Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. **6560 -**  **50 -**  **P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY**  **40 CFR Parts 60 and 63 [EPA** **- HQ**  **- OAR** **- 2011**  **- 0817**  **; FRL -** **XXXX -** **X]**

**RIN 2060 -** **AQ93 National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants**  **For the**  **Portland Cement Manufacturing Industry and Standards of Performance for Portland Cement Plants**  **AGENCY:** Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). **ACTION:** Proposed Rules on Reconsideration. **SUMMARY:** The EPA is proposing amendments to the National Emission S tandards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for the Portland cement industry for Portland cement plants issued under sections 112 (d) of the Clean Air Act. These amendments would address the remand of these standards by the D.C. Circuit in Portland Cement Ass’n v. EPA , 665 F. 3d 177 (D.C. Cir. 2011) . In addition, EPA is proposing a conforming amendment to the new source performance standards issued under section 111 (b) of the Clean Air Act. EPA is also proposing amendments with respect to issues on which it granted reconsideration on May 17, 2011. See 76 FR 28318. Because the proposed amendments to the standards for particulate matter could result in significant changes in some sources’ compliance strategies for all the regulated pollutants , t he EPA is prop osing toInteragency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. Page 2 of 231 extend the date for compliance with the existing source national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants to September 9, 2015. The EPA is further proposing that the standards for new kilns under both the national emission standards for haz ardous air pollutants and the new source performance standards apply to facilities that commence construction, modification or reconstruction after **[INSERT DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL**  REGISTER Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, comments on the information collection provisions are best assured of having full effect if the Office of Management and Budget receives a copy of your comments on or before **[INSERT DATE 30 DAYS FROM PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]**  **]** . **DATES:** Comments must be received on or before **[INSERT DATE 30 DAYS FROM**  **PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]** . Any requests for a public hearing must be received by **[INSERT DATE**  **10 DAYS FROM PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]**  **ADDRESSES:** Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA- HQ - OAR- 2011
- 0817 , by one of the following methods:Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. Page 3 of 231

 Federal Rulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.

 Agency Website: http://www.epa.gov/oar/docket.html. Follow the instructions for submitting comments on the EPA Air and Radiation Docket website.

 Email: a
- and
- r - docket@epa.gov. Include EPA
- HQ - OAR2011
- 0817 in the subject line of the message.

 Fax: Fax your comments to: (202) 566
- 9744, Attention Docket ID Number EPA
- HQ - OAR- 2011
- 0817 .

 Mail: Send your comments to: The EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode: 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20460, Attention: Docket ID Number EPA
- HQ - OAR- 2011
- 0817 . Please include a total of two copies. In addi tion, please mail a copy of your comments on the information collection provisions to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Attn: Desk Officer for the EPA, 725 17th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20503.

 Hand Delivery or Courier: In person or by courier, deliver comments to the EPA Docket Center, EPA WestInteragency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. Page 4 of 231 (Air Docket), Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20460, Attention Docket ID Number EPA
HQ - OAR- 2011
- 0817 . Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket’s normal hours of operation (8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays), and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. Please include two copies.
Instructions : Direct your comments to Docket ID Number EPA
HQ - OAR- 2011
- 0817. The EPA policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at http://www.regulations.gov , in cluding any personal information provided unless the comment includes information claimed to be confidential business information or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be confidential business information or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or email. The http://www.regulations.gov website is an “anonymous access” system, which means the EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it i n the body ofInteragency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. Page 5 of 231 your comment. If you send an email comment directly to the EPA without going through http://www.regulations.gov, your email address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, the EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD ROM you submit. If the EPA cannot read your comment due to tec hnical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, the EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional information about the EPA public docket, visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm. Docket . The EPA has established a docket for this rulemaking under Docket ID Number EPA
- HQ - OAR- 2011
- 0817. All documents in the docket are lis ted in the http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available (e.g., confidential business information or other informationInteragency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. Page 6 of 231 whose disclosure is restricted by statute). Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566
- 1744, and the telephone number for the EPA Docket Center is (20 2) 566
- 1742. Note that information pertinent to the previous Portland cement rulemakings discussed in this document is contained in dockets EPA
- HQ OAR- 2002
- 0051 and EPA
- HQ - OAR- 2007
- 0877. Public Hearing . If a public hearing is held, it will begin at 10:00 a .m. on **[INSERT DATE 1 5**  **DAYS FROM DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FEDERAL REGISTER]**  and will be held at the EPA campus in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, or at an alternate facility nearby. Persons interested in presenting oral testimony or inquiring as to whether a public hearing is to be held should contact Ms. Pamela Garrett, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards,Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. Page 7 of 231 Sector Policies and Programs Division, Metals and Minerals Group (D243
- 01), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle P ark, North Carolina 27711; email: garrett.pamela@epa.gov ; telephone number: (919)541

– 7966. **FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:** Ms. Sharon Nizich, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards; Sector Policies and Pr ograms Division, Minerals and Manufacturing Group (D243
- 04); Environmental Protection Agency; Research Triangle Park, NC 27111; telephone number: (919)541
- 2825; fax number: (919)541
- 5450; email address: nizich.sha ron@epa.gov . **SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:** The information presented in this preamble is organized as follows: I. General Information A. Executive Summary B. Does this action apply to me? C. What should I consider as I prepare my comments to EPA? D. Where can I get a copy of this document? E. When would a public hearing occur? II. Background Information A. What is the statutory authority for these proposed amendments? B. What actions preceded th is proposed rule ? III. Description of Proposed Amendments to Subpart LLL and Subpart F A. Reconsideration of Standards B. Mercury S tandard C. THC StandardInteragency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. Page 8 of 231 D. Proposed Amendments to PM Existing and New Source NESHAP and NSPS E. Revisions to the NSPS PM Standard F . Summary of P roposed Standards Resulting from Reconsideration G . Standards for Fugitive Emissions from C linker S torage P iles H . Affirmative D efense to C ivil P enalties for E xceedances O ccurring During Malfunctions I . Continuously Monitored P arameters for Alternative O rganic HAP S tandard ( W ith THC Monitoring P arameter) J . Allowing S ources W ith D ry C austic S crubbers to C omply W ith HCl S tandard U sing P erformance T ests K . Alternative PM L imit L . Standards During S tartup and S hutdown M . Coal Mills (NESHAP and NSPS) N . PM S tandard for Modified S ources Under the NSPS O . Proposed NESHAP Compliance Date Extension for Existing Sources P . **Eligibility to be a New Source** IV. Other Proposed Testing and Monitoring Revisions V. Other Changes and Areas Where We Are Requesting Comment VI. Summary of Cost, Environmental, Energy, and Economic Impacts of Proposed Amendments A. What are the affected sources? B. How are the impacts for this proposal evaluated? C. What are the air quality impacts? D. What are the water quality impacts? E. What are the solid waste impacts? F. What are the secondary impacts? G. What are the energy impacts? H. What are the cost impacts? VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulat ion and Regulatory Review B. Paperwork Reduction Act C. Regulatory Flexibility Act D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments G. Executive Order 13045 : Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety RisksInteragency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. Page 9 of 231 H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low
Income Populations K. Congressional Review Act **I. General Information** A. Executive Summary 1) Purpose of the Regulatory Action a. Need for the Regulatory Action. The EPA is proposing amendments to the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for the Portland cement source category and to the New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for Portland cement plan ts issued under sections 112 (d) and 111 (b) of the Clean Air Act (CAA). Specifically, EPA is proposing to amend the standards for particulate matter for both existing and new sources under the NESHAP, and to make the same amendments to the standards for p articulate matter in the NSPS. EPA is not proposing changes to any of the other promulgated standards. The proposed amendments also address the issues on which EPA already granted reconsideration. See 76 FR 28318 (May 17, 2011). This proposal addresses the remand by the Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit inInteragency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. Page 10 of 231 Portland Cement Ass’n v. EPA, 665 F. 3d 177 (D.C. Cir. 2011). In that case, the court upheld all of the EPA’s methodology for establishing the port land cement NESHAP, denied all petitions for review challenging the NSPS, but further held that EPA had arbitrarily denied reconsideration of the NESHAP to take into account the effect of EPA’s Nonhazardous Secondary Materials (NHSM) rule on the standards. Th e NHSM rule, issued after the NESHAP was promulgated, had the effect of reclassifying some cement kilns as commercial and industrial solid waste incinerators (CISWI) and thus could have an effect on the standards. EPA anticipates that the effect of these proposed amendments, if adopted, will be to provide less costly compliance options and compliance flexibilities which were not available under the promulgated standards. At the same time, EPA believes that the emis sion reductions under the proposed standards will be essentially the same as under the promulgated standards because cement plants will need to design control systems to achieve essentially the same long term averages under either the promulgated or propos ed standards.Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. Page 11 of 231 b. Legal Authority for the Re gulatory Action. These proposed amendments implement sections 112 (d) and 111 (b) of the Clean Air Act, and, as noted, respond to the court’s opinion in Portland Cement Ass’n v. EPA. 2) Summary of Major Propose d Provisions a. Particulate matter (PM) Emission Standards. The EPA is proposing changes to the emission standards for PM. For technical reasons, it does not appear that the promulgated standard can be reliably measured using a Continuous Emission Monitoring System (CEMS) . EPA is therefore proposing to amend the existing and new source PM standard to be measured by stack testing, and is proposing to change the level and averaging time of th ose standards as a consequence. After removing all the CISWI kilns from the database used to set the 2010 standards for PM, consistent with the court’s remand , EPA is proposing a PM standard for existing sources of 0.07 pounds per ton (lb/ton) clinker based on stack testing, (from 0.04 lb/ton in the 2010 rule, 30
- day average with a CEMS) and 0.02 lb/ton clinker for new sources based on stack testing(from 0.01 lb/ton in the 2010 rule, 30
- day average with a CEMS). EPA is also proposingInteragency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. Page 12 of 231 corresponding amendments to the NSPS for PM issued under section 111 (b) of t he Act . b. Other Emissions Standards. The EPA also evaluated the emission standards for mercury, total hydrocarbons (THC) and hydrochloric acid (HCl). For existing sources, after removing the CISWI kilns from the database used to establish the 2010 standar ds, the mercury and THC floors would have changed but EPA is not proposing to amend the standards . The mercury floor is close enough to the 2010 promulgated standard that the mercury standard can be repromulgated as a beyond the floor standard at virtua lly no cost . EPA further believes that the promulgated THC standard for existing sources is a technically superior measure of performance of the best performers and is therefore proposing to retain the standard. Removing CISWI kilns from the dat abase for HCl resulted in no change to the floor and EPA is proposing to retain the standard as promulgated. With respect to new source standards, **u**nder section 112 (d) (3) of the Act, new source floors can be based on the performance of the “best controlled similar source”. A CISWI cement kiln is a similar source for purposes of thisInteragency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. Page 13 of 231 provision. EPA therefore is not proposing to amend any of the new source floors or standards for mercury, THC, or HCl where the best performing source in the database used to set the standards was a CISWI cement kiln. EPA is also proposing to amend the alternative standard for organic HAP, whereby organic HAP are measured directly. In order that the alternative standard is not lower than the practical quantitation limit of the relevant analytic methods, EPA is proposing to increase the alternative organic HAP standard from 9 ppm to 12 ppm. c. Fugitive Emissi ons from Clinker Storage Piles. EPA is proposing to amend the promulgated standards which control fugitive emissions from open clinker piles. The proposed standards would allow sources to choose from a number of work practices which EPA believes to be of equivalent stringency . These proposed work practices are drawn from requirements in cement kilns’ Title V permits and include wetting with water or surfactants, covering with tarps or building temporary enclosures. d. Affirmative Defense to Civil Penaltie s for Exceedances Occurring during Malfunctions. EPA is reproposing the affirmative defense provisions included inInteragency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. Page 14 of 231 the final 2010 rule in order to afford proper opportunity for public comment . e. Allowing Sources with Dry Caustic Scrubbers to Comply w ith HCl Standard Using Performance Tests. EPA is proposing to allow cement kilns controlling HCl with dry scrubbing controls the same compliance options as sources using wet scrubbers, namely monitoring compliance via stack testing rather than with a CEMS. This proposed amendment is based on data showing equivalent control and reliability of wet and dry control systems. For sources that are controlled with wet or dry scrubbers, EPA is also proposing that sources can choose to carry out continuous sulfur dioxide ( SO 2 ) monitoring in lieu of either continuous parametric monitoring or monitoring with a n HCl CEMS. Monitoring continuous SO 2 emissions would serve as an indicator of scrubber performance. f. Alternative PM Limit. The September 2010 final rule
sou ght to accommodate commingled flows from the kiln and clinker cooler by providing a site specific PM limit, including an equation in the rule for calculating that limit. The a gency failed to recognize that other flows besides the exhaust gas flow from the clinker cooler can beInteragency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. Page 15 of 231 commingled as well. EPA is proposing a revised equation that would include exhaust gas flows for all sources that would potentially be combined into a single exhaust gas stream, including the kiln, alkali bypass, coal mill and clinker cooler. g. Standards during Startup and Shutdown. In the final 2010 NESHAP, the EPA established specific numerical standards for startup and shutdown for each pollutant to be measured using a CEMS over an accumulative 7
- day rolling average. Because raw materials (the source of most cement kiln air emissions) are not in troduced into cement kilns during startup and shutdown, cement kilns should have no difficulty meeting these standards. EPA is therefore proposing that monitoring of these standards be con ducted via recordkeeping. h. Coal Mills. In the 2009 amendments to the NSPS for coal mills , coal mills at Portland cement facilities were exempted if their only heat source was kiln exhaust. In the 2010 NESHAP for portland cement plants , EPA failed to
a ddress th ese coal mills . Therefore, EPA is proposing provisions recognizing coal mills as an integral part of the cement kiln. The proposed amendments specify when andInteragency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. Page 16 of 231 how coal mills are to be tested for mercury, THC and HCl and contain provisions for continuous monitoring of the coal mill and kiln performance. PM emissions from coal mills are covered under the NSPS for coal mills and are not addressed in the se proposed amendments. i. PM Standard for Modified Sources under the NSPS. Under the NSPS, an existing kiln that undergoes modification becomes subject to the new source PM standard of 0.02 lb/ton clinker (3
- run stack test) . But under the NESHAP, such a kiln would continue to be an existing kiln and subject to the PM limit of 0.07 lb/ton clinker ( 3
- run stack test) for existing kilns. To rectify this situation, the EPA is proposing that a modified kiln would remain subject to the 0.07 lb/ton clinker PM standard. j. Proposed Compliance Date s . The EPA is proposing that the compliance date for the PM, mercury, HCl, and THC existing source standards be extended 2 years to September 9, 2015 . EPA believes that the proposed change to the PM standard affords additional , less costly means of control of both PM and the other HAP (all of which i nvolve some measure of PM control) and that two years is the period in which these new compliance strategies can be implementedInteragency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. Page 17 of 231 most expeditiously . EPA is also proposing that the trigger date for new source eligibility be the date of this proposal, since the proposed amendments to the new source standard for PM afford compliance alternatives which are different from those available under the 2010 new source standards. EPA is further proposing that the compliance date for the work practice standards for clinker piles and the standards for startup and shutdown be six months from promulgation of final rules . 3) Costs and Benefits This proposal contains amendments to the 2010 rule that are expected to result in cost savings for the Portland cement industr y. The proposed amendments to the PM standards afford less expensive compliance opportunities for some sources in the form of smaller baghouses with less expensive bags, and potential use of ESPs rather than baghouses (or use of ESPs in combination with ot her control devices in lieu of a baghouse .) Standards for mercury, HCl, and THC also involve some element of PM control (in the form of activated carbon residue, or dry or wet scrubber residues) which also may be controlled differently and less expensively by virtue of the proposed PM standard. TheInteragency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. Page 18 of 231 proposal includes examples of the potential cost savings associated with these alternatives and bounding estimates of the extent of these potential savings. However, we are not attempting to make more specif ic estimates in the proposal because of an absence of site
- specific information which would allow us to make kiln
- by
- kiln estimates of potential compliance strategies.

EPA is further projecting that long
- term emission reductions of PM will not change significantly between the promulgated standards and the proposed standards . This is because kilns must design their control systems to achieve a long
- term average in order to assure continuous compliance, and EPA does not believe that this long
- term average would change appreciably for any of the HAP. Thus, for PM, the proposed amendments would provide flexibility for those days when emissions i ncrease as a result of normal operating variability but would not significantly alter long
- term average performance . For the other standards, there should be no change since the standards would not be amended. EPA does not anticipate changes in emission s reductions for any of the other HAP since EPA is not proposing to change those standards. However, as aInteragency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. Page 19 of 231 result of the proposed extension of the existing source compliance date, the reductions would not fully accrue until September 2015. 4. Summary o f Proposed Standards The following Table shows the proposed standards . Proposed Existing and New Source Standards. Pollutant Existing source standard New source standard Mercury 55 lb/MM tons clinker 21 lb/MM tons clinker Total Hydrocarbons 24 ppmvd 24 ppmvd PM 0.07 lb/ton clinker (3
- run test average) 0.02 lb/ton clinker (3
- run test average) HCl 3 ppmvd 3 ppmvd Organic HAP 12 ppmvd 12 ppmvd B. Does this action apply to me ? Categories and entities potentially regulated by this final rule include:

Category NAICS code 1 Examples of regulated entities Industry.... 327310 Portland cement manufacturing plants. Federal government... Not affected. State/local/tribal government... Portland cement manufacturing plants. 1 North American Industry Classification System.Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. Page 20 of 231 This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this action. To determine whether your facility will be regulated by this action, you should examine the applicability criteri a in 40 CFR 60.60 (subpart F) or in 40 CFR 63.1340 (subpart LLL). If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this final action to a particular entity, contact the person listed in the preceding **FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT** section. C. What should I consider as I prepare my comments to EPA ? Submitting confidential business information ( CBI ) . Do not submit information containing CBI to the EPA through http:// www.regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information on a disk or CD ROM that you mail to the EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. If youInteragency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. Page 21 of 231 submit a CD ROM or disk that does not contain CBI, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM clearly that it does not contain CBI. Information not marked as CBI will be included in the public docket and the EPA’s electronic public docket without prior notice. Information marked as CBI will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. Send or deliver information identified as CBI only to the following address: Roberto Morales, OAQPS Document Control Off icer (C404
- 02), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, Attention Docket ID Number EPA
- HQ - OAR- 2011
- 0817. D. Where can I get a copy of this document ? In addition to be ing available in the docket, an electronic copy of this proposal will also be available on the World Wide Web (WWW) through the EPA’s Technology Transfer Network (TTN). Following signature by the EPA Administrator, a copy of this proposed action will be po sted on the TTN’s policy and guidance page for newly proposed or promulgated rules at the following address: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg . The TTN provides informationInteragency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. Page 22 of 231 and technology exchange in various areas of a ir pollution control. E. When would a public hearing occur ? If a public hearing is held, it will begin at 10:00
a.m. on **[ INSERT THE DATE 1**  **5 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF**  **PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER ]**  and will be held at the EPA’s campus in Research Triangl e Park, North Carolina, or at an alternate facility nearby. Persons interested in presenting oral testimony or inquiring as to whether a public hearing is to be held should contact Ms. Pamela Garrett, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Sector Po licies and Programs Division, (D243
- 01), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; email: garrett.pamela@epa.gov; telephone number: (919)541

– 7966. **II. Background Information** A. What is the statutory authority for these proposed amendments ? Section 112 of the CAA establishes a regulatory process to address emissions of HAP from stationary sources. After the EPA has identified categories of sources emitting one or more of the HAP listed in section 112(b) ofInteragency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. Page 23 of 231 the CAA, section 112(d) requires us to promulgate NESHAP for those sources. For “major sources” that emit or have the potential to emit 10 tpy or more of a single HAP or 25 tpy or more of a combination of HAP, these technology
- based standards must reflect the maximum reductions of HAP achievable (after considering cost, energy requirements, and non
- air quality health and environmental impacts) and are commonly referred to as MACT standards. The statute specifies certain minimum stringency requirements for MACT stan dards, which are referred to as “floor” requirements . See CAA section 112(d)(3). Specifically, for new sources, the MACT floor cannot be less stringent than the emission control that is achieved in practice by the best controlled similar source. The MACT
s tandards for existing sources can be less stringent than standards for new sources, but they cannot be less stringent than the average emission limitation achieved by the best
- performing 12 percent of existing sources (for which the Administrator has emiss ions information) in the category or subcategory (or the best
- performing five sources for categories or subcategories with fewer than 30
sources.Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. Page 24 of 231 In developing MACT, we must also consider control options that are more stringent than the floor. We may establish standards more stringent than the floor based on the consideration of the cost of achieving the emissions reductions, any non
- air quality health and environmental impacts, and energy requirements. See CAA section 112(d)(2). Under NSPS, the EPA is required to set standards for emissions that “reflect the degree of emission limitation achievable through the application of the best system of emission reduction.” See CAA section 111 (a)(1). In contrast to the NESHAP process, NSPS requires the EPA to t ake into account the “cost of achieving” emissions reductions, as well as health, environmental, and energy considerations. Id. B. What actions preceded this proposed rule ? The history of this proposed rule, commencing with the 1999 standards and proceeding through the amendments issued in September 2009, is set out in detail in 75 FR 54970 (Sept 9, 2010). Various parties filed petitions for reconsideration of aspects of those amendments. On May 17, 2011 , the EPA granted reconsideration of various issues,Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. Page 25 of 231 and denied the petitions to reconsider as to the remaining issues. See 76 FR 28318 (May 17, 2011). On December 9, 2011, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit issued an opinion upholdi ng the NESHAP itself (as well as the section 111 NSPS), but found that the EPA had arbitrarily failed to grant reconsideration to consider the effect of the EPA’s Nonhazardous Secondary materials (NHSM) rule on the standards (76 FR at 15456 (March 21, 2011 ), which **rule** had the effect of reclassifying some cement kilns as commercial and solid waste incinerators. See Portland Cement Ass’n v. EPA, 665 F. 3d 177, 186
- 189(D.C. Cir. 2011). In this action the EPA is responding to the court’s remand. For existing sources, the EPA is doing so by removing all kilns classified as commercial incinerators from the data used to establish the 2010 NESHAP standards. The EPA is then recalculating each of the floors based on this revised dataset and making beyond
- the
- floor determinations based on the recalculated floors. The EPA believes that this approach is fully responsive to the court’s remand. See 665 F. 3d at 188 where the court referred favorably to this type of rec alculation. For newInteragency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. Page 26 of 231 sources, the EPA is basing floors on the performance of the best performing similar source. **III. Description of Proposed Amendments to Subpart LLL and Subpart F**  A. Reconsideration of S tandards As just noted, in Portland Cement Associat ion v. EPA , the Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit upheld all of the EPA’s methodology for establishing the Portland cement NESHAP, but remanded the standards so that the EPA could account for the effects of EPA’s NHSM rule. This rule, adopted after promulgation of the Portland cement NESHAP, had the effect of reclassifying certain cement kilns as commercial incinerators because they combust “solid waste” as defined by that rule. See 665 F. 3d at 185
- 189. Applying that definition, the EPA has determined that there are 23 cement kilns which combust solid waste. See 76 FR at 28322 and Memorandum “Combustion in a Cement Kiln and Cement Kilns’ Use of Tires as Fuel” (April 25, 2011) (“April 25 memorandum”); see also 76 FR at 80452 (Dec. 23, 2011) where the EPA identified the same 23 kilns as commercial incinerators as were identified in the April 25Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. Page 27 of 231 memorandum. The EPA also believes that this count remains unchanged by any of th e issues being considered in the reconsideration of the NHSM rule either because the types of secondary materials being addressed in that reconsideration are not combusted by cement kilns or that the EPA has already accounted for those materials in its April 25 memorandum analysis. See 76 FR at 28319, May 17, 2011. The E PA expects the reconsideration of the NHSM rule to be completed before taking final action on this proposed rule and will account for any changes in the NHSM rule when it takes final action here . 1 1. Existing Source Floors . We removed the 23 CISWI kilns from the database used to establish existing source

1 EPA has als o conducted a bounding analysis of potential floors by removing from the data base all cement kilns that burn any type of secondary material for energy recovery (so that there is no possibility that any CISWI kiln is in the bounding analysis database). Un der this analysis , the existing source limits for HCl were unchanged, the existing source limits for PM were essentially unchanged, the limit for THC becomes more stringent (as in the April 25, 2011 analysis), and the mercury limit increases from 54 lb/MM ton clinker to 66 lb/MM ton clinker. We do not believe that any of the limits from this bounding exercise would result in a change in the technology needed to comply with the standards being proposed in this notice. See Technical Support Document, Secti on X.Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. Page 28 of 231 standards and recalculated the following floors for existing sources : Table 1

– Comparison of Floors for Existing Sources with and without CISWI Kilns 1 Pollutant Existing source floor

– 2010 Final Rule Existing source floor

– CISWI kilns removed from inventory Mercury 55 lb/MM tons clinker 58 lb/MM tons clinker Total Hydrocarbons 24 ppmvd 15 ppmvd PM 0.04 lb/ton clinker 0.05 lb/ton clinker HCl 3 ppmvd 3 ppmvd
1 Standards for mercury , THC, and PM are based on a 30
- day rolling average. If using a CEMS to determine compliance with the HCl standard, the floor is also a 30
- day rolling average. As shown in this Table, the floors for mercury and PM are little changed, and the floor for HCl is unaltered. 2 (Changes to the alternative organic HAP standard were based on monitoring issues discuss ed in Section H below.) As explained in section B below, the EPA is proposing to establish a beyond the floor standard for mercury of 55

2 There is no reason the HCl standard would ever change in a reanalysis because “there are a whole group of cement kilns that performed identically to the floor kiln for HCl that was ... reclassified as a CISWI so there would be no effect on the standard.” 76 FR at 28322 n. 11.Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. Page 29 of 231 pounds per million metric ( lb/MM ) tons clinker. Moreover, for reasons independent of this analysis, the EPA is proposi ng to amend the existing and new source NESHAP for PM. See section D below. The EPA is not proposing to amend the HCl standard. 2 . New Source Standards. With respect to new source standards, the EPA does not believe that any reclassification and reanalysis is necessary under the court’s opinion . New source floors can be based on the performance of “the best controlled similar source”, as opposed to existing source floors which must reflect performance of sources “in the category or subcategory” . See CAA sec tion 112 (d)(3) and (d)(3)(A). A CISWI cement kiln is similar to a non
- CISWI cement kiln since the device is a cement kiln . Equally important, burning secondary materials for energy recovery does not significantly alter a cement kiln’s HAP emission profile . See 76 FR at 28320 (documenting both the basis for this conclusion and the cement industry’s agreement with it) . 3

3 The EPA is thus not reopening the new source standards (with the exception of the PM standard, which EPA is proposing to amend). We will take commen t on whether CISWI cement kilns can be considered a “similar source” under section 112 (d)(3) and whether retention of the 2010 new source standards on this basis is consistent with the D.C.Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. Page 30 of 231 If the EPA were to reconsider the new source standards by removing the 23 CISWI kilns from the database , then the mercury new source floor would become slightly less stringent, the PM and HCl floors would remain the same, and the THC floor would become more stringent (inappropriately so, as explained in section C below). Table 2

– Comparison of Floors for New Sources with and without CISWI Kilns 1 Pollutant New source floor

– 2010 Final Rule New source floor

– CISWI kilns removed from inventory Mercury 21 lb/MM tons clinker 24 lb/MM tons clinker Total Hydrocarbons 24 ppmvd 11 ppmvd PM 0.01 lb/ton clinker 0.01 lb/ton clinker HCl 3 ppmvd 3 ppmvd 1 Standards for mercury, PM and THC are based on a 30
- day rolling average. If using a CEMS to determine compliance with the HCl standard, the floor is also a 30
- day rolling average. B . Mercury Standard 1 . New Source Standard As explained above, the new source floor would remain at the same level as in the 2010 final rule . The EPA is not

