Document ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0051-3322
Agency: epa
Document Type: Rule
Title: National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants From the Portland Cement Manufacturing Industry and Standards of Performance for Portland Cement Plants; Final Rule
Posted Date: 2010-09-09T04:00Z

[Federal Register: September 9, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 174)]
[Rules and Regulations]               
[Page 54969-55066]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr09se10-14]                         

[[Page 54969]]

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

Part II

Environmental Protection Agency

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

40 CFR Parts 60 and 63

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

[[Page 54970]]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 60 and 63

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0051; EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0877; FRL-9189-2]
RIN 2060-AO15, 2060-AO42

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

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is finalizing amendments to the National Emission 
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) from the Portland 
Cement Manufacturing Industry and to the New Source Performance 
Standards (NSPS) for Portland Cement Plants.
    The final amendments to the NESHAP add or revise, as applicable, 
emission limits for mercury, total hydrocarbons (THC), and particulate 
matter (PM) from new and existing kilns located at major and area 
sources, and for hydrochloric acid (HCl) from new and existing kilns 
located at major sources. The standards for new kilns apply to 
facilities that commence construction, modification, or reconstruction 
after May 6, 2009.
    The final amendments to the NSPS add or revise, as applicable, 
emission limits for PM, opacity, nitrogen oxides (NOX), and 
sulfur dioxide (SO2) for facilities that commence 
construction, modification, or reconstruction after June 16, 2008. The 
final rule also includes additional testing and monitoring requirements 
for affected sources.

DATES: These final rules are effective on November 8, 2010. The 
incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this rule 
is approved by the Director of the Federal Register on November 8, 
2010.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established two separate dockets for these actions: 
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0877 for the amendments to the NSPS and 
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0051 for the amendments to the NESHAP. 
All documents in the two dockets are listed in the http://
www.regulations.gov index. Certain other material, such as copyrighted 
material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly 
available docket materials are available either electronically in 
http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center, 
Standards of Performance for Portland Cement Plants Docket, EPA West, 
Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The Public 
Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through 
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public 
Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the Docket 
Center is (202) 566-1742.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Keith Barnett; Office of Air 
Quality Planning and Standards; Sector Policies and Programs Division, 
Metals and Minerals Group (D243-02); Environmental Protection Agency; 
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711; telephone number: (919) 541-5605; fax 
number: (919) 541-5450; e-mail address: barnett.keith@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The supplementary information presented in 
this preamble is organized as follows:

I. General Information
    A. Does this action apply to me?
    B. Where can I get a copy of this document?
    C. Judicial Review
II. Background Information on the NESHAP, 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart 
LLL
    A. What is the statutory basis for the NESHAP in 40 CFR part 63, 
subpart LLL?
    B. Summary of the National Lime Association v. EPA Litigation
    C. EPA's Response to the Remand
    D. Reconsideration of EPA Final Action in Response to the Remand
III. Background Information From the NSPS 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart F
IV. Summary of EPA's Final Action on Amendments
    A. What are EPA's final actions on 40 CFR part 63, subpart LLL?
    B. What are EPA's final actions on 40 CFR part 60, subpart F?
    C. What is EPA's sector-based approach?
V. Responses to Major Comments
    A. What are the significant comments and responses on 40 CFR 
part 63, subpart LLL?
    B. What are the significant comments and responses on 40 CFR 
part 60, subpart F?
VI. Summary of Cost, Environmental, Energy, and Economic Impacts of 
the Final Amendments to Subpart LLL and Subpart F
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and 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 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. Does this action apply to me?

    Categories and entities potentially regulated by this final rule 
include:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           NAICS
                Category                  code \1\                 Examples of regulated entities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry...............................     327310  Portland cement manufacturing plants.
Federal government.....................  .........  Not affected.
State/local/Tribal government..........  .........  Portland cement manufacturing plants.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ North American Industry Classification System.

    This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a 
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this 
action. To determine whether your facility will be regulated by this 
action, you should examine the applicability 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 person listed in the preceding FOR 
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

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

    In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of 
this final action is available on the Worldwide Web (WWW) through the 
Technology Transfer Network (TTN). Following

[[Page 54971]]

signature, a copy of this final action will be posted on the TTN's 
policy and guidance page for newly proposed or promulgated rules at 
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg. The TTN provides information and 
technology exchange in various areas of air pollution control.

C. Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act (CAA), judicial review 
of these final rules are available only by filing a petition for review 
in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia 
Circuit by November 8, 2010. Under section 307(b)(2) of the CAA, the 
requirements established by these final rules may not be challenged 
separately in any civil or criminal proceedings brought by EPA to 
enforce these 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 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, 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 on the NESHAP, 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart LLL

A. What is the statutory basis for the NESHAP in 40 CFR part 63, 
subpart LLL?

    Section 112 of the CAA establishes a regulatory process to address 
emissions of hazardous air pollutants (HAP) from stationary sources. 
After 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. CAA section 112(d)(2).
    Section 112(k)(3)(B) of the CAA requires EPA to identify at least 
30 HAP that pose the greatest potential health threat in urban areas, 
and section 112(c)(3) requires EPA to regulate, under section 112(d) 
standards, the area source \1\ categories that represent 90 percent of 
the emissions of the 30 ``listed'' HAP (``urban HAP''). We implemented 
these listing requirements through the Integrated Urban Air Toxics 
Strategy (64 FR 38715, July 19, 1999).\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ An area source is a stationary source of HAP emissions that 
is not a major source. A major source is a stationary source that 
emits or has the potential to emit 10 tpy or more of any HAP or 25 
tpy or more of any combination of HAP.
    \2\ Since its publication in the Integrated Urban Air Toxics 
Strategy in 1999, EPA has amended the area source category list 
several times.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Portland cement manufacturing source category was listed for 
regulation under this 1999 Urban Strategy based on emissions of 
arsenic, cadmium, beryllium, lead, and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB). 
The final NESHAP for the Portland Cement Manufacturing Industry (64 FR 
31898, June 14, 1999) included emission limits based on performance of 
MACT for the control of THC emissions from area sources. This 1999 rule 
fulfills the requirement to regulate area source cement kiln emissions 
of PCB (for which THC is a surrogate). However, EPA did not include 
requirements for the control of the non-volatile metal HAP (arsenic, 
cadmium, beryllium, and lead) from area sources in the 1999 rule or in 
the 2006 amendments. To fulfill our requirements under CAA section 
112(c)(3) and 112(k), EPA is thus setting emissions standards for these 
metal HAP from Portland cement manufacturing facilities that are area 
sources (using PM as a surrogate). In this final rule EPA is 
promulgating PM standards for area sources based on performance of 
MACT, PM being a surrogate for these (and other non-volatile) HAP 
metals.
    Section 112(c)(6) requires that EPA list categories and 
subcategories of sources assuring that sources accounting for not less 
than 90 percent of the aggregate emissions of each of seven specified 
HAP are subject to standards under section 112(d)(2) or (d)(4). The 
seven HAP are as follows: Alkylated lead compounds; polycyclic organic 
matter; hexachlorobenzene; mercury; polychlorinated byphenyls; 2,3,7,8-
tetrachlorodibenzofurans; and 2,3,7,8-tetrachloroidibenzo-p-dioxin. 
Standards established under CAA section 112(d)(2) must reflect the 
performance of MACT. ``Portland cement manufacturing: Non-hazardous 
waste kilns'' is listed as a source category pursuant to CAA section 
112(c)(6) due to emissions of polycyclic organic matter (POM), mercury, 
and dioxin/furans. Consistent with the requirements of CAA section 
112(c)(6), we set MACT standards for these pollutants. 63 FR 17838, 
17848, April 10, 1998; see also 63 FR at 14193 (March 24, 1998) (area 
source cement kilns' emissions of mercury, dibenzo-p-dioxins and 
dibenzo-p-furans, POM, and PCB are subject to MACT).
    Section 129(a)(1)(A) of the CAA requires EPA to establish specific 
performance standards, including emission limitations, for ``solid 
waste incineration units'' generally, and, in particular, for ``solid 
waste incineration units combusting commercial or industrial waste'' 
(CAA section 129(a)(1)(D)).\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ CAA section 129 refers to the Solid Waste Disposal Act 
(SWDA). However, this Act, as amended is commonly referred to as 
RCRA.

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

[[Page 54972]]

    Section 129 of the CAA defines ``solid waste incineration unit'' as 
``a distinct operating unit of any facility which combusts any solid 
waste material from commercial or industrial establishments or the 
general public.'' CAA Section 129(g)(1). CAA Section 129 also provides 
that ``solid waste'' shall have the meaning established by EPA pursuant 
to its authority under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 
(RCRA). Section 129(g)(6).
    In Natural Resources Defense Council v. EPA, 489 F. 3d 1250, 1257-
61 (DC Cir. 2007), the Court vacated the Commercial and Industrial 
Solid Waste Incineration Units (CISWI) Definitions Rule, 70 FR 55568 
(Sept. 22, 2005), which EPA issued pursuant to CAA section 
129(a)(1)(D).
    In response to the Court's remand and vacatur of the CISWI 
Definitions rule, EPA initiated a rulemaking to identify which 
secondary materials are non-hazardous ``solid waste'' for purposes of 
subtitle D (non-hazardous waste) of the RCRA when burned in a 
combustion unit. See 75 FR 31844 (June 4, 2010). Any final definition 
adopted in that rulemaking, in turn, will determine the applicability 
of CAA section 129(a) (i.e., any combustion unit that burns any non-
hazardous secondary material that is considered to be a solid waste 
would be subject to CAA section 129 requirements).
    There is presently no Federal regulatory interpretation of ``solid 
waste'' for EPA to apply under Subtitle D of RCRA for purposes of CAA 
section 112 and 129. EPA is not prejudging, and cannot prejudge the 
outcome of the recently proposed non-hazardous solid waste rulemaking. 
EPA therefore cannot reliably determine at this time if the non-
hazardous secondary materials combusted by cement kilns are to be 
classified as solid wastes. Accordingly, EPA is basing all 
determinations as to source classification on the emissions information 
now available, as required by CAA section 112(d)(3), and will 
necessarily continue to do so until the solid waste definition 
discussed above is promulgated. The current data base classifies all 
Portland cement kilns as CAA section 112 sources (i.e., subject to 
regulation under CAA section 112).
    We proposed amendments to the Portland Cement Manufacturing NESHAP 
on May 6, 2009. See 74 FR 21136. We received a total of 3,229 comments 
from the Portland cement industry, environmental groups, State 
environmental agencies and others during the comment period. This final 
rule reflects our consideration of all the comments we received. 
Detailed responses to the comments not included in this preamble are 
contained in the Summary of Public Comments and Responses document, 
which is included in the docket for this rulemaking.

B. Summary of the National Lime Association v. EPA Litigation

    On June 14, 1999 (64 FR 31898), EPA issued the NESHAP for the 
Portland Cement Manufacturing Industry (40 CFR part 63, subpart 
LLL).\4\ The 1999 final rule established emission limitations for PM as 
a surrogate for non-volatile HAP metals (major sources only), dioxins/
furans, and for greenfield \5\ new sources total THC as a surrogate for 
organic HAP. These standards were intended to be based on the 
performance of MACT pursuant to CAA sections 112(d)(2) and (3). We did 
not establish limits for THC for existing sources and non-greenfield 
new sources, nor for HCl or mercury for new or existing sources. We 
reasoned that emissions of these constituents were a function of raw 
material concentrations and so were essentially uncontrolled, the 
result being that there was no level of performance on which a floor 
could be based. EPA further found that beyond the floor standards for 
these HAP were not warranted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Cement kilns which burn hazardous waste are a separate 
source category, since their emissions of many HAP differ from 
Portland cement kilns' as a result of the hazardous waste inputs. 
Rules for hazardous waste-burning cement kilns are found at subpart 
EEE of part 63.
    \5\ For purposes of the 1999 rule a new greenfield kiln is a 
kiln constructed after March 24, 1998, at a site where there are no 
existing kilns.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Ruling on petitions for review of various environmental groups, the 
DC Circuit held that EPA had erred in failing to establish CAA section 
112(d) standards for mercury, THC (except for greenfield new sources) 
and HCl. The court held that ``[n]othing in the statute even suggests 
that EPA may set emission levels only for those * * * HAPs controlled 
with technology.'' National Lime Ass'n v. EPA, 233 F. 3d 625, 633 (DC 
Cir. 2000). The court also stated that EPA is obligated to consider 
other pollution-reducing measures such as process changes and material 
substitution. Id. at 634 (``the absence of technology-based pollution 
control devices for HCl, mercury, and total hydrocarbons did not excuse 
EPA from setting emission standards for those pollutants''). Later 
cases go on to hold that EPA must account for levels of HAP in raw 
materials and other inputs in establishing MACT floors, and further 
hold that sources with low HAP emission levels due to low levels of HAP 
in their raw materials can be considered best performers for purposes 
of establishing MACT floors. See, e.g., Cement Kiln Recycling Coalition 
v. EPA, 255 F. 2d 855, 865-66 (DC Cir. 2001); Sierra Club v. EPA 
(``Brick MACT''), 479 F. 3d 875, 882-83 (DC Cir. 2007).\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ In the remainder of the opinion, the Court in National Lime 
Ass'n upheld EPA's standards for PM and dioxin (on grounds that 
petitioner had not properly raised arguments in its opening brief), 
upheld EPA's use of PM as a surrogate for HAP metals, and remanded 
for further explanation EPA's choice of an analytic method for HCl.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. EPA's Response to the Remand

    In response to the National Lime Ass'n mandate, on December 2, 
2005, we proposed standards for mercury, THC, and HCl. (More 
information on the regulatory and litigation history may be found at 70 
FR 72332, December 2, 2005.) We received over 1,700 comments on the 
proposed amendments. Most of these comments addressed the lack of a 
mercury emission limitation in the proposed amendments. On December 20, 
2006 (71 FR 76518), EPA published final amendments to the NESHAP. The 
2006 amendments contained a new source standard for mercury emissions 
from cement kilns and kilns/in-line raw mills of 41 micrograms per dry 
standard cubic meter, or alternatively the application of a limestone 
wet scrubber with a liquid-to-gas ratio of 30 gallons per 1,000 actual 
cubic feet per minute of exhaust gas. The final rule also adopted a 
standard for new and existing sources banning the use of utility boiler 
fly ash in cement kilns where the fly ash mercury content has been 
increased through the use of activated carbon or any other sorbent 
unless the cement kiln seeking to use the fly ash can demonstrate that 
the use of fly ash will not result in an increase in mercury emissions 
over its baseline mercury emissions (i.e., emissions not using the 
mercury-laden fly ash). EPA also issued a THC standard for new cement 
kilns (except for greenfield cement kilns that commenced construction 
on or before December 2, 2005) of 20 parts per million (corrected to 7 
percent oxygen) or 98 percent reduction in THC emissions from 
uncontrolled levels. EPA did not set a standard for HCl, determining 
that HCl was a pollutant for which a threshold had been established, 
and that no cement kiln, even under conservative operating conditions 
and exposure assumptions, would emit HCl at levels that would exceed 
that threshold level, allowing for an ample margin of safety. EPA 
pointed to CAA section 112(d)(4) authority as its rationale for not 
establishing HCl emissions limits.

[[Page 54973]]

D. Reconsideration of EPA Final Action in Response to the Remand

    At the same time we issued the final amendments, EPA on its own 
initiative made a determination to reconsider the new source standard 
for mercury, the existing and new source standard banning cement kiln 
use of certain mercury-containing fly ash, and the new source standard 
for THC (71 FR 76553, December 20, 2006). EPA granted reconsideration 
of the new source mercury standard both due to substantive issues 
relating to the performance of wet scrubbers and because information 
about their performance in the industry had not been available for 
public comment at the time of proposal; that information is now 
available in the docket. We also committed to undertake a test program 
for mercury emissions from cement kilns equipped with wet scrubbers 
that would enable us to resolve these issues. We further explained that 
we were granting reconsideration of the work practice requirement 
banning the use of certain mercury-containing fly ash in cement kilns 
to allow further opportunity for comment on both the standard and the 
underlying rationale and because we did not feel we had the level of 
analysis we would like to have to support a beyond-the-floor 
determination. We granted reconsideration of the new source standard 
for THC because the information on which the standard was based arose 
after the period for public comment. We requested comment on the actual 
standard, whether the standard is appropriate for reconstructed new 
sources (if any should occur) and the information on which the standard 
is based. We specifically solicited data on THC emission levels from 
preheater/precalciner cement kilns. We stated that we would evaluate 
all data and comments received, and determine whether in light of those 
data and comments it was appropriate to amend the promulgated 
standards.
    EPA received comments on the notice of reconsideration from two 
cement companies, three energy companies, three industry associations, 
a technical consultant, one State, one environmental group, one ash 
management company, one fuels company, and one private citizen. As part 
of these comments, one industry trade association submitted a petition 
to withdraw the new source MACT standards for mercury and THC and one 
environmental group submitted a petition for reconsideration of the 
2006 final action. A summary of these comments is available in the 
docket for this rulemaking.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Summary of Comments on December 20, 2006 Final Rule and 
Notice of Reconsideration. April 15, 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to the reconsideration discussed above, EPA received a 
petition from Sierra Club requesting reconsideration of the existing 
source standards for THC, mercury, and HCl, and judicial petitions for 
review challenging the final amendments. EPA granted the 
reconsideration petition. The judicial petitions have been combined and 
are being held in abeyance pending the results of the reconsideration.
    In March 2007 the DC Circuit Court issued an opinion (Sierra Club 
v. EPA, 479 F.3d 875 (DC Cir. 2007) (Brick MACT)) vacating and 
remanding CAA section 112(d) MACT standards for the Brick and 
Structural Clay Ceramics source categories. Some key holdings in that 
case were:
     Floors for existing sources must reflect the average 
emission limitation achieved by the best performing 12 percent of 
existing sources, not levels EPA considers to be achievable by all 
sources (479 F. 3d at 880-81);
     EPA cannot set floors of ``no control.'' The Court 
reiterated its prior holdings, including National Lime Ass'n, 
confirming that EPA must set floor standards for all HAP emitted by the 
major source, including those HAP that are not controlled by at-the-
stack control devices (479 F. 3d at 883); and
     EPA cannot ignore non-technology factors that reduce HAP 
emissions, including when determining which sources are best performers 
for purposes of ascertaining the MACT floor. Specifically, the Court 
held that ``EPA's decision to base floors exclusively on technology 
even though non-technology factors affect emissions violates the Act.'' 
(479 F. 3d at 883).
    Based on the statute, as interpreted in the Brick MACT decision, we 
believe a source's performance resulting from the presence or absence 
of HAP in raw materials must be accounted for in establishing floors; 
i.e., a low emitter due to low HAP proprietary raw materials can still 
be a best performer. In addition, the fact that a specific level of 
performance is not being intentionally achieved by the source is not a 
legal basis for excluding the source's performance from consideration. 
Sierra Club v. EPA, 479 F.3d at 631-34; National Lime Ass'n, 233 F. 3d 
at 640.
    The Brick MACT decision also reiterated that EPA may account for 
variability in setting floors. However, the Court found that EPA erred 
in assessing variability because it relied on data from the worst 
performers to estimate best performers' variability, and held that 
``EPA may not use emission levels of the worst performers to estimate 
variability of the best performers without a demonstrated relationship 
between the two.'' 479 F. 3d at 882.
    After considering the implications of this decision, EPA granted 
the petition for reconsideration of all the existing source standards 
in the 2006 rulemaking.
    A second Court opinion of relevance to the Portland cement NESHAP 
amended here is Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F. 3d 1019 (DC Cir. 2008). In 
that case, the court vacated the regulations contained in the General 
Provisions which exempt major sources from CAA section 112(d) standards 
during periods of startup, shutdown and malfunction (SSM). The 
regulations (in 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) and 63.6(h)(1)) provided that sources 
need not comply with the relevant CAA section 112(d) standard during 
SSM events and instead must ``minimize emissions * * * to the greatest 
extent which is consistent with safety and good air pollution control 
practices.'' The current Portland Cement NESHAP references the now-
vacated rules in the General Provisions. As a result of the court's 
decision, we are removing the references to the vacated provisions and 
addressing SSM in this rulemaking. Discussion of this issue may be 
found in Section IV.A.

III. Background Information on the NSPS 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart F

    NSPS implement CAA section 111(b) and are issued for categories of 
sources which cause, or contribute significantly to, air pollution 
which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or 
welfare. The primary purpose of the NSPS is to attain and maintain 
ambient air quality by ensuring that the best demonstrated emission 
control technologies are installed as the industrial infrastructure is 
modernized. Since 1970, the NSPS have been successful in achieving 
long-term emissions reductions in numerous industries by assuring cost-
effective controls are installed on new, reconstructed, or modified 
sources.
    Section 111 of the CAA requires that NSPS reflect the application 
of the best system of emission reductions which, taking into 
consideration the cost of achieving such emission reductions, any non-
air quality health and environmental impact and energy requirements, 
the Administrator determines has been adequately

[[Page 54974]]

demonstrated. This level of control is commonly referred to as best 
demonstrated technology (BDT). EPA promulgated Standards of Performance 
for Portland Cement Plants (40 CFR, part 61 subpart F) in 1971 ((36 FR 
24876, December 23, 1971).
    Section 111(b)(1)(B) of the CAA requires EPA to periodically review 
and revise the standards of performance, as necessary, to reflect 
improvements in methods for reducing emissions. We have conducted three 
reviews of the standards (39 FR 20793, June 14, 1974; 39 FR 39874, 
November 12, 1974; and 53 FR 50354, December 14, 1988).
    We proposed the current review of the Portland Cement Plant NSPS on 
June 16, 2008. We received a total of 46 comments from the Portland 
cement industry, environmental groups, State environmental agencies and 
others during the comment period. This final rule reflects our 
consideration of all the comments we received. Detailed responses to 
the comments not included in this preamble are contained in the Summary 
of Public Comments and Responses document which is included in the 
docket for this rulemaking.

IV. Summary of EPA's Final Action on the Amendments

    In this section we discuss the final amendments to 40 CFR part 63 
subpart LLL and part 60 subpart F, the changes since proposal, and the 
rationale for the changes. Responses to specific comments may be found 
in the response to comment section of this document or in the response 
to comment documents contained in the dockets for this rulemaking.
    As a preliminary matter, EPA notes that certain portions of the 
existing rules are not being amended substantively but are being 
reprinted, sometimes with editorial changes, in today's regulatory 
text. As explained at proposal, EPA did so either for readers' 
convenience or to make certain non-substantive ``plain English'' 
changes to rule text. 74 FR at 21140. The final rule text makes these 
same non-substantive changes (which did not occasion public comment), 
and reprints certain existing provisions. Provisions from the existing 
rules which do not change substantively include the PM emission limits 
for kilns currently subject to the NSPS, the opacity limits for raw 
materials dryers, raw mills, and finish mills, and the limits for 
dioxin furan (D/F) for cement kilns. We reorganized the testing and 
monitoring requirements of both rules to make them more consistent, and 
modified the rule language to better conform with the June 1, 1998, 
Executive Memorandum on Plain Language in Government Writing.

A. What are EPA's final actions on 40 CFR part 63, subpart LLL?

1. What are the final actions on emission limits under 40 CFR part 63, 
subpart LLL?
    In this action, we are amending the emission limits for mercury, 
THC, and PM from new and existing kilns located at a major or area 
source, and for HCl from new and existing kilns located at major 
sources. We identify these standards below for the emission sources in 
a typical Portland cement production process. We have applied the 
limits for existing and new sources in this final rule for mercury and 
THC to area sources consistent with CAA section 112(c)(6). As noted 
above, mercury is one of the pollutants specifically singled out by 
Congress in CAA section 112(c)(6), and THC is a surrogate for POM and 
PCB, which are also section 112(c)(6) HAP. See 63 FR 14193, March 24, 
1998 (determination to control all THC emissions from the source 
category under MACT standards). Finally, Portland cement kilns are a 
listed area source category for urban HAP metals pursuant to CAA 
section 112(c)(3), and control of these metal HAP emissions (via the 
standard for the PM non-mercury HAP metal surrogate) is required to 
ensure that area sources representing 90 percent of the area source 
emissions of urban metal HAP are subject to CAA section 112 control, as 
required by CAA section 112(c)(3). The PM standards for area sources 
reflect MACT, as explained below.
a. Changes to Overall Floor Setting Procedure
    The MACT floor limits for each of the HAP and HAP surrogates 
(mercury, THC, HCl, and PM) are calculated based on the performance of 
the lowest emitting (considered best performing in this rulemaking) 
sources in each of the MACT floor pools for each HAP or HAP surrogate. 
We ranked all of the sources for which we had data based on their 
emissions and identified the lowest emitting 12 percent of the sources 
for which we had data, which ranged from two kilns for THC to 11 kilns 
for mercury for existing sources. For new source MACT, the floor was 
based on the best controlled source.
    In assessing sources' performance, EPA may consider variability 
both in identifying which performers are ``best'' and in assessing 
their level of performance. Brick MACT, 479 F. 3d at 881-82; see also 
Mossville Envt'l Action Now v. EPA, 370 F.3d 1232, 1241-42 (DC Cir 
2004) (EPA must exercise its judgment, based on an evaluation of the 
relevant factors and available data, to determine the level of 
emissions control that has been achieved by the best performing sources 
considering these sources' variability).
    Variability in cement kilns' performance has a number of causes. 
For many of the pollutants, notably mercury and THC, most kilns do not 
have add-on control devices. The main source of variability for these 
pollutants consequently is the differing mercury and organic 
concentrations in the raw materials and fuels which are fed to the 
kiln. For particulate matter, which is well-controlled by baghouses, 
the variability is chiefly due to variations in performance of the 
control device for which both run-to-run and test-to-test variability 
must be accounted.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Run-to-run variability is essentially within-test 
variability, and encompasses variability in individual runs 
comprising the compliance test, and includes uncertainties in 
correlation of monitoring parameters and emissions, and imprecision 
of stack test methods and laboratory analysis. 72 FR at 54877 (Sept. 
27, 2007). Test-to-test variability results from variability in 
pollution device control efficiencies over time (depending on many 
factors, including for fabric filters the point in the maintenance 
cycle in which a fabric filter is tested). Test-to-test variability 
can be termed long-term variability. 72 FR at 54878.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In determining the MACT floor limits, we first determine the floor, 
which, as explained above, for existing sources is the level achieved 
in practice by the average of the top 12 percent of existing sources, 
or the level achieved in practice by the best controlled similar source 
for new sources. In this rule, EPA is using lowest emissions as the 
measure of best performance.
    We then assess variability of the best performers by using a 
statistical formula designed to estimate a MACT floor level that is 
equivalent to the average of the best performing sources based on 
future compliance tests (or calculated inputs in the case of mercury). 
Specifically, the MACT floor limit is an upper prediction limit (UPL) 
calculated with the Student's t-test using the TINV function in 
Microsoft Excel[reg]. The Student's t-test has also been 
used in other EPA rulemakings (e.g., NSPS for Hospital/Medical/
Infectious Waste Incinerators, NESHAP for Industrial, Commercial, and 
Institutional Boilers and Process Heaters) in accounting for 
variability. A prediction interval for a future observation is an 
interval that will, with a specified degree of confidence, contain the 
next (or some other pre-specified) randomly selected observation from a 
population. In other words, the prediction interval estimates what the 
upper bound of future values will be, based upon present or past 
background samples taken. The UPL

[[Page 54975]]

consequently represents the value which we can expect the mean of 
future observations (3-run average for HCl, 30-day average for mercury, 
PM, HCl (sources not having wet scrubbers or otherwise electing CEM-
based compliance), and THC) to fall below within a specified level of 
confidence, based upon the results of an independent sample from the 
same population. In other words, if we were to randomly select a future 
test condition from any of these sources (i.e., average of 3 runs or 
30-day average) we can be 99 percent confident that the reported level 
will fall at or below the UPL value. Use of the UPL is appropriate in 
this rulemaking because it sets a limit any single or future source can 
meet based on the performance of members of the MACT pool.
    This formula uses a pooled variance (in the s \2\ term) that 
encompasses all the data-point to data-point variability of the best 
performing sources comprising the MACT floor pool for each HAP. Where 
variability was calculated using the UPL statistical approach (i.e., 
for the Hg, HCl, and PM standards), we used the average (or sample 
mean) and sample standard deviation, which are two statistical measures 
calculated from the data distributions for mercury, HCl, and PM. The 
average is a central value of a data set, and the standard deviation is 
the common measure of the dispersion of the data set around the 
average. We describe in detail in the preamble sections on mercury, HCl 
and PM and in the memorandum ``Development of the MACT Floors for the 
Final NESHAP for Portland Cement'', August 6, 2010'' how these averages 
were developed. We note here that the methodology accounts for both 
short-term and long-term variability and encompasses run-to-run and 
test-to-test variability. The formula also applies differently 
depending on how the underlying data set is distributed. To this end, 
EPA carefully evaluated the data sets for each HAP to ascertain whether 
the data were normally distributed, or distributed in some other manner 
(i.e., log normally). After applying standard and rigorous statistical 
tests (involving the degree of ``skewness'' of the data), we determined 
that the distributions for mercury and particulate matter were 
approximately a normal distribution, which in turn determined the final 
form of the UPL equation. See Floor Calculations for Final Portland 
Cement NESHAP, August 6, 2010; see also 75 FR at 32019-20.
    EPA was able to reasonably calculate variability for the THC and 
HCl standards without needing to use predictive statistics. 
Specifically, the data set for THC contains a sufficient number of 
observations to estimate the variability without the need of any type 
of statistical intervals (no UPL needed to be calculated). For HCl, 
although EPA applied the UPL formula in developing the HCl standard, 
the key issue for the HCl data set is the HCl analytic method's 
detection limit, which ultimately dictated the level of the standard.
    At proposal we adopted a form of the UPL equation that has been 
used in a previous rulemaking. 69 FR 21233 April 20, 2004. Commenters 
stated correctly that there was an error in the equation used at 
proposal. As a result of these comments, EPA corrected the formula in 
the final rule. The UPL used in the final rule is calculated by:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR09SE10.000

Where:

x = the mean of the sample data set
n = the number of test runs
m = the number of test runs in the compliance average
s\2\ = observed variance
t = student t distribution statistic

This calculation was performed using the following Excel functions:

Normal distribution: 99 percent UPL = AVERAGE(Test Runs in Top 
12percent) + [STDEV(Test Runs in Top 12percent) x TINV(2 x probability, 
n-1 degrees of freedom)*SQRT((1/n)+(1/m))], for a one-tailed t-value, 
probability of 0.01, and sample size of n

This is the same UPL equation that EPA used in more recent rulemakings. 
See 75 FR 32020 (June 4, 2010) and 75 FR 31905 (June 4, 2010). The 
value of ``m'' denotes the number of future observations, and it is 
used to calculate an estimate of the variance of the average of m-
future observations. For example, if 30-day averages are used to 
determine compliance (m=30), the amount of variability in the 30-day 
average is much lower than the variability of the daily measurements in 
the data base, which results in a lower UPL for the 30-day average.
    As an illustration of the effects that correcting the UPL had on 
the emission limits, we calculated the UPLs for mercury and PM using 
the proposal version of the UPL formula, and the version used in this 
final rule. The results of these calculations are presented in Table 1. 
Both calculated limits are about 20 percent lower when the corrected 
UPL formula is used.

    Table 1--Comparison Emission Limits Calculated Using Proposal UPL
        Formula Versus Corrected UPL Formula for Existing Sources
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Proposal            Proposal
                                   (uncorrected UPL     (corrected UPL
                                       formula)            formula)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mercury, (lb/MM tons feed) [lb/          29.6 [48.8]         22.5 [37.1]
 MM tons clinker]...............
PM (lb/ton clinker).............                0.05                0.04
------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Ramifications of EPA Statistical Approach
    A number of commenters maintained that this final rule raises the 
(perceived) quandry voiced by Judge Williams in his concurring opinion 
in Brick MACT where an achieved level of performance for purposes of 
CAA section 112(d)(3) results in a standard which is unachievable under 
CAA section 112(d)(2) because it is too costly or not cost-effective. 
Brick MACT, 479 F. 3d at 884-85. EPA is of course mindful of the 
repeated admonitions (with accompanying vacaturs and remands) from the 
DC Circuit that MACT floors must reflect achieved performance, that HAP 
content of process inputs (raw materials and fuels) must be accounted 
for in ascertaining sources' performance, and that costs cannot be 
considered by EPA in ascertaining the level of the MACT floor. See, 
e.g., Brick MACT, 479 F. 3d at 880-81, 882-83; NRDC v. EPA, 489 F. 3d 
1364, 1376 (DC Cir. 2007) (``Plywood MACT''); see also Cement Kiln 
Recycling Coalition v. EPA, 255 F. 3d 855, 861-62 (DC Cir. 2001) 
(``achievability'' requirement of CAA section 112(d)(2) cannot override 
the requirement that floors be calculated on the basis of what best 
performers actually achieved). EPA is also mindful of the need to 
account for sources' variability (both due to control device

[[Page 54976]]

performance and variability in inputs) in assessing sources' 
performance when developing technology-based standards. See, e.g., 
Mossville Environmental Action Now v. EPA, 370 F. 3d 1232, 1242 (DC 
Cir. 2004); National Lime I, 627 F. 2d 416,433-34(DC Cir. 1980). EPA 
has carefully developed data for each standard, assessing both 
technological controls and HAP inputs in doing so. For mercury, EPA 
used the pooled variance from all of the best performing kilns in the 
MACT floor pool in order to fully assess these kilns' intra-quarry and 
other variable mercury levels. EPA also used pooled variance to assess 
the variability of HCl and PM emissions for the MACT floor pool kilns. 
See 70 FR at 59438 (Oct. 12, 2005) (explaining when use of such pooled 
variances can be reasonable). EPA has also adopted 30-day averaging 
periods for all of the standards, further allowing short term 
fluctuations to be averaged out over the 30-day period.
    The result are floors which reasonably estimate the performance 
over time of the best performing sources, as do the standards based on 
those floors. It is true that many sources will need to install 
controls to meet these standards, and that these controls have 
significant costs (although EPA estimates that the rule's costs are 
substantially outweighed by its benefits). See Section VI below. This 
is part of the expected MACT process where, by definition, the averaged 
performance of the very best performers sets the minimum level of the 
standard. The Agency believes that it has followed the statute and 
applicable case law in developing its floor methodology.
    Industry commenters nonetheless maintained that EPA had not 
properly accounted for variability of the best performing sources 
because not even these sources can meet the standards which are 
predicated on their own performance without adding controls. This 
contention lacks a basis in the record. For mercury, all performers in 
the MACT floor pool--not just those with emissions below the average of 
the best performers-- meet the promulgated standard (highest 30-day 
average in MACT pool is 41.63 lb/MM tons clinker; the standard is 55 
lb/MM tons clinker (30-day average). In addition, several additional 
kilns, which are not in the pool of best performers, meet the 
standards. For THC, all kilns in the pool of best performers meet the 
promulgated standard (highest 30-day average in MACT pool is 5.68 ppmv; 
the standard is 24 ppmv). In addition, seven additional kilns which are 
not in the pool of best performers meet the standards. Indeed, nine of 
the 11 kilns for which EPA has CEM data are meeting the promulgated 
standards for THC. For PM, all six kilns in the MACT pool as well as 
twelve kilns overall meet the promulgated 30-day standard even though 
the measurements in the data base are stack tests (i.e., unlike for 
mercury and THC, these are not averaged values).\9\ Virtually all kilns 
in the MACT floor pool are meeting the HCl standard, although this is 
largely the result of setting the standard at a level reflecting 
analytic method quantitation limits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Development of The MACT Floors For The Final NESHAP For 
Portland Cement. August 6, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Commenters presented virtually no quantified data that floor plants 
are unable to meet the standards. See National Association of Metal 
Finishers v. EPA, 719 F. 2d 624, 649 (3d Cir. 1983) (unquantified 
assertions are entitled to little if any weight). Rather, their 
comments (comment 2845 at Table 1, echoed by many other industry 
commenters) provided narrative descriptions purporting to demonstrate 
that floor plants would not be able to achieve the standards.\10\ In 
those instances where commenters provided actual data on these plants' 
performance, EPA took the information into account in developing the 
final standards. Indeed, EPA adjusted all of the standards based on 
actual data presented. However, EPA is not willing to act on pure 
supposition and conjecture regarding variability, particularly in the 
face of record information indicating that not only all floor plants 
but a number of additional plants are already meeting the promulgated 
standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ For example, the commenter asserted, without providing 
support, that for the floor kilns the standards were ``achieved in 
practice, but not under foreseeable operations''; ``achieved in 
practice based on limited stack tests''; ``data shows that proposed 
standard was not achieved in practice when malfunction emission 
[sic] are included in compliance determination'' (although no such 
data were provided to EPA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

c. Mercury Limits for Kilns
    i. Floor Determination. We proposed mercury emissions limits of 43 
lb/million (MM) tons clinker for existing sources and 14 lb/MM tons 
clinker for new sources. The proposed floor was based on 30 days of 
data on all kiln inputs for 89 kilns. See 74 FR at 21142-43. For all 
kilns but the five equipped with wet scrubbers, emissions were assumed 
to equal the total mass of mercury fed to each kiln. Scrubber-equipped 
kilns were considered to emit all mercury minus an assumed amount 
representing the average performance of the wet scrubbers. For kilns 
that waste cement kiln dust (CKD), the mercury component of the CKD was 
subtracted from inputs to calculate emissions. Id. By conducting a 
total mass balance for mercury and then assuming that all mercury 
inputted is emitted (minus conservatively estimated removals for 
scrubber usage and dust wastage), EPA made a near worst case assumption 
as to kilns' mercury emission levels. The kilns were then ranked from 
best to worst based on the extrapolated mercury emissions, normalized 
to clinker production. EPA further proposed that no beyond the floor 
standard was appropriate for either existing or new sources. Id. at 
21149.
    Since proposal we received updated data on certain kilns' raw 
materials usage and mercury content \11\ and used that data to revise 
our average mercury emissions estimates from the best performing kilns 
at proposal.\12\ We have also revised upward the floor kilns' projected 
emissions based on their reasonably estimated intra-quarry variability 
(explained further below). As a result, estimated emissions from these 
kilns increased, and one of the kilns in the group of sources used to 
set the existing source floor is no longer one of the best performing 
kilns. At proposal, the average mercury emissions of the top 12 percent 
of the kilns was 27.4 pounds per million (lb/MM) tons clinker, and the 
average emissions of the best performing source were 13.4 lb/MM ton 
clinker. After revising our mercury emissions estimates, the averages 
were 32 and 14 lb/MM tons clinker, respectively, as shown in Table 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Portland Cement Association Comments on the NESHAP-
Proposed Rule (Docket Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0051) (September 4, 
2009) at pp. 31-35.
    \12\ Development of The MACT Floors For The Final NESHAP For 
Portland Cement, August 6, 2010.

                       Table 2--Mercury MACT Floor
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Mercury emissions
                     Kiln code                         (lb/MM ton feed)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1589...............................................                8.48
1650...............................................                9.53
1315...............................................               15.26
1302...............................................               15.28
1248...............................................               16.63
1259...............................................               21.33
1286...............................................               22.65
1594...............................................               25.23
1435...............................................               25.51
1484...............................................               25.51
1364...............................................               25.91
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                          MACT--Existing Kilns
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average: lb/MM tons feed (lb/MM tons clinker)......        19.21 (31.7)
Total variance.....................................               272.3

[[Page 54977]]

UPL: lb/MM tons feed (lb/MM tons clinker)..........         32.8 (54.1)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                             MACT--New Kilns
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average: lb/MM tons feed (lb/MM tons clinker)......         8.48 (14.0)
Total variance.....................................                35.2
UPL: lb/MM tons feed (lb/MM tons clinker)..........         12.3 (20.3)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted above, we are taking into account operating variability of 
the best performing kilns, or in the case of new source MACT the single 
best controlled kiln, in assessing their performance (i.e., both in 
determining which performers are best, and calculating what their 
performance is). When we calculated the UPL with 99 percent confidence 
for the best performing sources (or in the case of new source MACT the 
best controlled single source), we calculated a mercury floor of 55 lb/
MM tons clinker for existing sources and 21 lb/MM tons clinker for new 
sources. We chose a 30-day averaging period for the mercury emission 
limit. As noted above, the use of a 30-day average (as opposed to 
hourly or daily averages) tends to reduce variability, and also best 
reflects the nature of the data from which the floor was derived and 
assures that several operating cycles of raw mill on and off are 
included in each average. Id. at 21144.
    Industry commenters stated that we should account for additional 
sources of variability in this floor determination, namely intra-quarry 
variability and variability of the mercury content in local coals which 
kilns could utilize. As explained below, beyond those situations where 
commenters documented that sources actually used inputs with greater 
mercury content than used during the 30-day test period (see note 11 
above), or where further intra-quarry mercury variability could 
reasonably be estimated, we did not do so.
    EPA is of course aware that limestone quarries are immense, and are 
customarily used from periods of 50 to 100 years. Taking the average of 
30 days of sampling data from one part of the quarry would not 
necessarily encompass all of the different mercury levels throughout 
the quarry.
    Although industry commenters originally raised the issue of long 
term intra-quarry variability during the initial May 2007 30-day data 
collection, no plant chose to perform additional sampling and analysis 
of their raw materials and feed that would have allowed this issue to 
be directly addressed. Certain industry commenters did point, however, 
to data from the 30-day sampling effort as providing useful information 
on potential intra-quarry mercury variability of the two best 
performers. The data come from 30-day sampling conducted at four 
sources (three of which are located at a single facility), which all 
quarry limestone from a common geologic limestone formation.\13\ All 
six kilns (the two floor kilns, and the other four kilns in the 
immediate vicinity) are in the same city and within 9 miles of each 
other. It is a reasonable assumption that variability of mercury levels 
(as opposed to mercury levels themselves) across this formation are 
substantially the same and therefore that the variability of mercury 
levels in the two best performers' quarries can be adjusted to reflect 
the variability seen in the other quarries which are part of the common 
geologic formation. See Brick MACT, 479 F. 3d at 881-882 (EPA may look 
at performance of sources which are not among the best in estimating 
variability of best performers if there is a demonstrated relationship 
between the two).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Memorandum. Intra-quarry Variability Estimate, July 21, 
2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA further applied these estimates of intra-quarry variability to 
the mercury data for the other best performing kilns (i.e., applied the 
same RSD to the other best performing sources). EPA did so to more 
robustly characterize long-term variability of these sources' quarries' 
mercury levels. The fact that intra-quarry variability of the two 
lowest emitting sources increased somewhat after examination with other 
quarries in the common geologic formation confirms that there can be 
further variability. Since the intra-quarry variability comes from 
quarries servicing the two lowest emitting kilns, EPA would not expect 
intra-quarry variability to be lower for the other best performing 
sources. In no other instance did commenters provide data that we could 
use to determine intra-quarry variability for kilns in the MACT floor 
pool.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ For example, one industry commenter submitted core 
(unground, unprocessed) samples from its quarry which samples 
differed in mercury content by approximately one order of magnitude. 
This facility is not a best performer, the samples are single 
measurements (rather than 30-day measurements or some longer 
duration), and (unlike the 30-day measurements used as the basis for 
the standard) have not been processed (i.e., passed through the 
quarry crushers and mixed in the storage pile which would tend to 
make the material more homogeneous). Therefore, these data are not 
comparable to the data used to set the MACT floors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Commenters also maintained that because cement kilns can burn 
different types of coal, variability of coal mercury content needs to 
be factored into estimates of sources' performance. Commenters 
maintained that they obtained coal from a ``local market'' and so might 
eventually use any coal from that market. The comments did not further 
link coal to individual mines or to other particularized sources. 
Commenters appear to be asking for an upward adjustment of the MACT 
floors based on coal they might potentially use but never had used. EPA 
believes that allowing for any inputs that might conceivably be used in 
the future, including from sources in an area which a source has never 
used to date, goes beyond a reasonable estimate of performance over 
time and invites inflated estimates of variability based only on 
hypothesized possibilities, not on actual behavior.\15\ EPA not only 
does not believe such methodology is a reasonable means of calculating 
sources' achieved performance, but also believes that such an approach 
creates a perverse incentive to build in compliance margins based on 
seeking out more polluted inputs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ The situation differs from use of limestone from a 
proprietary quarry. Not only have sources used the quarry in the 
past but will necessarily continue to do so in the future.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For example, the price of lower mercury coal may increase as a 
result of this rule (it may be more desirable as a means of keeping 
mercury emissions low), so plants may seek out higher mercury coal 
which they otherwise have never used. This type of volitional activity 
does not seem to be within the ambit of normal variability of process 
inputs. In addition, facilities do have choices for coal. As noted in 
the comments, some facilities obtain coals from several States, while 
others appear to limit themselves to more local areas. However, coal is 
a commodity that can be transported long distances to fuel utility 
boilers. Therefore, we believe that a facility should have sufficient 
coals available that they would not be compelled to use a higher 
mercury coal just because it happens to be near the plant.
ii. Decision Regarding Whether To Create a Subcategory Based on 
Limestone Mercury Content
    EPA may create subcategories which distinguish among ``classes, 
types, and sizes of sources.'' CAA section 112(d)(1). EPA reads this 
provision to provide the Agency with discretion to subcategorize,

[[Page 54978]]

and EPA may exercise that discretion if sources are rationally 
distinguishable due to some difference in class, type or size. See 
Lignite Energy Council v. EPA, 198 F. 3d 930, 933 (DC Cir. 1999) (``EPA 
is not required by law to subcategorize--section 111[b][2] merely 
states that `the Administrator may distinguish among classes, types, 
and sizes within categories of new sources' '' (emphasis original)). 
Moreover, as we noted at proposal, ``normally, any basis for 
subcategorizing must be related to an effect on emissions, rather than 
to some difference among sources which does not affect emissions 
performance.'' 74 FR at 21145. EPA may also exercise this discretion on 
a pollutant-specific basis, since the difference in class, type or size 
may only have practical significance for certain HAP. In this final 
rule, EPA carefully considered the possibility of creating different 
subcategories of cement kilns with respect to mercury emissions.
    The subcategorization possibilities for mercury which we considered 
and rejected at rule proposal were the type of kiln, presence of an 
inline raw mill, practice of wasting cement kiln dust, total mercury 
inputs, or geographic location. See 74 FR 21144-21145. We likewise 
reject these bases in this final rules for the reasons already stated.
    At proposal we also considered subcategorizing by the mercury 
concentration of the limestone in the kiln's proprietary quarry. We did 
not propose to create this type of subcategory, and also choose not to 
do so in this final rule.
    As we explained at proposal, the facts do not indicate sharp 
disparities in limestone mercury content that readily differentiate 
among types of sources for most of the facilities for which we have 
data, and thus do not support this subcategorization approach for the 
majority of the facilities. See Figure 1 showing a gradual continuum of 
mercury concentrations in limestone for all but two outlying plants.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR09SE10.001

Industry commenters who supported creating a separate subcategory for 
the two highest mercury emitting sources based on limestone mercury 
content agreed with this assessment. Thus, EPA sees no technical 
justification to subcategorize by limestone quarry mercury content for 
the majority of the source category.
    However, as also shown in Figure 1, there is a sharp disparity for 
two kilns which have the highest quarry mercury contents. These 
sources' mercury emissions are also disproportionately higher than all 
other cement kilns', and are related almost entirely to the limestone 
mercury content, not to mercury content of other inputs. Commenters who 
supported subcategorization by quarry mercury levels recommended that 
EPA create a separate source category for these two kilns based on 
their uniquely high quarry mercury contents.
    If we were to set a separate subcategory for these two kilns, we 
determined that the floor level of control would be approximately 2100 
lb/MM tons clinker. Due to the high level of this floor, we evaluated a 
beyond-the-floor option of 85 percent reduction in emission for the 
highest emitting kiln. This level would represent the highest level of 
mercury control believed achievable for the highest emitting facility 
based on test data on a pilot mercury control system for that 
facility.\16\ This level of control would result in an emissions limit 
of

[[Page 54979]]

approximately 500 lb/MM tons clinker. This level is over 10 times the 
level that will be required for all other kilns, and even exceeds every 
other kiln's uncontrolled mercury emissions levels which range from 20 
to 400 lb/MM tons clinker.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Letter, C. Lesslie, Ash Grove Cement to P. Tsirigotis, U.S. 
EPA, April 22, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mercury in the air eventually settles into water or onto land where 
it can be washed into water. Once deposited, certain microorganisms can 
change it into methylmercury, a highly toxic form that builds up in 
fish, shellfish and animals that eat fish. Fish and shellfish are the 
main sources of methylmercury exposure to humans. Methylmercury builds 
up more in some types of fish and shellfish than in others. The levels 
of methylmercury in fish and shellfish depend on what they eat, how 
long they live and how high they are in the food chain. Mercury 
exposure at high levels can harm the brain, heart, kidneys, lungs, and 
immune system of people of all ages. Research shows that most people's 
fish consumption does not cause a health concern. However, it has been 
demonstrated that high levels of methylmercury in the bloodstream of 
unborn babies and young children may harm the developing nervous 
system, making the child less able to think and learn.\17\ Heightened 
concern for mercury's toxic effects is reflected directly in the 
structure of section 112 of the Act. Mercury is one of the pollutants 
identified for MACT-level control under the CAA's air toxics provision 
even (in most instances) when emitted by area sources (see CAA section 
112(c)(6)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ For more information see http://www.epa.gov/mercury/
about.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Thus, creating a high-mercury subcategory for two kilns based on 
limestone mercury content would result in standards allowing emissions 
of 500 lb/MM tons of clinker. Based on 2008 production rates, this 
would allow 1,020 pounds of mercury emissions per year from the 
potential two-plant subcategory. To put this in perspective, the rest 
of the industry (92 plants) would be allowed to emit 1,012 pounds tons 
of mercury per year (again based on 2008 production rates), and the two 
high-emitting plants would be allowed to emit 1,020 pounds per year. 
This would result in a doubling of mercury emissions from this source 
category after the application of MACT. Moreover, national mercury 
emissions for industrial sources are approximately 50 tpy.\18\ That 
would mean that these two sources alone would constitute 1 percent of 
the industrial mercury emissions for the U.S. EPA believes it is a 
reasonable exercise of discretion not to create a subcategory, where, 
as here, doing so would allow on-going emissions of a 
disproportionately high volume of a high-toxicity pollutant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ Mercury Emission in the U.S. by Source Category 1990 to 
1993, 2002, and 2005. http://cfpub.epa.gov/eroe/
index.cfm?fuseaction=detail.viewMidImg&ch=46&lShowInd=0&subtop=341&lv
=list.listByChapter&r=188199.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Due to mercury's high toxicity and the extremely high mercury 
emissions that would result, the Administrator is thus not exercising 
her discretion to subcategorize in setting the final mercury emissions 
limit. In light of this decision, it is unnecessary for EPA to address 
the further question of whether subcategorizing by raw material content 
of proprietary quarries is permissible under section 112 of the Act.
    Although the Agency has concluded that it is reasonable to set the 
same mercury standard for all cement kilns, we acknowledge the unique 
challenges that the highest emitting sources may face in meeting the 
reductions within the regulatory compliance timeline. In particular, as 
discussed at length above, the two highest emitting kilns--the kilns 
located in Durkee and Tehachapi--have unusually high levels of mercury 
in their proprietary limestone quarries, which, as typifies this 
sector, are located proximate to kiln operations. The mercury content 
of source material is the key factor in the high levels of emissions 
experienced at these kilns and a complicating consideration in their 
ability to achieve compliance in a timely manner.
    We also recognize that this challenge presents a unique opportunity 
to achieve substantial reductions in this naturally occurring, 
persistent, and widespread contaminant in an amount and on a schedule 
that exceeds what will be required in the final rule. The Agency 
believes that the two sources in question may be able in the near term 
to install aggressive controls, including activated carbon injection, 
that would result in dramatic near term reductions in mercury emissions 
(as much as 90 percent or two tons of mercury emissions in the first 
two years of operation). If they were to do so, these sources would 
emit substantially less mercury in the next few years than the 
alternative of allowing these facilities to continue to emit at current 
levels for three additional years, as would otherwise be the case. This 
would be a very substantial reduction in emissions of this pollutant. 
Annual emissions of mercury from all sources (not just cement kilns) 
are estimated to be 50 tpy,\19\ and emissions from the entire source 
category are approximately 7.5 tons per year,\20\ so that a two ton 
reduction is a substantial reduction of mercury emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Mercury Emission in the U.S. by Source Category 1990 to 
1993, 2002, and 2005. http://cfpub.epa.gov/eroe/
index.cfm?fuseaction=detail.viewMidImg&ch=46&lShowInd=0&subtop=341&lv
=list.listByChapter&r=188199.
    \20\ \\ Summary of Environmental And Cost Impacts For Final 
Portland Cement NESHAP And NSPS August 6, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We understand that one of the two high emitting kilns has already 
installed activated carbon injection, but that its performance could be 
further optimized. See 74 FR 21148. The other kiln would have to 
install activated carbon injection and both kilns would need to install 
dust shuttling. The net benefit to the environment and public health 
would extend a number of years beyond the MACT compliance deadline.
    If the Durkee and Tehachapi kilns were willing to make a near term 
reduction (e.g., 90 percent) in their mercury emissions significantly 
before the compliance date in the rule, the Agency would consider 
providing these kilns a compliance schedule that extends beyond the 
three to four years specified in this rule. The purpose of such an 
approach would be to provide a substantial net benefit to the 
environment; therefore ultimate compliance with the MACT standard would 
need to be by a date that ensures the long term emissions from these 
sources would be significantly lower than their emissions from meeting 
the standard on the schedule in the rule. Given the nature of mercury 
and the additional reductions that could be obtained, the Agency is 
interested in exploring this concept.
    Finally, EPA notes that the same early reduction opportunities for 
mercury do not appear to exist for the rest of the Portland cement 
industry. It typically takes on the order of three years to install 
activated carbon injection technology. One of the high mercury plants 
has recently completed installation of ACI and has just commenced full 
scale operation of the kiln with ACI installed. The other kiln faces 
fewer installation barriers than other kilns. This is because the 
company has tested carbon injection and dust shuttling on one of its 
other kilns, and is already using dust shuttling to reduce emissions at 
another kiln, and is therefore better positioned to rapidly install 
controls after one year. To our knowledge, these circumstances are not 
applicable to the rest of the Portland cement source category, and 
could not even be duplicated at all the other facilities owned by these 
companies due to limitations in

[[Page 54980]]

infrastructure available to design and build these systems.
iii. Beyond the Floor Determinations for Mercury
    We are basing the final mercury standard on the floor level of 
control. When we establish a beyond the floor standard we typically 
identify control techniques that have the ability to achieve an 
emissions limit more stringent than the MACT floor. Under these final 
amendments, most existing kilns would have to have installed both a wet 
scrubber and activated carbon injection (ACI) for control of mercury, 
HCl and THC.\21\ To achieve further reductions in mercury beyond what 
can be achieved using wet scrubber and ACI in combination, the 
available options would include closing the kiln and relocating to a 
limestone quarry having lower mercury concentrations in the limestone, 
transporting low-mercury limestone in from long distances, switching 
other raw materials to lower the amount of limestone in the feed, 
wasting CKD, and installing additional add-on control devices. These 
options were discussed at proposal, and were rejected as either 
technically infeasible or not cost-effective. Consideration of non-air 
quality impacts and energy requirements do not change this conclusion. 
See 74 FR at 22249-50. We received no comments that would cause us to 
change that determination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ Summary of Environmental and Cost Impacts of Proposed 
Revisions to Portland Cement NESHAP (40 CFR Part 63, subpart LLL), 
April 15, 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We did receive one comment from an environmental group requesting 
EPA explore fuel switching as a beyond the floor option. However, EPA 
thoroughly explored fuel switching as a control option in the 2006 
rulemaking and determined that there were problems with fuel 
availability and the costs were prohibitive. See 70 FR 72340. EPA is 
not presently aware of facts that would justify a different approach in 
this final rule.
    As a result of these analyses, we determined that, considering the 
technical feasibility and costs, there is no reasonable beyond the 
floor control option, and the final mercury emission limit is based on 
the MACT floor level of control.
c. THC Limits for Kilns and Raw Material Dryers
    The limits for existing and new sources in this final rule apply to 
both area and major sources. As noted earlier, we have applied these 
limits to area sources consistent with CAA section 112(c)(6).
    i. Floor Determination. EPA proposed THC emissions limits of 7 and 
6 parts per million by volume dry (ppmvd) for existing and new sources 
respectively for both cement kilns and raw material dryers. The 
existing source standard was based on the performance of the best 
performing 12 percent of cement kilns for which we had THC CEMS data. 
At proposal we requested comment on the issue of whether or not we 
should base the existing source floor on the best performing five 
kilns, rather than on the best performing 12 percent (two kilns). 
Industry commenters supported the use of the best five kilns stating 
that this would be in keeping with what appeared to be the intent of 
Congress that five kilns should be the minimum number of sources on 
which to set an existing source floor. However, other commenters noted 
that a plain reading of the statute is that when the source category 
has 30 or more sources, the top performing 12 percent for which the 
Administrator has data must be used, even if this results in less than 
five facilities due to lack of available data. In this final rule we 
are reaffirming our decision at proposal to use the best performing 12 
percent rather that the best performing five facilities because we 
believe this result to be unavoidably compelled by the literal language 
of the statute.
    At proposal we set the emissions limit based on the 99th percentile 
of the available data. As a result of new data received after the 
comment period, we recalculated the averages of the kilns for which we 
had CEMS data and selected the best performing two kilns (12 percent of 
15 total kilns) based on their average emissions. See Calculations of 
Floors for Final Portland Cement NESHAP dated August 6, 2010. Because 
these were large data sets (688 and 274 readings), we directly 
calculated the 99th percentile of the 30-day averages to determine the 
MACT floor which is 24 ppmvd.\22\ This is shown in Table 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ In other words, as noted above, EPA possesses sufficient 
THC data that it is not necessary to estimate variability by use of 
the UPL equation. Rather, variability is calculated directly from 
the THC data set comprised of the two lowest emitting sources.

