Document ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0817-0835
Agency: epa
Document Type: Rule
Title: National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Portland Cement Manufacturing Industry and Standards of Performance for Portland Cement Plants
Posted Date: 2013-02-12T05:00Z

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 29 (Tuesday, February 12, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 10005-10054]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-31633]

[[Page 10005]]

Vol. 78

Tuesday,

No. 29

February 12, 2013

Part II

Environmental Protection Agency

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

40 CFR Parts 60 and 63

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for the 
Portland Cement Manufacturing Industry and Standards of Performance for 
Portland Cement Plants; Final Rule

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

[[Page 10006]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 60 and 63

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0817; FRL-9758-6]
RIN 2060-AQ93

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for the 
Portland Cement Manufacturing Industry and Standards of Performance for 
Portland Cement Plants

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: On July 18, 2012, the EPA proposed amendments to the National 
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for the Portland Cement 
Manufacturing Industry and the Standards of Performance for Portland 
Cement Plants. This final action amends the national emission standards 
for hazardous air pollutants for the Portland cement industry. The EPA 
is also promulgating amendments with respect to issues on which it 
granted reconsideration on May 17, 2011. In addition, the EPA is 
amending the new source performance standard for particulate matter. 
These amendments promote flexibility, reduce costs, ease compliance and 
preserve health benefits. The amendments also address the remand of the 
national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants for the 
Portland cement industry by the United States Court of Appeals for the 
District of Columbia Circuit on December 9, 2011. Finally, the EPA is 
setting the date for compliance with the existing source national 
emission standards for hazardous air pollutants to be September 9, 
2015.

DATES: This final rule is effective on February 12, 2013. The EPA is 
setting the compliance date for existing open clinker storage piles to 
be February 12, 2014.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under 
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0817. All documents in the docket are 
listed in the http://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in 
the index, some information is not publicly available, for example, 
confidential business information or other information whose disclosure 
is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted 
material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly 
available docket materials are available either electronically in 
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center, EPA West 
Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The 
Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through 
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public 
Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the Docket 
Center is (202) 566-1742.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about this final action, 
contact Ms. Sharon Nizich, Office of Air Quality Planning and 
Standards; Sector Policies and Programs Division, Minerals and 
Manufacturing Group (D243-04); Environmental Protection Agency; 
Research Triangle Park, NC 27111; telephone number: (919) 541-2825; fax 
number: (919) 541-5450; email address: nizich.sharon@epa.gov. For 
information about the applicability of the NESHAP or NSPS contact Mr. 
Patrick Yellin, Monitoring, Assistance and Media Programs Division 
(2227A), Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington, 
DC 20460; telephone number (202) 654-2970; email address 
yellin.patrick@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Acronyms and Abbreviations. The following acronyms and 
abbreviations are used in this document.

APCD air pollution control devices
CAA Clean Air Act
CBI confidential business information
CDX Central Data Exchange
CEMS continuous emission monitoring systems
CEDRI Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CISWI commercial and industrial solid waste incinerators
CMS continuous monitoring system
COMS continuous opacity monitoring system
CO2 carbon dioxide
CPMS continuous parametric monitoring system
D/F dioxins and furans
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
ESP Electrostatic Precipitators
ERT Electronic Reporting Tool
FR Federal Register
gr/dscf grains per dry standard cubic foot
HAP hazardous air pollutants
Hg mercury
HCl hydrogen chloride
ICR information collection request
Lb/ton pound per ton
MACT maximum achievable control technology
meHg methylmercury
NAICS North American Industry Classification System
NAS National Academy of Science
NESHAP National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
NHSM Nonhazardous Secondary Materials
NOX Nitrogen Oxides
NRC National Research Council
NSPS new source performance standards
NTTAA National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
oHAP Non-dioxin organic hazardous air pollutants
OMB Office of Management and Budget
PCA Portland Cement Association
PM particulate matter
ppm(v) (d,w) parts per million (by volume) (dry, wet)
RATA Relative Accuracy Test Audit
RfD reference dose
RIA regulatory impact analysis
RTC Response to Comment
RTO regenerative thermal oxidizers
SIP state implementation plan
SO2 Sulphur Dioxide
THC total hydrocarbons
tpy tons per year
TTN Technology Transfer Network
[micro]g/m3 micrograms per cubic meter
UPL Upper Prediction Limit
UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
TEOM Tapered Element Oscillating Microbalance
VCS voluntary consensus standards
WWW worldwide web

    Background Information Document. On July 18, 2012 (77 FR 42368), 
the EPA proposed to amend the Portland cement manufacturing industry 
NESHAP and the Portland cement plant new source performance standards 
(NSPS). In this action, we are taking final action on this proposal. A 
summary of the public comments on the proposal and the EPA's responses 
to those comments is available in Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-
0817.
    Organization of this Document. The information presented in this 
preamble is organized as follows:

I. General Information
    A. Executive Summary
    B. Does this action apply to me?
    C. Where can I get a copy of this document?
    D. Judicial Review
II. Background Information
    A. What is the statutory authority for these amendments?
    B. What actions preceded this final rule?
III. Summary of Final Amendments to Subpart LLL and Subpart F
    A. Reconsideration of Standards
    B. Continuously Monitored Parameters for Alternative Organic HAP 
Standard (With THC Monitoring Parameter)
    C. Allowing Sources With Dry Caustic Scrubbers To Comply With 
HCl Standard Using Performance Tests
    D. Alternative PM Limit
    E. Coal Mills
    F. NESHAP Compliance Date Extension for Existing Sources
    G. Section 112 Eligibility To Be a New Source
    H. Other Testing and Monitoring Revisions
    I. Miscellaneous Amendments
    J. Standards During Periods of Startup and Shutdown

[[Page 10007]]

    K. Reporting for Malfunctions and Affirmative Defense for 
Violation of Emission Standards During Malfunctions
    L. What are the compliance dates of the standards?
    M. Open Clinker Storage Piles
IV. Summary of Major Changes Since Proposal
    A. PM Parametric Monitoring
    B. Scaling for Continuous Parametric Monitoring of THC for 
Alternative OHAP Standard
    C. Work Practice Standard in Lieu of Numerical Emissions Limits 
for Periods of Startup and Shutdown
V. Summary of Significant Comments and Responses
    A. Amendments to Existing Source and New Source Standards for PM 
Under CAA Sections 112(d) and 111(b)
    B. Mercury Standard
    C. Standards for Fugitive Emissions From Open Clinker Storage 
Piles
    D. September 9, 2015, Compliance Date for the Amended Existing 
Source Standards
    E. Eligibility to be a New Source Under NESHAP
VI. Summary of Cost, Environmental, Energy and Economic Impacts
    A. What are the affected sources?
    B. How did EPA evaluate the impacts of these amendments?
    C. What are the air quality impacts?
    D. What are the water quality impacts?
    E. What are the solid waste impacts?
    F. What are the secondary impacts?
    G. What are the energy impacts?
    H. What are the cost impacts?
    I. What are the health effects of these pollutants?
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and 
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With 
Indian Tribal Governments
    G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From 
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
    J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address 
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income 
Populations
    K. Congressional Review Act

I. General Information

A. Executive Summary

    In this action the EPA is finalizing amendments to the NESHAP for 
Portland cement plants and to the NSPS for Portland cement plants. 
These amendments respond to petitions for reconsideration filed by the 
Portland cement industry and to a decision by the United States Court 
of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit). The EPA 
is retaining the stack emission standards for mercury, hydrogen 
chloride (HCl), and total hydrocarbons (THC) under the NESHAP, amending 
the stack emission standard for particulate matter (PM) under the 
NESHAP, and making a conforming amendment to the NSPS for PM. The 
amendments also include provisions which account for commingled HAP 
emissions from coal mills that are an integral part of the kiln, 
establish a continuous monitoring regime for parametric monitoring of 
PM, set work practice standards for startup and shutdown, and revise 
the compliance date for the PM, mercury, HCl, THC and clinker storage 
pile existing source standards under the NESHAP. The EPA is also 
retaining the affirmative defense for civil penalties for violations of 
emission limits occurring as a result of a malfunction.
    These amendments are based on sound technical and legal 
justifications, and result in cost savings and compliance flexibility 
for the Portland cement industry. This result is consistent with 
Executive Order 13563.
1. Purpose of the Regulatory Action
a. Need for the Regulatory Action
    The EPA is amending the NESHAP for the Portland cement source 
category and the NSPS for Portland cement plants issued under sections 
112(d) and 111(b) of the Clean Air Act (CAA). The most significant 
amendment is to the NESHAP and NSPS for PM, to correct monitoring 
issues with the PM compliance regime as promulgated in the 2010 final 
rule. As a result of this amendment, the EPA is also setting a 
compliance date of September 9, 2015, for meeting the PM, mercury, HCl 
and THC existing source NESHAP.
    This final action also addresses the remand by the DC Circuit in 
Portland Cement Ass'n v. EPA, 665 F. 3d 177 (DC Cir. 2011). In that 
case, the court upheld all of the EPA's methodology for establishing 
the Portland cement NESHAP, denied all petitions for review challenging 
the NSPS, but also held that the EPA had arbitrarily denied 
reconsideration of the NESHAP to take into account the effect of the 
EPA's Nonhazardous Secondary Materials (NHSM) rule on the standards. 
The NHSM rule, issued after the NESHAP was promulgated, had the effect 
of reclassifying some cement kilns as commercial and industrial solid 
waste incinerators (CISWI) and thus could have an effect on the 
standards. The court also stayed the open storage clinker pile 
standards.
    We are also amending various implementation requirements to provide 
more compliance flexibility for affected sources. In addition, the 
amendments address the issues on which the EPA previously granted 
reconsideration. See 76 FR 28318 (May 17, 2011).
b. Legal Authority for the Regulatory Action
    These amendments implement sections 112(d) and 111(b) of the CAA. 
Section 112 of the CAA establishes a regulatory process to address 
emissions of hazardous air pollutants (HAP) from stationary sources. 
After the EPA identifies categories of sources emitting one or more of 
the HAP listed in section 112(b) of the CAA, section 112(d) requires 
the EPA to promulgate technology-based NESHAP for those sources. 
Section 112(i)(3)(A) requires that the compliance date for existing 
sources shall be ``as expeditiou[s] as practicable,'' but not more than 
3 years after a standard's effective date. Section 111 of the CAA 
requires that NSPS reflect the application of the best system of 
emission reductions achievable which, taking into consideration the 
cost of achieving such emission reductions, and any non-air quality 
health and environmental impact and energy requirements, the 
Administrator determines has been adequately demonstrated.
2. Summary of Major Provisions
a. PM Emission Standards
    As proposed, the EPA is amending the existing and new source PM 
standards in the NESHAP to require manual stack testing in lieu of PM 
continuous emission monitoring systems (CEMS) for compliance 
determinations and requiring that a site-specific parametric operating 
level be established using a PM continuous parametric monitoring system 
(CPMS). We are changing the numeric emissions value of those standards 
for existing sources to 0.07 pounds per ton (lb/ton) clinker based on 
manual stack testing and 0.02 lb/ton clinker for new and reconstructed 
sources based on manual stack testing. The PM standards under the NSPS 
for modified sources are likewise amended to 0.07 lb/ton clinker based 
on manual stack testing and 0.02 lb/ton clinker for new and 
reconstructed sources based on manual stack testing.
b. Response to Remand
    Consistent with the court's remand, the EPA has removed all of the 
CISWI kilns from the database used to set the 2010 existing source 
standards for PM,

[[Page 10008]]

mercury, HCl and THC. This analysis informed the level of the final 
standards discussed immediately below.
c. Other Emissions Standards
    As proposed, the EPA is changing the alternative organic HAP (oHAP) 
standard from 9 parts per million (ppm) to 12 ppm. The EPA is not 
changing the existing or new source standards for mercury, THC or HCl.
d. Standards During Startup and Shutdown
    The EPA is amending the emission standards applicable during 
periods of startup and shutdown from numerical standards to work 
practice standards.
e. Compliance Dates for NESHAP
    As proposed, the EPA is establishing a compliance date of September 
9, 2015, for existing source standards for PM, mercury, HCl and THC. 
The EPA is establishing February 12, 2014, as the compliance date for 
the standards for existing open clinker storage piles. New source 
standards continue to apply to all sources which commenced construction 
or reconstruction after May 6, 2009.
f. Final Action on Reconsideration
    The EPA is also taking final action on the remaining issues on 
which it granted reconsideration on May 17, 2011.
3. Cost Impacts of These Amendments
    We estimate that revising the means of demonstrating compliance for 
the PM, alternative organic HAP standards and requiring work practices 
for open clinker storage piles will save industry $52 million annually.
4. Summary of Final Standards
    Table 1 shows the final standards for the Portland Cement 
Manufacturing Industry NESHAP and the Portland Cement Plants NSPS.

               Table 1--Existing and New Source Standards
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Existing source       New source
            Pollutant                  standard            standard
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mercury.........................  55 lb/MM tons       21 lb/MM tons
                                   clinker.            clinker.
THC.............................  24 ppmvd..........  24 ppmvd.
PM..............................  0.07 lb/ton \a\     0.02 lb/ton \b\
                                   clinker (3-run      clinker (3-run
                                   test average).      test average).
HCl.............................  3 ppmvd...........  3 ppmvd.
Organic HAP (alternative to       12 ppmvd..........  12 ppmvd.
 Total Hydrocarbons).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Also applies to NSPS modified sources.
\b\ Also applies to NSPS new and reconstructed sources.

B. Does this action apply to me?

    Categories and entities potentially regulated by this final rule 
include:

 Table 2--Industrial Source Categories Affected by this NESHAP and NSPS
                              Final Action
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Examples of regulated
            Category             NAICS code \a\          entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry.......................          327310  Portland cement
                                                  manufacturing plants.
Federal government.............  ..............  Not affected.
State/local/tribal government..  ..............  Portland cement
                                                  manufacturing plants.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ North American Industry Classification System.

    Table 2 of this preamble is not intended to be exhaustive, but 
rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be 
regulated by this action. To determine whether your facility will be 
regulated by this action, you should examine the applicability criteria 
in 40 CFR 60.60 (subpart F) or in 40 CFR 63.1340 (subpart LLL). If you 
have any questions regarding the applicability of this final action to 
a particular entity, contact the appropriate person listed in the 
preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

C. Where can I get a copy of this document?

    In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of 
this final action will also be available on the World Wide Web (WWW) 
through the EPA's Technology Transfer Network (TTN). Following 
signature by the EPA Administrator, a copy of this final action will be 
posted on the TTN's policy and guidance page for newly proposed or 
promulgated rules at the following address: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg. The TTN provides information and technology exchange in various 
areas of air pollution control. In addition, more information can be 
obtained at the following address: http://www.epa.gov/airquality/cement.

D. Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, judicial review of this final 
action is available only by filing a petition for review in the court 
by April 13, 2013. Under section 307(b)(2) of the CAA, the requirements 
established by the final rule may not be challenged separately in any 
civil or criminal proceedings brought by the EPA to enforce the 
requirements.
    Section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA further provides that ``[o]nly an 
objection to a rule or procedure which was raised with reasonable 
specificity during the period for public comment (including any public 
hearing) may be raised during judicial review.'' This section also 
provides a mechanism for the EPA to convene a proceeding for 
reconsideration, ``[i]f the person raising an objection can demonstrate 
to EPA that it was impracticable to raise such objection within [the 
period for public comment] or if the grounds for such objection arose 
after the period for public comment (but within the time specified for 
judicial review) and if such objection is of central relevance to the 
outcome of the rule.'' Any person seeking to make such a demonstration 
to us should submit a Petition for Reconsideration to the Office of the 
Administrator, U.S. EPA, Room 3000,

[[Page 10009]]

Ariel Rios Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460, 
with a copy to both the person(s) listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT section and the Associate General Counsel for the 
Air and Radiation Law Office, Office of General Counsel (Mail Code 
2344A), U.S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460.

II. Background Information

A. What is the statutory authority for these amendments?

    Section 112 of the CAA establishes a regulatory process to address 
emissions of HAP from stationary sources. After the EPA has identified 
categories of sources emitting one or more of the HAP listed in section 
112(b) of the CAA, section 112(d) requires us to promulgate NESHAP for 
those sources. For ``major sources'' that emit or have the potential to 
emit 10 tons per year (tpy) or more of a single HAP or 25 tpy or more 
of a combination of HAP, these technology-based standards must reflect 
the maximum reductions of HAP achievable (after considering cost, 
energy requirements and non-air quality health and environmental 
impacts) and are commonly referred to as maximum achievable control 
technology (MACT) standards.
    The statute specifies certain minimum stringency requirements for 
MACT standards, which are referred to as ``floor'' requirements. See 
CAA section 112(d)(3). Specifically, for new sources, the MACT floor 
cannot be less stringent than the emission control that is achieved in 
practice by the best controlled similar source. The MACT standards for 
existing sources can be less stringent than standards for new sources, 
but they cannot be less stringent than the average emission limitation 
achieved by the best-performing 12 percent of existing sources (for 
which the Administrator has emissions information) in the category or 
subcategory (or the best-performing five sources for categories or 
subcategories with fewer than 30 sources).
    In developing MACT, we must also consider control options that are 
more stringent than the floor. We may establish standards more 
stringent than the floor based on the consideration of the cost of 
achieving the emissions reductions, any non-air quality health and 
environmental impacts, and energy requirements. See CAA section 
112(d)(2).
    Under section 112(i)(3)(A), compliance dates for existing sources 
shall ``be as expeditiou[s] as practicable'', but in no event later 
than 3 years after the date of publication of the final rule in the 
Federal Register. The EPA may set a revised compliance date of a MACT 
standard when amending that standard, see NRDC v. EPA, 489 F. 3d 1364, 
1373-74 (D.C. Cir. 2007), but any such amended compliance date must 
still establish ``compliance as expeditiously as practicable.''
    Section 111(b) requires the EPA to set standards for emissions that 
``reflect the degree of emission limitation achievable through the 
application of the best system of emission reduction.'' See CAA section 
111(a)(1). In contrast to the NESHAP floor setting process, NSPS 
requires the EPA to take into account the ``cost of achieving'' 
emissions reductions, as well as health, environmental, and energy 
considerations. Id.

B. What actions preceded this final rule?

    The history of this final rule, commencing with the 1999 standards 
and proceeding through the amendments issued in September 2009, is set 
out in detail in 75 FR 54970 (Sept 9, 2010). The Portland Cement 
Association (PCA) and several cement companies filed petitions for 
reconsideration of aspects of those amendments (copies of the petitions 
are in the Portland Cement Reconsideration docket, EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-
0817). On May 17, 2011, the EPA granted reconsideration of various 
issues, and denied the petitions to reconsider as to the remaining 
issues. See 76 FR 28318 (May 17, 2011). On December 9, 2011, the D.C. 
Circuit issued an opinion upholding the NESHAP itself (as well as the 
section 111 NSPS), but finding that the EPA had arbitrarily failed to 
grant reconsideration to consider the effect of the EPA's NHSM rule on 
the standards (76 FR 15456 (March 21, 2011)), The NHSM rule had the 
effect of reclassifying some cement kilns as commercial and solid waste 
incinerators. See Portland Cement Ass'n v. EPA, 665 F. 3d 177, 186-189 
(D.C. Cir. 2011). The court did not stay any of the numerical emission 
standards, but did stay the work practice standards for open clinker 
storage piles pending the conclusion of the reconsideration process. 
See 665 F. 3d at 194.
    In this action, the EPA is responding to the court's remand. For 
existing sources, the EPA had done so by removing all kilns classified 
as CISWI units from the data used to establish the 2010 NESHAP 
standards. The EPA then recalculated each of the floors based on this 
dataset (the 2010 dataset minus CISWI units) and made beyond-the-floor 
determinations based on the recalculated floors. The EPA believes that 
this approach is properly responsive to the court's remand. See 665 F. 
3d at 188 where the court referred favorably to this type of 
recalculation. For new sources, EPA used the same data as used to 
establish the 2010 floors--namely the performance of the best 
controlled similar sources as required by section 112(d)(3).

III. Summary of Final Amendments to Subpart LLL and Subpart F

    As discussed in the preamble of the proposed rule, 77 FR 42368, in 
this final action the EPA is finalizing several amendments to Subpart 
LLL and Subpart F. These amendments are summarized below.

A. Reconsideration of Standards

    As noted above, EPA has responded to the action of the DC Circuit 
by removing all CISWI cement kilns from the database used to establish 
the existing source standards, and recalculating existing source floors 
and standards from that revised database. As described in the preamble 
of the proposal, the EPA had determined based on the final NHSM rule 
that there are 24 cement kilns which combust solid waste. 77 FR 42372. 
During the comment period, one company provided reliable information in 
its comments regarding the materials it processes indicating that one 
of these kilns is, in fact, a cement kiln (meaning that the EPA had 
properly classified it as a cement kiln in the 2010 rulemaking).\1\ 
After reviewing the information provided, the EPA agrees that this 
source should not be classified as a CISWI kiln and, therefore, should 
not be removed from the Portland cement kiln database. We received no 
other comments concerning the identification of cement kilns and CISWI 
units. There are thus now 23 kilns identified as combusting solid waste 
and therefore classified as CISWI units. As directed by the Court's 
decision, we removed these 23 kilns from the database and recalculated 
the floors. This calculation resulted in the same floors as proposed in 
the July 2012 proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The company burns dried biosolids as a fuel which are not 
classified as solid wastes. Refer to the Docket, No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2011-0817-0482.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Consistent with this analysis, the EPA is finalizing amendments to 
the emission standards as follows:

[[Page 10010]]

1. PM Emission Standards
    The EPA is revising several provisions of the emission standards 
for PM as follows:
     Changing the compliance basis for the PM standards from 
continuous monitoring with a PM CEMS to a manual three run stack test, 
amending the level and averaging time of the standard, and requiring a 
continuous parametric monitoring system using a CPMS. As a consequence, 
the EPA is also:
     Amending PM standards under the NESHAP for existing 
sources to 0.07 lb/ton clinker based on manual stack testing, and 0.02 
lb/ton clinker for new and reconstructed sources based on manual stack 
testing;
     Amending PM standards under the NSPS for modified sources 
to 0.07 lb/ton clinker based on manual stack testing and 0.02 lb/ton 
clinker for new and reconstructed sources likewise based on manual 
stack testing;
     Requiring that sources establish a site-specific 
parametric operating limit for PM, and requiring that the parametric 
limit be continuously monitored using a PM CPMS;
     Requiring that sources retest once a year to reset the PM 
CPMS operating limit;
     Adding a provision that, if a source exceeds that site-
specific parametric operating limit, it must conduct corrective action 
including performing a Method 5 or 5I performance test within 45 days; 
in addition, if the source exceeds that parametric limit four times in 
a calendar year, the source is presumed to be in violation of the PM 
emissions standard itself, subject to rebuttal by the source.
2. Mercury Standard
    As proposed, the EPA is establishing a standard for mercury of 55 
pounds per million (lb/MM) tons clinker for existing sources and is not 
changing the emission standard (21 lb/MM tons clinker) for new sources. 
The emission standard for existing sources is the same as the 2010 
standard but is a beyond the floor standard.
3. Other Emissions Standards
    As the Court requested, the EPA removed the CISWI units from the 
database and re-calculated the standards for THC and HCl. The standards 
remain the same as they were in the final 2010 rule. See also 76 FR 
21149, 21152, and 21154 explaining why beyond the floor standards for 
THC and HCl are not justified. The 2010 rules provide an alternative to 
the THC standard whereby sources can meet a limit for non-dioxin 
organic HAP by measuring those HAP directly rather than meeting the 
standard for THC (a surrogate for non-dioxin organic HAP). As proposed, 
the EPA is changing the level of the alternative non-dioxin organic HAP 
standard from 9 ppm to 12 ppm. Table 3 summarizes the Final Existing 
and New Source Standards

             Table 3--Existing and New Source Standards \a\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Existing source       New source
            Pollutant                  standard            standard
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mercury.........................  55 lb/MM tons       21 lb/MM tons
                                   clinker.            clinker.
THC.............................  24 ppmvd..........  24 ppmvd.
PM..............................  0.07 lb/ton         0.02 lb/ton
                                   clinker (3-run      clinker (3-run
                                   test average).      test average).
HCl.............................  3 ppmvd...........  3 ppmvd.
Organic HAP \b\.................  12 ppmvd..........  12 ppmvd.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Standards for mercury and THC are based on a 30-day rolling average.
  The standard for PM is based on a three-run test. If using a CEMS to
  determine compliance with the HCl standard, the floor is also a 30-day
  rolling average.
\b\ If the source opts to comply with the THC emission limit, this
  standard does not apply.

B. Continuously Monitored Parameters for Alternative Organic HAP 
Standard (With THC Monitoring Parameter)

    In addition to amending the level of the alternative oHAP standard 
(i.e., the standard whereby sources meet a standard for oHAP rather 
than for THC), the EPA is amending the provisions for the site-specific 
THC operating parameter for that alternative standard (where THC is a 
site-specific parameter monitored continuously to show compliance with 
the oHAP standard). The THC operating parameter is established based on 
THC levels measured during the successful stack test where oHAP are 
measured directly to demonstrate compliance. As amended, if compliance 
source testing of oHAP averages a value that is 75 percent or less of 
the emission limit for oHAP, the facility is allowed to establish a THC 
parametric operating level corresponding to 75 percent of the oHAP 
emission limit. We are adopting this provision to avoid penalizing 
lower-emitting sources by burdening them with the most stringent 
parametric operating levels. The EPA is adopting a similar provision 
for continuous PM parametric monitoring, for the same reason (see 
Section IV.A below). Sources which show oHAP emissions in compliance, 
but greater than 75 percent of the standard, must establish the average 
THC concentration measured during the 3-hour organic HAP test and use 
that as the site-specific THC operating level. Thus, the parametric 
monitoring level for THC will be the level corresponding to oHAP levels 
of 75 percent of the standard or the THC level of the oHAP performance 
test, whichever is higher.\2\ Compliance with the oHAP standard will be 
shown as a ratio of three test runs during mill-on conditions and three 
test runs during mill-off conditions, with the percentage of operating 
time spent in each condition determining the ratio. The parametric 
operating level will be set according to average THC values measured 
during these same test runs, or to the default value of 75 percent of 
the standard, as just explained. In addition, the EPA will allow 
facilities to extend the testing time of the oHAP performance test if 
they believe extended testing is required to adequately capture THC 
variability over time. This final rule further requires that the stack 
test for oHAP be repeated every 30 months to establish a new site-
specific THC parameter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ If a source believes that monitoring non-methane THC rather 
than total THC is a more reliable indicator of its oHAP emissions, 
it can submit an alternative monitoring request pursuant to the 
requirements of 40 CFR 63.8(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Allowing Sources With Dry Caustic Scrubbers To Comply With HCl 
Standard Using Performance Tests

    The 2010 rule allows sources equipped with wet scrubbers to comply 
with the HCl standard by means of periodic performance tests rather 
than with continuous monitoring of HCl with a CEMS. Sources electing to 
comply by means of stack tests must establish continuously monitored 
parameters including liquid flow rate, pressure, and pH. Under this 
final rule, kilns with dry scrubbers may also demonstrate

[[Page 10011]]

compliance with the HCl emissions limit by means of an initial and 
periodic stack test rather than with continuous compliance monitoring 
with an HCl CEMS. If a kiln equipped with a dry scrubber chooses this 
alternative, this final rule requires that the sorbent injection rate 
used during a successful performance test be recorded and then 
continuously monitored to show that the injection rate remains at or 
above the rate used during the performance test.
    Where either wet or dry scrubbers are used, owners and operators 
may also establish sulfur dioxide (SO2) as an operating 
parameter, rather than, for example, sorbent injection rate, liquid 
injection rate or pressure drop. If the owner or operator of a 
scrubber-equipped kiln makes this choice, it must establish the 
SO2 operating limit equal to the average of the HCl levels 
recorded during the HCl performance test, and meet that operating limit 
on a 30 day rolling average basis. If a source exceeds any established 
parameter level, it must retest for HCl in order to verify compliance 
with the HCl emissions standard and must verify or re-establish the 
parametric monitoring levels as well.
    At a minimum, a repeat performance test to confirm compliance with 
the HCl emissions limit is required every 30 months.

D. Alternative PM Limit

    The 2010 final rule established an alternative PM limit to 
accommodate situations where kilns combine exhaust gas from various 
operations. 77 FR 42382. The equation establishing the alternative 
limit contained certain technical errors which the EPA proposed to 
correct. As proposed, this final rule revises the alternative PM 
equation so that it includes exhaust gas flows from all sources that 
would potentially be combined, including exhausts from the kiln, the 
alkali bypass, the coal mill, and the clinker cooler, for an existing 
kiln. The EPA is thus finalizing the following equation:

PMalt = 0.0060 x 1.65 x (Qk + Qc + 
Qab + Qcm)/(7000)

Where:

PMalt = The alternative PM emission limit for commingled 
sources.
0.0060 = The PM exhaust concentration (grains per dry standard cubic 
feet (gr/dscf)) equivalent to 0.07 lb per ton clinker where clinker 
cooler and kiln exhaust gas are not combined.
1.65 = The conversion factor of lb feed per lb clinker.
Qk = The exhaust flow of the kiln (dscf/ton feed).
Qc = The exhaust flow of the clinker cooler (dscf/ton 
feed).
Qab = The exhaust flow of the alkali bypass (dscf/ton 
feed).
Qcm = The exhaust flow of the coal mill (dscf/ton feed).
7000 = The conversion factor for grains (gr) per lb.

    If exhaust gases for any of the sources contained in the equation 
are not commingled and are exhausted through a separate stack, their 
value in the equation would be zero. The alternative PM equation for 
new sources is identical to the existing source equation except the PM 
exhaust concentration used in the equation is 0.002 gr/dscf, which is 
equivalent to the new source PM limit of 0.02 lb/ton clinker.

E. Coal Mills

    The EPA discussed at length in the preamble to the proposed rule a 
potential regulatory regime to cover situations where a portion of the 
kiln exhaust is ducted to the coal mill. See 77 FR 42383-85; see also 
the regulatory text at 77 FR 42398, 42402-06, 42408-09. To assure that 
cement kilns do not exhaust untreated HAP through coal mills, and to 
assure accurate accounting of commingled emissions so that cement kilns 
are not penalized for commingling emissions where it makes sense to do 
so, the EPA is finalizing rules applicable to kiln/coal mill emissions 
for two configurations. In one, a portion of the kiln exhaust is ducted 
to a coal mill, and then the coal mill exhaust is commingled with 
remaining kiln exhaust and discharged through the main kiln stack. In 
the other, a portion of the kiln exhaust is routed through the coal 
mill and discharged through the coal mill stack.
    In the case of a coal mill that receives and discharges a portion 
of the cement kiln exhaust, this final rule requires that the sum of 
the mercury, THC and HCl in the kiln exhaust diverted to the coal mill, 
and the kiln exhaust exhausted from the main kiln stack, must not 
exceed the subpart LLL emission limits for each respective HAP or HAP 
surrogate. The facility must document the contribution of the emissions 
diverted to the coal mill. For mercury, the rule allows tests to be 
performed downstream of the coal mill to take advantage of any mercury 
removal that occurs in the coal mill air pollution control device, and 
to avoid double counting emissions from mercury that becomes re-
entrained in the coal. For THC and HCl, the rule allows tests to be 
performed upstream of the coal mill to avoid any THC or HCl that might 
be emitted by the coal. For owners and operators who believe that the 
impact of the testing location (upstream or downstream of the coal 
mill) would not result in their exceeding the kiln mercury, THC or HCl 
emissions limits and wish to conduct all their THC, HCl and mercury 
testing at a single location, this final rule allows testing either 
upstream or downstream of the coal mill. For sources complying with the 
alternate organic HAP limit, the facility would not be required to test 
for THC emissions, but would test for the organic HAP and add that 
concentration to the remaining emission points to estimate their total 
emissions for organic HAP.
    A cement kiln that commingles emissions from its coal mill with all 
other kiln exhaust emissions and discharges through a single stack 
could simply meet the kiln emission limits. In the case of PM, the 
additional flow from the coal mill would be accounted for in the 
equation used to determine PM contributions from commingled flows. See 
section D above. In this configuration, the source would also have the 
option of monitoring and/or testing kiln exhaust gases prior to the 
introduction of the coal mill exhaust gas, and testing the kiln gas 
diverted to the coal mill. In this case this final rule requires that 
the sum of the mercury, THC (or organic HAP if the source chooses the 
alternative organic HAP limit), and HCl in the kiln exhaust diverted to 
the coal mill plus the kiln exhaust measured in the main kiln exhaust 
must not exceed the subpart LLL emission limits for each respective HAP 
or HAP surrogate.
    The same provisions for coal mills also apply to kilns equipped 
with an alkali bypass. The one minor exception is that for PM, the 
summed PM emissions from the kiln and alkali bypass must be equal to or 
less than the PM limit in subpart LLL. Tests for PM from the alkali 
bypass must be conducted downstream of the alkali bypass air pollution 
control devices (APCD) to account for those emission reductions.
    With regard to PM, the EPA stated at proposal that where a coal 
mill receives and discharges a portion of the cement kiln exhaust, the 
kiln owner operator would have to demonstrate compliance with the 40 
CFR 60 subpart Y standard for PM. Although the subpart Y standard is 
numerically higher than the subpart LLL PM standard, EPA assumed that 
control would be to the same level because the subpart Y PM standard is 
predicated on use of fabric filer control technology. 77 FR 42383/2. 
However, a commenter pointed out accurately that this proposal 
contravened the basic principle EPA indicated it was adopting here of 
not allowing diverted kiln emissions to meet a more lenient standard 
than required by the NESHAP,

[[Page 10012]]

and further indicated that EPA had failed to show that these diverted 
PM emissions were controlled as required by section 112(d)(2) and (3) 
of the Act. EPA agrees with this comment, and accordingly is indicating 
in the final rule that commingled emissions in this situation would be 
required to meet the subpart LLL NESHAP for PM. Because coal mill 
stacks are controlled with fabric filters, we project that they can 
meet the subpart LLL numeric standard without further controls. See 77 
FR 42383. Coal mill stacks will be required to meet annual PM 
performance testing and combine the measured emissions with PM 
emissions from the separated alkali stack, bypass stack, and/or main 
kiln as required in sections 60.62(b)(3), 63.1349 and 63.1350 of this 
rule.
    This final rule also states that sources equipped with an alkali 
bypass stack or sources that exhaust kiln gases to a coal mill that 
exhausts through a separate stack are not required to install CEMS on 
these stacks. Instead of installing a CEMS, such sources may use the 
results of the initial and subsequent performance test to demonstrate 
compliance with the PM, THC, HCl and mercury emissions limits. Note 
that for the main kiln exhaust, the CEMS requirements remain.
    We expand on these monitoring provisions below.
1. Mercury
    Although mercury from the kiln stack is monitored using a CEMS, 
mercury emissions from the coal mill are based on a periodic 
performance test and use of the gas flow rate to the coal mill. 
Performance tests for mercury must be conducted annually unless and 
until the tested mercury levels are below the method detection limits 
for two consecutive years, after which tests may be conducted every 30 
months. The performance test results must be summed with the emissions 
from the kiln stack to determine compliance. The coal mill exhaust 
mercury emissions are calculated on a mass basis using the measured 
mercury concentration and the coal mill exhaust gas flow. The coal mill 
exhaust flow is established using a continuous monitoring system (CMS), 
or the design maximum flow rate. Mass mercury emissions from the coal 
mill would be summed with the hourly mercury emissions from the kiln 
measured by the mercury CEMS. Hourly mercury emissions are then summed 
to calculate the rolling 30-day mass mercury emissions. This number is 
then divided by the corresponding 30 days of clinker production to 
determine the 30-day rolling average. This final rule provides 
equations for summing emissions from the coal mill with the mercury 
emissions from the kiln to determine continuous compliance. To see an 
example calculation, see Section 4 of the Portland Cement 
Reconsideration Technical Support Document (developed for the 
proposal), docket item EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0817-0225.
2. THC and HCl
    In this case, site specific kiln stack emission limits (to be 
continuously monitored) are to be calculated taking into consideration 
the volumetric exhaust gas flow rates and concentrations of all 
applicable effluent streams (kiln stack, coal mill and alkali bypass) 
for the kiln unit. In order to determine the flow rates and 
concentrations of THC and HCl in the coal mill and alkali bypass 
streams, the source must test every 30 months using the appropriate 
test method. For HCl, the performance test must be performed using 
Method 321 in Appendix A to 40 CFR Part 63. For measurement of THC, 
Method 25A in Appendix A-7 to 40 CFR Part 60 is required. With these 
data, the concentration of THC and HCl that must be monitored by the 
kiln CEMS in order to demonstrate compliance with the kiln MACT limit 
can be calculated using the equations in this final rule. As with 
mercury, the coal mill flow rate used to calculate the allowable main 
kiln stack THC and HCl concentrations can be based on a CMS, or on the 
maximum design flow rate. The sum of the kiln CEMS and the maximum 
emissions from the coal mill or alkali bypass must be at or below the 
subpart LLL limits for THC and HCl. See Section 4 of Portland Cement 
Reconsideration Technical Support Document (developed for the 
proposal), docket item EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0817-0225, for an example 
calculation.
    Also, as a result of these revisions, the EPA is revising the 
definition of kiln to include inline coal mills and adding a definition 
of inline coal mill.

