2337 August 07, 2009 Thomasin Kellermann, Private Citizen 2338 August 07, 2009 Mary Warren, Private Citizen 2339 August 07, 2009 Laurie Harris, Private Citizen 2340 August 07, 2009 Leah Boyd, Private Citizen 2341 August 07, 200 9 Leif (Captain) Knutsen, Private Citizen 2342 August 07, 2009 Leon Tomlinson, Private Citizen 2343 August 07, 2009 Suzanne Yaeger, Private Citizen 2344 August 07, 2009 Susan Martin, Private Citizen 2345 August 07, 2009 Sandra White, Private Citizen 2 346 August 07, 2009 Margo Sprenger, Private Citizen 2347 August 07, 2009 Robin Evans, Private Citizen 2348 August 07, 2009 Stephanie Hammond, Private Citizen 2349 August 07, 2009 Michael Thomas, Private Citizen 2350 August 07, 2009 Patricia Finder

- Ston e, Private Citizen 2351 August 07, 2009 Fran Sullivan

- Fahs, Private Citizen 2352 August 07, 2009 Suzette Druzik, Private Citizen 2353 August 07, 2009 Susan Ebershoff

- Coles, Private Citizen 2354 August 07, 2009 Sara Ross, Private Citizen 2355 August 07 , 2009 Susan Cooper, Private Citizen 2356 August 11, 2009 Charles Schmalz, Private Citizen 2357 August 11, 2009 Hugh Curtler, III, Private Citizen 2358 August 11, 2009 Cyndi Norwitz, Private Citizen 2359 August 11, 2009 Cas Waugh, Private Citizen 2360 August 11, 2009 Doug Wood, Private Citizen 2361 August 11, 2009 Christopher Viavant, Private Citizen 2362 August 11, 2009 David Kleiman, Private Citizen 2363 August 11, 2009 David Payne, Private Citizen 2364 August 11, 2009 Rahim Shaikh, Private Citiz en 2365 August 11, 2009 Barbara Dotson

- Brooner, Private Citizen 2366 August 11, 2009 Donald Dougall, Private Citizen8 **Table 1**
**- 1. (con**  **tinued)**
**Docket No. EPA**
**- HQ** 
**** **OAR**
**- 2002** 
**- 0051**  **Date Received Commenter Name and Affiliation**  2367 August 11, 2009 David Edwards, Private Citizen 2368 August 11, 2009 Deane Lavender, Private Citizen 2369 August 11, 2009 Diane Ba lter, Private Citizen 2370 August 11, 2009 Catherine Carpenter, Private Citizen 2371 August 11, 2009 Donald Walker, Private Citizen 2372 August 11, 2009 Doris Cellarius, Private Citizen 2373 August 11, 2009 Dorothy Patent, Private Citizen 2374 August 12, 2009 Louise Pillai, Private Citizen 2375 August 12, 2009 Janice Jacobson, Private Citizen 2376 August 13, 2009 Dee Rossi, Private Citizen 2377 August 13, 2009 Ann Cockrell, Private Citizen 2378 August 13, 2009 D. Shoemaker, Private Citizen 2379 Au gust 13, 2009 Diane Dubendorff, Private Citizen 2380 August 14, 2009 Barbara Fukumoto, Private Citizen 2381 August 14, 2009 Keith Bussen, Vice President/General Manager, Independent Concrete Pipe

- St. Louis (Missouri Division) 2382 August 17, 2009 Kenneth R. Schmick, Controller, Art Wilson Company 2383 August 17, 2009 Darcy Cronin, Private Citizen 2384 August 18, 2009 Bruce Kosanovic, Private Citizen 2385 August 18, 2009 David Low, Private Citizen 2386 August 18, 2009 Deborah K. Dorsch, Private Citize n 2387 August 18, 2009 Deb Brown, Private Citizen 2388 August 18, 2009 Harold Denenberg, Private Citizen 2389 August 18, 2009 Dennis Feichtinger, Private Citizen 2390 August 18, 2009 Alex Oshiro, Private Citizen 2391 August 18, 2009 D. Johnson, Privat e Citizen 2392 August 18, 2009 Donna Bonetti, Private Citizen 2393 August 18, 2009 Amy Lowery, Private Citizen 2394 August 18, 2009 Ashley Holtorf, Private Citizen 2395 August 18, 2009 Anthony Drew , Private Citizen 2396 August 18, 2009 Dwight Johnson, Private Citizen 2397 August 18, 2009 Edward Janus, Private Citizen 2398 August 18, 2009 E. Clark, Private Citizen 2399 August 18, 2009 Elsa Bondar, Private Citizen 2400 August 18, 2009 Frank Spadazzi, Private Citizen 2401 August 18, 2009 Meredith Garmo n, Private Citizen 2402 August 18, 2009 Gail Denemark, Private Citizen 2403 August 18, 2009 Julie Schaar, Private Citizen 2404 August 18, 2009 George Hassinger, Private Citizen9 **Table 1**
**- 1. (con**  **tinued)**
**Docket No. EPA**
**- HQ** 
**** **OAR**
**- 2002** 
**- 0051**  **Date Received Commenter Name and Affiliation**  2405 August 18, 2009 Gerald Daley, Private Citizen 2406 August 18, 2009 Madeline von Foerster, Private Citizen 2407 August 18, 2009 Helen Corneli, Private Citizen 2408 August 18, 2009 Jerry Best, Private Citizen 2409 August 18, 2009 Paula D. Brennecke, Private Citizen 2410 August 18, 2009 Paula Olch, Private Citizen 2411 August 18, 2009 Patrick Hall, Private Citizen 2412 August 18, 2009 James A. Pierson, Private Citizen 2413 August 18, 2009 William Bell, Private Citizen 2414 August 18, 2009 Rachael Garcia, Private Citizen 2415 August 18, 2009 William Grant, Private Citizen 2416 August 18, 2009 Roger Holmen, Private Citizen 2417 August 18, 2009 Ted Terrasas, Private Citizen 2418 August 18, 2009 Sara Bhakti, Private Citizen 2419 August 18, 2009 Sherry Lewis, Private Citizen 2420 August 18, 2009 Evan Corrales, Private Citizen 2421 August 18, 2009 Jamie Specht, Private Citizen 2422 August 18, 2009 Karen Lizars, Private Citizen 2423 August 18, 2009 Susan Curry, Private Citizen 2424 August 18, 2009 Pat Turk, Private Citizen 2425 August 18, 2009 Caryl Wolstenholme, Pr ivate Citizen 2426 August 18, 2009 John Feins, Private Citizen 2427 August 18, 2009 Trevor Sheldon, Private Citizen 2428 August 18, 2009 Colin Forwood, Private Citizen 2429 August 18, 2009 Peter Wilsnack, Private Citizen 2430 August 18, 2009 Norman F. Ramsey, Private Citizen 2431 August 18, 2009 Susan Hathaway, Private Citizen 2432 August 18, 2009 Cathy Church, Private Citizen 2433 August 18, 2009 Linda Swanson, Private Citizen 2434 August 18, 2009 George Manning, Private Citizen 2435 August 18, 2 009 Vivian Layton, Private Citizen 2436 August 19, 2009 Anson Chi, Private Citizen 2437 August 19, 2009 James Conroy, Private Citizen 2438 August 19, 2009 Jim Tower, Private Citizen 2439 August 19, 2009 John Neville, Private Citizen 2440 August 19, 20 09 Joan Fuhry, Private Citizen 2441 August 19, 2009 John Stifter, Private Citizen 2442 August 19, 2009 James Snively, Private Citizen 2443 August 19, 2009 James Sorrells, Private Citizen10 **Table 1**
**- 1. (con**  **tinued)**
**Docket No. EPA**
**- HQ** 
**** **OAR**
**- 2002** 
**- 0051**  **Date Received Commenter Name and Affiliation**  2444 August 19, 2009 Robert Summers, Private Citizen 2445 August 19, 2009 Katherine Nelson, Private Citizen 2446 August 19, 2009 Ken Bugler, Private Citizen 2447 August 19, 2009 Karen Schoemer, Private Citizen 2448 August 19, 2009 Rose Lernberg, Private Citizen 2449 August 19, 2009 Jolene Rutherford, Private Citize n 2450 August 19, 2009 Lorie Vorraro, Private Citizen 2451 August 19, 2009 Richard McBane, Private Citizen 2452 August 19, 2009 Deborah Jamini, Private Citizen 2453 August 19, 2009 Michael Spink, Private Citizen 2454 August 19, 2009 Mike Ewall, Privat e Citizen 2455 August 19, 2009 Lori Martell, Private Citizen 2456 August 19, 2009 M'Lou Christ, Private Citizen 2457 August 19, 2009 Michael Vinciquerra, Private Citizen 2458 August 19, 2009 Nikhil Lucas Kamat, Private Citizen 2459 August 19, 2009 Joy Schochet, Private Citizen 2460 August 19, 2009 Hudson Ansley, Private Citizen 2461 August 19, 2009 Connie Mariottini, Private Citizen 2462 August 19, 2009 Doug Gawoski, Private Citizen 2463 August 19, 2009 Don Brennecke, Private Citizen 2464 August 1 9, 2009 Steven Calender, Private Citizen 2465 August 19, 2009 Evelyn Callaghan, Private Citizen 2466 August 19, 2009 Gerrit Crouse, Private Citizen 2467 August 19, 2009 Gregory and Renate Syme, Private Citizens 2468 August 19, 2009 Wanda Nichols, Private Citizen 2469 August 19, 2009 Jeffrey Peck, Private Citizen 2470 August 19, 2009 Alan Rosenthal, Private Citizen 2471 August 19, 2009 Anneta Buster, Private Citizen 2472 August 19, 2009 Janet Foster, Private Citizen 2473 August 19, 2009 Kevin Scott, Private Citizen 2474 August 20, 2009 Jon Halstein, Private Citizen 2475 August 20, 2009 Julia Sendor, Private Citizen 2476 August 20, 2009 David Price, Member of US Congress 2477 August 20, 2009 Jim (Surname illegible), Private Citizen 2478 August 20 , 2009 Kenneth H. Baker, Private Citizen 2479 August 20, 2009 Martha B. Anderson, Private Citizen 2480 August 20, 2009 Ted Ferrioli, Oregon State Senator District 30 2481 August 20, 2009 Winnie Chang, Private Citizen 2482 August 20, 2009 Marjorie Rogal ski, Private Citizen11 **Table 1**
**- 1. (con**  **tinued)**
**Docket No. EPA**
**- HQ** 
**** **OAR**
**- 2002** 
**- 0051**  **Date Received Commenter Name and Affiliation**  2483 August 20, 2009 MaryJane Barnes, Vice President, Lar

- Ken Concrete Products, Inc 2484 August 20, 2009 Howard Marica Miller, Private Citizen 2485 August 20, 2009 Peter Sullivan, Private Citizen 2486 August 20, 2009 Patricia Mena , Private Citizen 2487 August 20, 2009 Steven Skal, Private Citizen 2488 August 20, 2009 Amy Mall, Private Citizen 2489 August 20, 2009 Susan Innes, Private Citizen 2490 August 20, 2009 Tom Matarrese, Private Citizen 2491 August 20, 2009 Wilma Bradbee r, Private Citizen 2492 August 20, 2009 Jo Greenwald, Private Citizen 2493 August 20, 2009 Beth Stewart, Private Citizen 2494 August 20, 2009 Robert Mazairz, Private Citizen 2495 August 20, 2009 Sharon Keys, Private Citizen 2496 August 20, 2009 Amanda Gerwig, Private Citizen 2497 August 20, 2009 Barb Cole, Private Citizen 2498 August 21, 2009 Anonymous public comment 2499 August 21, 2009 Jeff C. Calkins, Private Citizen 2500 August 21, 2009 Richard F. Burly, II, Private Citizen 2501 August 21, 200 9 Mary Perry, Private Citizen 2502 August 21, 2009 Chris Barrett, Private Citizen 2503 August 21, 2009 Mel McQuarrie, Binggeli Rock Products, Inc. 2504 August 24, 2009 Wayne A. Mayer, Private Citizen 2505 August 24, 2009 J.F. Griffin, Private Citizen 2506 August 24, 2009 Sandra McDonough, President & CEO, Portland Business Alliance 2507 August 24, 2009 John Ledger, VP, Associated Oregon Industries (AOI) 2508 August 24, 2009 Alan Cuperus, Private Citizen 2509 August 24, 2009 Paulette M. Switzer

- Tatum , Private Citizen 2510 August 24, 2009 Barbara Smith, Private Citizen 2511 August 24, 2009 Dana Allen, Private Citizen 2512 August 24, 2009 Candy Halliburton, Private Citizen 2513 August 24, 2009 Bill Himelhoch, Private Citizen 2514 August 17, 2009 Ruth Fischer, Private Citizen 2515 August 17, 2009 Reihana Robinson, Private Citizen 2516 August 17, 2009 Robert Grady, Private Citizen 2517 August 17, 2009 Robert Coleman, Private Citizen 2518 August 17, 2009 Robert Bliss, Private Citizen 2519 August 1 7, 2009 Robert Bruner, Private Citizen 2520 August 17, 2009 Robert Warren, Private Citizen12 **Table 1**
**- 1. (con**  **tinued)**
**Docket No. EPA**
**- HQ** 
**** **OAR**
**- 2002** 
**- 0051**  **Date Received Commenter Name and Affiliation**  2521 August 17, 2009 Richard Winkler, Private Citizen 2522 August 17, 2009 Scott Callaway, Private Citizen 2523 August 17, 2009 Scott Johnsen, Private Citizen 2 524 August 17, 2009 Greta Bliss, Private Citizen 2525 August 18, 2009 Peg Diaz, Private Citizen 2526 August 18, 2009 Stephen Gustafson, Private Citizen 2527 August 18, 2009 Charles Shackelford, Private Citizen 2528 August 17, 2009 Shelly Thomas, Privat e Citizen 2529 August 18, 2009 Jeffrey Green, Private Citizen 2530 August 17, 2009 Peter Stickney, Private Citizen 2531 August 18, 2009 Rhiannon Lincoln, Private Citizen 2532 August 17, 2009 Phyllis Hasbrouck, Private Citizen 2533 August 17, 2009 Susan Chandler, Private Citizen 2534 August 17, 2009 Suzie Kidder, Private Citizen 2535 August 17, 2009 Rosemary Hicks, Private Citizen 2536 August 17, 2009 Ted Robinson, Private Citizen 2537 August 17, 2009 Tim McMullen, Private Citizen 2538 August 17, 2 009 Elizabeth Kenyon, Private Citizen 2539 August 17, 2009 Thamar Wherrit, Private Citizen 2540 August 17, 2009 Don Segraves, Private Citizen 2541 August 17, 2009 David Bellos, Private Citizen 2542 August 18, 2009 Edra Bogle, Private Citizen 2543 Augu st 18, 2009 Alan McCauley, Private Citizen 2544 August 18, 2009 Evelyn Kountoupes, Private Citizen 2545 August 17, 2009 Richard Dwyer, Private Citizen 2546 August 18, 2009 Christopher Eliot, Private Citizen 2547 August 17, 2009 Rebecca Pontikes, Privat e Citizen 2548 August 17, 2009 Jeanne Ellgar, Private Citizen 2549 August 18, 2009 Eric Cartier, Private Citizen 2550 August 17, 2009 Elaine Ransom, Private Citizen 2551 August 17, 2009 Maxim Fetissenko, Private Citizen 2552 August 17, 2009 David Beeb e, Private Citizen 2553 August 17, 2009 Gay Kramer - Dodd, Private Citizen 2554 August 18, 2009 Mike Desmond, Private Citizen 2555 August 18, 2009 Susan Lippman, Private Citizen 2556 August 17, 2009 Richard Kipp, Private Citizen 2557 August 18, 2009 Ali cia Mein, Private Citizen 2558 August 17, 2009 Robert Toon, Private Citizen 2559 August 17, 2009 Linda Mattox, Private Citizen13 **Table 1**
**- 1. (con**  **tinued)**
**Docket No. EPA**
**- HQ** 
**** **OAR**
**- 2002** 
**- 0051**  **Date Received Commenter Name and Affiliation**  2560 August 18, 2009 Lara Valigorsky, Private Citizen 2561 August 17, 2009 Lucille Bertuccio, Private Citizen 2562 August 17 , 2009 Lisa Butterfield, Private Citizen 2563 August 18, 2009 Susan Hawes, Private Citizen 2564 August 17, 2009 William Smith, Private Citizen 2565 August 17, 2009 William Audette, Private Citizen 2566 August 18, 2009 Alice Littlefield, Private Citizen 2567 August 17, 2009 George Loveday, Private Citizen 2568 August 21, 2009 Ione Woods, Private Citizen 2569 August 17, 2009 Zorine Rinaldi, Private Citizen 2570 August 17, 2009 Marilyn Britton, Private Citizen 2571 August 18, 2009 Keith Allen, Private Citizen 2572 August 17, 2009 Lois Reborne, Private Citizen 2573 August 18, 2009 Barbara Toshalis, Private Citizen 2574 August 17, 2009 Bonnie Pilcher, Private Citizen 2575 August 18, 2009 Karen Bunkowski, Private Citizen 2576 August 17, 2009 Cindy Co x, Private Citizen 2577 July 20, 2009 Bill Cagle, Private Citizen 2578 August 17, 2009 Alyn Goldsmith, Private Citizen 2579 August 17, 2009 Barry Rein, Private Citizen 2580 August 17, 2009 Caroline Herzenberg, Private Citizen 2581 August 18, 2009 Carr oll English, Private Citizen 2582 August 17, 2009 Cat Koehn, Private Citizen 2583 August 18, 2009 Charles Trebes, Private Citizen 2584 August 18, 2009 Christina Muniz, Private Citizen 2585 August 18, 2009 Greg Ciapponi, Private Citizen 2586 August 17, 2009 Doug Richardson, Private Citizen 2587 August 17, 2009 Charles Wonka, Private Citizen 2588 August 17, 2009 Anne Humphrey, Private Citizen 2589 August 17, 2009 R.H. Kroell, Private Citizen 2590 August 17, 2009 David Kleiman, Private Citizen 2591 August 17, 2009 Dawn Nelson, Private Citizen 2592 August 18, 2009 Deirdre Wilson, Private Citizen 2593 August 17, 2009 David Hucknall, Private Citizen 2594 August 17, 2009 Delcie Light, Private Citizen 2595 August 18, 2009 Donna Bonetti, Private Citizen 2596 August 17, 2009 David Le wton, Private Citizen 2597 August 17, 2009 Lenore Bentz, Private Citizen 2598 August 17, 2009 Laurel Herendeen, Private Citizen14 **Table 1**
**- 1. (con**  **tinued)**
**Docket No. EPA**
**- HQ** 
**** **OAR**
**- 2002** 
**- 0051**  **Date Received Commenter Name and Affiliation**  2599 August 17, 2009 Mark Robertson, Private Citizen 2600 August 17, 2009 Marlena Machol, Pri vate Citizen 2601 August 17, 2009 Martha Burton, Private Citizen 2602 August 17, 2009 Melanie Tang, Private Citizen 2603 August 17, 2009 H. Michael Laybourn, Private Citizen 2604 August 17, 2009 Margaret Fontenot, Private Citizen 2605 August 17, 2009 Linda Griggs, Private Citizen 2606 August 17, 2009 Matthew Comber, Private Citizen 2607 August 17, 2009 Anita Trenner, Private Citizen 2608 August 17, 2009 Marie Lloyd, Private Citizen 2609 August 18, 2009 Katherine Narveson, Private Citizen 2610 Augu st 17, 2009 George Thomas, Private Citizen 2611 August 17, 2009 Megan Stephenson, Private Citizen 2612 August 17, 2009 Gary Neu, Private Citizen 2613 August 17, 2009 Hal Nixon, Private Citizen 2614 August 17, 2009 Helen Putera, Private Citizen 2615 Au gust 17, 2009 Jerry Best, Private Citizen 2616 August 17, 2009 Joanie Alexander, Private Citizen 2617 August 18, 2009 Judith Arcana, Private Citizen 2618 August 17, 2009 John Pierson, Private Citizen 2619 August 18, 2009 Jennifer Jackson, Private Citiz en 2620 August 18, 2009 Nora Gallaher, Private Citizen 2621 August 17, 2009 Anesa Miller, Private Citizen 2622 August 20, 2009 G. Vinson Hellwig, Michigan, Co

- Chair, NACAA Air Toxics Committee Robert H. Colby, Chattanooga, TN, Co

- Chair, NACAA Air Toxics Committee 2623 August 17, 2009 James Sanders, Private Citizen 2624 August 17, 2009 Janet Jones, Private Citizen 2625 August 18, 2009 Joan Wilce, Private Citizen 2626 August 17, 2009 John Thomas, Private Citizen 2627 August 17, 2009 Joseph Belisle, Pr ivate Citizen 2628 August 18, 2009 Judith Eiseman, Private Citizen 2629 August 18, 2009 Judith Gallagher, Private Citizen 2630 August 17, 2009 Kathryn Bankston, Private Citizen 2631 August 17, 2009 Keith Powell, Private Citizen 2632 August 17, 2009 Ke vin Shilling, Private Citizen 2633 August 18, 2009 Angele Ellis, Private Citizen 2634 August 17, 2009 Kevin Riley, Private Citizen 2635 August 17, 2009 Catherine Harned, Private Citizen15 **Table 1**
**- 1. (con**  **tinued)**
**Docket No. EPA**
**- HQ** 
**** **OAR**
**- 2002** 
**- 0051**  **Date Received Commenter Name and Affiliation**  2636 August 17, 2009 Jon Krampner, Private Citizen 2637 August 18 , 2009 Nicolas Pekari, Private Citizen 2638 August 22, 2009 John A. Cooper, Cooper Environmental Services LLC (CES) 2639 August 17, 2009 Ted Taylor, Private Citizen 2640 August 17, 2009 Barbara Roberts, Private Citizen 2641 August 17, 2009 Vanessa Week s, Private Citizen 2642 August 18, 2009 Sue Bond, Private Citizen 2643 August 17, 2009 Harriet Irby, Private Citizen 2644 August 18, 2009 Thomas Martinez, Private Citizen 2645 August 17, 2009 Tom Ragouzis, Private Citizen 2646 August 17, 2009 Victoria Baker, Private Citizen 2647 August 17, 2009 Scott Ohlman, Private Citizen 2648 August 17, 2009 Paulette Bliss, Private Citizen 2649 August 20, 2009 Dave Bennett, Kaman Industrial Technologies

- Ontario Oregon 2650 August 20, 2009 Neil Sulivan, Granite Concrete Co, Inc 2651 August 20, 2009 Mike Jeffries, Goat Rock Mining Corp. 2652 July 14, 2009 Mass Comment Campaign, Sponsoring Organization Unknown (8,715) 2653 August 23, 2009 Kenneth Carlson, C&A Equipment Company 2654 August 20, 2009 Cass R. Vand erwiele, President/Owner, Triple C. Redi

- Mix 2655 August 20, 2009 Gary and Kathy Bloomer, Private Citizens 2656 August 14, 2009 Rhonda Fox, Private Citizen 2657 August 24, 2009 Wesley B. Prouty, Private Citizen 2658 July 20, 2009 Mass Comment Campaign, Sponsoring Organization Unknown (80) 2659 August 21, 2009 Ronald Verini, Private Citizen 2660 August 25, 2009 John C. Colbert, Vice President and General Manager Automatic Wilbert Vault Co., Inc. 2661 August 25, 2009 Bob Vandecar, Business Representat ive and Organizer, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers 2662 September 09, 2009 J. Robenolt, Private Citizen 2663 September 09, 2009 M. Minow , Private Citizen 2664 August 08, 2009 Carmelita Holland, Private Citizen 2665 August 16, 2009 Thoma s Bunch, Private Citizen 2666 August 18, 2009 Heidi Martin, Private Citizen 2667 August 20, 2009 Jeff Mendes, Regional Sales Manager, Ash Grove Cement Com pany 2668 August 21, 2009 Michael A. Henigan, Private Citizen 2669 August 20, 2009 Diana L. Henigan, Private Citizen 2670 August 17, 2009 Robert J. Schreiber, Jr., President, Schreiber, Yonley & Associates16 **Table 1**
**- 1. (con**  **tinued)**
**Docket No. EPA**
**- HQ** 
**** **OAR**
**- 2002** 
**- 0051**  **Date Received Commenter Name and Affiliation**  2671 August 10, 2009 Mark Holliday, Business Manager and Financial Secretary, Local 701, International Union of Operating Engineers (IUOE) 2672 July 30, 2009 Dennis Dorrah, Mayor, City of Baker City, Oregon (OR) 2673 August 17, 2009 Sarita Raney, Private Citizen 2674 August 19, 2009 Herbert L. Keyser, Private Citizen 2675 August 26, 2009 Thomas Mumley, Assistant Executive Officer, San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board, California EPA 2676 August 31, 2009 Robert Minister, Ash Grove Cement Company 2677 August 25, 2009 David Hayes, Private Citizen 2678 August 24, 2009 Deb Santa, Private Citizen 2679 August 24, 2009 Dennis Swaer, Private Citizen 2680 August 19, 2009 Devon Downeysmith, Private Citizen 2681 August 28, 2009 Diane Dillard, Private Citizen 2682 September 01, 2009 Jon Trygve Grey, Process Engineer, Seattle Plant, Ash Grove Cement Company 2683 August 28, 2009 Dr. Dic k Schoech, Private Citizen 2684 August 21, 2009 J. Ding, Private Citizen 2685 August 28, 2009 Edgar and Dora Stahl, Private Citizens 2686 August 26, 2009 Edwina Allen, Private Citizen 2687 August 29, 2009 Barbara Law rence, Private Citizen 2688 August 28, 2009 Fred Kennedy, Private Citizen 2689 August 28, 2009 Carol Fulton, Private Citizen 2690 August 28, 2009 Rollie Blackwell, Private Citizen 2691 August 28, 2009 Ruth Cook, Private Citizen 2692 August 22, 2009 Sara Freed, Private Citizen 2693 Augu st 19, 2009 Susan Lewis, Private Citizen 2694 August 19, 2009 Sean Edmison, Private Citizen 2695 August 29, 2009 Gail Krueger, Private Citizen 2696 August 28, 2009 Gary and Christy Richards, Private Citizens 2697 August 28, 2009 Gayle E. Marshall, Priv ate Citizen 2698 August 24, 2009 Grace Koehler, Private Citizen 2699 August 19, 2009 Holly Berkowitz, Private Citizen 2700 August 28, 2009 Howard Tubre, Private Citizen 2701 August 28, 2009 John Rath, Private Citizen 2702 August 28, 2009 John White, P rivate Citizen 2703 August 28, 2009 Shari Buhan, Private Citizen 2704 August 28, 2009 Ilana Shumsky, Private Citizen 2705 August 25, 2009 Shayne Vinagre, Private Citizen 2706 August 30, 2009 James Presley, Private Citizen 2707 August 26, 2009 Beth Duke, Private Citizen17 **Table 1**
**- 1. (con**  **tinued)**
**Docket No. EPA**
**- HQ** 
**** **OAR**
**- 2002** 
**- 0051**  **Date Received Commenter Name and Affiliation**  2708 August 24, 2009 Sheila Boester, Private Citizen 2709 August 20, 2009 Sheriel Hubble, Private Citizen 2710 August 19, 2009 Sandra Sawyer, Private Citizen 2711 August 29, 2009 Carolina Vornberg, Private Citizen 2712 August 25, 20 09 Jane Janzen, Private Citizen 2713 August 24, 2009 Bernard Feiss, Private Citizen 2714 August 24, 2009 Jay Krajic, Private Citizen 2715 August 27, 2009 Jean Benedict, Private Citizen 2716 August 24, 2009 Jean Gonzales, Private Citizen 2717 August 28 , 2009 Jonathan Grimm, Private Citizen 2718 August 28, 2009 Judith Godinez, Private Citizen 2719 August 25, 2009 Betsy Goodman, Private Citizen 2720 August 26, 2009 Mike Chandler, Private Citizen 2721 August 24, 2009 Michael Lanza, Private Citizen 272 2 August 25, 2009 Jean Maryborn, Private Citizen 2723 August 26, 2009 Michael Rutledge, Private Citizen 2724 August 28, 2009 Mona Kandeler, Private Citizen 2725 August 30, 2009 Mona Mehdy, Private Citizen 2726 August 24, 2009 Muriel Roberts, Private Ci tizen 2727 August 20, 2009 Michele Mason, Private Citizen 2728 August 29, 2009 Nancy Holcomb, Private Citizen 2729 August 28, 2009 Elizabeth Carman, Private Citizen 2730 August 28, 2009 Stacy Alaimo, Private Citizen 2731 August 19, 2009 Steven Libby, Private Citizen 2732 August 28, 2009 Stewart Snider, Private Citizen 2733 August 25, 2009 Susan McKean, Private Citizen 2734 August 26, 2009 Susan Norton, Private Citizen 2735 August 30, 2009 Tamara Teague, Private Citizen 2736 August 22, 2009 Anthony Wilson, Private Citizen 2737 August 25, 2009 Thomas Heinrich, Private Citizen 2738 August 25, 2009 Todd Davis, Private Citizen 2739 August 28, 2009 Charles Hobbs, Private Citizen 2740 August 24, 2009 Tom Godard, Private Citizen 2741 August 19, 2009 P atricia M. Williams, Private Citizen 2742 August 28, 2009 Virginia Gewax, Private Citizen 2743 August 19, 2009 Kathleen Wagner, Private Citizen 2744 August 29, 2009 Wayne Greene, Private Citizen 2745 August 28, 2009 Jeffrey Jacoby, Private Citizen 274 6 August 24, 2009 Jeffrey Davis, Private Citizen18 **Table 1**
**- 1. (con**  **tinued)**
**Docket No. EPA**
**- HQ** 
**** **OAR**
**- 2002** 
**- 0051**  **Date Received Commenter Name and Affiliation**  2747 August 29, 2009 Jo Adams, Private Citizen 2748 August 24, 2009 John Laz, Private Citizen 2749 August 29, 2009 Olive Hershey, Private Citizen 2750 August 22, 2009 Candia McNeal, Private Citizen 2751 August 25, 2009 Pam Colesworthy, Private Citizen 2752 August 24, 2009 Paul Martin, Private Citizen 2753 August 19, 2009 Philip K. Kreitner, Private Citizen 2754 August 24, 2009 Peggy Jordan, Private Citizen 2755 August 28, 2009 Peggy Sakach, Private C itizen 2756 August 24, 2009 Perry Brow n, Private Citizen 2757 August 19, 2009 Arvin Eyre, Private Citizen 2758 August 28, 2009 Raymond E. Bowden, Private Citizen 2759 August 25, 2009 Regi Teasley, Private Citizen 2760 August 28, 2009 William Blackley, Private Citizen 2761 August 22, 2009 Caryl Wolstenholme, Private Citizen 2762 August 28, 2009 Dr. Yvonne Hansen, Private Citizen 2763 August 24, 2009 Charles Trost, Private Citizen 2764 August 24, 2009 Claire Casey, Private Citizen 2765 August 25, 20 09 Craig Willey, Private Citizen 2766 August 21, 2009 Paige Zhang, Private Citizen 2767 August 29, 2009 Dan Smith, Private Citizen 2768 August 28, 2009 Vic Gilliam, House District 18, Oregon House of Representatives 2769 August 28, 2009 Carol Coulston, Private Citizen 2770 August 20, 2009 Dan Stabel, Private Citizen 2771 August 24, 2009 David Anderson, Private Citizen 2772 August 19, 2009 Alan Mahrenholz, Private Citizen 2773 August 28, 2009 George L. Gilman, State Representative, District 55, Orego n House of Representatives 2774 August 24, 2009 Andrea Sparrow , Private Citizen 2775 August 28, 2009 David Davidson, Private Citizen 2776 August 28, 2009 Jenoa Ingram, Oregon Independent Aggregate Association (OIAA) 2777 August 30, 2009 John E. Huffman , State Representative, House District 59 2778 August 31, 2009 Norma Job, Private Citizen 2779 undated Patrick Flanagan, Private Citizen 2780 July 20, 2009 Brittni Philips, Private Citizen 2781 August 31, 2009 Donna Piercy, Private Citizen 2782 July 2 0, 2009 William Edgar, Private Citizen 2783 July 22, 2009 Tim Burrows, Private Citizen19 **Table 1**
**- 1. (con**  **tinued)**
**Docket No. EPA**
**- HQ** 
**** **OAR**
**- 2002** 
**- 0051**  **Date Received Commenter Name and Affiliation**  2784 July 28, 2009 Hilary Cox, Private Citizen 2785 August 31, 2009 Wendy Hosman, Private Citizen 2786 September 1, 2009 Deborah Behles, Staff Attorney Lucas William s, Graduate Fellow Environmental Law and Justice Clinic at Golden Gate University on behalf of West Valley Citizens Air Watch and Bayview Hunters Point Community Advocates 2787 August 31, 2009 Daniel Kocurek, Private Citizen 2788 August 31, 2009 Jerry R . Boggs, Private Citizen 2789 August 31, 2009 Charles Morgan, Private Citizen 2790 August 31, 2009 Jensie Madden, Private Citizen 2791 August 28, 2009 Jules Dylan Stuer, Private Citizen 2792 August 24, 2009 Julie Grove, Private Citizen 2793 August 24, 2009 Karen Pfleger, Private Citizen 2794 August 30, 2009 Kathleen Tanaka, Private Citizen 2795 August 24, 2009 Kathy Patlovich, Private Citizen 2796 August 27, 2009 Ken Dunbar, Private Citizen 2797 August 25, 2009 Laura Hartman, Private Citizen 2798 August 19, 2009 Kim Young, Private Citizen 2799 August 24, 2009 Betsy Bridge, Private Citizen 2800 August 26, 2009 Kirsten Severud, Private Citizen 2801 August 24, 2009 Laura Todd, Private Citizen 2802 August 19, 2009 Leonard and Nancy Deadman, Private Citizens 2803 August 25, 2009 Leonora Midgley, Private Citizen 2804 August 24, 2009 Leslie Bradshaw, Private Citizen 2805 August 28, 2009 Linda Knowles, Private Citizen 2806 August 24, 2009 Lorna Emdy, Private Citizen 2807 August 20, 2009 Mary Ann Lamb ert, Private Citizen 2808 August 25, 2009 Marlene Strong, Private Citizen 2809 August 28, 2009 Martha Clinkscale, Private Citizen 2810 August 31, 2009 Mayor Joe Dominick and City of Ontario City Council, City of Ontario, Oregon 2811 August 27, 2009 C liff Bentz, State Representative, District 60, Oregon State House of Representatives 2812 August 27, 2009 Randall B. Hampton, President, Hampton's Inc. DBA Rogers Asphalt Paving Company 2813 August 28, 2009 Art Wilson, Cal

- CM Plus 2814 August 28, 2009 W endt, Private Citizen 2815 August 25, 2009 Flack, Private Citizen20 **Table 1**
**- 1. (con**  **tinued)**
**Docket No. EPA**
**- HQ** 
**** **OAR**
**- 2002** 
**- 0051**  **Date Received Commenter Name and Affiliation**  2816 September 18, 2009 Martha H. Keating, Director of Research Translation, Nicholas School of Environment, Duke University on behalf of the Children's Environmental Health Initiative (CE HI) Attachment

– Letter 2817 August 21, 2009 Gould, Private Citizen 2818 August 28, 2009 Faidley, Private Citizen 2819 August 24, 2009 Richard Heimsch, Private Citizen 2820 August 28, 2009 Richard Wilder, Private Citizen 2821 August 24, 2009 Rob Santa , Private Citizen 2822 August 28, 2009 Robert Burns, Private Citizen 2823 April 2009 Supporting Statement for NESHAP for Portland Cement Plants (40 CFR part 63, subpart LLL)

– Not a public comment 2824 September 18, 2009 E. Rafacz, Private Citizen 2825 August 25, 2009 Robsert Vestal, MD, Private Citizen 2826 August 24, 2009 Rocci Johnson, Private Citizen 2827 August 24, 2009 Roger Harrer, Private Citizen 2828 September 18, 2009 Al Armendariz, Ph.D., Private Citizen 2829 September 18, 2009 Al Armendariz, Private Citizen 2830 September 18, 2009 Gary A . Molchan, Vice President, Environmental Affairs, Essroc Cement Corporation 2831 September 18, 2009 Jan Alexander, Minerals Policy Coordinator, Eastern Oregon Mining Association (EOMA) 2832 September 3, 2009 Howard L. Gilberg, Guida, Slavich & Flores on behalf of the Tile Council of North America, Inc. (TCNA) 2833 September 18, 2009 Laura Skaer, Executive Director, Northwest Mining Association (NWMA) 2834 September 18, 2009 Geoffrey R. Gisler, Staff Attorney, Southern Environmental Law Center (SELC) 2835 September 18, 2009 James R. Roewer, Executive Director, Utility Solid Waste Activities Group (USWAG) 2836 September 18, 2009 James C. Morris III, Thompson & Knight LLP on behalf of Eagle Materials, In c. 2837 September 4, 2009 John A. Cooper and Drag A. Petterson, Cooper Environmental Services, LLC (CES) 2838 September 4, 2009 John A. Cooper and Krag A. Petterson, Cooper Environmental Services, LLC (CES) 2839 September 18, 2009 Alva R. Mascall, et al ., Ash Grove Cement Company 2840 September 18, 2009 T. Kerry, Private Citizen 2841 September 18, 2009 David Perkins, Corporate Director, Communications and Government Affairs, TXI Operations, LP 2842 September 18, 2009 Andrew M. Cuomo, Attorney General, State of New Yhork et al.21 **Table 1**
**- 1. (con**  **tinued)**
**Docket No. EPA**
**- HQ** 
**** **OAR**
**- 2002** 
**- 0051**  **Date Received Commenter Name and Affiliation**  2843 September 21, 2009 Susie Devergranne, Chairperson, Davenport Environmental Health Coalition 2844 September 21, 2009 Patrick M. Raher, Hogan and Hartson, LLP On behalf of National Cement Company (NCC) 2845 September 21, 20 09 Andrew T. O'Hare, Vice President, Regulatory Affairs, Portland Cement Association (PCA) 2846 September 21, 2009 Robert D. Bessette, President, Council of Industrial Boiler Owners (CIBO) 2847 September 2, 2009 C. Puljan, Private Citizen 2848 September 21, 2009 Andrew T. O'Hare, Vice President, Regulatory Affairs, Portland Cement Association (PCA) 2849 September 4, 2009 Jim Griffin, Senior Director, Regulatory and Technical Affairs, American Chemistry Council (ACC) 2850 September 21, 2009 Robert J. Ka leel, Manager, Air Quality Planning Section, Bureau of Air, Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (Illinois EPA) 2851 September 21, 2009 Andrew T. O'Hare, Vice President, Regulatory Affairs, Portland Cement Association (PCA) [Part 3 Daily Chart] 2852 September 01, 2009 Chuck Buchanan, Private Citizen 2853 September 01, 2009 David Baker, Private Citizen 2854 September 01, 2009 John Unger, Private Citizen 2855 September 21, 2009 Andrew T. O'Hare, Vice President, Regulatory Affairs, Portland Cement Ass ociation (PCA) Part 4: Appendix 2 to Appendix 12 2856 September 01, 2009 Louis T. Scharbrough, Private Citizen 2857 September 01, 2009 Swanna Tanger, Private Citizen 2858 September 21, 2009 Edward X. Junia, Esquire, Attorney

- at

- Law 2859 September 21, 2 009 Craig S. Cambell, Vice President, Environmental & Government Affairs, Lafarge North America

- Cement Division 2860 September 21, 2009 Anne Hedges, Program Director, Montana Environmental Information Center (MEIC) 2861 August 27, 2009 Bruce Schacht, E nvironmental Engineer, Columbia Steel Casting Co., Inc 2862 September 01, 2009 Basil D. Jacobson, Vice President, Concrete Planet Manager, United Materials of Great Falls, Inc. 2863 September 04, 2009 Curtis Lesslie, P.E., Director of Environmental Affai rs, Ash Grove Cement Company 2864 September 08, 2009 Hector Ybanez, Holcim (US), Inc. 2865 September 01, 2009 W.C. Jacobson, Private Citizen 2866 September 01, 2009 T. Kerby, Private Citizen 2867 September 04, 2009 Alvaro A. Linero, P.E., Program Admin istrator, Special Projects Section, Bureau of Air Regulation, Division of Air Resources Management, Florida Department of Environmental Protection22 **Table 1**
**- 1. (con**  **tinued)**
**Docket No. EPA**
**- HQ** 
**** **OAR**
**- 2002** 
**- 0051**  **Date Received Commenter Name and Affiliation**  2868 September 21, 2009 Christopher Lish, Private Citizen 2869 September 02, 2009 Scott Burns, Chief Execut ive Officer (CEO), BURNCO Rock Products Ltd (BURNCO) 2870 September 03, 2009 Bryan Brendle, Director, Energy and Resources Policy, National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) 2871 September 03, 2009 B. Johnson, Private Citizen 2872 September 03, 2009 Ge off Brosseau, Executive Director, Bay Area Stormwater Management Agencies Association (BASMAA) 2873 September 22, 2009 Andy O'Hare, Portland Cement Association (Part 5: Appendix 13 and Appendix 14) 2874 September 04, 2009 Daniel B. Nugent, Vice President , Environmental Affairs, Buzzi Unicem USA, Inc. 2875 September 04, 2009 E.X. Junia, Private Citizen 2876 September 04, 2009 F. Pinto, Private Citizen 2877 September 01, 2009 Raymond L. Calkins, DVM Lynn M. Calkins Private Citizens 2878 September 05, 20 09 Charles Hofmann, MD 2879 September 04, 2009 John F. Chadbourne, Ph.D., President, Chadbourne Environment & Safety Programs, L.L.C. (CESP) 2880 September 01, 2009 Richard Angstrom, Oregon Concrete & Aggregate Producers Association (OCAPA) 2881 Septemb er 04, 2009 Mariah S. Chen, Private Citizen 2882 September 04, 2009 Virgil L. Thomas, Private Citizen 2883 September 01, 2009 Lisa Kerby, Private Citizen 2884 September 02, 2009 Judge Dan P. Joyce, Commissioner Louis Wettstein Commissioner Jim Nakano, M alheur County Court 2885 September 01, 2009 Norma Job, Private Citizen 2886 September 01, 2009 Anonymous Public Comment 2887 September 04, 2009 Peter T. Kimmel, Vice President (VP), Operations, Armstrong Cement & Supply Co. 2888 September 04, 2009 Doug Roark, Manager, Environmental and Process, GCC of America 2889 September 09, 2009 John Richards, Ph.D., P.E., Air Control Techniques, P.C. 2890 September 04, 2009 Susan Miller, Vice President, Environmental, Health & Safety, Brick Industry Association ( BIA) Terry Schimmel, BIA MACT Task Force Lead, Vice President, Manufacturing, Boral Bricks 2891 September 04, 2009 Joseph Otis Minott, Executive Director, Clean Air Council 2892 September 04, 2009 Scott Trainor, General Manager, Thiessen Team USA Inc. 2 893 September 04, 2009 Joyce M. Eden et al., West Valley Citizens Air Watch (WVCAW) ad Monica Wilson, Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives (GAIA)23 **Table 1**
**- 1. (con**  **tinued)**
**Docket No. EPA**
**- HQ** 
**** **OAR**
**- 2002** 
**- 0051**  **Date Received Commenter Name and Affiliation**  2894 September 03, 2009 Frank Schaedlich, Vice President Research & Development, Tekran Instruments C orporation 2895 September 03, 2009 Jennifer Mesaros, Private Citizen 2896 September 04, 2009 Lee Jamison, Private Citizen 2897 September 05, 2009 Lindsey L. Hrizuk, Private Citizen 2898 September 09, 2009 Avinash Kar, Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) et al. 2899 September 04, 2009 Kevin Blankenship, Private Citizen 2900 November 12, 2009 Timothy L. Matz, Director, Environmental Affairs, Lehigh Hanson, Inc. (Lehigh Cement Company) 2901 September 09, 2009 Melvin E. Keener, Ph.D., Executive Dire ctor, Coalition for Responsible Waste Incineration (CRWI) 2902 September 04, 2009 Jacqueline K. Clark, Private Citizen 2903 September 04, 2009 Charles Simpson, Mayor, City of Huntington, Oregon (OR) 2904 September 01, 2009 Alan Finch, Private Citizen 2 905 September 01, 2009 James Walton and Rebecca L. Wood, Private Citizens 2906 September 04, 2009 Kelly Campbell BA, Executive Director, Joseph Miller Ph.D., and Susan Katz M.D., Members, Board of Directors and Maye Thompson RN, Ph.D., Environmental Health Program Director, Oregon Chapter of Physicians for Social Responsibility 2907 September 04, 2009 Allie Sheffield, Chair, Committee on Titan Cement, Pender Watch and Conservancy 2908 September 04, 2009 Bishop Titus B. Deas, Jr., National Education and O utreach Spokesperson, EmPower Consumers 2909 September 04, 2009 Susan Falzon, Friends of Hudson (FoH) 2910 September 04, 2009 Verie C. Martz, Vice President Engineering and Environment, Salt Riber Materials Group (SRMG), on behalf of Phoenix Cement Company 2911 September 04, 2009 Sierra Club et al. 2912 September 04, 2009 Adam W. Olivieri, Dr. PH, P.E., Program Manager, Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program (SCVURPPP) 2913 September 04, 2009 Natural Resources Defense Council (NRD C) et al. 2914 September 04, 2009 Michael R. Benoit, Executive Director, Cement Kiln Recycling Coalition (CKRC) 2915 September 09, 2009 Lee B. Zeugin and Lauren E. Freeman, Hunton & Williams LLP, on behalf of Utility Air Regulatory Group (UARG) 2916 Se ptem

ber 10,2009 Jim Griffin, Senior Director, Regulaotyr and Technical Affairs,

American Chemistry Council (ACC) 2917 September 10, 2009 Michael Ste wart, President & CEO (Chief Executive Officer), Texas Aggregates & Concrete Association (TACA) 2918 Septe mb er 04, 2009 Lane H. Smith, Manager, Environmental Projects, Giant Cement Holding, Inc. (GCHI)24 **Table 1**
**- 1. (con**  **tinued)**
**Docket No. EPA**
**- HQ** 
**** **OAR**
**- 2002** 
**- 0051**  **Date Received Commenter Name and Affiliation**  2919 September 10, 2009 Dick Pedersen, Director, Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ) 2920 September 01, 2009 Hurchel Young, Instrument & Electr ical Supervisor, Seattle Plant, Ash Grove Cement 2921 August 31, 2009 Aaron Mott, Private Citizen 2922 September 04, 2009 Andrew T. O'Hare, Vice President, Regulatory Affairs, Portland Cement Association (PCA) 2923 August 24, 2009 Brenton Kidder, Privat e Citizen 2924 September 26, 2009 Brian Good, Private Citizen 2925 August 12, 2009 Brian G. Finch, Private Citizen 2926 August 30, 2009 Bryan Pintok, Private Citizen 2927 August 05, 2009 Gail Cheeseman, Private Citizen 2928 September 10, 2009 Jim Sche rm beck, Director, Downwinders At Risk 2929 September 04, 2009 Stephen Minick, Vice President, Governmental Affairs, Texas Association of Business 2930 August 26, 2009 Chris Barrett, Private Citizen 2931 August 26, 2009 Christ Hasser, Private Citizen 29 32 August 25, 2009 Chris Hughes, Private Citizen 2933 September 01, 2009 Anonymous Public Comment 2934 August 24, 2009 Corey Younger, Private Citizen 2935 August 14, 2009 Alan Finch, Private Citizen 2936 August 25, 2009 Courtney Washburn, Private Citiz en 2937 September 04, 2009 Neil J. Carman, Ph.D., Director, Clean Air Porgram, Lone Star Chapter of Sierra Club et al. 2938 August 27, 2009 Anonymous Public Comment 2939 August 28, 2009 Don and Dawn O'Grady, Private Citizen 2940 August 26, 2009 Denise Kemp, Private Citizen 2941 August 27, 2009 Donald R. and Ann Clark, Private Citizens 2942 August 25, 2009 Daniel Peters, Private Citizen 2943 August 17, 2009 Lisa De Golier, Private Citizen 2944 August 25, 2009 Logan A. Loening, Private Citizen 2945 August 25, 2009 Lynelle Lewis

- Raymond, Private Citizen 2946 August 25, 2009 Margaret Schiff, Private Citizen 2947 August 12, 2009 Dan Shaffer, Dykman Electrical, Inc. 2948 August 31, 2009 Vicky Ho, Private Citizen 2949 August 24, 2009 William and Wanda Jennings, Private Citizen 2950 August 28, 2009 Ken Ware, Private Citizen 2951 August 27, 2009 Leland H. Page II, P.E., Private Citizen 2952 September 01, 2009 Dustin Scott, General Manager, Umatilla Ready

- Mix, Inc. 2953 September 01, 2009 Kevin Bell, C larke & Clarke Insurance25 **Table 1**
**- 1. (con**  **tinued)**
**Docket No. EPA**
**- HQ** 
**** **OAR**
**- 2002** 
**- 0051**  **Date Received Commenter Name and Affiliation**  2954 September 03, 2009 Tim and Jan Kerns, Kerns Rainbow Ranch, Inc. 2955 September 04, 2009 Ananda Lee Tan, U.S. Coordinator, Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives (GAIA) 2956 August 26, 2009 Maxine J. Murray, Private Ci tizen 2957 August 24, 2009 Paul J. Lyons, Private Citizen 2958 August 26, 2009 Rick L. Wallace, Private Citizen 2959 August 31, 2009 Elmer M. and Sheila M. Hill, Private Citizens 2960 August 26, 2009 Sherman W. Murray, Private Citizen 2961 September 0 2, 2009 Bob Groppo, Private Citizen 2962 September 02, 2009 Boris Degtyar, Private Citizen 2963 September 03, 2009 Bradley Walker, Private Citizen 2964 September 03, 2009 Kathleen Smith, Private Citizen 2965 September 03, 2009 A. Burr Tyler, Private Ci tizen 2966 September 04, 2009 Sandra R. Dickey, Private Citizen 2967 September 03, 2009 Cathy Trimble, Private Citizen 2968 September 02, 2009 David H. Jones, Private Citizen 2969 September 04, 2009 Mike Schaufler, State Representative, District 48, Or egon House of Representatives 2970 September 03, 2009 Chad Williams, Private Citizen 2971 September 03, 2009 Steve Bochenek, Private Citizen 2972 September 04, 2009 Denny Larson, Exec. Director, Global Community Monitor 2973 August 31, 2009 James Wells , District Sales Manager, Ash Grove Cement Com pany 2974 September 03, 2009 Kathryn Ballard, Private Citizen 2975 September 04, 2009 Diana Matley, Private Citizen 2976 September 03, 2009 Donnas Smith, Private Citizen 2977 September 01, 2009 D.T. Iddins, MD, Private Citizen 2978 September 01, 2009 Elwood Wirth and Family, Private Citizens 2979 September 02, 2009 Wade Christensen, Private Citizen 2980 September 03, 2009 Heather Ward and Family 2981 September 04, 2009 Linda K. Hughes, Private Citizen 2 982 August 29, 2009 John Martin, Laborer/Physical Tester, Ash Grove Cement Plant 2983 September 03, 2009 Anonymous Public Comment 2984 August 28, 2009 Justin Hayes, Program Director, Idaho Conservation League 2985 September 03, 2009 Janet Hedley, Private Citizen 2986 September 02, 2009 Jim Wheeler, Private Citizen 2987 September 01, 2009 Joan Stempniak, Private Citizen 2988 September 03, 2009 Kyle Hancock, Private Citizen 2989 September 03, 2009 Laina Raveendran Greene, Private Citizen 2990 Septemb er 02, 2009 Lareen Jacobs, Private Citizen26 **Table 1**
**- 1. (con**  **tinued)**
**Docket No. EPA**
**- HQ** 
**** **OAR**
**- 2002** 
**- 0051**  **Date Received Commenter Name and Affiliation**  2991 September 04, 2009 Leslie Fowler, Private Citizen 2992 September 04, 2009 Lethika Richter

- Addo, Private Citizen 2993 September 04, 2009 Christopher Lish, Private Citizen 2994 September 03, 2009 Gregor Bec ker, Private Citizen 2995 September 02, 2009 Gregory Becker, Private Citizen 2996 August 24, 2009 Ryan Deckert, President, The Oregon Business Association (OBA) 2997 September 03, 2009 T.C. Johnston, Sr., Private Citizen 2998 August 14, 2009 Gary D. M cCall, McCall Industrial Supply 2999 August 20, 2009 Walter L. Johnson, Private Citizen 3000 August 13, 2009 Warren Weatherspoon, Private Citizen 3001 August 25, 2009 Yvonne Shevnin, COO, Enfinittee, LLC 3002 September 04, 2009 Dr. J. O'Donnell, Privat e Citizen 3003 September 01, 2009 Julia Olson, Private Citizen 3004 September 03, 2009 Julie Gutierrez, Private Citizen 3005 September 04, 2009 Katherine D. Allen, Private Citizen 3006 September 01, 2009 Charlotte (no surname provided), Private Citizen 3007 September 03, 2009 Louise Pillai, Private Citizen 3008 September 03, 2009 Louise Pillai, Private Citizen 3009 August 24, 2009 Ryan Deckert, President, The Oregon Business Association (OBA) 3010 September 02, 2009 Lynn Metrulas, Private Citizen 3011 September 03, 2009 M. and T. Manickam, Private Citizen 3012 August 21, 2009 Bill Hubbell, General Manager, Wilco

- Winfield LLC 3013 August 28, 2009 Evelyn M. Christensen, Private Citizen 3014 August 27, 2009 Anonymous Public Comment 3015 September 04, 2009 Margie Gong, , Private Citizen 3016 September 03, 2009 Diane Soffe, Private Citizen 3017 September 04, 2009 Rhoda Fry, Private Citizen 3018 September 01, 2009 Rhonda Givson, Retired Teacher, Private Citizen 3019 September 03, 2009 Mark Soffe, Private Citizen 3020 September 03, 2009 Marta Tingdale, RRT, TN, Private Citizen 3021 September 03, 2009 Mary Ann Mayer Redmond, Private Citizen 3022 September 04, 2009 Mary Harrison, Private Citizen 3023 September 04, 2009 Mary Peveto, Private Citize n 3024 August 26, 2009 Thomas Mumley, Assistant Executive Officer, San Francisco Bay Water Board 3025 September 03, 2009 Richard Lines, Private Citizen 3026 September 04, 2009 M. G. Bloom, Private Citizen 3027 September 03, 2009 Roxanne Christal, Private Citizen27 **Table 1**
**- 1. (con**  **tinued)**
**Docket No. EPA**
**- HQ** 
**** **OAR**
**- 2002** 
**- 0051**  **Date Received Commenter Name and Affiliation**  3028 September 03, 2009 Sam Pratt, Private Citizen 3029 September 02, 2009 Samantha Bornhorst, Private Citizen 3030 September 01, 2009 Sandra Breakfield, Private Citizen 3031 September 02, 2009 Martin Schiltz, Private Citizen 3032 September 03, 2009 Maureen Porter, Private Citizen 3033 September 03, 2009 Michele Westlaken, Private Citizen 3034 September 04, 2009 Michelle Craig, Private Citizen 3035 September 03, 2009 Nancy Johnstone, Private Citizen 3036 September 01, 2009 Sarah Castor, Private Citizen 3037 September 03, 2009 Sarah Laurie, Private Citizen 3038 September 02, 2009 Seth Cohen, Private Citizen 3039 September 04, 2009 Shannon Huges, Private Citizen 3040 September 04, 2009 Amy Parenti,, Private Citizen 3041 September 04, 2 009 Jennifer Swearingen, Private Citizen 3042 September 03, 2009 Peeyush Jain, Private Citizen 3043 September 03, 2009 Philip Johnson, Private Citizen 3044 September 03, 2009 Allison Sunshine, Private Citizen 3045 September 04, 2009 Sheila Jones, Private Citizen 3046 September 03, 2009 Sue Blair, Private Citizen 3047 September 03, 2009 Susan Waskey, Private Citizen 3048 September 02, 2009 Susanne Endisch, Private Citizen 3049 September 03, 2009 Suzanne Baker, Private Citizen 3050 September 03, 2009 Terri Rimmer, Private Citizen 3051 September 04, 2009 Jeanne Schumacher, Private Citizen 3052 September 04, 2009 Arran E. Thomson, Private Citizen 3053 September 03, 2009 Vicki Oppenheim, Private Citizen 3054 September 02, 2009 Vinita Soin, Private Ci tizen 3055 September 04, 2009 Gerald Yeoumans, Private Citizen 3056 August 31, 2009 Gail Bower, Private Citizen 3057 August 24, 2009 George and Frances Alderson, Private Citizen 3058 August 27, 2009 Ginger Younger, Private Citizen 3059 August 25, 2009 Ignatius and Josephine Ding, Private Citizen 3060 August 26, 2009 James Robenolt and Mary Minow , Private Citizens 3061 August 20, 2009 Jenny Pompilio, M.D., MPH, Private Citizen 3062 August 24, 2009 Jerry Randolph, Private Citizen 3063 August 7, 2009 Jessica Shlager, Private Citizen 3064 August 28, 2009 James E. Finch, Private Citizen 3065 August 21, 2009 John Condon, Private Citizen 3066 August 19, 2009 Rodd and Rhea Bunch, Private Citizen28 **Table 1**
**- 1. (con**  **tinued)**
**Docket No. EPA**
**- HQ** 
**** **OAR**
**- 2002** 
**- 0051**  **Date Received Commenter Name and Affiliation**  3067 September 03, 2009 Robert R. Geddis, QEP, Private Cit izen 3068 September 01, 2009 Glenn Foote, Eastern Oregon Service Company (EOSC) 3069 September 03, 2009 J. Jared Snyder, Assistant Commissioner, Office of Air Resources, Climate Change and Energy, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation 3070 September 02, 2009 Dawn Dawson, Secretary, Dawson Trucking, Inc. 3071 September 03, 2009 Vivian Zikmund, Private Citizen 3072 August 27, 2009 Jerri Wickert, Private Citizen 3073 August 05, 2009 J. Amberg, Private Citizen 3074 August 07, 2009 Jane S. Philipson, Private Citizen 3075 August 28, 2009 Kari Van Artsdalen, Private Citizen 3076 August 25, 2009 Kay Hummel, Private Citizen 3077 August 08, 2009 Kim Jelfs, Private Citizen 3078 September 01, 2009 Kathryn C. White, Private Citizen 3079 August 31, 2009 Larry D. and Maxine J. Cole, Private Citizens 3080 September 09, 2009 Congresswoman Eddie Bernice Johnson, Member of Congress 3081 September 01, 2009 Patrick Flanagan, Private Citizen 3082 September 15, 2009 Anonymous Public Comment 3083 September 03, 2009 Bill Zikmund, Private Citizen 3084 August 29, 2009 Anonymous Public Comment 3085 August 24, 2009 Dick and Laura Parsons, Private Citizen 3086 August 25, 2009 Linda Olson, Private Citizen 3087 September 04, 2009 Anonymous Mass Comment Cam paign sponsoring organization unknown (23) 3088 August 24, 2009 Anonymous Mass Comment Campaign sponsoring organization unknown (129) 3089 August 25, 2009 Anonymous Mass Comment Campaign sponsoring organization unknown (46) 3090 September 03, 2009 B. Sap, Private Citizen 3091 September 03, 2009 Gary Gable, Private Citizen 3092 September 03, 2009 William B. McNabb, President, McNabb Trucking 3093 September 03, 2009 Anita McKinney, Private Citizen 3094 September 03, 2009 Mr. and Mrs. W. Holoboff, Private Citizen 3095 September 03, 2009 Dale Smith, Private Citizen 3096 September 03, 2009 D. and B. Shumway, Private Citizen 3097 July 22, 2009 Maxine J. Murray, Private Citizen 3098 August 29, 2009 Anonymous Public Comment 3099 August 13, 2009 Mich ael Anderson, Private Citizen 3100 August 28, 2009 Michael Van Artsdalen, Private Citizen 3101 August 23, 2009 Michael Condon, Private Citizen29 **Table 1**
**- 1. (con**  **tinued)**
**Docket No. EPA**
**- HQ** 
**** **OAR**
**- 2002** 
**- 0051**  **Date Received Commenter Name and Affiliation**  3102 August 12, 2009 Mike G. Eiselein, Private Citizen 3103 September 01, 2009 Nancy Sanchez, Private Citizen 3104 September 01, 2009 Nicholas O'Neil, Private Citizen 3105 August 20, 2009 Nick Littlejohn, Private Citizen 3106 August 25, 2009 Anonymous Public Comment 3107 August 8, 2009 Phil Jelfs, Private Citizen 3108 August 25, 2009 Breanna Teintze, Private Citizen 3109 August 21, 2009 Barbara G. Sidway , Private Citizen 3110 August 12, 2009 R. Kaminsky, Private Citizen 3111 September 01, 2009 Reece M. Hrizuk, Private Citizen 3112 August 21, 2009 Anonymous Public Comment 3113 August 24, 2009 Richard Kuhn et, Private Citizen 3114 August 25, 2009 Anonymous Public Comment 3115 August 21, 2009 Rod F. Cook, Private Citizen 3116 August 20, 2009 Roger L. Weber, Private Citizen 3117 August 25, 2009 Rosemary Marks, Private Citizen 3118 August 24, 2009 Roy Hebe rger, Private Citizen 3119 September 03, 2009 J. McKinney, Private Citizen 3120 September 03, 2009 Ron and Janice Parsons, Private Citizen 3121 September 03, 2009 Janine R. Little, Private Citizen 3122 September 03, 2009 Wilma J. Rogers, Private Citize n 3123 September 03, 2009 State Representative Ron Maurer, Ed., D., House Republican Whip, District 3, Oregon House of Representatives 3124 September 03, 2009 William C. Parrish, Jr., Chief Executive Officer (CEO), Santa Clara County Medical Association (SCCMA) 3125 August 21, 2009 Ken Smyth, Private Citizen 3126 August 28, 2009 Kevin Harris, Private Citizen 3127 July 29, 2009 Kie and Cindy Hale, Private Citizen 3128 August 10, 2009 Amy L. Lansky, Private Citizen 3129 August 26, 2009 Sandra R. Dicke y, Private Citizen 3130 August 5, 2009 Barbara Fukumoto, Private Citizen 3131 August 26, 2009 Cathy Helgerson, Private Citizen 3132 August 10, 2009 Teri Wiss, Private Citizen 3133 August 28, 2009 Tom Beverly, Private Citizen 3134 August 10, 2009 Marianne F. Tranter, Private Citizen 3135 August 11, 2009 Richard R. Tranter, Private Citizen 3136 August 31, 2009 Fred D. Blackham, Private Citizen 3137 September 14, 2009 Alvaro Linero, P.E., Program Administrator, State of Florida Department of Environmental Protection30 **Table 1**
**- 1. (con**  **tinued)**
**Docket No. EPA**
**- HQ** 
**** **OAR**
**- 2002** 
**- 0051**  **Date Received Commenter Name and Affiliation**  3138 September 04, 2009 Anne Hedges, Program Director, Montana Environmental Information Center (MEIC) 3139 September 03, 2009 Cecil Mark Benintendi, Private Citizen 3140 September 03, 2009 Diane Schrack, Private Citizen 3141 September 0 1, 2009 Baker County Board of Commissioners, Baker City, Baker County, Oregon 3142 September 08, 2009 Randall G. Gross, Jr., Director of Environmental and Regulatory Policy, Michigan Manufacturers Association (MMA) 3143 September 08, 2009 Jim Folsom, Jr. , Lieutenant Governor, Alabama State House, State of Alabama 3144 September 08, 2009 Mark Murphy, VP, CPM Development Corporation 3145 September 09, 2009 Joan Howe, Private Citizen 3146 September 11, 2009 Donald. E. Morgan, Private Citizen 3147 Septemb er 11, 2009 Steve Robinson, President, Spokane Rock Products, Inc. 3148 September 10, 2009 Candy Howland, Owner, Candy's Corner Market 3149 September 14, 2009 P.J. Lier, Private Citizen 3150 September 15, 2009 B. Vanderwall, Private Citizen 3151 d Septe mb er 15, 2009 Andrew T. O'Hare, Vice President, Regulatory Affairs, Portland Cement Association (PCA) 3152 August 24, 2009 John Woolley, President, Olympic Forest Coalition, (OFCO) 3153 September 15, 2009 Christopher I. West, Private Citizen 3154 d Septe mb er 16, 2009 R. Latane Montague, Partner, Hogan and Hartson on behalf of Ted Kniesche, Vice President, Fulcrum Bioenergy, Inc. 3155 September 15, 2009 Representative Greg Walden, Second District, Oregon, U.S. House of Representatives 3156 September 03, 2009 Sharla Vaughan, Private Citizen 3157 July 28, 2009 Lori Finch, Private Citizen 3158 August 28, 2009 Heather Finch, Private Citizen 3159 August 14, 2009 Herbert L. Keyser, Private Citizen 3160 August 07, 2009 Allison Marks, Private Citizen 3161 Se ptem

ber 04, 2009 Hazel Lambert, Private Citizen 3162 August 28, 2009 Mohsen Nazemi, P.E., Deputy Executive Officer, Engineering and Compliance, South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) 3163 September 04, 2009 K. and J. Dyke, Private Citizen 3164 September 03, 2009 Anonymous public comment 3165 September 04, 2009 Alva R. Mascall, S. C. Mascall, and T. Orr 3166 September 03, 2009 Ed Hardt, President, Eastern Oregon Mining Association (EOMA) 3167 September 02, 2009 Ely se Kunz, Board of Direct ors, Community Advocates for Safe Emissions (CASE)31 **Table 1**
**- 1. (con**  **tinued)**
**Docket No. EPA**
**- HQ** 
**** **OAR**
**- 2002** 
**- 0051**  **Date Received Commenter Name and Affiliation**  3168 September 01, 2009 R. L. Moore, Private Citizen 3169 September 15, 2009 Lewis F. Gossett, President and Chief Executive Officer (CEO), South Carolina Manufacturers Alliance (SCMA) 3170 September 15 , 2009 Jon Baggett, Director, Dorchester County Economic Development, Dorchester County, Maryland 3171 September 03, 2009 Comment submitted by State Senator Jason Allen, Majority Whip, 37th District, Michigan State Senate 3172 September 15, 2009 State Se nator Kevin Engler, District 3, Missouri State Senate 3173 September 03, 2009 Carl Stiff, M.D., Baker County Commissioner, Baker County, Oregon 3174 September 08, 2009 D. (surname illegible), Private Citizen 3175 September 08, 2009 Tim Pope, Private Cit izen 3176 September 08, 2009 Wade L. Boxberger, Private Citizen 3177 September 08, 2009 Richard D'Ewart, Private Citizen 3178 September 08, 2009 John R. McLean, Private Citizen 3179 September 08, 2009 Representative Bart Stupak, (MI

- 1) and Representat ive Charles W. Dent, (PA

- 15) Co

- Chairs, Congressional Cement Caucus, Congress of the United States 3180 August 31, 2009 Kenneth W. Carlson, President, C and A Equipment Company 3181 September 08, 2009 Chris Combs, Private Citizen 3182 September 08, 2009 J.T. "JABO" Waggoner, Senate Minority Leader, District 16, Alabama State Senate 3183 September 08, 2009 Douglas L. Whitley, President and Chief Executive Officer (CEO), Illinois Chamber of Commerce 3184 September 08, 2009 Seth Hammett, Speaker, House of Representatives 3185 September 08, 2009 Representative Mike Hill, House of Representatives, Alabama State House 3186 September 08, 2009 Craig A. Dally, State Representative, 138th Legislative District, House of Representatives, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania 3187 September 08, 2009 Julie Harhart, State Representative, 183rd Legislative District, House of Representatives, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania 3188 September 08, 2009 Jari Askins, Lieutenant Governor, State of Oklahoma 3189 September 08, 2009 Ray S alva, State Representative, District 51, Missouri House of Representatives 3190 September 08, 2009 Cam Ward, House of Representatives, Alabama State House 3191 September 08, 2009 Joseph F. Brennan, State Representative, 133rd Legislative District, House of Representatives, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania 3192 September 08, 2009 Hank Erwin, State Senator 14th District, Alabama State Senate, Alabama State House 3193 September 08, 2009 Congressman John Shimkus, 19th District of Illinois, Congress of the Unite d States, House of Representatives 3194 August 06, 2009 Eugene Stackle, Manager, Baker Economic Development32 **Table 1**
**- 1. (con**  **tinued)**
**Docket No. EPA**
**- HQ** 
**** **OAR**
**- 2002** 
**- 0051**  **Date Received Commenter Name and Affiliation**  3195 September 04, 2009 Howard L. Giberg, Counsel, Guida, Slavich and Flores on behalf of the Tile Council of North America, Inc. (TCNA) 3196 Se ptem

ber 08, 2009 George H. Winner, Jr., Member of Senate, The Senate State of

New York 3197 September 08, 2009 Tony Stamas, State Senator, 36th District, The Senate State of Michigan 3198 September 04, 2009 Neil D. Breslin, Member of Senate, New York State Senate 3199 September 08, 2009 Representative Jimmy Martin, House of Representatives, Alabama State House 3200 September 08, 2009 Patrick M. Browne, Senator 16th District, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Senate of Pennsylvania 3201 September 08, 2009 D oug Roberts, Jr., Director of Environmental and Energy Policy, Michigan Chamber of Commerce 3202 September 04, 2009 George W. Roy, Mayor, City of Calera 3203 September 04, 2009 Andy Neumann, State Representative for Alcona, Alpena, Crawford, Montmorency, Oscoda and Presque Isle Counties, Michigan House of Representatives 3204 September 02, 2009 Ed Hardt, President, Eastern Oregon Mining Association (EOMA) 3205 September 04, 2009 Roger Smitherman, President Pro Tempore, Alabama State Senate, Alabama Stat e House 3206 September 04, 2009 Mayor Stanley J. Salva, City of Sugar Creek, Missouri 3207 September 04, 2009 Glen Zorn, Assistant Commissioner, State of Alabama Department of Agriculture and Industries 3208 August 24, 2009 Wyatt Pegg, President , Weste rn Interlock, Inc. 3209 August 31, 2009 John C. Colbert, Vice President and General Manager, Automatic Wiber Vault Co., Inc. 3210 September 08, 2009 M. D'Ewart Logsdon, Private Citizen 3211 September 04, 2009 Mark Mullins, Private Citizen 3212 Septembe r 08, 2009 Norma Job, Private Citizen 3213 September 08, 2009 Elmer M. and Sheila M. Hill, Private Citizens 3214 September 08, 2009 Robert M. Hardy, Private Citizen 3215 September 08, 2009 Charles D. Carey, Private Citizen 3216 September 08, 2009 Robert Harris, Private Citizen 3217 September 08, 2009 Claude and Jane Treanor, Private Citizens 3218 September 08, 2009 Michael J. Hrizuk, Private Citizen 3219 September 04, 2009 Clifford T. Smith, Private Citizen 3220 September 04, 2009 Edward P. Stocks, Private Citizen 3221 September 04, 2009 Jeff Wiest, Private Citizen 3222 September 08, 2009 Tony DeFalco, Private Citizen 3223 September 05, 2009 Julia Chen, Private Citizen 3224 September 08, 2009 Dennis L. West, Private Citizen33 **Table 1**
**- 1. (con**  **tinued)**
**Docket No. EPA**
**- HQ** 
**** **OAR**
**- 2002** 
**- 0051**  **Date Received Commenter Name and Affiliation**  3225 September 09, 20 09 Phillip Teintze, Private Citizen 3226 September 13, 2009 Kerrie Utsumi, Private Citizen 3227 September 20, 2009 Panos Kougiouris, Private Citizen 3228 October 05, 2009 Sally and Wick Drummon, Private Citizens 3229 October 05, 2006 Craig Clapsaddle, Mechanical Systems, Inc. Notes: a. Request for extension of public comment period. b. Duplicate copies of same comments entered in docket. c. Comment is incomplete. d. These items were submitted to the w rong docket.34



### 2.0 **Proposed Amendments to the Current NESHAP from Portland Cement** 

**Manufacturing Industry (05/06/09) 2.2**  **General 2.2.1**  **Support Comment**  : More than 700 commenters supported the proposed amendments to the NESHAP for portland cement manufacturing. The commenters supported the proposal because it would re duce emissions of hazardous air pollutants (HAP), especially mercury , and reduce risks to health and protect the environment. Many of the commenters that supported the proposed amendments also stated that they

did not support the use of subcategorization e specially in the case of the mercury emission standards. **Response** : EPA acknowledges the commenters’ support. **2.2.2 Oppose**  **Comment** : More than 200 commenters stated that they opposed all or parts of the proposed amendments to the NESHAP for portland cement manufacturing. For example, many of the commenters opposed the proposed standards for mercury because naturally

high mercury concentrations in limestone would mean that a P ortland cement plant in their community would be unable to compl y with the emission limit for mercury even after installing control devices. These commenters pointed out that the plant had reached an agreement with the State to reduce mercury emissions by

75 percent b y installing an activated carbon injection sy stem and to use other means to reduce mercury emissions by

85 percent b y the ye ar 2012. These commenters stated that closure of the plant would have negative impacts on the community as a result of job losses and lost income for individuals and municipalities and would result in the importation of cement from countries where there are fewer environmental controls. Many of these commenters requested that, in order to avoid these negative impacts, EPA create a subcategory for cement plants that must use limestone that contains naturall y high mercury concentrations and that EPA require that plants in this subcategory apply air pollution control technologies that represent maximum achievable control technology (MACT). Many commenters also opposed the pollutant

- by

- pollutant approach EPA u sed to set MACT floor standards due to the likely negative impacts on the cement industry

. **Response** : As explained in the preamble to the final rule, EPA has choosing not to create a subcategory

for the two plants with exceptionally high mercury

emissions due to limestone mercury levels. EPA also explains in the preamble why setting floors HAP

- by

- HAP is both permissible and better promotes statutory objectives than setting floors based on performance of entire facilities.35



### 2.3 **Overall Approach to Setting MAC T Floor Limits**  **2.3.1 Variability and Adequacy of Data**  Many comments were received on various aspects of the data and the adequacy of the data used by EPA in setting MACT floor limits and on the statistical methods EPA used to estimate variability

in the data for purposes of setting MACT floor limits. **Adequacy of data Comment:**  On the issue of the adequacy of the data used to develop the MACT floor limits, many commenters (2832, 2841, 2844, 2845, 2859, 2863, 2864, 2874, 2889, 2900, 2901, 2914, and 2918) state d that EPA should have collected data from a larger portion of the kiln population. Commenters 2844 and 2845 offered assistance in improving the data supporting the standards and the subcategorization. Commenter 2889 suggested that EPA should either initiate requests for additional industry

- specific data or determine if relevant control technology and emissions data are available in other industrial categories. **C** ommenter 2844 stated that for EPA to devise the variability

methodologies consistent with Brick MACT and other relevant case and statutory law, EPA can exercise its discretion to seek appropriate data from regulated entities and other stakeholders and make discretionary methodological determinations of how best to estimate the necessary

information, so long as EPA’s approach is fact

- based and reasonable. On the question of the adequacy of the data used to set MACT floors, commenter 2832 stated that the use of as few as two data points for the creation of the MACT standard for existing sources does no t reflect a statistically significant number and should not be used for the establishment of a standard. Many commenters (2841, 2844, 2846, 2858, 2863, 2874, 2915, and 2929) stated that EPA’s limits were based on limited testing and/or short

- term operation s. Short

- term data may not capture variability

that occurs in a facility , and since the industry is expected to be in compliance all of the time, not simply most of the time, it is critical to account for normal variability

. Commenter 2844 argued that sho rt

- term testing is insufficient to capture emissions variability associated with nontechnological operational factors. **Response** : As described in more detail in the preamble, EPA has made every effort to generate data for this rule. For mercury , EPA compell ed plants in the industry to gather 30 day s of sampling data b y means of section 114 requests. EPA has repeatedl y requested , indeed implored , the industry

to provide longer

- term sampling data to support their assertions that mercury input variability

is gr eater, but industry largely chose not to do so. Cf. Association of Pacific Fisheries v. EPA , 617 F. 2d 794, 817 (9 th Cir. 1980) (burden on industry to provide data in its possession). EPA also adjusted its data base where commenters provided reliable information about mercury content of inputs not reflected in the EPA

- compelled sampling effort. See in particular comment 2845 at pp. 32

- 33. For THC, EPA has compiled data from best performing sources comprising ye ars of operating data, measured continuously

. ( Industry participated constructively in supplementing the database used at proposal , although d e lay s in providing certain supplemental information and significant methodological issues relating to that supplemented information led to EPA’s decision not to use those additional data in developing the THC standard. In an y case,36

EPA views the late

- submitted information as corroborating the promulgated standard, as explained in the preamble to the final rule. ) For HCl, EPA again used its section 114 authority to gather further data on emission levels. For PM, EPA also supplemented its data base at proposal (including adding data supplied by L aFarge North America Inc. which better characterized the performance of two of its kilns). EPA further applied well

- recogni zed statistical methodologies to the mercury

and PM data to further project sources ’ variability

. EPA believes that these efforts result in floor determinations that reasonabl y estimate performance over time of best performing sources. Furthermore, in res ponse to commenter 2844 and others, in no instance is EPA relying solel y on stack testing to assess sources’ performance. The mercury , PM and HCl standards utilize the 99 th percentile UPL formula to further assess performance and variability

. The mercury d ata comes from total facility

input testing over 30

- day s, not from individual stack tests. EPA further adjusted these data to account for best performers’ changes in mercury inputs outside the 30

- day sampling period (where properl y documented), and further adjusted the estimated intra

- quarry mercury variability

for the pool of best performers based on the reasonabl y- estimated long

- term intra

- quarry

variability of the two best performing sources. This yielded a floor standard of 55 lb/MMT clinker. At least o ne industry commenter (commenter 2830, Essroc Cement) stated that proper use of statistics to estimate variability for mercury

should result in a standard between 43 and 50 lb/MMT clinker (slightly lower than the standard EPA adopted, am indication to EPA that it is adequately

accounting for variability of inputs and ultimate performance). 1 The THC standard relies on hundreds of observations per facility , obtained b y continuous emission monitoring , not by

individual stack tests. All of the standards use a pooled variability developed from the pool of best performing sources. This comment is thus factually mistaken. **Comment:** Commenters 2844 and 2846 stated that Brick MACT held that EPA must base floors on achieved emissions control rather than control techno logy choices and this may

require additional data from stakeholders. The commenter notes that floors now must address the impact of testing variability , technological variability and nontechnological factors if they impact emission levels achieved in practice. Non

- intentional factors must also be taken into consideration, such as a technology that dramatically

lowers its emissions of a particular HAP but at the same time increases its emissions of other HAPs or other air pollutants. EPA must take those fact ors into account when setting the floor and must devise a reasonable way to address such factors in its methodology

. **Response:** EPA has accounted for testing variability , technological variability (i.e. variability

in control device performance), and varia ble HAP content of raw materials and fuels utilized by best performing sources in developing each of the standards. However, as explained in the preamble to the final rule, there is no instance where technology which controls one HAP increases emissions of another. Put another way , means of control are available to the industry which are mutuall y compatible, not mutually exclusive.