Circuit’s opinion. EPA will not consider comments challenging th e data and methodology for the new source standards since these are unchanged from the 2010 rule and EPA is not reexamining any of these issues.Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. Page 31 of 231 proposing a beyond
- the
- floor new source standard for the same reasons as in the final rule . See 75 FR at 54980. 2 . Existin g Source Standard As shown in Table 1 above, the recalculated existing source floor is 58 lb/MM tons clinker produced . The EPA is proposing a beyond
- the
- floor standard of 55 lb/MM ton clinker produced, the level of the 2010 final standard . The only difference in cost between the two levels is the incremental cost of removing slightly more mercury . This is because the control equipment needed for mercury would not be alter, would not need to be sized differently, and would need to perform on average , nearly identically at either a 55 lb/MM tons clinker or 58 lb/MM tons clinker level . That is, in planning compliance, kilns would calibrate to achieve an average performance of 34.1 lb/MM tons clinker for a standard of 58 lb/MM tons clinker , and 3 1.7 for a standard of 55 lb/MM tons clinker, which translates to an additional reduction of 2.4 lb/MM tons of clinker per year. This equates to an estimated 250 pounds of nationwide mercury emissions per year. To achieve this additional reduction, we estimated an additional cost of approximately $3.72 million for the industry, to purchaseInteragency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. Page 32 of 231 additional carbon injection materials. This equates to a cost - effectiveness of $ 15,000/lb of mercury reduction per year. EPA believes this standard to be justified g iven mercury’s toxicity and the special consideration in the CAA for control of mercury under the air toxics provisions . See 75 FR at 54979 (rejecting a subcategory for high mercury - emitting cement kilns for this reason). EPA also does not see any adverse energy or non
- air quality health or environmental consequences of a 55 ppm beyond
- the
- floor standard . We are not proposing a beyond the floor level below 55 lb/MM tons clinker for the same reasons given in the 2010 final rule

– in particular the possibility that a lower standard could force some kilns to find alternative sources of limestone, at enormous cost and disruption. See 75 FR at 54980. C. THC Standard The THC data for the 2010 standard consist of CEMS data for 15 k ilns. After removing the four CISWI kilns, nine kilns remain. Thus, the MACT floor kilns consisted of 12 percent of these nine kilns, or two kilns. The top two kilns were Suwannee and Holcim . As shown in Tables 1 and 2Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. Page 33 of 231 above, when CISWI sources are removed from the database for the 2010 standards, the existing source floor for THC becomes more stringent from 24 parts per million by volume ( ppmv ) to 15 ppmv, and the new source standard would drop from 24 ppmv to 11 ppmv . This change results from removing from the database a CISWI cement kiln (the Lehigh Union Bridge kiln) with the lowest daily average performance but with more associated variability than the other kilns with the next highest daily average performance . See also 76 FR at 28322 n. 11 and 665 F. 3d at 188. However, notwithstanding this calculation, the EPA is not proposing to reduce the level of either the new source or the existing source THC standard. 1. New Source Standard . As just explained, the new
sourc e standard can be based on performance of a “best controlled similar source”, so there is no reason under the statute or the court’s remand to amend the new source THC standard . The standard is also technically appropriate. See 75 FR at 54981/1 (explainin g basis for the THC new source standard, which discussion is summarized below for readers’ convenience). Removing the CISWI Union Bridge kiln as the best performing new source would leave theInteragency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. Page 34 of 231 Suwannee kiln as the lowest emitter based on its daily average THC emissions . See Portland Cement Reconsideration Technical Support Document (TSD) , Section 10 .4, which is available in this rulemaking docket . This kiln has higher average emissions than the Union Bridge kiln (that is, its daily average emissions are higher than the Union Bridge kiln) . This kiln thus emits more THC than the Union Bridge kiln, so EPA identified the kiln emitting less THC on average – the Union Bridge kiln
- to be the best performer. The Suwa n nee kiln has less measured variability than the Union B ridge kiln, but also has hundreds of fewer observations . For this reason, the EPA considered the Union Bridge kiln to be more representative of variability , and used its 99 th percentile performance as the measure of performance of the best performin g similar source in establishing the new source standard. See 75 FR at 54981/1. 4

4 For purposes of comparing the relative variability of the THC CEMS data for each of the kiln s in our THC data set, we used the ratio of the 99 th percentile for each kiln divided by its daily average. A ratio of 1.0 indicates no variability. As the ratio increases, variability increases. See Portland Cement Reconsideration Technical Support Document, section 10.4 , which is available in this rulemaking docket .Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. Page 35 of 231 2. Existing Source Standard . Under the calculation shown in Table 1 above, the existing source floor would be reduced from 24 ppmv to 15 ppmv . EPA does not believe that such a floor level would be technically appropriate. It omits the variability of the similar source with the best average performance for THC (the Union Bridge kiln), and so may not be fully representative of variability of best performing sources. As noted above, cement kiln HAP emissions are not appreciably affected by burning secondary materials for energy recovery so the Union Bridge’s variability is representative of cement kiln variability. In addition, as noted above, th e number of daily observations for the Union Bridge kiln are among the most robust in the database, containing over 3 times the number of observations as the next best performing cement kiln. Thus, EPA believes it is technically justified to consider the Union Bridge kiln's variability in estimating the variability of the best performing cement kilns for THC emissions. EPA’s technical concern, were it to base variability estimates exclusively on the data from the non
CISWI cement kilns, is heightened becau se there are only two kilns as best performers for THC, a result dictated byInteragency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. Page 36 of 231 literal statutory language. See 74 FR at 21150
- 51 (May 6, 2009). If the variability of the Union Bridge kiln is included along with the variability of the two best performing c ement kilns, and applied to the two best performing cement kilns’ performance, the floor would be 24 ppm, which EPA is proposing as a floor . See Portland Cement Reconsideration Technical Support Document, Section 10.4. This is the level of the 2010 standard. 3 . Beyond the floor standards . The EPA is not proposing a beyond the floor THC standard for existing cement kiln sources . The reasons given in the rulemaking remain valid . See 75 FR at 54983; 74 FR at 21153 . We especially note that a more aggressive standard for THC would force the increased use of energy
- intense control technologies like Regenerative Thermal Oxidizers (RTO) which have negative environmental implications, notably increased emission of carbon dioxide ( CO 2 ) and other greenhouse gases, as well as increased emissions of nitrogen oxide ( NOx ) CO, SO 2 and PM10 . See 74 FR at 21153. 5

5 EPA estimates that each thermal oxidizer emits an added increment of 0.0 1 tons of CO2 for each ton of clinker produced. A typical kiln producing 1.2 million tons of clinker per year and controlled by an RTO would emit anInteragency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. Page 37 of 231 These devices are also extremely costly and not cost
effective. See 74 FR at 21153. For a description of the costs, energy requireme nts, and environmental impacts of RTO, see Summary of Environmental and Cost Impacts for Final Portland Cement NESHAP and NSPS, August 6, 2010, docket no. EPA
- HQ - OAR- 2002
- 0051
- 3438. For all these reasons, EPA does not consider a beyond
- the
- floor standard f or THC to be justified under section 112(d)(2). Consequently, EPA is not proposing a beyond
- the
- floor standard for THC for existing sources. 6 D. Proposed Amendments to PM Existing and New Source NESHAP and NSPS Based largely on developments which have occurred after the EPA granted reconsideration on certain aspects of the NESHAP 7 , the EPA is proposing revisions to the testing

additional 12 ,000 tons of CO2 per year. See Portland Cement Reconsideration Technical Support Document, Section 12 . 6 EPA is also proposing to amend the alternative standard for organic HAP under which organic HAP is measured directly. See section H below. 7 On November 15, 2011, Holcim (US) Inc., a domestic cement company, submitted a petition for reconsideration to the EPA requesting that the EPA reconsider and stay the NESHAP PM standard. The basis for the petition was CEMS data for PM fr om four of Holcim’s kilns ( some of which are waste
burning **)** . Petition pp. 5
- 6. This information was collected commencing in January 2011. Since the information in theInteragency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. Page 38 of 231 and monitoring methods used to demonstrate continuous compliance with the existing and new source PM emissions standards and the consequent averaging time, level, and compliance demonstration for those standards. The EPA has also removed all CISWI kilns from the database used to establish the standards for PM, consistent with the court’s
remand. We explain these proposed changes below. In comments to the 2009 proposal, industry commenters maintained that there were several problems with implementing the monitoring requirements to demonstrate compliance using a PM CEMS and the requirements to conduct a periodic audit of the PM CEMS in accordance with performance specification (PS) 11 of appendix B and

petition was gathered outside the time period mandated by section 307 (d)(7)(B) of the Ac t

– even assuming it was impractical to raise the objection during the public comment period, the grounds arose outside the time period for judicial review which ended in November 2010. Thus, the EPA is not compelled to grant this petition. Moreover, as di scussed in the text above, because the EPA is proposing to no longer use a CEMS
- based regime for the PM standard, the Holcim information is no longer of direct relevance in setting the level of the PM standard. On January 17 2012, LaFarge Cement submitted a petition for reconsideration containing no new data or information but arguing that the Holcim petition justified reconsideration of the standards. The EPA believes that this petition is subsumed by the Holcim petition.Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. Page 39 of 231 Procedure 2 of appendix F to part 60. These comments claimed that there were insurmountable problems with developing the required correlation ran ge for PM CEMS when fabric filters are used to control PM emissions due to the impracticality to vary PM emissions as required by PS 11. Industry also claimed that there were issues with obtaining the required accuracy and precision from reference Metho d 5 measurements at low emissions levels without a burdensome increase in sampling time for 15 or more the Method 5 test runs required by PS 11. Although the EPA responded to these comments, see 75 FR at 55007
- 55008 (September 9, 2010); NESHAP Response to Comment Document pp. 163
- 166, both the industry and the EPA have continued to investigate these issues after promulgation of the standards . In particular, the Portland cement industry has noted further technical issues associated with the current PM CEMS technology that ha s emerged as the industry has attempted to develop a CEMS
based compliance strategy for PM. The industry described that in establishing the required PS 11 correlation with Method 5 test results, the source must intentionally change op eration of the fabricInteragency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. Page 40 of 231 filter to produce a range of emissions. Such control device adjustments are difficult to manage under ideal circumstances (e.g., laboratory conditions). Under typical industrial operating conditions, the industry claimed that
even small control device adjustments could result in the source operating above the numerical emissions limit for some of the test runs. Including these elevated PM levels in their 30
- day rolling PM average, the industry expressed concern about the potential f or periods of noncompliance that may subject the source to enforcement actions, penalties or citizen suits. The industry also argued that the variable raw feed material and additives used in cement production will lead to changes in particle size, refract ive index, particle density and other physical characteristics. This is important, according to the comments, because correlations developed for the commonly used PM CEMS technology (e.g., light scatter and scintillation) may be adversely affected by these physical changes in particles irrespective of changes in mass emissions rates or concentrations. Industry claims that the EPA has not adequately investigated thes e issues at the variety of cement kiln systems and plantInteragency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. Page 41 of 231 configurations where PM CEMS will be required. See docket items EPA
- HQ - OAR- 2002
- 0051
- 2845 and EPA
- HQ - OAR- 2002
- 0051
- 2859. Industry commenters submitted several further objections to a requirement to u se PM CEMS and PS 11 for compliance monitoring. Problems identified by commenters included: 1) PM CEMS allowable measurement error (25 percent) potentially demonstrating noncompliance even though Method 5 test results would show compliance; 2) Calibration curve development requires a source owner to change the operation of control devices to produce the range of emissions concentrations required by PS 11 for the correlation testing. This type of control device perturbation is not practicable for fabric filters (i.e., essentially constant concentration devices); 3) Method 5 may not be sensitive enough to measure at the proposed PM levels without longer run sampling times, thereby significantly extending the time necessary to conduct the 15 or mor e runs required by PS 11 as a prerequisite to calibration of the PM CEMS; andInteragency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. Page 42 of 231 4) PM CEMS is not capable at the time of establishing PS 11 “accuracy” using calibration gases as is done with other pollutants (SO2 or NOx). P erformance Specificat i on 11 In beg inning a response, it is useful to review the procedures and acceptance criteria of PS 11. P erformance Specificat i on 11 is structured differently than other performance specifications for validating the performance of gaseous pollutant CEMS. This is primar ily because the pollutant ( PM ), is defined entirely by the test method specified by regulation to measure it. There are no independent standard reference materials for PM concentrations as there are for gaseous pollutants (e.g., National Institute of Standards and Technology ( NIST ) traceable compressed gases for SO 2 or NOx). The only reference standard for determining the PM concentration in an air or stack gas sample is the test method. In the case of the Portland cement rule, that method is EPA Method 5 f or measuring filterable PM concentration or mass rate (e.g., in milligram per dry standard cubic meter ( mg/dscm )
or pounds per hour ).Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. Page 43 of 231 The structure of PS 11 is further dictated by the types of CEMS technologies used as PM CEMS. A PM CEMS technology familiar to most industry users relies on the degree to which light that strikes particles in a gas stream is deflected or causes particles t o luminesce (e.g., light scatter or light scintillation devices). Sensitive detectors can sense the interaction of light with PM (e.g., forward, back or side scatter, light scintillation) and produce a signal proportional to the number and size of particle s in the gas stream (i.e., these are essentially particle counters). Factors that affect correlation of the light
- based PM CEMS signal to particle mass concentration are numerous and include the surface contours of the particles, temperature and flow rate, particle color and shape, particle size and absorptivity. There are other PM CEMS technologies potentially subject to PS 11 that provide a measure more directly related to particle mass than do the light
- based PM CEMS technologies. The Beta attenuation PM CEMS, also called Beta gauge, extracts a sample for the stack gas and collects the PM on a filter tape. The device periodically advances the tape from the sampling mode to an area whereInteragency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. Page 44 of 231 the sample is exposed to Beta radiation. The detector measures the amount of Beta emitted by the sample and that amount can be directly related to the mass of PM on the filter. Another PM mass detector projected for greater use in PM CEMS is the tapered element oscillating microbalance (TEOM). Often used in measuring ambien t levels of PM, the TEOM operates on a basic principle that can be made traceable to NIST laboratory standards. The TEOM can provide a continuous measure of PM mass in a sample extracted from the stack and routed to the detector. P erformance Specificat ion 11 provides procedures and acceptance criteria for validating the performance of any of these types of PM CEMS technologies. There are multiple instrument and data reporting operational performance checks in PS 11 that are similar in concept to those f or gaseous pollutant CEMS. There is one principal PM CEMS performance requirement that is distinctly different than in CEMS performance specifications for gaseous pollutant s and that relates directly to the comments industry has raised
-- the development of a site
- specific PM CEMS correlation or mathematical response curve. There are two key procedural elements to developing that correlationInteragency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. Page 45 of 231 according to PS 11. First, PS 11 requires that the source conduct stack test runs using an EPA PM t est method (e.g., Method 5) and simultaneously collects PM CEMS output data. The second key element of the correlation development is that the source must vary the operation of the control device manually in order to produce a range of PM concentrations. P erformance Specification 11 requires at least 5 test runs at each of 3 different operating (i.e., PM concentration) conditions that are to range from 25 to 100 percent of allowable emissions for a total of 15 or more test runs. The source must then use the test method data and the corresponding PM CEMS output data to develop an equation (i.e., a calculated linear or nonlinear curve) that will be used to define the relationship between the PM CEMS output and the test method measured PM concentrations. Each s ite
- specific correlation must meet several PS 11 acceptance criteria including limits on confidence interval and tolerance interval equating in essence to ±25 percent of the applicable emissions limit. Industry issues relative to PS 11 One issue the commenters raised about conducting the testing to meet the PS 11 correlation developmentInteragency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. Page 46 of 231 requirement is the impracticality of varying the emissions from a fabric filter control device. Most of the Portland cement plants subject to the MACT us e fabric filter control devices. As the commenters note, there are typically no physical adjustments one can apply to a fabric filter or to the kiln process to change significantly the outlet PM concentration. A fabric filter produces essentially a constan t outlet concentration even with changes to the inlet loading or flow ( http://www.epa.gov/ttnchie1/mkb/documents/ff

- pulse.pdf ). P erformance Specificat i on 11 allows some flexibility whe n control device perturbations are not possible. In such cases, the resulting correlation would apply for only the narrow range of concentrations measured during the testing and presumably below the applicable compliance limit. Without the ability to calcu late emissions should the fabric filter performance change ( e.g., bag leaks begin to develop) , such a limitation would render the correlation irrelevant for calculating a long term average concentration or emissions rate or for verifying a violation of a short term emissions limit .Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. Page 47 of 231 Commenters cited problems in developing correlations in stack gases with variable PM constituents when using light scatter or scintillation detection PM CEMS devices. The information commenters provided with regard to the

variability in raw feed materials and the continuous adjustments to additives used in making Portland cement has improved our understanding of the variations in the physical characteristics of particles emitted from cement kilns. As noted above and in the E PA’s technology background documents (e.g., http://www.epa.gov/ttn/emc/cem/pmcemsknowfinalrep.pdf and http://www.epa.gov/ttn/emc/cem/r4703

- 02
- 07.pdf ), the correlations developed for these types of instruments are inherently dependent on the particle structure, size and other physical characteristics as well as PM mass in the exhaust gases for each site. Pu t another way, these light
based PM CEMS produce a signal that can vary when different fuels or raw materials are introduced to the kilns even when the fabric filter outlet mass concentration remains unchanged . To the extent that PM physical characteristic s remain stable, correlations for light
- based PM CEMS meeting PS 11 performance criteria can represent mass rates to theInteragency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. Page 48 of 231 degree of accuracy required by PS 11. On this point, we note that if a source owner were concerned about the ability of a light
- based PM CEMS to meet the requirements of PS 11 because of variable particle characteristics, there is at least one other PM CEMS technology based more directly on mass measurement rather than on light scatter or light scintillation characteristics. The Beta gauge technology does not suffer from this particular technical problem. Commenters identified another factor contributing to the difficulty of meeting PS 11 correlation requirements and that would be low PM concentrations with a corresponding low applicab le emissions limit. We have recently reevaluated the capabilities of the EPA Method 5 for measuring low concentrations of PM (see memo to docket) and have determined a Method 5 method detection limit of about for a 1
- hour test run of approximately 2 mg/ dscm. The uncertainty of a measurement at this PM concentration would be from 50 to 100 percent (i.e., ±1 to 2 mg/dscm). We can determine a practical quantitation limit (PQL) using~3 x method detection limit to reduce that Method 5 measurement uncertainty to ±10 to 20 percent. That means that the PQLInteragency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. Page 49 of 231 for a 1 hour test run with Method 5 would be approximately 6 mg/dscm . The Portland cement MACT PM emissions limit 0.02 lb/ton of clinker equates to 6 to 10 mg/dscm, depending on production rate (assuming a typi cal total gas flow rate per clinker production rate). As noted above, PS 11 specifies acceptable criteria for a correlation directly related to the applicable emissions limit. For example, inherent uncertainty associated with the Method 5 measurement alone would readily approach ±25 percent of the applicable limit acceptance threshold. Factoring in the inherent PM CEMS response variability, we agree with commenters that trying to satisfy PS 11 at such low concentrations would be problematic. This condition applies regardless of the type of PM CEMS technology used. As commenters noted, one can improve the method detection capabilities of the Method 5 or other filterable PM test method by increasing sampling volume and run time. For example, a test run time o f about 2
- hours will improve the Method 5 PLQ to about 3 mg/dscm. The measurement uncertainty associated with a 2
- hour test run at 3 mg/dscm would be about ±0.3 to 0.6 mg/dscm. To achieve a PQL of 1 mg/dscm, one would need to conduct a test run of 6 hours orInteragency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. Page 50 of 231 longer. The measurements with 6
- hour Method 5 test runs at this concentration would be ±0.01 to 0.2 mg/dscm. Using data from longer Method 5 test runs will improve the probability of a PM CEMS meeting PS 11 correlation requirements but, as commenters note d , will also raise practicality concerns. The time to complete 15 1
- hour test runs under 3 different emissions conditions may be 3 to 6 days of field work. The time to complete 15 6
- hour test runs under 3 different emissions conditions will require at least 2 weeks of field work and very likely longer to produce and reproduce the operating conditions associated with 3 different emissions rates. The EPA recognizes that there remain some technical issues in need of research and review in the use of PM CEMS when applied to low PM concentrations and for low level PM emissions limits. The EPA seeks comments and technical information on the use of PM CEMS for direct measure of compliance with PM emissions limits, particularly at low PM concentrations and emissions rates. A compliance approach alternative to PM CEMS and PS 11 To address these issues associated with the use of PS 11 at low PM emissions concentrations and given theInteragency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. Page 51 of 231 variable emissions characterist ics expected from Portland cement kilns, the EPA is proposing to change the compliance basis for the PM standard from CEMS
- based to stack
- test based. That is, the performance test requirement for this proposed rule would be a periodic three test run compli ance test with the EPA Method 5. Th is proposed rule would continue to require use of PM CEMS equipment but, as explained below, that equipment would be used for continuous parametric monitoring instead of for compliance with the numerical PM emissions limi t. The EPA is thus proposing to base compliance on stack testing, specifically the average of a three run Method 5 stack test (e.g., three 1
- hour test runs). If the standard becomes a three test run standard rather than a 30
- day standard, the level of the standar d would change. See 75 FR at 54988 (explaining that more measurements of a properly designed and operated control device decreases measured variability since there are likely to be more measurements at the mean of performance); see also 75 FR at 54975
- 76 ( explaining how this phenomenon is reflected in the Upper Prediction Limit equation used to project variability, since the m term in the equation

– the number ofInteragency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. Page 52 of 231 measurements

– becomes larger with more observations resulting in a larger denominator and henc e lower ultimate level). By changing from a 30
- day average with potentially 720 hourly values to a three
- run test average producing three 1
- hour values, we were compelled to review and revise the calculation of the PM emissions floor and standard, and
cons istent with the court’s remand, removed all CISWI kilns from the database in doing so. In calculating the PM MACT floor, the best performing kilns used in the analysis changed as a result of removing the kilns identified as CISWI kilns. After eliminating k ilns identified as CISWI, the number of kilns in the data set was reduced from 45 kilns to 31 kilns. Therefore, the best performing 12 percent was represented by four kilns. As a result of removing the CISWI kilns, two kilns which were not best performers in the 2010 dataset are now best performers. Upper prediction limit ( UPL ) . Rather than using m = 30 as we did at proposal where compliance was to be based on a 30 day rolling average, we used m = 3 , consistent with the proposed requirement to determine compliance using a three run Method 5 test. Under this analysis, we determined the revised proposed PM MACT floor to be 0.070 lb/ ton clinkerInteragency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. Page 53 of 231 produced when based on the three run Method 5 test . Beyond
the
- floor standards do not appear to be justified for the same reasons given in the 2010 final rule . 76 FR at 54988 . Th is proposal specifies this emissions limit for the kiln and clinker cooler and an initial and annual compliance test using Method 5 to demonstrate compliance. These issues affecting the existin g source PM limit also apply to the new source PM limit. Based on this revised strategy, the new source floor would change from 0.01 lb/ton clinker produced, to 0.02 lb/ton clinker produced, based on a three run average from a Method 5 stack test. See Port land Cement Reconsideration Technical Support Document, section 10 .3. The best performing kiln used to set the MACT floor for new sources in the 2010 rule was a cement kiln, not a CISWI kiln, so the same kiln was used for this analysis. The difference is that because a 3
- run test will be used to determine compliance rather than a 30
- day rolling average, the calculation of the 99 th confidence UPL used m = 3 rather than 30, which results in a floor of 0.02 lb/ton clinker. The EPA is further proposing to use PM CEMS technology for continuous parametric monitoring of the proposed PM standards . The EPAInteragency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. Page 54 of 231 has developed requirements for continuously monitoring operating parameters in instances where compliance is based
on non - continuous measurements, as would now be the case for PM . This implements section 114(a)(3) of the CAA which requires major sources to use enhanced monitoring for compliance certifications. The EPA’s historic approach has been to require monitoring of a control device operating condition (e.g., electrical power, water flow rate, pH) the limit of which is based on a periodic compliance test with the compliance test method. The use of a CPMS based on PM CEMS technology (PM CPMS) is a significant step closer to direct measurement of emissions in uni ts of the emissions limit and an improvement over less direct monitoring of a process control device conditions. Specifically, this proposal recognizes the value of PM monitoring technology sensitive to changes in PM emissions concentrations and use of su ch a tool to assure continued good operation of PM control equipment. As a result, th is proposed rule would require the installation and operation of a PM CPMS. The source owner would not have to meet PS 11 requirements but would have to prepare and submit for approval, if requested, a site
- specific monitoring plan toInteragency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. Page 55 of 231 apply sound practices for installing, calibrating and operating the PM CPMS. While a rigorous PM emissions correlation with a PM CEMS is problematic because of variability in PM characteristic s and low PM concentrations, the PM CPMS technology has the sensitivity required for this purpose and can provide a continuous indication of changes relative to the control device compliance status. A PM CPMS would have an operating principle based on in
- s tack or extractive light scatter, light scintillation, beta attenuation or mass accumulation detection of the exhaust gas or representative exhaust gas sample. The reportable measurement output from the PM CPMS may be expressed as milliamps, stack concentr ation or other raw data signal. For the purposes of this proposed rule, the source owner establish es an operating limit based on the highest PM CPMS hourly value collected during the most recent PM compliance test (or other stack tests accepted as a legitimate basis for compliance, as explained below). The source will collect PM CPMS data continuously and calculate a 30 operating day rolling average PM value from the hourly PM data collected during process operating hours and compare that average to the sit e specific operating limit.Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. Page 56 of 231 For these reasons (i.e., 30 days to average out variability, using the highest hourly average from the stack testing, and using the device essentially as a bag leak detector rather than a CEMS) the EPA believes that use of the PM CPMS for parametric monitoring does not pose the same technical issues as those underlying the proposed decision to base compliance on stack testing. The EPA solicits comments on the use of more traditional bag leak detectors as alternatives to PM CPMS. A 30 kiln operating day average of the PM CPMS values in excess of the operating limit will trigger a requirement that the source owner inspect the control device and the monitoring system to restore the controls to acceptable levels and to conduct a new PM compliance test to verify ongoing compliance with the PM limit. The new test data may also be used to verify or reestablish the PM CPMS operating limit. This approach parallels that which the EPA adopted in, “National Emission Standards for Hazardous Ai r Pollutants From Coal
- and Oil
- Fired Electric Utility Steam Generating Units and Standards of Performance for Fossil
Fuel
- Fired Electric Utility, Industrial
- Commercial
Institutional, and Small Industrial
- Commercial
-Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. Page 57 of 231 Institutional Steam Generating Units”, 7 7 FR 9304, (February 16, 2012), p. 9384. E. Revision to the NSPS PM Standard Finally, the EPA is proposing that the NSPS for PM established pursuant to section 111(a) also be revised so that these limits are no longer CEMS
- based and reflect the resulting different numerical values and averaging times. Although the NSPS for PM rests on a justification independent of the NESHAP PM standard, see Portland Cement Association v. EPA , 665 F. 3d at 192
- 93, the technical problems with PM CEMS are common to both standards and the proposed amendment therefore appears appropriate for the NSPS as well. F . Summary of P roposed S tandards Resulting F rom Reconsideration . The EPA is proposing the following revised MACT standards: Table 4