F. NESHAP Compliance Date Extension for Existing Sources

    This final rule establishes that the compliance date for the 
amended PM standard, and for the THC, mercury and HCl standards, for 
existing sources for kilns, clinker coolers and raw material dryers is 
September 9, 2015. This final rule also establishes February 12, 2014, 
as the compliance date for the existing open clinker storage pile work 
practice standards. A detailed discussion of these compliance dates can 
be found in Section V.D. below.

G. Section 112 Eligibility To Be a New Source

    The EPA is not changing the date for new source eligibility under 
the NESHAP. Thus, a source that commenced construction or 
reconstruction after May 6, 2009, would remain subject to the section 
112 new source standards. A more detailed discussion of this topic can 
be found below in Section V.E.

H. Other Testing and Monitoring Revisions

    In this action we are finalizing the proposed corrections and 
clarifications to the 2010 rule including changes to: Equations for 
calculating rolling operating day emissions rates; procedures that 
include extraneous wording; and cross references and typographical 
errors in the rule.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ We note that these changes required the agency to reprint 
sections of regulatory text. See e.g. 63.1348(a)(3)(i). In 
reprinting these passages, EPA has not reopened, reconsidered, or 
otherwise reevaluated the substance of these provisions but rather 
is only making the needed technical alteration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For sources that are required to monitor HCl emissions with a CEMS, 
we are revising the requirements for using HCl CEMS to define the span 
value for this source category, to include quality assurance measures 
for data collected under ``mill off'' conditions, and to clarify use of 
performance specification (PS) 15. This final rule also removes from 
the standard the oxygen correction factors for raw material dryers and 
makes minor, non-substantive changes to the sections and paragraphs 
below:
     Section 60.62(d).
     Section 60.63(b)(1)(i) and (ii), (b)(2), (f)(1), (2), (4), 
(5), (h)(1) and (6) through (9) (i).
     Section 60.64(b)(2).
     Section 60.66.
     Section 63.1340(b)(1) and (6) through (8).
     Section 63.1346(a) and (c) through (e).
     Section 63.1348(a)(2), (3)(i) through (iii), (a)(4)(i)(A), 
(a)(4)(ii) and (iv).
     Section 63.1348(b)(1)(i), (iii) and (iv).
     Section 63.1348(b)(3), (5), (6)(i), (8) and (c)(2)(iv).
     Section 63.1349(a), (b)(3), (d)(1) and (d)(2) and (e).
     Section 63.1350(d)(1)(i) and (ii), (f), (f)(2)(i) and 
(iii), (f)(3), (f)(4), (g)(1) and (2), (k), l(2), (m)(3), (m)(10) and 
(11), (o) and (p).
     Section 63.1352(b).
     Section 63.1356.
     In addition, we are adding requirements in section 
63.1348(a), that

[[Page 10013]]

a cement kiln that becomes subject to the rule after having been 
subject to the CISWI regulations, must meet all the initial compliance 
testing requirements even if they were previously subject to Subpart 
LLL.

I. Miscellaneous Amendments

    We are also finalizing amendments to clarify various requirements 
in this final rule including issues of applicability, treatment of 
multiple sources that vent to a single stack, third party 
certification, definitions and use of bag leak detection systems when 
PM CPMS are in use.
    For raw material, clinker or finished product storage bins, we have 
clarified that the requirements of this final rule apply only at 
facilities that are a major source (see section 63.1340(b)(6)) and that 
affected sources that are subject to subpart OOO (standards for 
nonmetallic mineral processing) are not subject to the requirements of 
subpart LLL (see section 63.1340(c)).
    With regard to the NSPS, to clarify the recordkeeping and reporting 
requirement in section 60.65(a) to submit excess emission reports, we 
have added to section 60.61 of the NSPS a definition of ``excess 
emissions'' to mean ``with respect to this subpart, results of any 
required measurements outside the applicable range (e.g., emissions 
limitations, parametric operating limits) that is permitted by this 
subpart. The values of measurements will be in the same units and 
averaging time as the values specified in this subpart for the 
limitations.'' To clarify what data are used in the calculation of 
emissions, or used in the calculation of parametric levels that are 
used to demonstrate continuous compliance, we added to this section a 
definition of ``operating day'' to mean ``a 24-hour period beginning at 
12:00 midnight during which the kiln operates at any time. For 
calculating rolling 30-day average emissions, an operating day does not 
include the hours of operation during startup or shutdown.'' The 
definition for ``operating day'' in section 63.1341 of the NESHAP is 
revised to be consistent with the above definition. We also became 
aware that some raw material dryers may be used to dry materials other 
than kiln feed and we have revised the definition of ``raw material 
dryer'' in recognition of that fact.

J. Standards During Periods of Startup and Shutdown

    In the 2010 final NESHAP, the EPA established separate standards 
for periods of startup and shutdown which differ from the main 
standards that apply during steady state operations. In this action, 
based on comments received and the EPA's reconsideration of several 
technical issues related to startup and shutdown, the EPA is adopting 
work practices in place of these numerical standards. The rationale and 
provisions for the work practice standards are discussed in detail in 
section IV.C.
    The EPA is also clarifying the operating conditions during which 
these standards apply, including a definition of ``startup'' and 
``shutdown''. Under the amended definition, startup begins when the 
kiln's induced fan is turned on and fuel combustion is occurring in the 
main burner of the kiln. Startup ends when feed has been continuously 
fed to the kiln for at least 120 minutes or when the kiln feed rate 
exceeds 60 percent of the kiln design limitation rate. Shutdown begins 
when continuous feed to the kiln is halted and ends when continuous 
kiln rotation ceases.
    The startup and shutdown-related changes include:
     Adding a definition of startup and shutdown in section 
63.1341, as described;
     Adding section 63.1346(f) describing work practice 
standards to be met during periods of startup and shutdown;
     Revising section 63.1347 to require that startup and 
shutdown procedures be included in the facility's operation and 
maintenance plan;
     Adding section 63.1355(f) requiring records of each 
startup and shutdown including the date, time and duration and the 
quantity of feed and fuel added to the kiln during startup and 
shutdown;
     Adding section 63.1348(b)(9) requiring continuous 
compliance by operating all air pollution control devices during 
periods of startup and shutdown.

K. Reporting for Malfunctions and Affirmative Defense for Violation of 
Emission Standards During Malfunctions

    The EPA added to the September 9, 2010, final NESHAP rule an 
affirmative defense to civil penalties for violations of emissions 
limits that are caused by malfunctions. Various environmental advocacy 
groups, as well as the PCA, indicated that there had been insufficient 
notice of this provision. The EPA agreed and granted reconsideration. 
See 76 FR 28325 (May 17, 2011). This action finalizes the EPA's 
decision to retain the affirmative defense on reconsideration.
    The EPA is retaining in the final NESHAP rule an affirmative 
defense to civil penalties for violations of emission standards that 
are caused by malfunctions. See 40 CFR 63.1341 (defining ``affirmative 
defense'' to mean, in the context of an enforcement proceeding, a 
response or defense put forward by a defendant, regarding which the 
defendant has the burden of proof, and the merits of which are 
independently and objectively evaluated in a judicial or administrative 
proceeding). We are also revising some of the regulatory provisions 
that specify the elements that are necessary to establish this 
affirmative defense as proposed with minor changes from proposal 
described later in this section. The source must prove by a 
preponderance of the evidence that it has met all of the elements set 
forth in section 63.1344. (See 40 CFR 22.24). The criteria are designed 
in part to ensure that the affirmative defense is available only where 
the event that causes a violation of the emission standard meets the 
narrow definition of malfunction in 40 CFR 63.2 (sudden, infrequent, 
not reasonably preventable and not caused by poor maintenance or 
careless operation). For example, to successfully assert the 
affirmative defense, the source must prove by a preponderance of the 
evidence that the violation ``[w]as caused by a sudden, infrequent, and 
unavoidable failure of air pollution control, process equipment, or a 
process to operate in a normal or usual manner * * *.'' The criteria 
also are designed to ensure that steps are taken to correct the 
malfunction, to minimize emissions in accordance with section 63.1344 
and to prevent future malfunctions.
    Similar to actions taken in several other recent NESHAP amendments 
(see National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants From 
Secondary Lead Smelting, 77 FR 556, January 5, 2012, National Emission 
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutant Emissions for Shipbuilding and 
Ship Repair (Surface Coating), and National Emission Standards for Wood 
Furniture Manufacturing Operations, 76 FR 72050, November 21, 2011), 
the EPA included an affirmative defense in the 2010 final rule and is 
retaining it in this rule (see section 63.1344). The affirmative 
defense provisions give the EPA the flexibility to both ensure that its 
emission standards are ``continuous'' as required by 42 U.S.C. Sec.  
7602(k), and account for unplanned upsets and thus support the 
reasonableness of the standard as a whole. In addition to the authority 
cited in support of the affirmative defense in the preamble to the 
proposed rule, the EPA notes that a recent court decision further 
supports

[[Page 10014]]

the EPA's authority to promulgate an affirmative defense. The United 
States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit recently upheld the EPA's 
view that an affirmative defense provision is consistent with section 
113(e) of the Clean Air Act. Luminant Generation Co. LLC v. United 
States EPA, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 21223 (5th Cir. Oct. 12, 2012) 
(upholding the EPA's approval of affirmative defense provisions in a 
CAA State Implementation Plan). As discussed in the preamble to the 
proposed rule (77 FR 42379), the EPA's view is that an affirmative 
defense to civil penalties for exceedances of applicable emission 
standards during periods of malfunction appropriately resolves an 
underlying tension inherent in many types of air regulation, to ensure 
continuous compliance while simultaneously recognizing that despite the 
most diligent of efforts, emission limits may be exceeded under 
circumstances beyond the control of the source. See generally, Virginia 
v. Browner, 80 F.3d 869, 878 (4th Cir. 1996) (the EPA's interpretation 
that resolved a tension within the CAA is reasonable). The EPA has used 
its section 301(a)(1) authority to issue regulations necessary to carry 
out the Act in a manner that appropriately balances these competing 
concerns.
    We are promulgating revisions to the affirmative defense provisions 
in section 40 CFR 63.1344 as described at proposal (77 FR 42380) and 
making some minor additional revisions. The phrase ``emission limit'' 
was changed to ``emission standards'' to reflect that the affirmative 
defense could be applicable to certain work practice standards. The 
phrase, ``Off-shift and overtime labor were used, to the extent 
practicable to make these repairs'' was removed. The term 
``notification'' to ``reporting'' was changed to reflect that the root 
cause analysis required under affirmative defense would be submitted 
with other periodic reporting. The term ``and monitoring'' was deleted 
because monitoring malfunctions are defined differently than 
malfunctions of process and control units and the affirmative defense 
is intended to apply to malfunctions to affected units that cause a 
failure to meet an emission standard. The word ``however'' was removed 
to incorporate more plain language into the regulation. The phrase 
``the respondent fails'' was removed and replaced with ``you fail'' to 
incorporate more plain language into the regulation. The word ``its'' 
was replaced with ``your'' to incorporate more plain language into the 
regulation. The phrase ``all of the'' was replaced with ``your'' also 
to incorporate more plain language into the regulation. The phrase 
``air pollution control practice'' was shortened to ``good practices'' 
to incorporate more plain language into the regulation. In addition, 
the written report required when asserting an affirmative defense was 
changed from a separate ``semiannual'' report to a report that is 
submitted with the first periodic compliance, deviation report or 
excess emission report due after the event.
    We are finalizing the reporting and recordkeeping associated with 
violations due to malfunctions as described at proposal (77 FR 42388) 
and making some minor additional revisions as described below.
     Revising section 63.1354(b)(vii) for reporting and 
recordkeeping violations due to malfunctions. The phrase ``failure to 
meet a standard'' was used to replace ``deviation'' in the requirement 
to report violations of the standard. This was changed because the EPA 
is not finalizing a definition of deviation in this subpart and the 
term is not defined in the general provisions.
     Revising section 63.1354(c) for reporting a failure to 
meet a standard due to a malfunction. In addition, the phrase ``failure 
to meet a standard'' was used to replace ``deviation'' in the 
requirement to report violations of the standard. This was changed 
because the EPA is not finalizing a definition of deviation in this 
subpart and the term is not defined in the general provisions.
     Revising section 63.1355(f) addressing recordkeeping 
during startup and shutdown. The proposed recordkeeping requirement 
applicable to startup and shutdown assumed that a numerical emission 
standard was applicable during startup and shutdown. In finalizing the 
work practice standards in 63.1346(f) there will no longer be a 
numerical emission standard applicable during startup and shutdown. As 
such the recordkeeping requirement must change to reflect the content 
of the work practice standard. Records must be kept of the date, time 
and duration of the periods when the work practice is applicable, as 
well as the fuel and feed data to demonstrate compliance with the work 
practice standard.

L. What are the compliance dates of the standards?

    During the comment period, comments were received that confirmed 
the need for additional compliance time, since the revised standards 
can result in different compliance strategies relative to the 2010 
final rule. Thus, as proposed, this final rule establishes the 
compliance date for the amended existing source standards including 
standards for PM, mercury, HCl and THC to be September 9, 2015. The 
existing source compliance date for the requirements for open clinker 
storage piles is February 12, 2014. New sources which commenced 
construction or reconstruction after May 6, 2009, would remain subject 
to the new source standards and a compliance date of February 12, 2013, 
or startup, whichever is later.

M. Open Clinker Storage Piles

    The EPA has added work practice requirements for open clinker 
storage piles that will reduce fugitive dust emissions from these 
sources. This final rule also contains a definition of open clinker 
storage piles and requires that a source's operation and maintenance 
plan include the steps the facility will take to minimize fugitive dust 
emissions from open clinker storage piles. A detailed discussion of 
these requirements can be found in section V.C below.

IV. Summary of Major Changes Since Proposal

A. PM Parametric Monitoring

    Changes to PM Parametric Monitoring. The EPA proposed the use of PM 
CPMS for continuous monitoring of PM emissions as a 30-day rolling 
average established by identifying the average PM CPMS response 
corresponding to the highest 1-hour PM compliance test. Failure to meet 
this 30-day rolling average would result in retesting, and more than 
four exceedances from the parametric limit in a year would be presumed 
(subject to possibility of rebuttal by the source) to be a violation of 
the emission standard itself. See 77 FR 42377. Industry commented that 
this requirement would trigger unnecessary retests for many facilities, 
especially for the lower-emitting sources. The issue of increased 
compliance burden falling on the lower emitting sources is legitimate. 
Sources with especially low PM limits in their performance test would 
be most at risk of exceeding a parametric limit due to a few emission 
spikes, even though they would still be operating well under the actual 
PM compliance limit. We also received comment that the highest PM 
performance test run may represent, in some circumstances, a number 
higher than the PM emissions standard. To avoid this eventuality we 
have changed the final rule to require setting the PM operating limit 
equivalent to the average of the three PM performance tests, which 
constitutes the demonstration of compliance with the standard. To avoid

[[Page 10015]]

penalizing lower emitting facilities, the EPA has modified the way PM 
CPMS operating limits are established. Sources whose compliance with 
the PM emission standard are shown to be 75 percent or below the 
emission limit in the PM method 5 compliance test will set their PM 
parametric operating limit to be a 30-day rolling average equivalent to 
that 75 percent level. In a recent rule (76 FR 15736, March 21, 2011), 
the EPA established 75 percent of the limit as a number that allows for 
compliance flexibility and is simultaneously protective of the emission 
standard, and the same technical basis is applicable here as well. 
Sources whose compliance with the PM emission standard are above 75 
percent of the emission limit will establish their operating limit as a 
30-day rolling average equal to the average PM CPMS values recorded 
during the PM compliance test. It should be noted that this provision 
affects the allowable level of the parametric limit, but does not 
change the PM emission limit that must be met.

B. Scaling for Continuous Parametric Monitoring of THC for Alternative 
OHAP Standard

    As explained in section III.B above, the EPA is adopting a scaling 
approach for parametric monitoring of THC under the alternative organic 
HAP standard which is conceptually similar to the one just discussed 
for parametric monitoring of PM. This provision affects the allowable 
level of the THC parametric limit, but does not change the oHAP 
emission limit that must be met.
    The EPA proposed the use of THC monitoring in conjunction with 
organic HAP compliance testing to determine a parametric operating 
limit option for monitoring continuous compliance with the alternative 
organic HAP standard. In the proposed rule the organic HAP parametric 
operating limit was established by correlating the highest of three 
organic HAP test results with the corresponding average THC 
concentration recorded by a parametric THC monitor. Industry commented 
that this requirement would trigger unnecessary retests for many 
facilities, especially for the best performing sources. Not wishing to 
penalize those sources showing good performance, and simultaneously 
wanting to be protective of the emission standard, the EPA is changing 
the way parametric THC operating levels are established. Sources whose 
compliance with the organic HAP emission standard are shown to be below 
75 percent of the emission limit will set their operating limit to be a 
30-day rolling average equivalent to that 75 percent level. Sources 
whose compliance with the organic HAP emission standard are at or above 
75 percent of the emission limit will establish their operating limit 
as a 30-day rolling average equal to the average parametric THC values 
recorded during the organic HAP compliance test. Sources with an in-
line kiln/raw mill will use the fraction of time the raw mill is on and 
the fraction of time that the raw mill is off, and calculate this limit 
as a weighted average of the THC levels measured during raw mill on and 
raw mill off testing.

C. Work Practice Standard in Lieu of Numerical Emissions Limits for 
Periods of Startup and Shutdown

    Under section 112(h) of the Act, the EPA may adopt a work practice 
standard in lieu of a numerical emission standard only if it is ``not 
feasible in the judgment of the Administrator to prescribe or enforce 
an emission standard for control of a hazardous air pollutant''. This 
phrase is defined in the Act to apply to any situation ``in which the 
Administrator determines that * * * the application of measurement 
methodology to a particular class of sources is not practicable due to 
technological and economic limitations.'' CAA section 112(h)(1) and 
(2). In adopting numerical limits for startup and shutdown in the 2010 
final NESHAP, the EPA rejected comments that it should adopt work 
practices as a standard during startup and shutdown. This was largely 
because the commenters had not addressed the issue of whether the 
requirements of section 112(h) had been met. See docket item EPA-HQ-
OAR-2002-0051-3464, pp. 183-84. The EPA later denied petitions to 
reconsider this issue on the grounds that the agency had already 
provided ample opportunity for comment on the issue, which petitioners 
had used. See 76 FR at 28323. The DC Circuit dismissed all challenges 
to the startup and shutdown provisions in the NESHAP (665 F 3d at 189). 
The EPA granted reconsideration on several technical issues related to 
startup and shutdown--specifically, monitoring of mercury and PM during 
startup and shutdown and having an HCl limit of zero for kilns not 
equipped with CEMS (see 76 FR at 28325), but these issues are no longer 
relevant based on the approach adopted in this final rule.
    In the proposed reconsideration rule, the EPA proposed to retain 
the numerical standards, but to use recordkeeping rather than 
measurements to document compliance with the numerical standard. 77 FR 
42382-83. EPA further solicited comment ``on whether the numeric 
standards during startup and shutdown should be amended to provide work 
practices'', and suggested what potential work practices might be. Id. 
at 42383. Some commenters supported retention of numerical standards, 
stating that nothing in the record supports a decision by the EPA that 
numeric standards are not feasible to measure. However, these 
commenters provided no supporting technical data. We also received 
comments opposing numeric limits and supporting work practices in their 
stead. Commenters stated that any numeric limit should be based on 
actual data gathered during startup and shutdown, which the proposed 
limits are not, and that measurement of emissions during startup and 
shutdown poses significant technical problems, mainly based on CEMS 
calibration issues, and the duration of startups and shutdowns.
    Industry has presented information specific to the cement industry 
to the EPA on technical issues associated with cement kilns measuring 
PM, mercury, THC and HCl during periods of startup and shutdown. See 
docket item EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0817-0237[1] and PCA Meeting 9-15-11 
monitoring presentation in the docket for this rulemaking, as well as 
their public comments. EPA has continued to evaluate these data. In 
light of all of these public comments and further evaluation of the 
data, the EPA has decided to establish work practice standards in lieu 
of numeric standards during startup and shutdown periods. The EPA is 
doing so because the application of measurement methodology is not 
practicable for technological and economic reasons. See CAA section 
112(h)(2)(B).
    The operation of kilns at cement manufacturing plants is different 
from many other sources. Kiln startups can last days, during which time 
fuels are switched and temperatures and moisture conditions fluctuate 
substantially. Also, cement kilns have two types of inputs--raw feed 
that is changed into clinker in the kiln, and kiln fuel. The cement 
kiln is sized to accommodate not just exhaust gas flow from combustion, 
but the gases evolved from the calcination of limestone and moisture 
that evaporates from the kiln feed. As a result of these factors, the 
difference in gas flow characteristics of a cement kiln during steady 
state operation and startup/shutdown is more pronounced than that for 
other combustion source categories. In addition, cement kilns begin 
introducing feed as part of the startup process which further 
exacerbates the transient and fluctuating nature of these

[[Page 10016]]

operations not only because of the impact of this feed on the exhaust 
gases, but because raw materials and fuels are introduced at opposite 
ends of the kiln, which results in countercurrent flow of the solid 
material in the kiln and kiln exhaust gas, increasing the turbulence, 
transience and fluctuating conditions. The result is that conditions 
change constantly when cement kilns are in startup or shutdown mode. 
These conditions make stack measurements, both manual and continuous, 
for this source category unreliable because the constant shifting in 
conditions prevents any stack measurement from being representative of 
anything but conditions at that precise moment. For that reason manual 
stack tests, which take place over a period of a few hours, would not 
be presenting accurate information, since they would not be reliably 
measuring conditions across the duration of the test.
    There is no way to craft a testing regime to compensate for these 
testing issues at each kiln in a manner that can produce reliable and 
replicable results. Such modifications would be specific to that 
individual startup event--i.e. ad hoc and therefore not of general 
applicability or utility in showing compliance. Continuous measurements 
conducted during these periods for cement kilns are also subject to 
inaccuracies resulting from these rapidly changing conditions. The 
temperature changes of greater than one thousand degrees Fahrenheit, 
flue gas moisture changes greater than 20 percent, and gas flow changes 
over several thousand cubic feet per minute, as well as other factors 
such as flue gas molecular weight swings, combine to create a complex 
matrix of measurement variables not accounted for in a cement kiln CEMS 
installation. That is, CEMS for PM, HCl, Hg, and THC are not able to 
reliably accommodate all of these transient shifting variables when 
measuring cement kiln startup and shutdown emissions. As noted above, 
these issues are further exacerbated by the fact that cement kilns have 
multiple inputs (fuel and feed), and the clinker production process 
generates higher gas flows than would be expected based on just the 
fuel inputs. This fact also means that flue gas flow rates cannot be 
accurately calculated from fuel inputs alone.
    The EPA regards situations where a measurement may yield a value 
which is analytically suspect, which is the case for cement kilns 
during startup and shutdown for the reasons just described, as being a 
situation where measurement is not ``technologically practicable'' 
within the meaning of section 112(h)(2)(B) of the Act. Unreliable 
measurements raise issues of practicability and of feasibility and 
enforceability (see section 112(h)(1)).\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The application of measurement methodology during cement 
kiln startup and shutdown would also not be ``practicable due to * * 
* economic limitation'' within the meaning of section 112(h)(2)(B) 
since it would just result in cost expended to produce analytically 
suspect measurements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA is not finalizing its proposed approach of setting 
numerical emission limits for startup and shutdown and requiring that 
sources certify compliance with those limits by keeping certain records 
certifying that they used certain fuels and did not introduce feed into 
the kiln. Under the proposal, sources would have had to certify 
compliance with the standards for the various organics based on assumed 
combustion conditions. As pointed out persuasively in the public 
comments, combustion conditions during startup and shutdown are too 
widely varying to either reliably measure or calculate emissions 
because combustion conditions change widely during startup and 
shutdown, sources indicated that they could not certify compliance 
based on an assumed combustion condition. See docket item EPA-HQ-OAR-
2011-0817-0506, p. 11 (``Until ideal combustion conditions can be met 
in the combustion chamber (adequate temperature and turbulence), the 
combustion process will be incomplete. While this should not impact 
fuel-derived hazardous air pollutants (chlorine and mercury), it will 
impact the emissions of organics and possibly PM''). In light of the 
measurement issues noted above and the fact that sources could not 
certify compliance under the proposed approach, the EPA is not 
finalizing the proposed approach of setting numerical limits for 
startup and shutdown and allowing sources to certify compliance with 
the limits by maintaining certain records.
    Instead, for the reasons explained above, the EPA is establishing 
work practice standards to demonstrate compliance with startup and 
shutdown. The work practices that apply during startup and shutdown are 
as follows:
     During startup the kiln must initially use any one or 
combination of the following clean fuels: Natural gas, synthetic 
natural gas, propane, distillate oil, synthesis gas, and ultra-low 
sulfur diesel until the kiln reaches a temperature of 1200 degrees 
Fahrenheit.
     Combustion of the primary kiln fuel may commence once the 
kiln temperature reaches 1200 degrees Fahrenheit.
     All air pollution control devices must be turned on and 
operating prior to combusting any fuel.
     You must keep records as specified in Sec.  63.1355 during 
periods of startup and shutdown.
    For the purpose of identifying when the kiln is in a startup/
shutdown mode and subject to work practices and when the kiln is 
subject to numerical emission limits, we are defining the beginning and 
ending of startup and shutdown. At proposal we defined startup as when 
the kiln's induced fan is turned on and shutdown was defined as 
beginning when feed to the kiln is halted. Commenters noted that a kiln 
may have the induced draft (ID) fan operating even when the kiln is 
completely shutdown, no fuel is being burned, and there is no potential 
for emissions. Therefore, we changed the startup definition to be when 
a shutdown kiln turns on the ID fan and begins firing fuel in the main 
burner, because this is the point where the potential for emissions to 
occur begins. Startup ends when feed is being continuously introduced 
into the kiln for at least 120 minutes or until the feed rate exceeds 
60 percent of the kiln design limitation rate. We added the duration/
load element to the definition of startup because during startup a kiln 
must begin adding feed material to achieve steady state operation. 
After feed is first introduced it requires up to two hours or 
sufficient feed to achieve 60 percent of maximum operation to achieve a 
representative steady-state condition. (See meeting notes, PCA November 
28, 2012, in the docket for this rulemaking). Shutdown begins when 
continuous feed to the kiln is halted and ends when the kiln rotation 
ceases.
    We believe these work practices, which include the requirement that 
all air pollution control devices be operating, will ensure that 
emissions during startup and shutdown will be lower than the standards 
that apply during steady state operations, given use of cleaner fuels, 
minimal raw material inputs, and operation of all control devices 
during these periods. See 77 FR 42382 (noting that emissions during 
startup and shutdown would be expected to be lower than during steady 
state operations for these reasons).

