Document ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0051-1890
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2006-12-20T05:00Z

Response to Significant Public Comments Received in Response to:

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants from the
Portland Cement Manufacturing Industry: Proposed Rule (70 FR 72330, 02
December 2005)

December 2006



  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 This page intentionally left blank.



Response to Significant Public Comments Received in Response to:

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants from the
Portland Cement Manufacturing Industry: Proposed Rule (70 FR 72330, 02
December 2005)

Contract No. 68-D-01-073

Work Assignment No. 4-8

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards

Sector Policies and Programs Division

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711

December 2006



  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 This page intentionally left blank.

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 Disclaimer

This report has been reviewed by the Sector Policies and Programs
Division of the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards,
Environmental Protection Agency, and approved for publication. Mention
of trade names or commercial products is not intended to constitute
endorsement or recommendation for use.

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section	Page

  TOC \o "2-3" \h \z \t "Heading 1,1"    HYPERLINK \l "_Toc153359721" 
Disclaimer	  PAGEREF _Toc153359721 \h  i  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc153359722"  TABLE OF CONTENTS	  PAGEREF
_Toc153359722 \h  ii  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc153359723"  Introduction	  PAGEREF _Toc153359723 \h 
1  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc153359724"  1.0 	  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc153359725" 
General – Adequacy of EPA Response to Court Remand	  PAGEREF
_Toc153359725 \h  48  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc153359726"  2.0	Mercury	  PAGEREF _Toc153359726 \h 
49  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc153359727"  2.1	Legal Issues Related to EPA’s
Interpretation of the CAA	  PAGEREF _Toc153359727 \h  49  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc153359728"  2.2	Adequacy of Floor Determination
(Existing and New)	  PAGEREF _Toc153359728 \h  51  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc153359729"  2.3	Beyond the Floor Determinations	 
PAGEREF _Toc153359729 \h  58  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc153359730"  2.3.1	Adequacy	  PAGEREF _Toc153359730
\h  58  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc153359731"  2.3.2	   HYPERLINK \l "_Toc153359732" 
Accuracy of Costs	  PAGEREF _Toc153359732 \h  59  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc153359733"  2.3.3	Accuracy of Benefits	  PAGEREF
_Toc153359733 \h  60  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc153359734"  2.4	Test and Monitoring Method Related
Issues	  PAGEREF _Toc153359734 \h  61  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc153359735"  2.5	Impacts	  PAGEREF _Toc153359735 \h 
62  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc153359736"  2.6	Fly Ash Ban	  PAGEREF _Toc153359736
\h  64  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc153359737"  2.7	General	  PAGEREF _Toc153359737 \h 
67  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc153359738"  3.0 	  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc153359739"  HCl
  PAGEREF _Toc153359739 \h  67  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc153359740"  3.1	Legal Issues Related EPA’s
Interpretation of the CAA	  PAGEREF _Toc153359740 \h  67  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc153359741"  3.2 	  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc153359742" 
Adequacy of Floor Determinations (Existing and New)	  PAGEREF
_Toc153359742 \h  68  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc153359743"  3.3 	  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc153359744" 
Beyond the Floor Determinations	  PAGEREF _Toc153359744 \h  70  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc153359745"  3.3.1	   HYPERLINK \l "_Toc153359746" 
Adequacy	  PAGEREF _Toc153359746 \h  70  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc153359747"  3.3.2	   HYPERLINK \l "_Toc153359748" 
Accuracy of costs	  PAGEREF _Toc153359748 \h  71  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc153359749"  3.3.3	Accuracy of benefits	  PAGEREF
_Toc153359749 \h  72  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc153359750"  3.4 	  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc153359751" 
Testing and Monitoring Related Issues	  PAGEREF _Toc153359751 \h  72  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc153359752"  3.5	Risk-Based Sstandard	  PAGEREF
_Toc153359752 \h  73  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc153359753"  4.0	THC	  PAGEREF _Toc153359753 \h  76  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc153359754"  4.1	Legal Issues Related EPA’s
Interpretation of the CAA	  PAGEREF _Toc153359754 \h  76  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc153359755"  4.2 	  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc153359756" 
Adequacy of Floor Determination (Existing and New)	  PAGEREF
_Toc153359756 \h  77  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc153359757"  4.3	Beyond the floor determination	 
PAGEREF _Toc153359757 \h  81  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc153359758"  4.4 	  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc153359759" 
Area sources	  PAGEREF _Toc153359759 \h  82  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc153359760"  4.5	Testing and Monitoring Related
Issues	  PAGEREF _Toc153359760 \h  83  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc153359761"  5.0	Raw material storage	  PAGEREF
_Toc153359761 \h  84  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc153359762"  6.0	   HYPERLINK \l "_Toc153359763" 
Other	  PAGEREF _Toc153359763 \h  85  

 

List of Tables

1.	List of Commenters on the National Emission Standards for Hazardous
Air Pollutants from Portland Cement Manufacturing Industry; Proposed
Rule; public docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0051	1



Introduction

On June 14, 1999, under the authority of section 112 of the Clean Air
Act (CAA), the EPA promulgated national emission standards for hazardous
air pollutants (NESHAP) for new and existing sources in the portland
cement manufacturing industry. On December 15, 2000, the United States
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit)
remanded parts of the NESHAP for the portland cement manufacturing
industry to EPA to consider, among other things, setting standards based
on the performance of the maximum achievable control technology (MACT)
floor standards for hydrogen chloride (HCl), mercury, and total
hydrocarbons (THC), and metal hazardous air pollutants (HAP). 

We published a proposed response to the court’s remand on December 2,
2005. We received over 1700 comments on our proposed response. This
action promulgates EPA’s final rule amendments in response to the
court’s remand and the comments received on the proposed amendments.

A list of commenters, their affiliations, and the EPA docket item number
assigned to their correspondence is provided in Table 1. All of the
comments that were submitted during the public comment period are
contained in public docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0051, accessible through
www.regulations.gov. The responses to those comments are summarized in
this document.

Table 1. List of Commenters on the National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants from Portland Cement Manufacturing Industry;
Proposed Rule; public docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0051

Docket Item No.

EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0051	Commenter/Affiliation

0037	Comment submitted by Suwanee_St. John’s Group, Sierra Club

0039	Comment submitted by D. McSherry

0040	Comment submitted by William Freese, Director, Huron Environmental
Activist League

0040.1	Attachment to comment submitted by William Freese, Director,
Huron Environmental Activist League

0041	Comment submitted by C. Hubbard

0042	Anonymous Mass Comment Campaign

0043	Comment submitted by John Mousa, Ph.D., Pollution Prevention
Manager, Alachua County Environmental Protection Department (ACEPD)

0043.1	Attachment to comment submitted by John Mousa, Ph.D., Pollution
Prevention Manager, Alachua County Environmental Protection Department
(ACEPD)

0044	Comment submitted by James F. Stine, Environmental Affairs,
National Rural Electric Cooperative Association

0044.1	Attachment to comment submitted by James F. Stine, Environmental
Affairs, National Rural Electric Cooperative Association

0045	Comment submitted by Richard L. Smith, Armstrong Cement and Supply
Corporation

0045.1	Attachment to comment submitted by Richard L. Smith, Armstrong
Cement and Supply Corporation

0046	Comment submitted by James R. Roewer, Executive Director, Utility
Solid Waste Activities Group

0046.1	Attachment to comment submitted by James R. Roewer, Executive
Director, Utility Solid Waste Activities Group

0047	Comment submitted by David C. Goss, Executive Director, American
Coal Ash Association (ACAA)

0047.1	Attachment to comment submitted by David C. Goss, Executive
Director, American Coal Ash Association (ACAA)

0048	Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by Earthjustice

0049	Comment submitted by Jane TenEyck, Executive Director, Chippewa
Ottawa Resource Authority

0050	Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by Earthjustice

0051	Comment submitted by David W. Mazyck, Ph. D, Executive Vice
President and Chief Technical Officer, Mazyck Technology Solutions, Inc.

0051.1 and 0051.2	Attachments to comment submitted by David W. Mazyck,
Ph. D, Executive Vice President and Chief Technical Officer, Mazyck
Technology Solutions, Inc.

0052	Comment submitted by B. Bornhorst, member, Downriders at Risk

0053	Comment submitted by I. A. Uphoff

0054	Comment submitted by John A. Paul, Supervisor, Regional Air
Pollution Control Agency (RAPCA)

0054.1	Attachment to comment submitted by John A. Paul, Supervisor,
Regional Air Pollution Control Agency (RAPCA)

0055	Comment submitted by Craig S. Campbell, Vice President,
Environmental Affairs, Lafarge North America, Inc.

0055.1	Attachment to comment submitted by Craig S. Campbell, Vice
President, Environmental Affairs, Lafarge North America, Inc.

0056	Comment submitted by the State and Territorial Air Pollution
Program Administrators (STAPPA) and the Association of Local Air
Pollution Control Officials (ALAPCO)

0056.1	Attachment to comment submitted by the State and Territorial Air
Pollution Program Administrators (STAPPA) and the Association of Local
Air Pollution Control Officials (ALAPCO)

0057	Comment submitted by Bridgette K. Ellis, Senior Vice President,
Environmental Stewardship and Policy, Tennessee Valley

Authority (TVA)

0057.1	Attachment to comment submitted by Bridgette K. Ellis, Senior
Vice President, Environmental Stewardship and Policy, Tennessee Valley

Authority (TVA)

0058	Comment submitted by Laki Tisopulos, Assistant Deputy Executive
Officer, Planning, Rule Development, and Area Sources, South Coast Air
Quality Management District

0058.1 and 0058.2	Attachments to comment submitted by Laki Tisopulos,
Assistant Deputy Executive Officer, Planning, Rule Development, and Area
Sources, South Coast Air Quality Management District

0059	Comment submitted by Patricia McCullough, Director, Environmental
Management, Northeast Utilities Service Company (NUSCO)

0059.1	Attachment to comment submitted by Patricia McCullough, Director,
Environmental Management, Northeast Utilities Service Company (NUSCO)

0060	Comment submitted by Trina L. Vielhauer, Chief, Bureau of Air
Regulations, Florida Department of Environmental Protection

0060.1	Attachment to comment submitted by Trina L. Vielhauer, Chief,
Bureau of Air Regulations, Florida Department of Environmental
Protection

0061	Comment submitted by James Pew, Sierra Club, et. al.

0061.1, 0061.10, 0061.2, 0061.3, 0061.4, 0061.5, 0061.6, 0061.7, and
0061.9	Attachments to comment submitted by James Pew, Sierra Club, et.
al.

0062	Comment submitted by James Pew, Earthjustice, et. al.

0062.1, 0062.2, 0062.3, 0062.4, 0062.5, 0062.6, 0062.7, and 0062.8
Attachments to comment submitted by James Pew, Earthjustice, et. al.

0063	Mass comment campaign sponsored by HEAL

0064	Anonymous mass comment campaign

0065	Anonymous mass comment campaign

0066	Comment submitted by John J. Mousa, Pollution Prevention Manager,
Alachua County Environmental Protection Department

0066.1	Attachment to comment submitted by John J. Mousa, Pollution
Prevention Manager, Alachua County Environmental Protection Department

0067	Comment submitted by Eric Uram, Headwater Consulting

0067.1, 0067.2, 0067.3, 0067.4, 0067.5, and 0067.6	Attachment to comment
submitted by Eric Uram, Headwater Consulting

0068	Comment submitted by M. Sinclair

0069	Comment submitted by Jared Saylo, Earthjustice

0069.1	Attachment to comment submitted by Jared Saylo, Earthjustice

0070	Comment submitted by Gary Sauer, President, Cement Group, Florida
Rock Industries, Inc.

0071	Comment submitted by Casey Weissman-Vermeulen, Environmental Health
Programs, Physicians for Social Responsibility (PSR)

0071.1	Attachment to comment submitted by Casey Weissman-Vermeulen,
Environmental Health Programs, Physicians for Social Responsibility
(PSR)

0072	Comment submitted by Stephen F. Smith, Executive Director, Texas
Mining and Reclamation Association (TMRA)

0072.1	Attachment to comment submitted by Stephen F. Smith, Executive
Director, Texas Mining and Reclamation Association (TMRA)

0073	Comment submitted by Charles L. Stout, MPH, Executive Director,
Boulder County Public Health Environmental Health Division

0073.1	Attachment to comment submitted by Charles L. Stout, MPH,
Executive Director, Boulder County Public Health Environmental Health
Division

0074	Comment submitted by Ann McCammon Soltis, Policy Analyst, Great
Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission (GLIFWC)

0074.1	Attachment to comment submitted by Ann McCammon Soltis, Policy
Analyst, Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission (GLIFWC)

0075	Comment submitted by Jim Sims, President, Western Business
Roundtable

0075.1	Attachment to comment submitted by Jim Sims, President, Western
Business Roundtable

0076	Comment submitted by Steven Chester, Director, Michigan Department
of Environmental Quality (MDEQ)

0076.1	Attachment to comment submitted by Steven Chester, Director,
Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ)

0077	Comment submitted by Andrew T. O’Hare, CAE, Vice President,
Portland Cement Association (PCA)

0077.1 and 0077.2	Attachment to comment submitted by Andrew T. O’Hare,
CAE, Vice President, Portland Cement Association (PCA) 

0078	Comment submitted by Jenny Hitch, Co-Chairman, Fred Gustin,
Co-Chairman, and Richard Halverson, Past Co-Chairman, all of the Western
Region Ash Group (WRAG)

0079	Comment submitted by James S. Pew, Staff Attorney, Earthjustice on
behalf of Sierra Club, et. al.

0079.1, 0079.2, and 0079.3	Attachment to comment submitted by James S.
Pew, Staff Attorney, Earthjustice on behalf of Sierra Club, et. al.

0080	Comment submitted by B. Dickens

0081	Comment submitted by E. Meers

0082	Comment submitted by D. Payne

0083	Comment submitted by J. Eiseman

0084	Comment submitted by N. Segner

0085	Comment submitted by D. Whitehead

0086	Comment submitted by J. Shanahan

0087	Comment submitted by D. Ballard

0088	Comment submitted by L. Bass

0089	Comment submitted by K. Kim

0090	Comment submitted by F. Lotz

0091	Comment submitted by E. Chase

0092	Comment submitted by K. German

0093	Comment submitted by E. and R. Johnson-Bricker

0094	Comment submitted by S. Weiss

0095	Comment submitted by L. Smith

0096	Comment submitted by M. Rhodes

0097	Comment submitted by D. Alper

0098	Comment submitted by P. Nast

0099	Comment submitted by W. Schur

0100	Comment submitted by R. Gonyea

0101	Comment submitted by P.R. wiser

0102	Comment submitted by Pamela F. Faggert, Vice President and Chief
Environmental Officer, Dominon

0103	Comment submitted by L.J. Vorraro

0104	Comment submitted by D. Nettiksimmons

0105	Comment submitted by E. Taylor

0106	Comment submitted by S. Shaffer

0107	Comment submitted by G. Rubin

0108	Comment submitted by A. Lemons

0109	Comment submitted by R. Hanson

0110	Comment submitted by R. Eason

0111	Comment submitted by P. Bacon

0112	Comment submitted by M. Mayhew

0113	Comment submitted by J. Arbo

0114	Comment submitted by V. Drake

0115	Comment submitted by N. Dehoyos

0116	Comment submitted by S. and L. Hall

0117	Comment submitted by J. Bryan

0118	Comment submitted by C. Zimmer

0119	Comment submitted by G. Hermes

0120	Comment submitted by M. Erickson

0121	Comment submitted by H. Newell

0122	Comment submitted by D. Olivier

0123	Comment submitted by B. Francisco

0124	Comment submitted by A. Hughes

0125	Comment submitted by E. Williams

0126	Comment submitted by R. Ellis

0127	Comment submitted by F. Taylor

0128	Comment submitted by M. Fox

0129	Comment submitted by C. Cechota

0130	Comment submitted by P. Knudson

0131	Comment submitted by D. MacDonald

0132	Comment submitted by S. Keller

0133	Comment submitted by B. Jones

0134	Comment submitted by M.A. Comar

0135	Comment submitted by J. Swearingen

0136	Comment submitted by M. Komara

0137	Comment submitted by A. Bennett

0138	Comment submitted by L. Sexton

0139	Comment submitted by N. Hall

0140	Comment submitted by J. Hanson

0141	Comment submitted by S. Scott

0142	Comment submitted by L. Pruden

0143	Comment submitted by G. Holden

0144	Comment submitted by K. Simmons

0145	Comment submitted by M. Trombetta

0146	Comment submitted by B. Riley

0147	Comment submitted by P. Saunders

0148	Comment submitted by E. Boyer

0149	Comment submitted by M. Kress

0150	Comment submitted by A. Tindell

0151	Comment submitted by Earthjustice (44 parts)

0151.1-0151.43	Attachments to comment submitted by Earthjustice 

0152	Comment submitted Brian L. Warner, Environmental Services
Supervisor, Wolverine Power Cooperative

0153	Comment submitted by James P. Brooks, Bureau Director, State of
Maine Bureau of Air Quality, Maine Department of Environmental
Protection (MEDEP)

0154	Comment submitted by S.J. Mulka

0155	Comment submitted by Carl Johnson, Deputy Commissioner, Office of
Air & Waste Management, New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation

0155.1 and 0155.2	Attachment to comment submitted by Carl Johnson,
Deputy Commissioner, Office of Air & Waste Management, New York State
Department of Environmental Conservation

0156	Comment submitted by Ann Brewster Weeks, Litigation Director Clean
Air Task Force

0157	Comment submitted by S. Melnicoff

0161	Comment submitted by M. Shapiro

0164	Comment submitted by G. DeVoogd

0165	Anonymous mass comment campaign

0166	Comment submitted by J. Hanson

0167	Comment submitted by S. Scott

0168	Comment submitted by K. Szprygada

0169	Comment submitted by I. Atkins

0170	Comment submitted by D. Mellen

0171	Comment submitted by H. Whitfield

0172	Comment submitted by J. Page

0173	Comment submitted by M. Vandellos

0174	Comment submitted by T. Hitchins

0175	Comment submitted by H. Glahn

0176	Comment submitted by M. Riehle

0177	Comment submitted by L. Slotnick

0178	Comment submitted by S. Wells

0179	Comment submitted by P. Albers

0180	Comment submitted by J. Winters

0181	Comment submitted by J. Ertel

0182	Comment submitted by D. Bonetti

0183	Comment submitted by J.T. Fisher

0184	Comment submitted by S. Lewis

0185	Comment submitted by J. Lee

0186	Comment submitted by P. Clements

0187	Comment submitted by D. Shelton

0188	Comment submitted by L. Bower

0189	Comment submitted by P. Albright

0190	Comment submitted by D. Sklensky

0191	Comment submitted by S. Lund

0192	Comment submitted by J. Pendergast

0193	Comment submitted by J. Sholl

0194	Comment submitted by T. and E. Kane

0195	Comment submitted by V. Stram

0196	Comment submitted by D. Miller

0197	Comment submitted by R. Reid

0198	Comment submitted by M. Adam

0199	Comment submitted by A. Bendavid

0200	Comment submitted by D.M. Williams

0201	Comment submitted by D. Smith

0202	Comment submitted by A. Federov

0203	Comment submitted by J. Kellogg

0204	Comment submitted by A. Long

0205	Comment submitted by A. Jones

0206	Comment submitted by C. Gregory

0207	Comment submitted by K. Merrick

0208	Comment submitted by E. Peterson

0209	Comment submitted by J. Grillo

0210	Comment submitted by K.G. Frazier

0211	Comment submitted by G. Sowards

0212	Comment submitted by R. Tiger

0213	Comment submitted by J. Glaser

0214	Comment submitted by K. Dorr

0215	Comment submitted by A. Larsen

0216	Comment submitted by S. Peters

0217	Comment submitted by K. Martellaro

0218	Comment submitted by M. Beers

0219	Comment submitted by D. Cobb

0220	Comment submitted by S. Stuckman

0221	Comment submitted by C. Maurus

0222	Comment submitted by R.M. Ehr

0223	Comment submitted by A. Chorost

0224	Comment submitted by S. Richards

0225	Comment submitted by W.R. Davis

0226	Comment submitted by C. Lash

0227	Comment submitted by A. Bartholomew

0228	Comment submitted by L. Thompson

0229	Comment submitted by J. Steere

0230	Comment submitted by M. Ottenberg

0231	Comment submitted by E. Van den Bossche

0232	Comment submitted by J. Schochet

0233	Comment submitted by V. Volmensky

0234	Comment submitted by E. Moat

0235	Comment submitted by C. Brady

0236	Comment submitted by L. Green

0237	Comment submitted by A. Sen

0238	Comment submitted by L. Lawton

0239	Comment submitted by R. Lernberg

0240	Comment submitted by J. Phipps

0241	Comment submitted by N. Raymond

0242	Comment submitted by R. Rau

0243	Comment submitted by J. Gurriere

0244	Comment submitted by B. Wilson

0245	Comment submitted by B. Meshke

0246	Comment submitted by J. Lee

0247	Comment submitted by P. Clements

0248	Comment submitted by D. Shelton

0249	Comment submitted by L. Bower

0250	Comment submitted by P. Albright

0251	Comment submitted by D. Sklensky

0252	Comment submitted by S. Lund

0253	Comment submitted by J. Pendergast

0254	Comment submitted by J. Sholl

0255	Comment submitted by C. Rousseau

0256	Comment submitted by E. Tauber

0257	Comment submitted by R. Resnik

0258	Comment submitted by F. Akamine

0259	Comment submitted by A. Dalzell

0260	Comment submitted by G. Mira

0261	Comment submitted by A. Tindell

0262	Comment submitted by A. Youngs

0263	Comment submitted by C. Vota

0264	Comment submitted by C. Rousseau

0265	Comment submitted by E. Tauber

0266	Comment submitted by F. Akamine

0267	Comment submitted by A. Dalzeil

0268	Comment submitted by J. Kuna-Jacob

0269	Comment submitted by J. Miller

0270	Comment submitted by G. Williams-Stanton

0271	Comment submitted by J. Parr

0272	Comment submitted by D. deFaria

0273	Comment submitted by K. Patterson

0274	Comment submitted by G. Crouse

0275	Comment submitted by J.J. Bannon

0276	Comment submitted by J. Wrolstad

0277	Comment submitted by C. Claycomb

0278	Comment submitted by R. Zamora

0279	Comment submitted by T. Kuma-(Jacob)

0280	Comment submitted by T. Lange

0281	Comment submitted by K. Speer

0282	Comment submitted by G. Mira

0283	Comment submitted by A. Tindell

0284	Comment submitted by A. Youngs

0285	Comment submitted by C. Vota

0286	Comment submitted by J. Miller

0287	Comment submitted by F. Millin

0288	Comment submitted by P. Savage

0289	Comment submitted by S. Adler

0290	Comment submitted by S. Carrubba

0291	Comment submitted by P. Hult

0292	Comment submitted by C. Dildine

0293	Comment submitted by P. Wright

0294	Comment submitted by P. Berry

0295	Comment submitted by M. Beaudin

0296	Comment submitted by J. McConkey

0297	Comment submitted by T. Carsten

0298	Comment submitted by E. Awsiukiewicz

0299	Comment submitted by K. Basey

0300	Comment submitted by F. Winnick

0301	Comment submitted by R. Kean

0302	Comment submitted by D. Bunge

0303	Comment submitted by K. Calderon

0304	Comment submitted by J. Spears

0305	Comment submitted by J. Engstrom

0306	Comment submitted by R. Flory

0307	Comment submitted by M. Schwarzman

0308	Comment submitted by P. Kreitner

0309	Comment submitted by D. Seppa

0310	Comment submitted by L. Howard

0312	Comment submitted by J. Pearson

0313	Comment submitted by R. Damico

0314	Comment submitted by K. Hartman

0315	Comment submitted by J. Robles

0316	Comment submitted by P. Soteropoulos

0317	Comment submitted by A. Page

0318	Comment submitted by M. Schwehn

0319	Comment submitted by M. Zamudio

0320	Comment submitted by K. McAdam

0321	Comment submitted by M. Klein

0322	Comment submitted by A. and P. Haisley

0323	Comment submitted by M. Engelman

0324	Comment submitted by J. Boone

0325	Comment submitted by R. Browne

0326	Comment submitted by L. Horst

0327	Comment submitted by R. Miller

0328	Comment submitted by R. Vieth

0329	Comment submitted by J. Edwards

0330	Comment submitted by L. Hanratty

0331	Comment submitted by C. Boulanger

0332	Comment submitted by V. and J. Wagner

0333	Comment submitted by P. Olch

0334	Comment submitted by P. Koch

0335	Comment submitted by G. Williams-Stanton

0336	Comment submitted by J. Parr

0337	Comment submitted by D. deFaria

0338	Comment submitted by K. Patterson

0339	Comment submitted by T. Lange

0340	Comment submitted by G. Crouse

0341	Comment submitted by J.J. Brannon

0342	Comment submitted by T. and E. Kane

0343	Comment submitted by V. Stram

0344	Comment submitted by D. Miller

0345	Comment submitted by R. Reid

0346	Comment submitted by M. Adam

0347	Comment submitted by A. Bendavid

0348	Comment submitted by D.M. Williams

0349	Comment submitted by D. Smith

0350	Comment submitted by L. Bilger

0351	Comment submitted by R. Backman

0352	Comment submitted by B. Geroux

0353	Anonymous mass comment campaign (641)

0354	Comment submitted by G. Vinson Hellwig, Chief, Air Quality
Division, State of Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ)