1 At proposal, EPA also presented long term mercury data from an Essroc kilns showing relative standard deviations similar to the range of the relative standard deviations of the best performing kilns, based on 30

- day s of data, again suggesting that EPA had properly assessed variability of mercury inputs. 74 FR at 21143.37

**Commen** t: One commenter (2844) stated that EPA should use the emissions data for the large number of kilns in the docket to get the most accurate perspective on emissions and control needed. **Response :**  See previous response **EPA’s use of statistical methodologies in assessing variability Comment:**  On the EPA’s consideration of variability in setting the MACT floor limits, one comment er (2845) provided a detailed discussion of the statistical methods used by EPA to derive the 99 th percentile values which EPA developed the proposed MACT floors for mercury , HCl, THC, and particulate matter (PM). The commenter stated that the EPA should u se the upper tolerance limit (UTL) method to account for variability where data is limited and use actual data in large data sets. Where there is very limited data, which is the case for HCl, it is not possible to perform an y statistical analy sis or extrap olate a 99 th percentile; therefore, it is not appropriate to use existing data to establish a MACT floor for HCl using even the upper tolerance limit (UTL) methodology . This commenter also provided an extensive and detailed analy sis of EPA’s anal ys is and d ata as well as an alternative anal ys is and MACT floors using different statistical methods and updates to EPA’s data sets. Commenter 2832 supported EPA’s acknowledgement and recognition that data variability is a statistical issue that is required to be taken into account in setting a MACT floor. EPA should explain its selection of the Upper Prediction L imit (UPL) statistical approach and how that approach was applied to the data. Commenter 2864 agreed with EPA’s use of the 99 th percentile for the MACT flo or sources, stating that its use accounts for emissions variability . However, the commenter disagreed with the approach used to estimate the upper 99 th percentile. The UPLstatistical method does not actuall y generate the 99 th percentile for the data sets in the MACT floor in the Proposal. Instead, it generates a probability

for a single value that is possible in the future, which is not a 99 th percentile. The commenter stated that EPA should use an UTL to estimate the 99 th percentile for small data sets an d an actual 99 th percentile where large data sets are available. One commenter (2829) disagreed with EPA’s calculation of the MACT standard emission limits. The commenter stated that to account for variability , EPA should first establish standards that are the actual average emission rates of the 12 percent of existing sources, and then use longer averaging times (perhaps 60 or 90 day averages) to allow for short term variability and spikes in emissions. **R esponse:**  EPA’s legal obligation in establishing MACT floors is to reasonably estimate the average performance achieved b y the best performing 12 percent of best performing sources, or for new sources, the performance of the best controlled similar source. Although acknowledging that variability

in best perf

orming sources’ performance exists, commenter 2829 nonetheless maintained that EPA is compelled to select the arithmetic mean or median of the best performers and adjust for variability

by taking expressing those values in longer averaging periods. EPA dis agrees that it must establish floors based on the numerical average (or median). Caselaw, much of it cited in comments 2844 and 2845, as well as EPA in th e preamble to the proposed and38

final rule, as well as at 70 FR at 59437, indicates that variability is to be accounted for b y EPA in establishing MACT floors. This is because sources must comply at all times, so that their overall performance must be assessed. See, e.g. Mossville v. EPA, 370 F. 3d at 1242 (EPA properl y used a highest data point to estimate best performing source’s performance, since this was part of its documented variability). Caselaw likewise indicates that EPA, in determining MACT floors, can make reasonable estimates of sources’ performance, including estimates of sources’ variability

. Cement Kiln Recycling Coalition v. EPA , 255 F. 3d at 862; Sierra Club v. EPAu, 167 F. 3d at 661. The statute does not speak to the issue of permissible averaging times in constructing standards, so it may be that in factually

appropriate cases, a choice o f averaging time to account for best performing sources’ variability could be legitimate. However, automatic (i.e., a priori ) determinations to adopt long

- term averages for any ty pe of data set regardless of circumstances of sources’ performance and robustness of the data set would go too far. Inaddition, if the commenter is suggesting that EPA simply average short

- term test results and then hope to account for variability b y assigning a longer averaging period, EPA rejects such a methodology as both quali tative and arbitrary

– it could easil y result in estimates of performance that are either overly stringent or lax due to the rough estimate of variability underl yi ng the methodology

. It is better to more accuratel y assess sources’ initial performance (for example, as with the mercury standard in this rule where EPA changed its baseline for best performing plants based on information about materials these sources process even though they did not do so in the 30

- day sampling regime), and to use statistical me thodologies to account for the variability reflected in the resulting data set. **Other factors that contribute to variability Comment:**  Many

commenters stated that varying levels of HAP in inputs contribute more to kiln emissions variability

than variations in at

- the

- stack control performance, and that EPA should take these factors take into account when setting the MACT floor limits. Commenters 2830, 2836, 2840, 2844, 2845, 2863, and 2929 stated that the chemical composition of inputs into the cement manufa cturing process is highl y variable and EPA’s consideration of this variability

and its effect on emissions will dictate whether the final regulations will result in workable emission standards or standards that could adversel y impact the portland cement in dustry , for example, by forcing the shutdown of domestic cement production capacity in the US, thereb y inhibiting economic development in the US. The commenters stated that the limestone quarry

is intrinsically

linked to the cement manufacturing facility and is the main reason for the cement plant’s location. A ty pical plant will process more than a million tons and a half of material annuall y. L imestone represents approximately 70

- 80 percent of this volume. A cement plant will not be constructed unless the re is a sufficient quantit y and quality of limestone to last 50

- 100 ye ars. Commenters 2844, 2845, and 2915 stated that the trace chemical composition of the fuels which come in direct contact with the raw feed materials include coal, petroleum coke and alternative fuels that include tires and industrial solvents. The variability of trace compounds in the conventional and alternative fuels may vary widely . The concentration of trace compounds present in the cement and other plant emissions may be highl y variable, reflecting changes in the39

chemistry of conventional fuels and raw materials and their alternatives. EPA’s consideration of this variability

will dictate whether the final regulations will result in workable emission standards or standards that could adversel y impact the portland cement industry b y forcing the shutdown of domestic cement production capacity in the United States, inhibiting economic development in the United States. Commenter 2874 stated that EPA should revise the MACT floor for mercury b y more comprehensivel y accounting for actual and reasonably foreseeable variability

in the operations and delay promulgation of the THC emission standard until data has been gathered that will appropriatel y account for variability

. Commenters 2844, 2845 , 2846, 2915, and 2929 stated that EPA should consider process variability

and its effect on emissions. A single cement kiln produces various products throughout the ye ar and may use different raw materials and fuels. Each product, raw material, and fuel r esults in different emission profiles from a kiln. **Response:** As discussed in the preambles to both proposed and final rules, as well as other comment responses, EPA is aware that input (raw material and fuel) variability is the predominant contributor to b oth mercury and THC emissions, as well as their variability. EPA explains there at length how it accounts for these varying levels in inputs. EPA particularl y emphasizes the pooled intra

- quarry variability

estimates for mercury

as well as adjustments in particular sources’ average performance, plus use of the UPL99 th percentile statistic as means b y which short

- term and long

- term variability are accounted for in the mercury standard. EPA has also carefully

assessed the role of input variability in construc ting the HCl and PM standards, although for these standards different factors (variability in anal yt ic detection and control device variability) played the predominant role in assessing sources’ performance over time. **Other factors that contribute to vari ability**  **Comment:** One c ommenter ( 2844 ) stated that the terms in §112(d)(3) permit EPA to address the unique factors that affect emissions control achieved by sources. Such factors, even when not relevant to determining the actual emissions control of a particular HAP achieved by a source, may be relevant to determining whether a source that demonstrates low achieved emission levels is to be considered a best performing source for the purpose of setting a floor. The commenter stated that EPA may

define best p erformers as the lowest emitters as long as EPA’s approach is reasonable in light of all relevant factual and data circumstances and so long as EPA reasonably applies variability

that impacts the lowest reported emissions in order to accuratel y estimate th e level of control actually

achieved by

the best performing sources. Commenter 2844 stated that a lawful floor setting methodology must estimate relevant emissions variability

resulting from nontechnological factors. EPA has the discretion under §112 to de vise methodologies for estimating variability that impacts emissions control. Variability in emissions results from test

- related variability , technology

- related variability , and nontechnological

- related variability . The commenter provided discussion and ex amples. To be consistent with Brick MACT , EPA must address all the factors that impact variability of emissions, especiall y not ignoring nontechnological factors.40

**Response:** EPA is not ignoring nontechnological factors in assessing variability

. Indeed, for mercury , there are essentially no other factors to consider since the industry has not installed technological controls to reduce mercury emissions (hence EPA’s mass balance approach based on sampling of mercury

levels in all kiln inputs as a means of asse ssing emission levels and overall performance). EPA agrees that determining which performers are best requires consideration of sources’ performance over time. See 72 FR at 54877 (Sept. 27, 2007). **Comment:** Commenters 2845 and 2846 stated that EPA should n ot rely solely on short

- term data from similar sources and ignore the variability and long term impact of the proposed emission rates. In EPA’s proposed rule to set a NESHAP for mercury at coal

- fired electric utilities, the agency

identified a number of fa ctors that contribute to variability in emission test data. The commenter suggests that these factors should be considered in this rulemaking, and for cement kilns, the influence of raw materials should also be considered. **Response:** In no instance is EPA r elying exclusively on short

- term data in establishing floors and standards. EPA has carefull y considered the specific comments as to why mercury levels in inputs to the best performing sources could vary beyond the levels in the data base and made appropri ate adjustments as a result. Use of the UPL statistic further accounts for this variability (both from non

- technological and technological factors), as explained in the preamble to the final rule. **2.3.2 Pollutant** 
**- by** 
**- Pollutant MACT Floors**  **CAA intent Comment**  **:** Many

commenters (2830, 2832, 2836, 2841, 2844, 2845, 2858, 2859, 2863, 2864, 2874, 2890, 2908, 2910, 2914, 2915, 2916, and 2917) stated that setting MACT floors on a pollutant

- by

- pollutant basis violates the law and results in MACT floors that bear no re lation to emission limits that are being achieved at the best performing existing sources. According to commenters, this method violates the plain language and intent of §112(d) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) and its effect is a MACT floor that reflects a stan dard that no one plant in existence currentl y achieves. The CAA requires a two

- step process to set a MACT standard: first, EPA identifies a MACT floor for each pollutant and source category based on emission limitations that have already been achieved b y the best

- performing 12 percent of existing sources ( Brick MACT , 479 F.3d at 877; Northeast Maryland W aste Disposal Auth. v. EPA , 358 F.3d 936, 954, D.C. Cir. 2004, and Cement Kiln Recycling Coalition v. EPA , 255 F.3d 855, 866, D.C. Cir. 2001). Then the CAA requires EPA to determine whether stricter standards

— beyond the floor limits

—are achievable, taking into account cost and feasibility factors. Commenters 2832, 2841, 2844, 2845, 2846, 2910, 2914, 2915, and 2916 stated that §112(d)’s use of the terms best

-

p erforming and existing clearly means that sources in a category or subcategory

that are used to set the MACT floor are to be real, not theoretical or hy pothetical, sources (42 U.S.C. §7412(d), 2006 and Northeast Maryland Waste Disposal Authority , 358 F.3d at 954). The phrase achieved in practice can onl y mean that Congress intended actual sources, performing under real

- life conditions, to be the benchmark for determining the MACT floors. Furthermore, the language of the statute does not speak in terms of th e best

- performing source or sources for each listed pollutant or group of pollutants (42 U.S.C. §7412(d)). Rather, the focus is41

on the best existing source or sources for all pollutants, and what these sources trul y can achieve on an overall basis. EPA’s p ollutant

- by

- pollutant methodology is also at odds with the legislative history underlying §112(d) (S. Rep. No. 228, 101st Cong., 1st Sess. 169, 1989). According to the commenters, the focus on overall performance is not surprising because in the 1990 CAA Amendments Congress abandoned §112’s previous focus on individual pollutant standards, and adopted the technology

- based multi

- pollutant approach to regulating toxics in use under the Clean Water Act (CWA). See S. Rep. No. 228, 101st Cong., 1st Sess. 133

- 34 (1989). Thus, if one source can achieve a firm degree of control for one pollutant but not for another, there may be no justification for including it in the set of sources from which the floor is calculated (Tanners’ Council of America v. Train, 540 F.2d 1188, 1193 (4th Cir. 1976) deeming CWA effluent limitations guidelines not achievable where plants in EPA’s database were capable of meeting the limitations for some, but not all, of the pollutant parameters ). Several of these commenters provided a table (the result of an industry survey) listing EPA floor units and the ability

or inability

of cement plants to comply with the proposed existing source MACT limits for mercury , THC, HCl and PM. Several commenters (2845, 2910) stated that EPA’s previous use o f a pollutant

- by

- pollutant anal ys is was based on authorities not applicable to the CAA. EPA previously used a pollutant

by

- pollutant methodology to set MACT floors in the context of the proposed NESHAP for Hazardous Waste Combustors, 69 FR 21198 (Apr. 20, 2004) [hereinafter Hazardous Waste NESHAP.] Several parties submitted public comments questioning EPA’s approach and pointing to the fact that EPA had failed to cite a single existing source which met the various MACT floor standards. See EPA’s Response to Comments on April 20, 2004 HWC MACT Proposed Rule, Volume 1: MACT I ssues, 126 (Oct. 2008). In response, EPA attempted to defend its practice of establishing pollutant

- by

- pollutant MACT standards by citing Chemical Mfr. Ass’n. v EPA, 870 F.2d 177, 239 (198 9), clarified 885 F.2d 253, 264 (5th Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 495 U.S. 910, (1990), a case where the court held that, under the CWA, best available technology (BAT) referred to the single best

- performing plant on a pollutant

- by

- pollutant basis. According to commenters 2845 and 2910, EPA’s reliance on Chemical Mfr. Ass’n is misplaced as the CAA’s procedure regarding the selection of MACT technologies differs on a textual basis from the CWA’s procedure for identifying best available technology . Under the CWA , BAT standards are to be set based on the best practicable control technology currently available

. 33 U.S.C. §1311(b)(1)(A)(i)(2006). This has led to pollutant

- by

- pollutant determinations. The CAA more narrowl y limits the basis for MACT designation to what has been achieved at existing sources, not what could be hy pothetically

achievable on a per

- pollutant basis. One commenter (2890) stated that EPA appears to be forgetting that the floor is only the first step in the process. Once EPA has established a fl oor based on phy sical sources, it is directed to go back and look at options beyond the floor. Those beyond the floor options would include the best control for each pollutant on every source. By

correcting the floor approach, the EPA would also correct th e issue identified by Judge Williams in his concurring opinion to the Brick vacatur, where a floor that is designed to represent what has been achieved is more stringent than what would be deemed achievable under a MACT.42

**Response:** See p reamble for r esponse **Impacts of pollutant**
**- by** 
**- pollutant approach**  **Comment:** Several c ommenters ( 2831, 2844, 2845, and 2874 ) stated that in evaluating the economic cost of achieving emission reductions, looking at one plant’s emission control of only one pollutant to the exclusio n of all other emission controls produces a disjointed view of cost implications and compliance feasibility . While an individual MACT floor for one pollutant might not appear cost

- prohibitive, when combined with all of the other MACT floors for other pollutants, the total cost implications could become especially onerous. While the CAA was authored with the intent of reducing air pollution, Congress did not intend to disrupt the productive capacity of the United States through the promulgation of economical ly unachievable standards. 42 U.S.C. §7401(b)(1)(2006). By setting MACT floors individually and ignoring the collective cost implications of the entire NESHAP, EPA would effectively disregard the CAA’s requirement that air pollution control be advanced whi le promoting the nation’s productive capacity . Id. **Response:** See preamble for response **Comment:** Several c ommenters ( 2845, 2889, and 2890 ) stated that EPA’s argument that EPA believes that because all our standards are not technically interdependent (i.e., implementation of one emission control technology does not prevent the source from implementing another control technology), the fact that sources are not achieving all the standards simultaneously does not indicate a flaw in the methodology is not valid. Commenter 2845 cites the example of activated carbon injection to reduce mercury from hazardous waste combustion, which has been observed to increase the emissions of dioxin/furans, calling into question EPA’s legal justification that control requirements for one pollutant do not impact another. Commenter 2889 notes that the interaction between unit characteristics and control capabilities must be taken into account. Although there is no one kiln or no small number of kilns that simultaneously define the MA CT floors for mercury , total hydrocarbons, h ydrogen chloride, and particulate matter, all existing kilns will have to achieve all four requirements despite that fact that no single existing kiln achieves these requirements. **Response:** Although the commente r cited the example of activated carbon increasing dioxin emissions they

provided no data to substantiate this claim. A thorough review of one of the references cited indicated there was no mention of dioxins or activated carbon injection. The other refere nce cited, which was not provided with comments, seems to imply that dioxin emissions increase relative to dioxin inputs if activated carbon is used. First, there is not sufficient information provided to determine the accuracy of this claim. The reference authors cited in the text did not match the information in the footnote, so we cannot ascertain if the correct reference was cited. Second, the statement said dioxins increased relative to dioxin inputs, and did not indicate if the dioxin emissions from the stack increased. So this information does not substantiate the claim that ACIincreases dioxin emissions at the stack. Even assuming that dioxin emissions at the stack did increase, there are other factors that could influence dioxin emissions. For example, the temperature at the inlet of the control device has been determined to be a critical factor in formation of dioxins in these ty pes of processes. In fact, proper control of temperature is the preferred method used to control dioxin emissions for thi s source category ,43

and is part of the emissions standard (see 63.1343 (b)(3)(ii) and (c)(3)(ii)). Given the lack of information provided with this comment, and the errors noted, we do not believe that commenters have provided information that actually supp orts their statement. We also note that activated carbon injection is currentl y used to reduce emissions of dioxins from municipal solid waste incinerators. The commenters have likewise provided no information to demonstrate that a facility cannot simultaneously

control PM, HCl, THC, and mercury

. For example, several cement kilns simultaneously

control NOx, SO2 (which also reduced HCl), and PM using a fabric filter followed b y a wet scrubber. Two older wet kilns controlled THC using activated carbon injection followed b y a PM control. A new preheater precalciner kiln had PM (fabric filter), S O 2 (wet scrubber) and THC (regenerative thermal oxidizer) controls in series. We also note that in the utility industry , simultaneous control of NOx, SO2, and PM are ac complished using selective catal yt ic reduction and wet scrubber controls in series. Municipal waste combustors simultaneously

control dioxins and mercury using activated carbon injection, acid gases using s p ray drye rs, and PM using fabric filters or electrostatic precipitator. In the specific case of cement kilns , w e assume that a source needing to control all four pollutants would use a primary PM control (mainly

to capture valuable producer or raw materials that are emitted from the kiln), activated carbo n injection followed by a polishing fabric filter (which would capture additional PM, remove the mercury, and remove the THC (or organic HAP if the alternative standard is used) ) and a wet scrubber for HCl control. We costed this configuration for many kil ns in our cost estimates for the rule. (See Regulatory Impact Analy sis: Amendments to the NESHAP and NSPS for the Portland Cement Manufacturing Industry , Final Report, August 2010 .) Depending on the uncontrolled levels of the pollutants, it may be very pos sible for many

facilities to combine activated carbon injection and alkaline sorbent injection downstream of the primary PM control followed b y a polishing fabric filter and control all four pollutants, PM HCl, THC, and mercury . Based on these facts , we se e no technical impediment to simultaneously meeting all four emission standards in the NESHAP. **Subcategory for each HAP Comment:**  One commenter (2890) asked EPA to clarify the statement on page 21145 of the proposal preamble that EPA, may create a subcateg ory

applicable to a single HAP, rather than a source category , if the facts warrant (so that, for example, a subcategory for kilns emitting mercury , but a single category for kilns emitting HCl, is legall y permissible with a proper factual basis). The comm enter took this to mean that EPA is creating a subcategory for a single HAP. **Response:** Itis legally

permissible to create HAP

- specific subcategories, for example, where a difference in size, ty

pe or class of facility

onl y affects emissions of one HAP but not others, although EPA is not doing so in this rule. See fuller discussion where EPA discusses whether to subcategorize on the basis of quarry limestone mercury

levels. If EPA had chosen to do so, the subcategory

would have contained two sources and woul d apply to emissions of mercury

onl y. **2.3.3 Lowest Emitters Versus Best Performers**  **Comment:** One commenter (2834) stated that the Brick MACT ruling of the D.C. Circuit Court reinforces earlier holdings in National L ime Association vs. EPA. The court again held that44

floors are to be based on the emission level actually achieved b y the best performers (those with lowest emission levels) not the emission level achievable b y all sources. **Response:** See p reamble for response **Comment:** Many

commenters (2841, 2844, 2845, 2846, 2858, and 2914) stated that EPA established its proposed floors equating best performing sources with those that have the lowest emissions for particular HAPs even though there are other way s to measure performance and, in some cases other methodologies may compl y with the statute where the "lowest emitter" approach does not. Commenter 2845 noted that equating best performer with lowest emitter contravenes a Congressional directive that in developing MACT standards, EPA cannot require substitut ion of raw materials in mineral processing industries, such as cement manufacturing. The Joint Explanatory

Statement of the Committee of Conference for the 1990 CAA Amendments stated: For categories and subcategories of sources of [HAPs] engaged in mining, extraction, beneficiation, and processing of nonferrous ores, concentrates, minerals, metals, and related in

-

process materials, the Administrator shall not consider the substitution of, or other changes in, metal

- or mineral

- bearing raw materials that are used as feedstocks or material inputs . . . in setting emission standards, work practice standards, operating standards or other prohibitions or requirements or limitations under this section for such categories and subcategories . H.R. Rep. No. 101

- 952, at 339 (1990), quoted from Sierra Club v. EPA , 353 F.3d 976, 988 (D.C. Cir. 2004). According to the commenters, enormous amounts of limestone are fed into a kiln to manufacture clinker, and it is cost

- prohibitive to import limestone from further away . If the plant’s quarry contains limestone with high concentrations of mercury or high concentrations of organics, the kilns will emit more mercury or THC and potentially

more organic HAPs. Because limestone with high mercury or organic emissions will result in higher HAP emissions, and it is not cost

- effective to import limestone from far away , equating the lowest emitters with the best performing sources makes no sense in the context of cement facilities. It also would be squarel y in opposition to the Joint Exp lanatory Statement. **Response:** See response in p reamble **Comment:** Commenter 2844 stated that EPA could interpret §112(d)(3) as Brick MACT appears to do, as one unitary

concept meaning sources with the lowest emission levels , or EPA can interpret it as a more complex concept that the EPA may determine the emission control (using any of the various definitions in the CAA) that sources have achieved in practice (as estimated by reasonabl y predictive variability factors) and rank them according to their relative emissions levels (i.e., a quantitative measure of achievement). Having done so, the Agency can then evaluate each of the lowest emitters in terms of whether they meet the Agency ’s criteria for best controlled similar source. With regard to best controlled, EPA may evaluate this from a purel y quantitative angle (lowest emissions) or from more qualitative aspects (reduction efficiency , environmental and health (or cross

- media) impacts, cost

- effectiveness of reductions achieved, impacts on other HAP or pollutant emissions, and so on. Commenter 2845 provided several examples of court MACT decisions endorsing a technology approach to setting the standards, in which EPA selected the best performing sources based on the relative performance of air pollution control technology

.45

Commenter 2844 stated that EPA also has the discretion to define best performers as sources other than those with the lowest achieved emission levels. In the current proposal, the many difficulties associated with evaluating the impact of HAP content in the raw material inputs to mercury emission control and other factors could support a decision by the agency

to establish a standard based on efficiency (i.e., a percent reduction standard) if not for the source category as a whole, then such a standard might be established for a particular subcategory as relevant, or as an alternative compliance strategy . EPA’s discretion is sufficiently broad to encompass many reasonable decisions identifying and estimating the emission control of best performi ng sources on bases other than lowest emissions data, assuming the floor for the standard is based on a reasonable methodology

estimating the percent reduction achieved in practice by the best performing sources under the reasonabl y foreseeable worst operating conditions. Commenter 2844 stated that before EPA can determine a floor, EPA must define the following terms in regard to the selection of a best performer for new sources: Emission control; Achieved in practice; Best controlled; and Similar source. T o set the floor for existing sources, the commenter stated that EPA should define the following terms: Average emission limitation; Achieved; and Best performing. **Response:** See response in p reamble to final rule **. Comment:**  Commenters 2832, 2846, and 2890 st ated that rather than selecting sources with the lowest emissions for particular HAP as best performing sources, EPA could use the relative performance of air pollution control technology to select the best performing sources, appl yi ng the best reasonable method for determining best

- performers, which does not necessaril y have to equate to lowest emissions. **Response:** See response in preamble to final rule

. **Comment:** One c ommenter ( 2859 ) stated that EPA is making an unrealistic conclusion that best performing is equivalent to lowest emitting when applied to the P ortland C ement NESHAP. In cement manufacturing, lowest emitting may be strictly

related to a cement plant located adjacent to a source of limestone that has the lowest level of contaminants. The goal o f the NESHAP is to reduce emissions of HAPs to the lowest possible level using the best technology . There are several examples in this rulemaking where the lowest emitting sources are not the most modern cement manufacturing technologies or utilizing the m ost modern pollution control measures. Conversel y, some of the highest emitters are the most modern cement manufacturing technologies that employ the most modern pollution control measures. **Response:** The statement (without supporting citation) that “the g oal of NESHAP is to reduce emissions of HAPs to the lowest possible level using the best technology” again ignores the contribution of raw material and fuel inputs. **Comment:** One c ommenter ( 2832 ) stated that §112 did not define best performing major source s as those that emit the least HAP or HAPs. Unless a source is the lowest emitting for all HAPs of concern to EPA for a given industry , best performing cannot be defined as lowest emitting.46

**Response:** EPA believes that selecting as best performers those with the lowest emissions of the HAP at issue is a reasonable and permissible approach for this rule. **Comment:** One c ommenter ( 2844 ) stated that EPA has not taken the necessary steps to evaluate or validate whether its methodology in fact accurately

estimates emissions control achieved in real world circumstances at sources. **Response:** EPA disagrees strongl y with this comment. Data for mercury and THC is long

- term. EPA has adjusted underlying data further where commenters provided reasonable quantitated informat ion. **Comment:** One c ommenter ( 2889 ) stated that EPA should avoid using outliers when determining the MACT floor. The sources should have process and raw material characteristics that are reasonabl y representative of the population of sources in the industri al category being regulated. With respect to the cement industry , this evaluation must now include an evaluation of the variability

of contaminants such as mercury and total hydrocarbons throughout the industry

. **Response:** This comment appears to misapprehe nd the MACT floor process. Inassessing which performers are best, EPA cannot look to ‘representative’ raw materials for the industry as a whole, an y more than EPA could examine ‘representative’ baghouse performance. EPA must focus on the performance of th e best performers. This means assessing the inputs of these sources, not others (unless performance of best performers can reasonabl y be interpreted from aspect of other sources’ performance). **2.3.4 Top 5 versus 12 Percent**  **Comment:** One commenter (2898) dis agreed with an alternative reading of the MACT floor requirements that allowed EPA to consider the emissions of the 5 lowest

- emitting existing sources instead of the emissions of the lowest

- emitting 12 percent of existing sources in setting the standard. T he CAA unambiguousl y states that emission standards established pursuant to the MACT floor mechanism shall not be less stringent than the average limitation of the best performing 12 percent of existing sources, for which the EPA has emissions information, in a category or subcategory

with 30 or more sources. Basing the standard on the 5 best performing sources would violate this mandate b y letting the standard be less stringent than the emissions performances of the best

- performing 12 percent of existing s ources and is not allowed by the language of the CAA. Commenter 2816 stated that EPA should not adopt an alternative interpretation of data required to set an existing floor. The commenter stated that basing the floor on 5 sources rather than the best perf orming 12 percent is contrary to the language of CAA §112. This interpretation also favors industries whose members, for whatever reason, are unwilling to submit test data, or are unwilling to participate in emission stack tests for the purposes of data co llection by EPA. The result is that EPA has limited data to work with and is subsequently criticized for establishing standards based on limited data. It is incumbent upon industry to submit sufficient data so that the range of facility

types and emission levels are adequatel y represented. Commenter 2824 recommended that the floor limit be the best

- performing 12 percent of existing sources with an energy

efficiency

requirement such as the energy star award.47

**Response:** EPA believes its interpretation to be co mpelled by the statutory text. **Comment:** Several commenters (2845, 2846, 2874, and 2915) stated that EPA is proposing to calculate MACT floors by averaging the top 12 percent of sources for which CEMS data are available (even if that amounts to less than 3 0 sources), rather than b y considering the top 12 percent of sources for which EPA has emissions information. As a result, EPA is proposing to establish the MACT floor based on data from only 2 sources. The commenters stated that CAA §112(d) obligates EPA to set the MACT floor looking at no fewer than 5 sources, recognizing the value of rel yi ng on the maximum amount of data available. Commenter 2841 stated that the use of a minimum of five facilities should be adopted in the establishment of THC standards a s well as the other standards in this proposed regulation. The establishment of requirements based on a small amount of data would run counter to the intent of the CAA in utilizing data that is truly representative of the best

- performing facilities through out an entire industry

. Commenter 2841 stated that in previous MACT rulemakings, EPA used the five best performing facilities if the number of facilities was less than 30. Consistent with these prior rulemakings, the commenter stated that this approach sho uld be used for this proposed Portland Cement NESHAP rule and that EPA needs additional data points in order to appropriatel y set limits for the industry as a whole. **Response:** See response in p reamble **Comment:** Two c ommenters ( 2890 and 2916 ) stated that EPA must base their emission limits on 12 percent of the total number of sources, and not exclude facilities’ data. The commenters recommended that EPA not make emission estimates for onl y a small subset of sources to determine the MACT floor. If sufficient i nformation is available for a source, such as its size, control level, and other source

- specific parameters, an estimate should be developed, as allowed by the Courts, and the source included in the count of sources for which the Administrator has emission s information . Limiting this estimation to sources at the same site or same company is arbitrary and should not be done. Emission estimates based on the average emission factor for a subcategory

should be allowed. **Response:** EPA believes its interpretation to be compelled by the text of the statute. **2.3.5 Area Sources in**  **HCL Floor Development CAA intent**  **Comment:** One commenter (2832) opposed the inclusion of actual and/or synthetic area sources, with or without control devices, for an y purpose in this major s ource NESHAP standard. The commenter stated that there is nothing in §112 that allows EPA to deem an area source as a best performing source for major sources and nothing that allows EPA to include area sources as part of a MACT pool.48

Commenter 2916 stated that it is unlawful for EPA to group major and area sources for purposes of setting MACT. By

blending area and major sources together for standard setting purposes, EPA has created a h yb rid major/area source category that is not authorized under §112. **Re sponse:**  In the final rule, no data from natural or sy nthetic minor area sources are being used to establish the standard for HCl. **Establish GACT standards Comment:**  One commenter (2887) stated that EPA should develop generally available control technology (GACT) standards (or management practices) for area sources under §112(d)(5) for the pollutants listed in §112(c)(6). EPA could minimize the economic impact on all area sources by subjecting them to GACT for the §112(c)(6) pollutants. Alternatively , the EP A could create a subcategory

for area sources that are small entities and subject this smaller number of sources to GACT (or management practices). This would satisfy the policy

behind Small Business Regulatory

Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) as implemented by EPA policy

(to minimize the economic impact on small entities while still meeting the mandates of the CAA). **Response:** EPA explains in the preamble to the final rule its various dispositions for applying standards to area cement kiln sources. **Commen t:**  One commenter (2887) stated that for HAPs that are not listed under §112(c)(6), EPA should establish GACT (or management practices) for area sources under §112(d)(5), and not regulate area sources under MACT for non

- section 112(c)(6) pollutants. The commenter stated that, specifically , EPA proposed limits for PM emissions as a surrogate for non

- volatile metal HAPs (arsenic, cadmium, beryllium and lead) on cement manufacturing facilities that are area sources. Alternatively, the EPA could choose to not re gulate area sources or a subcategory of area sources that are small entities for these pollutants. Emissions from area sources, and even more so from the subcategory of area sources that are small entities, are very small. **Response:** EPA explains in the pre amble to the final rule its various dispositions for applying standards to area cement kiln source s . **2.3.6 Legal**  **Removal efficiency standards vs emission limits Comment:**  One commenter (2898) supported EPA’s decision to not rank best performers based on the ir relative mercury

removal efficiency . Rel yi ng on mercury removal efficiency

in setting the MACT floor for the portland cement manufacturing industry would downplay

the role of HAP inputs on emissions. EPA characterizes Brick MACT’s statement that best pe rformers are those emitting the least HAP as appearing arguably in dicta . However, the Brick MACT Court itself characterizes the statement as the holding of the Cement Kiln case. Brick MACT , 479 F.3d at 880 (rel yi ng on Cement Kiln’s holding that §7412(d)(3 ) requires floors based on the emission level actually achieved by the best performers or those with the lowest emission levels ). The proposed alternative of setting the MACT floor on the basis of percentage of emission reduction achieved b y sources would minimize, if not eliminate, the consideration of cleaner inputs in49

setting MACT floors, as EPA acknowledges, and is therefore contrary to statutory

dictates and case law. **Respons** e **:** See response in preamble to final rul e. **Comment:** Several commenters (2831 and 2901) stated that EPA retains considerable discretion on how to set MACT floors. The commenters supported the Agency ’s authority to set floor standards based on control efficiency , or an y method as long as their method reasonabl y estimates the performan ce of the relevant best performing plants. There is nothing in the court’s decisions that requires EPA to use the straight

- emissions approach favored in this rule. The commenter stated that the court has expressly decided that a straight

- emissions or arithmetical methodology

is not required, and EPA’s technology based approach that estimated performance rather than deriving the standards through an arithmetic straight emissions approach, as long as they result in a reasonable estimate of the performance of the best controlled units, is supported by the courts. According to the commenter (2901), Brick MACT does not endorse a straight emissions approach; nor could it. To do so would mean that the Brick MACT court was overturning the Chevron step one holding in Sierra Club and National Lime II , something that it cannot do. **Response :**  See response in p reamble to final rule

. **Comment:** One c ommenter ( 2832 ) stated that EPA has incorrectl y focused on the term emission limitation in proposing a numeric allowable HAP emi ssions MACT floor. In fact, EPA is required to set emission standards , not necessaril y numeric emissions limitations in creating a MACT floor. The Court in the Brick decision did not require otherwise. In fact, the wording of §112, a reduction in emissions that is achieved in practice by the best controlled similar source contemplates air emissions control equipment whose manufacturer’s specified HAP emissions removal efficiency

for all HAPs is the highest percentage achieved in practice in the industry in question. Inlet and outlet stack testing that confirms the efficacy of air emissions control equipment is the legal requirement of the §112(d)(3). The law does not state that EPA is required to set numeric HAP emissions limits. In identifying the best perf orming sources, the Administrator is directed by §l12(d)(3) to review emissions information , not numeric emissions data or emissions stack test reports . Sections 112(j)(5) and 1l2(i)(5) also support this reading of §112(d)(3). Each refers to demonstrations of emissions reductions of a stated numeric percentage as a means of meeting MACT requirements. EPA’s discussion of the beyond

- the

- floor evaluation confirms this approach as well. **Response:** The commenter does not address the issue of how non

- numeric perc ent reduction standards address the issue of raw material and fuel HAP levels and their contribution to emissions. EPA cannot ignore such contributions in determining which sources are best performing, and their level of performance. At the least, EPA is a dopting a reasonable approach of establishing numerical standards, and using a ranking methodology based on which sources emit the least of the HAP in question, on a normalized basis (for Hg and PM) and considering their performance over time (variability)

.50

**Standards must be achievable Comment:**  One commenter (2844) stated that the CAA requires that lawfully promulgated NESHAP standards must be achievable. Section 112(d)(2) of the Act, 42 U.S.C. §7412(d)(2), required EPA to establish emission standards for H APs that require the maximum degree of reduction in emissions taking into consideration the cost of the emission reduction and non

- air quality health and environmental impacts and energy requirements, that the EPA Administrator determines is achievable for new or existing sources. Further, House Rep. 101

- 490, Part 1 (328) stated that The Committee expects MACT to be meaningful, so that MACT will require substantial reductions in emissions from uncontrolled levels. However, MACT is not intended to require un safe control measures, or to drive sources to the brink of shutdown. The commenter noted that the proposed portland cement proposed NESHAP standards do not comply with §112’s achievability

requirements. **Respons** e **:** See preamble to final rule for response. **Co mment:**  Commenter 2844 stated that EPA’s conclusion that §112(d)(3) and/or Brick MACT requires or even permits the Agency to ignore the achievability requirements of §112(d)(2) is an unreasonable reading of the statute and of Brick MACT . The Agency

retains more than sufficient discretion to devise NESHAP standards that successfully bridge the tension between achieved and achievable in §112’s standard

- setting provisions by appropriatel y using both subcategorization and variability methodologies. **Respons** e **:** See response in preamble. **Comment:** One c ommenter ( 2844 ) stated that EPA’s floor setting methodology does not compl y with three of Brick MACT’s requirements:

 Floors must be based on emissions achieved in practice by best

- performing sources;

 EPA’s use of vari ability factors and methodologies to adjust reported emissions data must be based on demonstrated relationships, so that the floor setting methodology serves to reasonabl y estimate or predict the performance of the best performing sources; and

 EPA must co nsider the impact of nontechnology factors, such as raw material and fuel inputs, on a source’s emission control levels. Commenter 2844 stated that in the portland cement proposal, EPA set MACT floor levels that reflect the specific conditions at the time the data were generated and do not include any of the operational variability . The commenter suggests that EPA must look beyond its snap shots of performance to make a reasoned evaluation and estimation of all operating conditions and factors that might impact the level of actual emissions from those kilns in practice, and adjust their reported short term test data appropriatel y. EPA can and should adjust raw emissions results to estimate sources’ achieved emissions levels when setting MACT floors and standards. Since Brick MACT

, EPA’s methodology

now must be able to reasonabl y estimate the impacts of variability

associated with both technological and nontechnological factors over the full range of circumstances. **Response :**  See response in p reamble to final rule.51

**Comment:** One c ommenter ( 2844 ) also stated that EPA adopted a floor setting methodology that is based on using lowest reported emission results with minimal variability adjustments to estimate emission control achieved in practice by best performing s ources. EPA considered test

to

- test variability , but did not consider the inherent variability due to raw materials, product mix, fuels, operating conditions and plant ty pes. The commenter stated that EPA has not evaluated or validated whether its methodol ogy accuratel y estimates emissions control achieved in real world circumstances at sources. **Response :**  See response in preamble. **Comment:** One c ommenter ( 2844 ) stated that EPA cannot evaluate floors using methodologies that focus exclusively on technology if the resulting standards do not reflect actual average limitation[s

] achieved (

Brick MACT

, 479 F.3d at 882). The commenter concludes that Brick MACT requires EPA to address the role of nontechnological factors that impact emissions in setting floors and EP A must develop a methodology that accuratel y estimates the actual emissions achieved in practice b y the best performing sources under a variety of operating conditions, taking into consideration testing and technological and nontechnological variability

. A s proof that EPA failed to properl y account for sources’ variability in setting the standards, the commenter (and commenter 2845) included a chart purporting to demonstrate that the kilns comprising the pool of best performers for each HAP could not themse lves meet the proposed standard. **Response :**  See response in preamble. **Comment:** One c ommenter ( 2844 ) stated that the proposed standards cannot be viewed as assessing the emissions control achieved by best performing sources, given that there is no single ex isting source that meets the standards simultaneously and for two of the pollutants, no existing units meet the standards without operational changes. The EPA has an obligation to devise appropriate variability

methodologies and to collect the information necessary to do so. **Response :**  EPA has responded above and rejected the argument that the statute unambiguousl y compels that floors be established on a complete facility basis. **Worst Reasonably Forseeable Circumstances Comment:**  Several commenters (2844, 284 6, and 2915) stated that EPA’s floor methodology does not estimate emission control achieved under the worst reasonabl y foreseeable circumstances. EPA must estimate emission levels achieved under the worst foreseeable circumstances in order to reasonabl y e stimate achieved in practice control levels. The proposed portland cement rule proposes that sources must achieve compliance with the proposed floor standards at all times, including periods of startup, shutdown and malfunction (SSM) events. Because the data to estimate the appropriate variability factor for SSM events do not exist and are technologicall y impracticable to develop, EPA cannot reasonabl y set a floor based on compliance during SSM events. Commenter 2845 stated that the policy and common sense approach is recognized and required by the D.C. Circuit. Once the similar sources category is established, the EPA must identify the lowest emission limitation that has been achieved in practice by these sources. In another MACT52

case, the D.C. Circuit has held that the phrase achieved in practice refers to the performance of the source under the worst foreseeable circumstances (Sierra Club v. EPA , 167 F.3d 658, 664, D.C. Cir. 1999). Commenter 2845 stated that EPA should follow its own common sense approac h and the directive of the D.C. Circuit and develop MACT standards that consider the long term emission variations in portland cement facilities. **Response:** First, EPA has established separate standards for startup and shutdown, so these operating condition s are not part of the performance EPA is evaluating in developing the main MACT floors. EPA also explains in the preamble to the final rule why it reasonably did not consider malfunction events in developing those floors , which reasons include that EPA is therefore adding to the final rule an affirmative defense to civil penalties for exceedances of emission limits that are caused b y malfunctions **.** Since malfunctions, if properly demonstrated, would not be considered to contribute to an exceedance of the standard (for purposes of civil penalties), EPA surel y need not consider malfunctions in assessing best performing sources’ performance and establishing MACT floors. Second, EPA agrees that long term performance of sources

– their variability

– is to be consi dered both in determining which sources are best performing and what their level of performance is. EPA has reasonabl y done so in establishing this NESHAP **. CAA requires emission reductions by 94 percent of sources**  **Comment:** One commenter (2890) stated that the setting of a MACT floor requires 94 percent of any population of sources, including those that had never engaged in any emission reduction techniques, to either add air pollution control devices or shut down processes, without the consideration of cost s. The floor should identify what the best actual sources in the category are doing; presuming that if the average of the top 12 percent was achieving this level of control in the absence of a rule, achieving that level of control must have been at a reaso nable cost. **Response:** The commenter is correct that costs cannot be considered in establishing MACT floors and that b y virtue of the floor process the statute implicitly assumes that the great majority of plants will have to upgrade their performance to me et promulgated standards of at least the designated minimum stringency **. Exclusion of sources engaged in mining**  **Comment:** Several commenters (2890 and 2916) stated that Congressional intent in the establishment of MACT shows a clear intention to exclude mine d minerals: For categories and subcategories of sources of hazardous air pollutants engaged in mining, extraction, beneficiation, and processing of nonferrous ores, concentrates, minerals, metals, and related in

process materials, the Administrator shall n ot consider the substitution of, or other changes in, metal

- or mineral

- bearing raw materials that are used as feedstocks or materials inputs, or metal

- or mineral

- bearing materials processed or derived from such feedstocks or materials in setting emission standards, work practice standards, operating standards or other prohibitions or requirements or limitations under this section for such categories and subcategories. The prohibition of the preceding sentence shall not apply to the substitution, modification, or53

changes of chemicals (not including metal

- or mineral

- bearing materials) used in mining, extraction, beneficiation, or processing of nonferrous ores, concentrates, minerals, metals and related in

-

process materials which is necessary to reduce air emissions of such chemicals and for which substitutes that are safe and effective in performing the intended function of the chemical to be substituted are reasonably available [From Joint Explanatory Statement of the Committee of Conference, H.R. Rep No. 1 01

- 952, at 339 (1990)]. EPA used this same quote in a previous court case involving the secondary copper MACT [Sierra Club v. EPA (No. 02

- 1253)]. Commenter 2890 suggested that after mined minerals are eliminated from consideration for MACT, several optio ns for establishing the best controlled sources are:

 Control of the mercury and other pollutants that are not in materials other than the limestone ty

picall y mined onsite.

 Any emission control equipment or other practice that reduces the amount of emission s that are ultimatel y emitted from the processing of the mined material. **Response:** See preamble to final rule for response. **Consideration of variability Comment:**  One commenter (2845) stated that case law and policy dictate that the EPA must consider variab ility

in establishing MACT standards, and the approach used by EPA in Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permitting should also apply in establishing MACT standards. To evaluate the emission limits achieved b y existing sources, EPA is required t o develop methodologies for estimating the variability associated with all factors that impact a source’s emissions, including process, operational and non

- technological variables (see Nat’l Lime Ass’n v. EPA , 627 F.2d 416, 443, D.C. Cir. 1980). While courts have affirmed EPA’s authority to choose a methodology designed to estimate emissions in setting the MACT floor, the courts have also made clear that EPA’s method must allow a reasonable inference as to the performance of the top 12 percent of units ( Cem ent Kiln Recycling Coalition v. EPA , 255 F.3d 855, 862 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (citing Sierra Club v. EPA , 167 F.3d 658, 663, D.C. Cir. 1999). Accordingl y, the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit has stated that EPA must show not only that it believes its metho dology provides an accurate picture of the relevant sources' actual performance, but also why its methodology yields the required estimate (Cement Kiln Recycling Coalition, 255 F.3d at 862). **Response:** See response in preamble. **Comment:** One c ommenter ( 2845 ) further stated that EPA has a clear policy of considering long

- term variability

when establishing enforceable emission rates. In considering appropriate enforceable emissions rates in PSD permits under the CAA, the Environmental Appeals Board has held that a permitting authority is not required to set the Best Available Control Technology (BACT) emissions limit at the most stringent emissions rate that has been demonstrated in practice b y a facility

using similar emission controls ( In re Newmont Nevada Ene rgy Investment , 12 E.A.D. 429, 441

- 42, EAB 2005 (citing Kendall New Century Dev. , 11 E.A.D. 40, 53, EAB 2003). The Board has recognized the use of safety factor[s] in the calculation of permit limits to take into account both the variability and fluctuatio n in the expected performance of pollution54

controls and the fact that setting emissions limitations for one facility at the highest control efficiency demonstrated at another facility would make violations of the permit unavoidable ( Id

. at 442, citing In re Masonite Corp ., 5 E.A.D. 551, 560, EAB 1994). **Response :**  Although BACT determinations under PSD are by no means analogous to determining MACT floors (cost is considered in determining BACT, for example), EPA agrees that consideration onl y of single data p oints may not adequatel y represent sources’ performance over time, and EPA consequently is not utilizing that methodology in this rule. EPA also has taken variability into account during the process of establishing the emission limits for this rule

. **Comme nt**  **:** Commenters 2844, 2845, and 2916 objected to EPA’s interpretation of CAA Sections 112(d)(2) and 112(d)(3) and the Brick MACT (Commenter 2845 provided a white paper as an appendix to their comments for the HWIMIMACT proposal, dated December 01, 2008.). The paper, entitled Implications of the Brick MACT Decision on EPA’s Discretion in Setting MACT Floors , discusses variability at some length. The paper’s main points were:

 The Agency

has chosen to focus on setting MACT floors based on lowest emitting sourc es derived from limited test results that are not appropriatel y adjusted to account for stack test variability

.
 The Brick MACT decision holds that EPA must base MACT floors on achieved emissions control rather than control technology , but it does not requ ire EPA to ignore operational variability

in determining those floors.

 Variability

methodologies must reasonabl y estimate or predict emissions or variability through a demonstrated relationship between the data used and the performance intended to be estim ated.

 Non

- technological factors (i.e. raw materials and fuel) must be considered in determining emission control achieved by best performers.

 It is within the EPA’s discretion to define the best performing sources.

 EPA should estimate variability in dete rmining achieved emissions.

 The Agency

can and must seek appropriate data from regulated entities and other stakeholders, and to develop appropriate fact

- based estimating methodologies on the data available. **Response:** See response in preamble. **Brick MACT Comment:**  Several commenters (2834, 2844, 2845, and 2859) stated that the Brick MACT decision makes the expectations of what is expected by EPA in regards to setting the floor very clear:

 Floors must be based on emission control achieved in practice b y the best performers

 Variability

methodologies must reasonabl y be calculated to estimate such actual performance levels55

 Nontechnological factors that impact emissions must be considered in determining the achieved emissions levels

 In devising new methodologie s to set lawful floors, EPA must ensure that compliance with §112(d)(2) general standard setting criteria is also met.

 EPA can use discretion to define the factors necessary to establish a floor under §112(d)(3) that meet the CAA’s statutory intention to b e technology

- forcing and require compliance with the best that has been demonstrated to be achieved in practice while considering costs, other non

- air health and environmental impacts, and energy impacts when defining achievable MACT standards. Based on these points, the Brick MACT decision requires that EPA’s floor anal ys es include a review of the best performers and consideration of variable factors that can affect emissions achieved in practice b y the pest performance sources. EPA’s analyses and methodo logical choices must be based on facts and records that support its final determination. It is appropriate that a full review of the existing records and the development of new data be considered in making a final decision. **Response:** The case law makes ove rwhelmingl y clear that the requirement in section 112 (d)(2) that MACT standards be achievable after considering various factors does not supersede the requirement of section 112 (d)(3) that they be of minimal stringency as determined by

the criteria for e stablishing MACT floors. See , e.g. Cement Kiln Recycling Coalition , 255 F. 3d at 861

- 62. As discussed in the preamble and in other comment responses, EPA has carefull y assessed best performers ’ short

- and long

- term variability for each HAP in estimating th eir performance. **2.3.7 Format of Emission Limits**  **Use CEMS units as limits Comment:**  One commenter (2638) recommends the EPA use plain language and units that can be related to ambient measurements for its emission limits. The units currently proposed require modifying the direct CEMS output with inputs under the control of the plant, which make the results un

- interpretable by anyone wanting to make comparisons with ambient measurements or health effects; or the CEMS concentration readings should be required to be posted/reported. **Response:** Emission limits are typicall y normalized to some ty pe of production or raw material input value because this allows comparison (and ultimately the ability

to set a single standard) for different sized facilities. As we note d in the NSPS proposal, the current NSPS and limits (and NESHAP limits before today ’s amendments) for PM are expressed on a pound of PM per ton (lb/ton) of dry

feed input format. See 73 FR at 34075

- 76. In this final NESHAP (and NSPS) we are adopting a new normalizing parameter of lb/ton of clinker

– i.e., normalizing based on kiln output rather than input for both PM and mercury

. We noted at proposal of the NSPS that adopting an output

- based standard avoids rewarding a source for becoming less efficient, i. e., requiring more feed to produce a unit of product, therefore promoting the most efficient production processes. 73 FR at 34076.56

EPA therefore proposed that all of the NSPS (for PM, NOx, and SO2) be normalized by ton of clinker produced, and later propos ed the same parameter for the two standards in the NESHAP which are normalized, mercury and PM. 73 FR at 34076; 74 FR at 21140. In the final NESHAP (and NSPS) we are therefore adopting a new normalizing parameter of lb/ton of clinker

– i.e. normalizing bas ed on kiln output rather than input

– for mercury and PM in the NESHAP, and for PM, NOx, and SO2 in the NSPS. We are currentl y developing a reporting mechanism for CEMS data. We will consider these comments as we continue that effort. In concept, the CEMS data base would be publically available. However, the reporting frequency has not been developed. See the preamble discussion under format of the normalized standards in the NESHAP and the NSPS, for more information on EPA’s decision. **Use of kiln feed vs c linker in emission limits**  **Comment:** Commenters (2830, 2844, 2845, 2859, and 2879) stated that they supported emission limitations in pounds of pollutant per ton of kiln feed rather than as pounds per ton of clinker produced. Commenters 2844, 2859, and 2879 noted that clinker conversion factors may vary from plant to plant and may give erroneous results. According to the commenters, clinker weigh sy stems are not common in the cement industry and will not improve accuracy over a kiln

- feed measurement s ys tem wi th an appropriate clinker factor, as is commonl y used. On a short

- term basis, clinker output from the kiln will fluctuate while the kiln feed rate remains constant. The variable nature of clinker production creates more inaccuracy in short

- term (hourly) cl inker weigh data than the +/

- 5 percent specified b y the EPA. If the standards are based on tons of clinker, then the kiln owner should have an option to determine clinker weight from feed that should not require EPA approval of the method and the averagin g time and accuracy requirements should reflect what is practical, achievable and useful. Commenters 2844 and 2845 asked for clarification from EPA on proposed language regarding alternative methods to measuring clinker production and the need to obtain Ad ministrator approval for such methods. The Proposal also stated that the use of a system that directly measures kiln feed rate and uses a conversion factor to determine the clinker production rate is an acceptable method. The commenter states that it is un clear whether EPA believes that Administrator approval is required to utilize such a method when EPA identifies in the regulations that the method is acceptable. In any event, cement plants should be given the option of complying with the regulation by either measuring the clinker production or by measuring kiln feed and developing a clinker factor to calculate clinker production. Almost all cement plants measure kiln feed and develop a clinker factor. Such a method requires periodic adjustments to the clin ker factor and justifies a longer time

- frame than hourly for determining clinker production. **Response:** See the response to the comment above, regarding the format of the standards. Commenters maintain that the measurement of kiln output is not as exact as the measurement of kiln input, and that many kilns have not installed clinker measuring equipment. These objections do not necessitate normalizing by inputs. Most commenters also stated that kiln feed could be57

accuratel y measured and also indicated that mo st facilities currentl y derive reasonable feed

- to

clinker conversion factors from these measurements. Kilns already calculate clinker production in this way

when required to meet emissions limits normalized by clinker production, as man y NSR and PSD permit s for cement kilns presently do. Since it appears from comments that the equipment to accurately measure clinker is not ty pically installed in this industry , we must assume these facilities use a feed

- to

- clinker conversion factor to calculate clinker prod

uction on whatever time basis is necessary (e.g., daily , hourl y, etc.). Therefore, we have modified the rule language to more clearl y provide the option allowing facilities to measure feed inputs and to use their site specific feed/clinker ratio to calcula te clinker production (and that no prior approval from a regulatory authority is necessary

to do so). Facilities would be allowed to use a constant feed/clinker ratio in accord with their usual cycles for determining such ratios, ty picall y on a monthly bas is when clinker inventories are reconciled. Commenters were nonetheless concerned that because clinker/feed ratios change somewhat and are onl y re - determined at the end of a cycle, a slight change in clinker/feed ratio, determined at the end of the cycle, would show lack of compliance without an opportunity to alter operation. To obviate this concern, the rule provides that facilities are not required to retroactivel y update clinker production estimates after re

- computing feed/clinker ratios. We would not expect that the clinker/feed ratio will change significantl y from month to month, so we do not see this as creating a situation where facilities will be able to have large amounts of excess emissions but still be considered in compliance (especiall y since the 30

- day standards are all rolling averages). See the preamble discussion under format of the normalized standards in the NESHAP and the NSPS, for more information on EPA’s decision. **Accuracy of determining kiln input or output Comment:**  One c ommenter ( 28 45 ) stated that kiln feed accuracy should be established on a longer timeframe than one hour:

 Daily clinker production ty

picall y is estimated b y measuring the kiln feed rates and utilizing a clinker factor to convert kiln feed rate (which includes kiln fee d and kiln dust returned) to clinker production rate. Several variables in the calculation are measured are not determined more frequently than a weekly

basis and can vary

on a short term basis. Another variable, dust loss, is estimated, not measured. It c annot be expected to have a clinker factor in the short term with an accuracy of better than +/

- 10 percent. Tracking these variables on a short term basis is not practical.

 Plants ty

pically measure clinker inventory dail y, and conduct more detailed physic al inventories on a monthly

and/or quarterly

basis.

 Plants that utilize a single clinker handling s ys tem for multiple kiln lines cannot confirm the clinker factor for each individual kiln. **Response:** See the response to the comment above, regarding the acc uracy of determining kiln input or output, and the latitude for determining site

- specific clinker factors. See the preamble discussion under format of the normalized standards in the NESHAP and the NSPS, for more information on EPA’s decision.58

**Grain loadin g format**  **Comment:** Commenter 2859 stated that as an alternative to basing the PM standard on pounds per ton dry

feed, EPA could use a grain loading standard (i.e., gr/acf). **Response:** See the preamble discussion under format of the normalized standards in th e NESHAP and the NSPS, for more information on EPA’s decision regarding format of the standard. **2.3.8 Other**  **Central stack Comment:**  Many

commenters (2893, 2975, 2990, 2992, 3001, 3003, 3005, 3017, 3022, 3034, 3038, 3045, 3052, 3056, 3059, 3063, 3073, 3074, 3077, 3089, 3098, 3107, 3117, 3124, 3125, 3128, 3130, 3131, 3132, 3160, 3226, and 3227) stated that EPA should require that all cement kilns have one central stack. Without a central stack, the emissions from the kiln cannot be adequatel y monitored, and th e CEM required in the proposed rule would not be viable for monitoring emissions and confirming emissions reductions. In addition, necessary scrubbers and/or other pollution control devices require a central stack for placement. **Response:** The majority of cement kilns are equipped with control devices that are equipped with a central stack. However, those kilns using positive pressure fabric filters may be equipped with roof monitors instead of stacks. In the case of PM emissions, such devices can be equipp ed with a bag leak detection sy stem, which is a viable monitoring alternative to PM CEMS and explicitly allowed in the rule as a monitoring alternative. In other cases, the source may have to retrofit the control device outlet to install one or more stacks

. Finally , sources can alway s request EPA approval under the part 63 General Provisions (§63.7(f)) to use an alternative method to accommodate site

- specific conditions. For example, open

- path monitoring may be viable in some situations. 

### 2.4 **General Legal I ssues**  **Comment:** One commenter (2901) stated that National Lime II stands for the principle that as long as the facility is controlling pollution, the levels achieved can be considered, even if the facility was not intending to control the specific HAP. The commenter noted that the major issue in National Lime II was whether EPA could decline to set an emission standard for HAPs that no facility in the source category

was controlling with technology . The National Lime II court was saying that if a facility

wa s already controlling its emissions, the fact that it was not intending to control the HAP in question could not be a reason for EPA to consider the pollutant uncontrolled. **Response:** The commenter correctl y describes this portion of the second National Lim e decision. **2.4.1 Subcategorization**  **Comment:** One commenter (2844) stated that subcategorization based on nontechnical factors may result in opportunities for reasonable beyond the floor (BTF) standards. It would be59

appropriate for EPA to base the NESHAP st andard on BTF levels that reflect application of the nontechnological factor as an intended control strategy under §112. However, while Brick MACT requires EPA to take into account emissions data irrespective of whether it was achieved through specific int ended operational choices or control technology , nowhere did the court say EPA had to or even could simply

assume that a source’s emissions in practice would be invariabl y equivalent to a particular observed emission level and that all operational and nont echnological factors that happen to be in effect on the day of testing could be assumed and required to be in effect, in the future. **Response:** EPA agrees that sources’ variability is unlikely

to be encompassed by

a bare single measurement. It is for this r eason that EPA developed all of the standards based on substantial data gathering augmented where appropriate b y statistical estimates of variability. **Comment:** One c ommenter ( 2844 ) stated that if EPA determines that raw material inputs impact the emission control achieved in practice b y the best performing sources, EPA must assess that impact. Given that the raw material input varies, the commenter stated that EPA’s variability methodology

must include that variability in estimates of emission control achi eved b y the sources; further, if the variability in the raw materials used by the differing units is significant, EPA may determine that subcategorization is the most reasonable way to regulate the industry

to ensure that each source is subject to the most stringent floor level of control reasonable to apply to sources utilizing raw material sources of similar HAP input. **Response:** EPA ’ s reasons for not creating a subcategory for the two plants with exceptionally high mercury

emissions due to limestone quarry mercury content is set out in the preamble to the final rule. **Comment:** One c ommenter ( 2846 ) stated that EPA has authority to establish subcategories of sources when issuing standards. Subcategorization would allow for a workable MACT standard and allow s ources that are limited in certain way s to apply the best available control technology for their facilities and still comply with the standards. The commenter believes that subcategorization for on the basis of feed material quality is wholly appropriate and required b y law. Commenters 2832 and 2859 support subcategorization as permitted in the Concurring Opinion in the Brick decision. This support includes but is not limited to subcategorization according to process operations (type, raw materials, chemistry /formulation data, associated equipment and final products), emission characteristics (amount and ty pe of HAP), and air pollution control device applicability , opportunities for pollution prevention, and existing regulations or guidance from states and o ther regulatory agencies. Commenters 2776, 2777, 2810, 2814, 2833, 2859, 2904, 2915, 2920, 2926, 3204, 3212, 3214, and 3215 supported the use of subcategorization in the proposed rule. Commenter 2915 stated that in allowing EPA to create subcategories, §11 2(d)(4) does not restrict subcategorization to only factors that affect emissions. The provision requires EPA to establish regulations for each category or subcategory

on the schedules set out in §112. EPA states in the preamble, EPA may create a subcatego ry applicable to a single HAP, rather than to all HAP emitted by the source category. While the commenter disagreed with EPA’s approach to MACT standard

- setting, if60

EPA continues to follow that HAP

- by

- HAP approach to MACT standard

- setting, then EPA should create different subcategories for each HAP rather than one set for all HAPs. **Response:** Because EPA is determining not to exercise its discretion to create a subcategory for a subcategory

for kilns with exceptionally high mercury

emissions due to high leve ls of mercury in their limestone quarries, it is unnecessary to respond to these comments. **Comment:** One commenter (2824) suggested that for the best protection of human health, create an optimized mercury

subcategory

by evaluating increased exposure from f oreign plants in response to plants that could shut down due to technology or economics while varying construction demand. **Response:** This comment does not track the MACT standard setting process prescribed by law, which requires technology

- based determinations based at a minimum on performance of certain best operated or controlled domestic plants in the source category

. **2.4.2 Fly Ash Ban**  **Comment:** Several commenters (2816 and 2835) stated that it was appropriate for EPA to remove the prohibition on kilns u sing fly ash from utility

boilers using activated carbon injection for mercury

control. Given that the mercury emission limit will apply regardless of fuel or fuel substitutes, this prohibition is no longer needed. **Response:** EPA agrees. **Comment:** One commenter (2828) suggested that EPA retain a ban on cement kilns py roprocessing (or heating) of fl y ash from power plants if the mercury content of the fl y ash has been increased above its normal concentration by mercury capture s ys tems at the power plant. Until there is certainty on how coal

- and oil

- fired electric utility steam generating unit (EGU) will be required to account for mercury re - emissions from cement plants that acquire their fl y ash, the cement MACT rule should maintain a ban on the use of fl y ash with captured mercury

. The commenter encouraged EPA to retain the proposed mercury emission standard, and supplement it with a continued ban on fl y ash p yro processing if the ash has elevated mercury or if the power plant producing the ash took credit for the reductions. The commenter suggested that this rule, as well as the upcoming EGU MACT rule, require coordination between fl y ash producers and potential fly ash users so that re

- emission of mercury is properly

accounted for, and we do not have the probl em of mercury being emitted to the atmosphere at one location after being controlled at another. **Response:** The technology

- based standard for mercury reflects the minimum level of performance achieved b y the average of the best performers, or the best controlled similar source. If other kilns can meet these limits while importing fl y ash, there is nothing in section 112 (d)(3) which prohibits them from doing so, since the provision is technology

- neutral. So long as the standards are satisfied, the statute d oes not dictate how. **Comment:** One commenter (2638) stated that coal ash is enriched in other urban HAP metals besides mercury . These enrichments of coal are on the order of 5 to 10 fold. With these enrichments, it will important that emission limits be dev eloped for each individual urban HAP61

metal and be correspondingl y monitored. Without this assurance, the EPA should not allow coal ash to be used in the manufacture of portland cement. **Response:** Given that the PM emission limit (as a surrogate for nonvolatile metal HAP) will apply regardless of fuel, fuel substitutes, or raw materials, this prohibition is not needed. The standard for PM reflects the minimum level of performance achieved b y the average of the best performers, or the best controlled similar s ource. If kilns can meet these limits while incorporating coal ash, there is nothing in section 112 (d)(3) which prohibits them from doing so, since the provision is technology

- neutral. So long as the standards are satisfied, the statute does not dictate h ow. **2.4.4 Other**  **Offsets Comment**  **:** One commenter (2898) stated that an y netting or offsets pursuant to NSR must meet all CAA requirements. The CAA only allows offsets for incidental emissions reductions that are not otherwise required . 42 U.S.C. 172(c)(2). F ederal regulations additionally require that emissions reductions, in order to qualify as offsets, be surplus, permanent, quantifiable, and federally enforceable. 40 CFR 51.165(a)(3)(ii)(C)(1)(i). Longstanding agency guidance, including the General Preambl e for State Implementation Plans (57 FR 13498, 13552

- 54, dated April 16, 1992), imposes additional restrictions. Per the foregoing, The EPA’s policy for NSR offsets is that since hazardous emissions reductions required to meet the MACT standards at 40 CFR 60 and 61 ... are required by the Act these emissions are not creditable as NSR offsets

. Memorandum from J. Seitz to B. Hannesschlager re: Crediting MACT Emission Reductions for New Source Review (NSR) Netting and Offsets (November 12, 1997). **Response:** These comments relate to NSR, which is outside the scope of this rulemaking

. **Comment:** Several commenters (2845 and 2874) agreed that EPA correctly suggests that surplus sulfur dioxide credits could be used for offsets and netting and commended EPA for this reco mmendation that surplus sulfur dioxide emission reductions resulting from the installation of a wet scrubber (used to satisfy sulfur dioxide offset requirements) can be used for netting purposes under the CAA new source review program. Commenter 2874 belie ved that this is an appropriate position and EPA should repeat this statement in the preamble to the final rule, making the point clear to regulators dealing with portland cement new source review matters. **Response:** See above. 