[[Page 10017]]

V. Summary of Significant Comments and Responses

A. Amendments to Existing Source and New Source Standards for PM Under 
CAA Sections 112(d) and 111(b)

1. Changes to Level and Averaging Time of Existing Source NESHAP
    The EPA proposed to amend the existing and new source standards for 
PM. The floor for the existing source standards increased from 0.04 lb/
ton clinker to 0.05 lb/ton clinker as a result of removing CISWI kilns 
from the database. See Section 8.3, Portland Cement Reconsideration 
Technical Support Document, June 15, 2012, Docket item EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-
0817-0225; see also 77 FR 42372/3. Second, the EPA proposed to change 
the compliance regime for the standard from use of PM CEMS to stack 
testing, a consequence being that the standard would no longer be 
expressed as a 30-day average but rather as the average of three test 
runs. The EPA thus proposed to express the recalculated floor (i.e. 
0.05 lb/ton clinker 30-day average resulting from the reanalysis) as 
.07 lb/ton of clinker (average of three test runs). The 0.07 lb/ton 
clinker standard expresses the recalculated floor (i.e. 0.05 lb/ton 
clinker) as a not-to-exceed value based on stack testing, using the 
Upper Prediction Limit equation to do so. See Portland Cement 
Reconsideration Technical Support Document, June 15, 2012, Docket item 
EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0817-0225.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ One commenter inaccurately stated that the proposed rule 
would essentially double the PM standard. As just explained, the 
existing source floor (and standard) increased from 0.04 30-day 
average to 0.05 lb/ton clinker 30-day average as a result of 
removing CISWI kilns. As a not-to-exceed standard, that same level 
is expressed as 0.07 lb/ton clinker, the higher level reflecting the 
greater variability involved when basing the standard on the average 
of the three test runs rather than on 30 days of measurements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA further proposed to use CPMS for continuous parametric 
monitoring. This system responds to changes in PM concentration and 
generates a corresponding milliamp output signal. 77 FR 42376-77. The 
proposed PM parametric level was correlated to the highest recorded 
value during three test runs. A source would meet this site-specific 
level on a 30-day rolling average. Failure to meet this 30-day rolling 
average would result in retesting, and more than four deviations from 
the parametric level in a year would be presumed (subject to 
possibility of rebuttal by the source) to be a violation of the 
emission standard itself. See 77 FR 42377.
    Our proposal to change the compliance regime from use of CEMS to 
stack tests reflected technical issues related to a PM CEMS' 
reliability with measuring the Portland cement PM standard. 
Specifically, the EPA discussed the reliability of measurements, 
obtained using PM CEMS calibrated as required by the mandated PS 11, 
below the level of the 2010 standard or the level of the recalculated 
PM floor. See 77 FR 42374-76. The EPA's judgment at proposal was that 
as a result of PM measurement uncertainties, ``this correlation will 
not be technically or practically achievable for a significant number 
of cement kiln sources.'' Id. at 42376.
    One commenter challenged the necessity of amending the standard to 
a stack test regime (apparently not realizing that the existing source 
standard also changed as a result of removing CISWI kilns from the 
database). First, the commenter maintained that the EPA has no 
authority to voluntarily change a promulgated MACT standard to make the 
standard less stringent, based on the language of section 112(d)(7). 
The commenter further maintained that the EPA had not definitively 
shown that PM CEMS calibrated pursuant to PS 11 could not be used to 
reliably measure the Portland cement PM standard. Specifically, the 
commenter stated that the various problems identified by the EPA at 
proposal are amenable to resolution by testing longer and more often, 
and argued that the EPA essentially admitted as much at proposal. The 
commenter noted that other technical problems, like the difficulty of 
accounting for varied particle sizes, could be resolved by using a beta 
gauge CEMS. The commenter dismissed the EPA's technical reservations on 
these issues as arbitrary speculation. The commenter also stated that 
PM CEMS are already in successful use by cement plants both in this 
country and overseas. The commenter further believed that the EPA could 
resolve these technical issues by amending the PM CEMS Performance 
Specification rather than by amending the averaging time of the PM 
standard and changing its compliance basis.
    In response, we note first that we do not accept the commenter's 
legal argument based on section 112(d)(7). Section 112(d)(7) states 
that ``[n]o other emission standard * * * under this section shall be 
interpreted, construed or applied to diminish or replace the 
requirements of a more stringent emission limitation or other 
applicable requirement established pursuant to section 111 of this 
title, part C or D of this subchapter, or other authority of this 
chapter or a standard issued under State authority.'' Although the 
commenter maintained that this provision unambiguously bars the EPA 
from amending the promulgated NESHAP to make it less stringent, we 
disagree. Indeed, it is hard to read the statutory language in such a 
way. On its face, the provision indicates that a section 112(d) 
standard does not supplant more stringent standards issued under some 
authority other than section 112(d). Nor does the commenter's 
interpretation make sense. It would bar the EPA from amending a section 
112(d) standard that was technically deficient or incorrect. This 
cannot have been Congress' intent when adopting the technology-based 
section 112(d) MACT regime.\6\ Moreover, when Congress adopted anti-
backsliding provisions in the CAA, it did so explicitly. See CAA 
sections 172(e); 110(l); and 193. There is no such explicit language in 
section 112(d)(7). Thus, the EPA does not read section 112(d)(7) as 
precluding amendments to MACT standards which result in numerically 
less stringent standards, provided of course, that such standards are 
technically justified and otherwise consistent with the requirements of 
the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The commenter cites no legislative history to support its 
reading, nor is EPA aware of any.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The commenter is also mistaken in asserting that sources can simply 
utilize PM CEMS not correlated to PS 11. The PS 11 requirements apply 
to all PM CEMS used by a cement kiln. See sections 63.1349(b)(1)(A) and 
1350 (b)(1) from the 2010 final rule (75 FR 55057, 55059).\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ It also makes no sense to use PM CEMS not subject to a 
uniform calibration protocol. The results obtained would not be 
comparable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With regard to the technical issues raised by this commenter, the 
EPA explained in detail at proposal the problems of correlating PM CEMS 
under PS 11 at cement plants (see 77 FR 42374-42377). These obstacles 
are not resolvable simply by measuring more often and longer, as the 
commenter maintains. Extending the duration of the Method 5 test gives 
this reference method additional opportunity to collect more sample 
mass, but this is no guarantee that the time added to the test will 
collect enough particulate mass to resolve detection issues, especially 
when testing is conducted at the better performing (lower emitting) 
sources. Longer test runs inherently increase the variability of the PM 
CEMS data collected during the test, which may cause further 
difficulties with the

[[Page 10018]]

correlation between instrument and reference method. Nor does 
conducting a higher number of reference method tests resolve the 
difficulties with PS 11 correlation created by greater uncertainty in 
the reference method at low levels. Put another way, more tests with 
high uncertainty and poor correlation do not improve the likelihood of 
passing PS 11 as there is no expectation of improving the mathematical 
relationship between the reference test and the instrument. 
Furthermore, PS 11 section 8.6 requires a minimum number of fifteen 
tests to develop a correlation curve, with no limit to the maximum 
number. Considering more than 15 tests when developing the correlation 
creates much difficulty in developing a precise mathematical 
relationship. Sources are allowed to discard 5 runs for any reason they 
wish, but must present at least 15 test runs for the correlation 
calculation. Id. As a source increases the number of test runs beyond 
20, any additional runs must be included in the correlation equation 
and at that point the ability of a source to satisfy PS 11 becomes more 
hampered with every test run.
    The EPA noted that special problems are posed by the size and 
variability of cement kiln-generated particulate. The EPA also noted 
that the standard light-scintillation type of PM CEMS would likely 
encounter higher variability for the same PM concentration, and have 
difficulty satisfying correlation protocols as a result. The EPA noted 
that beta gauge CEMS could potentially resolve at least some issues 
related to cement particle variability but noted further that these 
devices were largely untested in the cement industry, and none (so far 
as the EPA is aware) has successfully completed a PS 11 certification. 
See 77 FR 42375/3. The commenter maintains that the existence of beta 
gauge CEMS resolves all questions as to their reliability in the cement 
industry, but the EPA reiterates, as it did at proposal, that there 
needs to be some assurance of the reliability of that methodology to 
certify with PS 11 at low levels (as required by this final rule). That 
information does not presently exist. The commenter states that the EPA 
is being speculative as to potential difficulties with a different CEMS 
technology, but relative to Portland cement sources, it would be 
speculative to assume that beta gauge CEMS would successfully pass a PS 
11 certification to reliably and quantifiably measure compliance with 
the NESHAP, especially at the very low PM levels at some of the sources 
in the cement source category.
    The commenter also maintains that Tapered Element Oscillating 
Microbalance (TEOM) devices could be used in place of light 
scintillation PM CEMS. A TEOM is a device that uses a very thin, 
tapered, element vibrating at a known frequency that has a first 
principle relationship to the measurement of mass. Particles that 
impact the element also impact the harmonic vibration of the sensor 
which can be translated to a measurement of the particle mass. This is 
a more direct approach to measuring the actual mass of PM in stack gas, 
and has shown promise to operate very consistently at low levels in 
laboratory conditions. Several TEOMs are currently used for monitoring 
ambient PM levels at several non-cement, non-domestic industry 
installations. TEOMs that are capable of measuring stack gas are not 
currently available for sale in the U.S., though this may change in 
future years. Even so, with a monitor capable of more direct mass 
measurement of PM in stack gas, using PS 11 to certify one against 
Method 5 may be problematic at low PM concentrations. The EPA currently 
has no data to assess TEOM capabilities versus Method 5 at very low PM 
concentrations such as those presented by the better performing sources 
in this category. Were TEOM instrumentation commercially available, the 
EPA would need to conduct a re-evaluation of PM CEMS technology that 
included TEOM data to determine if this instrument could overcome the 
challenges posed by calibration with Method 5 at the very low PM levels 
emitted by some of the sources in the cement source category. As just 
explained, it is not speculation, but rather legitimate engineering 
caution that makes it appropriate not to require compliance with a rule 
based on an untested measurement methodology.
    The commenter further maintains that rather than amend the standard 
to change the compliance test methodology and averaging time, the EPA 
should revise PS 11 instead, evidently assuming that a revision can be 
done rapidly. The commenter's assumption is mistaken. Performance 
specification development is a process that takes multiple years and 
involves data collection on types of technologies, field testing, 
comparison to reference measurement methodology, workgroup and 
stakeholder meetings, peer review, rule proposal and public comment 
period, as well as comment response and final promulgation of the 
Performance Specification. With the development of PA 12A for Mercury 
CEMS, the EPA invested a budget in excess of one million dollars to 
conduct technology and field studies, as well as to refine the 
analytical techniques and work through stakeholder concerns prior to 
proposal of the Performance Specification. The process from inception 
to final promulgation took over 5 years to complete. PS 11, at issue 
here, was over 3 years in development, from concept to final 
promulgation, and involved a budget of $250,000. Based on this past 
history, it is likely to result in a delay of 3 years or more were the 
EPA to delay promulgation of this final rule until we could undertake 
the process to research, propose and finalize solutions to PS 11 that 
may ameliorate some of the issues vis-a-vis the cement industry now 
present. Furthermore, such a process would not address the issues 
relating to measurement uncertainties using Method 5 at low PM 
concentration levels near its detection limit (i.e. below its practical 
quantitation limit of 3 mg), and so there would remain significant 
technological hurdles to clear before the EPA could require the use of 
PM CEMS in respect to this final rule.
    The commenter points to PM CEMS use by European cement kilns. This 
is a misplaced comparison. The European calibration and certification 
of this instrumentation is completely different than PS 11 requirements 
developed by the EPA. European monitoring is certified in a laboratory 
environment, and calibrated on site by the instrument vendor when 
installed. The EPA has a long history of requiring CEMS installations 
in the USA to meet more rigorous calibration and performance 
specification certification through a series of comparisons to 
reference Method 5 test measurements conducted on the stack with the 
flue gas matrix at the facility, not in a controlled laboratory. For a 
PM CEMS, this would be a correlation developed with Method 5 as 
described in PS 11. The two certification regimes differ greatly in 
approach and simply adapting European certification standards to USA 
facilities does nothing to mitigate this difference.
    In summary, the EPA has carefully considered the issue and it is 
our engineering judgment that the PS 11 correlation will not be 
technically or practically achievable for a significant number of 
cement kiln sources. This is due to the combination of the low 
emissions concentrations, PM CEMS measurement uncertainty factors, the 
variability in composition of cement PM, and need for extraordinarily 
long test runs to reduce Method 5 uncertainty to a level that provides 
normal measurement confidence (i.e. greater than the 3 mg practical 
quantitation level of Method 5), plus the

[[Page 10019]]

compounding uncertainties associated with source operational 
variability. The EPA further recognizes that these problems in 
developing PS 11 correlations are most likely to adversely affect the 
lowest emitting sources in the category and are more likely to result 
in violations of the rule more often for these sources than for sources 
operating with higher PM emissions. This result would obviously be 
environmentally counterproductive. We are therefore amending the 
standard to be based on stack testing, and expressing the standard as a 
not-to-exceed (i.e., stack test Method 5 or 5I) standard of 0.07 lb/ton 
clinker.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Because the EPA believes that these same issues pertain to 
measurements of the section 111(b) new source performance standard 
for modified sources, and because further controls would be both 
costly and not cost effective (see section V.A.3 below), the EPA is 
adopting the same amendment for modified new sources under the NSPS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additional responses regarding these issues, including responses to 
issues raised in the comments from industry, are found in sections 3 
and 4 of the Response to Comment document, which is found in the docket 
for this rulemaking.
2. Issues Related to Use of CPMS for Parametric Monitoring
    To document continuous compliance with the Method 5 standard (i.e., 
parametric monitoring designed to monitor proper operation of PM 
controls), the EPA proposed that PM be monitored continuously using a 
CPMS. See 77 FR 42376-77. The parametric limit was to reflect the 
highest of the three method 5 test runs from the stack test, and would 
be averaged over 30-days. The EPA further proposed corrective action 
requirements in the event of exceeding the 30-day rolling average 
parametric limit, and a rebuttable presumption that four such 
exceedances in a calendar year showed a violation of the emission 
standard itself.
    With respect to the use of CPMS technology, the EPA has recognized 
that PM CEMS technology cannot meet PS 11 requirements in all Portland 
cement installations, yet the EPA has also recognized that PM CEMS 
sensors are more sensitive and better at detecting small differences in 
PM concentration than other technologies such as opacity monitors 
(http://www.epa.gov/ttn/emc/cem/pmcemsknowfinalrep.pdf) In considering 
the use of PM CEMS at Portland cement facilities we find that while 
using PM CEMS technology for continuous quantitative measurement of PM 
concentration as correlated to Method 5 with PS 11 is frequently not 
achievable (as stated in the preceding subsection of this preamble), 
using the same technology for continuous qualitative measurement of PM 
emissions is practicable in every instance. Given the information we 
have that shows PM CEMS technology to be more sensitive to in-stack PM 
concentration differences than opacity monitors and nepheolmeters, the 
EPA sees a distinct advantage in using these technologies for 
continuous parametric PM monitoring, rather than measuring some other 
parameter.
    In using a PM CEMS as a CPMS to conduct continuous qualitative 
monitoring of PM concentration in the stack, we are not interested in 
specific output information from the instrument (e.g. lbs/ton clinker). 
We only need to know that PM concentration increases or decreases. The 
signal output from the instrument need not be correlated to PM 
concentration through PS 11 trials to achieve this, but rather we can 
accept the native signal output from the instrument, as is, in 
milliamps, and track that signal to determine trends in PM emissions. 
In this final rule we are requiring PM CPMS instruments to employ a 4-
20 milliamp output, which is a standard electronic signal output common 
to many CEMS.\9\ With a PM CPMS the milliamp output would not represent 
an opacity value, but like an opacity analyzer, the milliamps would 
increase as PM concentration increases and decrease as PM concentration 
decreases. We can then monitor the milliamp signal while conducting a 
Method 5 performance test and correlate the average milliamp signal to 
the average PM concentration during the testing. This relationship is 
notably coarser in terms of understanding the precise PM concentration 
in the stack, but the instrument's sensitivity to changing PM 
concentration in the stack, and its changing milliamp signal output, 
does not deteriorate and may still be employed to qualitatively monitor 
PM emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ For example, an opacity instrument uses a series of filters 
to calibrate the analyzer and produce a ``percent opacity'' output. 
Twenty five percent opacity likely correlates to a milliamp value 
near eight milliamps, or 4 milliamps plus 25 percent of the 
difference between 4 and 20 milliamps (again, 4 milliamps). Fifty 
percent opacity would represent a signal near 12 milliamps, and so 
on, with 20 milliamps representing a signal of 100 percent opacity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA received numerous comments about our proposed PM CPMS 
parametric monitoring approach. Industry commenters maintained that 
sources would have to continually retest unnecessarily, since CPMS 
measure an increase in PM CPMS values. This increase in PM CPMS values 
would (or at least, could) denote a modest rise in PM emissions, but 
actual stack emissions of PM could still be well below the limit. The 
EPA recognizes this concern as creating additional burden for 
facilities exhibiting good control of their PM emissions (see section 
IV.A above), and, therefore, we have modified the process by which a 
source would establish and comply with their PM CPMS operating limit in 
this final rule. In doing so we considered scaling options for PM CPMS 
signals, as they correspond with PM emissions, that were proposed by 
industry but found the options presented were not protective enough of 
the emission standard. After extensive analysis (see S. Johnson, memo 
to docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0817, ''Establishing an Operating 
Limit for PM CPMS'', November 2012), we are promulgating a scaling 
factor of 75 percent of the emission limit as a benchmark. See section 
IV.A above. As in the proposed rule, every source will need to conduct 
an annual Method 5 test to determine compliance with the PM emissions 
limit, and during this testing will also monitor their PM CPMS milliamp 
output. Sources which emit PM less than 75 percent of their emission 
limit will be able to scale their PM CPMS milliamp output to determine 
where their PM CPMS would intersect 75 percent of their allowed PM 
emissions, and set their operating level at that milliamp output. This 
alleviates many re-testing concerns for sources that operate well below 
the emission limit and provides them with greater operational 
flexibility while still assuring continuous compliance with the PM 
stack emission standard. It also creates an incentive for sources to 
select high efficiency PM controls when sources are evaluating 
potential compliance strategies.
    For sources whose Method 5 compliance tests place them at or above 
75 percent of the emission standard, their operating level will be the 
average PM CPMS milliamp output during the three Method 5 test runs. 
This means their operating level is the milliamp output that correlates 
to their PM compliance determination, and not the highest average 1 
hour run value that was in the proposed rule. Now that we are adopting 
a scaling factor, we no longer believe that it is also appropriate to 
establish the parametric limit based on the highest of the three runs 
(which moreover, could reflect a level higher than the level of the 
standard). Moreover, as noted below, we believe that on balance the 30 
days of averaged

[[Page 10020]]

CPMS measurements provides ample operating cushion.
    In a recent rule (76 FR 15736, March 21, 2011), the EPA established 
75 percent of the limit as a number that allows for compliance 
flexibility and is simultaneously protective of the emission standard. 
In this final rule we are utilizing that value so as not to impose 
unintended and costly retest requirements for the lowest emitting 
sources and to provide for more cost effective, continuous, PM 
parametric monitoring across the Portland cement sector. This approach 
was selected from among many considered as it provides the greatest 
amount of flexibility while demonstrating continuous compliance for 
sources which are the lower emitters in the category and is also 
effective in holding higher emitters to the emission standard. With 
this parametric monitoring approach in place we expect sources to 
evaluate control options that provide excellent PM emissions control 
and provide them greater operational flexibility below the standard.
    One commenter maintained that the use of a CPMS for parametric 
monitoring would be ``egregious'' since the milliamp output of the CPMS 
allowed a source to select operational parameters of tangential 
relation to PM emissions and would therefore not provide useful 
information as to proper PM control. The commenter also stated that 
monitoring of opacity would be preferable. An industry commenter 
likewise requested that continuous opacity monitors or bag leak 
detectors be used rather than CPMS.
    The EPA does not agree with these comments. First, the milliamp 
output of the CPMS reliably and sensitively indicates increasing or 
decreasing PM concentration in the stack. Where PM controls are 
failing, the PM CPMS signal will indicate the increasing concentration 
of PM in the stack. A source will need to monitor the trend from the PM 
CPMS daily reading to maintain compliance with the 30-day emission 
standard. Indeed, the EPA has sufficient confidence that four 
exceedances of the CPMS continuous measurements is a presumptive 
violation of the emission standard itself. Moreover, the CPMS is 
considerably more sensitive than an opacity monitor or bag leak 
detector at detecting fluctuations in PM level. An opacity monitor 
determines the percent of a light signal that is occluded across the 
stack diameter. Opacity analyzers operate on a zero to 100 percent 
scale, meaning they are capable of registering PM that completely 
occludes the far stack wall from the instrument light source. This 
amount of PM is roughly equivalent to a complete failure of the 
emission control device. A properly operating control device will emit 
five percent opacity or less, which is barely visible to the naked eye 
and on the low end of the opacity monitor capability. PM emissions that 
increase opacity two percent at this level may well exceed the emission 
standard, yet they only mildly deflect the opacity monitor output. This 
same 2 percent opacity increase is capable of registering changes of 
several milliamps on a PM CPMS when operating on the scale provided in 
this final rule. With several decimal fractions available between each 
milliamp to track signal output, and three or four milliamps 
representing 1 percent opacity, the PM CPMS has a clear advantage in 
low PM concentration measurement over continuous opacity monitoring 
systems. Regarding baghouse leak detectors, the EPA has no information 
that shows them operating on the same sensitivity level as PM CPMS 
technology, and we do not require baghouse leak detection systems on 
sources where PM CPMS are in use for this reason.
    Industry commenters objected to the proposal that 4 calendar year 
exceedances \10\ from the parametric limit would be a presumptive 
violation of the emission standard. Again, the EPA does not agree. 
First, the EPA may permissibly establish such a presumption by rule, 
assuming there is a reasonable factual basis to do so. See Hazardous 
Waste Treatment Council v. EPA, 886 F. 2d 355, 367-68 (DC Cir. 1989) 
explaining that such presumptions can legitimately establish the 
elements of the agency's prima facie case in an enforcement action. 
Second, there is a reasonable basis here for the presumption that four 
exceedances (i.e. increases over the parametric operating limit) in a 
calendar year are a violation of the emission standard. The parametric 
monitoring limit is established as a 30-day average of the averaged 
test value in the performance test, or the 75th percentile value if 
that is higher. In either instance, the 30-day averaging feature 
provides significant leeway to the owner operator not to deviate from 
the parametric operating level since the 30 measurements will 
significantly dampen variability in the single measurement (average of 
three test runs) that produced the parametric value. See 77 FR 42377/2 
and sources there cited. The EPA acknowledges that the difference was 
even greater between the parametric level and the emission standard in 
the proposed rule (which was based on the highest measured test run). 
The EPA believes that the 30-day averaging feature plus the 75-percent 
scaling feature for the lower emitting sources now provides a 
sufficient operating cushion. See 77 FR 42377.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ In the proposed rule, the EPA referred to a measurement 
higher than the parametric limit as a ``deviation'' and proposed a 
definition of deviation. See 77 FR 42398. The EPA is not including 
this terminology in this final rule. The term ``deviation'' is not 
in the Portland cement NESHAP rules (which date back to 1998), and 
has not proved necessary in practice. More important, the rule 
itself states what the consequences of measurements which exceed a 
parametric limit are (i.e. retesting, and in some instances, a 
presumptive violation of the emission standard itself), so that no 
further general regulatory provision (i.e. a generalized definition 
of `deviation' or similar term) is necessary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Existing Source Beyond the Floor Determination
    The EPA proposed to use the floor levels for PM as the standard, 
rejecting more stringent standards on the grounds of poor cost 
effectiveness (after considering non-air environmental impacts and 
energy implications of a more stringent standard as well). See 77 FR 
42376. One commenter argued that the EPA should adopt a beyond the 
floor standard for PM, maintaining that such a standard was justified 
under the factors set out in section 112 (d)(2).
    The EPA disagrees, and is not adopting a beyond the floor standard. 
After considering the cost of the emission reductions attributable to 
such a standard, and the associated non-air and energy impacts of such 
a standard, the EPA determines that the standard is not ``achievable'' 
within the meaning of section 112 (d)(2). Specifically, the EPA 
estimates that a beyond the floor standard set at the level of the 
original (2010 final rule) standard would only result in 138 tpy--
nationwide--of PM reduction (a value not questioned by any of the 
commenters). See Final Portland Cement Reconsideration Technical 
Support Document, December 20, 2012. We further estimate that the cost 
of achieving this modest incremental reduction would be approximately 
$37 million (the estimated cost savings attributable to the amended PM 
standard (including savings attributable to ancillary PM controls 
related to collection of PM from the control of Hg, THC, and HCl). See 
Final Portland Cement Reconsideration Technical Support Document, 
December 20, 2012, included in the rule docket, EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0817. 
These total costs are high compared to the small nationwide emission 
reductions, and the cost effectiveness of these reductions is 
correspondingly high: approximately $268,000 per ton of PM removed. 
This is significantly higher cost effectiveness for PM than the EPA has 
accepted in other NESHAP

[[Page 10021]]

standards. See 76 FR 15704 (March 21, 2011) (rejecting $48,501 per ton 
of PM as not cost effective for PM emitted by CISWI energy recovery 
units); see also 72 FR 53814, 53826 (Sept. 20, 2007) (proposing (and 
later accepting) cost effectiveness of $10,000 per ton for PM as 
reasonable in determining Generally Available Control Technology, and 
noting that the EPA had viewed cost effectiveness only as high as 
approximately $31,000 per ton as reasonable under its Title II program 
for mobile sources). A beyond the floor standard at the level of the 
2010 standard would also involve slightly higher energy use, although 
this is not a major factor in EPA's decision. EPA is therefore not 
adopting a beyond the floor standard for PM at the level of the 2010 
standard. A standard even more stringent would likewise not be 
justified. See 76 FR 54988.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ The commenter's argument that section 112 (d)(2)'s 
requirement that the EPA consider ``the cost of achieving such 
emission reduction'' limits the EPA to considerations of economic 
achievability, and not cost effectiveness, is misplaced. See 
Husqvarna AB v. EPA, 254 F. 3d 195, 200 (DC Cir. 2001) (cost 
effectiveness properly considered in evaluating cost of compliance 
under CAA section 213, a technology-based provision similar to 
section 112 (d)(2)). The commenter's further argument that the 
requirement in section 112 (d)(2) for standards to result in ``the 
maximum degree of reduction in emissions of hazardous air pollutants 
* * * achievable'' considering cost and other factors constrains the 
EPA's ability to consider cost-effectiveness or otherwise balance 
the statutory factors has likewise been rejected. See Sierra Club v. 
EPA, 325 F. 3d 374, 378 (DC Cir. 2003) (the EPA was left with great 
discretion in determining how to balance such factors when 
considering technology-based standards which are to result in 
maximum reductions achievable).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. New Source PM Standard Under Section 112(d)(3)
    One commenter challenged the methodology the EPA used in the 2010 
rulemaking to establish the new source floor and standard, maintaining 
that for new plants, the EPA's floors must reflect the emission level 
achieved by the single best performing kiln in the category, not the 
best performing kiln for which the EPA happens to have emissions 
information. See section 112(d)(3). The EPA did not reopen the 
methodology by which new source floors for this industry are 
determined. See 77 FR 42373 n. 3 (``The EPA will not consider comments 
challenging the data and methodology for the new source standards since 
these are unchanged from the 2010 rule and the EPA is not reexamining 
any of these issues.'') In any case, if the issue is (against the EPA's 
view) deemed to be reopened, CAA section 112(d)(3) indicates that new 
source floors are to be based on ``the emission control that is 
achieved in practice by the best controlled similar source, as 
determined by the Administrator'' (emphasis supplied). This language 
affords considerable discretion for the agency to base the NESHAP new 
source floors on performance of sources for which the agency has 
emissions information.

B. Mercury Standard

    The EPA explained at proposal that reanalysis of the mercury floor, 
after removing CISWI kilns, resulted in a floor of 58 lb/MM tons 
clinker produced--slightly higher than the previously calculated floor 
and standard of 55 lb/MM tons clinker produced. The EPA further 
proposed to adopt 55 lb/MM tons clinker produced as a beyond-the-floor 
standard. See 77 FR 42373. The new source standard was unchanged since 
the standard was based on the performance of the best performing 
similar source.
    The EPA is adopting the standards as proposed. One commenter 
challenged the appropriateness of adopting a beyond-the-floor standard, 
not for the industry as a whole, but for itself. As to this individual 
plant (Ash Grove, Durkee), the commenter maintained that the cost of 
attaining the three additional lb/MM ton clinker produced reduction 
(i.e., the difference between 58 and 55 lb/MM tons clinker produced) 
was greater than the EPA estimated because it would require more than 
just additional carbon in an activated carbon injection system to 
achieve the incremental difference. According to the commenter, they 
have performed extensive testing and the addition of activated carbon 
per million actual cubic feet per minute of exhaust gas has little or 
no impact on mercury emissions. The commenter states that for plants 
such as Ash Grove's Durkee plant, there is no known add-on control 
technology at this time that will assure achievement of the standard on 
a continuous basis.
    We note first that the commenter is somewhat over-estimating the 
incremental reduction of mercury actually needed. To achieve the 
emission standard, sources will need to operate their processes and 
controls so that they can achieve the average emissions level used in 
setting the existing source limit of 55 lb/MM ton--the so-called design 
level. See e.g. 77 FR 42389/3 (estimating emissions attributable to 
this final rule based on design levels); see also discussion of design 
values in section VI.B below. That level is 31.7 lb/MM ton for the 
standard of 55 lb/MM ton. See 75 FR 54976/3. The average for the 58 lb/
MM ton is 34.1 lb/MM ton. The additional reduction needed is therefore 
2.4 lb/MM tons, not 3 lb/MM tons as stated by the commenter.
    As the EPA has acknowledged repeatedly, due to the high levels of 
mercury in their limestone, mercury emissions from the Ash Grove Durkee 
plant are not typical of other plants in the industry. See, e.g. 75 FR 
54978-79. As a result, this plant faces a particularly great challenge 
in meeting the mercury standard, whether the standard is 55 or 58 lb/MM 
tons. Because of their unique situation, we do not believe that the 
difficulties this facility is having in meeting the mercury standards 
can be generalized to the rest of the industry. Section 112(d)(2) of 
the Act posits an industry-wide standard. Having said this, our cost 
analysis conducted for the 2009 proposal and 2010 final rule assumed 
that this plant would have to install multiple control systems in order 
to meet the limit for mercury. See Docket item EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0051-
3438. Therefore, if in this particular case the activated carbon 
injection (ACI) system cannot achieve the small additional reductions 
required, then the facility has other mercury control options available 
such as further dust shuttling, or treating cement kiln dust to remove 
mercury. Dust shuttling entails moving dust from within the kiln to 
other parts of the process and is considered a closed loop process, 
thereby not causing any waste impacts. In addition, any costs 
associated with dust shuttling have already been accounted for in the 
cost estimates the EPA has developed for this particular facility.
    The commenter alluded to control performance data that it shared 
with the EPA. We note that the commenter has provided pilot scale data 
as part of the 2010 rulemaking (see Docket item EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0051-
2073), but has not provided data on the effects of increasing carbon 
injection on mercury emissions for a full scale facility. We note that 
in the electric utility industry, where there is significantly more 
experience with ACI, it is well established that higher carbon 
injection rates increase mercury removal (Sjostrom, S.; Durham, M.; 
Bustard, J. Martin, C.; ``Activated Carbon Injection for Mercury 
Control: Overview'', FUEL, 89, 6, 1320 (2010)). There is no data to 
indicate that ACI systems in the cement industry would behave 
differently than those in the utility industry. Given the lack of data 
on the efficacy of increasing carbon injection rates on mercury removal 
for full scale cement operations, we cannot conclude that increasing 
carbon injection is not a

[[Page 10022]]

reasonable approach for increasing mercury removal efficiency.

C. Standards for Fugitive Emissions From Open Clinker Storage Piles

    The EPA proposed that cement kilns control fugitive emissions from 
open clinker storage piles, defined at proposal as ``any clinker 
storage pile that is not completely enclosed in a building or 
structure''. These piles would be controlled through the use of work 
practices which minimized emissions by means of (among others) partial 
enclosure, damping down the pile by chemical or physical means or 
shielding piles from wind. These work practices were drawn from permits 
for existing cement kilns, and every cement kiln appears to already be 
utilizing some type of work practice to minimize fugitive emissions 
from open clinker storage piles. See 77 FR 42378. Cement kiln sources 
were allowed to select from among the specified work practices and 
choose those most suitable for its operations.
    For both new and existing sources, the NESHAP is amended to require 
that one or more of the control measures identified in the rule be used 
to minimize fugitive dust emissions from open clinker storage piles. 
The work practices would apply to open clinker storage piles regardless 
of the quantity of clinker or the length of time that the clinker pile 
is in existence.
    In addition, the owner or operator must include as part of their 
operations and maintenance plan (required in Sec.  63.1347) the 
location of their open clinker storage piles and the fugitive dust 
control measures as specified in this rule that will be implemented to 
control fugitive dust emissions from open clinker piles. We agree with 
comments received that the list of allowed work practices reflects all 
of the available practices documented in cement kiln facility operating 
permits to control clinker storage pile fugitive emissions. The size, 
type and duration of a clinker pile may warrant different types of work 
practices. The final rule requires that one or more of a variety of 
work practices need to be employed, recognizing that the source will 
use the work practices that will be effective for the particular piles. 
Thus, the EPA has revised the list of work practices to be consistent 
with those listed in the proposal preamble. These are: Use of partial 
enclosures, using a water spray or fogging system, applying appropriate 
dust suppression agents, using a wind barrier and using a tarp. 
Commenters also requested that the EPA allow other work practices if 
approved by the delegated authority. Our regulations already provide 
procedures for sources to seek approval of alternative work practices. 
See section 112(h)(3) as implemented by 40 CFR 63.8(f).
    Several industry commenters stated that the definition of clinker 
pile is problematic as proposed because it was not limited by size or 
duration. Commenters note that it is not uncommon for small amounts of 
clinker to be dropped, or to fall off a front-loader onto the ground 
when being moved from a kiln to a storage location or from such a 
location to the grinding mill. Because these are small amounts of 
clinker, it is also not uncommon that these small quantities of clinker 
will remain where they were dropped and may not be picked up or removed 
until the necessary manpower becomes available; in some cases this 
could be multiple days. Another industry commenter noted that because 
of the short-term duration of temporary clinker stockpiles, the use of 
work practices similar to those proposed for clinker storage piles is 
not feasible. The industry trade association suggested the following 
definition: ``Open clinker storage pile means an outdoor, unenclosed 
accumulation of clinker on the ground, which contains in excess of 
50,000 tons of clinker, and is utilized for a continuous period in 
excess of 180 days.'' Under this suggested approach, only a clinker 
storage pile meeting this definition would be subject to the work 
practice standards.
    We are not adopting this approach. We believe that the potential to 
emit may be different at different sites for a variety of reasons such 
as weather and traffic conditions. Nor did the commenter provide 
information indicating that open clinker storage piles of less than 
50,000 tons or stored for less than 180 days are unlikely to produce 
fugitive emissions. Indeed, as a result of weather, traffic or other 
conditions, smaller piles stored for shorter periods have the evident 
potential to emit substantial levels of fugitive emissions. Nor is any 
such uniformly applicable distinction based on duration evident. 
Clinker piles can be temporary but be replaced by a new pile at the 
same (or nearby) location a few days later, with no essential 
difference in fugitive emissions.
    Nonetheless, we believe that the commenter is correct that spills 
are unavoidable, and that work practices designed for non-temporary 
piles cannot feasibly be applied in such circumstances. The commenter 
is also correct that work practices used for non-temporary piles would 
be misapplied to temporary piles attributable to cleaning storage 
structures. For these reasons, the definition of ``open storage pile'' 
excludes these types of piles. Specifically, the definition of open 
clinker storage pile does not include temporary piles of clinker that 
are the result of accidental spillage or temporary use of outdoor 
storage while clinker storage buildings are being cleaned. This final 
rule defines ``temporary'' to mean piles that remain in place for 3 
days or less from their generation (3 days accommodating weekend 
scheduling). This is sufficient time to either pick these spills up 
(the applicable work practice for these spills) or to cover them to 
prevent fugitive emissions.
    These final amendments will result in a cost savings to the 
industry as compared to the 2010 rule. As a result of requiring work 
practices instead of enclosures, we estimate that there will be a 
savings of $8.25 million annually. See Final Portland Cement 
Reconsideration Technical Support Document, December 20, 2012, in this 
rulemaking docket.

D. September 9, 2015, Compliance Date for the Amended Existing Source 
Standards

    The EPA proposed to establish September 9, 2015, as the compliance 
date for the amended existing source NESHAP standards. The basic reason 
for the proposed compliance date was that the proposed change in the PM 
standard made possible different compliance alternatives for all of the 
stack emission standards, and that it could legitimately take two years 
from the original compliance date to implement these new compliance 
strategies. See 77 FR 42385-87. Further, the amended compliance date 
would apply to all of the stack emission standards due to the 
interrelatedness of the standards: the mercury, THC and HCl standards 
all typically involve some element of PM generation and capture and so 
the controls must be integrated with PM control strategies. Id. at 
42386.
    The record for this final rule supports the need for the September 
9, 2015 compliance date. With respect to PM control, as the EPA 
explained at proposal, plants now have the option of retaining 
electrostatic precipitators (ESP) with modification or downstream 
polishing baghouses, rather than replacing ESP with baghouses. Plants 
may also size baghouses differently (with or without incorporation of 
upstream or downstream polishing elements). The various types of 
sorbent injection strategies to control organics, mercury and HCl, are 
affected by the PM limits (and vice versa). Based on the facts of this 
record for this source

[[Page 10023]]

category, the type, size and aggressiveness of the controls for these 
HAP, as well as the PM controls, are not only interdependent but can 
all change as a result of the amended PM standard. In addition, the 
amended alternative oHAP standard affords additional compliance 
alternatives for control of non-dioxin organic HAP, including 
alternatives to use of Residual Thermal Oxidizers. See generally, Final 
Portland Cement Reconsideration Technical Support Document, section 
3.1, December 2012, in the docket for this rulemaking.
    Determining, developing, installing, testing and otherwise 
implementing a different comprehensive HAP control regime takes time. 
Specifically, plants will need to conduct engineering studies, 
determine the most cost-effective control strategy, seek contract bids, 
purchase equipment, install and test the new equipment. Below is an 
estimate of a timeline for a cement kiln to undertake these steps.