0354.1	Attachment to comment submitted by G. Vinson Hellwig, Chief, Air
Quality Division, State of Michigan Department of Environmental Quality
(MDEQ)

0355	Comment submitted by Jim Sims, President, The Western Business
Roundtable

0355.1	Attachment to comment submitted by Jim Sims, President, The
Western Business Roundtable

0356	Comment submitted by S. King

0357	Comment submitted by A. Wilson

0358	Comment submitted by P.B. La Point

0359	Comment submitted by M. spencer

0360	Comment submitted by G. Baker

0361	Comment submitted by M. Szydolwski

0362	Comment submitted by P. Holmes

0363	Comment submitted by T. Hall

0364	Comment submitted by M. Koler

0365	Comment submitted by J.C. Bower

0366	Comment submitted by E. Booth

0367	Comment submitted by E. Stahl

0368	Comment submitted by K. Cothern

0369	Comment submitted by V. Durm

0370	Comment submitted by L. Day

0371	Comment submitted by S. Harang

0372	Comment submitted by J.M. Townes

0373	Comment submitted by M. Anderson

0374	Comment submitted by P. Holloway

0375	Comment submitted by S. Santana

0376	Comment submitted by K. Flanagan

0377	Comment submitted by Carol Johnson, Deputy Commissioner, Officer of
Air and Waste Management, New York State Department of environmental
Conservation

0377.1 and 0377.2	Attachment to comment submitted by Carol Johnson,
Deputy Commissioner, Officer of Air and Waste Management, New York State
Department of environmental Conservation

0378	Comment submitted by D. Ryan

0379	Comment submitted by T. Rozkuszka

0380	Comment submitted by J. Sussman

0381	Comment submitted by S. Rice

0382	Comment submitted by I. Uphoff

0383	Comment submitted by B. Eakins

0384	Comment submitted by H. Preinesberger

0385	Comment submitted by M. Wold

0386	Comment submitted by D. Rowe

0387	Comment submitted by L.H. Sandberg

0388	Comment submitted by C. Ross

0389	Comment submitted by L. Denison

0390	Comment submitted by L. Fluge-Brunker

0391	Comment submitted by C. Lish

0392	Comment submitted by K. Thomas

0393	Comment submitted by E. Hert

0394	Comment submitted by M. Herrmann

0395	Comment submitted by J.F. Gelfond

0396	Comment submitted by A. Fedorov

0397	Comment submitted by C.J. Finley

0398	Comment submitted by W. Williams

0399	Comment submitted by B. Goodrich

0400	Comment submitted by W. Schorr

0401	Comment submitted by E. Randall

0402	Comment submitted by R. Artley

0403	Comment submitted by Bette M.

0404	Comment submitted by C. Madruga

0405	Comment submitted by A. Robinson

0406	Comment submitted by D. Aho

0407	Comment submitted by G. Russo

0408	Comment submitted by K. Clarke

0409	Comment submitted by L. Pettitt

0410	Comment submitted by S. Povershuk

0411	Comment submitted by K. Morris

0412	Comment submitted by T. Hildebrandt

0413	Comment submitted by N. Gronlund

0414	Comment submitted by K. Sandholdt

0415	Comment submitted by M. Korn

0416	Comment submitted by J. Taddie

0417	Comment submitted by C. Brooks

0418	Comment submitted by R. Buthrie

0419	Comment submitted by R. Bornhorst

0420	Comment submitted by E. Bittler

0421	Comment submitted by S. Mortensen

0422	Comment submitted by P. Gant

0423	Comment submitted by L. Galtere

0424	Comment submitted by C. Rush

0425	Comment submitted by A. Larson

0426	Comment submitted by D. Mitchell

0427	Comment submitted by D. Gray

0428	Comment submitted by S. Ransom

0429	Comment submitted by M. Iannetta

0430	Comment submitted by E. West

0431	Comment submitted by G. Battin

0432	Comment submitted by J. Hope

0433	Comment submitted by E. Ballentine

0434	Comment submitted by J. Willes

0435	Comment submitted by S. Cox

0436	Comment submitted by G. Sullivan

0437	Comment submitted by c. Leman

0438	Comment submitted by B. Moran

0439	Comment submitted by T. Keithly

0440	Comment submitted by T. Burns

0441	Anonymous public comment

0442	Comment submitted by J. Hanson

0443	Comment submitted by S. Scott

0444	Comment submitted by K. Szprygada

0445	Comment submitted by I. Atkins

0446	Comment submitted by D. Mellen

0447	Comment submitted by H. Whitfield

0448	Comment submitted by J. Page

0449	Comment submitted by M. Vandellos

0450	Comment submitted by T. Hitchins

0451	Comment submitted by H. Glahn

0452	Comment submitted by M. Riehle

0453	Comment submitted by L. Slotnick

0454	Comment submitted by S. Wells

0455	Comment submitted by P. Albers

0456	Comment submitted by J. Glaser

0457	Comment submitted by K. Dorr

0458	Comment submitted by A. Larsen

0459	Comment submitted by K. Martellaro

0460	Comment submitted by J. Schochet

0461	Comment submitted by E. Moat

0462	Comment submitted by C. Brady

0463	Comment submitted by L. Green

0464	Comment submitted by A. Sen

0465	Comment submitted by M.S. Wilson

0466	Comment submitted by E. Abramson

0467	Comment submitted by A. Skrent

0468	Comment submitted by J. Morrison

0469	Comment submitted by K. McAnnally

0470	Comment submitted by K. Vorwick

0471	Comment submitted by M. Stevens

0472	Comment submitted by J. Conerly

0473	Comment submitted by C. Farlow

0474	Comment submitted by R. Kolber

0475	Comment submitted by J. Jordan

0476	Comment submitted by G. Glaser

0477	Comment submitted by R. Reese

0478	Comment submitted by H. Sage

0479	Comment submitted by T. McMurray

0480	Comment submitted by R. Atkin

0481	Comment submitted by M. Michelsen

0482	Comment submitted by V. Blanco

0483	Comment submitted by G. Gray

0484	Comment submitted by S. Peters

0485	Comment submitted by J. School

0486	Comment submitted by K. Searly

0487	Comment submitted by R. Ellison

0488	Comment submitted by M. Kirchenbauer

0489	Comment submitted by D. Smith

0490	Comment submitted by F. Holleman

0491	Comment submitted by I. Hyder

0492	Comment submitted by S. Barger

0493	Comment submitted by J. Davis

0494	Comment submitted by S. Harris

0495	Comment submitted by M. Atkinson

0496	Comment submitted by P. Abbott

0497	Comment submitted by K. Miller

0498	Comment submitted by S. Danver

0499	Comment submitted by D. Kahan

0500	Comment submitted by J. Capozzelli

0501	Comment submitted by J. Hanson

0502	Comment submitted by J. Hanson

0503	Comment submitted by G. Allerton

0504	Comment submitted by G. Shafer

0505	Comment submitted by B. Smay

0506	Comment submitted by M. Beers

0507	Comment submitted by L. Lawton

0508	Comment submitted by R. Lernberg

0509	Comment submitted by J. Phipps

0510	Comment submitted by N. Raymond

0511	Comment submitted by R. Rau

0512	Comment submitted by J. Gurriere

0513	Comment submitted by B. Wilson

0514	Comment submitted by R. Damico

0515	Comment submitted by K. Hartman

0516	Comment submitted by K. Giles

0517	Comment submitted by D. Burdette

0518	Comment submitted by A. Vancleve

0519	Comment submitted by P. Stranding

0520	Comment submitted by K. Gigliello

0521	Comment submitted by K. Rosenbaum

0522	Comment submitted by K. Clayton

0523	Comment submitted by J. Books

0524	Comment submitted by S. Melnicoff

0525	Comment submitted by J. and L. Wingard

0526	Comment submitted by M. Hauck

0527	Comment submitted by M. Huckaby

0528	Comment submitted by G. Seman

0529	Comment submitted by N. Lloyd

0530	Comment submitted by D. Campbell

0531	Comment submitted by C. Kennedy

0532	Comment submitted by J. Adelstone

0533	Comment submitted by R. Kulmacz

0534	Comment submitted by R. Kulmacz

0535	Comment submitted by J. Tillotson

0536	Comment submitted by C. Quist

0537	Comment submitted by D. Chaiken

0538	Comment submitted by H. Denenberg

0539	Comment submitted by G. Mango

0540	Comment submitted by J. Capozzelli

0541	Comment submitted by C. Atzel

0542	Comment submitted by E. Sadler

0543	Comment submitted by E. Cole

0544	Comment submitted by H. Mielke

0545	Comment submitted by C. Spotts

0546	Comment submitted by B. Kerr

0547	Comment submitted by L. Smith

0548	Comment submitted by T. Washburn

0549	Comment submitted by D. Bonetti

0550	Comment submitted by J.T. Fisher

0551	Comment submitted by S. Lewis

0552	Comment submitted by J. Robles

0553	Comment submitted by L. Bilger

0554	Comment submitted by K. Clarke

0555	Comment submitted by L. Pettitt

0556	Comment submitted by S. Poverchuk

0557	Comment submitted by K. Morris

0558	Comment submitted by T. Hildebrandt

0559	Comment submitted by N. Gronlund

0560	Comment submitted by J. Hope

0561	Comment submitted by E. Ballentine

0562	Comment submitted by j. Wiles

0563	Comment submitted by K. Vorwick

0564	Comment submitted by M. Stevens

0565	Comment submitted by J. Conerly

0566	Comment submitted by J. Scholl

0567	Comment submitted by K. Searle

0568	Comment submitted by R. Ellison

0569	Comment submitted by M. Kirchenbauer

0570	Comment submitted by P. Standring

0571	Comment submitted by K. Gigliello

0572	Comment submitted by K. Rosenbaum

0573	Comment submitted by K. Clayton

0574	Comment submitted by J. Books

0575	Comment submitted by E. Cole

0576	Comment submitted by H. Mielke

0577	Comment submitted by P. Holms

0578	Comment submitted by Thomas Hill, M.D., Ph.D., Department of
Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of California at San
Francisco

0579	Comment submitted by M. Koler

0580	Comment submitted by W.E. Claycomb and Clare Claycomb, president
and CEO, Save Our Bay, Inc.

0581	Comment submitted by W. Schorr

0582	Comment submitted by E. Randall

0583	Comment submitted by C. Spotts

0584	Comment submitted by B. Kerr

0585	Comment submitted by L. Smith

0586	Comment submitted by T.C. Washburn

0587	Comment submitted by C. Farlow

0588	Comment submitted by Green Environmental Coalition

0589	Comment submitted by Students and Teachers Opposing Pollution

0589.1	Attachment to comment submitted by Students and Teachers Opposing
Pollution

0590	Comment submitted by Andrew T. O’Hare, Vice President, Portland
Cement Association (PCA)

0590.1-0590.3	Attachment to comment submitted by Andrew T. O’Hare,
Vice President, Portland Cement Association (PCA)

0591	Comment submitted by Ruksana Mirza, Vice President, Holcim (US)
Inc.

0591.1	Attachment to comment submitted by Ruksana Mirza, Vice President,
Holcim (US) Inc.

0592	Comment submitted by Sierra Club and Earthjustice

0592.1	Attachment to comment submitted by Sierra Club and Earthjustice

0593	Comment submitted by R. Kolber

0594	Comment submitted by J. Jordan

0595	Comment submitted by Sierra Club and Earthjustice

0596.3-9 and 0596.11	Attachment to comment submitted by Sierra Club and
Earthjustice

0597	Comment submitted by S. Pavel

0597.1	Attachment to comment submitted by S. Pavel

0598	Comment submitted by C. Hardy

0599	Comment submitted by S. Finman

0600	Comment submitted by I. Velez

0601	Comment submitted by J. Winters

0602	Comment submitted by J. Ertel

0603	Comment submitted by E. Peterson

0604	Comment submitted by J. Grillo

0605	Comment submitted by K.G. Frazier

0606	Comment submitted by G. Sowards

0607	Comment submitted by R. Tiger

0608	Comment submitted by J. Kellogg

0609	Comment submitted by A. Long

0610	Comment submitted by J. Wrolstad

0611	Comment submitted by S. Stuckman

0612	Comment submitted by K. Speer

0613	Comment submitted by F. Millin

0614	Comment submitted by P. Wright

0615	Comment submitted by P. Berry

0616	Comment submitted by M. Beaudin

0617	Comment submitted by J. Pearson

0618	Comment submitted by A. Jones

0619	Comment submitted by C. Gregory

0620	Comment submitted by K. Merrick

0621	Comment submitted by C. Maurus

0622	Comment submitted by R.M. Ehr

0623	Comment submitted by A. Chorost

0624	Comment submitted by S. Richards

0625	Comment submitted by W.R. Davis

0626	Comment submitted by C. Lash

0627	Comment submitted by A. Bartholomew

0628	Comment submitted by L. Thompson

0629	Comment submitted by V. Volmensky

0630	Comment submitted by J. Steere

0631	Comment submitted by M. Ottenberg

0632	Comment submitted by E. Van den Bossche

0633	Comment submitted by G. Glaser

0634	Comment submitted by R. Reese

0635	Comment submitted by H. Sage

0636	Comment submitted by T. McMurray

0637	Comment submitted by R. Atkin

0638	Comment submitted by K. Christlieb

0639	Comment submitted by D. Cobb

0640	Comment submitted by M. Michelsen

0641	Comment submitted by V. Blanco

0642	Comment submitted by G. Gray

0643	Comment submitted by D. Smith

0644	Comment submitted by F. Holleman

0645	Comment submitted by I. Hyder

0646	Comment submitted by S. Varger

0647	Comment submitted by D. Lucio

0648	Comment submitted by M. Greenwood

0649	Comment submitted by H. Sprang-Martindell

0650	Comment submitted by J. Davis

0651	Comment submitted by S. Harris

0652	Comment submitted by M. Atkinson

0653	Comment submitted by P. Abbott

0654	Comment submitted by K. Miller

0655	Comment submitted by S. Denver

0656	Comment submitted by D. Kahan

0657	Comment submitted by R. Miller

0658	Comment submitted by R. Vieth

0659	Comment submitted by J. Edwards

0660	Comment submitted by L. Hanratty

0661	Comment submitted by C. Boulanger

0662	Comment submitted by R. Backman

0663	Comment submitted by K. Sandholdt

0664	Comment submitted by M. Korn

0665	Comment submitted by J. Taddie

0666	Comment submitted by C. Brooks

0667	Comment submitted by R. Guthrie

0668	Comment submitted by R. Bornhorst

0669	Comment submitted by E. Bittler

0670	Comment submitted by S. Mortensen

0671	Comment submitted by P. Gant

0672	Comment submitted by L. Galtere

0673	Comment submitted by V. and J. Wagner

0674	Comment submitted by B. Meshke

0675	Comment submitted by P. Olch

0676	Comment submitted by P. Koch

0677	Comment submitted by B. Geroux

0678	Comment submitted by R. Resnik

0679	Comment submitted by V. L. Fry

0680	Comment submitted by J. C. Bower

0681	Comment submitted by Andrew T. O'Hare, Vice

President, Portland Cement Association (PCA)

0681.1	Comment Attachment submitted by Andrew T.

O'Hare, Vice President, Portland Cement Association (PCA)

0681.2	Comment Attachment submitted by Andrew T.

O'Hare, Vice President, Portland Cement Association (PCA)

0681.3	Comment Attachment submitted by Andrew T. O'Hare, Vice President,
Portland Cement Association (PCA)

0682	Comment submitted by Craig S. Campbell, Vice President,
Environmental Affairs, Lafarge North America, Inc. (Lafarge)

0682.1	Comment Attachment submitted by Craig S. Campbell, Vice
President, Environmental Affairs Lafarge North America, Inc. (Lafarge)