### 2.5 **Mercury Standards 2.5.1**  **L egal Issues**  **Subcategorization Comment:**  Many

commenters (2816, 2828, 2834, 2895, 2898, and 2923) supported EPA’s approach of establishing a single national standard, rather than weakening the proposed standard62

through the use of subcategorization. According to several commenters (2816, 2834, and 2898), EPA properl y rejected subcategorizing cement kilns for the following reasons:

 Under §112(d)(1), EPA can only create subcategories based on classes, types, and sizes of sources. Since limestone mercury content can vary

within a single quarry , kilns with proprietary

quarries with sections that have high mercury content are not sufficiently uniform to be considered a class or type . Even for those high

- mercury quarries identified by EPA, the Agency

is not aware of the mercury content of the remainder of the quarry

. Nor is there an y suggestion that a quarry’s mercury content is related to its size . Further, the lack of a causal link between limestone mercury content and emission rates makes subcategorizing b y quarry content untenable.

 Kilns with more mercury

- rich limestone would be favored and those with lower mercury levels disadvantaged. Kilns would be rewarded for selecting the highest mercury limestone to test for categorization. Thus, the category would create an incentive for kilns to concentrate in areas with limestone formations that just exceed the mercury concentration cut

- off for the category

.
 Subcategorization is unnecessary because it is not clear that any outliers exist. EPA separated two facilities as having the highest quarry mercury contents and identified those sources as potential outliers . But EPA acknowledges that at one of those kilns it does not currently

have any data on the possibility that this site may have portions of its existing quarry th at have lower mercury content . They may simply be in sections of their quarries that are particularly high in mercury . Creation of a subcategory without further evidence it is justified would be arbitrary

.
 Creating a subcategory for kilns with quarries that are high in mercury would be a continuation of the pattern repeatedly rejected by

the D.C. Circuit as violating the CAA

setting emission standards based on a concern about ensuring that its floor is achievable by all kilns in the subcategory . If §112 is to meet its purpose of require the maximum degree of reduction in emissions , then the standards created pursuant to it cannot be set so as to accommodate the heaviest polluters. EPA must heed the D.C. Circuit’s previous rejection of efforts to tailor emis sion standards so as to ensure all sources can meet those standards. Commenter 2898 agreed with EPA that none of the bases for subcategorization discussed in the proposed rule meet the CAA’s guidelines:

 Any basis for subcategorizing must be related to an effect on emissions, rather than to some difference among sources which does not affect emissions performance. The commenter agreed that subcategorization on the basis of the ty pe of kiln or the presence of an inline raw mill is inappropriate because none of these distinctions affects total mercury emissions over time.

 Subcategorization on the basis of geographic location is inappropriate because mercury content can vary

significantly

from quarry

to quarry and even within a quarry , nor does a difference in geographic location constitute a difference in class, type, or size. Moreover, EPA found no correlation between geographical distribution of mercury emissions and total mercury

.63

 Subcategorization based on the practice of wasting cement kiln dust is inappro priate as it can be considered a control technology and subcategorization by control technology would defeat the purposes of the MACT requirement, which is to control the worst HAP pollution.

 Subcategorization by

total mercury

inputs is inappropriate becau se total mercury inputs do not differentiate facilities by size, class, or type because a particular set of inputs are not inherent to the operation of the cement facility. Because subcategorization on this basis would result in a situation where facilitie s with higher total mercury inputs would have higher total emission limits, it would create the same problems as subcategorizing by control technology

.
 Subcategorization on the basis of mercury content of facility’s proprietary limestone quarry is inappro priate would essentially be subcategorizing b y control technology . As Brick MACT confirmed, inputs are a means of emissions control. As with total mercury inputs, the mercury

content of the proprietary limestone quarries does not differentiate facilities b y size, class, or type . There is nothing about the limestone from the proprietary limestone quarry

that is inherent to the process of the cement facility . While it is true that all cement plants have a limestone quarry located near the facility

and that fa cilities are often sited based on the location of the quarry , the proprietary nature of the quarry

does not diminish the fact that the cement facility ’s kilns will work equally well with limestone from other sources. The onl y operational difference between limestone from the proprietary

quarry and limestone from other quarries is cost (for transportation or purchase), an impermissible consideration in setting the MACT floor. Separate standards would unfairl y expose communities near the dirtiest cement facil ities to the highest levels of mercury

pollution from cement plants and leave them with the least protection against such pollution. Subcategorization by the mercury

content of the limestone quarry runs counter to the holding of Brick MACT and other decisi ons. Brick MACT holds that EPA must account for raw material HAP contributions in establishing MACT floors and that the proprietary

nature or proximity

of the raw material does not excuse EPA from considering the HAP emission from the raw material in setti ng the MACT floor. Commenter 2898 disagreed with the Portland Cement Association’s (PCA’s) (commenter 2845) arguments for subcategorization by mercury content of proprietary

quarries. The commenter provides counterarguments to (PCA’s) citations and interpretations of case law. Commenters 2842 and 2911 opposed the use of subcategories. Commenter 2911 stated that setting separate standards for kilns that use high mercury limestone would be unlawful.

 The sentence in §112(d)(1) that allows EPA to distinguish a mong classes, types, or sizes of sources within a category or subcategory in establishing standards does not permit EPA to set separate standards for cement kilns that merel y have limestone quarries containing higher levels of mercury . The distinctions between class and type must relate to the source itself and not a distinction between the raw materials used b y the source. Under EPA’s own definition, a quarry is not any

part of an affected source.

 EPA states inaccuratel y that kilns with mercury above a giv en level might be considered a different type or class of kiln because their process necessarily requires the use of that higher mercury input (74 FR 21145). EPA does not and cannot identify any kiln whose64

process requires the use of high mercury input. At most, it is merely cheaper for these kilns to continue using such input.

 Although EPA stated that [t ]h e concurring opinion in Brick MACT supports subcategorization in situations involving sources’ dependence on high

-HAP raw materials to avoid situations w here a level of performance achieved by some sources proves unachievable by other sources even after application of best technological controls, viewing such sources as of a different type than others in the source category ( 74 FR 21148 and Sierra Club v. EPA , 479 F.3d 875, 884

- 885, D.C. Cir. 2007, and 74 FR 21140 [concurring opinion may provide a way out of the situation where the floor standards are achieved for some sources, but the same floors cannot be achieved for other sources due to differences in local raw materials whose use is essential] ), those statements are no more than dicta in a concurring opinion without precedential value or authority

.
 EPA itself states subcategorizing by control device ... is not permissible , 74 FR 21145. As the CAA and D.C . Circuit precedent both make clear, the best performing sources are those with the lowest emission levels, regardless of whether those emission levels are achieved through the use of end

- of

- stack control technology or the use of cleaner fuels or raw materials. Sierra Club (479 F.3d 879

- 880). Because there is no relevant distinction for floor purposes between controlling emissions with an end

- of

- stack control device and controlling them through the use of cleaner fuels and raw materials, setting separate an d more lenient standards for sources with high mercury limestone is just as impermissible as setting such standards for sources with ineffective or outdated control technology would be. Commenter 2911 stated that setting separate standards for kilns that u se high mercury limestone would be arbitrary

and capricious. Nothing in the CAA suggests that standards have to be achievable through the use of any particular control technology or through control technology in general. Creating a separate subcategory wou ld create a perverse incentive for other kilns to find high mercury

limestone so as to avail themselves of the same effective exemption from mercury emission standards. Commenter 2842 states that the decision not to subcategorize is fully consistent with the language in §112 for setting emission standards. Congress left the decision of whether to subcategorize based on class, ty pe, and size of source entirel y to the Agency’s discretion. Based on the record before it, the Agency reasonabl y concluded that the mercury emissions data do not readily support a subcategorization approach . The commenter’s further argued that:

 EPA’s technical determination is worthy of deference. See Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. EPA , 489 F.3d 1364, 1375 (D.C. Cir. 2007 ) (rejecting industry challenge to EPA decision not to subcategorize in light of the technical nature of the determination and the agency ’s reasoned explanation).

 The argument advanced by certain industry

representatives that subcategorization is required because some kilns with high levels of mercury in their feedstocks will not be able to achieve the standards in a cost effective manner finds no support in the statute. The D.C. Circuit has held that EPA must account for raw material HAP contributions in e stablishing MACT floors, and the fact that raw materials may be proprietary

or65

otherwise not obtainable category

- wide does not relieve EPA of that obligation. 74 FR at 21148 (citing Sierra Club v. EPA , 479 F.3d at 882

- 83).

 Section 112 does not allow EPA to consider costs in establishing the MACT floor for HAPs such as mercury

. NRDC v. EPA , 489 F.3d at 1375; see Sierra Club v. EPA , 479 F.3d 875 (D.C. Cir. 2007). Congress envisioned that the establishment of the MACT floor would be a technical determination, not an economic one. See Sierra Club v. EPA, 479 F.3d at 875 (rejecting argument that in establishing MACT floors based on what best performing sources have achieved, EPA may redefine best performing to mean those sources with emission levels that are achi evable by all sources).

 Judge Williams in the Sierra Club case noted, there is not necessarily any guarantee, even with suitable subcategorization, [that ] every source will be able to achieve standards that meet a lawful application of §112(d)(3) to reaso nably defined subcategories . 479 F.3d at 885. **Response:** Because EPA is choosing not to exercise its discretion to create a subcategory for high mercury

emitters with high mercury limestone quarries, it is unnecessary to respond to these comments. **Comment:** Several commenters (2845, 2863, and 2916) stated that case law under the CAA §111 New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) made it clear that EPA may establish subcategories that are essentially based on a pollutant concentration in an input to the process. In its coal

- fired power plant NSPS, EPA essentially distinguished between sources based on the concentration of a pollutant in an input

– the sulfur concentration in the coal. The D.C. Circuit upheld EPA’s approach, holding that it had considerable latitu de in differentiating between source types. Sierra Club v. Costle (657 F.2d 298, 318

- 319, D.C. Cir. 1981). The power plant NSPS required greater sulfur dioxide removal efficiency for sources with a higher concentration of sulfur dioxide emissions than for sources with a lower concentration in the emissions. When challenged, the D.C. Circuit quoted the §111(b)(2) language on how EPA is authorized to distinguish among classes, types, and sizes of sources , and concluded that [c ]e rtainly the text of the statute nowhere forbids a distinction based on sulfur content

. Examples cited by

the commenters of other MACT standards using subcategorization by pollution concentration in raw materials are:

 Proposed National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants fo r Refractory Products Manufacturing, 67 FR 42108, 42110, and 42119 (June 20, 2002);

 Proposed National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Plastic Parts and Products, 67 FR 72276 and 72288 (December 4, 2002); and

 Proposed National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Chemical Manufacturing, 73 FR 58352 and 58365 (Oct. 6, 2008). Commenter 2845 stated that EPA should establish two subcategories for mercury based on the concentration of mercury in the limestone, and should set beyond

- the floor standards for the high

- mercury

limestone kilns requiring a 75 percent sy stem removal efficiency . EPA’s Figure 1 and Table 3 of the proposal preamble clearl y show two outliers with mercury concentrations that far exceed those of an y other s ources in the database.66

Commenter 2845 stated that as EPA further notes in the preamble, [The Ash Grove Durkee kiln ] has voluntarily entered into an enforceable agreement to install activated carbon (the best control technology currently available so far as is known) to control its mercury emissions...Closure of this kiln and possibly other high mercury emitting kilns is a possible consequence of a single standard without subcategories . The same would be true for other kilns not in EPA’s database that are si milarl y situated. This would be a result that Congress clearly did not intend. As the House Report for the 1990 CAA Amendments states, MACT is not intended to require unsafe control measures, or to drive sources to the brink of shutdown . House Rep. No. 101

- 490, at 328 (1990). Commenter 2863 stated that based on EPA’s data, a separate subcategory is appropriate for sources with greater than or equal to 225 ppb mercury in their limestone as these sources form a different type and class of source from the othe r category members and is supported by the courts. As Judge Williams noted in his concurrence in Sierra Club v. Envtl. Prot. Agency , 479 F.3d 875, 885 (D.C. Cir. 2007) ( Brick MACT

), one legitimate basis for creating additional subcategories must be the interest in keeping the relation between ‘achieved’ and ‘achievable’ in accord with common sense and the reasonable meaning of the statute . Creating a ≥225 ppb subcategory

also is consistent with the legislative history of the CAA. When 112(d) standards were developed, the possibility of requiring substitution of cleaner ore stocks was considered. In the Conference Committee report, Congress stated that the Administrator shall not consider the substitution of, or other changes in, metal

- or mineral

- bearing raw materials that are being used as feedstocks or material inputs... Conference Committee Explanatory Statement. **Response:** Because EPA is c hoosing not to exercise its discretion to create a subcategory for high mercury

emitters with high mercury limestone quarries, it is unnecessary to respond to these comments. **Best performers Comment:**  One commenter (2911) stated that the holding that best p erformers are those with the lowest emission levels is binding precedent on the plain meaning of the CAA, and it reflects repeated holdings of the D.C. Circuit to the same effect. To attempt to rank cement kilns by control efficiency

would not only

contrav ene the CAA but set bad policy and dangerous agency precedent. **Response:** EPA is choosing in this rule to rank best perfor m ers based on emission levels (as normalized, for Hg and PM), and believes that this is a reasonable and permissible approach for this rule. **2.5.2 Adequacy of Floor Determinations (Existing and New)**  **Overly lenient standards Comment:**  Several commenters (2144, 2867, and 2879) stated that EPA’s anal ys is of the floor resulted in overl y lenient standards. They stated that EPA should conduct s imulations such as Monte Carlo and use other statistical tools to handle truncated distributions. The commenter notes that the proposed emission standard is greater than the 30

- day characteristics of any

of the best performing 12 percent of the surveyed ki lns, resulting in a standard less stringent than the67

highest emitter among the best performing kilns rather than equal to or more stringent than the average emissions from the best performing 12 percent. Commenter 2879 provided examples of alternative stat istical analy sis of data that could be used to more rigorousl y determine the expected average of the best performing 12 percent. Commenter 2867 made the following recommendations:

 Lower the proposed emission standard for existing kilns towards the simple s tatistical average of 27.4 lb/MM tons of clinker consistent with the plain reading of the law (average of best 12%) and leave the proposed value for new kilns unchanged at 14 lb/MM tons feed (23.1 lb/ton clinker).

 Resist attempts by

industry advocates to i ntroduce new variability schemes in the determination of the final mercury standard.

 Any subcategorization (if allowed at all) for the purposes of the mercury limit should be in terms of time to achieve the standard and not the magnitude of the standard. **R esponse:**  Monte Carlo simulation or bootstrap simulation has been used to account for different ty pes of uncertainties. The suggestion by the commenters follows this recent tendency to use simulation techniques to account for uncertainties in the data. Howe ver, for this rule, we decided to use the Student’s t

- test, which is called for when you have onl y a relatively small, random sample of emissions data available for anal ys is. EPA is not adopting any subcategories in this rule. **Analysis of variability Comme**  **nt:** Many

commenters (2830, 2836, 2841, 2845, 2858, 2859, 2863, 2864, 2874, and 2889) stated that the limited data used b y EPA in setting the proposed mercury limit does not adequatel y reflect the significant variability in mercury emissions and EPA’s MACT floor anal ys is resulted in overly stringent limits. They

recommended that EPA re

- evaluate the data upon which the mercury

standard for existing kilns was derived, and use different statistical anal ys es. Commenters 2830 and 2845 recommended using the stati stical analy sis used to set other NESHAP standards and programs under the CWA and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), which gives more accurate consideration of the variability in certain data sets. Commenters 2859 and 2864 support commenter 2845’s discussion of an alternative approach to anal yz ing the mercury

data set used to determine the MACT floor. This commenter recommended using the UTLmethod to account for variability within the data set. The commenter’s UTL anal ys is of the mercury d ata resulted in an alternative mercury floor no less than 51.5 lbs/million tons of kiln feed for existing units and 14.2 lbs/million tons of kiln feed for new units. The commenter included detailed statistical anal ys is in support of their recommended limit s. Commenter 2830 stated that the appropriate NESHAP standard for mercury should be between 43 lbs/million tons of clinker and 50 lbs/million tons of clinker for existing units. Commenters 2844, 2845, 2859, 2863, 2874, and 2889 stated that by using data c ollection over only 30 day s, EPA has failed to capture the variability of the performance of those units. The68

commenters recommend collecting data over a wide range of operating conditions or developing alternative operating scenarios and the effects of alternative operating conditions can be determined via mass balance calculations (b y changing the mix of materials and the mercury contents of those materials). Commenters 2858, 2859, and 2874 noted that causes of variability such as variations in raw materi als and fuels, wasting of varying amounts of kiln dust, and the production of different products were not adequately addressed in the data collection process. Commenter 2863 provided three ye ars of results of anal ys is to highlight the variability of the me rcury content of their feed limestone, which all comes from the same quarry and mineral formation. L imestone mercury concentrations ranged from 424 ppb to 1740 ppb. Commenters 2845, 2863, and 2864 noted that EPA considered onl y 30

- day samples of emissions data from various units in setting the mercury standards, and in addition, EPA considered a kiln that was producing a product during the 30

- day data collection period that resulted in an emission profile that was not representative of normal operations of the kiln. If this kiln’s production of this product is weighted based on the kiln’s actual production, its emissions increase and it is no longer one of the best performing sources. Commenter 2845 conducted a site

- specific variability anal ys is that inclu ded interviewing plant personnel of the 11 MACT floor kilns. Independently from the 30

- day

emissions data collected by EPA, the anal ys is focused on normal and foreseeable operations of the kilns used by EPA to propose the mercury

standard. Each of the kiln s in EPA’s proposed MACT floor was reviewed for variations in products, raw materials, fuels, operating conditions, and the effectiveness of pollution controls. The commenter also considered EPA data regarding mercury content of fuels that are used or coul d reasonably be used by

the facilities in the MACT floor. The analy sis demonstrated that foreseeable circumstances at units in the MACT floor justify an existing source mercury

standard of 106 lbs/million tons of kiln feed and 36 lbs/million tons of kiln f eed for new sources. The commenter provided detailed supporting information in an appendix. Commenter 2841 disagrees with EPA’s approach of mass balance tracking the feed materials and assuming that all mercury entering the kiln sy stem would be emitted from the stack. Using a mass balance for such a significant standard will result in significant costs with the real possibility

of little or no environmental benefit. It would be far more appropriate to allow time for facilities collect more data and further to allow each facility to determine the speciation of this naturally

occurring mercury

in their limestone quarries and other sources of raw materials. It may be appropriate to subcategorize by species of mercury

or other similar approaches, if enough data is collected. **Response:** We carefull y reviewed the comments on the anal ys is of variability . (See the docket for the detailed review of these comments.) It is clear that the commenters mistakenly believed that EPA intended to set the MACT floor using the 99 th percentile. The 99th percentile of a data set, is the data value at which 99 percent of the data will be found. They also state that because EPA was using a modified UPL , that EPA was calculating a future probability rather than the 99th percentile for the actual data, which they wrongl y considered inconsistent with the intention of the CAA. They

stated that because of the small size of the data sets for mercury , PM, and HCl that EPA’s choice of the 99th percentile was faulty and they recommended that an upper tolerance limit (UTL) for smaller data sets be used. They state that the UTL does generate the 99th percentile. For larger data sets, such as the THC data, the actual 99th percentile can be used.69

UTLis not for prediction purposes, so it won’t say what the data will be in the future. The prediction properties are a characteristic of the UPL. Both UPL and UTL are based on the present data, but UPL take into account the future observations variability. If the idea is to obtain an upper bound that is gr eater than the 99 percentile, then the UTL works. The UTL will generall y be a larger number than the 99 percentile. This was not EPA’s intention but we realize that our explanation at proposal was not sufficiently clear. Based on comments and our reanal ys i s of our methods, we realized that there was an error in the UPL equation at proposal that has been corrected. In response to comments, we re

- evaluated the statistical anal ys is used for the proposed rule and made changes to improve it. The changes we made and wh y are discussed in the preamble to the final rule and in supporting documentation in the docket and include why we continue to believe the use of the UPL is the most appropriate statistical approach, how we accounted for variability (including intra

- quarry

variability), and other changes to the anal ys is since proposal. We disagree with the commenters who said 30 days of data are insufficient, and we continue to believe that the 30 data points provided from 30 day s of sampling of all kiln inputs for 89 kilns is a robust sample of the population of cement kilns and adequate to characterize the variability encountered at each individual kiln , especially as supplemented with the estimates of intra

- quarry variability

. The top performing kilns used raw materials and fuels from different sources, wasted varying amounts of cement kiln dust, and included different ty pes of kilns operating under various operating conditions. Moreover , as discussed in the preamble, we continued to refine our anal ys is and revised i t to further refine estimates of intra

- quarry variability

. We also corrected the case cited b y the commenter for the kiln that had an emissions profile that was not representative of its normal product mix, and this kiln is no longer in the top performing 12 percent. We have also addressed in the preamble to the final rule the commenter’s suggestion that, under “foreseeable circumstances,” the MACT floor for mercury would be higher. Inaddition, we note here that the 30

- day

rolling average form of the mercury standard allows an owner or operator to detect trends in increasing mercury emissions over day s and to take corrective actions, whether by improving mercury

emission control devices or changing certain kiln inputs, before the limit is necessaril y exceed ed. The 30

- day rolling average provides much more flexibility in dealing with foreseeable events than would a shorter term averaging period (such as an hourly or dail y average). Our use of mass balance tracking of mercury to develop the mercury

emission l imit is reasonable because it is based on the knowledge that, in the absence of a mercury emission control device, the mercury

in the kiln’s inputs is emitted. We see no reason wh y the use of a mass balance approach rather than collecting data on speciated mercury emissions (as the commenter suggests) would result in significant costs with little or no environmental benefit, nor did the commenter provide information that would support such a claim. There is also no reasoning or information presented that wo uld indicate that it might have been appropriate to subcategorize by species of mercury or other similar approach, and we do not believe such approaches are warranted.70

**Use of subcategories Comment:**  Many

commenters (2842, 2893, 2928, 2984, 2987, 2989, 2994, 3001, 3005, 3023, 3030, 3034, 3038, 3045, 3052, 3056, 3057, 3059, 3061, 3062, 3063, 3065, 3073, 3074, 3077, 3098, 3101, 3104, 3105, 3107, 3110, 3125, 3128, 3130, 3132, 3226, and 3227) agreed with EPA’s decision to not create subcategories in establishing mercury standards. Commenter 2928 stated that because of the current effectiveness of mercury controls available to cement plants, as well as a variety of new control options available by the 2013 deadline these new proposed emission standards set, it is not necessary to allow for subcategories for cement plants that claim the mercury content of their limestone is to blame for their emissions. Commenter 2893 stated that subcategorization based on limestone composition unfairly depreciates the value of cle aner limestone sources and undermines the intent of the proposed rule. Commenter 2999 disagreed with the proposed subcategorization of plants based on their limestone mercury

levels, but sees the value of a temporary subcategory

for existing cement plants to allow those plants more time to comply with mercury

emissions rules if they

have recentl y made substantial investments to lower mercury emissions using a reasonabl y close to state of the art technology

. Commenter 2828 stated that there are multiple opti ons for the ultra

- high mercury emitting kilns:

 Use of limestone with lower mercury levels, including transport of limestone from sources within a 5 to 10 mile radius.

 Installation of serial pollution control sy stems.

 The combination of fuel selection (more natural gas, less coal), coal and limestone washing, and multiple mercury control sy stems. The mercury control s ys tems could include ACI injection, followed by a baghouse, and then if needed, another ACI/baghouse s ys tem. Several commenters (2144, 2840, an d 2845) argued for the creation of subcategories. Commenter 2144 stated that EPA should create an interim hy per mercury

limestone subcategory only for the two kilns that exhibited estimated emissions greater than 1,000 lb/y r and require the least stringent of 90 percent Mercury removal and the final mercury standard. The kilns in the hy per Mercury

limestone category

would ultimately

meet the final emissions standard and phase out the alternative 90 percent removal requirement. Commenter 2840 suggested that for a subcategory of cement plants with elevated mercury levels in their limestone, EPA could require emplo ym ent of maximum achievable control technology to reduce mercury

emissions and limit the use of offsite materials containing elevated levels of mercury . Commenter 2845 stated that EPA should subcategorize emission sources by mercury concentration in the limestone to address variability and ability

to comply

issues. Given that cement kilns must use limestone from a nearb y quarry to produce clinker, they should be seen as71

essentially

co - joined with that quarry

for purposes of subcategorization. Mercury emissions characteristics are based in large part on available limestone and it is unreasonable and arbitrary not to establish subcategories where technical differences between different ty pes or classes of cement kilns result in different emissions characteristics. Commenters 2844, 2845, 2863, 2900, and 2917 stated that EPA should provide a new subcategory

for kilns that have a high concentration of mercury or other HAP in the limestone quarries servicing those kilns. As recognized in EPA’s proposal, these kilns likely would be unable to meet the proposed standards even after installing state

- of

- the

- art controls. While there are a limited number of facilitie s in EPA’s data set with this issue, commenter 2845 stated that there may be other similarly

situated kilns throughout the United States, not reflected in the data set. Commenters 2844, 2845, and 2900 proposed a subcategory that results in a high MACT floo r emission rate and then proposed that EPA use beyond

- the

- floor consideration to appl y state

- of

- the

- art controls on those facilities. For sources in the proposed subcategory for units with high mercury

concentrations in the limestone, Commenter 2845 propos ed a 75 percent removal standard as the beyond

- the

- floor limit, which reflects the best percent removal of mercury that may be obtained through technology at those particular sources. Commenters 2298, 2483, 2502, 2503, 2506, 2507, 2651, 2653, 2654, 2660, 2 661, 2667, 2670, 2671, 2672, 2676, 2811, 2812, 2813, 2830, 2832, 2833, 2840, 2841, 2845, 2863, 2874, 2886, 2900, 2903, 2904, 2973, 2974, 2979, 2982, 2983, 2996, 2997, 3012, 3013, 3014, 3016, 3031, 3036, 3039, 3046, 3052, 3058, 3066, 3071, 3075, 3079, 3081, 3083, 3085, 3090, 3091, 3093, 3095, 3096, 3097, 3100, 3102, 3111, 3114, 3115, 3116, 3119, 3120, 3122, 3123, 3125, 3126, 3127, 3129, 3134, 3135, 3141, 3144, 3147, 3153, 3155, 3157, 3158, 3159, 3166, 3174, 3175, 3177, 3178, 3180, 3204, 3208, 3209, 3210, 321 1, 3213, 3217, 3218, and 3219 stated that EPA should provide a new subcategory for kilns that have a high concentration of mercury in the limestone quarries servicing those kilns. As specifically recognized in EPA’s proposal, these kilns likely

would be un able to meet the proposed standards even after installing state

- of

- the

- art controls. Commenter 2863 recommended the following actions on subcategorization for purposes of the mercury standard:

 No use of fl y ash as an additive in the raw feed;

 Implementati on of dust shuttling to the maximum extent possible without impacting product quality ;

 Implementation of a Mercury Minimization Plan to minimize mercury in the raw materials imported from off

- site; and

 Implementation of a Control Enhancement Action Plan. **R esponse:**  The EPA reasons for declining to establish a subcategory for high mercury

emitting kilns with high mercury

levels in their quarried limestone are set out in the preamble to the final rule. We also examined other actions on developing subcategories suggested by Commenter 2863 and concluded that although these actions might help to reduce mercury emissions at a given kiln, they

do not provide a basis for subcategorization, nor could they be used to represent MACT. We have concluded that subcategorization for mercury emissions, which was the subject72

of the comments provided above, is not necessary or warranted because the mercury emission limits can be met with the application of mercury emission controls and/or other practices, such as those that redu ce the amount of mercury in inputs to the kiln. We also disagree with a commenter’s statement that a 75 percent removal standard should be the beyond

- the

- floor limit because ACI technology for mercury

will achieve higher removal levels than 75 percent, an d for some kilns with high mercury inputs, a removal of only 75 percent would not even represent the MACT floor. We also disagree with the development of “interim” standards and note that the CAA provides the allowable schedule for compliance for existing sources in section 112(i)(3) (with some discretion by EPA and the permitting authority when extra time is needed to install emission controls). **P ounds of mercury per million tons of feed includes fuel in denominator**  **Comment:** One commenter (2849) stated that EPA incorrectly calculated the conversion from pounds per million tons of feed to pounds per million tons of clinker when it developed its mercury floor levels. When EPA computed its mercury balance for each of the 89 kilns it used in the mercury

MACT fl oor calculation, it used total mercury inputs from raw materials and fuels, then subtracted out the mercury output from kiln dust not recirculated to the kiln, to arrive at a calculated mercury

emission (in pounds). It then divided these pounds of mercury emissions by the total quantity

of raw material plus fuels inputs to arrive at emission units that were entitled pounds of mercury per million tons of feed. In fact, a more correct title for these emission units should have been pounds of mercury per milli on tons of feed plus fuel

. **Response:** The commenter’s characterization of EPA’s approach to calculating mercury emissions per ton of clinker is partiall y correct with the exception that we did not, as the commenter states, include the quantity of fuel along with the quantity of feed materials in calculating mercury

emissions in pounds per million tons of clinker. In response to the comment, we reviewed the approach used as well as the data to confirm that fuel materials were correctl y categorized and not inc luded in the sum of raw materials for each kiln. To calculate mercury

emissions per ton of clinker, all materials reported in the responses to EPA’s May

8, 2007 information collection requests (I CR) were entered into an Access database. All materials (fee d and fuel) were classified in a raw materials table and through database queries into one of the following categories: Limestone Shale Clay Fly ash/bottom ash Sand Iron Other raw materials Coal/coke/fossil fuel Tires/TDF Wasted CKD To be considered as a feed material, the reported raw materials for each kiln could not also be in a fuel or CKD category . Mercury emissions per million tons of feed were then converted to emissions per million tons of clinker b y multiplying by the conversion factor of 1.65 to ns of feed per ton of clinker. Although EPA’s approach for calculating mercury emissions per ton of clinker was designed to exclude fuel in the denominator, it is possible that a minor, uncommon fuel73

material used at a kiln was incorrectly classified as a feed material. However, coal, coke, other fossil fuels and tire derived fuel constituted nearl y all of the fuel for most kilns and a misclassification of a minor fuel material as feed, or vice versa, would not have any significant effect on a kiln’s final emission rate. **Data suggest a 12**
**- month average standard**  **Comment:** One commenter (2864) stated that although EPA collected 30 day s of mercury input data for 89 kilns, the Agency also collected annual data on the mass inputs and the amount of material collect ed in the PM control device (or alkali PM control device) that is wasted rather than returned to the kiln. The annual average data were used to calculate the mass

- balance mercury emissions, which were then used to establish the mercury floor. The commenter stated that this is an annual mercury emission rate and EPA should establish a rolling 12

- month average mercury MACT standard. **Response:** As stated previously , EPA’s legal obligation in establishing MACT floors is to reasonabl y estimate the average perform ance achieved b y the best performing 12 percent of best performing sources, or for new sources, the performance of the best controlled similar source. The statute does not speak to the issue of permissible averaging times in constructing standards, so it m ay be that in factually

appropriate cases, a choice of averaging time to account for best performing sources’ variability could be legitimate. However, automatic (i.e., a priori ) determinations to adopt long

- term averages for any ty pe of data set regardles s of circumstances of sources’ performance and robustness of the data set, would go too far. We chose a 30

- day averaging period for the mercury emission limit. The use of a 30 day average (as opposed to hourly or daily averages) tends to reduce variability , and also best reflects the nature of the data from which the floor was derived and assures that several operating cycles of raw mill on and off are included in each average. The mercury limit is based on a 30

- day averaging period to be consistent with th e averaging periods for other regulated kiln pollutants, and adequatel y allows additional operating flexibility to meet the limit. Finally , EPA is setting the compliance period using 30

- day

averaging periods for enforcement reasons in that EPA can periodic ally determine compliance with the emission limits and avoid long periods in which sources may be emitting at unacceptabl y high levels. **Provide alternative removal efficiency standard Comment:**  Several commenters (2845 and 2874) stated that EPA should set an industry

- wide MACT floor set on the basis of percent removal, or sy stem removal efficiency (SRE) to be used as an alternative to the currentl y proposed mass

- rate based emission limit. **Response:** For the reasons stated in the preamble to the final rule (an d comment responses therein), EPA is not expressing standards, or determining MACT floor, on a per cent reduction basis. No commenter provided a convincing response to how such an approach, in this rule, properl y accounts for the role of HAP in kiln inputs

. Nor did commenters address how such a standard could even be constructed for mercury , where there is essentially no sy stem removal because kilns are uncontrolled and mercury volatilizes **.**74

**2.5.3 Beyond the Floor Determinations**  **Comment:** Several commenters ( 2845 and 2863) stated that EPA correctly explains that if it did not subcategorize based on mercury concentration in the limestone, it would not be appropriate to establish a beyond

- the

- floor standard for mercury for either new or existing sources. Doing s o would not be cost

- effective. As a result of the much higher mercury emissions from kilns in a subcategory

of sources with high mercury concentration in the limestone; however, a beyond

the

- floor standard may

be appropriate. The commenter states that such a beyond

- the

- floor standard should be expressed in terms of sy stem removal efficiency (i.e., percentage reduction of mercury entering the kiln in the raw materials and fuel). The commenter further states that a 75 percent s ys tem removal efficiency for mercury

would represent a stringent beyond the floor standard for both new and existing sources that nevertheless could be achieved through the use of ACI, the best mercury

control available. Commenter 2898 recommended that EPA address fuel

- switching as a bey ond the floor option. EPA should explain what site

- specific circumstances might influence the substitution of low

mercury materials and fuels for some facilities, and why the practice could not be applied uniformly on a national basis. The commenter sugges ts that EPA full y explore non

- technology emission reduction options in the beyond the floor discussion, including fuel

- switching. **Response:** EPA agrees that a beyond

- the

- floor standard is not appropriate for mercury given the decision not to subcategorize. See preamble for response to comment to consider fuel switching. **2.5.4 Compliance Assurance**  **Fo rm of the Standard**  **Comment:** Commenter 2879 stated that CEMS readings and clinker production calculations can be unreliable. Rather than assuming that kiln operato rs can accuratel y determine the mercury emissions per million tons of clinker on a 30 day average basis, EPA should determine the mercury CEMS concentration that corresponds to the proposed 43 lb/MM ton clinker, or the appropriate value representing the av erage of the best performing 12%. Commenter 2889 suggested that EPA conduct error anal ys is to evaluate the ability of a source to comply with the mercury monthly block average emission limit. To comply with the mercury limit in the proposed amendments, a c ement kiln operator will have to measure (1) the mercury concentration in the gas stream, (2) the gas flow rate in the stack, and (3) the clinker production rate. These three sources of data will be combined to determine compliance with the monthly block average limit. Considering the low emission rate in the proposed amendments, EPA should evaluate the inherent measurement error associated with these quite different measurements. Cement kilns could appear to be out of compliance simply because of slight un avoidable variability

of the accuracy

of the three measurements. This problem could be reduced slightl y b y simply applying a mercury

concentration limit in the gas stream without any reference to the clinker production rate. **Respo nse:**  Issues related to cli nker measurement are addressed in the preamble to the final rule. Other facilities in the utility industry and the cement industry

are currentl y measuring mercury concentrations at and below these levels using a CEMS.75

**Data supports mass balance approach Comment:**  Several commenters (2844, 2845, 2855, 2859, and 2901) stated that EPA has provided no support for its assumption that the mass

- balance data used to establish the mercury MACT floors can be correlated to continuous emissions monitoring data to dem onstrate compliance. The commenters stated that there is no basis for the Agency ’s assumption that conservation of mass data calculations made for the cement industry correlate with the emission measurements that may

be made in the future with mercury CEMS

. **Response:** The mercury

emission standard is based on a MACT floor of pounds of mercury emissions per ton of clinker , adjusted for variability

. We believe that the analy sis described in the proposal notice and in the docket does support a correlation betw een the MACT floors and continuous monitoring data collected on a 30

- day rolling average. **Comment:** Commenter 2844 stated that CEMS will create compliance issues that are not related to emissions compliance; CEMS represent a very high added cost beyond any value; and EPA should adopt mercury

limits that allow the use of mass balance calculations. Commenters 2855 and 2874 stated that EPA should reconsider a sampling and anal ys is program involving kiln inputs as an acceptable option to CEMS for demonstrating compliance with a mercury standard. Commenter 2855 stated that this approach should be allowed because EPA relied on this approach to establish the mercury standards, and for low level mercury emitting facilities that can compl y with the standards without add

- on controls, the solid material sampling programs could be focused to optimize accuracy and minimize costs. Commenter 2855 stated that facilities that control mercury emissions from cement kilns or kiln/in

- line raw mills should be allowed to use solid or liquid material sampling and anal ys is to demonstrate mercury

removal as an optional monitoring approach. Facilities that waste cement kiln dust (CKD) or implement dust management programs to minimize mercury emissions should be allowed to implement soli d material sampling and analy sis procedures to quantify the mass of mercury

removed. The optimal sampling location and approach must be determined on a site

- specific basis. Similarly , sources with add

- on controls should be allowed to implement material sampling and analy sis procedures to quantify the mass of mercury

removed and subtract the documented mercury

removed to determine compliance with mercury standards. Commenter 2888 recommended that since the orientation of monovent kilns does not provide a means for a stack flow meter (there is no stack) or a CEM, these kilns should perform a mass balance of the material flows into and out of the process, for purposes of demonstrating compliance with the NESHAP mercury standard. **Response:** Mercury

is a unique p ollutant because the amount of mercury input to the sy stem equals the amount of mercury output. In the absence of control devices, input equals output, and a material balance approach is feasible. However, the cost of collecting such data on a dail y basis is comparable to the cost of a mercury monitoring sy stem. In addition, in order to meet the mercury standards, many sources will install control devices. In order to conduct a material balance on this now more complicated s ys tem, we would have to determine a reliable control device efficiency

value and require continuous monitoring of control device parameters. Given76

these costs and uncertainties, we conclude that continuous monitoring at the stack is the best method to determine compliance. As alway s, howe ver, sources are allowed to request source

specific approval of alternative compliance methods under the part 63.7 General Provisions. **CEMS not demonstrated in cement manufacturing Comment:**  Many

commenters (2830, 2845, 2846, 2855, 2858, 2859, 2879, 2887, and 2890) stated that CEMS are not a proven technology and should not be required to determine compliance. Commenters 2588, 2844, 2845, 2846, 2858, and 2890 stated that EPA has no data showing that mercury CEMS are feasible on cement kilns and that emissio ns from cement kilns will likely be outside of the range of the current CEMS technology . The commenters stated that EPA must evaluate mercury

CEMS through long

- term field trials at cement plants in accordance with the proposed performance specifications an d quality assurance procedures before imposing this regulatory

requirement. The commenters proposed a mass

- balance approach for monitoring, which is accurate and was used by EPA in setting the mercury standard. Commenter 2855 stated that mercury sorbent tr ap monitoring sy stems have not been evaluated through long term field trials at cement plants in the United States (U.S.) in accordance with the proposed performance specifications and quality assurance procedures, so the reliability and performance of the se measurement s ys tems and the adequacy of the technical specifications cannot be determined. Commenters 2855 and 2900 disagreed with EPA’s interpretation of the operating experience with mercury

CEMS in German y. The commenters stated that mercury CEMS ar e inaccurate and difficult to maintain. Further, mercury CEMS operating in Germany are subject to monitoring regulations that are different than the U.S. regulations and are used in a different regulatory context than that proposed by EPA. The monitors use d in German y, or those available from other European or Asian manufacturers were not able to demonstrate acceptable performance in the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) Trimble County Mercury CEMS study

. Commenter 2855 stated that there is no legitimate technical basis on which to establish detailed performance specifications or quality assurance (QA) requirements for these CEMS. There is no legitimate technical basis to conclude that these CEMS could meet such requirements over any extended period when installed and operated at a cement plant. The commenter recommended that EPA evaluate the performance of mercury CEMS at cement kiln sy stems and acquire the information necessary

to serve as the basis for technical specifications and requirements. Aft er such information is available and anal yz ed, EPA should re

- propose appropriate and demonstrated performance specifications and quality assurance procedures for mercury CEMS to monitor kiln and kiln/in

- line raw mill mercury emissions. Commenter 2855 disa greed with EPA’s interpretation that mercury CEMS can be applied to the cement industry

based on successful use on utility boilers. The commenter evaluated the following issues:77

 Number of Installations in the Utility Industry

– there are 35

– 40 continuous mercury monitors (CMMs) installed and certified to date (not yet with a NI ST traceable calibration source).

 NI ST Certification

– In mercury CEM certification requirements outlined in Performance Specification (PS)

- 12A, it states that all calibration and s pan gases must be NI ST certified. The draft protocols were just released by NI ST in July 2009. The major vendors of mercury

CEM are just now advertising NIST

- certified calibration sources. Therefore, none of the mercury

CEMs that have been previously insta lled are certified. NI ST does not currentl y directly certify oxidized mercury calibrations. The Interim EPA Traceability Protocols now in place provide for certification of evaporative generators by certification of the individual components of the calibrator. Therefore, the language used in Section 7.0 that refers to a NIST trace oxidized mercury calibrator needs to be clarified or changed.

 Difficulties Encountered in the Utility Industry

– The commenter gave examples of power plants’ difficulties with mercury CEMS.

 Installation on Wet Stacks

– In stalling a mercury CEMS on a wet stack can result in problems: plugging, corrosion, and buildup of solids. Although wet scrubbers are not currentl y common in the cement industry , under the proposed rule, they may b e required to a greater extent, and many of these same problems with mercury CEMs potentially could occur for the cement industry as well.

 Data Output Requirements

– There is no need for dry basis measurements under the proposed rule and the language in ei ther Subpart LLL should be included to provide an exemption from this requirement for cement plants or PS

- 12A should be revised. This language needs to be clarified by EPA.

 Cost

– The commenter provided information about CEMS costs, estimating that if merc ury CEMS were installed on all non

- waste

- burning U.S. cement facilities, the total capital costs would be approximately $45 million, with annual operating costs being about $25 million. Commenter 2901 stated that CEMS should not be used as a compliance me thod for cement plants for the following reasons:

 EPA reported in 1997 on an experiment where CEMS were installed on a cement kiln burning hazardous waste. The Agency found substantial problems regarding mercury CEMS measurement accuracy and precision, dec iding not to require Mercury CEMS at cement plants. The commenter stated that the primary issue is whether there is a NIST traceable standard that can be used to calibrate the unit. Because compliance is based on the production rate and using a 30

- day aver age, it is difficult to know what range to calibrate these units.

 The reliability

of CEMS on cement kiln stacks has not been demonstrated in the U.S., where standards and requirements are different. Demonstrations in the U.S. at coal

- fired power plants hav e different conditions than those at cement kilns.

 There is no legal imperative for EPA to require CEMS. Under the CAA, EPA’s monitoring requirements must provide a reasonable assurance of compliance with78

emission standards Sierra Club v. EPA, 353 F.3d 97 6, 990

- 991 (DC Cir 2004) ( Copper Smelters) citing Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc. v. EPA, 194 F.3d 130, 136 (D.C. Cir 1999). **Response:** See response in preamble

. **Comment:** Commenter 2890 stated that CEMS represent a requirement that is beyond the floor. **Res ponse:**  Assuming the argument that measuring methodology can be considered to be part of a standard, the use of CEMs to measure the mercury standard does not make the standard more stringent. The mercury

standard was developed on the basis of 30

- day data samples, and is measured over the same duration. The standard was also developed on a mass balance basis whereb y essentially

all input mercury

was considered to be emitted (except for the few kilns equipped with wet scrubbers). This is essentiall y a worst ca se assumption (attributing no removal to baghouses, for example). Given that the standard is measured over the identical duration as was the underl yi ng data, and that actual emissions are measured so that kilns are no longer presumed to emit all inputted m ercury , we repeat that use of a CEM does not make the standard more stringent and thereby constitute a beyond

- the

- floor standard. **Comment:** Several commenters (2155, 2867, 2891, 2894, and 2898) supported EPA’s decision to require mercury

compliance monitori ng using CEMS. Commenter 2867 reports that their own inquiry to the German Federal Environment Agency , (Umweltbundesamt [UBA]) regarding the mercury

- CEMS features of the proposed cement MACT rule, which found the mercury CEMS QA suitable to ensure qualit y measurements. According to the commenter, UBA has the most experience in the world among environmental agencies in the field of mercury

- CEMS including the cement industry . The commenter also cited the experience of the Ash Grove Durkee, Oregon facility . T he commenter noted that the results for this facility

presented at the 2008 Air and Waste Management Association (AWMA) Conference in Oregon showed that the mercury

- CEMS registered the same average stack mercury emissions reading (0.027 g/s) when the raw m ill was on as the average value of the Methods 324 and OH. The commenter stated that this indicates that mercury

- CEMS are feasible, precise and accurate compared with the conventional in

- stack sampling methods at low and at elevated emission rates. Comment er 2894 stated that as manufacturer of mercury monitoring instrumentation, they are in the process of installing mercury CEMS on U.S.

- based cement kilns. There are no technical obstacles to the use of mercury CEMS in this ty

pe of environment. **Response:** We agree with these commenters that mercury CEMS should be used for compliance monitoring. **Wet vs. Dry Concentration Format for CEMS Comment:**  One commenter (2894) stated that i n order to maximize accuracy in mercury mass emission calculations, m ercury CEMs sh ould report mercury concentrations as μg/m 3 (at 20 oC, 760 mm mercury

pressure) on a wet basis. No correction for O 2 , carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) or any other gas should be performed. Stack flow rate should also be measured on a wet basis, in79

m 3 /min (at 20 oC, 76 0 mm mercury) at the same point in the process, with no correction for any diluent gas. C ommenter 2894 recommended calculating mercury emissions using a wet concentration and wet flow rate in equation 5 ( Ref Eq. 5, page 21187, col 2 ) rather than the currently required dry concentration and dry

flow rate. A dry

mercury concentration is not required to calculate mass emissions and would actually reduce the accuracy. In the event that a dry concentration is absolutely

required, the rule should make it clear th at the same (B WS ) factor must be used to correct both the mercury

concentration and the flow rate. This factor should be a calculated value; a moisture analyzer is not required since the two occurrences of the B WS factor cancel arithmetically

. Commenter 2 855 said that there is no need for dry basis measurements under the proposed rule, and the language in either Subpart LLL should be included to provide an exemption from this requirement for cement plants or PS

- 12A should be revised. This language needs to be clarified by EPA. **Response:** We agree with the commenters that dry concentrations and flow measurements are not required to calculate mass emissions. Itis important that the measurements are on the same basis, wet or dry , for the calculations. The equations have been modified and clarifying text added. We have revised to standard to state that dry measurements are not required. **Comment:** One commenter (2837) recommended that the period for calibration drift check should be defined b y s ys tem operator, rather than defining this period on the basis of any one of the available technologies. The commenter also recommended that EPA define how the operator is to demonstrate the validity of the operator

- defined calibration check period. **Response:** Requirements for calibration checks, including the frequency (once dail y), are specifi ed in Appendix F, Procedure 5. T he procedures to be used are based on manufacturers’ recommendations. **Establish standard as CEM concentration Comment:**  One c ommenter ( 2879 ) recommended th at EPA should measure mercury emissions using a CEM, reconciling CO 2 emissions with mass balance emissions and establishing the standard as a CEM concentration. **Response:** Under the final testing and monitoring requirements, CEMS or sorbent trap monitors ar e required to continuously measure mercury

emissions. See the preamble discussion under final testing and monitoring requirements for more information on EPA’s decision. Emission limits are ty

pically normalized to some ty

pe of production or raw material input value because this allows comparison (and ultimatel y the ability to set a single standard) for different sized facilities. As we noted at the NSPS proposal, the current NSPS and limits (and NESHAP limits before today ’s amendments) for PM are expressed on a pound of PM per ton (lb/ton) of dry feed input format. See 73 FR at 34075

- 76. In this final NESHAP (and NSPS) we are adopting a new normalizing parameter of lb/ton of clinker

– i.e., normalizing based on kiln output rather than input for both PM and m ercury .80

EPA therefore proposed that all of the NSPS (for PM, NOx, and SO2) be normalized by ton of clinker produced, and later proposed the same parameter for the two standards in the NESHAP which are normalized, mercury and PM. 73 FR at 34076; 74 FR at 21 140. In the final NESHAP (and NSPS) we are therefore adopting a new normalizing parameter of lb/ton of clinker

– i.e. normalizing based on kiln output rather than input

– for mercury and PM in the NESHAP, and for PM, NOx, and SO2 in the NSPS. See the preamble discussion under format of the normalized standards in the NESHAP and the NSPS, for more information on EPA’s decision. **All mercury phases should be monitored Comment:**  One c ommenter ( 2638 ) stated that all phases of mercury should b e monitored and PS 12 A and P rocedure 5 should be rewritten to include total mercury

. The commenter stated it is contrary to the intent of the CAA to set emission limits for only vapor phase mercury

and requested that the EPA change its emission limit from one based on vapor ph ase mercury to one based on total mercury

that includes both PM and vapor phases. One commenter (2638) stated that all phy sical phases of all HAP metals, including mercury , need to be measured during SSM events. For example, if mercury is captured on powde red activated carbon, which in turn is captured on a fabric filter, the percentage of mercury in the PM fraction downstream of the fabric filter during malfunctions could and would be expected to be significant. Commenter 2638 stated that total mercury mon itoring can now be undertaken with proven methods, and will be consistent with Congress’ desire for the EPA to require enhanced monitoring where it is appropriate to assure continual compliance with emission limits. The commenter provided several reports d escribing alternative measurement methods. **Response:** The mercury

standard is based on total mercury data in the form of mercury inputs to the source. As part of this reconsideration tests were performed at five facilities with wet scrubbers. Testing was pe rformed at the scrubber inlet and outlets. We believe test **s** at a wet scrubber outlet would represent a situation where particulate mercury would most likely

be present due to the lower temperatures involved (below 200 O F). On average the amounts of partic ul ate mercury measure d at both location s was below 1 percent. Given this fact, we believe that measurement of total mercury would add unnecessary

expense and complexity

to mercury monitoring. However, sources are able to request approval for source

- specific monitoring requirements from EPA under section 63.7 (f) of the General Provisions. **Measurement bias not considered in achievability of standard Comment:**  One commenter (2855) stated that EPA did not consider the allowed measurement bias for mercury

CEMS o r sorbent tube monitoring programs on the achievability of the emission standards. **Response:** We disagree that either the mercury CEMS or the mercury

test Method 30B include an inherent measurement bias. All measurement data are subject to some degree of v ariability81

which would include measurement error (e.g., interference) and imprecision (e.g., measurement repeatability). The procedures in Performance Specification 12A promulgated with this rule account for both measurement error and imprecision in calcul ating the relative accuracy of the CEMS. Secondly , we believe that an y inherent variability of data due to measurement imprecision is reasonabl y addressed in calculating the floor and emissions limits. The data used to establish the limits represent emissi ons tests from multiple facilities and we subjected the data to statistical procedures to account for variance. **Contradiction in performance test duration Comment:**  One commenter (2855) stated that §63.1349(b)(5)(i) specifies a mercury performance test dur ation of a calendar month, which contradicts the averaging period of the proposed emission standard of a 30

- day rolling average. **Response:** We do not consider this a contradiction because both monitoring periods have different purposes. The performance tes t for a calendar month is to ensure that the control device and the CEMS are both working correctl y. The 30

- day rolling average is the compliance demonstration period. We are proposing additional clarifications such as a definition of “kiln operating day” to further address questions regarding the compliance demonstration period. In general, if the kiln operates during a 24

- hour period, the CEMS must operate too. **Initial performance demonstration recommendations Comment:**  One commenter (2855) stated that the initial performance demonstration should be based on a properl y calibrated and compliant CEMS or Sorbent Trap System (if such s ys tems become available and are demonstrated to perform acceptabl y), and the initial performance test result must be based on th e calculated average lb mercury /million ton clinker produced for 30 kiln operating day s. A definition for kiln operating day must be established and must reflect a specified number of hours of kiln or raw material dryer operation at normal production condi tions and a minimum number of hours of quality assured monitoring data. Day s with fewer operating hours or insufficient monitoring data are not included in the 30 day average. **Response:** We agree that a definition of “kiln operating day**”** is needed, and hav e added it to the final rule. We have not specified a minimum number of hours of kiln or raw material dryer operation; a kiln operating day is any day the kiln is operating, and all valid data (for hours when the process is operating) for all operating day s are included in the 30 day average. **Request daily instead of hourly mercury concentration data Comment:**  One commenter (2855) stated §63.1349(b)(5)(i) requires collection of hourly mercury concentration data which will not be available for sorbent trap m onitoring s ys tems and is not required b y PS

- 12B. The commenter suggested that daily mercury emission rate averages would be adequate. **Response:** The final rule has been clarified to address this situation. For example, if sorbent traps are collected every

7 day s, each daily

average would be assumed to equal the 7

- day average.82

**Testing with raw mill on and raw mill off Comment:**  One commenter (2855) stated that EPA should clarify that separate performance tests are not required for mill on and mill off conditi ons in the discussion in §63.1349(b)(5)(i) about demonstrating mercury

compliance. **Response:** We have clarified this language in the final rule to state that the raw mill off testing provision for mercury

does not apply

to a kiln equipped with and demonstrating compliance using a mercury

CEMS. **Calculation of monthly mercury emissions Comment:**  One commenter (2894) disagreed with the calculations to determine monthly mercury mass emissions (

Ref Eq. 5, page 21187, col 2 ). The commenter stated that this calculat ion could result in large biases. The commenter suggested an alternative calculation that multiplies the hourly

average mercury

concentrations by

the hourl y average flow rates and totals these values for the month to determine mercury mass emissions. Comm enter 2894 stated that total monthly mercury mass emission must be divided by the clinker production rate during the same calendar month in order to determine compliance. Mercury monitoring sy stems of any ty pe are capable of determining onl y mercury concentrations. It appears that even the most conscientious plant operators will thus not know until well after the month has elapsed whether they were in compliance for that month. Commenter 2894 stated that in cases where plant operators go through the effort to install sy stems capable of continuously measuring mercury

concentrations and stack flow rates, it seems only

fair and reasonable that the EPA devise a metric that allows plants to determine on an ongoing basis whether they are complying with the regulat ion. **Response:** The commenter misinterpreted compliance equation 5 (74 FR at 21187) to require a determination of monthly mercury mass emissions and a monthly average flow rate. As recommended b y the commenter, section 63.1349 (b)(5)(i) of the final rule re quires the kiln owner or operator to measure and record hourl y mercury concentration data and stack gas volumetric flow rates. These measurements are to be used to calculate dail y mercury emission rates. Owners or operators are also required to operate a s ys tem to measure the hourly clinker production rates, either directly or indirectl y through measuring kiln feed rates and appl yi ng a factor for converting feed rates to clinker production rates (section 63.1350(o)). They must record both the daily

kiln fee d rates and clinker production rates. Using the daily mercury concentration data, dail y stack gas flow rates and daily production rates, the owner or operator can track their performance on an ongoing dail y basis rather than once a month. **2.5.4.1 Performan**  **ce Specification 12A, 12B, and Procedure 5 PS** 
**- 12A**  **Comment:** One commenter (2638) stated that PS

- 12A should not be generalized to unspecified source categories other than portland cement. Because emission standards and measurement methods are not written ind ependent of each other, defining the measurement method in effect83

defines the emission limit/standard for other, unspecified sources. By generalizing this measurement technology to vapor phase mercury , the EPA appears to want to generalize the emission standards for other, as yet to be specified sources to vapor phase mercury. By doing this, the EPA greatly

inhibits the development of new methods that might measure total mercury

. **Response:** EPA will only appl y PS

- 12A to other source categories through specif ic notice and comment rulemaking, and only when it is appropriate to do so. We are not opposed to the concept that PS

- 12A could also be applied to monitoring s ys tems that also incorporate non

gaseous mercury

in the mercury

measurement for this or any other appropriate source category (see §63.7 (f)). However, EPA does not have any evidence that any

appreciable non

- gaseous mercury is present in the emissions from this particular source category

. **Comment:** One commenter (2638) stated that PS

- 12A and ongoing quality assurance should be re - written to replace contemporary technology

- specific requirements with generalized measurement

- objective driven requirements. The commenter provided comments about testing linearity , calibration drift, accuracy , s ys tem integrity, reagents and standards, and span value. **Response:** We disagree that PS

- 12A is technology

- specific. We recognize that some performance procedures of PS

- 12A may be more difficult for some instruments and that some modifications to performance procedures m ay be necessary

. EPA has a program in place to deal with this situation through the alternative test method request and approval/disapproval provisions of §63.7(f). **Comment:** One commenter (2638) suggested specific changes to PS

- 12A and Procedure 5:

 Subsect ion 6.1.1 Data Recorder Scale: Should be replaced to simply require the operator to include the range defined by the zero and span values. The EPA proposed requirement seems to be based on old technology and defining this range with a specific numeric requ irement (two times the standard) serves no functional purpose and unnecessarily restricts development.

 Subsection 6.1.2 CE determination: Change zero to low and upscale to high

.
 Section 8.0 PS Tests: The EPA should re

- write this section around clearl y def ined anal yt ical objectives of establishing the CEMS initial accuracy , precision, linearity , stability and system integrity

based on some of the same principals used in EPA Method 301.

 Subsection 8.1.3 Extraction point: This should be re

- written to allow fo r possible in situ monitoring sy stems that do not require sample extraction.

 Section 3.0 Definitions: A new subsection should be added defining zero or the bottom of the range for valid results, and instructions as to what value to use when a result falls below this defined concentration. The commenter recommended that zero be replaced with detection limit as defined by the EPA in Title 40, Appendix B Part 136 as the minimum concentration of a substance that can be measured and reported with 99% confidence that the analyte concentration is greater than zero. If the concentration is less than this concentration, the reported value should be replaced with a concentration equal to the detection limit.84

**Response:** Subsection 6.1.1 of PS

- 12A has been revised in res ponse to comments received. Subsection 6.1.2 PS

- 12A has been revised to be consistent with Section 7.1 of PS

- 12A on reference gases. The relative accuracy test audit or RATA of PS

- 12A is designed to assess the overall performance of the instrumental measur ement sy stem, including the representativeness of the sampling (i.e., probe location). PS

- 12A is not intended to address method detection limits. **Comment:** One commenter (2837) provided anal ytical detail related to initial and on

- going quality assurance:

 National Institute of Standards and Technology (NI ST ) certified traceable sources of elemental and oxidized mercury vapors are not generall y needed to demonstrate CEMS compliance with performance based quality parameters such as linearity, accuracy, precisio n, stability

or s ys tem integrity for either initial CEMS certification or on

- going quality assurance and should be removed from both PS

- 12A and Procedure 5.

 The calibration check requirement currently in PS

- 12A and Procedure 5 allows the same mercury gener ator used to calibrate the CEMS to be used to check the calibration. Thus, they are not independent and a drift in the generator output would cause a drift in the CEMS calibration. Spiking mercury into clean, conditioned, interference

- free air does not pro vide traceability

to NIST standards for assurance of calibration accuracy

.
 Spiking mercury

into clean, conditioned, interference

- free air does not provide quality assurance of s ys tem integrity, analyte transportability , sensor response, etc.

 The current calibration drift check period is technology specific and should be defined b y the sy stem operator with performance

- based protocols to demonstrate the applicability of the selected period. **Response:** The NIST traceability and dail y calibration requirements of PS

- 12A are consistent with the Agency ’s other compliance monitoring requirements in 40 CFR Part 60 which require NI ST traceable “protocol” gases for CEMS quality assurance/quality

control

. This approach has proven to be very

effective for assessing overal l sy stem performance (e.g., sample transport and anal yz er accuracy) through introduction of the reference gases at the CEMS probe. Dy namic spiking with elemental and oxidized mercury gases through the probe would be another way to accomplish this performan ce check and would certainly be encouraged as a potential alternative test method procedural request under §63.7(f). EPA believes that the requirements for NIST traceability

of calibration gas generators are sufficient to address drift of the generators. **C omment:**  One commenter (2855) stated that PS

- 12A requires a s ys tem integrity check using an oxidized mercury

NIST calibration source, which is designed to ensure the convertor portion of the mercury

CEM is converting all of the mercury to elemental mercury

. The commenter stated that there is a discrepancy between the oxidized and elemental mercury calibrators of about 7% in both Tekran and ThermoScientific instruments and that the cause of this discrepancy is still unknown. **Response:** The commenter is correct regarding the discrepancy between the oxidized and elemental mercury

calibrators of about 7 percent for the Tekran instrument; however, the Interim EPA Traceability

Protocol for Qualification and Certification of Elemental Mercury Gas Generators and the Interim EPA Traceability Protocol for Qualification and Certification of85

Oxidized Mercury

Gas Generators (July

01, 2009) recognizes this issue and provides a straightforward remedy. The protocol specifies that until the time that NI ST traceability of evaporative oxidized mercury standards generators can be evaluated b y direct measurement, the generator manufacturers may use a model

- specific factor in their software to adjust the calibrated output of their HgCl 2 generator to correspond with their NI ST certifi ed elemental generators, thus negating the discrepancy

. The generator manufacturer must then provide the end user with the exact value of this correction factor and instructions for its application, and have derivation data available to the end user. **Comme nt:**  One commenter (2855) stated that EPA should not revert to 2004 CEMS performance specifications and should not require any specifications that are more restrictive than the 40 CFR 75, Appendix A and B requirements promulgated in January 2008. **Response:** After consideration of the potential variability between the learning curves of CEMS operators that new users of Hg CEMS may experience, we have revised the relative accuracy specification in PS

- 12A from 10 percent to 20 percent. We believe, however, that the implication of this change is minor and short

- lived because most facilities that install mercury CEMS will find that they

readil y achieve relative accuracies far better than 20 percent. **Comment:** One commenter (2855) stated that after field validation, and promulgation of instrumental CEMS and technical specifications and after NI ST traceable calibration standards at the necessary

concentrations are available, EPA should allow at least one year for purchase, installation and start

- up of CEMS and a one

- ye ar trial implementation period before requiring the use of monitoring data to demonstrate compliance with emission limits. One commenter (2144) recommended that EPA consider alternative QA procedures for mercury CEMS but without delaying final rule promul gation. **Response:** The amendment to the Portland Cement NESHAP will not become effective until 60 day s following promulgation for new sources and existing sources will have up to 3 years to install controls and monitoring s ys tems (see Section 63.1350(i)). T he National Institute of Standards and Technology (NI ST) has recently completed certification of a ‘NI ST Prime’ elemental mercury

gas generator at concentrations of 41, 68, 85, 105, 140, 185, 230, 287, and 353 μg/m 3 and mercury

gas generator vendors may no w submit elemental mercury gas generators for certification to serve as ‘Vendor Primes’. Therefore NIST traceable mercury gas standards can now be made available in concentrations that exceed the equivalent mass standards for both existing and new kilns by between one and two orders of magnitude, thus providing the capability to accuratel y report excursions well beyond either standard. The rule effective date should provide ample time for facilities to meet mercury monitoring s ys tem installation and certifi cation requirements. **Comment:** One commenter (2855) provided the following specific comments on PS

- 12A:

 Establishing the span value at twice the concentration corresponding to the emission limitation is acceptable for cement plants provided that reasonable provisions are included for certification and quality assurance of the mercury CEMS when emissions exceeding the span value are periodicall y encountered (such as for plants with in

- line raw86

mills during mill off operation). The commenter provided suggested amendments to the Subpart LLL monitoring provisions.

 The definition of span value should be changed, explicit procedures for its calculation should be added, and the value should be rounded to established ranges. The definition could be modified b y the ad dition of the phrase Span value means the upper limit of intended measurement range during normal ‘mill on’ operation which may be exceeded during ‘mill off’ operation or other short

- term conditions lasting less than 24 consecutive kiln operating hours . Or the first sentence in the EPA proposed definition could be eliminated. Alternativel y the span value could be specified in the applicable Subpart (Subpart LLL) where the specific requirements are more appropriatel y addressed. **Response:** We have modified the definition of span in PS

- 12A to provide additional flexibility and have adopted the commenter’s suggestion to include source category

- specific provisions regarding the span in paragraph 63.1350(n) of Subpart LLL. We agree that the quality of measurements outside the calibration range should be assessed and could be further documented by extending the calibration range or other appropriate means. The commenter provided the following three approaches that EPA would consider appropriate:

 If emissions exceed the span value for more than 5 percent of the kiln operating time, the CEMS operator could conduct “direct calibrations” of the Hg anal yz er by passing the dilution module. Because the Thermo and Tekran Hg CEMS operate on a dilution ratio of 30 or 50 to 1, th e calibrated range of the Hg anal yzer will be 30 or 40 times the upscale calibration value. Hence, for a s ys tem calibrated to measure 0

- 10 μg/m 3 through the entire measurement s ys tem, the anal yz er would be calibrated accurate to between 0 and 300 μg/m 3

.
 Th e ability

of the CEMS to quantitatively transport high concentration levels of oxidized Hg through the probe, filter, filter cake, sample lines, and the ability of the CEMS converter to reduce the oxidized Hg to elemental Hg should be confirmed initially and quarterl y b y injecting a high level HgC1 2 calibration gas standard at the sample probe, upstream of the PM filter. This high level s ys tem integrity test should be performed at a concentration approximating the maximum hourly emission concentration durin g the preceding three months or other representative high level concentration. The high level sy stem integrit y check is acceptable if: the stable Hg CEMS response is within ± (some percentage to be determined based on future field evaluations) of the reference value, and the sy stem returns to normal operating level within 30 minutes of ceasing the calibration gas injection, or the time integrated Hg CEMS response is equivalent to the total mass of HgC1 2 injected within ± (some percentage to be determined ba sed on future field evaluations).