                  Time Needed To Prepare for Compliance
               [Docket item EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0817-0505-A1]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Steps in preparing for compliance               Time period
------------------------------------------------------------------------
New engineering study.............  January-April 2013.
Selection of technology providers.  April-August 2013.
Technology procurement............  August-December 2013.
Detailed technology design and      January-June 2014.
 final engineering.
Equipment fabrication and           June-December 2014.
 permitting.
Construction and tying into         January-May 2015.
 existing operation.
Technology commissioning..........  June-August 2015.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One commenter, sharply opposing any change in compliance date, 
maintained that all of this reasoning is hypothetical and that such a 
consequential extension could not legitimately rest on speculation. The 
EPA disagrees that this analysis is speculative. First, the EPA's 
engineering judgment is that the changes in the PM standard and 
alternative oHAP standard, open up different compliance alternatives 
from those under the 2010 rule. The EPA has indicated what those 
alternatives can be, and the time needed to determine, purchase, 
install and test them. Comments from the affected industry are 
consistent with the EPA's engineering judgment as to the type of 
different compliance approaches now available for existing sources.
    The EPA's engineering determinations as to the time needed for 
cement kilns to implement a different multi-HAP control strategy here 
are moreover consistent with the agency's long-standing analysis (i.e. 
analysis not specific to the cement industry) of the time needed to 
install multipollutant control systems. See US EPA, Engineering and 
Economic Factors Affecting the Installation of Control Technologies for 
Multipollutant Strategies, EPA-600/R-02/073, October 2002) (cited at 77 
FR 42386). Therefore, the EPA estimated that it is normal for the 
development and implementation of new compliance measures to take 
between 15-27 months for single control systems, and longer for systems 
involving multiple controls for HAP and criteria pollutants, as is the 
case here.
    The record to this rule also contains a survey of 92 of the 97 
domestic cement kilns currently in operation. These survey results 
document, on a kiln by kiln basis, alternative engineering strategies 
now available to these kilns as a result of the amended PM standard and 
also documents the time each kiln estimates would be needed to carry 
out these new compliance strategies. See Comments of PCA, Appendix D 
(EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0817-0505). For example, kiln B \12\ has the option of 
modifying its ESP system using a hybrid ESP/baghouse filter system, or 
of using a cyclone upstream of the ESP. Steps needed to implement these 
possibilities include main stack evaluation, cooler stack testing, and 
evaluation, vendor/contractor selection, final design, equipment 
procurement and fabrication, startup and commissioning, and 
demonstrating compliance. The plant has already commenced some of these 
steps, but provides reasonable time estimates for why it would take 
until September 2015 to complete them. Kiln Q \13\ expects to be able 
to retain its ESP system (whereas it could not under the 2010 final 
rule), but needs to resize its dust conveying system, upgrade the ESP, 
and utilize a larger activated carbon injection system differently from 
planned (since an ESP will not capture mercury as would a baghouse). 
Steps involved in developing and implementing a system include 
reviewing the structural integrity of the existing ESP, obtaining 
proposals on ESP upgrades, relocating an existing stack adjacent to the 
existing ESP, complete stack design, order equipment for ESP upgrades, 
order a new stack, contract construction, perform necessary 
construction, modify the ESP as needed, evaluate CEMS performance and 
conduct stack testing and make any adjustments to the integrated 
control system. Again, reasonable timelines for carrying out these 
steps are provided.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ For competitiveness reasons, kilns in this survey are 
identified by letter. The survey results are consistent with the 
EPA's engineering understanding and judgment, and the EPA has no 
reason to dispute the overall survey results (although some details 
may be open to question).
    \13\ These examples were chosen at random by the EPA from the 
survey information provided in the comment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Neither the EPA nor the industry has said definitively what each 
kiln will do and how long it will take. Until the standards are 
finalized, no such definitive pronouncement is possible. However, the 
record is quite specific that additional control strategies are now 
possible; what the range of those new control strategies are; that the 
strategies are interrelated so that the standards for PM, organics, 
mercury and HCl are all implicated; and the time needed to carry out 
the various strategies. Thus, the commenter is mistaken that the record 
regarding the need for a compliance date of September 2015 is merely 
conjectural.
    The EPA solicited comment on the possibility of a shorter extension 
for the stack emission standards, noting that by virtue of the 2010 
final rule, the industry was not starting from scratch but could 
already undertake compliance steps. See 77 FR 42386/3. The survey 
results referred to above confirm that this is the case, since a number 
of plants (to their credit) indicated that they have taken preliminary 
steps toward compliance such as conducting stack testing, and testing 
various control strategies (e.g., survey results for kilns A, F and G). 
Nonetheless, many commenters made the evident point that this 
preliminary work could only go so far when there was uncertainty about

[[Page 10024]]

the final standard and uncertainty around which standard would 
determine their final control strategy. Moreover, even those plants 
which had begun preliminary compliance steps indicated (with specific 
timelines provided) that the remaining work would legitimately stretch 
through the summer of 2015.
    This same record refutes those comments maintaining that an even 
longer compliance extension is needed. Not only is this inconsistent 
with the EPA's own estimates, but the industry survey results document 
that no further time is needed. See CAA section 112(i)(3)(A) 
(compliance with CAA section 112(d) standards to be as expeditious as 
practicable). Therefore, the EPA is revising the compliance date for 
existing sources for PM, THC, HCl, and Hg to be September 9, 2015.
    However, the EPA is establishing February 12, 2014, as the 
compliance date for the standards for existing open clinker piles. 
These standards are not inter-related to the stack emission standards, 
and so need not be on the same timeline. The work practices we are 
adopting as the standards reflect practices already in place throughout 
the entire industry. The time needed to come into compliance 
consequently is to establish a reporting and recordkeeping apparatus, 
and in some instances to obtain approval (after appropriate 
demonstration) to use work practices not enumerated in the standard. 
The EPA estimates that these various steps should not exceed twelve 
months. Since section 112(i)(3)(A) requires compliance to be as 
expeditious as practicable, the EPA is establishing a 12 month 
compliance period for these standards.
    A compliance date for an amended standard must still be ``as 
expeditiou[s] as practicable'' and not more than 3 years. We believe a 
compliance extension is appropriate where, as here, for the stack 
emission standards, the amended result in a compliance regime differs 
from the initial rule and additional time is needed to develop, 
install, and implement the controls needed to meet the amended 
standard. The EPA has shown that to be the case here, as explained 
above.
    The Sierra Club in its comments also argued that the EPA could not 
change the 2013 compliance date in the 2010 final rule as a matter of 
law. The commenter rests this argument on CAA sections 112(d)(7) and 
112(i)(3)(A). We have responded above to the argument based on section 
112(d)(7). Section 112(d)(7) simply is not an anti-backsliding 
provision (or, at the least, does not have to be interpreted that way).
    CAA Section 112(i)(3)(A) states in relevant part:
    ``[a]fter the effective date of any emissions standard, limitation 
or regulation * * * the Administrator shall establish a compliance date 
or dates for each category or subcategory of existing sources, which 
shall provide for compliance as expeditiously as practicable, but in no 
event later than 3 years after the effective date of such standard''.
    In NRDC v. EPA (Plywood MACT), 489 F. 3d 1364, 1373-74 (D.C. Cir. 
2007) the court held that ``only the effective date of Section 112 
emissions standards matters when determining the maximum compliance 
date.'' 489 F. 3d at 1373 (emphasis original). The EPA, therefore, 
lacked authority to extend the compliance date when it was only 
adjusting reporting terms. Id. at 1374. The opinion implies, however, 
that the EPA may reset the compliance date when the EPA amends the 
actual standard, as here. If the statute provided an absolute bar on 
the EPA extending an effective date, there was no reason for the court 
to distinguish the situation where the EPA amends some ancillary 
feature of the rule from the situation where the EPA amends the actual 
standard.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Sierra Club maintains that because the revisions to the PM 
standard leave that standard nearly as stringent as the 2010 
standard, all that has effectively changed is the standard's 
averaging time. Sierra Club likens this situation to the amendments 
to ancillary provisions like reporting at issue in Plywood MACT. 
This is incorrect. First, as explained in section V.A. above, the 
standard did increase numerically as a result of removing commercial 
incinerators from the database. Portland Cement Reconsideration 
Technical Support Document, June 15, 2012, Docket item EPA-HQ-OAR-
2011-0817-0225. Second, although the amended PM standard is 
relatively as stringent as the 2010 standard (75 FR 54988/2 and 77 
FR 42389/3), it nonetheless affords different compliance options for 
all of the standards, as explained above and in further detail in 
the Response to Comment document. The standard allows flexibility 
for those days when emissions increase as a result of normal 
operating variability, without significantly affecting the long-term 
average performance for PM and affords different compliance 
opportunities as a result. Nor does the commenter consider the 
amendment to the alternative oHAP standard, which amendment likewise 
affords new compliance opportunities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The reason it makes sense for the EPA to have the authority to 
reestablish a compliance date when it amends a MACT standard is 
evident. In a technology-based regime like section 112(d), if the 
technology basis of the standard changes with a change of the standard, 
it takes time to adopt the revised controls. This result fits the 
statutory text.
    Where the EPA has amended an existing source MACT standard, the 
compliance date for that amended standard must be as expeditious as 
practicable, and no later than 3 years from its effective date. Sierra 
Club argues that the original standard (the one that has been amended) 
must nonetheless take effect, but that standard no longer exists. It 
has been amended. Moreover, the result of Sierra Club's approach would 
force sources to install one technology and rip it out in short order 
to install another. Congress cannot have mandated this result. See PCA 
v. EPA, 655 F. 3d at 189 (staying NESHAP standards for clinker piles--
that is, effectively extending their compliance date--because ``the 
standards could likely change substantially. Thus, industry should not 
have to build expensive new containment structures until the standard 
is finally determined.'') 15 16 Moreover, in the extreme 
case where the initial standard was outright technically infeasible by 
any source (and was amended by the EPA to correct this defect), Sierra 
Club's reading would leave sources with literally no legitimate 
compliance option.\17\ Technology-based standards simply do not work 
this way.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ In a variant of this argument, Sierra Club maintains that 
in a situation where the compliance date for an initial existing 
source MACT standard has not yet passed and the EPA amended that 
standard to make it more stringent, the EPA would nonetheless leave 
the predecessor less stringent standard in place and require 
compliance with it. Although this situation has not arisen, the EPA 
would presumably be governed by the same principle noted by the PCA 
court: is the technology basis for the standard changing in such a 
way as to require more time for compliance and in a way that negates 
the compliance strategy of the initial rule. (Of course, if the 
compliance date of a standard has already occurred and a standard is 
later amended, that compliance date would not change retroactively.)
    \16\ Sierra Club maintains that PCA is distinguishable because 
it involved a standard which the EPA was compelled to change. First, 
the comment is factually mistaken. The EPA had granted 
reconsideration of the clinker pile standards but had not indicated 
that the standards would be amended. See 76 FR 28325/1 (May 17, 
2011). Nor did the court indicate that the pile standards must 
change. Rather, ``[b]ecause EPA will now be receiving comments for 
the first time, the standards could likely change substantially.'' 
655 F. 3d at 189 (emphasis supplied). Thus, the court effectively 
reset the compliance date because of a potential future change in 
the rule which could result in a compliance regime which differed 
from that in the 2010 final rule. This is directly parallel to the 
situation now presented by the amended PM and alternative oHAP 
standards.
    \17\ An example is the startup and shutdown standard for HCl in 
the 2010 final rule. The EPA established this standard as zero on 
the mistaken assumption that no chlorine could be present in the 
kiln during there periods. See 76 FR 28325 (granting consideration 
on this basis). The commenter's approach would leave this 
technically infeasible standard and its compliance date in place 
without recourse.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 10025]]

E. Eligibility To Be a New Source Under NESHAP

    CAA section 112(a)(4) states that a new source is a stationary 
source if ``the construction or reconstruction of which is commenced 
after the Administrator first proposes regulations under this section 
establishing an emissions standard applicable to such source.'' As we 
explained previously, there is some ambiguity in the language ``first 
proposes'' and such language could refer to different dates in 
different circumstances, such as the first time the Agency proposes any 
standards for the source category, the first time the Agency proposes 
standards under a particular rulemaking record for the source category, 
or the first time the Agency proposes a particular standard.
    In the proposed reconsideration rule, the EPA proposed to retain 
May 6, 2009, as the date which determines new source eligibility and 
solicited comment on this issue. Industry commenters stated that we 
should change the date for determining new source status from May 9, 
2009 to July 18, 2012, the date of the proposed reconsideration rule. 
In support, they asserted that they will not know what the final 
standards are until we finalize the reconsideration rule. We disagree 
with the commenters' suggestion and are retaining the May 6, 2009 date 
as the date that determines whether a source is a new source under CAA 
section 112(a)(4).
    As we explained at proposal, it is reasonable to retain the May 6, 
2009 date as the date the Agency ``first proposed'' standards for this 
source category. This is the date that EPA first proposed these 
standards under this particular rulemaking record. Today's action is a 
reconsideration action, and although it revises the particulate matter 
new source standard, it is premised on the same general rulemaking 
record. It is thus reasonable to view the date EPA ``first proposes'' 
standards to be the May 2009 date. Further, industry commenters 
essentially advocate an approach whereby any time the Agency changes a 
new source standard, in any way, on reconsideration, the new source 
trigger date would change. Such a result is not consistent with 
Congress' intent in defining the term ``new source'' in section 
112(a)(4), to be the date the Agency ``first proposes'' standards. 
Furthermore, EPA notes that the new source standards finalized today 
are ones that will be met, in our view, using the same or similar 
control technologies as would be used to meet the standards issued in 
May 2010, and commenters have not disputed this conclusion. See 77 FR 
42387.

VI. Summary of Cost, Environmental, Energy and Economic Impacts

A. What are the affected sources?

    As noted in the proposed rule, the EPA estimates that by 2013 there 
will be 100 Portland cement manufacturing facilities located in the 
U.S. and Puerto Rico that are expected to be affected by this final 
rule, and that approximately 5 of those facilities are new greenfield 
facilities. All these facilities will operate 156 cement kilns and 
associated clinker coolers. Of these kilns, 23 are CISWI kilns. These 
have been removed from our data set used to establish existing source 
floors. Based on capacity expansion data provided by the PCA, by 2013 
there will be 16 kilns and their associated clinker coolers subject to 
NESHAP new source emission limits for PM, mercury, HCl and THC, and 7 
kilns and clinker coolers subject to the amended NSPS for nitrogen 
oxide and SO2. Some of these new kilns will be built at 
existing facilities and some at new greenfield facilities.

B. How did the EPA evaluate the impacts of these amendments?

    For these final amendments, we determined whether additional 
control measures, work practices and monitoring requirements would be 
required by cement manufacturing facilities to comply with the amended 
rules, incremental to the 2010 final standards (since any other 
comparison would result in double counting). For any additional control 
measure, work practice or monitoring requirement we determined the 
associated capital and annualized cost that would be incurred by 
facilities required to implement the measures. Finally, we considered 
the extent to which any facility in the industry would find it 
necessary to implement any of the additional measures in order to 
comply with these final amendments. Using this approach, we assessed 
potential impacts from the proposed revisions.
    These final amendments to the 2010 rule are expected to result in 
lower costs for the Portland cement industry. The final amendment to 
the PM standard affords alternative, less costly compliance 
opportunities for existing sources. See section V.D above. These could 
be utilizing existing PM control devices rather than replacing them 
(for example, retaining an ESP or a smaller baghouse), or supplementing 
existing PM control rather than replacing it (putting polishing 
controls ahead of the primary PM control device, for instance). 
Compliance strategies for the other HAP, all of which involve some 
element of PM control, also may be affected. Cost savings from these 
alternatives could be significant. There are also potential cost 
savings associated with the amended oHAP alternative standard (which 
now may be a viable compliance alternative for some sources since 
issues of reliable analytic measurement have been resolved). Following 
proposal, industry submitted kiln specific information on likely 
changes in compliance strategy resulting from the proposed amendments 
so that we are now better able to estimate potential savings resulting 
from the final amendments. Based on an industry survey of 18 Portland 
cement facilities (20 kilns) after proposal (see Docket item EPA-HQ-
OAR-2011-0817-0505, Appendix D), it appears that the amendments may 
have the following effects, which may result in savings in capital and 
annual costs associated with implementing control technologies for 
these pollutants:
     Regenerative thermal oxidizers (RTO) may not need to be 
installed due to the amended oHAP alternative.
     Carbon injection rates may be lowered or not required for 
THC control.
     Existing PM controls (ESP and baghouse) may not need to be 
replaced, but may instead be upgraded.
     Additional PM controls may not have to be implemented.
     Polishing and hybrid filter configurations may be 
implemented instead of total replacements.
    There are also certain costs, and cost savings, associated with 
other provisions of the final amendments. There may be a difference in 
costs of stack testing for PM and use of a CPMS, rather than use of a 
PM CEMS. In addition, there are cost savings when changing from a PM 
CEMS compliance demonstration to a CPMS demonstration. For example as 
part of the PS 11 calibration requirements, a minimum of 15 Method 5 
test runs are required to develop a correlation curve, with no limit to 
the maximum number of test runs. Omitting the need for these multiple 
test runs will save the facility a minimum of $20,000 per kiln (each 
Method 5 test costs $5,000). At a savings of $20,000 per kiln, 
nationwide savings for 133 new and existing kilns, would be $2.7 
million per year. However, the CPMS is the same type of device as a PM 
CEMS, so the capital cost of the CPMS would not be significantly 
different than the CEMS device.
    The final revisions to the alternative organic HAP standard (from 9 
ppm to 12 ppm, reflecting the analytic method practical quantitation 
limit) would allow more sources to select this compliance alternative 
and demonstrate compliance without needing to install

[[Page 10026]]

very expensive and energy-intensive RTO. In addition, providing 
parametric monitoring flexibilities (not present in the 2010 final 
rule) will provide lower costs for the better-performing sources in the 
industry. See section IV.B above. We have quantified these savings (see 
Final Portland Cement Reconsideration Technical Support Document, 
December 20, 2012, Section 3).
    The revisions to the standard for open clinker storage piles codify 
current fugitive dust control measures already required by most states, 
so no impacts are expected. These final standards would be 
significantly less expensive than the controls for open piles in the 
2010 final rule, which required enclosures in all instances. We 
estimate that the savings to industry over the 2010 rule will be $8.25 
million annually. See Final Portland Cement Reconsideration Technical 
Support Document, December 20, 2012, in this rulemaking docket.
    We have estimated the additional industry cost associated with the 
affirmative defense to civil penalties provisions. We estimate the 
additional cost is $3,258 per year for the entire industry. See 
Supporting Statement in the docket.
    One of the final revisions would allow sources that control HCl 
with dry scrubbers to use periodic performance testing and parametric 
monitoring rather than monitoring compliance with an HCl CEMS. This 
will provide those sources with additional flexibility in complying 
with the HCl standard.
    The revision to the alternative PM emissions limit provisions 
merely recognizes that sources other than the clinker cooler may 
combine their exhaust with the kiln exhaust gas and corrects the 
equation for calculating the alternative limit. Therefore, there should 
be no impacts from this revision.
    The amendments provide for work practices rather than numerical 
standards during periods of startup and shutdown. The work practice 
standards reflect common industry practices, so there should be no 
costs associated with them. There should also be substantial savings 
associated with the work practices.
    At an annual cost of about $51,000 per year ($22,800 per Method 30B 
test for mercury + $8,000 per year for Method 25A test for THC + 
$20,000 per year for Method 321 test for HCl), the final revisions for 
new testing and monitoring of coal mills that use kiln exhaust gases to 
dry coal and exhaust through a separate stack are not expected to have 
significant impacts.
    The revisions would make existing kilns that undergo a 
modification, as defined by NSPS, subject to a PM standard of 0.07 lb/
ton clinker, 3-run average. There may be less costly compliance 
alternatives under the amended standard, similar to alternatives 
available under the amended existing source NESHAP for PM.

C. What are the air quality impacts?

    In these final amendments, emission limits for mercury, THC and HCl 
are unchanged from the 2010 rule. Thus, there is no change in emissions 
from the 2010 rule for these HAP and HAP surrogates. The alternative 
HAP organic standard is being amended to 12 ppm, which is the analytic 
method practical quantitation limit based on the performance test 
method detection limit of 4 ppm. The impact on emission levels due to 
this change is not clear since measuring below the quantitation limit 
does not yield a value with enough certainty to represent the actual 
level. Thus, a measurement below 12 ppm could very well actually be 12 
ppm or something less. For PM, the limit for existing sources changes 
from 0.04 lb/ton clinker 30-day average to 0.07 lb/ton clinker based on 
stack testing. The PM limit for new sources also changed: To 0.02 lb/
ton clinker stack test from 0.01 lb/ton clinker 30-day average. The 
final changes in the PM standards, while not significant in absolute 
terms, may result in a small increase in total nationwide emissions by 
allowing slightly more variability, although, as noted at proposal, we 
estimate that design values will be essentially identical under the 
2010 and this final standard. 77 FR 42389. As explained in the impacts 
analysis for the 2010 rule (see Docket item EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0051-3438), 
emission reductions were estimated by comparing baseline emissions to 
the long-term average emissions of the MACT floor kilns. As a practical 
matter, plants operate to comply with this lower average emissions 
level (the so-called design level), rather than the emissions limit, so 
that on those days where there is normal operating variability they do 
not exceed the emissions limit. See 77 FR 42386-87. Under the 2010 
rule, the average PM emissions from the existing floor kilns were 
0.02296 lb/ton clinker. Under the amended standard, the average PM 
emissions of the existing floor kilns is calculated to be 0.02655 lb/
ton clinker although, as noted, this difference is less than the normal 
analytic variability in PM measurement methods and so must be viewed as 
directional rather than precisely quantitative. The average emissions 
for new kilns did not change as we believe new sources will have to 
adopt identical control strategies as under the promulgated standards. 
We, therefore, are not estimating an emission increase from new kilns. 
For existing kilns, with an increase in PM emissions under this final 
rule of 0.00359 lb/ton clinker compared to the 2010 rule, nationwide 
emissions of PM would increase by 138 tons per year (0.00359 x 
76,664,662/2000). Thus, the EPA estimates that the main effect of this 
final rule for PM will be to provide flexibility for those days when 
emissions increase as a result of normal operating variability, but 
would not significantly alter long-term average performance for PM. 
Nonetheless, as explained in section V.D above, this change does allow 
for changes in compliance strategies in the form of types, sizes and 
sequencing of treatment trains.
    Emission reductions under the 2010 rule and this final rule, in 
2015, are compared in Table 4.

               Table 4--Comparison of Nationwide PM Emissions From 2010 Rule to Final Rule In 2015
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Kiln type            2010 rule            Final rule         Increment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emissions limit (lb/ton clinker..  Existing...........  0.04...............  0.07...............              NA
                                                        (30-day average      (3-run stack test).
                                                         with a CEMS).
MACT average emissions for         Existing...........  0.02296............  0.02655............         0.00359
 compliance (lb/ton clinker.
2010 baseline emissions (CISWI     ...................  11,433.............  11,433.............              NA
 kilns removed) (tons/yr).
Nationwide emissions reduction     Total..............  10,540.............  10,402.............            -138
 (tons/yr).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 10027]]

One commenter noted that the compliance extension will result in two 
additional years of HAP emissions at pre-standard levels, noting 
especially the emission of PM, noting further that fine PM 
(PM2.5) is causally associated with mortality and serious 
morbidity effects at a population level. See, e.g., 77 FR 38909 (June 
29, 2012). We note first that these rules are technology-based, not 
risk-based, and that there are compelling reasons to amend the PM 
standard and to establish new compliance dates for existing sources as 
a result of technological limitations with the 2010 rule PM standard, 
and the new compliance opportunities afforded as a result of the 
amendment to that standard. See section V.D above. We also question the 
commenter's premise that all of the predicted emission reductions and 
benefits would accrue if the existing source CEM-based PM standards 
took effect in September 2013. As explained at length in section V.A 
above and in other comment responses, PM CEMS would not reliably 
measure the level of the PM standard in many instances. One cannot 
assume the full range of emission reductions (and consequent health 
benefits) would accrue in the real world if the emission measurements 
themselves are uncertain. Thus, in a meaningful sense, today's 
amendments result in a regime where the required emission reductions 
will be reliably measured, so that the rule's health benefits will 
reliably occur.

D. What are the water quality impacts?

    At proposal, we believed that none of the amendments being proposed 
would have significant impacts on water quality and that to the extent 
that the revision affecting dry caustic scrubbers encourages their use, 
some reduction in water consumption may occur although we had no 
information upon which to base a quantified estimate. We received no 
comments questioning this assessment. Further, in reviewing the 
industry survey information on the impacts of the proposed changes, 
only 1 of the 20 kilns for which information was provided was 
considering the addition of a wet scrubber, although it was also 
evaluating a dry scrubber (see docket item EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0817-0505, 
Appendix D, kiln S). Therefore, we continue to believe that these final 
amendments will not significantly impact water quality.

E. What are the solid waste impacts?

    None of the amendments being finalized with this final rule are 
expected to have any solid waste impacts.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ Although dust shuttling is likely to be one element of 
mercury compliance strategy, the amount of dust shuttling would not 
increase incremental to the 2010 final rule since the standards for 
new and existing sources are the same in the 2010 final rule and 
these amendments. Moreover, as explained in section V.B above, even 
with respect to the high mercury feed source, dust shuttling entails 
moving dust from within the kiln to other parts of the process and 
is considered a closed loop process, thereby not causing any waste 
impacts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

F. What are the secondary impacts?

    Indirect or secondary air quality impacts include impacts that will 
result from the increased electricity usage associated with the 
operation of control devices as well as water quality and solid waste 
impacts (which were just discussed) that will occur as a result of 
these amendments. Because we are finalizing revisions that slightly 
reduce the stringency of the existing source emission limits for PM 
from the promulgated 2010 limits, we project that some facilities will 
alter their strategy for complying with the standards for the four 
pollutants to achieve compliance at a lower cost than possible under 
the original standard. The survey results discussed in section V.D 
above confirm the EPA's engineering judgment. Other facilities in the 
survey that were not able to meet the THC limit or the alternative 
organic HAP limit in the 2010 rule were considering the installation of 
RTO. Because some of these facilities may now meet the limit without 
the installation of an RTO, we have estimated a reduction of 24,702 
tons per year less CO2 emissions being emitted to the 
atmosphere (equivalent to 2 less RTO's being installed). As a result of 
the organic HAP limit being revised from 9 ppm to 12 ppm, these sources 
responded that they now had other less costly alternatives. The 
additional compliance time was also cited as a factor that would gives 
sources the additional time they needed to consider other HAP control 
alternatives to RTO. As the industry survey highlights, these types of 
determinations will be made for each facility based on site-specific 
characteristics such as process type, equipment age, existing air 
pollution controls, raw material and fuel characteristics, economic 
factors and others. In general, this survey indicates that the 
combination of the revised limits for PM and organic HAP as well as the 
September 2015 compliance date will give sources the opportunity to 
develop less costly and less aggressive compliance strategies. We do 
not have enough information to quantify the impact of overall secondary 
impacts, (with the exception of the CO2 reductions noted 
above), but we believe the impacts would in fact be reduced relative to 
the 2010 rule since less energy is expected to be needed for facilities 
that can retain and upgrade their current controls, instead of for 
example, installing additional controls in series.

G. What are the energy impacts?

    As discussed in the preceding section, because of the final 
revisions to the PM emission limits, the organic HAP limits and the 
compliance date extension, some facilities will develop more cost 
effective and less energy intensive compliance strategies. For three of 
the facilities (five kilns) that were part of the industry survey, all 
five kilns required significant changes to meet the 2010 THC standard, 
in part because they were not pursuing the alternative organic HAP 
alternative standard due to analytic measurement uncertainties. See 
docket item EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0817-0505, Appendix D (kilns A, C and D, 
and F and G). Prior to the proposed revisions, all five of the kilns 
were considering RTO as a control option as well as other options 
including catalytic ceramic filtration, a relatively new technology and 
as yet, not completely demonstrated technology for the cement industry. 
In response to the survey of what changes, if any, the facilities would 
make in response to the proposed revisions, all three facilities 
indicated that the amended organic HAP limit or the September 2015 
compliance date allowed them to consider the use of less capital 
intensive alternatives and to continue testing alternatives for THC 
reduction other than the highly energy-intensive RTO for the five kilns 
involved. Although we cannot accurately predict for the entire industry 
the extent to which these site-specific compliance strategies may 
affect energy demands, the industry survey results indicate a trend 
toward less energy intensive strategies than RTO, and as noted above, 
we predict a reduction in CO2 emissions due to less energy 
use as a result of two fewer kilns installing RTOs.

H. What are the cost impacts?

    Under the cost scenario discussed above, we estimate that there 
could be savings of approximately $52 million associated with 
alternative compliance strategies for meeting amended PM standards, 
making corresponding adjustments in compliance strategies for the 
organic HAP and requiring work practice for open clinker storage piles. 
Table 5 summarizes the costs and emissions reductions of this final 
action.

[[Page 10028]]

      Table 5--Summary of the Costs and Emission Reductions of the Final Amendments to the Portland Cement
                   Manufacturing Industry NESHAP Relative to the 2010 Rule \a\ \b\ \c\ \d\ \e\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    PM emissions          PM emissions
      Proposed amendment       Annualized cost   reduction 2010 rule   reduction 2012 rule   Emission change tpy
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Revised PM, oHAP standard....  ($42.2 million)  10,540 tons.........  10,402 tons.........  138 increase.
                                \f\.
Replace PM CEMS with PM CPMS.  ($2.7 million).  0...................
Coal Mill Testing............  $1.3 million...  0...................
Open clinker storage pile      ($8.25 million)  0...................
 work practices.
                              -----------------
    Total....................  ($51.85
                                million).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Parentheses indicate cost savings. All costs are in 2005 dollars.
\b\ We also estimate that there will be a one-time cost of $25,000 for each facility to revise their operation
  and maintenance plan to include procedures to minimize emissions during periods of startup and shutdown.
\c\ Emissions reductions are the total once full compliance is achieved in 2015.
\d\ Full compliance costs will not occur until September 9, 2015.
\e\ Note emission reductions published in the 2010 rule included CISWI kilns, but the reductions in this table
  reflect reductions since CISWI kilns were removed from the database.
\f\ Includes cost savings due to revised PM standard.

The cost information in Table 5 is in 2005 dollars at a discount rate 
of 7 percent. The EPA did not have sufficient information to quantify 
the overall change in benefits or impacts in emissions for 2013 to 
2015.
    With regard to the coal mill monitoring requirements in this 
action, sources with integral coal mills that exhaust through a 
separate exhaust would potentially incur a capital cost of $36,000 to 
install a continuous flow meter. The annualized cost of a flow meter is 
$11,000. Because this final rule allows the use of maximum design flow 
rate instead of installing flow meters, we believe that most facilities 
will take advantage of this and will not incur these costs. Annual 
testing at these coal mills for mercury, THC and HCl will cost about 
$51,000 ($22,800 per Method 30B test for mercury + $8,000 per year for 
Method 25A test for THC + $20,000 per year for Method 321 test for 
HCl). Using information supplied by the industry (see docket item EPA-
HQ-OAR-2011-0817-0612), approximately 26 facilities would be affected 
by these requirements for an annual cost of $1.3 million. Costs for 
coal mills to meet the PM limits for this NESHAP are not included, 
since all equipment and monitoring are in place to meet requirements of 
Subpart Y and thus are not considered additional costs.
    With the final change to PM CPMS instead of CEMS, it is estimated 
that the elimination of the PS correlation tests will result in a 
savings of $20,000 per kiln.