0683	Comment submitted by A. Atkins

0684	Comment submitted by E. Martin

0685	Comment submitted by D. Greene

0686	Comment submitted by K. Carrillo

0687	Comment submitted by B. Johns

0688	Comment submitted by D. Haber

0689	Comment submitted by D. Handy

0690	Comment submitted by L. Dann

0691	Comment submitted by M. Ferraro

0692	Comment submitted by F. Qureshi

0693	Comment submitted by Bill B. (last name not provided)

0694	Comment submitted by D. Garlit

0695	Comment submitted by D. Biser

0696	Comment submitted by M. Labuda

0697	Comment submitted by C. Sims

0698	Comment submitted by A. Bottorff

0699	Comment submitted by A. Zack

0700	Comment submitted by D.L. Rader

0701	Comment submitted by B. Best

0702	Comment submitted by N. Maggi

0703	Comment submitted by A. LaTona

0704	Comment submitted by P. Haskell

0705	Comment submitted by E. Miller

0706	Comment submitted by F. Koski

0707	Comment submitted by D. Lewis

0708	Comment submitted by D. M. Parker

0709	Comment submitted by L. Baird

0710	Comment submitted by V. Meek

0711	Comment submitted by G. Amalfitano

0712	Comment submitted by C. Velto

0713	Comment submitted by D. Gould

0714	Comment submitted by A. Neal

0715	Comment submitted by C. Sott

0716	Comment submitted by E. Rieber

0717	Comment submitted by J. Marvin

0718	Comment submitted by E. Feigenbaum

0719	Comment submitted by J. Pancake

0720	Comment submitted by J. Pakkala

0721	Comment submitted by J. Smith

0722	Comment submitted by J. Brader

0723	Comment submitted by D. Kreutzer

0724	Comment submitted by J. Erb

0725	Comment submitted by D. Powell

0726	Comment submitted by K. E. Adair

0727	Comment submitted by K. Nelson

0728	Comment submitted by F. Koss

0729	Comment submitted by D. Granneman

0730	Comment submitted by S. Holtz

0731	Comment submitted by B. DeLeone

0732	Comment submitted by A. Shriberg

0733	Comment submitted by G. Akins

0734	Comment submitted by J. Poteat

0735	Comment submitted by L. Solomon

0736	Comment submitted by A. Vanderhoof

0737	Comment submitted by B. Eagle

0738	Comment submitted by E. Curtis

0739	Comment submitted by B. Howard

0740	Comment submitted by R. Hubler

0741	Comment submitted by C. McCurdy

0742	Comment submitted by C. Rush

0743	Comment submitted by S. Kutter

0744	Comment submitted by K. Courson

0745	Comment submitted by A. Emmons, Esq.

0746	Comment submitted by A. Bittle

0747	Comment submitted by A. Honican

0748	Comment submitted by A. Keith

0749	Comment submitted by D. W. Dial

0750	Comment submitted by D. Shefchik

0751	Comment submitted by A. Stehlheber

0752	Comment submitted by D. Stone

0753	Comment submitted by B. Glenn

0754	Comment submitted by D. Lien

0755	Comment submitted by B. Wachtel

0756	Comment submitted by J. Dougherty

0757	Comment submitted by B. Harden

0758	Comment submitted by Kroehler

0759	Comment submitted by M. Zapata

0760	Comment submitted by k. Lewis

0761	Comment submitted by C. Bellanceau

0762	Comment submitted by L. Mosel

0764	Comment submitted by S. Oryszak

0765	Comment submitted by J. Leis

0766	Comment submitted by M. Jelks

0767	Comment submitted by L. Kuipers

0768	Comment submitted by D. Rico

0769	Comment submitted by M. Ripple

0770	Comment submitted by D. Bonetti

0771	Comment submitted by D. Arnason

0772	Comment submitted by E. Sandon 

0773	Comment submitted by E. Ballentine 

0774	Comment submitted by K. Baran 

0775	Comment submitted by A. Kerr

0776	Comment submitted by A. Jordan 

0777	Comment submitted by J. Masters 

0778	Comment submitted by E. Owczarzak

0779	Comment submitted by D. Johnson

0780	Comment submitted by E. Cole 

0781	Comment submitted by D. Beatty 

0782	Comment submitted by P. Sanchez 

0783	Comment submitted by W. P.Ryan 

0784	Comment submitted by D. D. Kortan

0785	Comment submitted by M. Delgado

0786	Comment submitted by S. Phoenix

0787	Comment submitted by C. Senske

0788	Comment submitted by B. King

0789	Comment submitted by J. Ellison

0790	Comment submitted by L. Berben

0791	Comment submitted by C. Sherman

0792	Comment submitted by E. Duell

0793	Comment submitted by C. Dempsey

0794	Comment submitted by D. Best

0795	Comment submitted by D. Wester

0796	Comment submitted by C. Devecka

0797	Comment submitted by J. Hatmaker

0798	Comment submitted by M. Zimmerman

0799	Comment submitted by N. Depew

0800	Comment submitted by D. Falleur

0801	Comment submitted by A. Foster

0802	Comment submitted by M. Ettlinger

0803	Comment submitted by S. Kreider

0804	Comment submitted by K. Hart

0805	Comment submitted by James R. Roewer, Executive Director, Utility
Solid Waste Activities Group (USWAG)

0806	Comment submitted by K. Scott 

0807	Comment submitted by J. Hamilton-Schultze 

0808	Comment submitted by Julia Y. (no surname provided)

0809	Comment submitted by B. Creek 

0810	Comment submitted by J. Wrobel 

0811	Comment submitted by J. Smith 

0812	Comment submitted by J. T. Ezell 

0813	Comment submitted by B. Cat 

0814	Comment submitted by J. Flynn

0815	Comment submitted by J. Denapoli

0816	Comment submitted by G. W. Robinson

0817	Comment submitted by J. Hudson

0818	Comment submitted by B. Brothers

0819	Comment submitted by G. McVay

0820	Comment submitted by S. Brandon

0821	Comment submitted by S. Duchossois

0822	Comment submitted by H. Drescher

0823	Comment submitted by W. Mathes

0824	Comment submitted by J. Lathrop

0825	Comment submitted by I. Sidorov

0826	Comment submitted by K. Thompson

0827	Comment submitted by G. Bodoh

0828	Comment submitted by A. Braun

0829	Comment submitted by C. Hendershot

0830	Comment submitted by P. Forchielli

0831	Comment submitted by K. Frazier

0832	Comment submitted by K. Gersing

0833	Comment submitted by K. Brooks

0834	Comment submitted by J. Mesaros

0835	Comment submitted by J. Robb

0836	Comment submitted by M. Thomas 

0837	Comment submitted by J. Swaney 

0838	Comment submitted by J. Conklin 

0839	Comment submitted D. Loner 

0840	Comment submitted by C. Ricker 

0841	Comment submitted by K. Goldstein 

0842	Comment submitted by J. Shorey 

0843	Comment submitted by D. Bonafortuna 

0844	Comment submitted by G. Sims 

0845	Comment submitted by A. Stackpole 

0846	Comment submitted by M. Butcher 

0847	Comment submitted by D. Gould 

0848	Comment submitted by M. Tracey-Bastien 

0849	Comment submitted by D. Tackett 

0850	Comment submitted by J. Lee 

0851	Comment submitted by D. Walls 

0852	Comment submitted by C. Day 

0854	Comment submitted by D. Dunbar 

0855	Comment submitted by D. Valentino 

0856	Comment submitted by A. Carrick 

0857	omment submitted by C. Takaishi 

0858	Comment submitted by F. Hopkins 

0860	Comment submitted by S. Leach 

0861	Comment submitted by K. Ash 

0862	Comment submitted by J. Bradshaw 

0863	Comment submitted by C. Cochrane 

0864	Comment submitted by H. Mason 

0865	Comment submitted by C. Bonilla-Jones

0866	Comment submitted by I. Choi 

0867	Comment submitted by G. Lloyd 

0868	Comment submitted by L. Thelen 

0869	Comment submitted by G. Kemp 

0870	Comment submitted by S. Tracey 

0871	Comment submitted by B. Reeves 

0872	Comment submitted by K. Bigner 

0873	Comment submitted by G. Mack 

0874	Comment submitted by P. Huff 

0875	Comment submitted by D.K. and F.L. Cinquemani

0876	Comment submitted by J. Uzcategui-Gaymon 

0877	Comment submitted by K. Lightbody 

0878	Comment submitted by A. Christy 

0879	Comment submitted by J. Kumin 

0880	Comment submitted by M. Malkin 

0881	Comment submitted by L. Jones 

0882	Comment submitted by J. K. Loper

0883	Comment submitted by M. Levin

0884	Comment submitted by G. Knapp

0885	Comment submitted by J. King

0886	Comment submitted by D. Thomas

0887	Comment submitted by A. Washington 

0888	Comment submitted by J. Pietkiewicz 

0889	Comment submitted by K. Poindexter 

0890	Comment submitted by K. Emanuelson 

0891	Comment submitted by J. Cooper 

0892	Comment submitted by H. Wiegel 

0893	Comment submitted by A. Lees 

0894	Comment submitted by K. Gramata 

0895	Comment submitted by D. Peterson 

0896	Comment submitted by I. Gavidia 

0897	Comment submitted by J. Jenkins 

0898	Comment submitted by J. Schroeder

0899	Comment submitted by D. Phillips 

0900	Comment submitted by L. Gaui 

0901	Comment submitted by J. Krizanich 

0902	Comment submitted by G. Wolbrink 

0903	Comment submitted by J. Allen 

0904	Comment submitted by C. Bailey 

0905	Comment submitted by C. Wood 

0906	Comment submitted by J. Hall 

0907	Comment submitted by J. Hegg 

0908	Comment submitted by C. Kelefas 

0909	Comment submitted by Pamela Faggert, Vice President and CEO,
Dominion

0910	Comment submitted by David C. Foerter, Executive Director,
Institute of Clean Air Companies (ICAC)

0910.1	Comment submitted by David C. Foerter, Executive Director,
Institute of Clean Air Companies (ICAC)

0911	Comment submitted by R. J. Cornwell 

0912	Comment submitted by C. Barker 

0913	Comment submitted by C. McPherson

0914	Comment submitted by P. Williams 

0915	Comment submitted by A. Ake 

0916	Comment submitted by D. Kenosian 

0917	Comment submitted by E. Gall 

0918	Comment submitted by P. Greene 

0919	Comment from D. & R. Chamberlin 

0920	Comment submitted by D. Berthiaume 

0921	Comment submitted by D. Proffer 

0922	Comment submitted by C. DeWitt 

0923	Comment submitted by J. Passavant 

0924	Comment submitted by B. Dell 

0925	Comment submitted by B. Martinez 

0926	Comment submitted by G. Burchard 

0927	Comment submitted by M. Penton 

0928	Comment submitted by L. Bowen 

0929	Comment submitted by E. Wolf 

0930	Comment submitted by M. Abdilla 

0931	Comment submitted by D. McGinley 

0932	Comment submitted by M. Luther 

0933	Comment submitted by J. Catalano 

0934	Comment submitted by C. Voss 

0935	Comment submitted by K. Merrick 

0936	Comment submitted by James P. Brooks, Director, Bureau of Air
Quality, State of Maine, Department of Environmental Protection (MEDEP)

0937	Comment submitted by Jeremy Nichols, Rocky Mountain Clean Air
Action

0937.1	Comment submitted by Jeremy Nichols, Rocky Mountain Clean Air
Action

0938	Comment submitted by Chris M. Hobson, Senior Vice President,
Environmental Affairs, Southern Company

0938.1	Comment submitted by Chris M. Hobson, Senior Vice President,
Environmental Affairs, Southern Company

0939	Comment submitted by E. Monheim

0940	Comment submitted by J. Grant 

0941	Comment submitted by Angela P. (no surname given)

0942	Comment submitted by A. Mercado-Harvey 

0943	Comment submitted by R. Camacho 

0944	Comment submitted by A. Jones 

0945	Comment submitted by V. Ball 

0946	Comment submitted by B. Duwe 

0947	Comment submitted by N. Palen 

0948	Comment submitted by A. D. Houser 

0949	Comment submitted by T. Falasco 

0950	Comment submitted by K. Barber 

0951	Comment submitted by M. Rowlands 

0952	Comment submitted by H. Hamilton 

0953	Comment submitted by A. Pryor 

0954	Comment submitted by J. Head 

0955	Comment submitted by D. Ruch 

0956	Comment submitted by J. Verry 

0957	Comment submitted by J. Fellrath 

0958	Comment submitted by K. Wagner 

0959	Comment submitted by K. Lyon 

0960	Comment submitted by L. Rodriguez 

0961	Comment submitted by J. Held-Warmkessel 

0962	Comment submitted by J. Fournier 

0963	Comment submitted by J. Mortensen 

0964	Comment submitted by J. Braga 

0965	Comment submitted by A. Peters 

0966	Comment submitted by J. Fisher 

0967	Comment submitted by A. Nielsen 

0968	Comment submitted by K. Bertagnolli 

0969	Comment submitted by J. Treacy 

0970	Comment submitted by J. Horn 

0971	Comment submitted by 1. Sheriff 

0972	Comment submitted by E. Wallace 

0973	Comment submitted by J. Thompson 

0974	Comment submitted by L. McCosker 

0975	Comment submitted by A. Cooper 

0976	Comment submitted by D. Brener 

0977	Comment submitted by R. Heyes 

0978	Comment submitted by M. DeYarus 

0979	Comment submitted by A. Boger 

0980	Comment submitted by J. Wright 

0981	Comment submitted by J. Buscarini 

0982	Comment submitted by S. Miller 

0983	Comment submitted by S. Light 

0984	Comment submitted by J. Saylor 

0985	Comment submitted by G. Mayer 

0986	Comment submitted by C. Banner 

0987	Comment submitted by S. Cole 

0988	Comment submitted by J. Blue 

0989	Comment submitted by M. Green 

0990	Comment submitted by P. Kurth 

0991	Comment submitted by A. Rosales 

0992	Comment submitted by L. E. Garcia-Santiago 

0993	Comment submitted by J. L. Wilson 

0994	Comment submitted by L. Hopkins 

0995	Comment submitted by M. J. Rupert 

0996	Comment submitted by I. Rothenberg 

0997	Comment submitted by M. Waltman 

0998	Comment from M. McC 

0999	Comment L. A. Hannon 

1000	Comment submitted by L. Carlson 

1001	Comment submitted by K. Puckett 

1002	Comment submitted by A. DeMarco 

1003	Comment submitted by P. Fleischer 

1004	Comment submitted by S. Mayfield-Chapin 

1006	Comment submitted by D. Potter 

1007	Comment submitted by S. N. Simmons 

1008	Comment submitted by K. Om 

1009	Comment submitted by M. Edwards 

1010	Comment submitted by K. Wieda 

1011	Comment submitted by M. Mukatis 

1012	Comment submitted by K. Burroughs

1013	Comment submitted by D. Blumson 

1014	Comment submitted by A. Fournier 

1015	Comment submitted by B. Hunter 

1016	Comment submitted by A. Shaw 

1017	Comment submitted by B. Maize 

1018	Comment submitted by B. Tucker 

1019	Comment submitted by T. Senatore 

1020	Comment submitted by R. Witt 

1021	Comment submitted by J. Beals 

1022	Comment submitted by V. Rosencrans 

1023	Comment submitted by A. Seip 

1024	Comment submitted by D. M. Conard 

1025	Comment submitted by J. Soler 

1026	Comment submitted by D. K. Anderson 

1027	Comment submitted by M. Graff 

1028	Comment submitted by K. Eastin-Schlieper 

1029	Comment submitted by J. Kesich 

1030	Comment submitted by J. Guy 

1031	Comment submitted by T. Wirs 

1032	Comment submitted by D. Thompson 

1033	Comment submitted by B. Kates 

1034	Comment submitted by B. Kluger 

1035	Comment submitted by C. Fluder 

1036	Comment submitted by J. Kriebel 

1037	Comment submitted by A. Gallardo-Perez 

1038	Comment submitted by A. Genova 

1039	Comment submitted by J. Colgan-Davis 

1040	Comment submitted by J. Pricoli 

1041	Comment submitted by B. Hauber 

1042	Comment submitted by J. Chambers 

1043	Comment submitted by G. Chatley 

1044	Comment submitted by W. B. Lurie 

1045	Comment submitted by A. Capobianco 

1046	Comment submitted by D. Adams 

1047	Comment submitted by M. Steele 

1048	Comment submitted by L. E. Adrover 

1050	Comment submitted by M. Volkman 

1051	Comment submitted by L. Sperano 

1052	Comment submitted by A. Moore 

1053	Comment submitted by P. Carosone-Link 

1054	Comment submitted by W. K. Bagwell 

1055	Comment submitted by A. MacAdam 

1056	Comment submitted by M. Gutzwiller 

1057	Comment submitted by T. Ptak 

1058	Comment submitted by A. Grob 

1059	Comment submitted by M. Mays

1060	Comment submitted by T. Wright 

1061	Comment submitted by R. Jessup 

1062	Comment submitted by S. Osterland 

1063	Comment submitted by J. Beilharz 

1064	Comment submitted by J. Hanson 

1065	Comment submitted by J. Feather 

1066	Comment submitted by L. Smith, B.A. 

1067	Comment submitted by S. Athanasiou 

1068	Comment submitted by J. Cannon 

1069	Comment submitted by K. Tweeddale 

1070	Comment submitted by S. Price 

1071	Comment submitted by J. Keck 

1072	Comment submitted by M. Whitcomb 

1073	Comment submitted by D. James-Saxton 

1074	Comment submitted by L. Alzamily 

1075	Comment submitted by K. Lines 

1076	Comment submitted by M. Ellis 

1077	Comment submitted by A. Loria 

1078	Comment submitted by M. Stringer 

1079	Comment submitted by L. Melena 

1080	Comment submitted by K. Pounds 

1081	Comment submitted by S. Kroll 

1082	Comment submitted by A. Dellago 

1083	Comment submitted by W. Honigman 

1084	Comment submitted by L. Miklowitz 

1085	Comment submitted by M. Addison 

1086	Comment submitted by L. Richter 

1087	Comment submitted by L. Lovell 

1088	Comment submitted by K. Love 

1089	Comment submitted by M. Klocek 

1090	Comment submitted M. Markowski 

1091	Comment submitted by L. Miles 

1092	Comment submitted by L. Beckman 

1093	Comment submitted by L. Workman 

1094	Comment submitted by L. Ziginow 

1095	Comment submitted by S. and J. McDermott 

1096	Comment submitted by M. Schaal-Speed 

1097	Comment submitted by D. Wade 

1098	Comment submitted by M. Hedrick 

1099	Comment submitted by A. M. Shirley 

1100	Comment submitted by M. Vandellos 

1101	Comment submitted by D. Vetesy 

1102	Comment submitted by M. Klein 

1103	Comment submitted by G. Schwartz 

1104	Comment submitted by L. Bonura 

1105	Comment submitted by L. Horst 

1106	Comment submitted by A. Alvarez 

1107	Comment submitted by M. A. Zappone 

1108	Comment submitted by L. Lynn 

1109	Comment submitted by L. McKee

1110	Comment submitted by L. R. Brunger 

1111	Comment submitted by M. Mfemfem 

1112	Comment submitted by L. Redal 

1113	Comment submitted by D. Hoaglin 

1114	Comment submitted by T. McCormick and J. McCormick

1115	Comment submitted by S. Berry 

1116	Comment submitted by C. O'Neill 

1117	Comment submitted by S. Shinas 

1118	Comment submitted by J. Cassidy 

1119	Comment submitted by M. Cosgriff 

1120	Comment submitted by B. A. Martinez 

1121	Comment submitted by K. M. (No surname provided) 

1122	Comment submitted by J. C. Twombly 

1123	Comment submitted by M. Katz 

1124	Comment submitted by S. Wolcott 

1125	Comment submitted by P. Clark 

1126	Comment submitted by W. Graue 

1127	Comment submitted by J. Fitch 

1128	Comment submitted by H. Brooks 

1129	Comment submitted by K. Brooks 

1130	Comment submitted by J. Reeves

1131	Comment submitted by J. Wilson

1132	Comment submitted by K. Hall

1133	Comment submitted by M. Hoff

1134	Comment submitted by R. Osborne

1135	Comment submitted by D. Holbrook 

1136	Comment submitted by I. Pankiw 

1137	Comment submitted by J. Huffman 

1138	Comment submitted by J. Stock 

1139	Comment submitted by Reverend Canon J. C. Fowler

1140	Comment submitted by K. Acquaro 

1141	Comment submitted by J. Kihnke 

1142	Comment submitted by C. Kielmann 

1143	Comment submitted by D. Hilden 

1144	Comment submitted by D. Schutz 

1145	Comment submitted by O. Zivney 

1146	Comment submitted by D. Day 

1147	Comment submitted by L. Meek 

1148	Comment submitted by V. Thigpen 

1149	Comment submitted by L. R. McGill 

1150	Comment submitted by L. Maldonado 

1151	Comment submitted by J. Cunningham 

1152	Comment submitted by S. Geraldi 

1153	Comment submitted by H. M. S. Mayfair 

1154	Comment submitted by P. Uschuk 

1155	Comment submitted by R. D. Kral 

1156	Comment submitted by S. Bramante 

1157	Comment submitted by R. Wood 

1158	Comment submitted by M. Bates 

1159	Comment submitted by M. Evans 

1160	Comment submitted by D. Danielski 

1161	Comment submitted by S. Sleeper 

1162	Comment submitted by S. Rowland 

1163	Comment submitted by S. Donetti 

1164	Comment submitted by L. Stepkid 

1165	Comment submitted by S. Redclift 

1166	Comment submitted by D. Valentin 

1167	Comment submitted by S. Fults 

1168	Comment submitted by C. Barta 

1169	Comment submitted by R. Youngmeyer 

1170	Comment submitted by J. Cole 

1171	Comment submitted by M. Standefer 

1172	Comment submitted by C. Talbot 

1173	Comment submitted by P. Foster 

1174	Comment submitted by N. Anderson 

1175	Comment submitted by S. R. Weiser 

1176	Comment submitted by M. Edgcomb 

1177	Comment submitted by J. Moore 

1178	Comment submitted by R. LaPlante 

1179	Comment submitted by T. Dignazio 

1180	Comment submitted by U. Simons 

1181	Comment submitted by P. Thompson 

1182	Comment submitted by R. Smith 

1183	Comment submitted by V. P. Hines 

1184	Comment submitted by B. Klacik 

1185	 Comment submitted by S. Adams 

1186	Comment submitted by J. Egan 

1187	Comment submitted by U. White 

1188	Comment submitted by M. Odendaal 

1189	Comment submitted by A. M. Heilman 

1190	Comment submitted by C. Jones 

1191	Comment submitted by P. Lehman 

1192	Comment submitted by C. Sheppard 

1193	Comment submitted by T. Stanzione 

1194	Comment submitted by C. Noring 

1195	Comment submitted by T. Gellerman 

1196	Comment submitted by T. Dank 

1197	Comment submitted by R. Santos

1198	Comment submitted by M. Delaney 

1199	Comment submitted by K. Gregory 

1200	Comment submitted by L. Shelton-Pallenik 

1201	Comment submitted by M. Parma 

1202	Comment submitted by A. Riedel 

1203	Comment submitted by M. Puente-Duany 

1204	Comment submitted by E. Caldwell 

1205	Comment submitted by S. Szpont 

1206	Comment submitted by A. Andree 

1207	Comment submitted by Y. Fileccia 

1208	 Comment submitted by N. Hopkins 

1209	Comment submitted by N. Keefer 

1210	Comment submitted by S. DeYarus 

1211	Comment submitted by P. H. Powala Schuck 

1212	Comment submitted by S. Dudzinski 

1213	Comment submitted by U. Charaf 

1214	Comment submitted by S. M. Schaefer 

1215	Comment submitted by S. Curry 

1216	Comment submitted by T. Chavez 

1217	Comment submitted by A. Kozak 

1218	Comment submitted by T. Thaller 

1219	Comment submitted by D. Serra 

1220	Comment submitted by C. Crestodina 

1221	Comment submitted by D. Donovan 

1222	Comment submitted by S. Michaelides 

1224	Comment submitted by C. Propst 

1225	Comment submitted by A. Kelley 

1226	Comment submitted by M. Neal 

1227	Comment submitted by R. K. Craig 

1228	Comment submitted by R. Shwedo 

1229	Comment submitted by B. Laxon 

1230	Comment submitted by P. Gurdal 

1231	Comment submitted by R. Twait 

1232	Comment submitted by B. Mayes 

1233	Comment submitted by Caroline W. (no surname provided)

1234	Comment submitted by R. Hoose 

1235	Comment submitted by D. Batty and B. Batty 

1236	Comment submitted by R. Mazzarella 

1237	Comment submitted by S. Moorehouse 

1238	Comment submitted by L. Adams 

1239	Comment submitted by J. Scott 

1240	Comment submitted by P. Torrez 

1241	Comment submitted by B. Williamson 

1242	Comment submitted by A. Dooling 

1243	Comment submitted by N. Wright 

1244	Comment submitted by J. Czarnota 

1245	Comment submitted by W. Lee 

1246	Comment submitted by T. Stiller 

1247	Comment submitted by T. Floyd 

1248	Comment submitted by T. Arnett

1249	Comment submitted by S. Walsh 

1250	Comment submitted by S. Guram 

1251	Comment submitted by W. White 

1252	Comment submitted by S. Hall 

1253	Comment submitted by P. Moralis 

1254	Comment submitted by P. Pennell 

1255	Comment submitted by J. Solano 

1256	Comment submitted by T. Master 

1257	Comment submitted by C. Rudolph 

1258	Comment submitted by E. Waldron 

1259	Comment submitted by K. Kaylor 

1260	Comment submitted by M. L. Barnard 

1261	Comment submitted by R. Baleka 

1262	Comment submitted by P. Ortuba 

1263	 Comment submitted by T. Williams 

1264	Comment submitted by R. Remple 

1265	Comment submitted by L. Miller 

1266	Comment submitted by D. Devowe 

1267	Comment submitted by R. Cherasaro 

1268	Comment submitted by N. Mades 

1269	Comment submitted by E. Colerich 

1270	Comment submitted by M. Haines 

1271	Comment submitted by D. Chicano 

1272	Comment submitted by C. Chomat 

1273	Comment submitted by A. Reed

1274	Comment submitted by A. Richards

1275	Comment submitted by M. Costa-Moreno 

1276	Comment submitted by A. Arango 

1277	Comment submitted by D. Paterno 

1278	Comment submitted by C. Mahoney 

1279	Comment submitted by B. Rivers 

1280	Comment submitted by D. Temp 

1281	Comment submitted by M. Haan 

1282	Comment submitted by L. Borthwick 

1283	Comment submitted by R. Whitelock 

1284	Comment submitted by M. Younis 

1285	Comment submitted by Jin N. (no surname given) 

1286	Comment submitted by K. Reed 

1287	Comment submitted by R. Jones 

1288	Comment submitted by R. Kuttler 

1289	Comment submitted by R. B. Allen 

1290	Comment submitted by F. Cooper 

1291	Comment submitted by L. Beatty 

1292	Comment submitted by M. Pacheco 

1293	Comment submitted by U. Boggs 

1294	Comment submitted by N. Sydorenko 

1295	Comment submitted by R. Bayard 

1296	Comment submitted by W. Niimki 

1297	Comment submitted by M. Cowles 

1298	Comment submitted by J. Butera 

1299	Comment submitted by T. True 

1300	Comment submitted by N. Berens 

1301	Comment submitted by R. Minich 

1302	Comment submitted by A. Langer 

1303	Comment submitted by H. Downie 

1304	Comment submitted by M. Collins 

1305	Comment submitted by S. Kerr 

1306	Comment submitted by A. Buono 

1307	Comment submitted by R. Bennett 

1308	Comment submitted by I. Wallace 

1309	Comment submitted by P. Satifka 

1310	Comment submitted by N. Stocker 

1311	Comment submitted by P. Albrecht 

1312	Comment submitted by A. Koosed 

1313	Comment submitted by S. Murphy 

1314	Comment submitted by M. Fodor 

1315	Comment submitted by T. Cheek 

1316	Comment submitted by N. Lamb 

1317	Comment submitted by N. Doyle 

1318	Comment submitted by T. Miller 

1319	Comment submitted by N. Biele 

1320	Comment submitted by S. Taylor 

1321	Comment submitted by S. Clothier 

1322	Comment submitted by R. Vanderkamp 

1323	Comment submitted by S. Russick 

1324	Comment submitted by Andrew Ginsburg, Air Quality Administrator,
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality

1325	Comment submitted by Pamela F. Faggert, Vice President and Chief
Environmental Officer, Dominion

1326	Comment submitted by M. Mason 

1327	Comment submitted by M. McKenzie 

1328	Comment submitted by K. Reyes 

1329	Comment submitted by M. DuVall-Rubin 

1330	Comment submitted by L. Towles 

1331	Comment submitted by R. Millard 

1332	Comment submitted by G. Miranda 

1333	Comment submitted by M. James 

1334	Comment submitted by L. Chaves 

1335	Comment submitted by M. Capler 

1336	Comment submitted by L. Grandstaff 

1337	Comment submitted by E. Knott 

1338	Comment submitted by C. Takaht 

1339	Comment submitted by C. Hritz 

1340	Comment submitted by D. Frisco 

1341	Comment submitted by C. Lerman 

1342	Comment submitted by B. Jenkins 

1343	Comment submitted by M. Potter 

1344	Comment submitted by C. Janik 

1345	Comment submitted by D. Pon 

1346	Comment submitted by M. Crawford 

1347	Comment submitted by R. Taylor 

1348	Comment submitted by J. Motzer 

1349	Comment submitted by I. Jones 

1350	Comment submitted by M. McLean 

1351	Comment submitted by M. Chisholm 

1352	Comment submitted by K. Field 

1353	Comment submitted by P. Brooks 

1354	Comment submitted by P. Felt 

1355	Comment submitted by R. Shedd 

1356	Comment submitted by D. Thomas 

1357	Comment submitted by A. S. Hanson 

1358	Comment submitted by C. F. Foster 

1359	Comment submitted by W. J. Zick 

1360	Comment submitted by L. Savina 

1361	Comment submitted by P. Walker 

1362	Comment submitted by R. Shwedo 

1363	Comment submitted by K. Osawa 

1364	Comment submitted by B. Huggins 

1365	Comment submitted by S. Cea 

1366	Comment submitted by R. Kyle

1367	Comment submitted by C. Broskette 

1368	Comment submitted by P. Hostetler 

1369	Comment submitted by Z. Zumeta 

1370	Comment submitted by E. A. Cartwright 

1371	Comment submitted by L. McMullen 

1372	Comment submitted by M. Nagel 

1373	Comment submitted by L. Bonnici 

1374	Comment submitted by C. Wright 

1375	Comment submitted by S. Clawges 

1376	Comment submitted by W. Jorgensen 

1377	Comment submitted by D. Spisak 

1378	Comment submitted by B. Sallee 

1379	Comment submitted by Z. Bird 

1380	Comment submitted by P. Pierce 

1381	Comment submitted by J. Moore 

1382	Comment submitted by S. F. Warren 

1383	Comment submitted by A. Warriner 

1384	Comment submitted by S. Hudson 

1385	Comment submitted by B. Johnson

1386	Comment submitted by J. Wilson 

1387	Comment submitted by N. Forrest 

1388	Comment submitted by M. Stein 

1389	Comment submitted by C. Beck 

1390	Comment submitted by W. Atkinson 

1391	Comment submitted by W. Wood 

1392	Comment submitted by W. E. Gray 

1393	Comment submitted by R. Wise 

1394	Comment submitted by E. Hoopes 

1395	Comment submitted by M. Flaschen 

1396	Comment submitted by A. George 

1397	Comment submitted by R. Dzierzba 

1398	Comment submitted by J. MacTavish 

1399	Comment submitted by R. Murphy

1400	Comment submitted by D. Schleiden 

1401	Comment submitted by R. Riley 

1402	Comment submitted by M. Panella 

1403	Comment submitted by P. Zapp 

1404	Comment submitted by S. Haub 

1405	Comment submitted by M. Carter 

1406	Comment submitted by H. Vineyard 

1407	Comment submitted by S. Huebner 

1408	Comment submitted by S. Watson 

1409	Comment submitted by S. Pianka 

1410	Comment submitted by J. Hanson 

1411	Comment submitted by J. Hanson

1412	Comment submitted by G. C. Allerton 

1413	Comment submitted by C. Shafer 

1414	Comment submitted by S. Melnicoff 

1415	Comment submitted by B. Smay 

1416	Comment submitted by J. Wingard and L. Wingard 

1417	Comment submitted by M. Hauck 

1418	Comment submitted by M. Huckaby 

1419	Comment submitted by G. Seman 

1420	Comment submitted by N. Lloyd 

1421	Comment submitted by D. Campbell 

1422	Comment submitted by C. Kennedy 

1423	Comment submitted by J. Adelstone 

1424	Comment submitted by R. Kulmacz 

1425	Comment submitted by J. Tillotson 

1426	Comment submitted by C. Quist 

1427	Comment submitted by D. Chaiken 

1428	Comment submitted by H. Denenberg 

1429	Comment submitted by G. Mango 

1430	Comment submitted by J. Savage and P. Savage 

1431	Comment submitted by S. Adler 

1432	Comment submitted by F. Winnick 

1433	Comment submitted by R. Kean 

1434	Comment submitted by D. Bunge 

1435	Comment submitted by K. Calderon 

1436	Comment submitted by J. Spears 

1437	Comment submitted by D. Guizzetti

1438	Comment submitted by C. Ralff 

1439	Comment submitted by J. Moore 

1440	Comment submitted by S. Moreschini 

1441	Comment submitted by S. Kirtley 

1442	Comment submitted by L. Simone 

1443	Comment submitted by S. Carrubba 

1444	Comment submitted by P. Hult 

1445	Comment submitted by C. Dildine

1446	Comment submitted by J. McConkey 

1447	Comment submitted by T. Carsten 

1448	Comment submitted by E. Awsiukiewicz 

1449	Comment submitted by K. Basey 

1450	Comment submitted by J. Engstrom 

1451	Comment submitted by R. Flory 

1452	Comment submitted by M. Schwarzman 

1453	Comment submitted by P. Kreitner 

1454	Comment submitted by D. Seppa 

1455	Comment submitted by L. Howard 

1456	Comment submitted by P. Soteropoulos 

1457	Comment submitted by A. Page 

1458	Comment submitted by T. Johnston 

1459	Comment submitted by N. Hoch 

1460	Comment submitted by M. Schwehn 

1461	Comment submitted by M. Zamudio 

1462	Comment submitted by K. McAdam 

1463	Comment submitted by M. Klein 

1464	Comment submitted by A. and P. Haisley 

1465	Comment submitted by M. Engelman 

1466	Comment submitted by J. Boone 

1467	Comment submitted by R. Browne 

1468	Comment submitted by L. Horst 

1469	Comment submitted by D. Kurzban 

1470	Comment submitted by A. Rafalski 

1471	Comment submitted by L. Karasek

1472	Comment submitted by P. Heeszel 

1473	Comment submitted by D. Madden 

1474	Comment submitted by D. Beaty 

1475	Comment submitted by K. Hockley 

1476	Comment submitted by A. Powell 

1477	Comment submitted by J. Ziskin 

1478	Comment submitted by K. Spinks 

1479	Comment submitted by J. P. Brady 

1480	Comment submitted by K. Brumbaugh 

1481	Comment submitted by B. Clark 

1482	Comment submitted by B. Tomlinson 

1483	Comment submitted by J. Robin 

1484	Comment submitted by C. Barnes 

1485	Comment submitted by J. Dierig 

1486	Comment submitted by J. Nagel 

1487	Comment submitted by D. Penix 

1488	Comment submitted by P. Shafchuk 

1489	Comment submitted by S. Gaydon 

1490	Comment submitted by D. R. Wright 

1491	Comment submitted by F. Mean 

1492	Comment submitted by S. Furlong 

1493	Comment submitted by N. Jones 

1494	Comment submitted by T. Clark 

1495	Comment submitted by P. Samuelson 

1496	Comment submitted by H. Grove 

1497	Comment submitted by C. Arasim 

1498	Comment submitted by S. Kunz 

1499	Comment submitted by D. Stoughton 

1500	Comment submitted by S. Myrick 

1501	Comment submitted by M. Strukel 

1502	Comment submitted by J. Berman 

1503	Comment submitted by M. Stanley 

1504	Comment submitted by R. Closson 

1505	Comment submitted by S. Skees 

1506	Comment submitted by I. Richardson 

1507	Comment submitted by J. Ciero 

1508	Comment submitted by H. M. Schulte 

1509	Comment submitted by T. Fletcher 

1510	Comment submitted by A. Rohwedder 

1511	Comment submitted by J. Yablonovitz 

1512	Comment submitted by F. Scheuer II 

1513	Comment submitted by T. Crabtree 

1514	Comment submitted by S. Lindson 

1515	Comment submitted by T. Mereness 

1516	Comment submitted by P. R. S. Loret 

1517	Comment submitted by S. Thomson 

1518	Comment submitted by J. Wilkinson 

1519	Comment submitted by W. Fridy 

1520	Comment submitted by B. Farrell 

1521	Comment submitted by R. Estok 

1522	Comment submitted by C. DelRegno 

1523	Comment submitted by T. Taylor 

1524	Comment submitted by J. Smith 

1525	Comment submitted by K. Contestabile 

1526	Comment submitted by B. Benestante 

1527	Comment submitted by J. Mittl 

1528	Comment submitted by J. Schwab 

1529	Comment submitted by C. Boldt 

1530	Comment submitted by J. Lowry 

1531	Comment submitted by K. Gloor 

1532	Comment submitted by C. Tate 

1533	Comment submitted by P. Morello 

1534	Comment submitted by A. Bischoff 

1535	Comment submitted by K. Gardiner 

1536	Comment submitted by M. Swanson 

1537	Comment submitted by T. Cole 

1538	Comment submitted by N. Silverman 

1539	Comment submitted by B. Rodgers 

1540	Comment submitted by M. Rogers 

1541	Comment submitted by B. Flynn 

1542	Comment submitted by L. Moore 

1543	Comment submitted by J. M. Cocco 

1544	Comment submitted by W. Unger 

1545	Comment submitted by B. McFarlane 

1546	Comment submitted by K. Ambrus 

1547	Comment submitted by J. MacDonald 

1548	Comment submitted by J. Ingraham 

1549	Comment submitted by A. Melendez 

1550	Comment submitted by M. Catena

1551	Comment submitted by D. Jerry 

1552	Comment submitted by T. Stevens 

1553	Comment submitted by D. Homan 

1554	Comment submitted by T. Golovich 

1555	Comment submitted by S. Gonzalez 

1556	Comment submitted by N. Sawhney 

1557	Comment submitted by T. DeWitt

1558	Comment submitted by N. Cartron 

1559	Comment submitted by M. A. Rathbone 

1560	Comment submitted by V. Mullins 

1561	Comment submitted by S. Weinstein 

1562	Comment submitted by R. Pearlson 

1563	Comment submitted by L. Szczepanski 

1564	Comment submitted by N. Parsons 

1565	Comment submitted by B. Millin 

1566	Comment submitted by P. Rogan 

1567	Comment submitted by M. Stenzel 

1568	Comment submitted by R. M. Andrews 

1569	Comment submitted by A. Sankar 

1570	Comment submitted by S. Earl 

1571	Comment submitted by C. Ritchie 

1572	Comment submitted by S. Jenkins 

1573	Comment submitted by T. Van Inwagen 

1574	Comment submitted by G. Harbin 

1575	Comment submitted by K. Hansen 

1576	Comment submitted by J. Shaw 

1577	Comment submitted by C. Goldstrom 

1578	Comment submitted by G. Syck 

1579	Comment submitted by M. Lefever 

1580	Comment submitted by L. Bock 

1581	Comment submitted by J. Larson 

1582	Comment submitted by P. Viglia II 

1583	Comment submitted by T. Steele 

1584	Comment submitted by R. Rhein 

1585	Comment submitted by P. Noonan 

1586	Comment submitted by O. Bey-Walker 

1587	Comment submitted by N. Horvath 

1588	Comment submitted by R. Vlug 

1589	Comment submitted by S. Williams 

1590	Comment submitted by V. Johnson 

1591	Comment submitted by T. Mills 

1592	Comment submitted by S. Wood 

1593	Comment submitted by P. Bateman 

1594	Comment submitted by S. Lohrding 

1595	Comment submitted by D. Wolff 

1596	Comment submitted by R. Copenhaver 

1597	Comment submitted by M. Rowen 

1598	Comment submitted by V. Sgroi 

1599	Comment submitted by R. Shanbhag 

1600	Comment submitted by P. G. Shane 

1601	Comment submitted by E. Stein 

1602	Comment submitted by S. Williamson 

1603	Comment submitted by L. Carr 

1604	Comment submitted by O. Milo 

1605	Comment submitted by S. Whitener 

1606	Comment submitted by S. Moran 

1607	Comment submitted by D. Moon 

1608	Comment submitted by J. Sussbauer 

1609	Comment submitted by J. Hodie 

1610	Comment submitted by R. Latimer 

1611	Comment submitted by S. Lopez 

1612	Comment submitted by I. Salander 

1613	Comment submitted by V. Corey 

1614	Comment submitted by S. J. Tognoli 

1615	Comment submitted by W. Robey 

1616	Comment submitted by K. Montes 

1617	Comment submitted by M. Richards 

1618	Comment submitted by K. Lozon 

1619	Comment submitted by V. Hagman 

1620	Comment submitted by M. Beam 

1621	Comment submitted by M. Oneill 

1622	Comment submitted by A. [Surname Unknown] 

1623	Comment submitted by Sr. C. Schuyler 

1624	Comment submitted by R. Wilson 

1625	Comment submitted by T. Panagos 

1626	Comment submitted by R. Creswell 

1627	Comment submitted by P. Foster 

1628	Comment submitted by J. Wohlstadter and B. Wohlstadter

1629	Comment submitted by K. R. Langenfeld 

1630	Comment submitted by R. Wetterholt 

1631	Comment submitted by K. Nelson 

1632	Comment submitted by P. E. Schroeder 

1633	Comment submitted by G. S. Nicholson 

1634	Comment submitted by S. Hughes 

1635	Comment submitted by S. Hinson 

1636	Comment submitted by L. Byers 

1637	Comment submitted by S. Levinson 

1638	Comment submitted by V. Hyland 

1639	Comment submitted by M. DeLoye 

1640	Comment submitted by A. Reed 

1641	Comment submitted by A. Reinhard 

1642	Comment submitted by W. Barychko 

1643	Comment submitted by S. Cosby 

1644	Comment submitted by B. Rodgers 

1645	Comment submitted by C. A. Drick 

1646	Comment submitted by M. W. Fleming 

1647	Comment submitted by T. Smith 

1648	Comment submitted by D. Earnhart

1649	Comment submitted by D. Curtis-Moore 

1650	Comment submitted by S. Mandie 

1651	Comment submitted by H. Martin

1652	Comment submitted by V. LoCastro 

1653	Comment submitted by L. Lucas 

1654	Comment submitted by C. Fairbrother 

1655	Comment submitted by J. I. Fordham 

1656	Comment submitted by Y. Syracopoulos 

1657	Comment submitted by J. Burgard 

1658	Comment submitted by J. Powers 

1659	Comment submitted by M. S. Kloss 

1660	Comment submitted by G. Wallace 

1661	Comment submitted by C. Weber 

1662	Comment submitted by S. Jolley-Shannon 

1663	Comment submitted by J. A. Thompson 

1664	Comment submitted by C. Dingeman 

1665	Comment submitted by R. Pather 

1666	Comment submitted by M. Leff 

1667	Comment submitted by R. Bond 

1668	Comment submitted by J. Menard 

1669	Comment submitted by W. Root 

1670	Comment submitted by T. Bono 

1671	Comment submitted by K. Gualtieri 

1672	Comment submitted by S. Pavel 

1673	Comment submitted by D. Nikolaus 

1674	Comment submitted by J. Deloach 

1675	Comment submitted by K. Sommer 

1676	Comment submitted by R. Hannah 

1677	Comment submitted by C. Albery 

1678	Comment submitted by M. Cox 

1679	Comment submitted by M. Richardson 

1680	Comment submitted by L. Rhima 

1681	Comment submitted by C. Hushka 

1682	Comment submitted by D. Freedman 

1683	Comment submitted by S. Kinyon 

1684	Comment submitted by J. D. Lewis 

1685	Comment submitted by M. Delongy 

1686	Comment submitted by D. L. Beisel 

1687	Comment submitted by R. Oppenheimer 

1688	Comment submitted by S. Hess 

1689	Comment submitted by D. Martz 

1690	Comment submitted by L. Stubbs 

1691	Comment submitted by M. Wolf 

1693	Comment submitted by D. Russo

1694	Comment submitted by D. Peeze 

1695	Comment submitted by L.Bissell 

1696	Comment submitted by W. Kellner 

1697	Comment submitted by M. Klein 

1698	Comment submitted by L. Gibbons 

1699	Comment submitted by L. Anderson 

1700	Comment submitted by Lori S. (no surname provided) 

1701	Comment submitted by M. Jonasen 

1702	Comment submitted by L. Dillard 

1703	Comment submitted by M. Jenkins 

1704	Comment submitted by K. Hart 

1705	Comment submitted by F. Kornfeld 

1706	Comment submitted by D. Williams 

1707	Comment submitted by A. Cohen 

1708	Comment submitted by GeorgeAnn (no surname provided)

1709	Comment submitted by D. Adkins 

1710	Comment submitted by K. Mathis 

1711	Comment submitted by E. Bartholomew 

1712	Comment submitted by D. Gray 

1713	Comment submitted by J. Grant 

1714	Comment submitted by J. Rinehart

1715	Comment submitted by M. Gallegos 

1716	Comment submitted by L. Beard 

1717	Comment submitted by B. Klein 

1718	Comment submitted by R. Kuehn 

1719	Comment submitted by F. Schultz 

1720	Comment submitted by L. Szymkiewicz 

1721	Comment submitted by C. Vogt 

1722	Comment submitted by K. Dickey 

1723	Comment submitted by I. Mirmelstein 

1724	Comment submitted by G. Gotuzzo 

1725	Comment submitted by A. Wallis 

1726	Comment submitted by K. L. Bachmann 

1727	Comment submitted by D. O'Donnell 

1728	Comment submitted by M. Manning 

1730	Comment submitted by L. Red Bear 

1731	Comment submitted by R. Zamora 

1732	Comment submitted by L. Cawley 

1734	Comment submitted by P. White 

1735	Comment submitted by J. Wolfe 

1736	Comment submitted by J. Thomas 

1737	Comment submitted by W. Stokes 

1738	Comment submitted by G. Carl 

1739	Comment submitted by J. King-Smith 

1740	Comment submitted by L. Lucas 

1741	Comment submitted by K. Longworth 

1742	Comment submitted by L. J. Papp 

1743	Comment submitted by M. Baker 

1744	Comment submitted by N. Brache 

1745	Comment submitted by J. Creneti 

1746	Comment submitted by F. Mililin 

1747	Comment submitted by M. Finn 

1748	Comment submitted by L. Harper 

1749	Comment submitted by E. DiGiovanni 

1750	Comment submitted by W. Kao 

1751	Comment submitted by W. Smyer 

1752	Comment submitted by F. Souza 

1753	Comment submitted by J. Kleier 

1754	Comment submitted by T. Hakala 

1755	Comment submitted by J. Zerillo 

1756	Comment submitted by J. Hartwick 

1757	Comment submitted by R. Rushing 

1758	Comment submitted by J. Doelman 

1759	Comment submitted by K. Skinner 

1760	Comment submitted by J. Savoie 

1761	Comment submitted by T. Thornburg 

1762	Comment submitted by L. B. Schultz 

1763	Comment submitted by K. Yocum 

1764	Comment submitted by A. Staehler 

1765	Comment submitted by K. Held 

1766	Comment submitted by L. Purce II 

1767	Comment submitted by H. Koehler 

1768	Comment submitted by J. E. Vorsteveld 

1769	Comment submitted by K. Downes 

1770	Comment submitted by J. Hartzog 

1771	Comment submitted by J. Murk 

1772	Comment submitted by K. Murphy 

1773	Comment submitted by G. Devane and M. L. Devane 

1774	Comment submitted by C. A. Tinus 

1775	Comment submitted by M. Guerrero 

1776	Comment submitted by L. Neff 

1777	Comment submitted by M. Leeson 

1778	Comment submitted by K. Haralampopoulos 

1779	Comment submitted by L. Hewitt 

1780	Comment submitted by C. Mahaffey 

1781	Comment submitted by M. Lewis 

1782	Comment submitted by G. Lewin

1783	Comment submitted by S. Roulston-Doty



1.0	General – Adequacy of EPA Response to Court Remand

Comment: According to several commenters (0056, 0061, 0071, 0073, 0155,
0377), EPA did not satisfy the December 2000 order issued by the DC
Circuit Court of Appeals. On EPA’s analysis of MACT for Hg, HCl, and
THC; EPA’s beyond-the-floor analysis; and the risk-based exemptions
from HCl standards, one commenter (0061) states they are unlawful,
arbitrary, capricious, and irrelevant. These commenters state that the
court was clear in its directive to EPA that the absence of
technology-based pollution control devices for Hal, mercury, and THC did
not excuse EPA from setting emission standards for those pollutants.

Response: See the Federal Register notice for the final amendments for
the response to this comment.

Comment: Regarding EPA’s rejection of beyond-the-floor standards for
each HAP, one commenter (0061) states that EPA’s reasoning is both
unrelated to the relevant statutory mandate and arbitrary and
capricious, as well as completely ignoring currently available control
measures of which EPA is aware and which would result in reductions of
emissions of mercury, Hal, THC and other hazardous air pollutants (HAP).

Response: See the Federal Register notice for the final amendments for
the response to this comment.

Comment: We received numerous comments from the general public
concerning the lack of a mercury standard in the proposed amendments
(though a few commenters also mentioned other pollutants). The gist of
these comments was that mercury is a very toxic pollutant, and the
commenters believe EPA should set a standard for mercury. A few
commenters also mentioned standards for other pollutants such as
hydrogen chloride and other HAP. None of the comments contained any
factual data that we could use in our analysis. 

Response: The final rule amendments contain standards for mercury and
THC emissions from both new and existing sources. For the reasons set
forth in the preamble to the final rule, we believe that these standards
fully comport with the requirements of section 112 (d) of the Act, and
the D.C. Circuit’s mandate.

We are not requiring control under section 112 (d) for HCl emissions,
based on the authority of section 112 (d) (4) of the Act. As also
explained in the preamble to the final rule, this action is likewise
fully in accord with the statute.

2.0	Mercury

2.1	Legal Issues Related to EPA’s Interpretation of the CAA

Comment: According to one commenter (0061), EPA’s refusal to set
mercury standards demonstrates contempt of court. The commenter states
that EPA’s reconsideration of MACT for mercury did not satisfy the
court’s directive to establish emissions standards and not just
reconsider the issue. 

Citing the Clean Air Act’s (CAA’s) requirements to set emission
standards for each HAP listed in 112(b) and, as directed in 112, for
each category of sources for the HAP applying the maximum achievable
degree of reduction, the commenter states that EPA’s decision to not
set mercury emission standards is unlawful. 