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

[[Page 54981]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR09SE10.002

    For new sources, we analyzed the data from the kiln with the lower 
numeric average to determine the 99th percentile of its performance. 
The result of this analysis was also a 24 ppmvd standard because this 
kiln had more variability (although a lower average performance) than 
the other kiln in the data set. This emission limit is based on a 
concentration measured dry, corrected to 7 percent oxygen and a 30-day 
average measured using a CEM.
    ii. Additional THC data received too late to be considered in this 
rulemaking. In addition to the THC CEMS data just discussed, we 
received another set of THC CEMS data from the Portland Cement 
Association (PCA). These data were not submitted to EPA until mid-June 
2010, virtually too late for any consideration, much less considered 
analysis. This set consisted of THC CEMS data collected over periods 
ranging from 31 to 90 days for additional kilns not in the data base 
discussed above, as well as additional data from some of the kilns 
already in our data base. These additional data increased the total 
number of kilns with THC CEMS data to 30 kilns. The PCA also provided a 
floor analysis on this data set and recommended THC emissions limits. 
The data set as presented by PCA is shown in Table 4.

                 Table 4--Portland Cement Association: Determination of Size of Best Performing Pool for Proposed Sub-Categories for THC
                                                             [Mid-June 2010 data submission]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                         Procedure for selecting pool of best performing kilns
                                                             Kilns for which ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Sub category                 Estimated U.S.       data are                      Existing units
                                             population         available    -----------------------------------------------          New units
                                                                                          Rule                 Pool size
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Major Non-Commingled Kilns..............              > 30                17  Best 12%...................                 3  Best 1.
Major Commingled Kilns..................              < 30                 7  Best 5.....................                 5  Best 1.
                                                                             ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Area Kilns..............................              < 30                 6                           Work Practices Standard.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In this analysis, the PCA proposed two subcategories: Kilns where 
the coal preparation mill exhaust is comingled with the kiln exhaust, 
and kilns where the coal preparation mill has a separate stack. The PCA 
maintains that subcategories are needed because emissions for the coal 
preparation mill (which are believed to be chiefly methane from the 
coal) will, all other things being equal, elevate the THC emissions of 
the kiln exhaust. See also 74 FR at 21152. The PCA recommended floors 
are shown in Tables 5 and 6 below:

   Table 5--Alternative MACT Floors for THC Major Non-Commingled Kilns
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Existing
                                                   units      New units
                                                   (ppm)        (ppm)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
99th Percentile...............................           30           11
99.9th Percentile.............................           36           12
------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Table 6--Alternative MACT Floors for THC Major Commingled Kilns
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Existing
                                                   units      New units
                                                   (ppm)        (ppm)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
99th Percentile...............................           70           17
99.9th Percentile.............................           80           20
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    However, the PCA MACT analysis suffers from one major deficiency 
because it excludes area sources from

[[Page 54982]]

the MACT floor analysis, and assumes a work practice for these sources. 
As previously noted, THC emissions serve as surrogates for POM and PCB 
emissions. CAA section 112(c)(6) requires EPA to list, and to regulate 
under standards established pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(2) or 
(d)(4), categories of sources accounting for not less than 90 percent 
of emissions of these HAP standards established under CAA section 
112(d)(2) must reflect the performance of MACT. Again, as explained 
above, EPA has long since determined that area source cement kilns' THC 
emissions must be controlled under CAA section 112 (d)(2) or (d)(4) in 
order to satisfy the 90 percent requirement. Therefore, these area 
sources should have been included in the MACT floor analysis.
    If this error in the floor analysis is corrected, the MACT floor 
for the kilns with comingled exhaust would be unchanged from the PCA 
analysis of 70 ppmvd for existing and 17 ppmvd for new (assuming the 
statistical calculations were done correctly).
    However, this estimate is premised on the assumption that there are 
less than 30 kilns in this subcategory (so that 5 sources would be used 
to establish the floor). That assumption is based on data provided in 
the PCA report that indicated, of the 87 kilns that provided data to 
PCA on their coal preparation stack configurations, 13 had comingled 
exhaust. If there are actually 30 or more kilns with this 
configuration, the MACT floor would have to be based on the best 
performing 12 percent of 8 kilns (the 7 major source comingled kilns 
plus one area source comingled kiln) which would be one kiln, Lehigh at 
Union Bridge. If one kiln is used for the existing source floor, the 
existing source MACT limit would be 17 ppmvd using the 99th percentile. 
The estimate of 26 versus 30 or more sources causes a high level of 
uncertainty in this analysis.
    For sources that do not comingle the exhaust, the floor would 
appear to be approximately 13 ppmvd when the area sources are included 
in the analysis. This is also lower than the floor calculated from the 
long term data set out above (and would result in a standard roughly 50 
percent more stringent than that which EPA is adopting).
    The PCA analysis also recommended a separate subcategory for kilns 
with high limestone outgassing based on the information shown below:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR09SE10.003

    The limestone outgassing factor is determined by heating a sample 
of the limestone from the kiln's proprietary quarry to determine the 
potential for THC emissions based on the amount and types of organic 
materials present. The premise here is basically the same as previously 
discussed for subcategorization by limestone mercury content when 
setting mercury emissions limits, because the kiln is tied to its 
limestone quarry. The subcategory proposed was for sources with THC 
outgassing >= 65 mg/kg. The recommended THC emissions limits for this 
subcategory were 170 and 62 ppmvd for new and existing sources 
respectively. This analysis, however, suffers from the same defect 
previously discussed in that for a subcategory with only three sources 
where we have data, the best performing 12 percent would be one kiln, 
so the actual limit for new and existing would be 62 ppmvd. We rejected 
this option because it suffers from the same defects as 
subcategorization by limestone mercury content. First, the choice of 
high versus low organics appears arbitrary. A level between 75 and 175 
could just as easily have been chosen. The selection of 65 appears to 
be an attempt to move the high THC emitting facility into a subcategory 
with a high limit. Second, subcategorizing in this manner could result 
in situations where a few facilities would be allowed to emit at levels 
well above the remainder of the sources in this source category. Third, 
although the two kilns with the highest outgassing limestone appear to 
be outliers (similar to the two facilities with unusually high 
limestone mercury contents), we do not have data on a majority of the 
kilns (as we do with mercury) and it is possible that if we had more 
data, the two facilities that appear to be outliers would be part of a 
gradual continuum, which would mean the level we chose to separate high 
and low outgassing limestone would be mistaken.
    We also considered combining all the THC CEMS data (the more recent 
PCA data, data used at proposal, and data received during the comment 
period which would create a data set of 34 kilns). The results of this 
analysis was a floor (based on the 99th percentile of the data) of 24 
ppmvd for existing sources (the same standard adopted in

[[Page 54983]]

the final rule) and 3 ppmvd for new sources (more stringent than the 
new source standard in the final rule). Given the short time available 
to review the PCA data, the uncertainty concerning the actual size of 
one of the subcategories, the fact that these data would not in our 
view significantly change the levels of the standard for most kilns, 
and the concerns we have with subcategorization by limestone organic 
outgassing potential, we conclude that there is no compelling reason to 
change our floor determination based on this new information, which 
again was submitted only days before the final rule requirements had to 
be determined in order to meet the court ordered deadline for this 
rule.
    iii. Beyond the floor determination. At proposal we evaluated 
several practices and technologies that are available to cement kilns 
to control emissions of organic HAP at a level beyond the floor. 74 FR 
at 21152. These practices include raw materials substitution, ACI 
systems and limestone scrubber and regenerative thermal oxidizer (RTO). 
We rejected each of these alternatives based on technical limitations 
or poor cost- effectiveness. Consideration of non-air quality impacts 
and energy support this determination as well (RTOs in particular being 
associated with appreciable energy penalties). 74 FR at 21152. We 
received no comments that have caused us to change that proposed 
decision. Therefore, we are choosing the floor level of control for the 
final THC emissions limit.
    iv. Standards for THC. We are establishing the emissions limit for 
THC at the floor level of control. In addition, because the final 
existing source standard will be more stringent than the new source 
standard of 50 ppmvd for greenfield new sources contained in the 1999 
final rule, we are also removing the 50 ppmvd standard for both kilns 
and raw material dryers.
    EPA proposed an alternative floor for non-dioxin organic HAP, based 
on measuring the organic HAP itself rather than the THC surrogate. This 
equivalent alternative limit would provide additional flexibility in 
determining compliance, and it would be appropriate for those cases in 
which methane and ethane comprise a disproportionately high amount of 
the organic compounds in the feed because these non-HAP compounds could 
be emitted and would be measured as THC. At proposal we determined that 
organic HAP averaged 24 percent of the THC. Since proposal we have 
reevaluated these data and recalculated an average organic HAP 
concentration of 35 percent. Based on this percentage, and the fact 
that the THC emission limit is now 24 ppmvd, we are promulgating an 
alternative organic HAP limit of 9 ppmvd, corrected to 7 percent oxygen 
(or 19 percent oxygen for raw material dryers), for new and existing 
sources. The specific organic compounds that will be measured to 
determine compliance with the alternative to the THC limit are benzene, 
toluene, styrene, xylene (ortho-, meta-, and para-), acetaldehyde, 
formaldehyde, and naphthalene. These were the organic HAP species that 
were measured along with THC in the cement kiln emissions tests that 
were reviewed. Nearly all of these organic HAP species also were 
identified in an earlier analysis of the organic HAP concentrations in 
THC in which the average concentration of organic HAP in THC was 35 
percent.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ Summary of Organic HAP Test Data. August 6, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The alternative standard will be based on organic HAP average 
concentration of organic HAP in THC was 35 percent.\24\ The alternative 
standard will be based on organic HAP emission testing and concurrent 
THC CEMS measurements that will establish a site specific THC limit 
that will demonstrate compliance with the total organic HAP limit. The 
site specific THC limit will be measured as a 30 day rolling average.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    iv. THC Emissions from Raw Material Dryers. As we noted at 
proposal, some plants may dry their raw materials in separate dryers 
prior to or during grinding. See 74 FR at 21153; see also 63 FR at 
14204. This drying process can potentially lead to organic HAP and THC 
emissions in a manner analogous to the release of organic HAP and THC 
emissions from kilns when hot kiln gas contacts incoming feed 
materials. The methods available for reducing THC emissions (and 
organic HAP) is the same technology described for reducing THC 
emissions from kilns and in-line kiln/raw mills. Based on the 
similarity of the emissions source and controls, we proposed to set the 
THC emissions limit of materials dryers at the same levels as the 
kilns.
    Commenters noted that stand alone raw materials dryers have higher 
gas flows relative to the amounts of fuels burned. This results in 
higher oxygen concentrations, typically as high as 19 percent. They 
also noted that raw material dryers may have higher THC and lower HAP 
emissions because raw materials dryers operate at lower temperature 
than kilns (since the dryer only needs to operate at the temperature 
needed to remove free water), and that the residence times for dryers 
is considerably longer than for kilns.
    However, although we agree that the exhaust oxygen contents of raw 
material dryers may be higher than occurs with a cement kiln, there are 
reasons to believe that dryers actually emit less hydrocarbons than 
kilns. Operating at lower temperatures, we would expect any 
hydrocarbons that are emitted from dryers to be only those with the 
highest volatility, and therefore that the potential for emissions of 
organic HAP would be less for dryers than for kilns. However, the 
longer residence times could tend to increase emissions. Therefore, 
making any conclusions on the emission of dryers relative to kilns is 
difficult. We also note that we are allowing dryers to also use the 
alternative organic HAP emissions limit, so if the surmise that organic 
HAP emissions are low relative to the cement kilns is correct, this 
alternative should be very viable for these sources.
    In short, we received no data indicating that the same limit as for 
kilns was infeasible, or that would otherwise allow us to set a 
different THC emissions limit for raw materials dryers. Therefore, in 
these final amendments we are setting the THC emissions limit at the 
same level as the cement kiln's, which is 24 ppmvd measured as propane.
    However, because raw material dryers have high oxygen contents due 
to their inherent operation characteristics (and not due to the 
addition of dilution air), referencing the raw material dryer standard 
to 7 percent oxygen would actually result in a more stringent standard 
than for cement kilns. For example, given the typical oxygen contents 
of kiln exhaust (7 to 12 percent), a kiln just meeting the THC limit of 
24 ppmvd would have an actual stack measurement of approximately 16 to 
24 ppmvd. If the raw material dryer standard is referenced to the same 
oxygen level, they would have to meet a measured THC limit of 
approximately 3 ppmvd. For this reason, we are referencing the oxygen 
level of the standard for raw materials dryers to 19 percent oxygen, 
which is the typical oxygen level found in the exhaust of these 
devices.
d. Hydrochloric Acid Emissions From Kilns
    In the proposed rule we based the proposed HCl emission limit for 
major sources on HCl data measured at 27 kilns using Method 321. The 
data in ppmvd corrected to 7 percent oxygen (O2) were ranked 
by emissions level and the top 12 percent (4 kilns) lowest emitting 
kilns identified as best

[[Page 54984]]

performing existing sources. The calculated MACT floors were 2 ppmvd 
and 0.1 ppmvd respectively.
    i. Floor Determination. Subsequent to proposal, we received 
comments that indicated we had inappropriately (albeit inadvertently) 
included certain natural area sources in the MACT floor analysis. We 
have removed those natural area sources from the floor analysis. In 
addition, many of the source tests were not actually EPA Method 321 
tests; others lacked important quality assurance information. As a 
result, we issued letters under CAA section 114 authority requiring 
facilities that were major sources and that had previously submitted 
data to retest their facilities. We used this new data set to calculate 
a MACT floor. The data from the best performing three sources, as 
determined by average emissions during the test, are shown below in 
Table 7.

                         Table 7--HCl MACT Floor
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           HCl emissions
                          Kiln                             (ppmvd at 7%
                                                                O2)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.......................................................            0.34
2.......................................................            0.44
3.......................................................            0.46
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                             MACT--Existing
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average (Top 3).........................................            0.41
Variance................................................            0.02
UPL.....................................................            0.52
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                MACT--New
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average.................................................            0.34
Variance................................................            0.0
UPL.....................................................            0.34
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    However, these measurements are very close to the detection limit 
for analytic method 321 actually calculated in the field for HCl--from 
0.2 to 0.3 parts per million by volume (ppmv) as measured in the 
stack.\25\ The expected measurement imprecision for an emissions value 
occurring at or near the method detection level is in fact about 40 to 
50 percent. This large measure of analytic uncertainty decreases as 
measured values increase: Pollutant measurement imprecision decreases 
to a consistent relative 10 to 15 percent for values measured at a 
level about three times the method detection level. See American 
Society of Mechanical Engineers, Reference Method Accuracy and 
Precision (ReMAP): Phase 1, Precision of Manual Stack Emission 
Measurements, CRTD Vol. 60, February 2001. Thus, if the value equal to 
three times the representative method detection level were greater than 
the calculated floor emissions limit, we would conclude that the 
calculated floor emissions limit does not account entirely for 
measurement variability.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ Memorandum. EPA Method 321 Detection Limits and Minimum 
Quantification Limit, July 26, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    That is the case here with HCl. The calculated standard (not 
accounting for the inherent analytical variability in the measurements) 
is 0.52 ppm (see Table 7 above). In order to account for measurement 
variability, we multiplied the highest reported minimum detection level 
for the analytic method by a factor of three which results in a level 
of 0.9 ppmv. This represents the lowest level that can be reliably 
measured using this test method, and we therefore believe that it is 
the lowest level we can set as the MACT limit taking the appropriate 
measurement variability into account. Converting this level to a dry 
basis at 7 percent oxygen results in a floor of 3 ppmvd for both new 
and existing sources. As explained further below, we are using a CEM to 
measure this standard, and it is a 30-day average.
    ii. Beyond the Floor Determination. At proposal we examined the use 
of a packed bed scrubber, which was assumed to have a higher HCl 
removal efficiency than the spray tower limestone scrubbers typically 
used in this industry. Considering the high costs, high cost-
effectiveness and small additional emissions reduction (and adverse 
cross-media impacts), we did not believe that a beyond-the-floor 
standard for HCl is justified. We received no comment that would change 
that decision. In addition, the current HCl floor limit is actually set 
at the lowest level we believe can be accurately quantified by the 
applicable test method. Therefore, a lower standard could not be 
reliably quantified. For these reasons we selected the floor level of 
control as MACT for HCl for major sources.
    iii. Compliance Mechanisms. As proposed, kilns equipped with wet 
scrubbers may demonstrate compliance by means of stack testing at 
intervals of 30 months, plus utilize continuous monitoring of specified 
parameters. All other kilns are required to use a CEMS, with compliance 
based on a 30-day rolling average. Although the underlying data were 
obtained via stack tests, rather than with continuous monitors, EPA 
believes that because the HCl standard is established at a level higher 
than all measured values (to account for the inability to reliably 
measure any lower standard) and measured based on 30-day averages, it 
provides an ample compliance margin.
    iv. Determination not to Establish a Risk-Based Standard for HCl. 
At proposal, EPA elected not to exercise its discretion under CAA 
section 112(d)(4) and proposed a major source standard for HCl based on 
MACT. The primary basis for not setting a health-based standard was 
that setting a MACT standard for HCl not only controlled HCl but also 
co-controlled other HAP (such as HF, Chlorine (Cl2), and 
hydrogen cyanide (HCN)) and criteria pollutants yielding very 
substantial environmental benefits. However, we also requested comment 
on whether we had the legal authority to establish a standard for HCl, 
and, if so, whether we should exercise our discretion to do so. 74 FR 
at 21154. After considering comments, EPA has decided not to exercise 
its discretion to establish a risk-based standard for HCl under CAA 
section 112(d)(4), opting instead to promulgate a standard for HCl 
based on the performance of MACT in this final rule. This section 
discusses the basis for that decision.
    Setting technology-based MACT standards for HCl will result in 
significant reductions in emissions of other pollutants, most notably 
SO2, and would likely also result in additional reductions 
in emissions of mercury, along with condensable PM, ammonia, and semi-
volatile compounds. The additional reductions of SO2 alone 
attributable to the MACT standard for HCl are estimated to be 124,000 
tons per year in the third year following promulgation of the proposed 
HCl standard. These are substantial reductions with substantial public 
health benefits. SO2 emissions are associated with a variety 
of human health, ecosystem, and visibility effects. 75 FR at 35525-27 
(June 22, 2010). Even more significantly, SO2 is also a 
precursor to PM2.5. Reducing SO2 emissions also 
reduces PM2.5 formation, human exposure, and the incidence 
of PM2.5-related health effects, among them premature 
mortality and cardiovascular and respiratory morbidity. See detailed 
discussion of PM2.5 health effects in the text at Table 13 
below.
    For these rules the SO2 reductions represent a large 
fraction of the total monetized benefits from reducing 
PM2.5, but it is not possible to isolate the portion if the 
total monetized benefits attributable to the emission reductions of 
SO2 resulting from the application of HCl controls. The 
benefits models assume that all fine particles, regardless of their 
chemical composition, are equally potent in causing premature mortality 
because there is no clear scientific evidence that would support the 
development of differential effects estimates by particle type.

[[Page 54985]]

    We estimate the number of premature mortalities avoided each year 
due to the reductions in PM2.5 exposure attributable to this 
standard to be in the thousands. RIA Table 6-3. We also estimate there 
to be over 2800 instances of annual cardiovascular and respiratory 
morbidity cases avoided, and hundreds of thousands of work loss days 
avoided. Id. The monetized benefits just from premature mortality 
avoided attributable to PM2.5 reductions from this standard 
are estimated to be $7.4 billion to $18 billion at the three percent 
discount rate and $6.7 billion to $17 billion at a seven percent 
discount rate, nearly an order of magnitude higher than the rule's 
estimated social costs. See Table 13 below. Although MACT standards may 
directly regulate only HAPs and not criteria pollutants, Congress did 
recognize, in the legislative history to section 112(d)(4), that MACT 
standards would have the collateral benefit of controlling criteria 
pollutants as well and viewed this as an important benefit of the air 
toxics program.\26\ The EPA believes these health and environmental 
benefits to be large and important and fully in keeping with the 
paramount goal of the Clean Air Act ``to protect and enhance the 
quality of the Nation's air'' (CAA section 101(b)(1)), and so is 
adopting MACT standards for HCl.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ See S. Rep. No. 101-228, 101st Cong. 1st sess. at 172. EPA 
consequently does not accept the argument that it cannot consider 
reductions of criteria pollutants in determining whether to exercise 
its discretion to adopt a risk-based standard under section 
112(d)(4). There appears to be no valid reason that EPA must ignore 
controls which further the health and environmental outcomes at 
which section 112(d) of the Act is fundamentally aimed.
    \27\ We further note that HCl is not the only acid gas HAP 
emitted by Portland cement plants. Hydrogen fluoride, HCN, ammonia, 
and chlorine may also present and were not accounted for in the risk 
analysis. Setting an HCl standard under 112(d)(2) and (3) allows the 
Agency to also address these other HAPs as they are co-controlled by 
wet scrubbers along with HCl.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Commenters from industry urged EPA to retain a risk-based standard 
but did not challenge EPA's finding or quantification that there would 
be these enormous health and environmental benefits to setting a 
standard reflecting MACT to control HCl. The commenters nonetheless 
urged EPA to retain a risk-based standard, noting that EPA had done so 
in the predecessor to this rule and for other source categories, and 
that HCl is a threshold pollutant within the meaning of CAA section 
112(d)(4) so that there is a technical basis for such a standard. These 
arguments do not persuade the Agency to forego the very significant 
benefits just outlined. However, even if (contrary to the analysis just 
set out) EPA were inclined to adopt a risk-based standard here, there 
would be technical obstacles to doing so, as described at the final 
part of this section.
    As we noted in the proposed rule, as a general matter, CAA section 
112(d) requires MACT standards at least as stringent as the MACT floor 
to be set for all HAP emitted from major sources. However, CAA section 
112(d)(4) provides that for HAP with established health thresholds, EPA 
has the discretionary authority to consider such health thresholds with 
an ample margin of safety when establishing emission standards under 
CAA section 112(d). This provision is intended to allow EPA to 
establish emission standards other than technology-based MACT standards 
in cases where a less stringent emission standard will still ensure 
that the health threshold will not be exceeded, with an ample margin of 
safety. In order to exercise this discretion, EPA must first conclude 
that the HAP at issue has an established health threshold and must then 
provide for an ample margin of safety when considering the health 
threshold to set an emission standard. We discussed this issue at 
length in the recent proposed Industrial Boiler MACT. See 75 FR at 
32020-33 (June 4, 2010) (declining to propose a risk-based standard for 
HCl emissions).
    The legislative history of section 112(d)(4) indicates that 
Congress did not intend for this provision to provide a mechanism for 
EPA to delay issuance of emission standards for sources of HAPs. The 
legislative history also indicates that a health-based emission limit 
under section 112(d)(4) should be set at the level at which no 
observable effects occur, with an ample margin of safety. S. Rep. 101-
228 at 171-72. The legislative history further states that employing a 
section 112(d)(4) standard rather than a conventional MACT standard 
``shall not result in adverse environmental effects which would 
otherwise be reduced or eliminated.'' Id.
    It is clear that EPA may exercise its discretionary authority under 
112(d)(4) only with respect to pollutants with an established health 
threshold. Where there is an established threshold, EPA has, in the 
proposed rule on industrial boilers, interpreted section 112(d)(4) to 
allow us to weigh additional factors, beyond any established health 
threshold, in making a judgment whether to set a standard for a 
specific pollutant based on the threshold, or instead follow the 
traditional path of developing a MACT standard after determining a MACT 
floor (75 FR 32030). In deciding whether to exercise its discretion for 
a threshold pollutant for a given source category, EPA has interpreted 
section 112(d)(4) to allow us to take into account factors such as the 
following: The potential for cumulative adverse health effects due to 
concurrent exposure to other HAPs with similar biological endpoints, 
from either the same or other source categories, where the 
concentration of the threshold pollutant emitted from the given source 
category is below the threshold; the potential impacts on ecosystems of 
releases of the pollutant; and reductions in criteria pollutant 
emissions and other co-benefits that would be achieved via the MACT 
standard--the decisive factor here. Each of these factors is directly 
relevant to the health and environmental outcomes at which section 112 
of the Clean Air Act is fundamentally aimed. If EPA does determine that 
it is appropriate to set a standard based on a health threshold, we 
must develop emission standards that will ensure the public will not be 
exposed to levels of the pertinent HAP in excess of the health 
threshold, with an ample margin of safety.
    Since any emission standard under section 112(d)(4) must consider 
the established health threshold level, with an ample margin of safety, 
in this rulemaking EPA has considered the adverse health effects of the 
HAP acid gases, beginning with HCl. Research indicates that HCl is 
associated with chronic respiratory toxicity. In the case of HCl, this 
means that chronic inhalation of HCl can cause tissue damage in humans. 
Among other things, it is corrosive to mucous membranes and can cause 
damage to eyes, nose, throat, and the upper respiratory tract as well 
as pulmonary edema, bronchitis, gastritis, and dermatitis. Considering 
this respiratory toxicity, EPA has established a chronic reference 
concentration (RfC) for the inhalation of HCl of 20 [mu]g/m\3\. (See 
http:[sol][sol]www.epa.gov/ncea/iris/subst/0396.htm.) An RfC is defined 
as an estimate (with uncertainty spanning perhaps an order of 
magnitude) of a continuous inhalation exposure to the human population 
(including sensitive subgroups \28\) that is likely to be without an 
appreciable risk of deleterious effects during a lifetime. The IRIS 
health assessment evaluated chronic non-cancer risks and did not 
include an evaluation of carcinogenic effects (on which there are very 
limited studies). As a reference value for a single pollutant, RfCs do 
not reflect any

[[Page 54986]]

potential cumulative or synergistic effects of an individual's exposure 
to multiple HAPs or to a combination of HAPs and criteria pollutants. 
Similarly, an RfC evaluation does not focus on potential environmental 
impacts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ ``Sensitive subgroups'' may refer to particular life 
stages, such as children or the elderly, or to those with particular 
medical conditions, such as asthmatics.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to the potential health effects of HCl, we know the 
following:
    1. Chronic exposure to concentrations at or below the RfC is not 
expected to cause chronic respiratory effects;
    2. Little research has been conducted on its carcinogenicity. The 
one occupational study of which we are aware found no evidence of 
carcinogenicity;
    3. There is a significant body of scientific literature addressing 
the health effects of acute exposure to HCl (California Office of 
Health Hazard Assessment, 2008. Acute Toxicity Summary for Hydrogen 
Chloride, http:[sol][sol]www.oehha.ca.gov/air/hot_spots/2008/
AppendixD2_final.pdf#page=112 EPA, 2001). However, we currently lack 
information on the peak short-term emissions of HCl from cement kilns 
which might allow us to determine whether a chronic health-based 
emission standard for HCl would ensure that acute exposures will not 
pose health concerns.
    4. We are aware of no studies explicitly addressing the toxicity of 
mixtures of HCl with other respiratory irritants. However, many of the 
other HAPs (and criteria pollutants) emitted by cement kilns also are 
respiratory irritants, and in the absence of information on 
interactions, EPA assumes an additive cumulative effect (Supplementary 
Guidance for Conducting Health Risk Assessment of Chemical Mixtures. 
http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=20533).
    Cement kilns also emit other acid gases along with HCl, including 
chlorine (Cl2), HCN and hydrogen fluoride (HF), all of which 
are HAPs. Like HCl, these HAP gases have established chronic health 
thresholds below which they are not expected to pose any significant 
risk of chronic respiratory effects, have no evidence to suggest that 
they may pose carcinogenic effects, and have an established body of 
literature regarding acute respiratory health effects. They are also 
controlled during the process of controlling HCl emissions from cement 
kilns using a wet scrubber. As such, their health impacts must be taken 
into account when considering a health-based emission limit for HCl.
    In the 2006 final rule, EPA did not set any standard for HCl.\29\ 
The Agency reasoned that no further control was necessary for Portland 
cement emissions of HCl because HCl is a ``health threshold pollutant'' 
and human health is protected with an ample margin of safety at current 
HCl emission levels. 71 FR at 76527. Underlying this conclusion was 
EPA's analysis of a tiered screening study of dispersion modeling of 
cement facilities' worst-case and actual HCl emissions. This study was 
conducted by the Portland Cement Association for about two-thirds of 
operating U.S. cement plants. Dispersion modeling results were 
evaluated against the RfC for HCl.\30\ The screening analysis involved 
making conservative assumptions regarding HCl emission concentrations 
and plants' operating conditions (greater concentrations than known to 
be emitted and perpetual operation at maximum capacity). All plants in 
the analysis, with five exceptions, had HCl levels well below a Hazard 
Quotient (HQ) level of 1.0, the ratio of exposure (or modeled 
concentration) to the health reference value or threshold level. The 
remaining five plants in the analysis had HQ levels greater than 1.0 
assuming maximum emissions, but less than 1.0 when their actual 
emissions were used in the dispersion models. Id. at 76528-29.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ Although the decision not to set a standard in 2006 was 
based on the authority of section 112(d)(4), we note that the 
statute in fact states: ``the Administrator may consider such 
threshold level, with an ample margin of safety, when establishing 
emission standards under this subsection.'' Section 112(d)(4), 
emphasis added.
    \30\ In the previous study EPA also evaluated dispersion 
modeling results against an acute exposure guideline level (AEGL) 
below which acute effects would not be expected to occur. However, 
even given the uncertainties mentioned for short term HCl emissions, 
that analysis indicated that chronic effects would be of the most 
concern.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At proposal of these amendments, recognizing that the 2006 
determination was deficient, if for no other reason because it failed 
to establish any emission standard whatever, EPA conducted its own 
analysis to determine what numerical standard for HCl would be 
necessary to at least assure that, for the sources in the controlled 
category or subcategory, persons exposed to emissions of HCl would not 
experience the adverse health effects on which the threshold is based. 
In order to determine this level, in the proposed rule we conducted a 
risk analysis of the same 68 facilities analyzed by PCA using a 
screening level dispersion model (AERSCREEN). Using the site specific 
stack parameters provided by the PCA and conservative meteorological 
conditions (taken from the PCA analysis), the AERSCREEN modeling 
predicted the highest long term ground level concentration surrounding 
each facility, and used this concentration to back calculate the 
highest allowable HCl emissions rate that could occur without exceeding 
the allowable RfC. The results of this analysis indicated that an HCl 
emission limit of 23 ppmv or less (an order of magnitude higher than 
the MACT standard) would result in no exceedances of the RfC for HCl 
for any of the facilities assessed.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ Derivation of a Health-Based Stack Gas Concentration Limit 
for HCl in Support of the National Emission Standards for Hazardous 
Air Pollutants from the Portland Cement Manufacturing Industry, 
April 10, 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on further consideration, EPA now believes that the 2006 PCA 
study and analysis has the following deficiencies. First of all, not 
all cement plants were evaluated (the PCA study covered about two 
thirds of the plants in the source category), and among those not 
evaluated were cement plants with the most likelihood of posing risk at 
ground level from HCl emissions due to use of positive pressure 
baghouses with monovents or multiple short stacks. Secondly, the 
analysis did not consider the impacts of the co-emitted acid gases, an 
important consideration in determining an ample margin of safety. In 
addition, no data were provided, nor do we have data, on other 
pollutants in the vicinity of these cement facilities, or background 
concentration data for HCl to determine cumulative impacts of HCl 
emissions for these facilities.\32\ EPA's analysis of 2009 could not 
improve on the PCA study, given the lack of robust emissions data for 
Cl2, HF, and HCN, and the lack of any additional data for 
the cement kilns not included in the original study. As a result, EPA 
cannot ensure that the resulting derivation of 23 ppmv as a possible 
health-based emission standard for HCl would result in chronic ambient 
levels of acid gases that would not pose significant health risks. EPA 
has no data that would allow us to extend that analysis to cover all 
acid gases and all facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ It should be noted that large amounts of site-specific 
information both on kiln operation and local meteorological 
information is needed to obtain meaningful results from AERSCREEN 
and other dispersion models. This information is in the ready 
possession of the industrial sources themselves, but for unknown 
reasons, was not provided by industry to EPA either as part of the 
2006 PCA analysis or in response to subsequent data solicitations by 
EPA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to potential health impacts, EPA has evaluated the 
potential for environmental impacts when considering whether to 
exercise discretion under section 112(d)(4). When HCl gas encounters 
water in the

[[Page 54987]]

atmosphere, it forms an acidic solution of HCl. In areas where the 
deposition of acids derived from emissions of sulfur and nitrogen 
oxides are causing aquatic and/or terrestrial acidification, with 
accompanying ecological impacts, the deposition of HCl could exacerbate 
these impacts. Being mindful of the explicit legislative history, and 
in keeping with past EPA practice, it is appropriate to consider 
potential adverse environmental effects in addition to adverse health 
effects when setting an emission standard for HCl under section 
112(d)(4). The co-emissions of HF, HCN, and Cl2 from cement 
kilns could serve to further aggravate these environmental 
acidification impacts, but EPA has no data to determine these impacts.
    Although the PCA analysis did not include an assessment of 
potential environmental effects, for the 2006 final Portland cement 
rule, EPA conducted its own analysis of potential effects of cement 
kilns' HCl emissions to wildlife, aquatic life, and other natural 
resources. The Agency concluded at the time that acute and chronic 
exposures to expected HCl concentration around cement kilns are not 
expected to result in adverse environmental toxicity effects. Id. at 
76529. EPA accordingly declined to establish any standard for HCl.
    At this time, we now believe the ecological risk analysis performed 
in 2006 is insufficient, as it was merely a literature review and not a 
formal ecological assessment, and, as discussed in the previous 
paragraphs, it did not cover the impacts of the other acid gases, nor 
did it cover about one third of the existing cement plants. No 
additional information was provided during the comment period which 
addressed these various technical issues, notwithstanding EPA's 
solicitation of data.
    Consequently, although EPA is declining to adopt a section 
112(d)(4) risk-based standard for HCl emissions from Portland cement 
facilities for the sound policy reasons discussed herein, we further 
note that there remain technical issues as to the appropriateness of 
such a standard even if EPA were inclined to exercise that discretion. 
We also do not view ourselves as bound by the technical determinations 
made in the 2006 rulemaking for the reasons just explained.
    EPA also has concluded that the facts here are distinguishable from 
those in other rulemakings in which it exercised its discretionary 
authority under section 112(d)(4). In the case of the Pulp and Paper 
MACT (63 FR at 18765 (April 15, 1998)), the risk analysis indicated, at 
the 95 percent confidence interval, that the maximum concentration 
predicted to which people were estimated to be exposed was 0.3 g/
m3, 60 times less than the inhalation reference 
concentration. This is a much lower value than present in the Portland 
cement risk analysis discussed above. In the case of the Lime 
Manufacturing NESHAP (67 FR at 78054 (Dec. 20, 2002)), there are two 
key distinctions. First, the technical information available to EPA 
covered 100 percent of all lime kilns in the U.S., which is not the 
case for the Portland cement risk analysis. Second, EPA did a worst 
case analysis as a supplement to the industry analysis and determined 
that the highest hazard index under that scenario was 0.21. Based on 
the EPA analysis determining a health based limit for Portland cement, 
if we were to allow the same level of risk as we determined in Lime 
NESHAP analysis, the health based emission limit would be 2 ppmvd, 
which is almost the same level as the MACT standard we are finalizing 
in this action.
    EPA also considers the alternative standard for total chlorine in 
the Hazardous Waste Combustor MACT (70 FR at 59555 (Oct. 12, 2005)) to 
be distinguishable. That rule, under the authority of section 112(d)(4) 
establishes a site-specific risk-based standard for total chlorine (of 
which HCl is the largest component), whereby, in lieu of meeting the 
MACT standard, sources may emit total chlorine at higher levels if they 
demonstrate that their emissions of total chlorine from all hazardous 
waste combustor sources at a facility do not exceed both acute (one-
hour) and chronic (annual) exposure thresholds. The demonstration must 
account for all relevant site-specific conditions, or be based on 
worst-case screening assumptions. If sources satisfy these criteria, 
the amount of their total chlorine emissions is still capped by the 
technology-based limit to which these sources were previously subject. 
The site-specific demonstrations, applicability to all combustor 
sources at a facility, use of acute and chronic health benchmarks, and 
capping of emission limits are all unique to that rule.
e. PM Emissions From Kilns
    Particulate matter serves as a surrogate for non-volatile metal HAP 
(a determination upheld for this source category in National Lime 
Ass'n, 233 F. 3d at 637-39). Existing and new major sources are 
presently subject to a PM limit of 0.3 lb/ton of feed which is 
equivalent to 0.5 lb/ton clinker. EPA is amending this standard for 
major sources, and also adding PM standards for existing and new area 
source cement kilns. In all instances, EPA is revising these limits 
because they do not represent MACT, but rather a level which is 
achievable by the bulk of the industry. See 63 FR at 14198 (March 24, 
1998); see also 233 F. 3d at 633 (indicating that the standards for PM 
were likely legally deficient but that the argument had not been 
properly preserved for the court to adjudicate). This is not legally 
permissible. Brick MACT, 479 F. 3d at 880-81. EPA thus does not accept 
the argument of some commenters that EPA may only amend promulgated 
MACT standards by means of the periodic review procedures of section 
112(d)(6), which does not include re-determining floor levels. Section 
112(d)(6)does not indicate that it is the exclusive means of amending 
MACT standards, and in particular does not speak to a situation where 
an original floor was palpably short of statutory requirements and 
where that floor became the ultimate standard. EPA consequently 
believes it has discretion to reconsider and redo the MACT floor 
analysis for PM, and to amend the standard as appropriate.
    Other commenters suggested that even if EPA has such discretion, it 
would (or should) be limited to a reanalysis of the original database 
for the 1999 rule and so should not consider kilns' subsequent 
performance. Were EPA to take that approach here, the floor (and 
standard) for PM would be more stringent than the floor (and standard) 
in this rule.\33\ Because EPA considers the database for the current 
rule to be more representative of performance capabilities of best 
performing kilns than the sparser 1999 database, EPA is basing its 
determination on the more representative data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ Calculation of PM MACT Floor Based on Data in 1998 
Proposal. July 7, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA is setting a PM standard based on MACT for existing and new 
area source cement kilns. As noted at proposal, Portland cement kilns 
are a listed area source category for urban HAP metals pursuant to 
section 112(c)(3), and control of these metal HAP emissions (via the 
standard for the PM metal surrogate) is required to ensure that area 
sources representing 90 percent of the area source emissions of urban 
metal HAP are subject to section 112 control, as required by section 
112(c)(3). EPA has determined that this standard should reflect MACT, 
rather than GACT, because there is no essential difference between area 
source and major source cement kilns with respect to emissions

[[Page 54988]]

of either HAP metals or PM. Thus, the factors that determine whether a 
cement kiln is major or area are typically a function of the source's 
HCl or formaldehyde emissions, rather than its emissions of HAP metals. 
As a result, there are kilns that are physically quite large that are 
area sources, and kilns that are small that are major sources. Both 
large and small kilns have similar HAP metal and PM emissions 
characteristics and controls.
    Given that EPA is developing major and area source standards for PM 
at the same time in this rulemaking, a common control strategy 
consequently appears warranted for these emissions. We thus have 
included all cement kilns in the floor calculations for the final PM 
standard, and have developed common PM limits based on MACT for both 
major and area sources.
    i. Floor Determination. At proposal we had compiled PM stack test 
data for 45 kilns from the period 1998 to 2007. EPA ranked the data by 
emissions level and the lowest emitting 12 percent, 6 kilns, was used 
to develop the proposed existing source MACT floors of 0.085 and 0.08 
lb/ton clinker for new and existing sources respectively.
    Commenters noted that we had omitted some of the data already 
submitted to EPA in developing the MACT floor. In addition, we noted 
for two of the best performing facilities we had only one emissions 
test. Therefore we requested these sources to submit additional PM 
emission test data and the source sent two additional PM emissions 
tests for each kiln to allow us to better characterize emissions 
variability. We modified the PM data base to reflect these submissions. 
Another change made since proposal is that we have changed the 
compliance requirement to require a PM CEMS. This requires that we 
establish an averaging period. We chose a period of 30 days (rolling 
average) to be consistent with requirements for mercury and THC, and 
because PM emissions on a lb/ton basis are affected by raw mill cycles 
(typically encompassed within 30-days, see 74 FR at 21144) for kilns 
with in-line raw mills. We have converted the concentrations obtained 
from 3-hour tests into 30-day values by means of the UPL equation 
previously described. It should be noted that due to the longer 
averaging periods, the actual limit will be a lower number compared to 
the shorter compliance interval in the proposed rule (30 days versus a 
three hour test). This damping of variability when a longer averaging 
period is used is well established where continuous monitors have been 
used to measure emissions, and is also accounted for in the ``m'' term 
of the UPL equation. The results of the new MACT analysis are shown in 
Table 8.