I. What are the health effects of these pollutants?

    In this section, we provide a qualitative description of benefits 
associated with reducing exposure to PM2.5, HCl and mercury. 
Controls installed to reduce HAP would also reduce ambient 
concentrations of PM2.5 as a co-benefit. Reducing exposure 
to PM2.5 is associated with significant human health 
benefits, including avoiding mortality and morbidity from 
cardiovascular and respiratory illnesses. Researchers have associated 
PM2.5 exposure with adverse health effects in numerous 
toxicological, clinical and epidemiological studies (U.S. EPA, 
2009).\19\ When adequate data and resources are available and a 
regulatory impact analysis (RIA) is required, the EPA generally 
quantifies several health effects associated with exposure to 
PM2.5 (e.g., U.S. EPA, 2011).\20\ These health effects 
include premature mortality for adults and infants, cardiovascular 
morbidities such as heart attacks, hospital admissions and respiratory 
morbidities such as asthma attacks, acute and chronic bronchitis, 
hospital and emergency department visits, work loss days, restricted 
activity days and respiratory symptoms. Although the EPA has not 
quantified certain outcomes including adverse effects on birth weight, 
pre-term births, pulmonary function and other cardiovascular and 
respiratory effects, the scientific literature suggests that exposure 
to PM2.5 is also associated with these impacts (U.S. EPA, 
2009). PM2.5 also increases light extinction, which is an 
important aspect of visibility (U.S. EPA, 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2009. 
Integrated Science Assessment for Particulate Matter (Final Report). 
EPA-600-R-08-139F. National Center for Environmental Assessment-RTP 
Division. Available on the Internet at http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=216546.
    \20\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2011. 
Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Federal Implementation Plans to 
Reduce Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone in 
27 States; Correction of SIP Approvals for 22 States. Office of Air 
and Radiation, Research Triangle Park, NC. Available on the Internet 
at http://www.epa.gov/airtransport/pdfs/FinalRIA.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    HCl is a corrosive gas that can cause irritation of the mucous 
membranes of the nose, throat and respiratory tract. Brief exposure to 
35 ppm causes throat irritation, and levels of 50 to 100 ppm are barely 
tolerable for 1 hour.\21\ The greatest impact is on the upper 
respiratory tract; exposure to high concentrations can rapidly lead to 
swelling and spasm of the throat and suffocation. Most seriously 
exposed persons have immediate onset of rapid breathing, blue coloring 
of the skin and narrowing of the bronchioles. Exposure to HCl can lead 
to RADS, a chemically- or irritant-induced type of asthma. Children may 
be more vulnerable to corrosive agents than adults because of the 
relatively smaller diameter of their airways. Children may also be more 
vulnerable to gas exposure because of increased minute ventilation per 
kilograms and failure to evacuate an area promptly when exposed. HCl 
has not been classified for carcinogenic effects.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). 
Medical Management Guidelines for Hydrogen Chloride. Atlanta, GA: 
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Available online at 
http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/mmg/mmg.asp?id=758&tid=147#bookmark02.
    \22\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 1995. 
Integrated Risk Information System File of Hydrogen Chloride. 
Research and Development, National Center for Environmental 
Assessment, Washington, DC. This material is available 
electronically at http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0396.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mercury in the environment is transformed into a more toxic form, 
methylmercury (MeHg). Because mercury is a persistent pollutant, MeHg 
accumulates in the food chain, especially the tissue of fish. When 
people consume these fish, they consume MeHg. In 2000, the National

[[Page 10029]]

Academy of Science (NAS) Study was issued which provides a thorough 
review of the effects of MeHg on human health (National Research 
Council (NRC), 2000).\23\ Many of the peer-reviewed articles cited in 
this section are publications originally cited in the MeHg Study. In 
addition, the EPA has conducted literature searches to obtain other 
related and more recent publications to complement the material 
summarized by the NRC in 2000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ National Research Council (NRC). 2000. Toxicological 
Effects of Methylmercury. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In its review of the literature, the NAS found neurodevelopmental 
effects to be the most sensitive and best documented endpoints and 
appropriate for establishing an oral reference dose (RfD) (NRC, 2000); 
in particular NAS supported the use of results from neurobehavioral or 
neuropsychological tests. The NAS report noted that studies in animals 
reported sensory effects as well as effects on brain development and 
memory functions and support the conclusions based on epidemiology 
studies. The NAS noted that their recommended endpoints for an RfD are 
associated with the ability of children to learn and to succeed in 
school. They concluded the following: ``The population at highest risk 
is the children of women who consumed large amounts of fish and seafood 
during pregnancy. The committee concludes that the risk to that 
population is likely to be sufficient to result in an increase in the 
number of children who have to struggle to keep up in school.''
    The NAS summarized data on cardiovascular effects available up to 
2000. Based on these and other studies, the NRC concluded that 
``Although the data base is not as extensive for cardiovascular effects 
as it is for other end points (i.e. neurologic effects) the 
cardiovascular system appears to be a target for MeHg toxicity in 
humans and animals.'' The NRC also stated that ``additional studies are 
needed to better characterize the effect of methylmercury exposure on 
blood pressure and cardiovascular function at various stages of life.''
    Additional cardiovascular studies have been published since 2000. 
The EPA did not to develop a quantitative dose-response assessment for 
cardiovascular effects associated with MeHg exposures, as there is no 
consensus among scientists on the dose-response functions for these 
effects. In addition, there is inconsistency among available studies as 
to the association between MeHg exposure and various cardiovascular 
system effects. The pharmacokinetics of some of the exposure measures 
(such as toenail mercury levels) are not well understood. The studies 
have not yet received the review and scrutiny of the more well-
established neurotoxicity data base.
    The Mercury Study \24\ noted that MeHg is not a potent mutagen but 
is capable of causing chromosomal damage in a number of experimental 
systems. The NAS concluded that evidence that human exposure to MeHg 
caused genetic damage is inconclusive; they note that some earlier 
studies showing chromosomal damage in lymphocytes may not have 
controlled sufficiently for potential confounders. One study of adults 
living in the Tapaj[oacute]s River region in Brazil (Amorim et al., 
2000) reported a direct relationship between MeHg concentration in hair 
and DNA damage in lymphocytes; as well as effects on chromosomes.\25\ 
Long-term MeHg exposures in this population were believed to occur 
through consumption of fish, suggesting that genotoxic effects (largely 
chromosomal aberrations) may result from dietary, chronic MeHg 
exposures similar to and above those seen in the Faroes and Seychelles 
populations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 1997. 
Mercury Study Report to Congress, EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0234-3054. 
December. Available on the Internet at http://www.epa.gov/hg/report.htm.
    \25\ Amorim, M.I.M., D. Mergler, M.O. Bahia, H. Dubeau, D. 
Miranda, J. Lebel, R.R. Burbano, and M. Lucotte. 2000. Cytogenetic 
damage related to low levels of methyl mercury contamination in the 
Brazilian Amazon. An. Acad. Bras. Science. 72(4): 497-507.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although exposure to some forms of mercury can result in a decrease 
in immune activity or an autoimmune response (ATSDR, 1999), evidence 
for immunotoxic effects of MeHg is limited (NRC, 2000).\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). 
1999. Toxicological Profile for Mercury. U.S. Department of Health 
and Human Services, Public Health Service, Atlanta, GA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on limited human and animal data, MeHg is classified as a 
``possible'' human carcinogen by the International Agency for Research 
on Cancer (IARC, 1994) and in Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) 
(U.S. EPA, 2002).27 28 The existing evidence supporting the 
possibility of carcinogenic effects in humans from low-dose chronic 
exposures is tenuous. Multiple human epidemiological studies have found 
no significant association between mercury exposure and overall cancer 
incidence, although a few studies have shown an association between 
mercury exposure and specific types of cancer incidence (e.g., acute 
leukemia and liver cancer) (NRC, 2000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2002. 
Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) on Methylmercury. National 
Center for Environmental Assessment. Office of Research and 
Development. Available online at http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0073.htm.
    \28\ International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). 1994. 
IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans 
and their Supplements: Beryllium, Cadmium, Mercury, and Exposures in 
the Glass Manufacturing Industry. Vol. 58. Jalili, H.A., and A.H. 
Abbasi. 1961. Poisoning by ethyl mercury toluene sulphonanilide. Br. 
J. Indust. Med. 18(Oct.):303-308 (as cited in NRC 2000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    There is also some evidence of reproductive and renal toxicity in 
humans from MeHg exposure. However, overall, human data regarding 
reproductive, renal and hematological toxicity from MeHg are very 
limited and are based on either studies of the two high-dose poisoning 
episodes in Iraq and Japan or animal data, rather than epidemiological 
studies of chronic exposures at the levels of interest in this 
analysis.

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive 
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this 
action is a ``significant regulatory action'' because it raises novel 
legal or policy issues. Accordingly, the EPA submitted this action to 
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under Executive 
Orders 12866 and 13563 (76 3821, January 21, 2011) and any changes made 
in response to OMB recommendations have been documented in the docket 
for this action. An RIA was prepared for the September 2010 final rule 
and can be found at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/regdata/RIAs/portlandcementfinalria.pdf. http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/regdata/RIAs/portlandcementfinalria.pdf.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The information collection requirements in this final rule have 
been submitted for approval to the OMB under the Paperwork Reduction 
Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.
    The Information Collection Request (ICR) document prepared by the 
EPA has been assigned the EPA ICR number 1801.11 for the NESHAP; there 
are no additional recordkeeping and reporting requirements for the 
NSPS. The information requirements are based on notification, 
recordkeeping and reporting requirements in the NESHAP

[[Page 10030]]

General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A), which are mandatory for 
all operators subject to national emissions standards. These 
recordkeeping and reporting requirements are specifically authorized by 
CAA section 114 (42 U.S.C. 7414). All information submitted to the EPA 
pursuant to the recordkeeping and reporting requirements for which a 
claim of confidentiality is made is safeguarded according to agency 
policies set forth in 40 CFR part 2, subpart B.
    We are finalizing new paperwork requirements for the Portland 
Cement Manufacturing source category in the form of a requirement to 
incorporate work practices for periods of startup and shutdown and 
fugitive dust control measures for clinker piles into their existing 
operations and maintenance plan.
    This final rule also includes new paperwork requirements for 
recordkeeping of malfunctions, as described in 40 CFR 63.454(g) 
(conducted in support of the affirmative defense provisions, as 
described in 40 CFR 63.456).
    When a malfunction occurs, sources must report the event according 
to the applicable reporting requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subpart 
LLL. An affirmative defense to civil penalties for violations of 
emission limits that are caused by malfunctions is available to a 
source if it can demonstrate that certain criteria and requirements are 
satisfied. The criteria ensure that the affirmative defense is 
available only where the event that causes a violation of the emission 
limit meets the narrow definition of malfunction in 40 CFR 63.2 
(sudden, infrequent, not reasonable preventable and not caused by poor 
maintenance and or careless operation) and where the source took 
necessary actions to minimize emissions. In addition, the source must 
meet certain notification and reporting requirements. For example, the 
source must prepare a written root cause analysis and submit a written 
report to the Administrator documenting that it has met the conditions 
and requirements for assertion of the affirmative defense.
    The EPA is adding the paperwork and recordkeeping associated with 
the affirmative defense to civil penalties for malfunctions to the 
estimate of burden in the ICR. To provide the public with an estimate 
of the relative magnitude of the burden associated with an assertion of 
the affirmative defense position adopted by a source, the EPA has 
provided administrative adjustments to the ICR that show what the 
notification, recordkeeping and reporting requirements associated with 
the assertion of the affirmative defense might entail. The EPA's 
estimate for the required notification, reports and records for any 
individual incident, including the root cause analysis, totals $3,258, 
and is based on the time and effort required of a source to review 
relevant data, interview plant employees and document the events 
surrounding a malfunction that has caused a violation of an emissions 
limit. The estimate also includes time to produce and retain the record 
and reports for submission to the EPA. The EPA provides this 
illustrative estimate of this burden because these costs are only 
incurred if there has been a violation and a source chooses to take 
advantage of the affirmative defense.
    Given the variety of circumstances under which malfunctions could 
occur, as well as differences among sources' operation and maintenance 
practices, we cannot reliably predict the severity and frequency of 
malfunction-related excess emissions events for a particular source. It 
is important to note that the EPA has no basis currently for estimating 
the number of malfunctions that would qualify for an affirmative 
defense. Current historical records would be an inappropriate basis, as 
source owners or operators previously operated their facilities in 
recognition that they were exempt from the requirement to comply with 
emissions standards during malfunctions. Of the number of excess 
emissions events reported by source operators, only a small number 
would be expected to result from a malfunction (based on the definition 
above), and only a subset of violations caused by malfunctions would 
result in the source choosing to assert the affirmative defense. Thus, 
we expect the number of instances in which source operators might be 
expected to avail themselves of the affirmative defense will be 
extremely small. For this reason, we estimate no more than two such 
occurrences per year for all sources subject to subpart LLL over the 3-
year period covered by this ICR. We expect to gather information on 
such events in the future and will revise this estimate as better 
information becomes available.
    We estimate 86 facilities will be subject to all final standards. 
The remaining 14 facilities will only be subject to the open clinker 
pile standards in this action. The annual monitoring, reporting and 
recordkeeping cost for this source (averaged over the first three years 
after the effective date of the standards) for these amendments to 
subpart LLL is estimated to be $352,814 per year for the industry. This 
includes 496 labor hours per year at a total labor cost of $47,806 per 
year, and total non-labor capital and operation and maintenance costs 
of $305,008 per year. This estimate includes reporting and 
recordkeeping associated with the requirements for open clinker storage 
piles. The total burden to the federal government (averaged over the 
first three years after the effective date of the standard) as a result 
of these amendments is estimated to be 263 hours per year at a total 
labor cost of $11,885 per year. Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required 
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a 
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for the 
EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act generally requires an agency to 
prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice 
and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure 
Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will 
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities. Small entities include small businesses, small organizations 
and small governmental jurisdictions.
    For purposes of assessing the impact of this rule on small 
entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business whose parent 
company has no more than 750 employees based on the size definition for 
the affected NAICS code (327310), as defined by the Small Business 
Administration size standards; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction 
that is a government of a city, county, town, school district or 
special district with a population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small 
organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is 
independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.
    We estimate that 3 of the 26 existing Portland cement entities are 
small entities and comprise 3 plants. After considering the economic 
impacts of this final rule on small entities, I certify that this 
action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities. Of the three affected small entities, all are 
expected to incur an annual compliance cost of less than 1.0 percent of 
sales to comply with these amendments to the 2010 final rule 
(reflecting potential controls on piles, which are likely to have lower 
cost when compared to the 2010 rule requirements because these plants 
already have requirements for

[[Page 10031]]

control of open clinker storage piles in their title V permits).
    Although this final rule will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities, the EPA nonetheless 
adopted amendments which should reduce the impact of this final rule on 
small entities. For example, we are expanding the provision that allows 
periodic HCl performance tests as an alternative to HCl CEMS for 
sources equipped with wet scrubbers to also apply to those sources that 
use dry scrubbers. This final rule also adds an option for sources 
using wet or dry scrubbers for HCl control to use SO2 as a 
monitored parameter. If these sources already have a CEMS for 
SO2, then this will provide operational flexibility.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    This rule does not contain a Federal mandate that may result in 
expenditures of $100 million or more for State, local and tribal 
governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector in any one year. 
As discussed earlier in this preamble, there is an actual savings to 
the industry of $52 million per year. Thus, this final rule is not 
subject to the requirements of section 202 and 205 of the UMRA. This 
final action is also not subject to the requirements of section 203 of 
the UMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements that might 
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. This final action 
contains no requirements that apply to such governments, imposes no 
obligations upon them, and will not result in expenditures by them of 
$100 million or more in any one year or any disproportionate impacts on 
them.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This final action does not have federalism implications. It will 
not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship 
between the national government and the states or on the distribution 
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, 
as specified in Executive Order 13132. None of the affected facilities 
are owned or operated by State governments. Thus, Executive Order 13132 
does not apply to this action.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian 
Tribal Governments

    This action may have tribal implications, as specified in Executive 
Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). The EPA is aware of one 
tribally owned Portland cement facility currently subject to subpart 
LLL and that will be subject to this final rule. The provisions of this 
final rule are not expected to impose new substantial direct compliance 
costs on Tribal governments since the same control technologies that 
are necessary under the current NESHAP will be needed to meet the final 
emissions limits. The EPA has tried to reduce the impact of this final 
rule on Tribal owned facilities. For example, we are expanding the 
provision that allows periodic HCl performance tests as an alternative 
to HCl CEMS for sources equipped with wet scrubbers to also apply to 
those sources that use dry sorbent injection (i.e., dry scrubbing 
systems). This final rule adds an option for sources using wet or dry 
scrubbers for HCl control to use SO2 as a monitored 
parameter. If these sources already have a CEMS for SO2, 
then this will provide operational flexibility.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental 
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 
1997) as applying to those regulatory actions that concern health or 
safety risks, such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of 
the Executive Order has the potential to influence the regulation. This 
action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is based 
solely on technology performance.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This final action is not a ``significant energy action'' as defined 
in Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)), because it is 
not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, 
distribution, or use of energy. The amendments do not require the use 
of additional controls as compared to the 2010 rule and may allow the 
industry to reduce its cost of compliance by increasing the industry's 
flexibility to institute different and less costly control strategies 
than under the 2010 rule.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law No. 104-113 (15 U.S.C. 272 note), 
directs the EPA to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS) in its 
regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with 
applicable law or otherwise impractical. VCS are technical standards 
(e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures and 
business practices) that are developed or adopted by VCS bodies. NTTAA 
directs the EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the 
agency decides not to use available and applicable VCS.
    This final rulemaking does not involve technical standards. 
Therefore, the EPA is not considering the use of any voluntary 
consensus standards.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental 
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629 (February 16, 1994)) establishes 
federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision 
directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and 
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission 
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high 
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, 
policies and activities on minority populations and low-income 
populations in the United States.
    An analysis of demographic data was prepared for the 2010 final 
rule and can be found in the docket for that rulemaking (See docket 
item EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0051-3415). The impacts of the 2010 rule, which 
assumed full compliance, are expected to be unchanged as a result of 
this action. Therefore, beginning from the date of full compliance, the 
EPA has determined that this final rule will not have 
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental 
effects on minority or low-income populations because it increases the 
level of environmental protection for all affected populations without 
having any disproportionately high and adverse human health or 
environmental effects on any population, including any minority or low-
income populations. In addition, the full benefits of this final rule 
will not result until 2015 due to the final amended compliance date but 
the demographic analysis showed that the average of populations in 
close proximity to the sources, and thus most likely to be affected by 
the sources, were similar in demographic composition to national 
averages.

K. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801, et seq., as added by 
the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, 
generally provides that, before a rule may take effect, the agency 
promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy 
of the rule, to each House of the

[[Page 10032]]

Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. The EPA 
will submit a report containing this final rule and other required 
information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives and 
the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of 
the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot take effect until 
60 days after it is published in the Federal Register. This action is 
not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This final rule 
will be effective on February 12, 2013.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hazardous 
substances, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: December 20, 2012.
Lisa P. Jackson,
Administrator.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, of the 
Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 60--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 60 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  23 U.S.C. 101; 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.

Subpart F--[AMENDED]

0
2. Section 60.61 is amended by adding paragraphs (e) and (f) to read as 
follows:

Sec.  60.61  Definitions.

* * * * *
    (e) Excess emissions means, with respect to this subpart, results 
of any required measurements outside the applicable range (e.g., 
emissions limitations, parametric operating limits) that is permitted 
by this subpart. The values of measurements will be in the same units 
and averaging time as the values specified in this subpart for the 
limitations.
    (f) Operating day means a 24-hour period beginning at 12:00 
midnight during which the kiln operates at any time. For calculating 
rolling 30-day average emissions, an operating day does not include the 
hours of operation during startup or shutdown.
* * * * *

0
3. Section 60.62 is amended by:
0
a. Removing and reserving paragraph (a)(1)(i), revising paragraph 
(a)(1)(ii) and adding paragraph (a)(1)(iii);
0
b. Removing and reserving paragraph (a)(2);
0
c. Revising paragraphs (b)(1)(i) and (ii);
0
d. Removing paragraph (b)(2);
0
e. Redesignating paragraphs (b)(3) and (4) as (b)(2) and (3);
0
f. Revising newly designated paragraph (b)(3); and
0
g. Revising paragraph (d).
    The revisions read as follows:

Sec.  60.62  Standards.

    (a) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (ii) 0.02 pound per ton of clinker if construction or 
reconstruction of the kiln commenced after June 16, 2008.
    (iii) Kilns that have undergone a modification may not discharge 
into the atmosphere any gases which contain PM in excess of 0.07 pound 
per ton of clinker.
* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (i) 0.02 pound per ton of clinker if construction or reconstruction 
of the clinker cooler commences after June 16, 2008.
    (ii) 0.07 pound per ton of clinker if the clinker cooler has 
undergone a modification.
* * * * *
    (3) If the kiln has a separated alkali bypass stack and/or an 
inline coal mill with a separate stack, you must combine the PM 
emissions from the bypass stack and/or the inline coal mill stack with 
the PM emissions from the main kiln exhaust to determine total PM 
emissions.
* * * * *
    (d) If you have an affected source subject to this subpart with a 
different emissions limit or requirement for the same pollutant under 
another regulation in title 40 of this chapter, you must comply with 
the most stringent emissions limit or requirement and are not subject 
to the less stringent requirement.

0
4. Section 60.63 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (b)(1)(i) and (ii);
0
b. Adding paragraph (b)(1)(iii);
0
c. Revising paragraphs (b)(2) and (3);
0
d. Removing paragraph (b)(4);
0
e. Revising paragraphs (c) through (f);
0
f. Revising paragraph (g) introductory text;
0
g. Revising paragraph (g)(2);
0
h. Revising paragraph (h) introductory text;
0
i. Revising paragraphs (h)(1) and (6);
0
j. Revising paragraph (h)(7) introductory text;
0
k. Revising paragraph (h)(8) introductory text;
0
l. Revising paragraph (h)(9);
0
m. Revising paragraph (i) introductory text; and
0
n. Revising paragraph (i)(1) introductory text and (i)(1)(i).
    The revisions and addition read as follows:

Sec.  60.63  Monitoring of operations.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (i) Install, calibrate, maintain, and operate a permanent weigh 
scale system to measure and record weight rates of the amount of 
clinker produced in tons of mass per hour. The system of measuring 
hourly clinker production must be maintained within 5 
percent accuracy or
    (ii) Install, calibrate, maintain, and operate a permanent weigh 
scale system to measure and record weight rates of the amount of feed 
to the kiln in tons of mass per hour. The system of measuring feed must 
be maintained within 5 percent accuracy. Calculate your 
hourly clinker production rate using a kiln specific feed-to-clinker 
ratio based on reconciled clinker production rates determined for 
accounting purposes and recorded feed rates. This ratio should be 
updated monthly. Note that if this ratio changes at clinker 
reconciliation, you must use the new ratio going forward, but you do 
not have to retroactively change clinker production rates previously 
estimated.
    (iii) For each kiln operating hour for which you do not have data 
on clinker production or the amount of feed to the kiln, use the value 
from the most recent previous hour for which valid data are available.
    (2) Determine, record, and maintain a record of the accuracy of the 
system of measuring hourly clinker production rates or feed rates 
before initial use (for new sources) or by the effective compliance 
date of this rule (for existing sources). During each quarter of source 
operation, you must determine, record, and maintain a record of the 
ongoing accuracy of the system of measuring hourly clinker production 
rates or feed rates.
    (3) If you measure clinker production directly, record the daily 
clinker production rates; if you measure the kiln feed rates and 
calculate clinker production, record the daily kiln feed and clinker 
production rates.
    (c) PM Emissions Monitoring Requirements. (1) For each kiln or 
clinker cooler subject to a PM emissions limit in Sec.  60.62, you must 
demonstrate compliance through an initial performance test. You will 
conduct your performance test using Method 5 or Method 5I at appendix 
A-3 to part 60 of this chapter. You must also monitor continuous 
performance through use of

[[Page 10033]]

a PM continuous parametric monitoring system (PM CPMS).
    (2) For your PM CPMS, you will establish a site-specific operating 
limit. If your PM performance test demonstrates your PM emission levels 
to be below 75 percent of your emission limit you will use the average 
PM CPMS value recorded during the PM compliance test, the milliamp 
equivalent of zero output from your PM CPMS, and the average PM result 
of your compliance test to establish your operating limit equivalent to 
75 percent of the standard. If your PM compliance test demonstrates 
your PM emission levels to be at or above 75 percent of your emission 
limit you will use the average PM CPMS value recorded during the PM 
compliance test demonstrating compliance with the PM limit to establish 
your operating limit. You will use the PM CPMS to demonstrate 
continuous compliance with your operating limit. You must repeat the 
performance test annually and reassess and adjust the site-specific 
operating limit in accordance with the results of the performance test.
    (i) Your PM CPMS must provide a 4-20 milliamp output and the 
establishment of its relationship to manual reference method 
measurements must be determined in units of milliamps.
    (ii) Your PM CPMS operating range must be capable of reading PM 
concentrations from zero to a level equivalent to two times your 
allowable emission limit. If your PM CPMS is an auto-ranging instrument 
capable of multiple scales, the primary range of the instrument must be 
capable of reading PM concentration from zero to a level equivalent to 
two times your allowable emission limit.
    (iii) During the initial performance test or any such subsequent 
performance test that demonstrates compliance with the PM limit, record 
and average all milliamp output values from the PM CPMS for the periods 
corresponding to the compliance test runs (e.g., average all your PM 
CPMS output values for three corresponding 2-hour Method 5I test runs).
    (3) Determine your operating limit as specified in paragraphs 
(c)(4)(i) through (c)(5) of this section. If your PM performance test 
demonstrates your PM emission levels to be below 75 percent of your 
emission limit you will use the average PM CPMS value recorded during 
the PM compliance test, the milliamp equivalent of zero output from 
your PM CPMS, and the average PM result of your compliance test to 
establish your operating limit. If your PM compliance test demonstrates 
your PM emission levels to be at or above 75 percent of your emission 
limit you will use the average PM CPMS value recorded during the PM 
compliance test to establish your operating limit. You must verify an 
existing or establish a new operating limit after each repeated 
performance test. You must repeat the performance test at least 
annually and reassess and adjust the site-specific operating limit in 
accordance with the results of the performance test.
    (4) If the average of your three Method 5 or 5I compliance test 
runs are below 75 percent of your PM emission limit, you must calculate 
an operating limit by establishing a relationship of PM CPMS signal to 
PM concentration using the PM CPMS instrument zero, the average PM CPMS 
values corresponding to the three compliance test runs, and the average 
PM concentration from the Method 5 or 5I compliance test with the 
procedures in (c)(4)(i)(A) through (D) of this section.
    (i) Determine your PM CPMS instrument zero output with one of the 
following procedures.
    (A) Zero point data for in-situ instruments should be obtained by 
removing the instrument from the stack and monitoring ambient air on a 
test bench.
    (B) Zero point data for extractive instruments should be obtained 
by removing the extractive probe from the stack and drawing in clean 
ambient air.
    (C) The zero point can also can be obtained by performing manual 
reference method measurements when the flue gas is free of PM emissions 
or contains very low PM concentrations (e.g., when your process is not 
operating, but the fans are operating or your source is combusting only 
natural gas) and plotting these with the compliance data to find the 
zero intercept.
    (D) If none of the steps in paragraphs (c)(4)(i)(A) through (C) of 
this section are possible, you must use a zero output value provided by 
the manufacturer.
    (ii) Determine your PM CPMS instrument average in milliamps, and 
the average of your corresponding three PM compliance test runs, using 
equation 1.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12FE13.000

Where:

X1 = The PM CPMS data points for the three runs constituting the 
performance test,
Y1 = The PM concentration value for the three runs constituting the 
performance test, and
n = The number of data points.

    (iii) With your PM CPMS instrument zero expressed in milliamps, 
your three run average PM CPMS milliamp value, and your three run 
average PM concentration from your three PM performance test runs, 
determine a relationship of lb/ton-clinker per milliamp with equation 
2.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12FE13.001

Where:

R = The relative lb/ton clinker per milliamp for your PM CPMS.
Y1 = The three run average PM lb/ton clinker.
X1 = The three run average milliamp output from you PM CPMS.
z = the milliamp equivalent of your instrument zero determined from 
(c)(4)(i) of this section.

    (iv) Determine your source specific 30-day rolling average 
operating limit using the lb/ton-clinker per milliamp value from 
Equation 2 above in Equation 3, below. This sets your operating limit 
at the PM CPMS output value corresponding to 75 percent of your 
emission limit.

[[Page 10034]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12FE13.002

Where:

Ol = The operating limit for your PM CPMS on a 30-day 
rolling average, in milliamps.
L = Your source emission limit expressed in lb/ton clinker.
z = Your instrument zero in milliamps, determined from (1)(i).
R = The relative lb/ton-clinker per milliamp for your PM CPMS, from 
Equation 2.

    (5) If the average of your three PM compliance test runs is at or 
above 75 percent of your PM emission limit you must determine your 
operating limit by averaging the PM CPMS milliamp output corresponding 
to your three PM performance test runs that demonstrate compliance with 
the emission limit using Equation 4.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12FE13.003

Where:

X1 = The PM CPMS data points for all runs i.
n = The number of data points.
Oh = Your site specific operating limit, in milliamps.

    (6) To determine continuous compliance, you must record the PM CPMS 
output data for all periods when the process is operating, and use all 
the PM CPMS data for calculations when the source is not out-of-
control. You must demonstrate continuous compliance by using all 
quality-assured hourly average data collected by the PM CPMS for all 
operating hours to calculate the arithmetic average operating parameter 
in units of the operating limit (milliamps) on a 30 operating day 
rolling average basis, updated at the end of each new kiln operating 
day. Use Equation 5 to determine the 30 kiln operating day average.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12FE13.004

Where:

Hpvi = The hourly parameter value for hour i.
n = The number of valid hourly parameter values collected over 30 
kiln operating days.

    (7) Use EPA Method 5 or Method 5I of appendix A to part 60 of this 
chapter to determine PM emissions. For each performance test, conduct 
at least three separate runs under the conditions that exist when the 
affected source is operating at the highest load or capacity level 
reasonably expected to occur. Conduct each test run to collect a 
minimum sample volume of 2 dscm for determining compliance with a new 
source limit and 1 dscm for determining compliance with an existing 
source limit. Calculate the average of the results from three 
consecutive runs to determine compliance. You need not determine the 
particulate matter collected in the impingers (``back half'') of the 
Method 5 or Method 5I particulate sampling train to demonstrate 
compliance with the PM standards of this subpart. This shall not 
preclude the permitting authority from requiring a determination of the 
''back half'' for other purposes.
    (8) For PM performance test reports used to set a PM CPMS operating 
limit, the electronic submission of the test report must also include 
the make and model of the PM CPMS instrument, serial number of the 
instrument, analytical principle of the instrument (e.g. beta 
attenuation), span of the instruments primary analytical range, 
milliamp value equivalent to the instrument zero output, technique by 
which this zero value was determined, and the average milliamp signals 
corresponding to each PM compliance test run.
    (d) You must install, operate, calibrate, and maintain a CEMS 
continuously monitoring and recording the concentration by volume of 
NOX emissions into the atmosphere for any kiln subject to 
the NOX emissions limit in Sec.  60.62(a)(3). If the kiln 
has an alkali bypass, NOX emissions from the alkali bypass 
do not need to be monitored, and NOX emission monitoring of 
the kiln exhaust may be done upstream of any commingled alkali bypass 
gases.
    (e) You must install, operate, calibrate, and maintain a CEMS for 
continuously monitoring and recording the concentration by volume of 
SO2 emissions into the atmosphere for any kiln subject to 
the SO2 emissions limit in Sec.  60.62(a)(4). If you are 
complying with the alternative 90 percent SO2 emissions 
reduction emissions limit, you must also continuously monitor and 
record the concentration by volume of SO2 present at the wet 
scrubber inlet.
    (f) The NOX and SO2 CEMS required under 
paragraphs (d) and (e) of this section must be installed, operated and 
maintained according to Performance Specification 2 of appendix B of 
this part and the requirements in paragraphs (f)(1) through (5) of this 
section.
    (1) The span value of each NOX CEMS monitor must be set 
at 125 percent of the maximum estimated hourly potential NOX 
emission concentration that translates to the applicable emissions 
limit at full clinker production capacity.
    (2) You must conduct performance evaluations of each NOX 
CEMS monitor according to the requirements in Sec.  60.13(c) and 
Performance Specification 2 of appendix B to this part. You must use 
Methods 7, 7A, 7C, 7D, or 7E of appendix A-4 to this part for 
conducting the relative accuracy evaluations. The method ASME PTC 
19.10-1981, ``Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses,'' (incorporated by 
reference--see Sec.  60.17) is an acceptable alternative to Method 7 or 
7C of appendix A-4 to this part.
    (3) The span value for the SO2 CEMS monitor is the 
SO2 emission concentration that corresponds to 125 percent 
of the applicable emissions limit at full clinker production capacity

[[Page 10035]]

and the expected maximum fuel sulfur content.
    (4) You must conduct performance evaluations of each SO2 
CEMS monitor according to the requirements in Sec.  60.13(c) and 
Performance Specification 2 of appendix B to this part. You must use 
Methods 6, 6A, or 6C of appendix A-4 to this part for conducting the 
relative accuracy evaluations. The method ASME PTC 19.10-1981, ``Flue 
and Exhaust Gas Analyses,'' (incorporated by reference--see Sec.  
60.17) is an acceptable alternative to Method 6 or 6A of appendix A-4 
to this part.
    (5) You must comply with the quality assurance requirements in 
Procedure 1 of appendix F to this part for each NOX and 
SO2 CEMS, including quarterly accuracy determinations for 
monitors, and daily calibration drift tests.
    (g) For each CPMS or CEMS required under paragraphs (c) through (e) 
of this section:
* * * * *
    (2) You may not use data recorded during the monitoring system 
malfunctions, repairs associated with monitoring system malfunctions, 
or required monitoring system quality assurance or control activities 
in calculations used to report emissions or operating levels. A 
monitoring system malfunction is any sudden, infrequent, not reasonably 
preventable failure of the monitoring system to provide valid data. 
Monitoring system failures that are caused in part by poor maintenance 
or careless operation are not malfunctions. An owner or operator must 
use all the data collected during all other periods in reporting 
emissions or operating levels.
* * * * *
    (h) You must install, operate, calibrate, and maintain instruments 
for continuously measuring and recording the stack gas flow rate to 
allow determination of the pollutant mass emissions rate to the 
atmosphere for each kiln subject to the PM emissions limits in Sec.  
60.62(a)(1)(ii) and (iii) and (b)(1)(i) and (ii), the NOX 
emissions limit in Sec.  60.62(a)(3), or the SO2 emissions 
limit in Sec.  60.62(a)(4) according to the requirements in paragraphs 
(h)(1) through (10), where appropriate, of this section.
    (1) The owner or operator must install each sensor of the flow rate 
monitoring system in a location that provides representative 
measurement of the exhaust gas flow rate at the sampling location of 
the NOX and/or SO2 CEMS, taking into account the 
manufacturer's recommendations. The flow rate sensor is that portion of 
the system that senses the volumetric flow rate and generates an output 
proportional to that flow rate.
* * * * *
    (6) The flow rate monitoring system must be designed to measure a 
minimum of one cycle of operational flow for each successive 15-minute 
period.
    (7) The flow rate sensor must be able to determine the daily zero 
and upscale calibration drift (CD) (see sections 3.1 and 8.3 of 
Performance Specification 2 in appendix B to this part for a discussion 
of CD).
* * * * *
    (8) You must perform an initial relative accuracy test of the flow 
rate monitoring system according to section 8.2 of Performance 
Specification 6 of appendix B to this part, with the exceptions noted 
in paragraphs (h)(8)(i) and (ii) of this section.
* * * * *
    (9) You must verify the accuracy of the flow rate monitoring system 
at least once per year by repeating the relative accuracy test 
specified in paragraph (h)(8) of this section.
* * * * *
    (i) Development and Submittal (Upon Request) of Monitoring Plans. 
To demonstrate compliance with any applicable emissions limit through 
performance stack testing or other emissions monitoring (including PM 
CPMS), you must develop a site-specific monitoring plan according to 
the requirements in paragraphs (i)(1) through (4) of this section. This 
requirement also applies to you if you petition the EPA Administrator 
for alternative monitoring parameters under Sec.  60.13(3)(i). If you 
use a bag leak detector system (BLDS), you must also meet the 
requirements specified in paragraph Sec.  63.1350(m)(10) of this 
chapter.
    (1) For each continuous monitoring system (CMS) required in this 
section, you must develop, and submit to the permitting authority for 
approval upon request, a site-specific monitoring plan that addresses 
paragraphs (i)(1)(i) through (iii) of this section. You must submit 
this site-specific monitoring plan, if requested, at least 30 days 
before the initial performance evaluation of your CMS.
    (i) Installation of the CMS sampling probe or other interface at a 
measurement location relative to each affected process unit such that 
the measurement is representative of control of the exhaust emissions 
(e.g., on or downstream of the last control device);
* * * * *

0
5. Section 60.64 is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  60.64  Test methods and procedures.