The commenter states that EPA’s arguments for not setting mercury
standards are without merit and provides several justifications for its
view. 1) The commenter states that EPA’s arguments for not setting
mercury standard are irrelevant because EPA has a clear statutory
obligation to set mercury standard and any reason for not doing so must
be invalid. The commenter cites as judicial precedent Chevron U.S.A.
Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 842-843,
104 S.Ct. 2778, 81 L.Ed.2d 694 (1984). 2) According to the commenter,
EPA’s view as to what is achievable cannot replace the CAA requirement
to set MACT floors reflecting what the best performing sources are
achieving. The commenter states that the CAA mandates a floor reflecting
the average emission limitation achieved by the best performing 12
percent of the existing sources (for which the Administrator has
emissions information) and not what EPA believes would be achievable.
The commenter states that the court expressly required EPA to set
emission standards based on what the best performers are actually
achieving and not what EPA thinks is achievable. 3) The commenter
disagrees with EPA’s argument that the governing case law (National
Lime Ass’n and CKRC) did not involve facts where the levels of
performance tests are dependent entirely on composition of raw materials
and fuel and cannot be replicated or duplicated. The commenter states
that the governing case law addresses that exact issue: EPA’s decision
not to set mercury standards. 4) The commenter claims as misplaced,
EPA’s reliance on the copper smelters and PVC cases as justification
for not setting standards that require control technology that is not
feasible. According to the commenter, these cases pertain to
beyond-the-floor standards and do not apply to floor standards, which
require EPA to set floors at emission levels that the best sources
achieved, regardless of what EPA thinks is achievable. Regarding EPA’s
argument that its emissions data do not reflect performance over time,
the commenter states that this merely relates to the sufficiency of
EPA’s data. The commenter states that EPA is required to develop an
approach to setting a floor standard, including collecting more
emissions data if needed. 5) The commenter claims that EPA’s rejection
of a floor based on the argument that low mercury feed and fuel are not
available to the industry does not have merit. The commenter states that
EPA’s arguments support the fact that there are kilns that have lower
mercury emissions. The commenter also states that the record shows that
some kilns use cleaner inputs than others and that some kilns use
control equipment that reduces mercury emissions. Specifically, the
commenter points to docket records for portland cement, hazardous waste
MACT standards, and electric utilities, as showing that sources equipped
with various pollution controls, including activated carbon injection,
wet scrubbers, baghouses and ESP’s, have the ability to reduce mercury
emissions. The commenter also points to emissions data in the record
that shows that some kilns perform better than others and states that
EPA has used the emissions data to conclude that portland cement kilns
have lower emissions than those required for hazardous waste burning
cement kilns. According to the commenter, EPA is obligated to identify
the best performing sources and set emissions levels based on the
emissions data. The commenter states that it is likely that the best
performing kilns are achieving superior mercury emissions through a
variety of different means and that not all means will be available to
all kilns. The commenter states that to match the best performance,
kilns may have to use one or more of a variety of methods. 6) The
commenter disagrees with EPA’s position that setting the floor at
emission levels achieved by the relevant best sources would require
kilns to install back-end controls, thus bypassing beyond-the-floor
requirements of achievability, considering cost and other statutory
factors. Contrary to EPA’s position, the commenter argues that sources
are using low mercury fuel and feed and some kilns are using controls
that reduce mercury emissions, albeit they may not be doing so
deliberately to reduce mercury emissions. According to the commenter,
whether the sources are achieving low mercury emissions levels through
deliberate measures or coincidentally is statutorily irrelevant.

Response: See the Federal Register notice for the final amendments for
the response to this comment.

Comment: Regarding EPA’s rejection of a beyond-the-floor mercury
standard on the basis of low levels of mercury emissions and high costs
or reducing emissions, one commenter (0061) states that the CAA requires
that EPA’s standards must reflect the “maximum degree of reduction
that is achievable” considering the “cost of achieving such emission
reduction” and other enumerated statutory factors. According to the
commenter, the only relevant factors regarding the cost measures are: 1)
whether it is too costly to be “achievable”; and 2) whether it would
yield additional reductions, i.e., without the measure, the standard
would not reflect the “maximum” achievable degree of reduction. The
commenter states that EPA does not claim that the use of ACI would not
be achievable, only that ACI is not “justified.” This position,
according to the commenter, contravenes the CAA and exceeds EPA’s
authority and would allow EPA to avoid properly determining the maximum
degree of reduction achievable considering cost and the other enumerated
factors. 

Response: See the Federal Register notice for the final amendments for
the response to this comment.

Comment: Several comments were received related to the ability of States
to set standards controlling mercury emissions. One commenter (0043)
recommends that States should be allowed to set standards for Hg
emissions. One commenter (0067) argued that because many states have
chosen to not adopt standards more stringent than Federal regulations,
it is imperative that EPA establish adequately stringent regulations for
the control of mercury. A commenter (0153) states that the transport of
mercury across State boundaries makes it imperative that EPA set
national emission standards for mercury. According to the commenter,
state and local efforts of reducing mercury emissions are offset by
mercury from out-of-state sources.

Response: There are no Federal restrictions to a State setting mercury
standards more stringent than those in the Portland Cement NESHAP. We
are aware that many states cannot, by State law, set standards more
stringent than Federal Standards. However, this fact is not a factor is
decisions in setting standards under section 112 (d) (whether for
mercury or for any other HAP). 

Comment: One commenter (0067) states that if less than 30 percent of
fuel burned is hazardous, a facility is not considered a HWC or MWI and
may emit more than a kiln solely fueled by coal.

Response: This comment is well beyond the scope of this proceeding, and
we are responding only to state a settled position, not to reexamine or
otherwise reconsider any aspect of the issue of which sources are
covered by which standards. 

The commenter is incorrect. In general, a cement kiln is subject to the
Hazardous Waste Combustor NESHAP (Subpart EEE) if it combusts hazardous
waste. Such a cement kiln continues to be an affected source under
Subpart EEE until it ceases burning hazardous waste and initiates
closure requirements pursuant to RCRA. However, a hazardous waste
burning cement kiln that meets the definition of a small quantity burner
under 40 CFR 266.108 would not be subject to Subpart EEE requirements
(see 40 CFR 63.1200(b)). Among other requirements, this exemption limits
the maximum hazardous waste firing rate at any time to 1% of the total
fuel requirements of the kiln on a volume basis. Importantly, the
exemption is limited to a cement kiln that burns only hazardous waste
generated on-site. See 40 CFR 266.108. A cement kiln that is subject to
Subpart EEE is not subject to the kiln and in-line kiln/raw mill
emission standards of the Portland Cement NESHAP (Subpart LLL).

2.2	Adequacy of Floor Determination (Existing and New)

Comment: Several comments (0055, 0070, 0077, 0682) support EPA’s
decision not to develop either an existing or new source floor for
mercury. The commenters state that an achievable floor cannot be
developed because wide variation in mercury concentrations in raw
materials and fuels used by cement kilns would make compliance
impossible. Commenter 0077 also agrees with EPA’s statement that a
national conversion of cement kilns to natural gas is not possible due
to serious supply problems and the lack of an adequate natural gas
infrastructure. 

Response: See the Federal Register notice for the final amendments for
the response to this comment.

Comment: One commenter (0596) restates its original position that
EPA’s arguments regarding its inability to establish floors are
irrelevant, unlawful and arbitrary. The commenter states that evidence
made available since the original comment period closed confirms that 1)
some kilns perform better than others; 2) consistent and predictable
differences in emission levels can be attributed to differences in the
raw materials, fuel, kiln design and control technology; and 3)
additional measures for controlling mercury emissions are available to
kilns. The commenter states that there is evidence that a) some kilns
use raw materials that are consistently higher or lower in mercury than
other kilns as evidenced by a cement kiln in Tehachapi, CA that uses
limestone from a quarry adjacent to an abandoned mercury mine and
consistently reports high (2000 lb/yr) mercury emissions - other kilns
have consistently lower mercury levels because they use raw materials
with low mercury levels; b) there are many measures by which mercury
emissions can be reduced as exemplified by Holcim’s statement that
mercury emissions can be controlled by careful input control and EPA’s
acknowledgement that mercury emissions are affected by the use of
mercury-contaminated fly ash - as only 39 of 112 plants choose to use
fly ash, the commenter states that a plants deliberate choice about
using fly ash (as well as the choice by some to burn tires, or choosing
to burn a rank of coal lower in mercury, and use of by products from
steel mills and foundries and flue gas dryer sludge) results in
consistent and predictable differences in their mercury emissions; c)
wet kilns emit more mercury than dry kilns (twice as much according to
EPA), showing that the kiln design results in a consistent and
predictable difference in mercury emissions; and d) additional emissions
data confirm that some kilns are achieving consistently better emission
levels than others. 

Several comments were received regarding the adequacy of the emissions
data used in EPA’s analyses. Several commenters (0052, 0056, 0073,
0596, 1324) state that EPA should collect data on Hg emissions and then
determine Hg limits based on data. Recommendations for collecting
additional data included soliciting test data from State and local
agencies. Two commenters (0056, 0076, 0354, 1324) state that EPA should
conduct a new MACT floor and beyond-the-floor evaluation based on
current and complete data - including data from state and local agencies
where cement plants are located - on mercury emissions from portland
cement plants. According to one commenter (0596), EPA explained that its
decision not to set mercury standards was due to a lack of emissions
data while in reality it chose not to gather data under an incorrect
statutory interpretation that it did not have to set standards if it
believed there was no control technology available. The commenter states
that now EPA has access to more mercury emissions data than it initially
claimed including 1) TRI data based on mercury stack monitoring by 35
plants and, 2) as indicated by EPA, data on mercury content of coal fly
ash, shale, and clay that is either already available or can be easily
obtained from existing sources – the commenter notes that Florida DEP
reports that kilns collect several samples of the mercury levels in
their raw materials on a daily basis.

Response: See the Federal Register notice for the final amendments for
the response to these comments.

Comment: Several commenters (0043, 0049, 0067, 0076, 0354) state that,
contrary to EPA’s claim that mercury emissions are relatively low,
U.S. mercury emissions from portland cement plants are significant and
are under-reported. According to one commenter (0076, 0354), stack-test
data available for two of three plants show that TRI grossly
underestimates mercury emissions. The commenter states that one kiln
emits as much as 580 lb/yr, making it the 27th largest Hg emitter when
compared to 450 U.S. coal-fired power plants. The commenter submitted
the following mercury emissions stack test showing mercury emissions
from four different portland cement kilns:

Plant Location	Plant Process/Controls	Approximate Production (MM
tons/yr)	Mercury Emissions (lb/yr)

Michigan	Wet kiln, FF plus carbon injection	1.2	52

Michigan	Dry kiln, FF	2.5	580

New York	Wet kiln, ESP	2.0	455

New York	Wet kiln, ESP	0.6	99

Two commenters (0054, 0057) state that EPA should investigate the fate
of mercury – how much is emitted in vapor form, bound to PM, left in
cement, CKD – as it is important in determining the effectiveness of
existing controls in mercury removal and is relevant to EPA’s decision
that the MACT floor is “no additional emissions reductions.” 

One commenter (0590) responded to claims that EPA understated estimates
of mercury emissions by citing the EPA report on mercury, “EPA’s
Roadmap for Mercury” (July 2006), which does not include cement kilns
in the first tier of mercury emitters and, using its 1999 NEI database,
states that cement kilns emit 2.36 tons per year (tpy) of mercury, or
about 2% of nationwide mercury emissions.

Response: NESHAP developed under section 112(d) are technology based
standards. The total amounts of a specific hazardous air pollutant
emitted nationally are not part of the decision process. We are aware
that in some cases mercury emission from individual cement facilities
have been underestimated and hence underreported. However, this fact
does not directly bear on this NESHAP.

We have gathered additional data and further investigated the fate of
mercury and how the mercury is emitted. As a result we have established
a MACT standard for new and existing sources of removing accumulated
mercury-containing cement kiln dust from the system at the point product
quality is adversely affected. In addition, as part of the
reconsideration of the final new source standards for mercury, we are
initiating actions to obtain inlet and outlet test data, including
mercury speciation, for cement kilns equipped with wet scrubbers in
order to determine if these controls remove mercury, and to what extent.

Comment: In commenting on the adequacy of EPA analysis of the MACT floor
for existing and new sources, several comments were received
recommending that EPA give further consideration to requiring the use of
emission control technology for reducing mercury emissions. 

Several commenters (0056, 0076, 0354) state that EPA’s analysis should
have considered wet scrubbers, dry scrubbers, wet absorbent injection,
dry absorbent injection, and fly ash retorting with mercury controls.
One commenter (0155, 0377) states that in evaluating the MACT floor, EPA
should establish a link between mercury emissions and existing controls
for sulfur and particulate matter and examine potential co-benefit
reductions. According to the commenter, this would be similar to the
approach used by EPA in establishing the initial mercury caps in the
Clean Air Mercury Rule (CAMR). The commenter believes that specific
control equipment will result in a percent reduction of mercury whether
the mercury is from feedstock or fuel. Standards could be expressed as a
desired percent control achieved using a specific control technology
combination for sulfur and particulate matter as was done in the
coal-fired electric steam generating unit determinations. The commenter
states that such an approach is necessary to determine a new source
standard for portland cement. The commenter included the tables that
were developed for the percent reduction determination for electric
utilities.

One commenter (0910) states that more than 60 U.S. and 120 international
waste-to-energy plants fueled with municipal or industrial waste or
sewage sludge use sorbent injection ahead of fabric filters to remove
mercury from flue gases. The sorbents used include activated carbon,
lignite coke, sulfur containing chemicals, or combinations of these
compounds. Sorbent injection systems are demonstrated at the Holcim
Dundee plant which is limited by its permit to 115 lb/yr mercury, most
of which is assumed to be from coal. Mercury limits are also in place
under the hazardous waste combustor rule (70FR59402):120 ug/dscm for new
or existing cement kilns; 130 ug/dscm for hazardous waste incinerators;
80 ug/dscm for large municipal waste combustors. The commenter states
that these limits set a precedent for establishing more stringent
mercury emission limits and that there are abatement technologies
available to exceed requirements. The commenter provided emissions data
for several US cement kilns as well as emissions data from cement kilns
operating in Europe. The commenter states that sorbent injection control
technology is proven for mercury control and states that this technology
has been demonstrated on full-scale demonstrations in the electric
generating sector. According to the commenter, activated carbon is also
used to remove SO2, organic compounds, NH3, NH4, HCl, HF and residual
dust after an ESP or FF and that the spent or used sorbent can be used
as a fuel in the kiln and the particles are trapped in the clinker. The
commenter notes that a cement manufacturer n Switzerland, fueled with
renewable sludge waste, used activated carbon to achieve up to 95 %
reduction in SO2 which correlates to an emission rate of less than
50ug/m3.

One commenter (910) states that EPA should also consider pre-combustion
technology for coal that has been demonstrated in the utility sector.
One such technology, pre-combustion coal beneficiation, transforms
relatively low cost, low rank western coal (lignite or subbituminous)
into a cleaner more efficient energy source (k-FuelTM). This technology
applies heat and pressure to reduce moisture and can increase heat value
by 30-55% for low rank coals. The result is higher output per ton of
coal while lowering emissions including reduction in mercury content by
up to 70% or more and reduced emissions of SO2 and NOx.

Response: See the Federal Register notice for the final amendments for
the response to this comment.

One commenter (0037) states that there are technologies available to
control mercury emissions although they vary in cost and applicability
due to variations in coal grades and the type of facility. The commenter
states that coal gasification is a promising technology that should be
considered for portland cement manufacturing. According to the
commenter, it is being used by the Eastman Chemical company to remove 90
to 95 percent of the mercury from its burning of bituminous coal and
evidently has not been cost prohibitive to operate. 

One commenter (0051) states that they were developing a cost-effective
technology for mercury removal for the cement industry. According to the
commenter, the technology has been proven in bench-scale studies and
fully developed for application in the chlor-alkali industry. The
commenter submitted additional information describing the technology. 

Response: None of these technologies are currently in use at portland
cement plants. Therefore, floors for either existing or new sources
cannot be based on the performance of these devices. Moreover, because
these are developing technologies, there are insufficient data to
evaluate them as  beyond-the-floor control options. However, as noted in
the preamble to the final rule, there is nothing in the fragmentary
information provided (or otherwise available) that would suggest that
these technologies are more effective than those EPA did evaluate fully
in its beyond the floor analysis (i.e. activated carbon injection and
wet scrubbers).

Comment: Several comments were received regarding the need for EPA to
include in its analysis of the MACT floor the use of work practices
alone or in combination with control technologies to reduce mercury
emissions. Two commenters (0054, 0060) state that the work practice of
wasting a portion of the control device catch, that is disposing of a
portion of the catch rather than recycling it back to the kiln, can
reduce total mercury emissions. One commenter (0060) cites a European
report showing that lowering the gas temperature upstream of the
baghouse accompanied by disposing of part of the catch is an effective
measure in reducing mercury emissions. According to the commenter,
material removal is already practiced at many kilns in the US for other
reasons than mercury removal. This occurs for example when cement kiln
dust (CKD) is wasted or when a bypass is used at kilns with preheaters
to relieve buildups of volatile components, e.g., chlorides or sulfates.
The commenter states that such kilns emit less mercury through the stack
than kilns that do not waste CKD. The commenter cites a publication of
the Portland Cement Association documenting this. The two commenters
state that one opportunity to avoid the recycling of CKD is by mixing it
with clinker to make masonry and other types of cement. One commenter
(0054) states that CKD has numerous beneficial uses and can be sold as a
byproduct by cement plants. The commenter addresses some of the barriers
to the practice of mixing materials with clinker to make materials for
sale. In response to comments that the industry apply various non-ACI
controls or work practices to reduce mercury emissions, one commenter
(0590) states that none of these practices have been demonstrated
effective in controlling mercury emissions from cement kilns.

One commenter (0054) states that EPA could consider prohibiting or
limiting CKD recycling in cement kilns while requiring activated carbon
injection (ACI) in conjunction with existing particulate matter control
devices. According to the commenter, this approach would avoid the
expense of an additional control device and its associated waste stream.
The commenter recognizes that there is a possibility that the mercury
and carbon level in the CKD may cause it to be considered a hazardous
waste.

Two commenters (0043, 0054) support the use of alternative feed and fuel
materials as techniques for reducing mercury emissions. One commenter
(0054) states that EPA’s evaluation of low-mercury fuels should have
included petroleum coke. According to the commenter, testing at one kiln
has shown that petroleum coke contained significantly less mercury than
the coal previously used to fuel the kiln. The commenter also suggested
evaluating the increasing use of tire-derived fuel and its impact on
mercury emissions. One commenter (0068) states that data are available
that indicate that Hg content of fuel and feed used by kilns is not so
variable that an upper limit for Hg in coal and feed could not be set by
EPA. One commenter (0043) states that EPA should collect sufficient data
on the variability of mercury in feed and fuel materials to actually
determine what the variability is.

One commenter (0590) responded to comments recommending that kilns
switch from coal to petroleum coke, fuel oil, and tire-derived fuel
because these have lower mercury concentrations. The commenter states
that limited supply, long distances, and permitting issues make it
impossible to replace a significant percentage of the coal burned with
alternative fuels. The commenters state, however, that the industry
could utilize a much larger amount of these fuels if permitting barriers
were lowered.

Response: See the Federal Register notice for the final amendments for
the response to this comment.

Comment: Several commenters (0037, 0039) state that EPA should set MACT
standards for mercury in portland cement plants that include the
following practices: 1) ban the use of fly ash from utility boilers that
contains mercury, 2) require the industry to switch to natural gas, and
3) ban feed materials that contain mercury.

One commenter (0068) states that EPA should evaluate cement kiln
efficiency as a pollution control option for cement kiln mercury
emissions. The commenter cited work on kiln efficiency by Argonne
National Laboratory and Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory with input
from cement manufacturers that could be used to reduce mercury emissions
by improving energy efficiency.

Response: We evaluated the possibility of an outright ban on use of 
utility boiler fly ash in cement kilns and determined it was not
justified. See section IV.A.2 in the preamble of the final amendments.
We previously evaluated requiring the industry to switch to natural gas
and determined this was not feasible. See 70 FR 72334. It would be
impossible to ban all feed materials that contain mercury considering
that the largest source of mercury is usually the limestone, an
indispensable feedstock and the greatest volumetric portion of cement
kiln inputs (by a wide margin). As discussed in the preamble (section
IV.A.1.a) of the final amendments, the feed materials are site specific
and it is not feasible to set a national standard that limits a facility
to low mercury feed materials.

	We agree that increasing energy efficiency would reduce mercury kiln
mercury emissions  However, no data exist (and none were supplied by the
commenter) to develop a standard based on some type of mandated energy
efficiency improvement.

Comment: One commenter (0049) disagrees with EPA’s conclusion that
reductions in mercury emissions are not economically feasible. The
commenter states that by establishing a measurable standard and a
compliance date, the industry will have the incentive to develop and
adapt the technology to comply.

According to two comments (0153, 0936), Maine requires all facilities in
the state, including a portland cement plant, to meet an annual emission
limit for mercury of 50 lb/yr, 35 lb/yr by 2007, and a limit of 25 lb/yr
by the year 2010. The commenter states that EPA should use up-to-date
and complete data for its MACT floor determination.

Response: Floor determinations may not consider cost, and EPA did not do
so. Issues relating to cost of control are considered exclusively in the
context of beyond-the-floor determinations, as mandated by section 112
(d) (2) of the Act. 

We also note that the final rule establishes new source standards for
mercury based on the performance of a wet scrubber. However, the
standard does not mandate wet scrubber technology. We believe that this
action will have the effect of providing incentives to industry to
develop more cost effective ways to control mercury emissions. 

	We are aware of the Maine requirements and have incorporated this and
other new information in our latest MACT floor analysis. As noted in the
preamble to the final rule, however, the Maine requirements have not had
the effect of requiring in kiln in Maine to alter its practices to
control mercury emissions. 

Comment: In comments presented to both EPA and to the Office of
Management and Budget as part of the interagency review process, the
Portland Cement Association argued that if EPA were to adopt a numeric
new source standard for mercury, then it should be 120 ug/dscm,
transferred from the Hazardous Waste Combustor NESHAP. The Portland
Cement Association also criticized the 41 ug/dscm standard (based on
performance of wet scrubbers on portland cement kilns) as lacking in
merit due to paucity of data and inability to determine if the emissions
data reflect mercury removal or are an artifact of raw material mercury
levels at the time of testing.

Response: There is no basis for transferring the 120 ug/dscm mercury
limit applicable to hazardous waste-burning cement kilns to sources
which do not burn hazardous waste. This standard is based on control of
mercury levels in hazardous waste fuel (for example through source
separation, or blending hazardous waste fuel with other fuels before
firing). 70 FR at 59420, 59468-69 (Oct. 12, 2005). (Indeed, the actual
standard for hazardous waste-burning cement kilns is both to meet an
at-the-stack limit of 120 ug/dscm, but also to meet an average as-fired
concentration of mercury in all hazardous waste feed streams fired of 3
ppmw.)  This obviously is not a control option available to kilns which
do not burn hazardous waste.

A further reason for not transferring the at-the-stack numeric limit of
120 ug/dscm is that it is far too high to represent best performance for
mercury from a portland cement kiln (the criteria for the new source
floor). The 120 ug/dscm level is in fact considerably higher than almost
all of the data from portland cement kilns, including those which are
emitting mercury at uncontrolled levels. This is not surprising, since
hazardous waste fuels contain higher levels of mercury than are found in
portland cement raw materials and fuels, and consequently hazardous
waste – burning cement kilns would be expected to (and do) have higher
concentrations of mercury in emissions than portland cement plants. 

As explained in section IV.A. 1 of the preamble, we believe there is a
reasonable basis for finding that wet scrubbers will remove mercury from
portland cement emissions. The standard of 41 ug/dscm reflects available
data, which is sparse, as the commenter notes. Recognizing both that the
more information on wet scrubber performance is desirable, and that the
information on wet scrubber performance has not been fully available to
the public for comment, EPA is itself granting reconsideration of the
mercury new source standard. As explained in the notice granting
reconsideration, we intend to obtain data from field testing (including
both inlet and outlet mercury data) of wet scrubber-equipped cement
kilns and to consider the 41 ug/dscm in light of those data. 