– Proposed Existing and New Source Floors and Standards. 1 Pollutant Existing source standard New source standard Mercury 55 lb/MM tons clinker 21 lb/MM tons clinker Total Hydrocarbons 24 ppmvd 24 ppmvd PM 0.07 lb/ton 0.02 lb/tonInteragency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. Page 58 of 231 clinker (3
- run test average) clinker (3
- run test average) HCl 3 ppmvd 3 ppmvd Organic HAP 12 ppmvd 12 ppmvd 1 Standards for mercury and THC are based on a 30
- day rolling average. The standard of PM is based on a three run test. If using a CEMS to determine compliance with the HCl standard, the floor is also a 30
- day rolling average. Organic HAP standards are discussed in Section H below. G . Standards for Fugitive Emissions F rom C linker S torage P iles In the September 2010 rule, the a gency established work practice requirements to reduce fugitive emissions from outdoor clinker storage piles. The a gency had information that these storage piles emit HAP in the form of fugitive PM containing HAP metals, so that regulation of these sources was necessary. Because the emissions in question were fugitive dusts for which measurement was not feasible, the a gency adopted work practice s as the standard, specifically the work practice standards and opacity emissions limits contained in California’s South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 1156 as amended on March 6, 2009. Because there were only two plants which we could state def initively had open storage piles and both were complying with Rule 1156, we believed that the regulatory standards under Rule 1156 constituted the floorInteragency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. Page 59 of 231 level of control. The current promulgated work practices consist of providing varying degrees of enclos ures or barriers to prevent wind erosion of the storage piles. See generally 75 FR at 54989
- 90. In their reconsideration petition, the cement industry maintained that the EPA did not provide sufficient notice of the standards it might adopt for clinker sto rage piles. We agreed and granted reconsideration. See 76 FR at 28325. The D.C. Circuit stayed the standard pending the conclusion of the EPA’s reconsideration . See 665 F. 3d at 189 . Industry also noted, correctly, that more than two plants are potentiall y affected by clinker pile standards, so that the California rule is not necessarily a floor level of control. To evaluate which work practices are currently used in the industry, we requested data from the industry on currently used work practices. We als o undertook a review of state permits to determine the level of controls to which open clinker piles are currently subject. Based on this information, the EPA is proposing to amend the work practices for clinker storage piles. 1. What is a clinker pile ?Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. Page 60 of 231 Cl inker storage is necessary to allow near continuous kiln operation and intermittent grinding and processing of the clinker. Clinker storage is also necessary in the event of unplanned or planned kiln shutdowns. Cement plants use silos, domes or other enclo sure s for clinker storage. Additional clinker storage may also be necessary to accommodate extended shutdown periods for kiln maintenance and/or market conditions. When the conventional enclosed storage is not adequate, clinker may be stored in outdoor piles. Unlike automated systems for drawing down clinker from enclosed silos, these temporary outdoor storage piles are drawn down using equipment such as front end loaders or other reclaiming equipment. Outdoor clinker storage may be temporary, lasting a few days or weeks and up to several months. There are also open clinker piles that have been in existence for years and are essentially permanent. This is the situation at a cement plant in California that is under a consent decree to eliminate its open clinker pi les. We are proposing standards in this proposed rule that address the control of fugitive emissions from any open clinker pile.2. What are the proposed standards ?Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. Page 61 of 231 We are proposing amended standards that will control HAP metal emissions from open clin ker piles. Because the emissions are fugitive, we are proposing work practices instead of an emissions limit since it is “not feasible to prescribe or enforce an emission standard” for these emissions because, as fugitive emissions, they are not “emitted t hrough a conveyance designed and constructed to emit or capture such pollutant”. See CAA section 112 (h)(2)(A). The work practices would apply to any open clinker piles regardless of the quantity of clinker or the length of time that the clinker pile is in existence. According to industry stakeholders, virtually all Title V permits oblige cement plant operators to “minimize” fugitive emissions including those from open clinker piles. See Portland Cement Reconsideration Technical Support Document, section 2 , which is available in this rulemaking docket. Our examination of relevant permits indicates that some permits establish an opacity limit not to be exceeded in conjunction with materials management. Others contain a “no visible emissions” limitation at th e fence line of the facility. Industry stakeholders state that to minimize fugitive emissions from open clinker piles, plants employ aInteragency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. Page 62 of 231 number of practices, the most common being to use water sprays to form a concrete
- like crust on the exposed surface of th e clinker pile. Clinker has cement like properties and when exposed to water will hydrate and harden. The crust formed by this practice is very effective at reducing fugitive emissions as long as the pile is not disturbed. Another common practice is to cover clinker piles with tarps, which may be held down with tires, which effectively minimizes fugitive emissions. Some plants also use foam sprays on the exposed surface of the pile, forming a coating which drastically reduces or prevents fugitive emissions. Based on our review of 88 state Title V permits, all but one permit required one or a combination of the following control measures to reduce fugitive emissions generally: work practices, opacity or visible emission limits, prohibitions against open clinker piles and some type of general duty requirements to minimize fugitive dust emissions. Eight of the permits contained requirements specific to open or outdoor clinker piles. Eighteen permits contained standards that restricted emissions more generally fr om outdoor storage piles including opacity andInteragency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. Page 63 of 231 visible emissions limits and general duty requirements to not produce PM or dust emissions at the property line. Seventy seven permits contained facility
- wide restrictions that applied to a variety of fugitive sources at the cement facilities ( e.g. roads, storage, raw material s ). In only one permit was it not clear that there were requirements to minimize fugitive dust emissions. With the exception of total enclosure of all open clinker piles, the EPA believes that the control measures in the permits are equally effective in reducing fugitive emissions from the pile. These measures are , therefore , consistent with section 112 (d) controls and reflect a level of performance analogous to a MACT floor. See CAA section 112(h)(1) (in promulgating work practices, the EPA is to adopt standards “which in the Administrator’s judgment [are] consistent with section (d) or (f) of this section.”) The option of full enclosures, somewhat analogous to a beyond
- the
- f loor standard under section 112(d)(2), would be extremely costly with minimum associated emissions reductions incremental to the measures already undertaken (which already reduce most or all of the fugitive emissions from these piles), the EPA , therefore ,Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. Page 64 of 231 is not proposing to mandate such a practice. Industry cost estimates for a full enclosure with a capacity of 50,000 tons of clinker range from $10

- $25 million in capital cost and $400,000

- $500,000 annual operating cost (See Portland Cement Association, Clinker Piles, September 7, 2011, available in the rulemaking docket). We also are not proposing opacity or visible emission standards, for several reasons. If work practices are properly implemented, we believe fugitive emissions, including visible emiss ions, from clinker piles will be effectively controlled. Such emission limits would also be redundant with work practice requirements. Moreover, in many cases, the temporary, short
- term nature of clinker piles would make it impractical to implement an emis sions monitoring program that would be more effective than the proposed work practices . We are proposing that one or more of the following control measures be used when adding clinker to a pile, during on
- going clinker storage, and when reclaiming the cli nker for processing, to minimize to the greatest extent practicable fugitive dust emissions from open clinker storage piles: locating the source inside a partialInteragency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. Page 65 of 231 enclosure (such as a three sided structure with tarp), installing and operating a water spray or fogging system, applying appropriate chemical dust suppression agents on the pile, use of a wind barrier, use of a tarp or use of a vegetative cover. The owner or operator must select, from the list provided, the control measure or combination of contro l measures that are most appropriate for the site conditions. We are allowing the owner or operator to select the most appropriate control measure or combination of measures for their situation. We are proposing that the owner or operator must include as part of their operations and maintenance plan (required in §63.1347) the fugitive dust control measures that they will implement to control fugitive dust emissions from open clinker piles. These control measures would apply to the addition of clinker to th e pile, on
- going clinker storage and reclaiming the clinker for processing. We are proposing the same standards for new sources as existing sources . In the case of a clinker storage pile, there is no essential difference between ‘new’ and ‘existing’ . Thes e piles generally reflect temporary storage situations , and are not analogous to building a one
- timeInteragency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. Page 66 of 231 stationary structure where there are opportunities for newly
- constructed entities that do not exist for existing entities . The EPA consequently is proposin g the same standards for both. H . Affirmative D efense to C ivil P enalties for E xceedances O ccurring During Malfunctions In response to comments urging that the EPA not apply the same standards to malfunctions as to normal operation, the EPA added to the September 9, 2010 , final rule an affirmative defense to civil penalties for exceedances of emissions limits that are caused by malfunctions. Various environmental advocacy groups, as well as the Portland Cement Association ( PCA ) , indicated that there had b een insufficient notice of this provision. The EPA agreed and granted reconsideration. See 76 FR at 28325. We are proposing to retain the affirmative defense on reconsideration. This provision seeks to balance a tension, inherent in many types of air regul ation, to ensure adequate compliance while simultaneously recognizing that despite the most diligent of efforts, emission limits may be exceeded under circumstances beyond the control of the source. The EPA must establish emission standards thatInteragency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. Page 67 of 231 “limit the quantity, rate, or concentration of emissions of air pollutants on a continuous basis.” See 42 U.S.C. § 7602(k) (defining “emission limitation and emission standard”). See generally Sierra Club v. EPA , 551 F.3d 1019, 1021 (D.C. Cir. 2008) Thus, the EPA is required to ensure that section 112 emissions limitations are continuous. The affirmative defense for malfunction events meets this requirement by ensuring that even where there is a malfunction, the emission limitation is still enforceable through injunctive relief. Although “continuous” limitations, on the one hand, are required, there is also case law indicating that in many situations it is appropriate for the EPA to account for the practical reali ties of control technology. For example, in Essex Chemical v. Ruckelshaus , 486 F.2d 427, 433 (D.C. Cir. 1973), the D.C. Circuit acknowledged that in setting standards under CAA section 111 “variant provisions” such as provisions allowing for upsets during startup, shutdown and equipment malfunction “appear necessary to preserve the reasonableness of the standards as a whole and that the record does not support the ‘never to be exceeded’ standard currently in force.” See also, Portland Cement AssociationInteragency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. Page 68 of 231

v. Ruckelshaus , 486 F.2d 375 (D.C. Cir. 1973). Though intervening case law such as Sierra Club v. EPA and the CAA 1977 amendments undermine the relevance of these cases today, they support the EPA’s view that a system that incorporates some level of flexibil ity is reasonable. The affirmative defense simply provides for a defense to civil penalties for excess emissions that are proven to be beyond the control of the source. By incorporating an affirmative defense, the EPA has formalized its approach to upset
e vents. In a Clean Water Act setting, the Ninth Circuit required this type of formalized approach when regulating “upsets beyond the control of the permit holder.” Marathon Oil Co. v. EPA, 564 F.2d 1253, 1272
- 73 (9th Cir. 1977); see also, Mont. Sulphur & Ch em. Co. v. United States EPA , 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 1056 (Jan 19, 2012)(rejecting industry argument that reliance on the affirmative defense was not adequate). But see, Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Costle , 590 F.2d 1011, 1057
- 58 (D.C. Cir. 1978) (holding that an inf ormal approach is adequate). The affirmative defense provisions give the EPA the flexibility to both ensure that its emission limitations are “continuous” as required by 42Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. Page 69 of 231 U.S.C. §7602(k), and account for unplanned upsets and thus support the reasonablene ss of the standard as a whole. Petitions filed by environmental advocacy groups question the EPA’s authority to promulgate the affirmative defense arguing, among other things, that the affirmative defense is inconsistent with the provisions of CAA sections 113(e) and 304(b) governing penalty assessment and citizen suits, respectively. The EPA’s vi ew is that the affirmative defense is not inconsistent with CAA section 113(e) or 304. Section 304 gives district courts’ jurisdiction “to apply appropriate civil penalties.” Section 113(e)(1) identifies the factors that the Administrator or a court shall take into consideration in determining the amount of a penalty to be assessed, once it has been determined that a penalty is appropriate. The affirmative defense regulatory provision is not relevant to the amount of any penalty to be assessed. If a court determines that the affirmative defense elements have been established, then a penalty is not appropriate and penalty assessment pursuant to the section 113(e)(1) factors does not occur . In exercising its authority under section 112 to establish emission standards (at a level that meets theInteragency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. Page 70 of 231 stringency requirements of section 112), the EPA necessarily defines conduct that constitutes a violation. The EPA view is that the affirmative defense is part of the emission standard and defines two categories of vio lation. If there is a violation of the emission standard and the source demonstrates that all the elements of the affirmative defense are met, only injunctive relief is available. All other violations of the emission standard are subject to injunctive reli ef and penalties. A citizen suit claim under section 304 allows citizens to commence a civil action against any person alleged to be in violation of “an emission standard or limitation under this chapter.” The CAA, however, allows the EPA to establish such “enforceable emission limitations.” Thus, the citizen suit provision clearly contemplates enforcement of the standards that are defined by the EPA. As a result, where the EPA defines its emissions limitations and enforcement measures to allow a source the opportunity to prove its entitlement to a lesser degree of violation (not subject to penalties) in narrow, specified circumstances, as the EPA did here, penalties are not “appropriate” under section 304 .Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. Page 71 of 231 The EPA solicits comments on this fundamental issue of the EPA’s authority to promulgate an affirmative defense. The EPA’s view is that an affirmative defense to civil penalties for exceedances of applicable emission standards during periods of malfunction app ropriately balances competing concerns. On the one hand, citizen enforcers are concerned about additional complications in their enforcement actions. On the other hand, industrial sources are concerned about being penalized for violations caused by malfunc tions that they could not have prevented and were otherwise appropriately handled (as reflected in the affirmative defense criteria). The EPA has used its Section 301(a)(1) authority to issue regulations necessary to carry out the Act in a manner that appr opriately balances these competing concerns. However, the EPA also solicits comment on alternatives to or variations on to the affirmative defense provisions promulgated in the final rule . In its petition for reconsideration, the PCA expressed support for the affirmative defense, but maintains that “the affirmative defense process that EPA codified in the final rules is cumbersome and will be exceedingly difficult for facilities to employ.” The EPA is soliciting comment onInteragency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. Page 72 of 231 the terms and condition of the af firmative defense. In recent rules promulgated under section 112 and 129, the EPA has revised certain terms and conditions of the affirmative defense in response to concerns raised by various commenters. The EPA is proposing to adopt those same revisions i n this rule. The EPA is proposing to revise the affirmative defense language to delete “short” from section 63.1344(a)(1)(i), because other criteria in the affirmative defense require that the source assure that the duration of the excess emissions “were minimized to the maximum extent practicable.” The EPA is also proposing to delete the term “severe” in the phrase “severe personal injury” in 63.1344(a)(4) because we do not think it is appropriate to make the affirmative defense available only when bypass was unavoidable to prevent severe personal injury. In addition, the EPA is proposing to revise section 63.1344(a)(8) to add “consistent with good air pollution control practice for minimizing emissions.” The EPA is also proposing to revise the language of 63.1344(a)(9) to clarify that the purpose of the root cause analysis is to determine, correct and eliminate the primary cause of the malfunction. The root cause analysis itself does not necessarily require that theInteragency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. Page 73 of 231 cause be determined, corrected or elimina ted. However, in most cases, the EPA believes that a properly conducted root cause analysis will have such results. In addition, the EPA is proposing to revise 63.1344(b) to state that “[t]he owner or operator seeking to assert an affirmative defense shall submit a written report to the Administrator in a semiannual report with all necessary supporting documentation, that it has met the requirements set forth in section 63.1354(c) of this subpart.” See proposed regulatory text for other proposed minor wordi ng changes to improve clarity. Also note that we have added an affirmative defense provision to many other 112 rules since it was first promulgated in the 2010 cement rule. I . Continuously Monitored P arameters for Alternative O rganic HAP S tandard ( W ith THC Monitoring P arameter) In the September 2010 final rule, the EPA promulgated an alternative standard for non
- dioxin organic HAP, based on measuring the organic HAP itself rather than the THC surrogate. Section 63.1343(b)(1) provides two options for meeting a standard for organic HAP. One is to meet a THC standard of 24 parts per million volumetric dry (ppmvd); the other is to meet a limit of 9 ppmvd of total organicInteragency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. Page 74 of 231 HAP. This equivalent alternative standard is intended to provide additional flexibili ty in determining compliance, and it would be appropriate for those cases in which methane and ethane comprise a disproportionately high amount of the organic compounds in the feed because these
non - HAP compounds could be emitted and would be measured as T HC. The specific organic compounds that are to be measured to determine compliance with the equivalent alternative standard are benzene, toluene, styrene, xylene (ortho
- , meta - , and para
- ), acetaldehyde, formaldehyde, and naphthalene. Compliance with the e quivalent alternative standard under the September 2010 standard will be determined through organic HAP emission testing. The rule further requires that each source complying with the alternative standard establish a site
- specific THC limit to be met conti nuously. The site
- specific THC limit will be measured as a 30 day rolling average , with an annual compliance test requirement. It would be correlated with the organic HAP limit and is therefore not tied t o the THC standard of 24 ppmvd. We granted reconsideration on the level of this site
- specific THC limit used as a continuously monitored parameter for those sourcesInteragency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. Page 75 of 231 selecting the alternative HAP compliance method. See 76 FR at 28318. Since THC includes compounds that are not considered t o be hazardous, either of the two standards are considered to be reasonable. While the September 2010 final rule required an organic HAP limit of 9 ppmvd, a recent review of the method detection limits used to measure organic HAP revealed that the repres entative method detection level (RDL) is actually 12 ppmvd, and therefore we propose to revise the alternative organic HAP limit to 12 ppmvd. As discussed in the final rule, the expected measurement imprecision for an emissions value at or near the method detection level is about 40 to 50 percent and decreases to a consistent 10 to 15 percent for values that are three times the method detection level. See 75 FR at 54984; see also section D above. Thus, measured values less than three times the representative method detection level are highly uncertain and therefore not reasonable for compliance determinations. The RDL of 12 ppmvd was determined as follows: we determined method detection capabilities for Method 320 and Method 18 as appropriate for the variou s compounds (e.g.,Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. Page 76 of 231 Method 320 for aldehydes, Method 18 for aromatic hydrocarbons (arenes)). This approach is consistent with procedures practiced by the better performing testing companies and laboratories using sensitive analytical procedures. We determin ed for each of the organic HAP the expected method detection level for the respective method based on internal experience and method capabilities reported by testing companies. With these reported values, we identified the resulting mean of the method dete ction levels, adjusted them for dilution and moisture, summed them, and then multiplied the sum by three to determine the RDL . The resulting RDL value was found to be 11.2 ppmv @ 7 percent oxygen ( O 2 ) , dry. This value is greater than the final 9 ppmv @ 7 p ercent O 2 , dry, in the final rule. We are , therefore , proposing to adjust the total organic HAP limit to 12 ppmv @ 7 percent O 2 , dry (rounded up from the 11.2 ppm RDL). At this level, we believe that currently available emissions testing procedures and tec hnologies can be used to provide measurements of sufficient certainty for sources to demonstrate compliance. A detailed discussion of the use of the RDL to arrive at the proposed organic HAP limit is found in the Portland Cement Reconsideration TechnicalInteragency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. Page 77 of 231 S upport Document, section 2.5, which can be found in the docket for this rulemaking. A consequence of this analysis is that the accuracy of the analytic methods for organic HAP appear to be insufficient to allow sources to scale up their site
specific THC limit based on the degree to which the measured organic HAP levels were below the organic HAP limit
-- the organic HAP limit, even as proposed to be revised, is at the reliable limit of detection as just explained . Therefore, th is proposed rule retains the provision whereby the site
- specific THC operating parameter is established at the same time the performance test is conducted for organic HAP. If the site
- specific THC operating parameter is exceeded, then the kiln would have to be retested to determine c ompliance with the organic HAP limit. Th is proposed rule would further require that the tests for organic HAP and THC be repeated annually to establish a new annual site
- specific THC parameter reflecting the organic HAP level. We also are proposing, simila r to the PM compliance test procedure, that the highest 1
- hour average THC concentration measured duringInteragency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. Page 78 of 231 the 3
- hour organic HAP test, be used as the site
- specific THC parameter. J . Allowing S ources W ith D ry C austic S crubbers to C omply W ith HCl S tandard U si ng P erformance T ests To demonstrate compliance with the HCl emissions limit, the September 2010 final rule allows sources equipped with wet scrubbers to comply with the HCl standard by means of periodic performance tests rather than with continuous monitor ing of HCl with a CEMS (see §63.1349(b)(6)). We reasoned that a source that uses a limestone wet scrubber for HCl control will have minimal HCl emissions even if kiln inputs change because limestone wet scrubbers are more efficient in removing HCl than they are required to be, to meet the standard . Sources electing to comply by means of stack tests must establish continuously monitored parameters including liquid flow rate, pressure and pH. Sources using a limestone wet scrubber are required to per form an initial compliance test using Method 321 in Appendix A to 40 CFR p art 63 and to test every 30 months thereafter. In their petition, industry stakeholders indicated that this compliance option should not be limited to wetInteragency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. Page 79 of 231 scrubber equipped units, bu t should also be available for units equipped with caustic scrubbers, in part because some sources will be equipped with dry scrubbers (due to water shortages) and should have the same operating flexibilities as wet scrubber equipped kilns. A recent revie w of data from a vendor of acid gas controls using a standard hydrated lime and a high performance hydrated lime at a US cement manufacturing plant , revealed that HCl removal from dry scrubbers on kilns ranged from 90 to 95 percent HCl removal, depending
o n lime injection rates (Lhoist North America, Cement Industry Experience, DSI for Acid Gas Control, October 5, 2011) . The results also showed the plant could meet the 3 ppm HCl limit. EPA also evaluated HCl removal efficiency using dry sprayer absorber wit h a fabric filter as part of the electric utility generating (EGU) MACT rulemaking. Removal efficiencies ranged from 95 percent to nearly 100 percent with an average of about 99.8 percen t (Hutson to Nizich, HCl control using SDA/FF, November 29, 2011) . In addition, information from the National Lime Association (http://www.lime.org/uses_of_lime/environmental/flue_gas.as p) and the Institute for Clean Air CompaniesInteragency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. Page 80 of 231 (http://www.icac.com/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=3401)report HCl emissions reductions using dry lime injection technology of 95 to 99 percent from coal
- fired boilers in the electric utility industry, from municipal waste
- to energy facilities and from other industries. In the secondary aluminum industry, reductions in HCl emissions greater than 99 per cent have been achieved (National Lime Association, Flue Gas Desulfurization, http://www.lime.org/uses_of_lime/environmental/flue_gas.as p ) . Given these high reported removal efficiencies, we propose to extend the same option provided to kilns equipped wit h wet scrubbers to dry scrubber
- equipped kilns . Thus, kilns with either type of scrubber c ould demonstrate compliance with the HCl limit by means of an initial and periodic stack test rather than with continuous compliance monitoring with a CEMS . In order to assure that the dry lime injection equipment is operated effectively between tests, the proposed amendment would require that the lime injection rate used during the performance test demonstrating compliance with the HCl limit be recorded and then continuously monitored between performance tests toInteragency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. Page 81 of 231 show that the injection rate remains at or above the rate used during the performance test . We are also proposing an additional alternative for all kilns equipped with a dry or wet scrubber (and, under this proposal, could therefore do periodic HCl performance testing and parametric monitoring) . Where either wet or dry scrubbers are used, we are proposing that an owner or operator would have the optio n of using sulfur dioxide ( SO 2 ) monitoring as a continuously monitored parameter for purposes of compliance monitoring . Because HCl is a water
soluble compound and because it has a large acid dissociation constant ( i.e., HCl is a strong acid) , it will be more rapidly and readily removed than SO 2 from a gas stream treated with either caustic sorbents ( e.g., lime, limestone) or plain water . We acknowledge that at proposal (see 74 FR at 21154) we rejected setting a standard that used SO 2 as a surrogate for HCl because we had no data that demonstrated a direct link between HCl emissions and SO 2 emissions. However, pilot
- scale tests by EPA at its Multi
pollutant Control Research Facility support the use of the more easily measured SO 2 as a surrogate for HCl wh ere either wet or dry scrubbers are used. See Docket item EPA
- HQ - OAR-Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. Page 82 of 231 2009
- 0234
- 3893. Further, we are aware that there are existing kilns equipped with SO 2 CEMS and that this monitoring technology is less expensive and more mature than HCl CEMS . Thus, cons istent with the recent Mercury and Air Toxics Standards for Coal and Oil
- Fired Electric Utility Steam Generating Units (76 FR 25023, 25038

– 25039, May 3, 2011) , we are proposing that SO 2 is an indicator for HCl compliance, and that monitoring the emission s of SO 2 will provide a reliable indication of HCl removal , making SO2 monitoring an appropriate parameter for monitoring continuing compliance. . Owners or operators of kilns equipped with dry or wet scrubbers that choose to use SO 2 monitoring would need to conduct an initial performance test for HCl and establish the SO 2 operating limit equal to the highest 1 hour average recorded during the HCl performance test, so that there is an indication of proper operation of the HCl control device. The owner or operator of a kiln controlled using either a dry or wet scrubber that chooses to monitor SO 2 would not be required to also establish continuously monitored parameters reflecting the performance test results, such as lime injec tion rate for a dry scrubber andInteragency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. Page 83 of 231 liquid flow rate, pressure and pH for a wet scrubber. Deviation from any established parameter level or established SO 2 operating level would trigger a requirement to retest for HCl in order to verify compliance with the HC l limits and to verify or re
- establish the parameter levels. At a minimum, a repeat performance test to confirm compliance with the HCl emissions limit and to reset the SO 2 limit and monitoring parameters is required every 5 years. We are requesting comme nt on the efficacy of continuously monitoring SO 2 as a continuously monitored parameter in lieu of continuously monitoring HCl , and also solicit comment on testing every 30 months for HCl for purposes of monitoring compliance with the HCl emissions limit. K . Alternative PM limit Some kilns combine kiln exhaust gas with exhaust gas from other unit operations, such as the clinker cooler , as an energy saving practice . The September 2010 final rule sought to accommodate commingled flows from the kiln and clinker cooler by providing a site specific PM limit. See section 63.1343(b)(2). In its reconsideration petition, the PCA pointed out, however, that other flows besides theInteragency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. Page 84 of 231 exhaust gas flow from the clinker cooler can be commingled as well. The petitioner provided the example of coal mill exhaust and exhaust from an alkali by
- pass as instances of additional flows that can be commingled with the exhaust gas flow from the kiln. The petitioner observed that without an allowance for these additional flows, the site specific PM limit is stricter than the EPA intended (since the PM concentration will be divided by a lower number in the implementing equation), and penalizes the energy
- saving practice of commingling these flows. The a gency agreed with the petitioner that the alternative PM equations for existing and new sources contained in the final rule do not adequately account for commingled exhaust gas flows from sources other than the clinker cooler, and granted reconsideration for this
reason. See 76 FR at 283 25. We believe that although the form of the equation is correct, the equation is not written to accommodate sources other than exhaust gases from the clinker cooler. We are proposing to revise the equation so that it includes exhaust gas flows for all pot ential sources that would potentially be combined , including exhausts from the kiln, the alkali bypass, theInteragency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. Page 85 of 231 coal mill, and the clinker cooler, For an existing kiln, the EPA is proposing the following equation: PM alt = 0.006 x 1.65 x (Q k + Q c + Q ab + Q cm )/(7000) Where: PM alt is the alternative PM emission limit for commingled sources. 0.006 is the PM exhaust concentration (gr/dscf) equivalent to 0.070 lb per ton clinker where clinker cooler and kiln exhaust gas are not combined 8
. 1.65 is the conversion factor of lb feed per lb clinker Q k is the exhaust flow of the kiln (dscf/ton raw feed) Q c is the exhaust flow of the clinker cooler (dscf/ton raw feed). Q ab is the exhaust flow of the alkali bypass (dscf/ton raw feed). Q cm is the exhaust flow of the coal mill (dscf/ton raw feed). 7000 is the conversion factor for gr per lb. If exhaust gases for any of the sources contained in the equation are not commingled and are exhausted through a separate stack, their value in the equation would be zero. The alternative PM equation for new sources is identical to the existing source equa tion except the PM exhaust concentration used in the equation is 0.002 grams per dry standard cubic foot, which is equivalent to the new source PM limit of 0.020 lb/ton clinker.