 As an alternative to the high level s ys tem integrity checks, the CEMS operator could elect to demonstrate the accuracy of Hg CEMS measurements exceeding the span level by conducting a three

- run relative accuracy audit (RAA ), preferabl y when mercury levels are outside the calibrated range of the CEMS . The three

- run RAA would be performed using Method 30B as the reference method following the procedures described in Procedure 5.87

**Comment:** One commenter (2855) said that specif ic procedures should be provided in Subpart LLL for the calculation of the emission concentration equivalent to the 43 lb/million ton clinker (existing sources) or 14 lb/million ton clinker (new sources). **Response:** Facilities can rearrange Equation 3 of Su bpart LLL in order to calculate these quantities using their production rates and volumetric flow rates. **Comment:** One commenter (2855) said that the calculated span value should be rounded to the nearest 10 μg/m 3 level as has been the practice for mercury CEMS because of technical limitations associated with the elemental Mercury gas generators and specific requirements to establish NI ST traceability

. **Response:** We have modified the definition of span in Section 3.5 PS

- 12A to allow for additional flexibility in setting the span and have used commenter’s recommendations and added a provision in paragraph 63.1350(n) of Subpart LLL to allow for rounding of the span value to the nearest multiple of 10 μg/m 3 of total mercury

. **Comment:** One commenter (2855) said th at the PS

- 12A requirements at 6.1.1 Data Recorded Scale are misleading, ambiguous and obsolete and should be replaced by a relevant specification for data recording and an appropriate definition, (consistent with Span Value) for the high level value

. **Respo nse:**  Subsection 6.1.1 of PS

- 12A regarding the data recorder scale has been revised to respond to comments received. We have simplified the specification to clarify that the scale must at a minimum include zero through the span value, but the scale is not l imited to that range. **Comment:** One commenter (2855) said that the PS

- 12A requirements at 6.2 Reference Gas Delivery System are ambiguous, unlikel y to be achieved exactly in practice, and without means of verification. The commenter recommends changing the section from The reference gas delivery system must be designed so that the flowrate of reference gases introduced to the CEMS is the same at all three challenge levels specified in Section 7.1, and, at all times exceeds the flow requirements of the CEMS. To The reference gas delivery system should be designed so that the referenced gas flow rate is approximately the same (i.e., ± 20%) at each challenge level. **Response:** We have revised the language of section 6.2 of PS

- 12A to specify that the reference gas delivery

s ys tem must be designed so that the flow rate exceeds the sampling s ys tem flow rate of the CEMS and that the gas is delivered to the CEMS is at atmospheric pressure. **Comment:** One commenter (2855) said that PS

- 12A Section 7.1 requires the use of NI ST certified or NIST Traceable standards for both elemental mercury and oxidized mercury , which are not currentl y available, and may not be available in the future at the specified levels, depending on EPA’s resolution of the span value

. **Response:** As noted above, NIST has recentl y completed certification of a ‘NI ST Prime’ elemental mercury

gas generator at concentrations of 41, 68, 85, 105, 140, 185, 230, 287, and 353 μg/m 3 and mercury

gas generator vendors may now submit elemental mercury gas generators fo r certification to serve as ‘Vendor Primes’. Therefore, as previously stated, NI ST traceable mercury

gas standards can now be made available in concentrations that exceed the88

equivalent mass standards for both existing and new kilns by between one and two orders of magnitude, thus providing the capability to accurately report excursions well beyond either standard. **Comment:** One commenter (2855) said that PS

- 12A Section 8.1.1 includes a vague requirement to use a sampling location that has been shown to be f ree of stratification for mercury or alternativel y, sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ) and nitrogen oxides (NO x) through concentration measurement traverses for those gases. This requirement should be changed to a suggestion or guidance. **Response:** We have revised langua ge in Section 8.1.1 to specify that the sampling location must be representative of the stack gas concentration of mercury and, as the commenter suggested, have modified the requirement to use a location shown to be free of stratification to be a recommend ation. **Comment:** One commenter (2855) said that the PS

- 12A criteria for the linearity test procedures are more restrictive than the Part 75, Appendix A criteria, are inconsistent with the uncertainty of calibration materials defined by Interim EPA Traceabil ity Protocols, and should be relaxed. **Response:** By

specifying the linearity

test procedure measurement error criterion as a function of span, this criterion is generall y less restrictive at the lower gas concentrations than were the prior Part 75, Appendix A criteria. We have, however, reconsidered the linearity test procedure specifications and, given the current quality of the available oxidized mercury gas standards, we have decided to increase the allowed measurement error for the oxidized mercury stand ards to + 10 percent to be consistent with the target criteria in the EPA Interim Traceability Protocol for Qualification and Certification of Oxidized Mercury Gas Generators. **Comment:** One commenter (2855) said that the PS

- 12A criteria for the calibration drift (CD) test procedure: (a) omit the absolute CD specification included in the Part 75, Appendix A criteria, (b) are inconsistent with the uncertainty of calibration materials defined by EPA draft interim traceability protocols, and (c) should be relaxe d. **Response:** With the exception of the alternative specification for a span value of 10 μg/m 3 or less, the PS

- 12A criterion for calibration drift is essentially identical to the Part 75, Appendix A criteria for calibration error. **Comment:** One commenter (28 55) said that the proposed revisions to Subpart LLL and PS

- 12A fail to specify

the conditions under which the relative accuracy test is performed which will lead to inconsistent interpretations and implementation requirements. Subpart LLL should specify th at the CEMS relative accuracy test be performed at the most prevalent operating condition (i.e., mill on for plants with in

- line raw mills). **Response:** We have revised paragraph 63.1350(n) of Subpart LLL to specify operating conditions for relative accuracy testing. **Comment:** One commenter (2855) said that sections 9.0 (Quality Control) and 10.0 (Calibration and Standardization) are both reserved. Quality Control procedures and Calibration and Standardization procedures must be considered to determine the ove rall validity and89

reasonableness of the performance specification. Without these integral sections, an evaluation of the acceptability

of this specification cannot be made. When completed, EPA should re

propose PS

- 12A for public comment. **Response:** These se ction headings are a result of using a standardized method format originally specified b y EPA’s Environmental Monitoring Management Council [see http://www.epa.gov/ttn/emc/guidlnd/gd

- 045.pdf]. The substance of these reserved sections are covered elsewhere in PS

- 12A, Procedure 5, and the Interim Traceability Protocols for Elemental and Oxidized Mercury

Gas Generators. **Comment:** One commenter (2855) said thatPS

- 12A as proposed would make the relative accuracy specification stricter for certain CEMS than is req uired b y Part 75, Appendix A and B. **Response:** After consideration of the potential variability between the learning curves for CEMS operators that new users of Hg CEMS may experience, we have revised the relative accuracy specification in PS

- 12A from 10 pe rcent to 20 percent. We believe, however, that the implication of this change is minor and short

- lived because most facilities that install Hg CEMS will find that they readil y achieve relative accuracies far better than 20 percent. **Comment:** One commenter ( 2915) provided the following specific comments on PS

- 12A: Section 3.5

– Span value is an obsolete term. Current technology has a linear measurement range that covers several orders of magnitude. Instead of two times the emission standard the span value shoul d be a fixed number in terms of measurement units (μg/m 3 ). L ike this proposed rule revision, many mercury emission limits are not expressed in terms of μg/m 3 . The proposed cement MACT is expressed in pounds of mercury per million tons of clinker. EPA shoul d revise Section 3.5 to state that the span should be set in accordance with applicable regulations for the use of the Mercury CEMS. The commenter suggested a revised definition of span: Span Value means the intended upper limit of the mercury

concentratio n measurement range. The span value is specified in the applicable subpart. **Response:** We have modified the definition of span in PS

- 12A to provide additional flexibility in setting a span value including allowing for rounding up to the nearest multiple of ten and clarifying that the applicable subpart may contain more specific provisions regarding the span value for specific source category

. In this case, we have taken another commenter’s suggestion to define span value for this source category in paragraph 63.1350(n) of the subpart based on the intended upper limit of the mercury concentration during “mill on” operation and approximately equivalent to two times the emission standard. **Comment:** One commenter (2915) stated that there are a limited number of NI ST traceable calibration levels available. Since the available calibration values are all tied to specific span and linearity test values, defining the span in terms of the emission standard will likely result in spans that are inconsistent with the NI ST traceable concentrations.90

**Response:** As noted above, NIST has recentl y completed certification of a ‘NI ST Prime’ elemental mercury

gas generator at concentrations of 41, 68, 85, 105, 140, 185, 230, 287, and 353 μg/m 3 and mercury

gas generator vendors may now submit elemental mercury gas generators for certification to serve as ‘Vendor Primes’. Therefore, as previously stated, this capability means that NIST traceable mercury gas standards can now be made available in concentrations that exceed the equivalent mass standards for both existing and new kilns by between one and two orders of magnitude, thus providing the capability to accuratel y report values both below and well above either standard. Also, as described in previous responses, we have revised the de finition of span to provide additional flexibility in setting the span value consistent with the available NI ST traceable concentrations. **Comment:** One commenter (2915) suggested that EPA review the Interim Traceability Protocols for elemental and oxidized mercury generators so that there will be regulatory compatibility

. **Response:** At the current time, we do not anticipate an y issues with the regulatory compatibility of the Interim Traceability Protocols used to certify the NI ST traceability

of gases produc ed b y mercury gas generators; however, we do plan to review and update the protocols in the future including clarifying that the protocols are not limited to only providing procedures to qualify and quantify the performance of mercury gas standards generat ors below 40 μg/m 3

. **Comment:** One commenter (2915) said that in Section 3.7, EPA proposes to define calibration drift in terms of a test performed on the CEMS after a period of operation during which no unscheduled maintenance, repair, or adjustment took place . The clause during which no unscheduled maintenance, repair or adjustment took place should be removed. In the commenter’s experience, unlike SO 2 and NO x CEMS, mercury CEMS are likely

to require a significant amount of maintenance, repair and adjustment. That same clause in PS

- 2 has been subject to considerable debate and interpretation over the ye ars and the commenter believes that including it here will only result in further confusion. EPA also has not explained why such a limitation is needed in thi s definition. **Response:** We have removed the term ‘adjustment’ from this phrase in Section 3.7 of PS

- 12A as we clearl y consider adjustment following the dail y drift check to be an appropriate option (see also Sections 4.2 and 4.3 of Appendix F, Procedure 2 and of proposed Procedure 5). Maintenance or repair of the Hg CEMS during a 7

- day calibration drift test is not acceptable as the point of the test is to confirm that the s ys tem can operate for 7 day s without unacceptable drift. **Comment:** One commenter (29 15) said that in Section 6.1.1

–EPA proposes several requirements related to [t] he Mercury CEMS data recorder output range. These requirements are obsolete. All recording is now done b y computer and virtuall y all data transmission and recording is digital. Digital data transmission and management allows one to eliminate the span and range language problem because digital data have no range. Such a change will allow sources to utilize the full several order of magnitude measurement capabilities of modern anal yz ers

– especially

mercury anal yz ers. **Response:** Section 6.1.1 of PS

- 12A regarding the data recorder scale has been revised to respond to the comments received. We have simplified the specification to clarify that the scale must at a91

minimum include zero thro ugh the span value. This revision will allow sources to utilize multiple orders of magnitude, as needed. **Comment:** One commenter (2915) disagreed with EPA’s proposed requirement that the measured value not exceed 95 percent of the high value. The measured v alue should be allowed to be as high as the calibration value. This section should be eliminated or modified to accommodate modern analyzers. **Response:** We agree with the commenter and this specification has been removed from Section 6.1.1 of PS

- 12A. **Commen t:**  One commenter (2915) said that in Section 6.2

–EPA proposes to require that the reference gas delivery system be designed so that the flow rate of the reference gas is the same at all levels. The commenter is not aware of any reason for this requirement and EPA offers none. Several of the commercial mercury calibrators (including the market leader) are designed to vary the flow rate of the reference gas, and the gas sampling probes are designed to vent any excess flow. This proposed requirement would rend er those calibrators ineligible for use under the proposed rule, without any stated justification. In the commenter’s view, the only pertinent requirement in this section is that the flow of the reference gas exceeds that required b y the CEMS sample probe design. **Response:** We have revised the language of Section 6.2 to specify only that the reference gas delivery s ys tem must be designed so that the flow rate exceeds the sampling s ys tem flow rate of the CEMS and that the gas delivered to the CEMS is at atmos pheric pressure. **Comment:** One commenter (2915) said that in Section 7.1.1

–EPA proposes to require that the zero level reference gas concentration be 0

- 20 percent of the span value. The zero

- level should be made 0

- 30 percent of span instead of 0

- 20 percent of span to capture the best available NI ST traceable concentrations. For example, the available NIST concentrations for a 0

- 10 μg/m 3 span are 1.1, 1.3 and 2.7 μg/m 3 . Of these, the 2.7 μg/m 3 concentration has been the standard low

- level calibration/linearity concentration because its uncertainty, per NI ST traceability calculations, is much lower than the other two concentrations. **Response:** The interim protocols for certifying mercury gas generators allow sufficient flexibility to certify the gas generators i n an appropriate range from existing NI ST traceable gas standards. For the case described b y the commenter, potential options are to (1) use a zero gas for the zero level reference gas, (2) use the 2.7 μg/m 3 gas as the zero level reference gas, but use a zero gas in addition, or (3) request that the gas generator vendor provide a generator that can deliver a standard at 2.0 μg/m 3 or below using guidance in the protocols. **Comment:** One commenter (2915) sai d that in Section 8.1.1, because mercury CEMS generall y use a single point measurement, EPA proposes to require use of a location that has been shown to be free of stratification for Mercury or alternatively, SO2 and NO x . The provision then states that if the RA test is failed because of the location, EPA may require that the CEMS be relocated. The commenter stated that this provision is not reasonable and explains why

.92

**Response:** We have revised the language in Section 8.1.1 to specify that the sampling lo cation must be representative of the stack gas concentration and have modified the requirement to use a location shown to be free of stratification to be a recommendation rather than a requirement. **Comment:** One commenter (2915) said that in Section 8.3

–EP A proposes to require that CEMS meet a linearity specification of 5 percent of the span value. According to the commenter, this provision has several problems. Given the field experience with mercury CEMS, a linearity specification of 5 percent of span would likely be failed very

frequentl y and the commenter suggested that EPA analyze these data to provide justification for this linearity specification. Alternativel y, EPA could change the specification to ±10 percent of span. In addition, EPA already determ ined that a 5 percent of span specification without an alternative specification for low emitters is unreasonably stringent (74 FR 4328). As a result, EPA should include an alternative spe cification of ±0.8 μg/m 3 absolute difference. **Response:** We have reconsidered the linearity test procedure specifications and, given the current quality

of the available oxidized mercury gas standards, we have decided to increase the allowed measurement err or for the oxidized mercury standards to + 10 percent to be consistent with the target criteria in the EPA Interim Traceability Protocol for Qualification and Certification of Oxidized Mercury Gas Generators. **Comment:** One commenter (2915) said that in Section 8.4.3, EPA proposes to require that CEMS meet a calibration drift specification of 5 percent of the span value. The problem in this section is the same as discussed in the Section 8.3 above. The specification cannot be supported by field data and shoul d be changed to ±10 percent of span with a ±1.0 μg/m 3 absolute difference, whichever is less restrictive. This specification will be similar to the Clean Air Markets Rule (CAMR) rule specification in Part 75, which was difficult to achieve. **Response:** We be lieve that the calibration drift specification of 5 percent of the span value is reasonable and that man y installations of mercury CEMS have been able to achieve the specification. **Comment:** One commenter (2915) said that in Section 8.5.4, EPA proposes to r equire a minimum sample time of 30 minutes for Method 30A. The sample time specification is inconsistent with the method. The sampling time for Method 30A will vary depending on the number of traverse points. The minimum sampling time for Method 30B is 30 minutes and that is not included in Section 8.5.4. **Response:** The commenter is correct. Method 30A sampling time depends on the number of traverse points. The reference should have been to Method 30B and we have revised the section accordingl y. **Comment:** One commenter (2915) said that in Section 8.5.5, EPA proposes to require use of paired reference method values when using certain methods to perform a relative accuracy test audits (RATA), including Method 30A. Method 30A should be removed from the method lis t in this section because it does not provide paired reference method values. **Response:** The commenter is correct; Section 8.5.5 of PS

- 12A has been revised to remove the reference to Method 30A.93

**Comment:** One commenter (2915) said that in Section 8.5.6.2, EP A proposes to include relative difference performanc e criteria applicable to paired reference method values used in RATAs. Method 30B provides for an acceptance criteria ±0.2 μg/m 3 absolute difference between data pairs in addition to the 20 percent relative difference criteria. The absolute difference crit eria are missing from this section. The commenter does not believe it is appropriate to modify a reference method in a Performance Specification. EPA should add the alternative specification or state that alternative specifications in individual reference methods may also be used. **Response:** We have revised Section 8.5.6.2 of PS

- 12A to be consistent with Method 30B. **Comment:** One commenter (2915) said that in Section 13 the relative accuracy , linearity and calibration drift specifications are too stringent an d will result in a significant number of failures. The commenter suggested that the linearity , calibration drift and relative accuracy specifications in this section mirror those that were promulgated in Part 75 for use under CAMR. A large quantity of fiel d data show that present day mercury CEMS technology

cannot routinely

achieve the specifications proposed in Section 13. **Response:** These issues have been addressed in earlier responses. **Comment:** One commenter (2894) stated that problems may occur when usin g mercury calibration gases. The proposed rule requires that all mercury calibration gases be NI ST traceable. Currently , the maximum concentration capable of being generated by the NIST Prime elemental mercury

generator is approximately 38 μg/m 3 . The EPA Interim NI ST Traceability protocol for elemental mercury requires that any

candidate calibrator’s test concentration be within 25 percent of the closest NI ST certified concentration. Thus, the highest concentration that it is possible to certify as NI ST tra ceable is currentl y 47.5 μg/m 3 . This is far too low to be of use for cement kilns where the most common span value will be 260 μg/m 3 . The commenter stated that this problem can be solved in one of several way s:

 If the bracketing s ys tem used for certificati on is demonstrated to be linear, there would be no obstacle to having a candidate calibrator certified at concentrations several times the concentration of the reference calibrator. This applies to both the NI ST and vendors’ bracketing s ys tems. A change to the 25% difference limit would be required.

 NI ST could certify

a NIST prime calibrator at the target concentrations for the cement rule. Note that using the same NIST prime unit for both high and low concentrations might impact the certification accuracy of the prime unit for low concentrations due to residual contamination. Thus a second NI ST prime calibrator for high concentrations would likely

be required. **Response:** As noted earlier, NIST has recently completed certification of a ‘NI ST Prime’ elemental mercury

gas generator at concentrations of 41, 68, 85, 105, 140, 185, 230, 287, and 353 μg/m 3 and mercury

gas generator vendors may now submit elemental mercury gas generators for certification to serve as ‘Vendor Primes’. Therefore NIST traceable mercury gas standards can now be made available in concentrations that exceed the equivalent mass standards for both existing and new kilns by between one and two orders of magnitude, thus providing the capability to accuratel y report excursions well beyond either standard

.94

**Comment:** One commenter (2894) stated that many of the span value concepts in this proposed rule date back to the day s of strip chart recorders, analog instrumentation, and low resolution A/D converters. In these legacy s ys tems, exceeding an uppe r output limit meant that all information was lost as the pen pegged or the A/D overloaded. In contrast, all modern CEM sy stems provide digital interfaces that transmit actual numbers. These are capable of high resolution over an unlimited dy namic range. C ommenter 2894 suggested that vendors should be required to provide test data on the dynamic range of their CEM systems, particularl y at high concentrations. The regulation should allow temporary exceedences of the span range provided that they fall within this linear range. (Currentl y, data is considered invalid if concentrations exceed the span range.) This is particularly essential if the rule requires the monitoring of mercury during SSM periods. This wide dy namic range should be allowed only on installations that do not artificially

limit their dy

namic range by

using older 4

- 20 mA or other analog signal transfer methods. **Response:** As explained in response to earlier comments, the data recorder scale of Section 6.1.1 of PS

- 12A has been revised to respond to the comments received. We have simplified the specification to clarify

that the scale must at a minimum include zero through the span value. This revision will allow sources to utilize multiple orders of magnitude, as needed. In addition, we have modifi ed the definition of span in Section 3.5 to provide additional flexibility in setting a span value including allowing for rounding up to the nearest multiple of ten and clarifying that the applicable subpart may contain more specific provisions regarding the span value for specific source category

. For these amendments to Subpart LLL, we have taken another commenter’s suggestion to define span value for this source category in paragraph 63.1350(n) of the subpart based on the intended upper limit of the merc ury concentration during “mill on” operation, but at least approximately

equivalent to two times the emission standard. **Comment:** One commenter (2894) suggested that the new regulation should ensure that as few new span ranges as possible are defined. According to the commenter, in the U.S. power plant environment, mercury

levels are substantiall y lower than the emissions levels at cement kilns. The span ranges that have been defined for power plants are: 2 μg/m 3 (future use), 5 (future use), 10, 20, 30 and 40 μg/m 3 . This is more than are actually required, given the performance of all current CEM s ys tems. (In particular, the span range of 30 μg/m 3 is superfluous.) Each of these defined span ranges requires three distinct and separate concentrations of calibration gas: low (20

- 30% of span), medium (50

- 60%), and high (80

- 100% of span). This requirement would pose an undue burden on both NI ST and the vendors if too many new span ranges are defined. The commenter stated that any requirements for dual span ranges for a CEM installation are archaic and should be deleted. **Response:** With the revisions to the definition of span in PS

- 12A and Subpart LLL monitoring requirements described in the previous response, we have provided ample flexibility in span selection and have eliminated the need for dual spans. **Comment:** One commenter (2894) suggested upgrades to PS

- 12A:95

 6.1.1 Data Recorder Scale. This section deals with obsolete strip chart recorder technology

and should be either deleted or redrafted.

 6.2 There are actual ly four gas levels being used in CAMR power plant installations, not three: Zero, Low linearity, Mid Linearity and High span. There is an inconsistency here. (i.e., Should the L ow Linearit y gas actually be allowed to be in the range of 0

- 20% as specified i n PS

- 12A or 20

- 30% as is current practice?).

 8.1.3 Mercury

CEMS Sample Extraction Point. Are most cement kiln stacks sufficiently large to allow sampling 1.0 meter from the stack wall?

 8.3 L inearity Procedure. Currently, power plant CEMS are required to in ject at three non

zero concentrations, not two concentrations plus zero. Will replacement power plant regulations still require three non

- zero concentrations or will this requirement be relaxed as per this section? **Response:** Section 6.1.1 of PS

- 12A regardi ng the data recorder scale has been revised to respond to the comments received. We have simplified the specification to clarify that the scale must at a minimum include zero through the span value. This revision will allow sources to utilize multiple orde rs of magnitude, as needed. We note that the vacated Clean Air Mercury Rule specifications are no longer relevant. The low (“zero

- level”) reference gas must be in the range of 0 to 20 percent of span. Based on the information we have, ye s, most cement kiln stacks are sufficiently large to allow sampling 1.0 meter from the stack wall. Replacement regulations for mercury emissions have not yet been proposed, so we cannot provide a definitive response to the question on Section 8.3. However, PS

- 12A allows line arity tests to be conducted at three non

- zero concentrations or at two non

- zero concentrations plus zero. **Comment:** One commenter (2915) disagreed with the proposed mercury performance specifications and with the provisions for setting Mercury CEMS span values and the stringency of the proposed performance specifications for both Mercury CEMS and sorbent trap monitoring sy stems (STMS). Commenter 2915 stated that EPA’s proposed Mercury performance specifications include setting Mercury CEMS span values equal to twice the applicable emission limit and to use that span value to determine the levels at which the Mercury CEMS must be calibrated. 74 FR at 21172. EPA’s approach to span does not reflect the measurement capabilities of Mercury CEMS or the limited numb er of potential National Institute of Standards and Technology (NI ST) traceable calibration gases available to calibrate Mercury CEMS of various spans. Commenter 2915 stated that EPA also should define span in a manner that is consistent with the regulatio ns and permits that are likel y to require use of PS

- 12A and Procedure 5. Because most Mercury limits, including the ones EPA proposes in this rule, are expressed in terms other than μg/m 3 (e.g., lb per million tons of clinker produced, pound per trillion B ritish thermal unit [lb/TBtu], or pound per megawatt hour [lb/MWh]), the commenter disagrees with defining the required Mercury

CEMS span (which is expressed in μg/m 3 ) in terms of the Mercury limit.96

Instead, PS

- 12A should defer to the applicable regulation or permit to define the span (in mg/m3) that is most appropriate for the intended use. **Response:** We have revised the definition of span in Section 3.5 of PS

- 12A as well as Subpart LLL to provide additional flexibility

. The definition of span in PS

- 12A now clarifies that the span is the measurement range specified in the applicable regulation or other requirement. If the span is not specified in the applicable regulation or other requirement, then it must be approximately

two times the emissions limit. The definition also allows for rounding up to the nearest multiple of ten. In Subpart LLL, paragraph 63.1350(n), we have defined the span value for this source category

as based on the intended upper limit of the mercury concentration during “mill on” operatio n, but at least approximately equivalent to two times the emission standard and again allowed for rounding up to the nearest multiple of 10. **Comment:** According to commenter 2915 EPA should provide more data to support its proposed tightening of the relativ e accuracy standard for both Mercury CEMS and STMS relative to the vacated CAMR standards. As a result of its work on the Interim Traceability Protocols and other research efforts, EPA has had access to a considerable amount of additional field data. The c ommenter stated that the proposed linearity , calibration drift, and relative accuracy standards for Mercury

CEMS are too stringent and may be frequently

failed. **Response:** As noted in prior responses, after consideration of the potential variability among the learning curves that new users of Hg CEMS may experience, we have revised the relative accuracy specification in PS

- 12A from 10 percent to 20 percent. We believe, however, that the implication of this change is minor and short

- lived because most facilit ies that install Hg CEMS will find that they

readily achieve relative accuracies far better than 20 percent. We have also reconsidered the linearity test procedure specifications and, given the current quality of the available oxidized mercury gas standard s, have decided to increase the allowed measurement error for the oxidized mercury standards to + 10 percent. We have not changed the calibration drift specification of 5 percent of the span value as we believe is reasonable as many installations of mercury CEMS have been able to achieve this specification. **PS**
**- 12B**  **Comment:** Several commenters (2855 and 2915) provided specific comments about PS

- 12B. Commenter 2855 provided the following comments:

 EPA has mixed a PS with on

- going quality assurance procedures making this procedure unnecessarily

complicated. EPA should develop an Appendix F ty pe procedure for on

going quality assurance (QA) and eliminate the three section spike trap requirement for daily use.

 Section 6.1.1’s substitution of three

- section traps i n place of two

- section traps is unnecessary . The addition of the third section is used for QA purposes. This requirement should be moved to the Appendix F procedure that EPA needs to develop for sorbent trap sy stems.97

 The third section spike trap should onl y be required when the duplicate trains do not meet the RD specification, during the initial relative accuracy test and for on

- going QA such as quarterl y audits. **Response :**  We recognize that the commenter is recommending that all quality assurance (QA) proc edures related to sorbent trap

- based mercury monitoring sy stems in PS

- 12B be moved to a separate procedure in 40 CFR 60, Appendix F; we agree that this approach is more consistent with our prior performance specifications and we have revised PS

- 12B to remo ve the on

- going quality assurance procedures and have incorporated them into Procedure 5. The three

- section trap required b y PS

- 12B provides a routine quantitative indication of measurement performance analogous to the daily

span check performed on gaseous mercury CEMS. **Comment:** Commenter 2855 said that when spikes are required, the procedure should allow the use of liquid standard spikes that are traceable to NI ST. **Response:** We do not allow the use of liquid standard spikes in PS

- 12B as they are not repres entative of gaseous emissions of mercury

. **Comment:** Commenter 2855 said that this reference sentence in Section 1.2.2 should be deleted: Section 1.2.2. This specification is not designed to evaluate an installed sorbent trap monitoring sy stem’s performance over an extended period of time nor does it identify specific techniques and auxiliary

procedures to assess the sy stem’s performance. The statement is incorrect. The fact that paired sampling trains meeting a relative deviation (RD) specification are required is a means for determining ongoing evaluation over extended period of time. **Response:** We agree with the commenter and have removed Section 1.2.2 from PS

- 12B. **Comment:** Commenter 2855 said that Section 8.1.1 should be changed to read select a location th at is representative of Mercury emissions

. **Response :**  We agree with the commenter and have revised Section 8.1.1 of PS

- 12B so that it is consistent with the corresponding section of PS

- 12A. **Comment:** Commenter 2855 said that Section 8.3 should be deleted bec ause the RATA procedure is redundant and unnecessary

. **Response:** Itis agency

policy to conduct relative accuracy testing of mercury

monitoring sy stems. These RATAs are used to confirm the continuing accuracy and representativeness of compliance monitoring sy stem measurements. **Comment:** Commenter 2915 said that their comments on Section 8.1.1 of PS

- 12A apply to proposed PS

- 12B. **Response:** Section 8.1.1 of PS

- 12B specifies only that the sampling location must be representative of the stack gas concentration of mercury with a suggestion to consider a location shown to be free of stratification for mercury , SO 2 , or NO x .98

**Comment:** Commenter 2915 said that in Section 8.2.3, for sources calculating Mercury mass emissions, EPA proposes to require determination of stack gas moisture content using a certified continuous moisture monitoring s ys tem. This requirement is too restrictive. The commenter suggested that EPA review the alternative moisture measurement options provided in Part 75 at 75.11(b), 75.12(b) and Appendix K, 7.2.4. Similar language should be incorporated into PS

- 12B, especiall y the default moisture content and ps ychrometric chart look

- up table language. In addition to the alternative of using the moisture monitor and various options defined in Part 75, the commenter stated that one or more of the carbon trap monitor vendors has a technique for recovering the moisture collected b y the sampling train. That option should also be allowed. The term certified continuous moisture monitoring system is undefined; the commenter is not aware of a PS for certification of moisture monitors. **Response:** We have revised Section 8.2.3 of PS

- 12B to remove the requirement for continuous moisture monitoring sy stem certification and to allow for other moisture measurement options acceptable to the Administrator such as those noted by the commenter. **Comment:** Commenter 2915 said that in Section 8.3.2

– EPA proposes an alternative relative accuracy specification of 0.5 μg/m 3 if the reference method value is less than 2.0 μg/m 3 . This a lternative relative accuracy specification is inconsistent with the alternative specification in proposed PS

- 12A, Section 13.3 and there is no reason for the inconsistency . In addition, there are considerable field data to show that both PS

- 12A and PS

- 12B relative accuracy specifications are unrealistic based on present day technology

and will result in a significant number of test failures. **Response:** We have revised Section 8.3.2 of PS

- 12B to make it consistent with the corresponding section of PS

- 12A and, as noted previously , we have revised the relative accuracy specification in PS

- 12B to 20%. **Comment:** Commenter 2915 said that in Section 11.2, this section of PS

- 12B requires the anal ys is of the first glass wool plug in the trap, while PS

- 12A states that M ethod 30B does not require the anal ys is of the first glass wool plug (see Section 8.5.2 of PS

- 12A). If the first glass wool plug is included in the anal ys is, particulate Mercury will be measured not just vapor

- phase Mercury . The commenter agrees with the P S

- 12A requirement because the intent is to not measure Mercury

that may be on the particulate matter. It is clearl y stated in Section 1.0 that the intent is to measure vapor

- phase Mercury emissions. **Response:** The first glass wool plug of the Method 30B so rbent tubes must be anal yz ed. We have clarified Section 8.5.2 of PS

- 12A to clarify that the sentence stating that the “filterable portion of the sample need not be included when making comparisons to the CEMS results” is only applicable to Method 29 and Me thod D6784

- 02. **Appendix F, Procedure 5 Comment:**  One commenter (2855) agreed with Section 4.1 requiring that corrective action or adjustment shall be performed when the CD exceeds twice the PS

- 12A limit, and Section 4.3 specifying out of control criteria as CD checks results exceeding (a) twice the PS

- 12A limit for five consecutive dail y periods, or (b) CD check result exceeding four times the PS

- 12A CD limit.99

**Response:** EPA notes the commenter ’ s support. **Comment:** One c ommenter ( 2855 ) said the use of oxidized calibration standards for gas audits are redundant with Sy stem Integrity Checks required as part of the qualit y control requirements in Section 3.0 and should be deleted. **Response:** We have provided some flexibility under Section 3.0 of Procedure 5 in esta blishing the acceptance criteria for the weekl y s ys tem integrity check; we, therefore, on a quarterly basis require a more extensive two level accuracy audit using oxidized Hg gases that must meet specified criteria. **Comment:** One c ommenter ( 2855 ) said that the language in Section 5.1.2 (2): “ At a minimum, the audit gas should be introduced at the connection between the probe and sample line” is not appropriate and should be removed. **Response:** We agree with the commenter and have removed this sentence from Section 5.1.2(2) of Procedure 5. **Comment:** Commenter 2855 said that quarterl y gas audits will be performed using the elemental Mercury and oxidized Mercury

calibration gas generators of the CEM sy stem. Section 5.1.2 (3) requires use of NIST certified or NIS T Traceable calibration materials for gas audits. However, NI ST traceable gas standards will not be available may not be available at the required levels for several ye ars. **Response:** As noted previously , NIST has recently completed certification of a ‘NI S T Prime’ elemental mercury

gas generator at concentrations of 41, 68, 85, 105, 140, 185, 230, 287, and 353 μg/m 3 and mercury

gas generator vendors may now submit elemental mercury gas generators for certification to serve as ‘Vendor Primes’. Therefore NIST traceable mercury gas standards can now be made available in concentrations that exceed the equivalent mass standards for both existing and new kilns by between one and two orders of magnitude, thus providing the capability to accuratel y report excursions well beyond either standard. **Comment:** Commenter 2855 said that the specification at Section 5.2.3 (2): For GA, ± 15 percent of the of the average audit value or ± 5 ppm, whichever is least restrictive, is believed to be intended a s ± 5.0 μg/m3. **Response:** This was an inadvertent error; the specification in Section 5.2.3 (2) was intended to be ± 0.5 μg/m3 and the section has been revised to reflect this. **Comment:** Commenter 2915 said that in Section 1.1, in the second paragraph EPA st ates that, Procedure 5 covers the instrumental measurement of Mercury as defined in PS

- 12

. It is not perfectly clear on first reading that Procedure 5 is not applicable to Mercury measurement sy stems using PS

- 12B. PS

- 12B is performance

- based and is self

- va lidating. A sentence should be added making that fact clear. **Response:** As noted in response to a previous comment, we have decided to revise PS

- 12B to remove the on

- going quality assurance procedures and instead incorporate them into Procedure100

5; thus, Pro cedure 5 will now be applicable to both PS

- 12A Hg CEMS and PS

- 12B monitoring sy stems when called for by the applicable regulation. **Comment:** Commenter 2915 said that in Section 5.1.2(3), as proposed, the section states, Use elemental Mercury and oxidized Me rcury...... This should be changed to read, Use elemental Mercury or oxidized Mercury......... It is not necessary to use both elemental and oxidized Mercury for this test because both are NIST traceable. **Response:** We disagree with the commenter’s recomme ndation; we believe it is important to obtain information on system linearity and a quantitative accuracy assessment for both species on a regular basis. **Comment:** Commenter 2915 said that in Sections 5.1.3 and 5.2, EPA proposes to require the analysis of p erformance audit samples , except during audits following corrective action. However, EPA provides no information regarding the availability of such samples or explanation regarding how the results will be used. The commenter does not believe such samples e xist for Mercury and notes that audit samples are not necessary for Methods 30A and 30B because they are performance

- based methods and are, therefore, self

- auditing. This language also is inconsistent with the statement in Section 1.2 that Procedure 5 also requires the analysis of audit samples concurrent with certain reference method (RM) analyses as specified in the applicable RMs . EPA should revise this provision to include similar language that makes clear, for example, that audit sample anal ys is is not required for Methods 30A and B, because those methods do not require them. For other methods, EPA should explain the requirement and make clear that it does not apply if audit samples are not available. **Response:** We agree that this language on use of per formance audit samples is not necessary in this procedure and have removed those references. **Comment:** Commenter 2915 said that in Section 5.2.3, this section sets out the criteria for excessive audit inaccuracy . Based on the commenter’s experience, all of the specifications are too stringent. For RATAs, EPA refers to PS

- 12A. For Gas Audits, EPA proposes an alternate specification of ±5 ppm. Because Mercury CEMS do not read in ppm (they read in μg/m 3 ), this specification makes no sense. This alternate specif ication should be changed to ±1.0 μg/m 3 . For RAAs, EPA proposes the greater of ±15 percent of the three run average, or ±7.5 percent of the applicable standard. These specifications are too stringent and EPA has provided no data to support them. EPA should revise the standard to ±20 percent of the three run average or 10 percent of the applicable standard. **Response:** We have made the following revisions to Procedure 5: (1) we have revised the RATA specification in Procedure 5 to make it consistent with the revised specification in PS

- 12A, (2) we have revised the specification in Section 5.2.3(2) to its intended value of ± 0.5 μg/m 3 , and (3) we have revised the specification in Section 5.2.3(3) for the relative accuracy audits to be ±20 percent of the three run average or the equivalent of 10 percent of the applicable standard, whichever is greater, as suggested b y the commente r. **Comment:** One c ommenter ( 2915 ) said that in Section 5.3, EPA proposes to require a source to revise its QC procedures or modify or replace the Mercury

CEMS if excessive audit inaccuracy101

occurs for two consecutive quarters. EPA provides no basis for this requirement or data to support its criteria for excessive audit inaccuracy . The consequences of failing performance specifications should be identified in the applicable regulation. In addition, the requirement to, modify or replace the Mercury CEMS is muc h too onerous. There are onl y two vendors that have Mercury CEMS that are compatible with these proposed regulations and the technology is what it is. The performance of both vendors is similar and requiring a change from one vendor to the other makes no s ense. **Response:** We disagree; if the mercury CEMS was capable of passing the initial RATA, then with modification, repair, or a change in the QC procedures, the s ys tem should be able to continue meeting the QA criteria. **Comment:** One commenter (2837) stated that PS

- 12A and Procedure 5 appear to be written around the perceived capabilities and limitations of a specific CEMS technology . It is important to correct this because as written, these two documents have the potential to fix future technology

and emissi on standards to the capabilities of the measurement technology around which they

were written. This is most apparent in those sections where the specifications unnecessarily

require certified NI ST traceable gas standards or generators. The commenter provid ed further detailed discussion of this issue. The commenter requested that EPA modify both PS

- 12A and Procedure 5 to remove requirements that are technology specific and replace them with performance based requirements. **Response:** The use of NIST traceable mercury gases for s ys tem calibrations, checks, and linearity determinations is not specific nor exclusive to any particular type of CEMS technology. We disagree that that their use is unnecessary ; in fact, we believe that use mercury gases (in particular NI ST traceable gases) is the onl y way to routinely confirm that the mercury in the stack gas matrix is being quantitatively transported from the stack to the instrumental anal yz er. **2.5.5 Impacts**  **Costs Com**  **m ent:**  One c ommenter ( 2855 ) states that the industry believes installation and certification of HCl CEMS as currently proposed is expected to cost between $225,000

- $250,000 plus another $30,000 for initial certification. The total costs for ongoing QA are unknown as facilities cannot install and certify

HCl CEMS using Performance Specification

- 15. Additional costs for add on controls (e.g., wet scrubbers) to meet the extremely low concentration levels proposed are expected to cost upwards of $20,000,000. **Response:** EPA estimated the cost of compl yi ng with the final HCl emission standards as the cost of installing and operating add

- on control equipment and the cost of installing and operating continuous emission monitoring equipment. Total capital and annual costs for HCl CEMS were estimated to be $144,000 first time (or capital) cost, and $43,000 per ye ar annual cost. Total capital cost of a wet scrubber for a new 1.2 million tpy kiln, including the cost of CEMS, was estimated to be $25.1 million per kiln. Cost of control for HCl is discussed further in, “Summary of Environmental and Cost Impacts for Final Portland Cement NESHAP and NSPS.”102

**Plant closures Comment:**  Many

comments were received regarding the effects of the proposed rules on plant closures. Commenters 2298, 2483, 2506, 2507, 2651, 2653, 2654, 2661, 26 67, 2671, 2672, 2811, 2812, 2813, 2824, 2832, 2833, 2863, 2886, and 3218 stated that without the use of a subcategory within the MACT rule allowing EPA to address the naturall y occurring mercury in limestone of western cement plants, then plants like the D urkee Cement Plant in rural Oregon may have to close. The commenters explained that the loss of the Durkee Plant jobs would have a substantial impact on the local economy

. Commenter 2832 stated that the CAA does not give EPA the authority to regulate, dim inish, or steal away

the financial and quality

of life advantages that a community may have because of local desirable natural mined materials. Inclusion of emissions associated with such mined materials would effectively be a ban on their use and would ex act a great toll on local communities. Commenter 2830 has determined that three of their existing plants could be forced to close with many of their wet kilns at high risk of closure, and high capital cost may also close long dry

kilns should the 2009 pro posed rule be implemented. Commenters 2830, 2840, 2841, 2863, 2886, 2916, and 3218 stated that should cement facilities close because of the proposed rule, the lost domestic supply of cement will be offset by imports, creating global increases in mercury and greenhouse gas emissions if these foreign plants are not regulated to the same degree, and increased transportation emissions. Commenter 2841 added that there would be an increase of NO x , volatile organic compound (VOC), PM, carbon monoxide (CO) and CO 2 emissions from the transportation of raw materials. One commenter (2786) disagreed with comments suggesting cement production will shift overseas due to weaker standards. The commenter cites a United Nations effort to develop a global legally binding ins trument on mercury by the year 2013. Commenter 2867 also disagreed with the severity of industry projections regarding plant shutdowns and a lack of capacity resulting from implementation of the proposed rules. The commenter suggests that many facilities will be able to meet limits with closer review of raw materials or b y implementing less

- expensive dust shuttling. In addition, it is possible for the industry to mitigate the claimed impact by encouraging cement equipment designers to tackle these issues and disseminating successful mercury reduction techniques throughout the industry

. **Response:** As noted in the preamble, EPA carefully considered the possibility of creating different subcategories of cement kilns with respect to mercury emissions, including subcategories based on the mercury concentration of the limestone. For the reasons stated in the preamble, we decided not to create this type of subcategory. We anticipate an increase in imports of only 10 percent in 2013, which translates to a decrease in domestic revenues of 3 million metric tons.103

The preamble also notes that EPA is forbidden by law from considering costs in determining MACT floors. NRDC v. EPA, 489 F. 3d 1364, 1376 (D.C. Cir. 2007); National L ime, 233 F. 3d at 640. Although one of the overall goals of the Act is to protect and enhance the quality of the Nation’s air and resources so as to promote the public health and welfare and the productive capacity of the population,” CAA section 101(b)(1), this overall goal does not somehow authorize EPA to adopt floors that either consider costs (overall or otherwise) or to base floors on other than what best performers achieve. Further information about the economic impacts of this rule can be found in the preamble and the project docket. **Wasting CKD to reduce mercury emissions**  **Comment:** Several commenters (2144 , 2824, and 2845) commented on the practice of shuttling or wasting CKD and its ability to reduce mercury

emissions. Commenter 2845 stated that EPA should not consider the removal, or wasti ng of CKD a form of mercury control, nor should it be considered akin to a mercury control device. The purpose of wasting CKD is to ensure product quality. No plant wastes CKD with the intent of reducing emissions. The level of mercury removed by

wasting C KD also varies significantly from plant to plant; to consider this practice as a form of mercury control is highl y questionable. Furthermore, as EPA recognizes, wasting CKD generates solid waste, and cement companies often have significantl y reduced their solid waste generation by decreasing their wasting of CKD. Accordingl y, the Proposal should not require companies to waste CKD or engage in dust shuttling. Commenter 2845 stated there are other limitations to reducing mercury emissions by

removing or wasti ng baghouse dust. Instead of returning the dust (i.e., uncalcined limestone), it can be continually

bled off to the finish mill and intermixed with cement. This is known as dust shuttling . However, there are limitations to how much of this baghouse dust ca n be intermixed with cement. Specifications on the quality of cement limit the amount of baghouse dust that can be intermixed with cement. Dust shuttling also results in additional carbon dioxide emissions from each ton of cement produced because companies cannot utilize limestone addition (the dust would use up all the insoluble residue and/or loss on ignition available). The commenter includes expanded comments on this topic as an appendix entitled Mercury Emission Control by Removing Baghouse Dust

. Comme nter 2144 disagreed with the reference at page 21150 of the FR Notice that removal of all baghouse dust when the raw mill is down will yield only 4% reduction in mercury emissions. The commenter states that mercury control is actually

negative during the r aw mill

- off condition considering a plant

- wide material balance. Commenter 2144 agrees with EPA’s statement that the use of CKD wasting to reduce mercury emissions is site specific. The commenter added that with the construction specifications allowing 5 p ercent inorganic processing additions, the CKD or filter dust will often not need to be wasted and has been shown to improve or least not to degrade the cement in areas where the raw materials are low in alkali.104

One commenter (2824) stated that criteria fo r determining the best

- performing 12 percent of existing sources for mercury emissions should either not include kilns wasting CKD and scrubber dust or the contribution in the dust should not be subtracted from the input. Otherwise, depositing high mercury waste in landfills is considered best

- performing. Wasting dust requires more fuel and feed which generates increased CO 2 emissions. This is an adverse cross

- media impact. **Response:** The commenter is not correct in implying that intent is relevant in determ ining if an activity which affects emissions can be considered as a means of control. All that matters is the effect on emissions. National L ime II , 233 F. 3d at 640. We realize that this is a site

- specific issue, and the percent removal obtained by shuttl ing or wasting CKD ranges from very low to up to 80 percent. Some of the best

- performing kilns in the MACT floor waste CKD. Itwill take more extreme facts than those presented here to justify invalidating a practice that removes emissions from some of the best performers. **Comment:** One commenter (2844) stated that there is no demonstrated ACI sy stem that will simultaneously

control mercury

and hydrocarbons. In light of that uncertainty , the industry is faced with taking a chance on an unproven technology o r using multiple technologies (ACI plus a scrubber plus an RTO) that represent huge investments which have not been anal yz ed full y b y EPA. **Response:** The reason EPA has long adopted the interpretation that the existing and new source MACT floors are to be applied on a HAP

- by

- HAP basis are that a whole plant approach likel y yi elds least common denominator floors, that is floors reflecting mediocre or no control, rather than performance which is the average of what best performers have achieved. See the pream ble to the final rule for more discussion. **Concerns over effectiveness of control technology** Many comments were received on the limited emission reductions achievable with the installation of add

- on control devices. **Effects of mercury speciation Comment:**  O ne c ommenter ( 2844 ) stated that the standards are not achievable, and EPA has used unrealistic assumptions about the control effectiveness of individual technologies. Wet scrubbers are ineffective controls for elemental mercury , and the effectiveness of AC I is a function of mercury

speciation. In the utility

industry , the collection efficiency ranges from less than 20 percent to greater than 90 percent. If the concentration of oxidizing agents is low, a high percentage of the elemental mercury is not effect ively

captured b y the sorbent. There have been only limited mercury

speciation data collected at cement plants, but what data there are indicates the mercury

speciation at the inlet of the particulate control device ranged from almost 100 percent to near 0 percent elemental mercury . Depending on plant configuration and flue gas composition, standard ACIwill not provide a sufficiently high level of mercury

control to allow certain cement kilns to meet the proposed rule. The cost of ACI is high, and may not be cost effective for facilities where the pre

- control emissions are very small, and the emission reduction will be small.105

**Response** : We set the standards based on what has been achieved in practice in the industry , with MACT floors established based on act ual emissions data for the best

- performing sources. We used statistical analysis and a 30

- day averaging period to account for variability , such as the situations cited by

the commenter. **Activated carbon injection Comment:**  One c ommenter ( 2845 ) stated that E PA overestimates the emission reductions from mercury controls. EPA states that most if not all cement facilities will have to install some form of mercury

control in order to meet the proposed mercury rule. Currentl y, the best available control technology for mercury is considered to be ACI. However, the commenter argues that the effectiveness of AC I is site

- specific, based on utility industry studies and that should be the case for the cement industry

as well. The commenter provides discussion about the t echnical issues surrounding the five primary factors that affect mercury collection efficiency

using ACI: m ercury speciation ; t emperature profile ; r esidence time of the particulate control device ; typ e of ACIused ; and f

lue gas composition (particularly su lfur trioxide (SO 3 )). Commenter 2845 stated that the effectiveness of ACI for mercury

control, based on limited mercury speciation data, will be very site

- specific. It also appears that the concentrations of elemental and oxidized mercury are very site

- spe cific. As a result, as has been recognized in the utility industry , ACI is not the magic bullet that will alway s control mercury at a high level. Mercury control strategies will need to be tailored for each plant. Such strategies may include one or more of the following: i nstallation of a polishing baghouse ; u se of treated carbons or enhancement agents ; c hange in the strategies for handling of CKD (wasting or not wasting) ; i nstallation of a wet scrubber ; e valuation and testing of more experimental ty pes of mercury control technologies. According to commenter 2845, all of these strategies will be expensive, and there is no guarantee that ACIor any

configuration will be adequate to demonstrate compliance with the proposed mercury limit for a significant numbe r of cement facilities. Commenter 2845 stated that EPA does not consider the adverse impact that ACI will have on the way CKD is handled b y the cement industry . Industry has been striving to utilize CKD by either returning the CKD to the cement kiln, or b eneficially utilizing it. To ensure the quality of CKD and to maintain the ability to recycle the CKD back to the sy stem, it may be necessary

to install a polishing baghouse. The polishing baghouse would introduce new problems, including lower than expecte d air

- to

- cloth ratios resulting in a larger footprint, self

- ignition in the baghouse hoppers, and an increase in fugitive emissions, all of which increase installation and operating costs. **Response:** The pilot test data we have available for ACI sy stems sho wed mercury removal of 90 percent, and we conservatively used 80 percent removal in our anal ys is. We considered the installation of a polishing baghouse and included it in our anal ys is, as well as the use of a wet scrubber. The standards do not require that facilities install a particular typ e of emission control (e.g., ACI). Facilities will need to decide for themselves which control strategy is best for them, that will account for site

- specific factors and allow them to obtain the level of emissions control needed to meet the numerical standard. Furthermore, we do believe that the test data from the106

electric utilities industry

is transferable to this industry and that the commenters have not provided an y technical basis for their comments other than a discussion of potential issues. EPA knows of nothing that would preclude these technologies from operating effectivel y in sequence. **Wet scrubbers Comment:**  Several c ommenters ( 2844, 2845, and 2900 ) stated that EPA did not fully consider the issue for wet scr

ubbers and mercury

capture. Commenter 2845 worked with EPA in 2008 to study mercury reductions achievable through wet scrubbers, and includes the report in their comment. According to commenters 2844, 2845, and 2900, the only mercury captured by

a wet scru

bber is oxidized mercury . Elemental mercury is insoluble in water and, therefore, passes through the scrubber. Therefore, the effectiveness of wet scrubbers for mercury removal is almost entirely based on the form of mercury entering the unit. There is a w ide range in mercury speciation for the cement industry . As a result, the theoretical level of mercury control obtained by

already having or installing a wet scrubber will be different for each plant. There is also a phenomenon, known as mercury

reemission , related to mercury /scrubber chemistry

that may reduce the effectiveness of a wet scrubber to capture even oxidized mercury . Reemission is a result of mercury reduction chemistry

in wet scrubbers, where oxidized mercury is reduced to insoluble elemental m ercury . Mercury reemission is primarily

a result of sulfate/sulfite chemistry . Testing conducted at four cement kilns utilizing a wet scrubber revealed that all four of the plants tested showed elemental mercury concentrations at the outlet of the scrubber to be greater than the inlet concentrations. Commenter 2845 stated that the pH in the scrubber may affect reemission and data as to the impact of pH on reemission are very limited and appear to be conflicting. According to commenters 2844, 2845, and 2900 , EPA states that oxidized mercury will be captured b y the scrubber but, as has been found both in the utility and cement industries, depending on the flue gas composition and ty pe of scrubber, this is not alway s the case. To make any blanket statement as to the effectiveness of wet scrubbers to control mercury would be premature and site

- specific. There are proprietary additive technologies that are available from companies such as Babcock & Wilcox which may help mitigate this problem but will result in in creased costs. It should be noted that none of these additive technologies have been or are currentl y being utilized or even tested in the cement industry. Therefore, the effectiveness of these additives for the cement industry is unknown. Also, these addi tive technologies are not relevant for use in establishing the existing source floor because no such database for the use of this ty pe of technology

exists. Commenter 2900 provided data from two stack tests, in order to show the difficulty of achieving co mpliance with the new mercury limits, and the variability in run to run emissions during stack testing. Commenters 2833 and 2840 stated that EPA’s analy sis has not identified add

- on technology within existing kilns that is effective for all forms of mercury . Onl y 3 of the 5 existing cement kilns equipped with wet scrubbers are among the 11 lowest mercury

- emitting kilns, primaril y due to low mercury

concentrations in the limestone. One of the kilns equipped with a wet scrubber provided no mercury control at all.107

Commenter 2863 stated that several approaches to reduce mercury emissions had been considered at the commenter’s site: Reduction of limestone mercury content by

selective mining. The commenter provided mining data showing the variability and lack of predictability of mercury

content in the commenter’s limestone quarry

. The addition of a wet scrubber to the commenter’s ACIs ys tem. The commenter notes that wet scrubbers onl y control oxidized mercury as elemental mercury

is not water soluble. Given that testing at the commenter’s kiln indicated that up to 70 percent of the mercury is in the elemental form, a wet scrubber is not going to provide a material amount of additional control. The ACI sy stem is predicted to control high levels of the oxidized mercury as well as promote the oxidation of the elemental mercury . Therefore, no material additive benefit would come from the use of a wet scrubber. A potential small boost in control efficiency may be obtained by

bleeding a percentage of the dust collected in the primary baghouse into the finished product. The concept behind dust shuttling is that a percentage of the uncalcined limestone caught in the primary baghouse, and the mercury condensed on it, is continually bled off to the finish mill rather than th e raw mill, and intermixed with cement. The usefulness of this procedure is limited b y the commenter’s product’s performance standards. Another conceptual possibility for reducing mercury

emissions from affected sources that include quarries with elevated mercury levels is to implement some sort of limestone scrubbing. The commenter is not aware of an y commerciall y available s ys tems that could reduce limestone mercury content. **Response:** For mercury

control, ACI sy stems are the most likely control, not wet scrubbers. Our anal ys is did not rel y on wet scrubbers as the primary control for mercury

emissions. Incases where wet scrubbers are used for HCl control, the scrubber may provide additional control for mercury . Wet scrubbers may also be helpful in reducin g mercury emissions for a couple of high

emitting kilns. We recognize the usefulness of dust shuttling as a method of mercury control is site

- specific, but it is one of the control strategies to be considered. **Support mercury control strategies Comment:**  S everal comment er s (2144, 2786, 2867, and 2928) provided comments in support of EPA’s assessment of the use of add

- on controls and other methods to reduce mercury emissions. Commenter 2867 provided discussion of several instances of the use of dust shuttlin g, ACI , wet scrubbers, and other Mercury control strategies. The commenter recommends that EPA:

 Help foster actual demonstrations of filter dust shuttling with temperature management.

 Help foster the demonstration of catal yt ic oxidation or oxidant injecti on to make mercury more collectable.

 Help foster demonstrations of ACIor lime injection with dust shuttling and temperature control and determine ways to make this combination less expensive.108

Commenter 2928 supported the use of ACI for mercury control sayi ng that it has a long commercial track record in removing mercury from emissions of coal

- fired power plants and waste

- burning facilities. Commenter 2928 provided information about a German cement manufacturer’s patent for an ACIs ys tem based on powdered furnace coke, coupled with dust withdrawal/shuttling, temperature control, and mercury oxidation by

sulfur doping. Commenter 2928 stated that the use of selective cataly tic reduction (SCR) in combination with scrubbers for removal of mercury is a technic all y feasible and economicall y reasonable control technology

for cement plants. The commenter noted that the 2006 Assessment of NO x Emissions Reduction Strategies for Cement kilns

– Ellis County written by five cement industry

experts for the Texas Commiss ion on Environmental Quality concluded SCR was an available technology for newer dry

kilns and a transferable technology , for older wet kilns, meaning it is commerciall y available and could reasonably be expected to work on those wet kilns. Commenter 2144 recommended that EPA foster the demonstration of cataly tic oxidation or oxidant injection to make Mercury more collectable. Technologies include SCR and potentially peroxide injection into gas conditioning towers. The commenter has data demonstrating the efficacy of mercury

reduction in the coal

- fueled power industry when SCR is used to control NO x emissions. SCR technology has been commercially

demonstrated in the cement industry at Solnhofen, German y, Monselice, Ital y and Sarche di Calavino, Ital y. It ha s excellent multi

pollutant possibilities including reduction of THC and dioxin/furan (another HAP regulated under the Cement MACT rule). The commenter provided an internet link to a report evaluating the use of SCR in the cement industry

. Commenter 2928 s tated that the use of scrubbers technicall y feasible and economically reasonable control technology for mercury

removal from cement plant emissions. Commenter 2928 stated that the use of front end controls can also be used to control mercury emissions. Te chnology

that removes mercury

from coal that is being fired for fuel increases the efficiency of the coal by

30 to 50 percent, reduces mercury by up to 70 percent, and decreases SO x and NO x . Commenter 2786 stated that it is possible to achieve mercury red uctions in a cost effective manner, citing the Maryland Department of the Environment’s agreement with L ehigh Cement Company at their Carroll County

facility to reduce emissions by

80 percent by

2012. Commenter 2142 stated support for EPA’s focus on good particulate control as a way to achieve good mercury

control. The commenter provided two summary tables of mercury

emission reductions b y non - cement source categories and stack test results for mercury emissions from coal

- fired power plants. **Response:** EPA acknowledges the support of the commenters of EPA’s assessment of the use of add

- on controls and other methods to reduce mercury emissions and agrees that many of the suggested control methods are cost effective for various installations

. However, we shou ld note that MACT standards must be based on the best

- performing sources in the category or subcategory , not a specific control technology

.109

**I ncreased CKD waste as result of mercury control strategies**  **Comment:** One commenter (2898) suggested that EPA address the potential increase in cement kiln dust waste or reuse. EPA discusses the potential for an increase in the amount of CKD wasting at cement plants as a result of mercury emissions control practices. 74 FR at 21165. However, the status of CKD that is not reused in the production process is uncertain. EPA has ye t to establish standards for the management of cement kiln dust. EPA last published a Notice of Data Availability

concerning cement kiln dust in July 2002 and intimated that it would propose new standards for the management of CKD, but has taken no further action on the subject. In light of the potential for increase in the practice of CKD wasting and the uncertainty surrounding the treatment of CKD, the commenter urged EPA to consider adding requirements to the rule to prevent or control the potential additional solid waste or to initiate a separate rulemaking to address the proper handling of CKD. **Response:** EPA is making no determinations as to the status of waste generated as a result of this ru le, nor making an y determinations as to management practices for cement kiln dust. In assessing the costs of the rule for purposes of EO 12866, EPA has conservatively assumed that wastes will be landfilled and estimated the costs of doing so as part of the estimated costs of the rule. **Mercury standards not supported on public health basis Comment:**  One commenter (3067) stated that EPA’s public health basis for the proposed mercury requirements was not scientifically supported. The commenter requested that E PA provide information about: what percent of meth yl mercury that is consumed by

fish comes from cement plants; how much of the industrial contribution of mercury is converted to methyl mercury in soil; if there are studies suggesting that lowering mercury emissions would lower methyl mercury

levels in fish; and EPA’s supporting evidence that these rules provide health benefits. **Response:** According to the 2005 National Emissions Inventory , mercury emissions from cement kilns represent 18% of the industrial (non

- electrical generating units) mercury inventory in the U.S. (U.S. EPA, 2005). This final rule would reduce mercury emissions from cement kilns by a substantial amount. The rate of mercury methylation is spatially

variable, depending on the specific aqu atic chemistry of the deposition location. For this final rule, EPA modeled mercury deposition from cement facilities using the Comprehensive Air Quality Model with extensions (CAMx) model. This model converted mercury emissions to ambient mercury levels and mercury

deposition. Inthe final RIA, EPA provides maps of the reduced mercury deposition. Due to time and resource limitations, EPA was unable to model the conversion from mercury deposition to methylmercury to human health effects from consuming methyl mercury- containing fish. For more information regarding the health effects from mercury , please consult EPA’s mercury website at http://www.epa.gov/hg/

. However, EPA notes that standards under section 112 (d) are technology

- based, not risk

- based. Thus, the decisions as to the level of the standards is based entirel y on the criteria set out in sections 112 (d)(3) and (d) (2), which do not include consideration of risk. EPA did take into110

account that mercury

is a potent neurotoxin, and the magnitude of mercury emissions from particular cement kiln sources, in determining not to create a subcategory for high mercury emitting sources with high concentrations of mercury in their limestone. EPA believes it legitimate to consi der these factors in determining whether to exercise its discretion whether or not to exercise subcategorization authority , since these factors relate to the ultimate object of section 112 (d) of reducing emissions of hazardous air pollutants. **Least cost c ontrol options may not yield expected SO2 emission reductions**  **Comment:** One commenter (2144) provided links to state air agency and trade group presentations regarding control options. The commenter noted that cement companies will gravitate to the least

- co st options and it is not a given they will choose mercury

or HCl reduction strategies that will actually yield the magnitude of reductions expected b y EPA in SO 2, a pollutant not regulated under §112. **Response:** EPA recognizes that any SO 2 emission reductio n obtained as a result of this NESHAP rulemaking is a co

- benefit of the control technology selected either for Hg or HCl. EPA recognizes the multi pollutant interactions and co

- benefits of this rulemaking and how a well planned integrated control strategy can maximize the environmental results while optimizing the cost invested by

a facility to comply

with such regulation. **Restrict use of quarries with high mercury limestone Comment:**  One commenter (2893) recommended that EPA should not allow any new high m ercury content limestone quarries to be mined, and that no new high mercury content limestone quarries be allowed to be mined at kiln locations in which an old limestone quarry has been mined out. **Response:** The new source standard for mercury reflects the performance of the best controlled existing kiln. If a new kiln locates at a quarry with high mercury levels but can still meet this limit, they

are allowed to do so under section 112 (d**).** 

### 2.6 **THC Standards Comment:**  Several commenters (2898, 2928) recomm ended that EPA adopt the proposed MACT floor for THC. **Response:** EPA has revised the proposed THC floor and standard based on more representative data. See “ Development of the MACT Floors for the final NESHAP for Portland Cement”. **2.6.1 Legal Issues**  **Use of CEMS data results in unlawful standard**  **Comment:** One commenter (2901) stated that basing the THC on CEMs data leads to an unlawful standard. The commenter’s concerns are that:

 Using dail y averages significantly reduces variability, leading to an unlawful s tandard.111

 There is a flaw in using continuous data under normal operating conditions to set a standard.

 The currently

proposed 7 ppmv THC standard cannot be achieved by the top performers. The commenter provided an anal ys is based on the daily data for two sources that EPA used to set the floor, resulting in one facility not meeting the standard 20 percent of the time. **Response :**  The standard in the final rule has been revised from proposal based on additional data. However, all of the data on which the stand ard is based comes from CEMs, so there is no basis for stating that use of a CEM makes the standard more stringent. The data also are gathered from periods of well over a year, and so can reliably be used to assess monthly variability without use of statis tical extrapolation **. Unlawful**  **re scission of standards for Greenfield sources**  **Comment:** One commenter (2864) stated that EPA is unlawfully attempting to rescind the THC standards for greenfield sources in the proposed rule. EPA established MACT standards ove r 10 ye ars ago when it first promulgated the NESHAP for the cement industry . 64 FR 31898 (June 14, 1999). The commenter stated that EPA may revise MACT standards under two provisions: §§112(d)(6) and 112(f). EPA has not undertaken the necessary anal ys is un der either provision to conclude that new greenfield sources should become subject to either of the THC standards EPA has proposed. **Response :**  As noted in the preamble to the final rule in connection with EPA’s decision to amend the PM standard, EPA does no t read section 112 (d)(6) as the exclusive means of amending a MACT standard, particularl y when that standard does not properly represent MACT. The standard was based on siting considerations only , and did not consider THC emission levels of the best controlled similar source as required b y law

. The standard is now anomalously higher than the existing source standard, confirming that it does not represent a proper MACT standard. EPA therefore sees no bar to amending it to establish a standard properl y based on section 112 (d). **2.6.2 Adequacy of Floor Determinations (Existing and New)**  **5 best performing sources vs 12 percent Comment:**  One commenter (2911) stated that EPA correctl y based its THC floor on the 2 best performing sources. **Response :**  We agree that a l iteral reading of the stature results in a floor based on the two best performing sources based on the THC CEM data available at proposal **Comment:** Many

comments were received on the adequacy of the data and the anal ys is used in the development of the MACT floor for THC. Commenters 2841, 2858, 2859, 2863, 2864, and 2889 stated that EPA’s use of 2 kilns as the basis for the THC limit for existing sources was inappropriate. The commenters stated that EPA should not set the THC MACT floor for existing cement pl ants using data from less than five112

sources. According to the commenter, EPA proposed to use the limited data set for two kilns due to a very narrow interpretation of §112(d)(3). Because there are more than 30 sources in the source category

and EPA only

ha s THC data for 14 kilns, it is apparent that EPA seized on the parenthetical part of the language in §112(d)(3)(A) to conclude that it can set the THC MACT floor based on onl y two kilns (12 percent of 14). According to the commenter, EPA made no attempt to use its authority under §114 of the CAA to require cement plants to monitor their emissions of THC in order to provide EPA with sufficient data to establish the MACT floors based on the best performing 12 percent of sources in the category . Congress clearly intended for EPA to obtain data from an adequate number of sources to be able to set realistic and achievable standards. Some of this commenter’s facilities comprised a significant part of the THC MACT floor yet the proposed standards are not achievable for most of the kilns owned by the company without the installation of expensive controls such as regenerative thermal oxidizers (RTO) to control THC emissions. **Response :**  EPA and the industry agree that it is most appropriate to use THC CEM data to set the floor because this data provided the most representative information on long term emissions performance. EPA made a concerted effort to obtain additional THC CEM data subsequent to proposal of this rule. Unfortunately , the data was received too late in the process to be thoroughl y analyzed. In addition, the use of this additional data would not have substantially changed the outcome of the floor determination for most kilns. We continue to believe that the literal reading of the statute required us to us e the best performing 12 percent of the facilities of which we have emissions data, which, in this case, is two kilns. **Variability incorrectly analyzed Comment:**  Commenter 2864 stated that EPA incorrectl y anal yz ed variability in calculating the proposed TH C MACT floor. The commenter stated that CEMS data cannot account for all of the long

- term variation in a given quarry , which extends over several hundred acres with a life of over 100 years. The commenter stated that EPA’s anal ys is using 30 day s of data re sults in a MACT floor that cannot be achieved over the long

- term. EPA must identify a MACT floor for each HAP and source category based on emission levels achieved by the best

- performing 12 percent of existing sources, and must demonstrate with substantial evidence that the chosen floors represent a reasonable estimate of the performance of the best

- performing units. EPA’s use of the UPL model to calculate the MACT floors for THC violates this requirement because it does not represent a reasonable estimate of the performance of the best performing sources. Commenter 2864 also critiqued EPA’s method for calculating variability , and provided an alternative calculation after collecting additional long

- term data for the lowest emitting five sources. The commente r stated that the UTL provides a much better estimate of the 99th percentile adjusted for variability than the UPL. The commenter stated that EPA should have used the actual 99th percentile to establish a MACT floor because the data set contains long

- term data. Commenter 2889 requested that EPA review the additional data from the recent §114 request or provide detailed information that demonstrates that the 11 kilns for which data are available do, in fact, represent the entire cement industry

.113

Commenters 2841, 2845, 2858, 2859, 2863, 2874, and 2889 stated that EPA relied upon a data set that included a combination of long

- term (470

- 880 data points) and short

- term (31

- 35 data points) CEMS data, from 12 kilns. This resulted in data from the two lowest emitte rs being used to establish the existing MACT floor. One of the two sources used in the floor calculation had only 35 data points, or the equivalent of six 30

- day rolling averages. To compensate for this lack of data, EPA used the UPL statistical approach t o project long

- term variability . EPA is now in possession of more than one year of CEMS data for 16 kilns. While this still represents a rather small portion of the entire cement industry , the commenters agreed that it is a statistically representative dat abase for purposes of setting existing and new source floors. In addition, the commenters recommend that EPA use the calculation of the 99th percentile rather than the UPL to establish the MACT floor levels. Commenters 2859, 2845, 2863, and 2874 stated th at with the additional THC CEM data provided to EPA since proposal, EPA now has a sufficient amount of data and may not need to apply any statistical analy sis to account for variability and simply

use the available emissions data. However, given the new data and considering that the new data sets account for variability in the 5 best performing sources, the revised THC standard should be 27 ppmv dry at 7 percent oxygen for existing sources and 24 ppmv dry at 7 percent ox ygen for new sources. However, the data does not show whether the limestone reserves available to units in the existing data pool or other units have significant variations in the nature and amount of organics. Furthermore, where either coal mill and/or raw material dryer exhaust are co

- mingl ed with the kiln stack emissions, it is important to determine whether either case warrants subcategorization. Although the PM standard in the proposed NESHAP was based on a limited data set of 3

- hour stack tests, short

term test will not address the varia bility issues. Commenter 2874 stated that EPA should base the THC standard on substantially more data. **Response :**  In response to comments, we re

- evaluated the statistical anal ys is and methodology used for the proposed rule and made changes to improve it. Th e changes we made and wh y are discussed in the preamble to the final rule and in supporting documentation in the docket and include wh y we continue to believe the use of the 99 th percentile UPLis the most appropriate statistical approach, how we accounted for variability (including intra

- quarry

variability), and other changes to the analysis since proposal. We disagree with the commenters who said 30 day s of data are insufficient, and we continue to believe that the 30 data points provided from 30 day s of sampling of all kiln inputs for 89 kilns is a robust sample of the population of cement kilns and adequate to characterize the variability encountered at each individual kiln , especially as supplemented in the final rule to account for documented inputs from outside the 30

- day sampling period and with pooled estimates of intra

- quarry mercury variability

(both of which are then put into the UPLequation as part of the s squared term)

. **Subcategorization Comment**  **:** Many

commenters (2844, 2845, 2859, 2863, 2864, and 2874) suggested that EPA consider subcategorization due to the variations that can be found in raw materials, source configurations, and processes in which the current data from the 5 best performing sources does not accuratel y illustrate how emission s may vary in different kiln configurations and other sources. Commenter 2864 urged EPA to collect data from all cement plants in order to properly114

subcategorize, and delay

setting THC MACT standards until that time. The commenters suggested that EPA gathe r long

- term THC CEMS emission data for the following reasons:

 For some kilns, high THC levels can be attributed to a combination of the level of organics in the limestone, the form of the organics in the limestone, and a kiln configuration that has one or more source of organic releases downstream of the kiln (in particular in

- line raw mills and in

- line coal mills venting to the main stack.). While a few of the units with THC CEMS have high THC emissions, the data on raw material (e.g., limestone organics) have not been collected or correlated for these kiln emissions. Commenter 2845 submitted a white paper (Appendix 9) addressing these issues as part of their comment.

 EPA has assumed that any raw material dryers should meet the kiln THC limit; however, EPA has no data to show that this is an appropriate extension of kiln THC measurements. There are limited data that suggests that these dryers have lower volume and higher THC emissions than kilns.

 Separate standards for standalone raw mills operated with supp lemental fuel firing, raw material dryers, and those kilns with high THC levels due to organics in the co

- located quarry may be appropriate. This cannot be done without a strong database of THC CEMS readings and feed material characteristics supporting the best possible presentation on the need for one or more added subcategories for THC limits.

 There is no data to suggest that organic HAP at standalone raw mills that use supplemental fuels and coal mills that use kiln or cooler gases are emitted.