2.3	Beyond the Floor Determinations

2.3.1	Adequacy

Comment: Several comments (0055, 0070, 0077, 0682) support EPA’s
decision not to set "beyond-the-floor” mercury standards for the
following reasons: 1) any possible activated carbon injection
“back-end” control technology would be prohibitively expensive, 2)
the cost per mass of mercury emissions reduced would be astronomical,
and 3) the application of such possible activated carbon injection would
generate additional solid waste and increase energy use.

Response: See the Federal Register notice for the final amendments for
the response to this comment.

Comment: A commenter (0061) states that in the beyond-the-floor
evaluation, EPA failed to consider other control measures that reduce
mercury emissions. The commenter cited coal cleaning, mercury-specific 
coal treatments, optimization of existing control (the commenter
supplied a list of optimizing technologies), as well as currently
available control technologies such as enhanced wet scrubbing,
Powerspan-ECO®, Advanced Hybrid Filter, Airborne Process, LoTox process
and MerCAP. According to the commenter, mercury reductions for these
technologies range from 20 percent to over 90 percent. According to the
commenter, EPA’s failure to evaluate any of these measures is
arbitrary and capricious and contravenes CAA 112(d)(2) which requires
the agency to set standards reflecting the maximum degree of reduction
achievable through the full range of potential reduction measures. 

	In a later comment (0596), the same commenter states that EPA failed to
satisfy the CAA by not considering end-of-stack controls. As an example
of a controlled source, the commenter states that Holcim’s Zurich
plant successfully uses the Polvitec system, a carbon filter system that
controls mercury as well as organic pollutants.

	One commenter (0596) objects to EPA’s refusal to set beyond-the-floor
mercury standards as unlawful and arbitrary. The commenter states that
EPA failed to consider eliminating the use of fly ash as a
beyond-the-floor standard even though it is possible for kilns not to
use fly ash - a majority of kilns do not use any fly ash – and not
using fly ash would reduce mercury emissions. For example, the commenter
states that more than half the mercury emissions from an Alpena, MI kiln
are from fly ash. According to the commenter, kilns could also reduce
mercury emissions by using cleaner fuel (e.g., natural gas), using coal
with lower mercury content, refraining from the use of other mercury
containing by-products from power plants, steel mills, and foundries,
and refraining from the use of flue gas dryer sludge.

	One commenter (1324) recommends that EPA conduct a new beyond-the-floor
evaluations based on up-to-date and complete data.

Response: See the Federal Register notice for the final amendments for
the response to this comment.

2.3.2	Accuracy of Costs

Comment: Citing the information used to estimate costs and mercury
reductions associated with ACI as outdated, unsupported and unexplained
, one commenter (0061) states that EPA’s estimates are inadequate and,
furthermore, ignores the more recent ACI data used in EPA’s power
plant rulemaking.

Response: See the Federal Register notice for the final amendments for
the response to this comment.

Comment: Two commenters (0155, 0377) took issue with EPA’s evaluation
of the level of emission reduction and the cost of ACI as a
beyond-the-floor control. According to the commenter, EPA’s analysis
is based on outdated information and directly conflicts with the latest
information from the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). The commenter
states that EPA used incorrect estimates of mercury emissions and
incorrectly assumed (except where a facility uses a hot side ESP) that a
new particulate control device would be needed. The commenter, citing a
DOE source, states that the fixed cost is $900,000 rather than EPA’s
$5.5 million. Based on an interest rate of 10 percent over 20 years, the
annual cost would be $117,460 and total annualized costs are an
estimated $300,000 to $1.4 million per year. The commenter states the
costs are estimated from a coal-fired power plan with similar gas flows
and carbon usage as a portland cement plant.

Response: We have updated our ACI costs based on more recent
information. We continue to maintain  that use of ACI will also
necessitate addition of a particulate control device following the
carbon injection area (the configuration costed thus being primary
particulate control – activated carbon injection – particulate
control ). This is necessary to capture the mercury-laden particulate.
Placing carbon injection before the current, main particulate collection
device is misguided. Because cement kilns recycle a portion, or all, of
the PM captured in the PM control, placing carbon injection prior to the
current control would achieve little or no mercury reduction benefit.
Mercury-laden particulate would just be recycled and mercury re-emitted.
We performed an analysis of the result if we required cement kilns to
reduce or cease the recycling of CKD as a beyond-the-floor technology
and determined that it was not cost effective, required higher energy
use, and resulted in adverse nonair environmental (and potentially
health) impacts due to enormously increased waste disposal.

  

Comment: One commenter (0067) states that economic forecasting is
unreliable because estimates of the costs for controlling pollutants
have been unreliable. According to the commenter, this is also true for
mercury and control costs per pound of mercury have fallen 10 – 100
fold from estimates made as recently as the 1990’s.

Response: We updated the costs for both types of mercury controls, ACI,
and wet scrubbers on more recent information.

2.3.3	Accuracy of Benefits

Comment: One commenter (0155, 0377) states that recent tests for mercury
emission from portland cement plants in New York and Michigan show that
EPA does not have an accurate picture of mercury emissions from this
industry. The commenter states that the lack of accurate information
affected EPA's analysis of ACI as a beyond the floor control. The
commenter recommends that EPA conduct additional stack testing to
collect accurate emissions data.

One commenter (0061) also states that EPA does not provide information
on the amount of mercury that would be reduced by ACI. The commenter
states that self-reported mercury emission data provided by industry in
EPA’s Toxic Release Inventory (TRI), appear to grossly underestimate
actual kiln mercury emissions and provides examples of such
under-reporting. Based on the limited emissions test data, the commenter
states that actual mercury emissions data could be ten times greater
than the TRI estimates. The commenter states that EPA’s estimate of
the cost of ACI and the amount of mercury that would be reduced are
arbitrary and  capricious and, therefore, so is EPA’s reliance on cost
per ton estimates as a basis for rejecting ACI as a beyond-the-floor
technology.

Two commenters (0056, 0073) state that, given mercury’s toxicity and
the significant mercury emissions from Portland cement plants, they
strongly disagree with EPA’s conclusion that standards to limit
mercury emissions are “not justified.”

Response: See the Federal Register notice for the final amendments for
the response to this comment.

Comment: One commenter (0061) states that EPA failed to consider
properly the reduction in other pollutants (dioxins, polychlorinated
biphenyls, and others) that would result from the use of ACI, and that
allocating the entire cost of ACI to mercury is arbitrary, thus
understating the cost effectiveness of carbon injection. The commenter
states that EPA’s cost effectiveness estimates gives the appearance of
having to pay for ACI twice, once for mercury and again for dioxins.
Also, the commenter states that EPA’s use of ACI cost per ton for
dioxins are unexplained and irrational as are its cost per ton figures
for mercury. EPA’s use of dioxin reductions in pounds is, according to
the commenter, inappropriate for a toxin that is recognized as toxic in
the billionths of a gram. The commenter states that even if flawed,
EPA’s numbers indicate that the cost of ACI in reducing dioxin alone
could be less that $1/ug, a more meaningful number when evaluating
dioxin emissions.

Response: As explained in the preamble to the final rule, we have
considered that certain types of control technologies reduce multiple
HAPs (for example, ACI will remove both mercury and organics). Even
considering these co-benefits, we do not find the potential standards to
be achievable, within the meaning of section 112 (d) (2). See section
IV.A.2 to the preamble to the final rule.

Basing the cost per unit of pollutant removed on grams or even µg does
not really change the number or the decision. As explained in the
preamble to the final rule, we consider the cost of control extremely
high (considerably higher than considered achievable in other section
112 rules, for example).

Finally, EPA disagrees with  the comment that EPA is effectively
double-counting the cost of control technology where a single technology
controls multiple HAP. For example, in considering whether to base
standards for mercury and organic HAP on performance of activated carbon
(which controls both), EPA noted that reductions of all organics (both
HAP and non-HAP) would be modest, and that mercury reductions were also
small in relation to the cost of control. We believe these conclusions
hold whether the costs are considered in relation to the pollutants
singly or in combination since the reductions are so modest. (Adverse
energy use considerations and nonair adverse impacts likewise are true
for use of this control, whether considered as control for mercury,
organics, or both.)

2.4	Test and Monitoring Method Related Issues

Comment: Two commenters (0054, 0057) state that the final rule should
require mercury emissions monitoring. The commenters state that EPA
reference method 29 may not be sensitive enough as it frequently
produces results for mercury that are below the method’s detection
limits. Therefore, EPA should address the need and availability of more
sensitive mercury measurement methods or publish guidance for using test
results when they are below the detection limits of Method 29. 

One commenter (0060) recommends that the final rule require mercury
continuous emissions monitoring systems (CEMS) for new facilities.
According to the commenter, mercury CEMS were required to be installed
in recently issued greenfield cement plant permits. The commenter states
that because mercury CEMS will be required at power plants under the
Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), they are feasible at portland cement
plants. 

One commenter (0060) recommends that over the next few years, EPA
require emission testing using Method 324 – “Determination of Vapor
Phase Hg Emissions from Stationary Sources Using Dry Sorbent Trap
Sampling.” This method is a long-term integrated mercury monitoring
method and was proposed along with PS-12A as part of electric utility
MACT. The advantage of this method over short-term mercury stack testing
is that it allows coverage during times of varying conditions, such as
variation in mercury content of feed and fuel materials, whether the raw
mill is on or off, whether dust is removed from the control device or
bypass, etc. 

In response to comments that EPA require the use of mercury CEMS or
Method 324 to monitor mercury emissions from cement kilns, one commenter
(0590) responded that based on tests conducted on hazardous waste
combustors, EPA concluded that there were technical issues with mercury
CEMS and did not require them.

Response: We considered mercury CEMS and Test method 324. However, the
test data used to set the mercury emission standards for new sources
were EPA test Methods 29 data or equivalent. Therefore, we believe the
compliance tests should be based on the same methods. Cf. Chemical Waste
Management v. EPAu, 976 F. 2d 2, 34 (D.C. Cir. 1992) (“it is facially
reasonable to test compliance with a given standard under the same
sampling method used to develop that standard”). More basically, we
know of no case where a mercury CEMS has been successfully applied to a
cement kiln. We are also aware that two cement kilns in Florida that are
under constriction plan to install CEMS in the future. We plan to obtain
information from these sites once they are operational.

We agree with the final part of this comment. There are technical issues
to be resolved before mercury CEMS can be applied in this industry (such
as accounting for typically higher dust loading in the flue gas).

Comment: Two comments (0153, 0936) support the permitting, testing,
monitoring, and recordkeeping to be essential requirements in order to
conduct residual risk assessments and future regulations. The commenter
is concerned that new Portland cement facilities will be built without
regard to sources of mercury emissions at the facility or impacts. The
commenter states that without mercury standards, the industry will not
look for new and innovative ways to control mercury.

Response: We believe our new source standard for mercury kilns addresses
this comment. We have incorporated testing, reporting and recordkeeping
requirements in the final standards.

2.5	Impacts

Comments: Several commenters (0037, 0039, 0040, 0049, 0052, 0067, 0068,
0071, 0153, 0596) state that EPA has ignored or under valued non-air
impacts. Commenters state that EPA should consider non-air
environmental, economic, and societal impacts resulting from
contamination of water bodies and their lost recreational and commercial
fishing uses negatively affecting tourism and jobs; and neurological
effects on children caused by mercury exposures among females of
child-bearing age. According to commenters, local advisories against
eating fish due to mercury tissue levels undercuts efforts to encourage
fish consumption as a way to reduce risk of heart disease. One commenter
(0596) states that in failing to set maximum degree of reduction
standards that are achievable, EPA did not consider the costs of not
setting mercury standards, including the public health costs of
increased exposure to mercury in children as well as the societal costs
of contaminated water bodies, fish, and other wildlife.

Response: See the Federal Register notice for the final amendments for
the response to this comment.

Comment: Several commenters (0037, 0043, 0067, 0069, 0071) raised
concerns related to the local impacts of industrial mercury emissions.
According to one commenter (0037), the high temperature of cement kilns
results in mercury emissions that fall out and are deposited much closer
to the source than was previously thought. One commenter (0069) cites
research that confirms that mercury disproportionately affects nearby
residents and that shows that nearly 70 percent of the mercury in an
area’s rainwater comes from nearby coal-burning industrial plants. One
commenter (0067) states that EPA did not consider impacts of Hg hot
spots citing Florida and EPA research showing a reduction in local and
regional fish Hg levels when MACT standards for medical and municipal
incineration were implemented. The commenter provided documentation of
impacts on local environments of lowering local or regional mercury
emissions. One commenter (0043) states that they are concerned over the
documented levels of mercury in fish in their county and the fact that
three recently permitted portland cement plants in their county are
permitted to emit over 400 lb/yr of mercury in addition to a coal fired
electrical generating plant that emits over 70 lbs of mercury annually.

Response: See the Federal Register notice for the final amendments for
the response to this comment.

Comment: According to two commenters (0049, 0074), tribal groups are
disproportionately impacted due to loss of use of water bodies for
recreational, commercial and subsistence purposes. The commenters state
that EPA failed to consult with tribal groups. According to one
commenter (0074), as a treaty signatory, the U.S. government must abide
by treaty obligations to protect tribes' ceded territory rights
including protecting natural resources. The commenter states that the
portland cement plant located in Alpena, MI is in territory ceded in
1836.

Response: Tribal groups were given the opportunity to comment on the
proposed amendments, as were other interested groups. Specific
consultation with tribal groups is not required because tribal groups
are not specifically impacted: tribal groups do not own or operate
regulated sources. In addition, the NESHAP is developed as a section
112(d) standard. The main impact of concern noted in the comment was the
impact of mercury on water bodies. This impact is not considered in a
section 112(d) technology based standard. It will be considered during
the residual risk analysis under section 112(f) of the CAA.

Comment: Two commenters (0067, 0068) state that mercury’s impacts on
local waters result in disproportionate impacts on local populations and
have environmental justice implications. According to one commenter
(0068), the proposed rule is discriminatory in that it impacts on women
of childbearing age more than on other population segments.

Response: The commenter provided no data to allow us to assess this
comment. In any case, as noted above, the concerns of the commenter are
appropriately addressed during development of the residual risk standard
for this source category under section 112(f) of the CAA, and are not
relevant to the technology-based determination required by section 112
(d).

2.6	Fly Ash Ban

Comment: EPA solicited comments on a potential ban of the use of
mercury-containing fly ash from utility boilers as an additive to cement
kiln feed. Several commenters (0077, 0060, 0046, 0044, 0046, 0047, 0055,
0057, 0059, 0070, 0072, 0075, 0355, 0078, 0102, 0682, 0805, 0938, 1325)
state that a ban is premature for several reasons with their objections
falling into one of several groupings: at odds with the RCRA objective
of encouraging environmentally beneficial waste recycling, predictions
based on the CAMR are speculative since that rule is being fiercely
contested in litigation, mercury removal technology not yet developed,
substitutes may be more harmful, and cost of a ban has not been
considered. Due to these concerns about the completeness of data they
believe are relevant to banning the use of fly ash as a cement plant raw
material, the commenters suggest the fly ash ban be postponed and
studied further for now. 

Two commenters (0044, 0152) add that banning fly ash use, thereby
requiring cement manufacturers to use substitutes for raw materials,
cannot be used as the basis of a national rule due to the variability of
mercury content of fly ash. These commenters also state that banning the
use of fly ash could result in power companies having trouble finding
ways to manage fly ash that would not increase impacts on land use and
other ecosystem values. These commenters state that further study of
such trade-offs is necessary. 

Another commenter (0047) notes that approximately 2.5 million tons of
fly ash is used annually in cement kilns, thus reducing the need for an
equivalent amount of natural materials that would come from virgin
sources. 

Another commenter (0059) notes that some configurations of coal-fired
electric generating unit control equipment can reduce the level of
ash-bound mercury, and that research is being conducted on methods that
capture and stabilize mercury, producing a secondary waste product
separate from the ash stream. 

Commenter 0055 adds that the costs of replacing fly ash with other
materials could be in excess of $10 million per ton of mercury removed.
This commenter also states that the use of some alternate materials
could result in emissions of HAP, including mercury, and increased
emissions of criteria pollutants either directly or as the result of
increased fuel usage per ton of clinker produced.

One commenter (0060) agrees with EPA that fly ash from electric utility
boilers may progressively contain more mercury as the electric utility
industry reduces its mercury emissions. According to the commenter, some
boiler fly ash is of a quality that allows it to be added directly as a
raw material for concrete where most of the mercury is permanently
bound; lower quality fly ash is unusable in concrete and instead is
added as a raw material additive to the cement kiln. This commenter,
however, recommends that EPA consider work practices, monitoring, and
mercury controls rather than a ban on fly ash.

One commenter (0075, 0355) states that a fly ash ban contradicts a 1993
EPA statement that fly ash was non-hazardous (65 FR 32214, 32229). The
commenter also notes a 2004 study by U. of Nevada and EPRI that
concluded use of fly ash in concrete was of no environmental or health
concern.

Two commenters (0805, 0938) state that data from TRI showing that 64% of
kilns not using fly ash account for 60% of mercury emissions, while the
36% that do use fly ash account for about 40% of mercury emissions, do
not justify a conclusion that fly ash feedstock from utility boilers
that control mercury is a culprit in mercury emissions from cement
kilns. 

Two commenters (0805, 0938), citing EPA’s positing that wet kilns may
emit more mercury than dry kilns, suggest that the driver for mercury
emissions from kilns may be the type of kiln rather than the feedstock. 

Two commenters (0805, 0938) note that EPA acknowledges that the proposed
ban fails to consider the solid waste and economic impacts of diverting
2-3 million tons/yr from beneficial use to disposal in landfills,
including the economic impacts of lost revenue from the sale of fly ash,
landfill disposal fees, and the potential rate increases for electricity
consumers; and the environmental impacts of relying on virgin feedstock
- which contains mercury as well as organic compounds – including
increased energy use, additional air emissions, and impacts on natural
resources. 

One commenter (0590) states that there are many advantages (a list of
the environmental and energy benefits is included as part of the
comment) associated with the use of fly ash as an alternative for some
naturally occurring raw materials. The commenter states that they also
understand the impacts that the use of fly ash may have on mercury
emissions and are looking at approaches that may be used to minimize
mercury emissions from use of fly ash. They state that they will provide
additional information on a preferred approach should one be identified.

One commenter (0591) opposes a blanket ban on use of fly ash without
regard to its source or the use of analysis to determine mercury
content. The commenter agrees that setting mercury emission limits is
inappropriate given the variability in concentration in raw materials
and that it would be contrary to case law under CAA 112. The commenter
lists the manufacturing and environmental benefits of using fly ash as a
substitute for other raw materials: reduced fuel consumption in kiln;
reduced power consumption for grinding; reduce emissions of organics
(THC) and combustion emissions (NOx, SO2, and CO); reduce need to
dispose of fly ash; and reduced SO2 emissions from reduced use of raw
materials containing pyrites. The commenter states that in some regions,
fly ash is the only source of aluminum for some cement plants. Also,
they state that like other raw materials, the mercury content of fly ash
can vary widely. The commenter recommends an approach that allows the
use of fly ash if companies can demonstrate that mercury emissions will
not be significantly impacted. Such an approach is being developed by
the commenter and will be submitted to EPA as a supplement to their
comments.

Response: See the Federal Register notice for the final amendments for
the response to this comment.

Comment: Several commenters (0043, 0054, 0061, 0067, 0068, 0073) are
opposed to allowing the use of fly ash if it means increased mercury
emissions. One commenter (0068) cited a study showing that fly ash
mercury content can vary from 0.005 to 120 ug/g of ash as evidence that
EPA needs to limit the use of fly ash in cement and should also evaluate
other additives, including cement kiln dust, for their mercury emissions
potential. One commenter (0054) states that if the mercury in fly ash
will cause the fly ash to be classified as a hazardous waste, its use
should be banned until the fate of mercury in the cement manufacturing
process is better understood.

One commenter (0354) states that EPA should take into consideration
future increases in the mercury content of coal combustion products
(CCP) resulting from the Clean Air Interstate Rule and the Clean Air
Mercury Rule. They state that the higher mercury content of CCP used in
producing portland cement as well as the recycling of cement kiln dust
could cause mercury emissions to increase.

Several commenters (0056, 0073, 0153) understand that fly ash is a
necessary component in the manufacturing process, but believe measures
should be implemented to avoid increased mercury emissions. One
commenter (0073) recommends the use of fly ash as long as control
requirements are included in the rule, e.g., work practice standards and
other strategies to prevent an increase in mercury emissions from the
fly ash. One commenter (0056) states that EPA should require either 1)
carbon injection with fabric filtration without insufflation, or 2)
treatment of the ash to remove and capture the mercury. According to the
commenter, if these do not adequately reduce mercury emissions, the fly
ash should not be used. Another commenter (0153) states that EPA should
include provisions for pollution prevention plans, in which monitoring
and testing of mercury sources are conducted and appropriate work
practices or other measures are evaluated and implemented to control
mercury emissions. The commenter states that the facility can then
determine the least cost approach for achieving mercury reductions.

One commenter (0155, 0377) states that EPA needs to further investigate
the practice of adding fly ash to understand the concentration of
mercury being added and subsequent emissions of mercury. The commenter
states that if alternatives are available, EPA should consider banning
the use of fly ash.

Response: See the Federal Register notice for the final amendments for
the response to this comment.

2.7	General

Comment: Several comments (0042, 0048, 0050, 0053, 0063, 0064, 0065,
0067, 0080-00101, 103-150) were submitted that disagreed with the
proposed amendments and requested that EPA impose stringent regulations
to reduce emissions of mercury from Portland cement plants. 

One commenter (0053) states that EPA intentionally avoided public
involvement by holding a public hearing in North Carolina, a state with
no cement plants.

Response: The final amendments contain mercury standards based on the
MACT floor that are as stringent as allowed by law. Beyond-the-floor
standards were also considered, however, except for banning the use of
utility boiler fly ash with increased mercury content due to the use of
sorbent for mercury control, we did not believe the imposition of
beyond-the-floor standards was warranted considering the costs and
non-air environmental impacts.

	Concerning the public hearing location, we attempt to make the public
hearing accessible to the public at large. However, we typically select
a location where there is an EPA office to avoid costs associated with
renting a location. In this case, we saw no advantage to selecting a
location in a State that happened to have a cement kiln because cement
kilns are located in almost all states. Rather than pick one of the many
States that have cement kilns, we choose a convenient site where we had
EPA offices located.

3.0	HCl

3.1	Legal Issues Related EPA’s Interpretation of the CAA

Comment: Regarding EPA’s decision to not set HCl standards for
existing kilns, a commenter (0061) states that EPA’s action is
unlawful, contemptuous of court, and arbitrary for all of the reasons
cited above by the commenter in their comment on EPA’s action on the
mercury rule. In addition, the commenter also finds EPA’s proposal
regarding HCl unlawful and arbitrary for the following reasons. 

The commenter states that EPA asserts that it “reexamined” the MACT
floor for existing sources whereas the court directed EPA to “set”
HCl standards. Thus, according to the commenter, EPA’s stated reason
for not setting HCl standards for existing kilns (the number of kilns
equipped with scrubbers is insufficient to constitute 12 percent of the
kilns) is irrelevant. According to the commenter, the approach EPA is
required to take is to average the emission levels with those of the
other best performing sources to set the floor. The commenter states
that such a level would not reflect the performance of scrubbers, rather
it would reflect the level achieved by the best performing sources as
required by the CAA. The commenter states also that EPA’s reasoning
that the unavailability of low-chlorine feed or fuel justifies a
decision not to set HCl standards for existing kilns is irrelevant,
because EPA has an unambiguous legal obligation to set floors reflecting
the HCl emission levels achieved by the relevant best performing kilns.