    (a) In conducting the performance tests and relative accuracy tests 
required in Sec.  60.8, you must use reference methods and procedures 
and the test methods in appendix A of this part or other methods and 
procedures as specified in this section, except as provided in Sec.  
60.8(b).
    (b)(1)You must demonstrate compliance with the PM standards in 
Sec.  60.62 using EPA method 5 or method 5I.
    (2) Use Method 9 and the procedures in Sec.  60.11 to determine 
opacity.
    (3) Any sources other than kilns (including associated alkali 
bypass and clinker cooler) that are subject to the 10 percent opacity 
limit must follow the appropriate monitoring procedures in Sec.  
63.1350(f), (m)(1)through (4), (10) and (11), (o), and (p) of this 
chapter.
    (c) Calculate and record the rolling 30 kiln operating day average 
emission rate daily of NOX and SO2 according to 
the procedures in paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of this section.
    (1) Calculate the rolling 30 kiln operating day average emissions 
according to equation 6:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12FE13.005

[[Page 10036]]

Where:

E30D = 30 kiln operating day average emission rate of 
NOX or SO2, lb/ton of clinker.
Ci = Concentration of NOX or SO2 
for hour i, ppm.
Qi = Volumetric flow rate of effluent gas for hour i, 
where
Ci and Qi are on the same basis (either wet or 
dry), scf/hr.
P = 30 days of clinker production during the same time period as the 
NOX or SO2 emissions measured, tons.
k = Conversion factor, 1.194 x 10\-7\ for NOX and 1.660 x 
10\-7\ for SO2, lb/scf/ppm.
n = Number of kiln operating hours over 30 kiln operating days.

    (2) For each kiln operating hour for which you do not have at least 
one valid 15-minute CEMS data value, use the average emissions rate 
(lb/hr) from the most recent previous hour for which valid data are 
available.
    (d)(1) Within 60 days after the date of completing each performance 
test (see Sec.  60.8) as required by this subpart you must submit the 
results of the performance tests conducted to demonstrate compliance 
under this subpart to the EPA's WebFIRE database by using the 
Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI) that is 
accessed through the EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX) (http://www.epa.gov/cdx). Performance test data must be submitted in the file 
format generated through use of the EPA's Electronic Reporting Tool 
(ERT) (see http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/index.html). Only data 
collected using test methods on the ERT Web site are subject to this 
requirement for submitting reports electronically to WebFIRE. Owners or 
operators who claim that some of the information being submitted for 
performance tests is confidential business information (CBI) must 
submit a complete ERT file including information claimed to be CBI on a 
compact disk, flash drive or other commonly used electronic storage 
media to the EPA. The electronic media must be clearly marked as CBI 
and mailed to U.S. EPA/OAPQS/CORE CBI Office, Attention: WebFIRE 
Administrator, MD C404-02, 4930 Old Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703. The 
same ERT file with the CBI omitted must be submitted to the EPA via CDX 
as described earlier in this paragraph. At the discretion of the 
delegated authority, you must also submit these reports, including the 
CBI, to the delegated authority in the format specified by the 
delegated authority. For any performance test conducted using test 
methods that are not listed on the ERT Web site, you must submit the 
results of the performance test to the Administrator at the appropriate 
address listed in Sec.  63.13.
    (2) Within 60 days after the date of completing each CEMS 
performance evaluation test as defined in Sec.  63.2, you must submit 
relative accuracy test audit (RATA) data to the EPA's CDX by using 
CEDRI in accordance with paragraph (d)(1) of this section. Only RATA 
pollutants that can be documented with the ERT (as listed on the ERT 
Web site) are subject to this requirement. For any performance 
evaluations with no corresponding RATA pollutants listed on the ERT Web 
site, you must submit the results of the performance evaluation to the 
Administrator at the appropriate address listed in Sec.  63.13.
    (3) For PM performance test reports used to set a PM CPMS operating 
limit, the electronic submission of the test report must also include 
the make and model of the PM CPMS instrument, serial number of the 
instrument, analytical principle of the instrument (e.g. beta 
attenuation), span of the instruments primary analytical range, 
milliamp value equivalent to the instrument zero output, technique by 
which this zero value was determined, and the average milliamp signals 
corresponding to each PM compliance test run.
    (4) All reports required by this subpart not subject to the 
requirements in paragraphs (d)(1) and (2) of this section must be sent 
to the Administrator at the appropriate address listed in Sec.  63.13. 
The Administrator or the delegated authority may request a report in 
any form suitable for the specific case (e.g., by commonly used 
electronic media such as Excel spreadsheet, on CD or hard copy). The 
Administrator retains the right to require submittal of reports subject 
to paragraph (d)(1) and (2) of this section in paper format.

0
6. Section 60.65 is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  60.65  Recordkeeping and reporting requirements.

    (a) Each owner or operator required to install a CPMS or CEMS under 
sections Sec.  60.63(c) through (e) shall submit reports of excess 
emissions. The content of these reports must comply with the 
requirements in Sec.  60.7(c). Notwithstanding the provisions of Sec.  
60.7(c), such reports shall be submitted semiannually.
    (b) Each owner or operator of facilities subject to the provisions 
of Sec.  60.63(c) through (e) shall submit semiannual reports of the 
malfunction information required to be recorded by Sec.  60.7(b). These 
reports shall include the frequency, duration, and cause of any 
incident resulting in deenergization of any device controlling kiln 
emissions or in the venting of emissions directly to the atmosphere.
    (c) The requirements of this section remain in force until and 
unless the Agency, in delegating enforcement authority to a State under 
section 111(c) of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7411, approves reporting 
requirements or an alternative means of compliance surveillance adopted 
by such States. In that event, affected sources within the State will 
be relieved of the obligation to comply with this section, provided 
that they comply with the requirements established by the State.

0
7. Section 60.66 is amended by revising paragraph (b) introductory text 
to read as follows:

Sec.  60.66  Delegation of authority.

* * * * *
    (b) In delegating implementation and enforcement authority to a 
State, local, or tribal agency, the approval authorities contained in 
paragraphs (b)(1) through (4) of this section are retained by the 
Administrator of the U.S EPA and are not transferred to the State, 
local, or tribal agency.
* * * * *

PART 63--NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS 
FOR SOURCE CATEGORIES

0
8. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart LLL--[Amended]

0
9. Section 63.1340 is amended by revising paragraphs (b)(1), (b)(6) 
through (9), and (c) to read as follows:

Sec.  63.1340  What parts of my plant does this subpart cover?

* * * * *
    (b) * * *:
    (1) Each kiln including alkali bypasses and inline coal mills, 
except for kilns that burn hazardous waste and are subject to and 
regulated under subpart EEE of this part;
* * * * *
    (6) Each raw material, clinker, or finished product storage bin at 
any portland cement plant that is a major source;
    (7) Each conveying system transfer point including those associated 
with coal preparation used to convey coal from the mill to the kiln at 
any portland cement plant that is a major source;
    (8) Each bagging and bulk loading and unloading system at any 
portland cement plant that is a major source; and

[[Page 10037]]

    (9) Each open clinker storage pile at any portland cement plant.
    (c) Onsite sources that are subject to standards for nonmetallic 
mineral processing plants in subpart OOO, part 60 of this chapter are 
not subject to this subpart. Crushers are not covered by this subpart 
regardless of their location.
* * * * *

0
10. Section 63.1341 is amended by:
0
a. Removing definitions of ``Enclosed storage pile,'' and ``Inactive 
clinker pile'';
0
b. Adding a definition for ``In-line coal mill,'' ``Open clinker 
storage pile,'' ``Startup,'' and ``Shutdown'' in alphabetical order; 
and
0
c. Revising definitions for ``Kiln,'' ``New source,'' ``Operating 
day,'' ``Raw material dryer,'' and ``Total organic HAP,''.
    The additions and revisions read as follows:

Sec.  63.1341  Definitions.

* * * * *
    In-line coal mill means those coal mills using kiln exhaust gases 
in their process. Coal mills with a heat source other than the kiln or 
coal mills using exhaust gases from the clinker cooler are not an in-
line coal mill.
* * * * *
    Kiln means a device, including any associated preheater or 
precalciner devices, inline raw mills, inline coal mills or alkali 
bypasses that produces clinker by heating limestone and other materials 
for subsequent production of portland cement. Because the inline raw 
mill and inline coal mill are considered an integral part of the kiln, 
for purposes of determining the appropriate emissions limit, the term 
kiln also applies to the exhaust of the inline raw mill and the inline 
coal mill.
* * * * *
    New source means any source that commenced construction or 
reconstruction after May 6, 2009, for purposes of determining the 
applicability of the kiln, clinker cooler and raw material dryer 
emissions limits for mercury, PM, THC, and HCl.
* * * * *
    Open clinker storage pile means a clinker storage pile on the 
ground for more than three days that is not completely enclosed in a 
building or structure.
    Operating day means any 24-hour period beginning at 12:00 midnight 
during which the kiln operates for any time. For calculating the 
rolling 30-day average emissions, kiln operating days do not include 
the hours of operation during startup or shutdown.
* * * * *
    Raw material dryer means an impact dryer, drum dryer, paddle-
equipped rapid dryer, air separator, or other equipment used to reduce 
the moisture content of feed or other materials.
* * * * *
    Shutdown means the cessation of kiln operation. Shutdown begins 
when feed to the kiln is halted and ends when continuous kiln rotation 
ceases.
* * * * *
    Startup means the time from when a shutdown kiln first begins 
firing fuel until it begins producing clinker. Startup begins when a 
shutdown kiln turns on the induced draft fan and begins firing fuel in 
the main burner. Startup ends when feed is being continuously 
introduced into the kiln for at least 120 minutes or when the feed rate 
exceeds 60 percent of the kiln design limitation rate, whichever occurs 
first.
* * * * *
    Total organic HAP means, for the purposes of this subpart, the sum 
of the concentrations of compounds of formaldehyde, benzene, toluene, 
styrene, m-xylene, p-xylene, o-xylene, acetaldehyde, and naphthalene as 
measured by EPA Test Method 320 or Method 18 of appendix A to this part 
or ASTM D6348-03 \1\ or a combination of these methods, as appropriate. 
If measurement results for any pollutant are reported as below the 
method detection level (e.g., laboratory analytical results for one or 
more sample components are below the method defined analytical 
detection level), you must use the method detection level as the 
measured emissions level for that pollutant in calculating the total 
organic HAP value. The measured result for a multiple component 
analysis (e.g., analytical values for multiple Method 18 fractions) may 
include a combination of method detection level data and analytical 
data reported above the method detection level. The owner or operator 
of an affected source may request the use of other test methods to make 
this determination under paragraphs 63.7(e)(2)(ii) and (f) of this 
part.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ When using ASTM D6348-03, the following conditions must be 
met:
    (1) The test plan preparation and implementation in the Annexes 
to ASTM D6348-03, Sections A1 through A8 are mandatory; (2) For ASTM 
D6348-03 Annex A5 (Analyte Spiking Technique), the percent R must be 
determined for each target analyte (see Equation A5.5); (3) For the 
ASTM D6348-03 test data to be acceptable for a target analyte 
percent R must be 70 percent >= R <= 130 percent; and (4) The 
percent R value for each compound must be reported in the test 
report and all field measurements corrected with the calculated 
percent R value for that compound using the following equation: 
Reported Result = The measured concentration in the stack divided by 
the calculated percent R value and then the whole term multiplied by 
100.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *

0
11. Section 63.1343 is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  63.1343  What standards apply to my kilns, clinker coolers, raw 
material dryers, and open clinker storage piles?

    (a) General. The provisions in this section apply to each kiln and 
any alkali bypass associated with that kiln, clinker cooler, raw 
material dryer, and open clinker storage pile. All D/F, HCl, and total 
hydrocarbon (THC) emissions limit are on a dry basis. The D/F, HCl, and 
THC limits for kilns are corrected to 7 percent oxygen. All THC 
emissions limits are measured as propane. Standards for mercury and THC 
are based on a rolling 30-day average. If using a CEMS to determine 
compliance with the HCl standard, this standard is based on a rolling 
30-day average. You must ensure appropriate corrections for moisture 
are made when measuring flow rates used to calculate mercury emissions. 
The 30-day period means 30 consecutive kiln operating days excluding 
periods of startup and shutdown. All emissions limits for kilns, 
clinker coolers, and raw material dryers currently in effect that are 
superseded by the limits below continue to apply until the compliance 
date of the limits below, or until the source certifies compliance with 
the limits below, whichever is earlier.
    (b) Kilns, clinker coolers, raw material dryers, raw mills, and 
finish mills. (1) The emissions limits for these sources are shown in 
Table 1 below. PM limits for existing kilns also apply to kilns that 
have undergone a modification as defined in subpart A of part 60 of 
title 40.

[[Page 10038]]

                             Table 1--Emissions Limits for Kilns, Clinker Coolers, Raw Material Dryers, Raw and Finish Mills
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                             And the units of the  The oxygen correction
                     If your source is a     And the operating   And if is located at     Your emissions     emissions limit are:        factor is:
                            (an):                mode is:                 a:                limits are:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.................  Existing kiln........  Normal operation....  Major or area source  PM \1\ 0.07.........  lb/ton clinker......  NA.
                                                                                       D/F \2\ 0.2.........  ng/dscm (TEQ).......  7 percent.
                                                                                       Mercury 55..........  lb/MM tons clinker..  NA.
                                                                                       THC 3 4 24..........  ppmvd...............  7 percent.
2.................  Existing kiln........  Normal operation....  Major source........  HCl 3...............  ppmvd...............  7 percent.
3.................  Existing kiln........  Startup and shutdown  Major or area source  Work practices......  NA..................  NA.
                                                                                       (63.1346(f))........
4.................  New kiln.............  Normal operation....  Major or area source  PM 0.02.............  lb/ton clinker......  NA.
                                                                                       D/F \2\ 0.2.........  ng/dscm (TEQ).......  7 percent.
                                                                                       Mercury 21..........  lb/MM tons clinker..  NA
                                                                                       THC 3 4 24..........  ppmvd...............  7 percent.
5.................  New kiln.............  Normal operation....  Major source........  HCl 3...............  ppmvd...............  7 percent.
6.................  New kiln.............  Startup and shutdown  Major or area source  Work practices......  NA..................  NA.
                                                                                       (63.1346(f))........
7.................  Existing clinker       Normal operation....  Major or area source  PM 0.07.............  lb/ton clinker......  NA.
                     cooler.
8.................  Existing clinker       Startup and shutdown  Major or area source  Work practices......  NA..................  NA.
                     cooler.                                                           (63.1348(b)(9)).....
9.................  New clinker cooler...  Normal operation....  Major or area source  PM 0.02.............  lb/ton clinker......  NA.
10................  New clinker cooler...  Startup and shutdown  Major or area source  Work practices......  NA..................  NA.
                                                                                       (63.1348(b)(9)).....
11................  Existing or new raw    Normal operation....  Major or area source  THC 3 4 24..........  ppmvd...............  NA.
                     material dryer.
12................  Existing or new raw    Startup and shutdown  Major or area source  Work practices......  NA..................  NA.
                     material dryer.                                                   (63.1348(b)(9)).....
13................  Existing or new raw    All operating modes.  Major source........  Opacity 10..........  percent.............  NA.
                     or finish mill.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The initial and subsequent PM performance tests are performed using Method 5 or 5I and consist of three 1-hr tests.
\2\ If the average temperature at the inlet to the first PM control device (fabric filter or electrostatic precipitator) during the D/F performance test
  is 400 [deg]F or less this limit is changed to 0.40 ng/dscm (TEQ).
\3\ Measured as propane.
\4\ Any source subject to the 24 ppmvd THC limit may elect to meet an alternative limit of 12 ppmvd for total organic HAP.

    (2) When there is an alkali bypass and/or an inline coal mill with 
a separate stack associated with a kiln, the combined PM emissions from 
the kiln and the alkali bypass stack and/or the inline coal mill stack 
are subject to the PM emissions limit. Existing kilns that combine the 
clinker cooler exhaust and/or coal mill exhaust with the kiln exhaust 
and send the combined exhaust to the PM control device as a single 
stream may meet an alternative PM emissions limit. This limit is 
calculated using Equation 1 of this section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12FE13.006

Where:

PMalt = Alternative PM emission limit for commingled 
sources.
0.006 = The PM exhaust concentration (gr/dscf) equivalent to 0.070 
lb per ton clinker where clinker cooler and kiln exhaust gas are not 
combined.
1.65 = The conversion factor of ton feed per ton clinker.
Qk = The exhaust flow of the kiln (dscf/ton feed).
Qc = The exhaust flow of the clinker cooler (dscf/ton 
feed).
Qab = The exhaust flow of the alkali bypass (dscf/ton 
feed).
Qcm = The exhaust flow of the coal mill (dscf/ton feed).
7000 = The conversion factor for grains (gr) per lb.

    For new kilns that combine kiln exhaust and clinker cooler gas the 
limit is calculated using the Equation 2 of this section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12FE13.007

Where:

PMalt = Alternative PM emission limit for commingled 
sources.
0.002 = The PM exhaust concentration (gr/dscf) equivalent to 0.020 
lb per ton clinker where clinker cooler and kiln exhaust gas are not 
combined.
1.65 = The conversion factor of ton feed per ton clinker.
Qk = The exhaust flow of the kiln (dscf/ton feed).
Qc = The exhaust flow of the clinker cooler (dscf/ton 
feed).
Qab = The exhaust flow of the alkali bypass (dscf/ton 
feed).
Qcm = The exhaust flow of the coal mill (dscf/ton feed).
7000 = The conversion factor for gr per lb.

    (c) Open clinker storage pile. The owner or operator of an open 
clinker storage pile must prepare, and operate in accordance with, the 
fugitive dust emissions control measures, described in their operation 
and maintenance plan (see Sec.  63.1347 of this subpart), that is 
appropriate for the site conditions as specified in paragraphs (c)(1) 
through

[[Page 10039]]

(3) of this section. The operation and maintenance plan must also 
describe the measures that will be used to minimize fugitive dust 
emissions from piles of clinker, such as accidental spillage, that are 
not part of open clinker storage piles.
    (1) The operation and maintenance plan must identify and describe 
the location of each current or future open clinker storage pile and 
the fugitive dust emissions control measures the owner or operator will 
use to minimize fugitive dust emissions from each open clinker storage 
pile.
    (2) For open clinker storage piles, the operations and maintenance 
plan must specify that one or more of the following control measures 
will be used to minimize to the greatest extent practicable fugitive 
dust from open clinker storage piles: Locating the source inside a 
partial enclosure, installing and operating a water spray or fogging 
system, applying appropriate chemical dust suppression agents, use of a 
wind barrier, compaction, use of tarpaulin or other equally effective 
cover or use of a vegetative cover. You must select, for inclusion in 
the operations and maintenance plan, the fugitive dust control measure 
or measures listed in this paragraph that are most appropriate for site 
conditions. The plan must also explain how the measure or measures 
selected are applicable and appropriate for site conditions. In 
addition, the plan must be revised as needed to reflect any changing 
conditions at the source.
    (3) Temporary piles of clinker that result from accidental spillage 
or clinker storage cleaning operations must be cleaned up within 3 
days.
    (d) Emission limits in effect prior to September 9, 2010. Any 
source defined as an existing source in Sec.  63.1351, and that was 
subject to a PM, mercury, THC, D/F, or opacity emissions limit prior to 
September 9, 2010, must continue to meet the limits shown in Table 2 to 
this section until September 9, 2015.

0
12. Section 63.1344 is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  63.1344  Affirmative Defense for Violation of Emission Standards 
During Malfunction.

    In response to an action to enforce the standards set forth in 
Sec.  63.1343(b) and (c) and Sec.  63.1345 and you may assert an 
affirmative defense to a claim for civil penalties for violations of 
such standards that are caused by malfunction, as defined at 40 CFR 
63.2. Appropriate penalties may be assessed if you fail to meet your 
burden of proving all of the requirements in the affirmative defense. 
The affirmative defense shall not be available for claims for 
injunctive relief.
    (a) Assertion of affirmative defense. To establish the affirmative 
defense in any action to enforce such a standard, you must timely meet 
the reporting requirements in paragraph (b) of this section, and must 
prove by a preponderance of evidence that:
    (1) The violation:
    (i) Was caused by a sudden, infrequent, and unavoidable failure of 
air pollution control equipment, process equipment, or a process to 
operate in a normal or usual manner; and
    (ii) Could not have been prevented through careful planning, proper 
design or better operation and maintenance practices; and
    (iii) Did not stem from any activity or event that could have been 
foreseen and avoided, or planned for; and
    (iv) Was not part of a recurring pattern indicative of inadequate 
design, operation, or maintenance; and
    (2) Repairs were made as expeditiously as possible when a violation 
occurred; and
    (3) The frequency, amount, and duration of the violation (including 
any bypass) were minimized to the maximum extent practicable; and
    (4) If the violation resulted from a bypass of control equipment or 
a process, then the bypass was unavoidable to prevent loss of life, 
personal injury, or severe property damage; and
    (5) All possible steps were taken to minimize the impact of the 
violation on ambient air quality, the environment, and human health; 
and
    (6) All emissions monitoring and control systems were kept in 
operation if at all possible, consistent with safety and good air 
pollution control practices; and
    (7) All of the actions in response to the violation were documented 
by properly signed, contemporaneous operating logs; and
    (8) At all times, the affected source was operated in a manner 
consistent with good practices for minimizing emissions; and
    (9) A written root cause analysis has been prepared, the purpose of 
which is to determine, correct, and eliminate the primary causes of the 
malfunction and the violation resulting from the malfunction event at 
issue. The analysis shall also specify, using best monitoring methods 
and engineering judgment, the amount of any emissions that were the 
result of the malfunction.
    (b) Report. The owner or operator seeking to assert an affirmative 
defense shall submit a written report to the Administrator with all 
necessary supporting documentation, that it has met the requirements 
set forth in paragraph (a) of this section. This affirmative defense 
report shall be included in the first periodic compliance, deviation 
report or excess emission report otherwise required after the initial 
occurrence of the violation of the relevant standard (which may be the 
end of any applicable averaging period). If such compliance, deviation 
report or excess emission report is due less than 45 days after the 
initial occurrence of the violation, the affirmative defense report may 
be included in the second compliance, deviation report or excess 
emission report due after the initial occurrence of the violation of 
the relevant standard.

0
13. Section 63.1345 is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  63.1345  Emissions limits for affected sources other than kilns; 
clinker coolers; new and reconstructed raw material dryers.

    The owner or operator of each new or existing raw material, 
clinker, or finished product storage bin; conveying system transfer 
point; bagging system; bulk loading or unloading system; raw and finish 
mills; and each existing raw material dryer, at a facility which is a 
major source subject to the provisions of this subpart must not cause 
to be discharged any gases from these affected sources which exhibit 
opacity in excess of 10 percent.

0
14. Section 63.1346 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (a) introductory text;
0
b. Revising paragraph (a)(1);
0
c. Revising paragraphs (c) through (f); and
0
d. Adding paragraph (g)
    The revisions read as follows:

Sec.  63.1346  Operating limits for kilns.

    (a) The owner or operator of a kiln subject to a D/F emissions 
limitation under Sec.  63.1343 must operate the kiln such that the 
temperature of the gas at the inlet to the kiln PM control device 
(PMCD) and alkali bypass PMCD, if applicable, does not exceed the 
applicable temperature limit specified in paragraph (b) of this 
section. The owner or operator of an in-line kiln/raw mill subject to a 
D/F emissions limitation under Sec.  63.1343 must operate the in-line 
kiln/raw mill, such that:
    (1) When the raw mill of the in-line kiln/raw mill is operating, 
the applicable temperature limit for the main in-line kiln/raw mill 
exhaust, specified in paragraph (b) of this section and established 
during the performance test when the raw mill was operating, is not 
exceeded, except during periods of startup and shutdown when the

[[Page 10040]]

temperature limit may be exceeded by no more than 10 percent.
* * * * *
    (c) For an affected source subject to a D/F emissions limitation 
under Sec.  63.1343 that employs sorbent injection as an emission 
control technique for D/F control, you must operate the sorbent 
injection system in accordance with paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of this 
section.
    (1) The rolling three-hour average activated sorbent injection rate 
must be equal to or greater than the sorbent injection rate determined 
in accordance with Sec.  63.1349(b)(3)(vi).
    (2) You must either:
    (i) Maintain the minimum activated carbon injection carrier gas 
flow rate, as a rolling three-hour average, based on the manufacturer's 
specifications. These specifications must be documented in the test 
plan developed in accordance with Sec.  63.7(c), or
    (ii) Maintain the minimum activated carbon injection carrier gas 
pressure drop, as a rolling three-hour average, based on the 
manufacturer's specifications. These specifications must be documented 
in the test plan developed in accordance with Sec.  63.7(c).
    (d) Except as provided in paragraph (e) of this section, for an 
affected source subject to a D/F emissions limitation under Sec.  
63.1343 that employs carbon injection as an emission control technique 
you must specify and use the brand and type of sorbent used during the 
performance test until a subsequent performance test is conducted, 
unless the site-specific performance test plan contains documentation 
of key parameters that affect adsorption and the owner or operator 
establishes limits based on those parameters, and the limits on these 
parameters are maintained.
    (e) For an affected source subject to a D/F emissions limitation 
under Sec.  63.1343 that employs carbon injection as an emission 
control technique you may substitute, at any time, a different brand or 
type of sorbent provided that the replacement has equivalent or 
improved properties compared to the sorbent specified in the site-
specific performance test plan and used in the performance test. The 
owner or operator must maintain documentation that the substitute 
sorbent will provide the same or better level of control as the 
original sorbent.
    (f) No kiln may use as a raw material or fuel any fly ash where the 
mercury content of the fly ash has been increased through the use of 
activated carbon, or any other sorbent, unless the facility can 
demonstrate that the use of that fly ash will not result in an increase 
in mercury emissions over baseline emissions (i.e., emissions not using 
the fly ash). The facility has the burden of proving there has been no 
emissions increase over baseline. Once the kiln is in compliance with a 
mercury emissions limit specified in Sec.  63.1343, this paragraph no 
longer applies.
    (g) During periods of startup and shutdown you must meet the 
requirements listed in (g)(1) through (4) of this section.
    (1) During startup you must use any one or combination of the 
following clean fuels: natural gas, synthetic natural gas, propane, 
distillate oil, synthesis gas (syngas), and ultra-low sulfur diesel 
(ULSD) until the kiln reaches a temperature of 1200 degrees Fahrenheit.
    (2) Combustion of the primary kiln fuel may commence once the kiln 
temperature reaches 1200 degrees Fahrenheit.
    (3) All air pollution control devices must be turned on and 
operating prior to combusting any fuel.
    (4) You must keep records as specified in Sec.  63.1355 during 
periods of startup and shutdown.

0
15. Section 63.1347 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(1) to read as 
follows:

Sec.  63.1347  Operation and maintenance plan requirements.

    (a) * * *
    (1) Procedures for proper operation and maintenance of the affected 
source and air pollution control devices in order to meet the emissions 
limits and operating limits, including fugitive dust control measures 
for open clinker piles, of Sec. Sec.  63.1343 through 63.1348. Your 
operations and maintenance plan must address periods of startup and 
shutdown;
* * * * *

0
16. Section 63.1348 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (a) introductory text and (a)(1) and (2);
0
b. Adding two sentences to paragraph (a)(3)(i);
0
c. Revising paragraph (a)(3)(ii);
0
d. Revising paragraphs (a)(3)(iii) and (iv);
0
e. Revising paragraphs (a)(4) through (8);
0
f. Revising paragraph (b); and
0
g. Revising paragraph (c)(2)(iv).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:

Sec.  63.1348  Compliance requirements.

    (a) Initial Performance Test Requirements. For an affected source 
subject to this subpart, you must demonstrate compliance with the 
emissions standards and operating limits by using the test methods and 
procedures in Sec. Sec.  63.1349 and 63.7. Any cement kiln that has 
been subject to the requirements of subpart CCCC or subpart DDDD of 40 
CFR Part 60, and is now electing to cease burning nonhazardous solid 
waste and become subject to this subpart, must meet all the initial 
compliance testing requirements each time it becomes subject to this 
subpart, even if it was previously subject to this subpart.
    NOTE to paragraph (a): The first day of the 30 operating day 
performance test is the first day after the compliance date following 
completion of the field testing and data collection that demonstrates 
that the CPMS or CEMS has satisfied the relevant CPMS performance 
evaluation or CEMS performance specification (e.g., PS 2, 12A, or 12B) 
acceptance criteria. The performance test period is complete at the end 
of the 30th consecutive operating day. See Sec.  63.1341 for definition 
of operating day and Sec.  63.1348(b)(1) for the CEMS operating 
requirements. The source has the option of performing the compliance 
test earlier then the compliance date if desired.
    (1) PM Compliance. If you are subject to limitations on PM 
emissions under Sec.  63.1343(b), you must demonstrate compliance with 
the PM emissions standards by using the test methods and procedures in 
Sec.  63.1349(b)(1).
    (2) Opacity Compliance. If you are subject to the limitations on 
opacity under Sec.  63.1345, you must demonstrate compliance with the 
opacity emissions standards by using the performance test methods and 
procedures in Sec.  63.1349(b)(2). Use the maximum 6-minute average 
opacity exhibited during the performance test period to determine 
whether the affected source is in compliance with the standard.
    (3) * * *
    (i) * * * The owner or operator of a kiln with an in-line raw mill 
must demonstrate compliance by conducting separate performance tests 
while the raw mill is operating and while the raw mill is not 
operating. Determine the D/F TEQ concentration for each run and 
calculate the arithmetic average of the TEQ concentrations measured for 
the three runs to determine continuous compliance.
    (ii) If you are subject to a D/F emissions limitation under Sec.  
63.1343(b), you must demonstrate compliance with the temperature 
operating limits specified in Sec.  63.1346 by using the performance 
test methods and procedures in Sec.  63.1349(b)(3)(ii) through 
(b)(3)(iv). Use the arithmetic average of the temperatures measured 
during the

[[Page 10041]]

three runs to determine the applicable temperature limit.
    (iii) If activated carbon injection is used and you are subject to 
a D/F emissions limitation under Sec.  63.1343(b), you must demonstrate 
compliance with the activated carbon injection rate operating limits 
specified in Sec.  63.1346 by using the performance test methods and 
procedures in Sec.  63.1349(b)(3)(v).
    (iv) If activated carbon injection is used, you must also develop a 
carrier gas parameter (either the carrier gas flow rate or the carrier 
gas pressure drop) during the initial performance test and updated 
during any subsequent performance test conducted under Sec.  
63.1349(b)(3) that meets the requirements of Sec.  63.1349(b)(3)(vi). 
Compliance is demonstrated if the system is maintained within +/- 5 
percent accuracy during the performance test determined in accordance 
with the procedures and criteria submitted for review in your 
monitoring plan required in section 63.1350(p).
    (4)(i) THC Compliance. If you are subject to limitations on THC 
emissions under Sec.  63.1343(b), you must demonstrate compliance with 
the THC emissions standards by using the performance test methods and 
procedures in Sec.  63.1349(b)(4)(i). You must use the average THC 
concentration obtained during the first 30 kiln operating days after 
the compliance date of this rule to determine initial compliance.
    (ii) Total Organic HAP Emissions Tests. If you elect to demonstrate 
compliance with the total organic HAP emissions limit under Sec.  
63.1343(b) in lieu of the THC emissions limit, you must demonstrate 
compliance with the total organic HAP emissions standards by using the 
performance test methods and procedures in Sec.  63.1349(b)(7.
    (iii) If you are demonstrating initial compliance, you must conduct 
the separate performance tests as specified in Sec.  63.1349(b)(7) 
while the raw mill of the inline kiln/raw mill is operating and while 
the raw mill of the inline kiln/raw mill is not operating.
    (iv) The average total organic HAP concentration measured during 
the separate initial performance test specified by Sec.  63.1349(b)(7) 
must be used to determine initial compliance.
    (v) The average THC concentration measured during the initial 
performance test specified by Sec.  63.1349(b)(4) must be used to 
determine the site-specific THC limit. Using the fraction of time the 
inline kiln/raw mill is on and the fraction of time that the inline 
kiln/raw mill is off, calculate this limit as a weighted average of the 
THC levels measured during raw mill on and raw mill off testing using 
one of the two approaches in Sec.  63.1349(b)(7)(vii) or (viii) 
depending on the level of organic HAP measured during the compliance 
test.
    (5) Mercury Compliance. If you are subject to limitations on 
mercury emissions in Sec.  63.1343(b), you must demonstrate compliance 
with the mercury standards by using the performance test methods and 
procedures in Sec.  63.1349(b)(5). You must demonstrate compliance by 
operating a mercury CEMS or a sorbent trap based CEMS. Compliance with 
the mercury emissions standard must be determined based on the first 30 
operating days you operate a mercury CEMS or sorbent trap monitoring 
system after the compliance date of this rule.
    (i) In calculating a 30 operating day emissions value using an 
integrating sorbent trap CEMS, assign the average Hg emissions 
concentration determined for an integrating period (e.g., 7 day sorbent 
trap monitoring system sample) to each relevant hour of the kiln 
operating days spanned by each integrated sample. Calculate the 30 kiln 
operating day emissions rate value using the assigned hourly Hg 
emissions concentrations and the respective flow and production rate 
values collected during the 30 kiln operating day performance test 
period. Depending on the duration of each integrated sampling period, 
you may not be able to calculate the 30 kiln operating day emissions 
value until several days after the end of the 30 kiln operating day 
performance test period.
    (ii) For example, a sorbent trap monitoring system producing an 
integrated 7-day sample will provide Hg concentration data for each 
hour of the first 28 kiln operating days (i.e., four values spanning 7 
days each) of a 30 operating day period. The Hg concentration values 
for the hours of the last 2 days of the 30 operating day period will 
not be available for calculating the emissions for the performance test 
period until at least five days after the end of the subject period.
    (6) HCl Compliance. If you are subject to limitations on HCl 
emissions under Sec.  63.1343(b), you must demonstrate initial 
compliance with the HCl standards by using the performance test methods 
and procedures in Sec.  63.1349(b)(6).
    (i) For an affected source that is equipped with a wet scrubber, 
tray tower or dry scrubber, you may demonstrate initial compliance by 
conducting a performance test as specified in Sec.  63.1349(b)(6)(i). 
You must determine the HCl concentration for each run and calculate the 
arithmetic average of the concentrations measured for the three runs to 
determine compliance. You must also establish appropriate site-specific 
operational parameter limits.
    (ii) For an affected source that is not equipped with a wet 
scrubber, tray tower or dry scrubber, you must demonstrate initial 
compliance by operating a CEMS as specified in Sec.  63.1349(b)(6)(ii). 
You must use the average of the hourly HCl values obtained during the 
first 30 kiln operating days that occur after the compliance date of 
this rule to determine initial compliance.
    (7) Commingled Exhaust Requirements. If the coal mill exhaust is 
commingled with kiln exhaust in a single stack, you may demonstrate 
compliance with the kiln emission limits by either:
    (i) Performing required emissions monitoring and testing on the 
commingled coal mill and kiln exhaust, or
    (ii) Perform required emission monitoring and testing of the kiln 
exhaust prior to the reintroduction of the coal mill exhaust, and also 
testing the kiln exhaust diverted to the coal mill. All emissions must 
be added together for all emission points, and must not exceed the 
limit per each pollutant as listed in S63.1343(b).
    (b) Continuous Monitoring Requirements. You must demonstrate 
compliance with the emissions standards and operating limits by using 
the performance test methods and procedures in Sec. Sec.  63.1350 and 
63.8 for each affected source.
    (1) General Requirements. (i) You must monitor and collect data 
according to Sec.  63.1350 and the site-specific monitoring plan 
required by Sec.  63.1350(p).
    (ii) Except for periods of startup and shutdown, monitoring system 
malfunctions, repairs associated with monitoring system malfunctions, 
and required monitoring system quality assurance or quality control 
activities (including, as applicable, calibration checks and required 
zero and span adjustments), you must operate the monitoring system and 
collect data at all required intervals at all times the affected source 
is operating.
    (iii) You may not use data recorded during monitoring system 
malfunctions, repairs associated with monitoring system malfunctions, 
or required monitoring system quality assurance or control activities 
in calculations used to report emissions or operating levels. A 
monitoring system malfunction is any