 The propo sed organic HAP standards did not account for the various volatiles that are added to the kiln exhaust as a result of contract with the ground coal in a coal mill. Commenter 2863 testing documented that a considerable quantity of organics are added to the stack exhaust when the kiln gases are routed through the coal mill. Although, the majority of the organics are methane, the non

- methane, non

- ethane hydrocarbon, and the total hydrocarbon emissions exceeded 100 ppmvd on average.

 EPA should consider collecti ng additional data to determine if subcategorization is appropriate to address THC emission variability from different phy sical characteristic of kilns or different characteristics of raw materials. **Response:** See preamble to final rule. **Background THC leve ls not accounted for**  **Comment:** One commenter (2889) stated that EPA has not taken into account ambient background THC levels and the variability in ambient background THC levels that inherentl y affect measured stack concentrations. Ambient levels of methane and ethane will increase the measured THC b y as much as 15 percent. The commenter stated that additional data are needed concerning the multi

- day and multi

- week increases in ambient air THC levels due to forest and agricultural fires. **Response:** We disagre e with the commenter in that the MACT floor determinations were based on demonstrated performance testing and THC monitoring from several plants over extended115

time periods. These long

- term monitoring test data included ambient background THC levels and the ir associated variability. **THC standards are adequate Comment**  **:** One commenter (2144) stated that the proposed 30

- day emission standards of 7 and 6 ppm for existing and new kilns, respectively , appear to be adequate. These values equate to roughl y half of the BACT VOC limits when relying on THC as the surrogate. According to the commenter, at man y kilns the primary contributors to THC emissions are additives acquired as wastes from other industrial sources such as steel mill scale. Excessive VOC/THC emission s problems in Florida were ty picall y solved b y acquisition of less oily mill scale. Another solution is to introduce the oily

additives directly

into the kiln system where they can be thoroughly burned thus avoiding low and medium temperature THC evolution from colder parts of kilns and preheaters. This commenter agreed with EPA regarding regenerative thermal oxidation (RTO) or ACIparticularl y when naturally existing kerogen in native raw materials contributes to THC emissions. The commenter also noted that the Poly sius Environmental Technology (POLVITEC) available since the early

1990’s includes a coke filter that has been demonstrated to reduce THC and SO 2 while storing mercury until it can be removed to a very high degree by filter dust shuttling. **Respon se:**  Se e the preamble to the final rule explaining the basis for the final THC standard. **Shorter averaging period Comment:**  One commenter (2142) supported a shorter averaging time (24 hours or less) with regard to h ydrocarbon emissions, but agreed with EPA’s proposed limits and 30

- day averaging time. **Response:** EPA acknowledges the commenter’s support. **POM and naphthalene not adequately addressed Comment:**  One commenter (2828) expressed concern that the proposed MACT rules do not establish MACT limits or properly evaluate control technologies that could greatl y reduce emissions of polycyclic organic matter (POM) , naphthalene, or dioxins/furans. The commenter agreed with EPA that limits should be established for organic hazardous air pollutants, and the choice o f VOC or total non

- methane h ydrocarbons (TNMHC) seem like reasonable options as surrogates, but emissions of POM and naphthalene are likel y to be unrelated to emissions of the other organic HAPs. The commenter stated that traditional organic HAPs are prima ril y driven b y hydrocarbons in the raw material mix. Variations in the hydrocarbon composition of the limestone seemed to be the largest contributor to variability in organic HAP and THC emissions. Because the processes resulting in POM and naphthalene for mation are not the same as those resulting in VOC or benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylene (BTEX) compounds, cement kilns that are low VOC and BTEX compound emitters may be high emitters of POM and naphthalene. The commenter encouraged EPA to move for ward with establishing final MACT rules proposed in this rulemaking, including rules for organic HAPs, but suggested that EPA consider the difference in the formation mechanisms when deciding how to establish MACT116

standards for all organic compounds, and p otentially separate POM and naphthalene from the other organic compounds in establishing MACT standards and appropriate monitoring protocols. Further, EPA should undertake additional study of POM and naphthalene emission rates from cement kilns throughout the U.S., to determine if there is tight correlation between emissions of these compounds and the other organic HAPs. If not, EPA should then establish POM and naphthalene MACT standards, independently of the standards for the other organic HAP compounds. **Response :**  EPA reviewed test reports for emissions data on THC and organic HAP. Based on those test data, we identified specific organic HAP that were measured with sufficient frequency that we could and at levels that would allow us to establish an emissio n limit for organic HAP as an alternative to the THC limit. Naphthalene emissions were included in the anal ys is of organic HAP as an alternative to the limits for THC. It is regulated under the final rule in that the definition of organic HAP specifies nap hthalene as one of the organic HAP that must be measured to determine compliance with the organic HAP limit. In evaluating emission test reports, the test results for POM were not sufficient to include as one of the organic HAP that must be measured. Howev er, we believe that the limits for THC and organic HAP serve as surrogates for POM and that POM emissions will be reduced as a result. **Organic HAP alternative Comment**  **:** Regarding the organic HAP alternative to THC, several commenters (2845, 2859, and 2874) stated that the organic HAP standards should be raised to reflect the commenter’s proposed THC standards of 27.4 ppmv and organic HAP standard of 6.6 ppmv (24 percent of 27.4) for existing sources and 24 ppmv and organic HAP standard of 5.7 ppmv (24 percent of 24) for new sources. Commenter 2863 stated that the proposed THC standard of 7 ppmvd for existing sources and 6 ppmvd for new sources is inadequate and requested that EPA not revise the organic HAP standard until it has time to better evaluate existi ng data and that a separate subcategory for kiln exhaust gases passed through an indirect fired, inline coal mill. Also, the volatility of the coal being used should be considered in establishing standards for inline coal mills. As part of the final rule, EPA should include a specific exclusion for coal mills from coverage under subpart Y NSPS so plants will not have to deal with dual and potentially conflicting regulations Commenters 2859, 2845, 2863, and 2874 objected to the option of demonstrating compli ance with the alternative equivalent organic HAP emission limit rather than the THC limit for companies that have naturally low hydrocarbon emissions, very low organic HAP emissions, and use Method 320 to demonstrate organic HAP compliance for the followin g reasons:

 The organic HAP standard does not account for variability in THC levels when using Method 320 to demonstrate compliance. The organic HAP rate may be substantially lower than the 2 ppm indicated in the proposed rule; however, the concurrent THC c oncentration levels may be substantially higher than the 6.7 ppm even if testing during ty pical conditions.

 Units should be permitted to extrapolate the same factor for organic HAP level and THC compliance limit set during the organic HAP compliance demons tration test.117

 As an alternative, kilns should be given an opportunity to establish and take into consideration THC variability before the THC limit is set during the organic HAP compliance demonstration test and be allowed the option to install CEMS before the organic HAP compliance demonstration test in which THC and organic HAP emission rates could be collected for 6 months prior to the demonstration test. The operator would have to demonstration that operating conditions are representative of the 6

- month period at the time of the stack test and once the compliance is demonstrated EPA could set the application THC limit at 99 percent variability for that 6

- month period for the unit.

 Facilities that choose to comply based on actual organic HAP should have the option to demonstrate compliance whenever THC emission exceeds the limit set during organic HAP compliance demonstration test because limestone deposits are not homogenous creating the possibility

that new high THC seam might be encountered and thus rai sing the possibility

that THC will go up but organic HAP emissions may remain constant. The facility should be given 6 months to retest for organic HAP if the alternative THC limit is exceeded and if the kin complied with the organic HAP limit, no violatio n should be found related to the high THC emissions. Commenter 2844 recommended that EPA adopt the proposed THC compliance alternative for sources whose organic HAPs are a low percentage of their total THC. This compliance alternative is important for kiln s whose THC emissions may be higher due to other factors but who have established that HAPs are a low percentage of those emissions. Commenter 2889 stated that EPA does not reference the study that provided the basis for the HAPS/THC ratio. Considering th e importance of this alternative standard, this study should be cited. It should also be evaluated to determine if the 0.24 HAP/THC ratio is, in fact, representative of the cement industry

. **Response :**  See discussion of THC and organic HAP in the preamble. **Emission limits for raw material dryers Comment:**  Several commenters (2845, 2859, 2863, 2874, and 2910) stated that it is inappropriate to set the same emission limits, and controls, for kilns and raw material dryers and that EPA establish MACT floors for n ew and existing sources of raw material dryers using data from the dryers. Cement kilns and raw material dryers differ in the following way s:

 The heat source in the kiln is designed to reach high temperatures for calcining and combing raw materials to make clinker; the heat source in the raw material dryer is designed to remove free water from the raw materials. of the heat source in the raw material dryer is for removing free water from the raw materials. Because the temperature within the kiln system and tower is above 600 degrees F, h ydrocarbons present in the feed volatilize. In contrast, the temperature in a raw material dryer is significantly lower, resulting in a completely

different profile of h ydrocarbons volatilized.

 The volume of gasses drawn thro ugh kiln s ys tems is 10 times greater than the volume of gasses passing through the raw material dryer.118

 The proposed THC limits for dryers expressed at 7 percent ox ygen are equivalent to a 1 ppm actual emission concentration standard at the material dryer.

 Facilities may

intermittently

use raw material dryers. Commenter 2910 stated that the cost to install the required monitoring equipment and possible emissions control devices would prove to be more costly than EPA has assessed. Based on the substantial di fferences between kilns and raw material dryers, there is no basis to simply assign the proposed kiln THC standard to raw material dryers. EPA should withdraw the limit and more closely

evaluate actual raw material dryer emissions in order to confirm that these units generate organic HAPS to a level necessitating regulation and if they do establish the data necessary to support an appropriate limit. Commenter 2845 has initiated a process to gather additional THC emissions data, data to more thoroughl y asses s raw material dryer THC emission performance, and organic HAP data for standalone raw material dryers. These data will assist EPA is developing more appropriate standards. Commenter 2845 stated that when defining the THC limit for raw material dryers at m ajor sources in §63.1346(a), the proposed rule does not include the alternate option of complying with a total organic HAP limit. The commenter suggested that the language should be updated to reflect the same option as allowed in (b) for area sources. **Res ponse**  **:** We did not have sufficient data, information, or justification to subcategorize raw material dryers as suggested by the commenter. We were working with a limited data set of kilns and dryers and the MACT floor is based on the performance of the two lowest emitting kilns. The additional THC data was received too late to be considered in this rulemaking. These data were not submitted to EPA until mid

- June 2010, virtually too late for an y consideration, much less considered in the MACT floor anal ys is an d subcategorization. Regarding the alternate total organic HAP limit for raw material dryers, we have corrected the final rule to state the alternate option of compl yi ng with a total organic HAP limit applies to raw material dryers at major and area sources. **Subcategorize based on coal grinding system Comment:**  One commenter (3218) requested that EPA consider developing subcategories that reflect the different configurations for coal grinding s ys tems. There are two main configurations, where gases are vented from the coal sy stem directly to atmosphere out of a separate stack and where coal s ys tem gases are vented to atmosphere after being comingled with exhaust gases from the kiln and vented out of a common stack. **Response:** EPA did consider subcategories b ased on the coal grinding configurations suggested by the commenter but decided against creating separate subcategories. See the preamble discussion under the THC limits for more information on EPA’s decision.119

**2.6.4 Compliance Assurance**  **Relative accuracy t est audit**  **Comment:** One commenter (2622) stated that the PS included in the proposal for certifying the VOC monitor does not require a Relative Accuracy Test Audit (RATA). The proposal would also apply

Appendix F to the VOC monitor, which requires annual RA TA. There is an inconsistency

in not requiring a RATA for certification, but requiring it annually after certification. Since the proposal calls for RATA on the VOC monitors when the emission limits are low (emission limits less than 10 ppm), EPA will need to set a low emission criteria for passing a RATA. The commenter expressed concern that 20 percent of the reference method or 10 percent of the emission limit will be too restrictive. **Response:** The final rule has been revised to require the certification of the CEMS using Performance Specification 8, which does require a Relative Accuracy Test Audit. The performance criteria have not been changed. **Monitoring at low concentrations Comment:**  Several commenters (2844 and 2845) stated that monitoring THC at th e 6

- 7 ppm level will present significant challenges, noting that hydrocarbon CEMS have been used successfull y on hazardous waste burning kilns but at concentrations greater than three times those required b y this proposed rule (i.e., 20 ppm). Furthermore, when a hazardous waste kiln approaches the limit of 20 ppm, it triggers an automatic waste fuel cut

- off, which ensures that the facility is in compliance with the standard as there are no hazardous wastes in the combustion chamber under higher h ydrocarbon concentrations. This approach will not be available for non hazardous

- waste burning cement kilns as the THC concentration approaches or exceeds 6

- 7 ppm. EPA should raise the limit to account for the variability associated with the raw materials and the ina bility to change raw material input to comply with the standard. Once installed it is expected that the CEM up

- time and data availability will be less than the 90 percent required by EPA due to the learning curve that will be associated with operating and maintaining these devices. The commenter stated that hot/wet straight extractive systems are difficult to maintain on a continuous basis due to moisture condensation in heated sampling s ys tems, often long calibration times, and monitor wear and tear from the corrosive environment. Some of the challenges that will need to be addressed include: the difficulty of monitoring hydrocarbons at very low concentrations, the accuracy of calibration materials as 1 ppm propane standards are the lowest available, and th e variability of hydrocarbon compounds in the limestone used to manufacture cement. One commenter (2889) stated that the variability in flame ionization detectors (FID) response factors for organic compounds changes the stringency of the THC standard for s ome kilns. It is well known that THC monitors using FID have different response factors for different organic compounds. Cement kilns having organic compounds with a higher set of response factors will be subject to more stringent emission limits than kiln s having organic compounds with lower response factors. Considering that there are very little data concerning the ranges of specific120

organic compounds in the kiln effluent gas stream, the impact of the variations in response factors cannot be determined. Additional data are needed to determine if the THC standards of 6 ppmvd (new kilns) and 7 ppmvd (existing kilns) is equitable. **Response:** Based on data received since proposal, we have revised the THC limit to 24 ppmvd which should address the commenters’ c oncerns about monitoring at very low concentrations. The standard is based on data from different kilns with different constituents, which addresses variability

concerns. Finally , with the change to PS8, sources are not restricted to use of FID is they do not work as well as needed in certain applications. **Stack testing for monovent facilities Comment:**  One commenter (2888) requested that EPA allow monovent facilities to stack test for THC, using EPA approved methods, on the same 30

- month frequency as requi red for Dioxin/Furan testing under the current PC MACT. **Response:** We remain convinced that CEMS are the best choice for continuous monitoring. Sources with monovents can install stacks to accommodate their use. **Testing to comply with speciated organic HAP alternative standard**  **Comment:** Several commenters (2844 and 2845) stated that the Fourier Transform Infrared Spectroscop y (FTIR) Method 320 and the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Test Method D6348 are not sufficiently sensitive to quantif

y the 1

- 2 ppm of total organic HAPs for companies wishing to speciate organic compounds. Because a single test method is not available for the organic compounds EPA has identified and because of the low concentration levels, EPA must be flexible in test me thod selection and allow use of appropriate methods to quantify and sum these compounds. It is anticipated that at least 3 separate test methods will be required to capture the low concentration of organic HAP to sum to 1 or 2 ppm aggregate. **Response:** As stated above, we have raised the level of the THC limit which should address concerns about low concentrations. We have carefully considered detection limits when setting the standards; a more detailed discussion of this issue is presented in the preamble. **Comment:** One commenter (2844) stated that a THC alternative option must address THC variability

for those units meeting the organic HAP alternative limit. The commenter recommends stack testing for organic HAPs at the same interval as that for dioxin/furans. Under the proposed rule, a new THC limit would apply based on the level at the time of the test. The commenter provided the following options for compliance demonstration limits, with the suggestion that a kiln operator would be able to choose between the three:

 Demonstration of operating conditions consistent with test conditions and good engineering practices. The ongoing compliance demonstration would be based on two operating conditions that are indicators of organic HAP emissions at the time of th e stack test, with subsequent continuous monitoring of those two parameters: the temperature at the exit of the precalciner and the ox ygen content of the exhaust at the top of the preheater.121

 Extrapolation to set the revised THC limit. The revised THC limi t is based on the total organic HAP measured during demonstration testing, extrapolated to the level of compliance and then extrapolating the average THC value recorded during the total organic HAP test to the proportionate level.

 Accounting for measured THC variability when setting the revised THC limit. The kiln owner installs the THC CEMS in advance of the stack testing and gathers data for at least 6 months prior to the stack test. At the time of the stack test, the operator must demonstrate that the o perating conditions are consistent with that 6 month period. Once compliance is demonstrated, the applicable THC limit will be at the 99% of variability for that 6 month period for that unit. The commenter also suggested that if the alternative THC limit i s exceeded, the operator should be given six months to retest for organic HAPs; if the organic HAPs are compliant in the retest, there is no violation related to the high THC reading. **Response:** The MACT floor determinations were based on demonstrated perfo rmance testing and THC monitoring from several plants over extended time periods. These long

- term monitoring test data included ambient background THC levels and their associated variability **Comment:** One commenter (2845) stated that companies that have low hy drocarbon emissions and low organic HAP emissions may elect to demonstrate compliance with the speciated HAP portion of the rule and that a new THC limit would apply based on the level at the time of the test. However, because THC levels are variable, i t could mean that 50 percent of the time the THC will be recorded over the limit even though the performance of the unit is unchanged. According to the commenter, there are at least 2 options, extrapolation or accounting for the THC variability , that could be used to show practical THC limits along with allowing the kiln operator to select the most appropriate option. **Response:** Companies that elect to compl y with the speciated HAP portion of the rule should collect an y background or previous test informatio n that would allow them to conduct their testing in a worst

- case scenario for their particular operations. The issue described b y the commenter is a key

reason for having a 30

- day compliance period

– where any given day

the measured levels will be above or below the average. Sources also have the option to retest if they believe the previous testing was not representative. **Comment:** One commenter (2844) requested that EPA defer promulgating a final THC standard until more adequate data has been gathered, but urged EPA to finalize the Alternative Compliance Option for THC as expeditiously as possible. **Response:** EPA has gathered significantl y more data since proposal and believes it ample to set the final standard. **Measuring THC from raw material dryer Comment**  **:** One commenter (2845) stated that the process and combustion gas composition of the kiln sy stem and dryer are completely different. In the kiln, the main constituents are nitrogen and carbon dioxide. Ox ygen content of the kiln exhaust gas is typicall y bel ow 2 percent at the kiln exit and about 7

- 10 percent at the stack. In the raw material dryer the main constituents are122

nitrogen and ox ygen, with ox ygen levels typicall y above 19 percent. Also, if the THC concentration in the raw material dryer is adjusted to 7 percent ox ygen as proposed for the kiln, it would require the actual emission concentration to be less than 1 ppmvd THC to meet the proposed limit of 7 ppmvd. The accuracy of the THC analyzers available for monitoring is not sufficient to determine co mpliance with a 1 ppm standard. (1ppm THC at 19 percent ox ygen = 7.3 ppm at 7 percent ox ygen). Calibration gases are manufactured at a lower concentration of 1 ppm propane, and demonstrating compliance at the level corresponding to the lowest level calibration standard generates an unknown degree of inaccuracy

. **Response:** We received no data indicating that using the same limit for raw material dryers as used for kilns was infeasible, or that it would otherwise allow us to set a different THC emissions limit for raw materials dryers. Therefore, in these final amendments we are setting the THC emissions limit at the same level as the cement kiln’s, which is 24 ppmvd measured as propane. However, because raw material dryers have high oxygen contents due to thei r inherent operation characteristics (and not due to the addition of dilution air), referencing the raw material dryer standard to 7 percent ox ygen would actuall y result in a more stringent standard than for cement kilns. For example, given the ty pical oxygen contents of kiln exhaust (7 to 12 percent), a kiln just meeting the THC limit of 24 ppmvd would have an actual stack measurement of approximately 16 to 24 ppmvd. If the raw material dryer standard is referenced to the same ox ygen level, they would have to meet a measured THC limit of approximately 3 ppmvd. For this reason, we are referencing the ox ygen level of the standard for raw materials dryers to 19 percent ox ygen, which is the ty

pical oxygen level found in the exhaust of these devices. **Flow rate monitoring**  **Comment:** One commenter (2845) stated that EPA should not require volumetric flow rate demonstrations during speciated HAP or THC testing. The proposed standard is a concentration based standard, so no flow rate monitoring data are needed for rep orting in units of the standard. At 40 CFR 63.1349(b)(4)(iv), EPA incorrectly requires that the flow monitoring s ys tem be evaluated according to procedures in Part 75, therefore this requirement should be deleted. **Response:** The commenter identified an erro r in the proposed standard, which has been corrected in the final standard. **PS**
**- 8A**  **Comment:** One commenter (2845) stated that PS

- 8A should be modified for low concentration measurements. PS

- 8A was developed for cement plants burning hazardous waste. PS

- 8A h as an explicit span requirement of 100 ppm as propane. The calibration drift and calibration error requirements are 3 percent (3 ppm) and 5 percent (5 ppm) respectivel y, which are very near the proposed compliance level. The proposed THC standard is at 6 and 7 ppmv dry at 7 percent oxygen. The criteria contained in PS

- 8A will not evaluate the acceptability of the THC monitoring sy stems with adequate accuracy to demonstrate compliance with the proposed standard. Therefore, PS

- 8A must be completely re - worked to evaluate low concentration level monitoring sy stems, without simply (and arbitrarily) lowering the span and calibration drift specifications.123

**Response:** The final standard has been revised to specify use of PS

- 8, instead of PS

- 8A, because PS

- 8 is a bette r fit for this application. The span for the RATA is specified as 40 ppm and the reference method is established as EPA Method 25A. **Need for Appendix F procedure Comment:**  One commenter (2845) stated that EPA should develop an Appendix F Procedure specific for hydrocarbon CEMS. Although an Appendix F, Procedure 1 was written for SO 2 , NO x and diluent CEMS (O 2 , and CO 2 ), it is not directly transferrable to a THC CEMS monitoring for compliance at extremel y low concentration levels. For example, a key element o f Procedure 1 is an annual relative accuracy test. However, PS

- 8A does not include a relative accuracy specification and instead correctl y relies on calibration gas audits because there is no independent reference method. Furthermore, the cylinder gas audi t levels for Procedure 1 may not be appropriate for a revised PS

- 8A, especially if multi

- range anal yz ers are necessary . Requirements at Appendix to Subpart EEE for hazardous waste combustors contain quality assurance procedures for THC and other CEMS used at these facilities. These procedures should be modified for low

- level measurements and appropriate requirements should be developed for Subpart LLL sources. **Response:** The proposal identified PS

- 8A as the monitoring performance specification for THC monito ring through an oversight, and PS

- 8 is now specified. Also, the rule language now proscribes the THC CEMS span value as 40 ppm and the reference method for the RATA as Method 25A. With these revisions and in view of the THC standard concentration value, EP A is confident that the performance requirements of Procedure 1 of Appendix F are appropriate and can be met. **CEMS alternatives Comment:**  One commenter (2844) stated that EPA should not require CEMS but instead look to other effective monitoring methods that are more practical and efficient. The commenter’s experience with a VOC Analyzer (CEMS) was that the unit requires a lot of maintenance, expense, and frequent repairs, resulting in increased downtime compared with priority pollutant CEMS. **Response:** We be lieve that CEMS are the best alternative to demonstrate continuous compliance and that they

are a demonstrated technology , as well as the source for all of the data used to develop the standard. However, we are alway s interested in the evolution of monitoring technologies and will consider source

- specific alternatives proposed under the General Provisions. **Contradictory, erroneous requirements and clarifications Comment:**  Several commenters (2845, 2859, and 2863) stated that numerous areas of the proposed re gulations include contradictory , erroneous, or otherwise impractical requirements relating to compliance demonstrations in the performance testing requirements and or monitoring requirements. Comments are as follows:124

 The initial compliance demonstration procedures for total hydrocarbons appear contradictory

and should be revised to be consistent with the proposed emission standards and 30

- day

rolling average for THC emissions. Specificall y, §63.1350(h)(4) states that daily average THC concentration must not exceed the THC limit for new or reconstructed facilities which is inconsistent with §§63.1343, 63.1346, and 63.1350(h)(2) and (h)(3). The initial performance demonstration should be based on a properl y calibrated and compliant CEMS and the initial perform ance test result must be based on the calculated average THC concentration for 30 kiln operating day s. A definition for kiln operating day must be established and must reflect a specified number of hours of kiln or raw material dryer operation at normal production conditions. Day s with fewer operating hours than a kiln operating day should not be included in the 30 day average.

 The initial compliance demonstration procedures for total hydrocarbons specifies a performance test duration and conditions that are not appropriate. Section 63.1349(b)(4)(i) addresses initial compliance for THC specifying a performance test duration of 24

- hours, and calculating the dail y average THC concentration from the hourly averages during the performance test. Furthermore, it s tates that initial compliance shall be demonstrated b y conducting separate performance tests for in

- line kiln/raw mills with the mill operating and with the raw mill off. This would require the facility to run in a mill

- off condition for 24 hours, which is not possible. There should be no specification for separate initial compliance tests for mill

- on and mill

- off for in

- line raw mills.

 The THC monitoring requirements for facilities complying with total organic HAP limits are inconsistent with the averaging period of the standard. Section 63.1350(r)(2) requires calculation of 3

- hour average THC concentrations and stating that the 3

- hour concentration may

not exceed the average established during the initial performance test is not consistent with the basis o f the limit. The site

- specific THC emission limit is based on a 30

- day

rolling average and EPA should correct this apparent discrepancy

.
 The testing to establish THC emission limits for facilities with in

- line kiln/raw mills that choose to comply

with tota l organic HAP limits should be simplified to require testing at the operating condition that is appropriate for the particular plant. Section 63.1349(b)(4)(iii) requires performance tests to establish site

- specific THC emissions limits corresponding to compliance with the emissions limits for total organic HAPs. For kiln/in

- line raw mills, this section specifies that tests are to be conducted while the raw mill is off and while the raw mill is operating. This could potentially create different THC limits fo r the two operating conditions which becomes completely unworkable since compliance with the resulting standard is determined on a 30

- day rolling average and will obviously contain both mill

- on and mill

- off operation. EPA should clarify that the test is to be inclusive of both mill on and mill off conditions and the full range of plant operations including feed materials and fuels/fuel combinations in order to develop a single alternate limit. EPA should not specify separate tests under mill

- on and mill

- off conditions. Furthermore, where total speciated organic HAP emission tests demonstrate that emissions are below the emission limit, EPA should explicitly allow proportional extrapolation of the measured HAP and THC values to determine the corresponding THC surrogate compliance limit.

 Section 63.1349(b)(4)(vi) states that emission tests to determine compliance with total inorganic HAP limits shall be repeated annuall y and this is inconsistent with other125

sections of the proposed rule regarding the parameters to be tested and the frequency of the test, and this section should be changed. The word inorganic appears to be a ty pographical error and EPA should confirm that the phrase should be total organic HAP

. There are no requirements for performance testing of inorganic HAP. The annual test requirement in this section also contradicts the proposal where it explicitly states that stack tests for organic HAP would be required every five ye ars for kilns and raw material dryers meeting the organic HAP alterative to THC to determine the organic HAP component of their THC emissions. The proposal states that annual organic HAP tests are not necessary , will be very costl y, and could be disruptive to plant operations. EPA should specify

that testing should be conducted at least every five years. The facility should be permitted to conduct the testing more often than every five years and reset the alternative limit if changes in the facility materials or operations warrant such changes. In addition, because such testing for the organic HAP could result in THC levels higher than the previously

determined alternate limit, the time period of the testing should not be included in the rolling average for compliance.

 EPA needs to add a formula to enable sources to weight the relative emissions contributions to determine compliance when emissions occur at two points. Many plants with indirect fired, in

- line coal mills are designed to vent directly to atmosphere. Compliance with the organic HAP standard for a plant so configured should allow the combination of both stacks given that they both constitute sources of kiln gases. These commenters requested that EPA add to the rule a formula equivalent to Equation 2 of 63.1349 whereb y an affected source configured such as the one depicted below can demonstrate compliance with the THC standard by combining the concentrations from the main stack and the coal mill stack. **Response:** We have made several clarifications and corrections in the final rule to respond to these comments, including: 1. Clarifying that the 30

- day average is a rolling average, 2. Adding a definition of “kiln operating day ,” 3. Raw mill off testing is required for the initial compliance test to establish the site

- specific THC level. 4. Removed paragraph 63.1350(r)(2), because this l anguage is inconsistent with the 30

- day rolling average. 5. Replaced the reference to “inorganic” HAP emissions testing with “organic” HAP emissions testing. 6. Clarified that organic HAP testing is to occur at least every 30 months unless there are changes at the plant that warrant more frequent testing. 7. Clarified that data collected during a performance retest need not be incorporated into the existing 30

- day

rolling compliance average.126

As described elsewhere, we agree with comments that the initial performance test period should also be a 30

- day

average. Regarding the comment requesting proportional extrapolation of the measured HAP and THC values, we lack the data to establish such a provision. If a source needs to expand its operating range, it should retest and establish a new limit. Finally , the suggestion to add a formula to address combined concentrations from the main stack and coal stack is not needed, because of the concentration format of the standard. Such a formula is only

needed when the standard is in the form of a mass limit. **Comment:** One commenter (2845) stated that the definition of total organic HAP in section 63.1341 should be changed to add the reference to test methods EPA Method 18 and ASTM D6420, and adsorbent based methods or impinge train methods to test for total organic HAP for speciating organic HAP. **Response:** The final rule includes a higher THC value than proposed, with the result that we do not think these additional methods are needed to determine total organic HAP. However, a sourc e is alway s able to request an alternative method under the General Provisions. **Comment :**  One commenter (2845) provided the following suggestions and clarifications to §63.1349(b)(4)(i):

 Clarify

that Alkali By

pass Stacks are exempted from CEM requirements f or THC.

 A performance test for a source with a CEMS is duplicative and should not be required.

 The THC limit is a 30

- day average (see §63.1350(h)(3)). Thus the requirement for the duration of a performance test to be 24 hours appears to be a typographical error.

 This section appears to require a 24

- hour test while the raw mill is operating and a 24

- hour test while the raw mill is not operating. A typ ical downtime for a raw mill is 8 hours per day , one day

per week. It is not possible for the majority of in

- line kiln/raw mill sy stems to operate with the raw mill off for 24

- hours.

 Raw Material Dryers also have THC limits, and thus may be required to use a continuous emission monitor and demonstrate compliance during raw mill on/off conditions based on the prop osed rule. Itshould be clarified that the raw mill on/off condition is not needed for the performance test of the Raw Material Dryer as it is not directly associated with the kiln system.

 This requirement should be removed or updated, according to languag e provided. **Response :**  Alkali By

pass Stacks are subject to the standard. However, we have changed the final rule to allow the source to use the results of an initial performance and subsequent compliance test as a surrogate for continuous monitoring. We be lieve this is reasonable, given that the majority

of emissions are coming from the main stack. We have clarified that the initial compliance test for the CEMS is the initial 30

- day operating period. For the raw material dryer, testing is not required for the raw mill on/off conditions. **Comment :**  One commenter (2845) suggested that §63.1350(h)(2) and (3) be combined into one requirement.127

**Response :**  We believe it is clearer to distinguish existing source requirements from new and reconstructed sources in the format of the standards. **Comment :**  One commenter (2845) suggested that the combustion sy stem inspection and reporting required under §63.1350(i), §63.1350(a)(3), and §63.1354(b)(9)(iv)are no longer needed and can be removed. The combustion sy stem inspection was previously included in lieu of a THC limit. Now that there is a THC limit, these inspection, recordkeeping and reporting requirements are no longer needed. **Response :**  These requirements were actuall y part of the 1999 fin al rule and were intended to help ensure compliance with the dioxin/furan emissions limit. Becau s e the dioxin/furan emission limit has not changed, these requirements are still applicable. **Comment :**  One c ommenter ( 2845 ) included the suggestion that the EPA should clarify that THC is on a propane basis and is a 30

- day rolling average at 7 percent oxygen. **Response:** We agree and the final rule contains this clarification. **2.6.5 Impacts**  **Perfo r**  **mance of controls overstated, impacts understated Comment**  **:** Several comments (2841, 2844, 2845, 2864, and 2889) were received that question EPA’s impact anal ys is for THC including the performance of ACI and RTO, and adverse impacts associated with the use of RTO. Commenter 2845 stated that EPA has overestimated the use of ACI and underestimated the use of RTO. According to the commenter, the EPA based the ACI information on one single kiln that is no longer in service with emissions and a configuration that was unusual for the industry . EPA stated that 75 percent control should be achieved for cement kilns using ACI because it was achieved for dioxin/furans in the incinerator industry . The commenter disagreed with the comparison for the following reasons:

 There are substantial differences between cement kilns and incinerators in operations, plant configurati ons, and flue gas composition as well being two different industries, which can affect the effectiveness of ACI for THC.

 THC cannot be compared with dioxins/furans because THC also consists of low carbon

based VOC (such as methane, ethane, and formaldehyde ), which has a substantial impact on the effectiveness of ACI

.
 Formaldeh yd e is not expected to be well controlled using ACI.

 The ability

of ACI to capture THC is total a phy sisorption

- based mechanism and therefore the effectiveness of ACIwould be also entirely mass - transfer

- limited.

 Lower THC concentrations would have to have an increase in the ACI feed rate to match the sample percentage removed of THC at higher concentrations.128

 The percentage of low

- carbon THC is highl y variable and the available data in dicates that low

- carbon species can be <5 to >90 percent of THC, which will impact the effectiveness of ACI.

 Using ACI would have an adverse impact on the ability to reuse cement kiln dust. Recycling the CKD would result in revolatilization of some of the THC. Insufflation of a portion of CKD is possible for some kilns, which would destroy the captured THC. It may be necessary

to add a polishing baghouse thereby increasing costs 10 to 15 times that of using ACI alone.

 Dioxins/Furans may

be increased when us ing ACI to control THC for cement plants that burn hazardous waste. Several c ommenters ( 2844 and 2845 ) noted that EPA has proposed using ACIto provide simultaneous control for both mercury and THC. Although a standard powdered activated carbon may contro l both mercury

and THC (greater than 90 percent removal), there is no data to support the removal of THC when a halogenated carbon was used to control high elemental mercury concentrations. Commenters 2864 and 2889 expressed concerns about operating probl ems caused b y a HCl wet scrubber ahead of a RTO. Commenter 2864 provided an example of their experience with RTO with wet scrubbers at two wet kilns. Although 89 percent THC removal was reported initially , the sy stem was plagued with problems and equipment failure. After six years of repairs and upgrades, the s ys tem worked in the 2008 ozone season and the plant was shut down permanentl y later that year. Commenter 2889 stated that EPA has not considered the costs due to kiln outages caused b y the unreliabili ty of wet scrubbers and RTO required by the proposed amendments. Both wet scrubbers and RTO in the cement industry and other industries have been subject to frequent maintenance problems. Existing kilns installing wet scrubbers in series with a RTO will co mpound the reliability

issue. Problems affecting either one of the control sy stems will require the kiln to shut down. The cost for the lost production should be included in these cost impact anal ys es. Commenters 2844 and 2889 stated that EPA’s claimed activated carbon injection sy stem THC control efficiency

of 75 to 80 percent is not adequately supported and does not take into account the low control efficiency for light h ydrocarbons. As a consequence of the unrealistically highl y assumed ACI removal effic iency for THC, EPA has underestimated the number of RTO that will be needed to achieve the standard for existing kilns. The cost, environmental, energy , and economic impacts of the proposed amendments described in Section VI of the Preamble are inaccurate due to the probable need for numerous RTO. Commenter 2844 stated that RTO are not expected to provide for continuous compliance with the limit. Vendors have not been willing to guarantee levels below the proposed standards of 6 and 7 ppm. The one commerci al application of an RTO on a kiln cannot meet the standard, and a number of units have such high THCs that RTO may not be able to lower the emissions sufficiently

to get close to the proposed limit. Where the concentrations of THC in kiln stacks is low, b ut still over the standard, the emissions reductions that an RTO can provide are small.129

Commenters 2841, 2844, 2845, and 2889 stated that the requirement of regenerative thermal oxidizers (RTO’s) for control of THC will result in an increase of CO 2 emissio ns, along with a host of other emission impacts due to increased fuel and energy consumption.

 One commenter (2845) stated the following regarding the use of RTO’s for THC control:

 RTO will increase cost, energy use, and greenhouse gas emissions.

 RTO have performance limitations. Based on available data, RTO have a performance limit of 10 ppm THC which restricts the emission control capabilities. Therefore, the THC emission standards should be no less than 10 ppm.

 RTO are not cost

- effective due to high mai ntenance costs (especiall y in harsh weather). Maintenance includes component replacements and periodic cleaning and washing.

 Numerous cement plants lack access or have limited access to the natural gas need to operate RTO. RTO use will increase green house gas emissions with higher NO x emissions due to the use of natural gas or propane used for firing. The commenter included data concerning the increase greenhouse gas emissions with their comment. Commenter 2900 provided stack test data for THC emissions. T he data demonstrates that the plant may have three or more times the new EPA limit in emissions and may be unable to meet compliance. **Response :**  Hazardous waste burning cement kilns are not subject to the subpart LLL standards. The proposed level of contro l for THC is exceeded in practice b y the onl y cement plant in the U.S. equipped with an ACIs ys tem. With regards to the comment regarding dioxins/furans emissions potentially

increasing as a result of these rule requirements, hazardous waste burning cement kilns are not subject to subpart LLL standards. For those comments related to control device performance and the secondary impacts of increased CO 2 and GHG emissions from oxidizers, those impacts were considered in our analy sis and were based on the best information available to us. If a given facility wants to avoid such secondary impacts, the organic HAP limit is a viable compliance option for them. **Comment:** One commenter (2928) stated that RTO are technicall y feasible and cost effective options that can be used to meet the proposed standards. TXI operates the largest cement kiln in the state of Texas in Midlothian with an RTO acting as an effective afterburner for VOC, THC and CO emissions. It is 80

- 90 percent effective in removing these contaminants fro m the plume. As has already been noted, SCR technology also significantl y reduces VOCs/THCs from the exhaust. **Response :**  EPA does not anticipate that widespread use of RTOs will be needed to compl y with the THC standard. See Regulatory Impact Anal ys is: Amen dments to the NESHAP and NSPS for the Portland Cement Manufacturing Industry , Final Report, August 2010

.130

**Baseline THC emissions Comment**  **:** One commenter (2845) stated that when evaluating the emissions database for each kiln EPA used, the standardized format is problematic from multiple standpoints. Here are several related examples:

 In reviewing data for those facilities for which EPA had actual data, there appears to be the following types of issues:

– Projected emission rates were extrapolated from a particular time period of production (2002 production extrapolated to 2005) that does not necessarily reflect the actual emissions for a particular kiln

– Kiln emission allocations for facilities with multiple kilns are not consistent, with the following examples:

• Main stack emission rates where 3 kilns feed a common stack are applied to each of the three kilns individually for some pollutants; thereby overestimating individual kiln emissions.

• Emission rates are apportioned improperl y between the multiple kilns.

 Deriving factors to extrapolate HAP emissions from those facilities where EPA has data to the remainder of the kilns, does not have a sound justification as a basis for such detailed cost calculations. For the THC factor, removing facilities with high levels of THC is not warranted. With many facilities not having THC data, and THC emissions being based on geographic location, other cases of higher THC emissions is a realistic outcome. EPA’s factor of 21 ppm was compared to the average of industry’s corresponding database. Removing only the highest THC emission kiln (which is now closed), the average THC emission rate was calculated to be 28.1 ppm.

 The use of dry

versus actual flow rates appears to be used inconsistently

.
 The assumption that most plants burn co al is not accurate and will affect flow rates, and therefore emissions.

 The data includes some HWC (waste burning kilns) and kilns currently shut down. The inclusion of this ty

pe of data skews the database.

 Factors established b y kiln type may not be as re levant as factoring b y geographic area, as the newl y regulated HAPs generall y are variable due to the limestone and/or silica source quarried on

- site. **Response :**  The database for this rulemaking has been updated to account for the kilns active in 2009 that are subject to this rule. Hazardous waste kilns are included in the database for the IS IS Cement Model but are not subject to this rule. THC emissions for each kiln subject to this rule were calculated using emission factors developed from the data EPA rec eived thru the In formation Collection Request (ICR). For kilns where we did not have specific emissions information, we developed an average emissions factor. We removed the highest emitting kiln because we believe it represents an outlier. We know of no o ther facility that has emission even close to the highest THC emitting kiln. We recognize that using an average emissions factor may131

overestimate or underestimate costs. However, we know of no more accurate way to estimates emissions and costs. **2.6.6 Oth**  **er THC emissions due to burning waste vs due to limestone**  **Comment:** One commenter (2928) supported the proposed emission standard for THC. The commenter noted that cement industry will argue that the entireties of their THC and CO emissions are from the coo king of the limestone that contains these chemicals naturall y. EPA should be skeptical of this claim without proof when so many cement plants are burning wastes, including tires, asphalt shingles and oil filter fluff that contribute directly to these kinds of emissions. Industry

must distinguish between those THC emissions legitimately caused b y raw materials and those cause by the burning of waste fuels. **Response:** EPA acknowledges the commenter’s support and notes that the expansion of the database for THC more accurately reflects performance than the more limited information at proposal. 

### 2.7 **HCl Standards Comment:**  One commenter (2898) recommended that EPA adopt the proposed MACT floor for HCl. **Response:** EPA acknowledges the support of this commenter, alth ough the proposed standard did not properly

account for variability in the analytic detection method due to its quantitation limit. **2.7.1 Legal Issues**  **Health based vs MACT emission standards Comment:**  Many

commenters expressed their preference for EPA’s pre vious health

- based approach to setting limits for HCl. Commenter 2830 requested that EPA clearly articulate why

it did not reaffirm its position in the original proposed NESHAP where it found that an HCl standard is not necessary given the low HCl emissio ns from cement kilns and risk assessment findings from a national survey of the industry showing a lack of risk to health or the environment from any cement facility . There is no compelling environmental or public health reason for EPA to change course at this time, and relying on §112(d)(4) would be consistent with Congressional intent to not impose burdensome HAPs regulations where no risk to public health or the environment exists. Commenters 2841, 2844, 2859, and 2890 stated that in previous MACT rulemakings, the Agency determined that HCl’s nature as a threshold pollutant and the clearly demonstrated lack of risk posed b y HCl emissions at the property boundaries of cement manufacturing facilities precluded the need to set such a standard. EPA’s reversal of this approach in this latest proposed rulemaking runs completely counter to its approach in other rulemakings.132

Commenters 2844, 2845, 2859, 2864, 2874, 2901, 2915, and 2916 stated that to the extent that EPA believes it needs to address HCl in this rul emaking, the standard should continue to be health

- based. Commenter 2845 proposes that sources be allowed to set a site

- specific limit, ensuring that a national standard of a hazard index of 1.0 is not exceeded, thereb y demonstrating an ample margin of sa

fety . This approach was adopted in EPA’s hazardous waste combustor MACT rule and the industrial boiler MACT rule (for HCl). There is no compelling environmental or public health reason for EPA to change course at this time, and rel yi ng on §112(d)(4) would be consistent with Congressional intent to not impose burdensome HAPs regulations where no risk to public health or the environment exists. Commenters 2845, 2874, and 2901 stated that EPA should reaffirm the position it took in the December 2006 Portland Cement NESHAP rule that in accordance with §112(d)(4) that it is not necessary to set a MACT standard for HCl. In two MACT rulemakings for other industry sectors, EPA has decided that an HCl standard was not warranted where EPA determined that even the individuals with the greatest exposure to HCl emissions from neighboring facilities would be safe with an ample margin of safety . EPA now proposes to reverse course because controls installed to reduce HCl emissions would supposedly result in emissions reduct ions of sulfur dioxide and other non

- HAP pollutants. MACT standards, however, may onl y address HAPs. The commenter states that it is inconsistent with CAA §112(d) and arbitrary for EPA to depart from precedents in the 2006 and other earlier MACT rulemaking s to set an HCl standard for the purpose of reducing criteria and other non

- HAP pollutants. If EPA does decide to set a standard, commenters 2845, 2874, and 2901 stated that EPA should follow the approach it adopted in its hazardous waste combustor MACT ru le (for total chlorine) and the industrial boiler MACT rule (for HCl), where EPA established health

- based compliance alternatives. In those rulemakings, EPA set a national standard such that for someone living at the fence line of the facility , the hazard index could not exceed 1.0 (thus providing an ample margin of safety). The facility then would be able to set a site

- specific limit, ensuring that the hazard index did not exceed 1.0. Commenters 2845, 2874, and 2901 noted that EPA’s 23 ppm by volume (ppmv) suggested not

to

- exceed limit is an order of magnitude less stringent than the proposed 2.0 ppmv existing source standard for HCl. Thus, if EPA adopts the standard in the Proposal, it will be setting a standard that is an order of magnitude more stringent than the level (using extremely conservative assumptions) necessary to protect human health. Commenters 2844 and 2901 suggested that if EPA decides that an HCl limit is needed, the Agency should set a limit based on protection of health at 23 ppmv. Comme nter 2901 stated that although some might argue that HCl is not a threshold pollutant because it has not been shown to be non

- carcinogenic, Congress stated that ammonia was a HAP with a well

- established threshold for which EPA could set a risk

- based standard. A comparison of the Integrated Risk Information Sy stem (IRIS) information relating to carcinogenicity for ammonia and HCl shows that the two chemicals have the same notation relating to carcinogenicity , not undergone a complete evaluation and determina tion under U.S. EPA’s IRIS program for evidence of human carcinogenic potential.133

Commenters 2845 and 2846 stated that the proposal solicits comment on whether EPA should promulgate a health

- based standard for HCl under §112(d)(4) that would be in the form of a not

to

- exceed standard, based on risk anal ys is of 68 facilities using a screening level dispersion model (AERSCREEN). EPA states that such a not

- to

- exceed standard would be set at a level of 23 ppmv.

 Commenter 2845 disagreed that EPA must issue a st andard.

 Commenter 2846 agreed that a health

- based approach will allow facilities alternative compliance options so that capital and operating costs are not incurred solely on controls for control’s sake , for example, where there is no HCl health risk and where investing in a control technology

brings minimal or no co

- benefit. Commenter 2901 stated that EPA’s anal ys is for this proposed rule shows that 23 ppmv emitted from an y plant would result in an annual average ground concentration of more than 20 μg/m 3

. Because the RfC for HCl is 20 μg/m 3 an emission standard of 23 ppmv would be protective for any facility. The commenter stated that a 2 ppmv technology

- based standard is unnecessary when EPA has already concluded that 23 ppmv is protective with an ample m argin of safety , and why Congress gave EPA the flexibility to use a risk

- based alternative. As Congress noted in the legislative history , §112(d)(4) was enacted to avoid expenditures by regulated entities which do not have public health or environmental benefit. **Response:** Most of these issues are responded to in the preamble in section IV.A.1.d.iv. Given the enormous environmental benefits projected from a MACT standard for HCl, EPA rejects the characterization that a MACT standard would be ‘control for control’s sake’. **Comment:** Several commenters (2816, 2898 and 2911) agreed with EPA’s decision to not propose a health

- based standard. The commenters agreed that a health

- based standard should not replace a MACT standard for HCl. The CAA allows the EPA to cons ider the health threshold for a HAP in setting emission standards, if one has been established . 42 U.S.C. §7412(d)(4). The commenter noted that the use of the term has been is retrospective, and shows that Congress intended that EPA may

only use the authority

when an accepted threshold is already in existence. Further, Congress specified the kind of proof that EPA needed in order to invoke subsection 112(d)(4): direct evidence of no effects. The Senate report on the 1990 CAA stated that the provision allows EPA to use the no observable effects level (NOEL) . Thus, unless there is clear evidence of an existing threshold for the pollutants in question, EPA may not rely on subsection 112(d)(4) at all. The Agency may not speculate from inconclusive science; rather, it must be sure that there are no effects from exposure at the level chosen for the emission standard. Commenter 2898 stated that the 2006 rule that EPA relies on for a possible alternative health

based standard has been challenged in court and is being held in abeyance pending the results of EPA’s reconsideration of the rule, carried out in the present rulemaking (74 FR 21139

- 40, 21154). Thus, the 2006 rule cannot be said to have established a health threshold. According to commenter 2911, HCl is not the only acid gas that cement plants emit. Among the other acid gases that cement plants emit are at least two listed hazardous air pollutants, hydrogen fluoride and h ydrogen cyanide. EPA has a clear statutory duty to set emission standards for each HAP that a source emits and, even if EPA could set §112(d)(4) standards for HCl, the agency134

does not and cannot claim that there is an established threshold either for hydrogen fluoride or for h ydrogen cyanide. Further, because EPA must set standards for the latt er pollutants under §112(d)(2) and (3), a §112(d)(4) standard for HCl could not possibly serve as a surrogate for either of them. To satisfy the CAA, EPA must set individual standards for both hydrogen fluoride and h ydrogen cyanide or must use a valid surrogate standard for them. **Response:** EPA thanks the commenter s for their support on our decision to not set health based standard for HCl. Regarding the suggestion that EPA set limits for HG and HCN, EPA notes that a factor in not setting a health

- based stan dard was that setting a MACT standard for HCl not only controlled HCl but also co

- controlled other HAP (such as HF, Chlorine (Cl 2 ), and hydrogen cyanide (HCN)) and criteria pollutants yielding very substantial environmental benefits. EPA agrees that HF and HCN emissions from cement manufacturing should be reduced when possible and believes that the final rule helps to accomplish that end. **Claiming benefits from SO 2**  **reduction not permissible Comment:**  Several commenters (2841, 2844, 2846, and 2916) stated that MACT standards may only address HAP pollutants, but EPA is trying to control sulfur dioxide and other non

- HAP pollutants through application of control technology used to reduce HCl. Commenter 2846 stated that basing MACT limits on such considerations is not permissible and limiting compliance flexibility by excluding other options is not good policy . Section 112(d)(2) provides an express list of factors that EPA may consider in setting MACT standards

– including the cost of achieving such emission reduction, and any non

- air quality health and environmental impacts and energy requirements . This list does not allow consideration of non

- HAP air quality benefits, such as the co

- benefits of reducing PM 2.5 emissions. One commenter (2898) stated that Congress intended EPA to consider benefits such as a reduction in emissions of SO 2 and other acid gases, along with condensable PM, ammonia, and semivolatile compounds when setting a MACT floor, and EPA has appropriately considered these co

- benefits in deciding not t o set health

- based standards for HCl. **Response:** Although MACT standards may directly regulate onl y HAPs and not criteria pollutants, Congress did recognize, in the legislative history to section 112(d)(4), that MACT standards would have the collateral ben efit of controlling criteria pollutants as well and viewed this as an important benefit of the air toxics program.. See S. Rep. No. 101

- 228, 101 st Cong. 1 st sess. at 172. EPA consequently does not accept the argument that it cannot consider reductions of c riteria pollutants, for example in determining whether to take or not take certain discretionary actions, such as whether to adopt a risk

- based standard under section 112 (d)(4) or to adopt standards for HAP metals that truly reflect MACT by

amending the P M standard. There appears to be no valid reason that, where EPA has discretion in what ty pe of standard to adopt, EPA must ignore controls which further the health and environmental outcomes at which section 112 (d) of the Act is fundamentall y aimed becaus e such controls not only reduce HAP emissions but emissions of other air pollutants as well. 2 Thus, commenter 2844’s invocation of the decision factors enumerated in section 112 (d)(2) seems off point, since the issue being addressed is not

2 EPA notes the support of commenter 2898 in this regard.135

whether to regu late non

- HAP (EPA is not), whether to consider other air quality benefits in setting section 112 (d)(2) standards (EPA is not), but rather whether to make the discretionary choice to regulate certain HAP based on the MACT approach and whether EPA must put blinders on and ignore collateral environmental benefits when choosing whether or not to exercise that discretion. EPA knows of no principle in law or common sense that precludes it from doing so. With regard to the comments specificall y addressing SO 2 , EPA is regulating SO 2 emissions for new sources and modified sources under the NSPS rulemaking

. EPA is not regulating SO 2 in the NESHAP , although EPA recognizes that an y other SO 2 emission reduction obtained from existing sources is a co

- benefit resulting from the control technology selected to comply

with either the mercury

and/or HCl NESHAP limits. EPA recognizes the multi pollutant interactions and co

- benefits of this rulemaking and how a well planned integrated control strategy can maximize the environm ental results while optimizing the cost invested b y a facility to compl y with such regulation. **SO 2**  **as surrogate Comment:**  Several commenters (2898 and 2911) agreed with EPA’s decision not to propose using SO 2 as a surrogate for HCl. HCl is not present in S O 2 , and control of SO 2 is not the only means by which cement kilns achieve reductions in HCl. To the contrary some kilns achieve HCl reductions through the use of raw materials and fuels that contain less chlorine. **Response:** We agree with the comments and are not using SO 2 as a surrogate for HCl. **2.7.2 Adequacy of Floor Determinations (Existing and New)**  **Adequacy of data Comment:**  One commenter (2144) agreed with EPA’s HCl emission limit of 2 ppmvd for existing sources or a more stringent standard if the statistical methodology biased the results on the high side. The commenter agrees with the 0.1 ppmvd for new kilns unless the statistical methodology

justifies and the law allows a greater limit not to exceed 2 ppmvd. The commenter has not yet determined wheth er it agrees with the method by which existing and new kiln emission standards were set. Commenter 2898 agreed with the EPA proposal to base the MACT floor for HCl for existing sources at the average of the lowest emitting 12 percent of the kilns for which it has data and at the emission rate of the single lowest emitting source for new sources is consistent with the CAA’s requirements. **Response** : The final standards for HCl are 3 ppmvd on a dry basis at 7 percent oxygen, for both new and existing sources. A detailed discussion of the MACT floor determination for HCl is included in the preamble (section IV.A.1.e). **Comment:** Many

commenters stated that EPA’s MACT floor anal ys is for HCl was inadequate or that EPA lacked adequate data.136

Several commenters (2830, 2 836, 2845, and 2859) stated that EPA should reaffirm its position in the 2006 NESHAP where it found that a HCl standard is not necessary given the low HCl emissions from cement kilns and risk assessment findings from a national survey of the industry showi ng a lack of risk to health or the environment from any cement facility . The commenters further stated that EPA’s HCl emissions data is not sufficient to establish a defensible MACT standard. The majority

of emissions data used by EPA is from area sources of HAPs and/or suffers from data quality

issues, such as data recorded below the quantification limits of the test method or by

using improper test methods. After reviewing the data, the commenters believe EPA has emission data from only one source that wo uld be a defensible data point. EPA should not base a nationwide existing NESHAP standard on data from one facility. Clearly , no variability

considerations are afforded as a result of using one data point. Commenter 2841 stated that EPA gave limited notic e to the industry to respond and provide additional data, is inappropriate when considering the development of any standard. Commenters 2845, 2846, 2863, and 2889 stated that EPA should not use HCl emission data below the current Method 321 practical quant ification limit. The commenters stated that it is unnecessary

to set a floor or standard for HCl, but if EPA decides to do so it should exclude all test data below the practical quantification limit and exclude from the pool of MACT floor sources an y kiln with test data below that limit. Given that the data were gathered when Method 321 identified a practical quantification limit in the range from 1000 to 5000 parts per billion for specific path length and test conditions, EPA should not use any data below that range. If EPA believes it may

be appropriate to revise Method 321, it should conduct a formal review process for the Method, and make available to the public any relevant supporting information. But if EPA does amend Method 321, it should not apply th e changes retroactively

. Commenters 2836, 2844, 2845, 2859, 2863, and 2889 stated that the existing source floor is improperly

based on inadequate data. Commenters 2845 and 2863 stated that there are not enough data upon which to establish an existing source MACT floor. One

- third of the sources in EPA’s database

– 9 of the 27 sources listed in Table 5 of the preamble

– are true area sources. Commenters noted that test data for so many of the 27 kilns are invalid that when true area sources and sources with invalid data are excluded, only one kiln remains (i.e., only Kiln 20 in the table is a major source for which there are valid HCl test data). Additional concerns presented b y the commenters were:

 EPA established the proposed HCl MACT floor for existing sources based upon Method 321 test data from what it describes as the top 12 percent of kilns for which it had such data. There were onl y 8 of 27 kilns in EPA Table 5 of the preamble with Method 321 data and EPA examined the top four kilns without respect to test method. The lowest emitters, Kilns 1 and 2 used data from California Air Resources Board (CARB) 421, which is specificall y disallowed.

 Only one of the kiln sets from which EPA calculated the floor is a major source. EPA must change the kilns from whi ch it sets that existing source floor. The proposal notes that it is appropriate to limit the floor database to major sources. This is correct because area sources are not in the same category or subcategory as the major sources for which EPA is setting th e floor and issuing standards. CAA §112(d)(3).137

 EPA should use data from 5 kilns, rather than 4, to establish the floor. Where there are 30 or more sources in a category , but fewer than 30 with data, CAA §112(d)(3) should be read to require the use of 5 sources to establish the floor.

 Much of the HCl data are based on invalid tests. EPA must exclude results from HCl testing conducted with methods other than Method 321 or ASTM D6348. Some methods were incorrectly

applied. The commenter provided an appendix wi th tables detailing the commenter’s concerns about test data. The commenter recommended that EPA exclude 19 kilns from its database due to invalid tests. **Response:** In response to comments we received on the HCl MACT floor analysis, EPA revised its analy sis . We have removed those natural area sources from the floor analy sis and because many of the source tests were not actuall y EPA Method 321 tests and others lacked important quality assurance information, we used our authority under section 114 to collect a dditional data. We used this new data set to calculate a MACT floor. See the preamble to the final rule for a discussion of the revised anal ys is. **Comment:** Several commenters (2830, 2844, and 2845) stated that EPA has provided no support for its assumption that the stack testing data used to establish the HCl MACT floors can be correlated to continuous emissions monitoring data to demonstrate compliance. The commenter states that EPA has provided no anal ys is to demonstrate that the variability of data provid ed b y the proposed emission monitoring methods would be equivalent to the variability of the stack tests. Under the Proposal, the HCl MACT floor was set based on the averaging of stack test data. However, compliance emission measurements will need to be made based on continuous measurements. The D.C. Circuit disfavors standards that impose a method for demonstrating compliance that differs significantly from the method used to arrive at the standard. This is precisel y the case here. **Response** : As stated in the preamble to the final rule, EPA has significantly increased the level of the standard to account for any uncertainty associated with the analytic method detection level, and is also expressing the standard as a 30

- day limit. Since the level of the stand ard is higher than the stack measurements, and is averaged over 30 day s (which normally would result in a lower level due to the multiple observations which dampen variability), EPA does not believe there is an y legitimate issue that use of a CEM to measure the standard makes the standard more stringent than the underl yi ng data would support. At the same time, EPA believes that its approach is a legitimate way to g a uge best performers’ performance given the uncertainty associated with the anal ytic method de tection limit.

. **Subcategorization Comment:**  One commenter (2863) suggested that EPA should subcategorize to reflect arid sources. EPA cannot reasonably set a standard based on a control technology ty pe that cannot be employed in a large portion of the west ern United States. EPA considered wet scrubbers as a basis for meeting the HCl standard and no consideration was given for alternative ty pes of control. However, wet scrubbers are not a viable control technology in vast parts of the western United States where water is not available for use in a scrubber. The commenter stated that given the unavailability

of water, EPA should create a subcategory for arid areas for those plants that138

cannot use wet scrubbers. Failure to do so would break from well establishe d precedent and arbitraril y impact plants in one part of the country

. **Response:** As noted in the preamble, we are not mandating wet scrubber control technology in this rule. Other control techniques are available (hydrated finel y ground lime, spray dryers, fuel and additive switching) that we believe would allow a cement kiln to meet the HCl emission limits in areas where sufficient water for a wet scrubber is not available. Although we have no cost data available for these alternative control techniques (so me of which would be site

specific), we anticipate that these control techniques would be no more expensive that a wet scrubber. **CISWI Comment:**  One commenter (2889) stated that the MACT floor for HCl should be re

- evaluated after the data anticipated in re sponse to the EPA §114 L etter CI SWIrequest, to be submitted by October 2009 is evaluated. **Response:** EPA performed a separate date gathering for HCl emission data as part of this rulemaking and used these data to recalculate the MACT floor. **2.7.4 Complian**  **ce Assurance Support proposed monitoring method**  **Comment:** One commenter (2144) stated that EPA should require HCl

- CEMS for compliance. **Response:** EPA acknowledges the commenter’s support **Comment:** Commenter 2832 supports EPA’s proposal to reject EPA Reference Method 26/26A stack testing data. Method 26/26A does not accurately measure HCl. **Response:** EPA acknowledges the commenter’s support **Compliance Based on Performance Testing** Commenter 2845 stated that EPA should require that compliance with HCl limits shoul d be measured b y periodic stack tests. Because the HCl floors were developed from HCl stack test data, the standard for HCl should be based on periodic stack testing. EPA must evaluate valid data from Method 321/ASTM D6348 stack tests instead of the data c ontained in Table 5 of the proposal. Using CEMS to measure compliance effectivel y makes the standard more stringent than what has been achieved by the best

- performing sources. If CEMS compliance demonstration is retained, then the limit for CEMS compliance must be raised to reflect the added variability

that will be measured by the CEMS. While continuous measurement will capture variability

of emissions 24 hours per day , 7 day s per week over the full range of process and control s ys tem operating conditions over the life of the plant and its associated quarry , the stack test is merel y a snapshot in time. By definition, a stack test contains no parameter related to variability

other than that obtained during the three hours of testing. In addition to the inherent variability

of HCl emissions, a CEMS standard must also consider the inaccuracy of the CEMS139

as determined (and allowed) relative to the required stack test methods, the uncertainty of calibration standards/materials, and other factors affecting the sam pling, transport, and anal ys is of HCl which is a highl y reactive compound. **Response:** See response in preamble , as well as the response above to commenter 2844. **Monitoring requirements for scrubbers Comment**  **:** One commenter (2911) disagreed with EPA’s propose d requirement to test sources with limestone scrubbers no more than every five years. The commenter stated that monitoring must be sufficient to assure continuous compliance with emission standards and to enable sources to certify

accurately

whether their compliance with emission standards is continuous or intermittent and to report any deviation from those standards. Because both chlorine inputs and the performance of the scrubber may change significantly

over five ye ars, testing just once every five years cannot possibly provide the required assurance. **Response :**  Given the efficiency of wet scrubbers in removing HCl, we believe that parameter monitoring is generally

sufficient to demonstrate compliance combined with periodic testing. However, we agree that a 5 year period betw ee n tests may be too long for the reason noted by the commenter and have change d the testing frequency to 30 months.

. **Issues with use of CEMS for HCl compliance monitoring Comment:**  Many

commenters cited difficulties in the use of CEMS to determine compliance with the HCl emission limits. Commenters 2622 and 2889 stated that there will be difficulties conducting a RATA on HCl CEMS operating at HCl concentrations below 2 ppmvd. Commenter 2622 stated that because that proposal calls for RA TA on HCl monitors when the emission limits are low, EPA will need to set a low emissions criteria for passing a RATA. The commenter expressed concern that 20 percent of the reference method or 10 percent of the emission limit will be too restrictive. Comm enter 2844 stated that that given the level of the standard, a CEMS will require FTIR and the commenter is not aware of such CEMS available for purchase. The commenter recommends that compliance be based on periodic stack tests. Commenters 2844 and 2846 st ated that the new source HCl limit is below the published Method 321 detection limit and it is not appropriate to adopt a limit that is inconsistent with the existing standardized test method. Commenters 2845, 2846, 2858, and 2859 stated that HCl CEMS cann ot be used to demonstrate compliance at the levels proposed by EPA in this rule. Although HCl CEMS are installed in some hazardous waste incinerators, the concentrations being monitored at the incinerators are much higher than the HCl detection limit based concentration standard proposed by EPA for cement plants. In addition, calibration gases are not commerciall y available at the concentration levels proposed b y EPA in this rule. Commenter 2845 expects a very high learning curve associated with operating and maintaining these technicall y challenging devices. This industry has little experience with their use and, since HCl CEMS are not widely used in other industries,140

very little outside assistance can be provided through industry workgroups. As with mercury CEMS, EPA should resolve the reliability and performance issues with HCl CEMS before imposing substantial risks and costs on the portland cement industry . Although SO 2 control is not the primary

purpose of installing a wet scrubber under the proposed rul e, the scrubber would be designed as if SO 2 removal were the purpose. Commenter 2855 stated that FTIR based HCl CEMS cannot function at cement plants at the concentration levels proposed in the Rule. HCl CEMS are installed at some hazardous waste incinerators, but generally are process instruments relied on to provide measurements of HCl levels from the incineration process and are not FTIR based. The use of an FTIR

- based CEMS for monitoring compliance at a cement plant at such low levels of HCl introduces a number of problems and concerns for the cement industry :

 Calibration gases are not commerciall y available at the concentration levels proposed b y EPA in this rule. The lowest concentrations of HCl calibration gases commercially available are between 5 and 10 ppm, with an accuracy of ±10% (0.5 ppm to 1 ppm). These calibration gases are 25 to 5 times greater than the proposed HCl standard for existing plants.

 There is no independent anchor for HCl calibration gas certification and the lowest concentration range available is over twice the proposed standard with a +/

- 10% accuracy , numerous uncertainties are introduced to any data that are collected for the purposes of demonstrating compliance.

 The industry

expects a very

high learning curve associated with operating and maintaining these devices. The industry has little experience with their use and manufacturers have not sold many monitoring s ys tems into the cement industry

. Commenter 2855 stated that the current state of the technology for FTIR CEMS for H Cl is such that providing precise accurate measurements below 2 ppm HCl will be a challenge and has not routinely been demonstrated in full

- scale industrial applications. Commenter 2855 stated that a moratorium of 18 months is needed for any HCl monitoring requirements that may

prevail for new and refurbished kilns having to meet the requirements of the standard on startup or promulgation. **Response:** Several comments relate to the low level of the proposed HCl standards. We believe that these comments have m erit and explain in the preamble that we are adopting a standard of 3 ppmv to accommodate issues relating to uncertainties of reliabl y measuring below that value. We have also modified the RATA emissions criteria to allow measurements up to 20 percent of the limit, as we have done in other relatively low emissions concentrations situations. Regarding concerns about the use of FTIR, a number of vendors sell FTIR instruments, and they will work with their customers to adapt the instruments to the needs of particular facilities. In addition, calibration gases are readil y available at 5 ppm and even down to 2.9 ppm. Method 205 may be used for further gas dilution (yielding high quality standards) down to the levels needed. We have also talked to vendors who state they can measure HCl down to 2 ppm. (Email from Jeffrey L acoss to Rima Howell RE: Quick Question: PS

- 15. March 5, 2010. As forwarded to Robin Segall on March 5, 2010. Document in Docket).141

Commenters also raise concerns about the learning curve associ ated with HCl CEMS. We note that sources have 3 years to comply with the standard, which will be sufficient time to implement a working CEMS. **Comment:** One c ommenter ( 2855 ) provided comments related to detection limit issues:

 EPA erred when they

focused on detection limits in setting the proposed standard and mandated use of an FTIR based CEMS.

 Accuracy

is unknown at the detection level; therefore accuracy at the proposed compliance level cannot be demonstrated.

 EPA focused on the detection limits associated with Method 321 area source tests contained in the docket for HCl in establishing the proposed HCl standard. EPA must not establish standards based on the HCl detection level of Method 321, nor should they establish standards for any compounds at their co rresponding method detection levels.

 The commenter noted that there is a difference between the detection limit and practical quantification limit. There is also a difference between test methods and continuous monitoring sy stems, although EPA has proposed a continuous monitoring requirement and cited test Method 321.

 The commenter requested that EPA provide information regarding the differences between current detection levels and those established more than 15 ye ars ago.

 Detection limits are only useful to determine if the measurement is possible. Accuracy at the detection limit and values below is unknown. Therefore, proposing a standard at the anal yt ical noise level will result in the inability to make accurate determinations of compliance. Commenter 28 55 stated that the current stated lower practical quantification limit for Method 321 still holds true. EPA has proposed to make changes to Method 321 without providing the information relevant to this change. It is the belief of the commenter and its memb er companies that the Practical Quantitation Limit (PQL) of Method 321 is between 1 ppm and 5 ppmv wet depending on how well the anal ytical system is optimized for HCl. These values are well within the guidance of 5

- 10 times the analy tical detection limit, and any claims to the contrary must be proven through laboratory demonstrations and placed in the docket to this rulemaking. Commenter 2855 stated that EPA had requested comment on which way to set the emission detection limit and to handle emissions info rmation below the detection limit for use in this rule. The commenter stated in response that it is inappropriate to set any standard at a level where accuracy is unknown and thus demonstration of compliance is not defined. Further, EPA should not make changes to a promulgated test method (see changes to Method 321 in the Proposal at 21,192) without first providing information in the docket for public review and comment. Commenter 2855 stated that EPA should focus on measurement s ys tem capability and the av ailability

of quality

calibration materials in their standard setting. The commenter provided results of an analy sis of analy te spike data showing sampling and anal yt ical sy stem biases when non - detect values were reported. The commenter stated that a concentration based standard14 2

cannot be based on values such as detection limit that do not represent the difficult nature HCl measurement. The standard cannot be set at a level below the demonstrated sy stem bias and should account for uncertainties in the calib ration materials and the measurement sy stem ability

. **Response:** We have provided additional information in the docket on detection limits ( list) and have reviewed test data below detections limits. Sources can optimize their sy stem to measure HCl and thus s atisfy

the PQLof Method 321. H owever, given that the final standard is 3 ppmv (for both existing and new sources) , we bel i eve that these concerns are addressed since the standard provides an adequate margin above the method detection limit to account for uncertainties of measurements near the detection limit. **Procedure 15 Comment:**  One c ommenter ( 2855 ) stated that PS

- 15 for FT IR Based CEMS is not appropriate for an HCl CEMS for portland cement applications. EPA requested comments on whether a CEMS can meet the requirements of PS

- 15 to measure HCl emissions. The commenter stated that EPA should develop a PS for HCl CEMS that does not mandate a specific technology , but is directly applicable to measurement of HCl. Additional problems stated by the commenter c oncerning PS

- 15 are:

 PS

- 15 is outdated and does not reflect how CEMS function.

 PS

- 15 requires that an FTIR based CEM be used. It is unclear why an FTIR must be used when other technology

is also available (i.e., GFCIR and TDL).

 Performance Specification

- 1 5 requires that a spectroscopist or operator be present on a nearl y continuous basis to meet the performance criteria.

 Performance Specification

- 15 is not specific for HCl and many of the technical requirements contained therein cannot be met for the 0.1 ppm to 2 ppm HCl concentration levels proposed by EPA.

 Performance Specification

- 15 contains no requirements for: a) determining calibration error or drift; b) setting instrument span range; or, c) determining relative accuracy such as those contained in the Lilly documents.