8 Note that this figure would cha nge correspondingly if the EPA were to amend the existing source PM standard. The same is true of the PM term in the new source equation.Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. Page 86 of 231 L . Standards During S tartup and S hutdown In the final NESHAP, the EPA established specific standards for startup and shutdown . These standards require kilns to meet numerical limits for each pollutant regulated by the rule, each standard to be measured using a CEMS over an accumulative 7
- day rolling average. 75 FR at 54991
- 92. Industry petitioned EPA to reconsider these standards claiming lack of notice, but EPA denied these petitions because the agency had already provided ample opportunity for comment which petitioners had used. See 76 FR at 28323. The D.C. Circuit dismis sed all challenges to these startup and shutdown provisions (see 665 F 3d at 189). The EPA did grant reconsideration on several technical issues related to startup and shutdown

– certain aspects of CEM
- based monitoring of mercury and PM during startup and shutdown

– issues which would be moot if EPA adopts the approach proposed below
- and having an HCl limit of zero for kilns not equipped with CEMS (see 76 FR at 28325). EPA is proposing to retain the startup and shutdown standards for mercury and THC, to amend the startup and shutdown standards for PM to be consistent with the proposed numeric levels in today’s proposal, and to amendInteragency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. Page 87 of 231 the level of the startup and shutdown standard for HCl to be 3 ppm in all circumstances. EPA is further proposing to clarif y that startup and shutdown means the periods of kiln operation that do not include normal operations . More specifically, s tartup begins when the kiln’s induced fan is turned on and continues until continuous raw material feed is introduced into the kiln, at which time the kiln is in normal operating mode . Shutdown begins when feed to the kiln is halted . Thus, during startup and shutdown, as defined, a kiln would not be firing coal or coke and would not be introducing any feed material into the kiln. HAP emissions from cement kilns are attributable almost entirely to one or the other of these feeds, with raw materials contributing the great majority. In addition, kilns burn fuels during startup and shutdown which are cleaner than coal and coke (natural gas is used for the most of the startup). Thus, HAP emissions during startup and shutdown should be far less than the numerical limits in the standards since the kiln will not be introducing raw materials, and will be burning fuels which are cleaner than its normal fuels .Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. Page 88 of 231 EPA is further proposing to change the means of monitoring for compliance with the startup and shutdown standards. Rather than require monitoring by a CEM or by stack testing, EPA is proposing that a source keep records of the materia ls and volumes of fuels introduced into the kiln during startup and shutdown and to use engineering judgment to estimate that HAP emissions are less than the standard. 9 This could be done by making mass balance calculations assuming that organics in the fu els are destroyed at some reasonable rate in the kiln . Given that there is no reason to believe that the standards would be exceeded under these startup and shutdown conditions (as defined) , EPA tentatively believes that these proposed recordkeeping requir ements are sufficient to yield reliable information for the startup and shutdown periods sufficient to establish a source’s compliance or non
- compliance with the startup and shutdown standards. These proposed recordkeeping requirements would thus serve as the basis for compliance monitoring and are intended to satisfy the requirements of section 70.6 (a) (3) (B) of EPA’s

9 No record would be kept of raw material inputs since, by definition, this could not occur during startup and shutdown.Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. Page 89 of 231 permitting regulations implementing section 504 (b) of the Act. EPA is further proposing that the standard for HCl during startup and shutdown be 3 ppmvd under all circumstances, and thus is proposing to eliminate the current provision that the startup and shutdown standard be zero for kilns measuring compliance by means other than a CEM. As shown in the petitions for reconsideration, HCl can be formed even when normal fuels and raw materials are not being introduced into the kiln (for example, from residual chlorides in the kiln refractory). See PCA Petition for Reconsideration Exh.1. Consequently, the promulgated limit of zero is techn ically inappropriate, and EPA is proposing to amend it to 3 ppmvd, the same standard which applies in all other operating modes. Monitoring would be accomplished by recordkeeping, as explained above. M . Coal Mills (NESHAP and NSPS) In the EPA’s amendments to the Standards for Performance for Coal Mills (74 FR 51952, October 8, 2009), we exempted coal mills at cement manufacturing facilities whose only heat source was kiln exhaust. We made this change in response to comment from the PCA. The PCA arguedInteragency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. Page 90 of 231 that coal mills were similar to inline raw mills which are considered to be an integral part of the kiln. The PCA requested the same treatment for coal mills, and the EPA agreed. The EPA did not address coal mills in the September 2010 amendmen ts to the Portland Cement NESHAP and NSPS and granted reconsideration so as to address the issue. See 76 FR at 28326. In these proposed amendments, we are proposing clarifying amendments regarding status of coal mills. Coal mills that receive exhaust gases from an affected kiln would be considered integral parts of the kiln with the exception that coal mill s with stacks separate from the cement kiln would continue to be subject to the PM limit in subpart Y, Standards for Performance for Coal Preparation and Processing. Kiln exhaust gases that are used in coal mills contain the same HAP for which kilns are regulated. Coal mills that use a separate heat source or that use exhaust gases from a clinker cooler would continue to be regulated and subject to the PM limit in the Standards for Performance for Coal Preparation and Processing under which PM emissions are adequately controlled by fabric filters. These proposed amendments clarify how compliance with HAP emission limits would be determined for a kiln with anInteragency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. Page 91 of 231 integral coal mill in which a portion (typically small) of the kiln exhaust gases are diverted to the coal mill and exhausted separately from the main kiln gases. 10 (The procedure described here would also apply to kilns with an alkali bypass that exhaus ts through a separate stack.) We are proposing that the sum of HAP or HAP surrogate emissions routed from the kiln to the coal mill and the kiln stack must not exceed the subpart LLL NESHAP emission limit set for each HAP or HAP surrogate. Because coal may be a source of THC and HCl emissions, we are proposing that performance tests for these pollutants be performed upstream of the coal mill. For mercury, tests would be required downstream to account for any mercury removal in the coal mill air pollution co ntrol device ( APCD ) . (Tests for PM from the alkali bypass would also be downstream of the APCD.) The rule requires the source to monitor emissions from the kiln stack using a CEMS. a. Mercury. The September 2010 rule did not specify how mercury emissions from the coal mill were to be

8 The situation where exhaust gases from the coal mill are commingled with kiln exhaust gases and is exhausted through the kiln common stack is addressed as part of issue E above.Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. Page 92 of 231 monitored and we did not intend for coal mill emissions to be monitored using a CEMS. The gas stream to the coal mill is small in comparison to the kiln exhaust, operation of the coal mill is intermittent, and the cost of requ iring additional CEMS for coal mills would be overly burdensome. Instead, we are proposing that performance tests for mercury be conducted at such a coal mill once per year. These performance tests would be required annually until the tested mercury levels are below the method detection limits for two consecutive years, after which tests may be conducted every 30 months. If test results at any time exceed the method detection limit, annual performance testing would again be required until mercury levels are below the method detection limit for two consecutive years. The results of the performance test would then be summed with the emissions from the kiln stack to determine compliance with the mercury emissions limit. To monitor compliance, we are proposing t hat the flow rate to the coal mill be continuously monitored. Using the results of the annual performance test and the flow rate, the owner or operator would develop a mercury hourly mass emission rate for the coal mill. Using the hourly mass emissions rat e andInteragency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. Page 93 of 231 continuous flow rate, hourly mercury emissions from the coal mill could be determined and summed with the mercury emissions from the kiln to determine continuous compliance. See section 63.1350(k)(5). The same approach would be applied to a kiln with an alkali bypass that exhausts to a separate stack. The proposed amendments require performance tests for mercury to be conducted using either Methods 29 or 30B in Appendix A
- 8 to 40 CFR Part 60. For HCl, the performance test would be performed using Meth od 321 in Appendix A to 40 CFR Part 63. For measurement of THC, Method 25A in Appendix A
- 7 to 40 CFR Part 60 would be required. Dioxin and furan emissions would be measured using Method 23 in Appendix A
- 7 to 40 CFR Part 60. For PM measurement at an alkali bypass stack, Method 5 in Appendix A- 3 to 40 CFR Part 60 would be required. The proposed amendments also make clear that performance testing requirements for mercury, THC, HCl and dioxin and furan would apply to each alkali bypass. For kilns with an integ ral coal mill, the calculations being proposed for determining compliance with the lb/ton of production emissions limit (i.e., mercury) are different from the calculations used for the emissions limits in aInteragency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. Page 94 of 231 concentration format (i.e., THC and HCl). In the case of mercury, for example, the proposed existing kiln limit is 5 5 lb/MM tons of clinker. When a portion of the kiln gas is diverted to a coal mill, a portion of the mercury is also diverted so that emissions from the kiln stack will be reduced by the amount of mercury diverted to the coal mill. The amount of mercury being continuously monitored in the kiln stack would not account for the total amount of mercury coming from the kiln (i.e. would not account for any mercury diverted to the coal mill and sep arately exhausted from the coal mill stack). To correctly determine compliance, the proposed amendments would require that mercury emissions from the coal mill control device be measured as well as the emissions from the kiln stack. We are proposing that a stack test be conducted to determine mercury emissions from the coal mill. In order to determine compliance on a continuous basis, we are proposing that the emissions measured from the coal mill stack on a lb/MM ton of clinker basis be summed with the proposed mercury limit of 55 lb/MM tons of clinker to establish a site specific limit for the kiln stack . For example, if a test at the coal mill control device outlet shows mercury emissions ofInteragency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. Page 95 of 231 10 lb/MM tons clinker, emissions from the kiln would have to be less than 45 lb/MM tons of clinker to be in compliance with the proposed mercury emissions limit. For k ilns also equipped with an alkali bypass, the same procedure as that for the coal mill would apply. Where a portion of kiln gases are diverted to a coal mill and to an alkali bypass, emissions from the coal mill and alkali bypass would be tested and summed and with the mercury or PM emissions from the kiln to determine compliance with the emissions limit. b. THC and HCl. Because THC and HCl are concentration
based limits, the proposed procedure for establishing site specific limits for THC and HCl is different from the procedure described above for the production based limits for mercury and PM. The limits for THC and HCl are expressed as concentrations . Therefore, we are proposing that site specific kiln stack emission limits (to be continuously monitored) be calculated taking into consideration the volumetric exhaust gas flow rates and concentrations of all applicable effluent streams (kiln stack, coal mill, and alkali bypass) for the kiln unit as follows:Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. Page 96 of 231 ( × ) + ( × ) + ( × )

( + + )

Where : Qab = Alkali bypass flow rate (volume/hr) Cab = Alkali bypass concentration (ppmvd) Qcm = Coal mill flow rate (volume /hr) Ccm = Coal mill concentration (ppmvd) e Qks = Kiln stack flow rate (volume /hr) Cks = Kiln stack concentration (ppmvd) MACT Limit = Limit for THC or HCl (ppmvd) This equation requires all values to be at or corrected to 7 % oxygen. In order to determine the flow rates and concentrations of THC and HCl in the coal mill and alka li bypass streams, annual testing would need to be accomplished via the appropriate test method and the flow rate of the kiln stack will need to be monitored with CEMS. With these data, the concentration of THC and HCl that must be monitored in the CEMS in order to demonstrate compliance with the MACT limit under this proposal can be calculated by solving for Cks (kiln stack concentration) from the equation above, as shown:

≤ ( × ( + + ) )

− ( × )

− ( × ) This equation is based on the following:Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. Page 97 of 231

 The total allowable mass emissions of THC and HCl for the kiln unit can be determined with the sum of all flow rates (coal mill, alkali bypass and kiln stack) and the applicable MACT limit (THC or HCl)
con centration . This yields the total allowable mass emissions per unit of time for the kiln unit according to the MACT limits and the site specific flow rates for the coal mill, alkali bypass and kiln stack.

 By testing the coal mill and alkali bypass streams for concentration and flow rate, the actual mass of THC and HCl emitted per unit of time can be determined.

 Subtracting the actual mass emissions of THC and HCl leaving the coal mill and alkali by pass from the total allowable mass emissions for the kiln unit determines the remainder of allowable mass emissions that can be emitted through the kiln stack.

 With knowledge of the flow rate at the kiln stack (measured by CEMS) and the allowable mass emissions (i .e. remainder) that can be emitted through the kiln stack, a site specific concentration can be determined . The equation above provides a simplified approach to determining this value.Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. Page 98 of 231 As an illustration of how the site specific limit would be calculated, we have provided the following example for calculating a site specific THC emission limit. In this example, we assume a kiln stack, coal mill and alkali bypass with the following volumetric flow rates and THC concentrations:
**Effluent Flow Rate**  **THC Concentration**  **Notes MACT LIMIT**  **Stream (dscm/hr)**  **(ppmvd) (ppmvd)**  **(@ 7%** O 2 **) (@ 7% O2)**  Alkali Bypass Qab 38,233 Cab 56 Determined through test 24 Coal Mill Qcm 57,349 Ccm 56 Determined through test Kiln Stack Qks 286,746 Cks ? Flow rate monitored by CEMS With the simplified equation provided above, the THC value that must not be exceeded in the kiln stack (verified with CEMS) is determined as follows:

≤ 24 (38, 233 + 57, 349 + 286, 746)

− (38, 233 56)

− (57, 349 56) 286, 746
Using the equation above, Cks is less than or equal to 13.3 ppmvd @ 7 percent O 2 . This site specific value would beInteragency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. Page 99 of 231 monitored by a CEMS in order to demonstrate compliance with the MACT limit . The EPA proposes that the site specific MACT limit would be established annually. This would require testing of the coal mill and alkali bypass effluent streams for THC and HCl on an annual basis . Testing of the coal mill would be accomplished upstream of the coal mill for THC to avoid measuring any THC that is emitted from the coal. Because we do not expect to require continuous emissions monitoring of the coal mill, we are proposing to require that during the annual performance test, the owner/operator monit or their exhaust gas flow rate from the coal mill. This flow rate measured during the annual performance test would be the maximum flow rate allowed during the year. If a higher flow rate is observed, the owner/operator would have to retest to establish th at they are still in compliance. Because of this requirement, the owner/operator should perform their test at a flow rate that would cover the range of conditions expected. As a result of this revision, we are also proposing a revised definition of “kiln” to clarify that coal mills using kiln exhaust gases in their operation are consideredInteragency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. Page 100 of 231 to be an integral part of the kiln (and hence subject to these standards). We are also proposing a definition for “in
- line coal mill” for those coal mills using kiln exh aust gases in their process. The proposed definition would exclude coal mills with a heat source other than the kiln or coal mills using exhaust gases from the clinker cooler. N . PM S tandard for Modified S ources Under the NSPS The EPA adopted the level of the new source standard under the NESHAP as the NSPS for both new and modified kilns and clinker coolers . See 75 FR at 54996. As the PCA noted in its reconsideration petition, there need not be functional equivalence between the NESHAP and NSPS PM limits f or modified kilns and clinker coolers . The PCA also noted that the NSPS for modified kilns and clinker coolers could have associated costs which need to be accounted for pursuant to CAA section 111(a)(1). Since such kilns and clinker coolers would not be s ubject to the section 112(d) new source standard, any costs for such modified kilns and clinker coolers to control PM to the new source limit could not be attributed to the section 112(d) new source limit. In addition, the PCA noted that existing Portland cement kilns cannot be assumed to find ways to avoid triggeringInteragency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. Page 101 of 231 the NSPS modification criteria when making physical or operational changes due to the stringency of the newly adopted standards for PM. The EPA believes that the PCA’s arguments on this point have merit. Under the September 2010 final NESHAP, existing kilns and clinker coolers are subject to the PM limit of 0.04 lb/ton clinker. If the kiln or clinker cooler undergoes modification, it would continue to be subject to 0.04 lb/ton limit, but would now be subject as well to the NSPS limit of 0.01 lb/ton clinker. Notwithstanding that there are independent justifications under section 111 that could justify this result (see PCA v. EPA , 665 F 3d at 190
- 91), the EPA believes, subject to consideration of comment, that it is more appropriate for modified kilns and clinker coolers to meet the NESHAP PM limit for existing sources. We are proposing that existing kilns and clinker coolers that are subject to the NESHAP existing source emissions limit would cont inue to be subject to that limit and not to the more stringent limit for new sources under the NSPS. This would be a limit of 0.07 lb per ton clinker , three
- run average based on Method 5 stack testing as explained in section D above . The parametric monitor ing using a CPMSInteragency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. Page 102 of 231 would likewise apply , as would the requirement of annual stack tests. We have justified the PM standard for modified kilns and clinker coolers under section 111 and need not repeat that rationale here . See PCA v. EPA , 655 F. 3d at 190
- 91. This analysis continues to apply when the standards are based on stack tests rather than CEMS and no longer use a 30
- day averaging period. The EPA also finds that the costs of meeting the incrementally more stringent proposed new source limit of 0.02 lb/to n clinker (three
- run average) are not justified for modified kilns and clinker coolers . For an existing kiln to reduce emissions from 0.07 to 0.02 lb/ton clinker would result in a modest reduction in PM emissions at a cost of more than $21,000 per ton of PM reduced (the extra cost being attributable to more frequent replacement of bags) and greater still if sources are able to comply with the proposed limit by using controls other than a fabric filter or different types of fabric filters. O . Proposed NESHAP C ompliance D ate E xtension for E xisting S ources Under section 112 (i)(a)(3) of the Act, the EPA may reset compliance dates for section 112 (d) emission standards if it amends the standards themselves (as opposedInteragency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. Page 103 of 231 to amending some ancillary feature of the standards relating to implementation) . See NRDC v. EPA , 489 F. 3d 1364, 1373
- 74 (D.C. Cir. 2007) . Such a resetting would be appropriate if the standards are changed in such a way as to warrant more time for compliance, either to develop necessary controls or to otherwise significantly alter control strategy. Cf. PCA v. EPA , 655 F. 3d at 189. (staying NESHAP standards for clinker piles because “the standards could likely change substantially. Thus, industry should not have to build expensive new containment structures until the standard is finally determined”) . EPA believes that may be the case here. Subject to consideration of public comment, the proposed amendments to the PM standard could significantly alter compliance strategies for all of the regulated HAP . The EPA is accordingly proposing that the compliance date for the PM, THC, mercury, and HCl standards for existing sources for kilns, clinker coolers, and raw material dryers be extended until September 10, 2015, a 2
- year extension of the current
compliance date. We believe that this date would requireInteragency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. Page 104 of 231 compliance “as expeditiously as practicable” as required by section 112 (i)(3)(A) of the Act . 11 The EPA is proposing to amend the standards for PM, changing the compliance regime from CEMS
- based to stack
test based, changing the averaging time for compliance, and changing the level of the standard . These proposed changes, in and of themselves, may occasion the need for additional time to study the possibility of different control strategies than are available under the 2010 final rule . Moreover, the EPA believes that different compliance strategies may now be available . The 2010 PM standard is achievable but requires the most advanced fabric filters, membrane bags, frequent bag replacement and other aggressive maintenance . See Docket item EPA
- HQ - OAR- 2002
- 0051
- 3438 . The proposed standard of .07 lb/ton of clinker (3
- run stack test) may be achievable by other means . Potential compliance strategies include use of electrostatic precipitator s ( ESP ) (or an E SP with a polishing baghouse or cyclone), or using a different type

11 "If EPA were to adopt a THC standard of 15 ppmv (see Section III.C.2 above), an extension of three years would be needed since many kilns' control strategies for organics controlled would be fundamentally altered."Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. Page 105 of 231 of baghouse . Baghouses could, for example, be sized smaller, could use cloth rather than membrane bags, or could use other variants (see PCA letter, The Impact of a Change in the Cement NE SHAP PM Limit on Compliance Strategies and Schedules, April 9, 2012) . The proposed change in the PM limit may also allow some sources to comply using their existing PM control device. As a result, they may be able to cancel a planned upgrade to membrane fabric filters or a replacement of their existing device with a new one. The PM standard also applies to clinker coolers, and sources may be able to meet the .07 lb/ton clinker standard with an existing control device for a clinker cooler . See Portland Cemen t Association, The Impact of a Change in the Cement NESHAP PM limit on Compliance Strategies and Schedules, April 9, 2012. We note that in the database for the 2010 standards, only 7 cement kilns with ESP were meeting the proposed 0 .07 lb/ton clinker standard in compliance tests . See Portland Cement Reconsideration TSD , Section 11 . However, no ESP vendors will guarantee being able to meet the 2010 PM limit (see Docket item, “Summary Discussion, Lodge Cottrell, 04/30/12.)Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. Page 106 of 231 The proposal to amend the standard for PM has implications for all of the standards, not just those for PM . The standards for mercury, HCl and THC all rely (or may rely) on control strategies involving injection and removal of added particulates, whether in the form of activated carbon, or dry or wet sorbent injectant. See Docket item EPA- HQ - OAR- 2002
- 0051
- 3438, section 2. A change in the PM standard thus affects these collateral PM control strategies as well . For example, it may be possible for a single PM control device to meet the prop osed .07 lb/ton clinker standard and also control the auxiliary PM collected from control of the other HAP, making polishing filters unnecessary. 12 Conversely, a central baghouse to meet a .07 lb/ton clinker standard may be sized smaller, but this may nece ssitate adding polishing filters to capture PM from control of the other HAP . New compliance strategies require time to implement . New engineering studies are needed, potential suppliers identified , a new bidding/procurement process undertaken , and the appropriate construction and operating permits

12 EPA did not believe this possible under the 2010 PM standard, and costed polishing filters in all instances. See EPA- HQ - OAR- 2002
- 0051
- 3438.Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. Page 107 of 231 obtained. Significant plant redesign, in the form of new ductwork and new fan design, and changes in the main control equipment may be needed . See US EPA, Engineering and Economic Factors Affecting the Install ation of Control Technologies for Multipollutant Strategies, October 2002. Depending on the type of control, this normally requires 15
- 27 months. Multiple control systems will take longer. Id.S. Installation of controls normally occurs during winter month s (to coincide with kiln outages during low production seasons) . Putting this together, it tentatively appears that summer of 2015 would be an expeditious compliance date. However, EPA solicits comment on this analysis and may adopt a different compliance date for these standards than proposed. Notwithstanding that we believe that the proposed PM standard may create new and lower cost opportunities for compliance, we believe the overall emission reductions from the standard to be roughly the same (except f or the delayed compliance date noted below) . We believe that sources will still need to design to meet essentially the same daily average as they would under the 2010 standard . That is, sources do not design to meet a standard, but rather toInteragency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. Page 108 of 231 meet a level comfortably lower . This is to provide compliance margin on those days where emissions rise due to inherent and uncontrollable variability . See Docket item EPA- HQ - OAR- 2002
- 0051
- 3438, section 2. The difference is too small to be reliably quantified. We have recalculated a design value (i.e. the level to which kilns would design to meet the standard) under the proposal, which removes CISWI kilns from the database of best performers. The calculated design value for these best performers would be 0.02655 lb/to n clinker vs. a calculated design value of 0.02296 lb/ton clinker under the final rule. TSD App. E. These calculations are not so precise as to reliably predict to the third decimal point to the right of zero, so this difference should be viewed as sugge sting a directional difference in the standards. Viewed as a type of bounding, directional difference, the difference in design values would be approximately 1.7%.

**Table 5**  **Comparison of nationwide PM emissions reductions from 2010 rule to this proposed**  **rule (TSD,**  **section 11)** 2010 rule Proposed rule Increment Emissions limit (lb/ton clinker 0.04 30
- day average 0.07 average of

three one
- hour stack tests NA MACT average 0.02296 0.02655 0.00359Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. Page 109 of 231 emissions for compliance (lb/ton clinker 2010 baseline emissions (tons/yr) 10,326 10,326 NA Nationwide emissions reduction (tons/yr) 9489 9321 168 Under the proposed revisions, compliance would be delayed 2 years with the result that emission reductions would also be delayed 2 years. Thus, emissions of 18, 642 tons would continue being emitted until the compliance date of September 2015. However, as facilities begin installing or retrofitting controls, we believe this number would continually be reduced as the compliance date approaches. Nonetheless, total annual reductions listed in Table 5 above will occur 2 years later than the original compliance date. With respect to compliance dates for open clinker piles, we believe that the standards we have proposed reflect control technologies which are either currently used or which can be implemented rapidly . We are , therefore , proposing that the standards apply within 6 months of promulgation (i.e. earlier than the present compliance date of September, 2013). For piles that comeInteragency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. Page 110 of 231 into existence after that date, the standards would apply immediately. The EPA also believes that the proposed standards for startup and shutdown do not require significant lead time and is proposing that these standards also take effect within 6 months of promulgation. P . **Eli gibility to be a New Source**  The EPA is proposing **[ INSERT DATE OF PUBLI**  **CATION IN**  **THE FEDERAL REGISTER ]**  as the trigger date for determining new source status under b**ot**h the NESHAP and for the PM standard under the NSPS . The EPA views the new source compliance date trigger to be the date the rulemaking record under which a standard is developed is proposed . See 74 FR at 21158 . This interpretation was not challenged in the underlying rulemaking and the EPA is not reopening it here, but rather is applyi ng it . Because the proposed standards would rest on a different record basis ( the EPA is proposing amendments to the PM standards which affect compliance strategies for mercury, HCl and THC), the EPA believes it is legitimate to view this rulemaking as est ablishing a new trigger date for purposes of new source applicability.Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. Page 111 of 231 **IV. Other Proposed Testing and Monitoring Revisions** Following the September 2010 promulgation of the final rule, we found the following errors and omissions in the testing and monitoring provisions and are proposing to correct them.

 Equations for calculating rolling operating day emissions rates.

 Definition or procedure s that include extraneous wording.

 Incorrect units in equations.

 Cross references and typographical errors in t he rule. We are proposing revisions that will clarify that data collected as part of relative accuracy test audits and performance tests are to be submitted to the EPA using their Electronic Reporting Tool. The EPA is also proposing minor, non
- substantive changes to the provisions listed below. These changes are largely for ease of readability or clarity, and do not reopen, reassess or otherwise reconsider these provisions’ substance. The minor editorial and clarifying changes were made in the following sec tions and paragraphs:Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. Page 112 of 231

 Section 60.62(a)(3) and (4), and (d).

 Section 60.63(b)(1)(i) and (ii), (b)(2), (f)(1), (2) (4), (5) , (h)(1) and (6) through (9), (i).

 Section 60.64(b)(2).

 Section 60.66.

 Section 63.1340(b)(6) through (8).

 Section 63.1344 and 63.1344(a).

 Section 63.1346(a) and (c) through (e).

 Section 63.1348(a)(2), (3)(i) through (iii), (a)(4)(i)(A), (a)(4)(ii) and (iv).

 Section 63.1348(b)(1)(i), (iii) and (iv).

 Section 63.1348(b)(3), (5), (6)(i), (8) and (c)(2)(iv).

 Section 63.1349(a), (b)(1)(ii), (b)(3), (d)(1) and (d)(2) and (e).Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. Page 113 of 231

 Section 63.1350(a), (d)(1)(i) and (ii), (f), (f)(2)(i) and (iii), (f)(3), (f)(4), (g)(1) and (2), (k), (k)(4) and (5), (m)(10) and (11), (o) and (p).

 Section 63.1352(b).

 Section 63.1354(c).