                         Table 8--PM MACT Floor
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           PM emissions
                          Kiln                               (lb/ton
                                                             clinker)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1......................................................          0.01
2......................................................          0.01
3......................................................          0.01
4......................................................          0.03
5......................................................          0.04
6......................................................          0.04
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                             MACT--Existing
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average................................................          0.02
Variance...............................................          0.001
UPL....................................................          0.04
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                MACT--New
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average................................................          0.01
Variance...............................................          0.00001
UPL....................................................          0.01
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA proposed use of PM CEMS as an alternative to using a bag leak 
detector, and also solicited comment on requiring their use generally. 
74 FR at 21157. As we noted there, performance specifications for PM 
CEMS are now available, and continuous monitors ``give a far better 
measure of sources' performance over time than periodic stack tests''. 
After considering the public comments, EPA continues to believe that 
this is the case. See also further discussion of this issue at Section 
A.3 of this preamble below.
    EPA does not agree with the comment that use of a CEM renders the 
standard more stringent and so results in floors (and standards) more 
stringent than those achieved by average of the best performing 
sources. First, the continuous collection of data used to assess 
compliance with this standard does not create a limit more stringent 
that otherwise allowed. As discussed in the preamble to the Credible 
Evidence Rule, ``* * * continuous monitoring of the standards (has) no 
effect on the stringency of the standard * * * '' (62 FR at 8326, 
February 24, 1997).
    Further, a statistically-based adjustment to account for emissions 
variability, and which, in this case, increases the numerical value of 
the standard (and its longer averaging period) by fifty percent, does 
not make the standard more stringent. Finally, increasing the averaging 
period beyond the duration associated with conducting a performance 
test (typically three hours) to 30 days normally makes a standard more 
lenient because there is more opportunity to average out individual 
results. As mentioned in the description of the Salo and Pederson 
memoranda cited in Section 4.1.2.1 of the Credible Evidence Rule 
Response to Comment Document, ``* * * (t)he effect of the change from a 
3-hour averaging time to a 30-day averaging time is to make the 
standard more lenient * * * ''.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ Available at http://www.epa.gov/ttncaaa1/t1/fr_notices/
certcfin.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ii. Beyond the Floor Determination.
    EPA did not propose beyond-the-floor standards for PM. This was 
because the cost effectiveness of adopting beyond-the-floor controls 
was several orders of magnitude greater than EPA has accepted for PM 
reductions in other rules where standards allow consideration of costs, 
and because the incremental amount of PM removed was very small (3 tpy 
nationwide). Consideration of non-air quality issues did not change 
this conclusion. 74 FR at 21155. Commenters did not challenge this 
analysis. EPA accordingly is not adopting beyond-the-floor standards 
for PM.
    The final PM emissions limit for existing sources is 0.04 pounds 
per ton (lb/ton) clinker for and 0.01 lb/tons clinker for new sources 
(30-day average). Kilns where the clinker cooler gas is combined with 
the kiln exhaust and sent to a single control device for energy 
efficiency purposes (i.e., to extract heat from the clinker cooler 
exhaust) will be allowed to adjust the PM standard to an equivalent 
level accounting for the increased gas flow due to combining of kiln 
and clinker cooler exhaust (an action for which EPA received no adverse 
comment). See 74 FR at 21156 and 73 FR at 64090-91 (Oct. 28, 2008) 
(explaining the equivalency of this standard and the energy efficiency 
benefits resulting from combining these gas flows). The PM standard is 
a 30-day rolling average and is measured with a CEM.
    iii. Compliance Alternative for Comingled Kiln/Clinker Cooler 
Exhaust.
    As we noted at proposal, some kilns combine the clinker cooler gas 
with the kiln exhaust and send the combined emissions to a single 
control device. There are significant energy savings (and attendant 
greenhouse gas emission reductions) associated with this practice, 
since heat can be extracted from the clinker cooler exhaust. However, 
there need to be different conversion factors from concentration to 
mass per unit clinker in these cases to allow for the increased gas 
flow, which result in a different PM emissions limit. We proposed 
adjustment factors that would account for these differences and create 
a site specific PM emission limit

[[Page 54989]]

of this situation. See 74 FR 21155-56 and 21184. We received no 
comments on these factors and are thus adopting them as proposed, 
except that the factors have been changed to account for changes in the 
underlying kiln and clinker cooler emissions limits. Note that 
adjustments would also be necessary for kilns subject to the NSPS PM 
limit. Thus, we are including a cross reference for the NSPS to the 
appropriate section of the NESHAP rule.
f. Opacity Standards for Kilns and Clinker Coolers
    We are removing all opacity standards for kilns and clinker coolers 
because these sources will be required to monitor compliance with the 
PM emissions limits by more accurate means. Although some commenters 
requested retention of opacity as a backup standard, and others as an 
alternative, none of these comments offered any convincing information 
or other justification for perpetuating a less reliable compliance 
methodology. Though we have preserved some regulation text, any kiln or 
clinker cooler that uses a PM CEMS to monitor compliance with the PM 
emission limit is exempt from opacity standards.
g. PM Standard for Clinker Coolers
    In addition to amending the PM standard for kilns we are similarly 
amending the PM emissions limit for clinker coolers. Fabric filters are 
the usual control for both cement kilns and clinker coolers. As EPA 
noted in our proposed revision to the NSPS (73 FR 34078, June 16, 
2008), we believe that the current clinker cooler controls can meet the 
same level of PM control that can be met by the cement kiln. No 
commenter challenged this. One commenter did state that PM limits for 
clinker coolers should not be changed, but we disagree with that 
comment for the reasons previously discussed on the PM limit for kilns. 
Therefore, we are setting the same PM emissions limits and compliance 
requirements for both clinker coolers and kilns.
h. Standards for Open Clinker Piles
    At proposal we noted that open clinker piles were currently 
unregulated, and that hexavalent chromium emissions had been detected 
in fugitive dust from these piles. See 74 FR at 21163. We requested 
comment and information as to how common the practice of open clinker 
storage is, appropriate ways to detect or measure fugitive emissions 
(ranging from open-path techniques to continuous digital or 
intermittent manual visible emissions techniques), any measurements of 
emissions of hexavalent chromium (or other HAP) from these open storage 
piles, potential controls to reduce emissions, or any other factors we 
should consider.
    Commenters did not provide data on this practice. Industry 
commenters stated emission were de minimis and should not be regulated. 
Other commenters noted that the fact that we know these sources emit 
HAP is sufficient to necessitate regulation.
    We agree that these operations do emit HAP and that regulation of 
these sources is necessary. See National Lime, 233 F. 3d at 640 
(upholding EPA position that de minimis exceptions are not to be read 
into the MACT standard setting process). Because the emissions in 
question are fugitive dust for which measurement is not feasible since 
(by definition) the emissions are not emitted through a conveyance or 
other device which allows their measurement (see section 112 (h)(1) and 
(2)(A)), we are adopting the work practice standards and opacity 
emissions limits contained in Rule 1156 as amended by the South Coast 
Air Quality Management District on March 6, 2009 and incorporating them 
into this rule. There are only two plants which EPA can state 
definitively have open storage piles and are complying with Rule 1156, 
so these existing regulatory standards would constitute a floor level 
of control (and EPA does not believe beyond-the-floor controls are 
needed, since utilizing some type of enclosure should well control 
fugitive emissions). A summary of the requirements are as follows:
    If clinker material storage and handling activities occur more than 
1,000 feet from the facility property-line,
    [cir] Utilize a three-sided barrier with roof, provided the open 
side is covered with a wind fence material of a maximum 20 percent 
porosity, allowing a removable opening for vehicle access. The 
removable wind fence for vehicle access may be removed only during 
minor or routine maintenance activities, the creation or reclamation of 
outside storage piles, the importation of clinker from outside the 
facility, and reclamation of plant clean-up materials. The removable 
opening shall be less than 50 percent of the total surface area of the 
wind fence and the amount of time shall be minimized to the extent 
feasible;
    [cir] Storage and handling of material that is immediately adjacent 
to the three-sided barrier due to space limitations inside the 
structure shall be contained within an area next to the structure with 
a wind fence on at least two sides, with at least a 5 foot freeboard 
above the top of the storage pile to provide wind sheltering, and shall 
be completely covered with an impervious tarp, revealing only the 
active disturbed portion during material loading and unloading 
activities;
    [cir] Storage and handling of other active clinker material shall 
be conducted within an area surrounded on three sides by a barrier or 
wind fences with one side of the wind fence facing the prevailing wind 
and at least a 5-foot freeboard above the top of the storage pile to 
provide wind sheltering. The clinker shall remain completely covered at 
all times with an impervious tarp, revealing only the active disturbed 
portion during material loading and unloading activities. The barrier 
or wind fence shall extend at least 20 feet beyond the active portion 
of the material at all times; and
    [cir] Inactive clinker material may be alternatively stored using a 
continuous and impervious tarp, covered at all times, provided records 
are kept demonstrating the inactive status of such stored material.
     If clinker material storage and handling activities occur 
1,000 feet or less from the facility property-line these activities 
must be in an enclosed storage area.
    In the SCAQMD regulation, there are different requirements for 
active vs. inactive open clinker piles. An inactive pile is one that 
had not been disturbed for 30 consecutive days. In addition, the ACAQMD 
rule has different requirements for clinker piles that are 1,000 feet 
or less form the facility property-line. This 1000 foot criterion was a 
mutually agreed number among the stakeholders (both industry and 
environmental groups) involved in developing the regulation.\35\ Given 
the lack of additional data, we saw no reason to change these 
criterion. More information on this rule is available at http://
www.aqmd.gov/hb/gb_cal95.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ Telecon with Tuyet-Le Pham, South Coast Air Quality 
Management District. June 29, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Industry commenters also maintained that regulation of open storage 
piles would violate a 2001 settlement agreement between EPA and the 
industry in which EPA agreed that the 1999 rule did not apply to 
fugitive emission sources. But nothing in that settlement agreement 
prevents EPA from amending its regulations if it is appropriate to do 
so (nor could EPA legally bind itself in such a way). The agreement in 
fact states that ``[n]othing in this Agreement shall be construed to 
limit or modify EPA's discretion to alter, amend, or revise, or to 
promulgate regulations that supersede, the

[[Page 54990]]

regulations identified in section III of this Agreement.'' 
Consequently, EPA's action today properly amends the current 
regulation, and does not violate any provisions of the settlement 
agreement.
i. Format of the Normalized Standards in the NESHAP and the NSPS
    Emission limits are typically normalized to some type of production 
or raw material input value because this allows comparison (and 
ultimately the ability to set a single standard) for different sized 
facilities. As we noted at the NSPS proposal, the current NSPS and 
limits (and NESHAP limits before today's amendments) for PM are 
expressed on a pound of PM per ton (lb/ton) of dry feed input format. 
See 73 FR at 34075-76. In this final NESHAP (and NSPS) we are adopting 
a new normalizing parameter of lb/ton of clinker--i.e., normalizing 
based on kiln output rather than input for both PM and mercury.
    We noted at proposal of the NSPS that adopting an output-based 
standard avoids rewarding a source for becoming less efficient, i.e., 
requiring more feed to produce a unit of product, therefore promoting 
the most efficient production processes. 73 FR at 34076. EPA therefore 
proposed that all of the NSPS (for PM, NOx, and 
SO2) be normalized by ton of clinker produced, and later 
proposed the same parameter for the two standards in the NESHAP which 
are normalized, mercury and PM. 73 FR at 34076; 74 FR at 21140.
    In this final NESHAP (and NSPS) we are therefore adopting a new 
normalizing parameter of lb/ton of clinker--i.e. normalizing based on 
kiln output rather than input--for mercury and PM in the NESHAP, and 
for PM, NOx, and SO2 in the NSPS. Commenters 
either supported this proposal, or did not question that normalizing by 
output promotes more efficient production. However, commenters from 
industry raised technical objections and concerns to the proposal. They 
maintained that the measurement of kiln output is not as exact as the 
measurement of kiln input, and that many kilns have not installed 
clinker measuring equipment. These objections do not necessitate 
normalizing by inputs. Most commenters also stated that kiln feed could 
be accurately measured and also indicated that most facilities 
currently derive reasonable feed-to-clinker conversion factors from 
these measurements. Kilns already calculate clinker production in this 
way when required to meet emissions limits normalized by clinker 
production, as many NSR and PSD permits for cement kilns presently 
do.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ RACT/BACT/LAER Clearing house Report for Portland Cement. 
November 25, 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Since it appears from comments that the equipment to accurately 
measure clinker is not typically installed in this industry, we must 
assume these facilities use a feed-to-clinker conversion factor to 
calculate clinker production on whatever time basis is necessary (e.g., 
daily, hourly, etc.). Therefore, we have modified the rule language to 
more clearly provide the option allowing facilities to measure feed 
inputs and to use their site specific feed/clinker ratio to calculate 
clinker production (and to make clear that no prior approval from a 
regulatory authority is necessary to do so). Facilities would be 
allowed to use a constant feed/clinker ratio in accord with their usual 
cycles for determining such ratios, typically on a monthly basis when 
clinker inventories are reconciled.
    Commenters were nonetheless concerned that because clinker/feed 
ratios change somewhat and are only re-determined at the end of a 
cycle, a slight change in clinker/feed ratio, determined at the end of 
the cycle, could show lack of compliance without even an opportunity to 
alter operation. To obviate this legitimate concern, the rule provides 
that facilities are not required to retroactively update clinker 
production estimates after recomputing feed/clinker ratios. We would 
not expect that the clinker/feed ratio will change significantly from 
month to month, so we do not see this as creating a situation where 
facilities will be able to have large amounts of excess emissions but 
still be considered in compliance (especially since the 30-day 
standards are all rolling averages).
    So, for these reasons above we are adopting emission limits 
normalized by kiln output for PM in both the NESHAP and the NSPS, for 
mercury in the NESHAP, and for NOX and SO2 in the 
NSPS (the same analysis applying to the limits in the NSPS).
2. What are the final operating limits under subpart LLL?
    EPA is eliminating the restriction, adopted in the 2006 rule, on 
the use of fly ash where the mercury content of the fly ash has been 
increased through the use of activated carbon once the kiln has 
complied with a numerical mercury emissions limit. Given the emission 
limitation for mercury, whereby kilns must continuously meet the 
mercury emission limits described above (including when using these 
materials) there does not appear to be a need for such a provision. 
This provision is removed once a kiln is in compliance with the mercury 
limitations adopted in this. We are removing the requirement at 
compliance, rather than when the rule takes effect, to prevent the 
possibility of additional mercury emissions between the rule's 
effective date and the required compliance date. However, once the rule 
takes effect EPA is removing the requirement to maintain the amount of 
cement kiln dust wasted during testing of a control device, and the 
provision requiring that kilns remove from the kiln system sufficient 
amounts of dust so as not to impair product quality for the same 
reasons. In this case, we do not see immediate removal of these 
provisions as creating a likelihood of increased mercury emissions 
prior to the compliance date.
3. What are the final testing and monitoring requirements under subpart 
LLL?
    Kilns will be required to meet the following changed monitoring/
testing requirements:
     CEMS (PS-12A) or sorbent trap monitors (PS-12B) to 
continuously measure mercury emissions, along with Procedure 5 for 
ongoing quality assurance.
     CEMS meeting the requirement of PS-8 to measure THC 
emissions for existing sources. (New sources are already required to 
monitor THC with such a CEMS). Kilns meeting the organic HAP 
alternative to the THC limit will still be required to continuously 
monitor THC (based on the results of THC monitoring done concurrently 
with the Method 320 test), and will also be required to test emissions 
using EPA Method 320 or ASTM D6348-03 every 30 months to identify the 
organic HAP component of their THC emissions.
     Installation and operation of a PM CEMS that meets the 
requirements of PS-11.
     CEMS meeting the requirements of PS-15 will be required to 
demonstrate compliance with the HCl standard for all kilns except those 
using a caustic scrubber. If a facility is using a caustic scrubber to 
meet the standard, EPA Test Method 321 and ongoing continuous parameter 
monitoring of the scrubber may be used in lieu of a CEMS to demonstrate 
compliance. The M321 test must be repeated every 30 months.
    Raw material dryers that are existing sources will also be required 
to install and operate CEMS meeting the requirement of PS-8 to measure 
THC emissions. (New raw material dryer sources are already required to 
monitor THC with a CEMS). Raw material dryers

[[Page 54991]]

meeting the organic HAP alternative to the THC limit will still be 
required to continuously monitor THC (based on the results of THC 
monitoring done concurrently with the Method 320 test), and will also 
be required to test emissions using EPA Method 320 or ASTM D6348-03 
every 30 months to identify the organic HAP component of their THC 
emissions.
    New or reconstructed raw material dryers and raw or finish mills 
will be subject to longer Method 22 and, potentially, to longer Method 
9 tests. The increase in test length duration is necessary to better 
reflect the operating characteristics of sources subject to the rule. 
EPA has included the costs associated with increased test duration in 
its estimates of the rule's costs.
    The requirements above are the same as those proposed with the 
following exceptions.
    For kilns and clinker coolers, EPA proposed to require bag leak 
detection systems for fabric filters and an ESP predictive model to 
monitor performance of an ESP. In this final rule we are requiring the 
use of a PM CEMS for all PM control devices. We did receive comments on 
technical issues associated with PM CEMS, which we have addressed in 
the Comments and Responses Document in the docket to this rulemaking. 
As explained earlier, we continue to believe that these devices provide 
the most positive indication that a facility is actually complying with 
the PM emissions limit. We also note that we promulgated a requirement 
for PM CEMS in the 1999 final rule but deferred the compliance date 
until the establishment of performance specifications. These 
specifications have now been established as EPA Performance 
Specification 11.
    In the proposed rule we specified that THC CEMS must meet the 
requirements of performance specification 8A. Commenters correctly 
pointed out certain deficiencies of the 8A method as applied to this 
source category. In response to those comments we have changed the 
requirement to PS-8.
    Where periodic performance tests are required for HCl we changed 
the test frequency to 30 months because a commenter noted both chlorine 
inputs and scrubber performance may change significantly over five 
years. For similar reasons we changed the testing frequency for the 
organic HAP option to 30 months. We believe aligning the test schedules 
for all pollutants (dioxin furan, organic HAP, and HCl) to the same 
testing schedule will allow for more efficient use of testing 
resources.
4. Standards for Startup and Shutdown
    As noted above, the United States Court of Appeals for the District 
of Columbia Circuit vacated portions of two provisions in EPA's CAA 
section 112 regulations governing the emissions of HAP during periods 
of SSM. Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (DC Cir. 2008), cert. denied, 
130 S. Ct. 1735 (U.S. 2010). Specifically, the Court vacated the SSM 
exemption contained in 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) and 40 CFR 63.6(h)(1), that 
are part of a regulation, commonly referred to as the ``General 
Provisions Rule,'' that EPA promulgated under section 112 of the CAA. 
When incorporated into CAA section 112(d) regulations for specific 
source categories, these two provisions exempt sources from the 
requirement to comply with the otherwise applicable CAA section 112(d) 
emission standard during periods of SSM.
    The effect of the vacatur is that the cross-reference to 40 CFR 
63.6(f)(1) and 40 CFR 63.6(h)(1) in Table 2 to subpart LLL no longer 
operates to incorporate an SSM exemption.
    In light of the Sierra Club decision, EPA proposed to require that 
sources be in continuous compliance with emissions limits at all times, 
even during startup, shutdown, and malfunction. 74 FR at 21161-62. We 
proposed that these sources meet the same standards at all times. Id. 
We also specifically asked for information on emissions during startup, 
shutdown, and malfunction.
    In these final amendments we have eliminated the cross-reference to 
the vacated General Provisions' exemptions contained in Table 1 of 
current subpart LLL. In establishing the standards in this rule, EPA 
has taken into account cement kilns' operating properties during 
startup and shutdown periods and, for the reasons explained below, has 
established different standards for those periods. EPA is not setting 
separate standards for malfunctions so that, for the reasons explained 
below, the standard that applies during normal operations applies 
during periods of malfunctions. We have also revised Table 2 (the 
General Provisions table) in several respects. For example, we have 
eliminated the General Provisions' requirement that the source develop 
an SSM plan. We have also removed certain recordkeeping and reporting 
requirements related to the SSM exemption. EPA has attempted to ensure 
that we have not incorporated into the regulatory text any provisions 
that are inappropriate, unnecessary, or redundant in the absence of the 
SSM exemption.
    Startup is the period of time between when fuel is first introduced 
into a cement kiln that is not firing fuel, and when the kiln 
temperatures are within normal operating limits, the kiln is using its 
normal operating fuel, and the kiln is producing clinker. During kiln 
startup, fuel is first introduced into the kiln to raise the kiln to 
the appropriate operating temperatures. In the case of a cold start the 
fuel is typically a natural gas or distillate fuel. Once the kiln 
reaches certain temperatures, the normal operation fuel is introduced. 
After the kiln reaches stable operating temperatures, kiln feed is 
introduced in low amounts which are gradually increased. Because the 
kiln feed is a significant source of most kiln emissions (HAP and 
otherwise) we would consequently expect that kiln emissions, on a 
concentration basis, would not be any higher during startup than during 
normal operations, with any potential short-term emission spikes due to 
transient conditions or release of emissions from materials left in the 
kiln from the last operating period being accommodated through an 
averaging period. Indeed, on a pure concentration basis, kiln emissions 
over time would likely be lower than during normal operation given the 
lesser volume of inputs being processed, and (at startup) the cleaner 
fuel being used to heat the kiln to normal operating conditions.
    Notwithstanding that stack concentrations over time would likely be 
the same or less than during normal operation, in some cases, the 
manner in which the standard is expressed is not appropriate during 
startup. Most particularly, the mercury and PM standards are normalized 
to kiln production (amount of pollutant allowed being linked to a ton 
of clinker produced). During startup, production is by definition 
either non-existent or very low. Even where there is a modest amount of 
production during startup, relationships between HAP concentration and 
amount of product are skewed so as to make this means of measurement 
inappropriate. In addition, normalized standards require accurate 
measurements of kiln volumetric flow rate (used to convert 
concentration into mass) and kiln flow rate, which changes in important 
ways from normal values during startup. When considered along with such 
phenomena as varying kiln stack moisture contents and flow rate, flow 
rate measurements are significantly less accurate during startup than 
during normal operation.
    For these reasons, we are establishing standards for mercury and PM 
by converting the normal operation standards to a concentration basis.

[[Page 54992]]

These conversions are as follows: 55 lb mercury/MM tons clinker is 
equivalent to 10 micrograms per dry standard cubic meter (ug/dscm); 21 
lb mercury/MM tons clinker is equivalent to 4 ug/dscm; 0.04 lb PM/ton 
clinker is equivalent to 0.004 grains per dry standard cubic foot (gr/
dscf); and 0.01 lb PM/ton clinker is equivalent to 0.0008 gr/dscf. 
Mercury and PM would be measured during startup with a CEMS (as during 
normal operation) and the concentration standard would be met on the 
basis of 7-day averages. We do not believe a 30-day average is 
appropriate for these periods because they are of short duration, and 
it might take a period of 1 year or more to accumulate 30 days of 
startup operation. We considered an averaging period equal to the time 
period of each startup, but that would have meant different averaging 
periods for each event. Therefore, we chose 7 days as a period short 
enough to accumulate the data necessary to calculate the average over a 
reasonable period (certainly less than a year) but long enough to allow 
averaging out any transient spikes that may occur. In this way, short-
term spikes which occur during startup would be averaged against the 
lower concentrations which otherwise typically maintained. A 
consequence of this compliance regime (as for the standards which apply 
during normal operation), is that a source (at least initially) cannot 
determine compliance based on any single startup (or shutdown) event. 
Seven days of data will need to be averaged.
    All of the discussion above applies to THC emissions during 
startup: Feed (the main source of THC emissions) is introduced 
gradually so THC emissions should ordinarily be lower, cleaner fuels 
are initially used to heat the kiln to normal temperatures, etc. The 
difference is that the THC standard is already expressed as a 
concentration, so the measurement difficulties with a normalized 
standard do not exist. However, during normal operation the THC 
standard is corrected to a specified oxygen concentration to avoid the 
situation where a facility uses dilution air to lower the measured 
concentration. At startup, oxygen concentrations may be higher than 
during normal operation, and may also fluctuate more. This could have 
the effect of actually making the standard more stringent during 
startup. Consequently, EPA is adopting the same concentration standard 
for THC during startup as applies during normal operation, but is 
removing the oxygen concentration correction factor. The standard is 
measured with a CEMS and is based on a 7-day average so, that, again 
the lower concentrations which ordinarily maintain at startup should 
balance out any transient events that occur because the kiln is not yet 
in steady state mode.
    HCl is also expressed as an un-normalized stack concentration 
corrected to a specific oxygen concentration. Where measured with a 
CEMS, EPA knows of no reason the same standard as applies during normal 
operation should not be met during startup, except that the averaging 
period would be 7 days and the oxygen correction factor would be 
removed for the reasons noted above. However, for those units equipped 
with wet scrubbers, sources may choose to demonstrate compliance by 
means of stack testing and parametric monitoring. See Section IV.A.3. 
In such a circumstance, there are no parameters to measure because HCl 
will not be emitted. This is because HCl is emitted only as kilns begin 
burning normal fuel, not the natural gas or distillate used as a fuel 
during startup. Consequently, EPA is providing that emissions of HCl 
shall be zero at all such times as distillate or natural gas is used to 
fire the kiln (and that is the parameter which would be measured).
    The current standard for dioxins and furans is expressed either as 
a concentration, or a combination of concentration and temperature 
control at the inlet to the PM control device. Continuous compliance is 
determined based on demonstrating the measured temperature at the inlet 
to the PM control device does not exceed the limit established during 
dioxin compliance testing. This is because higher PM control inlet 
temperature can increase dioxin emissions. See 63 FR 14196, March 24, 
1998. Based on a comment indicating that there can be an increase in 
short-term temperature fluctuations during startup (and shutdown), EPA 
is indicating in the startup standard that temperature measurements can 
increase by 10 percent during these periods.
    Shutdown is the period of time between when kiln raw material feed 
is shutoff and gas flow through the kiln ceases. Shutdown operations 
are in many ways a mirror image of startup. During shutdown, the same 
transient conditions and low product production rates occur as during 
startup. Cement kilns cannot be immediately shut off. Even after the 
feed is stopped, gas flow must be continued through the kiln and the 
kiln continues to rotate to prevent kiln overheating and/or warping. 
Moreover, the concerns about inability to have normalized standards or 
standards with oxygen correction factors, air pollution control inlet 
temperature variability, and lack of measureable HCl emissions when the 
kiln is fired with distillate or natural gas and is not HCl CEM-
equipped, all apply at shutdown for the same reasons as at startup. For 
this reason, we are setting the same limits for kilns during shutdown 
operations as during startup.
    Periods of startup, normal operations, and shutdown are all 
predictable and routine aspects of a source's operations. In the 
proposed rule, EPA expressed the view that there are different modes of 
operation for any stationary source, and that these modes generally 
include startup, normal operations, shutdown, and malfunctions. 74 FR 
at 21162. However, after considering the issue of malfunctions more 
carefully, EPA believes that malfunctions are distinguishable from 
startup, shutdown and normal operations. Malfunction is defined as a 
``sudden, infrequent, and not reasonably preventable failure of air 
pollution control and monitoring equipment, process equipment or a 
process to operate in a normal or usual manner * * *'' (40 CFR 63.2). 
EPA has determined that malfunctions should not be viewed as a distinct 
operating mode or condition and, therefore, any emissions that occur at 
such times do not need to be factored into development of CAA section 
112(d) standards, which, once promulgated, apply at all times. In 
Mossville Environmental Action Now v. EPA, 370 F.3d 1232, 1242 (DC Cir. 
2004), the court upheld as reasonable standards that had factored in 
variability of emissions under all operating conditions. However, 
nothing in section 112(d) or in caselaw requires that EPA anticipate 
and account for the innumerable types of potential malfunction events 
in setting emission standards. See, Weyerhaeuser v Costle, 590 F.2d 
1011, 1058 (DC Cir. 1978) (''In the nature of things, no general limit, 
individual permit, or even any upset provision can anticipate all upset 
situations. After a certain point, the transgression of regulatory 
limits caused by `uncontrollable acts of third parties,' such as 
strikes, sabotage, operator intoxication or insanity, and a variety of 
other eventualities, must be a matter for the administrative exercise 
of case-by-case enforcement discretion, not for specification in 
advance by regulation.'')
    Further, it is reasonable to interpret section 112(d) as not 
requiring EPA to account for malfunctions in setting emissions 
standards. For example, we note that Section 112 uses the concept of 
``best performing'' sources in defining MACT, the level of stringency 
that major source standards must meet. Applying the concept of ``best

[[Page 54993]]

performing'' to a source that is malfunctioning presents significant 
difficulties. The goal of best performing sources is to operate in such 
a way as to avoid malfunctions of their units.
    Moreover, even if malfunctions were considered a distinct operating 
mode, we believe it would be impracticable to take malfunctions into 
account in setting CAA section 112(d) standards for this (or any other) 
source category. As noted above, by definition, malfunctions are sudden 
and unexpected events and it would be difficult to set a standard that 
takes into account the myriad different types of malfunctions that can 
occur across all sources in the category. Moreover, malfunctions can 
vary in frequency, degree, and duration, further complicating standard 
setting.
    In the event that a source fails to comply with the applicable CAA 
section 112(d) standards as a result of a malfunction event, EPA would, 
of course, determine an appropriate response based on, among other 
things, the good faith efforts of the source to minimize emissions 
during malfunction periods, including preventative and corrective 
actions, as well as root cause analyses to ascertain and rectify excess 
emissions. EPA would also consider whether the source's failure to 
comply with the CAA section 112(d) standard was, in fact, ``sudden, 
infrequent, not reasonably preventable'' and was not instead ``caused 
in part by poor maintenance or careless operation.'' 40 CFR 63.2 
(definition of malfunction).
    In response to comments urging that EPA not apply the same 
standards to malfunctions as to normal operation, EPA recognizes that 
even equipment that is properly designed and maintained can sometimes 
fail and that such failure can sometimes cause (or in the case of 30-
day averages, contribute to) an exceedance of the relevant emission 
standard. (See, e.g., State Implementation Plans: Policy Regarding 
Excessive Emissions During Malfunctions, Startup, and Shutdown (Sept. 
20, 1999); Policy on Excess Emissions During Startup, Shutdown, 
Maintenance, and Malfunctions (Feb. 15, 1983)). EPA is therefore adding 
to the final rule an affirmative defense to civil penalties for 
exceedances of emission limits 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 also added other regulatory 
provisions to specify the elements that are necessary to establish this 
affirmative defense; the source must prove by a preponderance of the 
evidence that it has met all of the elements set forth in 63.1344. (See 
40 CFR 22.24). The criteria ensure that the affirmative defense is 
available only where the event that causes an exceedance 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). The criteria also are 
designed to ensure that steps are taken to correct the malfunction, to 
minimize emissions in accordance with section 63.1348(d) and to prevent 
future malfunctions. In any judicial or administrative proceeding, the 
Administrator may challenge the assertion of the affirmative defense 
and, if the respondent has not met its burden of proving all of the 
requirements in the affirmative defense, appropriate penalties may be 
assessed in accordance with Section 113 of the Clean Air Act (see also 
40 CFR Part 22.77).
5. What are EPA's final actions on compliance dates?
    For existing sources we proposed a compliance date of 3 years after 
the promulgation of the new emission limits for mercury, THC, PM, and 
HCl to take effect. This is the maximum period allowed by law. See 
section 112(i)(3)(A). We continue to believe a 3 year compliance period 
is justified because most facilities will have to install emissions 
control devices (and in some cases multiple devices) to comply with the 
proposed emissions limits. Therefore, we have retained a 3 year 
compliance data in this final rule.
    For new sources, the compliance date will be the effective date of 
this final rule or startup, whichever is later. Because this is a major 
rule as defined by the Congressional Review Act, the effective date of 
the rule is 60 days after publication of the Federal Register.
    In determining the proposal date that determines if a source is 
existing or new, we have decided to select the proposal date of these 
final amendments, which is May 6, 2009, for all the standards.
    At proposal, we considered three possible dates, including March 
24, 1998; December 5, 2005; and the proposal date of these final 
amendments, which was May 6, 2009. As we noted at proposal, Section 112 
(a)(4) of the Act states that a new source is a stationary source if 
``the construction or reconstruction of which is commenced after the 
Administrator first proposes regulations under this section 
establishing an emissions standard applicable to such source.'' ``First 
proposes'' could refer to the date EPA first proposes standards for the 
source category as a whole, or could refer to the date the agency first 
proposes standards under a particular rulemaking record or first 
proposes the particular standards at issue. The definition is also 
ambiguous with regard to whether it refers to a standard for the source 
as a whole, or to a HAP-specific standard (so that there could be 
different new source standards for different HAP which are regulated at 
different times).\37\ At proposal we chose the date of December 5, 
2005, as the proposal date that determines if a source is new or 
existing for the mercury, HCl, and THC, and the May 6, 2009, date for 
PM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ See also 74 FR at 21158 n. 41 citing other statutory 
provisions indicating that the phrase ``first proposes'' can have a 
number of meanings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After consideration of comments on the selection of the date for 
mercury, THC, and HCl, we believe that the May 6, 2009, date for all 
pollutants is more in keeping with the evident intent of Section 
112(a)(4) that source should have sufficient notice that new source 
controls requirements can be considered in the initial design. We 
accept commenters' argument that sources coming into existence between 
the proposed date of the 2006 standards and the May 6, 2009, proposal 
date of these amendments would have no reasonable means of ascertaining 
the standards' final content and so lacked notice of what controls and 
strategies to adopt. Since this is antithetical to the policy 
underlying new source standards, EPA is adopting May 6, 2009, as the 
date which determines if a source is existing or new.
    We note that there are currently sources subject to new source 
limits for mercury and THC contained in the December 20, 2006, rule. 
However, the mercury the new source standards in this final rule are 
significantly different than the limits in the December 20, 2006, rule, 
and we do not see how the affected sources could have anticipated this 
change prior to proposal of these amendments. Accordingly, we have 
selected a date that allows these facilities to design and install the 
required control equipment.

[[Page 54994]]

B. What are EPA's final actions on 40 CFR part 60, subpart F?

1. What are the final kiln and clinker cooler emissions limits under 40 
CFR part 60, subpart F?
    For ``new'' affected facilities constructed, modified, or 
reconstructed after June 16, 2008, the final emission limits amend the 
existing rules as follows:
     Change the format of the PM emission limits from lb/ton of 
dry feed to lb/ton of clinker product;
     Reduce the PM emission limit for kilns from 0.3 lb/ton of 
dry feed to 0.01 lb/ton of clinker;
     Set a limit on NOX emissions from kilns of 1.50 
lb/ton of clinker; and
     Set a limit on SO2 emissions from kilns of 0.4 
lb/ton of clinker, or, as an alternative, demonstrate a reduction in 
SO2 emissions from the kiln of at least 90 percent; and
     Reduce the PM emissions limit for clinker coolers from 0.1 
lb/ton dry feed to 0.01 lb/ton of clinker.
    The emission limits for affected facilities constructed, modified, 
or reconstructed before June 16, 2008, remain unchanged in this 
subpart. The rationale for these actions is discussed below.
a. NOX Limits for Kilns
    EPA proposed an NOX limit of 1.5 lb/ton of clinker based 
on application of Selective Non-Catalytic Reduction (SNCR) to a new 
precalciner kiln. At proposal we also considered a level of 1.95 lb/ton 
clinker based on the use of SNCR control technology, and a limit of 0.5 
lb/ton clinker based on the use of selective catalytic reduction (SCR) 
technology.
    After evaluation of the comments, we have decided to adopt the 
level of 1.5 lb/ton clinker in this final rule, as proposed. In 
general, commenters agreed with the selection of SNCR as the basis of 
the standard (i.e., it represents the performance of BDT). However, 
there was disagreement over the appropriate emission limit that 
represents BDT.
    Industry commenters requested a higher limit, claiming that site 
specific properties of raw materials could create a situation where 
application of SNCR technology to a well designed preheater/precalciner 
kiln could not achieve the level of 1.5 lb/ton clinker without high 
ammonia injection rates that would result in significant ammonia 
emissions. To support their arguments they noted that EPA based the 1.5 
lb/ton clinker level on the assumption that a well designed new 
preheater/precalciner kiln could meet a level of 3.0 lb/ton clinker 
without SNCR, so that this 3.0 lb/ton clinker should be the baseline 
from which performance of SNCR is evaluated. 73 FR at 34079. They 
pointed to several newer kilns that had difficulty meeting a level of 
3.0 lb/ton clinker without SNCR, and attributed this difficulty to 
``hard to burn'' raw materials at certain sites.
    We have rejected the industry argument that 1.5 lb/ton clinker is 
not achievable for all new kilns using SNCR technology for the 
following reasons. First, the commenters note some kilns without SNCR 
cannot meet an NOX level of 3.0 lb/ton clinker. However, 
they did not provide the actual levels of NOX emissions the 
sources were designed to meet. The NOX emissions for a new 
preheater/precalciner kiln are primarily a function of precalciner 
design. Though two kilns may have the same basic precalciner design, 
certain site specific design parameters will also affect NOX 
emissions. A precalciner designed to meet a level above 3.0 lb/ton 
clinker, will not necessarily be designed exactly the same way as one 
designed to meet 3.0 lb/ton clinker. We are also aware that there are 
kiln precalciner designs that were installed that do not represent best 
design. We thus do not believe that these kilns' performance alters the 
baseline from which performance of SNCR is evaluated. In addition, we 
have enough examples of new preheater/precalciner kilns in various 
locations in the country to indicate to us that an NOX limit 
of 3.0 lb/ton clinker is generally achievable, regardless of location, 
if the precalciner is properly designed. For example, several kilns in 
Florida and a kiln in California have NOX emissions below 
2.0 lb/ton clinker with no add-on controls. According to our 
information, raw materials in Florida can be considered ``hard to 
burn'' because of the significantly different hardness of Florida 
limestone and silica (limestone being soft which create a fine grind, 
the silica being harder which creates a more coarse grind) creates 
problems with size distribution for the raw material necessitating more 
fuel use and higher kiln temperatures with a consequent increase in 
NOX emissions. Additional test data for two plants with 
reported ``hard to burn'' mix were 1.89 and 2.4 lb/ton. Given these 
facts, we believe the assumption that a new kiln without add-on 
controls can meet a level of 3.0 lb/ton clinker over the long term is 
very reasonable and so should represent a baseline for application of 
SNCR performance. See also 73 FR at 34079 noting many other examples of 
kilns without end-of-stack controls burning hard-to-burn inputs meeting 
a level of 2.5 lb/ton of clinker.
    Second, although we based our 1.5 lb/ton clinker level on an SNCR 
emission reduction of 50 percent, there are numerous examples of SNCR 
systems achieving emission reductions greater than 50 percent and as 
high as 80 percent or more. Id. These reductions were achieved without 
appreciable ammonia slip. So even if a new kiln were to emit at levels 
above 3.0 lb/ton clinker without end-of-stack controls, application of 
SNCR would allow such a kiln to meet the 1.5 lb/ton clinker level. For 
example, a new kiln emitting at 4.0 lb/ton clinker would only need an 
emission reduction of 63 percent to meet the 1.5 lb/ton clinker level 
for NOX.
    Finally, the NOX limit is based on a 30-day averaging 
period to be consistent with the averaging periods for other regulated 
kiln pollutants, and to allow for averaging of raw mill on and off 
emissions. See 74 FR at 21144. Compared to other averaging options 
(hourly or daily), this longer averaging time allows additional 
operating flexibility to meet the limit.
    Based on comments received, we also considered setting an 
NOX limit lower than 1.5 lb/ton clinker based on performance 
of SNCR. However, we also rejected that option. We do have data that 
indicate that some cement kilns are below 1.5 lb/ton clinker, but we do 
not believe the current data support that any new kiln, regardless of 
location (and consequent raw material inputs), could meet a level that 
low.
    At proposal we also considered an NOX emissions level of 
0.5 lb/ton clinker based on performance of SCR. We rejected that option 
because at that time we did not believe that SCR was sufficiently 
demonstrated technology for this industry. We are aware that there have 
been three cement kilns in Europe that have successfully used SCR, and 
that SCR technology is a demonstrated control technology for 
NOX control for other source categories, such as utility 
boilers. We also are aware that that one domestic cement company has 
agreed to install SCR technology on one kiln as part of a settlement 
agreement. However, we continue to question if SCR technology would be 
effective at all locations where new kilns might be installed. The main 
concern is the potential for dust buildup on the catalyst, which can be 
influenced by site specific raw material characteristics present in the 
facility's proprietary quarry, such as trace contaminants that may 
produce a stickier particulate than is experienced at sites where the 
technology has been installed. This

[[Page 54995]]

buildup could reduce the effectiveness of the SCR technology, and make 
cleaning of the catalyst difficult resulting in kiln downtime and 
significant costs. We were unable to estimate these costs and did not 
include these costs in our overall cost estimates for SCR. For these 
reasons, we have not selected SCR technology as the basis of BDT. We 
will continue to follow this technology as it is applied in the U.S., 
and will reconsider this decision in the next review of this standard.
    Kilns equipped with alkali bypasses cannot be expected to meet the 
NOX limit for the portion of the exhaust that goes to 
bypass. Bypass gases are quickly cooled and do not remain at a 
temperature long enough to treat using an SNCR system. For that reason, 
we have revised the rule to clarify that for kilns with an alkali 
bypass, only the main kiln exhaust gases are subject to the 
NOX limit. Because all kilns do not require an alkali bypass 
and the bypass gas stream is a small fraction of the total kiln exhaust 
gas flow, any additional NOX emission resulting from this 
exclusion will be minimal.
b. SO2 Limits for Kilns
    EPA proposed an emissions limit of 1.33 lb/ton clinker or 90 
percent emissions reduction SO2 based on the performance of 
a limestone wet scrubber applied to a kiln with high sulfur raw 
materials. 73 FR at 34080. Commenters noted that this level was 
considerably above the level of many of the recent best available 
control technology (BACT) determinations, and was also above the level 
actually achieved by the facility EPA used as the basis of this 
proposed standard.
    At the time EPA proposed the 1.33 lb/ton clinker limit, we also 
considered a limit of 0.4 lb/ton clinker based on the average of recent 
BACT determinations for cement kilns. We chose the higher limit at 
proposal because the 0.4 lb/ton limit would have resulted in new kilns 
with moderate sulfur content raw materials experiencing a cost per ton 
of SO2 removed of $6,000. However, we have changed our 
proposed decision for two reasons. First, as a result of the NESHAP 
requirement to meet a HCl emissions level of 3 ppmvd, we estimate that 
all new kilns will have to install wet scrubbers for HCl control. See 
section VI below. Hence, the cost of meeting the 0.4 lb/ton clinker 
limit in the NSPS is minimal, only the cost of the SO2 CEM. 
Second, since proposal we have revised our costs for dry lime 
injection, which is the most cost-effective control technology for 
controlling a moderate sulfur raw material kiln to the 0.4 lb/ton 
clinker level. Based on our revised information, the cost of meeting a 
0.4 lb/ton clinker emission limit now ranges from $470 to $1430/ton 
SO2 for a kiln with high or moderate sulfur raw materials, 
even if these costs are attributed to the NSPS rather than to the 
NESHAP. Kilns with low sulfur raw materials can meet the 0.4 lb/ton 
clinker level with no add-on controls. We consider these to be 
reasonable costs, comparable with other costs for SO2 
control EPA has deemed reasonable such as those in the Clean Air 
Interstate Rule. See 70 FR at 25201 (May 12, 2005). So, even if a new 
facility is able to meet the NESHAP HCl limit without any acid gas 
controls, the cost per ton to meet a 0.4 lb/ton SO2 NSPS 
limit is still reasonable.
    In the proposal, we considered a SO2 emissions level of 
0.2 lb/ton clinker. However, this level adds little environmental 
benefit beyond the 0.4 lb/ton limit, and for many facilities would not 
be achievable based on the use of wet scrubber technology, which means 
these facilities would opt for the 90 percent emission reduction 
alternative (discussed below). For these reasons, we did not choose 
this level as BDT.
    We also proposed a 90 percent reduction as an alternative limit to 
the 1.33 lb/ton emissions limit. We are retaining this alternative in 
the final rule.\38\ The alternative 90 percent reduction is to account 
for situations where the sulfur content of the raw materials is so high 
that, even with the most efficient SO2 control, a kiln 
cannot meet the 0.4 lb/ton of clinker emissions limit. Design and 
performance data indicate the 90 percent control is continuously 
achievable for a well designed and operated wet scrubber.\39\ 
Compliance with the 90 percent reduction would be determined by 
continuously monitoring SO2 at the control device inlet and 
outlet. Continuous monitoring of SO2 at the inlet and outlet 
is a positive demonstration that the standard is being continuously 
met.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ Section 111(b) specifically indicates that standards may be 
expressed as numerical limits or as percent reductions.
    \39\ Summary of Cement Kiln Wet Scrubber and Lime Injection 
Design and Performance Data, May 29, 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

c. PM Emissions Limits for Kilns and Clinker Coolers
    We proposed a PM emissions limit of 0.86 lb/ton clinker based on 
fabric filters using membrane bags. This specific level was chosen 
because it is representative of the performance of this technology and 
was equivalent to the new source limit contained in the Hazardous Waste 
Combustor (HWC) NESHAP for cement kilns burning hazardous waste. This 
rationale is no longer applicable, since EPA is reassessing the PM 
limit in the HWC NESHAP. See USEPA Motion for Voluntary Remand in 
 05-1441 (DC Circuit, August 29, 2008).
    As previously discussed in section IV.A., in this action we are 
setting PM limits under the Portland Cement NESHAP of 0.04 lb/ton 
clinker for existing sources and 0.01 lb/ton clinker for new sources 
based on a 30 day rolling average. We project that new cement kilns 
meeting the 0.01 lb/ton clinker limit will be using the same technology 
which formed the basis of the proposed NSPS PM limit, namely fabric 
filters and membrane bags. It should also be noted that we estimate 
that many new facilities will need to install fabric filters in series 
as part of mercury controls. This means that a new kiln will install PM 
controls required to meet the 0.01 lb/ton limit in any case, so 
establishing the same limit for PM in the NSPS not only is technically 
justified, but has no cost. We also assessed the costs of installing 
and operating fabric filters with membrane bags at proposal, and found 
this to be a cost-effective control technology in any case. 73 FR at 
34077. The technology would now be evaluated as more cost-effective 
than at proposal, since greater PM reductions will result from its use. 
Therefore, we are establishing an NSPS PM limit of 0.01 lb/ton clinker 
in this final NSPS, averaged over 30 days (rolling average) and 
measured with a CEM. For reasons previously discussed, we are setting 
the same limit for clinker coolers. See section IV.A.g of this preamble 
above. See section V for a discussion on measuring compliance with a PM 
CEM.
d. Change in Format of the Standard From lb/ton Feed to lb/ton Clinker
    The change in format of the standard from feed to lb/ton clinker 
was actually proposed in the NSPS. However, this issue was also raised 
in response to the proposed PM and mercury limits in the NESHAP, and 
was previously discussed in section IV.A.1.i.
e. Applicability of NSPS Limits to Modified Kilns
    At proposal we had one set of emission limits for PM, 
SO2 and NOX that were applicable to all new, 
reconstructed, and modified kilns. Commenters expressed concerns of the 
ability of a modified kiln to meet the same limits as a newly 
constructed kiln.
    The PM and SO2 limits are based on control technologies 
that can be applied

[[Page 54996]]

to any kiln type and achieve the same control levels that would be 
expected with a new kiln at similar costs. We see no issue here as to 
technical feasibility. However, this is not necessarily the case with 
NOX. New preheater/precalciner kilns with staged combustion 
achieve NOX levels in the 2.0 to 3.0 lb/ton clinker range. 
As discussed above, in developing the NOX limit, we assumed 
this level as baseline in assessing the level achievable with SNCR, 
which is the technology basis of BDT. However, older kiln designs can 
have much higher NOX levels, ranging from 2.0 to 8.0 lb/ton 
clinker. Kilns in the higher end of the range might need to achieve an 
80 percent emissions reduction to meet the 1.5 lb/ton clinker 
NOX limit. Industry commenters requested that EPA either 
exempt modification from the NSPS, or set separate limits.
    In this final rule we are still including modified kilns as an 
affected source. The suggestion that modified kilns be outright 
exempted from these NSPS revisions appears legally strained, given that 
modified sources are a type of new source for which EPA is obligated to 
develop, and review and revise as appropriate. Moreover, if we were to 
exempt modified kilns, then such sources would be free to increase 
emissions without application of BDT, a particular concern with respect 
to pollutants like NOX which are not presently regulated by 
the NSPS. This would undermine the basis of section 111 standards, 
where Congress wanted to assure that BDT was applied to modified 
sources qualifying as ``new.'' The purpose of the Act is to enhance the 
Nation's air quality (CAA section 101 (b)(1)), and new source 
performance standards under section 111 serve that goal. Asarco v. EPA, 
578 F. 2d 319, 327 (DC Cir. 1978). Commenters had also claimed that 
other regulatory programs, most notably new source review, would result 
in a site specific BACT determination if emissions increased. Though we 
are always mindful of the interrelationship of different EPA regulatory 
programs and their effects, we do not see this as sufficient reason not 
to establish a NOX emissions limits for modified kilns.
    We further investigated whether we should set a different 
NOX emissions limit for modified kilns. However, we believe 
the BDT is the same, and are therefore establishing the 1.5 lb/ton 
clinker as the limit for modified kilns. We have two reasons for doing 
so. First, we note that there are kilns of older design that meet 
levels below 1.5 lb/ton clinker, and in some cases below 1.0 lb/ton 
clinker, with SNCR control. Therefore, modified kilns would not 
necessarily be unable to meet the 1.5 lb/ton clinker limit. However, 
sources always have the option of adding sufficient NOX 
control to avoid an hourly emissions increase and avoid thus triggering 
the modification provision. Cf. Asarco, 578 F. 2d at 328 (``the 
operator of an existing facility can make any alternations he wishes in 
the facility without becoming subject to the NSPS as long as the level 
of emissions from the altered facility does not increase. Thus, the 
level of emissions before alterations take place, rather than the 
strict NSPS, effectively defines the standard that an altered facility 
must meet''; the Court did not rule on the validity of these 
unchallenged provisions (id. at n. 32)). The NOX controls 
available to cement kilns which could be utilized to prevent an 
increase in NOX emissions, in addition to SNCR, are 
conversion to indirect firing, mid-kiln fuel injection, mid-kiln air 
injection, and substitution of steel slag for some limestone.
f. Regulation of VOC/CO
    We are not establishing limits for CO or volatile organic compound 
(VOC) emissions from cement kilns. VOC emissions from new cement kilns 
will mainly result from organics in the raw materials. Organic 
constituents in the raw materials can be driven off in the kiln 
preheater prior to reaching temperature zone that would result in 
combustion. All new cement kilns will be subject to a continuous 24 
ppmvd THC emissions limit by the Portland Cement NESHAP previously 
discussed. Because most of the THC are also VOC, the THC limit also 
directly limits VOC, and serves as the baseline for the NSPS analysis. 
This limit is also the new source limit based on the best performing 
source. Therefore we determined that no additional regulation of VOC 
emissions is necessary or feasible.
    Emissions of CO can come from two sources, unburned fuel from the 
precalciner and CO evolved from the raw materials by the same mechanism 
as the THC emissions. Unburned fuel represents an economic loss to the 
facility. Therefore, new precalciners are designed to combust fuel as 
efficiently as possible, and CO emissions from fuel combustion are 
minimized, regardless of any potential emission limit.
    Emissions of CO evolved from raw materials can be significant if 
there are substantial levels of organics in the raw material. As noted 
at proposal, the only control technology identified to reduce CO 
emissions is a RTO (which also would concurrently reduce any VOC 
emissions). However, we believe application of an RTO as BDT for CO 
would result in significant cost and adverse energy impacts. Therefore, 
we determined that no additional regulation of CO emissions is 
feasible.
    We also noted that in no cases had add-on controls for CO (or VOC) 
been required as BACT under new source review.
g. Regulation of Greenhouse Gases (GHGs)
    In the proposal we did not propose standards of performance 
covering GHGs due to concerns about ``issues related to the regulation 
of GHGs under the CAA'' and noted that we were in the process of 
evaluating avenues for addressing such concerns. See 73 FR at 34,084. 
These concerns were specifically related to the Prevention of 
Significant Deterioration and Title V permitting programs and the 
unmanageable permitting burden that we anticipated would arise should 
GHGs become subject to these programs as a result of regulation under 
the Act.
    Since that time, we have issued regulations for GHG emissions under 
the CAA through the light duty vehicle rule (75 FR 25324, (May 7, 
2010)) and have finalized the greenhouse gas ``tailoring'' rule (75 FR 
31514 (June 3, 2010)) and the Johnson memo reconsideration (75 FR 17004 
(April 2, 2010)). As a result of these actions, as of January 2, 2011, 
GHGs will become ``subject to regulation'' under the Act. Accordingly, 
the Agency has now finalized a framework addressing the concerns that 
were the basis of our decision not to propose standards of performance 
for GHG emissions from this industry at the time we proposed this 8-
year review action.
    Today's final rule does not include a standard of performance for 
GHG. There are two reasons for this. First, we did not propose such a 
standard. Promulgating such a standard without providing opportunity to 
comment on it would not be a logical outgrowth of the proposal and 
would, accordingly, violate the norms of notice and comment rulemaking. 
Second, we do not yet have adequate information about GHG emissions 
sufficient to set a standard. This information forms the basis of 
standards of performance, which must take into account achievability 
and cost of such controls.
    This is not the end of the matter. To the contrary, based on our 
current knowledge we believe that it may be appropriate for the Agency 
to set a standard of performance for GHGs. We have historically 
declined to propose standards for a pollutant where it is emitting in 
low amounts or where we

[[Page 54997]]

determined that a BDT analysis would result in no control. National 
Lime Assoc'n v. EPA, 627 F.2d at 426. Based on current information we 
do not believe such circumstances are present here. Without prejudging 
the outcome of a future regulatory process, we note the following 
considerations.
    First, Portland cement is one of the largest stationary source 
categories of GHG emissions, ranking as the third highest U.S. source 
of CO2 emissions. Second, based on our initial evaluation it 
appears that there are cost-effective control strategies for this 
source category that would provide an appropriate basis for 
establishing a standard of performance for GHG emissions. See 73 FR 
44491, July 30, 2008. These control strategies include, for example, 
energy efficiency measures, reductions in cement clinker content, and 
raw materials substitution. There may be other cost-effective controls 
as well.
    Based upon this preliminary evaluation, the Agency is working 
towards a proposal for GHG standards from Portland cement facilities. 
We are not, however, proposing such standards at this time because in 
order to develop proposed standards we need additional information on 
site specific factors that affect performance of these controls, where 
they are currently applied, and control costs. We would also solicit 
information on overall facility energy management practices. To this 
end, the Agency will be sending out information requests to fill these 
information gaps so that we are able to propose a standard addressing 
GHGs in a timeframe that would allow the regulated community to make 
sound investment decisions in response to these MACT and NSPS 
requirements.
2. What is our final action on the other emission limits in the NSPS?
    We did not propose changes to the other emissions limits in the 
NSPS, such as materials handling operations. We received one comment 
recommending that we promulgate NSPS limits for clinker storage piles, 
raw materials handling, and baghouse fall-out. Open clinker piles are 
being regulated as part of the NESHAP as previously discussed. 
Materials handling operations are currently regulated under NESHAP. We 
believe baghouse fall out would be regulated as part of materials 
handling standards.
3. What other changes are being promulgated?
    As previously noted, cement kilns are potentially subject to both 
the NSPS and the Portland Cement NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart LLL). 
In Sec.  63.1356 of subpart LLL, we exempt any source subject to that 
subpart from applicable standards under the NSPS and the Metallic 
Minerals Processing NSPS (subpart OOO). That language was appropriate 
because the NSPS only regulated PM, and the PM limits in the NSPS and 
NESHAP were identical. At proposal, where the proposed new source PM 
limits in the NSPS and NESHAP were different, we proposed to add 
language in both the NSPS and the NESHAP to state that when there are 
emissions standards for a specific pollutant that apply to an affected 
source in both the NESHAP and the NSPS, the source should comply with 
the most stringent limit, and is not subject to the less stringent 
limit.
    This proposed language is still applicable even though in this 
final rule we are setting identical new source PM standards in the NSPS 
and NESHAP rule. For example, a cement kiln that is an existing source 
under NESHAP subject to the 0.04 lb/ton clinker emissions limit could 
potentially become modified under NSPS and also be subject to the 0.01 
lb/ton clinker emissions limit. In addition, there is always a 
possibility that other situation may occur where a source is subject to 
differing emission limits under NSPS and NESHAP as a result of rule 
changes.
4. What are the final testing requirements under subpart F?
    There are no PM, NOX or SO2 compliance 
testing requirements; compliance is based on the use of a continuous 
emissions monitor (see below).
5. What are the final monitoring requirements under subpart F?
    To demonstrate compliance with the PM emission limits, we are 
amending the monitoring requirements to require the installation and 
operation of a PM CEMS. The reason for this decision was previously 
discussed. Because this requirement is also part of the Portland Cement 
NESHAP, it will also apply to existing kilns currently subject to the 
NSPS. Consequently, affected facilities under this rule are not subject 
to an opacity standard to monitor compliance with the final PM 
standard. The PM CEMS must be installed and operated in accordance with 
the requirements of Sec.  60.63(g).
    We are also adding monitoring requirements for all emission sources 
that are subject to the 10 percent opacity standard--that is, emission 
sources other than the kiln and clinker cooler. We are requiring that 
they meet the monitoring requirements for these same emission points 
contained in the Portland Cement NESHAP, 40 CFR part 63, subpart LLL in 
order to make the two rules consistent.
    Under the final amendments, compliance with the emission limits for 
NOX and SO2 are also determined using continuous 
emissions monitoring systems (CEMS). The requirements for the 
installation, operation, and calibration of each CEM, including minimum 
data requirements, are specified in the requirements in Sec.  60.63(k) 
and (l). Under the final amendments, the owner or operator of kilns 
that elect to comply with the alternative SO2 emission limit 
of 90 percent reduction are required to continuously monitor 
SO2 emissions at the scrubber inlet as well as the outlet. 
These are the same requirements proposed. We received no comments on 
the NOX monitoring provisions. Commenters objected to the 
SO2 monitoring requirement for facilities that do not 
require SO2 controls, suggesting stack tests every five 
years instead. However, in these cases, it is possible that a source 
might change a raw material and significantly increase SO2 
emissions beyond the standard. If monitoring is not in place, these 
excess emissions could be unchecked for five years before they were 
discovered. We believe the cost of the SO2 monitor ($56,000) 
is reasonable to prevent these excess emissions. These monitors are 
well established technology that are already installed on over 30 
cement kilns, including those without SO2 controls.