 There are no NI ST traceable HCl calibration gases as suggested by PS

- 15 at any concentration level.

 There are no HCl calibration gases that can meet the 2% accuracy certification requirement contained in Section 9.1.1, particularly at the 0.1 ppm to 2 ppm concentration levels.

 The highest quality

HCl calibration standard available today is at a concentration level of 5

- 10 ppm with a vendor certification of ±10%. The certification of the gas is by an FTIR calibrated with HCl gas standards prepared by the manufacturer. The certification has no independent anchor to NIST or other certifying organization.

 The requirements of PS

- 15 for data storage (one interferogram per hour, all absorbance spectra, all sample spectra, all background spectr a, all CTS spectra, etc...) and spectral audits cannot be met with any available FTIR Based CEM sy stems.143

 PS

- 15 requires modification of the FTIR CEM analy tical program when analy tical results are not within ± 5 percent of the certified audit concentration for each analy te. FTIR CEMS programs are largely proprietary

and cannot be modified by CEM operators at cement plants. Furthermore, FTIR CEMS cannot simply load outside software for anal ys es of audit spectra. This process must be tested with manufacturers of FTIR CEMS at the concentration levels proposed in this rule.

 Requirements included in PS

- 15 assume the presence of a full time FTIR CEMS operator, which is impractical. C ommenter 2915 disagreed with EPA’s proposed standards for the use of HCl CEMS:

 T here is a lack of appropriate EPA performance specifications or quality assurance procedures for HCl CEMS;

 There are serious technical feasibility issues with implementation of the available technology ; and

 The proposed standards are at or below the CEMS practical quantification limit and/or the minimum detection limit of the analyzer. **Response:** PS

- 15 is an FTIR CEMS procedure, but it does not specify any instrument. Any commerciall y available FTIR instrument may be used as long as the performance specific ations and quality

assurance requirements of PS

- 15 are met. We recognize, however, that there are also non - FTIR technologies available to monitor HCl. We are planning to develop an HCl monitoring performance specification to address these additional techno logies over the next year or so in advance of the compliance date of this rule; however, in the interim, owner/operators alway s have the option to petition the Administrator for an alternative testing approach for HCl under §63.7 (f). The commenter is con cerned that a spectroscopist or FTIR operator will need to be present on a nearl y continuous basis at a monitoring installation. PS

- 15 has initial certification requirements that may require the assistance of a spectroscopist, as do most monitoring perform ance specifications, but we do disagree that PS

- 15 will require a full time operator. This issue has never been brought to our attention by users of this PS

- 15. Regarding the comment that there are no NI ST traceable HCl calibration gases, at least one spe cialty gas vendor (Air L iquide) sells high quality “Protocol” gases for HCl which are NI ST traceable. These gases are currently available in concentrations ranging from 2.9 ppm to 5000 ppm. For levels below this range, Method 205 (40 CFR Part 51, Appendix M) is available for operators to use prepare dilution gases in lower concentrations from the higher level cylinder gases. As the cost of computer data storage continues to decrease, we do not expect the data storage requirements of PS

- 15 to be particularly burdensome. We do not have and are not planning to develop spectral audits for FTIR. Should we decide to develop them in the future, we will have to address the issue of proprietary software s ys tems at that time. **Comment:** Commenter 2855 stated that speci fic data storage requirements and data submission requirements that are subject to outside party interpretation should not be contained in any PS for144

a continuous monitoring sy stem. For example, PS

- 15 requires that the data be submitted to EPA, and that EP A would interpret these data, and also provide audit spectra. The commenter stated that they were unaware that EPA had a spectroscopic branch that is developing these spectral audit materials, or that they are prepared to handle such data submissions in th e future. If EPA is developing such materials, they should be provided in the docket so that the cement industry can evaluate how such a process could be handled. **Response:** As stated in the prior response, EPA has no plans to develop audit samples or audi t spectra for the FTIR. If no audit materials are available, then an audit is not required. We believe the PS

- 15 requirements for spiking and other quality assurance requirements are sufficient in the collection of quality

data. The data storage requirements are necessary due to the unique properties of FTIR. In particular, for the data analy sis and review, the interferograms are critical in identifying and quantifyingthe target pollutants, and the pollutant results are not transparent to the data reviewer unless the raw data are available to allow reproduction of the results. **Comment:** Commenter 2855 stated that EPA should develop an HCl monitoring PS or work with ASTM in such an effort should the HCl monitoring requirements prevail in this rule. The PS sho uld employ

anal yt e spiking as a means to both certify and validate the sy stem rather than comparisons with Method 321 for Relative Accuracy testing. The commenter recommended documents EPA OTM 22 and EPA OTM 23 submitted by Eli L illy prescribing the use of HCl CEMS at hazardous waste incinerators as a starting point for a new HCl monitoring performance specification. C ommenter 2915 stated that they do not believe that an HCl CEMS could meet PS

- 15, and EPA should develop appropriate, achievable performance s pecifications that are applicable to all the available technology

and not dictate a monitoring technology such as FTIR. Once those are established, EPA should collect data with those technologies to determine whether they are appropriate for determining co mpliance with the proposed limit. I f a technology meeting appropriate performance specifications is not capable of detecting or quantifying emissions at the level of the standard, the technology is not appropriate for use as a compliance method for that st andard. The commenters provided a list of difficulties in using PS

- 15 for continuously monitoring HCl. **Response:** Facilities that desire to use monitoring technologies other than FTIR may utilize the General Provision to request approval to use an alternati ve method b y providing the alternative specifications and QA/QC measures they would use. We agree there may be benefits to an ASTM process as well, and will work with them to evaluate such methods. **Comment:** Commenter 2855 stated that EPA has specified use of Appendix F, Procedure 1 along with PS

- 15. Appendix F, Procedure 1 was written for SO 2 , NO x and diluent CEMS (O 2 , and CO 2 ). It is not directly transferrable to an FTIR CEMS monitoring HCl at extremely low concentration levels. Appropriate on

- going quality assurance procedures are needed. **Response:** We have revised the QA procedures to accept values up to 20 percent of the emission limit.145

**Comment:** Commenter 2855 stated that the initial compliance demonstration procedures for HCl emissions from kilns or kiln s/in

- line raw mills appear contradictory and should be revised to be consistent with the proposed emission standards and 30

- day rolling average. Section 63.1349(b)(6)(ii) is inconsistent specifying a performance test duration of 24

- hours, and requiring cal culations of the daily average HCl concentrations from the hourly averages during the performance test. This is inconsistent with the language in the preamble and in §63.1343(a). **Response:** The 24

- hour period is consistent with the RATA, which is used to d emonstrate that the CEMS is operating properly

. In this case, operation while the raw mill is on, is the only requirement and the final rule has been revised to reflect this condition. In itial compliance is determined b y the first 30 days of data. **Comment:** One commenter ( 2855 ) stated that the initial performance demonstration should be based on a properl y calibrated and compliant CEMS (if such a s ys tem becomes available that is capable of accurate measurements at the level of the HCl emissions) and the initial performance test result must be based on the calculated average HCl concentration for 30 kiln operating day s. A definition for kiln operating day must be established and must reflect a specified number of hours of kiln or raw material dryer operation at normal production conditions. Days with fewer operating hours than a kiln operating day should not be included in the 30 day average. There should be no specification for separate tests for mill

- on and mill

- off for in

- line raw mills. **Response:** We agree that a definition of “kiln operating day” is needed and have added one to the final rule. We also agree that a raw mill off test is not required. **Comment:** One c ommenter ( 2855 ) stated that the initial compliance demonstration procedures for HCl emitted from sources not controlled b y a wet scrubber specifies a performance test duration and conditions that are not appropriate. Furthermore, 40 C.F.R. §63.1349(b)(6)(ii)(2008) states that initial compliance shall be demonstrated by conducting separate performance tests for in

- line kiln/raw mills with the mill operating and with the raw mill off. This would require the facility to run in a mill

- off condition for 24 hours, which is not possible. There should be no specification for separate initial compliance tests f or mill

- on and mill

- off for in

- line raw mills. **Response:** We agree that a raw mill off test is not required and have changed the final rule to reflect this. **Comment:** One c ommenter ( 2901 ) stated that EPA did not follow the Agency ’s own protocols in proposing to change the practical lower quantification range of Method 321. **Response:** We believe we have adequately followed protocol in proposing changes the M321 through this notice and comment rulemaking process. **Monovents Comment:**  One commenter (2888) proposed that monovent facilities stack test for HCI, using EPA approved methods, on the same 30

- month frequency as required for Dioxin/Furan testing under the current Portland Cement Maximum Achievable Control Technology (PC MACT).146

**Response:** Sources equipped with scrubbers are required to test every 5 years. Such sources would have to construct a stack for testing. However, where sources use CEMS, we believe the current monitoring methodology is appropriate. Sources may request alternative performance testing requ irements under the General Provisions to address site specific circumstances. **Clarifications Comment**  **:** One commenter (2845) stated that §63.1343(b)(6) and §63.1343(c)(6) should be clarified to state that the HCl standard is corrected to 7 percent ox ygen bas ed on a 30

- day rolling average. **Response :**  We agree and have made the suggested clarifications. **Comment :**  One commenter (2845) stated that §63.1350(q)(2) should provide specific requirements rather than reference to 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS, which may chan ge in a manner that could make it inappropriate for a kiln sy stem. The commenter provided detailed language to include in this section. **Response :**  While there are merits to using cross references, in this case we agree to add information specific to this ru le to avoid the use of a cross reference. **Coal mills Comment:**  One commenter (2910) asked that EPA clarify in the proposed revisions that in

- line coal mills that vent directly to the atmosphere be exempt from installing or operating an HCl CEMS. The comment er stated that they knew of no basis for concluding that coal drying would increase the HCL concentration in the in

- line coal mill exhaust. The commenter stated that monitoring the concentration of HCl in the main stack would be an appropriate way to measu re compliance with the HCl standard. **Response:** We agree and have clarified the final rule accordingl y. **2.7.5 Impacts**  **SO 2**  **scrubbers and HCl control Comment:**  Several commenters (2845 and 2900) stated that the scrubbers that would be used to control HCl are generally designed to control sulfur dioxide, not HCl. Vendors of HCl scrubber sy stems indicated that the sy stem they would install would be designed for SO 2 , not HCl, if SO 2 is present in the flue gas. The limited number of wet scrubbers in the U.S. on cement plants are designed to remove SO 2 , and are not intended to be used to comply with and HCl limit. One commenter (2844) stated that there is little experience with scrubbers designed to control both SO 2 and HCl. The commenter stated that based on limite d short term HCl data, many kilns have preliminary

HCl levels that will require much greater control. Several commenters (2845 and 2900) stated that there are no data to support the conclusion that, under various conditions, a wet scrubber designed to util ize lime will provide the required147

collection efficiency

to meet a 2 ppm emission standard. One commenter (2845) provided information about vendors’ HCl scrubbers, stating that the sy stems that can provide 99 percent control of HCl use NaOH as the scrubbin g media. These s ys tems are installed for applications that have been producing little if any SO 2 , and the inlet HCl concentrations are substantiall y higher than would be typ ical in cement plants. Because of product quality/ specifications and economic conce rns, NaOH would not be a reasonable reagent for cement kilns. L ime is easil y obtained by

cement plants, but NaOH would have to be purchased. Neither the portland cement industry nor the Agency

have an y data to support the conclusion that a wet scrubber des igned to utilize lime will provide the required collection efficiency to meet a 2

- ppm emission standard when SO 2 is present in the flue gas and the inlet HCl concentration is very low. Commenter 2889 disagreed with EPA’s estimates of wet scrubber efficien cies of 99 to 99.9 percent. The commenter notes that at the lower HCl concentrations found in cement kiln gas streams, it is unlikely

that a wet scrubber could achieve those efficiencies. **Response:** We agree that the wet scrubbers currently on U.S. cement p lants are designed to remove SO 2 , rather than HCl. However, an EPA review of HCl emissions from 21 plants indicated an average concentration of 12 ppm, and a maximum concentration of 55 ppm. Therefore, required HCl removal efficiencies to meet the 3 ppm em issions standard are expected to be much lower than 99 percent for virtuall y all kilns. A preliminary review of data gathered from a 2010 Information Collection Request (I CR) for Electrical Generating Units indicates that wet scrubbers utilizing lime will be able to provide the necessary collection efficiency

to meet the 3 ppm emissions standard. We also think that test data from the secondary aluminum industry regarding the HCl removal by lime

- coated fabric filters (e.g., Docket A

- 92

- 61, Item II

- A

- 9) indic ate that the 3 ppm emissions standard can be achieved b y alternatives to scrubbers. **Baseline HCl emissions Comment:**  One commenter (2845) stated that for HCl, EPA assumed that all kilns without recent test data would emit at the average rate observed across those relatively few kilns for which test data were available. While this may be true on average, this approach ignores the large variability

that undoubtedly

exists across untested kilns in terms of their actual HCl emissions rates. Some of the kilns to which EPA applies the average HCl emissions rate will in fact have high emissions and will need more intensive and costly HCl controls; EPA fails to accuratel y represent total control needs across the entire industry b y missing these kilns that have emissi on rates well above the average. **Response:** Itis true that kilns may have emission rates above the average, and, therefore, may require more costl y controls. However, there are also kilns that have emission rates below the average, and, therefore, would re quire less costly controls. Data available to EPA indicated that there were more kilns with HCl emissions lower than the average rate utilized by EPA in cost calculations than there were kilns with HCl emissions above the average rate. Therefore, we believ e the cost calculations are accurate, if not overestimating the total control costs for the industry

.148

**Achievability using wet scrubber Comment:**  One commenter (2900) provided a summary of information about one of their plant’s wet scrubbers. Information inc ludes water and power use, costs, and HCl stack emission data. Prior to the installation of the scrubber, the plant conducted extensive tests in 2000 for purposes of evaluating HCl emissions from the various stacks. The data from 2000 demonstrates that the HCl emission rate as lb/hr was doubled when the raw mill was shut down and indicates a scrubbing effect through its operation. The data taken in 2006 using similar methods showed that the plant experienced some reduction in HCl emission but not enough to achieve the EPA limit at less than 2.3 ppmvd at 7 percent ox ygen. A data point was not found for the raw mill down condition. It is expected that the results will be less with the operation of the scrubber than the data point in 2000; but higher than the n ew EPA limit. Both the raw mill running and down conditions will likely

be noncompliant with the new limit. The commenter noted that the scrubber at their plant was set at 5.5 to 6.5 for strictly SO 2 control, and that the set point was well below the 8 to 10 pH that the commenter stated is needed for HCl control. As this scrubber is utilizing water, limestone, and some lime concentration present in the stone, it can be surmised that the EPA’s limit is difficult to achieve even with the best available scrubb er technology

. **Response:** We believe that a preliminary review of data gathered from a 2010 Information Collection Request (I CR) for Electrical Generating Units indicates that wet scrubbers utilizing lime will provide the necessary collection efficiency

to meet the 3 ppm emissions standard. Furthermore, because the HCl standard is established at a level higher than all measured values (to account for the inability to reliabl y measure any lower standard) and measured based on 30

- day averages, it provides an ample compliance margin. The 30

- day averaging period assures that several operating cycles of raw mill on and off are included in each average, thereby averaging them out over the 30

- day period. **Water availability for scrubbers Comment:**  Several commenters ( 2845 and 2941) stated that wet scrubbers are highl y water

intensive, and based on the locations of man y of the cement plants, obtaining additional water rights could be very

difficult, particularl y for plants located in states where water rights issues hav e been contentious. The commenter provided several estimates of water use, including an estimate for a typical cement plant of 460 million gal/yr, and an estimate that a scrubber will require, on average, 30 million gallons of water annually

. **Response:** As noted in the preamble, we are not mandating wet scrubber control technology in this rule. Other control techniques are available (hydrated finel y ground lime, spray dryers, fuel and additive switching) that we believe would allow a cement kiln to meet the HCl emission limits in areas where sufficient water for a wet scrubber is not available. Although we have no cost data available for these alternative control techniques (some of which would be site

specific), we anticipate that these control techniques wo uld be no more expensive that a wet scrubber.149

**Scrubber costs are underestimated Comment:**  Several commenters (2830 and 2845) stated that EPA has underestimated the cost of wet scrubbers to capture HCl, and there will be problems if a facility uses both a w et scrubber and a RTO in series. If the proposal for HCl is implemented, wet scrubbers will need to be installed at many

of the cement plants. Wet scrubbers are designed such that the flue gas exiting the scrubber is saturated. As a result, the exiting flu e temperature will be 160°

– 180°F. Therefore, plants that install these scrubbers will either need to reheat the flue gas to prevent condensation in the stack and provide flue gas buoyancy , or it will be necessary to line the stack with a material to withst and continuous water condensation. In either case, this will be an added cost to the plant. If natural gas were used to reheat the flue gas from 160° to 225°F, the theoretical plant generating 200,000 dry

standard cubic feet per minute (dscfm) would generate an additional 7,500 tons CO 2 /year. According to commenters 2830 and 2845, if an RTO is required because of THC emissions, the exhaust exiting the wet scrubber enters the RTO fully saturated with moisture, meaning that as it is heated, it passes through the temperature range with the highest corrosion potential (above the water dew point and below the acid dew point). Thus, very costl y nickel alloys must be used at certain areas within the RTO. Also, in designing the RTO, if the heat exchanger is designed to achieve high thermal efficiency (low gas consumption), then the RTO outlet temperature will be below the acid dew point. As a result, all outlet ducting and the stack must be resistant to acid condensation and high levels of corrosion. If the outlet te mperatures are raised above the critical acid dew point temperature, then the RTO will consume very large quantities of natural gas. Therefore, the choice forced upon the kiln b y the proposed rule is either high energy costs or high material (allo y) costs. **Response:** As noted in a previous response, we believe that the wet scrubber costs are accurate, if not overestimated, for the reasons cited. The wet scrubber and RTO costs were calculated based on actual costs from the industry for those sy stems, and, the refore, should already account for the factors mentioned by the commenter. Furthermore, as noted in the preamble, the wet scrubber/RTO combination has already been demonstrated in cement kiln applications. **Accounting for scrubber waste handling Comment:**  S everal commenters (2841, 2845, and 2889) stated that there will be problems with the solids and liquid handling of wet scrubbers. The commenter provided an overview of the wastes associated with wet scrubber operation. The commenter’s concerns include:

 Pl ants will need to dispose of some or potentiall y all of the sludge. EPA has assumed that the solids would be recycled to the finishing mill, but the chemistry of the sludge will be site specific and may

not allow recycling. Disposal of solid waste would re quire additional permits.

 Dewatered solids from the scrubber have a moisture content of 25% to 35%. This material is difficult to handle in the finish mill and its associated classifier. Furthermore, the solids from a wet scrubber are not composed strictly of gy psum (calcium sulfate). The waste material includes sodium and potassium salts. There will also be some calcium150

sulfite. There are limits to the concentrations of these contaminants that can be included in the cement product.

 Because of recirculation of the slurry , the concentration of chlorine in the slurry liquid can rise to high steady - state concentrations, requiring wastewater treatment.

 The costs for water treatment imposed by the proposed rule would be at least $50,000 per ye ar, not taking into account total dissolved solids (TSS) or biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) costs. **Response:** Our wastewater and solid waste impacts estimates for wet scrubbers were determined based on information from industry and, as such, should already account for the situ ations cited by the commenter. As noted in the preamble, all of the facilities currentl y using wet scrubber mix the gy psum created in the scrubber with clinker in the finish mill and were assumed to also account for other waste materials that accumulate during the normal operation of the facility. As noted in the preamble, there are four facilities (five kilns) that currently use wet scrubbers that report no water releases at any time, such as that cited by the commenter. We requested comment in the Portlan d Cement NESHAP proposal on the potential for water releases due to wet scrubber sy stem purges and an y regulations that might apply

. Though commenters raised concerns of the possibility

of water impacts, they

did not provide a rationale of why it would be expected, when it is not occurring at the four facilities that currently use wet scrubbers, due to their on

- site reuse of water. If discharges did occur, there would be a potential for water quality issues. But given these facts, we believe our estimate of no water quality impacts resulting from production of wastewater b y wet scrubbers is reasonable. The sludge that is generated is used again in the process, so there is no cost of disposal associated with sludge. **HCl emissions data, Table 5 of Preamble Comment:**  One commenter (2863) stated that Table 5 in the preamble outlines the available HCl data for the 27 kilns for which Method 321 data were available. Ash Grove’s Durkee plant is identified as source #26 on that list with emissions of 34.68 ppm HCl. This is not correct. The Durkee plant’s HCl emission rate is 3.2 ppm (7 percent ox ygen)

—an order of magnitude lower than what is stated in Table 5. P ortland cement kilns are not significant sources of HCl. **Response:** As noted in the preamble, the anal ys is for the HCl MACT floor was revised to remove errors identified in comments on the proposal, including this error. **Dry scrubbers Comment:**  One commenter (2889) stated that there are problems associated with spray dryer absorbers or lime injection

- based dry scrubbers recommended for arid regions. A review of recent boiler BACT analy ses summarized in the RBL C Clearinghouse indicates that the HCl removal efficiencies are well below the 99 percent levels assumed by EPA. Furthermore, both ty pes of dry scrubbers g enerate significant quantities of solid waste. **Response:** EPA expects that the HCl removal efficiencies needed to comply with the 3 ppm HCl emissions standard will be well below 99 percent for virtually all kilns. Regarding the solid waste argument, as stat ed in the preamble, the PM captured in the kiln fabric filter (cement kiln dust) is essentially

recaptured raw material, intermediate materials, or product. Based on the151

available information, it appears that most captured PM is ty pically recycled back to the kilns to the maximum extent possible. Therefore, we estimate that an y additional PM captured will also be recycled to the kiln to the extent possible. 

### 2.8 **PM Standards 2.8.1**  **Legal Issues MACT** 
**- on**  **- MACT**  **Comment:** Many

commenters (2830, 2832, 2841, 2844, 28 45, 2858, 2859, 2863, 2864, 2874, and 2914) stated that EPA lacks the authority to promulgate new PM standard using the MACT floor approach because EPA issued new and existing source NEHSAP for PM in 1999. Once the NESHAP is established, the CAA §112(d)(6) requires an y revision to the standard to be accomplished using a technology review and not using the process proposed by EPA in this rulemaking. The proposed EPA standard in this rulemaking leads to a MACT

- on - MACT approach which results in a floor that is much more stringent than it would have been if EPA had used emissions data from sources that had not already complied with the 1999 PM standards. **Response:** This is factually incorrect. If EPA properly established MACT for PM using the 1999 data base, the standard for existing and new sources would be higher than the standard adopted in today ’s rule, as explained in the preamble to the final rule (although EPA considers its current data base to be more representative, and so is using it to amend the standard). **Comment:** Due to the inappropriateness of EPA’s proposal and the fact that the 2000 remand did not address PM at all, the commenters urge EPA to maintain the 1999 PM standard. Commenter 2864 argued that EPA does not have the authority under the CAA to completel y recalculate PM MACT floors for cement plants where the initial floors were upheld. Although, EPA has the authority

to revise the PM MACT standards for the industry , EPA must do so in accordance with §112(f) or §112(d)(6) without recalculating th e floors. Because EPA has failed to conduct the anal ys es necessary under those provisions, it has no authority to revise the PM MACT standards for either existing or new cement plants. **Response:** As stated in the preamble to the final rule, MACT

- on - MACT is a misnomer because the 1999 standard simply does not represent MACT. For the reasons stated in the preamble, EPA does not see that it is barred from amending that standard here to make a proper determination of MACT. **2.8.2 Adequacy of Floor Determinations**  **(Existing and New) Support for PM standards**  **Comment :**  Several commenters (2898 and 2911) supported EPA’s proposed standards for PM and EPA’s proposed standards for area source cement kilns under §112(d)(2)

- (3). Several commenters (2786 and 2898) stated that particulate metal emissions from cement plants may pose health risks at very

low levels and therefore stringent emission controls are needed.152

Cement facilities are sources of the non

- volatile metal HAPs antimony , cadmium, lead, selenium, chromium, arsenic , nickel and manganese. Commenter 2928 supported the proposed emission standards for PM. **Response :**  EPA acknowledges the commenters’ support. **Comment :**  Two commenters (2845 and 2859) said that EPA has not promulgated any regulations requiring PM CEMS at any source category due to its inability

to address fundamental technical and policy issues and must resolve these issues through rulemaking before requiring PM CEMS at any cement plants. Furthermore EPA has not performed a legitimate technical analy sis of em issions variability and compliance determination uncertainty to allow the use of PM CEMS for determining continuous compliance with a PM limit at cement plants. **Response:** We reject the commenters’ assertions that PM CEMS have not been required via rulemaki ng because of unresolved fundamental technical or policy issues. Concerns about PM CEMS were identified and addressed prior to the January 2004 publication of Performance Specification 11 and Quality Assurance Procedure 2 for PM CEMS (69 FR 1786, January 1 2, 2004). As mentioned in that rule’s preamble, “...we believe that the PM CEMS field demonstrations completed to date encompass a range of operating conditions and emission characteristics...” including those exhibited by sources such as cement kilns. Moreov er, we disagree with the assertion that our anal ys is of PM emissions variability is not legitimate, yi elding an overly

- stringent PM emissions limit. The PM limit is based on our anal ys is of PM emissions from test data, adjusted from an hourl y to a 30

- day averaging period and further adjusted for variability

. As mentioned in the preamble to the Credible Evidence Rule (62 FR at 8314, February 24, 1997), we have addressed and continue to address concerns about perceived “...limited number and distribution of tes t runs and the inherent variability in levels of emissions...” by

a number of approaches, including changing emissions averaging periods. Further, a statistically

- based adjustment to account for emissions variability , and which, in this case, increases the numerical value of the standard (and its longer averaging period) b y fifty percent, does not make the standard more stringent. **Variability Comment**  **:** Several commenters (2830, 2844, 2845, 2859, and 2864) stated that because the data in the proposed NESHAP is based on a limited data set (3

- hour stack tests) that short term tests will not address the variability issues. The commenter anal yz ed EPA’s released PM data and found that EPA did not use all available PM data and according to the commenters, EPA used an inappropriate statistical analy sis (UPL instead of upper tolerance level UTL). The commenter suggested that when an appropriate statistical analysis using all of the EPA’s PM data is used, the PM MACT standard should be 0.092 lbs/ton of kiln feed for existing sources and 0.0625 lbs/ton of kiln feed for new sources. Commenters 2845 and 2859 submitted PM data as part of their comments on the proposed NSPS rules for portland cement. Commenters 2845 and 2864 stated that the data set used to set the MACT floor w as too small. The commenter recalculated the PM floors using additional data, and presented data showing the relationship between bag life and PM emissions. The commenter stated that it is important that153

EPA includes as part of the MACT floor the operation al variability experienced due to filter life and the baghouse itself that EPA needs to include as part of the MACT floor. The commenters provided graphs showing the effects of age on baghouse performance. **Response:** In its comments, commenter 2859 stated that EPA ignored one of two data points. They stated that EPA selected 0.0108 lb/ton clinker and ignored a data point of 0.032 lb/ton clinker. The commenter misunderstood how EPA calculated PM emissions for the Sugar Creek kiln; EPA did not select one data point over another. The PM data for that kiln was obtained from the Missouri Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) and was used to calculate average emissions for that kiln. The Sugar Creek kiln is one of the six MACT floor kilns used in the anal ys is of the MACT floor for PM. The data for the Sugar Creek kiln used in the MACT floor anal ys is is presented in the following table.

**Lafarge Sugar Creek, PM Emissions:**  **MDNR Data for 2002 and 2007**
**Roller Mill On**

**Run Date**  **PM (lb/hr) Kiln**  **Clinker Production (tph) P**  **M Rate (lb/ton**  **clinker)** 103* 8/7/2002 0.044 125.33 0.0004 105* 8/8/2002 0.587 119.37 0.0049 101* 10/30/2002 0.967 113.82 0.0085 111* 9/5/2007 2.52 127.00 0.0198 112* 9/5/2007 1.7 126.93 0.0134 113* 9/5/2007 1.09 126.93 0.0086 AVG (mill on) 0.0093
**Roller Mill Off**

**Run Date**  **PM (lb/hr) Kiln**  **Clinker Production (tph) PM Rate**  **(lb/ton clinker)**  101* 8/6/2002 8.118 124.42 0.0652 104* 8/7/2002 1.823 120.27 0.0152 106* 8/9/2002 1.746 120.72 0.0145 101* 11/6/2007 5.22 119.12 0.0438 102* 11/6/2007 7.24 123.59 0.0586 103* 11/6/2007 4.84 118.32 0.0409 AVG (mill off) 0.0397 WTD AVG (Mill on & off) 0.0108 In their comment, commenter 2859 provided PM test results for 2002 and 2007 as well as new PM run data for tests conducted in 2004, whic h EPA did not have when it was the developing the MACT floor for PM. The commenter’s PM data for 2002 and 2007 is essentially the same as the data set we used with minor differences due to differences in kiln feed rates. The individual run data submitted b y commenter 2859 are presented below.

**Lafarge Sugar Creek, PM Emissions: Lafarge Data for 2002, 2004, 2007**
**Roller Mill On**154 **Lafarge Sugar Creek, PM Emissions: Lafarge Data for 2002, 2004, 2007**

**Date Filterable PM** 

**(lb/hr) Kiln Production (tph)**  **PM rate (lb/ton clinker)**  8/7/02 0.04 127.87 0.0003 8/8/02 0.59 121.80 0.0048 10 /30/02 0.97 116.18 0.0083 5/20/04 3.02 117.95 0.0256 5/20/04 2.51 125.77 0.0200 5/20/04 2.65 126.10 0.0210 5/20/04 2.27 121.14 0.0188 5/20/04 2.76 108.80 0.0253 5/20/04 2.69 108.80 0.0248 6/25/04 3.30 126.10 0.0262 6/25/04 3.52 126.10 0.0279 6/25/ 04 3.41 125.88 0.0271 7/14/04 3.79 125.99 0.0301 7/14/04 3.97 126.10 0.0315 7/14/04 3.52 126.10 0.0279 9/5/07 2.52 129.52 0.0195 9/5/07 1.70 129.41 0.0131 9/5/07 1.00 129.52 0.0077 AVG (mill on) 0.0200
**Roller Mill Off**
**Date Filterable PM** 

**(lb /hr)**  **Kiln Production (tph) PM rate**  **(lb/ton clinker)** 8/6/02 8.12 126.98 0.0639 8/7/02 1.82 122.69 0.0149 8/8/02 1.75 123.13 0.0142 5/18/04 4.90 128.86 0.0381 5/18/04 3.79 126.54 0.0300 6/29/04 9.07 126.10 0.0719 7/15/04 8.02 126.10 0.0636 7/15/04 8 .95 126.10 0.0710 8/12/04 12.57 129.52 0.0971 11/6/07 5.22 117.06 0.0446 11/6/07 7.24 111.22 0.0651 11/6/07 4.84 117.17 0.0413 AVG (mill off) 0.0513 WTD AVG (Mill on & off) 0.0216 Adding in the 2004 test runs increases the weighted average (ass uming the raw mill is on 95 percent of the time and off 5 percent of the time per the MDNR) for the kiln from 0.0108 lb/ton clinker to 0.0216 lb/ton clinker. The kiln is still among the top six performing kilns. One commenter (2845) stated that they collec ted additional PM data and combined the new data with the EPA data set to create a new MACT data set consisting of a total of 319 runs/test data points for 47 kilns. The commenter’s data included the number of runs/data points, the minimum and maximum PM v alues, and the mean PM emissions in lb/ton clinker. Based on average emissions for each kiln in the new data set, the commenter identified a new list of the top 6 kilns with average PM emissions for the 6 MACT floor kilns of 0.024 lb/ton clinker. Commenter 2864155

concurred with the reanalysis of the MACT floor using the new MACT data. EPA evaluated the new data and found shortcomings that led us to not include the data in our analy sis for the PM MACT floor. The shortcomings identified include the following:

 Individual run data from which the commenter calculated average emission rates were not included preventing us from fully evaluating the emissions data or the average emissions they

presented.

 When EPA selected the top performing kilns, it used the averag e PM emissions for each kiln and ranked them from lowest to highest. In the case of kilns with raw mills, EPA calculated the weighted averaged emissions using test run data during raw mill on and raw mill off periods. Because a raw mill operates 85

- 95 perc ent of the operating time, the PM emissions during the raw mill on period will dominate the weighted average. It appears that the commenter calculated a simple arithmetic mean rather than a weighted average for kilns that have raw mills. This was determine d because for two kilns with raw mills that only

reported two values for each kiln, the commenter calculated the simple arithmetic mean of the two values. Because PM emissions tend to be lower when the raw mill is on and because the raw mill is ty pically o n 85

- 95 percent of a kiln’s operating time, calculating a simple arithmetic mean as the commenter did, will likely overstate emissions. Because individual test runs were not supplied, it was not possible to recalculate the weighted averages for those kilns with raw mills. Among the six MACT floor kilns identified by

the commenter, four operate raw mills.

 No explanation was given for excluding the Lehigh, Union Bridge kiln from its data set or for dropping it from the top 6 kilns used in EPA’s anal ys is. The average emissions for Lehigh, Union Bridge would put it in the top 6 in the commenter’s set of new MACT floor kilns.

 The commenter’s data set for Lafarge kiln 2 at Whitehall consisted of 13 data points whereas we used 15 test runs. Commenters 2845 and 286 4 commented that EPA’s PM limits did not account for declining fabric filter performance over time. Commenter 2864 provided graphical evidence for one of its kilns that it claimed showed that PM emissions increased with aging bags. The graph indicates low emissions during the initial performance test as well as several years later after replacing all of the baghouse bags. Following replacement, PM emissions increased after installationof new bags and remained high even when the bags were again replaced. Contrary to the commenter’s claim, performance declined even when new bags were installed. Based on the information provided b y the commenter, it appears that there were factors other than aging bags that contributed to declining PM performance. EPA has reviewed PM test data for several kilns over time and have concluded that PM emissions can be highl y variable. This variability can even be evident in consecutive test runs on some kilns. The first figure below shows the highl y variable PM test results from a s ingle for nine test runs over a 3

- day period. The second figure plots the average test results for six different kilns over varying number of years. From these data, there are no clear indications that baghouse performance necessaril y declines over time, rather it indicates that performance is variable. Obviousl y i t will be necessary for cement plant owners and operators to operate and maintain their baghouses in peak condition to comply with the new PM limits. But EPA rejects the commenters’ arguments that baghouse performance necessaril y declines over time and that the PM limits should be less stringent to account for this.156

**Condensable PM Comment**  **:** Several commenters (2845 and 2874) stated that it would be inappropriate to regulate condensable fraction of PM 2.5 for the following reasons:

 Because there are known problems with the test method 202 which is used to determine the emissions for PM 2.5 and the little data EPA has is based on questionable AP

- 42 factors which is based on several tests, EPA used l imited available data that were of very uncertain accuracy

.
 The EPA did not show that listed HAP can be found in the condensable fraction and therefore cannot reasonable use condensable PM as a HAP surrogate under the authority of CAA §112(d).157

 If HAP exist ed in condensable PM, they would be controlled by

other means which include PM control devices for filterable PM, mercury which is already directly regulated, and organic HAP are regulated through the THC surrogated. Therefore, there would be no need to in clude condensable PM as part of the PM standards.

 EPA would need to propose PM standards because the current proposed standards are based onl y on filterable PM and not both filterable PM and condensable fraction of PM. **Response:** The PM limits address filte rable PM, including PM 2.5 and PM 10 , but not condensable PM. We do not have information on emissions of condensable PM from cement kilns sufficient to set emission limits and the limited information we do have is highl y uncertain. We also believe that these emissions will be controlled to some degree via controls on HCl in the NESHAP and SO 2 in the NSPS. EPA has recently promulgated a new test method for condensable PM (revised Method 202) which will allow for more reliable assessments of condensable PM. We anticipate that data more representative of condensable primary PM emissions will be available at the time of the next review of the NSPS. **Combined stack gases Comment**  **:** One commenter (2841) stated that the proposed standards are based on a kiln stack or so me estimated number based on the flow apportioned from a kiln and clinker cooler. This does not address situations, such as those where additional sources of particulate are included into the same duct sy stem leading to one stack. In order for facilities t o design more efficient manufacturing operations, other configurations are likely and should be encouraged. In addition, using a grain loading standard is easil y measured and can be monitored more effectivel y. Another commenter (2845) stated that the MACT floor for combined stacks (new or reconstructed kiln or in

- line kiln/raw mill) should be calculated based on all available data and should subcategorize PM standards b y different kiln ty pes. The alternative PM standard should provide for including other exhaust gas streams in the main stack such as coal mills. Facilities should have the option of meeting a grain loading based standard instead of the lbs PM/ton of clinker standard, if that is retained b y EPA. The rule should be worded such that it is clear that for combined exhausts, the gas flow and PM testing onl y needs to be measured at the stack when using the alternative PM limit. The rule should be worded such that it is clear that PM testing will not need to be conducted in mill

- on/mill

- off conditions. **Response :**  Regarding these two comments, facilities have the option to petition the EPA Administrator for a site

- specific emissions standard for the situations described above (e.g., including additional sources of particulate in the same duct s ys tem leadi ng to one stack, meeting an alternative grain loading based standard), as long as the facility can demonstrate that the alternative standard will achieve an emissions reduction equivalent to that obtained under the promulgated standard. **Clinker coolers C**  **omment:** One commenter (2845) stated that §63.1345(a) standards for clinker coolers should not be changed, remaining at 0.10 lb per ton of feed (dry basis).158

**Response:** We disagree with this comment for the reasons discussed in the in the preamble regarding the PM limit for kilns. Therefore, we are setting the same PM emissions limits and compliance requirements for both clinker coolers and kilns. **Increased PM with use of wet scrubbers Comment**  **:** One commenter (2889) stated that EPA has not adequately considere d the emissions of particulate matter from wet scrubbers due to reentrainment of solids

- containing droplets from mist eliminators. Subcategorization is needed with respect to particulate matter emissions from wet scrubber

- controlled cement kilns. Based on similar units in the lime industry , it is apparent that this will be a significant problem. In fact, Subpart AAAAA includes a higher particulate matter allowance for wet scrubber

- controlled lime kilns than for fabric filter controlled lime kilns. Without a similar form of subcategorization, there will be an incentive not to install wet scrubbers and instead use a less efficient dry scrubbing s ys tem. **Response :**  The commenter is confused about the structure of subpart AAAAA. First, the separate higher PM limit s in subpart AAAAA of part 63 are there to permit facilities with wet PM scrubbers installed before 2004 to continue using them but to require more effective PM control for newer units. The rule recognizes that wet PM scrubbers are not as effective as fabric filters for PM control. Secondly , wet scrubbers designed and operated to provide that gaseous SO 2 or HCl react with caustic slurries are fundamentally different from wet scrubbers designed to remove PM (e.g., Venturi scrubbers). Acid gas scrubbers are n ot intended to be PM removers; any collection of PM in an acid gas scrubber is incidental to the primary purpose and probabl y minimal. The commenter is correct that a poorl y operating mist eliminator downstream of an acid gas scrubber may

produce PM emissi ons that could affect overall PM control. The source must provide effective mist elimination in order to maintain compliance with not only the acid gas emissions limit but to avoid increasing PM emissions. Commenter 2900 provided data on particulate emiss ions before and after installation of a wet scrubber. The data indicated particulate emissions decreased. EPA expects installation of scrubbers after fabric filters will result in slightly lower filterable particulate emissions than with fabric filters alo ne. We do not think that Subpart AAAAA cited by the commenter provides evidence that installing a scrubber downstream of a particulate filter results in higher particulate levels than a fabric filter alone. **2.8.4 Compliance Assurance**  **Performance of bag lea k detection systems and other PM monitoring systems**  **Comment:** Several commenters (2845, 2859, and 2887) stated that in proposing PM compliance assurance provisions, EPA did not, but should, conduct a technical evaluation of the applicability , installation, design, performance, certification, quality assurance and alarm level setting procedures for all PM monitoring approaches and then re

- propose appropriate technical requirements for monitoring kilns, kilns/in

- line raw mills, and clinker coolers using bag le ak detectors (BLDs), Particulate Matter Detectors (PMD) and Continuous Opacity Monitors options. According to the commenters, EPA does not recognize that many BLD designs are inappropriate and inadequate for use under the varying effluent matrix and conditions, especiall y159

at kilns/in

- line raw mills nor does EPA acknowledge that technicall y superior and far more practical PM monitoring approaches have been developed for cement plants that burn hazardous waste. The commenters stated that the proposed PM monit oring provisions are inconsistent with the promulgated PM monitoring requirements for cement plants that burn hazardous waste (40 CFR 63, Subpart EEE

- 2008), which includes provisions for the use of PMD on both Electrostatic precipitators (ESP) and fabric f ilter controlled cement. EPA appeared to be unaware that recent work at a cement plant with membrane coated fabric filters has demonstrated that continuous opacity monitoring s ys tem (COMS) can also meet the rigorous ASTM D7392

- 07 requirements for certification as a PMD. **Response:** At this point, we still find that BLD is an appropriate technology for PM monitoring. We believe that sources will work with sy stem vendors to install and use appropriate s ys tems for kiln

- specific conditions. We note that cement kilns that burn hazardous waste operate under different conditions than ordinary kilns. However, we will continue to review advances in PM monitoring technologies in general and will be happy to consider source

- specific requests for alternative approaches. The rule already provides BLD **as** an alternative for PM CEMS. **Comment:** Several commenters (2845 and 2859) stated that EPA has not demonstrated acceptable performance of BLDs to monitor kiln, kiln/ in

- line raw mills at cement plants and has not developed nec essary

guidance for or technical requirements that will be necessary for a BLD to meet the requirements in the proposed rule. EPA has provided no guidance on appropriate alarm setting procedures, installation, operation, and quality assurance procedures an d corrective action procedures and relevant validated procedures are not available from the measurement sy stem suppliers for installations on cement kilns and kilns/inline raw mills. According to the commenter, in the selection of BLD devices it is clear t hat the most widel y used probe type BLDs (such as triboelectric , or probe electrification , or charge transfer devices) are unsuitable for use on kilns/in

- line raw mills because the responses of these devices are proportional to the square or to the cube of the local gas velocity and are also affected by

changes in effluent temperature, moisture content, and resistivity of the dust. All of these factors change when the raw mill operational status changes. Several commenters (2845 and 2859) stated that becau se EPA did not provide technical specifications, installation procedures, operation and maintenance procedures, quality assurance procedures, or alarm setting procedures or any relevant guidance for these issues for BLDs, the burden is on the user to devel op this information. If EPA cannot provide technical requirements, criteria or guidance, then it certainly has no basis to review the site

- specific plans for approval. With no established criteria or guidance, review by different regional offices or states as delegated authorities will likely result in different requirements and different interpretations, and confusion. The deadline for submission of the site

- specific BLD plan is not explicitly stated. There is no time limit for EPA’s approval, no obligatio n for EPA to render an opinion as to the acceptability

of the plan, no instruction to the user as to monitoring prior to receipt of approval, and no indication of the consequences in the event the plan is not approved. Until legitimate guidance and criteri a are developed, the commenter stated that it is sufficient that site

- specific monitoring plans be available for review. The commenters stated that, for the above reasons, the requirement to submit the site

- specific plans for approval should be removed.160

Se veral commenters (2845 and 2859) stated that EPA needs to provide appropriate design and performance specifications so that manufacturers can certify that their BLD meets applicable criteria in order that the regulated user of such devices can rel y on the manufacturer’s certifications. Without an appropriate design and performance specifications, there are no means available to the cement plant operator to verify claims made by

the BLD vendor or manufacturer regarding detection capability . Plant operators c annot be responsible for the design or performance of these s ys tems and cannot be expected to able to determine the technical validity of vendor claims, especially where there are in effect no regulatory or technical requirements. **Response:** While there is not a formal performance specification, there is existing guidance on BLD. We have written a performance

- based rule for sources to use to tailor operation of the BDL to meet the needs at each plant including variations in operation with the mill on vs. mil l off. The final rule clarifies that the resulting plans must be kept on site. Submittal is not required. There are several ty

pes of BDL and, as stated above, we believe that sources will work with sy stem vendors to install and use appropriate s ys tems for kiln

- specific conditions. Sources have 3 years to compl y with the final standards and should use this time to ensure they are using a sy stem that works well for their application. **Comment:** Several commenters (2845 and 2859) had the following comments conce rning BLD and alarms:

 The proposed requirements for recording the BLD output and setting the activating alarm are inconsistent with procedures actuall y used for contemporary BLD.

 EPA should remove the out

- of

- date requirement that the BLD should activate an audible alarm and use more up

- to

- date guidance which applies to settling alarm levels for the full range of BLD and fabric filter configurations that are found at cement kilns that burn hazardous waste. The proposal reflects bias to a particular manufacturer and particular approach which is not applicable to all cement kilns. The commenter provided several examples of what the commenter considered to be out

- of

- date requirements.

 The requirements to initiate procedures to determine the cause of every alarm within one hour and alleviate the cause of the alarm within three hours are problematic. EPA must revise its requirements to accommodate real

- world conditions that cannot be avoided and EPA must recognize site

- specific BLD monitoring plans will need to be revised as actual experience is gained from the use of these devices at kilns and kilns/in

- line raw mills. The commenter provided examples to support their position.

 The time allowed for alleviating the cause of a BLD alarm is not sufficient especiall y wh en a false alarm is due to malfunction of the BLD or an in appropriate alarm setting procedure.

 The requirement for audible alarms may be distracting and are unnecessary . The ty pe of alarm should be at the discretion of the plant operator. The commenter st ated that many control rooms are equipped with visual alarms that the operator must acknowledge and respond to. These alarms include situations with far greater safety and emergency priority and consequences than BLDs alarms and are critical to operation o f the plant. **Response:** We agree that an audible alarm is not required and have changed the final rule to reflect this. We have also provided additional time for the operator to determine the cause of the161

alarm (3 hours instead of 1 hour) and up to 24 hour s to alleviate the cause of the alarm (up from 3 hours) to better reflect some of the complex situations that operators may face. **PM detectors Comment:**  Several commenters (2845 and 2859) had the following comments concerning PMD:

 Because PMD are a technically superior and more practical alternative to BLDs, EPA should allow the use of PMD as an alternative to BLDs as is allowed for cement plants that burn hazardous waste under 40 CFR 63 subpart EEE.

 PMD should be allowed as an alternative to BLDs and/or ESP predictive monitors and the PMD alarm set

- point should be established during PM source tests demonstrating compliance with the applicable PM standard.

 PMD avoid the problems with attempting to set qualitative alarms based on nearl y instantaneous shifts in peak instrument responses, baseline shifts, or rates of decay, as is the case with BLDs. PMD provide an integrated average and warn the operator of the need for corrective action, before an exceedance has occurred. According to the commenter, EPA’s failur e to allow the PMD under Subpart LLL causes redundant and unnecessary

monitoring for cement plants that are not subject to Subpart EEE when not burning hazardous waste. For sources where the PM concentration can be varied, a series of tests should be allow ed to determine the PMD output corresponding to the highest PM concentration which is demonstrated to meet the applicable standard. For sources for which the PM concentration cannot be varied (certain fabric filters) alternative procedures to determine the PMD output corresponding to the level of the emission limitation should be established. If future work demonstrates that a representative PM spiking approach can be applied to increase the PM level, the regulations should then be revised to allow such an approach.

 EPA should acknowledge that particulate matter detections sy stems (PMDS) and/or BLDs meeting ASTM D7392

- 07 are acceptable for monitoring because it was developed to fill the void in EPA requirements so that reliable instruments could be used at c ement plants that burn hazardous waste. The practice provides a comprehensive set of design and performance specifications for a broad range of monitoring technologies specifically intended for monitoring of PM at cement plants. In addition to technical re quirements applicable to various cement plant configurations, the Standard Practice includes detailed approaches for setting PMD and BLD alarm set points that are more appropriate than those contained in EPA guidance. It is also important to recognize that :

– EPA was obligated to consider this ASTM standard under National Technology Transfer Act, but apparently did not do so.

– EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS) and/or Office of Solid Waste (OSW) representatives participated in the develop ment of the voluntary ASTM D7392

- 07 Standard Practice for use at cement kilns that burn hazardous waste, offered comments during participation at meetings and through correspondence on various drafts, and raised no negative votes during balloting.162

– PMDS are superior to BLDs and are required by ASTM D 7392 to meet more rigorous specifications, do not suffer from subjective and interpretive alarm setting procedures, and should be allowed as an alternative.

– PMDS can be used on kiln stacks with co

- mingled emissi ons (e.g., kiln/in

- line raw mill and coal mill emissions) where as separate BLDs would be required for each baghouse.

– PMDS are far more practical and far more cost effective than PM CEMS and should be allowed as an alternative.

– Teledyne Monitor Labs (the m ajor American manufacturer of COMS used at cement plants) has demonstrated that a contemporary L ightHawk Model 560 transmissometer meeting ASTM D 6216

- 07 was able to meet the rigorous ASTM D 7392

- 07 PMD requirements based on field tests at a cement kiln burning hazardous waste equipped with high efficiency

membrane coated fabric filters. **Response:** PMDs were not considered in the proposal. We will consider requests to use PMDs on a case - by

- case basis as an alternative to BLDs. An owner or operator who wishes to use a PMD as an alternative monitoring procedure must submit an application to the Administrator. **COMS Comment:**  Several commenters (2845, 2859, and 2887) had the following commenter concerning COMS:

 COMS should be allowed as an alternative to PMDS and BLDS for both ESP and fabric filter controlled sources as an option that can be selected b y the plant operator because they are a highl y evolved, mature technology that is well understood by both cement plant operators and agency personnel. These devices are capable of detecting changes in PM concentrations downstream of both ESP controlled sources and fabric filter controlled sources and the need for inspection or corrective action of the PM control device. The selection of the most appropriate monitoring approach should be left to the plant operator and should include the use of COMS, where applicable, as an option.

 EPA’s attempt to dismiss COMS based simply on its opinion that they

lack sufficient accuracy at the proposed PM emission limit levels is techn ically wrong and contrary

to current work and other recently promulgated regulations. EPA provides no technical support for its dismissal of the accuracy of COMS and EPA appears to be completely unaware of other developments that should have been considere d.

 EPA’s dismissal of COMS for units equipped with fabric filters is based on an incorrect assertion about measurement accuracy in favor of BLDs which are a purely qualitative measurement technique making absolutel y no claim to accuracy and rel yi ng on sub jective, interpretive, and un - documentable procedures to set alarm set points. EPA attempts to dismiss the long established and well understood use of COMS which include:

– Highl y evolved ASTM D 6216

- 07 design and performance specifications for manufacturer certification. 40 CFR 60, Appendix B, PS

- 1 (2008) and the initial field certification procedures;163

– Well known quality

assurance procedures and external audit capabilities using NIST traceable calibration materials to facilitate audits by users and control a gencies;

– Daily zero and upscale calibration checks, lens cleaning requirements and other operation, maintenance, data recording, record keeping and reporting requirements contained in the general provisions of 40 CFR 60 and 63;

– A technology

that is well un derstood by plant operators, plant technicians, control agencies, and instrument manufactures;

– Existing COMS requirements included in virtually every state operating permit for cement kilns, kilns/in

- line raw mills and clinker coolers. **Response:** We disagre e with the commenter that the accuracy of a COMS meeting the ASTM D6216

- 07 and Performance Specification 1 requirements is at issue in this decision. A COMS so verified will reproduce opacity measurements satisfactoril y (e.g., within 0.2 percent opacity) f or levels of 3 percent and higher. The concern about monitoring the operation of a fabric filter control device is the need to discern between very small changes in opacity that are already at very low levels that would indicate a leak that may indicate a compliance problem. Such leaks will produce changes in opacity of less than 0.1 percent out of an average opacity of 0.5 to 1 percent. These are values that would be comparable to the instrumental output noise in the data from COMS making the data insensit ive to the leaks. PM CEMS and bag leak detectors are much more sensitive to these levels of change necessary to confirm compliance. **Comment :**  Several commenters (2845 and 2859) stated that the proposal does not remove the COMS requirement for kilns and kiln and/or inline raw mills for sources that would use BLDs. More important, EPA cannot remove COMS requirements that already exist in state operating permits for cement plants because it is expected that States will not be willing to reopen permits and other States would refuse based on previous and continuing reliance on COMS and Method 9 as the primary

performance tools that are more proven than BLDs. The commenter argued that redundant BLDs and COMS are not wanted and are not needed. Due to these complexit ies and overlapping requirements, the plant operator should have the final decision as to the selection of the most appropriate monitoring option. **Response:** We agree that this was an oversight in the proposed rule and we have corrected it in the final rule

. **PM CEMS Comment:**  Two commenters (2845 and 2859) said that EPA has not promulgated any regulations requiring PM CEMS at any source category

due to its inability

to address fundamental technical and policy issues and must resolve these issues through forma l rulemaking before requiring PM CEMS at any cement plants. Furthermore EPA has not performed a legitimate technical analysis of emissions variability and compliance determination uncertainty to allow the use of PM CEMS for determining continuous complianc e with a PM limit at cement plants. The use of PM CEMS in Europe and other countries does not constitute a valid basis for application of PM CEMS at cement plants in the United States. L ight scattering, light164

transmission, and extractive beta attenuation i nstruments are all inferential measurement devices and a correlation must be established to relate the device output to the actual PM concentration, then the accuracy

and bias of the reference test and the uncertainty of the statistical correlation, as wel l as the stability

of the correlation must be considered. Under the German TUV and the European monitoring standard (EN 14181) these uncertainties are considered; emissions are not considered to exceed the allowable limit until the lower bound of the confi dence interval and/or tolerance interval exceeds the emission limit; emission standards may contain different averaging periods requiring different levels of conformance; and when a problem is encountered, the emphasis is on resolving the emission problem rather than direct enforcement and collection of financial penalties. All of these considerations place the European monitoring program in an entirely different regulatory

context than the proposed PM monitoring requirements. **Response:** We reject the commenters’ assertions that PM CEMS have not been required via rulemaking because of unresolved fundamental technical or policy issues. Concerns about PM CEMS were identified and addressed prior to the January 2004 publication of Performance Specification 11 and Quality Assurance Procedure 2 for PM CEMS (69 FR 1786, January 12, 2004). As mentioned in that rule’s preamble, “...we believe that the PM CEMS field demonstrations completed to date encompass a range of operating conditions and emission characteristics...” i ncluding those exhibited by sources such as cement kilns. Moreover, we disagree with the assertion that our anal ys is of PM emissions variability is not legitimate, yi elding an overl y- stringent PM emissions limit. The PM limit is based on our anal ys is of PM emissions from test data, adjusted from an hourl y t o a 30

- day averaging period and further adjusted for variability

. As mentioned in the preamble to the Credible Evidence Rule (62 FR 8314, February

24, 1997), we have addressed and continue to address conc erns about perceived “...limited number and distribution of test runs and the inherent variability in levels of emissions...” by

a number of approaches, including changing emissions averaging periods. Certainly , lengthening the averaging period beyond the duration associated with conducting a performance test (typically three hours) to 30 day s without changing the value of the emissions limit does not increase stringency of an emissions limit. As mentioned in the description of the Salo and Pederson memoranda, “...(t)he effect of the change from a 3

- hour averaging time to a 30

- day averaging time is to make the standard more lenient...” 3 Further, a statistically

- based adjustment to account for emissions variability , and which, in this case, increases the numerical va lue of the standard (and its longer averaging period) by fifty percent, does not make the standard more stringent. **Comment:** Two commenters (2845 and 2859) had the following comments concerning technical issues associated with application of PM CEMS.

 EPA ha s not addressed nor resolved the primary technical issues limiting the effective application of PM CEMS at cement plants including:

– inability

to generate a sufficiently wide range of PM concentrations to establish an acceptable correlation (i.e., calibrati on),

3 See Section 4.1.2.1 of the Credible Evidence Rule Response to Comment Document, available at < http://www.epa.gov/ttncaaa1/t1/fr_notices/certcfin.pdf >.165

– accuracy

and precision limitations of reference method at PM levels necessary to generate valid correlation, and

– subsequent changes in effluent matrix and/or PM (i.e., particle size distribution, refractive index, particle density , etc.) that influenc e the stability of the correlation and hence, the relationship between the output of the inferential measurement device relative to actual PM concentration.

 Valid PM CEMS correlations cannot be established for PM CEMS at cement plants due to limitations of process operation and control equipment in conjunction with the proposed emission limitation.

 The requirements in Appendix A, PS

- 11 for the PM CEMS correlation and in Appendix F, Procedure 2 do not provide a sufficientl y reliable means to determine compli ance with emission limitations. **Response:** We have not identified problems cited by the commenters at existing installations. PS

- 11 establishes the acceptable range for the concentrations for the correlation. This range is site specific. The acceptable accuracy

and precision is specified in PS

- 11 by statistical criteria. If the reference method accuracy

and precision is poor, a poor correlation would result and the statistical criteria limits would not be met. PS

- 11 strongly suggests the use of paired train s to insure that accuracy and precision is obtained. Section 2.4 of PS

- 11 stresses the importance of planning for subsequent changes in effluent matrix and/or PM that might influence the correlation and describes the process required to enhance the probab ility

of obtaining a successful correlation and the selection of the most appropriate CEMS for the installation. We note that PS

- 11 has several features to address correlation issues due to any limitations of process operation and control equipment. PS

- 11 provides for the addition of a zero point. For example, if control equipment operations cannot be varied adequately to achieve higher PM concentrations resulting in a cluster of data points at a very low level, making it difficult to achieve PS

- 11 criteri a, an artificial data point may be selected at zero that allows the correlation curve to be developed, meeting correlation criteria. PS

- 11 provides the steps in obtaining a reliable successful correlation with reference methods, thereb y insuring complianc e data that is sufficient to determine compliance with PM emission limits. Procedure 2 describes the required audits to insure that subsequent measurements are stable and within acceptable limits, thereby insuring reliable compliance data. **Comment:** Two co mmenters (2845 and 2859) had the following comments concerning PS

- 11 and Procedure 2.The requirements at §63.1349 for PM CEMS are incomplete and ambiguous and EPA has failed to specify important QA frequencies and other information relevant to the implementation of PM CEMS in accordance with PS

- 11 and Procedure 2. The proposed Subpart LLL revisions fail to address critical elements including the following sections of PS

- 11 and Procedure 2:166

 PS

- 11 3.20, species reference method as method defined in applicable regulations (Method 5 with 250oF filtration temperature) but this is inadequate for low concentrations where Method 5I should be used, and is inapplicable to sources with PM that condenses between the stack temperature (mill on and mill off, if applicable ) and 250oF where Method 17 should be used or ASTM D 6831.

 PS

- 11, 6.2 You must ensure that the averaging time, the number of measurements in an average, the minimum data availability , and the averaging period for your CEMS conform to those specified in the applicable regulation

- but none are specified.

 When using PS

- 11, 6.5 Your CEMS must sample the stack effluent such that the averaging time, the number of measurements in an average, the minimum sampling time, and the averaging procedure for reporting and determining compliance conform to those specified in the applicable regulation

- but none are specified.

 Procedure 2, 10.3 You must conduct an response correlation audit (RCA) and an relative response audit (RRA) at the frequency specified in the applicab le regulation... but none are specified.

 Procedure 2, 10.3, You must perform an RRA at the frequency specified in the applicable regulation... but none is specified.

 When using Procedure 2, 10.3(7) You must perform an RCA at the frequency specified in the appl icable regulation... but none is specified.

 When using Procedure 2, 10.9 You must report the accuracy results for yo ur PM CEMS at the frequency

specified in the applicable regulation... but none is specified. **Response:** We recognize that PS

- 11 does not specify a reference method; we have revised the final rule to specify

Method 5 or Method 5I (40 CFR 60, appendix A) as the reference method. Facilities with issues in application of these reference methods, may petition the Administrator for alternatives or modifi cations under §60.8(b) or §63.7(f). The averaging times and data reduction specifications have been added to §§60.63(c) and 63.1350(b) of the rule. There is no specific data availability

requirements, §§60.63(g) and 63.1348(b) require that monitoring be co nducted at all times the affected source is operating except for periods of monitoring sy stem malfunctions, repairs, or quality assurance/quality

control activities. The language of the final rule has been revised to specify the frequency

of the Relative R esponse Audits (annually) and the Response Correlation Audits (every three years), for specifics, see §§60.63(c) (2) and 63.1350(b)(2). Absolute Correlation Audits are required by Procedure 2 on a quarterly basis. **Comment:** Two commenters (2845 and 2859) said that the monitoring of PM emission concentrations downstream of wet scrubbers is not possible at cement plants due to the presence of water droplets and, during scrubber upsets, gy psum slugs. Heated extractive sy stems (either Beta gage or light scatteri ng) are used at monitoring locations downstream of wet scrubbers at electric utilities. However, none of these devices can operate reliabl y in the presence of gypsum spray or very large particles. During malfunctions, upsets of the PM APCD, or during perio d of by pass, the wet scrubber will collect a large portion of the PM so that monitoring upstream of the wet scrubber may

overstate actual PM emissions. **Response:** We agree that PM CEMS would not work some of in these situations. However, the ty pes of wet sc rubbers that would be used for acid gas control are ty picall y spray

towers, which167

are not effective in controlling PM. Therefore, in these situations the source could elect to monitor for PM upstream of the wet scrubber without significantl y affecting the PM measurements during these malfunction situations. Incases where this is not feasible, the source can appl y for an alternative monitoring on a source specific basis. **Fo rmat of PM limit**  **Comment:** Two commenters (2845 and 2859) stated that in the current rulemaking, EPA proposed an alternate PM MACT standard for sources that combine kiln and cooler exhaust streams to a single stack. The commenter agreed that an alternate PM MACT standard is required for sources that combine exhaust streams. However, the co mmenter argued that EPA failed to recognize all potential exhaust streams and has overl y complicated the formula to account for the various exhaust gases. These commenters recommended that the PM standard should be based on units of pounds PM per ton of dr y feed . This eliminates the need for a typical feed:clinker conversion factor and have also recommended that EPA revise the PM MACT standards for existing and new sources to be more in line with the values derived b y Commenter 2845. Using the values of 0.0 92 lb/t of dry feed and 0.062 lb/t of dry feed for existing and new sources, respectivel y and EPA’s assumption of a standardized kiln flow rate of 54,000 dscf/t of feed, the applicable grain loading rate for each case would be 0.012 gram per dry standard c ubic feet (gr/dscf) for existing sources and 0.008 gr/dscf for new sources. Lastly , it is not necessary to measure the volumetric rate from each exhaust stream separatel y. If two or more streams are combined into a single exhaust point, the measurable volumetric flow rates will already be added. A simplified formula can be found as part of the comments for Commenter 2859. **Response:** As we noted at proposal, some kilns combine the clinker cooler gas with the kiln exhaust and send the combined emissions to a s ingle control device. There are significant energy savings (and attendant greenhouse gas emission reductions) associated with this practice, since heat can be extracted from the clinker cooler exhaust. However, there need to be different conversion factors from concentration to mass per unit clinker in these cases to allow for the increased gas flow, which result in a different PM emissions limit. We proposed adjustment factors that would account for these differences and create a site specific PM emission limit of this situation. See 74 FR 21155

- 56 and 2184. We received no comments on these factors and are thus adopting them as proposed, except that the factors have been changed to account for changes n the underl yi ng kiln and clinker cooler emissions limit s. A site

- specific compliance method can be requested for situations where additional sources of particulate are included in the same duct s ys tem leading to one stack. See the preamble discussion under format of the normalized standards in the NESHAP and the NSPS, for more information on EPA’s decision regarding format of the standard. **Comment:** One commenter (2844) requested that sources be given the option of compliance with an equivalent grain loading figure that would be in the rule and the rule automatically approve the current methods for converting feed to clinker. This should be done on a monthly rather than daily

basis. The commenter ask that there be an ongoing compliance demonstration (between stack tests) alternative based on retaining the use of COMS as the indicator of acceptable operating conditions.168

**Response:** See the preamble discussion under format of the normalized standards in the NESHAP and the NSPS, for more information on EPA’s decision regarding format of the standard. We are removing all opacity standards for kilns and clinker coolers because these sources will be required to monitor compliance with the PM emissions limits by more accurate means. Although some commenters requested retention of opacity as a backup standard, and others as an alternative, none of these comments offered any convincing information or other justification for perpetuating a less reliable compliance methodology

. **Clarifications and corrections Comment:**  Several commenters (2845 and 2859) stated that EPA has severa l areas in their proposed regulatory

language that must be revised. In particular, EPA has language requiring opacity monitoring for kilns and coolers that no longer have opacity standards. Also, EPA has mandated performance testing where CEMS are required . Performance testing is typicall y required for sources that must conduct stack testing periodicall y to demonstrate that compliance is maintained. If CEMS are mandated performance testing is not necessary when compliance is demonstrated on a continuous bas is. One commenter (2845) stated that the current language for §63.1343(b)(2) limits opacity from kilns to no greater than 20 percent and in §63.1343(a)(2) limits opacity from clinker coolers to no greater than 10 percent, but the preamble of the proposed r ule states We are proposing to remove all opacity standards for kilns and clinker coolers because these sources will be required to monitor compliance with the PM emissions limits by more accurate means . The commenter suggested that EPA should remove the o pacity limits from the rule text for sources demonstrating compliance with a BLDS, PMDS or PM CEMS unless opacity monitoring is used as an alternative to the proposed options for monitoring PM emissions. EPA should provide an option for sources to comply w ith an opacity

limit of 10 percent for kilns and 5 percent for clinker coolers using a COMS in lieu of the requirements for a BLD, PMD, and/or PM CEMS. One commenter (2845) stated that §63.1349(b)(1) should be updated to account for clinker coolers that us e PM CEMS. The commenter suggested the following alternative language: §63.1349 (b)(1) .The owner or operator of a clinker cooler subject to limitations on PM emissions that is not equipped with a PM CEMS shall demonstrate initial compliance by conducting a performance test as specified in paragraphs (b)(1)(i) through (b)(1)(iii) of this section. The owner or operator shall determine the opacity of PM emissions exhibited during the period of the Method 5 (40 CFR 60, Appendix A

– 3) performance tests required by paragraph (b )(1)(i) of this section as required in paragraphs (b)(1)(v) through (vi) of this section, if the unit is not equipped with a BLDS, PMDS or PM CEMS. One commenter (2845) stated that the opacity limits in §63.1349(b)(1), §63.1350(c), §63.1350( d) need to be removed from the rule text for source demonstrating compliance with a BLDS, PMDS, or PM CEMS unless opacity monitoring is used as an alternative to the proposed options for monitoring PM emissions. Example language for each section is provide d by the commenter.169

**Response:** We have corrected the rule to remove duplicative requirements related to opacity monitoring for units that no longer have opacity standards and performance testing requirements for sources that are using CEMS. Regarding the co mment that COMS be allowed as an alternative, EPA’s experience is that facilities can significantl y exceed PM limits without exceeding opacity limits. Incontrast, BLD s ys tems are much more sensitive to the point they are considered to be CEMS. Similarly , we believe that PM CEMS are a superior technology as well. However, we would be happy to review evidence supporting more advanced COMS systems. **Comment:** One commenter (2859) stated that EPA has not specifically stated in the rulemaking what the averaging p eriod for the PM MACT standard will be. EPA has specified that the averaging periods for mercury , THC, and HCl are 30

- day rolling averages. EPA has proposed CEMS for compliance demonstration for each of these pollutants. For consistency purposes, EPA shoul d designate that the PM MACT standard should also be a 30

- day rolling average if a PM CEMS is used to demonstrate compliance. If sources choose to use BLDS or other approved compliance demonstration methods, then a performance test consisting of the averag e of three one - hour stack testing periods would be the appropriate compliance averaging period for the PM MACT standard. One commenter (2845) stated that there is no reference in §63.1343(a) to the averaging period for the PM limit if PM CEMS are used. The commenter suggested that the last sentence of §63.1343(a) be changed to read, If using a CEM to determine compliance with the PM or HCl standards, these standards are based on a 30

–day rolling average

. **Response:** We have corrected the rule to provide for a 30

- day rolling average when using PM CEMS. **Comment:** Two commenters (2845 and 2859) stated that EPA should clarify whether an ESP predictive model may

be used in lieu of other PM monitoring approaches and what requirements would apply

if this option is sel ected. No mention of an ESP predictive model is found in the performance testing or monitoring sections of the proposed rule. If EPA allows use of a predictive ESP model as an alternative to other monitoring, then the minimum parameters and technical crite ria for determining the acceptability of the predictive model should be specified. **Response:** We will consider source

- specific requests to use an ESP predictive model **Comment:** Two commenters (2845 and 2859) stated that it should be clarified that kiln/raw m ill and cooler stack(s) that have installed BLD, PMD, or PM CEMS would not be subject to monthly 20

- minute visible emissions test of each affected source in accordance with Method 22 under §63.1350(a)(4)(i). **Response:** We have corrected the rule to remove this duplicative requirement. **Comment:** Two commenters (2845 and 2859) stated that EPA has not provided any technical basis for changing the duration of the Method 22 test in §63.1350(a)(4)(i) and that changing the duration from 1 minute to 20 minutes for numerous sources places an unnecessary burden on the plant operators. An increase in the duration of visible emissions from 1 minute to six minutes would be a more reasonable change and would be more consistent with the minimum observation period for Method 9 visible emission observations.170

**Response:** While we do not think this is an unreasonable requirement once per month, we have reduced the observation period in half to 10 minutes, which should be sufficient to observe any problems. There is no reason to be consistent with a Method 9 observation period, because the tests are different. **Comment:** One commenter (2845) stated that Equations 3 and 4 apply a metric conversion factor to the emission rate. The commenter stated that the formula does not work in metric units, and suggested alternative wording for these equations that had the emission rate in only lb/ton. **Response:** We have not been able to identify the problem raised b y the commenter. The units in the equations are those that are commonly measured. **Comme nt:**  One commenter (2845) stated that §63.1349(b)(1)(vi) should either be removed or updated to account for clinker coolers. The averaging period for sources using PM CEMS for compliance with the particulate matter standards should be based on a 30

- day roll ing average. The commenter noted that there is no need to conduct a separate performance test under raw mill on/off conditions when using a PM CEMS for measuring compliance as the PM CEMS will measure compliance and thus account for both conditions. One co mmenter (2845) stated that §63.1350(a)(4)(v) indicates that visible emissions monitoring requirements do not apply to totally enclosed conveying s ys tem transfer points. However, §63.1349 does not currently indicate that initial performance testing is not r equired for totall y enclosed conveying s ys tem transfer points. Section 63.1349 should be revised to clarify that initial performance testing is not required for totally enclosed sources. **Response:** We have corrected the rule to remove the inconsistencies i dentified by the commenter. We have also clarified the rule to specify a 30