 Section 63.1356. **V. Other Changes and Areas Where We Are Requesting Comment** We are also proposing amendments to clarify various requirements in th is proposed rule including issues of applicability, treatment of multiple sources that vent to a single stack, third p arty certification, definitions, startup/shutdown, malfunctions and use of bag leak detection systems when PM CPMS are in use. We are also proposing to revise the definition of raw material dryer to clarify that they may be used for removing the moisture f rom materials other than kiln feed. The EPA is proposing to amend 63.1354 (c) for reporting startup, shutdown and malfunctions when sources fail to meet a standard. We are proposing language that requires sources that deviate from a standard during startup , shutdown or malfunction to report the informationInteragency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. Page 114 of 231 concerning such events in semi
- annual compliance reports . We are proposing that the report must contain the number, duration, and cause of such events (including unknown cause, if applicable), list the af fected source or equipment, the date and time that each event started and stopped, an estimate of the volume of each regulated pollutant emitted over the emission limit for which the source failed to meet a standard, and a description of the method used to estimate the emissions . We note that while malfunction events may also be reported under provisions related to assertion of an affirmative defense, this separate malfunction reporting requirement is not redundant of the affirmative defense reporting requirement because reporting of malfunctions under the affi rmative defense is not mandatory and would occur only if a source chooses to take advantage of the affirmative defense. Changes to recordkeeping requirements. The EPA is also proposing to amend 63.1355 (f) for recordkeeping for events of startup and shut down. Currently (f) requires a record of the occurrence and duration of each startup or shutdown . The EPA is proposing to refine this requirementInteragency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. Page 115 of 231 based on the requirements applicable during periods of startup and shutdown. Given that some affected sources under subpart LLL are subject to a different standard during startup and shutdown, it will be important to know when such startup and shutdown periods begin and end in order to determine compliance with the appropriate standard . Thus, the EPA is proposing to require that affected sources subject to emission standard s during startup or shutdown that differs from the emission standard that applies at all other times (i.e., Hg and PM) must record the occurrence and duration of such periods. The EPA is also proposing to add a requirement that sources record an estimate of the volume of emissions over the standard if the affected source fails to meet a standard during either startup or shutdown, and record the estimating technique. The EPA is also proposing to amend (g)(1) to obtain similar information on malfunction events. Currently this paragraph requires the creation and retention of a record of the occurrence and duration of each malfunction of process, air pollution control and monitoring equipment. The E PA is proposing that this requirement apply only to malfunctions that cause a failure to meet an applicableInteragency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. Page 116 of 231 standard and is requiring that the source record date and time of the malfunction rather than “occurrence.” The EPA is also proposing to add to (g) the requirement that sources keep records that include a list of the affected source or equipment, an estimate of the volume of each regulated pollutant emitted over the standard for which the source failed to meet a standard, and a description of the meth od used to estimate the emissions . The EPA is proposing to require that sources keep records of this information to ensure that there is adequate information to determine compliance during malfunction events, to allow the EPA to determine the severity of t he failure to meet the standard, and to provide data that may document how the source met the general duty to minimize emissions during recorded malfunction events . **VI. Summary of Cost, Environmental, Energy and Economic Impacts of Proposed Amendments**  A . What are the affected sources ? According to the September 2010 final rule, by 2013 there will be 100 Portland cement manufacturing facilities located in the U.S. and Puerto Rico that are expected to be affected by that rule, and, approximately 5 of thoseInteragency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. Page 117 of 231 facilities are complete new greenfield facilities. All these facilities will operate 158 cement kilns and associated clinker coolers. Of these kilns, 23 are CISWI kilns and have been removed from our data set used to establish existing source floors . Base d on capacity expansion data provided by the PCA , by 2013 there will be 16 kilns and their associated clinker coolers subject to NESHAP new source emission limits for mercury, HCl and THC, and seven kilns and clinker coolers subject to the amended NSPS for NOx and SO 2 . Some of these new kilns will be built at existing facilities and some at new greenfield facilities. B . How are the impacts for this proposal evaluated ? For these proposed amendments, we determined whether additional control measures, work pr actices and monitoring requirements would be required by cement manufacturing facilities to comply with the proposed amendments. For any additional control measure, work practice or monitoring requirement we determined the associated capital and annualized cost that would be incurred by facilities required to implement the measures. Finally, we considered the extent to which any facility in the industry would findInteragency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. Page 118 of 231 it necessary to implement the additional measures in order to comply with the proposed amendme nts. Using this approach, we assessed potential impacts from the proposed revisions. These proposed amendments affect the 2010 rule and are expected to result in lower costs for the Portland cement industry. We are evaluating the impacts of these proposed amendments relative to the impacts estimated for the 2010 final rule. As explained in section N above, the proposed amendment to the PM standard affords alternative compliance opportunities which are less costly. These could be utilizing existing PM control devices rather than replacing them (for example, retaining an ESP or a smaller bagh ouse), or supplementing existing PM control rather than replacing it (putting polishing controls ahead of the primary PM control device). Compliance strategies for the other HAPs, all of which involve some element of PM control, also may be affected. Cost savings from these alternatives could be significant. For example, we have performed a case study from the data set used in the 2010 impacts analysis. Under the proposed rule, an estimated 24 ESP s are retained rather than replace d with FF’s or membrane bag s installed on aInteragency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. Page 119 of 231 downstream polishing FF, and two FF retain their standard fabric bags rather than replacing them with membrane bags. The difference in annual cost for PM control under the proposal scenario and the more stringent 2010 scenario is $4.9 mil lion per year . That is, under the proposed rule, the annual cost of compliance will be $4.9 million less than under the 2010 rule under this scenario . reducing PM EPA is not presently able to further quantify potential costs of the proposed changes to t he emission standards. This is because the Agency lacks the site
- specific information necessary to make the engineering determinations as to how individual sources may choose to comply. There are also certain costs, and cost savings, associated with othe r aspects of the proposal. There may be a minor difference in costs of stack testing for PM and use of a CPMS, rather than use of a PM CEMS. However, since the PM CEMS would be calibrated based on stack testing, and the CPMS is the same type of device as a PM CEMS, EPA does not believe there is any significant cost difference between these provisions. The proposed revisions to the alternative organic HAP standard (from 9 ppm to 12 ppm , reflecting the analyticInteragency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. Page 120 of 231 method practical quantitation limit ) and would not require additional controls or monitoring. The proposed revisions for open clinker storage piles codify current fugitive dust control measures already required by most states, thus no impacts are expected . These proposed standards would b e significantly less expensive than the controls for open piles in the 2010 final rule, which required enclosures. Although we are reproposing the affirmative defense provisions, impacts were not accounted for in the 2010 rulemaking. So we have estimated the additional industry burden associated with the affirmative defense provisions. We estimate the additional cost is $3,142 per year for the entire industry (See Section 8 of the Portland Cement Reconsideration Technical Support Document .) One of the proposed revisions would allow sources that control acid gases, including HCl, with dry caustic scrubbers to use periodic performance testing and parameter monitoring rather than with HCl CEMS. This will provide those sources with additional flexibility in complying with the HCl standards. The proposed revision to the alternative PM emissions limit provisions merely recognizes the factInteragency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. Page 121 of 231 sources other than the clinker cooler may combine their exhaust with the kiln exhaust gas and corrects the e quation for calculating the alternative limit. Therefore, there should be no impacts from this proposed revision. The proposal to use recordkeeping as the monitoring mechanism for the startup and shutdown standards should also result in cost savings because facilities in the industry already keep records on feed and fuel usage and they will not have to install and operate CEMS for these periods. CEMS for monitoring all HAP could cost each facility $425,000 in capital cost and annualized costs of $163,000. See EPA- HQ OAR- 2002
- 0051
- 3438. The proposed revisions for new testing and monitoring of coal mills that use kiln exhaust gases to dry coal and exhaust through a separate stack are not expected to have si gnificant impacts . The proposed revision would make existing kilns that undergo a modification, as defined by NSPS, subject to the NESHAP PM standard for existing source rather than the PM limit for new sources. This proposed revision is correcting an inadvertent conflict between the two rules and will not result in any impacts. C . What are the air quality impacts ?Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. Page 122 of 231 In the proposed amendments, emission limits for mercury, THC and HCl are unchanged from the 2010 rule. Thus , once sources come into compliance we expect no change in emissions from the 2010 rule for these HAP and HAP surrogates . The alternative HAP organic standard would be amended to 12 ppm, but as this reflects the practical quantitative limit of detection, it is not clear if additional emissio ns are associated with the proposed standard since a lower standard would not be measured reliably. For PM, the limit for existing sources would change from 0.04 lb/ton clinker to 0.07 lb/ton clinker. The PM limit for new sources also would be changed to 0.02 lb/ton clinker from 0.01 lb/ton clinker. The standard would be measured on a 3
- run basis rather than on a 30
- day basis with a CEMS . The proposed changes in the PM standards, while not considered significant in absolute terms may result in a small increase i n total nationwide emissions by allowing slightly more variability, although we estimate that design values will be essentially identical under the 2010 and proposed standard. See section III.N above. As explained in the impacts analysis for the 2010 rule (seeInteragency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. Page 123 of 231 Docket item EPA
- HQQ - oar - 2002
- 0051
- 3438), emission reductions were estimated by comparing baseline emissions to the l ong - term average emissions of the MACT floor kilns. The average emissions , rather than the emissions limit, must be used because to comply with the limit all or most of the time, emissions need to be reduced to the average of the MACT floor kilns. Under the 2010 rule, the average PM emissions from the existing floor kilns was 0.02296 lb/ton clinker. Under the reconsideration, th e average PM emissions of the existing floor kilns is calculated to be 0.02655 lb/ton clinker

– although, as noted, this difference is far less than the normal analytic variability in PM measurement methods and so must be viewed as directional rather than absolute . The average emissions for new kilns did not change, so we are not estimating an emission increase from new kilns. In the 2010 rule, total clinker production from existing kilns was 93,345,993 per year. With an increase in PM emissions under the p roposed rule of 0.00359 lb/ton clinker compared to the 2010 rule, nationwide emissions of PM would increase by 168 tons per year (0.00359 X 93,345,993/2000). Thus, EPA estimates that the main effect of the proposed rule for PM will be toInteragency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. Page 124 of 231 provide flexibilit y for those days when emissions increase as a result of normal operating variability , but would not significantly alter long
- term average performance for PM . Emission reductions under the 2010 rule and the proposed rule are compared in Table 6 . Table 6 . Comparison of nationwide PM emissions reductions from 2010 rule to proposed rule

Kiln type 2010

rule Proposed

rule Difference of

proposed rule compared to 2010 rule Emissions limit (lb/ton clinker Existing 0.04 (30
- day average with a CEMS) 0.07 (3
-

run stack test) NA

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

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

Nationwide emissions reduction Total 9489 9321
- 168Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. Page 125 of 231 (tons/yr) Under the proposed revisions, compliance would be delayed 2 years with the result that emission reductions would also be delayed 2 years. Thus, reductions of 18,642 tons would be delayed until the compliance date of September 2015. However, as facilities begin installin g or retrofitting controls, we believe this number would continually be reduced as the compliance date approaches. D . What are the water quality impacts ? None of the amendments being proposed will have significant impacts on water quality. To the extent t hat the proposed revision affecting dry caustic scrubbers encourages their use, some reduction in water consumption may occur although we have no information upon which to base an estimate. E . What are the solid waste impacts ? None of the amendments being proposed today are expected to have any solid waste impacts. F . What are the secondary impacts ? Indirect or secondary air quality impacts include impacts that will result from the increased electricity usage associated with the operation of control devic es asInteragency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. Page 126 of 231 well as water quality and solid waste impacts (which were just discussed) that will occur as a result of these proposed revisions. Because we are proposing revisions that reduce the stringency of the emission limits PM from the promulgated 2010 limit s, we believe that some facilities may be able to alter their strategy for complying with the standards for the four pollutants to achieve compliance at a lower cost than possible under the original standard. These types of determinations will be made for each facility based on site
- specific characteristics such as process type, equipment age, existing air pollution controls, raw material and fuel characteristics, economic factors and others. Therefore, we are not able to reliably predict secondary impacts for individual facilities or for the industry as a whole . G . What are the energy impacts ? As discussed in the preceding section, because of the proposed revisions to the PM emission limits, some facilities may be able to develop more cost effective compli ance strategies. However, we cannot accurately predict the extent to which these site
- specific compliance strategies may increase or decrease energy demands.Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. Page 127 of 231 H . What are the cost impacts ? Under the cost scenario discussed above, we estimate that there cou ld be savings in the millions of dollars associated with alternative compliance strategies for meeting amended PM standards and making corresponding adjustments in compliance strategies for the other HAP. The proposed revisions would require sources with in tegral coal mills that exhaust through a separate exhaust to install a continuous flow meter as part of the proposed requirement to monitor mercury emissions. The capital cost of flow meters are $36,000. The annualized cost of a flow meter is $14,000. We do not have information on the number of such coal mills in the industry that would allow us to calculate nationwide costs. **VII .**  **Statutory and Executive Order Reviews** A . Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is a "significant regulatory action" because it raises novel legal or policy issues. Accordingly, the EPA submitted this action to the Offic e ofInteragency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. Page 128 of 231 Management and Budget (OMB) for review under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,2011) and any changes made in response to OMB recommendations have been documented in the docket for this action. B . Paperwork Reduction Act The info rmation collection requirements in this proposed rule have been submitted for approval to the OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act , 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq . The Information Collection Request (ICR) document prepared by the EPA has been assigned the EPA ICR number ____. The information requirements are based on notification, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements in the NESHAP General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A), which are mandatory for all operators subject to national emissions standards. Thes e recordkeeping and reporting requirements are specifically authorized by CAA section 114 (42 U.S.C. 7414). All information submitted to the EPA pursuant to the recordkeeping and reporting requirements for which a claim of confidentiality is made is safegu arded according to agency policies set forth in 40 CFR part 2, subpart B. We are proposing new paperwork requirements for the Portland Cement Manufacturing source category in the formInteragency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. Page 129 of 231 of a requirement to incorporate fugitive dust control measures for clinker piles into their existing operations and maintenance plan. We are also proposing to use recordkeeping as the means of monitoring compliance with the startup and shutdown standards. For this proposed rule, the EPA is also proposing to add an affirmative defense to the estimate of burden in the ICR. To provide the public with an estimate of the relative magnitude of the burden associated with an assertion of the affirmative defense position adopted by a source, the EPA has provided administrative adjustmen ts to this ICR to show what the notification, recordkeeping and reporting requirements associated with the assertion of the affirmative defense might entail. The EPA’s estimate for the required notification, reports and records for any individual incident, including the root cause analysis, totals $3,141 and is based on the time and effort required of a source to review relevant data, interview plant employees, and document the events surrounding a malfunction that has caused an exceedance of an emissions l imit. The estimate also includes time to produce and retain the record and reports for submission to the EPA.Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. Page 130 of 231 The EPA provides this illustrative estimate of this burden because these costs are only incurred if there has been a violation and a source choose s to take advantage of the affirmative defense. Given the variety of circumstances under which malfunctions could occur, as well as differences among sources' operation and maintenance practices, we cannot reliably predict the severity and frequency of mal function
related excess emissions events for a particular source. It is important to note that the EPA has no basis currently for estimating the number of malfunctions that would qualify for an affirmative defense. Current historical records would be an in appropriate basis, as source owners or operators previously operated their facilities in recognition that they were exempt from the requirement to comply with emissions standards during malfunctions. Of the number of excess emissions events reported by sou rce operators, only a small number would be expected to result from a malfunction (based on the definition above), and only a subset of excess emissions caused by malfunctions would result in the source choosing to assert the affirmative defense. Thus we b elieve the number ofInteragency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. Page 131 of 231 instances in which source operators might be expected to avail themselves of the affirmative defense will be extremely small. With respect to the Portland Cement Manufacturing source category, the emissions controls are operational bef ore the associated emission source(s) commence operation and remain operational until after the associated emission source(s) cease operation. Also, production operations would not proceed or continue if there is a malfunction of a control device and the t ime required to shut down production operations (i.e., on the order of a few hours or a day) is small compared to the averaging time of the emission standards (i.e., monthly averages). Thus, we believe it is unlikely that a control device malfunction would cause an exceedance of any emission limit. Therefore, sources within this source category are not expected to have any need or use for the affirmative defense and we believe that there is no burden to the industry for the affirmative defense provisions in the proposed rule. We expect to gather information on such events in the future and will revise this estimate as better information becomes available. We estimate 100 regulated entities areInteragency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. Page 132 of 231 currently subject to subpart LLL and will be subject to all propo sed standards. The annual monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping burden for this collection (averaged over the first 3 years after the effective date of the standards) for these amendments to subpart LLL is estimated to be $371,400 per year. This includes 545 labor hou rs per year at a total labor cost of $52,500 per year, and total non

labor capital and operation and maintenance costs of $318,900 per year. This estimate includes reporting and recordkeeping associated with the proposed requirements for startup and shutdown and outdoor clinker piles. The total burden for the f ederal government (averaged over the first 3 years after the effective date of the standard) is estimated to be 300 hours per year at a total labor cost of $13,700 per year. Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for the EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. To comment on the agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and anyInteragency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. Page 133 of 231 suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, the EPA has established a public docket for this proposed rule, which includes this ICR, under Docket ID number EPA
- HQ - OAR2011
- 0817. Submit any comments related to the ICR to the EPA and OMB. See the ADDRESSES section at the beginning of this notice for where to submit comments to the EPA. Send comments to OMB a t the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Office for the EPA. Since OMB is required to make a decision concerning the ICR between 30 and 60 days after **[ IN** **SERT THE DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER**  **]** , a comment to OMB is best assured of having its full effect if OMB receives it by **[ INSERT THE DATE 30 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION**  **IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER ]**  . The final rule will respond to any OMB or public comments on the information collection requirements contained in this proposal. C . Regulatory Flexibility Act The Regulatory Flexibility Act generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice a nd comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any other statuteInteragency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. Page 134 of 231 unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small bus inesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions. For purposes of assessing the impact of this rule on small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) a small business whose parent company has no more than 750 employees depen ding on the size definition for the affected NAICS code, as defined by the Small Business Administration (SBA) size standards; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school district or special district with a population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not
- for
profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field. We estimate that 3 of the 26 existing Portland cement entities are small entities. After considering the economic impacts of this proposed rule on small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Of the three affected small entities, all are expected to incur an annual compliance cost of less than 1.0 pe rcent of sales toInteragency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. Page 135 of 231 comply with this rule (reflecting potential controls on piles, which are likely to have lower cost when compared to the 2010 rule requirements because these plants already have requirements for control of piles in their Title V permits). Although this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, the EPA nonetheless has tried to reduce the impact of this proposed rule on small entities. For example, we are proposing to expand the prov ision that allows periodic HCl performance tests as an alternative to CEMS for sources equipped with wet scrubbers to also apply to those sources that use dry sorbent injection. Th is proposed rule would add an option for sources using wet or dry scrubbers for HCl control that also use a CEMS for SO 2 . These sources would now have the option of using their SO 2 CEMS in conjunction with a periodic stack test to demonstrate compliance with the HCl standard. We continue to be interested in the potential impacts o f the proposed rule on small entities and welcome comments on issues related to such impacts. D . Unfunded Mandates Reform ActInteragency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. Page 136 of 231 This action does not contain a f ederal mandate under the provisions of Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) , 2 U.S.C. 1531
- 1538 for State, local, or tribal governments or the private sector. The action imposes no enforceable duties on any s tate, local or tribal governments or the private sector. Thus, this action is not subject to the requirements of sections 2 02 or 205 of the UMRA. This proposed rule is also not subject to the requirements of section 203 of UMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments because it contains no requirements that apply to such governments nor does it impose obligations upon them. E . Executive Order 13132: Federalism This proposed action does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the s tates, on the relationship between the national government and the s tates, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132. None of the affected facilities are owned or oper ated by StateInteragency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. Page 137 of 231 governments. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this action . In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent with the EPA policy to promote communications between the EPA and s tate and local governments, the EPA specificall y solicits comment on this proposed action from s tate and local officials . F . Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 6 7249, November 9, 2000). Under the provisions of this proposed rule, there may be an increase in mercury emissions and metal HAP emissions although any increase will be minimal because the same control technology that is necessary under the current NESHAP will be needed to meet the proposed emissions limits. The more stringent limitations of fugitive dust emissions from open clinker piles may result in decreased risk to Indian tribal populations. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action. The EPA specifically solicits additional comment on this proposed action from tribal officials.Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. Page 138 of 231 G . Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 2 3, 1997) as applying to those regulatory actions that concern health or safety risks, such that the analysis required under section 5
- 501 of the Executive Order has the potential to influence the regulation. This action is not subject to Executive Order 13 045 because it is based solely on technology performance. H . Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use This proposed action is not a “significant energy action” as defined in Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355 (May 22,2001)), because it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. The proposed amendments do not requir e the use of additional controls as compared to the 2010 rule and may allow the industry to reduce its cost of compliance by increasing the industry’s flexibility to institute different and less costly control strategies than under the 2010 rule.Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. Page 139 of 231 I . Nation al Technology Transfer and Advancement Act Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (“NTTAA”), Public Law No. 104
- 113 (15 U.S.C. 272 note), directs the EPA to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS) in its regulatory ac tivities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. VCS are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures and business practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary c onsensus standards bodies. NTTAA directs the EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the agency decides not to use available and applicable VCS. This proposed rulemaking does not involve technical standards. Therefore, the EPA is not consi dering the use of any voluntary consensus standards. J . Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low
Income Populations Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629)(February 16, 1994) establishes federal exe cutive policy on environmental justice . Its main provision directs f ederal agencies, toInteragency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. Page 140 of 231 the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionat ely high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, policies and activities on minority populations and low
- income populations in the United States. The EPA has determined that this proposed rule will not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or low
- income populations because An analysis of demographic data showed that the average of popul ations in close proximity to the sources, and thus most likely to be affected by the sources, were similar in demographic composition to national averages.Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. Page 141 of 231 National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants F or the Portland Cement Manufacturing Industry and Standards of Performance for Portland Cement Plants **List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63** Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, Incorporation by reference, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

____________________________ Dated:

____________________________ Lisa P. Jackson, AdministratorInteragency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. Page **142** of **231** For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows: **PART 60 –**  **[AMENDED]** 1. The authority citation for part 60 continues to read as follows: **Authority:** 23 U.S.C. 101; 42 U.S.C. 7401
- 7671q. **Subpart A**

**— [Amended]**  2 . Section 60.17 is amended by revising paragraph (h)(4) to read as follows: **§60.17 Incorporations by reference** . * * * * * (h) * * * (4) * * * * * **Subpart F --**  **[AMENDED]** 3 . Section 60.61 is amended by adding a definition for “Excess emissions” and “Operating day,” to read as follows: **§60.61 Definitio ns.**  * * * * * Excess emissions means, with respect to this subpart, results of any required measurements outside the applicable range (e.g., emissions limitations, parametric operatingInteragency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. Page **143** of **231** limits) that is permitted by this subpart. The values of
measuremen ts will be in the same units and averaging time as the values specified in this subpart for the limitations. * * * * * Operating day means a 24
- hour period beginning at 12:00 midnight during which the kiln operates at any time . For calculating rolling 30
- day average emissions, an operating day does not include the hours of operation during startup or shutdown . * * * * * 4 . Section 60.62 is amended by:
a . Revising paragraph (a)(1); b . Revising paragraphs (a)(2) and (a)(3);
c . Revising paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2);and d . Revising paragraph (d) to read as follows: **§60.62 Standards** . (a) On and after the date on which the performance test required to be conducted by §60.8 is completed, you may not discharge into the atmosphere from any kiln any gas es which: (1) Contain particulate matter (PM) in excess of: (i) [Reserved]Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. Page **144** of **231** (ii) 0.02 pound per ton of clinker if construction or reconstruction of the kiln commenced after June 16, 2008 . (iii) Kilns that have undergone a modification may not discharge into the atmosphere any gases which contain PM in excess of 0.07 pound per ton of clinker. (2) [Reserved] ( (b) On and after the date on which the performance test required to be conducted by §60.8 is completed, you may not discharge into the atmosph ere from any clinker cooler any gases which: (1) Contain PM in excess of: (i) [Reserved] (ii) 0.02 pound per ton of clinker if construction or reconstruction of the clinker cooler commences after June 16, 2008 . (iii) Clinker coolers that have undergone a modification may not discharge into the atmosphere any gases which contain PM in excess of 0.07 pound per ton of clinker.

(2) [Reserved] * * * * *Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. Page **145** of **231** (d) If you have an affected source subject to this subpart with a different emissions limit or requirement for the same pollutant under another regulation in title 40 of this chapter, you must comply with the most stringent emissions limit or requirement a nd are not subject to the less stringent requirement. 5 . Section 60.63 is amended by:
a . Revising paragraphs (b)(1)(i)and (b)(1)(ii); b . Adding paragraph (b)(1)(iii);
c . Revising paragraphs (b)(2) through (4); d . Revising paragraphs (c) through (f);
e . Re vising paragraph (g) introductory text; f . Revising paragraph (g)(2); g . Revising paragraph (h) introductory text; h . Revising paragraph (h)(1) and (h)(6); i . Revising paragraph (h)(7) introductory text; j . Revising paragraph (h)(8) introductory text; k . Revising paragraph (h)(9); l . Revising paragraph (i) introductory text; and