[[Page 10042]]

sudden, infrequent, not reasonably preventable failure of the 
monitoring system to provide valid data. Monitoring system failures 
that are caused in part by poor maintenance or careless operation are 
not malfunctions. You must use all the data collected during all other 
periods in assessing the operation of the control device and associated 
control system.
    (iv) Clinker Production. If you are subject to limitations on 
mercury emissions (lb/MM tons of clinker) under Sec.  63.1343(b), you 
must determine the hourly production rate of clinker according to the 
requirements of Sec.  63.1350(d).
    (2) PM Compliance. If you are subject to limitations on PM 
emissions under Sec.  63.1343(b), you must use the monitoring methods 
and procedures in Sec.  63.1350(b) and (d).
    (3) Opacity Compliance. If you are subject to the limitations on 
opacity under Sec.  63.1345, you must demonstrate compliance using the 
monitoring methods and procedures in Sec.  63.1350(f) based on the 
maximum 6-minute average opacity exhibited during the performance test 
period. You must initiate corrective actions within one hour of 
detecting visible emissions above the applicable limit.
    (i) COMS. If you install a COMS in lieu of conducting the daily 
visible emissions testing, you must demonstrate compliance using a COMS 
such that it is installed, operated, and maintained in accordance with 
the requirements of Sec.  63.1350(f)(4)(i).
    (ii) Bag leak determination system (BLDS). If you install a BLDS on 
a raw mill or finish mill in lieu of conducting the daily visible 
emissions testing, you must demonstrate compliance using a BLDS that is 
installed, operated, and maintained in accordance with the requirements 
of Sec.  63.1350(f)(4)(ii).
    (4) D/F Compliance. If you are subject to a D/F emissions 
limitation under Sec.  63.1343(b), you must demonstrate compliance 
using a CMS that is installed, operated and maintained to record the 
temperature of specified gas streams in accordance with the 
requirements of Sec.  63.1350(g).
    (5)(i) Activated Carbon Injection Compliance. If you use activated 
carbon injection to comply with the D/F emissions limitation under 
Sec.  63.1343(b), you must demonstrate compliance using a CMS that is 
installed, operated, and maintained to record the rate of activated 
carbon injection in accordance with the requirements Sec.  
63.1350(h)(1).
    (ii) If you use activated carbon injection to comply with the D/F 
emissions limitation under Sec.  63.1343(b), you must demonstrate 
compliance using a CMS that is installed, operated and maintained to 
record the activated carbon injection system gas parameter in 
accordance with the requirements of Sec.  63.1350(h)(2).
    (6) THC Compliance. (i) If you are subject to limitations on THC 
emissions under Sec.  63.1343(b), you must demonstrate compliance using 
the monitoring methods and procedures in Sec.  63.1350(i) and (j).
    (ii) THC must be measured either upstream of the coal mill or in 
the coal mill stack.
    (7) Mercury Compliance. (i) If you are subject to limitations on 
mercury emissions in Sec.  63.1343(b), you must demonstrate compliance 
using the monitoring methods and procedures in Sec.  63.1350(k). If you 
use an integrated sorbent trap monitoring system to determine ongoing 
compliance, use the procedures described in Sec.  63.1348(a)(5) to 
assign hourly mercury concentration values and to calculate rolling 30 
operating day emissions rates. Since you assign the mercury 
concentration measured with the sorbent trap to each relevant hour 
respectively for each operating day of the integrated period, you may 
schedule the sorbent trap change periods to any time of the day (i.e., 
the sorbent trap replacement need not be scheduled at 12:00 midnight 
nor must the sorbent trap replacements occur only at integral 24-hour 
intervals).
    (ii) Mercury must be measured either upstream of the coal mill or 
in the coal mill stack.
    (8) HCl Compliance. If you are subject to limitations on HCl 
emissions under Sec.  63.1343(b), you must demonstrate compliance using 
the performance test methods and procedures in Sec.  63.1349(b)(6).
    (i) For an affected source that is not equipped with a wet 
scrubber, tray tower or a dry sorbent injection system, you must 
demonstrate compliance using the monitoring methods and procedures in 
Sec.  63.1350(l)(1).
    (ii) For an affected source that is equipped with a wet scrubber, 
tray tower or a dry sorbent injection system, you may demonstrate 
compliance using the monitoring methods and procedures in Sec.  
63.1350(l)(2).
    (iii) HCl may be measured either upstream of the coal mill or in 
the coal mill stack.
    (iv) As an alternative to paragraph (b)(8)(ii) of this section, you 
may use an SO2 CEMS to establish an SO2 operating 
level during your initial and repeat HCl performance tests and monitor 
the SO2 level using the procedures in Sec.  63.1350(l)(3).
    (9) Startup and Shutdown Compliance. In order to demonstrate 
continuous compliance during startup and shutdown, all air pollution 
control devices must be operating.
    (c) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (iv) The performance test must be completed within 360 hours after 
the planned operational change period begins.
* * * * *

0
17. Section 63.1349 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (a) introductory text;
0
b. Revising paragraph (b)(1);
0
c. Revising paragraph (b)(3) introductory text;
0
d. Revising paragraphs (b)(3)(v) and (vi);
0
e. Revising paragraphs (b)(4), (5), and (6);
0
f. Adding paragraph (b)(7) and (8); and
0
g. Revising paragraphs (c), (d)(1) introductory text, (d)(1)(ii), 
(d)(2), and (e).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:

Sec.  63.1349  Performance testing requirements.

    (a) You must document performance test results in complete test 
reports that contain the information required by paragraphs (a)(1) 
through (10) of this section, as well as all other relevant 
information. As described in Sec.  63.7(c)(2)(i), you must make 
available to the Administrator prior to testing, if requested, the 
site-specific test plan to be followed during performance testing. For 
purposes of determining exhaust gas flow rate to the atmosphere from an 
alkali bypass stack or a coal mill stack, you must either install, 
operate, calibrate and maintain an instrument for continuously 
measuring and recording the exhaust gas flow rate according to the 
requirements in paragraphs Sec.  63.1350(n)(1) through (10) of this 
subpart or use the maximum design exhaust gas flow rate. For purposes 
of determining the combined emissions from kilns equipped with an 
alkali bypass or that exhaust kiln gases to a coal mill that exhausts 
through a separate stack, instead of installing a CEMS on the alkali 
bypass stack or coal mill stack, you may use the results of the initial 
and subsequent performance test to demonstrate compliance with the 
relevant emissions limit.
* * * * *
    (b)(1) PM emissions tests. The owner or operator of a kiln subject 
to limitations on PM emissions shall demonstrate initial compliance by 
conducting a performance test using Method 5 or Method 5I at appendix 
A-3 to part 60 of this chapter. You must

[[Page 10043]]

also monitor continuous performance through use of a PM continuous 
parametric monitoring system (PM CPMS).
    (i) For your PM CPMS, you will establish a site-specific operating 
limit. If your PM performance test demonstrates your PM emission levels 
to be below 75 percent of your emission limit you will use the average 
PM CPMS value recorded during the PM compliance test, the milliamp 
equivalent of zero output from your PM CPMS, and the average PM result 
of your compliance test to establish your operating limit. If your PM 
compliance test demonstrates your PM emission levels to be at or above 
75 percent of your emission limit you will use the average PM CPMS 
value recorded during the PM compliance test to establish your 
operating limit. You will use the PM CPMS to demonstrate continuous 
compliance with your operating limit. You must repeat the performance 
test annually and reassess and adjust the site-specific operating limit 
in accordance with the results of the performance test.
    (A) Your PM CPMS must provide a 4-20 milliamp output and the 
establishment of its relationship to manual reference method 
measurements must be determined in units of milliamps.
    (B) Your PM CPMS operating range must be capable of reading PM 
concentrations from zero to a level equivalent to three times your 
allowable emission limit. If your PM CPMS is an auto-ranging instrument 
capable of multiple scales, the primary range of the instrument must be 
capable of reading PM concentration from zero to a level equivalent to 
three times your allowable emission limit.
    (C) During the initial performance test or any such subsequent 
performance test that demonstrates compliance with the PM limit, record 
and average all milliamp output values from the PM CPMS for the periods 
corresponding to the compliance test runs (e.g., average all your PM 
CPMS output values for three corresponding 2-hour Method 5I test runs).
    (ii) Determine your operating limit as specified in paragraphs 
(b)(1)(iii) through (iv) of this section. If your PM performance test 
demonstrates your PM emission levels to be below 75 percent of your 
emission limit you will use the average PM CPMS value recorded during 
the PM compliance test, the milliamp equivalent of zero output from 
your PM CPMS, and the average PM result of your compliance test to 
establish your operating limit. If your PM compliance test demonstrates 
your PM emission levels to be at or above 75 percent of your emission 
limit you will use the average PM CPMS value recorded during the PM 
compliance test to establish your operating limit. You must verify an 
existing or establish a new operating limit after each repeated 
performance test. You must repeat the performance test at least 
annually and reassess and adjust the site-specific operating limit in 
accordance with the results of the performance test.
    (iii) If the average of your three Method 5 or 5I compliance test 
runs is below 75 percent of your PM emission limit, you must calculate 
an operating limit by establishing a relationship of PM CPMS signal to 
PM concentration using the PM CPMS instrument zero, the average PM CPMS 
values corresponding to the three compliance test runs, and the average 
PM concentration from the Method 5 or 5I compliance test with the 
procedures in (a)(1)(iii)(A) through (D) of this section.
    (A) Determine your PM CPMS instrument zero output with one of the 
following procedures.
    (1) Zero point data for in-situ instruments should be obtained by 
removing the instrument from the stack and monitoring ambient air on a 
test bench.
    (2) Zero point data for extractive instruments should be obtained 
by removing the extractive probe from the stack and drawing in clean 
ambient air.
    (3) The zero point may also be established by performing manual 
reference method measurements when the flue gas is free of PM emissions 
or contains very low PM concentrations (e.g., when your process is not 
operating, but the fans are operating or your source is combusting only 
natural gas) and plotting these with the compliance data to find the 
zero intercept.
    (4) If none of the steps in paragraphs (a)(1)(iii)(A)(1) through 
(3) of this section are possible, you must use a zero output value 
provided by the manufacturer.
    (B) Determine your PM CPMS instrument average in milliamps, and the 
average of your corresponding three PM compliance test runs, using 
equation 3.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12FE13.008

Where:

X1 = The PM CPMS data points for the three runs 
constituting the performance test.
Y1 = The PM concentration value for the three runs 
constituting the performance test.
n = The number of data points.

    (C) With your instrument zero expressed in milliamps, your three 
run average PM CPMS milliamp value, and your three run PM compliance 
test average, determine a relationship of lb/ton-clinker per milliamp 
with Equation 4.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12FE13.009

Where:

R = The relative lb/ton-clinker per milliamp for your PM CPMS.
Y1 = The three run average lb/ton-clinker PM 
concentration.
X1 = The three run average milliamp output from you PM 
CPMS.
z = The milliamp equivalent of your instrument zero determined from 
(b)(1)(iii)(A).

    (D) Determine your source specific 30-day rolling average operating 
limit using the lb/ton-clinker per milliamp value from Equation 4 in 
Equation 5, below. This sets your operating limit at the PM CPMS output 
value corresponding to 75 percent of your emission limit.

[[Page 10044]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12FE13.010

Where:

Ol = The operating limit for your PM CPMS on a 30-day 
rolling average, in milliamps.
L = Your source emission limit expressed in lb/ton clinker.
z = Your instrument zero in milliamps, determined from (1)(i).
R = The relative lb/ton-clinker per milliamp for your PM CPMS, from 
Equation 4.

    (iv) If the average of your three PM compliance test runs is at or 
above 75 percent of your PM emission limit you must determine your 
operating limit by averaging the PM CPMS milliamp output corresponding 
to your three PM performance test runs that demonstrate compliance with 
the emission limit using Equation 6.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12FE13.011

Where:

X1 = The PM CPMS data points for all runs i.
n = The number of data points.
Oh = Your site specific operating limit, in milliamps.

    (v) To determine continuous operating compliance, you must record 
the PM CPMS output data for all periods when the process is operating, 
and use all the PM CPMS data for calculations when the source is not 
out-of-control. You must demonstrate continuous compliance by using all 
quality-assured hourly average data collected by the PM CPMS for all 
operating hours to calculate the arithmetic average operating parameter 
in units of the operating limit (milliamps) on a 30 operating day 
rolling average basis, updated at the end of each new kiln operating 
day. Use Equation 7 to determine the 30 kiln operating day average.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12FE13.012

Where:

Hpvi = The hourly parameter value for hour i.
n = The number of valid hourly parameter values collected over 30 
kiln operating days.

    (vi) For each performance test, conduct at least three separate 
test runs under the conditions that exist when the affected source is 
operating at the highest load or capacity level reasonably expected to 
occur. Conduct each test run to collect a minimum sample volume of 2 
dscm for determining compliance with a new source limit and 1 dscm for 
determining compliance with an existing source limit. Calculate the 
average of the results from three consecutive runs, including 
applicable sources as required by (D)(viii), to determine compliance. 
You need not determine the particulate matter collected in the 
impingers (``back half'') of the Method 5 or Method 5I particulate 
sampling train to demonstrate compliance with the PM standards of this 
subpart. This shall not preclude the permitting authority from 
requiring a determination of the ``back half'' for other purposes.
    (vii) For PM performance test reports used to set a PM CPMS 
operating limit, the electronic submission of the test report must also 
include the make and model of the PM CPMS instrument, serial number of 
the instrument, analytical principle of the instrument (e.g. beta 
attenuation), span of the instruments primary analytical range, 
milliamp value equivalent to the instrument zero output, technique by 
which this zero value was determined, and the average milliamp signals 
corresponding to each PM compliance test run.
    (viii) When there is an alkali bypass and/or an inline coal mill 
with a separate stack associated with a kiln, the main exhaust and 
alkali bypass and/or inline coal mill must be tested simultaneously and 
the combined emission rate of PM from the kiln and alkali bypass and/or 
inline coal mill must be computed for each run using Equation 8 of this 
section.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12FE13.013

Where:

EC = Combined hourly emission rate of PM from the kiln 
and bypass stack and/or inline coal mill, lb/ton of kiln clinker 
production.
EK = Hourly emissions of PM emissions from the kiln, lb.
EB = Hourly PM emissions from the alkali bypass stack, 
lb.
EC = Hourly PM emissions from the inline coal mill stack, 
lb.
P = Hourly clinker production, tons.

    (ix) The owner or operator of a kiln with an in-line raw mill and 
subject to limitations on PM emissions shall demonstrate initial 
compliance by conducting separate performance tests while the raw mill 
is under normal operating conditions and while the raw mill is not 
operating.
* * * * *

[[Page 10045]]

    (3) D/F Emissions Tests. If you are subject to limitations on D/F 
emissions under this subpart, you must conduct a performance test using 
Method 23 of appendix A-7 to part 60 of this chapter. If your kiln or 
in-line kiln/raw mill is equipped with an alkali bypass, you must 
conduct simultaneous performance tests of the kiln or in-line kiln/raw 
mill exhaust and the alkali bypass. You may conduct a performance test 
of the alkali bypass exhaust when the raw mill of the in-line kiln/raw 
mill is operating or not operating.
* * * * *
    (v)(A) If sorbent injection is used for D/F control, you must 
record the rate of sorbent injection to the kiln exhaust, and where 
applicable, the rate of sorbent injection to the alkali bypass exhaust, 
continuously during the period of the Method 23 test in accordance with 
the conditions in Sec.  63.1350(m)(9), and include the continuous 
injection rate record(s) in the performance test report. Determine the 
sorbent injection rate parameters in accordance with paragraphs 
(b)(3)(vi) of this section.
    (B) Include the brand and type of sorbent used during the 
performance test in the performance test report.
    (C) Maintain a continuous record of either the carrier gas flow 
rate or the carrier gas pressure drop for the duration of the 
performance test. If the carrier gas flow rate is used, determine, 
record, and maintain a record of the accuracy of the carrier gas flow 
rate monitoring system according to the procedures in appendix A to 
part 75 of this chapter. If the carrier gas pressure drop is used, 
determine, record, and maintain a record of the accuracy of the carrier 
gas pressure drop monitoring system according to the procedures in 
Sec.  63.1350(m)(6).
    (vi) Calculate the run average sorbent injection rate for each run 
and determine and include the average of the run average injection 
rates in the performance test report and determine the applicable 
injection rate limit in accordance with Sec.  63.1346(c)(1).
    (4) THC emissions test. (i) If you are subject to limitations on 
THC emissions, you must operate a CEMS in accordance with the 
requirements in Sec.  63.1350(i). For the purposes of conducting the 
accuracy and quality assurance evaluations for CEMS, the THC span value 
(as propane) is 50 ppmvd and the reference method (RM) is Method 25A of 
appendix A to part 60 of this chapter.
    (ii) Use the THC CEMS to conduct the initial compliance test for 
the first 30 kiln operating days of kiln operation after the compliance 
date of the rule. See 63.1348(a).
    (iii) If kiln gases are diverted through an alkali bypass or to a 
coal mill and exhausted through a separate stack, you must calculate a 
kiln-specific THC limit using Equation 9:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12FE13.014

Where:

Cks = Kiln stack concentration (ppmvd).
Qab = Alkali bypass flow rate (volume/hr).
Cab = Alkali bypass concentration (ppmvd).
Qcm = Coal mill flow rate (volume/hr).
Ccm = Coal mill concentration (ppmvd).
Qks = Kiln stack flow rate (volume/hr).

    (iv) THC must be measured either upstream of the coal mill or the 
coal mill stack.
    (v) Instead of conducting the performance test specified in 
paragraph (b)(4)of this section, you may conduct a performance test to 
determine emissions of total organic HAP by following the procedures in 
paragraphs (b)(7) of this section.
    (5) Mercury Emissions Tests. If you are subject to limitations on 
mercury emissions, you must operate a mercury CEMS or a sorbent trap 
monitoring system in accordance with the requirements of Sec.  
63.1350(k). The initial compliance test must be based on the first 30 
kiln operating days in which the affected source operates using a 
mercury CEMS or a sorbent trap monitoring system after the compliance 
date of the rule. See Sec.  63.1348(a).
    (i) If you are using a mercury CEMS or a sorbent trap monitoring 
system, you must install, operate, calibrate, and maintain an 
instrument for continuously measuring and recording the exhaust gas 
flow rate to the atmosphere according to the requirements in Sec.  
63.1350(k)(5).
    (ii) Calculate the emission rate using Equation 10 of this section:
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12FE13.015
    
Where:

E30D = 30-day rolling emission rate of mercury, lb/MM 
tons clinker.
Ci = Concentration of mercury for operating hour i, 
[mu]g/scm.
Qi = Volumetric flow rate of effluent gas for operating 
hour i, where Ci and Qi are on the same basis 
(either wet or dry), scm/hr.
k = Conversion factor, 1 lb/454,000,000 [mu]g.
n = Number of kiln operating hours in a 30 kiln operating day 
period.
P = 30 days of clinker production during the same time period as the 
mercury emissions measured, million tons.

    (6) HCl emissions tests. For a source subject to limitations on HCl 
emissions you must conduct performance testing by one of the following 
methods:
    (i)(A) If the source is equipped with a wet scrubber, tray tower or 
dry scrubber, you must conduct performance testing using Method 321 of 
appendix A to this part unless you have installed a CEMS that meets the 
requirements Sec.  63.1350(l)(1). For kilns with inline raw mills, 
testing should be conducted for the raw mill on and raw mill off 
conditions.
    (B) You must establish site specific parameter limits by using the 
CPMS required in Sec.  63.1350(l)(1). For a wet scrubber or tray tower, 
measure and record the pressure drop across the scrubber and/or liquid 
flow rate and pH in intervals of no more than 15 minutes during the HCl 
test. Compute and record the 24-hour average pressure drop, pH, and 
average scrubber water flow rate for each sampling run in which the 
applicable emissions limit is met. For a dry scrubber, measure and 
record the sorbent injection rate in intervals of no more than 15 
minutes during the HCl test. Compute and record the 24-hour average 
sorbent injection rate and average sorbent injection rate for each 
sampling run in which the applicable emissions limit is met.
    (ii)(A) If the source is not controlled by a wet scrubber, tray 
tower or dry sorbent injection system, you must operate a CEMS in 
accordance with the requirements of Sec.  63.1350(l)(1). See Sec.  
63.1348(a).
    (B) The initial compliance test must be based on the 30 kiln 
operating days that occur after the compliance date of this rule in 
which the affected source operates using a HCl CEMS. Hourly HCl 
concentration data must be obtained according to Sec.  63.1350(l).
    (iii) As an alternative to paragraph (b)(6)(i)(B) of this section, 
you may choose to monitor SO2 emissions using a CEMS in 
accordance with the

[[Page 10046]]

requirements of Sec.  63.1350(l)(3). You must establish an 
SO2 operating limit equal to the highest 1 hour average 
recorded during the HCl stack test. This operating limit will apply 
only for demonstrating HCl compliance.
    (iv) If kiln gases are diverted through an alkali bypass or to a 
coal mill and exhausted through a separate stack, you must calculate a 
kiln-specific HCl limit using Equation 11:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12FE13.016

Where:

Cks = Kiln stack concentration (ppmvd).
Qab = Alkali bypass flow rate (volume/hr).
Cab = Alkali bypass concentration (ppmvd).
Qcm = Coal mill flow rate (volume/hr).
Ccm = Coal mill concentration (ppmvd).
Qks = Kiln stack flow rate (volume/hr).

    (7) Total Organic HAP Emissions Tests. Instead of conducting the 
performance test specified in paragraph (a)(4) of this section, you may 
conduct a performance test to determine emissions of total organic HAP 
by following the procedures in paragraphs (a)(7)(i) through (v) of this 
section.
    (i) Use Method 320 of appendix A to this part, Method 18 of 
Appendix A of part 60, ASTM D6348-03 or a combination to determine 
emissions of total organic HAP. Each performance test must consist of 
three separate runs under the conditions that exist when the affected 
source is operating at the representative performance conditions in 
accordance with Sec.  63.7(e). Each run must be conducted for at least 
1 hour.
    (ii) At the same time that you are conducting the performance test 
for total organic HAP, you must also determine a site-specific THC 
emissions limit by operating a THC CEMS in accordance with the 
requirements of Sec.  63.1350(j). The duration of the performance test 
must be at least 3 hours and the average THC concentration (as 
calculated from the 1-minute averages) during the 3-hour test must be 
calculated. You must establish your THC operating limit and determine 
compliance with it according to paragraphs (a)(7)(vii)through (viii)of 
this section. It is permissible to extend the testing time of the 
organic HAP performance test if you believe extended testing is 
required to adequately capture THC variability over time.
    (iii) If your source has an in-line kiln/raw mill you must use the 
fraction of time the raw mill is on and the fraction of time that the 
raw mill is off and calculate this limit as a weighted average of the 
THC levels measured during raw mill on and raw mill off testing.
    (iv) If your organic HAP emissions are below 75 percent of the 
organic HAP standard and you determine your operating limit with 
paragraph (b)(7)(vii) of this section your THC CEMS must be calibrated 
and operated on a measurement scale no greater than 180 ppmvw, as 
carbon, or 60 ppmvw as propane.
    (v) Your THC CEMS measurement scale must be capable of reading THC 
concentrations from zero to a level equivalent to two times your 
highest THC emissions average determined during your performance test, 
including mill on or mill off operation. Note: This may require the use 
of a dual range instrument to meet this requirement and paragraph 
(b)(7)(iv) of this section.
    (vi) Determine your operating limit as specified in paragraphs 
(a)(7)(vii) and (viii) of this section. If your organic HAP performance 
test demonstrates your average organic HAP emission levels are below 75 
percent of your emission limit (9 ppmv) you will use the average THC 
value recorded during the organic HAP performance test, and the average 
total organic HAP result of your performance test to establish your 
operating limit. If your organic HAP compliance test results 
demonstrate your average organic HAP emission levels are at or above 75 
percent of your emission limit, your operating limit is established as 
the average THC value recorded during the organic HAP performance test. 
You must establish a new operating limit after each performance test. 
You must repeat the performance test no later than 30 months following 
your last performance test and reassess and adjust the site-specific 
operating limit in accordance with the results of the performance test.
    (vii) If the average organic HAP results for your three Method 18 
and/or Method 320 performance test runs are below 75 percent of your 
organic HAP emission limit, you must calculate an operating limit by 
establishing a relationship of THC CEMS signal to the organic HAP 
concentration using the average THC CEMS value corresponding to the 
three organic HAP compliance test runs and the average organic HAP 
total concentration from the Method 18 and/or Method 320 performance 
test runs with the procedures in (a)(7)(vii)(A) and (B) of this 
section.
    (A) Determine the THC CEMS average values in ppmvw, and the average 
of your corresponding three total organic HAP compliance test runs, 
using Equation 12.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12FE13.017

Where:

x = The THC CEMS average values in ppmvw.
Xi= The THC CEMS data points for all three runs i.
Yi= The sum of organic HAP concentrations for test runs i. and
n = The number of data points.

    (B) You must use your three run average THC CEMS value, and your 
three run average organic HAP concentration from your three Method 18 
and/or Method 320 compliance tests to determine the operating limit. 
Use equation 13 to determine your operating limit in units of ppmvw 
THC, as propane.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12FE13.018

[[Page 10047]]

Where:

Tl = The 30-day operating limit for your THC CEMS, ppmvw.
Y1 = The average organic HAP concentration from Eq. 12, 
ppmv.
X1 = The average THC CEMS concentration from Eq. 12, 
ppmvw.

    (viii) If the average of your three organic HAP performance test 
runs is at or above 75 percent of your organic HAP emission limit, you 
must determine your operating limit using Equation 14 by averaging the 
THC CEMS output values corresponding to your three organic HAP 
performance test runs that demonstrate compliance with the emission 
limit. If your new THC CEMS value is below your current operating 
limit, you may opt to retain your current operating limit, but you must 
still submit all performance test and THC CEMS data according to the 
reporting requirements in paragraph (d)(1) of this section.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12FE13.019

Where:

X1 = The THC CEMS data points for all runs i.
Y1 = The organic HAP total value for runs i.
n = The number of data points.
Th = Your site specific operating limit, in ppmvw THC.

    (ix) If your kiln has an inline kiln/raw mill, you must conduct 
separate performance tests while the raw mill is operating (``mill 
on'') and while the raw mill is not operating (``mill off''). Using the 
fraction of time the raw mill is on and the fraction of time that the 
raw mill is off, calculate this limit as a weighted average of the THC 
levels measured during raw mill on and raw mill off compliance testing 
with Equation 15.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12FE13.020

Where:

R = Operating limit as THC, ppmvw.
y = Average THC CEMS value during mill on operations, ppmvw.
t = Percentage of operating time with mill on.
x = Average THC CEMS value during mill off operations, ppmvw.
(1-t) = Percentage of operating time with mill off.

    (x) To determine continuous compliance with the THC operating 
limit, you must record the THC CEMS output data for all periods when 
the process is operating and the THC CEMS is not out-of-control. You 
must demonstrate continuous compliance by using all quality-assured 
hourly average data collected by the THC CEMS for all operating hours 
to calculate the arithmetic average operating parameter in units of the 
operating limit (ppmvw) on a 30 operating day rolling average basis, 
updated at the end of each new kiln operating day. Use Equation 16 to 
determine the 30 kiln operating day average.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12FE13.021

Where:

Hpvi = The hourly parameter value for hour i, ppmvw.
n = The number of valid hourly parameter values collected over 30 
kiln operating days.

    (xi) Use EPA Method 18 or Method 320 of appendix A to part 60 of 
this chapter to determine organic HAP emissions. For each performance 
test, conduct at least three separate runs under the conditions that 
exist when the affected source is operating at the highest load or 
capacity level reasonably expected to occur. If your source has an in-
line kiln/raw mill you must conduct three separate test runs with the 
raw mill on, and three separate runs under the conditions that exist 
when the affected source is operating at the highest load or capacity 
level reasonably expected to occur with the mill off. Conduct each 
Method 18 test run to collect a minimum target sample equivalent to 
three times the method detection limit. Calculate the average of the 
results from three runs to determine compliance.
    (xii) If the THC level exceeds by 10 percent or more your site-
specific THC emissions limit, you must
    (A) As soon as possible but no later than 30 days after the 
exceedance, conduct an inspection and take corrective action to return 
the THC CEMS measurements to within the established value; and
    (B) Within 90 days of the exceedance or at the time of the annual 
compliance test, whichever comes first, conduct another performance 
test to determine compliance with the organic HAP limit and to verify 
or re-establish your site-specific THC emissions limit.
    (8) HCl Emissions Tests with SO2 Monitoring. If you 
choose to monitor SO2 emissions using a CEMS to demonstrate 
HCl compliance, follow the procedures in (b)(8)(i) through (ix) of this 
section and in accordance with the requirements of Sec.  63.1350(l)(3). 
You must establish an SO2 operating limit equal to the 
average of the SO2 emissions recorded during the HCl stack 
test. This operating limit will apply only for demonstrating HCl 
compliance.
    (i) Use Method 321 of appendix A to this part to determine 
emissions of HCl. Each performance test must consist of three separate 
runs under the conditions that exist when the affected source is 
operating at the representative performance conditions in accordance 
with Sec.  63.7(e). Each run must be conducted for at least one hour.
    (ii) At the same time that you are conducting the performance test 
for HCl, you must also determine a site-specific SO2 
emissions limit by

[[Page 10048]]

operating an SO2 CEMS in accordance with the requirements of 
Sec.  63.1350(l). The duration of the performance test must be three 
hours and the average SO2 concentration (as calculated from 
the 1-minute averages) during the 3-hour test must be calculated. You 
must establish your SO2 operating limit and determine 
compliance with it according to paragraphs (b)(8)(vii) and (viii)of 
this section.
    (iii) If your source has an in-line kiln/raw mill you must use the 
fraction of time the raw mill is on and the fraction of time that the 
raw mill is off and calculate this limit as a weighted average of the 
SO2 levels measured during raw mill on and raw mill off 
testing.
    (iv) Your SO2 CEMS must be calibrated and operated 
according to the requirements of Sec.  60.63(f).
    (v) Your SO2 CEMS measurement scale must be capable of 
reading SO2 concentrations consistent with the requirements 
of Sec.  60.63(f), including mill on or mill off operation.
    (vi) If your kiln has an inline kiln/raw mill, you must conduct 
separate performance tests while the raw mill is operating (``mill 
on'') and while the raw mill is not operating (``mill off''). Using the 
fraction of time the raw mill is on and the fraction of time that the 
raw mill is off, calculate this limit as a weighted average of the THC 
levels measured during raw mill on and raw mill off compliance testing 
with Equation 17.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12FE13.022

Where:

R = Operating limit as SO2, ppmvw.
y = Average SO2 CEMS value during mill on operations, 
ppmvw.
t = Percentage of operating time with mill on, expressed as a 
decimal.
x = Average SO2 CEMS value during mill off operations, 
ppmvw.
t-1 = Percentage of operating time with mill off, expressed as a 
decimal.

    (vii) To determine continuous compliance with the SO2 
operating limit, you must record the SO2 CEMS output data 
for all periods when the process is operating and the SO2 
CEMS is not out-of-control. You must demonstrate continuous compliance 
by using all quality-assured hourly average data collected by the 
SO2 CEMS for all operating hours to calculate the arithmetic 
average operating parameter in units of the operating limit (ppmvw) on 
a 30 operating day rolling average basis, updated at the end of each 
new kiln operating day. Use Equation 18 to determine the 30 kiln 
operating day average.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12FE13.023

Where:

Hpvi = The hourly parameter value for hour i, ppmvw.
n = The number of valid hourly parameter values collected over 30 
kiln operating days.