One commenter (0596) states that in setting work practice standards for
HCl, EPA did not satisfy the CAA criteria that apply when it is “not
feasible to prescribe or enforce an emission standard.” The commenter
states that a work practice standard is unlawful because EPA did not and
could not claim that 1) HCl cannot be emitted through a conveyance
designed and constructed to emit or capture such pollutant or that such
conveyance would be inconsistent with any existing law or 2) the
application of measurement methodology is not practicable due to
technological and economic limitations.

Response: See the Federal Register notice for the final amendments for
the response to this comment. We also question the commenter’s
implicit assumption that “average” in section 112 (d) (3)
(“average emission limitation achieved by the best performing 12
percent of the existing sources”) must mean a numerical average (i.e.
arithmetic mean). The term can also mean a median (i.e. the median
emission limitation achieved), and EPA explains in the preamble to the
final rule (in the context of the floor determination for mercury for
existing sources) why it is reasonable to so interpret it here.

Comment: Two commenters (0061, 0155, 0377) took issue with EPA’s
definition of “new” sources as it applies to the proposed HCl limits
for new kilns. Regarding EPA’s new source standards for HCl (15 ppmv
or 90 percent HCl reduction), one commenter (0061) states that EPA has
created a compliance loophole for kilns that commenced construction
before December 2, 2005 and is unlawful. According to the commenter, the
CAA defines new source where construction or reconstruction commenced
after the Administrator “first” proposes regulations. The commenter
states that EPA first proposed standards on March 24, 1998 and that any
kiln at which construction or reconstruction was commenced after March
24, 1998 is a new source and must meet new source standards. The
commenter states that EPA ignores that its violation of a clear
statutory duty, (i.e., its failure to promulgate HCl standards in the
1998 rulemaking), is the reason that sources built after March 24, 1998
have not already installed pollution controls necessary to meet new
source HCl standards.

Response: See the Federal Register notice for the final amendments for
the response to this comment.

3.2	Adequacy of Floor Determinations (Existing and New)

Comments: Regarding the proposed work practice standards for existing
kilns (operate at normal operating conditions and operate a particulate
control device), one commenter (0055) states that there is not enough
information to require “normal operating conditions” for kilns and
APCD. According to the commenter, “normal” kiln conditions may not
be best for HCl removal. This commenter also states that existing O&M
and SSM plans already ensure normal operation. Other commenters (0070,
0077) state that this proposed work practice is arbitrary as there is no
“normal operating conditions” for all kilns in the U.S. The
commenters state that a multitude of factors – combustion parameters,
kiln design, raw material inputs, fuel characteristics, etc – make
this requirement unworkable. (See Appendix A of commenter 0077
submission.) One commenter (0045) notes that 40 CFR 63.6(e) already
requires plants to minimize emissions during an SSM event to the extent
consistent with good air pollution practices and with safety
considerations. The commenter states EPA should clarify that the
proposed requirement to continuously operate kilns under normal
conditions and operate a particulate control device is subject to the
SSM provisions elsewhere in the NESHAP (section 63.6(e)). The same
commenter later submitted another comment (0682) restating their
position on HCl that standards for existing and new kilns are not
necessary and do not represent the MACT floor.

Response: See the Federal Register notice for the final amendments for
the response to this comment.

Comment: One commenter (0054) favors specific HCl limitations or percent
reduction requirements over any risk-based approach. The commenter
believes that, given the alkaline nature of the cement manufacturing
process, it seems reasonable that EPA should be able to identify and to
monitor some process indicators for each kiln type relating to kiln
chemistry in order to quantify a percent reduction in HCl. 

Response: This comment is moot because we have determined that
additional control of emissions of HCl is not necessary because current
emissions (and emissions from any new source) are at levels which would
be protective of human health with an ample margin of safety, and are at
levels which are protective of the environment. See section 112 (d) (4)
of the Act. However, we note that the commenter did not provide any data
or suggestions of the process indicators to monitor, or any information
of where data might be found. We know of no data, studies, or any other
information that would allow us to develop a percent reduction or
process monitoring scheme for Portland cement kilns that do not burn
hazardous waste (which are not part of the source category for this
rule). There is a percent reduction requirement for cement kilns that
burn hazardous waste. However, this limit was developed based on data on
the chlorine content of the hazardous waste and test data. This type of
information is not available for kilns that do not burn hazardous waste.

Comment: Three commenters (0055, 0070, 0077) state that PM and opacity
limits are sufficient to ensure capture of HCl in gas steam. Commenter
0055 adds that because the NESHAP general provisions and Subpart LLL
require cement plant operators to prepare and implement O&M and SSM
plans, compliance with these plans should ensure that HCl emissions are
inherently controlled and ensure that other HAP are minimized. The
commenter concludes that no additional work practice requirements are
necessary. 

Response: This comment is moot because we have determined that
additional control of emissions of HCl is not necessary, based on the
authority of section 112 (d) (4) of the Act.

Comment: Three commenters (0055, 0070, 0077) state that little or no
test data is cited to support the proposed limits for new kilns (15 ppmv
or 90 percent removal). The commenter adds that EPA has not demonstrated
that the new source standard for HCl is achievable. Citing SO2 removal
efficiencies, one commenter (0155, 0377) states that EPA needs
additional emissions data from those portland cement plants that have
installed and operated wet or dry scrubbers in order to set standards
for HCl. 

Response: This comment is moot because we have determined that
additional control of emissions of HCl is not necessary based on the
authority provided by section 112 (d) (4). 

Comment: One commenter (0055) states that EPA has not demonstrated that
it has examined the cost associated with alkaline scrubbers in
establishing a MACT floor for new sources. The commenter states that
EPA’s scrubber costs are not representative of a wet scrubber that can
meet limits of up to 90 percent control of SO2. According to the
commenter, EPA’s cost are for dry or wet lime spray systems incapable
of 90 percent reduction on preheater/precalciner kilns. The commenter
provides capital & annualized costs for a 1MM tpy kiln of $18 to $25
million and $4.5 to $7 million, respectively. The commenter states that
using EPA’s range of 12 to 200 tpy of HCl removal, this translates to
a cost of between $35,000 and $375,000 per ton of HCl removed. The
commenter states that this range is higher than the range EPA considered
unreasonable for existing kiln beyond-the-floor controls ($8,500 to
$28,000 per ton removed). The commenter concludes that wet scrubbers are
not a reasonable option. 

The commenter adds that dry or wet lime spray systems can remove SO2
prior to the raw mill but essentially perform the same function as the
raw mill, and therefore achieve an incremental removal efficiency far
below 90 percent. The commenter states that this would be less cost
effective than EPA described for existing kiln beyond-the-floor
technology.

Response: See the Federal Register notice for the final amendments for
the response to this comment.

3.3	Beyond the Floor Determinations

3.3.1	Adequacy

Comment: Regarding beyond-the-floor standards for HCl,  one commenter
(0061) states that the CAA does not direct EPA to set standards it views
as reasonable for emissions reduction achieved; rather, the CAA directs
EPA to set standards that reflect the “maximum” degree of reduction
that is “achievable” considering the “cost of achieving such
emission reduction” and the other enumerated statutory factors.
According to the commenter, EPA misinterpreted the CAA, failed to
determine the maximum achievable degree of reduction, and exceeded its
authority by elevating its views about what level of reduction is
reasonable for the emissions reductions achieved over the CAA’s
requirement for the maximum achievable degree of reduction.

One commenter (0596) states that because at least two cement kilns
already are using limestone scrubber and RTO control devices that reduce
both organic and inorganic HAP, including HCl, EPA’s failure to
consider setting beyond-the-floor standards for HCl based on the use of
these controls is unlawful and arbitrary and capricious. The commenter
provided attachments to their comments containing information on these
two systems.

Response:  This comment is moot given EPA’s decision not to set a
section 112(d) standard for HCl based on the authority of section 112
(d)(4) of the CAA.  However, as discussed previously in the response to
a similar comment on potential mercury beyond-the-floor standards, we
believe that “achievable” emission reductions under section 112 (d)
(2) means reductions that are achievable after consideration of costs,
energy, and non-air health and environmental impacts, consideration of
which must be balanced against potential emission reductions.  See
Mossville, 370 F. 3d at 1236 (“[t]he EPA must balance these [emission
reduction] considerations with other factors such as cost, non-air
quality health and environmental concerns, and energy implications”). 

The commenter also claimed that we had not considered the limestone
scrubbers and RTO control in series.  This statement is incorrect, and
reflects the mistaken belief that an RTO is an aspect of HCl control
(when in fact an RTO controls organic emissions, and the scrubber which
precedes it is necessary to enable performance of the RTO by preventing
plugging, fouling and corrosion).  We did consider limestone scrubbers
as a beyond-the-floor option for HCl control.  The fact that at two
facilities the limestone scrubber is followed by an RTO has no
implications for the overall level of HCl control because the RTO will
not remove additional HCl.  All potential HCl control occurs in the
limestone scrubber.  As discussed below and in section IV.C above, we
did evaluate the performance of a limestone scrubber/RTO control system
as both new source MACT and as an existing source MACT beyond-the-floor
option for THC (non-dioxin organic HAP) emissions.

3.3.2	Accuracy of costs

Comment: One commenter (0061) states that EPA fails to describe the
source of the scrubber costs, how they were calculated, and if they were
costs from the 1998 proposal that were updated, how they were updated
and whether the costs are considered accurate by EPA. According to the
commenter, the use of these unexplained costs as justification that
scrubbers are not reasonable for the emission reduction achieved is
arbitrary and capricious.

The commenter cites as flawed EPA’s reasoning that the generation of
scrubber slurry, and increased water and electricity usage would be
excessive and are additional reasons for rejecting scrubbers for
beyond-the-floor control for existing sources. The commenter states that
scrubbers always have these impacts but have been required by EPA in
other rulemakings; and further, that EPA does not say what levels are
considered excessive and why the levels for this industry are excessive.
The commenter states that this flawed analysis as part of EPA rejection
of scrubbers contributes to the commenter’s view that EPA’s
rejection of scrubbers is arbitrary and capricious.

Response: The comment is moot in regards to HCl for the reasons provided
in previous responses. However, we are responding to this comment
because we evaluated wet scrubber performance (and for beyond the floor
standards, costs) in evaluating standards for mercury. 

We updated our scrubber costs based on the same scrubber designs
evaluated in the Industrial Boiler NESHAP. We believe these cost
estimates are now more accurate. For the mercury standard based on the
performance of a wet scrubber, costs are irrelevant because this is a
floor standard. In the case of the beyond-the-floor standards, we
evaluate all impacts and make a decision specific to this source
category (and no other) if the costs, energy and non-air impacts are
justified in relation to the emission reductions. In this case we
determined the beyond-the-floor impacts for an existing source mercury
standard based on wet scrubbers was not justified. Part of that decision
was the significant variability from site-to-site of the expected
mercury reductions, and the question about the scrubber performance in
removing mercury (i.e. how much of the mercury is in the oxidized form),
facts that are specific to this source category. 

3.3.3	Accuracy of benefits

Comment: One commenter (0061) states that for existing kilns, EPA
understates HCl emissions reductions and overstates scrubber costs,
resulting in an overestimate of the cost per ton of HCl removed.
According to the commenter, the actual cost per ton of HCl removed is
reasonable and would be considered as an acceptable costs based on other
rulemakings. The commenter states that because EPA’s conclusion that
the cost of scrubbers is not reasonable for the emissions reductions
achieved rests on assumptions that are unexplained and irrational, and
varies without explanation from conclusions that EPA has reached
regarding acceptable cost per ton figures in other beyond-the-floor
analyses, it is arbitrary and capricious.

The commenter states that EPA ignores the co-benefits associated with
the use of wet scrubbers in the reduction in emissions of other HAP,
including mercury, formaldehyde and hydrogen fluoride. The commenter
states that EPA should consider the cost of scrubbers in light of all of
the HAP reduced.

Response: The comment is moot in regards to HCl because we have
determined that additional control of emissions of HCl is not necessary
based on the authority of section 112 (d) (4). However, we are
responding to this comment because we evaluated wet scrubber
performance, including potential to remove multiple HAP, in evaluating
standards for mercury. 

Most of the points in this comment have been answered in the response
immediately above. In addition, we note that in the analysis in the
final rule amendments, we considered control of additional pollutants by
wet scrubbers, such as dioxins, and SO2 (a criteria pollutant, not a
HAP), and THC (which would include formaldehyde). We did not
specifically discuss hydrogen floruide (HF) because HF emission form
cement kilns are minimal. As explained in section IV.A.2 of the preamble
to the final rule, we did not consider existing source standards for
mercury based on performance of wet scrubbers to be achievable, within
the meaning of section  112 (d) (2), even taking into account the
additional non-mercury HAP removed. Dioxin removal is very modest
because it is incremental to the dioxin removal already required by the
rule. These modest co-benefits do not make the standard more reasonable,
considering control costs and adverse energy and nonair health and
environmental impacts associated with wet scrubber use for existing
sources.

3.4	Testing and Monitoring Related Issues

Comment: One commenter (0041) states that previously EPA estimated that
method 26 understates HCl emissions by up to 30 percent; therefore, EPA
should require HCl determinations by Method 320 or ASTM D6735-01. The
commenter states that EPA should make available any data used to support
its change of position regarding the use of Method 26.

Response: The comment is moot because we have determined that additional
control of emissions of HCl is not necessary based on the authority of
section 112 (d) (4). We are therefore not adding any additional test
methods for HCl in the final rule. 

Comment: One commenter (0054) suggests that EPA require periodic HCl
emissions tests, at least once every 2.5 years.

Response: See previous response. 

3.5	Risk-Based Sstandard

Comment: One commenter (0061) states that EPA’s proposed risk-based
exemptions from HCl standards are unlawful, arbitrary and capricious. On
the proposal to develop a single national risk-based HCl standard based
on the reference concentration (RfC) for HCl , the commenter states no
national risk-based HCl standard exists making it impossible to comment
effectively on any provisions in the cement rule that might rely on a
hypothetical future rulemaking. The commenter continues stating that any
attempt to set risk-based standards on a national rule that does not
exist and is not currently available for review, would contravene the
CAA notice and comment requirements. The commenter states further that
section 112(d)(4) allows EPA to set health-based emission standards only
for those pollutants for which a health threshold has been established,
and that no cancer threshold has been set for HCl (nor is there any
classification of HCl with respect to carcinogenicity and none exists).
Also, the commenter states that no non-cancer threshold has been set for
HCl and that the IRIS RfC, on which EPA attempts to rely, does not
purport to be an established threshold. According to the commenter,
disclaimers in IRIS negate any notion that it provides an established
threshold for HCl.

Response: See the Federal Register notice for the final amendments for
the response to this comment.

Comment: On EPA’s second risk-based approach (source-by-source risk
based approach), the commenter states that, as explained in their
comment above on EPA’s first risk-based approach, EPA lacks authority
to set any risk-based standards for HCl under CAA 112(d)(4). According
to the commenter, the source-by-source approach does not provided
emission standards; rather it provides sources a set of loose and
ill-defined criteria by which the source can set its own limits. The
commenter continues stating that CAA 112(d)(4) does not authorize EPA to
set source-specific risk-based limits, but, for pollutants for which a
health threshold has been established, EPA may consider such threshold
level, with an ample margin of safety, when establishing emission
standards under this subsection. Citing Congressional conference
proceedings, the commenter states that Congress considered and rejected
source-specific risk-based standards. The commenter states that an
additional flaw of the source-by-source approach is that the proposal
does not define clearly what would be involved. For example, the
commenter states that the “look-up” table and how it would work is
not well defined. Without these details, it is not possible to properly
evaluate and comment on the proposal and, therefore, would contravene
the CAA notice and comment provisions. The commenter states that EPA’s
approach to permitting and enforcement of its source-by-source
alternative limits is unlawful and arbitrary. According to the
commenter, EPA’s reference to the use of procedures similar to those
in the proposed hazardous waste combustor (HWC) rule does not explain
how the alternative limits would be approved, what opportunities there
would be for public review, comment and judicial review, nor does the
proposed HWC rule provide any coherent explanation of these issues.
Again, the commenter states that this precludes meaningful comment and
violates the CAA notice and comment provisions. The commenter states
that because EPA lacks authority to create an “applicable
requirement” through the title V permit program, its attempt to rely
on the title V program as the vehicle for establishing source-by-source
alternative limits is unlawful and arbitrary and capricious. The
commenter states that because any source-by-source limits that exist
only in a source’s title V permit necessarily would expire when the
permit expires, such limits are not emission standards.

Response: We have determined that a source-by-source risk based approach
is not necessary here, and did not pursue this alternative..

Comment: Several commenters (0054, 0056, 0073, 0153, 0155, 0377, 0937,
1324) oppose a risk-based approach for HCl. They oppose risk based
standards because they would be less stringent than the MACT floor. The
commenters state that it is inappropriate to exempt sources based on
risk under a MACT standard. According to the commenters, the CAA
requires two-step process: first, MACT is established, a
technology-based program that calls for all major sources to install
stringent controls, and; second and subsequently, remaining risks are
evaluated after implementation of MACT standards.

One commenter (0041) states that EPA should set technology-based
standards, as required by the CAA, rather than risk-based standards,
arguing that risk standards will be less stringent that MACT floor
standards. The commenter states as an additional reason for setting a
MACT standard that the air quality near the source may change after a
permit has been issued. And if EPA insists on setting risk-based rules,
the commenter states that they should include consideration of
ecological effects.

One commenter (0153) opposes the risk-based approach stating that
sources may meet a federal exclusion only to then face a differing state
standard. According to the commenter, absence of a national MACT
standard will lead to a patchwork of state standards and create
uncertainty and an uneven playing field for the industry.

One commenter (0155, 0377) states that EPA must collect the data needed
to make appropriate decisions, including the data needed to do a
national assessment of HCl emissions and risks. The commenter states
that these data would be available if EPA enacted the Consolidated
Emission Reporting Rule for HAP and not just criteria pollutants.

Response: The Act includes certain exceptions to the general statutory
requirement to establish emission standards based on the performance of
MACT. Thus, EPA disagrees with the comment that EPA must in all cases
use the two-step process set out in section 112 (d0 (3) (floor
determinations) and 112 (d) (2) (beyond the floor determinations). Of
relevance here, section 112(d)(4) provides EPA with authority,  to
develop risk-based standards for HAP's "for which a health threshold has
been established", provided that the standard achieves an "ample margin
of safety." (The full text of the section 112(d)(4): "[w]ith respect to
pollutants for which a health threshold has been established, the
Administrator may consider such threshold level, with an ample margin of
safety, when establishing emission standards under this subsection.")  
Legislative History confirms that this provision was intended to
authorize EPA to consider risk and not to establish standards reflecting
MACT, under the circumstances enumerated in section 112 (d) (4). (Staff
of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, A Legislative
History of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, Vol. 1 at 876,
statement of Senator Durenberger during Senate Debate of October 27,
1990: "With respect to the pollutants for which a safe threshold can be
set, the authority to set a standard less stringent than maximum
achievable control technology is contained in subsection (d)(4).") The
legislative history further indicates that if EPA invokes this
provision, it must assure that any emission standard results in ambient
concentrations less than the health threshold, with an ample margin of
safety, and that the standards must also be sufficient to protect
against adverse environmental effects (S. Rep. No. 228, 101st Cong. at
171). Costs are not to be considered in establishing a standard pursuant
to section 112(d)(4) (Ibid.). Therefore, EPA believes it has the
discretion under section 112(d)(4) to develop risk-based standards for
some categories emitting threshold pollutants, which may be less
stringent than the corresponding "floor"-based MACT standard would be.
In applying this authority, EPA seeks to assure that emissions from
every source in the category or subcategory are less than the threshold
level to an individual exposed at the upper end of the exposure
distribution, a most exposed individual assuming exposure pathways which
could occur. The EPA believes that assuring protection to persons at
this upper end of the exposure distribution is consistent with the
"ample margin of safety" requirement in section 112(d)(4). Moreover. if
emissions of the threshold pollutant are at protective levels, with an
ample margin of safety, and emissions are less than levels which result
in adverse environmental effects, then there is no necessity of a
standard. As explained in section IV.A.2 of the preamble to the final
rule, those are the facts here.

	Since proposal we have obtained data on a risk analysis for HCl
emissions for cement kilns. We evaluates these data and determined that
no additional control of HCl emissions is warranted. We believe the data
provided by the Portland Cement Association s sufficient to make this
determination.

Give the fact that HCl is not a criteria pollutant, and HCl emissions
from cement kilns are typically low (due to the alkaline environment of
a cement kiln), we see little possibility that they will become subject
to differing State standards. We know of no States that currently
regulate HCl emissions from cement kilns.

Comment: Two commenters (0070, 0077) submitted comments on the need for
HCl standards. According to the commenters, based on a risk analysis
using 14 PH/PC kilns at 13 cement plants using a range of in-stack HCl
concentrations as well as a sensitivity analysis using higher HW kiln
HCl concentrations, risks are well below the short-term and long-term
thresholds. Based on this minimal risk, the commenters state that there
is no need for an HCl standard for new kilns or the proposed operational
standard for existing kilns. The commenters state that additional data
will be submitted to demonstrate that there is minimal risk and no need
for HCl standards. 

As stated in its comments on the original proposal (0077), one commenter
(0590)  states that a standard for HCl is not warranted for either
existing or new sources. Since the close of the previous comment period,
the commenter (0590) conducted a study to evaluate the long term and
short term health risks of HCl emissions from 94 kilns at 71 plants.
According to the commenter, risks were assessed using EPA modeling
guidance and conservative modeling assumptions. The commenter states
that based on their analysis, both chronic and acute risks are below
acceptable levels and that none of the kilns studied have the potential
to generate HCl emissions that result in air concentrations exceeding
EPA’s reference concentration (RfC) threshold for chronic health
effects or Cal EPA’s reference exposure level (REL) threshold for
acute effects. Based on these results, the commenter states that there
is no justification for an HCl standard for new or existing cement
kilns. The commenter included a copy of the health risk analysis with
their comments. Another commenter (0682) refers to the above information
submitted by another commenter that risks to health from HCl are well
below levels acceptable for both chronic and acute impacts.

Response: See the Federal Register notice for the final amendments for
the response to this comment.

Comment: Three commenters (0055, 0070, and 0077) state that if EPA
persists and requires HCl standards, they should provide for
site-specific alternative risk-based standards under 112(d)(4) as done
for the industrial boiler MACT rule and the HWC MACT  rule. (0077)

Response: We considered a site specific risk approach. However, since
proposal we have determined that further control of HCl emissions is not
warranted. Therefore, there is no further need to consider a site
specific risk based approach for HCl.

Comment: One commenter (0071) states that the proposed rule inadequately
addresses the health risk from HCl and especially the health of children
who, because they breathe more rapidly, inhale more pollutants per pound
of body weight and have smaller diameter airways relative to adults;
thus they may be more vulnerable to the effects of HCl exposure.

Response: The commenter provided no data to allow us to address this
claim. Data from other sources indicates that further control of HCl
emissions is not necessary because HCl emissions from cement kilns would
remain at levels protective of health with an ample margin of safety and
would be at levels protective of the environment. See section IV.B of
the preamble for the final rule amendments.