m . Revising paragraph (i)(1) and (i)(1)(i) to read as follows: **§60.63 Monitoring of operations.** * * * * *Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. Page **146** of **231** (b) * * * (1) * * * (i) Install, calibrate, maintain, and operate a permanent weigh scale system to measure and record weight rates of the amount of clinker produced in tons of mass per hour. The system of measuring hourly clinker production must be maintained within ±5 perce nt accuracy or (ii) Install, calibrate, maintain, and operate a permanent weigh scale system to measure and record weight rates of the amount of feed to the kiln in tons of mass per hour . The system of measuring feed must be maintained within ±5 percent accuracy. Calculate your hourly clinker production rate using a kiln specific feed
- to - clinker ratio based on reconciled clinker production rates determined for accounting purposes and recorded feed rates . This ratio should be updated monthly. Note that if this ratio changes at clinker reconciliation, you must use the new ratio going forward, but you do not have to retroactively change clinker production rates previously estimated . (iii) For each kiln operating hour for which you do not have data on clinker production or the amount of feed to the kiln, use the value from the most recent previous hour for which valid data are available.Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. Page **147** of **231** (2) Determine, record, and maintain a record of the accuracy of the system of measuring hourly clinker production rates or f eed rates before initial use (for new sources) or by the effective compliance date of this rule (for existing sources). During each quarter of source operation, you must determine, record, and maintain a record of the ongoing accuracy of the system of meas uring hourly clinker production rates or feed rates. (3) If you measure clinker production directly, record the daily clinker production rates; if you measure the kiln feed rates and calculate clinker production, record the daily kiln feed and clinker pro duction rates. (4) [Reserved] (c) PM Emissions Monitoring Requirements . (1) For each kiln or clinker cooler subject to a PM emissions limit in §60.62, you must demonstrate compliance through an initial performance test and you must monitor continuous perfo rmance through use of a particulate matter continuous parametric monitoring system (PM CPMS). (2) For your PM CPMS, you will establish a site
specific operating limit corresponding to the results of the performance test demonstrating compliance with the PM limit. You will conduct your performance test using MethodInteragency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. Page **148** of **231** 5 at appendix A
- 3 to part 60 of this chapter. You will use the PM CPMS to demonstrate continuous compliance with your operating limit. You must repeat the performance test annually and reassess a nd adjust the site
- specific operating limit in accordance with the results of the performance test. (3) [Reserved] (4) [Reserved] (d) You must install, operate, calibrate, and maintain a CEMS continuously monitoring and recording the concentration by volume of NO x emissions into the atmosphere for any kiln subject to the NO x emissions limit in §60.62(a)(3). If the kiln has an alkali bypass, NO x emissions from the alkali bypass do not need to be monitored, and NO x emission monitoring of the kiln exhaust may be done upstream of any commingled alkali bypass gases . (e) You must install, operate, calibrate, and maintain a CEMS for continu ously monitoring and recording the concentration by volume of SO 2 emissions into the atmosphere for any kiln subject to the SO 2 emissions limit in §60.62(a)(4). If you are complying with the alternative 90 percent SO 2 emissions reduction emissions limit, you mustInteragency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. Page **149** of **231** also continuously monitor and record the concentration by volume of SO 2 present at the wet scrubber inlet. (f) The NOx and SO 2 CEMS required under paragraphs (d) and (e) of this section must be installed, operated and maintained according to Perfo rmance Specification 2 of appendix B of this part and the requirements in paragraphs (f)(1) through (5) of this section . (1) The span value of each NOx CEMS monitor must be set at 125 percent of the maximum estimated hourly potential NOx emission concent ration that translates to the applicable emissions limit at full clinker production capacity. (2) You must conduct performance evaluations of each NOx CEMS monitor according to the requirements in §60.13(c) and Performance Specification 2 of appendix B to this part. You must use Methods 7, 7A, 7C, 7D, or 7E of appendix A
- 4 to this part for conducting the relative accuracy evaluations. The method ASME PT C 19.10
- 1981, “Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses,” (incorporated by reference
- see §60.17) is an acceptable alternative to Method 7 or 7C of appendix A
- 4 to this part.Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. Page **150** of **231** (3) The span value for the SO 2 CEMS monitor is the SO 2 emission concentration that correspond s to 125 percent of the applicable emissions limit at full clinker production capacity and the expected maximum fuel sulfur content. (4) You must conduct performance evaluations of each SO 2 CEMS monitor according to the requirements in §60.13(c) and Perfo rmance Specification 2 of appendix B to this part. You must use Methods 6, 6A, or 6C of appendix A
- 4 to this part for conducting the relative accuracy evaluations. The method ASME PTC 19.10
- 1981, “Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses,” (incorporated by reference
- see §60.17) is an acceptable alternative to Method 6 or 6A of appendix A
- 4 to this part. (5) You must comply with the quality assurance requirements in Procedure 1 of appendix F to this part for each NOx and SO 2 CEMS, including quarterly accuracy determin ations for monitors, and daily calibration drift tests. (g) For each CPMS or CEMS required under paragraphs (c) through (e) of this section: * * * * * (2) You may not use data recorded during the monitoring system malfunctions, repairs associated withInteragency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. Page **151** of **231** monitoring system malfunctions, or required monitoring system quality assurance or control activities in calculations used to report emissions or operating levels. A monitoring system malfunction is any sudden, infrequent, not reasonably preventable failur e of the monitoring system to provide valid data. Monitoring system failures that are caused in part by poor maintenance or careless operation are not malfunctions. An owner or operator must use all the data collected during all other periods in reporting emissions or operating levels. * * * * * (h) You must install, operate, calibrate, and maintain instruments for continuously measuring and recording the stack gas flow rate to allow determination of the pollutant mass emissions rate to the atmosphere f or each kiln subject to the PM emissions limits in §60.62(a)(1) (ii) and (b)(1)(ii), the NO x emissions limit in §60.62(a)(3), or the SO 2 emissions limit in §60.62(a)(4) according to the requirements in paragraphs (h)(1) through (10), where appropriate, of this section. (1) The owner or operator must install each sensor of the flow rate monitoring system in a location that providesInteragency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. Page **152** of **231** representative measurement of the exhaust gas flow rate at the sampling location of the NO x and/or SO 2 CEMS, taking into account the manufacturer’s recommendations. The flow rate sensor is that portion of the system that senses the volumetric flow rate and generates an output proportional to that flow rate. * * * * * (6) The flow rate monitoring system must be designed to measu re a minimum of one cycle of operational flow for each successive 15
-minute period. (7) The flow rate sensor must be able to determine the daily zero and upscale calibration drift (CD) (see sections 3.1 and 8.3 of Performance Specification 2 in appendix B to this part for a discussion of CD). * * * * * (8) You must perform an initial relative accuracy test of the flow rate monitoring system according to section 8.2 of Performance Specification 6 of appendix B to this part, with the exceptions noted in p aragraphs (h)(8)(i) and (ii) of this section. * * * * * (9) You must verify the accuracy of the flow rate monitoring system at least once per year by repeating theInteragency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. Page **153** of **231** relative accuracy test specified in paragraph (h)(8) of this section.
e (i) Development and Submittal (Upon Request) of Monitoring Plans . If you demonstrate compliance with any applicable emissions limit through performance stack testing or other emissions monitoring, you must develop a site
- specific monitoring plan according to the requirements in paragraphs (i)(1) through (4) of this section. This requirement also applies to you if you petition the EPA Administrator for alternative monitoring parameters under paragraph (h) of this section and §63.8(f). If you use a bag leak detector system (BLDS), you must also meet the requirements specified in paragraph §63.1350(m)(10) of this chapter. (1) For each continuous monitoring system (CMS) required in this section, you must develop, and submit to the permitting authority for approval upon request, a site
specific monitoring plan that addresses paragraphs (i)(1)(i) through (iii) of this section. You must submit this site
- specific monitoring plan, if requested, at least 30 days before the initial performance evaluation of your CMS.Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. Page **154** of **231** (i) Instal lation of the CMS sampling probe or other interface at a measurement location relative to each affected process unit such that the measurement is representative of control of the exhaust emissions ( e.g. , on or downstream of the last control device); * * * * * 6. Section 60.64 is amended to read as follows: **§60.64 Test methods and procedures** (a) In conducting the performance tests and relative accuracy tests required in §60.8, you must use reference methods and procedures and the test methods in append ix A of this part or other methods and procedures as specified in this section, except as provided in §60.8(b). (b) You must demonstrate compliance with the PM standards in §60.62 according to paragraphs (b)(1)(i) through (iv) of this section. (1)(i) In us ing a PM CPMS to demonstrate compliance, you must establish your PM CPMS operating limit and determine compliance with it according to paragraphs (b)(1)(ii) through (iv) of this section. (ii) During the initial performance test or any such subsequent perf ormance test that demonstrates compliance with the PM limit, record all hourly average output valuesInteragency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. Page **155** of **231** (e.g., milliamps, stack concentration, or other raw data signal) from the PM CPMS for the periods corresponding to the test runs (e.g., three 1
- hour average PM CPMS output values for three 1
- hour test runs). (iii) Determine your operating limit as the highest 1
- hour average PM CPMS output value recorded during the performance test. You must verify an existing or establish a new operating limit after each repeated performance test. (iv) To determine continuous compliance, you must record the PM CPMS output data for all periods when the process is operating and the PM CPMS is not out
- of
- control. You must demonstrate continuous compliance by using all quality
- assured hourly average data colle cted by the PM CPMS for all operating hours to calculate the arithmetic average operating parameter in units of the operating limit (e.g., milliamps, PM concentration, raw data signal) on a 30 operating day rolling average basis, updated at the end of each new kiln operating day. Use Equation 2 to determine the 30 kiln operating day average.



### n n Hpv i i 

### 

  1 

### day operating kiln 30 Eq. 2 where:Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. Page **156** of **231** Hpvi is the hourly parameter value for hour i and

n is the number of valid hourly parameter values collected over 30 kiln operating days.
(2) Use Method 9 and the procedures in §60.11 to determine opacity. (3) Any sources other than kilns (including associated alkali bypass and clinker cooler) that are major sources as defined in §63.2 of this chapter and that are subject to the 10 percent opacity limit must follow the appropriate monitoring procedures in §63.1350(f), (m)(1)through(m)(4), (m)(10) through (11), (o), and (p) of this chapter. (4) [Reserved] (c) Calculate and record the rolling 30 kiln operating day average emission rate daily of NOx and SO 2 according to the procedures in paragraphs (i) through (iv) of this section. (i) Calculate the rolling 30 kiln operating day average emissions according to equation 3:



# 

 

###  n

i i

i i D 

### P

Q C n k E 1 

### / ) ( 1 (Eq. 3)

Where:Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. Page **157** of **231** E 30D = 30 kiln operating day average emission rate of NO X or SO 2 , lb/ton of clinker; C i = concentration of NO X or SO 2 for hour i, ppm; Q i = volumetric flow rate of effluent gas for hour i, where C i and Q i are on the same basis (either wet or dry), scf/hr; P i = total kiln clinker produced during production hour i, ton/hr; and k = conversion factor, 1.194 x 10 - 7 for NO X and 1.660 x 10 - 7 for S O 2. n = number of kiln operating hours over 30 kiln operating days, n = 1 to 720. (ii) [Reserved] (iii) For each kiln operating hour for which you do not have at least one valid 15
-minute CEMS data value, use the average emissions rate (lb/hr) from the most recent previous hour for which valid data are available . (d) (1) Within 60 days after the date of completing each performance test(see §60.8) as required by this subpart you must submit the results of the performance tests conducted to demonstrate compliance under this subpart to EPA’s WebFIRE database by using the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI) that is accessed through EPA’s Central Data Exchange (CDX)(www.epa.gov/cdx). Performance test data must be submitted in the file format generated through use of EPA’s Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) (see http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/index.html ) . Only dataInteragency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. Page **158** of **231** collected using test methods on the ERT website are subject to this requirement for submitting reports electronically to WebFIRE . Owners or operators who claim that some of the information being submitted for performance tests is confidential business information (CBI) must submit a complete ERT file including information claimed to be CBI on a compact disk or other commonly used e lectronic storage media (including, but not limited to, flash drives) to EPA. The electronic media must be clearly marked as CBI and mailed to U.S. EPA/OAPQS/CORE CBI Office, Attention: WebFIRE Administrator, MD C404
- 02, 4930 Old Page Rd., Durham, NC 277 03. The same ERT file with the CBI omitted must be submitted to EPA via CDX as described earlier in this paragraph. At the discretion of the delegated authority, you must also submit these reports, including the confidential business information, to the de legated authority in the format specified by the delegated authority. (2) Within 60 days after the date of completing each CEMS performance evaluation test (see §60.13), you must submit the relative accuracy test audit data electronically into EPA’s Centra l Data Exchange by using the Electronic Reporting Tool as mentioned in paragraph (d)(1) of thisInteragency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. Page **159** of **231** section. Only data collected using test methods compatible with ERT are subject to this requirement to be submitted electronically to EPA’s CDX. (3) All reports required by this subpart not subject to the requirements in paragraphs (d)(1) and (2) of this section must be sent to the Administrator at the appropriate address listed in §63.13. The Administrator or the delegated authority may request a report in any f orm suitable for the specific case (e.g., by commonly used electronic media such as Excel spreadsheet, on CD or hard copy). The Administrator retains the right to require submittal of reports subject to paragraph (d)(1) and (2) of this section in paper format. 7. Section 60.65 is revised to read as follows: **§60.65 Recordkeeping and reporting requirements.** (a) Each owner or operator required to install a CPMS or CEMS under sections §60.63(c)
- (e) shall submit reports of excess emissions. The content of these reports must comply with the requirements in §60.7(c). Notwithstanding the provisions of §60.7(c), such reports shall be submitted semiannually. (b) [Reserved]Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. Page **160** of **231** (c) Each owner or operator of facilities subject to the provisions of §60.63(c)
- (e) shall submi t semiannual reports of the malfunction information required to be recorded by §60.7(b). These reports shall include the frequency, duration, and cause of any incident resulting in deenergization of any device controlling kiln emissions or in the venting o f emissions directly to the atmosphere. (d) The requirements of this section remain in force until and unless the Agency, in delegating enforcement authority to a State under section 111(c) of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7411, approves reporting requireme nts or an alternative means of compliance surveillance adopted by such States. In that event, affected sources within the State will be relieved of the obligation to comply with this section, provided that they comply with the requirements established by t he State. 8. Section 60.66 is amended by revising paragraph (b) introductory text to read as follows: **§60.66 Delegation of authority** . * * * * * (b) In delegating implementation and enforcement authority to a State, local, or tribal agency, the approval authorities contained in paragraphs (b)(1) through (4) ofInteragency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. Page **161** of **231** this section are retained by the Administrator of the U.S EPA and are not transferred to the State, local, or tribal agency. * * * * * **PART 63 --**  **[AMENDED]** 9. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows: **Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et**  **seq .**  10 . Section 63.14 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(54) to read as follows: **§63.14 Incorporations by reference** . * * * * * (b) * * * (54) ASTM D6348

– 03, Standard Test Method for Determination of Gaseous Compounds by Extractive Direct Interface Fourier Transform Infrared (FTIR) Spectroscopy, incorporation by reference (IBR ) approved for §63.1349(b)(4)(ii) of subpart LLL and table 4 to subpart DDDD of this part as specified in the subpart. * * * * * **Subpart LLL**

**— [Amended]**  11. Section 63.1340 is amended byInteragency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. Page **162** of **231**

a . Revising paragraphs (b)(6) through (b)(9); and b . Revising paragraph (c) to read as follows: **§63.1340 What parts of my plant does this subpart cover?** * * * * * (b) * * * (6) Each raw material, clinker, or finished product storage bin at any portland cement plant that is a major source; (7) Each conveying system transfer point including those associated with coal preparation used to convey coal from the mill to the kiln at any portland cement plant that is a major source; (8) Each bagging and bulk loading and unloading system at any portland cement plant that is a major source; and (9) Each open clinker storage pile at any portland cement plant. (c) Onsite sources that are subject to standards for nonmetallic mineral processing plants in subpart OOO, part 60 of this chapter are not subject to this subpa rt. Crushers are not covered by this subpart regardless of their location. * * * * * 12. Section 63.1341 is amended by:Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. Page **163** of **231**

a . Deleting definitions of “Enclosed storage pile,” and “Inactive clinker pile;” b . Adding a definition for “In
- line coal mill,” a nd “Startup and shutdown;” and
c . Revising definitions for “Kiln,” “New source,” “Operating day,” “Raw material dryer,” and “Total organic HAP,” in alphabetic order to read as follows: **§63.1341 Definitions.** * * * * * In - line coal mill means those coal mills using kiln exhaust gases in their process. Coal mills with a heat source other than the kiln or coal mills using exhaust gases from the clinker cooler are not an in
- line coal mill. * * * * * Kiln means a device, including any as sociated preheater or precalciner devices, inline raw mills, inline coal mills or alkali bypasses that produces clinker by heating limestone and other materials for subsequent production of portland cement . Because the inline raw mill and inline coal mill are considered an integral part of the kiln, for purposes of determining the appropriate emissions limit, the term kiln also applies to the exhaust of the inline raw mill and the inline coal mill.Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. Page **164** of **231** * * * * * New source means any source that commenced construction after May 6, 2009, for purposes of determining the applicability of the kiln, clinker cooler and raw material dryer emissions limits for mercury, PM, THC, and HCl. * * * * * Open clinker storage pile means any clinker storage pile that is not completely enclosed in a building or structure. Operating day means any 24
- hour period beginning at 12:00 midnight during which the kiln operates for any time. For calculating the rolling 30
- day average emissions, kiln operating days do not include the hours of operation during startup or shutdown . * * * * * Raw material dryer means an impact dryer, drum dryer, paddle
- equipped rapid dryer, air separator, or other equipment used to reduce the moisture content of feed or other materials. * * * * * Startup and shutdown means the periods of kiln operation that do not include normal operations . Startup begins when the kiln’s induced fan is turned on and continues until continuous feed is introduced into theInteragency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

kiln, at which time the kiln is in normal operating mode Shutdown begins when feed to the kiln is halted. * * * * * Total organic HAP means, for the purposes of this subpart, the sum of the concentrations of compounds of formaldehyde, benzene, toluene, styrene acetaldehyde, and naphthalene as measured by EPA Test Method 320 or Method 18 of appendix A to this part or ASTM D6348
- 03 13 or a combination of these methods, as appropriate. If measurement results for any pollutant are repor ted as below the method detection level (e.g., laboratory analytical results for one or more sample components are below the method defined analytical detection level), you must use the method detection level as the measured emissions level for that pollut calculating the total organic HAP value. The measured

13 When using ASTM D6348 (1) The test plan preparation and implementation in the Annexes to ASTM D6348 Sections A1 through A8 are mandatory; (2 Spiking Technique), the percent (%) R must be determined for each target anal yte (see Equation A5.5); (3) For the ASTM D6348 analyte, %R must be 70 % ≥ R ≤ 130%; and (4) The % be reported in the test report and all field measurements corrected with the calculated %R value for that compound using the following equation: agency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563

Subject to Further Policy

Review. Page **165** of **231** which time the kiln is in normal operating mode Shutdown begins when feed to the kiln is halted.
means, for the purposes of this subpart, the sum of the concentrations of compounds of formaldehyde, benzene, toluene, styrene , m- xylene, p
- xylene, o
- xylene, acetaldehyde, and naphthalene as measured by EPA Test Method 320 or Method 18 of appendix A to this part or ASTM

or a combination of these methods, as appropriate. If measurement results for any pollutant are ted as below the method detection level (e.g., laboratory analytical results for one or more sample components are below the method defined analytical detection level), you must use the method detection level as the measured emissions level for that pollut ant in calculating the total organic HAP value. The measured

When using ASTM D6348

-03, the following conditions must be met: (1) The test plan preparation and implementation in the Annexes to ASTM D6348 Sections A1 through A8 are mandatory; (2 ) For ASTM D6348

-03 Annex A5 (Analyte Spiking Technique), the percent (%) R must be determined for each target anal yte (see Equation A5.5); (3) For the ASTM D6348

-03 test data to be acceptable for a target ≥ R ≤ 130%; and (4) The %R value for each compound must be reported in the test report and all field measurements corrected with the calculated %R value for that compound using the following equation: agency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563

which time the kiln is in normal operating mode .

means, for the purposes of this subpart, the sum of the concentrations of compounds of formaldehyde, xylene, acetaldehyde, and naphthalene as measured by EPA Test Method 320 or Method 18 of appendix A to this part or ASTM
appropriate. If measurement results for any pollutant are ted as below the method detection level (e.g., laboratory analytical results for one or more sample
detection level), you must use the method detection level ant in calculating the total organic HAP value. The measured

(1) The test plan preparation and implementation in the Annexes to ASTM D6348

-03, 03 Annex A5 (Analyte Spiking Technique), the percent (%) R must be determined for each target anal yte (see 03 test data to be acceptable for a target

R value for each compound must be reported in the test report and all field measurements corrected with the calculated %RInteragency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. Page **166** of **231** result for a multiple component analysis (e.g., analytical values for multiple Method 18 fractions ) may include a combination of method detection level data and analytical data reported above the method detection level. The owner or operator of an affected source may request the use of other test methods to make this determination under paragraphs 63.7(e)(2)(ii) and (f) of this part. * * * * * 13 . Section 63.1343 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) through (e) to read as follows: **§63.1343 What Standards Apply to my Kilns, Clinker Coolers, Raw Material Dryers, and Open Clinker Piles?**  (a) General . The provisions in this section apply to each kiln and any alkali bypass associated with that kil n, clinker cooler, and raw material dryer. All D/F, HCl, and total hydrocarbon (THC) emissions limit are on a dry basis. The D/F, HCl, and THC limits for kilns are corrected to 7 percent oxygen. All THC emissions limits are measured as propane. Standards f or mercury and THC are based on a rolling 30
- day average. If using a CEMS to determine compliance with the HCl standard, this standard is based on a rolling 30
- day average. You must ensure appropriate corrections for moisture are made when measuring flow r atesInteragency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. Page **167** of **231** used to calculate particulate matter (PM) and mercury emissions. The 30
- day period means 30 consecutive kiln operating days excluding periods of startup and shutdown. (b) Kilns, clinker coolers, raw material dryers, raw mills, and finish mills . (1) The emissions limits for these sources are shown in Table 1 below. PM limits for existing kilns also apply to kilns that have undergone a modification as defined in subpart A of part 60 of title 40.DRAFT

– DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

– 1/6/12 Page **168** of **231**

Table 1 . Emissions Limits for Kilns, Clin ker Coolers, Raw Material Dryers, Raw and Finish Mills. If your source is a (an): And the

operatin g mode is: And if

is locate d at a: Your

emissions limits are: And the

units of the emission s limit are: The

oxygen correctio n factor is: 1. Existin g kiln Normal

operatio n Major

or area source PM 1 7.0*10 - 2

D/F 2 2.0*10 - 1 Mercury 55 THC 3,4 24 lb/ton

clinker ng/dscm lb/MM tons clinker ppmvd NA

7 percent NA 7 percent
2. Existin g kiln Normal

operatio n Major

source HCl 3 ppmvd 7 percent
3. Existin g kiln Startup

and shutdown Major

or area source PM 4.0x10
- 3

D/F 2.0x10

- 1 Mercury 10 THC 24 gr/dscf

ng/dscm (TEQ) ug/dscm ppmvd NA

NA NA NA 4. Existin g kiln Startup

and shutdown Major

source HCl 3.0 ppmvd NA
5 . New kiln Normal

operatio n Major

or area source PM 2.0*10 - 2

D/F 1 2.0*10 - 1 Mercury 21 THC 3,4 24 lb/ton

clinker ng/dscm lb/MM tons clinker ppmvd NA

7 percent NA 7 percent
6 . New kiln Normal

operatio n Major

source HCl 3 ppmvd 7 percent

7 . New kiln Startup

and shutdown Major

or area source PM 8.0x10
- 4

D/F 2.0x10

- 1 Mercury 4.0 THC 24 gr/dscf

ng/dscm (TEQ) ug/dscm ppmvd NA

NA NA NA 8. New Startup Major HCl 3.0 ppmvd NAInteragency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. Page **169** of **231** kiln and

shutdown source 9 . Existin g clinker cooler Normal

operatio n Major

or area source PM 7.0*10 - 2 lb/ton clinker NA

10

. Existin g clinker cooler Startup

and shutdown Major

or area source PM 4.0x10
- 3 Gr/dscf NA

11

. New clinker cooler Normal

operatio n Major

or area source PM 2.0*10 - 2 lb/ton clinker NA

12

. New clinker cooler Startup

and shutdown Major

or area source PM 8.0x10
- 4 Gr/dscf NA

13

. Existin g or new raw materia l dryer Normal

operatio n Major

or area source THC 3,4 24 ppmvd 19 percent

14

. Existin g or new raw materia l dryer Startup

and shutdown Major

or area source THC 24 ppmvd NA

1 5

. Existin g or new raw or finish mill All

operatin g modes Major

source Opacity 10 percent NA

11

. Open clinker storage piles All

operatin g modes Major

or area source Work

practices (63.1343(c) ) NA NA

1 The initial and subsequent PM performance tests are performed using Method 5 and consists of three 1
- hr tests. 2 If the average temperature at the inlet to the first particulate matter control device (fabric filter orInteragency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. Page **170** of **231** electrostatic precipitator) during the D/F performance test is 400 o F or less this limit is changed to 0.04 ng/dscm. 3 Measured as propane. 4 Any source subject to the 24 ppmvd THC limit may elect to meet an alternative limit of 12 ppmvd for total organic HAP . (2) When there is an alkali bypass associated with a kiln, the combined PM emissions from the kiln and the alkali bypass stack are subject to the PM emissions limit. Existing kilns that combine the clinker cooler exhaust and/or coal mill with the kiln exhaust for energy efficiency purposes and send the combined exhaust to the PM control device as a single stream may meet an alternative PM emissions limit. This limit is calculated using equation 1 of this section: PM alt = (0.006 x 1.65)(Q k + Q c + Q ab + Q cm )/(7000 x 2000) (Eq. 1) Where: PMalt = alternative PM emission limit for commingled sources. 0.006 is the PM exhaust concentration (gr/dscf) equivalent to 0.07 lb per ton clinker where clinker cooler and kiln exhaust gas are not combined. 1.65 is the conversion factor of lb feed per lb clinker Qk is the exhaust flow of the kiln (dscf/ton raw feed) Qc is the exhaust flow of the clinker cooler (dscf/ton feed). Qab is the exhaust flow of the alkali bypass (dscf/ton feed). Qcm is the exhaust flow of the coal mill (dscf/ton feed). 7000 is the conversion factor for gr per lb. 2000 is the conversion factor for lb per ton. For new kilns that combine kiln exhaust and clinker cooler gas the limit is calculated using the equation 2 of this section: PMalt = (0.002 x 1.65)(Q k + Q c + Q ab + Q cm )/(7000 x 2000)(Eq. 2)Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. Page **171** of **231** Where: PMalt = alternative PM emission limit for commingled sources. 0.002 is the PM exhaust concentration (gr/dscf) equivalent to 0.02 lb per ton clinker where clinker cooler and kiln exhaust ga s are not combined1.65 is the conversion factor of lb feed per lb clinker Qk is the exhaust flow of the kiln (dscf/ton feed) Qc is the exhaust flow of the clinker cooler (dscf/ton feed). Qab is the exhaust flow of the alkali bypass (dscf/ton feed). Qcm is the exhaust flow of the coal mill (dscf/ton feed). 7000 is the conversion factor for gr per lb. 2000 is the conversion factor for lb per ton. (c) Open Clinker Piles. The owner or operator of an open clinker pile must prepare and operate in accordance with the fugitive dust emissions control measures, described in their operation and maintenance plan (see §63.1347 of this subpart), that is appropriate for the site cond itions as specified in paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of this paragraph. (1) The operations and maintenance plan must identify and describe the fugitive dust emissions control measures the owner or operator will use to minimize fugitive dust emissions from
eac h open clinker storage pile. (2) For open clinker storage piles, the operations and maintenance plan must specify that one or more of the following control measures will be used to minimize to the greatest extent practicable fugitive dust from open clinke r storage piles: Locating the source inside a partial enclosure, installing and operating a water spray or fogging system, applying appropriateInteragency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. Page **172** of **231** chemical dust suppression agents on the source, use of a wind barrier, compaction, or use of a vegetative cover. The owner or operator must select, for inclusion in the operations and maintenance plan, the fugitive dust control measure or measures listed in this paragraph that are most appropriate for site conditions. The plan must also explain how the measure or
me asures selected are applicable and appropriate for site conditions. In addition, the plan must be revised as needed to reflect any changing conditions at the source. (d) [Reserved] (e) Emission limits in effect prior to September 9, 2010. Any source defi ned as an existing source in §63.1351, and that was subject to a PM, mercury, THC, D/F, or opacity emissions limit prior to September 9, 2010, must continue to meet the limits shown in Table 2 to this section until September 9, 2015. * * * * * 14 . Section 63.1344 is amended by revising the section heading and revising the section to read as follows: **§63.1344 Affirmative defense for violation of emissions limit**  **during malfunction .**  In response to an action to enforce the standards set forth in parag raph §63.1343(b) you may assert an affirmative defense to a claim for civil penalties for violations of such standardsInteragency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. Page **173** of **231** that are caused by malfunction, as defined at 40 CFR 63.2. Appropriate penalties may be assessed, however, if the respondent fails to mee t its burden of proving all of the requirements in the affirmative defense. The affirmative defense shall not be available for claims for injunctive relief. (a) To establish the affirmative defense in any action to enforce such a standard, you must timely meet the notification requirements in paragraph (b) of this section, and must prove by a preponderance of evidence that: (1) The violation: (i) Was caused by a sudden, infrequent, and unavoidable failure of air pollution control and monitoring equipment, process equipment, or a process to operate in a normal or usual manner, and (ii) Could not have been prevented through careful planning, proper design or better operation and maintenance practices; and
ee (iv) Was not part of a recurring pattern indicative of inadequate design, operation, or maintenance; and (2) Repairs were made as expeditiously as possible when a violation occurred. Off
- shift and overtime labor were used, to the extent practicable to make these repairs; andInteragency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. Page **174** of **231** (3) The frequency, amount and duration of the violation (including any bypass) were minimized to the maximum extent practicable; and (4) If the violation resulted from a bypass of control equipment or a process, then the bypass was unavoidable to prevent loss of life, personal injury, or severe property damage; and (5) All possible steps were taken to minimize the impact of the violation on ambient air quality, the environment and human health; and (6) All emissions monitoring and control systems were kept in operation if at all possibl e consistent with safety and good air pollution control practices; and (7) Your actions in response to the violation were documented by properly signed, contemporaneous operating logs; and (8) At all times, the affected source was operated in a
manner con sistent with good air pollution control practice for minimizing emissions; and (9) A written root cause analysis has been prepared, the purpose of which is to determine, correct, and eliminate the primary causes of the malfunction and the violation resulti ng from the malfunction event at issue. The analysis shall alsoInteragency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. Page **175** of **231** specify, using best monitoring methods and engineering judgment, the amount of any emissions that were the result of the malfunction . (b) Report. The owner or operator seeking to assert an affirmative defense shall submit a written report to the Administrator with all necessary supporting documentation, that it has met the requirements set forth in paragraph (a) of this section. This aff irmative defense report shall be included in the first periodic compliance, deviation report or excess emission report otherwise required after the initial occurrence of the violation of the relevant standard (which may be the end of any applicable averagi ng period). If such compliance, deviation report or excess emission report is due less than 45 days after the initial occurrence of the violation, the affirmative defense report may be included in the second compliance, deviation report or excess emission report due after the initial occurrence of the violation of the relevant standard. 15 . Section 63.1345 is amended by revising the section heading and revising the section to read as follows: **§63.1345 Emissions limits for affected sources other than**  **kilns ; clinker coolers; new and reconstructed raw material**  **dryers; and open clinker piles.**Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. Page **176** of **231** The owner or operator of each new or existing raw material, clinker, or finished product storage bin; conveying system transfer point; bagging system; bulk loading or unl oading system; raw and finish mills; and each existing raw material dryer, at a facility which is a major source subject to the provisions of this subpart must not cause to be discharged any gases from these affected sources which exhibit opacity in
excess of 10 percent. 16 . Section 63.1346 is amended by:
a . Revising paragraph (a) introductory text; b . Revising paragraph (a)(1) ; and
c . Revising paragraphs (c)through (f) to read as follows: **§63.1346 Operating limits for kilns.** (a) The owner or operator of a kiln subject to a D/F emissions limitation under §63.1343 must operate the kiln such that the temperature of the gas at the inlet to the kiln particulate matter control device (PMCD) and alkali bypass PMCD, if applicable, does not exceed the applicable temperature limit specified in paragraph (b) of this section. The owner or operator of an in
- line kiln/raw mill subject to a D/F emissions limitation under §63.1343 must operate the in
- line kiln/raw mill, such that:Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. Page **177** of **231** (1) When the raw mill of the in
- line kil n/raw mill is operating, the applicable temperature limit for the main in
- line kiln/raw mill exhaust, specified in paragraph (b) of this section and established during the performance test when the raw mill was operating, is not exceeded, except during per iods of startup/shutdown when the temperature limit may be exceeded by no more than 10 percent. * * * * * (c) For an affected source subject to a D/F emissions limitation under §63.1343 that employs sorbent injection as an emission control technique you must operate the sorbent injection system in accordance with paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of this section. (1) The rolling three
- hour average activated sorbent injection rate must be equal to or greater than the sorbent injection rate determined in accordance with §63.1349(b)(3)(vi). (2) You must either: (i) Maintain the minimum activated carbon injection carrier gas flow rate, as a rolling three
- hour average, based on the manufacturer's specifications. These specifications must be documented in the test plan developed in accordance with §63.7(c), orInteragency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. Page **178** of **231** (ii) Maintain the minimum activated carbon injection carrier gas pressure drop, as a rolling three
- hour average, based on the manufacturer's specifications. These specifications must be documented in the test plan developed in accordance with §63.7(c). (d) Except as provided in paragraph (e) of this section, for an affected source subject to a D/F emissions limitation under §63.1343 that employs carbon injection as an emission control technique you must s pecify and use the brand and type of sorbent used during the performance test until a subsequent performance test is conducted, unless the site
- specific performance test plan contains documentation of key parameters that affect adsorption and the owner or operator establishes limits based on those parameters, and the limits on these parameters are maintained. (e) For an affected source subject to a D/F emissions limitation under §63.1343 that employs carbon injection as an emission control technique you ma y substitute, at any time, a different brand or type of sorbent provided that the replacement has equivalent or improved properties compared to the sorbent specified in the site
- specific performance test plan and used in the performance test. The owner or operator must maintainInteragency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. Page **179** of **231** documentation that the substitute sorbent will provide the same or better level of control as the original sorbent. (f) No kiln may use as a raw material or fuel any fly ash where the mercury content of the fly ash has been increased through the use of activated carbon, or any other sorbent, unless the facility can demonstrate that the use of that fly ash will not result in an increase in mercury emissions over baseline emissions (i.e., emissions not using the fly ash). The facility h as the burden of proving there has been no emissions increase over baseline. Once the kiln must comply with a mercury emissions limit specified in §63.1343, this paragraph no longer applies. 17 . Section 63.1347 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(1) to read as follows: **§63.1347 Operation and Maintenance Plan Requirements.** (a) * * * (1) Procedures for proper operation and maintenance of the affected source and air pollution control devices in order to meet the emissions limits and operating limits, in cluding fugitive dust control measures for open clinker piles, of §§63.1343 through 63.1348. Your operation and maintenance plan must address periods of startup and shutdown; * * * * *Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. Page **180** of **231** 18 . Section 63.1348 is amended by:
a . Revising paragraph (a) intro ductory text;
e . Removing paragraphs (a)(1)(i) and (ii);
c . Revising paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(6); d . Revising paragraph (b); and
e . Revising paragraph (c)(2)(iv) to read as follows: **§63.1348 Compliance Requirements.** (a) Initial Performance Test Requirements . For an affected source subject to this subpart, you must demonstrate compliance with the emissions standards and operating limits by using the test methods and procedures in §§63.1349 and 63.7. NOTE: The first day of the 30 operating day perf ormance test is the first day following completion of the field testing and data collection that demonstrates that the CPMS or CEMS has satisfied the relevant CPMS performance evaluation or CEMS performance specification (e.g., PS 2, 12A, or 12B) acceptanc e criteria. The performance test period is complete at the end of the 30 th consecutive operating day. See §63.1341 for definition of operating day and §63.1348(b)(1) for the CEMS operating requirements. (1) PM Compliance . If you are subject to limitations on PM emissions under §63.1343(b), you must demonstrate complianceInteragency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. Page **181** of **231** with the PM emissions standards by using the test methods and procedures in §63.1349(b)(1) . (2) Opacity Compliance . If you are subject to the limitations on opacity under §63.1345, you mus t demonstrate compliance with the opacity emissions standards by using the performance test methods and procedures in §63.1349(b)(2). Use the maximum 6
-minute average opacity exhibited during the performance test period to determine whether the affected so urce is in compliance with the standard. (3) D/F Compliance . (i) If you are subject to limitations on D/F emissions under §63.1343(b), you must demonstrate compliance with the D/F emissions standards by using the performance test methods and procedures in §63.1349(b)(3). The owner or operator of a kiln with an in
- line raw mill must demonstrate compliance by conducting separate performance tests while the raw mill is operating and while the raw mill is not operating. Determine the D/F concentration for each run and calculate the arithmetic average of the concentrations measured for the three runs to determine continuous compliance. (ii) If you are subject to a D/F emissions limitation under §63.1343(b), you must demonstrate compliance with the temperature op erating limits specified in §63.1346 by using theInteragency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. Page **182** of **231** performance test methods and procedures in §63.1349(b)(3)(ii) through (b)(3)(iv). Use the arithmetic average of the temperatures measured during the three runs to determine the applicable temperature limit. (iii) If activated carbon injection is used and you are subject to a D/F emissions limitation under §63.1343(b), you must demonstrate compliance with the activated carbon injection rate operating limits specified in §63.1346 by using the performance test methods and procedures in §63.1349(b)(3)(v). The average of the run injection rates will determine the applicable injection rate limit.