- day rolling average. **Comment:** One commenter (2845) stated that §63.1350(a)(4)(vii) indicates that you must test visible emissions from each side, roof, and vent of the building. Ho wever, this is not included in the initial performance testing section. Section 63.1349 should be revised to be consistent with the wording in §63.1350(a)(4)(vii). Further, a 6 minute observation should be sufficient to demonstrate compliance with visible emissions standards. The 6 minute duration would also be consistent with the minimum observation time for a Method 9 data set (40 CFR 60 Appendix A, Method 9, Section 2.5 Data Reduction). The commenter provides example alternative language. **Response:** We have corrected to the rule to include the performance testing requirements. Regarding the length of the observation period, we have reduced the period to 10 minutes, which should be sufficient to observe an y problems. There is no reason to be consistent with a Method 9 observation period, because the tests are different. **Comment:** One commenter (2845) stated that in regard to §63.1349(b)(2), the proposed rule should specify

test requirements for sources with limited operation. An option would be to use languag e similar to that used in NSPS Subpart OOO (see 40 C.F.R. §60.675(c)(2)(ii): The duration of the Method 9 (40 C.F.R. Part 60, Appendix A

–4) observations may be reduced to the duration the affected facility operates (but not less than 30 minutes) for baghouses that control storage bins or enclosed truck or railcar loading stations that operate for less than 1 hour at a time. ).171

**Response:** The observation does not need to be consecutive, which we have clarified in the final rule to address this situation. **Comme nt:**  One commenter (2845) stated that the proposed requirement to conduct five 6

- minute Method 9 tests is unnecessary . No rationale was provided for the increase in the number of tests. **Response:** This test is only required when visible emissions are identi fied, which should be a limited occurrence. However, when it does occur, we think that conducting a valid Method 9 test would take at least 30 minutes. **Comment:** One commenter (2845) stated that §63.1350(k) does not currently address PMDS. Multiple portland cement plants currentl y use PMDS for compliance with Subpart EEE, and language used in §63.1206(c)(9) (NESHAP Subpart EEE) provides PMDS requirements for Hazardous Waste Combustors that utilize PMDS to monitor compliance with PM standards which could be u sed as a template for inclusion in Subpart LLL. **Response:** We will consider source

- specific requests to use PMDS **Comment:** One commenter (2845) stated that an exclusion installing, operating, and maintaining a BLDS for sources using a PM CEMS should be inclu ded in §63.1350(k). The commenter also noted that the rule onl y applies to sources with fabric filters, which is not a defined term. For clarification, the rule should specificall y state that it does not apply to sources with gravel bed filters and ESPs. **R esponse:**  We have clarified that sources using a PM CEMS are not required to use a BLDS. We have clarified in the final rule that fabric filters do not include gravel bed filters and ESPs. **Comment:** One commenter (2845) suggested that EPA delete §63.1350(k)( 1)(i) or develop design and performance specifications for manufacturers to certify their BLDS to meet the criteria required in this section. **Response:** The proposed requirements have been used successfully in several other rules. EPA is developing a BLD pe rformance specification that will be put in place when it is available. **Comment:** One commenter (2845) stated that in §63.1350(k)(2), the phrase At a minimum you must retain records related to the site specific monitoring plan and information discussed in p aragraphs (k)(2)(i) through (k)(2)(vi) of this section for a period of 2 years on

-site and 3 years off

-site implies that off

- site record storage is mandatory rather than optional. The commenter suggested that EPA should only specify the minimum period of t ime required for overall record retention and the minimum period of time required for onsite storage, leaving the option for offsite storage to the discretion of the owner/operator. **Response:** We agree with the clarification suggested by the commenter and h ave added it to the rule. **Comment:** One commenter (2845) stated that §63.1350(k)(4) references kilns and clinker coolers, but only

the emission limits in §63.1343, which is for kilns. To be consistent with172

§63.1350(p), the clinker cooler emission limit reference would need to be added. However, this paragraph is also a duplicate of §63.1350(p) introducing the PM CEM requirements and it would be more appropriate to delete it altogether to prevent confusion. **Response:** We agree and have made the change suggeste d by the commenter. **Comment:** One commenter (2845) stated that the reference to new or existing sources should be removed from §63.1350(o). This should apply to all sources; new, existing, or reconstructed. **Response:** We agree with the clarification suggeste d by the commenter and have added it to the rule. **Comment:** One commenter (2845) stated that opacity standards only

appl y to sources that elect to utilize a COM for PM compliance demonstration, therefore, correlations with opacity will no longer be needed and should be deleted from portions of §63.1357. **Response:** We agree with the clarification suggested by the commenter and have added it to the rule. **Transmisometers Comment:**  One commenter (2879) stated that the European cement industry has used transmisomet ers to report PM emissions for many years. The commenter stated that opacity readings underreport PM emissions, and provided emission test data using transmisometers. The commenter also noted that BLDS are not adequate to measure noncompliance, and recomme nded that EPA should adopt regulations similar to those established in Europe, the parent companies of most American cement companies, that require particulate emissions and associated metals emissions be determined using monthly averaged transmisometer re adings. **Response:** We have clearly established the value of PM CEMS for this industry , and we believe PM CEMS are superior to BLDS for this industry

. **Advantages of opacity standards Comment:**  One commenter (2786) stated that EPA should not eliminate opac ity standards in the proposed rule. The commenter stated that there are benefits to having an opacity standard in conjunction with a particulate matter standard. Opacity measurements can be made by an yone who is trained to measure opacity, which can includ e members of the public and not just inspectors, and opacity

measurements are a cheaper method of getting more frequent measurements. **Response:** See response in preamble **Monovent compliance demonstration Comment:**  One commenter (2888) requested that monovent kilns be allowed to continue compliance demonstration as outlined in the current PC MACT. The monovent design orientation does not provide a means for either BLD, a PM CEM or and opacity monitor.173

**Response:** The rule contains the necessary and appropriate m onitoring requirements. Monovent sources can add a stack. Or, they can appl y for alternative monitoring requirements on a source

specific basis. **Require PM CEMS and retain opacity monitors Comment:**  One commenter (2898) stated that EPA should require PM CE MS and retain the opacity monitoring requirements. EPA is proposing installation and operation of a BLD s ys tem, along with stack testing using EPA Method 5 conducted at a frequency of five years for demonstrating compliance with the proposed PM emissions l imit. As an alternative a PM CEMS that meets the requirements of PS

– 11 may be used, and EPA is proposing to eliminate the current requirement of using an opacity monitor. The proposed rule solicits comment on making the use of a PM CEMS a requirement. The commenter stated that EPA should both require CEMS and retain the use of opacity monitors. EPA should abandon the BLD s ys tem requirement outlined in the proposed rule and mandate the use of PM CEMS instead. The agency previousl y concluded that PM CEMS is a superior monitoring technology

that can be implemented at a reasonable price. EPA has found that BLD sy stems, standing alone, are inadequate to verify compliance and has also found that COMS operate as a useful check on PM emissions and proper operation o f PM CEMS. Providing a superior level of compliance assurance is not the only benefit of PM CEMS. EPA has acknowledged that the assumptions to assure compliance are fewer and less conservative (direct measure of the standard is the top of the monitoring h ierarch y) , CEMS mean facilities need to monitor only

one emissions parameter to assure compliance rather than multiple operating limits, often relevant to more than one standard, and that the cost of installing PM CEMS technology

is reasonable. **Response:** See response in preamble. **HAP metals monitoring Comment:**  One commenter (2638) stated that proven HAP metals monitoring methodology is now commerciall y available. **Response:** We are aware that multi

- metal CEMS have been tested and would support their use sho uld they

become readily

available. However, at this time we do not have sufficient data to set individual metals standards for this source category, which would be necessary of we were to use multi

- metals CEMS to demonstrate compliance. .In addition, we be lieve these s ys tems are not sufficiently

demonstrated for this source category to be the basis of compliance measurement **30**
**- day rolling average compliance period for PM CEMS**  **Comment:** One commenter (2859) recommended that EPA adopt a 30

- day rolling average standard for sources that utilize PM CEMS. Sources that opt to use an alternative compliance demonstration methodology (stack testing) would demonstrate compliance by conforming to the relevant test method.174

**Response:** We agree with the clarification suggest ed by the comm enter and have added it to the rule. **2.8.5 Impacts**  **Scrubber performance on PM control Comment:**  One commenter (2900) provided stack test data for PM before and after a wet scrubber was installed. The data shows that the emissions would still exceed EPA requirements even after optimization of the scrubber through the last five to six years. The commenter stated that this scrubber will require some additional equipment or modification in its operation to achieve the EPA target and it remains unc ertain if this is achievable. However, it can be reported that based on the current data, it would appear that the emissions were significantly reduced after installation of the wet scrubber. **Response:** Most if not all cement manufacturers are using fabric filters or electrostatic precipitators in order to reduce PM emissions. We believe that in order to comply with the final limit for PM for both existing and new sources, fabric filters using membrane bags will be required. **Benefits of PM 2.5**  **reductions Com**  **ment:** One commenter (2916) stated that EPA should not use a no

- threshold model for estimating the benefits of reducing PM 2.5 emissions. EPA’s proposal to adopt a no

- threshold model as a part of this rulemaking will obscure the greater uncertainty associate d with calculated premature mortality

at PM concentration levels down to background (or even below background). The treatment of uncertainty is one of the key

issues associated with conducting benefit/cost anal ys is. A number of National Research Council reports have found that the proper characterization of uncertainty is essential. The commenter recommended that if EPA adopts a no - threshold model to develop estimates of mortality , it should present its premature mortality estimates within concentration ran ges and provide a complete discussion of the uncertainty in the estimates within each concentration range. EPA should discuss the plausibility and the uncertainties of the estimates within each concentration category in the body

of its analy sis and in its Ex ecutive Summary. Several commenters (2845 and 2849) stated that for the RIA, EPA abandoned their traditional assumption that there may be a threshold in the concentration

- response function relating exposure to PM 2.5 and premature mortality and EPA should not change its approach on this important issue until such a shift has been recommended by Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) and adopted as final policy . I f EPA were to assume a threshold at 10 ug/m 3 as has been done in recent RIAs, estimate d benefits would be some 20

–40 percent lower than what the agency

now calculates in the Portland Cement NESHAP RIA. One commenter (2845) identified the following as serious shortcomings in EPA’s estimate of benefits that include the following:

 EPA has over stated the benefits of PM 2.5 reductions by removing the assumption of a threshold in the dose

- response relationship for premature mortality. This is a significant175

methodological that deserves a discussion in the context of the ongoing review of the PM NAAQ S, rather than in the context of a NESHAP for a single industry that is not even focused on PM 2.5 . This commenter is concerned that a premature decision on this issue as a part of this rulemaking will serve as a precedent for decisions in the PM NAAQS revi ew.

 EPA’s use of a no

- threshold model in this rulemaking will obscure the greater uncertainty associated with calculated premature mortality at PM concentration levels down to or below background. The treatment of uncertainty i s one of the key issues assoc iated with conducting a benefit/cost anal ys is.

 In setting the NAAQS, EPA has recognized that there is greater uncertainty in the relationship between the risk of premature mortality and PM exposure at low concentrations. In the quantitative risk assessment in the 2006 final rule for the PM NAAQS, EPA presented several estimates based on different cut points intended as surrogates for alternative assumed population thresholds. In reviewing the Staff Paper and risk assessment, the CASAC panel commented that for the purpose of estimating public health effects, it favored the primary use of an assumed threshold of 10 ug/m3

.
 Several factors can contribute to the uncertainty in estimating premature mortality at low PM concentrations. EPA has generally assumed either a proportional or quadratic rollback to represent the effectiveness of control strategies designed to meet the NAAQS, but in areas with PM levels below 10 ug/m3 there may be little or no change in air quality . If EPA adopts a no

- threshold model, it sho uld address these several factors in its discussion of the uncertainties in the premature mortality estimates. Commenter 2845 stated that this discussion on whether to adopt a no

- threshold model and the uncertainties associated with EPA’s premature mortali ty estimates should include a separate discussion for those estimates associated with exposure at lower ambient concentration levels.

 Commenter 2845 noted that EPA had adopted a no

- threshold model in the development of PM benefits for the Tier 2 rule and o n - highway heav y duty diesel engine rules in 1999 and 2001. However, the 2002 National Research Council report estimating the Public Health Benefits of Proposed Air Regulations suggested that EPA’s approach in these two rules failed to provide information o n the plausibility of estimates at different PM concentration levels. The committee suggested that alternative approaches that reflected expert judgment on the plausibility of thresholds would have represented an improvement in EPA’s primary

anal ys is. EPA has recently carried out a multi

- ye ar effort using expert elicitation to assess the relationship between exposures to fine PM and the incidence of mortality . If EPA adopts a no

- threshold model, EPA should incorporate the results of this study in presenting its PM benefits anal ys is for different concentration levels. **Response:** The weight of scientific evidence strongl y supports modeling PM

- related mortality and morbidity

by using concentration

- response functions that do not incorporate an assumed threshold

. In1999, the SAB Advisory Council on Clean Air Compliance Analy sis (ACCACA) concluded that there was currentl y no scientific basis for selecting an y specific threshold (EPA

SAB

- Council

- ADV

- 99

- 012). In 2004, the Health and Environmental Effect subcommittee of ACCACA concluded, “it is reasonable for EPA to assume a no threshold model down to, at least, the low end of the concentrations reported in the studies” (EPA

- SAB

- COUNCIL

- ADV

- 04

- 002). In 2005, CASAC indicated that “[t]he available epidemiological databas e on daily mortality and176

morbidity does not establish either the presence or absence of threshold concentrations for adverse health effects” (EPA

- SAB

- CASAC

- 05

- 007). In 2006, EPA conducted an expert elicitation on the relationship between PM 2.5 exposure an d premature mortality

. Eleven of the twelve experts in this study did not specify

a threshold in their concentration

- response function, whereas one expert specified a 50% probability of no

- threshold, 40% probability

of a threshold below 5 μg/m 3 , and 10% probability of a threshold between 5 and 10 μg/m 3

. EPA presents these expert

- derived results in the RIA independently of whether thresholds are included in the core benefits results or not. In 2009, the final Integrated Science Assessment for Particulate Matter indicated that “[o]verall, the studies evaluated further support the use of a no

- threshold log

- linear model...” (U.S. EPA, 2009). In 2010, the Health Effects Subcommittee of the Science Advisory Board “full y supports EPA’s decision to use a no

- threshold model to estimate mortality reductions. This decision is supported by

the data, which are quite consistent in showing effects down to the lowest measured levels. Anal ys es of cohorts using data from more recent ye ars, during which time PM concentrations have fallen, continue to report strong associations with mortality . Therefore, there is no evidence to support a truncation of the CRF ” (EPA

- SAB

- COUNCIL

- - 10

- 001). Our approach to estimating PM

- related health impacts is consistent with the key findings in these reports. In addition, our approach is consistent with the on

- going PM NAAQS review. The commenter incorrectly suggests that using a no

- threshold concentration

- response function would erroneousl y model benefits down to, or below, background. Instead, we applied benefit per ton estimates that were calculated using previously generated air quality

scenarios projecting air quality

changes well above background levels. For the final anal ys is, we estimated benefits on the basis of modeled air quality change s from CAMx, where we again considered air quality changes well above background levels. In conjunction with the commenter’s concern, and consistent with recent scientific advice, we have replaced the previous threshold sensitivity analy sis with a new “low est measured level” (LML ) assessment. While an LML assessment provides some insight into the level of uncertaint y in the estimated PM mortality benefits, EPA does not view the LMLas a threshold and continues to quantify

the PM

- related mortality impacts us ing the full range of modeled air quality concentrations. The results of this analy sis are provided in Section 6 of the RIA. **2.8.6 Other**  **PM as surrogate for HAP metals Comment:**  Several commenters (2832 and 2859) stated that the use of PM as a surrogate fo r HAP metals is an important issue in this proposal; however, EPA has failed to explain its selection of using PM as a surrogate for HAP metals and how that approach was applied specificall y to the data in this administrative record. EPA is required to spe cificall y detail how this approach was used and what other approaches were taken and rejected and why as part of the Preamble to the proposal.177

**Response:** Use of PM as a surrogate for non - volatile HAP metals

– in this very industry

– has already been upheld. See National L ime II , 233 F. 3d at 639. **Comment:** One commenter (2638) stated that it is no longer appropriate to use PM as a surrogate for HAP metals. The commenter provided citations of studies, and summarized the main points supporting this statement. T he commenter further argued that the courts have questioned whether the use of PM as a surrogate for HAP metals is scientifically reasonable , that HAP metals are not invariably present in cement kiln PM, PM control technology does not indiscriminately

capture HAP metals along with other particulates, and PM control is not the only means b y which facilities achieve reductions in HAP metal emissions. The commenter stated that direct measurement of HAP metals is essential for the EPA to comply with the spirit and intent of the Clean Air Act, and direct measurement of HAP metals is required to evaluate residual risks. **Response** : The EPA disagrees with the commenter. We continue to believe this is an appropriate surrogate. Particulate matter controls do in fa ct capture HAP metals along with other particulate matter, with the exception of mercury , for which we have set separate emission limits under this rule making. We have shown that particulate matter is an appropriate surrogate for non - volatile metal HAP i n numerous previous rulemakings, including the NESHAPs for Iron and Steel Foundries (69FR 21912, April 22, 2004) and the NESHAP for Taconite Iron Ore Processing (68 FR 61885, October 30, 2003). **NESHAP and NSPS PM limits Comment:**  Several commenters (2845 and 2874) agreed that if EPA is proposing PM limits under both the NESHAP and NSPS, the source should comply with the most stringent emission limit . The commenters suggested that EPA explicitly exempt the source from complying with all associated requirements (monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting) relating to the less stringent limit, not just from that limit itself. **Response:** The standards are now identical. **Volatilized metal HAP emissions Comment:**  One commenter (2898) stated that under the high temperature conditions of the cement kiln non

- volatile metal HAP emissions could occur outside of the particulate form. Therefore, EPA should assess the emission levels and associated public health threats remaining after successful implementation of the propos ed standard. **Response:** EPA already has a mechanism in place for conducting an assessment of public health threats remaining after implementation of MACT. The Risk and Technology Review (RTR) is a combined effort to evaluate both risk and technology as required by

the Clean Air Act (CAA) after the application of maximum achievable control technology (MACT) standards. Section 112(f) of the CAA requires EPA to complete a Report to Congress that includes a discussion of methods the EPA would use to evaluate th e risks remaining after the application of MACT standards. These are known as residual risks. Section 112(f)(2) directs EPA to conduct risk assessments on each source category subject to MACT standards, and to determine if additional178

standards are needed t o reduce residual risks. Section 112(d)(6) of the CAA requires EPA to review and revise the MACT standards, as necessary (but no less often than every 8 years), taking into account developments in practices, processes and control technologies. **Thallium Com**  **ment:** One commenter (2144) stated that thallium metal (Tl) and its compounds are highly toxic materials and are emitted from certain cement plant on the finest dust particles emanating from the stacks. The commenter stated that concentrations in certain ce ment filter dusts can build up to levels greater than 1 percent (10,000 ppm) and that proper regulation of PM coupled with the required mercury

reduction will concurrentl y address such Tl concentration buildup and emissions. In the long run, consider regul ation of Tl as a HAP consistent with present European practice. **Response :**  Thallium is not currentl y listed as a hazardous air pollutant (HAP) under Section 112(b) of the CAA. As such, EPA does not have the authority to regulate emissions of thallium under the provisions for establishing MACT standards

. 

### 2.9 **Compliance Dates Arbitrary**  **compliance dates Comment**  **:** Many

commenters (2832, 2845, 2859, 2863, 2864, 2874, 2890, 2914, and 3193) stated that EPA should follow the intent of the CAA sections 111 and 112 whi ch established the requirement that new and existing sources recognized in the proposed rule use the published date of May 06, 2009, as the new source trigger date for mercury , HCl, and THC emission standards instead of the proposed retroactive date of Dec ember 2005 when the amendments for mercury , THC, and HCl were first proposed. The commenters stated that despite the direct acknowledgements in the proposed rule, EPA arbitraril y decided to appl y a proposal date for mercury , THC and HCl that reaches back and applies new source standards to any plant constructed since December of 2005 and admitted that the 2005 proposal did state EPA’s desire to establish floors for THC, HCl and mercury . According to the commenters, this is irrelevant because sources constru cted in the past four ye ars cannot have reasonabl y anticipated their need to comply

with the 2009 proposed floors based on the 2005 proposed rulemaking. The 2005 rulemaking resulted in a final rule with floors for THC and mercury , and no HCl floor (due to its classification as a threshold pollutant), which are significantly different than the 2009 proposal and the 2005 proposal did not reference a desire to establish a floor for PM, nor one as stringent as that set forth in the current proposal. **Response:** A s explained in the preamble, EPA agrees with these comments and has adopted a May 6, 2009, compliance date for determining when sources come into existence for purposes of determining which sources are subject to new source MACT. **Reduced compliance period**  **Comment:** One commenter (2891) disagreed with EPA’s decision to grant 3 years from the date of the rulemaking for existing sources to come into compliance. Given the serious impacts of179

these emissions on public health and the fact that the industry has had ample warning of these standards, a shorter compliance timetable is reasonable. The commenter supported a compliance date of no more than 2 ye ars. The commenter agrees that new sources should comply upon commencement of operation. The commenter agreed with EPA’s selection of December 5, 2005, as the proper date for determining when a source is deemed to be new for THC, mercury and HCL. The commenter stated that the determination for PM ought to be March 24, 1998, which is the date that EPA first proposed PM restrictions on this sector, and is therefore a date consistent with the language and intention of the Act. **Response:** The commenters do not address EPA’s anal ys is at proposal indicating that the phrase “first proposes” in section 112 (a)(4) is ambiguous, nor other provisions (e.g. sections 112 (i)(2)) indicating that the phrase is ambiguous. Nor did the commenters address the similar language in section 111 (a)(2) for NSPS, which has never been interpreted as stretching back in time for decades to match an initial proposal date. For the reasons stated in the preamble to the final rule, EPA believes the proposed date of these amendments is a proper compliance date for purposes of determining the applicable date for new, reconstructed, or modified sources. **C omment:**  One commenter (2898) recommended that EPA consider a faster timeline for existing sources implementation and to finalize its proposal on compliance dates for new sources. EPA has proposed to use the date of December 5, 2005, as the date for determi ning if a source is existing or new for the purposes of the mercury , THC, and HCl standards, and has proposed May

6, 2009, as the relevant date for PM standards. The commenter supported EPA’s proposed dates as a reasonable interpretation of the statute’s d efinition of a new source as a stationary source the construction or reconstruction of which is commenced after the Administrator first proposes regulations under this section establishing an emissions standard applicable to such source

. 42 U.S.C. §7412(a) (4). We agree that the statutory definition should be read to apply

pollutant

- by

- pollutant and to the rulemaking record under which a standard is developed to avoid subjecting sources in existence for 10 ye ars to the new standards which they could not have anticipated at the time. This is consistent with the statute’s structure requiring more stringent standards for new sources. **Response :**  As explained in the preamble, EPA has adopted a May 6, 2009, compliance date for determining when sources come into exis tence for purposes of determining which sources are subject to new source MACT. For the reasons stated in the preamble to the final rule, EPA believes the proposed date of these amendments is a proper compliance date for purposes of determining the applica

ble date for new, reconstructed, or modified sources. For existing sources we proposed a compliance date of 3 years after the promulgation of the new emission limits for mercury , THC, PM, and HCl to take effect. This is the maximum period allowed b y law (s ubject to a one

- ye ar extension determined on an individualized basis to install technology)

. See section 112(i)(3)(A) and (B)

. We continue to believe a 3 year compliance period is justified because most facilities will have to install emissions control dev ices (and in some cases multiple devices) to compl y with the proposed emissions limits. Therefore, we have retained a 3 ye ar compliance data in this final rule.180

For new sources, the compliance date will be the effective date of this final rule or startup, whichever is later. Because this is a major rule as defined b y the Congressional Review Act, the effective date of the rule is 60 day s after publication of the Federal Register. In determining the proposal date that determines if a source is existing or new, we have decided to select the proposal date of these final amendments, which is May 6, 2009, for all the standards. At proposal, we considered three possible dates, including March 24, 1998; December 5, 2005; and the proposal date of these final amen dments, which was May 6, 2009. As we noted at proposal, Section 112 (a)(4) of the Act states that a new source is a stationary source if “the construction or reconstruction of which is commenced after the Administrator first proposes regulations under this section establishing an emissions standard applicable to such source.” “First proposes” could refer to the date EPA first proposes standards for the source category as a whole, or could refer to the date the agency first proposes standards under a particu lar rulemaking record or first proposes the particular standards at issue. The definition is also ambiguous with regard to whether it refers to a standard for the source as a whole, or to a HAP

specific standard (so that there could be different new source standards for different HAP which are regulated at different times). At proposal we chose the date of December 5, 2005, as the proposal date that determines if a source is new or existing for the mercury , HCl, and THC, and the May 6, 2009, date for PM. A fter consideration of comments on the selection of the date for mercury , THC, and HCl, we believe that the May

6, 2009, date for all pollutants is more in keeping with the evident intent of Section 112 (a)(4) that source should have sufficient notice that new source controls requirements can be considered in the initial design. We accept commenters’ argument that sources coming into existence between the proposed date of the 2006 standards and the May 6, 2009, proposal date of these amendments would have no reasonable means of ascertaining the standards’ final content and so lacked notice of what controls and strategies to adopt. Since this is antithetical to the policy underlying new source standards, EPA is adopting May 6, 2009, as the date which determine s if a source is existing or new. We note that there are currentl y sources subject to new source limits for mercury and THC contained in the December 20, 2006, rule. However, the mercury the new source standards in this final rule are significantly differe nt than the limits in the December 20, 2006, rule, and we do not see how the affected sources could have anticipated this change prior to proposal of these amendments. Accordingly , we have selected a date that allows these facilities to design and install the required control equipment. See the preamble discussion under compliance dates for more information on EPA’s decision. 

### 2.10 **Startup, Shutdown, Malfunction (SSM) Limit**  **emissions during periods of SSM**  **Comment:** Several commenters (2155, 2891, 2895, 2898, and 2911) supported emissions standards for startup, shutdown, and malfunction equal to normal operating conditions.181

Commenter 2155 stated that if less stringent standards are considered, they should be for onl y a very short time period around startup and shutdown. To keep malfunctions at a minimum, we would not recommend less stringent standards for such occurrences, lest they become the norm. Commenter 2898 requested EPA to clarify if it intends to remove the exemption for all sources at cement facilitie s and stated that EPA may deviate from the MACT floor standards only in very limited circumstances. EPA may establish work practice or operational standards, different than the established MACT floor standards, onl y if it is not feasible to prescribe or en force an emission standard on the basis of either a design or source

- specific basis. **Response** : EPA is adopting separate standards for startup and shutdown. These standards are explained in the preamble to the final rule

. As explained in the preamble, the standards for these operating modes is expressed on a concentration basis (not normalized to production) and use different averaging periods than the main standards. Malfunctions may in fact occur, and when malfunctions result in emission that cause the s tandard to be exceeded , they can contribute to violations , although sources have a n affirmative defense to civil penalties if they are able to establish the affirmative defense set out in 63.1344 of the final rule.

. During malfunctions, sources are also o bligated to limit hazardous emissions to the extent possible, following good engineering practices protective of safety and the environment. **MACT emission standards for periods**  **of SSM u**  **nreasonable Comment**  : Man y commenters (2832, 2841, 2844, 2845, 2859, 286 3, 2887, 2890, 2901, 2916, 2929, and 3218) opposed setting MACT emissions standards for periods of SSM. The commenters opposed setting MACT emissions standards or limits that fail to reflect differing processes and process equipment conditions, including air pollution control and monitoring equipment, during each of these SSM timeframes. It is phys icall y impracticable, if not impossible, for the process units in question to shut down immediately in the event of a malfunction. These emissions conditions duri ng SSM are not the same as the conditions during regular or routine operations. Commenter 2887 provided examples of opacity data collected during SSM events. Commenter 2901 stated that EPA’s proposed requirement that facilities meet steady

- state standards during SSM events is not lawful, citing decisions previous to the Court’s decision in Sierra Club v. EPA , 551 F.3d 1019 (DC. Cir 2008) that held that technology

- based standards must contain exemptions or less stringent standards during SSM periods. The commenter stated that because all pollution control technologies will occasionally malfunction and take time to get to their steady- state conditions, achievable technology

- based standards must contain provisions excusing noncompliance or making compliance eas ier during such unavoidable events. Commenter 2916 stated that EPA knows that emissions during periods of SSM are likely to be different than emissions during normal operations but the Agency ignores these facts and, instead, simply

points to an absence o f emissions data from SSM periods as a reason to propose that standards based on data from periods of normal operation are appropriate. The absence of emissions data creates a duty for the Agency

to gather the data needed to set specific standards for SSM or, if developing such information is not technicall y feasible, setting work practice standards for SSM periods.182

One commenter (2844) stated that if EPA applies the proposed emission limits at the time of SSM events, then such events constitute reasonably foreseeable operating conditions, and certainl y the range of such events, including their worst impacts on emissions achievements, needs to be taken into account when estimating the floor units’ emissions variability achieved in practice. **Response** : As disc ussed in the preamble, EPA has taken into account cement kilns’ operating properties during startup and shutdown periods and has established different standards for those periods where appropriate. Therefore, commenters concerns regarding startup and shutd own periods have been considered and addressed in the final rule. For the reasons explained in the preamble to the final rule, EPA is not setting separate standards for malfunctions and during a malfunction, the otherwise applicable standard applies. Howev er, as explained in the preamble to the final rule, in the event that a source fails to comply with the applicable CAA section 112(d) standards as a result of a malfunction event, EPA would, of course, determine an appropriate response based on, among othe r things, the good faith efforts of the source to minimize emissions during malfunction periods, including preventative and corrective actions, as well as root cause anal ys es to ascertain and rectify excess emissions. EPA would also consider whether the so urce's failure to comply with the CAA section 112(d) standard was, in fact, “sudden, infrequent, not reasonably preventable” and was not instead “caused in part by poor maintenance or careless operation.” 40 C.F.R. § 63.2 (definition of malfunction). See, Weyerhaeuser v Costle, 590 F.2d 1011, 1058 (D.C. Cir. 1978)( “ In the nature of things, no general limit, individual permit, or even an y upset provision can anticipate all upset situations. After a certain point, the transgression of regulatory limits caus ed b y "uncontrollable acts of third parties," such as strikes, sabotage, operator intoxication or insanity , and a variety of other eventualities, must be a matter for the administrative exercise of case

- by

- case enforcement discretion, not for specification in advance b y regulation.”) As also discussed in the preamble, in light of comments raising concerns with EPA’s proposed approach to malfunctions, the final rule includes an affirmative defense to civil penalties for exceedances of emission limits that o ccur during malfunctions. See 40 CFR 63.1341 (defining “affirmative defense” to mean, in the context of an enforcement proceeding, a response or defense put forward b y a defendant, regarding which the defendant has the burden of proof, and the merits of wh ich are independentl y and objectively evaluated in a judicial or administrative proceeding.). This approach is not inconsistent with the Pre

- Sierra Club cases, Portland Cement Ass’n v. Ruckelshaus , 486 F.2d 375 (D.C. Cir. 1973) and Essex Chemical Corp. v. Ruckelshaus , 486 F.2d 427 (D.C. Cir. 1973), cited b y one commenter. Although the relevance of those cases is not clear in light of intervening caselaw, EPA’s overall approach to malfunction events in this rule is consistent with the approach set forth in E PA’s 1972 proposed rules that were cited favorabl y in those decisions in that both “impart a construction of "reasonableness" to the standards as a whole and adopts a more flexible system of regulation than can be had b y a s ys tem devoid of "give." Id . at 3 99. Those decisions did not require exemptions or less stringent standards for malfunction events as the commenter suggests. EPA’s overall approach to malfunctions is also not inconsistent with the NRDC v EPA , 859 F. 2d 156, 207(D.C.Cir. 1988) and Marathon Oil Co. v. EPA, 564 F.2d 1253, 1272 (9th Cir. 197 7) cases cited b y the same commenter. Although neither case is directl y on point and the NRDC case’s discussion of technology

- based standards is dicta, these cases don’t require exemptions or183

less stringent standards for malfunctions either. The regulatory affirmative defense included in today ’s final rule is consistent with Marathon Oil’s holding under the Clean Water Act that EPA must formalize its approach to upsets. But see , Weyerhaeuser v Costle , 590 F.2d 1011, 1057

- 58 (D.C. Cir. 1978)(holding that an informal approach is adequate). One commenter maintains that the absence of emissions data creates a duty for the Agency to gather the data needed to set specific standards for SSM or, if developing such information is not technicall y feasible, setting w ork practice standards for SSM periods. However, the statute permits EPA to use available information and imposes no affirmative duty to gather information. Cf. Cement Kiln Recycling Coalition v. EPA, 255 F. 3d at 867. Consequently , EPA does not accept the commenter’s suggestion. **Work practice options**  **Comment :**  Many

commenters (2841, 2844, 2845, 2874, 2887, 2890, 2929, and 3218) stated that EPA should propose either work practice standards as a viable alternative to the current ongoing SSM litigation ( Gen eral Provisions , 40 CFR 63) or suspend efforts to establish SSM limits during this rulemaking and consider a separate regulation. According to the commenters, work practices would be appropriate given the technological and economic limitation involved with applying a valid measurement method. Commenters 2841, 2844, and 2845 included a work practice plan suggestions and a sample SSM outline and plan as part of their comments. As an alternative, EPA should initial a separate rulemaking effort to address SSM emissions once more information on SSM emission is available. Reasons stated for a work practice standard include the following:

 EPA, in setting a MACT floor, must take into account the variability of the best performing source b y including emissions during periods of SSM.

 The proposed compliance requirement means that mercury emission cannot be practically measured during SSM.

 Accurate quantification of the mass of mercury emitted per million tons of clinker produced cannot be assured during SSM.

 During SSM , low kiln feed which in turn causes clinker production to be very low will reduce mercury

emission levels to the point they are below the point of accurate measurement.

 During startup, mercury emissions are divided by a very small clinker production rate leading to increased mercury emission rates per unit.

 Also during startup, it is anticipated that mercury emission rates will spike as ductwork heats and an y absorbed mercury compounds are released or due to other transient affects.

 During shutdown, kiln feed and clinker production is decreasing to zero and mercury emissions are greatly

exaggerated which also leads to increased errors of mercury rates per unit.

 Units equipped with wet scrubber or activated carbon control devices are not operated during startup until specified kiln operating parameters are met in order to protect the184

control device from damage and therefore active controls are not functioning during the start

- up and shut

- down period for some kilns.

 For mercury

CEMS used in the electric utili ty industry , during SSM, the sample gas molecular weight changes due to the reduction in CO 2 concentrations which affects the accuracy of mercury

measurements.

 For HCl and THC, changes in moisture and ox ygen concentration, kiln volumetric flow rate, kiln f

eed, and fuel firing will result in unreliable emissions measurements.

 PM CEMS monitoring data will not accuratel y reflect actual emission during SSM because of technical difficulties, and excessive testing costs; stability of the PM CEMS; and affects on CEMS operations due to differences in fuels burned, firing rate, and feed rate. **Response** : The commenters indicated that certain features of the standards could not be measured (those which are normalized to production), but not that the HAP itself was inca pable of measurement. Thus, EPA does not see that the criteria of section 112 (h) have been satisfied here. The standards in the final rule are not normalized to production for the reasons provided in the public comments. SSM conditions should not be cont ained in correlation tests because they are usuall y short lived, and erratic and probabl y not repeatable. that the correlation is developed under normal operating conditions because that is ty pical of the majority

of time and SSM emissions are then quantif ied based on that correlation

**Comment :**  One commenter (2845) stated that EPA should address SSM through the use of work practice standards that include:

 Preventive maintenance activities intended to minimize malfunctions and unplanned shutdowns of air emi ssions control sy stems

 Procedures to be followed to minimize HAP emissions during kiln startup and during planned shutdowns

 Procedures for detecting and remedyi ng malfunctions that result in excess emissions that include a determination of the cause and co rrective actions. The commenter has provided a sample SSM plan as an attachment to their submitted comment. **Response** : See previous response. **Consideration of SSM in mercury standards Comment:**  Several commenters (2845 and 2855) stated that EPA’s 30

- day roll ing average limit for mercury

does not consider the periodic maintenance shutdown of the raw mill. The raw mill is generall y shut off for scheduled maintenance about 15 percent of the time. However, there are times where unscheduled shutdowns do occur. In addition, the raw mill operation is interrupted when feed storage silos are full. Depending on the specific plant, the mill downtime could have a major impact on the average emission during that period. This will have an impact on mercury emissions during that month, resulting in substantial outliers in the 30

- day data sets. To ensure185

these outliers do not result in the facility being out of compliance for the proposed rule, any mercury control strategy

to be considered b y the plant would need to take this possibility into account. As a result, the cost of the mercury control strategy

is greater than would be the case if these ty pes of maintenance issues did not occur. An alternative that could be considered b y EPA would be to provide some form of exception for shut

- down, maintenance, and start

- up. **Response:** The comment does not give EPA a sufficient view of the predicament faced b y the source to indicate that compliance during startup, normal operation, and shutdown periods is impracticable. In fact, the des cription of the scenario presented b y the commenter leaves ample room for the Agency

to interpret that compliance depends on source

- specific conditions, operator discretion, and a variability in emissions with indeterminate causes among shutdown and restar t events. For instance, an unscheduled shutdown may or may not share the emissions profile of a scheduled shutdown. A prior comment alluded to “impracticable immediate shutdowns.” Given the averaging periods built into the standard which accommodate spikes , and the generally less challenging conditions obtaining during startup and shutdown conditions (when less mercury

containing material is input to the kiln), EPA does not accept, in the absence of any data, that unscheduled shutdowns, impracticable immedi ate shutdowns, and scheduled shutdowns all, somehow, make compliance impossible. **Clarifications, corrections Comment:**  One commenter (2845) stated that §63.1342 indicates that 63.6(f)(1) Compliance with Emission Standards, is not applicable to Subpart LLL. If this is the case, §63.6(e)(3) Startup, Shutdown Malfunction Plans, should not be applicable as the SSMP provisions are no longer needed if the facility cannot utilize the SSM exemption provided for in Subpart A. The commenter suggested that in Table 1 to subpart LLL of Part 63

– Applicability of General Provisions, 63.6(e)(3) Startup, Shutdown Malfunction Plan will not be applicable to subpart LLL. **Response:** The EPA agrees that if a source may no longer avail themselves of an exemption for startup, shut down, or malfunction, then a startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan is no longer necessary . The applicability of the requirement to have an SSM plan has been deleted.

. **Emission standards and SSM exemptions Comment:**  One commenter (2846) disagreed with E PA’s proposal to not apply the SSM exemptions to the emissions standards in this proposed rule. The commenter provided two options to address emissions during SSM events:

 SSM emissions could be treated as de minimis emissions; and

 EPA needs to establish w ork practice or operational standards that would apply during SSM periods. **Response:** See preamble to final rule and earlier responses as to why no showing has ye t been made as to wh y work practice standards are permissible here.186

**Area sources Comment**  **:** One c ommenter (2887) stated that with respect to area sources, the EPA could utilize its discretion under §112(d)(5) to impose management practices to limit emissions during SSM events. **Response :**  EPA interprets management practices to mean actions homologous to work practice standards. See the preamble to the final rule and earlier responses as to why no showing has yet been made as to wh y work practice standards are permissible here. **Continuous monitoring of PM and vapor phases of all HAP metals Comment:**  One co mmenter (2638) stated that with the inclusion of SSM emissions subject to the standards, PM and vapor phases of all HAP metals including mercury should be continuously monitored. CEMS would be required to measure emissions during randomly occurring malfunc tion events. PM is not expected to be a good surrogate for HAP metals during SSM events in which emissions, control of these emissions, the chemical state of the emissions and the partitioning between phases could and in realistic circumstances would be expected to be different from those during normal operation. The use of multi

- metal CEMS methods would allow all of the urban HAP metals including mercury and all phases to be continuously monitored with a single CEMS. This option would be simpler, more reli able and have lower initial and on

- going costs than the only other option consisting of two CEMS, one for PM and one for mercury vapor. Commenter 2638 recommended that SSM events be included in the standard, and that HAP metals emissions be monitored using CEMS. **Response** : EPA sees no reason to believe that the surrogacy relationship would be altered by startup, shutdown or malfunction events. Use of PM as a surrogate for non

- volatile HAP metals

– in this very industry

– has already

been upheld. See National Li me II, 233 F. 3d at 639. See the preamble discussion under final testing and monitoring requirements for more information. 

### 2.11 **Economic Impacts Control technology performance uncertainties**  **Comment:** In order to estimate the economic impact of the prop osed rule, commenter 2845 examined the need for controls and the likely controls and identified the following as issues with the level of performance that each emissions control technology will achieve when applied to meet the proposed standards (additiona l details are presented in Appendix 12 of the commenter’s submittal):

 There is onl y one kiln with an RTO and we do not know how well an RTO will work on kilns with differing profiles of organic emissions.187

 It was assumed that wet scrubbers will reduce HCl e missions in the presence of high SO 2 levels but there are technical concerns with the successful control of HCl in that circumstance.

 No one has applied activated carbon to a kiln exhaust to achieve either the THC or the mercury control levels needed to co mpl y with this standard. In addition, there is an expectation that a single carbon s ys tem can control both mercury and THC but that has not been demonstrated. At present, carbon s ys tems for THC are designed differentl y from sy stems for mercury

.
 Wet scrubbe r performance in controlling mercury is variable and some of the mercury captured is reemitted as operating modes change. There is evidence that some units will gain very little mercury

control with a scrubber due to the form of the mercury in their exhaus t.

 There is strong evidence that RTO are not capable of reducing emissions to below the proposed THC standards.

 There is significant uncertainty as to whether a wet scrubber can reduce HCl levels to below the proposed HCl standards.

 Not all kiln locations have the natural gas service needed to fire an RTO.

 Not all kiln locations will have access to the water needed to operate a wet scrubber. Commenter 2845 stated that there are key uncertainties associated with the control performance assumptions used by

EP A but in order to develop their own anal ys is of the cost of controls, has developed its own control performance assumptions:

 An RTO will cut THC emissions by 95 percent and a scrubber will precede the RTO. Doubts that an RTO can be operated consistently b elow 7 ppm of THC without regard for the starting concentration due to the THC associated with the combustion of the natural gas and the emissions during switching of the thermal beds. The commenter assumes for their anal ys is that RTO will be able to consi stently reduce emissions below the 7 ppm limit even though the one commercial application of an RTO on a kiln has not done so.

 A scrubber will control mercury , on average, by 50 percent. Itis clear that actual performance is a function of the mix of oxidi zed and elemental mercury which can be highl y variable.

 Any ACI s ys tem will used to control both mercury and THC. ACI will reduce organics by 50 percent due to their poor performance in adsorbing light hydrocarbons. Any ACI sy stem will include a dedicated bag house to capture the carbon ladened dust. That bag house will be 50

- 66 percent of the size of a new bag. ACI with a bag filter will reduce mercury emissions by

75 percent.

 A unit that adds both ACI, with a bag house, and a scrubber is assumed to have o verall mercury control of about 85 percent.

 The new PM standard will require that all units have a bag house. For this analy sis, the exact performance of the bag house is not addressed but simply it is assumed that all kilns must have one. However, if a un it has an ESP and adds ACI with a bag house, it is assumed that the existing ESP will not need to be replaced.188

 To the extent a unit has baseline stack test HCl emissions over the standard, it is assumed that a wet scrubber will be needed. The exact perform ance of the scrubber is not known.

 Another compliance requirement that will need to be consider for its cost will the installation and operation of CEMS for THC, HCl and mercury for each regulated stack.

 Scrubbers installed to meet the limits under this ru le will reduce SO 2 to some degree. To assess that impact, we have surveyed scrubber suppliers and test data and developed the following assumptions: scrubbers will provide between 90 percent and 95 percent control for SO 2 but will not control below 15 ppm of SO 2 . **Response:** EPA is aware that the actual performance of any control device will depend on a number of factors and will likely vary to some unknown degree among kilns. EPA made based its estimates of performance on available performance data including data for the cement industry as well as other relevant industries. In some cases that data were limited. For example, EPA’s estimate of scrubber performance for wet scrubbers on mercury emissions was based on the test conducted at 5 kilns. ACIperformance was based on the experience of the utility industry , as well as a pilot test conducted at one portland cement kiln. In estimating cost impacts and emission reductions, we calculated the removal efficiency that would be required to compl y with the final li mits and assigned a control device based on the reduction that would be necessary . The cost impacts are conservative in that for every kiln, we assumed that one or more control devices would have to be added. We believe that we have overstated what actual costs will be for the industry . While we may not accurately

predict the controls that each kiln will eventuall y install to comply, we have provided an estimated cost of compliance and accounted for the fact that the emission limits will require expenditure s by the industry

to compl y. The actual cost associated with compliance is not factored in the decision of what the level of the standard should be. EPA must set the standards based on the best performers, regardless of the means by which they

are the best performers. The commenter took issue with the controls and level of performance used by EPA in its anal ys is of impacts. Regarding the ability of RTO to adequately

control organic emissions, a currently operating RTO with several years of operating experie nce is controlling THC on a long

- term basis to an average of about 5 ppmvd at 7 percent O 2 measured as propane. Furthermore, as a result of additional long

- term THC data received after proposal, EPA has increased the THC limit to 24 ppm for promulgation. In addition, sources have the option of complying with the alternative limit for organic HAP. We acknowledge that a few sources may find it necessary to add RTO because of the level of control necessary , although we believe that most kilns can be adequatel y controlled using ACI s ys tems that get an estimated 50 percent control of THC (due to the presence of lighter h ydrocarbons such as methane and ethane that are not as effectivel y removed b y RTO as heavier compounds) and an estimated 80 percent control of other organic HAP. Where RTO are installed, they will be expensive, due in part to the fact that the RTO must be preceded with a wet scrubber in order to remove SO 2 that can foul the RTO. However, we have found that onl y 10 kilns nationwide may need to install RTO. We also agree with the commenter that RTO use may not be feasible in areas that lack access to natural gas supplies. However, as stated above, the number of sites where we expect RTO to be necessary is limited. Based on information available at the U.S. Energy Information Administration, all six states where kilns potentially needing RTO are located appear to have189

access to natural gas. We do not believe that water availability will be a limiting condition in these locations. The commenter had conce rns about the ability of wet scrubbers to remove HCl in the presence of SO 2 . We agree that the wet scrubbers currently on U.S. cement plants are designed to remove SO 2 , rather than HCl. However, an EPA review of HCl emissions from 21 plants indicated an av erage HCl concentration of 12 ppm, and a maximum HCl concentration of 55 ppm. Therefore, required HCl removal efficiencies to meet the 3 ppm emissions standard are expected to be much lower than 99 percent for virtually all kilns. A preliminary

review of data gathered from a 2010 In formation Collection Request (ICR) for Electrical Generating Units indicates that wet scrubbers utilizing lime will be able to provide the necessary collection efficiency

to meet the 3 ppm emissions standard. EPA believes the co mmenter’s concern over the performance of ACI s ys tems are not well

– founded, based on the experience with the use of ACIs ys tems for both mercury and organic emission controls in other industries, including medical waste incineration and coal fired boilers. The ACI s ys tem installed at Ash Grove in Durkee, OR is expected to achieve over 80 percent reduction in mercury

emissions. Based on pilot tests, removal efficiencies of over 90 percent were achieved, depending on the type of carbon and the injection rate. As noted by

the commenter, scrubber performance on mercury can be variable and depends on several factors, such as the mercury species present, the presence of chlorine in exhaust gases, and the liquid injection rates. Tests conducted on the scrubbers cur rently in use in the cement industry showed removal efficiencies from 50 percent for one scrubber to over 80 percent at two scrubbers. These removal efficiencies were the average of tests conducted during raw mill on and raw mill off conditions. Usually during the raw mill off period, removal efficiencies are higher, due to the presence of greater concentrations of oxidized mercury than during the raw mill on phase, when most of the mercury is in the elemental phase. We agree that w et scrubbers may not perf orm as well as ACI sy stems on mercury , and we believe that ACI s ys tems, which have higher removal efficiencies and are less expensive to install and operate than scrubbers, will be the predominant control method used. Our impact and economic anal ys es are b ased on this assumption. Where both ACI and wet scrubbers are installed, the combined efficiency of the two sy stems on mercury control will vary . We expect that ACI s ystems with removal efficiencies of 80 percent or better will remove most of the mercury and that, where mercury

concentrations in the exhaust gas stream are low to moderate, wet scrubbers will not impact final mercury emissions significantl y. Our impacts analysis uses this assumption. However, in situations involving high mercury concentration s, we believe that scrubbers after ACI s ys tems will have significant impacts on the final emissions. In our anal ys is, this was a factor for only two kilns that have extremely high mercury

emissions. We agree with the commenter’s statements that, where a fa cility currentl y operates an ESP and is expected to install an ACI s ys tem (including polishing baghouse), in most instances they would not need to replace their ESP. Our impacts analy sis uses this approach. We also considered the costs of CEMS in our analy sis as suggested by the commenter.190

Regarding the commenter’s statement that scrubbers will not control SO 2 below 15 ppm, outlet test data from one cement plant report SO 2 levels well below the 15 ppm level. (Memo, Bahner, Laney , Barnett, Summary of Cement Kiln Wet Scrubber and Lime Injection Design and Performance Data, May

29, 2008, Docket EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2007

- 0877) **Comment:** One commenter (2891) stated that the goal of MACT standards in general is to achieve 90 percent or better reductions in the targeted hazardous air pollutant emissions. Some estimates place the likel y reductions from this proposed regulation as low as the low to mid

- 80 percentile for reduction. If that is correct, the commenter requested that EPA describe in plain terms the Agency ’s justification for obtaining reductions below 90 percent. **Response:** MACT standards must be of minimum stringency reflecting performance which is the average of a select group of best performers, or the performance of the best

- controlled similar source, and may

be m ore stringent. There is no specific emission reduction percentage, however, which constitutes MACT. **Alternate impact analysis Comment:**  One commenter (2845), in estimating the impacts of the proposed rule, stated that there was insufficient data to perform a kiln

- by

- kiln anal ys is of controls. Instead they used available emissions data for subsets of kilns and extrapolated to the total population assuming 170 kilns needing to comply . In order to estimate the total number of RTO, scrubbers, ACI, and bag filter s needed to comply with the proposed limits, the commenter listed the steps taken to profile the entire population of kilns (see Appendix 12 to the commenter’s submittal for details). One of the key

differences between EPA’s assessment and the commenter’s assessment is that the commenter expects a larger number of RTO because of the limited performance of activated carbon on controlling light hydrocarbons and the need to design the carbon sy stem to control both mercury

and THC. According to the commenter, a number of kilns will be at risk of non

compliance even with the installation of the best available controls. The commenter (2845) took issue with EPA’s assumption of a substantial secondary benefit in the form of SO 2 reductions from the installation of w et scrubbers under this rule. The commenter stated that there is significant uncertainty about the nature of a scrubber designed to reduce HCl or mercury

or both and whether it will operate in a manner that provides the same level of SO 2 control as a dedic ated SO 2 scrubber. To assess the impact of wet scrubbers on SO 2 emissions, the commenter used the SO 2 emissions from the I SI S model and average flow volumes to calculate the stack outlet SO 2 concentration in ppm for each kiln. The commenter then calculated the control efficiencies that would be required and control efficiencies that could be achieved for each kiln assuming that the lowest achievable scrubber outlet concentration of SO 2 is 15 ppm based on communications with a scrubber vendor. The commenter estimated SO 2 control ranging from 72

- 78 percent over the entire SO 2 inventory

. One commenter (2845) did not agree with EPA’s assumptions for control technology effectiveness impacts, controlled emissions estimates, and costs for installing/operating the various control technologies and are listed as follows:191

 The costs for limestone wet scrubbers as estimated using EPA’s (ISIS) model and production assumptions were compared with best available control technology (BACT)/best available retrofit technology ( BART) cost calculations using site

- specific gas flow and SO 2 concentrations for these same facilities. The results of the comparison of the two methods can be summarized as follows:

– The capital and annual cost projections using the BACT/BART cost estimates were several times greater than those calculated b y EPA.

– The SO 2 concentration in the kiln gas and the presence of contaminants in the sy nthetic gy p sum (syngyp ) produced will determine whether a gy psum credit or a sludge disposal cost will be incurred for the scrubber sludge. The I SI S model alway s assigns a credit, and the BACT/BART anal ys is assigns a cost for disposal. These costs/credits will be site

- specific.

– Two key

capital and operating costs that are not included in EPA’s cost analy sis are a limeston e preparation plant to grind limestone to the fineness required for the LWS and the handling equipment used to handle the s yngyp created b y the LWS. The sy ngy p has high moisture content and cannot be handled by the equipment utilized to handle natural gy

ps um. The additional costs for these two s ys tems were provided by the commenter.

– Other observed discrepancies impacting annual variable costs include costs for natural gy

psum and costs for onsite or offsite wastewater treatment. If onsite treatment is utiliz ed, additional capital costs must also be included.

– The I SI S model does not include the potential for additional capital costs at those plants that will require the kiln ID fan to be replaced. This is particularl y likely where other control devices such as an RTO or ACI are also required b y the new NESHAP requirements. The need for a new ID fan will be site

- specific. **Response:** As a result of comments, we examined our costs (including scrubber costs) and made several adjustments, including revisions to the e xhaust gas flow rates, power demand, and water usage. As an illustration of the effects of these revisions, at proposal, the capital cost for a 1.2 million tpy

kiln was $9.3 million; the revised estimate is $25 million. Annualized costs increased from $1.6 to $3.6 million. Earlier responses in this section address other issues raised b y the commenter. **Comment:** One commenter (2844) stated that the exhaust flow rates reported and utilized in the cost of control section underestimates the exhaust flow rates to be controlled by using inconsistent factors, missing certain sources of flow, and using dry instead of actual (wet) flow rates in the analy sis. **Response:** In response to this comment, EPA investigated its gas flow rate estimating approach. Upon looking at additional data that had been supplied by industry , it did appear that stack gas flow rates generally

exceed the original flow rates used. From the data, it appears that other sources of gas flow dilute the kiln exhaust and increase the total flow rate beyond what is expected at the kiln exit. Based on a review of the additional data and review of operating cost estimates specifically

for scrubbers, changes were made in the operating cost equations. Changes in the exhaust gas flow rates also affected costs of all control equipment costs as equipment costs192

are generally

a function of exhaust gas flow rates. The details of this anal ys is of exhaust gas flow rates and changes in operating cost equations is documented in memorandum from Staudt, Andover Technology Partners, to Srivastava, Torres, Barnett, US EPA, “RE: Wet Scrubber Cost Algorithms,” February

26, 2010. **Comment:** One commenter (2844) stated that EPA’s anal ys is confuses capacity of a plant and the actual production of a plant. This approach overstates the emissions, and understates the control needs and costs. **Response:** In our anal ys is, we chose capacity because actual production can vary substantially over time. We disagree with the commenter’s assertion that using capacity maximizes emissions and costs

. **Comment:** One commenter (2844) stated that for concentration

- based limits, EPA unreasonabl y assumes that exhaust is at 7 percent ox ygen when sizing and costing out controls. Higher ox ygen levels occur in kiln exhaust due to others sources of flow to the kiln stack. As a result, the overall flow to the stack will be greater than has been assumed in the EPA cost analy sis. With higher flow will come larger control sy stems and added cost. **Response:** As noted in a previous response, as a result of comments, we investigated our gas flow rate estimating approach and made changes that affected the control equipment costs. The details of this analy sis of exhaust gas flow rates and changes in operating cost equations are documented in a memorandum from Staudt, Andove r Technology Partners, to Srivastava, Torres, Barnett, US EPA, “RE: Wet Scrubber Cost Algorithms,” February 26, 2010. **Comment:** One commenter (2844) stated that in the assessment of HCl and THC impacts, EPA assumes each kiln is running at full capacity 365 day s per year, which is impossible. A more reasonable number for days of operation is 330 days. **Response:** EPA assumes 330 day s of operation in the cost and impacts analy sis. **Comment:** One commenter (2844) stated that scrubber power demand is presented at 3kWh/ton clinker, which is too low. There appears to be a minor error in the calculation that is done in converting units but the main problem is that duct work pressure drop has not been accounted for and the exhaust flow is too low. Thus, in Section 2.3.5 secondary impacts are based on unreasonable assumptions. The commenter provided examples of power costs that are higher than those assumed in EPA’s assessment. **Response:** As noted in a previous comment, as a result of comments, we examined our scrubber cos ts and made several adjustments, including revisions to the power demand, resulting in a change in our control cost estimates. **Comment:** One commenter (2844) stated that other environmental impacts (Sections 2.4 and 2.5) include errors. The commenter provid ed a list of specific errors in the evaluation of other environmental impacts:193

 Scrubber make

- up water is given as 30 gal/ton clinker. In NSPS rulemaking, however, it was given as 105 gpm for a 1,200,000 tp y plant, i.e. 42 gal/ton clinker (see EPA

HQOAR

- 200 7

- 0877

- 0008, table 9, p.17), which is 12 gallons more than the new number.

 ACIsolid waste is given as 3 lb/ton clinker in Exhibit 7 but later a figure of 6 lb/ton clinker is given.

 Scrubber solid waste is omitted. It is assumed by EPA that all the scrubbe r waste can be incorporated into cement, but EPA has not demonstrated that this can be done while meeting product standards.

 EPA assumes that CKD can also be incorporated into the cement but EPA has not demonstrated that this can be done while meeting prod uct standards. **Response:** As noted in a previous response, we examined our scrubber costs in response to comments and made several adjustments, including scrubber water usage, resulting in a change in our estimates. In response to this comment, we have corrected our ACI solid waste estimate in section 2.5 to indicate 3 lb/ton clinker, consistent with the estimate provided in Exhibit 7. Our assumption regarding scrubber solid waste was based on a discussion with plant personnel, who indicated that scrubber sl urry is dried and added to the clinker as gy psum. **Comment:** The following are comments from commenter 2845 regarding EPA’s determination of costs associated with the installation and operation of ACI for the control of mercury and THC:

 A more refined econom ic anal ys is performed for an ACI s ys tem with a polishing baghouse resulted in a capital cost factor of $13.33 per ton clinker and an annual cost factor of $3.91 per ton clinker, both of which are more than four times the values used b y EPA.

 The estimated l evels of emissions control for ACIused by EPA are overl y optimistic; achievable industry

average levels of control for ACIwould be 50 percent for THC and 75 percent for mercury . Depending upon the form of mercury in the exhaust gases, an ACIs ys tem used in conjunction with a wet scrubber is expected to provide a combined control efficiency

for mercury

of 85 percent.

 EPA overestimated the amount of solid waste generated from ACI s ys tems. Based on the vendor

- suggested injection rate of 12 lbs activated car bon per million (actual cubic feet per minute [ACFM]), an ACIs ys tem will generate approximately 1.68 lbs solid waste/ton clinker versus EPA’s estimate of 3 lbs/ton. **Response:** Without any

supporting data from the commenter to substantiate their estimates for ACIcosts, mercury

emission reductions, and ACI solid waste, we are unable to evaluate the commenter’s assertions. We estimated the costs of using an ACI s ys tem and polishing baghouse to control mercury

emissions from cement kilns using control costs r ecently developed for actual electric utility

boilers with exhaust gas flow rates comparable to those for cement kilns. We estimated the mercury

emissions control based on testing conducted on an ACIs ys tem at a cement plant, which showed mercury removal e fficiencies over 80 percent at carbon injection rates of 10 lbs per million acf. The ACI solid waste estimates were based on data provided in Docket item II

- B

- 67, Docket A

- 92

- 53.194

**Comment:** One commenter (2845) provided the following comments regarding EPA’s determination of costs associated with RTO sy stems for control of THC.

 The pollutant control matrix shown in I SI S incorrectly lists PM, mercury , and HCl as pollutants addressed b y the RTO control option

 EPA derived a capital cost factor of $9,598 per dscf m 0.6 to estimate the capital cost of installing an RTO s ys tem on a cement plant from information available on the only currentl y operating existing installation within the cement industry. However, the correlation required flow in dscfm, and EPA used flow in units of standard cubic feet per minute (scfm), which includes moisture in the gas stream resulting in a substantial level of error for EPA’s estimation.

 To estimate annual operating costs, EPA utilized an empirical formula with several variables, some of which are dependent upon kiln ty pe. Based on the information used as EPA’s basis, the empirical formula vastl y underestimates the annual operating cost of the RTO sy stem. The typical annual maintenance materials costs for an RTO system would be around $503,000 per year for the 1.2 million ton per year example facility

.
 Using a more recent quote from the vendor for an existing RTO a projected capital cost factor of $11,034 per dscfm 0.6 , which is about 15 percent greater than that utilized by EPA was esti mated for a 1.2 million tpy kiln. The anal ys is projected an annual operating cost for an RTO on a precalciner kiln of $4,574,531 as opposed to EPA’s estimate of $1,199,996, over four times that estimated by EPA.

 The estimated levels of emissions control f or the RTO used by

EPA are overly

optimistic. Recommended, and achievable, industry average levels of control for an RTO would be 95% for THC although an RTO sy stem is not capable of maintaining a THC emission level below 10 ppm. Therefore, man y kiln syste ms with elevated, but not extreme, levels of THC in the exhaust would not be able to comply with the proposed standard of 7 ppm through installation of an RTO sy stem.

 EPA underestimated the electrical power and natural gas fuel requirements for RTO sy stems . Based on a manufacturer’s quote, the power demand is 46.7 kWh/dscfm and the natural gas requirement is 1.26 million British thermal units (MMbtu)/dscfm. EPA’s estimates were 30.9 and 0.73, respectivel y.

 EPA underestimated the amount of secondary impact emissions from operating the RTO sy stems due to the underestimated power demand and fuel requirements for the installations. **Response:** EPA acknowledges commenters ’ input regarding RTO control costs. However, EPA expects 10 or fewer RTO’s to be installed as a result of this rulemaking. Further refinements to the RTO costs would not change the underl yi ng MACT floor determinations or emissions standards. Revised RTO costs may change the estimated cost burden to the industry , but RTO costs are expected to be re latively small in relation to the total control costs to the industry

. **Comment:** One commenter (2916) stated that EPA should consider indirect effects of the Cement Kiln NESHAP, including increased energy consumption, increased water consumption, and increa sed dependence on foreign supplies of a strategic commodity . The commenter195

suggests that the EPA inadequatel y addresses these indirect effects when explaining the justification for the MACT standards set in the proposed Cement Kiln NESHAP. **Response:** In con sidering whether to adopt beyond the floor standards, EPA did take notice that additional controls would necessitate more energy use, and could lead to increased water usage and waste generation. These are additional reasons for not adopting beyond the flo or standards (along with high costs for limited reductions with consequent poor cost effectiveness). EPA does not consider non

- air quality impacts at the floor to be so extreme as to invalidate what otherwise is best performance, however. **Comment:** One comm enter (2916) provided the following cost issues comments regarding EPA’s determination of costs associated with installation and operation of baghouses and membrane bags:

 Based upon information received from National Cement on a recent baghouse installatio n, the commenter believes that capital costs for baghouses have been understated b y EPA b y nearl y a factor of two.

 The pollutant control matrix shown in I SI S incorrectly indicates HCl and THC being associated pollutants for the baghouse membrane bag (BHMB) and membrane bag (MBR) control options.

 In the monitoring cost section for PM, it is stated that the CEMS Cost Model assumes each baghouse has 5 compartments which seems off b y a factor of probabl y 2 or more and raises a question as to the size of the ba ghouse EPA has assumed would be necessary for the kilns. In fact, EPA assumes that the clinker cooler baghouse has the same number of compartments as the kiln baghouse. Kiln baghouses are usually at least 50 percent larger than cooler baghouses, depending upon the ty pe of cement process.

 EPA assumes that an existing baghouse would need a simple bag replacement to comply with the PM limit and assumes that the costs to replace onl y membrane bags is the difference in cost between the new reverse air baghouse w ith fabric bags and a new baghouse with membrane bags. Man y older baghouses will need major repairs/retrofitting or even outright replacement to use newer membrane bags and still meet the PM standard. The number of facilities that would fit this category and the cost to repairs/retrofit on a per facility basis is unknown. EPA’s cost estimate assumes reverse air baghouses would be the standard replacement, but most new baghouses on kiln sy stems are pulse

-

jet, which may

have higher costs than what EPA assumes

.
 For PM, EPA used their Air Pollution Control Cost Manual Sixth. The background documents contain no information on what assumptions EPA used to generate the costs.. Without the detailed background information on the specifics of the size and other detail s regarding the particulate control device used for the cost estimate, it is impossible to know if the cost estimates are representative of real world installations or whether the size of the baghouse used by EPA was based upon ACFM or scfm, or, if it was based upon scfm, what assumed operating temperature was used. There are additional costs associated with membrane bags as follows:

– Higher cost of membrane bags (same area as conventional bags).196

– In most cases, lower emissions will also require lower air to cloth ratios to limit cleaning and emissions.

– Reduced bag life to avoid operating with failed bags. **Response:** First, it should be noted that the final rule is not requiring bag leak detectors, but PM CEMS. Second, in our cost analysis, we used the reverse

- air baghouse design as the basis for our costs in order to be conservative, based on our understanding that reverse

- air designs would be more expensive than pulse

- jet designs. Third, the OAQPS Control Cost Manual has been the standard reference used by EPA in costing emissions control equipment, where actual applicable cost data are unavailable. We assumed membrane bags were about four times more expensive than standard bags. We used vendor information regarding the superior performance and life of bags. **Co mment**  : One commenter (2844) stated that Section 2.7 includes error in the evaluation of cost impacts in the environmental anal ys is:

 Andover 2008a at p27 provides figures for gy psum produced. In a wet scrubber it is not plaster (or anh ydrite CaSO4 M=136) th at is made, but bihydrated gy psum (CaSO4.2H2O M= 172). In addition, that gy psum is wet (about 12%). So, 64 tons of SO 2 removed should make 172*1.12 = 193 tons of gy psum.

 Capital cost for ACI seems very low ($2.41/ton clinker) based on the commenter’s discu ssions with vendors. **Response:** As noted previously , wet scrubber costs have been revised based on comments received. **Comment:** One commenter (2845) provided the following comments concerning the CEMS cost modeling approach:

 The commenter will need access to EPA’s completed cost model to fully assess EPA’s assumptions.

 The useful life of CEMS for purposes of estimating annualized costs is unclear and confusing in the EPA background documents.

 All costs should be expressed in 2005 dollars for ISI S and for EPA ’s other cost and benefits estimates for the NESHAP. However, it appears that the CO CEMS costs (that EPA evidently

uses to represent costs for THC CEMS in the NESHAP costing) was completed using 2003 dollars. Based on the documentation, the commenter cann ot determine for what ye ar the CEMS Cost Model provides costs.

 It is anticipated that every facility will need to install a new CEMS building; even if a building already exists, location issues associated with the new control technology will dictate that a new building be constructed. Also, all new CEMS for mercury and other pollutants are built at the manufacturer or integrator place of business and shipped in the shelter as a unit. The cost for on

- site assembl y is prohibitive and greatl y diminishes quality. Commenter 2845 has more specific CEMS Sy stem Comments for mercury , HCl, THC, and BLD as follows:197

 For mercury

CEMS,

– It is expected that the capital cost for purchase and installation of a single mercury CEMS is in the range of $300,000

– $500,000. The i nitial testing for certification adds $35,000.

– The extra elemental mercury calibration gas generator that is needed to meet the QA criteria in the recently

published EPA Traceability Protocols for Elemental Gas Generators is estimated to cost $45,000. This field reference calibrator could be used to QA generators at multiple plants.

– Upgrades to plant compressed air s ys tems are required for the nitrogen dilution sy stems (most widel y used Thermo s ys tems).

– Using an average capital cost of $500,000 for contempo rary mercury CEMS is more realistic.

– Mercury

CEMS on

- going operation and QA will require one dedicated plant person per mercury

CEMS.

– The annual cost to perform the required RATA is $25,000.

– The vendor supported maintenance agreement is estimated to cost approximately $30,000 per s ys tem.

– Although, the useful life of the sy stem is yet unknown; it is assumed to be a maximum of 10 years; but, certain s ys tem components may have a shorter life.

 For HCl CEMS,

– The industry

believes installation and certification of HCl CEMS as currently proposed is expected to cost between $225,000

- $250,000 (including FTIR, oxygen monitor, data handling s ystem, heated sampling, calibration gases, and other ancillary equipment) in sy stem capital expenses and installation.

– There are no current monitors that can measure at levels required b y EPA, and PS

- 15 is impossible to meet (requires spectroscopist to review the FTIR data frequently and includes numerous requirements no CEMS in the world could meet).

– Due to special sampling requirements, an FTIR s ystem as prescribed b y EPA could not be part of another CEMS; it would need to have separate dedicated sampling equipment (special super hot sampling lines) and separate data acquisition sy stem (DAS).

– Estimated capital costs of about $280, 000 just to get started on a s ys tem are expected.

– Another $30,000 for initial certification of the HCl CEMS is anticipated.

– The total costs for on

- going QA are unknown as facilities cannot install and certify HCl CEMS using PS

- 5.

– Estimated cost includes on e full

- time person, plus $30,000 for annual testing, plus $20,000 for an annual service agreement.

 For THC CEMS, the Summary of Environmental and Cost Impact document lists $137,800

- $138,900 for installed CEMS costs, and $41,672 for ongoing costs. However,198

these are for CO monitors as this document was prepared some time ago and EPA figured that industry

would go with CO monitors versus THC monitors because they were less costly . An FID anal yz er with dual range with auto switching to get to the low levels and still measure spikes would be estimated at $25,000 as compared to CO analy zer $10,000.

 For BLDS:

– The commenter (2845) does not understand the basis for EPA’s number for CEMS and BLDS monitoring costs. An estimate for the cost of a transmissometer (also used as COMS) that meets ASTM D7392

- 07 for PMDS or a good quality light scattering instrument is $35,000. According to our expert on CEMS, a cost of $93,700 is sufficient for an y of the recommended options on the table: BLDS, PMDS, or COMS, assuming monit oring only at a single location.