    (viii) Use EPA Method 321 of appendix A to part 60 of this chapter 
to determine HCl emissions. For each performance test, conduct at least 
three separate runs under the conditions that exist when the affected 
source is operating at the highest load or capacity level reasonably 
expected to occur. If your source has an in-line kiln/raw mill you must 
conduct three separate test runs with the raw mill on, and three 
separate runs under the conditions that exist when the affected source 
is operating at the highest load or capacity level reasonably expected 
to occur with the mill off.
    (ix) If the SO2 level exceeds by 10 percent or more your 
site-specific SO2 emissions limit, you must
    (A) As soon as possible but no later than 30 days after the 
exceedance, conduct an inspection and take corrective action to return 
the SO2 CEMS measurements to within the established value. 
and
    (B) Within 90 days of the exceedance or at the time of the annual 
compliance test, whichever comes first, conduct another performance 
test to determine compliance with the HCl limit and to verify or re-
establish your site-specific SO2 emissions limit.
    (c) Performance Test Frequency. Except as provided in Sec.  
63.1348(b), performance tests are required at regular intervals for 
affected sources that are subject to a dioxin, organic HAP or HCl 
emissions limit and must be repeated every 30 months except for 
pollutants where that specific pollutant is monitored using CEMS. Tests 
for PM are repeated every 12 months.
    (d) Performance Test Reporting Requirements. (1) You must submit 
the information specified in paragraphs (d)(1) and (2) of this section 
no later than 60 days following the initial performance test. All 
reports must be signed by a responsible official.
* * * * *
    (ii) The values for the site-specific operating limits or 
parameters established pursuant to paragraphs (b)(1), (3), (6), and (7) 
of this section, as applicable, and a description, including sample 
calculations, of how the operating parameters were established during 
the initial performance test.
    (2) As of December 31, 2011 and within 60 days after the date of 
completing each performance evaluation or test, as defined in Sec.  
63.2, conducted to demonstrate compliance with any standard covered by 
this subpart, you must submit the relative accuracy test audit data and 
performance test data, except opacity data, to the EPA by successfully 
submitting the data electronically to the EPA's Central Data Exchange 
(CDX) by using the Electronic Reporting Tool(ERT) (see http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/ert_tool.html/).
    (e) Conditions of performance tests. Conduct performance tests 
under such conditions as the Administrator specifies to the owner or 
operator based on representative performance of the affected source for 
the period being tested. Upon request, you must make available to the 
Administrator such records as may be necessary to determine the 
conditions of performance tests.

0
18. Section 63.1350 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (a) through (d);
0
b. Revising paragraph (f) introductory text;

[[Page 10049]]

0
c. Revising paragraphs (f)(1)(iv) through (f)(1)(vi);
0
d. Revising paragraphs (f)(2)(i) and (f)(2)(iii);
0
e. Revising paragraphs (f)(3) and (f)(4);
0
f. Revising paragraph (g)(1) introductory text;
0
g. Revising paragraphs (g)(2) and (g)(4);
0
h. Revising paragraph (h)(1)(ii);
0
i. Revising paragraphs (i)(1) and (i)(2);
0
j. Revising paragraph (k);
0
k. Revising paragraph (l);
0
l. Revising paragraph (m) introductory text;
0
m. Revising paragraphs (m)(3) and (m)(7)(i);
0
n. Revising introductory text for paragraphs (m)(9) and (m) (10);
0
o. Revising paragraph (m)(10)(i) through (m)(10)(vii), and paragraph 
(m)(11)(v);
0
p. Revising introductory text for paragraphs (n), (o), and (p);
0
q. Removing and reserving paragraph (n)(3); and
0
r. Revising introductory text for paragraphs (p)(1), (p)(2), and 
(p)(5).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:

Sec.  63.1350  Monitoring requirements.

    (a)(1) Following the compliance date, the owner or operator must 
demonstrate compliance with this subpart on a continuous basis by 
meeting the requirements of this section.
    (2) All continuous monitoring data for periods of startup and 
shutdown must be compiled and averaged separately from data gathered 
during other operating periods.
    (3) For each existing unit that is equipped with a CMS, maintain 
the average emissions or the operating parameter values within the 
operating parameter limits established through performance tests.
    (4) Any instance where the owner or operator fails to comply with 
the continuous monitoring requirements of this section is a violation.
    (b) PM monitoring requirements. (1)(i) PM CPMS. You will use a PM 
CPMS to establish a site-specific operating limit corresponding to the 
results of the performance test demonstrating compliance with the PM 
limit. You will conduct your performance test using Method 5 or Method 
5I at appendix A-3 to part 60 of this chapter. You will use the PM CPMS 
to demonstrate continuous compliance with this operating limit. You 
must repeat the performance test annually and reassess and adjust the 
site-specific operating limit in accordance with the results of the 
performance test using the procedures in Sec.  63.1349(b)(1) (i) 
through (vi) of this subpart. You must also repeat the test if you 
change the analytical range of the instrument, or if you replace the 
instrument itself or any principle analytical component of the 
instrument that would alter the relationship of output signal to in-
stack PM concentration.
    (ii) To determine continuous compliance, you must use the PM CPMS 
output data for all periods when the process is operating and the PM 
CPMS is not out-of-control. You must demonstrate continuous compliance 
by using all quality-assured hourly average data collected by the PM 
CPMS for all operating hours to calculate the arithmetic average 
operating parameter in units of the operating limit (milliamps) on a 30 
operating day rolling average basis, updated at the end of each new 
kiln operating day.
    (iii) For any exceedance of the 30 process operating day PM CPMS 
average value from the established operating parameter limit, you must:
    (A) Within 48 hours of the exceedance, visually inspect the APCD;
    (B) If inspection of the APCD identifies the cause of the 
exceedance, take corrective action as soon as possible and return the 
PM CPMS measurement to within the established value; and
    (C) Within 30 days of the exceedance or at the time of the annual 
compliance test, whichever comes first, conduct a PM emissions 
compliance test to determine compliance with the PM emissions limit and 
to verify or re-establish the PM CPMS operating limit within 45 days. 
You are not required to conduct additional testing for any exceedances 
that occur between the time of the original exceedance and the PM 
emissions compliance test required under this paragraph.
    (iv) PM CPMS exceedances leading to more than four required 
performance tests in a 12-month process operating period (rolling 
monthly) constitute a presumptive violation of this subpart.
    (2) [Reserved]
    (c) [Reserved]
    (d) Clinker production monitoring requirements. In order to 
determine clinker production, you must:
    (1) Determine hourly clinker production by one of two methods:
    (i) Install, calibrate, maintain, and operate a permanent weigh 
scale system to measure and record weight rates in tons-mass per hour 
of the amount of clinker produced. The system of measuring hourly 
clinker production must be maintained within 5 percent 
accuracy, or
    (ii) Install, calibrate, maintain, and operate a permanent weigh 
scale system to measure and record weight rates in tons-mass per hour 
of the amount of feed to the kiln. The system of measuring feed must be 
maintained within 5 percent accuracy. Calculate your hourly 
clinker production rate using a kiln-specific feed to clinker ratio 
based on reconciled clinker production determined for accounting 
purposes and recorded feed rates. Update this ratio monthly. Note that 
if this ratio changes at clinker reconciliation, you must use the new 
ratio going forward, but you do not have to retroactively change 
clinker production rates previously estimated.
    (iii) [Reserved]
    (2) Determine, record, and maintain a record of the accuracy of the 
system of measuring hourly clinker production (or feed mass flow if 
applicable) before initial use (for new sources) or by the effective 
compliance date of this rule (for existing sources). During each 
quarter of source operation, you must determine, record, and maintain a 
record of the ongoing accuracy of the system of measuring hourly 
clinker production (or feed mass flow).
    (3) If you measure clinker production directly, record the daily 
clinker production rates; if you measure the kiln feed rates and 
calculate clinker production, record the hourly kiln feed and clinker 
production rates.
    (4) Develop an emissions monitoring plan in accordance with 
paragraphs (p)(1) through (p)(4) of this section.
* * * * *
    (f) Opacity Monitoring Requirements. If you are subject to a 
limitation on opacity under Sec.  63.1345, you must conduct required 
opacity monitoring in accordance with the provisions of paragraphs 
(f)(1)(i) through (vii) of this section and in accordance with your 
monitoring plan developed under Sec.  63.1350(p). You must also develop 
an opacity monitoring plan in accordance with paragraphs (p)(1) through 
(4) and paragraph (o)(5), if applicable, of this section.
    (1) * * *
    (iv) If visible emissions are observed during any Method 22 
performance test, of appendix A-7 to part 60 of this chapter, you must 
conduct 30 minutes of opacity observations, recorded at 15-second 
intervals, in accordance with Method 9 of appendix A-4 to part 60 of 
this chapter. The Method 9 performance test, of appendix A-4 to part 60 
of this chapter, must begin within 1 hour of any observation of visible 
emissions.
    (v) Any totally enclosed conveying system transfer point, 
regardless of the location of the transfer point is not required to 
conduct Method 22 visible emissions monitoring under this

[[Page 10050]]

paragraph. The enclosures for these transfer points must be operated 
and maintained as total enclosures on a continuing basis in accordance 
with the facility operations and maintenance plan.
    (vi) If any partially enclosed or unenclosed conveying system 
transfer point is located in a building, you must conduct a Method 22 
performance test, of appendix A-7 to part 60 of this chapter, according 
to the requirements of paragraphs (f)(1)(i) through (iv) of this 
section for each such conveying system transfer point located within 
the building, or for the building itself, according to paragraph 
(f)(1)(vii) of this section.
* * * * *
    (2)(i) For a raw mill or finish mill, you must monitor opacity by 
conducting daily visible emissions observations of the mill sweep and 
air separator PM control devices (PMCD) of these affected sources in 
accordance with the procedures of Method 22 of appendix A-7 to part 60 
of this chapter. The duration of the Method 22 performance test must be 
6 minutes.
* * * * *
    (iii) If visible emissions are observed during the follow-up Method 
22 performance test required by paragraph (f)(2)(ii) of this section 
from any stack from which visible emissions were observed during the 
previous Method 22 performance test required by paragraph (f)(2)(i) of 
the section, you must then conduct an opacity test of each stack from 
which emissions were observed during the follow up Method 22 
performance test in accordance with Method 9 of appendix A-4 to part 60 
of this chapter. The duration of the Method 9 test must be 30 minutes.
    (3) If visible emissions are observed during any Method 22 visible 
emissions test conducted under paragraphs (f)(1) or (2) of this 
section, you must initiate, within one-hour, the corrective actions 
specified in your operation and maintenance plan as required in Sec.  
63.1347.
    (4) The requirements under paragraph (f)(2) of this section to 
conduct daily Method 22 testing do not apply to any specific raw mill 
or finish mill equipped with a COMS or BLDS.
    (i) If the owner or operator chooses to install a COMS in lieu of 
conducting the daily visible emissions testing required under paragraph 
(f)(2) of this section, then the COMS must be installed at the outlet 
of the PM control device of the raw mill or finish mill and the COMS 
must be installed, maintained, calibrated, and operated as required by 
the general provisions in subpart A of this part and according to PS-1 
of appendix B to part 60 of this chapter.
    (ii) If you choose to install a BLDS in lieu of conducting the 
daily visible emissions testing required under paragraph (f)(2) of this 
section, the requirements in paragraphs (m)(1) through (m)(4), (m)(10) 
and (m)(11) of this section apply.
    (g) * * *
    (1) You must install, calibrate, maintain, and continuously operate 
a CMS to record the temperature of the exhaust gases from the kiln and 
alkali bypass, if applicable, at the inlet to, or upstream of, the kiln 
and/or alkali bypass PMCDs.
* * * * *
    (2) You must monitor and continuously record the temperature of the 
exhaust gases from the kiln and alkali bypass, if applicable, at the 
inlet to the kiln and/or alkali bypass PMCD.
* * * * *
    (4) Calculate the rolling three-hour average temperature using the 
average of 180 successive one-minute average temperatures. See Sec.  
63.1349(b)(3).
* * * * *
    (h) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (ii) Each hour, calculate the three-hour rolling average activated 
carbon injection rate for the previous three hours of process 
operation. See Sec.  63.1349(b)(3).
* * * * *
    (i) * * *
    (1) You must install, operate, and maintain a THC continuous 
emission monitoring system in accordance with Performance Specification 
8A of appendix B to part 60 of this chapter and comply with all of the 
requirements for continuous monitoring systems found in the general 
provisions, subpart A of this part. The owner or operator must operate 
and maintain each CEMS according to the quality assurance requirements 
in Procedure 1 of appendix F in part 60 of this chapter.
    (2) Performance tests on alkali bypass and coal mill stacks must be 
conducted using Method 25A in appendix A to 40 CFR part 60 and repeated 
annually.
* * * * *
    (k) Mercury Monitoring Requirements. If you have a kiln subject to 
an emissions limitation on mercury emissions, you must install and 
operate a mercury continuous emissions monitoring system (Hg CEMS) in 
accordance with Performance Specification 12A (PS 12A) of appendix B to 
part 60 of this chapter or an integrated sorbent trap monitoring system 
in accordance with Performance Specification 12B (PS 12B) of appendix B 
to part 60 of this chapter. You must monitor mercury continuously 
according to paragraphs (k)(1) through (5) of this section. You must 
also develop an emissions monitoring plan in accordance with paragraphs 
(p)(1) through (4) of this section.
    (1) You must use a span value for any Hg CEMS that represents the 
mercury concentration corresponding to approximately two times the 
emissions standard and may be rounded up to the nearest multiple of 5 
[micro]g/m\3\ of total mercury or higher level if necessary to include 
Hg concentrations which may occur (excluding concentrations during in-
line raw ``mill off'' operation). As specified in PS 12A, Section 
6.1.1, the data recorder output range must include the full range of 
expected Hg concentration values which would include those expected 
during ``mill off'' conditions. Engineering judgments made and 
calculations used to determine the corresponding span concentration 
from the emission standard shall be documented in the site-specific 
monitoring plan and associated records.
    (2) In order to quality assure data measured above the span value, 
you must use one of the two options in paragraphs (k)(2)(i) and (ii) of 
this section.
    (i) Include a second span that encompasses the Hg emission 
concentrations expected to be encountered during ``mill off'' 
conditions. This second span may be rounded to a multiple of 5 
[micro]g/m\3\ of total mercury. The requirements of PS 12A, shall be 
followed for this second span with the exception that a RATA with the 
mill off is not required.
    (ii) Quality assure any data above the span value established in 
paragraph (k)(1) of this section using the following procedure. Any 
time two consecutive one-hour average measured concentration of Hg 
exceeds the span value you must, within 24 hours before or after, 
introduce a higher, ``above span'' Hg reference gas standard to the Hg 
CEMS. The ``above span'' reference gas must meet the requirements of PS 
12A, Section 7.1, must be of a concentration level between 50 and 150 
percent of the highest hourly concentration measured during the period 
of measurements above span, and must be introduced at the probe. Record 
and report the results of this procedure as you would for a daily 
calibration. The ``above span'' calibration is successful if the value 
measured by the Hg CEMS is within 20 percent of the certified value of 
the reference gas. If the value measured by the Hg CEMS exceeds 20 
percent of the

[[Page 10051]]

certified value of the reference gas, then you must normalize the one-
hour average stack gas values measured above the span during the 24-
hour period preceding or following the ``above span'' calibration for 
reporting based on the Hg CEMS response to the reference gas as shown 
in equation 19:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12FE13.024

Only one `above span' calibration is needed per 24 hour period.

    (3) You must operate and maintain each Hg CEMS or an integrated 
sorbent trap monitoring system according to the quality assurance 
requirements in Procedure 5 of appendix F to part 60 of this chapter. 
During the RATA of integrated sorbent trap monitoring systems required 
under Procedure 5, you may apply the appropriate exception for sorbent 
trap section 2 breakthrough in (k)(3)(i) through (iv) of this section:
    (i) For stack Hg concentrations >1 [micro]g/dscm, <=10% of section 
1 mass;
    (ii) For stack Hg concentrations <=1 [micro]g/dscm and >0.5 
[micro]g/dscm, <=20% of section 1 mass;
    (iii) For stack Hg concentrations <=0.5 [micro]g/dscm and >0.1 
[micro]g/dscm, <=50% of section 1 mass; and
    (iv) For stack Hg concentrations <=0.1 [micro]g/dscm, no 
breakthrough criterion assuming all other QA/QC specifications are met.
    (4) Relative accuracy testing of mercury monitoring systems under 
PS 12A, PS 12B, or Procedure 5 must be conducted at normal operating 
conditions. If a facility has an inline raw mill, the testing must 
occur with the raw mill on.
    (5) If you use a Hg CEMS or an integrated sorbent trap monitoring 
system, you must install, operate, calibrate, and maintain an 
instrument for continuously measuring and recording the exhaust gas 
flow rate to the atmosphere according to the requirements in paragraphs 
(n)(1) through (10) of this section. If kiln gases are diverted through 
an alkali bypass or to a coal mill and exhausted through separate 
stacks, you must account for the mercury emitted from those stacks by 
following the procedures in (k)(5)(i) through (iv) of this section:
    (i) Develop a mercury hourly mass emissions rate by conducting 
annual performance tests using Method 29, or Method 30B, to measure the 
concentration of mercury in the gases exhausted from the alkali bypass 
and coal mill.
    (ii) On a continuous basis, determine the mass emissions of mercury 
in lb/hr from the alkali bypass and coal mill exhausts by using the 
mercury hourly emissions rate, the exhaust gas flow rate and hourly 
mercury emission rate to calculate hourly mercury emissions in lb/hr.
    (iii) Sum the hourly mercury emissions from the kiln, alkali bypass 
and coal mill to determine total mercury emissions. Using hourly 
clinker production, calculate the hourly emissions rate in pounds per 
ton of clinker to determine your 30 day rolling average.
    (iv) If mercury emissions from the coal mill are below the method 
detection limit for two consecutive annual performance tests, you may 
reduce the frequency of the performance tests of coal mills to once 
every 30 months. If the measured mercury concentration exceeds the 
method detection limit, you must revert to testing annually until two 
consecutive annual tests are below the method detection limit.
    (6) If you operate an integrated sorbent trap monitoring system 
conforming to PS 12B, you may use a monitoring period at least 24 hours 
but no longer than 168 hours in length. You should use a monitoring 
period that is a multiple of 24 hours (except during relative accuracy 
testing as allowed in PS 12B).
    (l) HCl Monitoring Requirements. If you are subject to an emissions 
limitation on HCl emissions in Sec.  63.1343, you must monitor HCl 
emissions continuously according to paragraph (l)(1) or (2) and 
paragraphs (m)(1) through (4) of this section or, if your kiln is 
controlled using a wet or dry scrubber or tray tower, you alternatively 
may parametrically monitor SO2 emissions continuously 
according to paragraph (l)(3) of this section. You must also develop an 
emissions monitoring plan in accordance with paragraphs (p)(1) through 
(4) of this section.
    (1) If you monitor compliance with the HCl emissions limit by 
operating an HCl CEMS, you must do so in accordance with Performance 
Specification 15 (PS 15) of appendix B to part 60 of this chapter, or, 
upon promulgation, in accordance with any other performance 
specification for HCl CEMS in appendix B to part 60 of this chapter. 
You must operate, maintain, and quality assure a HCl CEMS installed and 
certified under PS 15 according to the quality assurance requirements 
in Procedure 1 of appendix F to part 60 of this chapter except that the 
Relative Accuracy Test Audit requirements of Procedure 1 must be 
replaced with the validation requirements and criteria of sections 
11.1.1 and 12.0 of PS 15. If you install and operate an HCl CEMS in 
accordance with any other performance specification for HCl CEMS in 
appendix B to part 60 of this chapter, you must operate, maintain and 
quality assure the HCl CEMS using the procedure of appendix F to part 
60 of this chapter applicable to the performance specification. You 
must use Method 321 of appendix A to part 63 of this chapter as the 
reference test method for conducting relative accuracy testing. The 
span value and calibration requirements in paragraphs (l)(1)(i) and 
(ii) of this section apply to HCl CEMS other than those installed and 
certified under PS 15.
    (i) You must use a span value for any HCl CEMS that represents the 
intended upper limit of the HCl concentration measurement range during 
normal inline raw ``mill on'' operation. The span value should be a 
concentration equivalent to approximately two times the emissions 
standard and it may be rounded to the nearest multiple of 5 ppm of HCl. 
The HCl CEMS data recorder output range must include the full range of 
expected HCl concentration values which would include those expected 
during ``mill off'' conditions. Engineering judgments made and 
calculations used to determine the corresponding span concentration 
from the emission standard shall be documented in the site-specific 
monitoring plan and associated records.
    (ii) In order to quality assure data measured above the span value, 
you must use one of the two options in paragraphs (l)(1)(ii)(A) and (B) 
of this section.
    (A) Include a second span that encompasses the HCl emission 
concentrations expected to be

[[Page 10052]]

encountered during ``mill off'' conditions. This second span may be 
rounded to a multiple of 5 [mu]g/m\3\ of total HCl. The requirements of 
the appropriate HCl monitor performance specification, shall be 
followed for this second span with the exception that a RATA with the 
mill off is not required.
    (B) Quality assure any data above the span value established in 
paragraph (1)(1)(i) of this section using the following procedure. Any 
time the average measured concentration of HCl exceeds or is expected 
to exceed the span value for greater than two hours you must, within a 
period 24 hours before or after the `above span' period, introduce a 
higher, `above span' HCl reference gas standard to the HCl CEMS. The 
`above span' reference gas must meet the requirements of the applicable 
performance specification and be of a concentration level between 50 
and 100 percent of the highest hourly concentration measured during the 
period of measurements above span, and must be introduced at the probe. 
Record and report the results of this procedure as you would for a 
daily calibration. The `above span' calibration is successful if the 
value measured by the HCl CEMS is within 20 percent of the certified 
value of the reference gas. If the value measured by the HCl CEMS is 
not within 20 percent of the certified value of the reference gas, then 
you must normalize the stack gas values measured above span as 
described in paragraph (l)(1)(ii)(C) below. If the `above span' 
calibration is conducted during the period when measured emissions are 
above span and there is a failure to collect the required minimum 
number of data points in an hour due to the calibration duration, then 
you must determine the emissions average for that missed hour as the 
average of hourly averages for the hour preceding the missed hour and 
the hour following the missed hour.
    (C) In the event that the `above span' calibration is not 
successful (i.e., the HCl CEMS measured value is not within 20 percent 
of the certified value of the reference gas), then you must normalize 
the one-hour average stack gas values measured above the span during 
the 24-hour period preceding or following the `above span' calibration 
for reporting based on the HCl CEMS response to the reference gas as 
shown in Equation 20:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12FE13.025

Only one `above span' calibration is needed per 24-hour period.

    (2) Install, operate, and maintain a CMS to monitor wet scrubber or 
tray tower parameters, as specified in paragraphs (m)(5) and (7) of 
this section, and dry scrubber, as specified in paragraph (m)(9) of 
this section.
    (3) If the source is equipped with a wet or dry scrubber or tray 
tower, and you choose to monitor SO2 emissions, monitor 
SO2 emissions continuously according to the requirements of 
Sec.  60.63(e) through (f) of part 60 subpart F of this chapter. If 
SO2 levels increase above the 30-day rolling average 
SO2 operating limit established during your performance 
test, you must:
    (i) As soon as possible but no later than 48 hours after you exceed 
the established SO2 value conduct an inspection and take 
corrective action to return the SO2 emissions to within the 
operating limit; and
    (ii) Within 60 days of the exceedance or at the time of the next 
compliance test, whichever comes first, conduct an HCl emissions 
compliance test to determine compliance with the HCl emissions limit 
and to verify or re-establish the SO2 CEMS operating limit.
    (m) Parameter Monitoring Requirements. If you have an operating 
limit that requires the use of a CMS, you must install, operate, and 
maintain each continuous parameter monitoring system (CPMS) according 
to the procedures in paragraphs (m)(1) through (4) of this section by 
the compliance date specified in Sec.  63.1351. You must also meet the 
applicable specific parameter monitoring requirements in paragraphs 
(m)(5) through (11) that are applicable to you.
* * * * *
    (3) Determine the 1-hour block average of all recorded readings.
* * * * *
    (7) * * *
    (i) Locate the pH sensor in a position that provides a 
representative measurement of wet scrubber or tray tower effluent pH.
* * * * *
    (9) Mass Flow Rate (for Sorbent Injection) Monitoring Requirements. 
If you have an operating limit that requires the use of equipment to 
monitor sorbent injection rate (e.g., weigh belt, weigh hopper, or 
hopper flow measurement device), you must meet the requirements in 
paragraphs (m)(9)(i) through (iii) of this section. These requirements 
also apply to the sorbent injection equipment of a dry scrubber.
* * * * *
    (10) Bag leak detection monitoring requirements. If you elect to 
use a fabric filter bag leak detection system to comply with the 
requirements of this subpart, you must install, calibrate, maintain, 
and continuously operate a BLDS as specified in paragraphs (m)(10)(i) 
through (viii) of this section.
    (i) You must install and operate a BLDS for each exhaust stack of 
the fabric filter.
    (ii) Each BLDS must be installed, operated, calibrated, and 
maintained in a manner consistent with the manufacturer's written 
specifications and recommendations and in accordance with the guidance 
provided in EPA-454/R-98-015, September 1997.
    (iii) The BLDS must be certified by the manufacturer to be capable 
of detecting PM emissions at concentrations of 10 or fewer milligrams 
per actual cubic meter.
    (iv) The BLDS sensor must provide output of relative or absolute PM 
loadings.
    (v) The BLDS must be equipped with a device to continuously record 
the output signal from the sensor.
    (vi) The BLDS must be equipped with an alarm system that will alert 
an operator automatically when an increase in relative PM emissions 
over a preset level is detected. The alarm must be located such that 
the alert is detected and recognized easily by an operator.
    (vii) For positive pressure fabric filter systems that do not duct 
all compartments of cells to a common stack, a BLDS must be installed 
in each baghouse compartment or cell.
* * * * *
    (11) * * *
    (v) Cleaning the BLDS probe or otherwise repairing the BLDS; or
* * * * *
    (n) Continuous Flow Rate Monitoring System. You must install, 
operate, calibrate, and maintain instruments, according to the 
requirements in

[[Page 10053]]

paragraphs (n)(1) through (10) of this section, for continuously 
measuring and recording the stack gas flow rate to allow determination 
of the pollutant mass emissions rate to the atmosphere from sources 
subject to an emissions limitation that has a pounds per ton of clinker 
unit.
* * * * *
    (o) Alternate Monitoring Requirements Approval. You may submit an 
application to the Administrator for approval of alternate monitoring 
requirements to demonstrate compliance with the emission standards of 
this subpart, except for emission standards for THC, subject to the 
provisions of paragraphs (o)(1) through (6) of this section.
* * * * *
    (p) Development and Submittal (Upon Request) of Monitoring Plans. 
If you demonstrate compliance with any applicable emissions limit 
through performance stack testing or other emissions monitoring, you 
must develop a site-specific monitoring plan according to the 
requirements in paragraphs (p)(1) through (4) of this section. This 
requirement also applies to you if you petition the EPA Administrator 
for alternative monitoring parameters under paragraph (o) of this 
section and Sec.  63.8(f). If you use a BLDS, you must also meet the 
requirements specified in paragraph (p)(5) of this section.
    (1) For each CMS required in this section, you must develop, and 
submit to the permitting authority for approval upon request, a site-
specific monitoring plan that addresses paragraphs (p)(1)(i) through 
(iii) of this section. You must submit this site-specific monitoring 
plan, if requested, at least 30 days before your initial performance 
evaluation of your CMS.
* * * * *
    (2) In your site-specific monitoring plan, you must also address 
paragraphs (p)(2)(i) through (iii) of this section.
* * * * *
    (5) BLDS Monitoring Plan. Each monitoring plan must describe the 
items in paragraphs (p)(5)(i) through (v) of this section. At a 
minimum, you must retain records related to the site-specific 
monitoring plan and information discussed in paragraphs (m)(1) through 
(4), (m)(10) and (11) of this section for a period of 5 years, with at 
least the first 2 years on-site;
* * * * *

0
19. Section 63.1351 is amended by revising paragraphs (c) and (d) and 
adding paragraph (e) to read as follows:

Sec.  63.1351  Compliance dates.

* * * * *
    (c) The compliance date for existing sources for all the 
requirements that became effective on February 12, 2013, except for the 
open clinker pile requirements will be September 9, 2015.
    (d) The compliance date for new sources is February 12, 2013, or 
startup, whichever is later.
    (e) The compliance date for existing sources with the requirements 
for open clinker storage piles in Sec.  63.1343(c) is February 12, 
2014.

0
20. Section 63.1352 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as 
follows:

Sec.  63.1352  Additional test methods.

* * * * *
    (b) Owners or operators conducting tests to determine the rates of 
emission of specific organic HAP from raw material dryers, and kilns at 
Portland cement manufacturing facilities, solely for use in 
applicability determinations under Sec.  63.1340 of this subpart are 
permitted to use Method 320 of appendix A to this part, or Method 18 of 
appendix A to part 60 of this chapter.

0
21. Section 63.1353 is amended by adding paragraph (b)(6) to read as 
follows:

Sec.  63.1353  Notification Requirements.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (6) Within 48 hours of an exceedance that triggers retesting to 
establish compliance and new operating limits, notify the appropriate 
permitting agency of the planned performance tests. The notification 
requirements of Sec. Sec.  63.7(b) and 63.9(e) do not apply to 
retesting required for exceedances under this subpart.

0
22. Section 63.1354 is amended by:
0
a. Removing and reserving paragraphs (b)(4) and (5);
0
b. Revising paragraph (b)(9)(vi);
0
c. Adding paragraph (b)(9)(vii); and
0
d. Revising paragraph (c).
    The revisions read as follows:

Sec.  63.1354  Reporting requirements.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (9) * * *
    (vi) For each PM, HCl, Hg, and THC CEMS or Hg sorbent trap 
monitoring system, within 60 days after the reporting periods, you must 
submit reports to the EPA's WebFIRE database by using the Compliance 
and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI) that is accessed through 
the EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX) (www.epa.gov/cdx). You must use 
the appropriate electronic reporting form in CEDRI or provide an 
alternate electronic file consistent with the EPA's reporting form 
output format. For each reporting period, the reports must include all 
of the calculated 30-operating day rolling average values derived from 
the CEMS or Hg sorbent trap monitoring systems.
    (vii) In response to each violation of an emissions standard or 
established operating parameter limit, the date, duration and 
description of each violation and the specific actions taken for each 
violation including inspections, corrective actions and repeat 
performance tests and the results of those actions.
* * * * *
    (c) Reporting a failure to meet a standard due to a malfunction. 
For each failure to meet a standard or emissions limit caused by a 
malfunction at an affected source, you must report the failure in the 
semi-annual compliance report required by Sec.  63.1354(b)(9). The 
report must contain the date, time and duration, and the cause of each 
event (including unknown cause, if applicable), and a sum of the number 
of events in the reporting period. The report must list for each event 
the affected source or equipment, an estimate of the volume of each 
regulated pollutant emitted over the emission limit for which the 
source failed to meet a standard, and a description of the method used 
to estimate the emissions. The report must also include a description 
of actions taken by an owner or operator during a malfunction of an 
affected source to minimize emissions in accordance with Sec.  
63.1348(d), including actions taken to correct a malfunction.

0
23. Section 63.1355 is amended by revising paragraphs (f) and (g)(1) 
and adding paragraph (h) to read as follows:

Sec.  63.1355  Recordkeeping Requirements.

* * * * *
    (f) You must keep records of the date, time and duration of each 
startup or shutdown period for any affected source that is subject to a 
standard during startup or shutdown that differs from the standard 
applicable at other times, and the quantity of feed and fuel used 
during the startup or shutdown period.
    (g)(1) You must keep records of the date, time and duration of each 
malfunction that causes an affected source to fail to meet an 
applicable standard; if there was also a monitoring malfunction, the 
date, time and duration of the monitoring malfunction; the record must 
list the affected source or equipment, an estimate of the volume of 
each regulated pollutant emitted over the standard for which the source 
failed to meet a standard, and a description of

[[Page 10054]]

the method used to estimate the emissions.
* * * * *
    (h) For each exceedance from an emissions standard or established 
operating parameter limit, you must keep records of the date, duration 
and description of each exceedance and the specific actions taken for 
each exceedance including inspections, corrective actions and repeat 
performance tests and the results of those actions.

0
24. Section 63.1356 is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  63.1356  Sources with multiple emissions limit or monitoring 
requirements.

    If an affected facility subject to this subpart has a different 
emissions limit or requirement for the same pollutant under another 
regulation in title 40 of this chapter, the owner or operator of the 
affected facility must comply with the most stringent emissions limit 
or requirement and is exempt from the less stringent requirement.

0
25. Section 63.1357 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) to 
read as follows:

Sec.  63.1357  Temporary, conditioned exemption from particulate matter 
and opacity standards.

    (a) * * *
    (1) Any PM and opacity standards of part 60 or part 63 of this 
chapter that are applicable to cement kilns and clinker coolers.
    (2) Any permit or other emissions or operating parameter or other 
limitation on workplace practices that are applicable to cement kilns 
and clinker coolers to ensure compliance with any PM and opacity 
standards of this part or part 60 of this chapter.
* * * * *

0
26. Table 3 to Subpart LLL of Part 63 is revised by revising the 
entries for 63.6(e)(3), 63.7(b), and 63.9(e) to read as follows:

                     Table 3--To Subpart LLL of Part 63--Applicability of General Provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Applies to Subpart
        Citation               Requirement                LLL                         Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
63.6(e)(3).............  Startup, Shutdown        No................  Your operations and maintenance plan must
                          Malfunction Plan.                            address periods of startup and shutdown.
                                                                       See Sec.   63.1347(a)(1).
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
63.7(b)................  Notification period....  Yes...............  Except for repeat performance test caused
                                                                       by an exceedance. See Sec.
                                                                       63.1353(b)(6)
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
63.9(e)................  Notification of          Yes...............  Except for repeat performance test caused
                          performance test.                            by an exceedance. See Sec.
                                                                       63.1353(b)(6)
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2012-31633 Filed 2-11-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P