C. What is EPA's sector-based approach?

    Sector-based approaches are based on integrated assessments that 
consider multiple pollutants in a comprehensive and coordinated manner 
to manage emissions and CAA requirements. One of the many ways we can 
address sector-based approaches is by reviewing multiple regulatory 
programs together whenever possible. This approach essentially expands 
the technical analyses on costs and benefits of particular 
technologies, to consider the interactions of rules that regulate 
sources. The benefit of multi-pollutant and sector-based analyses and 
approaches include the ability to identify optimum strategies, 
considering feasibility, costs, and benefits across the different 
pollutant types while streamlining administrative and compliance 
complexities and reducing conflicting and redundant requirements, 
resulting in added certainty and easier implementation of control 
strategies for the sector under consideration.

[[Page 54998]]

    In order to benefit from a sector-based approach for the cement 
industry, EPA analyzed how the NESHAP under reconsideration relates to 
other regulatory requirements currently under review for Portland 
cement facilities. In this analysis we looked at how the different 
control requirements that result from these requirement interact, 
including the different regulatory deadlines and control equipment 
requirement that result, the different reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements, and opportunities for States to account for reductions 
resulting for this rulemaking in their State implementation plans. The 
requirements analyzed affect HAP and/or criteria pollutant emissions 
from cement kilns and cover the NESHAP reconsideration, area source 
NESHAP, and the NSPS revision and their collateral impacts on other 
programs such as New Source Review (NSR), Regional Haze and the 
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS).
    As a result of the sector-based approach, this rulemaking will 
reduce conflicting and redundant requirements by setting the same PM 
emission limit requirement for both the Cement NESHAP and the Cement 
NSPS. Also the sector-based approach facilitated the streamlining of 
monitoring, record keeping and reporting requirements on both rules 
reducing administrative and compliance complexities associated with 
complying with both regulations. In addition, the sector-based approach 
promotes a comprehensive control strategy that maximizes the co-control 
of multiple regulated pollutants (i.e., mercury and HCl) while 
obtaining SO2 and PM2.5 emission reductions as 
co-benefits. These collateral SO2 and PM2.5 
emission reductions may be considered for ``netting'' and ``offsets'' 
purposes under the major NSR program or as credits that could help 
areas around the country with attainment of the SO2 or 
PM2.5 NAAQS.
    For more information on our sector's analyses, its benefits and 
interaction with NSR, NAAQS and Regional Haze please refer to the 
preamble of the proposal of this rule (74 FR 21159-61).

V. Responses to Major Comments

    This section presents a summary of responses to major comments. A 
summary of the comments received and our responses to those comments 
may be found in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0877 for subpart F and 
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0051 for subpart LLL.

A. What are the significant comments and responses on 40 CFR part 63, 
subpart LLL?

    Comment: Many industry commenters (2830, 2832, 2836, 2841, 2844, 
2845, 2858, 2859, 2863, 2864, 2874, 2890, 2908, 2910, 2914, 2915, 2916, 
and 2917) stated that setting MACT floors on a pollutant-by-pollutant 
basis violates the law and results in MACT floors that bear no relation 
to emission limits that are being achieved at the best performing 
existing sources. According to industry commenters, this method 
violates the plain language and intent of section 112(d) of the Clean 
Air Act (CAA) and its effect is a MACT floor that reflects a standard 
that no one plant in existence currently achieves. Industry commenters 
2832, 2841, 2844, 2845, 2846, 2910, 2914, 2915, and 2916 stated that 
section 112(d)'s use of the terms best-performing and existing clearly 
means that sources in a category or subcategory that are used to set 
the MACT floor are to be real, not theoretical or hypothetical, sources 
(42 U.S.C. 7412(d), 2006 and Northeast Maryland Waste Disposal 
Authority, 358 F.3d at 954). They further contend that the phrase 
achieved in practice can only mean that Congress intended actual 
sources, performing under real-life conditions, to be the benchmark for 
determining the MACT floors. Furthermore, the language of the statute 
does not speak in terms of the best-performing source or sources for 
each listed pollutant or group of pollutants (42 U.S.C. 7412(d)). 
Rather, the focus is on the best existing source or sources for all 
pollutants, and what these sources truly can achieve on an overall 
basis. Industry commenters argue that EPA's pollutant-by-pollutant 
methodology is also at odds with the legislative history underlying 
section 112(d) (S. Rep. No. 228, 101st Cong., 1st Sess. 169, 1989).
    According to the industry commenters, the focus on overall 
performance is not surprising because in the 1990 CAA Amendments 
Congress abandoned section 112's previous focus on individual pollutant 
standards, and adopted the technology-based multi-pollutant approach to 
regulating toxics in use under the Clean Water Act (CWA). See S. Rep. 
No. 228, 101st Cong., 1st Sess. 133-34 (1989). Thus, if one source can 
achieve a firm degree of control for one pollutant but not for another, 
there may be no justification for including it in the set of sources 
from which the floor is calculated (Tanners' Council of America v. 
Train, 540 F.2d 1188, 1193 (4th Cir. 1976) deeming CWA effluent 
limitations guidelines not achievable where plants in EPA's database 
were capable of meeting the limitations for some, but not all, of the 
pollutant parameters).
    Some industry commenters (2845, 2910) stated that EPA's previous 
use of a pollutant-by-pollutant analysis was based on authorities not 
applicable to the CAA. EPA attempted to defend its practice of 
establishing pollutant-by-pollutant MACT standards by citing Chemical 
Mfr. Ass'n. v EPA, 870 F.2d 177, 239 (1989), clarified 885 F.2d 253, 
264 (5th Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 495 U.S. 910, (1990), a case where 
the Court held that, under the CWA, best available technology (BAT) 
referred to the single best-performing plant on a pollutant-by-
pollutant basis.
    According to industry commenters 2845 and 2910, EPA's reliance on 
Chemical Mfr. Ass'n is misplaced as the CAA's procedure regarding the 
selection of MACT technologies differs on a textual basis from the 
CWA's procedure for identifying best available technology. Under the 
CWA, BAT standards are to be set based on the best practicable control 
technology currently available. 33 U.S.C. 1311(b)(1)(A)(i)(2006). This 
has led to pollutant-by-pollutant determinations. The CAA more narrowly 
limits the basis for MACT designation to what has been achieved at 
existing sources, not what could be hypothetically achievable on a per-
pollutant basis.
    One industry commenter (2890) stated that EPA appears to be 
forgetting that the floor is only the first step in the process. Once 
EPA has established a floor based on physical sources, it is directed 
to go back and look at options beyond the floor. Those beyond the floor 
options would include the best control for each pollutant on every 
source. By correcting the floor approach, EPA would also correct the 
issue identified by Judge Williams in his concurring opinion to the 
Brick vacatur, where a floor that is designed to represent what has 
been achieved is more stringent than what would be deemed achievable 
under a MACT.
    Response: We disagree with the commenters who object to setting 
MACT floors on a pollutant-by pollutant basis. Contrary to the 
commenters' suggestion, section 112(d)(3) does not mandate a total 
facility approach. A reasonable interpretation of section 112(d)(3) is 
that MACT floors may be established on a HAP-by-HAP basis, so that 
there can be different pools of best performers for each HAP. Indeed, 
as illustrated below, the total facility approach not only is not 
compelled by the statutory language but can lead to results so 
arbitrary that the approach may simply not be legally permissible.

[[Page 54999]]

    Section 112(d)(3) is ambiguous as to whether the MACT floor is to 
be based on the performance of an entire source or on the performance 
achieved in controlling particular HAP. Congress specified in section 
112(d)(3) the minimum level of emission reduction that could satisfy 
the requirement to adopt MACT. For new sources, this floor level is to 
be ``the emission control that is achieved in practice by the best 
controlled similar source.'' For existing sources, the floor level is 
to be ``the average emission limitation achieved by the best performing 
12 percent of the existing sources'' for categories and subcategories 
with 30 or more sources, or ``the average emission limitation achieved 
by the best performing 5 sources'' for categories and subcategories 
with fewer than 30 sources. This language does not address whether 
floor levels can be established HAP-by-HAP or by any other means. The 
existing source MACT floor achieved by the average of the best 
performing 12 percent can reasonably be read as referring to the source 
as a whole or to performance as to a particular HAP. The reference in 
the new source MACT floor provision to ``emission control achieved by 
the best controlled similar source'' can mean emission control as to a 
particular HAP or emission control achieved by a source as a whole.
    Industry commenters also stressed that section 112(d) requires that 
floors be based on actual performance from real facilities, pointing to 
such language as ``existing source'', ``best performing'', and 
``achieved in practice''. EPA agrees that this language refers to 
sources' actual operation, but we repeat that the language says nothing 
about whether it is referring to performance as to individual HAP or to 
single facility's performance for all HAP. Industry commenters also 
said that Congress could have mandated a HAP-by-HAP result by using the 
phrase ``for each HAP'' at appropriate points in section 112(d). Doing 
so would have removed ambiguity from section 112(d), but does not 
compel any inference that Congress was sub-silentio mandating a 
different result when it left the provision ambiguous on this issue. 
The argument that MACT floors set HAP-by-HAP are based on the 
performance of a hypothetical facility, so that the limitations are not 
based on those achieved in practice, just re-begs the question of 
whether section 112(d)(3) refers to whole facilities or individual HAP. 
All of the limitations in the floors in this rule of course reflect 
sources' actual performance and were achieved in practice.
    The reason EPA has long adopted the interpretation that the 
existing and new source MACT floors are to be applied on a HAP-by-HAP 
basis are that a whole plant approach likely yields least common 
denominator floors--that is floors reflecting mediocre or no control, 
rather than performance which is the average of what best performers 
have achieved. See 61 FR at 173687 (April 19, 1996); 62 FR at 48363-64 
(September 15, 1997) (same approach adopted under the very similar 
language of section 129(a)(2)). For example, if the best performing 12 
percent of facilities for HAP metals did not control organics as well 
as a different 12 percent of facilities, the floor for organics and 
metals would end up not reflecting best performance. For new sources, 
not only would the floor reflect unoptimized control, but EPA would 
have to make some type of value judgment between control of organics 
and metals just to decide which source was best controlled.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ Another industry commenter (2859) stated that it had three 
sources which were best performers for mercury and three other 
sources which were best performers for PM but that each would need 
to make upgrades for the pollutant not currently fully controlled. 
EPA views this as another least common denominator example whereby 
each of the floors would be diluted due to the coincidence that 
facilities are not optimizing control of all their emitted 
pollutants. See also Petitioners Brief in Medical Waste Institute et 
al. v. EPA, No. 09-1297 (DC Cir.) pointing out, in this context, 
that ``the best performers for some pollutants are the worst 
performers for others'' (p. 34) and ``[s]ome of the best performers 
for certain pollutants are among the worst performers for others.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Commenters provided no description of how their total facility 
approach would work in practice. Would a source that is a best 
performer for PM and worst for other HAP be in the pool? Would there be 
some overall summing of where the kiln fell for each pollutant? Would 
there have to be value judgments made among pollutants (is being a best 
performer for mercury worth more than for PM in a ranking process)? EPA 
evaluated an approach whereby every kiln was ranked for performance for 
each HAP and the results were summed with the lowest overall score 
being the best performer, and next lowest the second best, etc. (among 
other things yielding a tie for best performer with no non-arbitrary 
way to break the tie). Using this approach, and with the three lowest 
ranked kilns as the average of the best performers, standards (after 
applying the UPL equation) would be approximately 65 lb/MM tons of 
clinker for mercury, 90 ppm for THC (nearly four fold increase), and 
0.12 for PM (over an order of magnitude increase). All but one kiln in 
the data base already meets the THC standard, 21 of 89 kilns would meet 
the mercury limit, and 27 of 46 kilns have stack test measurements less 
than the 30-day value for PM. See memorandum, ``Total Facility Approach 
for Setting MACT Floors'', August 6, 2010.\41\ These inflated values, 
and especially the drastically inflated THC and PM values, simply do 
not reflect best performance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ This example could have been more extreme. One of the 
ultra-high mercury emitting sources is nearly a best performer for 
HCl (it is just outside the pool of three best performers). 
Inclusion as a best performer, under some methodologies, would have 
added these mercury emissions to the pool of ``best performers'', 
even though, for mercury, performance is the worst.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    These types of results are at odds with Congress' purpose in 
adopting MACT floors. The central purpose of the amended air toxics 
provisions was to apply strict technology-based emission controls on 
HAPs. See, e.g., H. Rep. No. 952, 101st Cong. 2d sess. 338. The floor's 
specific purpose was to assure that consideration of economic and other 
impacts not be used to ``gut the standards. While costs are by no means 
irrelevant, they should by no means be the determining factors. There 
needs to be a minimum degree of control in relation to the control 
technologies that have already been attained by the best existing 
sources.'' A Legislative History of the Clean Air Act Vol. II at 2897 
(statement of Rep. Collins). An interpretation that the floor level of 
control must be limited by the performance of devices that only control 
some of these pollutants effectively ``guts the standards'' by 
including worse performers in the averaging process, whereas EPA's 
interpretation promotes the evident Congressional objective of having 
the floor reflect the average performance of best performing sources. 
Since Congress has not spoken to the precise question at issue, and the 
Agency's interpretation effectuates statutory goals and policies in a 
reasonable manner, its interpretation must be upheld. See Chevron v. 
NRDC, 467 U.S. 837 (1984).\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ Since industry commenters argued that the statute can only 
be read to allow floors to be determined on a single source basis, 
commenters offered no view of why their reading could be viewed as 
reasonable in light of the statute's goals and objectives. It is not 
evident how any statutory goal is promoted by an interpretation that 
allows floors to be determined in a manner likely to result in 
floors reflecting emissions from worst or mediocre performers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is true that legislative history can sometimes be so clear as to 
give clear meaning to what is otherwise ambiguous statutory text. As 
just explained, EPA's HAP-by-HAP approach fulfills the evident 
statutory purpose and is supported by the most pertinent legislative 
history. A few

[[Page 55000]]

industry commenters nonetheless indicated that a HAP-by-HAP approach is 
inconsistent with legislative history to section 112(d), citing to page 
169 of the Senate Report. Since this Report was to a version of the 
bill which did not include a floor provision at all (much less the 
language at issue here), it is of no relevance. National Lime II, 233 
F. 3d at 638.
    Other industry commenters pointed out correctly that the section 
112(d) air toxic provisions were modeled on the technology-based 
control scheme for water toxics in the Clean Water Act. S. Rep. No. 
228, 101st Cong. 2d sess. 133-34. However, a HAP-by-HAP approach to 
standard setting has actually been adopted and upheld under the Clean 
Water Act. Section 301(b)(2)(A) of the Clean Water Act requires plants 
to control discharges of toxic pollutants to a degree reflecting 
performance of ``best available technology economically achievable.'' 
In Chemical Manufacturers Ass'n v. EPA, 870 F. 2d 177, 238 (5th Cir. 
1989) the Court held that this requirement could permissibly be applied 
on a pollutant-by-pollutant basis:

    The legislative history of the CWA indicates that the ``best 
available technology'' refers to the single best performing plant in 
an industrial field. The EPA urges that because the Act and the 
legislative history do not provide more particular guidance, it was 
free to determine the ``best'' plant on a pollutant-by-pollutant 
basis. The Supreme Court has stated that ``it is by now commonplace 
that `when faced with a problem of statutory construction, this 
Court shows great deference to the interpretation given the statute 
by the officers or agency charged with its administration.''' This 
Court defers to the EPA's interpretation of the Act. The EPA's 
interpretation of the Act is rational and is not precluded by the 
legislative history'' (internal citations omitted).

The Court reaffirmed its holding on this issue at 885 F. 253, 264 (5th 
Cir. 1989).
    Industry commenters stated that the Clean Water Act requirement of 
Best Available Technology Economically Achievable and Best Practicable 
Technology is not the same as the Clean Air Act's requirement of 
maximum achievable control technology. These distinctions do not seem 
pertinent to the issue at hand. Both statutes require technology-based 
performance to control all toxics discharged or emitted, and both 
require standards to be achievable. The legislative history to section 
112(d) makes clear that the CAA provisions are modeled after those in 
the Water Act (as industry commenters correctly noted). EPA does not 
see any more certainty in the CWA than in the Clean Air Act on this 
point and believes its interpretation that a pollutant-by-pollutant 
approach is justified is as reasonable under section 112(d)(3) of the 
CAA as it is under section 301(b)(2) of the Clean Water Act.\43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ One industry commenter cited Tanners' Council of America v. 
Train, 540 F. 2d 1188, 1193 (4th Cir. 1976) for the proposition that 
technology-based effluent limitation guidelines under the Clean 
Water Act are not considered achievable ``where plants in EPA's 
database were `capable of meeting the limitation for some, but not 
all, of the pollutant parameters' ''. Tanners' Council involved a 
situation where EPA established standards for one source category 
based on a transfer of performance information from a different, 
unrelated source category. 540 F. 2d at 1192-93. Since the 
wastewater from the category from which the limits were transferred 
was easier to treat than tannery wastewater, the court was skeptical 
of EPA's undocumented assertions that the transfer of performance 
data (with certain upward adjustments) was permissible. Id. None of 
these circumstances apply here. EPA is not transferring performance 
from another category, but basing limits on documented performance 
of cement kilns. In addition, as noted in earlier preamble text, all 
of the kilns in the pool of best performers for each HAP is meeting 
the limit for that HAP, a strong showing of technical feasibility 
and technical achievability. Cf. CPC International v. Train, 540 F. 
2d 1329, 1333 (8th Cir. 1976); American Meat Inst. v. EPA, 526 F. 2d 
442, 458, 459 (7th Cir. 1975). Further, as discussed in the final 
part of this comment response, EPA has closely examined and is 
unaware of any situation whereby optimized performance for one HAP 
interferes with or otherwise precludes or impedes optimized 
performance for another.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Industry commenters also noted that EPA retains the duty to 
investigate and, if justifiable, to adopt beyond the floor standards, 
so that potential least common denominator floors resulting from the 
whole facility approach would not have to ``gut the standards.'' That 
EPA may adopt more stringent standards based on what is ``achievable'' 
after considering costs and other factors is irrelevant to how EPA is 
required to set MACT floors. MACT floors must be based on the emission 
limitation achieved by the best performing 12 percent of existing 
sources, and, for new sources, on the level achieved by the best 
controlled similar source, and EPA must make this determination without 
consideration of cost. At best, standards reflecting a beyond-the-floor 
level of performance will have to be cost-justified; at worst, 
standards will remain at levels reflecting mediocre performance. Under 
either scenario, Congress' purpose in requiring floors is compromised.
    EPA notes, however, that if optimized performance for different 
HAPs is not technologically possible due to mutually inconsistent 
control technologies (for example, metals performance decreases if 
organics reduction is optimized), then this would have to be taken into 
account by EPA in establishing a floor (or floors). The Senate Report 
indicates that if certain types of otherwise needed controls are 
mutually exclusive, EPA is to optimize the part of the standard 
providing the most environmental protection. S. Rep. No. 228, 101st 
Cong. 1st sess. 168 (although, as noted, the bill accompanying this 
Report contained no floor provisions). It should be emphasized, 
however, that ``the fact that no plant has been shown to be able to 
meet all of the limitations does not demonstrate that all the 
limitations are not achievable.'' Chemical Manufacturers Association v. 
EPA, 885 F. 2d at 264 (upholding technology-based standards based on 
best performance for each pollutant by different plants, where at least 
one plant met each of the limitations but no single plant met all of 
them).
    All available data for cement kilns indicate that there is no 
technical problem achieving the floor levels for each HAP 
simultaneously, using the MACT floor technology. For most kilns, 
compliance with the mercury limits will be accomplished using activated 
carbon injection followed by a second PM control consisting of a fabric 
filter. There is no technical impediment to using this same system for 
control of THC (or organic HAP). Note that the ACI system would have to 
be installed downstream of the existing PM control, therefore there 
would be no effect on the cement kiln dust collected in the existing PM 
control. One industry commenter claimed that carbon is not effective on 
mercury and THC at the same time. However, we see no basis for that 
statement as long as the correct type of carbon is used. Another 
industry commenter claimed ACI increases dioxin emissions. Considering 
the fact that ACI can actually be used to remove dioxins from kiln 
exhaust gas, we see no basis for that statement either.
    After the ACI system, a wet scrubber can be used for HCl control. 
We would expect the wet scrubber to be the downstream control because 
it creates a moisture laden exhaust that would require reheating to 
then apply ACI. Again, there is no technical impediment to adding a wet 
scrubber after the ACI system, and the two control devices should not 
interfere with each other's performance. If the facility required an 
RTO to meet the THC limit, the RTO would be installed downstream of the 
wet scrubber in order to protect the RTO from any acid gases in the 
kiln exhaust. The wet scrubber/RTO combination has been demonstrated in 
cement kiln applications.
    In order to meet the PM standard a facility could choose to modify 
their

[[Page 55001]]

existing PM control to meet the new limit, or design the baghouse 
downstream of the ACI injection point to meet the PM limit.
    Though we have described some fairly complicated control scenarios, 
there are simpler applications of control technology that would likely 
be utilized successfully. One example would be simultaneous injection 
of alkaline materials (lime or sodium compounds) and activated carbon 
downstream of the existing PM control device followed by collection 
with a fabric filter. This type of injection scheme would potentially 
control acid gases (HCl and SO2), THC (or organic HAP) 
mercury, and PM.
    Industry commenters made much of the fact that no single facility 
is presently achieving all of the HAP limits proposed. But this only 
shows that plants will need to reduce their emissions of certain HAP to 
meet standards reflecting average of best industry performers for that 
HAP.
Impacts of Pollutant-by-Pollutant Approach
    Comment: Industry commenters 2831, 2844, 2845, and 2874 stated that 
in evaluating the economic cost of achieving emission reductions, 
looking at one plant's emission control of only one pollutant to the 
exclusion of all other emission controls produces a disjointed view of 
cost implications and compliance feasibility. While an individual MACT 
floor for one pollutant might not appear cost-prohibitive, when 
combined with all of the other MACT floors for other pollutants, the 
total cost implications could become especially onerous. While the CAA 
was authored with the intent of reducing air pollution, Congress did 
not intend to disrupt the productive capacity of the United States 
through the promulgation of economically unachievable standards. 42 
U.S.C. 7401(b)(1)(2006). By setting MACT floors individually and 
ignoring the collective cost implications of the entire NESHAP, EPA 
would effectively disregard the CAA's requirement that air pollution 
control be advanced while promoting the nation's productive capacity. 
Id.
    Response: EPA is forbidden by law from considering costs in 
determining MACT floors. NRDC v. EPA, 489 F. 3d 1364, 1376 (DC Cir. 
2007); National Lime, 233 F. 3d at 640. Although one of the overall 
goals of the Act is to protect and enhance the quality of the Nation's 
air and resources so as to promote the public health and welfare and 
the productive capacity of the population,'' CAA section 101 (b) (1), 
this overall goal does not somehow authorize EPA to adopt floors that 
either consider costs (overall or otherwise) or to base floors on other 
than what best performers achieve.
2.3.3 Lowest Emitters as Best Performers
    Comment: One industry commenter (2834) stated that the Brick MACT 
ruling of the DC Circuit Court reinforces earlier holdings in National 
Lime Association vs. EPA. The Court again held that floors are to be 
based on the emission level actually achieved by the best performers 
(those with lowest emission levels), not the emission level achievable 
by all sources.
    Response: In this rule, EPA is choosing as best performers those 
sources with lowest emissions of each HAP, on a normalized basis, with 
sources' variability taken into account in assessing which had the 
lowest emissions.
    Comment: Many industry commenters (2841, 2844, 2845, 2846, 2858, 
and 2914) stated that EPA established its proposed floors equating best 
performing sources with those that have the lowest emissions for 
particular HAPs even though there are other ways to measure performance 
and, in some cases, other methodologies may comply with the statute 
where the ``lowest emitter'' approach does not. Industry commenter 2845 
noted that equating best performer with lowest emitter contravenes a 
Congressional directive that, in developing MACT standards, EPA cannot 
require substitution of raw materials in mineral processing industries, 
such as cement manufacturing, quoting the Joint Explanatory Statement 
of the Committee of Conference for the 1990 CAA Amendments stated: For 
categories and subcategories of sources of [HAPs] engaged in mining, 
extraction, beneficiation, and processing of nonferrous ores, 
concentrates, minerals, metals, and related in-process materials, the 
Administrator shall not consider the substitution of, or other changes 
in, metal- or mineral-bearing raw materials that are used as feedstocks 
or material inputs * * * in setting emission standards, work practice 
standards, operating standards or other prohibitions or requirements or 
limitations under this section for such categories and subcategories. 
H.R. Rep. No. 101-952, at 339 (1990). According to the industry 
commenters, enormous amounts of limestone are fed into a kiln to 
manufacture clinker, and it is cost-prohibitive to import limestone 
from further away. If the plant's quarry contains limestone with high 
concentrations of mercury or high concentrations of organics, the kilns 
will emit more mercury or THC and potentially more organic HAPs. 
Because limestone with high mercury or organic emissions will result in 
higher HAP emissions, and it is not cost-effective to import limestone 
from far away, equating the lowest emitters with the best performing 
sources makes no sense in the context of cement facilities. It also 
would be squarely in opposition to the Joint Explanatory Statement.
    Response: The industry commenter is citing to the ``Joint 
Explanatory Statement'' that accompanied the Conference Committee 
Report to the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments. This legislative history 
is of limited utility here. As explained at 353 F. 3d 388: ``The Joint 
Explanatory Statement describes how the differences between the Senate 
and House were resolved in the Conference Committee * * *. The Joint 
Explanatory Statement may be helpful in determining Congress's intent, 
but does not carry the same weight as the Conference Committee Report 
itself.'' See id. at 236-37. If there were some ambiguity in the 
statute, the Joint Conference Committee Report could shed some light on 
Congress' intent, but there is no exception to section 112(d)(2)(A)'s 
requirement that EPA consider ``substitution of materials'' for each 
source category. Thus, the statement cannot be read to negate the 
express statutory command that MACT is to be based on, among other 
things, measures, processes, or systems which reduce the volume of 
pollutant emissions through substitution of materials or other process 
modifications. Indeed, EPA's attempts to identify best performers by 
ignoring the contribution of raw material inputs have been soundly 
rejected. Brick MACT, 489 F. 3d at 882-883. In fact, brick and ceramic 
production, like Portland cement production, involves extraction of 
mined material from a quarry located proximate to the production 
facility because transport of raw material over long distances is 
``infeasible''. 489 F. 3d at 879. The language from the Joint 
Explanatory Statement no more allows EPA to ignore raw material 
contribution to Portland cement plants' HAP emissions than it did raw 
material HAP contributions to brick and ceramic plants' HAP emissions.
    Comment: Industry commenter 2844 stated that EPA could interpret 
section 112(d)(3) as Brick MACT appears to do, as one unitary concept 
meaning sources with the lowest emission levels, or EPA can interpret 
it as a more complex concept that EPA may determine the emission 
control (using any of the various definitions in the CAA) that

[[Page 55002]]

sources have achieved in practice (as estimated by reasonably 
predictive variability factors) and rank them according to their 
relative emissions levels (i.e., a quantitative measure of 
achievement). Having done so, the Agency can then evaluate each of the 
lowest emitters in terms of whether they meet the Agency's criteria for 
best controlled similar source. With regard to best controlled, EPA may 
evaluate this from a purely quantitative angle (lowest emissions) or 
from more qualitative aspects, reduction efficiency, environmental and 
health (or cross-media) impacts, cost-effectiveness of reductions 
achieved, impacts on other HAP or pollutant emissions, and so on.
    Industry commenter 2845 provided several examples of judicial MACT 
decisions endorsing a technology approach to setting the standards, in 
which EPA selected the best performing sources based on the relative 
performance of air pollution control technology.
    Industry commenter 2844 stated that EPA also has the discretion to 
define best performers as sources other than those with the lowest 
achieved emission levels. In the current proposal, the many 
difficulties associated with evaluating the impact of HAP content in 
the raw material inputs to mercury emission control and other factors 
could support a decision by the agency to establish a standard based on 
efficiency (i.e., a percent reduction standard) if not for the source 
category as a whole, then such a standard might be established for a 
particular subcategory as relevant, or as an alternative compliance 
strategy. EPA's discretion is sufficiently broad to encompass many 
reasonable decisions identifying and estimating the emission control of 
best performing sources on bases other than lowest emissions data, 
assuming the floor for the standard is based on a reasonable 
methodology estimating the percent reduction achieved in practice by 
the best performing sources under the reasonably foreseeable worst 
operating conditions.
    Industry commenter 2844 stated that before EPA can determine a 
floor, EPA must define the following terms in regard to the selection 
of a best performer for new sources: Emission control; Achieved in 
practice; Best controlled; and Similar source.
    To set the floor for existing sources, the industry commenter 
stated that EPA should define the following terms: Average emission 
limitation; Achieved; and Best performing.
    Response: EPA must make determinations in each standard as to each 
of these terms and has done so here. In this rule, EPA is determining 
that the best controlled similar source is the source with the lowest 
emissions of the HAP in question on a normalized basis (for mercury and 
PM), and on a concentration basis (for THC and HCl) considering 
variability in determining both which source is best controlled and in 
estimating its achieved performance. EPA is adopting the same approach 
for existing sources in determining which are the 12 percent of best 
performing sources and the performance they achieve. This approach 
accounts for all HAP inputs and outputs (i.e., accounts for HAP in all 
raw material and feed inputs as well as all emission controls), and is 
consistent with the case law.
    With regard to the comment stating that the standard could be 
expressed as a per cent reduction, the industry commenter did not 
explain how this can be done without negating the contribution of HAPs 
in feed and fuel input into plant performance. Most particularly, for 
HAP which are uncontrolled, mercury being the chief example in this 
rule, there is no removal efficiency to evaluate. Moreover, even for 
HAP which are controlled, plants with higher removal efficiencies may 
also be the highest emitters if the levels of the inputs to the control 
device is high. For these reasons, EPA is not evaluating best 
performers based on removal efficiencies in this rule.
    Comment: Industry commenters 2832, 2846, and 2890 stated that 
rather than selecting sources with the lowest emissions for particular 
HAP as best performing sources, EPA could use the relative performance 
of air pollution control technology to select the best performing 
sources, applying the best reasonable method for determining best-
performers, which does not necessarily have to equate to lowest 
emissions.
    Response: EPA discussed this issue at some length at proposal. See 
74 FR at 21149. The problem with equating best performance with 
performance of pollution control alone is that it ignores the 
contribution of raw materials and fuels to HAP emissions. Basing 
standards exclusively on performance of control technology is legally 
permissible when the control technology is the sole factor influencing 
performance, which is not the case here. National Lime, 233 F. 3d at 
633-34. EPA thus is not adopting these industry commenters' approach. 
See previous response as well.
    Comment: Several industry commenters (2845, 2846, 2874, and 2915) 
stated that EPA is proposing to calculate MACT floors by averaging the 
top 12 percent of sources for which CEMS data are available (even if 
that amounts to less than 30 sources), rather than by considering the 
top 12 percent of sources for which EPA has emissions information. As a 
result, EPA is proposing to establish the MACT floor based on data from 
only 2 sources. The industry commenters stated that CAA section 112(d) 
obligates EPA to set the MACT floor looking at no fewer than 5 sources, 
recognizing the value of relying on the maximum amount of data 
available.
    Industry commenter 2841 stated that the use of a minimum of five 
facilities should be adopted in the establishment of THC standards as 
well as the other standards in this proposed regulation. The 
establishment of requirements based on a small amount of data would run 
counter to the intent of the CAA in utilizing data that is truly 
representative of the best-performing facilities throughout an entire 
industry.
    Industry commenter 2841 stated that in previous MACT rulemakings, 
EPA used the five best performing facilities if the number of 
facilities was less than 30. Consistent with these prior rulemakings, 
the industry commenter stated that this approach should be used for 
this proposed Portland Cement NESHAP rule and that EPA needs additional 
data points in order to appropriately set limits for the industry as a 
whole.
    Response: EPA believes that it has discretion to use the data which 
most accurately measure sources' performance, which for THC case are 
data obtained from CEM-equipped sources. EPA also believes that it has 
a reasoned technical basis for not combining CEMS data with non-CEM 
data, since this would be a classic apples-to-oranges comparison due to 
the difference in measuring times and methods. EPA does not agree that 
section 112 (d)(3) mandates a minimum of 5 sources in all instances, 
notwithstanding the incongruity of having less data to establish floors 
for larger source categories than is mandated for smaller ones. The 
literal language of the provision appears to compel this result.
    Comment: One environmental advocacy group commenter (2898) 
supported EPA's decision to not rank best performers based on their 
relative mercury removal efficiency. Relying on mercury removal 
efficiency in setting the MACT floor for the Portland cement 
manufacturing industry would downplay the role of HAP inputs on 
emissions. EPA characterizes Brick MACT's statement that best 
performers are those emitting the least HAP as appearing arguably in 
dicta. However, the Brick MACT Court itself

[[Page 55003]]

characterizes the statement as the holding of the Cement Kiln case. 
Brick MACT, 479 F.3d at 880 (relying on Cement Kiln's holding that 
Sec.  7412(d)(3) requires floors based on the emission level actually 
achieved by the best performers or those with the lowest emission 
levels). The proposed alternative of setting the MACT floor on the 
basis of percentage of emission reduction achieved by sources would 
minimize, if not eliminate, the consideration of cleaner inputs in 
setting MACT floors, as EPA acknowledges, and is therefore contrary to 
statutory dictates and case law.
    Response: EPA agrees that the chief legal issue with a percent 
reduction approach for expressing floors is that it undervalues the 
role of HAP inputs. EPA is not adopting that approach in this 
rulemaking.
    Comment: Several industry trade association commenters (2831 and 
2901) stated that EPA retains considerable discretion on how to set 
MACT floors. The commenters supported the Agency's authority to set 
floor standards based on control efficiency, or any method as long as 
their method reasonably estimates the performance of the relevant best 
performing plants. There is nothing in the Court's decisions that 
requires EPA to use the straight-emissions approach favored in this 
rule. The commenter stated that the Court has expressly decided that a 
straight emissions or arithmetical methodology is not required. EPA's 
technology based approach that estimated performance rather than 
deriving the standards through an arithmetic-straight emissions 
approach is supported by the Courts, as long as it results in a 
reasonable estimate of the performance of the best controlled units. 
According to the commenter (2901), Brick MACT does not endorse a 
straight emissions approach; nor could it. To do so would mean that the 
Brick MACT Court was overturning the Chevron step one holding in Sierra 
Club and National Lime II, something that it cannot do.
    Response: EPA is adopting the straight emissions (so-called) 
approach in this rulemaking and believes that the approach is 
permissible under the statue and case law. Commenters also did not 
convincingly address the issue of how the alternative approaches they 
mention account for HAP inputs. Moreover, Sierra Club and National Lime 
II make clear that a straight emissions approach may not be mandated 
under the language of the statute, but also make clear that there must 
be a reasoned basis for estimating which performers are best. National 
Lime II, and later Brick MACT further make clear that contribution of 
HAP inputs in raw materials and fuels must be accounted for in making 
best performer determinations. See 233 F. 3d at 634, 639; 479 F. 3d at 
882-83. Each panel viewed these holdings as consistent with the Chevron 
analysis in Sierra Club. 233 F. 3d at 631-32, 633-34; 479 F. 3d at 878.
    Comment: One industry commenter (2844) stated that the CAA requires 
that lawfully promulgated NESHAP standards must be achievable. Section 
112(d)(2) of the Act requires EPA to establish emission standards for 
HAPs that require the maximum degree of reduction in emissions taking 
into consideration the cost of the emission reduction and non-air 
quality health and environmental impacts and energy requirements, that 
the EPA Administrator determines is achievable for new or existing 
sources. Further, House Rep. 101-490, Part 1 (328) stated that ``The 
Committee expects MACT to be meaningful, so that MACT will require 
substantial reductions in emissions from uncontrolled levels. However, 
MACT is not intended to require unsafe control measures, or to drive 
sources to the brink of shutdown.'' The commenter noted that the 
proposed Portland cement proposed NESHAP standards do not comply with 
Sec.  112's achievability requirements.
    Response: The industry commenter refers to legislative history to 
versions of the 1990 amendments which did not include floor 
requirements, so it is not directly applicable in interpreting the 
enacted provisions. Moreover, as held repeatedly by the DC Circuit, the 
``achievability'' requirement in section 112 (d)(2) does not alter the 
minimum level of stringency requirements mandated by section 112 
(d)(3)'s requirements. See, e.g., Cement Kiln Recycling Coalition, 255 
F. 3d at 861-62.
    Comment: Industry commenter 2844 stated that EPA's conclusion that 
section 112(d)(3) and/or Brick MACT requires or even permits the Agency 
to ignore the achievability requirements of section 112(d)(2) is an 
unreasonable reading of the statute and of Brick MACT. The Agency 
retains more than sufficient discretion to devise NESHAP standards that 
successfully bridge the tension between achieved and achievable in 
section 112's standard-setting provisions by appropriately using both 
subcategorization and variability methodologies.
    Response: EPA believes that variability needs to be assessed in 
order to accurately measure both which performers are best and what 
their performance is. However, authority to subcategorize is 
discretionary and need not be exercised where there are rational 
grounds not to do so, such as not authorizing emissions of large 
amounts of a dangerous neurotoxin. See also previous response.
    Comment: Industry commenter 2844 stated that EPA's floor setting 
methodology does not comply with three of Brick MACT's requirements: 
Floors must be based on emissions achieved in practice by best-
performing sources; EPA's use of variability factors and methodologies 
to adjust reported emissions data must be based on demonstrated 
relationships, so that the floor setting methodology serves to 
reasonably estimate or predict the performance of the best performing 
sources; and EPA must consider the impact of nontechnology factors, 
such as raw material and fuel inputs, on a source's emission control 
levels.
    Industry commenter 2844 stated that in the Portland cement 
proposal, EPA set MACT floor levels that reflect the specific 
conditions at the time the data were generated and do not include any 
of the operational variability. The commenter suggests that EPA must 
look beyond its snap shots of performance to make a reasoned evaluation 
and estimation of all operating conditions and factors that might 
impact the level of actual emissions from those kilns in practice, and 
adjust their reported short term test data appropriately. EPA can and 
should adjust raw emissions results to estimate sources' achieved 
emissions levels when setting MACT floors and standards. Since Brick 
MACT, EPA's methodology now must be able to reasonably estimate the 
impacts of variability associated with both technological and 
nontechnological factors over the full range of circumstances.
    Response: EPA disagrees that it has based the floors for any of the 
HAP on snapshot levels of performance and has not accounted for 
potential variability in sources' performance. Each of the floors 
reflects a reasonable estimate of what the best performing sources (or 
source) will achieve over time. Also, each of the floors considers the 
impact of non-technology factors, notably HAP inputs in raw materials 
and fuels, on the source's emissions.
    Specifically, for mercury the standard reflects 30 days of data for 
all mercury inputs, reasonable estimates of control device performance 
(for the few controlled sources), plus a reasonable statistical 
methodology to account for variability (including variability of 
mercury content of kiln inputs). EPA also used a pooled variability 
factor (pooling variability for all kilns in the

[[Page 55004]]

MACT pool), which increased variability estimates. Where commenters 
provided data showing that kilns' performance was underestimated 
because different inputs were used outside the sampling period, EPA 
adjusted those emissions estimates. EPA also used data on variability 
of kilns quarrying limestone from the same geologic formation as two of 
the best performing kilns to estimate intra-quarry variability of those 
two best performing kilns, and further applied this variability as part 
of the pooled variability. See IV.A.1.c of this preamble and 74 FR at 
21142-44.
    The standard for THC reflects hundreds of observations gathered 
continuously over time using a CEMS yielding a data set from which 
variability can be calculated directly. See IV.A.1.d of this preamble.
    The floors for HCl are set at the minimum reliable quantification 
level, which is a factor of three above the actual measured levels, and 
are averaged over 30 days as well. EPA believes this fully accounts for 
performance variability.
    Floors for PM are based on multiple stack measurements which have 
been adjusted by reasonable statistical methodologies to account for 
variability. See IV.A.1.f of this preamble, responding to the argument 
that measurement by means of a CEM makes the standard more stringent. 
Moreover, the PM standard reflects performance of fabric filters with 
membrane bags, which are known to perform independent of inputs and to 
have relatively small operating variability. 72 FR at 54879 (Sept. 27, 
2007); 70 FR at 59449 (Oct. 12, 2005).
    Consequently, for each HAP, EPA is assessing sources' performance 
over time in a reasonable manner and is not ignoring their operating 
variability.
    Comment: Industry commenter 2844 also stated that EPA adopted a 
floor setting methodology that is based on using lowest reported 
emission results with minimal variability adjustments to estimate 
emission control achieved in practice by best performing sources. EPA 
considered test-to-test variability, but did not consider the inherent 
variability due to raw materials, product mix, fuels, operating 
conditions and plant types. The industry commenter stated that EPA has 
not evaluated or validated whether its methodology accurately estimates 
emissions control achieved in real world circumstances at sources.
    Response: This industry comment is inaccurate on a number of 
counts. First, the statistical methodology used to estimate variability 
depends on the distribution of data to which the formula is applied. 
Any variation in that data--be it due to differences in raw material 
concentration, fuel composition, or device operation--is thereby 
accounted for. Indeed, the data base for mercury consists virtually 
entirely of raw material and fuel mercury levels from which emissions 
are projected on a worst case, mass balance basis (since virtually no 
kiln controls its mercury emissions). Consequently, EPA's methodology 
does evaluate variability of inputs as well as product mix, fuels, 
operating conditions, and does not just evaluate control device 
operating variability as the commenter maintains. Second, for mercury 
and THC, EPA gathered data over time, as explained in the preamble and 
in the previous response. Third, for mercury, industry had ample 
opportunity to provide longer term sampling data and (with a few 
exceptions, which EPA evaluated and accepted) did not do so. Fourth, 
use of a pooled variability factor (which for mercury includes the 
reasonably estimated long-term intra-quarry variability of the two best 
performers extrapolated to all other sources in the MACT pool) further 
accounts for long term variability.
    Comment: Industry commenter 2844 stated that EPA cannot evaluate 
floors using methodologies that focus exclusively on technology if the 
resulting standards do not reflect actual average limitation[s] 
achieved (Brick MACT, 479 F.3d at 882). The industry commenter 
concludes that Brick MACT requires EPA to address the role of non-
technological factors that impact emissions in setting floors and EPA 
must develop a methodology that accurately estimates the actual 
emissions achieved in practice by the best performing sources under a 
variety of operating conditions, taking into consideration testing and 
technological and non-technological variability. As proof that EPA 
failed to properly account for sources' variability in setting the 
standards, the industry commenter (and industry commenter 2845) 
included a chart purporting to demonstrate that the kilns comprising 
the pool of best performers for each HAP could not themselves meet the 
proposed standard.
    Response: EPA believes that its methodology reasonably estimates 
the variability of the best performing sources, taking into account 
both technological (emission control device) and non-technological 
(varying inputs) variability. EPA disagrees that the record shows that 
the kilns comprising the MACT pool for each floor cannot themselves 
meet the promulgated standards (see previous response). In fact, for 
each pollutant, the record indicates that every kiln in the MACT pool 
(not just the kilns below the average of the best performers) would be 
in compliance. See section IV.A.1.b above.
    Comment: One industry commenter (2845) stated that case law and 
policy dictate that EPA must consider variability in establishing MACT 
standards, and the approach used by EPA in Prevention of Significant 
Deterioration (PSD) permitting should also apply in establishing MACT 
standards. To evaluate the emission limits achieved by existing 
sources, EPA is required to develop methodologies for estimating the 
variability associated with all factors that impact a source's 
emissions, including process, operational and non-technological 
variables (see Nat'l Lime Ass'n v. EPA, 627 F.2d 416, 443, DC Cir. 
1980). While Courts have affirmed EPA's authority to choose a 
methodology designed to estimate emissions in setting the MACT floor, 
the Courts have also made clear that EPA's method must allow a 
reasonable inference as to the performance of the top 12 percent of 
units (Cement Kiln Recycling Coalition v. EPA, 255 F.3d 855, 862 (DC 
Cir. 2001)) (citing Sierra Club v. EPA, 167 F.3d 658, 663, DC Cir. 
1999). Accordingly, the Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit has stated 
that EPA must show not only that it believes its methodology provides 
an accurate picture of the relevant sources' actual performance, but 
also why its methodology yields the required estimate (Cement Kiln 
Recycling Coalition, 255 F.3d at 862).
    Response: EPA agrees that sources' variability should be accounted 
for both in determining which sources are best performers and what 
their achieved performance is. EPA also believes that it has reasonably 
accounted for sources' variability here, including both variability in 
inputs and operating variability.
    Comment: Industry commenters 2844, 2845, and 2916 objected to EPA's 
interpretation of CAA Sections 112(d)(2) and 112(d)(3) and the Brick 
MACT opinion (Industry commenter 2845 provided a white paper as an 
appendix to their comments for the HWIMI MACT proposal, dated December 
01, 2008.). The paper, titled ``Implications of the Brick MACT Decision 
on EPA's Discretion in Setting MACT Floors,'' discusses variability at 
some length. The paper's main points were:
     The Agency has chosen to focus on setting MACT floors 
based on lowest

[[Page 55005]]

emitting sources derived from limited test results that are not 
appropriately adjusted to account for stack test variability.
     The Brick MACT decision holds that EPA must base MACT 
floors on achieved emissions control rather than control technology, 
but it does not require EPA to ignore operational variability in 
determining those floors. Variability methodologies must reasonably 
estimate or predict emissions or variability through a demonstrated 
relationship between the data used and the performance intended to be 
estimated. Non-technological factors (i.e., raw materials and fuel) 
must be considered in determining emission control achieved by best 
performers. It is within EPA's discretion to define the best performing 
sources.
     EPA should estimate variability in determining achieved 
emissions. The Agency can and must seek appropriate data from regulated 
entities and other stakeholders, and to develop appropriate fact-based 
estimating methodologies on the data available.
    Response: EPA largely agrees with these general points and believes 
that it has adhered to these concepts in the final rule. EPA has also 
implored, and in many instances, compelled (through section 114 
letters) industry to provide additional data to better gauge sources' 
performance.
    Comment: A number of commenters including 2844 and 2845 argued that 
EPA should use an Upper Tolerance limit (UTL) rather than Upper 
Predictive Limit (UPL) statistical methodology to assess variability.
    Response: EPA disagrees. An Upper Tolerance Limit is ordinarily 
utilized for large data sets and is intended to assure that predicted 
values are lower than a single highest observation. R. (Gibbons, 
Statistical Tolerance Limits for Ground-Water Monitoring,Vol. 29, No. 
4, Ground Water, July-August, 1991) This methodology is intended to 
produce values that do not underestimate variability but for this 
reason tends to produce inflated predictions when applied to data sets 
containing multiple observations, which is the case for the MACT pools 
for each HAP in this rulemaking. This methodology would therefore 
overestimate performers' variability as applied in this rulemaking and 
EPA is therefore not utilizing it. EPA understands that they no longer 
regard use of UTL statistical methodology as necessitated here.
    Comment: Several industry commenters (2832 and 2859) opposed the 
approach taken by EPA in its beyond-the-floor MACT analysis. Among 
other things, EPA failed to consider the creation of incremental 
greenhouse gas emissions associated with the construction, installation 
and operation of new emissions control equipment, and the minimal 
incremental environmental benefit associated with those controls. Also, 
EPA failed to consider the cost of carbon credit purchases by the 
industry.
    Response: In all cases we declined to adopt beyond-the-floor 
standards based on consideration of costs, technical feasibility, and 
consideration of nonair environmental impacts. Evaluating other 
disbenefits for an option already rejected would have no purpose.
    Comment: Many industry commenters (2830, 2845, 2846, 2855, 2858, 
2859, 2879, 2887, and 2890) stated that CEMS are not a proven 
technology and should not be required to determine compliance.
    Industry commenters 2588, 2844, 2845, 2846, 2858, and 2890 stated 
that EPA has no data showing that mercury CEMS are feasible on cement 
kilns and that emissions from cement kilns will likely be outside of 
the range of the current CEMS technology. The industry commenters 
stated that EPA must evaluate mercury CEMS through long-term field 
trials at cement plants in accordance with the proposed performance 
specifications and quality assurance procedures before imposing this 
regulatory requirement. The industry commenters proposed a mass-balance 
approach for monitoring, which is accurate and was used by EPA in 
setting the mercury standard.
    Industry commenter 2855 stated that mercury sorbent trap monitoring 
systems have not been evaluated through long term field trials at 
cement plants in the United States (U.S.) in accordance with the 
proposed performance specifications and quality assurance procedures, 
so the reliability and performance of these measurement systems and the 
adequacy of the technical specifications cannot be determined.
    Industry commenters 2855 and 2900 disagreed with EPA's 
interpretation of the operating experience with mercury CEMS in 
Germany. The industry commenters stated that mercury CEMS are 
inaccurate and difficult to maintain. Further, mercury CEMS operating 
in Germany are subject to monitoring regulations that are different 
than the U.S. regulations and are used in a different regulatory 
context than that proposed by EPA. The monitors used in Germany, or 
those available from other European or Asian manufacturers were not 
able to demonstrate acceptable performance in the Electric Power 
Research Institute (EPRI) Trimble County Mercury CEMS study.
    Industry commenter 2855 stated that there is no legitimate 
technical basis on which to establish detailed performance 
specifications or quality assurance (QA) requirements for these CEMS. 
There is no legitimate technical basis to conclude that these CEMS 
could meet such requirements over any extended period when installed 
and operated at a cement plant. The industry commenter recommended that 
EPA evaluate the performance of mercury CEMS at cement kiln systems and 
acquire the information necessary to serve as the basis for technical 
specifications and requirements. After such information is available 
and analyzed, EPA should re-propose appropriate and demonstrated 
performance specifications and quality assurance procedures for mercury 
CEMS to monitor kiln and kiln/in-line raw mill mercury emissions.
    Industry commenter 2855 disagreed with EPA's interpretation that 
mercury CEMS can be applied to the cement industry based on successful 
use on utility boilers. The commenter evaluated the following issues:
    Number of Installations in the Utility Industry--There are 35-40 
continuous mercury monitors (CMMs) installed and certified to date (not 
yet with a National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) 
traceable calibration source).
    NIST Certification--In mercury CEMS certification requirements 
outlined in Performance Specification (PS)-12A, it states that all 
calibration and span gases must be NIST certified. The draft protocols 
were just released by NIST in July 2009. The major vendors of mercury 
CEMS are just now advertising NIST-certified calibration sources. 
Therefore, none of the mercury CEMS that have been previously installed 
are certified. NIST does not currently directly certify oxidized 
mercury calibrations. The Interim EPA Traceability Protocols now in 
place provide for certification of evaporative generators by 
certification of the individual components of the calibrator. 
Therefore, the language used in Section 7.0 that refers to a NIST trace 
oxidized mercury calibrator needs to be clarified or changed.
    Difficulties Encountered in the Utility Industry--The industry 
commenter gave examples of power plants' difficulties with mercury 
CEMS.
    Installation on Wet Stacks--Installing a mercury CEMS on a wet 
stack can result in problems: Plugging, corrosion, and buildup of 
solids. Although wet scrubbers are not currently common in the cement 
industry, under the proposed rule, they may be required to