(iv) If activated carbon injection is used, you must also develop a carrier gas parameter (either the carrier gas flow r ate or the carrier gas pressure drop) during the initial and updated during any subsequent performance test conducted under §63.1349(b)(3) that meets the requirements of §63.1349(b)(3)(vi). Compliance is demonstrated if the system is maintained within +/

- 5 percent accuracy during the performance test determined in accordance with the procedures and criteria submitted for review in your monitoring plan required in section 63.1350(p).

(4)(i) THC Compliance . (A) If you are subject to limitations on THC emissions under §63.1343(b), you must demonstrate compliance with the THC emissions standards by using the performance test methods and procedures in §63.1349(b)(4)(i). You must use the average THC concentration obtained during the first 30 kiln operating days after the compliance date of this rule to determine initial compliance.

(B) For sources equipped with an alkali bypass stack or that exhaust kiln gases to a coal mill that exhausts through a separate stack, instead of installing a CEMS,Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. Page **183** of **231** you may use t he results of the initial and subsequent performance test to demonstrate compliance with the THC emissions limit.

(ii) Total Organic HAP Emissions Tests . If you elect to demonstrate compliance with the total organic HAP emissions limit under §63.1343(b) i n lieu of the THC emissions limit, you must demonstrate compliance with the total organic HAP emissions standards by using the performance test methods and procedures in §63.1349(b)(4)(iii) and (b)(4)(iv) .

(iii) If you are demonstrating initial compliance , you must conduct the separate performance tests as specified in §63.1349(b)(4)(iii) while the raw mill kiln is operating and while the raw mill of the kiln is not operating. (iv) The average total organic HAP concentration measured during the separate in itial performance test specified by §63.1349(b)(4)(iii) must be used to determine initial compliance. (v) The average THC concentration measured during the initial performance test specified by §63.1349(b)(4)(iv) must be used to determine the site
- specific THC limit. Using the fraction of time the raw mill is on and the fraction of time that the raw mill is off, calculate this limit as a weighted average of the THC levels measured during raw mill on and raw mill off testing. (5) Mercury Compliance . If you a re subject to limitations on mercury emissions in §63.1343(b), you must demonstrate compliance with the mercury standards by using the performance test methods and procedures in §63.1349(b)(5). You mustInteragency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. Page **184** of **231** demonstrate compliance by operating a mercury CEMS or a sorbent trap based CEMS. Compliance with the mercury emissions standard must be determined based on the first 30 operating days you operate a mercury CEMS after the compliance date of this rule. In calculating a 30 operating day emissions value using an integrating sorbent trap CEMS, assign the average Hg emissions concentration determined for an integrating period (e.g., 7 day sorbent trap sample) to each relevant hour of the kiln operating days spanned by each integrated sample. Calculate the 30 kiln
operating day emissions rate value using the assigned hourly Hg emissions concentrations and the respective flow and production rate values collected during the 30 kiln operating day performance test period. Depending on the duration of each integrated samp ling period, you may not be able to calculate the 30 kiln operating day emissions value until several days after the end of the 30 kiln operating day performance test period . For example, a sorbent trap CEMS producing an integrated 7
- day sample will provi de Hg concentration data for each hour of the first 28 kiln operating days (i.e., four values spanning 7 days each) of a 30 operating day period. The Hg concentration values for the hours of the last 2 days of the 30 operating day period will not be available for calculating the emissions forInteragency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. Page **185** of **231** the performance test period until at least five days after the end of the subject period. (6) HCl Compliance . If you are subject to limitations on HCl emissions under §63.1343(b), you must demonstrate initial compliance with the HCl standards by using the performance test methods and procedures in §63.1349(b)(6) . (i) For an affected source that is equipped with a wet scrubber, tray tower or dry scrubbe r, you must demonstrate initial compliance by conducting a performance test as specified in §63.1349(b)(6)(i). You must determine the HCl concentration for each run and calculate the arithmetic average of the concentrations measured for the three runs to determine compliance. You must also have established appropriate site
specific operational parameter limits. (ii) For an affected source that is not equipped with a wet scrubber, tray tower or dry scrubber, you must demonstrate initial compliance by operati ng a CEMS as specified in §63.1349(b)(6)(ii). You must use the average of the hourly HCl concentration obtained during the first 30 kiln operating days that occur after the compliance date of this rule to determine initial compliance. (iii) For sources equ ipped with an alkali bypass stack or that exhaust kiln gases to a coal mill that exhausts through aInteragency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. Page **186** of **231** separate stack, instead of installing a CEMS, you may use the results of the initial and subsequent performance test to demonstrate compliance with the HCl emissions limit. (iv) As an alternative to paragraph (i), you may use an SO 2 CEMS to establish an SO 2 operating level during your initial and repeat HCl performance tests as specified in §63.1349(b)(6)(iii). (b) Continuous Monitoring Requirements . You must demonstrate compliance with the emissions standards and operating limits by using the performance test methods and procedures in §§63.1350 and 63.8 for each affected source. (1) General Requirements . (i) You must monitor and collect data according to §63 .1350 and the site
- specific monitoring plan required by §63.1350(p). (ii) Except for periods of monitoring system malfunctions, repairs associated with monitoring system malfunctions, and required monitoring system quality assurance or quality control acti vities (including, as applicable, calibration checks and required zero and span adjustments), you must operate the monitoring system and collect data at all required intervals at all times the affected source is operating . (iii) You may not use data recor ded during monitoring system malfunctions, repairs associated with monitoring systemInteragency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. Page **187** of **231** malfunctions, or required monitoring system quality assurance or control activities in calculations used to report emissions or operating levels. A monitoring system malfu nction is any sudden, infrequent, not reasonably preventable failure of the monitoring system to provide valid data. Monitoring system failures that are caused in part by poor maintenance or careless operation are not malfunctions. You must use all the dat a collected during all other periods in assessing the operation of the control device and associated control system. (iv) Clinker Production . If you are subject to limitations on PM emissions (lb/ton of clinker) or mercury (lb/MM tons of clinker) under §63 .1343(b), you must determine the hourly production rate of clinker according to the requirements of §63.1350(d). (2) PM Compliance . If you are subject to limitations on PM emissions under §63.1343(b), you must use the monitoring methods and procedures in § 63.1350(b) and (d) . (3) Opacity Compliance . If you are subject to the limitations on opacity under §63.1345, you must demonstrate compliance using the monitoring methods and procedures in §63.1350(f) based on the maximum 6
-minute average opacity exhibited during the performance test period. You must initiateInteragency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. Page **188** of **231** corrective actions d within one hour of detecting visible emissions above the applicable limit. (i) [Reserved] (ii) COMS . If you install a COMS in lieu of conducting the daily visible emissions testing , you must demonstrate compliance using a COMS such that it is installed, operated, and maintained in accordance with the requirements of §63.1350(f)(4)(i). (iii) Bag leak determination system ( BLDS) . If you install a BLDS on a raw mill or finish mill in l ieu of conducting the daily visible emissions testing, you must demonstrate compliance using a BLDS that is installed, operated, and maintained in accordance with the requirements of §63.1350(f)(4)(ii). (4) D/F Compliance . If you are subject to a D/F emiss ions limitation under §63.1343(b), you must demonstrate compliance using a CMS that is installed, operated and maintained to record the temperature of specified gas streams in accordance with the requirements of §63.1350(g). (5)(i) Activated Carbon Inject ion Compliance . If you use activated carbon injection to comply with the a D/F emissions limitation under §63.1343(b), you must demonstrate compliance using a CMS that is installed, operated, and maintained to record the rate of activated carbon injection in accordance with the requirements §63.1350(h)(1) .Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. Page **189** of **231** (ii) If you use activated carbon injection to comply with the D/F emissions limitation under §63.1343(b), you must demonstrate compliance using a CMS that is installed, operated and maintained to record the activated carbon injection system gas parameter in accordance with the requirements §63.1350(h)(2) . (6) THC Compliance . (i) If you are subject to limitations on THC emissions under §63.1343(b), you must demonstrate compliance using the monitoring methods and procedures in §63.1350 (i) and (j) . (ii) For sources equipped with an alkali bypass stack or that exhaust kiln gases to a coal mill that exhausts through a separate stack, instead of installing a CEMS, you may use the results of the initial an d subsequent performance test to demonstrate compliance with the THC emissions limit. THC must be measured upstream of the coal mill. (7) Mercury Compliance . If you are subject to limitations on mercury emissions in §63.1343(b), you must demonstrate compli ance using the monitoring methods and procedures in §63.1350(k). If you use an integrated sorbent trap Hg CEMS to determine ongoing compliance, use the procedures described in §63.1348(a)(5) to assign hourly mercury concentration values andInteragency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. Page **190** of **231** to calculate rolling 30 operating data emissions rates. Since you assign the mercury concentration measured with the sorbent trap to each relevant hour respectively for each operating day of the integrated period, you may schedule the sorbent change periods to any time of the day (i.e., the sorbent trap replacement need not be scheduled at 12:00 midnight nor must the sorbent trap replacements occur only at integral 24
- hour intervals). (8) HCl Compliance . If you are subject to limitations on HCl emissions under §63.1343( b), you must demonstrate compliance using the performance test methods and procedures in §63.1349(b)(6). (i) For an affected source that is not equipped with a wet scrubber, tray tower or a dry sorbent injection system, you must demonstrate compliance usi ng the monitoring methods and procedures in §63.1350(l)(1). (ii) For an affected source that is equipped with a wet scrubber, tray tower or a dry sorbent injection system, you must demonstrate compliance using the monitoring methods and procedures in §63. 1350(l)(2). (iii) For sources equipped with an alkali bypass stack or that exhaust kiln gases to a coal mill that exhausts through a separate stack, instead of installing a CEMS, you may use theInteragency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. Page **191** of **231** results of the initial and subsequent performance test to demonstrate compliance with the HCl emissions limit. (iv) As an alternative to paragraph (ii), you may use an SO 2 CEMS to establish an SO 2 operating level during your initial and repeat HCl performance tests and monitor the SO 2 level using the procedures in §63.1350(l)(3). (c) * * * * * (2) * * *

* * * * * 19 . Section 63.1349 is amended by:
a . Revising paragraph (a) introductory text; b . Revising paragraph (b)(1);
c . Revising paragraph (b)(3) introductory text; d . Revising paragraphs (b)(3)(v) and (b)(3)(vi);
e . Revising paragraphs (b)(4), (b)(5), and (b)(6); and f . Revising paragraphs (c), (d) and (e) to read as follows: **§63.1349 Performance testing requirements.** (a) You must document performance test results in complete test reports that contain the information required by paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(10) of this section, as well as all other relevant information. As described in § 63.7(c)(2)(i), you must make available to the Administrator prior to testing, ifInteragency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. Page **192** of **231** requested, the site
- specific test p lan to be followed during performance testing. * * * * * (b)(1) PM Emissions Tests . (i)(A) In using a PM CPMS to demonstrate compliance, you must establish your PM CPMS operating limit and determine compliance with it according to paragraphs (b)(1)(i)(B) through (D) and (b)(1)(iv) of this section. (B) During the initial performance test or any such subsequent performance test that demonstrates compliance with the PM limit, record all hourly average output values (e.g., milliamps, stack concen tration, or other raw data signal) from the PM CPMS for the periods corresponding to the test runs (e.g., three 1
- hour average PM OK CPMS output values for three 1
- hour test runs). (C) Determine your operating limit as the highest 1
- hour average PM CPMS o utput value recorded during the performance test. You must verify an existing or establish a new operating limit after each repeated performance test. If you elect to use a PM CPMS, you must repeat the performance test annually and reassess and adjust the site
- specific operating limit in accordance with the results of the performance test.Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. Page **193** of **231** (D) To determine continuous compliance, you must record the PM CPMS output data for all periods when the process is operating and the PM CPMS is not out
- of
- control. You must demonstrate continuous compliance by using all quality
- assured hourly average data collected by the PM CPMS for all operating hours to calculate the arithmetic average operating parameter in units of the operating limit (e.g., milliamps, PM concentrat ion, raw data signal) on a 30 operating day rolling average basis, updated at the end of each new kiln operating day. Use Equation 3 to determine the 30 kiln operating day average.



### n n Hpv i i 

### 

  1 

### day operating kiln 30 (Eq. 3) where: Hpvi is the hourly parameter valu e for hour i and n is the number of valid hourly parameter values collected over 30 kiln operating days. (ii) [Reserved] (iii) [Reserved] (iv) When there is an alkali bypass associated with a kiln, the main exhaust and alkali bypass of the kiln must be tested simultaneously and the combined emission rate of particulate matter from the kiln and alkali bypass must be computed for eachInteragency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. Page **194** of **231** run using equation 4 of this section. For purposes of calculating the combined kiln and alkali bypass emissions, you may u se the results of the initial and subsequent Method 5 performance test for the alkali bypass, instead of installing a CEMS, to demonstrate compliance with the PM emissions limit. (Eq. 4)

Where: E C= combined hourly emission rate of particulate matter from the kiln and bypass stack, lb/ton of kiln clinker production; E K= hourly emissions of particulate matter emissions from the kiln, lb; E B= hourly particulate matter emissions from the alkali bypass stack, lb P = hourly clinker production, tons.

* * * * * (3) D/F Emissions Tests . If you are subject to limitations on D/F emissions under this subpart, you must conduct a performance test using Method 23 of appendix A
- 7 to part 60 of this chapter. If your kiln or in
- line kiln/raw mill is equipped with an alkali bypass, you must condu ct simultaneous performance tests of the kiln or in
- line kiln/raw mill exhaust and the alkali bypass. You may conduct a performance test of the alkali P EC B

K E E  Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. Page **195** of **231** bypass exhaust when the raw mill of the in
- line kiln/raw mill is operating or not operating. * * * * * (v)(A) If sorbent injection is used for D/F control, you must record the rate of sorbent injection to the kiln exhaust, and where applicable, the rate of sorbent injection to the alkali bypass exhaust, continuously during the period of the Method 23 te st in accordance with the conditions in §63.1350(m)(9) , and include the continuous injection rate record(s) in the performance test report. Determine the sorbent injection rate parameters in accordance with paragraphs (b)(3)(vi) of this section. (B) Include the brand and type of sorbent used during the performance test in the performance test report. (C) Maintain a continuous record of either the carrier gas flow rate or the carrier gas pressure drop for the duration of the performance test . If the carrier gas flow rate is used, determine, record, and maintain a record of the accuracy of the carrier gas flow rate monitoring system according to the procedures in appendix A to part 75 of this chapter. If the carrier gas pressure drop is used, determine, record , and maintain a record of the accuracy of the carrier gas pressureInteragency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. Page **196** of **231** drop monitoring system according to the procedures in §63.1350(m)(6). (vi) Calculate the run average sorbent injection rate for each run and determine and include the average of the run
average injection rates in the performance test report and determine the applicable injection rate limit in accordance with §63.1346(c)(1). (4)(i) THC Emissions Test . (A) If you are subject to limitations on THC emissions, you must operate a continuous emi ssions monitoring system (CEMS) in accordance with the requirements in §63.1350(i). For the purposes of conducting the accuracy and quality assurance evaluations for CEMS, the THC span value (as propane) is 50 ppmvd and the reference method (RM) is Method 25A of appendix A to part 60 of this chapter. (B) Use the THC CEMS to conduct the initial compliance test for the first 30 kiln operating days of kiln operation after the compliance date of the rule. See 63.1348(a). (C) If kiln gases are diverted through an alkali bypass or to a coal mill and exhausted through a separate stack, you must calculate a kiln
- specific THC limit using equation 5:

= ( × ( )) ( × ) ( × ) (Eq. 5) Where:Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. Page **197** of **231**
Cks = Kiln stack concentration (ppmvd) Qab = Alkali bypass flow rate (volume/hr) Cab = Alkali bypass concentration (ppmvd) Qcm = Coal mill flow rate (volume /hr) Ccm = Coal mill concentration (ppmvd) Qks = Kiln stack flow rate (volume /hr)

(D) For sources equipped with an alkali bypass stack or that exhaust kiln gases to a coal mill that exhausts through a separate stack, instead of installing a CEMS, you may use the results of the initial and subsequent performance test to demonstrate compliance with the T HC emissions limit. THC must be measured upstream of the coal mill.

(ii) Total Organic HAP Emissions Tests . Instead of conducting the performance test specified in paragraph (b)(4)(i) of this section, you may conduct a performance test to determine emissi ons of total organic HAP by following the procedures in paragraphs (b)(4)(iii) through (b)(4)(iv) of this section. (iii) Use Method 320 or Method 18 of appendix A to this part, Method 18, ASTM D6348
- 03 or a combination to determine emissions of total organ ic HAP. Each performance test must consist of three separate runs under the conditions that exist when the affected source is operating at the representative performance conditions in accordance with §63.7(e). Each runInteragency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. Page **198** of **231** must be conducted for at least 1 hour . You must conduct the performance test while the raw mill of the kiln is operating and while the raw mill of the kiln is not operating. (iv) At the same time that you are conducting the performance test for total organic HAP, you must also determine a sit e - specific THC emissions limit by operating a CEMS in accordance with the requirements of §63.1350(j). The duration of the performance test must be 3 hours and the highest 1
- hour average THC concentration (as calculated from the 1
-minute averages) during t he 3
- hour test must be calculated. Using the fraction of time the raw mill is on and the fraction of time that the raw mill is off, calculate this limit as a weighted average of the THC levels measured during raw mill on and raw mill off testing. (v) You must repeat the performance test for organic HAP according to paragraph (b)(4)(iii) and (iv) of this section no later than 12 months after your last test to confirm compliance with the organic HAP emissions limit and to re
- establish your site
- specific THC emissions limit. (vi) If the THC level exceeds by 10 percent or more your site
- specific THC emissions limit, you must (A) as soon as possible but no later than 30 days after the exceedance, conduct an inspection and take corrective action toInteragency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. Page **199** of **231** return the THC CEMS measurements to within the established value; and (B) within 90 days of the exceedance or at the time of the annual compliance test, whichever comes first, conduct another performance test to determine compliance with the organic HAP limit and to ve rify or re
- establish your site
- specific THC emissions limit. (5) Mercury Emissions Tests . If you are subject to limitations on mercury emissions, you must operate a mercury CEMS in accordance with the requirements of §63.1350(k). The initial compliance test must be based on the first 30 kiln operating days in which the affected source operates using a mercury CEMS after the compliance date of the rule. See §63.1348(a) . (i) If you are using a mercury CEMS or a sorbent trap monitoring system, you must ins tall, operate, calibrate, and maintain an instrument for continuously measuring and recording the exhaust gas flow rate to the atmosphere according to the requirements in §63.1350(k)(5). (ii) Calculate the emission rate using the equations 6 of this sectio n: 

# 

 

###  n
i i i D 

### K

Q C n E 1 30 

### / 1 (Eq. 6)Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. Page **200** of **231** Where: E 30D = 30
- day rolling emission rate of mercury, lb/MM tons clinker; C i = concentration of mercury for operating hour i, μg/scm; Q i = volumetric flow rate of effluent gas for operating hour i, where C s and Q s are on the same basis (either wet or dry), scm/hr; K = conversion factor, 1 lb/454,000,000 μg; n = number of kiln operating hours in a 30 kiln operating day period, n = 1 to 720. (6) HCl Emissions Tests . For a source subject to limitations on HCl emissions you must conduct performance testing by one of the following methods: (i)(A) If the source is equipped with a wet scrubber, tray tower or dry scrubber, you must conduct performance testing using Method 321 of appendix A to this part unless you h ave installed a CEMS that meets the requirements §63.1350(l)(1) (B) Y ou must establish site specific parameter limits by using the CPMS required in §63.1350(l)(1). For a wet scrubber or tray tower, measure and record the pressure drop across the scrubber and/or liquid flow rate and pH in intervals of no more than 15 minutes during the HCl test. Compute and record the 24
- hour average pressure drop, pH, and average scrubber water flow rate for each sampling run in which the applicable emissions limit is met. For a dry scrubber, measure and record the sorbent injection rate in intervals of no more than 15 minutes during the HCl test. Compute and record the 24
- hour average sorbentInteragency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. Page **201** of **231** injection rate and average sorbent injection rate for each sampling run in which the applicable emissions limit is met. (ii)(A) If the source is not controlled by a wet scrubber, tray tower or dry sorbent injection system, you must operate a CEMS in accordance with the requirements of §63.1350(l)(1). See §63.1348(a). (B) The initial c ompliance test must be based on the 30 kiln operating days that occur after the compliance date of this rule in which the affected source operates using a HCl CEMS. Hourly HCl concentration data must be obtained according to §63.1350(l). (iii) As an altern ative to paragraph (i), you may chooses to monitor SO 2 emissions using a CEMS in accordance with the requirements of §63.1350(l)(3). You must establish an SO 2 operating limit equal to the highest 1 hour average recorded during the HCl stack test. This ope rating limit will apply only for demonstrating HCl compliance. (iv) If kiln gases are diverted through an alkali bypass or to a coal mill and exhausted through a separate stack, you must calculate a kiln
- specific HCl limit using equation 7:

= ( × ( )) ( × ) ( × ) (Eq. 7) Where: Cks = Kiln stack concentration (ppmvd)Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. Page **202** of **231** Qab = Alkali bypass flow rate (volume/hr) Cab = Alkali bypass concentration (ppmvd) Qcm = Coal mill flow rate (vol ume /hr) Ccm = Coal mill concentration (ppmvd) Qks = Kiln stack flow rate (volume /hr)