– A BLDS is needed downstream of each baghouse (kiln, coal mill, by

- pass, etc) whereas a PMD may

be able to monitor co

- mingled emissions (e.g., kiln and coal mill). We are not clear on the assumptions EPA made. However, on pa ge 17 of the Summary of Environmental Costs Impacts of Proposed Revisions to Portland Cement NESHAP, EPA assumes 1 sensor per compartment and 5 compartments for kiln baghouse, and five more of the same sensors for the clinker cooler baghouse, for a total o f 10 sensors. Thus, the EPA assumed capital cost is approximately $94,000 for 10 monitors. However, the assumption of only 5 compartments for each kiln baghouse is understated by a factor of at least two times. Thus, EPA’s estimated capital cost for BLDS o n the basis of 1 sensor per compartment is at least 50 percent low. **Response:** The cost model is based on vendor supplied data and has been placed in the docket for this rulemaking

. **RIA and ISIS projections Comment:**  One commenter (2845) stated that EPA’s RIA wrongl y credited all projected SO 2 emissions reductions in 2013 to the NESHAP by assuming all kilns operating in 2005 will be in operation in 2013 and will be in compliance. The RIA also assumes 20 new kilns in operation by 2013. The I SI S model projects a lower reduction by taking into account natural plant closures and modernizations. The commenter stated that ISIS offers significant improvements over EPA’s traditional cost approach. The commenter stated that the I SI S results are based on outdated projec tions regarding future U.S. cement consumption and capacity projections that were developed before the severity of the current recessions became apparent. According to the commenter, when EPA re

- runs ISIS using consumption and capacity projections that acc uratel y reflect the impact of the recession, EPA will predict a reduction in kiln emissions of SO 2 in 2013 and the monetized value of the SO 2 reduction attributable to the proposed NESHAP will decline as will the cost estimated for compliance with the prop osed NESHAP. One commenter (2845) stated that although IS IS offers the potential to eventually provide a significant improvement over EPA’s previous economic modeling for the cement industry , presentl y, ISI S is subject to numerous shortcomings in data, ass umptions, structure and validation. The commenter does not believe that the current version of IS IS provides believable estimates of likely

economic impacts from the proposed NESHAP or from other potential199

environmental requirements. I SI S is so complex and its deficiencies so pervasive that, until it is substantially

improved, other methods should be used to assess the likely impacts of the proposed NESHAP. The commenter provided an initial technical review of the current version of IS IS that EPA has used t o estimate the costs and economic impacts of the proposed rule and also provided comments and criticisms regarding the model and suggestions for improving and eventuall y develops an acceptable version of IS IS . The commenter submitted additional details and data as part of their comment. In contrast to EPA’s previous approach, ISIS:

 No longer models the U.S. cement industry unrealistically

as a collection of 20 completely

independent regional cement markets, with each cement producer selling product in only their own home market;

 Models cement producer behavior as competitive rather than oligopolistic, dropping the assumption that producers restrain output in order to raise prices;

 Allows a greater potential role for imports, consistent with historical experi ence;

 Simulates endogenousl y the full range of potential responses to regulation instead of assuming man y of them as exogenous inputs to the model; and

 In man y respects uses updated and better data. However, notwithstanding its commendable modeling objecti ves and the improvements over previous modeling efforts, the current version of ISI S that is used for the NESHAP analy sis needs substantial improvement before its outputs can be considered to realistically forecast the impact of EPA regulatory options. The commenter submitted detailed discussions of its recommendations for improvement to I SI S (see Appendix 13 of the commenter’s submittal). **Response:** The ISIS Cement Model has been enhanced by updating cement consumption and capacity projections, import model ing and transportation matrix. EPA employed both a partial

equilibrium economic model and the enhanced version of the I SI S Cement model to analyze the impact on the industry

and the econom y. T he final documentation of the enhanced peer

- reviewed IS IS model has been placed in the docket for this rulemaking. **Comment:** One commenter (2845) evaluated the potential economic impacts of the proposed rule and estimated that as many as 30 existing plants could be forced to close, with an additional 12 at high risk of closure which will have significant employ ment and economic impacts as well as collateral environmental impacts as well including a substantial increase in imports from non

U.S. plants that are not subject to stringent environmental standards. This would undermine the mercury reduction benefits and increase greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation of cement (the commenter provided additional details in Appendix 10 to their comments). **Response:** Neither our RIA economic anal ys is or our I SI S anal ys is e stimated impacts this large. Based on our analy ses, we believe that up to 10 plants may have reduced capacity utilization during 2013 as a result of the impacts of this rule. (Regulatory Impact Analy sis: Amendments to the NESHAP and NSPS for the Portlan d Cement Manufacturing Industry , Final Report, August 2010). **Comment:** Several commenters (2844, 2846, 2859, and 2919) stated that the proposed standards will have adverse economic impacts. The proposed standards will make it cost and technology200

prohibitive for some plants to achieve compliance, leading to forced closure of domestic plants that will create job losses. The reduction of domestic cement production will require imports, elevate costs, eliminate jobs, and constrain infrastructure development. Gre ater imports of cement will increase use of fossil fuels used for transportation, and foreign sources of cement are manufactured under conditions that are not as environmentally protective as in the United States. One commenter (2919) noted that the EPA sh ould evaluate the potential emissions from the production and transport of replacement cement for those markets affected by plant closures. It does not appear that EPA has addressed this issue in the preamble to the proposed rule, so the commenter recommen ded that EPA evaluate this before finalizing the rule to ensure that the final rule results in a net environmental benefit in the event that it causes closure of cement facilities. If EPA chooses to establish a subcategory for facilities with extremely high mercury

content ore that might otherwise be forced to close, we recommend that it require the highest level of control achievable for that subcategory

. **Response:** In the RIA analy sis, EPA modeled price, production, import, and employ ment changes in a part ial equilibrium model. In the benefit anal ys is, EPA estimated disbenefits of increased energy

consumption quantitatively and the disbenefits of increased production in foreign countries qualitatively

. **Comment:** One commenter (2846) stated that in the current economic crisis, it is imperative that U.S. industry

maintain sufficient flexibility to improve operations while simultaneously continuing to improve its record of emissions reductions. EPA’s estimate of the cost of this proposed rule

– over a quarter of a billion dollars annually

– could likel y preclude emissions control technology

development and stifle economic growth, rendering the U.S. cement industry incapable of competing effectivel y in the global marketplace. Given the increased infrastructure dev elopment likely

to take place as a result of the stimulus package, Council of Industrial Boiler Owners (CIBO) believes that EPA’s capital cost estimate for the cement industry ’s compliance with the proposed standards is likely inadequate. In imposing MACT requirements, it is essential that EPA have realistic cost estimates for its proposed standards, so that the impact of all proposed standards can be adequatel y ascertained by all interested parties. **Response:** EPA employed both a partial

- equilibrium economi c model and the enhanced version of the I SI S Cement model to analyze the impact on the industry and the economy

. In the IS IS Cement model, EPA used the latest projections on cement consumption from the Portland Cement Association (October, 2009). The cement consumption projections take into consideration both the economic crisis as well as the economic recovery maintaining sufficient flexibility in the anal ys is of this rulemaking. The Economic and Impact Analy sis for this rulemaking using both of these can be found in the rulemaking docket. **SO 2**  **reductions Comment:**  One commenter (2845) stated that EPA has overestimated uncontrolled SO 2 emissions by

about 25 percent as a national total because emissions were estimated as the tonnage of SO 2 emissions abated b y the regulation. As a result, benefits were also overestimated201

because SO 2 emission reductions were multiplied by a dollar value of benefits per ton providing benefits that are a linear multiple of the estimated emissions reduction. It is not clear how EPA estimated the total national SO 2 emissions in either the RIA or Industrial Sectors Integrated Solutions (I SI S) and it is believed that all of the estimates for the 2005 SO 2 emissions are inaccurate for the following reasons:

 In accuracies in the data obtain ed for the 2002 NEI;

 In accuracies in collapsing individual plant data into regional averages or medians by kiln ty pe and then into national averages or medians by kiln ty pe;

 Potential inaccuracies in using medians rather than averages;

 The error in multipl yi ng emissions intensity (pounds SO 2 per ton of clinker) by clinker capacity in contrast to actual clinker production;

 Errors in updating 2002 emission information for individual kilns to 2005 by inflating each kiln’s emissions by

the national average production increase from 2002 to 2005 instead of b y each kiln’s actual production increase over this period;

 The potential error in including SO 2 emissions from hazardous waste

- burning kilns in the inventory of 2005 baseline emissions that might be affected by the proposed NESHAP. It is not clear whether EPA made this error or not;

 The commenter has access to a more up

- to

- date and accurate database which when compared with EPA’s estimated results, the commenter’s estimated results were 20 percent lower; therefo re, because EPA overestimated the baseline SO 2 emissions by cement kilns in 2005 by

about 25 percent, this led EPA to overestimate the projected SO 2 - related monetized benefits b y a similar 25 percent. The commenter can provide more up - to

- date data to EPA. **Response:** We did collect additional information to supplement what was available in the NEI, and we conducted quality control and quality

assurance audits on these data. EPA believes this is a reasonable estimate of SO2 reductions. SO 2 emissions from cement kilns are the product of sulfur in the fuel as well as sulfur in the feed materials. SO2 emission intensities (lb/ton clinker) were calculated for each kiln type in each cement market using the SO2 emission data in the National Emission Inventory (N EI ). SO2 emission intensities by kiln ty pe in each cement market were used to calculate national SO2 emissions in the traditional engineering analysis as well as in the ISIS model. The detailed methodology used calculate SO2 emission intensities is documen ted in memorandum from Staudt, Andover Technology Partners, to Srivastava, Torres, Barnett, US EPA, “RE: NOx, SO 2 and CO 2 emissions from Cement Kilns (Emissions Memo) ,” September 23 ,2008. **Comment:** One commenter (2845) stated that EPA assumed or estimated an unrealisticall y high 95 percent SO 2 removal efficiency for all limestone wet scrubbers (LWS) without regard to the reason for the scrubber (i.e., HCl control vs. protecting an RTO) and without regard to the inlet concentration of SO 2 . According to the c ommenter, scrubber manufacturers indicate that 15 ppm is the lowest SO 2 outlet concentration consistentl y achievable b y wet scrubbers designed for SO 2 capture at cement kilns. The commenter estimated a lower removal efficiency assuming the lowest achievabl e outlet concentration of 15ppm.202

Commenter 2845 provided an MS Excel workbook showing the calculations as part of their comment. The commenter projected that the proposed NESHAP would result in 82 percent of all kilns needing to install scrubbers. Since it is not known which specific kilns will need scrubbers, the projected control efficiencies would need to be reduced b y in order to estimate the percentage reduction in SO 2 that will likely be achieved in practice, in contrast to the potential percentage re duction that would occur if all kilns installed scrubbers. The commenter stated that it is not clear that the wet scrubbers installed at cement kilns to meet the proposed NESHAP requirements

– either to control HCl or to protect an RTO installed to control THC

–

will achieve the performance that is expected of scrubbers intended to address SO 2 . The industry

has no experience with wet scrubbers intended specifically to control HCl to very low levels and very

little experience with scrubbers intended to protect an RTO. Scrubbers designed specifically

for HCl control would scrub using Sodium Hydroxide (NaOH) and may not be suitable for scrubbers aimed at removing low concentrations of HCl from flue gas that has a high SO 2 concentration. SO 2 scrubbers in cement ind ustry generall y use limestone as a scrubbing medium (lower

- cost than NaOH, results in recoverable gy psum and little in the way of solid waste disposal cost). It is not known how a scrubber would best be designed for removal of low concentrations of HCl in the presence of high SO 2 concentrations, or whether the SO 2 removal performance of such an HCl

- optimized scrubber would differ significantly from the ty pical performance of SO 2 - optimized scrubbers. **Response:** EPA has updated the SO 2 removal efficiency of li mestone wet scrubbers (LWS) to 90%. The NSPS adopted concurrently contains a 90% removal efficiency alternative standard for SO2 based on use of a limestone wet scrubber, and this alternative garnered significant industry support in the public comments. Co nsequently , EPA considers a 90% removal efficiency to be a reasonable estimate in assessing reductions of SO2 in the NESHAP as well. We also disagree with the statement that wet scrubber optimized to control SO2 will not control HCl to the low levels requi red b y the rule. Because HCl is more reactive than SO2, we would expect that a scrubber optimized for 90 percent SO2 control would achieve even a higher level of control for HCl. Infact, data collected from municipal solid waste incinerators confirms that spray dryers (a similar SO2 control technology) remove HCl at levels higher then those for SO2, and achieves level of 90 percent more even when SO2 removal levels are in the 30 percent range. **Comment:** One commenter (2845) stated that using scrubbers to c ontrol acid gas emissions from kilns with already low concentration of SO 2 are not cost

- effective for the following reasons:

 A majority

of the monetized benefits that EPA estimates for the entire proposed regulation derive from co

- control of SO 2 by kilns that are projected to install scrubbers to meet the proposed HCl standard.

 The SO 2 co - benefits from controlling HCl cannot provide a valid reason for HCl control requirements unless controlling SO 2 itself is shown to be cost

- effective.

 Emission control usin g LWS is not cost

- effective for the cement kilns that already have low concentrations of SO 2 because, the commenter estimated, it would cost more than $36,000 per ton of SO 2 , which is far above a reasonable figure of cost

- effectiveness for SO 2 control. The commenter provided cost and emissions reduction figures from a BACT anal ys is for a single kiln as support.203

**Response:** In the analysis of this rulemaking SO 2 emission reductions are co

- benefits of HCl reductions. HCl is a hazardous air pollutant regulated under section 112 of CAA. As noted in the preamble of the final rule we are required to set limits for HAP based on maximum achievable control technology

. That is the reason for appl y HCl controls. We do note that SO 2 co - benefits are achieved, and are very significant. It is not necessary that we justify

the cost of these SO 2 co benefits (and indeed, since they result from floor standard, EPA is precluded from considering costs). For these rules the SO 2 reductions represent a large fraction of the total bene fits from reducing PM 2.5 , but it is not possible to isolate the portion if the total benefits attributable to the emission reductions of SO 2 resulting from the application of HCl controls. **Comment:** One commenter (2844) stated that there are challenges an d uncertainties in meeting the new limits including the following:

 Facilities face extensive control investments because the limits are low and the controls methods are largel y undemonstrated in kiln applications.

 Activated carbon injection (ACI) and scru bber performance is dependent on having oxidized mercury

to treat. The commenter does not know the distribution of their plants’ elemental and oxidized mercury emissions.

 The proposed standards are cost

- ineffective in dollars per ton of reduced emissions and the risk that even those significant, costly investments will not assure compliance.

 **Response:** EPA acknowledges that there are challenges and uncertainties in attaining compliance with new limits under any MACT standard. See the preamble and cost and e nvironmental impacts documents for discussion of control costs and estimates of cost effectiveness. **Benefits Analysis Comment:**  One commenter (2845) stated that EPA does not estimate the benefits from control of the HAP whose emissions would be reduced b y the proposed NESHAP. Instead, EPA estimates the monetized benefits associated with co

- control of the criteria pollutants, PM 2.5 and SO 2 (a PM 2.5 precursor). The commenter stated that EPA performed no dispersion modeling, exposure assessment or risk analy si s for cement plant emissions. Instead, EPA relied on the benefit per ton estimates developed in previous RIA. The benefits per ton figure that EPA accesses and uses for SO 2 for the NESHAP benefits analy sis reflect work done in previous RIA (see EPA’s Regul atory

Impact Anal ys es (RIA) for the PM 2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)) to quantify the relationships between SO 2 emissions, sulfates, and eventual PM 2.5 concentrations attributable to SO 2 . One commenter (2845) stated that EPA should not use PM 2.5 reductions that are not required b y the rule to justify

the cost of the rule for the following reasons:

 Even though the proposed rule was developed to regulate HAP emissions, EPA estimates that most of the benefits, specificall y the monetized ben efits, will come from reducing PM 2.5 .204

 Actions taken to reduce HAP emissions will not reduce emissions of PM 2.5 and PM 2.5 precursors to the extent that EPA has projected. Itis improper for EPA to take credit for PM 2.5 benefits that may

not be achieved and that have not been realisticall y anal yz ed. EPA should quantify

the benefits of HAP reductions to compare to the costs of the rule.

 EPA estimated that the annualized domestic social cost of this regulation is $694million and concedes that it does not have s ufficient information to estimate benefits from reductions in emissions of mercury , HCl, or coarse PM (total hydrocarbons are not mentioned at all). Nor does EPA discuss the qualitative measures of these benefits, which must be considered essential to cons ider per Executive Order 12866. Itis not possible to justify the cost of the potential reductions in the four HAPs without discussion of the benefit of the proposed reductions.

 EPA’s discussion of the secondary benefits does not remedy this defect in the cost

benefit anal ys is. Such regulatory intent is contrary

to the CAA State Implementation process. States may

mandate PM 2.5 controls and allocate PM 2.5 emissions based on unique local considerations or legislative prerogatives, so long as the national stan dards are met. States have virtually absolute power in allocating emission limitations so long as the national standards are met and so long as the national standards are met, the implementing state may select whatever mix of control devices it desires . By setting MACT standards for the reduction of PM 2.5 , EPA is usurping the role of the States under the CAA’s NAAQS program. **Response:** As explained in the discussion of EPA’s decision to adopt a MACT standard for HCl, Congress was aware that there would be c o - benefits from controls on air toxics in the form of co

control of criteria pollutants, and Congress viewed these co

- benefits as a positive part of the air toxics control effort. Itwould be ironic indeed if EPA were precluded from considering these very real benefits in those instances where it is making discretionary choices under section 112 (d), notabl y in determining in whether to set a technology

- based or risk

- based standard for HAPs with a threshold. Nor does EPA view consideration of these co

- benef its as somehow undermining the SIP process. Indeed, States are customarily eager for federal controls of criteria pollutants since otherwise States must adopt localized controls to attain air quality standards. See e.g ., 75 FR at 35570

- 71 (June 22 , 2010) (noting importance of forthcoming MACT rules in helping areas attain primary SO 2 NAAQS). In addition:

 Data, resource, and methodological limitations prevented EPA from estimating the monetized benefits from reducing HAP emissions. For the final rule, EPA p rovided qualitative descriptions of the health effects associated with the top HAP emissions from cement kilns. In addition, EPA provided maps of the modeled reduction in mercury deposition from cement kilns. Despite our inability to provide monetized bene fits of HAP emission reductions, the total monetized benefits exceed the estimated costs of the rule b y a substantial margin, even when taking uncertainty into account.

 The goal of an RIA is to provide a comprehensive estimate of the anticipated costs and benefits associated with a regulatory action. Co

- benefits that occur as a result of a regulatory

action are appropriate to include in the RIA, and it is appropriate to compare the total monetized benefits with the costs. In many instances, it is not possible to quantify and monetize all of the benefits associated with a regulatory action. An RIA is205

not prepared to justify

the costs of an action, but only to estimate what the likely impacts would be.

 The PM 2.5 emission reductions that would occur as co

- ben efits of this rule do not affect the States’ roles and responsibilities under the NAAQS program. These emission reductions would occur regardless of an area’s attainment status under the NAAQS, but these emission reductions might help those areas that are in non

- attainment to reach attainment. This is a positive feature of the rule, not a negative. **Comment:** One commenter (2890) stated that EPA must consistently evaluate positive and negative impacts of a rule. The commenter’s specific points were:

 EPA canno t monetize the benefits of PM 2.5 (or any other pollutant) reductions to justify action at the floor. As EPA has repeatedl y cl aimed, the floor level of control shall not consider costs. If you cannot consider costs to industry in assessing whether a floor i s reasonable, you also cannot use benefits (monetized or otherwise) from other pollutants in establishing the floor. The floor must stand on its own and follow the requirements of the Clean Air Act.

 EPA cannot monetize the benefits of PM 2.5 and ignore the monetized detriments that would result from the controls. The EPA monetizes the benefits of PM 2.5 control but does not monetize the detrimental impacts of the energy and other secondary

emissions that are included in the secondary impacts section. This is arbitrary and creates an unfair depiction of the true impacts of this rule. **Response:** The costs and the benefits presented in the RIA do not influence the MACT floor determination. Consideration of cost (positive or negative) is absolutel y prohibited at th e MACT floor, and EPA necessarily did not consider cost or benefit information in developing the floors. The floors reflect the average performance of the best 12 % of existing sources, and the performance of the single best controlled similar source (for which EPA has emission data), as required b y law. EPA did consider cost information, as well as non

- air quality impacts and energy considerations, in determining not to adopt standard more stringent than the floor. The RIA describes impacts to energy in th e RIA in section 3.5 and the energy disbenefits in section 6.4. **Comment:** One commenter (2845) stated that methodological limitations should not prevent EPA from estimating the monetized benefits of HAP emission reductions from the proposed rule. Technique s exist for conducting multipathway risk assessments for cement kilns for HAP emissions that EPA and industry have applied many

times. For example, EPA’s worst case screening anal ys is concludes that an HCl emissions limit of 23 ppmv would result in no heal th risk to surrounding populations from current cement kiln emissions. In addition to risk modeling for HAP, well

- accepted methods for estimating the monetary value of changes in HAP risks also exist and have been applied. Executive Order (EO) 12866 requir es that EPA must conduct full anal ys is of benefits and costs (monetized to the extent possible) for any economically

significant regulations. EPA must analyze the benefits from HAP emissions reductions as well as criteria pollutant emission reductions. Acc ording to the commenter, anal ys is of the benefits of the proposed NESHAP will likely show small to near

- zero benefits from the reductions in HAP emissions. It is believed that hazardous waste

- burning cement kilns will provide a worst case206

representation fo r cement kilns and HAP risks associated with the industry will generall y be less than or equal to those from other hazardous waste

- burning kilns. **Response:** Data, resource, and methodological limitations prevented EPA from estimating the monetized benefits from reducing HAPs emissions. For the final rule, EPA provided qualitative descriptions of the health effects associated with the top HAP emissions from cement kilns. In addition, EPA provided maps of the modeled reduction in mercury deposition from cement kilns. Despite our inability

to provide monetized benefits of HAP emission reductions, the total monetized benefits exceed the estimated costs of the rule by a substantial margin, even when taking uncertainty into account. **Comment:** One commenter (2845) st ated that EPA’s benefits anal ys is incorrectl y assumes that exposure to and risk from fine particle and precursor emissions from the portland cement plant emissions is similar on average to exposure and risk from fine particle and precursor emissions from a ll other point sources. The commenter stated that cement kiln emissions are likel y to cause less exposure on average and are less potent. For both SO 2 and directly emitted PM 2.5 , EPA takes value

- per - ton benefits estimates for nationwide aggregates of these pollutants that were developed in the Ozone NAAQS RIA and applies these values specificall y to the quantities of cement plant emissions that will be controlled b y the NESHAP. This represents an instance of what economists term benefits transfer ; taking a benefit estimate developed in one context and applying it in another. Commenter 2845 stated that these situations are not similar and that the benefits transfers are not appropriate, for reasons having to do with both exposure and potency

. In support of th eir comment, the commenter provided anal ys es of exposure and potency as factors affecting benefits. **Response:** For the final RIA, EPA used the CAMx model to better reflect the geographic distribution of the emission reductions from cement kilns on ambient P M 2.5 concentrations, which provides a superior representation compared to the national average benefit

- per - ton estimate. The benefits models assume that all fine particles, regardless of their chemical composition, are equally potent in causing premature mortality because there is no clear scientific evidence that would support the development of different effects estimates by particle typ e. The recentl y released Integrated Science Assessment for Particulate Matter concluded that “many constituents of PM c an be linked with differing health effects, but the evidence is not yet sufficient to allow differentiation of those constituents or sources that are more closel y related to specific health outcomes.” In addition, the Health Effects Subcommittee of the Sci ence Advisory Board recently stated that “ the evidence at this time does not currently support this sort of [differential toxicity] assessment ” (EPA

- SAB

- COUNCIL

- 10

- 001). **Comment** : One commenter (2845) stated that EPA made two other smaller changes in adap ting previous benefit

- per - ton values for application to the cement NESHAP; however, did not give a detailed explanation of what the changes were so that the public could assess them. **Response:** EPA concurs that the two technical changes were not sufficiently described in the proposal RIA. However, this language was removed because benefit

- per - ton estimates were not used as the basis of the benefits estimates for the final RIA.207

In addition to the changes described in the Portland Cement NESHAP proposal RIA, EPA’s Office of Air and Radiation has also recently revised the value of a statistical life (VSL) used to calculate the human health benefits of avoided premature mortality

. The final RIA contains a detailed explanation of this revision. **Comment:** One commenter (2845) stated that the various comments provided regarding EPA’s benefits anal ys is would sum to a significant reduction in EPA’s calculated values perhaps down to near the level of costs that industry is estimating. **Response:** EPA has reassessed the monetized benefits and costs for the final rule, including the energy disbenefits. For the final rule, the monetized benefits still outweigh the costs by a substantial margin, even when taking uncertainties into consideration. **Small business impacts Commen**  **t:** One commenter (2887) stated that the final rule should minimize impacts on small business. The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. §601 et seq ., imposes procedural req uirements on EPA that must be followed in promulgating a rule. The commenter requested that the EPA minimize the economic impact of the final Portland Cement NESHAP on small entities. EPA’s anal ys is of the economic impact of the proposed rule on small busi ness cement plants suggested that the highest single impact based on a cost

- to

- sales ratio is on a small entity

. The commenter respectfully disagrees that the EPA minimized the impact on small entities in the proposed rule. Small entities are subject to the same MACT floor standards as larger businesses. To the extent that the rule includes any provision that minimizes the impact on small entities as compared to large businesses, the commenter requests that the EPA specifically identify those provisions an d explain the difference in economic impact between small businesses and larger companies. More importantly , the commenter does not agree that the MACT floor is the least stringent level allowed by law. **Response:** To the extent the commenter suggests that E PA should have altered the floor methodology

to accommodate small businesses, the comment is misplaced because the requirements for MACT floors are non

- discretionary and dictated by

statute. EPA is also certifying that the final rule does not have a signif icant impact on a substantial number of small businesses. W e estimate that 3 of the 26 existing Portland cement entities are small entities and will not incur any impacts under the final amendments for NSPS subpart F unless an affected facility is construc ted, modified, or reconstructed. Although this final NSPS will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, EPA nonetheless has tried to reduce the impact of this rule on small entities by the selection of an emission l evel based on highl y cost

- effective controls and specifying monitoring requirements that are the minimum to ensure compliance. In the case where there are overlapping standards between this NSPS and the Portland Cement NESHAP, we have exempted sources from the least stringent requirement thereb y eliminated overlapping monitoring, testing and reporting requirements by requiring that the source comply

with only

the more stringent of the standards.208

For subpart LLL (NESHAP), EPA performed a screening analy sis for impacts on the three affected small entities by comparing compliance costs to entity revenues. EPA’s anal ys is found that the ratio of compliance cost to company revenue for one small entity (a tribal government) will have an annualized cost of less than 1 percent of sales. The other two small businesses will have an annualized cost of between 1 and three percent of sales. Although this final NESHAP will not impact a substantial number of small entities, EPA nonetheless has tried to reduce the impact of this proposed rule on small entities by setting the final emissions limits at the MACT floor, the least stringent level allowed b y law. In the case where there are overlapping standards between this NESHAP and the Portland Cement NSPS, we have exempted sources from the least stringent requirement thereb y eliminating the overlapping monitoring, testing and reporting requirements b y requiring that the source comply with only

the more stringent of the standards. In addition, we applied MACT for HCl emissions t o major sources onl y. The reduced compliance costs for two of the three small entities by a factor of 4. More discussion is provided in the preamble. **Comment:** In extrapolating from available data, one commenter (2845) asked if EPA has applied the correct b asis for factors, such as using the correct percentage of raw mill on versus raw mill off when applying the emission rate to additional facilities (can affect mercury , HCl, and SO 2 )? Have operational considerations across the various kiln ty pes been taken into account? **Response:** When appropriate, EPA did take into consideration the effects of the process on emission rates. For example, in identifying the top performing kilns for PM emissions, we recognized that PM emissions were generall y higher during raw mill off conditions compared to raw mill on. As a result, we calculated a weighted average PM emission level for kilns with raw mills where we had test data for both raw mill on and off conditions. When we collected additional HCl data, we specified that f or kilns with raw mill, HCl testing was to be done with the raw mill on and off. The mercury emissions limit w as based on 30

- days of raw material sampling and anal ys is for mercury content so that the raw mill status was not an issue. Also, the THC limit w as based on long

- term (hundreds of day s) CEM data which would account for the raw mill. In addition, all of the compliance periods are set as 30 day averages which allow for the changes in the raw mill operations. 

### 2.12 **Environmental Justice Comment:**  One c ommenter (2786) stated that mercury pollution more significantly impacts poor and minority

populations, and EPA should regulate mercury emissions from the portland cement industry to the greatest extent possible because of their adverse health impacts on p oor and minority communities. Executive Order 12898 states that to the extent practicable and permitted by law, each federal agency shall make achieving environmental justice part of its mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, the disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low

- income populations in the United States . The commenter stated that EPA has historically

devoted little attention to ev aluate the impact of decisions made under the Clean Air Act on low

- income and minority communities. The commenter provided discussion about pathway s for human ingestion of mercury and how poor and racial minority group are exposed to higher levels of mercury

through their livelihood and culture. In addition to the impact of209

mercury on poor and minority

communities, the commenter also listed the following HAPs as matters of potential regulation: lead, chromium, arsenic, and beryllium. **Response:** See discussio n of Environmental Justice in Section VII o f the preamble to the final rule

. **Comment:** One commenter (2863) stated that the proposed rule has serious environmental justice issues. The first issue is that two plants are likel y to have to close as a result o f the rule. The populations around these plants rel y heavily on the plants for income. The commenter conducted a comprehensive risk assessment showing that the mercury emissions do not result in unacceptable risks even before controls. The adverse impact o f closure would be to the health of the families who depend on this facility for income and health insurance, with no commensurate improvement related to the reduced emissions associated with closure as the plant will be well under the acceptable risk thre sholds when the controls currentl y being constructed are operational. Closure of the two plants will mean that more cement will be imported from overseas. As Asia and India dominate imports to the west coast, the gap left by California and Oregon plant clo sures will almost certainly occur in nations with far less stringent controls and significantly higher direct and indirect emissions of criteria pollutants, HAPs and greenhouse gases. This is particularl y relevant in relation to mercury and greenhouse gase s as these are the most obviously global pollutants. However, moving production offshore will also result in localized impacts and so will disproportionately impact impoverished areas. **Response:** In this final rule, we are not projecting any facility closur es. To assess whether this rule's environmental and health impacts would have a disproportionate effect on vulnerable populations, EPA looked at demographic data in aggregate for census block groups in near proximity to cement facilities. EPA analy sis show ed that within the radii examined (0.5 mi, 3 mi, and 5 mi from sources subject to this rule), the percentages of minority and low income populations were similar to national averages. EPA's demographic anal ys is can be found in the docket for this rulemakin g. In addition, a s stated in the final rule preamble, EPA is reaching out to the two high mercury limestone quarry

sources to investigate the possibilities of earl y aggressive reductions of mercury emissions with a negotiated longer compliance period. **Comm ent**  **:** One commenter (2898) stated that EPA has failed to undertake an actual anal ys is of the consequences of the rule on environmental justice populations. The commenter stated that EPA should undertake a more thorough anal ys is of the risks posed by the cem ent industry

and the benefits of more stringent standards. **Response:** EPA anal yz ed each standard to determine if beyond the floor control was warranted, and concluded that further controls were not warranted due to high cost, poor cost effectiveness, non - ai r quality impacts in the form of waste generation and water usage, and increased energy use. Nothing in this comment undermines those conclusions. EPA does note that it took two significant discretionary

decisions in the rule

– adopting a MACT standard for HCl and not210

subcategorizing for two high mercury emitting sources

– which result in very significant reductions of acid gases, secondary fine PM, and mercury

. **Comment:** One commenter (2908) stated that the proposed rule may constrict cement supply and incr ease pressures on the availability of affordable housing. **Response:** In this final rule, we are not projecting any facility closures. To assess whether this rule's environmental and health impacts would have a disproportionate effect on vulnerable populati ons, EPA looked at demographic data in aggregate for census block groups in near proximity to cement facilities. EPA analy sis showed that within the radii examined (0.5 mi, 3 mi, and 5 mi from sources subject to this rule), the percentages of minority and low income populations were similar to national averages. EPA's demographic anal ys is can be found in the docket for this rulemaking. **Comment:** One commenter (3222) stated that the commenter’s local cement plant creates environmental and social justice probl ems. **Response:** In this final rule, we are not projecting any facility closures. To assess whether this rule's environmental and health impacts would have a disproportionate effect on vulnerable populations, EPA looked at demographic data in aggregate for c ensus block groups in near proximity to cement facilities. EPA analy sis showed that within the radii examined (0.5 mi, 3 mi, and 5 mi from sources subject to this rule), the percentages of minority and low income populations were similar to national averag es. EPA's demographic anal ys is can be found in the docket for this rulemaking. 

### 2.13 **Open Clinker Piles Comment:**  Several commenters (2845, 2864, and 2874) stated that in the past, EPA considered regulating open storage piles; however, in the 2001 settlement agreement and subsequent follow

up letter from EPA to American Portland Cement Alliance that settled litigation over the 1999 NESHAP final rule, EPA agreed not to regulate fugitive emissions from open or unenclosed material stockpiles or haul roads. Altho ugh, the proposal asserts that open clinker storage piles located at two facilities had measurable emissions of hexavalent chromium, the emissions and the ambient concentrations in the area surrounding cement facilities were low. The ambient concentrations are also miniscule when compared to benchmark regulatory standards. Also, several California air quality district have decided against regulating hexavalent chromium emissions from cement plants due to the lack of risk. For these reasons, it would be inap propriate to define open clicker storage piles as affected sources under the NESHAP. **Response:** At proposal we noted that open clinker piles were currentl y unregulated, and that hexavalent chromium emissions had been detected in fugitive dust from these pil es. See 74 FR at 21163. We requested comment and information as to how common the practice of open clinker storage is, appropriate way s to detect or measure fugitive emissions (ranging from open

- path techniques to continuous digital or intermittent manual visible emissions techniques), any measurements of emissions of hexavalent chromium (or other HAP) from these open storage piles, potential controls to reduce emissions, or any other factors we should consider.211

Commenters did not provide data on this prac tice. In dustry commenters stated emissions were de minimis and should not be regulated. Other commenters noted that the fact that we know these sources emit HAP is sufficient to necessitate regulation. We agree that these operations do emit HAP and that regulation of these sources is necessary

. See National Lime, 233 F. 3d at 640 (upholding EPA position that de minimis exceptions are not to be read into the MACT standard setting process). Because the emissions in question are fugitive dust for which measurement is not feasible since (b y definition) the emissions are not emitted through a conveyance or other device which allows their measurement (see section 112 (h) (1) and (2)(A)), we are incorporating the work practice standards and opacity emissions limit s contained in Rule 1156 as amended b y the South Coast Air Quality Management District on March 6, 2009 and incorporating them into this rule. There are only two plants which EPA can state definitively

have open storage piles and are compl yi ng with Rule 11 56, so these existing regulatory

standards would constitute a floor level of control (and EPA does not believe beyond

- the

- floor controls are needed, since utilizing some t ype of enclosure should well control fugitive emissions). Industry commenters also m aintained that regulation of open storage piles would violate a 2001 settlement agreement between EPA and the industry in which EPA agreed that the 1999 rule did not apply to fugitive emission sources. But nothing in that settlement agreement prevents EPA from amending its regulations if it is appropriate to do so (nor could EPA legally bind itself in such a way). The agreement in fact states that “[n]othing in this Agreement shall be construed to limit or modify

EPA's discretion to alter, amend, or revise, or to promulgate regulations that supersede, the regulations identified in section III of this Agreement.” Consequently , EPA’s action today

amends the current regulation, and does not violate any provisions of the settlement agreement. See the preamble discussion for more information on EPA’s decision. **Comment:** Several commenters (2144, 2816, 2898, 2911, and 2913) supported EPA’s efforts to investigate and address the effects of hexavalent chromium from clinker storage. **Response** : EPA acknowledges the co mmenter’s support. **Comment:** Several commenters (2816, 2911, and 3162) agreed that open clinker piles should be included in the regulation. Commenter 2816 noted that the Agency is already

regulating enclosed clinker piles, and the Agency has noted measurabl e emissions of hexavalent chromium due to fugitive emissions. The commenter stated that while it may be more difficult to control fugitive emissions, it does not relieve either the industry or the Agency

from reducing to the maximum degree feasible emissio ns from this source. Commenters 2816 and 3162 recommended that EPA should review the rules adopted by the South Coast Air Quality Management District and consider adopting similar requirements for open clinker piles. **Response:** EPA has adopted this approach in the final rule. **Comment:** One commenter (2864) stated that EPA should set work practice standards in the event that EPA is compelled to regulate open clinker piles.212

**Response:** EPA has done so in the final rule. **Comment:** One commenter (2898) stated that the rule should cover all emissions of hexavalent chromium from a cement manufacturing facility that constitutes a major source, including emissions from storage units, conveying s ys tem transfer points, and fugitive emissions, including those from open clinker piles. **Response:** The final rule includes provisions for clinker piles. See preamble for more discussion. 

### 2.14 **Crushing Operations Comment:**  Several commenters (2845 and 2874) stated that the 2001 settlement agreement that settled litigation over the 19 99 NESHAP final rule specified that the final rule should not apply to primary and secondary crushing operations located at portland cement plants with nonmetallic mineral processing operations . On April 05, 2002, EPA amended §63.1240(c) to implement the l anguage from the 2001 settlement agreement. However, with no discussion in the preamble, the proposed revision to §63.1240(c) would delete language concerning equipment of the on

- site nonmetallic mineral processing plant that precedes the raw material storage not being subject to the NESHAP. The proposed rule only leaves language stating that crushers are not covered by this subpart regardless of their location without any explanation given in the preamble. Commenter 2845 opposed the proposed breach of the 2001 settlement agreement negotiated 7 years ago. The rule would become unclear as to whether subpart LLL of the NESHAP would apply

to quarry sources such as conveyance sy stems and exterior stockpiles associated with crusher systems. There was no reason to eliminate the certainty of the current language in §63.1340(c) which will only add to confusion and needless applicability of the NESHAP to sources already regulated under subpart OOO NSPS; thus, EPA should not amend §63.1340(c). Commenter 2845 also state d that a word has been left out of the proposal preamble language discussing §63.1340(c) where it states that crushers were part of the affected source for this rule instead of crushers were NOT part of the affected source for this rule . Thus, there appear ed to be a conflict with the current proposal, the current preamble, and also the current preamble language is inconsistent with the 2006 portland cement final rule. The commenters requested EPA to clarify

in the final rule that crushers were never covered by the NESHAP and should also retain the existing language for §63.1340(c). **Response:** We have not made the change requested by the commenters. See the preamble to this final rule. The reason for this change was explained in the proposed 2005 rule and fina l 2006 rule (Cite to 70 FR 72341

- 42 and 71 FR 76532). 

### 2.15 **Coal Mills Comment:**  Several commenters (2845 and 2910) stated that portland cement plants grind their coal using a stand

- alone coal mill or in

- line coal mill and utilize two configurations of an in line coal mill. The first is where air pollution control devices from the inline coal vent directl y to the atmosphere and the second configuration is where exhaust gases from the inline coal mill are directed back to the main kiln stack, where they are commingled with the kiln emissions. The commenter argued that stand

- alone coal mills that vent directl y to the atmosphere should remain regulated under Subpart Y whereas stand alone and inline coal mills where the gases vent out the213

main kiln stack should be regulated b y the NESHAP. When inline coal mill gases are vented through the main kiln stack, more THC emissions will exist than if there were no commingling of kiln and coal mill exhaust gases. Thus, establishing a subcategory for this particular configuration may

be appropriate and the commenter proposed that additional THC testing be conducted in order to examine possible subcategorization for THC. **Response:** EPA did consider subcategories based on coal grinding configurations as suggested by the commenter but decided against creating separate subcategories. See the preamble discussion under the THC limits for more information on EPA’s decision. **Comment:** Several commenters (2845 and 2864) stated that since coal mills operate with a blend of kiln gases and ambient air, the concentration of pollutants exiting the coal mill would not be expected to be higher than the concentration exiting the kiln. In addition, coal mills are generally equipped with some sort of temperature alarm or indicator to avoid safety hazards related to the explosion potential of coal dust. I f the temperature of the gases leaving the coal mill is below the temperature at which pollutants are formed, the concentration leaving the coal mill would not exceed the concentration exiting the kiln and thus performance testing and pollutant monitoring for coal mills should not be necessary . The commenter suggests that language be added to the rule specifying that although no in

- line coal mills are covered by subpart 63.1340(e), they must adhere to the standards in 40 CFR part 60 subpart Y, as applicable. In

- line coal mills with exhaust that is commingled with kiln exhaust are covered b y this subpart, exempt from subpart Y, and are exempt from monitoring and testing under this subpart. **Response:** If a coal mill is heated with kiln exhaust, it is subject to all the emissions limits, and associated monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping requirements of this subpart. **Comment:** One commenter (2863) stated that EPA should clarify that indirect fired, in

- li ne coal mills need not employ

mercury or HCl CEMs or separately demonstrate compliance if they vent through a separate stack. Indirect fired in

- line coal mills receive their sole source of air and heat from the associated kiln (or in some cases, the clinker cooler). Therefore, consistent with numerous EPA opinions, these units are subject to the kiln exhaust standards. The proposal requires that affected sources install and operate either a mercury CEM or sorbent trap

- based integrated monitor. There is no b asis for concluding that the drying of coal will increase the mercury or HCl concentration in the kiln exhaust that is vented through the coal mill. In order to avoid explosion hazard, indirect fired, in

- line coal mills must be maintained at temperatures b elow 200°F at all times and so the temperature is too low to volatilize the mercury in the coal. **Response:** We have not covered coal mills with separate stacks. They are not listed as an affected source, so there is no need to mention them in the rule. They were not originall y covered in this subpart and are not covered in the final rule. If a coal mill is heated with kiln exhaust, it is subject to all the emissions limits, and all associated monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping requirements of this subp art.214



### 2.16 **Compliance Assurance Support for CEMS**  **Comment:** Several commenters (2144, 2622, 2828, 2895, and 2911) supported the provision for CEMS for portland cement kilns. **Response:** We appreciate the commenters’ support. **2.16.1 Flow Rate Monitoring**  **Comment :**  One commenter (2845) stated that EPA has not developed and promulgated appropriate performance specifications for effluent flow rate monitors in 40 CFR 60 or 63. PS

- 6 is inappropriate for use with either PM CEMS certified under PS

- 11 and/or mercury CEMS c ertified under PS

- 12A or mercury sorbent trap monitoring s ys tems certified under PS

- 12B. Appropriate performance specifications and quality assurance procedures should be developed for the proposed monitoring applications in Subpart LLL. **Response:** Part 75 contains flow rate specifications which are now referenced on this rule. **2.16.2 Kiln Feed/Clinker Production**  **Comment:** One commenter (2845) stated §63.1349(b)(1)(vi) requires continuous measurement of kiln feed rate and clinker production during the initial performance test for sources that use PM CEMS which is unnecessary and should be changed. In addition to the PM concentration measured b y the PM CEMS, the effluent flow rate and clinker production rate are needed to determine emissions in units of the standard (lb/ton clinker produced). The measurement of both clinker production rate and kiln feed rate are redundant. Measurement of one or the other process parameter should be required, but not both. **Response:** We have modified the rule language to make it c lear that separate direct measurements for kiln and clinker production are not required. A facility alway s has the option of calculating clinker production from the feed rate and their site specific clinker to feed ratio.. **Comment:** One commenter (2845) stated that if an area source directl y monitors clinker output and emission limits are expressed as mass of pollutant per ton of clinker produced, kiln feed does not need to be recorded. If final standards are expressed as mass of pollutant per ton of kiln fe ed, clinker production does not need to be recorded. Keeping records of both parameters (dail y clinker production rates and kiln feed rates) as required by §63.1349(b)(3)(iii) is redundant. **Response:** The emission limits for mercury and PM are based on clinker production. L imits for HCl and THC are concentration

- based. Most facilities record kiln feed rates and appl y a conversion to get clinker production. If kiln feed is measured, records of the kiln feed and the conversion factors should be kept. If clinke r production is measured, there is no need to keep records of kiln feed rates. C **omment:** One commenter (2845) stated that very few cement plants in the United States phy sicall y weigh clinker as it is produced. Those that do weigh clinker are typically the n ewer215

precalciner kilns s ys tems. In older existing kilns, maintenance and calibration are difficult. Due to the nature of the kiln process, at least on a short

- term basis, clinker output from the kiln will fluctuate while the kiln feed rate remains constant . For those kilns that do continuously weigh clinker, the ±5% accuracy requirement is not achievable for an hourl y averaging period, as is suggested in the proposed rule language. The ±5% accuracy is achievable on a monthly basis where these short

- term flu ctuations and upsets average out. Therefore, the commenter proposed that a monthly

averaging period for accuracy of clinker weigh scale s ys tems for those kilns that are able to employ

clinker weigh scale s ys tems. The commenter agrees with EPA’s proposed al ternative to measuring clinker, but noted that procedures for development of the clinker factor and verification of its accuracy need to be developed. The commenter recommended that a standardized procedure should be developed through ASTM. The commenter p rovided suggested language for §63.1350(o)(1) to reflect these suggestions. **Response:** See response in preamble to final rule indicating that clinker need not be weighed but can be estimated from the facility’s feed to clinker ratio. **Comment:** Several commenters (2845 and 2874) stated that there has been confusion about the timeframe for the clinker weigh s ys tem. Some interpret it as 30 day s from when the rule is promulgated (i.e., 35 months before an existing source must compl y with the rule), and others int erpret it as 30 day s from the time existing facilities must comply (i.e., 3 y rs + 30 day s). The rule needs to specify

that existing facilities must comply on the compliance date for the revised PM or mercury

Standard (whichever may occur sooner), which is three years from the effective date of the revised rules. **Response:** For existing sources we proposed a compliance date of 3 ye ars after the promulgation of the new emission limits for mercury , THC, PM, and HCl to take effect. This is the maximum period all owed b y law. For new sources, the compliance date will be the effective date of this final rule or startup, whichever is later. Because this is a major rule as defined by the Congressional Review Act, the effective date of the rule is 60 day s after publication of the Federal Register. Accordingl y, we have selected a date that allows facilities to design and install the required control and other ancillary equipment (e.g., clinker weigh sy stems) prior to the compliance date. **Comment:** One commenter (2874) stated that EPA should clearl y state that the use of kiln feed monitoring does not require Administrator approval and should modify the proposed regulatory text relating to compliance. EPA’s acknowledgement in the regulations that this alternative method is a cceptable should act as Administrator approval and no owner or operator should need to request Administrator approval to utilize a methodology deemed acceptable by

the regulations. Commenter 2874 suggested that the last proposed sentence appearing in both 40 CFR 63.1349(b)(1)(ii) and 40 CFR 63.1350(o)(1) be revised to state that The use of a system that directly measures kiln feed rate and uses a conversion factor to determine the clinker production rate is an acceptable method and a method that does not re quire further Administrator approval

.216

**Response:** Since it appears from comments that the equipment to accurately measure clinker is not ty picall y installed in this industry , we must assume these facilities use a feed

- to

- clinker conversion factor to calculat e clinker production on whatever time basis is necessary (e.g., daily , hourly , etc.). Therefore, we have modified the rule language to more clearly provide the option allowing facilities to measure feed inputs and to use their site specific feed/clinker ratio to calculate clinker production (and that no prior approval from a regulatory authority is necessary to do so). Facilities would be allowed to use a constant feed/clinker ratio in accord with their usual cycles for determining such ratios, ty pically on a monthly

basis when clinker inventories are reconciled. **2.16.3 Electronic Reporting**  **Comment:** One commenter (2816) supported EPA’s decision to improve accessibility of data from stack tests and include monitoring information in the WebFIRE data base. The commenter urged EPA to make electronic data submission a requirement of this rule. An electronic database that is accessible to the public is an important accountability and enforcement tool. Communities surrounding these industrial facilities deserve to k now detailed emissions data. Furthermore, as the EPA points out in the preamble, electronic submission of data actuall y reduces the burden on industry , and is a cost

- saving measure for the Agency as well. One commenter (2834) stated that requiring electron ic submission of emissions will allow EPA to by pass the laborious and cumbersome process of collecting information from a variety of sources in a variety of formats. Given that nearly every one of the categories in which EPA has requested specific comments includes a request for additional data, requiring electronic submission of emissions tests should be required. Further, electronic submission of emissions results will facilitate public to access those results. Standardized, electronic reporting of emissi ons test results to EPA would facilitate the public’s access to these emissions records. **Response:** Our intent is to make electronic reporting a requirement starting in 2012 when the sy stem is fully

capable of accepting data. The rule language has been modi fied to reflect this. **2.16.4 Other**  **Detection limit Comment:**  Several commenters (2832 and 2859) argued that EPA’s proposed revision to an approved EPA stack testing method, specificall y t o promulgate a downward revision of a method detection limit in an app roved stack testing method is arbitrary and reflects that EPA has failed to consult and take action based on direction from its own Emissions Measurement Center. In addition, EPA has failed to explain its numeric approach to the actual lower detection limi t selected. The detection limit should be set at a level that all sources that are subject to stack testing requirements would be able to achieve uniformly in practice. The CAA requires that all stack testing detection limits take all factors that can or do influence results into consideration when proposing a detection limit. **Response:** We have taken the appropriate st eps to addr ess the detection limit issue, including consulting with EPA test experts and taking comm ents on the detection limit in the propos al217

notice. Data obtained to date conforms that detection limits using EPA Method 321 for HCl emissions measurement are 0.2 to 0.3 ppmv in the field. **Alternatives to CEMS Comment:**  Several commenters (2832 and 2859) opposed the proposed requirement to instal l CEMS in order to satisfy compliance assurance monitoring (CAM) for selected pollutants. Instead, the commenter proposed that CAM requirements be satisfied using periodic stack testing to the extent that stack testing is requested or require by state air permits. According to EPA’s proposal, the MACT floor for new and existing sources in this industry will be determined by stack testing results of sources within the MACT pool. I f EPA were to finalize a numeric emissions limitation based on this approach to setting the new and existing MACT floors, that limitation will be based on the same stack testing data. CEMs will have played no role in this process. It stands to reason that compliance assurance should be based on stack testing results, and not a CEMs d ata that has played no part in this process. One commenter (2916) stated that EPA can achieve a reasonable assurance of compliance without the use of CEMS. The requirement to use CEMS is unreasonably costly and unnecessary , given that other reliable means of showing compliance are available for all relevant pollutants. Raw material sampling and kiln parametric monitoring, in conjunction with periodic testing, would work well for THC and HCI. The sorbent trap method for mercury is a good alternative to mercury

CEMS and should be retained in the final rule. EPA should refrain from requiring PM CEMS in the final rule. Bag leak detection sy stems and parametric monitoring of ESPs are proven methods for assuring ongoing compliance with PM limits. **Response:** See res ponse in preamble **Modified visible emission requirements Comment:**  According to one commenter (2874), EPA has modified the visible emission requirements of 40 CFR 63.1350(a)(4) without adequate explanation for the proposed revisions. The commenter stated that EPA originall y set a 1

- minute standard as it was believed b y the industry and EPA that a longer test would be unduly burdensome

– especially

in light of the fact that tests must be conducted for each affected source . Nothing has occurred during the past 10 ye ars that warrants a 20

- fold increase in the manpower and cost required for the testing. The commenter suggested that EPA retain the current 1

- minute testing requirement. **Response:** As explained above we have changed the observation time to 10 minutes. **Clarifications Comment:**  One commenter (2845) stated that §63.1349(b)(3)(iii) required that hourly average temperatures be calculated for each dioxin/furan performance test run which is inconsistent with §63.1349(b)(3)(iv) and should be corrected. The langu age of the existing §63.1349(b)(3)(ii) states that one minute average temperatures must be calculated for each minute of each run of the test and was replaced b y language which states that hourly average temperatures must be calculated for each run of each test. This is inconsistent with §63.1349(b)(3)(iv) which correctly states that the run average temperature must be calculated and the average of all runs is used to218

determine the applicable temperature limit. This is easily corrected and clarified by re - i nserting a slightly modified version of the original language which states that one minute average temperatures must be calculated and recorded for each minute of each run of the test. **Response:** We agree and have made the chances suggested by the commenter

. **Comment:** One commenter (2832) stated that EPA needed to ensure that the regulatory rule anal ys is statements in the preamble are reflected in the regulatory text, including proposing specific regulatory

text to make the regulation clearer and easier to implement. Several commenters (2864 and 2874) stated that the regulations proposed at 40 CFR 63.1349(f) and (g) are so vague and contain numerous inappropriate cross references to other regulations that it impossible to provide a meaningful comment. The comm enters provided several examples of what they

considered inappropriate cross references. Commenter 2874 suggested that EPA withdraw the rule and perform a complete review for these types of errors, fix the errors and re

propose the rule for comment. **Respon se:**  We agree that the proposed rule contained some errors, and we have made several corrections and clarifications to the final rule to ensure it is consistent with our stated intent in the preamble. These corrections and clarifications are not significant changes to the proposed rule, however, and reproposal is not needed. We disagree however that §63.1349(f) and (g) are confusing, and have retained these cross references as they are accurate and ensure consistency

. **Mercury, HCl and PM CEMS not demonstrate d**  **Comment:** One commenter (2858) stated that while THC CEMS have been used by cement plants for years, CEMS monitors for mercury, HCl and PM have not been demonstrated to be reliable and sufficientl y accurate to satisfy EPA’s performance specifications when operating on cement kilns. **Response:** We disagree. Mercury CEMS have been widely applied in the utility

industry and there are no technical reasons that would imply that do not work equall y well on a cement kiln. PM CEMS have also been demonstrated in util ity boilers. Hydrochloric Acid CEMS have been used on source categories such as municipal waste combustors and utility boilers. **Publicly available monitoring data Comment:**  Several commenters (2893 and 2895) requested that EPA make all CEMS and other monit oring information readily available to the public, and when produced in real time, available in real time on the web site. Commenter 2893 stated that mechanisms to enforce the rules need to have enforcement provisions that not only document agency

complian ce, but also make the agency reports readil y available to the public. Where possible, emissions information should be posted on the EPA or Air District’s web sites in a timely manner. This request is driven by the commenter’s experience with inadequate res ponses from enforcement agencies to potentially excessive emissions from local plants. Several commenters (2816 and 2928) recommended the use of CEMS as the better monitoring method, and suggested a specific mercury monitor suitable for use. The commenter suggested219

that to further earn public confidence, the data should be reported every thirty day s and the monitoring results be made available to the public online. Commenter 2816 urged EPA to adopt CEMS requirements for all of the pollutants for which an e mission limit will be adopted. **Response:** We are currently developing a reporting mechanism for CEMS data. We will consider these comments as we continue that effort. Inconcept, the CEMS data base would be publically available. However, the reporting frequ ency has not been developed. **Potential to emit to determine applicability Comment:**  One commenter (3138) stated that EPA should determine whether a facility must comply with the standard based on their potential to emit under the worst case operating scenario. The commenter stated that it should make no difference if the source is an area or a major source. The potential to emit should be based on the facility ’s permitted fuels, hours, and potential emissions during SSM events. The determination for complian ce with the new standard should include the potential emissions from grace periods allowed b y state regulators. **Response:** Questions of how to calculate Potential to Emit are not part of this rulemaking, and therefore this comment is beyond the scope of thi s proceeding. 

### 2.17 **Other**

**– Miscellaneous Comments**  **Failure to address greenhouse gases Comment:**  Several commenters (2832 and 2859) opposed the approach taken by EPA in its beyond

- the

- floor MACT anal ys is. Among other things, EPA failed to consider the creati on of incremental greenhouse gas emissions associated with the construction, installation and operation of new emissions control equipment, and the minimal incremental environmental benefit associated with those controls. Also, EPA failed to consider the c ost of carbon credit purchases b y the industry. **Response:** See preamble for response. **Counting multiple production units in MACT pool Comment:**  One commenter (2832) concurs with EPA’s approach to determining the number of sources that comprise the so

- called MACT pool to the extent that EPA has counted multiple production units whose emissions are ducted to a single control device as one source. Any attempt to apportion emissions between or among multiple production units in the foregoing configuration would be arbitrary . If EPA determined to count each production unit as a separate source, it would be obligated to attribute for MACT purposes, all of the emissions from the single control device to each source because there is no scientifically demonstrable methodology to apportion emissions. The legal consequence of EPA’s approach to determining the number of sources that comprise the so

- called MACT pool is to establish an emission standard based on air emission control device removal efficiency and as required by

§112. Failure to act in a manner consistent with the foregoing would be arbitrary

. **Response:** EPA acknowledges the commenter’s support.220

**Clarifications Comment:**  One commenter (2845) stated that the definition of clinker should include that clinker can b e ground with either gy psum and/or other materials to form cement. Commenter 2845 suggests the definition could be changed to read: clinker means the intermediate product of the process in which limestone and other raw materials are heated in the kiln and are then ground with gypsum and/or other materials to form cement. **Response:** See the final rule for the definition of clinker. **Comment:** One commenter (2845) stated that since crushers vary in the size of rock they produce and because crushers and their ass ociated conveying s ys tems are already regulated under 40 CFR part 60 subpart OOO, the definition of a crusher should be deleted and instead add a definition describing a crusher s ys tem that reads as a crusher s ys tem means equipment used to reduce the size of large raw material for further processing and the associated material handling sources including, but not limited to, screens conveying s ys tems, storage bins preceding the raw mill, and stockpiles or if §63.1340(c) is not changed then no definition of c rusher or crusher sy stem will be needed. **Response:** See the final rule for the definition of clinker. **Comment:** One commenter (2845) stated that the definitions for greenfield kilns, greenfield in

line kiln/raw mills, or greenfield raw material dryers and n ew brownfield kilns, new brownfield in

- line/raw mills, or new brownfield raw material dryers are no longer needed because all references to them have been remove from the rule. **Response :**  The definitions identified by the commenter were removed from the fin al rule. **Comment:** One commenter (2845) stated that a totally enclosed conveying sy stem transfer point is defined within §63.1350(a)(4)(v) as a conveying system transfer point that is enclosed on all sides, top, and bottom. This definition should be expande d and moved to §63.1341, and should read: Totall y enclosed conveying s ys tem transfer point means a conveying sy stem transfer point that is enclosed on all sides, top, and bottom. This includes, but is not limited to, pneumatic transfer s ys tems. **Response:** A definition of “totally enclosed conveyings ys tem transfer point” was added to the final rule. **Comment:** One commenter (2845) stated that §63.1343(b)(3) and §63.1343(c)(3) should be clarified to state that dioxin/furan standards are on a dry basis correcte d to 7 percent ox ygen. **Response :**  The rule was clarified to state that the standards for dioxin/furan are on a dry basis at 7 percent ox ygen. **Comment:** One commenter (2845) stated that an additional option should be included in §63.1344(a): §63.1344(a)(4) Th e owner or operator may choose to set one applicable temperature limit for the main in

- line kiln/raw mill exhaust, specified in paragraph (b) of this section and established during the performance test when the raw mill was not operating. If the221

owner or o

perator chooses this option, the limit would apply when the raw mill of the in

- line kiln/raw mill is operating and when the raw mill is not operating. As this is a more restrictive limit, additional justification should not be necessary

. **Response:** The sugg ested revision was considered to be outside the scope of this rulemaking; no change was made. **Comment:** One commenter (2845) stated that §63.1344(e) should be clarified to clearl y state that the requirements only appl y if using carbon injection specificall y for dioxin/furan control. **Response:** The language was clarified as suggested by the commenter. **Comment** : One commenter (2845) suggested that EPA should provide an option for one dioxin/furan compliance limit set by using performance test when raw mill was n ot operating. This is similar to the option provided in 40 CFR 63 Subpart EEE. As it is a more restrictive limit, additional justification should not be necessary

. **Response:** EPA did not believe the suggested change was within the scope of this rulemaking. **Comment:** One commenter (2845) stated that §63.1349(b)(3)(iv) should include an option for maintaining the temperature limit if a repeat test shows a lower value. The commenter noted that when conducting the repeat performance test every 30 months for dioxi ns/furans, the resulting temperature limit can often vary arbitraril y above or below the previous temperature limit (set during the previous performance test). If no change is operations has occurred, as described in 40 C.F.R. 63.1349(e) as otherwise requi ring the establishment of a new temperature limit, the facility should be allowed to maintain their current temperature limit even if a new repeat performance test average temperature is lower than the current limit. The 30 month test should be allowed to be viewed as a confirmatory type test that is demonstrating compliance with a limit that is not changing, rather than to continuously change the actual limit. This would be consistent with §63.1349(e) which requires establishing new temperature limits only when a change in operations occurs that would adversel y affect compliance with a dioxins/furans standard. The commenter provided suggested language. **Response:** EPA did not believe the suggested change was within the scope of this rulemaking. **Comment:** One c ommenter (2845) stated that in §63.1349 (c) both existing and new kiln and in

line kiln/raw mills are required to have CEMS for PM, THC, mercury , and HCl. This rule appears to indicate that none of the performance testing requirements in §63.1349 apply . I f this is indeed the correct interpretation, it should be made clearer in the individual sections requiring performance testing that the CEMS are sufficient to meet the initial and ongoing performance testing requirements. The commenter suggested that EPA p rovide clarification on the intent and extent of §63.1349 (c). **Response:** Section 63.1349 (c) specifies that where CEMS is used for monitoring, performance testing is not required.222

**Comment:** One commenter (2845) stated that the final rule should clarify if e ach vent must demonstrate compliance for situations where there are multiple vents since there is no language in the current proposal regarding sources with multiple stacks for a common source(s). **Response:** We believe the rule is sufficientl y cl ear that ea ch source must demonstrate compliance, regardless of the number of stacks or vents. **Comment:** One commenter (2845) stated that §63.1349(f) and (g) appear to be direct excerpts from proposed HMIWI NSPS

– 40 CFR §60.50, and stated that these references do not appl y to cement plants. Section 63.1349(a) already states what is required to be submitted as part of the report required under the PC MACT regulation. The commenter noted that there is a ty pographical error between bullets 3 and 4, and section (g) appear s to have been added in error. **Response:** EPA has revised the section b y removing paragraphs (f) and (g). **Comment:** One commenter (2845) stated that in §63.1350(g), the rule should clarify that carbon injection requirements only appl y to sources utilizing carbon injection for dioxin/furan control. **Response:** The rule is clear regarding monitoring requirements that appl y t o sources using sorbent injection for D/F control. **Comment:** One commenter (2845) stated that in §63.1350(g)(6), the reference to mercury and THC should be removed to be consistent with regulatory text. **Response:** EPA has removed the reference to mercury and THC. **Comment:** One commenter (2845) stated that Table 1 to §63.1350 was not updated in the proposed rule. **Response:** Table 1, Applicability o f General Provisions, is updated. **Comment:** One commenter (2845) suggested that EPA delete all sections in 63.1353, 63.1354, and 63.1355 that reference subpart A and provide a paraphrase of subpart A. The commenter noted that because Table 1 will contain a listing of the sections of subpart A that apply and those that do not apply , sections that reference subpart A and provide a paraphrase of subpart A should be removed to prevent multiple interpretations. **Response:** Sections 63.1354, 63.1355, and 63.1356 are being retained because many of the recordkeeping and reporting requirements specific to this rule, are not contained in the General Provisions. **Comment:** One commenter (2845) suggested that §63.1355(d) is no longer needed, and can be deleted. **Response:** Se e previous response. **Comment:** One commenter (2845) suggested that §63.1355(e) can be deleted, because it is a duplicate of §63.1350(o)(2). The commenter noted that the reference to only area sources in223

§63.1355(e) may

be a typographical error, as the recordkeeping requirement applies to both major and area sources. **Response** : The rule requires both area sources and major sources to keep clinker production records. **Comment:** One commenter (2845) stated that §63.1350(o) no longer requires fly ash certification s so §63.1355(f) should be deleted. **Response:** This is correct. **Develop waste disposal requirements Comment:**  One commenter (2816) stated that EPA’s sector

- based approach should include consideration of solid waste impacts and should reinvigorate its efforts to develop stringent regulations governing the disposal of wastes generated b y portland cement kilns **Response:** Comments on regulatory measures for cement kiln dust waste are beyond the scope of this proceeding. **Comment:** One commenter (2895) stated that si te specific regulation of CKD should be in each facility ’s Title V permit. The commenter asked how CKD will be disposed of without creating water and solid waste problems if it is not recycled into the kiln. **Response:** Site specific permitting issues relati ng to waste management are beyond the scope of this proceeding. **Comment:** One commenter (2844) stated that the technical, economical and environmental implications of landfilling or blending cement kiln dust rather than recycling it to the kiln are signific antl y negative and should be avoided. **Response:** EPA took this issue into account in determining not adopt beyond the floor standards as part of its consideration of non

- air quality impacts. **More stringent dioxin/furan standards Comment:**  One commenter (2828 ) suggested that EPA set more stringent standards for dioxins and furans. The commenter stated that the cement industry represents a high and disproportionate cancer risk. The science of dioxin/furan monitoring has improved to the point that commercial dio xin/furan CEMS are available, and anal yt ical laboratories can measure dioxin/furan at significantl y lower levels thanks to technologies such as gas chromatography

- mass spectrometry (GC

- MS

- MS). The commenter suggested that EPA should establish stringent dio xin/furan emission standards, based on a comprehensive study of dioxin/furan emissions from the current fleet of kilns, and recognizing that the RTO technologies already in place at some kilns, and likely to be installed at other kilns in the future are bo und to be extremely effective (99%+) at destroying dioxin/furan. EPA should require dioxin/furan CEMS for monitoring (or at the very least quarterl y monitoring) for an y cement kiln not using an RTO to control emissions. EPA should consider the beyond

- the

- f loor possibilities for dioxin/furan control that are now possible224

with the advent of SCR sy stems on cement kilns. If EPA continues recent practice of trying to integrate MACT and NSPS rulemaking for particular industries, then the establishment of SCR

driv en NO x standards in the Portland Cement NSPS would integrate and support the establishment of SCR

- driven dioxin/furan standards in the Portland Cement MACT rules. **Response:** EPA did not reopen or reconsider the 1999 standard for CDD/CDF and so is not addres sing this comment. **Comment:** One commenter (2911) stated that EPA’s dioxin standards do not satisfy the requirement of §112 that standards must reflect the average em ission level achieved b y the best performing 12 percent of sources for which EPA has emissions information. The commenter provided additional arguments in support of this statement. The commenter petitioned EPA to revise its dioxin standards for cement kilns under the authorities described in Kennecott Utah Copper Corp. v. Department of Interior , 88 F.3d 1191 (D.C. Cir. 1996). **Response:** EPA did not reopen or reconsider the 1999 standard for CDD/CDF and so is not addressing this comment here. EPA will consid er the commenter’s petition request separatel y from this rulemaking. **Comment:** One commenter (2144) stated that consideration should be given to more frequent measurement of dioxin and furan (D/F) from cement kilns or to the possibility of requiring D/F

CEM S. One D/F test per 30

- month period followed by continuous temperature measurement and control is not sufficient to ensure ye ar round compliance at some kilns. In the short run, increase the minimum frequency

of dioxin/furan testing to once every 12 months and begin assessment of D/F

- CEMS. One commenter (2867) emphasized the need for more dioxin/furan testing to a minimum of once every 12 months and recommended that EPA begin assessment of dioxin/furan

- CEMS. **Response :**  EPA did not reopen or reconsider the 19 99 standard for CDD/CDF and so is not addressing this comment

. **Regulatory approach allows flexibility in fuels Comment:**  One commenter (2846) supported EPA in developing a regulatory approach that maximizes the usefulness of secondary materials. The commenter recommended using a straightforward qualitative principle

- based approach to defining solid waste that recognizes the inherent advantages of useful energy recovery and materials handling practices under §112 regulation. Such an approach can be more univ ersally applicable to not only

existing materials, but also for new materials and processes not yet developed. Trying to be too prescriptive could inhibit new technology

development and implementation and work against high level national goals. **Response:** EPA acknowledges the commenter’s support. On the matter of defining solid waste, that involves issues beyond the scope of this rulemaking.225

**S olid waste as fuel**  **Comment:** One commenter (2816) supported EPA’s inclusion of cement kilns that combust secondary m aterials in the proposed rule. One commenter (2895) stated that EPA should provide a conclusive definition of solid waste, and in particular, define the HAP emitted when these solid wastes are used as fuel. **Response:** This issue is beyond the scope of this rulemaking. The definition of solid waste for purposes of section 129 is part of a different regulatory proceeding. See 75 FR 31844, June 4, 2010. EPA is also performing a concurrent rulemaking, the Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incinerator rulemaking under section 129 of the CAA that will regulate kilns that burn non - hazardous solid waste. At the time that rule becomes final, kilns burning solid waste (as defined in the to

- be

- completed rulemaking) will be regulated under to

- be

- adopted standards for commercial and industrial solid waste incinerators whenever they are burning solid waste. **Require natural gas Comment:**  One commenter (2893) suggested that EPA require the use of natural gas where available as less

- polluting alternative to other fossil fu els or other hazardous fuels. **Response:** EPA acknowledges that the use of natural gas would reduce emissions of mercury and other HAP in comparison to coal. We have considered this approach but rejected it as an approach that would be available to all cement plants on a nationwide basis. (71 FR 76520, December 20, 2006). **Alternatives to cement and concrete Comment:**  One commenter (2893) suggested volcanic ash as an alternative to some conventionally

manufactured cement, and alternative materials as substitute s for the use of concrete in certain applications. **Response:** Investigating alternatives to conventionally manufactured cement, and exploring substitutes for concrete that may be used in certain applications is beyond the scope of this rulemaking. **Benefits to industry of sector approach**  **Comment:** One commenter (2898) agreed with EPA’s discussion of its sector

- based approach and of the impacts of the rule, stating that it is a useful reminder for the portland cement manufacturing industry

that complying with the emission standards may help the industry

meet other pollution requirements. The commenter suggested that EPA discuss changes in production practices or processes that may help facilities comply

with the emission standards. While this discussion should i n no way influence the final standards promulgated as the MACT floor, a fuller discussion of these alternatives to incorporate consideration of potential co

- benefits will make EPA’s discussion a more useful tool for the facilities trying to meet the standards and for the communities living near these facilities as they evaluate the actions of the facilities in their midst. Moreover, these co

- benefits are important considerations in any evaluation of the technologies for beyond

- the

- floor standards. The comme nter described aspects of energy226

efficiency , adjusting the composition of cement, and cleaner fuel as examples of actions that could provide these co

- benefits. **Response:** EPA acknowledges the commenter’s support of EPA’s sector

- based approach. **CO and combus tion practices**  **Comment :**  One commenter (2928) stated that high CO levels are very often an indication of poor combustion practices and should also be kept as low as practical. **Response :**  A discussion of the EPA’s decision not to regulate CO can be found in the p reamble.