[[Page 55006]]

a greater extent, and many of these same problems with mercury CEMS 
potentially could occur for the cement industry as well.
    Data Output Requirements--There is no need for dry basis 
measurements under the proposed rule and the language in either Subpart 
LLL should be included to provide an exemption from this requirement 
for cement plants or PS-12A should be revised. This language needs to 
be clarified by EPA.
    Cost--The industry commenter provided information about CEMS costs, 
estimating that if mercury CEMS were installed on all non-waste-burning 
U.S. cement facilities, the total capital costs would be approximately 
$45 million, with annual operating costs being about $25 million.
    Industry commenter 2901 stated that CEMS should not be used as a 
compliance method for cement plants for the following reasons:
    EPA reported in 1997 on an experiment where CEMS were installed on 
a cement kiln burning hazardous waste. The Agency found substantial 
problems regarding mercury CEMS measurement accuracy and precision, 
deciding not to require Mercury CEMS at cement plants. The industry 
commenter stated that the primary issue is whether there is a NIST 
traceable standard that can be used to calibrate the unit. Because 
compliance is based on the production rate and on using a 30-day 
average, it is difficult to know what range to calibrate these units.
    The reliability of CEMS on cement kiln stacks has not been 
demonstrated in the U.S., where standards and requirements are 
different. Demonstrations in the U.S. at coal-fired power plants have 
different conditions than those at cement kilns.
    There is no legal imperative for EPA to require CEMS. Under the 
CAA, EPA's monitoring requirements must provide a reasonable assurance 
of compliance with emission standards Sierra Club v. EPA, 353 F.3d 976, 
990-991 (DC Cir 2004) (Copper Smelters) citing Natural Res. Def. 
Council, Inc. v. EPA, 194 F.3d 130, (DC Cir 1999).
    Response: Several commenters questioned the applicability of 
current continuous instrumental gaseous mercury CEMS technologies to 
cement kilns. Several commenters also raised technical issues about 
specific performance criteria in Performance Specification 12A (PS 12A) 
for gaseous Hg CEMS and expressed concern as to the availability of 
National institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) traceable Hg gas 
standards. NIST has recently completed certification of a ``NIST 
Prime'' elemental mercury gas generator at concentrations of 41, 68, 
85, 105, 140, 185, 230, 287, and 353 [micro]g/m\3\ and mercury gas 
generator vendors may now submit elemental mercury gas generators for 
certification to serve as ``Vendor Primes''. Therefore NIST traceable 
mercury gas standards can now be made available in concentrations that 
exceed the equivalent mass standards for both existing and new kilns by 
between one and two orders of magnitude, thus providing the capability 
to accurately report excursions well beyond either standard. We have 
provided responses to the comments on specific performance criteria 
regarding PS 12A in the response to comments document, and in several 
instances PS 12A has been revised in response to those comments. The 
Agency believes that the now revised PS 12A is fully capable of 
properly measuring the performance of gaseous Hg CEMS in many 
applications, including cement kilns.
    Regarding the applicability of the current commercially available 
gaseous Hg CEMS to cement kilns, and to wet or high moisture stacks in 
particular, we have considered the potential physical and chemical 
characteristics of such kiln stacks and does not consider them to be 
substantively different from those of other source categories, 
particularly utility boilers, where technical solutions have been 
deployed to enable the successful application, certification, and 
operation of gaseous Hg CEMS. One of several U.S. Hg CEMS manufacturers 
advises they have now installed approximately 400 Hg CEMS units on 
coal-fired power plants to meet regulatory requirements, including some 
with flue gas desulfurization systems with the higher stack gas 
moisture levels typical of these systems. These installations have 
included performance guarantees for system certification and the 
manufacturer also indicated a willingness to guarantee the performance 
of their units on cement kiln stacks.
    We recognize that each source will experience their own particular 
learning curve as with any new instrument, but if the source should 
experience an apparently insurmountable problem with a particular 
installation, they still have the option to either petition the 
Administrator for consideration of an alternative testing approach 
under Sec.  63.7(f) or to monitor Hg using a sorbent trap monitoring 
system by Performance Specification 12B (PS 12B). We disagree with the 
comment that PS 12 B requires further demonstration. The same 
technology (Method 30B, 40 CFR Part 60, Appendix A) was successfully 
used on several cement kilns in the process of collecting data to 
establish the emission limits in this rule with good precision and 
accuracy, and has also been widely deployed in the data collection 
program for the current MACT rule development program for utility 
boilers. EPA also believes that the growing body of evidence of the 
successful use of Hg CEMS in the utility industry in the U.S. is 
further evidence that Hg CEMS can be used in the cement kiln industry. 
In addition to the knowledge regarding the use of Hg CEMS on cement 
kilns in Europe, EPA is aware of two instances where Hg CEMS have been 
installed on cement kilns in the U.S., with specific evidence of 
successful execution of seven day calibration drift checks, linearity 
(measurement error tests, as well as relative accuracy testing.
    Comment: Industry commenter 2845 stated that EPA should require 
that compliance with HCl limits should be measured by periodic stack 
tests. Because the HCl floors were developed from HCl stack test data, 
the standard for HCl should be based on periodic stack testing. EPA 
must evaluate valid data from Method 321/ASTM D6348 stack tests instead 
of the data contained in Table 5 of the proposal. Using CEMS to measure 
compliance effectively makes the standard more stringent than what has 
been achieved by the best-performing sources. If CEMS compliance 
demonstration is retained, then the limit for CEMS compliance must be 
raised to reflect the added variability that will be measured by the 
CEMS. While continuous measurement will capture variability of 
emissions 24 hours per day, 7 days per week over the full range of 
process and control system operating conditions over the life of the 
plant and its associated quarry, the stack test is merely a snapshot in 
time. By definition, a stack test contains no parameter related to 
variability other than that obtained during the three hours of testing. 
In addition to the inherent variability of HCl emissions, a CEMS 
standard must also consider the inaccuracy of the CEMS as determined 
(and allowed) relative to the required stack test methods, the 
uncertainty of calibration standards/materials, and other factors 
affecting the sampling, transport, and analysis of HCl which is a 
highly reactive compound.
    Response: HCl CEMS will be measuring HCl with the same technology 
that was used in the period stack tests (M321) used to set the 
standard. An allowance for variability has been built in through the 
process of setting the standard, including setting the standard based 
on the 99th percentile UPL and increasing the

[[Page 55007]]

standard to the practical quantitation limit of the analytic method.
    Comment: Two industry commenters (2845 and 2859) said that EPA has 
not promulgated any regulations requiring PM CEMS at any source 
category due to its inability to address fundamental technical and 
policy issues and must resolve these issues through rulemaking before 
requiring PM CEMS at any cement plants. Furthermore EPA has not 
performed a legitimate technical analysis of emissions variability and 
compliance determination uncertainty to allow the use of PM CEMS for 
determining continuous compliance with a PM limit at cement plants.
    The use of PM CEMS in Europe and other countries does not 
constitute a valid basis for application of PM CEMS at cement plants in 
the United States. Light scattering, light transmission, and extractive 
beta attenuation instruments are all inferential measurement devices 
and a correlation must be established to relate the device output to 
the actual PM concentration, then the accuracy and bias of the 
reference test and the uncertainty of the statistical correlation, as 
well as the stability of the correlation must be considered. Under the 
German TUV and the European monitoring standard (EN 14181) these 
uncertainties are considered; emissions are not considered to exceed 
the allowable limit until the lower bound of the confidence interval 
and/or tolerance interval exceeds the emission limit; emission 
standards may contain different averaging periods requiring different 
levels of conformance; and when a problem is encountered, the emphasis 
is on resolving the emission problem rather than direct enforcement and 
collection of financial penalties. All of these considerations place 
the European monitoring program in an entirely different regulatory 
context than the proposed PM monitoring requirements.
    Response: We reject the industry commenters' assertions that PM 
CEMS have not been required via rulemaking because of unresolved 
fundamental technical or policy issues. Concerns about PM CEMS were 
identified and addressed prior to the January 2004 publication of 
Performance Specification 11 and Quality Assurance Procedure 2 for PM 
CEMS (69 FR 1786, January 12, 2004). As mentioned in that rule's 
preamble, ``* * * we believe that the PM CEMS field demonstrations 
completed to date encompass a range of operating conditions and 
emission characteristics * * *'' including those exhibited by sources 
such as cement kilns.
    Moreover, we disagree with the assertion that our analysis of PM 
emissions variability is not legitimate, yielding an overly-stringent 
PM emissions limit. The PM limit is based on our analysis of PM 
emissions from test data, adjusted from an hourly to a 30-day averaging 
period and further adjusted for variability. As mentioned in the 
preamble to the Credible Evidence Rule (62 FR 8314, February 24, 1997), 
we have addressed and continue to address concerns about perceived ``* 
* * limited number and distribution of test runs and the inherent 
variability in levels of emissions * * *'' by a number of approaches, 
including changing emissions averaging periods.
    Certainly a statistically-based adjustment to account for emissions 
variability, and which, in this case, increases the numerical value of 
the standard (and its longer averaging period) by fifty percent, does 
not make the standard more stringent.
    Finally, the continuous collection of data used to assess 
compliance with this twice-adjusted standard does not create a limit 
more stringent that otherwise allowed. As discussed in the preamble to 
the Credible Evidence Rule, ``* * * continuous monitoring of the 
standards (has) no effect on the stringency of the standard * * *'' (62 
FR at 8326, February 24, 1997).
    Rather, consistent with the rulemaking description process given in 
Section 4.1.1 of the Credible Evidence Rule Response to Comment 
Document, we used our ``* * * judgment, based on available information, 
to establish emissions standards at (appropriate) levels where the 
standards can be met on a continuous basis by a well operated and 
maintained source that employs best demonstrated technology * * *'' 
\44\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ See Section 4.1.2.1 of the Credible Evidence Rule Response 
to Comment Document, available at http://www.epa.gov/ttncaaa1/t1/
fr_notices/certcfin.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: Two industry commenters (2845 and 2859) had the following 
comments concerning technical issues associated with application of PM 
CEMS. EPA has not addressed nor resolved the primary technical issues 
limiting the effective application of PM CEMS at cement plants 
including:
     Inability to generate a sufficiently wide range of PM 
concentrations to establish an acceptable correlation (i.e., 
calibration),
     Accuracy and precision limitations of reference method at 
PM levels necessary to generate valid correlation, and
     Subsequent changes in effluent matrix and/or PM (i.e., 
particle size distribution, refractive index, particle density, etc.) 
that influence the stability of the correlation and hence, the 
relationship between the output of the inferential measurement device 
relative to actual PM concentration.
    Valid PM CEMS correlations cannot be established for PM CEMS at 
cement plants due to limitations of process operation and control 
equipment in conjunction with the proposed emission limitation. The 
requirements in Appendix A, PS-11 for the PM CEMS correlation and in 
Appendix F, Procedure 2 do not provide a sufficiently reliable means to 
determine compliance with emission limitations.
    Response: We have not identified problems cited by the commenters 
at existing installations. In fact, PS-11 and Procedure 2 are working 
well. We note that PS-11 has several features to address correlation 
issues. For example, PS-11 provides for the addition of a zero point, 
which enhances the ability to provide a calibration. We note that PS-11 
has several features to address correlation issues due to any 
limitations of process operation and control equipment. PS-11 provides 
for the addition of a zero point. For example, if control equipment 
operations cannot be varied adequately to achieve higher PM 
concentrations, resulting in a cluster of data points at a very low 
level and making it difficult to achieve PS-11 criteria, then an 
artificial data point may be selected at zero that allows the 
correlation curve to be developed that meets the correlation criteria. 
It also strongly suggests the use of paired trains to insure that 
accuracy and precision is obtained. Changes in the effluent matrix 
could potentially be a problem with light scattering technologies but 
this has not been shown to be a problem with existing installations. 
This would not be a problem with beta attenuation monitors. Factors 
that influence the stability of the correlation are addressed in 
Procedure 2 (40 CFR, Appendix F). Procedure 2 describes the required 
audits to insure that subsequent measurements are stable and within 
acceptable limits, thereby ensuring reliable and stable compliance 
measurement data.
    Comment: Two industry commenters (2845 and 2859) had the following 
comments concerning PS-11 and Procedure 2. The requirements at Sec.  
63.1349 for PM CEMS are incomplete and ambiguous and EPA has failed to 
specify important QA frequencies and other information relevant to the 
implementation of PM CEMS in accordance with PS-11 and Procedure 2. The 
proposed Subpart LLL revisions fail to address critical elements 
including the following sections of PS-11 and Procedure 2:

[[Page 55008]]

     PS-11 3.20, species reference method as method defined in 
applicable regulations (Method 5 with 250 [deg]F filtration 
temperature) but this is inadequate for low concentrations where Method 
5I should be used, and is inapplicable to sources with PM that 
condenses between the stack temperature (mill on and mill off, if 
applicable) and 250 [deg]F where Method 17 should be used or ASTM D 
6831.
     PS-11, 6.2 You must ensure that the averaging time, the 
number of measurements in an average, the minimum data availability, 
and the averaging period for your CEMS conform to those specified in 
the applicable regulation--but none are specified.
     When using PS-11, 6.5 Your CEMS must sample the stack 
effluent such that the averaging time, the number of measurements in an 
average, the minimum sampling time, and the averaging procedure for 
reporting and determining compliance conform to those specified in the 
applicable regulation--but none are specified.
     Procedure 2, 10.3 You must conduct a response correlation 
audit (RCA) and a relative response audit (RRA) at the frequency 
specified in the applicable regulation * * * but none are specified.
     Procedure 2, 10.3, You must perform an RRA at the 
frequency specified in the applicable regulation * * * but none is 
specified.
     When using Procedure 2, 10.3(7) You must perform an RCA at 
the frequency specified in the applicable regulation * * * but none is 
specified.
     When using Procedure 2, 10.9 You must report the accuracy 
results for your PM CEMS at the frequency specified in the applicable 
regulation * * * but none is specified.
    Response: We recognize that PS-11 does not specify a reference 
method; we have revised the final rule to specify Method 5 or Method 5I 
(40 CFR part 60, appendix A) as the reference method. Facilities with 
issues in application of these reference methods, may petition the 
Administrator for alternatives or modifications under Sec.  60.8(b) or 
Sec.  63.7(f). The averaging times and data reduction specifications 
have been added to Sec. Sec.  60.63(c) and 63.1350(b) of the rule. 
There are no specific data availability requirements, Sec. Sec.  
60.63(g) and 63.1348(b) require that monitoring be conducted at all 
times the affected source is operating except for periods of monitoring 
system malfunctions, repairs, or quality assurance/quality control 
activities. The language of the final rule has been revised to specify 
the frequency of the Relative Response Audits (annually) and the 
Response Correlation Audits (every three years), for specifics, see 
Sec. Sec.  60.63(c)(2) and 63.1350(b)(2). Absolute Correlation Audits 
are required by Procedure 2 on a quarterly basis.
    Comment: One environmental advocacy group commenter (2786) stated 
that EPA should not eliminate opacity standards in the proposed rule. 
The commenter stated that there are benefits to having an opacity 
standard in conjunction with a particulate matter standard. Opacity 
measurements can be made by anyone who is trained to measure opacity, 
which can include members of the public and not just inspectors, and 
opacity measurements are a cheaper method of getting more frequent 
measurements.
    Response: We disagree. Given the sensitivity of the BLD and PM 
CEMs, we find the opacity requirements to be redundant.
    Comment: One environmental advocacy group commenter (2898) stated 
that EPA should require PM CEMS and retain the opacity monitoring 
requirements. EPA is proposing installation and operation of a BLD 
system, along with stack testing using EPA Method 5 conducted at a 
frequency of five years for demonstrating compliance with the proposed 
PM emissions limit. As an alternative, a PM CEMS that meets the 
requirements of PS-11 may be used, and EPA is proposing to eliminate 
the current requirement of using an opacity monitor. The proposed rule 
solicits comment on making the use of a PM CEMS a requirement. The 
commenter stated that EPA should both require CEMS and retain the use 
of opacity monitors.
    EPA should abandon the BLD system requirement outlined in the 
proposed rule and mandate the use of PM CEMS instead. The agency 
previously concluded that PM CEMS is a superior monitoring technology 
that can be implemented at a reasonable price. EPA has found that BLD 
systems, standing alone, are inadequate to verify compliance and has 
also found that continuous opacity monitors (COMS) operate as a useful 
check on PM emissions and proper operation of PM CEMS.
    Providing a superior level of compliance assurance is not the only 
benefit of PM CEMS. EPA has acknowledged that the assumptions to assure 
compliance are fewer and less conservative (direct measure of the 
standard is the top of the monitoring hierarchy), CEMS mean facilities 
need to monitor only one emissions parameter to assure compliance 
rather than multiple operating limits, often relevant to more than one 
standard, and that the cost of installing PM CEMS technology is 
reasonable.
    Response: We would support the use of multi-metal CEMS, should they 
become available. We have not yet seen evidence that COMS are well-
suited for continuous compliance as are BLD or PM CEMS, so that 
requiring their use as a backup system would add monitoring costs to no 
special environmental benefit.
    Comment: Several industry commenters (2832 and 2859) opposed the 
proposed requirement to install CEMS in order to satisfy compliance 
assurance monitoring (CAM) for selected pollutants. Instead, the 
commenter proposed that CAM requirements be satisfied using periodic 
stack testing to the extent that stack testing is requested or required 
by State air permits. According to EPA's proposal, the MACT floor for 
new and existing sources in this industry will be determined by stack 
testing results of sources within the MACT pool. If EPA were to 
finalize a numeric emissions limitation based on this approach to 
setting the new and existing MACT floors, that limitation will be based 
on the same stack testing data. CEMs will have played no role in this 
process. It stands to reason that compliance assurance should be based 
on stack testing results, and not a CEMS data that has played no part 
in this process.
    One industry trade association commenter (2916) stated that EPA can 
achieve a reasonable assurance of compliance without the use of CEMS. 
The requirement to use CEMS is unreasonably costly and unnecessary, 
given that other reliable means of showing compliance are available for 
all relevant pollutants. Raw material sampling and kiln parametric 
monitoring, in conjunction with periodic testing, would work well for 
THC and HCI. The sorbent trap method for mercury is a good alternative 
to mercury CEMS and should be retained in the final rule. EPA should 
refrain from requiring PM CEMS in the final rule. Bag leak detection 
systems and parametric monitoring of ESPs are proven methods for 
assuring ongoing compliance with PM limits.
    Response: We disagree. In the case of THC, emissions may change 
significantly due to a process change without any advance indication. 
In addition, the THC emission limits were established using data from 
CEMS, and the standard itself is a 30-day average, requiring 30 monthly 
measurements (only practically obtainable with a CEM). Therefore, CEMS 
are the obvious

[[Page 55009]]

compliance assurance choice. In the case of mercury emissions, short 
term test data do not necessarily reflect the long term emissions. In 
addition, the performance of the available mercury controls may be 
significantly affected by operational factors. To devise a test plan to 
clearly establish the performance of mercury control under all 
conditions would be difficult, and for that reason it would be 
difficult to establish the proper control device operating parameters 
and operating limits. Therefore, mercury CEMS are essential in 
demonstrating continuous compliance with the mercury emissions limits. 
If the facility does not have a wet scrubber, changes in raw materials, 
or fuels could significantly increase emissions without any indications 
unless a CEMS is used.

B. What are the significant comments and responses on 40 CFR part 60, 
subpart F?

    Comment: Several State and environment advocacy group commenters 
(62, 65, and 69) objected to EPA not proposing standards for greenhouse 
gas (GHG) emissions under the proposed NSPS. One State commenter (62) 
criticizes EPA's decision to not propose any NSPS for GHG emissions 
from Portland cement plants. The commenter states that even though the 
Courts have confirmed that GHGs are air pollutants subject to 
regulation under the CAA, EPA has not issued any such standards, 
instead issuing an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) that 
seeks public comment on whether to regulate GHG emissions under the CAA 
at all. State commenter 62 protests this course of action, and requests 
that EPA revise the proposed rule to include NSPS for GHG emissions.
    According to State commenter 62, EPA's failure to propose NSPS for 
GHGs in the proposed rule violates section 111 of the CAA (42 U.S.C. 
7411), which requires EPA to determine whether GHG emissions emitted by 
cement plants may endanger public health or welfare, and to promulgate 
NSPS for each air pollutant emitted by cement plants that contributes 
significantly to global warming pollution. The State commenter states 
that as the second largest industrial source of carbon dioxide 
emissions in the United States (emitting 45.7 million metric tons of 
carbon dioxide in 2006), the cement industry contributes significantly 
to GHG emissions and there can be no serious dispute that GHG emissions 
endanger public health and/or welfare. The ANPR that EPA issued instead 
is no substitute for action and does not commit to regulating GHG 
emissions from any source. State and environmental advocacy group 
commenters 65 and 69 submitted several exhibits in support of their 
comments. A summary of the comments is presented here. To review the 
entire comment, please refer to the comment at www.regulations.gov. The 
State and environmental advocacy group commenters state that:
     EPA is required by section 111 to promulgate NSPS for all 
pollutants emitted by a regulated source category including 
CO2 emission from cement plants and EPA's assertion that 
section 111 does not compel the agency to regulate CO2 
emissions is contrary to the Act's plain language.
     Congress has expressly directed that NSPS address the 
emissions of ``any'' air pollutant, a term that plainly encompasses 
CO2.
     At a minimum, in directing that NSPS be established for 
sources that cause, or contribute significantly to air pollution which 
may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health and welfare, 
Congress showed that it meant to require limits on emissions of any 
pollutants that cause or contribute to such endangerment. Because 
cement plants emit CO2 in such amounts that those emissions 
significantly contribute to ``air pollution which may reasonably be 
anticipated to endanger public health or welfare,'' EPA is legally 
required to issue standards of performance limiting those emissions. 
EPA cannot rationally assert that cement plant CO2 emissions 
do not meet these criteria, and the Agency's refusal to promulgate 
standards of performance is therefore unlawful.
     EPA's contention that it can refuse to regulate 
CO2 emissions on the basis of interactions with other CAA 
provisions is impossible to reconcile with section 111, because that 
section clearly contemplates that EPA will adopt standards of 
performance covering pollutants that have not previously been subject 
to regulation under the Act.
     Cement plants' emissions of CO2 cause, or 
contribute significantly to, air pollution which may reasonably be 
anticipated to endanger public health or welfare and significantly 
contribute to global climate change.
     There are existing technologies that can reduce emissions 
of CO2 from cement plants. In addition to the suggested 
technologies, other measures that would also have CO2 
reduction benefits include shifting from high carbon content fuels, 
such as coal, to lower carbon content fossil fuels, such as natural 
gas.
     Section 111(d) of the Act provides that EPA shall require 
States to implement and enforce standards of performance for existing 
sources when the pollutant at issue is not regulated as a criteria 
pollutant or hazardous air pollutant.
     EPA must also consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service and National Marine Fisheries Service to insure that the final 
rule is not likely to jeopardize recently-listed endangered species.
    Response: Due to issues related to the regulation of GHGs under the 
CAA, no standards of performance for GHGs were included in the proposal 
and none are being included in the final amendments. Promulgating a 
standard without first proposing it does not follow the accepted 
process of proposal and public comment that is required of EPA 
rulemakings. Also, we have not gathered the information we need on GHG 
emissions and control strategies for the Portland cement industry. 
EPA's decisions and plans for regulating GHG from this industry are 
discussed earlier in this document (see section IV.B.1.g).
    Comment: Several private, State and environmental advocacy group 
commenters (59, 60, 63, 68, 70, 71, 72) approve of the proposed limits 
for NOX or believe more stringent limits are appropriate. 
One private commenter (59) states that the proposed standard is 
unjustifiably high, and will allow for greater NOX emissions 
than can be achieved with the installation of off-the-shelf pollution 
control technology. The commenter recommends a standard of no greater 
than 0.5 lb NOX/ton clinker and states that SCR is an 
effective and proven technology to reduce NOX emissions from 
cement kilns and can reduce NOX emissions from cement kilns 
by greater than 90 percent, consistent with what has been observed with 
SCR in other industries. According to the private commenter, SCR can 
achieve this performance with cost-effectiveness of approximately 
$1,500-$3,800/ton NOX, easily within regulatory cost 
thresholds for many NOX control programs. Regarding concerns 
over dust and plugging, the commenter cites three recent installations 
of SCR on cement kilns that show that SCR vendors can properly design 
and install units which manage the dust and successfully operate for 
many years. The commenter stated that numerous SCR companies believe 
that they can design and supply SCR systems for NOX control 
at cement plants where they will have to guarantee performance levels 
in legal contracts, and thus they would be at significant financial 
risk to advertise and sell an SCR system that was actually going to 
fail. The effectiveness

[[Page 55010]]

of the technology to reduce NOX and other pollutant 
emissions from cement kilns, as demonstrated by the SCR installations 
on cement kilns in Europe and the numerous SCR installations on other 
heavy industries like coal-fired power plants and waste incinerators, 
is supported by the marketing, technical assessments, and reports 
prepared by numerous experts on this subject, including: Three (3) 
cement companies, five (5) SCR manufacturers, an independent blue 
ribbon panel, the U.S. EPA (twice), and the European IPPC. State 
commenter 68 believes that EPA's proposed NOX limit of 1.5 
lb/ton clinker underestimates the reductions that are achievable with 
SCR technology and recommends that SCR be identified as BDT for this 
sector and is ``the regulated future'' for cement kilns. The commenter 
states that the agency has noted that hybrid combinations of SNCR and 
SCR could be used in new cement kilns to achieve greater reductions 
than would be possible with SNCR alone. SCR is also named by EPA as 
available technology for cement kilns in the Regulatory Impact Analysis 
for the Final Clean Air Visibility Rule or the Guidelines for Best 
Available Retrofit Technology (BART) Determinations Under the Regional 
Haze Regulations. As far back as 1999, EPA included SCR in a list of 
control technologies available for both dry and wet cement 
manufacturing processes, as did a Pechan & Associates Report prepared 
for EPA's Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards in September 
2005. Therefore, SCR technology for the cement manufacturing sector has 
been considered feasible technology by EPA for some time.
    One State commenter (60) states that the NOX emission 
limit should be lowered to 1.0 lb/ton of clinker on a 24 hour rolling 
average for new PH/PC kilns and a limit added of 2.0 lb/ton of clinker 
on a 24-hour rolling average if reconstruction or modification of the 
kiln commences after June 16, 2008, and the final configuration is a 
long wet kiln or a long dry kiln. The State commenter states that the 
recommendations regarding PH and PH/C kilns should apply equally to 
projects at greenfield sites and brownfield sites stating that many of 
the advances in NOX control in the U.S. and Europe have been 
made at brownfield sites whether they have involved new kilns or 
reconstruction or modification of existing kilns.
    To support the State commenters recommended limits for 
NOX, the commenter provided the following information and 
included several supporting documents as attachments to the comments:
     A long-term value of 1.46 pounds per ton (lb/ton) of 
NOX clinker was achieved with no add-on control equipment 
when not accounting for slag use and 1.38 lb/ton when accounting for 
slag use at TXI Kiln 5 (a PH/C kiln) in Midlothian, Texas.
     A long-term value of 1.98 lb/ton was achieved with no add-
on control equipment at Cemex Sta. Cruz (a PC/H kiln) in Davenport, 
California. The project involved an improvement to an existing calciner 
(commissioned in 1997) on an existing kiln to comply with an existing 
NOX limitation.
     Titan America (a PH/C kiln) in Medley Florida and Giant 
Cement in South Carolina where average values of 1.62 and 1.88 lb 
NOX/ton were documented for new kilns with no add-on control 
equipment at brownfield sites.
     The results from the existing SCANCEM (an affiliate of 
Lehigh) Sk[ouml]vde PH kiln where emissions were reduced from 4.4 lb 
NOX/ton (1995) by installation of a SNCR system and which 
achieved 0.72 lb/ton in 2005.
     The results from the existing SCANCEM Slite PH/C kilns 
where emissions were reduced from 4.0 lb NOX/ton (1995) by 
installation of an SNCR system and which achieved 1.01 lb/ton in 2005.
     The results from the existing Radici Cementeria di 
Monselice PH kiln where emission reductions to values as low as 0.20 lb 
NOX/ton were demonstrated by installation of a SCR system. 
The supplier guaranteed reduction of 90 percent and realized reductions 
as high as 97 percent.
    State commenter 60 states that based on the foregoing, reductions 
on the order of 75 percent are achieved by well-designed SNCR systems 
and 90 percent by SCR. Given that a new kiln can be designed such that 
emissions can be controlled to values between 1.5 and 2 lb/ton before 
add-on control, 1 lb/ton is achievable by SNCR. Given a kiln with less 
sophisticated design or particularly difficult raw materials achieving 
3 to 5 lb/ton, SNCR or SCR or a combination of the two can reduce 
emissions to values much less than 1 lb/ton. The commenter states that 
the proposed averaging time of 30 days is a tremendous concession to 
the industry. The availability of reagent injection makes it easier to 
achieve the proposed standard on a 24-hour basis. The lowest permit 
limit for a project under construction in the United States applies to 
the Drake Cement in Arizona. The value is equivalent to 1.14 lb/ton on 
a 24-hour basis. A contract was awarded to F.L. Smidth who developed 
the calciner that achieves 2 lb/ton or less at TXI, Titan and Cemex as 
discussed above. The limit will be achievable using an SNCR system.
    State commenter (60) states that because long wet and long dry 
kilns use much more energy to make a ton of clinker, a higher 
NOX limit may be acceptable for these kilns. State commenter 
60 agrees with EPA's assumption that new projects triggering the NSPS 
will actually result in a PH/C kiln. A project that might trigger a 
prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) review at a long kiln 
will probably incorporate emissions control measures to avoid PSD and a 
BACT determination for NOX and SO2. The measures 
to avoid PSD will also likely avoid the short-term emissions increases 
that would otherwise trigger the NSPS.
    Finally, with respect to the reconstruction provisions, it is not 
likely that a company will actually invest 50 percent of the value of 
an existing long kiln without taking the opportunity to make it much 
more energy efficient through conversion to a PH/C kiln. The State 
commenter states that a separate standard for long kilns will avoid the 
unnecessary relaxation of the limits applicable to PH and PH/C kilns. 
The State commenter listed the following NOX reduction 
technologies that have been demonstrated for long kilns and submitted 
supporting documentation as attachments to the comment:
     Conversion from direct to indirect firing in conjunction 
with the installation of a multi-channel (Low NOX) burner;
     Mid-kiln fuel injection (including tires);
     Near mid-kiln pressurized air injection;
     SNCR at long kilns; and
     Combination of SNCR with air injection.
    One State commenter (63) described the advances in technology for 
controlling NOX emissions, especially SNCR and SCR, from 
Portland cement plants, and requests EPA consider the technological 
improvements and their applications when establishing NOX 
emission limits. The State commenter states that EPA continues to play 
a crucial role in encouraging innovation and in mobilizing supply 
chains to deliver technologies that improve our air quality and 
environment including the continued tightening of emission limits. This 
encourages the industries such as the cement industry to work closely 
with equipment and component suppliers to ensure significant reductions 
in emissions in a timely and economical manner. The commenter states 
that with the improved processes

[[Page 55011]]

that lower uncontrolled NOX emissions and with the addition 
of SCR, NOX limits of 0.25-0.5 lb NOX/ton clinker 
are achievable.
    One State commenter (70) supports the proposed level for new, 
modified and reconstructed kilns of 1.50 lb/ton of clinker for 
NOX. Facilities can meet the 1.50 lb/ton of clinker for 
NOX, with SNCR alone or with SCR (either as a supplement or 
as an alternative to SNCR).
    One State commenter (71) states that if new or modified systems 
would likely use the preheater/precalciner configuration, then what is 
achievable must be looked at and then apply the effect of the controls. 
If this approach is followed, the appropriate NOX emission 
limit should be in the range of 1.14 lb/ton of clinker. According to 
State commenter 71, the traditional long dry cement kilns can attain a 
NOX emission level of 2.73 lb/ton of clinker without 
utilizing SNCR control technology. Based on an SNCR control efficiency 
of 50 percent, a NOX emission level of 1.3 lb/ton of clinker 
is achievable. As a result, cement kilns with SNCR control technology 
can achieve a NOX emission level between 1.14 and 1.3 lb/ton 
of clinker. However, this State commenter believes that the 
NOX emission level from cement kilns can be further reduced 
by utilizing SCR control technology. State commenter 71 states that EPA 
dismisses the SCR technology used in Europe and concedes that some 
mechanical problems were experienced in the early stages with plugging 
but these problems were resolved and the system remained in service for 
four years at the Solnhofen facility in Germany. According to the 
commenter, waste disposal should not be an issue because the spent 
catalyst could be added to the process as a source of alumina. State 
commenter 71 previously conducted a Best Available Retrofit Control 
Technology (BARCT) assessment for a cement plant in our area and 
recommended SCR as the BARCT for this facility.
    One environmental advocacy group commenter (72) states that the 
NSPS emission rate for NOX from cement plants should be 
lowered to 0.5 lb/ton of clinker on a 24 hour rolling average because 
of the ability of current plant designs to achieve very low rates of 
NOX emissions without the addition of add-on pollution 
controls. Currently available add-on controls can reduce NOX 
emission levels below the proposed 1.5 lbs of NOX per ton of 
clinker. There is a considerable operational experience with SNCR that 
shows it's capable of reducing NOX emissions to 1 lb or 
less/ton of clinker when combined with a modern-designed kiln. SCR has 
been demonstrated in the utility industry and Europe and can further 
reduce emissions.
    Response: The starting point for the NOX limit was the 
emission level that could be achieved with no add-on control device for 
NOX. To achieve the lowest NOX levels without 
add-on controls involves the use of state-of-the-art combustion 
technologies in conjunction with PH/PC kilns. In developing the 
proposed limits for NOX, we used emissions data showing that 
three recently permitted kilns had achieved average NOX 
levels of 1.62, 1.88, and 1.97 lb/ton of clinker through the use of 
combustion technologies such as low-NOX burners and staged 
combustion in the calciner (SCC). We assumed that through advanced 
combustion technology, an emission level of 2.5 lb/ton of clinker was 
generally achievable. Following proposal, commenters supporting the 
limit, commenters recommending lower limits, and commenters 
recommending higher limits submitted additional data on NOX 
emissions from U.S. kilns as well as kilns operating in other 
countries. The data are summarized below.

                                     Table 9--Cement Kiln NOX Emissions Data
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                  NOX emissions
                                                                                                  before add-on
              Kiln                     Kiln type         Process controls     Add-on controls   control  (lb/ton
                                                                                                    clinker)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TXI, Midlothian, TX, Kiln 5       PH/PC..............  LNB, slag..........  None..............              1.38
 (2003).
                                  ...................  LNB................  None..............              1.46
Cemex, Santa Cruz, CA (2006-      PH/PC..............  SCC................  None..............              1.98
 2007).
Titan America, Medley, FL (2007,  PH/PC..............  SCC................  None..............              1.62
 2008).
Giant Cement, Harleyville, SC     PH/PC..............  SCC................  None..............              1.88
 (2006, 2007).
TXI Riverside, CA...............  Long Dry...........  Combustion, Process  None..............               1.5
                                  Long Dry...........  Combustion, Process  None..............               1.5
Lafarge Sugar Creek, MO (2004-    PH/PC..............  LNB, SCC...........  None..............              3.58
 2005).
Lafarge Calera, AL (2006-2007)..  PH/PC..............  LNB, SCC...........  None..............              2.06
Lafarge, Alexandria, Egypt        PH/PC..............  LNB, SCC...........  None..............              2.03
 (2007).
Lafarge, Richmond, Canada (2007)  PH/PC..............  LNB, SCC...........  None..............              2.64
Lafarge, Port La Nouvelle,        PH/PC..............  LNB, SCC...........  None..............              2.65
 France (2007).
Lafarge, Ewekoro, Nigeria (2007)  PH/PC..............  LNB, SCC...........  None..............              3.38
Lafarge, Kujawy, Poland (2007)..  PH/PC..............  LNB, SCC...........  None..............               3.4
Lafarge, Harleyville, U.S.        PH/PC..............  LNB, SCC...........  None..............              3.48
 (2007).
Lafarge, Tetouan, Morocco (2007)  PH/PC..............  LNB, SCC...........  None..............              4.07
                                  ...................  ...................  AVG...............              2.41
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The average uncontrolled NOX emissions for the listed 
kilns are 2.4 lb/ton of clinker. If the result for the long dry kiln is 
removed, the average is 2.5 lb/ton. This result is consistent with the 
baseline NOX level used by EPA in the development of the 
proposed NOX limits. To allow for variations in process, 
fuel or feed, EPA selected a baseline level of 3.0 lb/ton of clinker.
    To arrive at the emissions limit for NOX, we evaluated 
two add-on control technologies for BDT: SNCR and SCR. EPA agrees that 
SCR is a promising technology for the control of NOX 
emissions from Portland cement plants. The Agency also agrees that SCR 
is an attractive control alternative in that it has the advantage of 
reducing emissions of other pollutants in addition to reducing 
NOX by 80 to 90 percent. However, although SCR has been 
demonstrated at a few cement plants in Europe and has been demonstrated 
on coal-fired power plants in the U.S., the Agency is not satisfied 
that it has been

[[Page 55012]]

sufficiently demonstrated as an off-the-shelf control technology that 
is readily applicable to cement kilns. The experience with SCR use on 
coal-fired power plants in the U.S. is not directly transferrable to 
Portland cement plants with the main difference being the lower dust 
loadings at power plants than would occur at cement plants. (Note this 
is not an issue for CEMS because they can be located downstream of the 
PM controls.) The experience at European kilns showed long periods of 
trial and error before the technology was operating properly. In 
particular, problems with the high-dust installations and the resulting 
fouling of the catalyst were problematic. This and other problems were 
eventually overcome, although at one of the early facilities to add 
SCR, the use of the SCR was discontinued in favor of a selective 
noncatalytic reduction (SNCR) system while the facility owners and 
operators gathered additional data to assess the advantages and 
disadvantages of the SCR system in comparison to the SNCR system.
    State commenters also noted that it would be possible to combine 
SNCR and SCR technology on the same kiln, thereby significantly 
reducing the amount of catalyst required. This could reduce the problem 
with catalyst fouling. We see no technical impediment to combining SNCR 
and SCR technology. But at the same time we have no data on this 
combined system to assess its effectiveness or potential for catalyst 
fouling.
    At this time we therefore do not agree with the commenters that SCR 
can be considered best demonstrated technology and as a result have not 
established a NOX emission limit based on that technology.
    We determined SNCR to be BDT and applied a control efficiency for 
the SNCR to the baseline uncontrolled level to determine the 
appropriate NOX level consistent with application of BDT. As 
discussed in the preamble to the proposed rule, SNCR performance varies 
depending on various factors, but especially the normalized molar ratio 
(NMR), or the molar ratio of ammonia injected to NOX- higher 
removal efficiencies are associated with a higher NMR. SNCR performance 
has been shown to range from 20 to 80 percent NOX removal. 
At proposal we used an efficiency of 50 percent as representative of 
SNCR performance on average. Since then, additional information on SNCR 
performance has become available including data supplied by State 
commenters as well as a 2008 report by the Portland Cement Association. 
These data are summarized below. Reported removal efficiencies range 
from 25 to over 90 percent. According to a 2008 PCA report, ammonia 
slip occurs at molar ratios generally above 1.0. The graph below 
illustrates the relationship between the ammonia molar ratio, or NMR, 
and the performance of SNCR. EPA also examined the data to determine if 
uncontrolled NOX emissions affected SNCR performance since 
SNCR performance has been shown to improve with higher uncontrolled 
NOX levels, but the data here did not show any effect 
between initial NOX concentration and SNCR performance. 
Using the data below, the average removal efficiency of SNCR is 60 
percent. Thus, EPA believes the 50 percent removal efficiency used to 
establish the NOX emission limit is a reasonable estimate of 
the SNCR performance that allows for an operating margin considering 
reasonable worst-case conditions that can be expected within the 
industry or source category as a whole. This operating margin should be 
sufficient to allow facilities where a greater than 50 percent 
reduction may be necessary to meet the 1.5 lb/ton clinker limit to 
increase ammonia injection to achieve greater than 50 percent reduction 
without causing ammonia slip.

                                      Table 10--SNCR NOX Removal Efficiency
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   NOX emissions
                                                    before SNCR    NOX emissions      Removal      Ammonia molar
                      Kiln                            (lb/ton     with SNCR  (lb/   efficiency         ratio
                                                     clinker)      ton clinker)         (%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SCANCEM Skovde, Sweden (1995,2005)..............             4.4             0.7              84           1-1.2
SCANCEM Slite, Sweden(1995,2005)................             4.0             1.0              75         1.2-1.4
Ash Grove, Durkee OR (1994 test)................            4.75             1.0   > 80 for most  ..............
Suwannee American (2008)........................    Not reported             1.4  ..............  ..............
Florida Rock....................................             3.1             1.7              47        0.1-0.65
                                                             3.8             2.2              42             0-1
1...............................................             7.0             3.2              55             0.7
2...............................................             4.3             3.0              30             0.7
3...............................................             4.6             2.3              50             0.7
4...............................................             4.0             2.0              50         0.6-0.7
5...............................................             3.8             2.9              25  ..............
6...............................................             4.0             2.4              40            0.25
6...............................................             4.0             2.0              50             0.5
7...............................................             3.4             1.7              50             0.5
7...............................................             3.6             0.9              75             0.8
7...............................................             3.2             0.6              81               1
8...............................................             5.0             0.4              92         1.0-1.2
8...............................................             5.0             1.1              78         1.0-1.2
9...............................................  ..............             0.9           80-85         1.2-1.4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AVG.............................................             4.2             1.7              60  ..............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 55013]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR09SE10.004

    Comment: Several industry commenters (64, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78) 
commented on the difficulty of consistently achieving the NOx limit of 
1.5 lb/ton clinker limit over time and at all new kiln locations and 
favored a higher limit or no limit. They state that it is important to 
note that consistent, long term compliance with this proposed limit may 
be difficult to achieve and there will be instances where compliance 
may not be possible at all. According to the industry commenters, 
different factors can influence NOX emissions such as:
    (1) Fuel type/quality--Lower volatility solid fuels such as petcoke 
produce higher NOX emissions. Also, any problems with fuel 
quality as delivered to the plant can have a negative impact on 
NOX emissions;
    (2) Raw mix burnability--Harder burnability will give higher 
NOX emissions. Burnability is dependent on raw mix 
chemistry, fineness, and chemical deviation (impacted by homogeneity 
and operation of the quarry, which can vary over extended periods of 
time);
    (3) Kiln bypass system--The size of the bypass for a given plant 
(if needed), and consequently the bypass emissions, depends on the 
chemistry of the raw mix and fuel(s) and the product standards that 
must be maintained to comply with regulations;
    (4) Size/type of the preheater--New in-line calciners will normally 
give the lowest NOX emissions; however, in cases where the 
type of fuel(s) used dictates the need for a separate calciner (such as 
may be applied to utilize waste materials), NOX emissions 
will be higher. In addition, sometimes a new project will consist of 
upgrading an existing pyro system. In many of these cases the layout of 
the existing equipment is such that it cannot be modified to perform as 
well as a brand new calciner system, and will therefore have higher 
NOX emissions;
    (5) Sub-standard operation and maintenance of the kiln system--This 
is the responsibility of the cement producer, but it is also expected 
that NOX emissions will increase slightly over a typical 
campaign between annual maintenance stoppages due to normal ``wear and 
tear'' of the system; and
    (6) SNCR efficiency and slippage--The ability of an SNCR system to 
reduce NOX emissions is not the same for all systems, 
especially for an existing pyro system that has been upgraded (due to 
potential lack of an optimum injection point) or a very large pyro 
system (due to lack of optimum mixing of ammonia and preheater gas).
    One industry commenter (75) states that although the removal 
efficiency of SNCR can theoretically be improved by increasing the 
quantity of ammonia injection, there is a practical limit to this 
approach. As ammonia injection rates increase, the potential formation 
of a secondary plume due to ``ammonia slip'' increases. In addition, 
sulfur in the raw materials results in SO2 and 
SO3 in the exhaust, which decreases the efficiency of 
ammonia injection and leads to operational issues such as solids 
accumulation and plugging downstream of the SNCR. As the industry 
commenter noted in the permit application for its proposed kiln, 
facilities with lower BACT emission limits are also those facilities 
with lower sulfur raw materials, notably plants located in Florida, 
thereby improving the efficiency of SNCR. Given the baseline 
NOX emissions expected at a new plant, industry commenter 75 
would need a control level of at least 70 percent to meet the proposed 
limit of 1.5 lb/ton. Industry commenter (75) is not confident that this 
can be done with SNCR. Therefore, the industry commenter recommends 
that the NOX standard be established at 1.95 lb/ton, which 
reflects a level of control achievable with the use of SNCR by all 
facilities without introducing the negative effects associated with 
pushing for high control levels.
    One industry commenter (76) states that assuming a facility is 
already operating with best combustion practices (i.e., indirect fired 
fuel supply systems, low primary air burners, etc.) then the 
burnability of the raw mix has

[[Page 55014]]

the greatest single impact on NOX emissions. Statistically 
speaking, most preheater precalciner cement kiln plants worldwide emit 
an uncontrolled NOX emission of 3.8 to 4.2 lb 
NOX/ton of clinker. With a 50 percent NOX 
reduction rate from the application of SNCR technology, a controlled 
emission rate of 1.9 to 2.1 lb NOX/ton of clinker could be 
expected for most kilns. As such, a 1.95 lb NOX/t clinker 
limit for all new kiln applications seems achievable. The issues arise 
when people arbitrarily apply the 50 percent reduction potential of 
SNCR to lower baseline emission numbers. (i.e., at a 3.2 lb 
NOX/ton of clinker uncontrolled emission, SNCR could reduce 
it to 1.6 lb NOX/ton of clinker). While this might be true 
on an isolated case basis, it would be unwise to approach such a low 
level for a new NSPS limit for all new kilns because of the issue of 
burnability. In some cases it might be possible to reduce the baseline 
NOX levels with integrated control systems, such as Multi-
Stage Combustion (MSC) installed on low NOX calciner system; 
but here again, the practicality of sustaining stable, continuous 
operation while simultaneously reducing the baseline NOX by 
10 to 30 percent is very site specific. Industry commenter 76 believes 
that a controlled emission rate of 1.95 lb NOX/ton of 
clinker can be achieved by all new kiln applications providing SNCR is 
used as the principle measure to control NOX emissions, but 
excluding that portion of gases that may be extracted through a bypass 
system.
    One industry commenter (77) believes that under the worst-cast 
combinations of raw materials, fuels and cement specifications and with 
the application of SNCR technology, a controlled emission rate of 2.0 
lbs of NOX per ton of cement clinker can be achieved by all 
new kiln applications. However, if the kiln must incorporate a bypass 
for alkalis, chlorides or sulfur, the NSPS limits must allow for 
increased NOX emissions on a plant by plant basis due to the 
fact that bypass amounts can be anywhere from 5 percent to 100 percent 
in size.
    One industry commenter (78) states that very few kilns with alkali 
bypasses would have a chance of meeting the proposed limit long-term. 
One industry commenter (83) requested that EPA clarify whether the 
NOX limit applies only to a kiln's main stack or both the 
main and bypass stacks.
    One industry commenter (73) believes that EPA failed to 
appropriately consider variables that affect uncontrolled 
NOX emissions from preheater/precalciner kilns employing SCC 
and LNB on an industry-wide basis. As a consequence, EPA relied upon a 
limited database that did not reflect these variables and then made 
assumptions reflecting an incomplete understanding of variability in 
uncontrolled NOX that result from them. Industry commenter 
(73) recommends that EPA revise its proposed baseline NOX 
emission standard from 1.5 to 2.0 lb/ton of clinker, and allow for 
adjustments of the standard upward from this value when bypasses are 
used, unusually hard burning raw mixes are used, or specific clinker 
types (such as oil well clinker) that require non-typical burning 
methods is being produced. When bypasses, hard burning mixes and/or 
clinker specifications require non-typical operational parameters, an 
adjustment factor should be allowed and evaluated on a case-by-case 
basis. The fact that individual kilns may be able to achieve a 
NOX emission rate as proposed (or even lower rates) is not 
determinative of what is an appropriate standard for the NSPS.
    Industry commenter (73) states that fuel volatility plays a major 
role in NOX emission control. The uncontrolled 
NOX generated in the precalciner alone can vary by as much 
as 1.4 g/kg of clinker (2.8 lb/ton clinker) based on fuel volatility. 
Industry commenter (73) states that modern preheater/precalciner kilns 
fire approximately 55-65 percent of their fuel in the precalciner. The 
nitrogen content in the fuel is the main factor affecting fuel 
NOX formation. The fuel NOX produced in the 
precalciner is not directly proportional to the nitrogen content of the 
fuel. It also depends on the chemical form of the nitrogen in the fuel 
and the volatility of the fuel. Typically, fuel nitrogen in coals used 
by PH/PC kilns varies between 1.0 and 2.0 percent. This difference can 
impact the uncontrolled NOX by as much as 1.5 lb/ton of 
clinker.
    Industry commenter 73 states that a PH/PC kiln system uses hot 
gases from the kiln to both dry and heat the raw materials prior to 
calcination. The effectiveness of this system is related to the 
moisture content of the raw materials and their ability to absorb heat 
from the gases. If additional heat is required to dry or heat the raw 
materials, gases from a separate fuel-fired furnace or the clinker 
cooler are ducted to the raw mill. As a result, the moisture content of 
the raw materials directly influences the NOX emission 
rates. High moisture materials require additional energy to dry the 
materials in the raw mill and/or preheater. This increased need for 
energy contributes to the amount of NOX emitted if the 
excess energy comes from burning additional fuel. Some plants may have 
up to 20-25 percent moisture content in their raw mix--which results in 
a 15 to 20 percent increase in the kiln's specific heat consumption, as 
compared to a ``standard'' raw mix that contains approximately 5 
percent moisture. This additional energy need results in the combustion 
of more fuel which ultimately results in more uncontrolled 
NOX.
    On NOX emissions from alkali bypasses, commenter 73 
states that because the gases within the bypass are not allowed to 
remain in the optimal SNCR temperature range, SNCR is not a feasible 
control option for these gases. The commenter shows (in graph form in 
their comments) that for a certain size kiln, bypassing 25 percent of 
its kiln gases will have an incremental increase of approximately 0.42 
lb/ton of clinker in the controlled NOX emission rate.
    Industry commenter 73 states that the three major kiln suppliers 
require a cement company to provide detailed information on raw 
materials (including moisture content), fuels, and clinker quality 
specifications prior to preparing a quotation and specifying emission 
guarantees. Uncontrolled 30-day average NOX emissions can 
vary from less than 1.6 to greater than 4.6 lb/ton of clinker. SNCR has 
been demonstrated to reduce NOX emissions from cement kilns; 
however, SNCR has not been used on cement kilns for an extended period 
of time. High removal efficiencies such as those stated in the preamble 
(i.e., 63 percent at an ammonia-to-NOX ratio of 1.0) may 
result in adverse product quality or environmental impacts that are 
undesirable. In addition, the use of SNCR on larger kilns (>2,000,000 
ton/yr capacity) may not be as effective due to the larger calciner 
duct diameter and the inability of the ammonia-reagent to mix 
thoroughly with the combustion gases. Based on limited data, removal 
efficiencies of 25-50 percent appear to be achievable without these 
adverse impacts. Therefore, industry Commenter 73 believes that since 
NSPS is applicable to all new or reconstructed kilns, a reasonable 
baseline NSPS limit taking into account typical operating conditions 
and limitations stated above is 2.0 lb/ton of clinker. However, when 
non-typical conditions exist (bypass, hard burning mixes, and specific 
clinkers that require non-typical burning methods), an adjustment 
upward from the baseline value is appropriate and should be made on a 
case-by-case basis.
    Industry Commenters (64, 73) stated that the proposed 
NOX limitations are substantially more stringent than the 
most stringent NOX limit that applies to cement plants in 
Europe, which