4.0	THC

4.1	Legal Issues Related EPA’s Interpretation of the CAA

Comment: Regarding emission standards for total hydrocarbons (THC), one
commenter (0061) states that although EPA has proposed limits, they have
not set standards for the main kiln stack at existing sources and new
sources at existing plants. The commenter states that EPA’s position
on THC standards is unlawful, contemptuous of court, and arbitrary for
the same reasons given by the commenter above regarding EPA position on
mercury standards (see above). The same commenter in a later submission
(0596), states that the preamble to the proposed rule appears to
indicate that EPA did not set emission standards for THC emissions from
the kiln’s main stack, although the regulatory text does specify
emission limits for the kiln’s main stack. 

Response: See the Federal Register notice for the final amendments for
the response to this comment.

4.2	Adequacy of Floor Determination (Existing and New)

Comments: One commenter (0596) states that EPA has improperly borrowed
standards from its 1999 regulations for hazardous waste combustors,
which were found unlawful and vacated, rather than setting standards
that reflect the THC or CO emission levels actually achievable by the
best performing sources (12% of cement kilns for existing and best
performing cement kiln for new). The commenter states further that
although maintaining good combustion conditions affects THC emissions,
it is not the only factor that does so and cites the plants’ selection
of raw materials as affecting THC emissions. The commenter states that
EPA’s new Greenfield source standard reflects that use of low organic
feed materials affects THC emissions and also cites statements by
Florida DEP and Holcim that selection of feed materials can affect THC
emissions. The commenter states that EPA admits that add-on controls,
e.g., ACI and scrubber/RTO (in use on two kilns), as well as
precalciner/no preheater technology affect THC emissions. According to
the commenter, because these other factors can affect THC emissions, EPA
has incorrectly set the floor based on good combustion control only. The
commenter states that EPA concedes that cement kilns may be able to
achieve better THC emission levels than through the use of good
combustion alone when it discusses in the proposed rule that
nonhazardous waste cement kilns should be “less challenged” than
hazardous waste kilns in meeting the proposed limits and that the
“lack of any hazardous waste feed for a NHW cement kiln should make it
easier to control the combustion process.” The commenter states that
EPA did not account for the fact that nonhazardous waste burning kilns
can control their combustion conditions and thus THC emission more
easily than hazardous waste burning kilns, instead just borrowing the
standard for hazardous waste burning kilns without attempting to show
that the proposed limits reflect what is actually achievable by the
relevant best performers. According to the commenter, EPA’s arguments
that it does not have to consider factors other than good combustion
were rejected by the court as irrelevant and EPA must set the THC limits
reflecting the average emission level that the best sources actually
achieve.

Response: See the Federal Register notice for the final amendments for
the response to this comment.

Comments: Several commenters (0045, 0055, 0070, and 0077) state that it
is inappropriate to set MACT floor limits based on a different source
category, i.e., hazardous waste combustors (HWC). According to the
commenters, at issue is the control of products of incomplete combustion
(PIC) vs. control of hydrocarbons from feed materials. They state that
HWC have the option of going nonhazardous when exceeding limit using
automatic waste feed cutoff (AWFCO) and that the HWC THC standard only
applies when hazardous waste is being burned. 

Commenters 0055, 0070, and 0077 state that the HWC MACT standards were
based on EPA’s RCRA Boiler and Industrial Furnace (BIF) rules, which
in turn were based on the need to safely manage hazardous waste, a need
that is irrelevant to the facilities covered under the current proposal.

Response: In setting MACT floors for existing sources we determine the
median of the top 12 percent of the best performing kilns. As previously
noted, we were unable to establish best performance in the original
NESHAP due to the influence of feed materials organic contents on
measured THC emissions, which essentially created uncontrollable
variability. However, at proposal we determined that variability of
organic emissions attributable to fuel inputs is controllable because
such control is not dependent on organic levels in raw materials, and
the fuel combustion process can be controlled to minimize THC emissions.
The existence of THC emission limits for cement kilns that burn
hazardous waste established a level of best performance, even
considering the fact that most of the THC emissions measured at the kiln
stack were the result of organic materials in the kiln feed. Also, we
believed at the time of proposal that kilns that burn hazardous waste do
not have differences from kilns that do not burn hazardous waste. 

	However, after a review of comments we have determined that there are
two significant differences we should have considered. One is that
currently a kiln that burns hazardous waste can intermittently turn off
the hazardous waste feed, and not be subject to the THC limits, if they
see a potential exceedence due to uncontrollable short term increases in
THC resulting from raw materials inputs. The second is that a facility
can permanently stop burning hazardous waste if their raw materials
would result on their inability to meet the THC limits. However, in both
cases terminating the burning of the hazardous waste does not impede
their ability to continue to produce product. In addition, we have
obtained additional data on THC emissions that indicate that, even
operating with good fuel combustion conditions,  the variability of the
raw materials’ organic contents for the industry as a whole would
result in a significant percentage of cement kilns being unable to meet
the proposed floor standard. This result is inconsistent with the
premise of the proposal, which was to codify best performers’ good
fuel combustion practices. 

	We had also provided in the proposed standards option to measure THC
emissions in the alkali bypass, or through a mid kiln sampling system.
These sampling points have the benefit that the measurements are
upstream of the point where the feed materials enter the kiln.
Therefore, varying levels of organics in the feed do not affect THC or
CO emission levels measured in the alkali bypass or mid kiln. However,
only about one in three cement kilns have an alkali bypass, and the one
kiln with a mid-kiln gas sampling system has changes to an alternative
monitoring process because the location of a mid-kiln sampling system
creates severe maintenance issues. Therefore, we do not consider
mid-kiln gas sampling to be feasible.

	As a result, in the final amendments was have removed the monitoring
requirements  and emission limits for existing source and substituted a
work practice standard of good combustion conditions. For new sources
the basis of the standard is an add-on control. 

Comment: One commenter (0055) states that EPA’s incorporation of the
MACT floor for HWC-MACT kilns to NHW kilns is inappropriate because EPA
has switched focus from establishing a MACT floor for THC to combustion
THC, which may only be a small contributor overall THC emissions. The
commenter suggests that EPA evaluate the MACT floor based on total THC
emissions.

Response: We evaluated MACT floors for total THC emissions. For existing
sources, the only potential floor was good combustion conditions, since
other emissions are entirely dependent on raw material organic content,
which varies enormously from kiln-to-kiln and at individual kilns as
well. We are aware that this practice only controls combustion THC not
THC from organic materials in the feed. However, we could identify no
control that could form the basis of a floor for THC form organic
materials in the feed. For new sources, the THC standard is now measured
at the stack and limits both combustion THC and THC from organics in the
feed.

Comments: Three commenters (0055, 0070, and 0077) state that EPA has no
empirical data demonstrating that any non-hazardous waste (NHW) kiln can
achieve the proposed limits on a continuous basis. Commenter 0077 states
that bench scale studies estimated that for varying organic levels, 47
percent of samples would have resulted in emissions that exceed the 20
ppmv limit. 

Response: See the Federal Register notice for the final amendments for
the response to this comment.

Comment: Three commenters (0070, 0077, 0682) state that the contribution
to THC / CO from raw materials outweighs the measure of THC/CO for good
combustion of hazardous waste fuels. Thus, THC and CO are not useful
indicators of good combustion. One commenter (0077) notes that available
information (Rigo & Rigo Assoc & Schreiber, et al) shows that it is
difficult to correlate HC and HAP emissions. The commenter further
states that several studies show that neither THC nor CO is a reliable
surrogate for good combustion or PIC or HAP emissions. According to the
commenter, HC emissions are a function of 1) raw material organic
content, 2) source of fuel and firing location, 3) temperature profile,
4) oxygen concentration, and 5) type of manufacturing process. One
commenter (0682) states that the high temperatures required for the
formation of cement clinker (>2700F) ensure as complete combustion of
fuels as is possible.

Response: See the Federal Register notice for the final amendments for
the response to this comment.

Comment: Three commenters (0045, 0070, and 0077) state that it is
inappropriate to apply limits when feed materials have varying levels of
organics, which EPA acknowledges by setting THC limits only for new
Greenfield sources (EPA also applied variability of feed/fuel materials
in justifying rules or lack of rules for mercury, HCl and non-mercury
metals). Two commenters (0070 and 0077) add that a Reaction Engineering
study shows that organics emitted from kiln feed is extremely variable
across US and ranges over 4 orders of magnitude.

Response: See the Federal Register notice for the final amendments for
the response to this comment.

Comment: Commenter 0045 states that as done for HCl, EPA should require
“operation of kiln following good combustion practices”, and there
is no need for a numerical limit for THC from existing sources.

One commenter (0590) remains opposed to the THC standard for existing
kilns repeating its comments on the original proposal (0077) that THC
emissions from cement kilns are derived almost exclusively from organic
compounds contained in the raw materials and that raw materials are
chosen when plants locations are chosen. The commenter states that since
proposal, EPA has acknowledged that their intent was to ensure the
complete combustion of organic compounds derived from fuels and not to
prohibit cement plants from using nearby raw materials. The commenter
states that kiln design, including process temperatures well above those
needed to destroy organic compounds, ensure complete destruction of
fuel-derived organic compounds and the conversion of raw materials into
clinker. According to the commenter, plant operators closely monitor
combustion to ensure a proper kiln environment to convert raw materials
to the clinker product. The commenter states that it will supply EPA
with a proposed work practice approach currently used in the industry
that could be used by plant operators to demonstrate good combustion.
The commenter notes that testing of organic materials from cement kilns
that burn hazardous waste indicates that regardless of the fuel type,
neither acute nor chronic risk thresholds for organic hazardous air
pollutants are exceeded. 

Response: We agree with this comment. We have removed the numerical THC
limits for existing source limits and based the standard on good
combustion practices. For new sources the basis of the standard is now
an add-on control, so this comment no longer applies.

Comment: One commenter (0045) states that it is illogical to set more
stringent limits for existing kilns (20 ppmv) than for new greenfield
kilns (50 ppmv)

Response: In the final amendments there are now no quantified limits for
existing sources. The new source limit is now 20 ppmv for all new kilns.

Comment: Two commenters (0070 and 0077) state that EPA has acted
arbitrarily by proposing THC standards for sources other than greenfield
kilns without explaining why its previous rationale for limiting the
standard to greenfield kilns, that raw material selection is not
available for existing kilns because facilities are generally tied to
existing raw materials sources in close proximity to the facility, is no
longer valid.

Response: We have removed the numerical THC limits for existing source
limits and based the standard on good combustion practices. Therefore,
existing kilns do not have to meet any specific limits. The reason for
subcategorizing existing plants greenfield sources was that when
selecting a new greenfield source a source can choose to site the raw
material quarries where the organic contents are low enough to meet the
current 50 ppmv limit. Because the basis of the floor was raw material
selection, rather then an add-on control, this control technique is only
available to greenfield sites. For new sources the basis of the standard
is now an add-on control. In that case a facility can exercise control
of THC emission regardless of the organic content of the raw materials.
Therefore, there is no reason to subcategorize existing plants and
greenfield plants. Moreover, since the control achievable an RTO (20 ppm
or 98 % emission reduction) is superior to that based on raw material
selection (50 ppm), the standard applies to all new sources. Put another
way, the 50 ppm standard for Greenfield sources adopted in the 1999
final rule no longer reflects the performance of the best performing
source, and thus cannot reflect the MACT floor for new sources.

Comment: Two commenters (0070 and 0077) point out that EPA appears to
make changes to the current requirement for new greenfield kilns of 50
ppmv measured in the kiln stack by establishing an additional CO
standard for kilns equipped with alkali bypass systems. The commenter
requests that EPA confirm in the final rule that only the 50 ppmv stack
gas limitation applies to new, greenfield kilns.

Response: It was our intent in the proposed rules that new greenfield
kilns meet a 50 ppmv limit at the stack, and potentially also meet a 20
ppmv limit at the stack if the kiln had no alkali bypass. We agree that
this could appear illogical. However, in the final amendments all new
kilns must meet a 20 ppmv standard. Therefore, this comment is now moot.

Comment: One commenter (0155, 0377) supports the limits for CO and THC
to ensure adequate combustion and believes that 1 year for compliance is
sufficient.

Response: Other comments and data we received after proposal have
indicated that our premise at proposal was flawed. Therefore, we do not
agree with this comment. Additional information on the reasons can be
found in section IV.C of the preamble of the final rule amendments.

4.3	Beyond the floor determination

Comment: A commenter (0061) states that EPA failed to consider the
reduction in THC as part of the beyond-the-floor analysis of ACI.
According to the commenter, organic HAP potentially controlled by ACI
include polychlorinated biphenyls, polycyclic organic matter, and
polyaromatic hydrocarbons. According to the commenter, to determine the
maximum degree of reduction in THC emissions that is achievable for
cement kilns, the CAA requires that EPA evaluate the reductions
achievable through the use of ACI.

	One commenter (0596) states that 1) EPA did not determine, as required
by the CAA for beyond-the-floor standards, the maximum degree of
reduction in THC emissions achievable through good combustion practices;
2) EPA did not show that its standards reflect the maximum degree of
reduction achievable through combustion controls in light of its
findings that nonhazardous waste burning kilns should be able to achieve
the THC standards more easily than hazardous waste burning kilns; 3) EPA
did not determine the maximum degree of reduction achievable through the
judicious selection of raw materials although they acknowledge that such
methods will control THC emissions and that kilns are already using it
and can control THC emissions through the use of other materials such as
fly ash and kilns can and do import raw materials from sources that are
not co-located or immediately nearby; 4) EPA did not determine the
degree of reduction achievable through the use of end-of-stack controls
already in use in the cement industry, including ACI, which EPA only
considered for mercury and dioxin control and which would reduce THC
emissions significantly as well as mercury and dioxin; 5) EPA failed to
determine the maximum degree of reduction achievable through the use of
limestone scrubber/RTO even though the agency is aware that such devices
can significantly reduce emissions of THC (as well as HCl) and are
already in use in the industry and does not contend that they are too
expensive; and 6) EPA failed to consider or determine the maximum degree
of reduction achievable through the use of a carbon coke filter system
such as the Polvitec system in use at Holcim’s Zurich plant. For the
reasons (1-7) listed above, the commenter states that EPA’s
beyond-the-floor analysis for THC contravenes CAA 112(d)(2) which
requires that EPA’s final standards reflect the maximum degree of
reduction achievable through any and all reduction measures, and any
claim that EPA’s THC standard do reflect the maximum achievable degree
of reduction would be arbitrary and capricious in light of EPA’s
failure to consider these technologies or explain its decision not to
base beyond-the-floor standards on any or all of them.

Response: See the Federal Register notice for the final amendments for
the response to this comment.

4.4	Area sources

Comment: Several commenters oppose EPA’s proposed regulation of area
sources for THC. Three commenters (0055, 0070, and 0077) state that
there is no legal basis for regulating area sources. The commenters note
that there is no “statement of basis and purpose” as required by CAA
307(d)(3).

One commenter (0045) recommends that EPA exempt area sources, which
would experience the same cost as major sources with fewer benefits; or
consider less stringent options, e.g., periodic stack test rather than
CEM. 

Response: See the Federal Register notice for the final amendments for
the response to this comment.  See also 63 FR 31911.

4.5	Testing and Monitoring Related Issues

Comment: One commenter (0054) supports EPA requirements for THC or CO
monitoring as indicators of good combustions for the control of organic
HAP. The commenter also supports the requirement of a THC emission tests
if a facility elects to monitor CO, although the commenter recommends
more frequent THC compliance testing, at least once every 2.5 years. 

Response: We would agree with this comment in regard to measuring THC or
CO in a kiln alkali bypass or mid-kiln gas sampling system. However, if
the THC and CO are measured after the introduction of the feed
materials, organic material in the feed can result in significant THC
emissions that have no relationship to whether or not the kiln is using
good fuel combustion practices. The comment on THC compliance testing is
now moot because we are requiring THC CEMs whenever a facility has a THC
emissions limit.

Comment: One commenter (0045) states that the requirement for THC CEM
will impose additional cost for no benefit. The commenter recommends
that EPA eliminate numerical limits or require less costly monitoring
options, e.g., periodic stack testing. The commenter recommends that if
EPA does require CEM, extend the compliance date to at least 2 years
because the State certification process requires more than 1 year.

Response: See the Federal Register notice for the final amendments for
the response to this comment.

Comment: Because mid-kiln monitoring for good combustion may be an
alternative to monitoring main kiln exhaust gases where THC levels may
be higher due to organics from the limestone, several comments were
received on the difficulties associated with mid-kiln monitoring.
Several commenters (0055, 0070, 0077, 0682) state that the proposed
mid-kiln monitoring on long kilns is not reliable, has operational
problems and is maintenance intensive. One commenter (0077) adds that
mid-kiln sampling systems can be complex, extremely costly to maintain,
and can prevent optimal cement manufacturing goals from being achieved. 

According to commenter 0055, operational problems include 1) obtaining a
proper seal on the mid-kiln system to avoid in-leakage of ambient air
from outside the kiln, 2) sample tube life, and 3) loss of production.
The commenter states that mid-kiln monitoring systems are expensive to
install and maintain and provide unreliable results. The commenter
reports spending over $2 million to install its system and over $100,000
annually on maintenance of the system. The commenter adds that the
system is estimated to be responsible for $2 to $3 million dollars of
lost production annually and higher than necessary emissions of NOX and
other criteria pollutants.

One commenter (0055) states that a number of cement kilns have installed
mid-kiln firing to comply with the NOX SIP call or for other reasons.
According to the commenter, use of mid-kiln monitoring systems has never
been attempted with mid-kiln firing systems. The commenter states that
there is no reason to believe such systems are a viable monitoring
technology for such kilns or that such monitoring systems would be the
proper means of verifying good combustion in that environment. 

One commenter (0077) notes the use of an alternative to mid-kiln
sampling adopted at a facility due to the costly and maintenance
intensive nature of mid-kiln sampling. The commenter notes that, as a
surrogate for good combustion, a minimum temperature was set at two
points in the kiln at the facility (flame temp. and inlet to chain
section of long wet kiln) along with a minimum oxygen level. These were
set while demonstrating good combustion during a destruction and removal
efficiency (DRE) test as part of this method’s comprehensive
performance test (CPT) to prove the alternative was effective. The
commenter reports that as long as the kiln remains within the limits set
during the CPT, good combustion can be demonstrated. The commenter also
includes data in Appendix C of its comments that show although THC
monitoring costs for preheater/precalciner kilns are less than mid-kiln
monitoring systems, they are still significant. The commenter adds that
if EPA were to promulgate a THC standard for existing kilns, these costs
(over $180,000 in design and installation costs and $25,000 to $30,000
in annual operating costs) would be incurred by more than 30
preheater/precalciner kilns. 

If EPA persist in requiring monitoring of combustion-based THC, one
commenter (0682) requests that EPA consider an alternative work practice
or operating procedure that would demonstrate good combustion practices,
which the commenter plans to work on.

Response: We agree with these comments. We have replaced the monitoring
requirements in the proposed rule with a work practice requirement in
the final amendments establishing standards for existing sources. For
new sources the THC emission limit is now based on the performance of a
regenerative thermal oxidizer and requires a THC CEM in the main stack.
Therefore, these comments no longer apply.

Comment: Two commenters (0070 and 0077) state that it is impractical, as
proposed, to import low organic feed materials to conduct a THC
performance test in order to be allowed to monitor CO.

Response: We agree and have changed the final rule amendments so this is
no longer required.

5.0	Raw material storage

Comment: Two commenters (0054, 0058) favor including all crushers in the
Portland cement NESHAP and include Subpart OOO, if they satisfy the
requirements of the CAA. One commenter (0058) cites State requirements
for primary crushers of 10 percent opacity, work practices, and a
baghouse with outlet concentration of 0.01 gr/dscf; secondary crushers
are subject to a 20 percent opacity limit. The commenter provided a copy
of their State requirements for crushers at cement manufacturing
facilities.

One commenter (0058) states that applicability based on location
relevant to other sources is confusing and recommended that EPA put all
appropriate requirements for the sources in one requirement and remove
63.1340(c) altogether. 

Response: See the Federal Register notice for the final amendments for
the response to this comment.

Comment: One commenter (0060) states that all of the raw material
handling and storage, except crushing, should be covered by the NESHAP.
They state that the only non-metallic mining activities subject to the
NSPS Subpart OOO are at the quarry and crusher. The commenter states
that under the alternative interpretation offered by EPA, several steps
characteristic of cement manufacturing would not be included in Subpart
LLL, for example the “on-line” measurement devices such as
cross-belt neutron analyzers that are used in the preblending and
proportioning steps. The commenter states further that the raw mix fed
to the raw mill is the product of the very careful instrumentally-aided
proportioning and blending operation that is one of the most important
series of steps in the cement manufacturing process.

Response: See the Federal Register notice for the final amendments for
the response to this comment.

Comment: Two commenters (0070 and 0077) state that both suggested
approaches confound the agreement between PCA and EPA to clarify which
sources are subject to OOO and those subject to LLL with the intent of
including under LLL only those sources related to cement manufacturing.
The commenters state that further discussions between the Portland
Cement Association (PCA) and EPA are needed.

Response: The EPA and PCA have had several meetings on this issue.
Unless there is new data to consider, we believe additional meetings on
this issue are unnecessary. In taking our final action on this matter we
had discussions with the PCA and went through a comment and response
rulemaking. This action supersedes any previous rulemaking or prior
agreements with the PCA. 

6.0	Other

Comment: One commenter (0077) states that EPA should explain in the
final rule that the owner of an in-line kiln/raw mill which co-mingles
virtually all of the clinker cooler gases with kiln exhaust gases will
be subject to a weighted opacity standard based on the percentage of
clinker cooler gases used by the kiln/raw mill during its normal mode of
operation. The commenter believes that a 20 percent opacity standard
would continue to apply to the preponderance of in-line kilns/raw mills
that route all of their clinker cooler gases through the kiln stack.

Response: The rule’s opacity standards were not opened for comment at
proposal. Therefore we are not  responding to this comment.

Comment: Two commenters (0070 and 0077) state that the one year
compliance period is not adequate, given formal processes imposed by
states to authorize installation and use of CEM, such as the THC and CO
CEM. According to the commenter, at least 2 yrs or 30 months should be
allowed. 

Response: We agree with this comment in regard to existing sources.
However, because existing sources no longer have THC emission limits,
this comment is moot for existing sources. For new sources the
compliance date is set by the statute.

Comment: One commenter (0937) states that EPA should require PM CEMs to
ensure compliance and remove the current PM CEM deferral. The commenter
states that PM performance specifications (PS-11) have been promulgated
and it is now appropriate to require PM CEMs for portland cement plants.
The commenter also states that EPA should require monitoring of mercury,
HCl, and THC more frequently than every 5 years, with continuous
monitoring preferable or case-by-case exemptions.

Response: We did not propose changes to the portions of the rule on use
of PM CEMS or  testing frequency. Therefore, we are not responding to
this comment.

Comment: One commenter (0937) states that the startup, shutdown, and
malfunction exemptions does not provide adequate protection of human
health and is contrary to the CAA’s requirements to protect human
health and should be eliminated.

Response: We did not propose changes to the portions of the rule
concerning startup, shutdown, and malfunction exemptions. Therefore, we
are not responding to this comment.

 PAGE   

9/23/06

		Response to Comments Document

DRAFT – Do Not Quote or Cite

  PAGE  1 

9/23/06

		Response to Comments Document

 PAGE   

  PAGE  18