(c) Performance Test Frequency . Except as provided in §63.1348(b), performance tests are required at regular intervals for affected sources that are subject to a dioxin or HCl, emissions limit and must be repeated every 30 months except for pollutants where that specific pollutant is mon itored using CEMS. Tests for PM and total organic HAP are repeated every 12 months. (d) Performance Test Reporting Requirements . (1) You must submit the information specified in paragraphs (d)(1) and (d)(2) of this section no later than 60 days following the initial performance test. All reports must be signed by a responsible official. (i) The initial performance test data as recorded under paragraph (b) of this section. (ii) The values for the site
- specific operating limits or parameters established purs uant to paragraphs (b)(3), (b)(4)(iii), (b)(5)(ii), and (b)(6)(i) of this section, as applicable, and a description, including sample calculations, ofInteragency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. Page **203** of **231** how the operating parameters were established during the initial performance test. (2) As of December 31, 2011 and within 60 days after the date of completing each performance evaluation or test, as defined in §63.2, conducted to demonstrate compliance with any standard covered by this subpart, you must submit the relative accuracy test audit data and perf ormance test data, except opacity data, to the EPA by successfully submitting the data electronically to the EPA’s Central Data Exchange (CDX) by using the Electronic Reporting Tool(ERT) (see http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/ert_tool.html/). (e) Condition s of performance tests. Conduct performance tests under such conditions as the Administrator specifies to the owner or operator based on representative performance of the affected source for the period being tested. Upon request, you must make available to the Administrator such records as may be necessary to determine the conditions of performance tests. 20 . Section 63.1350 is amended by:
a . Revising paragraphs (a) through (d); b . Revising paragraph (f) introductory text;
c . Revising paragraphs (f)(1)(iv) through (f)(1)(vi); d . Revising paragraphs (f)(2)(i) and (f)(2)(iii);
e . Revising paragraphs (f)(3) and (f)(4);Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. Page **204** of **231** f . Revising paragraph (g)(1) introductory text; g . Revising paragraphs (g)(2) and (g)(4); h . Revising paragraph (h)(1)(ii); i . Revising parag raphs (i)(1) and (i)(2); j . Adding paragraph (i)(3); k . Revising paragraph (k) introductory text; l . Revising paragraph (k)(1)

m . Redesignating paragraphs (k)(2), (k)(3), (k)(4) as paragraphs (k)(3), (k)(4), and (k)(5), respectively;

n . Adding new paragraph (k)(2) text;
o . Revising newly designated paragraphs (k)(4) and (k)(5); p . Adding new paragraph (k)(6); q . Revising paragraph (l) introductory text;

r . Revising paragraph (l)(2);
s . Adding paragraph (l)(3); t . Revising paragraph (m) introductory text;
u . Revising paragraph (m)(7)(i);

v . Revising introductory text for paragraphs (m)(9) and (m)(10);

w . Revising paragraphs (m)(10)(i) through (m)(10)(vii), and paragraph (m)(11)(v);

x . Revising introductory text for paragraphs (n), (o), and (p);Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. Page **205** of **231** y . Re vising paragraph (n)(3); and

z . Revising introductory text for paragraphs (p)(1), (p)(2), and (p)(5), to read as follows: **§63.1350 Monitoring requirements.** (a) All continuous monitoring data for periods of startup and shutdown must be compiled and averaged separately from data gathered during other operating periods . (b) PM Monitoring Requirements . (1)(i) PM CPMS . You will use a PM CPMS to establish a site
specific operating limit corresponding to the results of the performance test demonstrating compliance with the PM limit. You will conduct your performance test using Method 5 at appendix A
3 to part 60 of this chapter. You will use the PM CPMS to demonstrate continuous compliance with this operating limit. If you elect to use a PM CPMS, you must repeat the performance test annually and reassess and adjust the site
- specific operating limit in accordance with the results of the performance test. (ii) To determine continuous compliance, you must record the PM CPMS output data for all periods when t he process is operating and the PM CPMS is not out
- of
- control. You must demonstrate continuous compliance by using all quality
- assured hourly average data collected by the PM CPMS for all operating hours to calculate the arithmetic average operating parame ter inInteragency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. Page **206** of **231** units of the operating limit (e.g., milliamps, PM concentration, raw data signal) on a 30 operating day rolling average basis, updated at the end of each new kiln operating day. (iii) If any 30 process operating day PM CPMS average value exceeds the established parameter limit, you must (A) As soon as possible, but no later than 30 days after the average PM CPMS value has exceeded the established parameter limit, conduct an inspection and take corrective action to return the PM CPMS measurement to within the established value; and (B) Within 90 days of the exceedance or at the time of the annual compliance test, whichever comes first, conduct a PM emissions compliance test to determine compliance with the PM emissions limit a nd to verify or re
- establish the CPMS operating limit. (2) [Reserved] (3) Kilns equipped with an alkali bypass . If kiln gases are diverted through an alkali bypass, you must account for the particulate matter emitted from the alkali bypass stack by followi ng the procedures in (b)(3)(i) through (v) of this section: (i) You must install, operate, calibrate, and maintain an instrument for continuously measuring and recording the exhaustInteragency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. Page **207** of **231** gas flow rate to the atmosphere from the alkali bypass stack according to the requirements in paragraphs (n)(1) through (n)(10) of this section. (ii) Develop a particulate matter emissions factor by conducting annual performance tests using Method 5 to measure the concentration of particulate matter in the gases exhausted from t he alkali bypass stack. (iii) On a continuous basis, determine the mass emissions of particulate matter in pounds per hour from the alkali bypass exhaust by using the particulate matter emissions factor and the continuously measured exhaust gas flow rates. (iv) Sum the hourly particulate matter emissions from the kiln and alkali bypass to determine total hourly particulate matter emissions. Using hourly clinker production, calculate the hourly emissions rate in pounds per ton of clinker to determine your 30 day rolling average. (v) If you monitor compliance using a PM CPMS, you must determine compliance according to paragraphs (b)(3)(v)(A) through (C) of this section: (A) Conduct an annual performance test using Method 5 to determine total particulate matter emissions from the alkali bypass and kiln.Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. Page **208** of **231** (B) To determine continuous compliance, you must establish your PM CPMS operating limit according to paragraph (b)(1) of this section. (C) You must establish the maximum exhaust gas flow rate for the alkali bypass during your annual performance test. You must continuously monitor the flow rate until the next performance test. If the monitored flow rate exceeds the maximum established during your last performance test by more than 10 percent, you must retest t he kiln and alkali bypass to determine compliance . (c) [ Reserved] (d) Clinker Production Monitoring Requirements . If you are subject to an emissions limitation on particulate matter or mercury emissions (lb/ton of clinker), you must: (1) Determine hourly clinker production by one of two methods: (i) Install, calibrate, maintain, and operate a permanent weigh scale system to measure and record weight rates in tons
mass per hour of the amount of clinker produced. The system of measuring hourly clinker produ ction must be maintained within ±5 percent accuracy, or (ii) Install, calibrate, maintain, and operate a permanent weigh scale system to measure and record weight rates in tons
-Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. Page **209** of **231** mass per hour of the amount of feed to the kiln. The system of measuring feed must be maintained within ±5 percent accuracy. Calculate your hourly clinker production rate using a kiln specific feed to clinker ratio based on reconciled clinker production determined for accounting purposes and recorded feed rates. Update this ratio mo nthly. Note that if this ratio changes at clinker reconciliation, you must use the new ratio going forward, but you do not have to retroactively change clinker production rates previously estimated . (iii) [Reserved] (2) Determine, record, and maintain a record of the accuracy of the system of measuring hourly clinker production (or feed mass flow if applicable) before initial use (for new sources) or by the effective compliance date of this rule (for existing sources). During each quarter of source operat ion, you must determine, record, and maintain a record of the ongoing accuracy of the system of measuring hourly clinker production (or feed mass flow). (3) If you measure clinker production directly, record the daily clinker production rates; if you measure the kiln feed rates and calculate clinker production, record the daily kiln feed and clinker production rates.Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. Page **210** of **231** (4) D evelop an emissions monitoring plan in accordance with paragraphs (p)(1) through (p)(4) of this section. (e) [ Reserved] (f) Opacity Monitoring Requirements . If you are subject to a limitation on opacity under §63.1345, you must conduct required opacity monitoring in accordance with the provisions of paragraphs (f)(1)(i) through (f)(1)(vii) of this section and in accordance with your mo nitoring plan developed under §63.1350(p). You must also develop an opacity monitoring plan in accordance with paragraphs (p)(1) through (p)(4) and paragraph (o)(5), if applicable, of this section. (1) * * * (iv) If visible emissions are observed during any Method 22 performance test, of appendix A

– 7 to part 60 of this chapter, you must conduct 30 opacity observations in accordance with Method 9 of appendix A

– 4 to part 60 of this chapter. The Method 9 performance tes t, of appendix A

– 4 to part 60 of this chapter, must begin within 1 hour of any observation of visible emissions. (v) The requirement to conduct Method 22 visible emissions monitoring under this paragraph do not apply to any totally enclosed conveying system transfer point, regardless of the location of the transfer point. The enclosures for theseInteragency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. Page **211** of **231** transfer points must be operated and maintained as total enclosures on a continuing basis in accordance with the facility operations and maintenance plan. (vi) If any partially enclosed or unenclosed conveying system transfer point is located in a building, you must conduct a Method 22 performance test, of appendix A

– 7 to part 60 of this chapter, according to the requirements of paragraphs (f)(1)(i) through (f)(1)(i v) of this section for each such conveying system transfer point located within the building, or for the building itself, according to paragraph (f)(1)(vii) of this section. * * * * * (2)(i) For a raw mill or finish mill, you must monitor opacity by co nducting daily visible emissions observations of the mill sweep and air separator particulate matter control devices (PMCD) of these affected sources in accordance with the procedures of Method 22 of appendix A
- 7 to part 60 of this chapter. The duration of the Method 22 performance test must be 6 minutes. * * * * * (iii) If visible emissions are observed during the follow
up Method 22 performance test required by paragraph (f)(2)(ii) of this section from any stack from which visible emissions wereInteragency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. Page **212** of **231** obse rved during the previous Method 22 performance test required by paragraph (f)(2)(i) of the section, you must then conduct an opacity test of each stack from which emissions were observed during the follow up Method 22 performance test in accordance with Me thod 9 of appendix A
- 4 to part 60 of this chapter. The duration of the Method 9 test must be 30 minutes. (3) If visible emissions are observed during any Method 22 visible emissions test conducted under paragraphs (f)(1) or (f)(2) of this section, you must initiate, within one
- hour, the corrective actions specified in your operation and maintenance plan as required in §63.1347. (4) The requirements under paragraph (f)(2) of this section to conduct daily Method 22 testing do not apply to any specific raw mil l or finish mill equipped with a COMS or BLDS . (i) If the owner or operator chooses to install a COMS in lieu of conducting the daily visible emissions testing required under paragraph (f)(2) of this section, then the COMS must be installed at the outlet of the PM control device of the raw mill or finish mill and the COMS must be installed, maintained, calibrated, and operated as required by the general provisions in subpart A of this part and according to PS

– 1 of appendix B to part 60 of this chapter.Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. Page **213** of **231** (i i) If you choose to install a BLDS in lieu of conducting the daily visible emissions testing required under paragraph (f)(2) of this section, the requirements in paragraphs (m)(1) through (m)(4), (m)(10) and (m)(11) of this section apply . (g) * * * (1) You must install, calibrate, maintain, and continuously operate a CMS to record the temperature of the exhaust gases from the kiln and alkali bypass, if applicable, at the inlet to, or upstream of, the kiln and/or alkali bypass PMCDs. * * * * * (2) You must monitor and continuously record the temperature of the exhaust gases from the kiln and alkali bypass, if applicable, at the inlet to the kiln and/or alkali bypass PMCD. * * * * * (4) Calculate the rolling three
- hour average temperature using the average of 180 successive one
-minute average temperatures. See §63.1349(b)(3). * * * * * (h) * * * (1) * * *Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. Page **214** of **231** (ii) Each hour, calculate the three
- hour rolling average activated carbon injection rate for the previous 3 hours of process operation. See §63.1349(b)(3). * * * * * (i) * * * (1) You must install, operate, and maintain a THC continuous emission mo nitoring system in accordance with Performance Specification 8A of appendix B to part 60 of this chapter and comply with all of the requirements for continuous monitoring systems found in the general provisions, subpart A of this part . The owner or operato r must operate and maintain each CEMS according to the quality assurance requirements in Procedure 1 of appendix F in part 60 of this chapter. (2) For sources equipped with an alkali bypass stack or that exhaust kiln gases to a coal mill that exhausts thro ugh a separate stack, instead of installing a CEMS, you may use the results of the initial and subsequent performance test to demonstrate compliance with the THC emissions limit. (3) Performance tests on alkali bypass and coal mill stacks must be conducted using Method 25A in appendix A to 40 CFR part 60 and repeated annually. * * * * *Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. Page **215** of **231** (k) Mercury Monitoring Requirements . If you have a kiln subject to an emissions limitation on mercury emissions, you must install and operate a mercury continuous emissi ons monitoring system (Hg CEMS) in accordance with Performance Specification 12A (PS 12A) of appendix B to part 60 of this chapter or a sorbent trap
- based integrated monitoring system in accordance with Performance Specification 12B (PS 12B) of appendix B to part 60 of this chapter . You must monitor mercury continuously according to paragraphs (k)(1) through (k)(5) of this section. You must also develop an emissions monitoring plan in accordance with paragraphs (p)(1) through (p)(4) of this section. (1) You must use a span value for any Hg CEMS that represents the mercury concentration corresponding to approximately two times the emissions standard rounded up to the nearest multiple of 5 μg/m 3 of total mercury. As specified in PS 12A, Section 6.1.1, the data recorder output range must include the full range of expected Hg concentration values which would include those expected during “mill off” conditions. (2) In order to quality assure data measured above the span value, you must use one of the options in paragraphs (k)(2)(i) through (k)(2)(iii) below.Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. Page **216** of **231** (i) Include a second span that encompasses the Hg emission concentrations expected to be encountered during “mill off” conditions. This second span may be rounded to a multiple of 5 μg/m 3 of total mercury. Th e requirements of PS
- 12A, shall be followed for this second span with the exception that a RATA with the mill off is not required. (ii) Conduct an additional ‘above span’ daily calibration using a Hg reference gas standard at a concentration level between 50 and 85 percent of the highest hourly Hg concentration expected during “mill off” conditions. The ‘above span’ reference gas must meet the requirements of PS 12A, Section 7.1 and be introduced at the probe. The ‘above span’ calibration is successful if t he value measured by the Hg CEMS is within 20 percent of the certified value of the reference gas. Record and report the results of this procedure as you would for a daily calibration. (iii) If you choose not to conduct an additional daily calibration, the n quality assure any data above the span value established in paragraph (k)(1) of this section using the following procedure. Any time the one hour average measured concentration of Hg exceeds the span value you must, within 24 hours, introduce a higher, ‘ above span’ Hg reference gas standard to the Hg CEMS. The ‘above span’ reference gas mustInteragency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. Page **217** of **231** meet the requirements of PS 12A, Section 7.1, must be of a concentration level greater than 80 percent of the highest hourly concentration measured during the period of measurements above span, and must be introduced at the probe. Record and report the results of this procedure as you would for a daily calibration. The ‘above span’ calibration is successful if the value measured by the Hg CEMS is within 20 percent of t he certified value of the reference gas. If the value measured by the Hg CEMS exceeds 20 percent of the certified value of the reference gas, then you must normalize the one
- hour average stack gas values measured above the span during the 24
- hour period pr eceding the ‘above span’ calibration for reporting based on the Hg CEMS response to the reference gas as follows:

×

= (3) You must operate and maintain each Hg CEMS or sorbent trap - based integrated monitoring system according to the quality assurance requirements in Procedure 5 of appendix F to part 6 0 of this chapter. (4) Relative accuracy testing of mercury monitoring systems under PS 12A, PS 12B, or Procedure 5 must be conducted at normal operating conditions with the raw mill on.Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. Page **218** of **231** (5) If you use a Hg CEMS, you must install, operate, calibrate, and maintain an instrument for continuously measuring and recording the exhaust gas flow rate to the atmosphere according to the requirements in paragraphs (n)(1) through (n)(10) of this section. If kiln gases are diverted through an alkali bypass or to a coal mill and exhausted through separate stacks, you must account for the mercury emitted from those stacks by following the procedures in (k)(5)(i) through (v) of this section: (i) You must install, operate, calibrate, and maintain an instrument for continuously measuring and recording the exhaust gas flow rate to the atmosphere according to the requirements in paragraphs (n)(1) through (n)(10) of this section. (ii) Develop a mercury hourly mass emissions rate by conducting annual performance tests us ing Method 29 to measure the concentration of mercury in the gases exhausted from the alkali bypass and coal mill. (iii) On a continuous basis, determine the mass emissions of mercury in pounds per hour from the alkali bypass and coal mill exhausts by usin g the mercury hourly emissions rate and the continuously measured exhaust gas flow rates. (iv) Sum the hourly mercury emissions from the kiln, alkali bypass and coal mill to determine total mercury emissions. UsingInteragency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. Page **219** of **231** hourly clinker production, calculate the hourly emissions rate in pounds per ton of clinker to determine your 30 day rolling average. (v) If mercury emissions from the coal mill are below the method detection limit for two consecutive annual performance tests, you may reduce the frequency of the performance tests of coal mills to once every 30 months. If the measured mercury concentration exceeds the method detection limit, you must revert to testing annually until two consecutive annual tests are below the method detection limit. (6) If you opera te an integrated sampling Hg CEMS conforming to PS 12B, you may use a monitoring period from 24 hours to 168 hours in length. You should use a monitoring period that is a multiple of 24 hours (except during relative accuracy testing as allowed in PS 12B). (l) HCl Monitoring Requirements . If you are subject to an emissions limitation on HCl emissions in §63.1343, you must continuously monitor HCl according to paragraph (l)(1) or (2) and paragraphs (m)(1) through (m)(4) of this sectionor, if your kiln is con trolled using a wet or dry scrubber or tray tower, you may continuously monitor SO 2 emissions according to paragraph (l)(3) of this section. You must also develop an emissionsInteragency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. Page **220** of **231** monitoring plan in accordance with paragraphs (p)(1) through (p)(4) of this sect ion.

* * * * * (2) Install, operate, and maintain a CMS to monitor wet scrubber or tray tower parameters, as specified in paragraphs (m)(5) and (m)(7) of this section, and dry scrubber, as specified in paragraph (m)(8) of this section . (3) If the source is equipped with a wet or dry scrubber or tray tower, and you choose to monitor SO 2 emissions, you must continuously monitor SO 2 according to the requirements of §60.63(e) through (f) of part 60 subpart F of this chapter. If SO 2 levels in crease above the 1 hour average SO 2 operating level established during your performance test, you must (i) As soon as possible but no later than 30 days after you exceed the established SO 2 value conduct an inspection and take corrective action to return t he SO 2 CEMS measurement to within the established value; and (ii) Within 90 days of the exceedance or at the time of the next compliance test, whichever comes first, conduct an HCl emissions compliance test t o determine compliance with the HCl emissions limit and to verify or re
- establish the SO 2 CEMS operating limit.Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. Page **221** of **231** (m) Parameter Monitoring Requirements . If you have an operating limit that requires the use of a CMS, you must install, operate, and maintain each continuous parameter monitoring system (CMS) according to the procedures in paragraphs (m)(1) through (4) of this section by the compliance date specified in §63.1351 . You must also meet the applicable specific parameter monitoring requirements in paragraphs (m)(5) through (m)(11) that are applicable to you. * * * * * (7) * * * (i) Locate the pH sensor in a position that provides a representative measurement of wet scrubber or tray tower effluent pH. * * * * * (9) Mass Flow Rate (for Sorbent Injection) Monitoring Requirements . If you have an operating limit that requires the use of equipment to monitor sorbent injection rate ( e.g. , weigh belt, weigh hopper, or hopper flow measurement device), you must meet the requirements in paragraphs (m)(9)(i) through (iii) of this section. These requirements also apply to the sorbent injection equipment of a dry scrubber. * * * * *Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. Page **222** of **231** (10) Bag leak detection monitoring requirements . If you elect to use a fabric filter bag leak detection system to comply with the requirements of this subpart , you must install, calibrate, maintain, and continuously operate a BLDS as specified in paragraphs (m)(10)(i) through (viii) of this section. (i) You must install and operate a BLDS for each exhaust stack of the fabric filter. (ii) Each BLDS must be insta lled, operated, calibrated, and maintained in a manner consistent with the manufacturer's written specifications and recommendations and in accordance with the guidance provided in EPA

– 454/R

– 98

– 015, September 1997. (iii) The BLDS must be certified by the manufacturer to be capable of detecting particulate matter emissions at concentrations of 10 or fewer milligrams per actual cubic meter. (iv) The BLDS sensor must provide output of relative or absolute particulate matter loadings. (v) The BLDS must be equipped with a device to continuously record the output signal from the sensor. (vi) The BLDS must be equipped with an alarm system that will alert an operator automatically when an increase in relative particulate matter emissions over a preset level isInteragency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. Page **223** of **231** detec ted. The alarm must be located such that the alert is detected and recognized easily by an operator. (vii) For positive pressure fabric filter systems that do not duct all compartments of cells to a common stack, a BLDS must be installed in each baghouse compartment or cell. * * * * * (11) * * * (v) Cleaning the BLDS probe or otherwise repairing the BLDS ; or * * * * * (n) Continuous Flow Rate Monitoring System . You must install, operate, calibrate, and maintain instruments, according to the requirements in paragraphs (n)(1) through (10) of this section, for continuously measuring and recording the stack gas flow rate to allow determination of the pollutant mass emissions rate to the atmosphere from sources subject to an emissions limitation t hat has a pounds per ton of clinker unit. * * * * * (3) [Reserved] * * * * * (o) Alternate Monitoring Requirements Approval . You may submit an application to the Administrator for approval ofInteragency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. Page **224** of **231** alternate monitoring requirements to demonstrate compli ance with the emission standards of this subpart, except for emission standards for THC, subject to the provisions of paragraphs (o)(1) through (o)(6) of this section. * * * * * (p) Development and Submittal (Upon Request) of Monitoring Plans . If you demonstrate compliance with any applicable emissions limit through performance stack testing or other emissions monitoring, you must develop a site
- specific monitoring plan according to the requirements in paragraphs (p)(1) through (4) of this section. This requirement also applies to you if you petition the EPA Administrator for alternative monitoring parameters under paragraph (o) of this section and §63.8(f). If you use a BLDS, you must also meet the requirements specified in paragraph (p)(5) of this sect ion. (1) For each CMS required in this section, you must develop, and submit to the permitting authority for approval upon request, a site
- specific monitoring plan that addresses paragraphs (p)(1)(i) through (iii) of this section. You must submit this site
- specific monitoring plan, if requested, at least 30 days before your initial performance evaluation of your CMS. * * * * *Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. Page **225** of **231** (2) In your site
- specific monitoring plan, you must also address paragraphs (p)(2)(i) through (iii) of this section. * * * * * (5) BLDS Monitoring Plan . Each monitoring plan must describe the items in paragraphs (p)(5)(i) through (v) of this section. At a minimum, you must retain records related to the site
- specific monitoring plan and information discussed in paragraphs (m)(1) through (4), (m)(10) and (m)(11) of this section for a period of 5 years, with at least the first 2 years
on - site; * * * * * 21 . Section 63.1351 is amended by revising paragraphs (c) and (d), and adding paragraph (e) to read as follows: **§63.1351 Compliance dates.**  * * * * * (c) The compliance date for existing sources for all the requirements that became effective on [INSERT DATE 60 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION OF THESE AMENDMENTS IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] will be September 9, 2015.]. (d) The compliance date for new sources is [INSERT DATE 60 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION OF THESE AMENDMENTS IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] or startup, whichever is later.Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. Page **226** of **231** (e) The compliance date for existing and new sources with the requirements for open clinker storage piles in §63.1343(c) is [INSERT DATE 60 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION OF THESE AMENDMENTS IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] or startup, whichever is later. 22 . Section 63.1352 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows: **§63.1352 Additional test methods.** (a) If you are conducting tests to determine the rates of emission of HCl from kilns and associated bypass stacks at portland cement manufacturing facilities, for use in applicability determinations under §63.1340 you may use Method 320 or Method 321 of appendix A of this part.
(b) Owners or operators conducting tests to determine the rates of emission of specific organic HAP from raw material dryers, kilns at Portland cement manufacturing facilities, solely for use in applicability determinations under §63.1340 of this subpart are permitted to use Method 320 of appendix A to this part, or Method 18 of appendix A to part 60 of this chapter. 23 . Section 63.1354 is amended by revising paragraphs (b)(9)(vi) and (c) to read as follows: **§63.1354 Reporting requiremen ts.** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. Page **227** of **231** * * * * * (b) * * * (9) * * * (vi) For each PM, HCl, Hg, and THC CEMS or Hg sorbent trap monitoring system, within 60 days after the reporting periods, you must submit reports to EPA’s WebFIRE database by using the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI) that is accessed through EPA’s Central Data Exchange (CDX) ( www.epa.gov/cdx ). You must use the appropriate electronic reporting form in CE DRI or provide an alternate electronic file consistent with EPA’s reporting form output format. For each reporting period, the reports must include all of the calculated 30
- operating day rolling average values derived from the CEMS or Hg sorbent trap monit oring systems. * * * * * (c) Reporting e deviations due to startup, shutdown or malfunctions. For each deviation from a standard or emission limit caused by a startup, shutdown, or malfunction at an affected source, you must report the deviation in the semi
annual compliance report. The report must contain the date, time and duration, and the cause of each event (including unknown cause, if applicable), and a sum of the number of events in the reporting period. The report must list for each event theInteragency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. Page **228** of **231** af fected source or equipment, an estimate of the volume of each regulated pollutant emitted over the emission limit for which the source failed to meet a standard, and a description of the method used to estimate the emissions. The report must also include a description of actions taken by an owner or operator during a malfunction of an affected source to minimize emissions in accordance with §63.1348(d) , including actions taken to correct a malfunction.

* * * * * 24 . Section 63.1355 is amended by revising paragraphs (f) and (g) to read as follows: **§63.1355 Recordkeeping Requirements.**

* * * * * (f) The date, time and duration of each startup or shutdown which causes the source to exceed any applicable emission limitation, and (f) (i) through ( i ii) of this section; ( i ) The date, time, and duration of each startup or shutdown period, for any affected source that is subject to an emission standard during startup or shutdown that differs from the emission standard applicable at other times. (ii) The quantity a nd type of raw feed and fuel used during the startup or shutdown period.Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. Page **229** of **231** ( ii ) An estimate of the volume of each regulated pollutant emitted over the emission limit during startup or shutdown, with a description of the method used to estimate emissions. (g) (1) The date, time and duration of each malfunction that causes an affected source to fail to meet an applicable standard; if there was also a monitoring malfunction, the date, time and duration of the monitoring malfunction; the record must list the affec ted source or equipment, an estimate of the volume of each regulated pollutant emitted over the standard for which the source failed to meet a standard, and a description of the method used to estimate the emissions.

* * * * * 25 . Section 63.1356 is amended by revising the section heading and the section text to read as follows: **§63.1356 Sources with multiple emissions limit or monitoring requirements**  **.** If an affected facility subject to this subpart has a different emissions limit or requirement for th e same pollutant under another regulation in title 40 of this chapter, the owner or operator of the affected facility must comply with the most stringent emissions limit or requirement and is exempt from the less stringent requirement. 26. Section 63.1357 is amended by:Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. Page **230** of **231** (a). Revising paragraph (a)(1); and (b). Revising paragraph (a)(2) to read as follows: **§63.1357 Temporary, conditioned exemption from particulate matter and opacity standards.**  (a) * * * (1) Any particulate matter and opacity standards of part 60 or part 63 of this chapter that are applicable to cement kilns and clinker coolers. (2) Any permit or other emissions or operating parameter or other limitation on workplace practices that are applicable to cement kilns and clinker coolers to ensure compliance with any particulate matter and opacity standards of this part or part 60 of this chapter.

* * * * * 27 . Table 3 to Subpart LLL of Part 63 is revised to read as follows: **Table 3 to Subpa rt LLL of Part 63** **— Applicability of General**  **Provisions**

**Citation e**  **Applies to Subpart LLL**  **Explanation** * * * * * * * 63.6(e)(3) Startup, Shutdown

Malfunction Plan No Startup and shutdown plans addressed in §63.1347.Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. Page **231** of **231** * * * * * * *