[[Page 55015]]

converts to approximately 2.5 lb/ton of clinker produced although EPA 
asserts that this should be considered the ``baseline level of control 
that would occur with no additional regulatory action.'' The industry 
commenter states that there are several problems with that analysis: 
(1) It does not appear that this conclusion is based on a 
``statistically sound'' analysis, as the statute requires; and (2) If 
the NSPS were set at 2.5 lbs of NOX per ton of clinker, then 
all affected facilities would have to meet the limitation continuously, 
rather than the ``average'' performance of all affected facilities 
being at or below 2.5 lb/ton. Therefore, it would appear from EPA's 
rationale that setting an emission standard of 2.5 lb/ton would require 
some facilities, even if they have SCC and low-NOX burners, 
to implement additional NOX controls in order to comply 
continuously with that standard throughout the life of the facility.
    The industry commenter states that there may be substantial 
differences between the NOX emissions that can be achieved 
by new, greenfield kilns and what can be achieved by ``reconstructed,'' 
brownfield kilns. NOX emissions are a function of fuel type 
and of raw material type, as described above. Reconstructed cement 
plants usually will have little or no control over their raw materials 
and may have limited control over the fuel they can use.
    The industry commenter states that EPA also needs to address the 
achievability of NOX limitations at cement plants that have 
bypass stacks to control alkalinity because EPA has not presented any 
basis for concluding that SNCR is a demonstrated technology for meeting 
the proposed limits for facilities with bypass systems.
    Likewise, while EPA acknowledges that burnability may have a 
significant influence on NOX emissions, EPA has not 
explained how these differences are reflected in its analysis of the 
BDT and the proposed new NOX limits. Cement plants with 
hard-to-burn raw materials face much greater challenges in meeting a 
NOX limit and applying SNCR.
    Industry commenter (64) agrees with EPA that SCR has not been 
demonstrated on preheater/precalciner kilns and that there are 
substantial unresolved issues about the potential for use of SCR at 
such cement plants. Industry commenter (64) also notes that, in 
addition to the cost which EPA identified as a disadvantage of a low 
dust SCR system, there would be substantial adverse energy usage and 
GHG consequences of re-heating the flue gas for a low-dust SCR system.
    Industry commenter (64) also believes that EPA has not given 
adequate consideration to ammonia slip from the use of SCNR. EPA seems 
to acknowledge that it does not have data on how ammonia slip will 
contribute to condensable PM emissions, and what if anything could be 
done to mitigate that contribution. EPA has not conducted a sufficient 
technical analysis to support new NOX emission limits that 
would effectively require use of SNCR without addressing the ammonia 
slip issues. Ammonia slip may be a particular problem when SNCR is 
applied to particular designs, such as pyro systems that have been 
modified or that are particularly large. The inability of these systems 
to promote the reaction of ammonia with NOX also reduces 
potential control efficiency of SNCR on these systems.
    Industry commenter (64) believes that the best approach is for EPA 
not to amend the NSPS to include NOX limits. If EPA 
nevertheless insists on including NOX in the revised subpart 
F NSPS, then industry commenter (64) recommends that for preheater/
precalciner kilns (whether constructed at Greenfield or brownfield 
sites), a NOX emission floor of 1.95 lb/ton of clinker be 
established as the NSPS limit. This limit would then be modified on a 
case-by-case basis to account for site-specific factors such as the 
presence of a bypass stack/duct or difficult to burn limestone or 
fuels, likely resulting in an emission limit in excess of the 
recommended floor.
    Response: The previous response addresses the industry commenters' 
concerns regarding the appropriateness of the NOX emissions 
limit. Based on the data received prior to proposal as well as data 
submitted after proposal, we feel confident that a well designed 
preheater/precalciner kiln using low NOX process technology 
such as LNB and SCC will be able to achieve a NOX emission 
level of 3 lb/ton of clinker or less and using a well designed and 
operated SNCR system will achieve NOX removal efficiencies 
of at least 50 percent without excess ammonia slip. But should a case 
occur where NOX emissions prior to application of SNCR are 
above 3.0 lb/ton clinker, we have set the limit sufficiently high that 
a facility could increase the NMR for SNCR to achieve removal 
efficiencies above 50 percent without causing excessive ammonia slip. 
Referring to Figure 2 above on NMR verses removal efficiency, we note 
that a NMR of 1 results in a removal efficiency above 75 percent, where 
a NRR of 1 equates to a point where excessive ammonia slip can occur.
    The industry commenters point to numerous factors that can 
influence NOX emissions, fuel volatility and type of fuel 
nitrogen being two factors mentioned. However, we note that facilities 
have a choice of fuels. If their current fuel creates a high 
NOX situation, then they may need to modify their fuel 
choice. They again raise the issue of burnability but in the context of 
certain product types. Again we note that there are numerous facilities 
that achieve NOX levels well below 3.0 lb/ton clinker 
located at various locations, some of which have ``hard to burn'' raw 
materials. The industry commenters provided no data to substantiate 
that the burnability issues associated with product types are any more 
severe that burnability issues associated with different raw materials. 
Given these different locations, we would surmise that they also use 
different coals and possible other fuels. Given the breadth of the 
data, we find it unlikely that we have not sufficiently covered all the 
variables that affect NOX emissions. And also given the 
operating margin we have applied for SNCR (50 percent reduction on 
average versus a potential reduction of 75 percent), we continue to 
believe that the 1.5 lb/ton clinker emission limit is achievable under 
any reasonable foreseeable conditions without resulting in excessive 
ammonia slip (and the attendant potential to produce PM2.5). 
Industry commenters note that a larger kiln may have problems with 
ammonia distribution and an attendant reduction in SNCR efficiency. 
However, they provided no data to substantiate that claim, and we note 
that some of the kilns achieving levels well below 3.0 lb/ton clinker 
are above 1 million tpy in size. For larger kilns, it should be 
possible to use a split exhaust dust if necessary to achieve the 
required ammonia distribution.
    Some industry comments expressed concern that sources will have to 
actually be able to reduce emissions to below the NOX limit 
in order to not exceed the limit. In proposing the NOX 
limits, EPA took this into consideration when it set the NOX 
limit as a 30-day average as opposed for example to a 24-hr limit. 
Doing so accommodates occasional daily excursions and accounts for 
operational variability.
    EPA agrees with the industry commenters that kilns equipped with 
alkali bypasses cannot be expected to meet the NOX limit for 
the portion of the exhaust that goes to bypass. Bypass gases are 
quickly cooled and do not remain at a temperature long enough to be 
treated using an SNCR systems. EPA has revised the rule to clarify that 
for kilns with alkali bypasses, only the main kiln exhaust gases are 
subject to the NOX limit. Because all kilns do not

[[Page 55016]]

require an alkali bypass and the bypass gas stream is a small fraction 
of the total kiln exhaust gas flow, the emission of NOX from 
the bypass will be minimal.
    Comment: Several State and environmental advocacy group commenters 
(60, 68, 70, 71, 72) stated that the proposed limits for SO2 
were not sufficiently stringent. State commenter (60) recommends 
deleting the 90 percent reduction option, revising the limit for 
SO2 to 0.5 lb/ton clinker on a 24-hr rolling average if the 
kiln is a PH or PH/PC kiln and adding a limit of 1.0 lb/ton clinker on 
a 24-hr rolling average if the kiln is a long wet or long dry kiln. 
State commenter (72) concurs on reducing the limit to 0.5 lb/ton for 
PH/PC kilns. State commenter (60) states that for PH and PH/C kilns the 
limit should apply equally to projects at greenfield sites and to 
projects at brownfield sites. Industry commenter (60) cites kiln 
performance at brownfield sites that have involved new kilns and 
reconstructed or modified of existing kilns.
    Cement plants in Florida emit on the order of 0.10 lb 
SO2/ton clinker. Although these kilns use low-sulfur feed 
materials, all use coal and rely on the fuel SO2 control 
that is inherent in the PH and PH/C designs. The steps include reaction 
with alkali and incorporation into the clinker in the burning zone, dry 
scrubbing with finely divided lime in the calcination zone and moist 
limestone scrubbing in the raw mill. State commenters (60) and (72) 
cite the performance of the kilns used by EPA to establish the proposed 
limit. The key kiln (kiln 5 at TXI Midlothian, TX) upon which EPA based 
the proposed SO2 standard of 1.33 lb/ton has actually 
operated at 0.37 to 0.57 lb/ton.
    State commenters (60) and (72) state that raw materials in the 
Midlothian area are known to be high-sulfur and the TXI kiln has a wet 
scrubber to reduce (non-fuel) SO2 emissions. The limit for 
kiln 5 is now approximately 0.95 lb/ton following a production increase 
authorized by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ). TXI 
Midlothian Kiln 5 and two other PH/C kilns (Kilns 1 and 2) operated by 
Holcim in the same city are controlled by wet scrubbers. All three have 
wet scrubbers yet there is a vast difference in performance between the 
TXI Kiln 5 and the Holcim Kilns 1 and 2. The commenter presented data 
on the SO2 performance of the 3 scrubber controlled kilns. 
According to the commenter, the TXI Kiln 5 can consistently achieve 
SO2 emissions less than 0.5 lb/ton if required by a permit 
limit. The higher SO2 values for the Holcim kilns (>4 lb/
ton) represent the first year of joint operation. Thereafter, Holcim 
Kilns 1 and 2 were operated at levels between 2 and 3 lb/ton. The 
commenter states that they can choose to run one to four pumps 
providing reductions in SO2 emissions ranging from 51 
percent with a single pump in operation to 91 percent with four pumps 
in operation.
    State commenters (60) and (72) state that the Ash Grove Chanute PH/
C kiln in Kansas achieves less than 0.30 lb SO2/ton despite 
high sulfur in the raw materials without even using a wet scrubber. 
State commenter (60) states that this performance is attained using 
important innovations (The F.L. Smidth DeSOx system and Envirocare 
Micromist Lime system) not yet assessed by EPA. Attachments provided as 
part of the comment describe these technologies. State commenter (60) 
states that without controls, the proposed Chanute kiln would emit 
SO2 at the high rate of 12 lb/ton from raw material sources 
alone (i.e., exclusive of fuel SO2). According to state 
commenter (60), using the described technology, actual emissions from 
the Ash Grove Chanute kiln are less than 0.25 lb SO2/ton.
    According to State commenter (60), the Holcim Siggenthal PH kiln in 
Switzerland achieves approximately 0.05 lb SO2/ton using the 
POLVITEC coke filter installed in the 1990's. The POLVITEC system is 
used with various concurrent operational practices to control NH3 (from 
an SNCR system), SO2, PM and metals. Among several 
functions, the coke filter captures the non-fuel SO2 
generated in the PH. The coke is subsequently crushed and then burned 
with fuel in the main kiln burner. The SO2 from the PH then 
behaves like fuel SO2 and is incorporated into the clinker. 
Further details are available in an attachment submitted with the 
comment. The State commenter also states that SO2 emissions 
would be significantly less than 0.10 lb/ton of clinker. According to 
the State commenter, the Siggenthal plant emits much less 
SO2 than the average of Holcim cement plants in Switzerland 
and clearly less than 0.10 lb SO2/ton.
    State commenters (60) and (72) state that the Holcim Untervaz plant 
in Switzerland achieves between 0.04 and 0.21 lb SO2/ton 
using a wet scrubber despite, according to State commenter (72), the 
presence in the limestone of iron sulfide. Holcim initially installed a 
dry scrubber at the Untervaz plant in the late 1980's. Recent data 
provided by the State commenter indicate significant reductions in 
SO2 emissions since 2002 largely due to the replacement of 
the older dry scrubber with a more efficient and economic wet scrubber.
    According to State commenter (60), the areas where medium sulfur 
raw materials are present can implement programs similar to the Ash 
Grove installation without installing large wet scrubbers, dry 
scrubbers or coke filters. Finally selective mining of the available 
raw materials with respect to sulfur content is an important 
SO2 control strategy for any new project. In summary, State 
commenter (60) recommends an NSPS SO2 limit of 0.50 lb/ton 
of clinker on a 24-hour basis for PH and PH/C kilns. State commenter 
(60) states that because long wet and long dry kilns use more energy to 
make a ton of clinker, a higher SO2 limit may be acceptable. 
State commenter (60) agrees with EPA's assumption that new projects 
triggering the NSPS will result in a PH/C kiln. According to the State 
commenter, projects that might trigger a PSD review at a long wet or 
long dry kiln will probably incorporate emissions control measures to 
avoid PSD and a BACT determination. The measures to avoid PSD will also 
likely avoid the short-term emissions increases that would otherwise 
trigger the NSPS. With respect to the reconstruction provisions, the 
commenter states that it is not likely that a company will actually 
invest 50 percent of the (undepreciated) value of an existing long kiln 
without taking the opportunity to make it much more energy efficient 
through conversion to a PH/C kiln. Nevertheless, the State commenter 
states that it is advisable to separate out the (unlikely) long kiln 
projects that trigger the NSPS without resulting in PH or PH/C kilns in 
order to avoid the unnecessary relaxation of the limits applicable to 
the much more likely PH and PH/C kilns. According to the State 
commenter, scrubbers are available for long kilns just as they are 
available for PH and PH/C kilns. Other suggested strategies cited by 
the commenter include (1) Near mid-kiln pressurized air injection; and 
(2) Chains near the entrance of the kiln that can improve contact 
between the incoming wet limestone and the SO2-laden exhaust 
gases containing both raw material and fuel sulfur.
    State commenter (60) states that good SO2 control will 
make it possible to employ more aggressive NOX control and 
that the control of NOX and SO2 will also 
minimize the formation of ozone and fine PM in the environment.
    State commenters (68, 70, 71) stated that State and local experts, 
who have had long experience with this industry, believe that the 
proposed NSPS limit for SO2 does not reflect what most 
plants are capable of achieving. Even taking

[[Page 55017]]

into account regional variability in the pyritic sulfur content of the 
raw materials, these State commenters find that most cement kilns 
already achieve lower SO2 emissions than the 1.33 lb/ton of 
clinker proposed.
    State commenter (70) stated that after addressing raw materials in 
their most recent BACT review, SO2 limitations were 0.9 lb/
ton of clinker (30-day average) and 1.6 lb/ton of clinker (24-hr 
average); considerably lower than the 1.33 lb/ton of clinker (30 day 
average) proposed.
    Response: Most kilns have low SO2 emissions because of 
the widespread availability of raw materials with low to moderate 
sulfur levels and the inherent scrubbing effects of modern PH/PC kilns 
with in-line raw mills. In fact, these two reasons have been cited as 
BACT in several NSR reviews. Sulfur in the fuel is typically not a 
problem because the sulfur content is relatively low and the sulfur has 
ample opportunity to react with clinker and dust both in the kiln and 
raw mill before the exhaust gases are discharged to the atmosphere. The 
sulfur that usually results in higher SO2 emissions is due 
to pyritic sulfur contained in the raw materials, especially the 
limestone. Where kilns have high levels of pyritic sulfur in their raw 
feed, wet scrubbers may be necessary to meet the limit for 
SO2.
    We note that in our analysis of the NESHAP, all new kilns will have 
to apply wet scrubbers to meet the HCl emissions limit. If this indeed 
occurs then costs of wet scrubbing to meet the SO2 will be 
negligible. Even in the absence of the NESHAP requirements, the 
application of a wet scrubber to a kiln that has high uncontrolled 
SO2 emissions is a cost effective approach to reducing 
SO2 emissions. At higher uncontrolled emission levels, wet 
scrubbers achieve emission reductions of 90 to 95 percent. However, at 
lower uncontrolled SO2 levels, removal efficiency declines 
resulting in an increase in cost-effectiveness. But at this point other 
cost-effective control techniques, such as lime injection, are 
available. Based on these facts, we have lowered the SO2 
emission limit in this final rule to 0.4 lb/ton clinker or a 90 percent 
reduction in SO2 emissions, which addresses the comments 
that the proposed SO2 limit was too high.
    Comment: Several industry commenters (64, 74, 75) expressed 
concerns that the proposed limits for SO2 are too stringent. 
One industry commenter (64) recommends that EPA not include 
SO2 limitations because EPA recognizes that there are only 
``a few locations'' where the raw materials contain high levels of 
sulfur, and in those few situations State regulations already impose 
SO2 emission limitations that require the type of technology 
EPA proposes as the basis for the proposed SO2 limitations. 
The industry commenter states that EPA assumes that one out of five new 
kilns will be sited where the raw materials are high in sulfur, 
requiring an SO2 scrubber or a lime injection system when in 
fact at existing plants there have only been a handful of situations 
where high-sulfur materials have been determined to justify wet 
scrubbers. According to the industry commenter, of 28 BACT 
determinations for SO2 for cement kilns since 1998 reported 
in the RACT/BACT/LAER Clearinghouse (RBLC), only 5 were based on wet 
scrubbers, and 1 specified a dry scrubber or hydrated lime injection 
while the majority required no add-on controls because of low-sulfur 
raw materials or reliance on the inherent process absorption of 
SO2. The industry commenter states that the preamble 
information that the fact that only 5 kilns out of 178 kilns currently 
use a wet scrubber indicates that uncontrolled SO2 emissions 
are rarely high enough to justify add-on controls.
    The industry commenter states that EPA acknowledges in the preamble 
that EPA is not obligated to promulgate NSPS for every pollutant 
emitted by sources in the source category. According to the industry 
commenter, the fact that very few cement kilns have been required to 
employ add-on controls for SO2 is evidence that there are 
few instances where cement kilns are contributing to SO2 
NAAQS nonattainment, so there is no need for an SO2 NSPS to 
address ambient air quality problems.
    Industry commenter (64) states that allowing State and site-
specific requirements to address SO2 at plants with high-
sulfur raw materials would address weaknesses in EPA's proposed 
SO2 standards. For example, although EPA assumes that the 
proposed SO2 standards will require add-on controls only at 
facilities with high-sulfur raw materials, EPA has proposed a limit of 
1.33 lb of SO2 per ton of clinker, whereas the average 
emission rate from just 18 data points from tests at facilities with 
moderate levels of sulfur in raw materials was 1.3 lb/ton. EPA's 
assumption that facilities with low and moderate levels of sulfur in 
raw materials would not have to install controls to meet the proposed 
SO2 standards is not justified by those data. Requiring 
facilities with moderate uncontrolled SO2 emission levels to 
use add-on controls for SO2 would result in excessively high 
costs per ton of SO2 removed, as EPA has recognized. Also, 
the energy penalty associated with wet scrubbers could more 
appropriately be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, where it can be 
weighed against factors such as the level of uncontrolled 
SO2 emissions at the particular plant and the need for 
further SO2 reductions at that location for attainment and 
maintenance of SO2 ambient air quality standards.
    Industry commenter (64) states that because there is so little 
experience with add-on SO2 controls, EPA has relatively 
little data about the performance of those controls, and is proposing 
NSPS for SO2 based solely on a recent BACT determination. 
The few kilns that will be subject to the proposed subpart F NSPS can 
be addressed through requirements for SO2 control derived 
through the RACT process or through NSR.
    Industry commenter (64) states that if EPA persists in setting 
SO2 standards, there are a number of problems with the 
standards as proposed. For example, the percentage reduction 
alternative does not indicate that it is to be calculated on a 30-day 
basis or how the percentage reduction is to be calculated. The industry 
commenter infers from the monitoring provisions that EPA intends for a 
source to compare the SO2 concentration at the inlet to the 
scrubber to the SO2 concentration at the outlet from the 
scrubber, but this does not reflect the substantial reduction in 
SO2 emissions that occurs from contact with alkaline 
materials in the process. The industry commenter states that cement 
plants with moderate uncontrolled SO2 emissions may have to 
install controls and the 90 percent reduction standard likely would be 
unachievable when applied to the relatively low inlet concentrations to 
the control device. The industry commenter states that it is even less 
clear how EPA would apply the percentage reduction standard to cement 
plants that choose to use lime injection.
    Industry commenter (64) states that the proposed regulations lack 
any discussion of whether the SO2 limitations apply during 
periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction. Since substantial 
reduction of SO2 occurs naturally in the cement-making 
process because of the alkaline nature of the raw feed, industry 
commenter (64) states it would be reasonable to provide an exemption so 
that a wet scrubber or a lime injection system need not be operating, 
or operating at maximum efficiency, during periods of startup, 
shutdown, or malfunction. The industry commenter states that several 
recent BACT determinations involving

[[Page 55018]]

scrubbers include special provisions for startup, shutdown, or 
malfunction.
    Industry commenter (64) states that the proposed limits for 
SO2 appear inconsistent with their stated technology basis, 
when compared to actual experience and to BACT determinations. 
According to the commenter, the majority of BACT determinations in the 
past 10 years that rely only on inherent SO2 reduction 
established limits higher than 1.33 lb/ton of clinker, except for 
plants in Florida, where the BACT determinations often recognized that 
raw materials are low in sulfur. According to the industry commenter, 
NSPS should be based on demonstrated technology that can be applied to 
the sector as a whole, rather than based on raw materials that are 
available only in a limited area of the country. These BACT 
determinations also undermine EPA's stated assumption that 1.3 lb/ton 
represents a ``moderate uncontrolled SO2 emission rate'' and 
13 lb/ton would be ``a high uncontrolled SO2 emission 
level,'' since almost all BACT determinations for plants other than 
those in Florida imposed SO2 emission limits based on no 
add-on controls higher than 1.3 lb/ton, and a number were higher than 
13 lb/ton.
    Industry commenter (64) states that if EPA insists on promulgating 
NSPS for SO2, it is essential that the standards retain the 
proposed option of meeting either a pounds per ton of clinker or a 
percentage reduction limit; but both limits should be higher than 
proposed. According to the commenter, the three wet scrubbers operated 
by Holcim were not designed to achieve 90 percent reduction, and the 
one BACT determination that contains an estimated percentage reduction 
in the RBLC uses 85 percent reduction. Importantly, cement plants in 
arid venues may not have the option to use a wet scrubber because of 
water restrictions. Especially if EPA persists in applying the revised 
NSPS to existing, modified or reconstructed facilities, wet scrubbers 
cannot be considered demonstrated available technology for all 
facilities in the source category. EPA does not, and industry commenter 
(64) believes EPA cannot, support a 90 percent reduction requirement 
using dry scrubbers or lime injection. According to the industry 
commenter, to qualify as a limit based on demonstrated technology, the 
limit should be achievable at all types of plants, raw materials, and 
locations, and should be based on actual performance data rather than 
what is ``reportedly'' achievable or anticipated.
    Industry commenter (64) states that 1.33 lb/ton does not represent 
even the technology basis--alkaline wet scrubber on high-sulfur raw 
materials--that EPA has identified. The industry commenter states that 
EPA describes one kiln where uncontrolled SO2 emissions are 
``about 13 lb/ton of clinker.'' Achieving 90 percent reduction of that 
uncontrolled emission rate would just meet the proposed mass limit, 
with no margin of compliance. And in any event, at least four of the 
BACT determinations for cement kilns in the past 10 years reported in 
the RBLC reflect uncontrolled SO2 emission rates over 20.0 
lb/ton. The proposed limit of 1.33 lb/ton thus does not reflect a limit 
that has been demonstrated as achievable applying wet scrubber 
technology to the range of sulfur contents present in cement plant raw 
materials.
    One industry commenter (74) states that the proposed SO2 
limit may be achievable in most cases but different plants will require 
different solutions to achieve that limit. Due to the large variations 
in the elemental and pyritic sulfur from plant to plant, industry 
commenter (74) does not believe that it is fair to have a set 
SO2 limit for all plants. Each plant's limit should be 
considered on a case-by-case basis considering the elemental or pyritic 
sulfur level in the raw materials and a reasonable target for the cost 
per short ton of removal to determine the controls that are used. In 
some cases this will give a limit lower than 1.33 lb/ton clinker and in 
other cases it will give a higher limit.
    One industry commenter (75) states that: (1) Given the range of 
pyritic sulfur in our raw material, we would need to have a wet 
scrubber to meet this limit; (2) Lime injection is an effective control 
with less secondary impacts on water supply and energy use; and (3) A 
limit of 4 lb/ton of clinker should be adopted. This would allow 
greater use of lime injection, providing significant SO2 
reductions while avoiding secondary adverse environmental impacts and 
energy use of wet scrubbing. The industry commenter does not believe 
that the proposed limit adequately reflects the inherent variability of 
kiln emission rates, which are dictated by the characteristics of the 
raw feed to a kiln. Industry commenter (75)'s kiln feed is locally 
mined raw materials used for over 100 years, with plans to continue the 
present mining operation for many years in the future. The standard, as 
proposed, would impose economic and environmental impacts beyond those 
considered by EPA.
    Response: EPA disagrees with the industry commenter that the Agency 
is under no obligation to set standards for SO2 as evidenced 
by the lack of any SO2 limits previously or the infrequent 
need for scrubbers (5 out of 20 new kilns expected to need scrubbers). 
The absence of SO2 limits in the NSPS previously was due to 
the lack of a demonstrated add-on control technology applied to cement 
kilns during EPA's last review of the NSPS in 1988. Since then, wet 
scrubbers have been installed on no less than five kilns and operate 
continuously. Other scrubbers, dry and wet, are installed on other 
kilns and operate as needed. In reference to the industry commenters' 
observations regarding permitted kilns in the RBLC database, EPA notes 
that three kilns for which scrubbers are reported as an add-on control 
device have permit limits far in excess of the NSPS SO2 
limits indicating a clear need for national standards for 
SO2 emissions from cement kilns. Furthermore, controlling 
SO2 emissions will control emissions of condensable fine 
particulate matter, leading to very significant environmental benefits. 
See Table 13 in Section VI. Control is consequently in keeping with the 
ultimate goals of the Act in general and section 111 in particular: 
protecting and enhancing the Nation's air quality. See Asarco v. EPA, 
578 F. 2d at 327.
    In response to the industry commenters' argument that kilns 
utilizing raw materials with moderate sulfur levels may have to install 
controls to comply with the SO2 limit, EPA agrees that in a 
few instances those kilns may need to reduce their SO2 
emissions. However, these kilns only need moderate reductions in 
SO2 and have options other than adding wet scrubbers 
(assuming no wet scrubbers are needed to meet the NESHAP HCl standard). 
In addition to the inherent scrubbing that occurs with the raw mill, 
cement plants can and do also practice careful selection of their raw 
materials to avoid high sulfur materials. There are cement plants that 
already limit the sulfur in their raw materials through their mining 
practices and through screening the raw materials they purchase. Owners 
and operators also reduce SO2 emissions by not burning 
sulfur-containing coal and by burning natural gas during kiln 
preheating, shutdown and during other maintenance periods when the kiln 
and/or raw mill are down. In those instances when some additional 
reduction is necessary, a less expensive alternative to wet scrubbing 
is lime injection. Lime injection can achieve up to 70 percent 
reduction and may only be necessary during periods of higher 
SO2 emissions, for example when the raw mill is off.

[[Page 55019]]

    In response to the industry commenter's questions of how the 90 
percent reduction is to be determined, they are correct that the 
reduction is to be measured across the scrubber (in other words, 
measurements must be made to measure the SO2 entering the 
scrubber and the SO2 exiting the scrubber). Like the 
SO2 standard, the rule states explicitly that the 90 percent 
reduction is to be based on a 30-day average. In the case of lime 
injection, EPA believes this add-on control will only be used in 
situations requiring a modest reduction in SO2 emissions and 
these kilns will be able to meet the SO2 emissions limit.
    EPA disagrees with the industry commenter's suggestion that EPA 
provide some allowance for periods of startup, shutdown or malfunction 
as SO2 emissions are affected by whether the raw mill is 
operating or not. The industry commenter requested that EPA allow that 
during these periods, scrubbers or lime injection systems need not 
operate or at least need not operate at maximum efficiency. The 
industry commenter provided no data to indicate that, given the long 
averaging periods, a facility's raw mill up time versus down time is 
significantly affected by periods of startup and shutdown. In fact, the 
reason for the 30 day averaging period was specifically to allow a long 
enough averaging period that the higher emissions that occur for 
SO2 when the raw mill is down could be averages with long 
periods when the raw mill is operating.
    EPA disagrees with the industry commenter's statement that the 
proposed limits for SO2 appear inconsistent with their 
stated technology bases, when compared to actual experience and to BACT 
determinations. The standard was based on the performance of a 
scrubber-equipped kiln that processed high sulfur limestone. The 
alternative to the SO2 emission limit is to demonstrate a 90 
percent removal efficiency across the scrubber. EPA could not ignore 
the performance of this control technology, i.e., wet scrubbers, which 
are currently used full time at 5 cement plants. In reviewing the RBLC 
database, it is obvious that, in some cases, permit limits are not as 
stringent as they could be. One entry in the RBLC database even stated 
that the permit limit did not account for the reduction that would be 
achieved by the scrubber installed to control SO2.
    We note that industry commenters have stated that some new 
facilities may be located in areas where there is not sufficient water 
to operate a wet scrubber. However, we are not mandating the use of wet 
scrubber technology in these regulations, and we believe that 
sufficient alternative controls exist for SO2 controls that 
this issue would not preclude a facility from meeting these emissions 
limits. As previously noted, these alternative technologies include dry 
lime injection, injection of sodium compounds, selective mining, 
injection of a finely divided lime slurry, use of lower sulfur fuels, 
and careful screening of purchased raw materials. Regarding the 
industry commenter's statements that the emission limit and alternative 
percent reduction should be less stringent, EPA notes that the kiln 
upon which the emission limit was based actually operates at levels 
under 0.6 lb/ton clinker based on information supplied by another 
commenter (60). The same industry commenter states that the limit for 
the kiln was reduced in 2007 from 1.33 to 0.95 lb/ton following a 
production increase authorized by the Texas Commission on Environmental 
Quality. To support its statement that a 90 percent removal efficiency 
is too high, the industry commenter noted that three Holnam (now 
Holcim) plants use scrubbers that are designed to operate at less than 
90 percent efficiency. Our data for the scrubbers at the Texas plant 
shows that the removal efficiency depends on the number of pumps in 
operation, with 91 percent efficiency when all four pumps are 
operating. The scrubbers at the Holnam facility in Michigan have not 
operated continuously due to various issues encountered. We also note 
that SO2 scrubbers in the utility industry have consistently 
achieved 90 percent SO2 since the 1970s. We see no technical 
reason that the same removal levels are not achievable in the cement 
industry. Therefore, where add-on controls are necessary to comply, 
scrubbers designed to achieve at least a 90 percent efficiency or 
greater are expected to be able to meet the 90 percent efficiency 
alternative; cement plants may be able to meet the emission limit by 
utilizing scrubbers with less than 90 percent efficiency or with lime 
injection if the uncontrolled SO2 levels are at moderate 
levels (assuming that wet scrubbers are not needed to comply with other 
requirements, such as the HCl standard in the NESHAP).
    EPA does not agree with the industry commenter that the limit of 
1.33 lb/ton based on uncontrolled SO2 emissions of 13 lb/ton 
of clinker and a 90 percent reduction leaves no margin for compliance. 
First, there are scrubbers with efficiencies higher than 90 percent 
removal efficiency, which, even if they can't meet the 1.33 (or the 
0.4) lb/ton clinker emission limit, will be able to consistently meet 
90 percent removal. Secondly, based on an industry commenter, the 
SO2 emissions from a PH/PC kiln are not likely to be as high 
as 13 lb/ton of clinker due to the scrubbing effects of the raw mill, 
but more in the range of 4-5 lb/ton of clinker (75). This is supported 
by data from a 2001 survey of cement plants showing that average 
SO2 emissions from PH kilns was 1.39 lb/ton of clinker 
(maximum of 6.54) and from PC kilns was 1.92 lb/ton of clinker (maximum 
of 8.83). Based on these data, use of a wet scrubber should be able to 
meet the proposed SO2 limit of 1.33 and the final limit of 
0.4 lb/ton clinker. In some cases, a less expensive control such as 
lime injection may be adequate. Regarding the industry commenters 
reference to determinations reported in the RBLC that reflect 
uncontrolled SO2 emission rates over 20.0 lb/ton, these 
rates (if they are accurate) are associated with old wet kilns that do 
not have inline raw mills. In the case of one the two Michigan kilns, 
the quarries raw materials are known to have extremely high sulfur 
contents that are not seen at other locations. However, even if this 
location decided to build a new kiln, or to modify or reconstruct an 
existing kiln, they would still have the option to meet the 90 percent 
removal option.
    In response to the industry commenter that states it is not fair to 
have a set SO2 limit for all plants and that each plant's 
limit should be considered on a case-by-case basis, EPA points out that 
the standards gives plants an alternative to the SO2 limit 
recognizing, just as the industry commenter states, that some plants 
may not be able to meet the SO2 limit due to the presence of 
pyritic sulfur in its limestone. Where plants cannot meet the 
SO2 limit, they have the option of complying with the 
alternative limit of showing a 90 percent reduction in SO2 
emissions.
    EPA disagrees with one industry commenter's suggestion of setting 
the SO2 limit at 4 lb/ton clinker in order to allow greater 
use of lime injection systems. Given that there are cost-effective 
controls to achieve much lower levels, a limit of 4 lb/ton clinker 
simply cannot be considered BDT. We also note that EPA does not specify 
the type of control that must be used to meet the limit, or, for that 
matter, that any specific control has to be used. Plant owners may use 
any add-on control, such as lime injection if a control is necessary, 
or process control, such as selective mining, or a combination of add-
on and process controls to meet the

[[Page 55020]]

limit. The industry commenter states that it mined its materials 
locally for over 100 years and plans to continue to do so. However, 
almost all cement plants in the country could make a similar statement, 
and it has no relevance and does not change the facts that cost-
effective SO2 controls are available to achieve 
SO2 emission levels of 0.4 lb/ton clinker.
    Comment: One industry commenter (64) supports EPA's decision not to 
set separate limits for condensable PM, PM2.5, or 
PM10 stating that these fractions of PM will be adequately 
controlled by facilities utilizing control equipment sufficient to meet 
the proposed limits for PM. The industry commenter also concurs that 
EPA does not have adequate data on the emissions or the demonstrated 
capability of various control technologies to meet any specified level 
of these fractions of PM. The industry commenter states that they are 
not aware of any demonstrated or emerging technology that would provide 
better control of PM2.5, PM10, or condensable PM 
emissions specifically.
    Response: The PM limits address filterable PM, including 
PM2.5 and PM10, but not condensable PM. EPA does 
not currently have sufficient information on emissions of condensable 
PM from cement kilns to set emission limits and the limited information 
we do have is highly uncertain. We also believe that these emissions 
will be controlled via controls on HCl in the NESHAP and SO2 
in the NSPS. EPA has recently promulgated a new test method for 
condensable PM (Method 202) which will allow for more reliable 
assessments of condensable PM. We anticipate that better data will be 
available at the time of the next review of the NSPS.
    Comment: Several industry commenters (64, 73, 74, 83) expressed 
concerns over the proposed NSPS for PM of 0.086 lb/ton of clinker. 
Industry commenter (64) states that the proposed limit of 0.086 lb/ton 
of clinker is not supported by the data available from new plants with 
the identified technology: It does not allow for deterioration of 
performance over time, and it does not allow for an adequate margin of 
compliance. Industry commenters believe that EPA used insufficient data 
to develop the standard and failed to consider situations where gases 
from kilns, clinker coolers, and coal mills are combined for energy 
recovery purposes. Industry commenter (73) has spoken to major 
suppliers of cement kiln systems and believes that baghouse technology 
with membrane bags is capable of achieving a continuous outlet grain 
loading rate of 0.010 gr/dscf. Applying EPA's factors for standardized 
volumetric flow and feed-to-clinker ratio (54,000 dscf/ton of feed and 
1.65 tons feed/ton clinker), an appropriate NSPS PM standard would be 
0.127 lb/ton of clinker for cement kilns and clinker coolers. Industry 
commenter (73) and (74) also believe that when clinker cooler and kiln 
gases are combined, the standard for these systems should be additive.
    The industry commenters stated that the standards must be set at a 
level that recognizes that there will be some deterioration in 
performance over time. According to the industry commenters, in most 
cases, emission rates achieved immediately after installation of 
pollution control equipment will not be representative of the 
performance over the life of the source, as the bags and the baghouse 
itself age and experience normal wear, even with proper operation and 
maintenance. Industry commenter (73) agrees with EPA that ``fabric 
filters control generally to the same concentration irrespective of the 
PM loading to the filter inlet, though some variability in PM emissions 
from fabric filters does occur due to seepage and leakage.'' It is the 
seepage and leakage that becomes an issue as baghouses age. Industry 
commenter (64) states that the PM stack testing data used by EPA in 
their analyses were obtained from kiln-baghouse systems that had 
operated for less than 5 years and, therefore, EPA has not demonstrated 
that they have proposed a limit that new sources can sustain long term. 
EPA has recognized this in numerous other rulemakings, including in 
setting emission standards for hazardous air pollutants at new cement 
kilns burning hazardous waste where they amended the PM limits for new 
sources in that NESHAP based on data demonstrating that the original PM 
standard was ``overly stringent in that it does not fully reflect the 
variability of the best performing source over time.''
    Response: As noted in the previous comments on the NESHAP PM limit, 
we have reevaluated the performance of PM controls for this source 
category and have determined that the appropriate NESHAP new source 
standard is 0.1 lb/ton clinker based on a 30 day rolling average. 
Because all new sources will be required to meet this limit, we see no 
reason to set a different limit for the NSPS. We note the industry 
commenter's performance concerns. However, in setting the NESHAP limit 
we reviewed test data from a number of facilities. Some facilities had 
average emissions as low as 0.007 lb/ton clinker based on short term 
testing, and the average of the best performing five facilities was 
0.019 lb/ton (based on multiple short term testing). Based on this 
information, we believe that if the PM control is properly designed and 
maintained, PM levels well below the level we proposed, or the levels 
suggested by the commenter are possible. In addition, the data 
discussed were short term tests. Compliance will be based on a 30-day 
rolling average, which allows facilities to average out potential short 
term transients.

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

A. What are the impacts of the final amendments to subpart LLL and 
subpart F?

    We are presenting a combined discussion of the estimates of the 
impacts for these final amendments to 40 CFR part 60, subpart F and 40 
CFR part 63, subpart F. The cost, environmental, and economic impacts 
presented in this section are expressed as incremental differences 
between the impacts of a Portland cement plant complying with the 
amendments to 40 CFR 63 subpart LLL 40 CFR part 60 subpart F and the 
baseline, i.e., the standards before these amendments. The impacts are 
presented for the year 2013, which will be the year that all existing 
kilns will have to be in compliance, and also the year that will 
represent approximately 5 years of new kiln construction subject to the 
amended NSPS emissions limits. The analyses and the documents 
referenced below can be found in Docket ID Nos. EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0877 
and EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0051.
1. What are the affected sources?
    We expect that by 2013, the year when all existing sources will be 
required to come into compliance, there will be 100 Portland cement 
manufacturing facilities located in the U.S. and Puerto Rico that we 
expect to be affected by these final amendments. Of these facilities, 
approximately 5 are complete new greenfield facilities. These 
facilities will operate 158 cement kilns and associated clinker 
coolers. We have no estimate of the number of raw material dryers that 
are separate from the kilns.
    Based on capacity expansion data provided by the Portland Cement 
Association, we anticipate that by 2013 there will be 16 kilns and 
their associated clinker coolers subject to NESHAP new source emission 
limits for mercury, HCl, and THC, and seven kilns and clinker coolers 
subject to the amended NSPS for NOX and SO2. Some 
of these new kilns will be built at existing facilities and some at new

[[Page 55021]]

greenfield facilities. The location of the kiln (greenfield or 
currently existing facility) has no bearing on our estimated cost and 
environmental impacts (since there are no longer separate standards for 
so-called greenfield new sources).
    As previously noted there are two kilns with unusually high mercury 
emissions that we believe cannot meet the mercury emissions limit 
without using more than one control technique. In developing the cost 
impacts, we assume that they would require multiple mercury controls. 
The only mercury controls available for which we have detailed cost 
data are ACI and wet scrubbers, so we costed both controls to develop 
what we consider to be a reasonable cost estimate for these facilities. 
This does not imply that we believe these facilities will specifically 
use a combination of a wet scrubber and ACI to meet the mercury limit, 
but we do believe the combination of these control results in a 
reasonable estimate of cost.
2. How are the impacts for this proposal evaluated?
    For these final Portland Cement NESHAP amendments, EPA utilized 
three models to evaluate the impacts of the regulation on the industry 
and the economy. Typically in a regulatory analysis, EPA determines the 
regulatory options suitable to meet statutory obligations under the 
CAA. Based on the stringency of those options, EPA then determines the 
control technologies and monitoring requirements that sources might 
rationally select to comply with the regulation. This analysis is 
documented in an Engineering Analysis. The selected control 
technologies and monitoring requirements are then evaluated in a cost 
model to determine the total annualized control costs. The annualized 
control costs serve as inputs to an Economic Impact Analysis model that 
evaluates the impacts of those costs on the industry and society as a 
whole.
    The Economic Impact Analysis model uses a single-period static 
partial-equilibrium model to compare a pre-policy cement market 
baseline with expected post-policy outcomes in cement markets. This 
model was used in previous EPA analyses of the Portland cement industry 
(EPA, 1998; EPA, 1999b). The benchmark time horizon for the analysis is 
assumed to be short and producers have some constraints on their 
flexibility to adjust factors of production. This time horizon allows 
us to capture important transitory impacts of the program on existing 
producers. The model uses traditional engineering costs analysis as 
``exogenous'' inputs (i.e., determined outside of the economic model) 
and computes the associated economic impacts of the final regulation.
    For the Portland Cement NESHAP, EPA also utilized the Industrial 
Sector Integrated Solutions (ISIS) model which conducts both the 
engineering cost analysis and the economic analysis in a single 
modeling system. The ISIS model is a dynamic and integrated model that 
simulates potential decisions made in the cement industry to meet an 
environmental policy under a regulatory scenario. ISIS simultaneously 
estimates (1) optimal industry operation to meet the demand and 
emission reduction requirements, (2) the suite of control technologies 
needed to meet the emission limit, (3) the engineering cost of 
controls, and (4) economic impacts of demand response of the policy, in 
an iterative loop until the system achieves the optimal solution. The 
peer review of the ISIS model can be found in the docket.\45\ This 
model was revised based on peer review comments and comments on the 
proposed rule and was used to develop cost and economic impacts of the 
final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ See Industrial Sector Integrated Solutions Model and Review 
of ISIS Documentation Packages dated August, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In a Technical Memo to the docket, we provide a comparison of these 
models to provide an evaluation of how the differences between the 
models may impact the resulting estimates of the impacts of the 
regulation. For example, the Engineering Analysis and Economic Impact 
Analysis evaluate a snapshot of implementation of the final rule in a 
given year (i.e., 2013, based on 2005 dollars) while ISIS evaluates 
impacts of compliance dynamically over time (i.e., 2005-2013). In 
general, given the optimization nature of ISIS, ISIS accounts for more 
flexibility when estimating the impacts of the regulation. For example, 
when optimizing to meet an emission limit, ISIS allows for the addition 
of new kilns, as well as kiln retirements, replacements, expansions and 
the installation of controls. In the Engineering Analysis the existing 
kiln population is assumed to be constant even though normal kiln 
retirements occur. Based on these differences, the total control costs 
from the Engineering Analysis are higher than the total control cost 
estimated in ISIS.
    We have not yet developed ISIS modules to calculate non-air 
environmental impacts and energy impacts. Therefore, these sections 
only contain impacts calculated by the traditional engineering methods.
    In addition, we have not yet developed ISIS modules to calculate 
non-air environmental impacts and energy impacts. Therefore, these 
sections only contain impacts calculated by the traditional engineering 
methods.
3. What are the air quality impacts?
    For the Portland Cement NESHAP and NSPS, we estimated the emission 
reductions that will occur due to the implementation of the final 
emission limits. EPA estimated emission reductions based on both the 
control technologies selected by the engineering analysis and the ISIS 
model. These emission reductions are based on the estimated kiln 
population in 2013.
    Under the final limit for mercury, we have estimated that the 
emissions reductions will be 14,700 lb/yr for kilns subject to the 
exiting source emissions limits. For kilns subject to new source 
emissions limits, the emissions reductions will be 1,900 lb/year in 
2013.
    Under the final limits for THC, we have estimated that the 
emissions reductions will be 9,800 tpy for kilns subject to existing 
source limits, which represents an organic HAP reduction of 3,400 tpy. 
For kilns subject to new source limits, THC emissions will be reduced 
by 720 tpy. This represents an organic HAP reduction of 250 tpy.
    Under the final limit for HCl, we have estimated that emissions 
will be reduced by 4,700 tpy for kilns subject to exiting source limits 
and 1,100 tpy for kiln subject to new source limits.
    The final emission limits for PM represent a lowering of the PM 
limit from 0.5 lb/ton of clinker to .04 lb/ton of clinker for existing 
kilns and for new kilns, a lowering to 0.01 lb/ton of clinker. These 
new limits are based on 30-day rolling averages measured with a CEM. We 
have estimated that PM emissions will be reduced by 9,500 tpy for kilns 
subject to the existing source limits and 2,000 tpy for kilns subject 
to the new source limit. These estimates include only direct PM 
reductions, and do not include secondary PM reductions that occur as a 
result of concurrent control of SO2 discussed below. The PM 
emission reductions that occur as a result of the final NSPS limits are 
included in the totals shown above since the final NSPS PM limit is 
equal to the new source NESHAP limit.
    The control strategies likely adopted to meet the final standards 
for mercury, THC and HCl will also result in concurrent control of 
SO2 emissions. For kilns that use an RTO to comply with the 
THC emissions limit, it is necessary to install an alkaline scrubber 
upstream of the RTO to control acid gas and to provide additional 
control of PM

[[Page 55022]]

and to avoid plugging and fouling of the RTO. Scrubbers will also be 
used to control HCl and mercury emissions. Reductions in SO2 
emissions associated with controls for mercury, THC and HCl are 
estimated at 230 tpy, 11,200 tpy, and 98,400 tpy, respectively, so that 
total reduction in SO2 emissions from existing kilns will be 
an estimated 95,500 tpy. The SO2 emission reduction totals 
also include the reduction that will result from the final NSPS limit 
for SO2. If we were to break out the NSPS SO2 
reduction separately, a new 1.2 million tpy kiln equipped with a 
scrubber will reduce SO2 emissions by 190 tpy on average or 
about 14,300 tpy in 2013.
    These controls will also reduce ambient concentrations of secondary 
PM2.5 as well. This is PM that results from atmospheric 
transformation processes of precursor gases, including SO2. 
Note that the PM emission reductions above do not reflect reductions in 
secondary PM formation. For these rules, the reduction in secondary PM 
formation represents a large fraction of the total reduction in ambient 
levels of PM, which is discussed in the benefits section of the 
preamble below. However, with the data available, we are unable to 
estimate the fraction of ambient PM reduction resulting specifically 
from the reduction in SO2 emissions.
    Under the final limit for NOX, we estimated that the 
emission reduction for a 1.2 million tpy model kiln will be 600 tpy. 
The nationwide emissions reduction 5 years after promulgation of the 
final standards was estimated at 6,600 tpy.
    In addition to this traditional estimation of emission reductions, 
EPA employed the ISIS model to estimate emission reductions from the 
NESHAP and NSPS. The estimation of emission reductions in the ISIS 
model accounts for the optimization of the industry and includes the 
addition of new kilns, kiln retirements, replacements, and expansions 
as well as installation of controls. Using the ISIS model, in 2013 we 
estimate reductions of 12,627 lbs of mercury, 10,809 tons of THC, 4,307 
tons of HCl, 5,729 tons of PM (does not include reductions in secondary 
PM), and 80,245 tons of SO2, and 14,159 tons of 
NOX compared to emissions that would occur in 2013 in the 
absence of the NESHAP and NSPS. As noted, the ISIS model estimates 
lower SO2 reductions because the model optimizes kiln 
retirements, replacements, and expansions as well as installation of 
controls. We did not determine ambient PM benefits based on the ISIS 
model's predicted emission reductions. However, even with this lower 
SO2 reduction estimate, the secondary PM impacts would 
likely constitute a majority of the total ambient PM impacts. More 
information on the ISIS Model and results can be found in the ISIS TSD 
and in a Technical Memo to the docket.
    Under the final standards, new monitoring requirements are being 
added. Particulate matter CEMS are being required on kilns and clinker 
coolers. For cement kilns, CEMS are required for measurement of THC, 
NOX and SO2. For kilns that do not have wet 
scrubbers, CEMS are required to monitor HCl emissions. Continuous 
emission measurement (CEMS or sorbent traps) are required for 
measurement of mercury emissions. There is insufficient data to 
quantify the emissions reduction that will result from these 
requirements. However, emissions reductions will occur as a result of 
the availability of continuous information on kiln and control device 
performance and a reduction in the length of time that operations are 
outside of acceptable conditions. Also, periods of excursions from 
acceptable conditions will be identified more quickly with continuous 
monitoring than with less frequent approaches, thus reducing the 
duration of such excursions.
4. What are the water quality impacts?
    We estimated no water quality impacts for the proposed amendments. 
The requirements that might result in the use of alkaline scrubbers 
will produce a scrubber slurry liquid waste stream. However, we assume 
the scrubber slurry produced will be dewatered and added back into the 
cement-making process as gypsum. Water from the dewatering process will 
be recycled back to the scrubber. The four facilities (five kilns) that 
currently use wet scrubbers in this industry report no water releases 
at any time.\46\ We requested comment in the Portland Cement NEHSAP 
proposal on the potential for water releases due to wet scrubber system 
purges and any regulations that might apply. Though commenters raised 
concerns of the possibility of water impacts, they did not provide a 
rationale of why it would be expected when it is not occurring at the 
four facilities that currently use wet scrubbers, due to their on-site 
reuse of water. If discharges did occur, there would be a potential for 
water quality issues. But given these facts, we believe our estimate of 
no water quality impacts resulting from production of waste water by 
wet scrubbers is reasonable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ Summary of Responses to Requests for Water Impacts 
Information. August 5, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The addition of scrubbers will increase water usage by about 4,200 
million gallons per year. For a new 1.2 million tpy kiln, water usage 
will be 72 million gallons per year or 630 million gallons by 2013 for 
all kilns subject to new source limits for HCl and NSPS limits.
    We did receive comments that in some areas there is not sufficient 
water available to support this increase in water use. We do not have 
sufficient data to perform an analysis of this situation, but we note 
that other less water intensive controls (dry injection of various 
sorbents, spray dryers) are available for control of HCl. This is 
further discussed in the cost impacts section.
5. What are the solid waste impacts?
    The potential for solid waste impacts are associated with greater 
PM control for kilns, waste generated by ACI systems and solids 
resulting from solids in scrubber slurry water. As explained above, we 
have assumed little or no solid waste is expected from the generation 
of scrubber slurry because the solids from the slurry are used in the 
finish mill as a raw material. All of the facilities currently using 
wet scrubber use mix the gypsum created in the scrubber with clinker in 
the finish mill. A commenter noted that the synthetic gypsum can be 
difficult to dewater, but currently operating facilities seem to have 
solved this issue. Another commenter notes that facilities with low 
SO2 levels may produce such small amounts of gypsum. 
Theoretically, this could result in a situation where it is impractical 
to dewater the gypsum, and it must be land filled. However, we 
anticipate that the total amounts of waste will not be significant and 
the cost impact (compared to the total scrubber costs) will be minimal.
    The PM captured in the kiln fabric filter (cement kiln dust) is 
essentially recaptured raw material, intermediate materials, or 
product. Based on the available information, it appears that most 
captured PM is typically recycled back to the kilns to the maximum 
extent possible. Therefore we estimate that any additional PM captured 
will also be recycled to the kiln to the extent possible.
    Where equipped with an alkali bypass, the bypass will have a 
separate PM control device and that PM is typically disposed of as 
solid waste. An alkali bypass is not utilized on all kilns. Where one 
is present, the amount of solid waste generated from the alkali bypass 
is minimal, usually about 1

[[Page 55023]]

percent of total CKD in control devices, because the bypass gas stream 
is a small percentage of total kiln exhaust gas flow and the bypass gas 
stream does not contact the feed stream in the raw mill.
    Waste collected in the polishing baghouse associated with ACI that 
might be added for mercury or THC control cannot be recycled to the 
kiln and will be disposed of as solid waste. An estimated 122,000 tpy 
of solid waste will be generated from the use of ACI systems on 
existing kilns. A typical new kiln subject to new source mercury 
standards equipped with an ACI system will be expected to generate 
1,800 tons of solid waste per kiln or, assuming all 16 of the kilns 
subject to new source standards will add ACI systems, about 35,000 tpy 
in the year 2013.
    In addition to the solid waste impacts described above, there is a 
potential for an increase in solid waste generation if a facility 
elects to control its mercury emissions by increasing the amount of CKD 
wasted rather than returned to process. This will be a site-specific 
decision, and we have no data to estimate the potential solid waste 
that may be generated by this practice. However, we expect the total 
amount to be small for two reasons. First, wasting cement kiln dust for 
mercury control represents a significant expense to a facility because 
it will be essentially wasting either raw materials or product. We 
anticipate this option will not be used if the amount of CKD wasted 
will be large. Second, we believe that cement manufacturers will add 
the additional CKD to the finish mill to the maximum extent possible 
rather than waste the material.
6. 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 final revisions. We estimate these final revisions will increase 
emissions of criteria pollutants from utility boilers that supply 
electricity to the Portland cement facilities. We estimate increased 
energy demand associated with the installation of scrubbers, ACI 
systems, and RTO. The increases for kilns subject to existing source 
standards are estimated to be 1,700 tpy of NOX, 900 tpy of 
CO, 3,000 tpy of SO2 and about 90 tpy of PM. For kilns 
subject to new source standards, increases in secondary air pollutants 
are estimated to be 440 tpy of NOX, 230 tpy of CO, 760 tpy 
of SO2 and 20 tpy of PM. We also estimated increases of 
CO2 to be 0.9 million tpy for kilns subject to existing 
source standards and 209,000 tpy for kilns subject to new source 
standards.
    The increase in electricity usage for the pumps used in the SNCR 
system to deliver reagent to the kiln are negligible.
7. What are the energy impacts?
    The addition of alkaline scrubbers, ACI systems, and RTO added to 
comply with the final amendments will result in increased energy use 
due to the electrical requirements for the scrubber and ACI systems and 
increased fan pressure drops, and natural gas to fuel the RTO. We 
estimate the additional national electrical demand to be 800 million 
kWhr per year and the natural gas use to be 1.2 million MMBtu per year 
for kilns subject to existing source standards. For kilns subject to 
new source standards, the electrical demand is estimated to be 199 
million kWhr per year.
8. What are the cost impacts?
    Under the final amendments, existing kilns are expected to add one 
or more control devices to comply with the final emission limits. In 
addition, kiln and clinker coolers will be required to install varying 
numbers of CEMS or continuous emissions monitors. We performed two 
separate cost analyses for this final rule. In the engineering cost 
analysis, we estimated the cost of the final amendments based on the 
type of control device that was assumed to be necessary to comply with 
the final emission standards. Based on baseline emissions of mercury, 
THC, HCl and PM for each kiln and the removal efficiency necessary to 
comply with the final emission limit for each HAP, an appropriate 
control device was identified. In assigning control devices to each 
kiln where more than one control device will be capable of reducing 
emissions of a particular HAP below the limit, we assumed that the 
least costly control will be installed. For example, if a kiln could 
use either a scrubber or ACI to comply with the final limit for 
mercury, it was assumed that ACI will be selected over a scrubber 
because an ACI system will be less costly. ACI also is expected to 
achieve a higher removal efficiency than a scrubber for mercury (90 
percent versus 80 percent). In some instances, a more expensive 
technology was considered appropriate because the selected control 
reduced emissions of multiple pollutants. For example, even though ACI 
will be less costly than a scrubber for controlling mercury, if the 
kiln also had to reduce HCl (and, for new kilns subject to the NSPS 
amendments SO2) emissions, we assumed that a scrubber will 
be applied to control HCl as well as mercury because ACI will not 
control HCl. However, for many kilns, our analysis assumes that 
multiple controls will have to be added because more than one control 
will be needed to control all HAP. For example, ACI may be considered 
necessary to meet the limits for THC/organic HAP and/or mercury. For 
the same kiln, a scrubber will also be required to reduce HCl 
emissions. In this case we allocate the cost of the control to 
controlling mercury emissions, not to the cost of controlling HCl 
emissions. In addition, once we assigned a particular control device, 
in most cases we assumed mercury, HCl and THC/organic HAP emissions 
reductions will equal the control device efficiency, and not the 
minimum reduction necessary to meet the emissions limit. We believe 
this assumption is warranted because it matches costs with actual 
emissions reductions. In the case of PM, we assumed the controlled 
facility will emit at the average level necessary to meet the standard 
(i.e., we assumed for PM that the controlled facility will emit at 0.01 
lb/ton clinker, the average emission level, not 0.04 lb/ton clinker, 
the actual emissions limit), because the final emissions levels are 
extremely low.
    As previously discussed, in the case of the two facilities that 
require mercury emission reduction of 98 percent or more, we estimated 
the cost impacts by costing the two mercury control for which we have 
cost data, ACI and wet scrubbers. We believe this estimate is a 
conservative estimate of the costs these facilities will ultimately 
incur to meet the mercury emissions limit, based on the fact that they 
may be able to meet the limit using dust shuttling and/or treatment of 
cement kiln dust, which, based on the limited amount and size of 
equipment required, is expected to have lower costs than wet scrubbing.
    In a separate analysis performed using the ISIS model, we input 
into ISIS the baseline and controlled emissions rates for each 
pollutant, along with the maximum percent reduction achievable for a 
particular control technology, and allowed ISIS to base the control 
required on optimizing total production costs. In addition, the ISIS 
model accounts for normal kiln retirements that will occur even in the 
absence of any regulatory action (i.e., as new kilns come on-line, 
older, less efficient and more costly to operate kilns are retired). In 
the first cost analysis, total national annual costs assume that all 
kilns currently operating continue to operate while 20 new kilns come 
on-line. In the ISIS model, the two highest mercury emitting kilns 
requiring a 98+ percent

[[Page 55024]]

mercury control are assumed to shut down in 2013 because no single 
mercury control applied to these kilns can meet a 98+ percent mercury 
reduction.
    Table 11 presents the resulting add-on controls each approach 
estimated was necessary to meet the final emissions limits.

                                                        Table 11--Control Installation Comparison
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      LWS      ACI       LWS + ACI       MB       FF       WS + RTO       RTO      SNCR
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Engineering Analysis..............................................      115      151               2       28        0              10        0        7
ISIS Model........................................................       30       42              29        6        2               6       15        7
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the engineering analysis, we estimated the total capital cost of 
installing alkaline scrubbers and ACI systems for mercury control, 
including monitoring systems, will be $339 million with an annualized 
cost of $113 million. Most of the ACI systems installed for mercury 
control will also control organic HAP and THC. Where ACI does not 
provide sufficient control of organic HAP and THC, RTO/wet scrubbers 
are used. The estimated capital cost of installing RTO/wet scrubbers to 
reduce THC emissions will be $253 million with annualized cost of $49 
million. The capital cost of adding scrubbers for the control of HCl is 
estimated to be $1,882 million with an annualized cost of $261 million. 
The capital cost of adding membrane bags to existing fabric will be $57 
million with annualized cost of $16 million. The total capital cost for 
the final amendments for kilns subject to existing source emissions 
limits will be an estimated $2.2 billion with an annualized cost of 
$377 million.
    The estimated emission control capital cost per new 1.2 million tpy 
kiln is $3.2 million and the annualized costs are estimated at $1.2 
million for mercury and THC/organic HAP control, and $3.6 million for 
HCl control. Because the new kiln will be equipped with a baghouse even 
in the absence of the rule and because the ACI system, which includes a 
polishing baghouse, will be installed for mercury and organic HAP 
control, there will be no additional cost for PM control. Under the 
NSPS, 7 new kilns will install SNCR to control NOX and add 
NOX CEMS at a capital cost of $19.6 million and an 
annualized cost of $10.9 million. The control of SO2 under 
the NSPS will be accomplished by wet scrubbers installed for HCl 
control under the NESHAP so that no control costs are attributable to 
the NSPS. There will be SO2 monitoring cost estimated at 
$1.1 million capital cost and $0.3 million annualized cost for the 7 
new kilns subject to the NSPS. Flow monitoring devices are needed in 
conjunction with CEMS for NOX and SO2. Capital 
costs for flow monitoring devices will be $0.25 million capital and 
$0.1 million annualized costs. National annualized cost by the end of 
the fifth year for all new kilns will be an estimated $80.6 million.
    In the ISIS results, we are not able to separate costs by pollutant 
because the model provides an overall optimization of the production 
and air pollution control costs. The total annual costs of the ISIS 
model for the NESHAP and NSPS are $350 million in 2013. This estimate 
is significantly lower than the total costs estimated by traditional 
methods.
    It should be noted that for cases where more than a 50 percent 
reduction in HCl was required, we costed a wet scrubber. We note that 
some commenters have stated that some new and existing facilities may 
be located in areas where there is not sufficient water to operate a 
wet scrubber. However, in this rule we are not mandating wet scrubber 
control technology. Other control techniques are available (hydrated 
finely ground lime, spray dryers, fuel and additive switching) that we 
believe would allow a cement kiln to meet the HCl emission limits in 
areas where sufficient water for a wet scrubber is not available. 
However, we do not have data available on costs for these alternatives 
controls or techniques, some of which would be site specific. We would 
anticipate that costs of these techniques would be no more expensive 
that a wet scrubber. Therefore we believe that by costing wet scrubber 
technology in these situations we have not underestimated costs.
9. What are the economic impacts?
    EPA employed both a partial-equilibrium economic model and the ISIS 
model to analyze the impact on the industry and the economy.
    The Economic Impact Analysis model estimates the average national 
price for Portland cement could be 5.4 percent higher with the NESHAP 
and NSPS, or $4.50 per metric ton, while annual domestic production may 
fall by 11 percent, or 10 million tons per year. Because of higher 
domestic prices, imports are expected to rise by 3 million metric tons 
per year. Operating profits fall by $241 million.
    Precise job effect estimates cannot be estimated with certainty. 
Ideally, whenever a regulatory change results in a reallocation of 
labor or other factors of production in an economy, a general 
equilibrium approach should be applied to estimate the attendant 
economic impacts. Unfortunately, time and resource constraints 
prevented the creation of a model with the spatial and sectoral 
resolution necessary to analyze the final rule. However, Morgenstern et 
al. (2002) provides a theoretical framework which allows us to 
approximate some of the relevant general equilibrium effects by 
identifying three economic mechanisms by which pollution abatement 
activities can indirectly influence: Higher production costs raise 
market prices, higher prices reduce consumption, and employment within 
an industry falls (``demand effect''); pollution abatement activities 
require additional labor services to produce the same level of output 
(``cost effect''); and post-regulation production technologies may be 
more or less labor intensive (i.e., more/less labor is required per 
dollar of output) (``factor-shift effect'').
    Several empirical studies, including Morgenstern et al. (2002), 
suggest the net employment decline is zero or economically small (e.g., 
Cole and Elliot, 2007; Berman and Bui, 2001). However, others show the 
question has not been resolved in the literature (Henderson, 1996; 
Greenstone, 2002). Morgenstern et al. use a 6-year panel (U.S. Census 
data for plant-level prices, inputs [(including labor], outputs, and 
environmental expenditures) to econometrically estimate the production 
technologies and industry-level demand elasticities. Their 
identification strategy leverages repeat plant-level observations over 
time and uses plant-level and year fixed effects (e.g., dummy variables 
for plant and years). After estimating their model, Morgenstern show 
and compute the change in employment associated with an additional $1 
million ($1987) in environmental spending. Their estimates cover four 
manufacturing

[[Page 55025]]

industries (pulp and paper, plastics, petroleum, and steel) and 
Morgenstern et al. present results separately for the cost, factor 
shift, and demand effects, as well as the net effect. They also 
estimate and report an industry-wide average parameter that combines 
the four industry-wide estimates and weight them by each industry's 
share of environmental expenditures.
    Historically, EPA has most often estimated employment changes 
associated with plant closures due to environmental regulation or 
changes in output for the regulated industry (EPA, 1999a; EPA, 2000). 
This partial equilibrium approach focuses only on the ``demand'' 
portion of the projected change in employment and neglects other 
employment changes. EPA provides this estimate because it employs the 
most detailed modeling for the industry being regulated even if it does 
not capture all types of employment impacts. In addition to the 
employment effects identified by Morgenstern et al., we also expect 
that the substitutes for cement (e.g., asphalt) would expand production 
as consumers shift away from cement to other products. This would also 
lead to increased employment in those industries. Focusing only on the 
``demand effect'', it can be seen that the estimate from the historical 
approach is within the range presented by the Morgenstern ``demand 
effect'' portion. This strengthens our comfort in the reasonableness of 
both estimates. In April of this year, EPA started including an 
estimate based on the Morgenstern approach because it is thought to be 
a broader measure of the employment impacts of this type of 
environmental regulation. Thus, this analysis goes beyond what EPA has 
typically done because the parameters estimated in the Morgenstern 
paper were used to estimate all three effects (``demand,'' ``cost,'' 
and ``factor shift''). This transfer of results from the Morgenstern 
study is uncertain but avoids ignoring the ``cost effect'' and the 
``factor-shift effect.''
    Using the historical approach, we calculated ``demand effect'' 
employment changes by assuming that the number of jobs declines 
proportionally with the economic model's simulated output changes. As 
shown in Table 3-10, using this limited approach, the employment falls 
by an 1,500 jobs, or approximately -10 percent.\47\ By comparison, 
using the Morgenstern approach, we estimate that the net employment 
effects could range between 600 job losses to 1,300 job gains.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ To place this reduction in context, it is similar to the 
decline experienced during the latest economic downturn; 
approximately 2,000 jobs (see Appendix A, Table A-3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA has solely used this historical estimate in the past as a 
measure of the projected employment change associated with a 
regulation. However there are a number of serious shortcomings with 
this approach. First, and foremost, the historical approach only looks 
at the employment effects on the regulated industry from reduced 
output. Second, to arrive at that estimate, EPA needed to string 
together a number of strong assumptions. The employment impacts are 
independent of the performance of the overall economy. This rule takes 
effect in three years. If the economy is strong, the demand for cement 
strong, it is unlikely that any contraction in the industry will take 
place, even with the regulation. Second, we assume that all plants have 
the same limited ability to pass on the higher costs. In reality, 
plants should be modeled as oligopolists for each of their regional 
markets. Finally, EPA assumed that employment is directly proportional 
to output. This is unlikely, and biases the results towards higher 
employment losses. The Morgenstern methodology is a more complete 
consideration of probable impacts of a regulation on the economy.

        Table 12--Job Losses/Gains Associated With the Final Rule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Method                             1,000 Jobs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Partial equilibrium model (demand        -1.5
 effect only).
Literature-based estimate (net effect    0.3
 [A + B + C below]).                     (-0.6 to +1.3).
    A. Literature-based estimate:        -0.8
     Demand effect.                      (-1.7 to +0.1).
    B. Literature-based estimate: Cost   0.5
     effect.                             (+0.2 to +0.9).
    C. Literature-based estimate:        0.6
     Factor shift effect.                (+0 to +1.2).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We calculated a similar ``demand effect'' estimate that used the 
Morgenstern paper. EPA selected this paper because the parameter 
estimates (expressed in jobs per million [$1987] of environmental 
compliance expenditures) provide a transparent and tractable way to 
transfer estimates for an employment effects analysis. Similar 
estimates were not available from other studies. To do this, we 
multiplied the point estimate for the total demand effect (-3.56 jobs 
per million [$1987] of environmental compliance expenditure) by the 
total environmental compliance expenditures used in the partial 
equilibrium model. For example, the jobs effect estimate for is 
estimated to be 807 jobs (-3.56 x $378 million x 0.6).\48\ Demand 
effect results are provided in Table 12. It is not appropriate to 
substitute the data from that approach in to the Morgenstern due to the 
incompatibilities of the underlying data. Since the result from the 
historical approach is within the confidence bounds for the Morgenstern 
results for the ``demand effect'', we are comfortable that the more 
general Morgenstern result is a good representation of the change in 
employment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ Since Morgenstern's analysis reports environmental 
expenditures in 1987 dollars, we make an inflation adjustment to the 
engineering cost analysis using the consumer price index ((195.3/
113.6) = 0.6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We also present the results of using the Morgenstern paper to 
estimate employment ``cost'' and ``factor-shift'' effects. Although 
using the Morgenstern parameters to estimate these ``cost'' and 
``factor-shift'' employment changes is uncertain, it is helpful to 
compare the potential job gains from these effects to the job losses 
associated with the ``demand'' effect. Table 12 shows that using the 
``cost'' and ``factor shift'' employment effects may offset employment 
loss estimates using either ``demand'' effect employment losses. The 95 
percent confidence intervals are shown for all of the estimates based 
on

[[Page 55026]]

the Morgenstern parameters. As shown, at the 95 percent confidence 
level, we cannot be certain if net employment changes are positive or 
negative.
    Although the Morgenstern paper provides additional information 
about the potential job effects of environmental protection programs, 
there are several qualifications EPA considered as part of the 
analysis. First, EPA has used the weighted average parameter estimates 
for a narrow set of manufacturing industries (pulp and paper, plastics, 
petroleum, and steel). Absent other data and estimates, this approach 
seems reasonable and the estimates come from a respected peer-reviewed 
source. However, EPA acknowledges the final rule covers an industry not 
considered in the original empirical study. By transferring the 
estimates to the cement sector, we make the assumption that estimates 
are similar in size. In addition, EPA assumes also that Morgenstern et 
al.'s estimates derived from the 1979-1991 are still applicable for 
policy taking place in 2013, almost 20 years later. Second, the 
economic impact model only considers near-term employment effects in 
the cement industry where production technologies are fixed. As a 
result, the economic impact model places more emphasis on the short-
term ``demand effect,'' whereas the Morgenstern paper emphasizes other 
important long-term responses. For example, positive job gains 
associated with ``factor shift effects'' are more plausible when 
production choices become more flexible over time and industries can 
substitute labor for other production inputs. Third, the Morgenstern 
paper estimates rely on sector demand elasticities that are different 
(typically bigger) from the demand elasticity parameter used in the 
cement model. As a result, the demand effects are not directly 
comparable with the demand effects estimated by the cement model. 
Fourth, Morgenstern identifies the industry average as economically and 
statistically insignificant effect (i.e., the point estimates are 
small, measured imprecisely, and not distinguishable from zero). EPA 
acknowledges this fact and has reported the 95 percent confidence 
intervals in Table 12. Fifth, Morgenstern's methodology assumes large 
plants bear most of the regulatory costs. By transferring the 
estimates, EPA assumes a similar distribution of regulatory costs by 
plant size and that the regulatory burden does not disproportionately 
fall on smaller plants.
    EPA identified ten domestic plants with significant utilization 
changes that could temporarily idle until market demand conditions 
improve. It should be noted that some of these plant may be idled even 
in the absence of this action based on a review of recent history of 
this industry. The plants are small capacity plants with unit 
compliance costs close to $8 per ton and $241 million total change in 
operating profits. Since these plants account for approximately 8 
percent of domestic capacity, a decision to permanently shut down these 
plants will reduce domestic supply and lead to additional projected 
market price increases. If any plants closed or idled there would also 
be a savings from not having to incur pollution control costs. A rough 
estimate of the change in social cost if all ten were to idle or close 
is a reduction in social cost of $24 million.\49\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ In addition to the ten plants identified that could 
temporarily idle or permanently shut down, there are two plants with 
unusually high mercury emissions that cannot meet the mercury 
emission limit using any single control system. However, we are 
assuming that they will apply multiple controls to meet the limit 
and have accounted for multiple controls in our cost analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The estimated domestic social cost of the final amendments is $926 
to $950 million. There is an estimated $121 million surplus gain for 
other countries producing cement. The social cost estimates are 
significantly higher than the engineering analysis estimates, which 
estimated annualized costs of $466 million. This is a direct 
consequence of EPA's assumptions about existing domestic plants' 
pricing behavior. Under baseline conditions without regulation, the 
existing domestic cement plants are assumed to choose a production 
level that is less than the level produced under perfect competition. 
The imposition of additional regulatory costs tends to widen the gap 
between price and marginal cost in these markets and contributes to 
additional social costs. For more detail see the Regulatory Impact 
Analysis (RIA).
    Using the ISIS model, we estimated 12 kilns (9 million tons of 
capacity) may be idled as a result of this final rulemaking. ISIS 
estimates a range of 1,105-1,134 jobs lost associated with the capacity 
idling. In ISIS, kilns are modeled producing at their capacity levels 
after taking into consideration normal downtime days. If the kilns 
owners decide to operate the kilns at a lower utilization rate a lower 
the number of kilns idling is expected to be lower.
    As a result of this action, ISIS projects cement industry revenues 
are projected to decline by 4.5 percent, or $421 million. We estimate 
cement demand to drop 5.7 percent in 2013 or 7.0 million tons as a 
result of this action. The drop in demand will affect the domestic 
production and imports. Domestic production may fall by 9.6 percent or 
9.0 million tons in 2013 compared to the baseline. Imports are likely 
to rise by 2.0 million tons. ISIS estimates that the average national 
price for Portland cement in 2013 could be 6.8 percent higher, or $5.79 
per metric ton. More information on this model can be found in the ISIS 
TSD and in a Technical Memo to the docket.
10. What are the benefits?
    We estimated the monetized benefits of this final regulatory action 
to be $7.4 billion to $18 billion (2005$, 3 percent discount rate) in 
the implementation year (2013). The monetized benefits of the final 
regulatory action at a 7 percent discount rate are $6.7 billion to $16 
billion (2005$). Using alternate relationships between PM2.5 
and premature mortality supplied by experts, higher and lower benefits 
estimates are plausible, but most of the expert-based estimates fall 
between these two estimates.\50\ A summary of the avoided health 
benefits and the associated monetized benefits estimates at discount 
rates of 3 percent and 7 percent are provided in Table 13 of this 
preamble.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \50\ Roman et al., 2008. Expert Judgment Assessment of the 
Mortality Impact of Changes in Ambient Fine Particulate Matter in 
the U.S. Environ. Sci. Technol., 42, 7, 2268-2274.

Table 13--Summary of the Avoided Health Incidences and Monetized PM2.5 Benefits Estimates for the Final Portland
                                             Cement NESHAP and NSPS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Monetized benefits          Monetized benefits
                               Avoided health incidences    (millions of 2005$, 3%      (millions of 2005$, 7%
                                                                discount rate)              discount rate)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Avoided Premature Mortality.  960 to 2,500..............  $7,600 to $19,000.........  $6,900 to $17,000.

[[Page 55027]]

Avoided Morbidity:
    Chronic Bronchitis......  650.......................  $19.......................  $19.
    Acute Myocardial          1,500.....................  $11.......................  $11.
     Infarction.
    Hospital Admissions,      240.......................  $0.2......................  $0.2.
     Respiratory.
    Hospital Admissions,      500.......................  $0.9......................  $0.9.
     Cardiovascular.
    Emergency Room Visits,    1,000.....................  $0.03.....................  $0.03.
     Respiratory.
    Acute Bronchitis........  1,500.....................  $0.01.....................  $0.01.
    Work Loss Days..........  130,000...................  $1.2......................  $1.2.
    Asthma Exacerbation.....  17,000....................  $0.06.....................  $0.06.
    Minor Restricted          750,000...................  $3.0......................  $3.0.
     Activity Days.
    Lower Respiratory         18,000....................  $0.02.....................  $0.02.
     Symptoms.
    Upper Respiratory         14,000....................  $0.03.....................  $0.03.
     Symptoms.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: All estimates are for the implementation year (2013), and are rounded to two significant figures so
  numbers may not sum across rows. All fine particles are assumed to have equivalent health effects. Benefits
  from reducing hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) are not included. These estimates do not include the energy
  disbenefits of $210 to $470 million.

    These benefits estimates represent the human health benefits 
associated with reducing exposure to fine particulate matter 
(PM2.5). The PM reductions are the result of emission limits 
on PM as well as emission limits on other pollutants, including 
hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) for the NESHAP and criteria pollutants 
for the NSPS. To estimate the human health benefits, we used the 
environmental Benefits Mapping and Analysis Program (BenMAP) model to 
quantify the changes in PM2.5-related health impacts and 
monetized benefits based on changes in air quality. This approach is 
consistent with the recently proposed Transport Rule RIA.\51\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \51\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2010. Proposed RIA 
for the Transport Rule. Prepared by Office of Air and Radiation. 
June. Available on the Internet at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/
ria.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For this final rule, we have expanded and updated the analysis 
since the proposal in several important ways. Using the Comprehensive 
Air Quality Model with extensions (CAMx) model, we are able to provide 
cement sector-specific air quality impacts attributable to the emission 
reductions anticipated from this final rule. We believe that this 
modeling provides a superior representation of the geographic 
distribution of air quality impacts than the national average benefit-
per-ton estimates used for the proposal analysis. Furthermore, CAMx 
modeling allows us to model the reduced mercury deposition that would 
occur as a result of the estimated reductions of mercury emissions.
    Although we are unable to model mercury methylation and human 
consumption of mercury-contaminated fish, the mercury deposition maps 
provide an improved qualitative characterization of the mercury 
benefits associated with this final rulemaking. Lastly, we added 
qualitative descriptions of the benefits categories that we are unable 
to quantify and monetize, including the benefits of reducing hazardous 
air pollutants and ecosystem effects.
    In addition, the PM2.5 benefits for this final 
rulemaking reflect EPA's current interpretation of the economic 
literature on mortality valuation by using the 
value[hyphen]of[hyphen]a-statistical life (VSL) based on a 
meta[hyphen]analysis of 26 studies.\52\ The PM2.5 benefits 
are generally consistent with the methodology used in the proposal 
after adjusting for the revised VSL, and these estimates reflect EPA's 
decision to remove the arbitrarily assumed threshold from the health 
impact function.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \52\ In June 2009, EPA's Office of Air and Radiation revised the 
VSL used in air regulations to be consistent with the estimate used 
by the rest of the agency. Until updated guidance is available, EPA 
determined that a single peer-reviewed estimate applied consistently 
across the agency best reflects the advice it has received.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For these rules the SO2 reductions represent a large 
fraction of the total monetized benefits from reducing 
PM2.5, but it is not possible to isolate the portion if the 
total monetized benefits attributable to the emission reductions of 
SO2 resulting from the application of HCl controls. The 
benefits models assume that all fine particles, regardless of their 
chemical composition, are equally potent in causing premature mortality 
because there is no clear scientific evidence that would support the 
development of differential effects estimates by particle type.
    For context, it is important to note that the magnitude of the 
PM2.5 benefits is largely driven by the concentration 
response function for premature mortality. Experts have advised EPA to 
consider a variety of assumptions, including estimates based both on 
empirical (epidemiological) studies and judgments elicited from 
scientific experts, to characterize the uncertainty in the relationship 
between PM2.5 concentrations and premature mortality. For 
this final rulemaking we cite two key empirical studies, one based on 
the American Cancer Society cohort study \53\ and the extended Six 
Cities cohort study.\54\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \53\ Pope et al., 2002. ``Lung Cancer, Cardiopulmonary 
Mortality, and Long-Term Exposure to Fine Particulate Air 
Pollution.'' Journal of the American Medical Association 287:1132-
1141.
    \54\ Laden et al., 2006. ``Reduction in Fine Particulate Air 
Pollution and Mortality.'' American Journal of Respiratory and 
Critical Care Medicine. 173: 667-672.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Alternate models identified by experts describing the relationship 
between PM2.5 and premature mortality would yield higher and 
lower estimates depending upon the assumptions that they made, but most 
of the expert-based estimates fall between the two epidemiology-based 
estimates (Roman et al. 2008).
    EPA strives to use the best available science to support our 
benefits analyses. We recognize that interpretation of the science 
regarding air pollution and health is dynamic and evolving. The 
question of whether or not to assume a threshold in calculating the 
benefits associated with reductions in PM2.5 is an issue 
that affects the benefits calculations not only for this rule but for 
many other EPA rulemakings and analyses. Due to these implications, we 
solicited comment on appropriateness of both the no-threshold and 
threshold model for PM benefits analysis as part of the proposal of 
this rule.

[[Page 55028]]

    Three commenters did not support adopting a no-threshold model 
because it would obscure the greater uncertainty associated with 
calculated premature mortality at low PM concentrations and because it 
would be premature prior to the conclusion of the PM NAAQS review.
    Shortly after the end of the comment period, EPA finalized the 
Integrated Science Assessment for Particulate Matter,\55\ which was 
reviewed twice by EPA's Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee, and 
concluded that the scientific literature consistently finds that a no-
threshold log-linear model most adequately portrays the PM-mortality 
concentration-response relationship while recognizing potential 
uncertainty about the exact shape of the concentration-response 
function. In addition, the Human Health Subcommittee of EPA's Science 
Advisory Board recently concluded, ``The HES fully supports EPA's 
decision to use a no-threshold model to estimate mortality reductions. 
This decision is supported by the data, which are quite consistent in 
showing effects down to the lowest measured levels. Analyses of cohorts 
using data from more recent years, during which time PM concentrations 
have fallen, continue to report strong associations with mortality. 
Therefore, there is no evidence to support a truncation of the CRF 
[concentration-response function].'' \56\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \55\ 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. December. Available on the Internet at http://
cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=216546.
    \56\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency--Science Advisory 
Board (U.S. EPA-SAB). 2010. Review of EPA's DRAFT Health Benefits of 
the Second Section 812 Prospective Study of the Clean Air Act. EPA-
COUNCIL-10-001. June. Available on the Internet at http://
yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/0/
72D4EFA39E48CDB28525774500738776/$File/EPA-COUNCIL-10-001-
unsigned.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After reviewing the public comments in conjunction with our review 
of the scientific literature and the Science Advisory Board's comments, 
we have determined that the no-threshold model is the most appropriate 
model for assessing the mortality benefits associated with reducing 
PM2.5 exposure. Consistent with this recent scientific 
advice, we are replacing the previous threshold sensitivity analysis 
with a new ``Lowest Measured Level'' (LML) assessment. While an LML 
assessment provides some insight into the level of uncertainty in the 
estimated PM mortality benefits, EPA does not view the LML as a 
threshold and continues to quantify PM-related mortality impacts using 
a full range of modeled air quality concentrations.
    Most of the estimated PM-related benefits in this rule accrue to 
populations exposed to higher levels of PM2.5. Using the 
Pope et al. (2002) study, about 94 percent occur among populations with 
baseline exposure to annual mean PM2.5 levels at or above 
7.5 [mu]g/m\3\. Using the Laden et al. (2006) study, about 58 percent 
occur among populations with baseline exposure to annual mean 
PM2.5 levels at or above 10 [mu]g/m\3\. It is important to 
emphasize that we have high confidence in PM2.5-related 
effects down to the lowest LML of the major cohort studies. This fact 
is important, because as we estimate PM-related mortality among 
populations exposed to levels of PM2.5 that are successively 
lower, our confidence in the results diminishes. However, our analysis 
shows that the great majority of the impacts occur at higher exposures.
    It should be emphasized that the monetized benefits estimates 
provided above do not include benefits from several important benefit 
categories, including reducing other air pollutants, ecosystem effects, 
and visibility impairment. The benefits from reducing other pollutants 
have not been monetized in this analysis, including reducing 4,400 tons 
of NOX, 5,800 tons of hydrochloric acid, 5,200 tons of 
organic HAPS, and over 16,000 pounds of mercury each year. In addition, 
we were unable to quantify the additional emission reductions that 
would occur if cement facilities temporarily idle or reduce capacity 
utilization as a result of this regulation, or the unquantifiable 
amount of reductions in condensable PM. Although we do not have 
sufficient information or modeling available to provide monetized 
estimates for this rulemaking, we include a qualitative assessment of 
the health effects of these air pollutants in the RIA for this rule, 
which is available in the docket.
    In addition, the monetized benefits estimates provided in Table 13 
do not reflect the disbenefits associated with increased electricity 
usage from operation of the control devices. We estimate that the 
increases in emissions of NOX, SO2, PM, and 
CO2 would have disbenefits valued at $210 million to $470 
million at a 3% discount rate. The total monetized benefits estimates 
of $7.4 billion to $18 billion (2005$, 3 percent discount rate) and 
$6.7 billion to $17 billion (2005$, 7% discount rate) reflect these 
energy disbenefits.
    This analysis does not include the type of detailed uncertainty 
assessment found in the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS RIA or 2008 Ozone 
NAAQS RIA. However, the benefits analyses in these RIAs provide an 
indication of the sensitivity of our results to various assumptions, 
including the use of alternative concentration-response functions and 
the fraction of mortality impacts at low PM2.5 levels.
    The social costs of this rulemaking are estimated at $880 million 
(2005$) in the year of full implementation, and the benefits are 
estimated at $7.4 billion to $18 billion (2005$, 3 percent discount 
rate) for that same year. The benefits at a 7 percent discount rate are 
$6.7 billion to $16 billion (2005$). Thus, net benefits of this 
rulemaking are estimated at $6.5 billion to $17 billion (2005$, 3 
percent discount rate). The net benefits at a 7 percent discount rate 
are $5.8 billion to $16 billion (2005$). Using alternate relationships 
between PM2.5 and premature mortality supplied by experts, 
higher and lower benefits estimates are plausible, but most of the 
expert-based estimates fall between these two estimates. EPA believes 
that the benefits are likely to exceed the costs by a significant 
margin even when taking into account the uncertainties in the cost and 
benefit estimates.
    A final issue on benefits concerns the air impacts of increases in 
imports. When a regulation leads to increases in imports and only the 
domestic emission changes are considered in a benefit analysis, the 
question of the impact of emissions from the increased production in 
other countries should be examined. The extra emissions may have an 
impact on the regulating country (the U.S.) and the other countries. 
The location of these extra emissions and the pollutants involved are 
both important. Our economic modeling does not involve estimates of the 
origin of the imports. We also do not have information about the level 
of control for facilities in other countries. Thus, estimating 
disbenefits associated with these increased emissions in other 
countries was beyond what we were able to do in this analysis.
    However, another limitation of our analysis produces a bias in the 
opposite direction. The economic impact analysis estimated a 10 million 
ton decrease in domestic production. No emission reductions were 
estimated as a result of this change in production. The benefit 
analysis was based on emission reductions associated with control being 
applied to all facilities with no change in capacity utilization. The 
increase in imports was estimated to be 3 million tons. Thus we omitted 
an emission reduction associated with a 10 million ton decrease in 
production in this country while also omitting an increase in emissions 
for an increase in

[[Page 55029]]

production in other countries of less than a third of the domestic 
decrease. Of course the net result of these two omissions depends on 
the relative emission rates of the countries involved. Analysis of 
benefits for either of these two types of emissions is beyond the 
current scope of the benefit analysis.
    For more information, please refer to the RIA for this final rule 
that is available in the docket.

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

    Under section 3(f)(1) of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 
October 4, 1993), this action is an ``economically significant 
regulatory action'' because it is likely to have an annual effect on 
the economy of $100 million or more. Accordingly, EPA submitted this 
action to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under 
E.O. 12866 and any changes made in response to OMB recommendations have 
been documented in the docket for this action. In addition, EPA 
prepared a Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) of the potential costs and 
benefits associated with this action.
    When estimating the PM2.5-related human health benefits 
and compliance costs in Table 14 below, EPA applied methods and 
assumptions consistent with the state-of-the-science for human health 
impact assessment, economics and air quality analysis. EPA applied its 
best professional judgment in performing this analysis and believes 
that these estimates provide a reasonable indication of the expected 
benefits and costs to the nation of this rule. The Regulatory Impacts 
Analysis (RIA) available in the docket describes in detail the 
empirical basis for EPA's assumptions and characterizes the various 
sources of uncertainties affecting the estimates below.
    When characterizing uncertainty in the PM-mortality relationship, 
EPA has historically presented a sensitivity analysis applying 
alternate assumed thresholds in the PM concentration-response 
relationship. In its synthesis of the current state of the PM science, 
EPA's 2009 Integrated Science Assessment (ISA) for Particulate Matter 
concluded that a no-threshold log-linear model most adequately portrays 
the PM-mortality concentration-response relationship. In the RIA 
accompanying this rule, rather than segmenting out impacts predicted to 
be associated levels above and below a ``bright line'' threshold, EPA 
includes a ``lowest-measured-level (LML)'' that illustrates the 
increasing uncertainty that characterizes exposure attributed to levels 
of PM2.5 below the LML for each study. Figures provided in 
the RIA show avoided PM mortality impacts predicted relative to the 
baseline PM2.5 levels experienced by the population 
receiving the PM2.5 mortality benefit, as well as the lowest 
air quality levels measured in each of the epidemiology cohort studies. 
This information allows readers to determine the portion of PM-related 
mortality benefits occurring above or below the LML of each study; in 
general, our confidence in the size of the estimated reduction 
PM2.5-related premature mortality decreases in areas where 
annual mean PM2.5 levels are further below the LML in the 
cohort studies. Using the Pope et al. (2002) study, about 94 percent 
occur among populations with baseline exposure to annual mean 
PM2.5 levels at or above 7.5 [mu]g/m\3\. Using the Laden et 
al. (2006) study, about 58 percent occur among populations with 
baseline exposure to annual mean PM2.5 levels at or above 10 
[mu]g/m\3\. While the LML analysis provides some insight into the level 
of uncertainty in the estimated PM mortality benefits, EPA does not 
view the LML as a threshold and continues to quantify PM-related 
mortality impacts using a full range of modeled air quality 
concentrations.
    Table 14 shows the results of the cost and benefits analysis for 
this rule.

   Table 14--Summary of the Monetized Benefits, Social Costs, and Net
     Benefits for the Final Portland Cement NESHAP and NSPS in 2013
                         [Millions of 2005$] \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   3% Discount rate    7% Discount rate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                          Final NESHAP and NSPS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Monetized Benefits \2\....  $7,400 to $18,000.  $6,700 to $16,000.
Total Social Costs \3\..........  $926 to $950......  $926 to $950.
Net Benefits....................  $6,500 to $17,000.  $5,800 to $15,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-monetized Benefits..........  4,400 tons of NOX (includes energy
                                   disbenefits).
                                 ---------------------------------------
                                  5,200 tons of organic HAPs.
                                 ---------------------------------------
                                  5,900 tons of HCl.
                                 ---------------------------------------
                                  16,400 pounds of mercury.
                                 ---------------------------------------
                                  Health effects from HAPs, NO2, and SO2
                                   exposure.
                                 ---------------------------------------
                                  Ecosystem effects.
                                 ---------------------------------------
                                  Visibility impairment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                             Final NSPS only
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Total Monetized Benefits \2\...  $510 to $1,300....  $460 to $1,100.
Total Social Costs \3\..........  $72...............  $72.
Net Benefits....................  $440 to $1,200....  $390 to $1,000.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-monetized Benefits..........  6,600 tons of NOX.
                                 ---------------------------------------
                                  520 tons of HCl.
                                 ---------------------------------------

[[Page 55030]]

                                  Health effects from HAPs, NO2, and SO2
                                   exposure.
                                 ---------------------------------------
                                  Ecosystem effects.
                                 ---------------------------------------
                                  Visibility impairment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Final NESHAP only
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Monetized Benefits \2\....  $7,400 to $18,000.  $6,700 to $16,000.
Total Social Costs \3\..........  $904 to $930......  $904 to $930.
Net Benefits....................  $6,500 to $17,000.  $5,800 to $16,000.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-monetized Benefits..........  5,200 tons of organic HAPs.
                                 ---------------------------------------
                                  5,900 tons of HCl.
                                 ---------------------------------------
                                  16,000 pounds of mercury.
                                 ---------------------------------------
                                  Health effects from HAPs, SO2
                                   exposure.
                                 ---------------------------------------
                                  Ecosystem effects.
                                 ---------------------------------------
                                  Visibility impairment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Alternative: More Stringent NSPS and Final NESHAP
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Monetized Benefits \2\....  $7,400 to $18,000.  $6,700 to $16,000.
Total Social Costs \3\..........  $955 to $979......  $955 to $979.
Net Benefits....................  $6,500 to $17,000.  $5,700 to $15,000.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-monetized Benefits..........  7,800 tons of NOX (includes energy
                                   disbenefits).
                                 ---------------------------------------
                                  5,200 tons of organic HAPs.
                                 ---------------------------------------
                                  5,900 tons of HCl.
                                 ---------------------------------------
                                  16,400 pounds of mercury.
                                 ---------------------------------------
                                  Health effects from HAPs, NO2, and SO2
                                   exposure.
                                 ---------------------------------------
                                  Ecosystem effects.
                                 ---------------------------------------
                                  Visibility impairment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ All estimates are for the implementation year (2013), and are
  rounded to two significant figures.
\2\ The total monetized benefits reflect the human health benefits
  associated with reducing exposure to PM2.5 through reductions of
  directly emitted PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors such as NOX and SO2. It is
  important to note that the monetized benefits include many but not all
  health effects associated with PM2.5 exposure. Benefits are shown as a
  range from Pope et al. (2002) to Laden et al. (2006). These models
  assume that all fine particles, regardless of their chemical
  composition, are equally potent in causing premature mortality because
  there is no clear scientific evidence that would support the
  development of differential effects estimates by particle type. The
  total monetized benefits include the energy disbenefits.
\3\ The methodology used to estimate social costs for one year in the
  multimarket model using surplus changes results in the same social
  costs for both discount rates.

    For more information on the benefits analysis, please refer to the 
RIA for this rulemaking, which is available in the docket.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

1. Subpart F
    The information requirements in the final amendments to subpart F 
have been submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget 
(OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The 
Information Collection Request (ICR) document prepared by EPA has been 
assigned EPA ICR number 2307.01.
    The final amendments to the NSPS for Portland cement plants apply 
to affected facilities constructed, modified, or reconstructed after 
June 16, 2008. The owner or operator of a new kiln is required to keep 
daily records of clinker production, install and operate PM CEMS, and 
operate NOX and SO2 CEMS. These requirements are 
based on the recordkeeping and reporting requirements in the NSPS 
General Provisions (40 CFR part 60, subpart A) which are mandatory for 
all operators subject to new source performance standards. These 
recordkeeping and reporting requirements are specifically authorized by 
section 114 of the CAA (42 U.S.C. 7414). All information submitted to 
EPA pursuant to the recordkeeping and reporting requirements for which 
a claim of confidentiality is made is safeguarded according to EPA 
policies set forth in 40 CFR part 2, subpart B.
    The annual burden for this information collection averaged over the 
first 3 years of this ICR is estimated to total 2,559 labor-hours per 
year at a cost

[[Page 55031]]

of $240,064 per year. The annualized capital costs are estimated at 
$45,626 per year and operation and maintenance costs are estimated at 
$52,450 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 EPA's 
regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9. When this ICR is approved by 
OMB, the Agency will publish a technical amendment to 40 CFR part 9 in 
the Federal Register to display the OMB control number for the approved 
information collection requirements contained in this final rule.
2. Subpart LLL
    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 EPA has been assigned EPA ICR number 1801.07.
    In most cases, new and existing kilns and in-line kiln/raw mills at 
major and area sources that are not already subject to emission limits 
for THC, mercury, and PM will become subject to the limits and 
associated compliance provisions in the current rule. Sources will have 
to install and operate CEMS for mercury, PM, and THC. Records of all 
calculations and data will be required. New compliance procedures will 
also apply to area sources subject to a PM limit in a format of lbs/ton 
of clinker. Cement plants also will be subject to new limits for HCl 
and associated compliance provisions which include compliance tests 
using EPA Method 321 and continuous monitoring for HCl for facilities 
that do not use a wet scrubber for HCl control. These requirements are 
based on the recordkeeping and reporting requirements in the NESHAP 
General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A) which are mandatory for 
all operators subject to national emission standards. These 
recordkeeping and reporting requirements are specifically authorized by 
section 114 of the CAA (42 U.S.C. 7414). All information submitted to 
EPA pursuant to the recordkeeping and reporting requirements for which 
a claim of confidentiality is made is safeguarded according to EPA 
policies set forth in 40 CFR part 2, subpart B.
    The annual burden for this information collection averaged over the 
first 3 years of this ICR is estimated to total 79,790 labor-hours per 
year at a cost of $7.75 million per year. The average annualized 
capital costs are estimated at $61.7 million per year and average 
operation and maintenance costs are estimated at $192,578 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 EPA's 
regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 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 depending on the size definition 
for the affected NAICS code (as defined by Small Business 
Administration (SBA) size standards found at http://www.sba.gov/idc/
groups/public/documents/sba_homepage/serv_sstd_tablepdf.pdf); (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.
1. Subpart F
    After considering the economic impact 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. We estimate 
that 3 of the 26 existing Portland cement entities are small entities 
which will not incur any impacts under these final amendments unless an 
affected facility is constructed, modified, or reconstructed. Based on 
our economic analysis, 7 new kilns may be constructed during the next 
five years that will be subject to these NSPS amendments. One of these 
kilns may be operated by a Portland cement entity that is classified as 
a small entity according to the SBA small business size standards. Of 
these 7 kilns, this small entity is expected to incur an annualized 
compliance cost of between 1.0 and 3.0 percent of sales to comply with 
the final action.
    Although this final rule will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities, EPA nonetheless has 
tried to reduce the impact of this rule on small entities by the 
selection of an emission level based on highly cost-effective controls 
and specifying monitoring requirements that are the minimum to insure 
compliance. In the case where there are overlapping standards between 
this NSPS and the Portland Cement NESHAP, we have exempted sources from 
the least stringent requirement thereby eliminated overlapping 
monitoring, testing and reporting requirements by requiring that the 
source comply with only the more stringent of the standards.
2. Subpart LLL
    After considering the economic impact 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. We estimate 
that up to 3 of the 26 existing Portland cement plants are small 
entities.
    EPA performed a screening analysis for impacts on the three 
affected small entities by comparing compliance costs to entity 
revenues. EPA's analysis found that the ratio of compliance cost to 
company revenue for one small entity (a Tribal government) will have an 
annualized cost of less than 1 percent of sales. The other two small 
businesses will have an annualized cost of between 1 and three percent 
of sales.
    Although this final rule will not impact a substantial number of 
small entities, EPA nonetheless has tried to reduce the impact of this 
rule on small entities by setting the final emissions limits at the 
MACT floor, the least stringent level allowed by law. In the case where 
there are overlapping standards between this NESHAP and the Portland 
Cement NSPS, we have exempted sources from the least stringent 
requirement thereby eliminating the overlapping monitoring, testing and 
reporting requirements by requiring that the source comply with only 
the more stringent of the standards. In addition, we applied MACT for 
HCl emissions to major sources only. The reduced compliance costs for 
two of the three small entities by a factor of 4.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA), 2 U.S.C 1531-
1538, requires Federal agencies, unless otherwise prohibited by law, to 
assess the effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and 
Tribal governments and

[[Page 55032]]

the private sector. Federal agencies must also develop a plan to 
provide notice to small governments that might be significantly or 
uniquely affected by any regulatory requirements. The plan must enable 
officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely 
input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant 
Federal intergovernmental mandates and must inform, educate, and advise 
small governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements.
1. Subpart F
    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, the estimated expenditures for 
the private sector in the fifth year after promulgation are $50 
million. 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.
2. Subpart LLL
    This rule contains 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. 
Accordingly, EPA has prepared under section 202 of the UMRA a written 
statement which is summarized below.
    In developing this rule, EPA consulted with small governments under 
a plan developed pursuant to section 203 of UMRA concerning the 
regulatory requirements in the rule that might significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments. EPA has determined that this final 
action contains regulatory requirements that might significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments because we identified one of the 
facilities affected by the final rule as Tribally owned. EPA developed 
a plan to permit this Tribal entity to have meaningful and timely input 
into its development.
    Consistent with the intergovernmental consultation provisions of 
section 204 of the UMRA, EPA initiated consultations with the 
governmental entities affected by this rule. EPA directly contacted the 
facility in question to insure it was appraised of this rulemaking and 
potential implications. This facility indicated it was aware of the 
rulemaking and was participating in meetings with the industry trade 
association concerning this rulemaking. The facility did not indicate 
any special issues other than those expressed by the industry in 
general, We are assuming that they have the same concerns as those 
expressed by the other non-Tribally owned facilities during the 
development of this final rule. Subsequent to proposal, EPA again 
contacted the Tribal Government by letter with an offer of 
consultation. We received no response to that letter.
    Consistent with section 205, EPA has identified and considered a 
reasonable number of regulatory alternatives. EPA carefully examined 
regulatory alternatives, and selected the lowest cost/least burdensome 
alternative that EPA deems adequate to address Congressional concerns 
and to effectively reduce emissions of mercury, THC and PM. EPA has 
considered the costs and benefits of the final rule, and has concluded 
that the costs will fall mainly on the private sector (approximately 
$479 million). EPA estimates that an additional facility owned by a 
Tribal government will incur approximately $1.2 million in costs per 
year. Furthermore, we believe it is unlikely that State, local and 
Tribal governments would begin operating large industrial facilities, 
similar to those affected by this rulemaking operated by the private 
sector. EPA has selected regulatory alternatives that represent the 
MACT floor level of control, which is the least stringent level allowed 
by law.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), requires EPA 
to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely 
input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory 
policies that have federalism implications.'' ``Policies that have 
federalism implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include 
regulations that 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.''
    These two final rules do not have federalism implications. They 
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 these final rules.

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

    Subject to the Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 
2000) EPA may not issue a regulation that has Tribal implications, that 
imposes substantial direct compliance costs, and that is not required 
by statute, unless the Federal government provides the funds necessary 
to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by Tribal governments, or 
EPA consults with Tribal officials early in the process of developing 
the regulation and develops a Tribal summary impact statement.
1. Subpart F
    This final action does not have Tribal implications, as specified 
in Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). It will not 
have substantial direct effects on Tribal governments, on the 
relationship between the Federal government and Indian Tribes, or on 
the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal 
government and Indian Tribes, as specified in Executive Order 13175. 
The final rule imposes requirements on owners and operators of 
specified industrial facilities and not Tribal governments. The only 
Tribally owned source is not affected by the amendments to subpart F. 
Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.
2. Subpart LLL
    EPA has concluded that this action will have Tribal implications, 
because it will impose substantial direct compliance costs on Tribal 
governments, and the Federal government will not provide the funds 
necessary to pay those costs. One of the facilities affected by this 
final rule is Tribally owned. We estimate this facility will incur 
direct compliance costs that are between 1 to 3 percent of sales. 
Accordingly, EPA provides the following Tribal summary impact statement 
as required by section 5(b).
    EPA consulted with Tribal officials early in the process of 
developing this regulation to provide them meaningful and timely input 
into its development. EPA directly contacted the facility in question 
to insure it was appraised of this rulemaking and potential

[[Page 55033]]

implications. This facility indicated it was aware of the rulemaking 
and was participating in meetings with the industry trade association 
concerning this rulemaking. The facility did not indicate any specific 
concern, and we are assuming that they have the same concerns as those 
expresses by the other non-Tribally owned facilities during the 
development of this rule.

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

    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 rule 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. Further, we have concluded that this 
rule is not likely to have any adverse energy effects. This rule will 
result in the addition of control equipment and monitoring systems for 
existing and new sources.
    The final rule under subpart F will result in the addition of 
alkaline scrubbers to certain kilns to reduce SO2 emissions. 
We estimate the additional electrical demand to be 6.9 million kWhr per 
year by the end of the 2013.
    We estimate that under the final subpart LLL rule the additional 
electrical demand will be 1 billion kWhr per year and the natural gas 
use will be 1.2 million MMBtu for existing sources. At the end of 2013, 
electrical demand from new sources will be 180 million kWhr per year.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law 104-113 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) 
directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS) in its 
regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with 
applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards 
are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, 
sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or 
adopted by VCS bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through 
OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and 
applicable VCS.
    Consistent with the NTTAA, EPA conducted searches through the 
Enhanced NSSN Database managed by the American National Standards 
Institute (ANSI). We also contacted VCS organizations, and accessed and 
searched their databases.
1. Subpart F
    This final rulemaking involves technical standards. EPA has decided 
to use the VCS ASME PTC 19.10-1981, ``Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses,'' 
for its manual methods of measuring the content of the exhaust gas. 
These parts of ASME PTC 19.10-1981 are acceptable alternatives to EPA 
Methods 3B, 6, 6A, 7, and 7C. This standard is available from the 
American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME), Three Park Avenue, New 
York, NY 10016-5990.
    While the Agency has identified 12 other VCS as being potentially 
applicable to this rule, we have decided not to use these VCS in this 
rulemaking. The use of these VCS would have been impractical because 
they do not meet the objectives of the standards cited in this rule. 
See the docket for this rule for the reasons for these determinations.
2. Subpart LLL
    This final rulemaking involves technical standards. EPA will use 
ASTM D6348-03, ``Determination of Gaseous Compounds by Extractive 
Direct Interface Fourier Transform (FTIR) Spectroscopy,'' as an 
acceptable alternative to EPA Method 320 providing the following 
conditions are met:
    (1) The test plan preparation and implementation in the Annexes to 
ASTM D 6348-03, Sections A1 through A8 are mandatory;
    (2) In ASTM D6348-03 Annex A5 (Analyte Spiking Technique), the 
percent R must be determined for each target analyte (Equation A5.5). 
In order for the test data to be acceptable for a compound, percent R 
must be 70<=R<=130. If the percent R value does not meet this criterion 
for a target compound, the test data is not acceptable for that 
compound and the test must be repeated for that analyte (i.e., the 
sampling and/or analytical procedure should be adjusted before a 
retest). The percent R value for each compound must be reported in the 
test report, and all field measurements must be corrected with the 
calculated percent R value for that compound by using the following 
equation: Reported Result = Measured Concentration in the Stack x 100 / 
percent R.
    While the Agency has identified eight other VCS as being 
potentially applicable to this rule, we have decided not to use these 
VCS in this rulemaking. The use of these VCS would have been 
impractical because they do not meet the objectives of the standards 
cited in this rule. See the docket for this rule for the reasons for 
these determinations.
    Under 40 CFR 60.13(i) of the NSPS General Provisions and 63.7 (f) 
of the NESHAP General Provisions, a source may apply to EPA for 
permission to use alternative test methods or alternative monitoring 
requirements in place of any required testing methods, performance 
specifications, or procedures in the final rule and amendments.

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

    Executive Order (EO) 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.
    EPA has determined that this 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. Additionally, the Agency has reviewed this rule to 
determine if there was existing disproportionately high and adverse 
human health or environmental effects on minority or low-income 
populations that could be mitigated by this rulemaking. An analysis of 
demographic data 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.
    In determining the aggregate demographic makeup of the communities 
near affected sources, EPA

[[Page 55034]]

used census data at the block group level to identify demographics of 
the populations considered to be living near affected sources, such 
that they have notable exposures to current emissions from these 
sources. In this approach, EPA reviewed the distributions of different 
socio-demographic groups in the locations of the expected emission 
reductions from this rule. The review identified those census block 
groups within a circular distance of a half, 3, and 5 miles of affected 
sources and determined the demographic and socio-economic composition 
(e.g., race, income, education, etc.) of these census block groups. The 
radius of 3 miles (or approximately 5 kilometers) has been used in 
other demographic analyses focused on areas around potential 
sources.57 58 59 60 EPA's demographic analysis has shown 
that these areas in aggregate have similar proportions of American 
Indians, African-Americans, Hispanics, Whites, and ``Other and Multi-
racial'' populations, and similar proportions of families with incomes 
below the poverty level as the national average.\61\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \57\ U.S. GAO (Government Accountability Office). Demographics 
of People Living Near Waste Facilities. Washington DC: Government 
Printing Office; 1995.
    \58\ Mohai P, Saha R. ``Reassessing Racial and Socio-economic 
Disparities in Environmental Justice Research''. Demography. 
2006;43(2): 383-399.
    \59\ Mennis J. ``Using Geographic Information Systems to Create 
and Analyze Statistical Surfaces of Populations and Risk for 
Environmental Justice Analysis''. Social Science Quarterly, 
2002;83(1): 281-297.
    \60\ Bullard RD, Mohai P, Wright B, Saha R, et al. Toxic Waste 
and Race at Twenty 1987-2007. United Church of Christ. March, 2007.
    \61\ The results of the demographic analysis are presented in 
``Review of Environmental Justice Impacts'', June 2010, a copy of 
which is available in the docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA defines ``Environmental Justice'' to include meaningful 
involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, 
or income with respect to the development, implementation, and 
enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and polices.
    This final action establishes national emission standards for new 
and existing cement kilns. EPA estimates that there are 100 facilities 
covered by this rule. The final rule will reduce emissions of all the 
listed hazardous air pollutants emitted from this source category. This 
includes emissions of cadmium, HCl, lead, Hg, and organic hazardous air 
pollutants. Adverse health effects from these pollutants include 
cancer, irritation of the lungs, skin, and mucus membranes, effects on 
the central nervous system, and damage to the kidneys, and acute health 
disorders. The rule will also result in substantial reductions of 
criteria pollutants such as NOX, PM (total and fine), and 
SO2. SO2 and NO2 are precursors for 
the formation of PM2.5 and ozone. Reducing these emissions 
will reduce ozone and PM2.5 formation and associated health 
effects, such as adult premature mortality, chronic and acute 
bronchitis, asthma, and other respiratory and cardiovascular diseases. 
(Please refer to the RIA contained in the docket for this rulemaking.)

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 Congress and to the Comptroller General of the 
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this 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 a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 
804(2). These final rules will be effective November 8, 2010.

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 60

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, 
Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental 
relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

40 CFR Part 63

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, 
Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, Incorporation by 
reference, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: August 6, 2010.
Lisa P. Jackson,
Administrator.

0
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 A--[Amended]

0
2. Section 60.17 is amended by revising paragraph (h)(4) to read as 
follows:

Sec.  60.17  Incorporations by reference.

* * * * *
    (h) * * *
    (4) ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10-1981, Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses [Part 
10, Instruments and Apparatus], IBR approved for Sec.  60.56c(b)(4) of 
subpart Ec, Sec.  60.63(f)(2) and (f)(4) of subpart F, Sec.  
60.106(e)(2) of subpart J, Sec. Sec.  60.104a(d)(3), (d)(5), (d)(6), 
(h)(3), (h)(4), (h)(5), (i)(3), (i)(4), (i)(5), (j)(3), and (j)(4), 
60.105a(d)(4), (f)(2), (f)(4), (g)(2), and (g)(4), 60.106a(a)(1)(iii), 
(a)(2)(iii), (a)(2)(v), (a)(2)(viii), (a)(3)(ii), and (a)(3)(v), and 
60.107a(a)(1)(ii), (a)(1)(iv), (a)(2)(ii), (c)(2), (c)(4), and (d)(2) 
of subpart Ja, tables 1 and 3 of subpart EEEE, tables 2 and 4 of 
subpart FFFF, table 2 of subpart JJJJ, and Sec.  60.4415(a)(2) and 
(a)(3) of subpart KKKK of this part.
* * * * *

Subpart F--[Amended]

0
3. Section 60.62 is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  60.62  Standards.

    (a) On and after the date on which the performance test required to 
be conducted by Sec.  60.8 is completed, you may not discharge into the 
atmosphere from any kiln any gases which:
    (1) Contain particulate matter (PM) in excess of:
    (i) 0.30 pound per ton of feed (dry basis) to the kiln if 
construction, reconstruction, or modification of the kiln commences 
after August 17, 1971 but on or before June 16, 2008.
    (ii) 0.01 pound per ton of clinker on a 30-operating day rolling 
average if construction, reconstruction, or modification of the kiln 
commenced after June 16, 2008. An operating day includes all valid data 
obtained in any daily 24-hour period during which the kiln operates and 
excludes any measurements made during the daily 24-hour period when the 
kiln was not operating.
    (2) Exhibit greater than 20 percent opacity, except that this 
opacity limit does not apply to any kiln subject to a PM limit in 
paragraph (a)(1) of this section that uses a PM continuous emissions 
monitoring system (CEMS).
    (3) Exceed 1.50 pounds of nitrogen oxide (NOX) per ton 
of clinker on a 30-operating day rolling average if construction, 
reconstruction, or modification of the kiln commences

[[Page 55035]]

after June 16, 2008, except this limit does not apply to any alkali 
bypass installed on the kiln. An operating day includes all valid data 
obtained in any daily 24-hour period during which the kiln operates and 
excludes any measurements made during the daily 24-hour period when the 
kiln was not operating.
    (4) Exceed 0.4 pounds of sulfur dioxide (SO2) per ton of 
clinker on a 30-operating day rolling average if construction, 
reconstruction, or modification commences after June 16, 2008, unless 
you are demonstrating a 90 percent SO2 emissions reduction 
measured across the SO2 control device. An operating day 
includes all valid data obtained in any daily 24-hour period during 
which the kiln operates, and excludes any measurements made during the 
daily 24-hour period when the kiln was not operating.
    (b) On and after the date on which the performance test required to 
be conducted by Sec.  60.8 is completed, you may not discharge into the 
atmosphere from any clinker cooler any gases which:
    (1) Contain PM in excess of:
    (i) 0.10 pound per ton of feed (dry basis) to the kiln if 
construction, reconstruction, or modification of the clinker cooler 
commenced after August 17, 1971 but on or before June 16, 2008.
    (ii) 0.01 pound per ton of clinker on a 30-operating day rolling 
average if construction, reconstruction, or modification of the clinker 
cooler commences after June 16, 2008. An operating day includes all 
valid data obtained in any daily 24-hour period during which the kiln 
operates, and excludes any measurements made during the daily 24-hour 
period when the kiln was not operating.
    (2) Exhibit 10 percent opacity, or greater, except that this 
opacity limit does not apply to any clinker cooler subject to a PM 
limit in paragraph (b)(1) of this section that uses a PM CEMS.
    (3) If the kiln and clinker cooler exhaust are combined for energy 
efficiency purposes and sent to a single control device, the 
appropriate kiln PM limit may be adjusted using the procedures in Sec.  
63.1343(b) of this chapter.
    (4) If the kiln has a separate alkali bypass stack, you must 
combine the PM emissions from the bypass stack with the PM emissions 
from the main kiln exhaust to determine total PM emissions.
    (c) On and after the date on which the performance test required to 
be conducted by Sec.  60.8 is completed, you may not discharge into the 
atmosphere from any affected facility other than the kiln and clinker 
cooler any gases which exhibit 10 percent opacity, or greater.
    (d) If you have an affected source subject to this subpart with a 
different emission limit or requirement for the same pollutant under 
another regulation in title 40 of this chapter, you must comply with 
the most stringent emission limit or requirement and are not subject to 
the less stringent requirement.

0
4. Section 60.63 is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  60.63  Monitoring of operations.

    (a) [Reserved]
    (b) Clinker production monitoring requirements. For any kiln 
subject to an emissions limitation on PM, NOX, or 
SO2 emissions (lb/ton of clinker), you must:
    (1) Determine hourly clinker production by one of two methods:
    (i) Install, calibrate, maintain, and operate a permanent weigh 
scale system to measure and record weight rates 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.
    (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 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;
    (2) Determine, record, and maintain a record of the accuracy of the 
system of measuring hourly clinker or feed production before initial 
use (for new sources) or within 30 days of the effective 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 or feed production.
    (3) Record the daily clinker production rates and kiln feed rates; 
and
    (4) Develop an emissions monitoring plan in accordance with 
paragraphs (i)(1) through (i)(4) of this section.
    (c) You must monitor PM emissions of a kiln or clinker cooler 
subject to a PM emissions limit in Sec.  60.62(a)(1)(ii) or (b)(1)(ii) 
according to the applicable requirements below:
    (1) Install and operate a PM CEMS in accordance with Performance 
Specification 11 of appendix B and Procedure 2 of appendix F to part 60 
of this chapter. The performance test method and the correlation test 
method for Performance Specification 11 shall be Method 5 or Method 5i 
of appendix A to this part. The owner or operator must also develop an 
emissions monitoring plan in accordance with paragraphs (i)(1) through 
(i)(4) of this section.
    (2) Perform Relative Response Audits annually and Response 
Correlation Audits every 3 years.
    (3) Collect readings at least every 15 minutes in order to 
calculate the 30-operating day rolling average to determine PM 
emissions. Calculate the 30-operating day rolling average using 
equation 1 of this section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR09SE10.006

Where:

PM15 minutes = PM emissions from a 15-minute period.
n = number of 15 minute periods with valid data over the preceding 
30 operating days.

    (d) You must install, operate, calibrate, and maintain an 
instrument for 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 comingled 
alkali bypass gases.
    (e) You must install, operate, calibrate, and maintain an 
instrument for continuously monitoring and

[[Page 55036]]

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 emission limit, you must 
also continuously monitor and record the concentration by volume of 
SO2 present at the wet scrubber inlet.
    (f) You must install, operate, and maintain according to 
Performance Specification 2 (40 CFR part 60, appendix B) and the 
requirements in paragraphs (f)(1) through (5) of this section each CEMS 
required under paragraphs (c), (d) and (e) of this section.
    (1) The span value of each NOX monitor must be set at 
125 percent of the maximum estimated hourly potential NOX 
emission concentration that translates to the applicable emission limit 
at full clinker production capacity.
    (2) You must conduct performance evaluations of each NOX 
monitor according to the requirements in Sec.  60.13(c) and Performance 
Specification 2 of Appendix B to part 60. The owner or operator must 
use Methods 7, 7A, 7C, 7D, or 7E of appendix A-4 to part 60 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 EPA Method 
7 or 7C of Appendix A-4 to part 60.
    (3) The span value for the SO2 monitor must be set at 
125 percent of the maximum estimated hourly potential SO2 
emission concentration that translates to the applicable emission limit 
at full clinker production capacity.
    (4) You must conduct performance evaluations of each SO2 
monitor according to the requirements in Sec.  60.13(c) and Performance 
Specification 2 of Appendix B to part 60. You must use Methods 6, 6A, 
or 6C of Appendix A-4 to part 60 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 EPA Method 6 or 6A of Appendix A-4 to part 
60.
    (5) You must comply with the quality assurance requirements in 
Procedure 1 of Appendix F to part 60 for each monitor, including 
quarterly accuracy determinations for monitors, and daily calibration 
drift tests.
    (g) For each CEMS required under paragraphs (c) through (e) of this 
section:
    (1) You must operate the monitoring system and collect data at all 
required intervals at all times the affected source is operating, 
except for periods of 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).
    (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 assessing the 
operation of the control device and associated control system.
    (3) You must meet the requirements of Sec.  60.13(h) when 
determining the 1-hour averages of emissions data.
    (h) You must install, operate, calibrate, and maintain instruments 
for continuously measuring and recording the pollutant per mass flow 
rate to the atmosphere for each kiln subject to the PM emissions limits 
in Sec.  60.62(a)(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) 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, SO2 or PM 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.
    (2) The flow rate monitoring system must be designed to measure the 
exhaust gas flow rate over a range that extends from a value of at 
least 20 percent less than the lowest expected exhaust flow rate to a 
value of at least 20 percent greater than the highest expected exhaust 
gas flow rate.
    (3) The flow rate monitoring system must have a minimum accuracy of 
5 percent of the flow rate.
    (4) The flow rate monitoring system must be equipped with a data 
acquisition and recording system that is capable of recording values 
over the entire range specified in paragraph (h)(2) of this section.
    (5) The signal conditioner, wiring, power supply, and data 
acquisition and recording system for the flow rate monitoring system 
must be compatible with the output signal of the flow rate sensors used 
in the monitoring system.
    (6) The flow rate monitoring system must be designed to complete a 
minimum of one cycle of operation for each successive 15-minute period.
    (7) The flow rate sensor must have provisions 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 part 60 of this chapter 
for a discussion of CD).
    (i) Conduct the CD tests at two reference signal levels, zero 
(e.g., 0 to 20 percent of span) and upscale (e.g., 50 to 70 percent of 
span).
    (ii) The absolute value of the difference between the flow monitor 
response and the reference signal must be equal to or less than 3 
percent of the flow monitor span.
    (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 part 60 of the chapter, with the 
exceptions noted in paragraphs (h)(8)(i) and (ii).
    (i) The relative accuracy test is to evaluate the flow rate 
monitoring system alone rather than a continuous emission rate 
monitoring system.
    (ii) The relative accuracy of the flow rate monitoring system shall 
be no greater than 10 percent of the mean value of the reference method 
data.
    (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).
    (10) You must operate the flow rate monitoring system and record 
data during all periods of operation of the affected facility including 
periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction, except for periods of 
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.
    (i) Development and Submittal (Upon Request) of Monitoring Plans. 
If you demonstrate compliance with any applicable emission limit 
through performance stack testing or other

[[Page 55037]]

emissions monitoring, you must develop a site-specific monitoring plan 
according to the requirements in paragraphs (i)(1) through (4) of this 
section. This requirement also applies to you if you petition the EPA 
Administrator for alternative monitoring parameters under paragraph (h) 
of this section and Sec.  63.8(f). If you use a 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 60 days 
before the initial performance evaluation of your CMS.
    (i) Installation of the CEMS 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);
    (ii) Performance and equipment specifications for the sample 
interface, the pollutant concentration or parametric signal analyzer, 
and the data collection and reduction systems; and
    (iii) Performance evaluation procedures and acceptance criteria 
(e.g., calibrations).
    (2) In your site-specific monitoring plan, you must also address 
paragraphs (i)(2)(i) through (iii) of this section.
    (i) Ongoing operation and maintenance procedures in accordance with 
the general requirements of Sec.  63.8(c)(1), (c)(3), and (c)(4)(ii);
    (ii) Ongoing data quality assurance procedures in accordance with 
the general requirements of Sec.  63.8(d); and
    (iii) Ongoing recordkeeping and reporting procedures in accordance 
with the general requirements of Sec.  63.10(c), (e)(1), and (e)(2)(i).
    (3) You must conduct a performance evaluation of each CMS in 
accordance with your site-specific monitoring plan.
    (4) You must operate and maintain the CMS in continuous operation 
according to the site-specific monitoring plan.

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

Sec.  60.64  Test methods and procedures

    (a) In conducting the performance 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) Compliance with the PM standards in Sec.  60.62 is determined 
using the procedures specified in Sec.  60.63.
    (1) The PM emission rate is calculated using Equation 2 of this 
section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR09SE10.007

Where:

E = emission rate of particulate matter, lb/ton of kiln feed;
Cs = concentration of particulate matter, gr/scf;
Qs = volumetric flow rate of effluent gas, where 
Cs and Qs are on the same basis (either wet or 
dry), dscf/hr;
P = total kiln feed (dry basis) rate, ton/hr. For kilns constructed, 
modified or reconstructed on or after June 16, 2008,
p = total kiln clinker production rate; and
K = conversion factor, 7000 gr/lb.

    (2) Suitable methods shall be used to determine the kiln feed rate 
(P), except fuels.
    (3) Method 9 and the procedures in Sec.  60.11 must be used to 
determine opacity.
    (4) Any sources other than kilns (including associated alkali 
bypass and cooler) subject to the 10 percent opacity limit must follow 
the appropriate monitoring procedures in Sec.  63.1350(f), (m)(1) 
through (4), (m)(10) through (11), (o), and (p) of this chapter.
    (5) If your kiln is not equipped with a PM CEMS meeting the 
requirements of Performance Specification 11 of Appendix B to part 60, 
and the kiln (including any associated alkali bypass and clinker 
cooler) was constructed, modified or reconstructed on or after June 16, 
2008, you must conduct a performance test every 5 years following the 
initial performance test. Kilns (including any associated alkali bypass 
and clinker cooler) constructed, reconstructed, or modified after 
August 17, 1971 but on or before June 16, 2008 must conduct a 
performance test every 5 years if not equipped with a PM CEMS meeting 
the requirements of Performance Specification 11 of Appendix B to part 
60.
    (c) You must calculate and record the 30-operating day rolling 
emission rate of NOX and SO2 as the total of all 
hourly emissions data for a cement kiln in the preceding 30 days, 
divided by the total tons of clinker produced in that kiln during the 
same 30-operating day period using Equation 3 of this section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR09SE10.008

Where:
E = emission rate of NOX or SO2, lb/ton of 
clinker production;
Cs = concentration of NOX or SO2, 
gr/scf;
Qs = volumetric flow rate of effluent gas, where 
Cs and Qs are on the same basis (either wet or 
dry), scf/hr;
P = total kiln clinker production rate, ton/hr; and
K = conversion factor, 7000 gr/lb.

    (d) 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 this subpart, you must 
submit the relative accuracy test audit data and performance test data, 
except opacity data, to EPA by successfully submitting the data 
electronically to EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX) by using the 
Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) (see http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/
ert_tool.html/).

0
6. Section 60.66 is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  60.66  Delegation of authority.

    (a) This subpart can be implemented and enforced by the U.S. EPA or 
a delegated authority such as a State, local, or Tribal agency. You 
should contact your U.S. EPA Regional Office to find out if this 
subpart is delegated to a State, local, or Tribal agency within your 
State.
    (b) In delegating implementation and enforcement authority to a 
State, local, or Tribal agency, the approval authorities contained 
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.
    (1) Approval of an alternative to any non-opacity emissions 
standard.
    (2) Approval of a major change to test methods under Sec.  60.8(b). 
A ``major change to test method'' is defined in 40 CFR 63.90.
    (3) Approval of a major change to monitoring under Sec.  60.13(i). 
A ``major change to monitoring'' is defined in 40 CFR 63.90.
    (4) Approval of a major change to recordkeeping/reporting under 
Sec.  60.7(b) through (f). A ``major change to recordkeeping/
reporting'' is defined in 40 CFR 63.90.

Appendix B--[Amended]

0
7. Appendix B to 40 CFR Part 60 is amended as follows:
0
a. Revise Performance Specification 12A.
0
b. Add Performance Specification 12B.

Appendix B to Part 60--Performance Specifications

* * * * *

[[Page 55038]]

Performance Specification 12A--Specifications and Test Procedures for 
Total Vapor Phase Mercury Continuous Emission Monitoring Systems in 
Stationary Sources

1.0 Scope and Application

    1.1 Analyte. The analyte measured by these procedures and 
specifications is total vapor phase mercury (Hg) in the flue gas, 
which represents the sum of elemental Hg (Hg[deg], CAS Number 7439-
97-6) and oxidized forms of gaseous Hg (Hg+2), in 
concentration units of micrograms per cubic meter ([mu]g/m\3\).
    1.2 Applicability.
    1.2.1 This specification is for evaluating the acceptability of 
total vapor phase Hg continuous emission monitoring systems (CEMS) 
installed at stationary sources at the time of or soon after 
installation and whenever specified in the regulations. The Hg CEMS 
must be capable of measuring the total concentration in [mu]g/m\3\ 
of vapor phase Hg, regardless of speciation, and recording that 
concentration at standard conditions on a wet or dry basis. These 
specifications do not address measurement of particle bound Hg.
    1.2.2 This specification is not designed to evaluate an 
installed CEMS's performance over an extended period of time nor 
does it identify specific calibration techniques and auxiliary 
procedures to assess the CEMS's performance. The source owner or 
operator, however, is responsible to calibrate, maintain, and 
operate the CEMS properly. The Administrator may require, under 
section 114 of the Clean Air Act, the operator to conduct CEMS 
performance evaluations at other times besides the initial 
performance evaluation test. See Sec. Sec.  60.13(c) and 63.8(e)(1).
    1.2.3 Mercury monitoring approaches not entirely suited to these 
specifications may be approvable under the alternative monitoring or 
alternative test method provisions of Sec.  60.13(i) and Sec.  
63.8(f) or Sec.  60.8(b)(3) and Sec.  63.7(f), respectively.

2.0 Summary of Performance Specification

    Procedures for determining CEMS relative accuracy, linearity, 
and calibration drift are outlined. CEMS installation and 
measurement location specifications, data reduction procedures, and 
performance criteria are included.

3.0 Definitions

    3.1 Continuous Emission Monitoring System (CEMS) means the total 
equipment required to measure a pollutant concentration. The system 
generally consists of the following three major subsystems:
    3.2 Sample Interface means that portion of the CEMS used for one 
or more of the following: sample acquisition, sample transport, 
sample conditioning, and protection of the monitor from the effects 
of the stack effluent.
    3.3 Hg Analyzer means that portion of the Hg CEMS that measures 
the total vapor phase Hg mass concentration and generates a 
proportional output.
    3.4 Data Recorder means that portion of the CEMS that provides a 
permanent electronic record of the analyzer output. The data 
recorder may provide automatic data reduction and CEMS control 
capabilities.
    3.5 Span Value means the measurement range as specified in the 
applicable regulation or other requirement. If the span is not 
specified in the applicable regulation or other requirement, then it 
must be a value approximately equivalent to two times the emission 
standard. Unless otherwise specified, the span value may be rounded 
up to the nearest multiple of 10.
    3.6 Measurement Error Test means a test procedure in which the 
accuracy of the concentrations measured by a CEMS at three or more 
points over its measurement range is evaluated using reference 
gases. For Hg CEMS, elemental and oxidized Hg (Hg\0\ and mercuric 
chloride, HgCl2) gas standards of known concentration are 
used for this procedure.
    3.7 Measurement Error (ME) means the absolute value of the 
difference between the concentration indicated by the CEMS and the 
known concentration of a reference gas, expressed as a percentage of 
the span value, when the entire CEMS, including the sampling 
interface, is challenged.
    3.8 Calibration Drift (CD) means the absolute value of the 
difference between the CEMS output response and either an upscale Hg 
reference gas or a zero-level Hg reference gas, expressed as a 
percentage of the span value, when the entire CEMS, including the 
sampling interface, is challenged after a stated period of operation 
during which no unscheduled maintenance or repair took place.
    3.9 Relative Accuracy Test Procedure means a test procedure 
consisting of at least nine test runs, in which the accuracy of the 
concentrations measured by a CEMS is evaluated by comparison against 
concurrent measurements made with a reference method (RM). Relative 
accuracy tests repeated on a regular, on-going basis are referred to 
as relative accuracy test audits or RATAs.
    3.10 Relative Accuracy (RA) means the absolute mean difference 
between the pollutant concentrations determined by the CEMS and the 
values determined by the RM plus the 2.5 percent error confidence 
coefficient of a series of tests divided by the mean of the RM 
tests. Alternatively, for sources with an average RM concentration 
less than 5.0 micrograms per standard cubic meter ([mu]g/scm), the 
RA may be expressed as the absolute value of the difference between 
the mean CEMS and RM values.

4.0 Interferences [Reserved]

5.0 Safety

    The procedures required under this performance specification may 
involve hazardous materials, operations, and equipment. This 
performance specification may not address all of the safety problems 
associated with these procedures. It is the responsibility of the 
user to establish appropriate safety and health practices and 
determine the applicable regulatory limitations prior to performing 
these procedures. The CEMS user's manual and materials recommended 
by the RM should be consulted for specific precautions to be taken.

6.0 Equipment and Supplies

    6.1 CEMS Equipment Specifications.
    6.1.1 Data Recorder Scale. The Hg CEMS data recorder output 
range must include the full range of expected Hg concentration 
values in the gas stream to be sampled including zero and the span 
value.
    6.1.2 The Hg CEMS design should also provide for the 
determination of CD and ME at a zero value (zero to 20 percent of 
the span value) and at upscale values (between 50 and 100 percent of 
the span value). The Hg CEMS must be constructed to permit the 
introduction of known concentrations of Hg and HgCl2 
separately into the sampling system of the CEMS immediately 
preceding the sample extraction filtration system such that the 
entire CEMS can be challenged.
    6.2 Reference Gas Delivery System. The reference gas delivery 
system must be designed so that the flowrate exceeds the sampling 
system flow requirements of the CEMS and that the gas is delivered 
to the CEMS at atmospheric pressure.
    6.3 Other equipment and supplies, as needed by the reference 
method used for the Relative Accuracy Test Procedure. See Section 
8.6.2.

7.0 Reagents and Standards

    7.1 Reference Gases. Reference gas standards are required for 
both elemental and oxidized Hg (Hg and mercuric chloride, 
HgCl2). The use of National Institute of Standards and 
Technology (NIST)-traceable standards and reagents is required. The 
following gas concentrations are required.
    7.1.1 Zero-level. 0 to 20 percent of the span value.
    7.1.2 Mid-level. 50 to 60 percent of the span value.
    7.1.3 High-level. 80 to 100 percent of the span value.
    7.2 Reference gas standards may also be required for the 
reference methods. See Section 8.6.2.

8.0 Performance Specification Test Procedure

    8.1 Installation and Measurement Location Specifications.
    8.1.1 CEMS Installation. Install the CEMS at an accessible 
location downstream of all pollution control equipment. Place the 
probe outlet or other sampling interface at a point or location in 
the stack (or vent) representative of the stack gas concentration of 
Hg. Since the Hg CEMS sample system normally extracts gas from a 
single point in the stack, a location that has been shown to be free 
of stratification for Hg or, alternatively, SO2 is 
recommended. If the cause of failure to meet the RA test requirement 
is determined to be the measurement location and a satisfactory 
correction technique cannot be established, the Administrator may 
require the CEMS to be relocated. Measurement locations and points 
or paths that are most likely to provide data that will meet the RA 
requirements are described in Sections 8.1.2 and 8.1.3 below.
    8.1.2 Measurement Location. The measurement location should be 
(1) at least two equivalent diameters downstream of the nearest 
control device, point of pollutant generation or other point at 
which a change of pollutant concentration may occur, and (2) at 
least half an equivalent diameter upstream

[[Page 55039]]

from the effluent exhaust. The equivalent duct diameter is 
calculated according to Method 1 in appendix A-1 to this part.
    8.1.3 Hg CEMS Sample Extraction Point. Use a sample extraction 
point either (1) no less than 1.0 meter from the stack or duct wall, 
or (2) within the centroidal velocity traverse area of the stack or 
duct cross section. This does not apply to cross-stack, in-situ 
measurement systems.
    8.2 Measurement Error (ME) Test Procedure. Sequentially inject 
each of at least three elemental Hg reference gases (zero, mid-
level, and high level, as defined in Section 7.1), three times each 
for a total of nine injections. Inject the gases in such a manner 
that the entire CEMS is challenged. Do not inject the same gas 
concentration twice in succession. At each reference gas 
concentration, determine the average of the three CEMS responses and 
subtract the average response from the reference gas value. 
Calculate the measurement error (ME) using Equation 12-1 by 
expressing the absolute value of the difference between the average 
CEMS response (A) and the reference gas value (R) as a percentage of 
the span (see example data sheet in Figure 12A-1). For each 
elemental Hg reference gas, the absolute value of the difference 
between the CEMS response and the reference value must not exceed 5 
percent of the span value. If this specification is not met, 
identify and correct the problem before proceeding. Repeat the 
measurement error test procedure using oxidized Hg reference gases. 
For each oxidized Hg reference gas, the absolute value of the 
difference between the CEMS response and the reference value shall 
not exceed 10 percent of the span value. If this specification is 
not met, identify and correct the problem before proceeding.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR09SE10.009

    8.3 Seven-Day Calibration Drift (CD) Test Procedure.
    8.3.1 CD Test Period. While the affected facility is operating 
normally, or as specified in an applicable regulation, determine the 
magnitude of the CD once each day (at 24-hour intervals, to the 
extent practicable) for 7 consecutive unit operating days according 
to the procedures in Sections 8.3.2 and 8.3.3. The 7 consecutive 
unit operating days need not be 7 consecutive calendar days. Use 
either Hg[deg] or HgCl2 standards for this test.
    8.3.2 The purpose of the CD measurement is to verify the ability 
of the CEMS to conform to the established CEMS response used for 
determining emission concentrations or emission rates. Therefore, if 
periodic automatic or manual adjustments are made to the CEMS zero 
and upscale response settings, conduct the CD test immediately 
before these adjustments, or conduct it in such a way that the CD 
can be determined.
    8.3.3 Conduct the CD test using the zero gas specified and 
either the mid-level or high-level gas as specified in Section 7.1. 
Sequentially introduce the reference gases to the CEMS at the 
sampling system of the CEMS immediately preceding the sample 
extraction filtration system. Record the CEMS response (A) for each 
reference gas and, using Equation 12A-2, subtract the corresponding 
reference value (R) from the CEMS value, and express the absolute 
value of the difference as a percentage of the span value (see also 
example data sheet in Figure 12A-2). For each reference gas, the 
absolute value of the difference between the CEMS response and the 
reference value must not exceed 5 percent of the span value. If 
these specifications are not met, identify and correct the problem 
before proceeding.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR09SE10.010

    8.4 Relative Accuracy (RA) Test Procedure.
    8.4.1 RA Test Period. Conduct the RA test according to the 
procedure given in Sections 8.4.2 through 8.4.6 while the affected 
facility is operating normally, or as specified in an applicable 
subpart. The RA test may be conducted during the CD test period.
    8.4.2 Reference Methods (RM). Unless otherwise specified in an 
applicable subpart of the regulations, use Method 29, Method 30A, or 
Method 30B in appendix A-8 to this part or American Society of 
Testing and Materials (ASTM) Method D6784-02 (incorporated by 
reference, see Sec.  60.17) as the RM for Hg concentration. For 
Method 29 and ASTM Method D6784-02 only, the filterable portion of 
the sample need not be included when making comparisons to the CEMS 
results. When Method 29, Method 30B, or ASTM D6784-02 is used, 
conduct the RM test runs with paired or duplicate sampling systems 
and use the average of the vapor phase Hg concentrations measured by 
the two trains. When Method 30A is used, paired sampling systems are 
not required. If the RM and CEMS measure on a different moisture 
basis, data derived with Method 4 in appendix A-3 to this part must 
also be obtained during the RA test.
    8.4.3 Sampling Strategy for RM Tests. Conduct the RM tests in 
such a way that they will yield results representative of the 
emissions from the source and can be compared to the CEMS data. The 
RM and CEMS locations need not be immediately adjacent. Locate the 
RM measurement points in accordance with section 8.1.3 of 
Performance Specification 2 (PS 2) in this appendix. It is 
preferable to conduct moisture measurements (if needed) and Hg 
measurements simultaneously, although moisture measurements that are 
taken within an hour of the Hg measurements may be used to adjust 
the Hg concentrations to a consistent moisture basis. In order to 
correlate the CEMS and RM data properly, note the beginning and end 
of each RM test period for each paired RM run (including the exact 
time of day) on the CEMS chart recordings or other permanent record 
of output.
    8.4.4 Number and Length of RM Test Runs. Conduct a minimum of 
nine RM test runs. When Method 29, Method 30B, or ASTM D6784-02 is 
used, only test runs for which the paired RM trains meet the 
relative deviation criteria (RD) of this PS must be used in the RA 
calculations. In addition, for Method 29 and ASTM D6784-02, use a 
minimum sample time of 2 hours and for Methods 30A and 30B use a 
minimum sample time of 30 minutes.

    Note: More than nine sets of RM test runs may be performed. If 
this option is chosen, RM test run results may be excluded so long 
as the total number of RM test run results used to determine the 
CEMS RA is greater than or equal to nine. However, all data must be 
reported including the excluded test run data.

    8.4.5 Correlation of RM and CEMS Data. Correlate the CEMS and 
the RM test data as to the time and duration by first determining 
from the CEMS final output (the one used for reporting) the 
integrated average pollutant concentration for each RM test period. 
Consider system response time, if important, and confirm that the 
results are on a consistent moisture basis with the RM test. Then, 
compare each integrated CEMS value against the corresponding RM 
value. When Method 29, Method 30B, or ASTM D6784-02 is used, compare 
each CEMS value against the corresponding average of the paired RM 
values.
    8.4.6 Paired RM Outliers.
    8.4.6.1 When Method 29, Method 30B, or ASTM D6784-02 is used, 
outliers are identified through the determination of relative 
deviation (RD) of the paired RM tests. Data that do not meet the RD 
criteria must be flagged as a data quality problem and may not be 
used in the calculation of RA. The primary reason for performing 
paired RM sampling is to ensure the quality of the RM data. The 
percent RD of paired data is the parameter used to quantify data 
quality. Determine RD for paired data points as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR09SE10.011

Where:

Ca and Cb are the Hg concentration values 
determined from the paired samples.

    8.4.6.2 The minimum performance criteria for RM Hg data is that 
RD for any data pair must be <= 10 percent as long as the mean Hg 
concentration is greater than 1.0 [mu]g/m\3\. If the mean Hg 
concentration is less than or equal to 1.0 [mu]g/m\3\, the RD must 
be <= 20 percent or <= 0.2 [mu]g/m\3\ absolute difference. Pairs of 
RM data exceeding these RD criteria should be eliminated from the 
data set used to develop a Hg CEMS correlation or to assess CEMS RA.
    8.4.7 Calculate the mean difference between the RM and CEMS 
values in the units of micrograms per cubic meter ([micro]g/m\3\), 
the standard deviation, the confidence coefficient, and the RA 
according to the procedures in Section 12.0.
    8.5 Reporting. At a minimum (check with the appropriate EPA 
Regional Office, State or local Agency for additional requirements, 
if any), summarize in tabular form the results of the CD tests, the 
linearity tests, and the RA test or alternative RA procedure, as 
appropriate. Include all data sheets, calculations, charts (records 
of CEMS responses), reference gas concentration certifications, and 
any other information necessary to confirm that the CEMS meets the 
performance criteria.

[[Page 55040]]

9.0 Quality Control [Reserved]

10.0 Calibration and Standardization [Reserved]

11.0 Analytical Procedure

    For Method 30A, sample collection and analysis are concurrent. 
For the other RM, post-run sample analyses are performed. Refer to 
the RM employed for specific analytical procedures.

12.0 Calculations and Data Analysis

    Calculate and summarize the RA test results on a data sheet 
similar to Figure 12A-3.
    12.1 Consistent Basis. All data from the RM and CEMS must be 
compared in units of micrograms per standard cubic meter ([micro]g/
scm), on a consistent and identified moisture basis. The values must 
be standardized to 20[deg]C, 760 mm Hg.
    12.1.1 Moisture Correction (as applicable). If the RM and CEMS 
measure Hg on a different moisture basis, they will need to be 
corrected to a consistent basis. Use Equation 12A-4a to correct data 
from a wet basis to a dry basis.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR09SE10.012

    Use Equation 12A-4b to correct data from a dry basis to a wet 
basis.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR09SE10.013

Where:

Bws is the moisture content of the flue gas from Method 
4, expressed as a decimal fraction (e.g., for 8.0 percent 
H2O, Bws= 0.08).

    12.2 Arithmetic Mean. Calculate d, the arithmetic mean of the 
differences (di) of a data set as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR09SE10.014

Where:

n = Number of data points.

    12.3 Standard Deviation. Calculate the standard deviation, 
Sd, as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR09SE10.015

    12.3 Confidence Coefficient (CC). Calculate the 2.5 percent 
error confidence coefficient (one-tailed), CC, as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR09SE10.016

    12.4 Relative Accuracy. Calculate the RA of a set of data as 
follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR09SE10.017

Where:

[verbar]d[verbar] = Absolute value of the mean of the differences 
(from Equation 12A-5)
[verbar]CC[verbar] = Absolute value of the confidence coefficient 
(from Equation 12A-7)
RM = Average reference method value

13.0 Method Performance

    13.1 Measurement Error (ME). For Hg0, the ME must not 
exceed 5 percent of the span value at the zero-, mid-, and high-
level reference gas concentrations. For HgCl2, the ME 
must not exceed 10 percent of the span value at the zero-, mid-, and 
high-level reference gas concentrations.
    13.2 Calibration Drift (CD). The CD must not exceed 5 percent of 
the span value on any of the 7 days of the CD test.
    13.3 Relative Accuracy (RA). The RA of the CEMS must be no 
greater than 20 percent of the mean value of the RM test data in 
terms of units of [mu]g/scm. Alternatively, if the mean RM is less 
than 5.0 [mu]g/scm, the results are acceptable if the absolute value 
of the difference between the mean RM and CEMS values does not 
exceed 1.0 [mu]g/scm.

[[Page 55041]]

14.0 Pollution Prevention [Reserved]

15.0 Waste Management [Reserved]

16.0 Alternative Procedures [Reserved]

17.0 Bibliography

    17.1 40 CFR part 60, appendix B, ``Performance Specification 2--
Specifications and Test Procedures for SO2 and 
NOX Continuous Emission Monitoring Systems in Stationary 
Sources.''
    17.2 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, ``Method 29--Determination of 
Metals Emissions from Stationary Sources.''
    17.3 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, ``Method 30A--Determination of 
Total Vapor Phase Mercury Emissions From Stationary Sources 
(Instrumental Analyzer Procedure).
    17.4 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, ``Method 30B--Determination of 
Total Vapor Phase Mercury Emissions From Coal-Fired Combustion 
Sources Using Carbon Sorbent Traps.''
    17.5 ASTM Method D6784-02, ``Standard Test Method for Elemental, 
Oxidized, Particle-Bound and Total Mercury in Flue Gas Generated 
from Coal-Fired Stationary Sources (Ontario Hydro Method).''

18.0 Tables and Figures

                                                                  Table 12A-1--T-Values
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  n\a\                         t0.975                   n\a\                  t0.975                   n\a\                  t0.975
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2......................................             12.706   7........................              2.447   12.......................              2.201
3......................................              4.303   8........................              2.365   13.......................              2.179
4......................................              3.182   9........................              2.306   14.......................              2.160
5......................................              2.776   10.......................              2.262   15.......................              2.145
6......................................              2.571   11.......................              2.228   16.......................              2.131
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ The values in this table are already corrected for n-1 degrees of freedom. Use n equal to the number of individual values.

                                         Figure 12A-1--ME Determination
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    Reference gas  CEMS measured      Absolute
                              Date        Time      value ([mu]g/  value ([mu]g/     difference    ME (% of span
                                                        m\3\)          m\3\)        ([mu]g/m\3\)       value)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Zero level
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Average
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mid level
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Average
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
High level
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Average
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                               Figure 12A-2--7-Day Calibration Drift Determination
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     CEMS measured     Absolute
                                                    Reference gas        value        difference      CD (% of
                              Date        Time     value ([micro]g/   ([micro]g/      ([micro]g/     span value)
                                                        m\3\)            m\3\)           m\3\)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Zero level
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 55042]]

Upscale
(Mid or High)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                                                        Figure 12A-3--Relative Accuracy Test Data
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    RM value ([mu]g/    CEMS value       Difference      Run used? (Yes/
    Run No.            Date          Begin time        End time          m\3\)         ([mu]g/m\3\)     ([mu]g/m\3\)           No)             RD\1\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1                ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ................  ................  ..............
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2                ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ................  ................  ..............
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3                ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ................  ................  ..............
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4                ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ................  ................  ..............
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5                ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ................  ................  ..............
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6                ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ................  ................  ..............
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7                ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ................  ................  ..............
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8                ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ................  ................  ..............
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
9                ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ................  ................  ..............
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10               ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ................  ................  ..............
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
11               ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ................  ................  ..............
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
12               ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ................  ................  ..............
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average Values                                                      ...............  ...............  ................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arithmetic Mean Difference:
Standard Deviation:
Confidence Coefficient:
T-Value:
% Relative Accuracy:
[bond] (RM)avg - (CEMS)avg [bond] :
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Calculate the RD only if paired samples are taken using RM 30B, RM 29, or ASTM 6784-08. Express RD as a percentage or, for very low RM
  concentrations (<= 1.0 [micro]g/m\3\), as the absolute difference between Ca and Cb.

Performance Specification 12B--Specifications and Test Procedures for 
Monitoring Total Vapor Phase Mercury Emissions From Stationary Sources 
Using a Sorbent Trap Monitoring System

1.0 Scope and Application

    The purpose of Performance Specification 12B (PS 12B) is to 
establish performance benchmarks for, and to evaluate the 
acceptability of, sorbent trap monitoring systems used to monitor 
total vapor-phase mercury (Hg) emissions in stationary source flue 
gas streams. These monitoring systems involve continuous repetitive 
in-stack sampling using paired sorbent media traps with periodic 
analysis of the time-integrated samples. Persons using PS 12B should 
have a thorough working knowledge of Methods 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 30B 
in appendices A-1 through A-3 and A-8 to this part.
    1.1 Analyte. The analyte measured by these procedures and 
specifications is total vapor phase Hg in the flue gas, which 
represents the sum of elemental Hg (Hg\0\, CAS Number 7439-97-6) and 
gaseous forms of oxidized Hg (i.e., Hg\+2\) in mass concentration 
units of micrograms per dry standard cubic meter ([mu]g/dscm).

1.2 Applicability

    1.2.1 These procedures are only intended for use under 
relatively low particulate conditions (e.g., monitoring after all 
pollution control devices). This specification is for evaluating the 
acceptability of total

[[Page 55043]]

vapor phase Hg sorbent trap monitoring systems installed at 
stationary sources at the time of, or soon after, installation and 
whenever specified in the regulations. The Hg monitoring system must 
be capable of measuring the total concentration of vapor phase Hg 
(regardless of speciation), in units of [mu]g/dscm.
    1.2.2 This specification contains routine procedures and 
specifications designed to evaluate an installed sorbent trap 
monitoring system's performance over time; Procedure 5 of appendix F 
to this part contains additional procedures and specifications which 
may be required for long term operation. In addition, the source 
owner or operator is responsible to calibrate, maintain, and operate 
the monitoring system properly. The Administrator may require the 
owner or operator, under section 114 of the Clean Air Act, to 
conduct performance evaluations at other times besides the initial 
test to evaluate the CEMS performance. See Sec.  60.13(c) and 
63.8(e)(1).

2.0 Principle

    Known volumes of flue gas are continuously extracted from a 
stack or duct through paired, in-stack, pre-spiked sorbent media 
traps at appropriate nominal flow rates. The sorbent traps in the 
sampling system are periodically exchanged with new ones, prepared 
for analysis as needed, and analyzed by any technique that can meet 
the performance criteria. For quality-assurance purposes, a section 
of each sorbent trap is spiked with Hg\0\ prior to sampling. 
Following sampling, this section is analyzed separately and a 
specified minimum percentage of the spike must be recovered. Paired 
train sampling is required to determine method precision.

3.0 Definitions

    3.1 Sorbent Trap Monitoring System means the total equipment 
required for the collection of gaseous Hg samples using paired 
three-partition sorbent traps.
    3.2 Relative Accuracy Test Procedure means a test procedure 
consisting of at least nine runs, in which the accuracy of the total 
vapor phase Hg concentrations measured by the sorbent trap 
monitoring system is evaluated by comparison against concurrent 
measurements made with a reference method (RM). Relative accuracy 
tests repeated on a regular, on-going basis are referred to as 
relative accuracy test audits or RATAs.
    3.3 Relative Accuracy (RA) means the absolute mean difference 
between the pollutant (Hg) concentrations determined by the sorbent 
trap monitoring system and the values determined by the reference 
method (RM) plus the 2.5 percent error confidence coefficient of a 
series of tests divided by the mean of the RM tests. Alternatively, 
for low concentration sources, the RA may be expressed as the 
absolute value of the difference between the mean sorbent trap 
monitoring system and RM values.
    3.4 Relative Deviation (RD) means the absolute difference of the 
Hg concentration values obtained with a pair of sorbent traps 
divided by the sum of those concentrations, expressed as a 
percentage. RD is used to assess the precision of the sorbent trap 
monitoring system.
    3.5 Spike Recovery means the mass of Hg recovered from the 
spiked trap section, expressed as a percentage of the amount spiked. 
Spike recovery is used to assess sample matrix interference.

4.0 Interferences [Reserved]

5.0 Safety

    The procedures required under this performance specification may 
involve hazardous materials, operations, and equipment. This 
performance specification may not address all of the safety problems 
associated with these procedures. It is the responsibility of the 
user to establish appropriate safety and health practices and 
determine the applicable regulatory limitations prior to performing 
these procedures.

6.0 Equipment and Supplies

    6.1 Sorbent Trap Monitoring System Equipment Specifications.
    6.1.1 Monitoring System. The equipment described in Method 30B 
in appendix A-8 to this part must be used to continuously sample for 
Hg emissions, with the substitution of three-section traps in place 
of two-section traps, as described below. A typical sorbent trap 
monitoring system is shown in Figure 12B-1.
    6.1.2 Three-Section Sorbent Traps. The sorbent media used to 
collect Hg must be configured in traps with three distinct and 
identical segments or sections, connected in series, to be 
separately analyzed. Section 1 is designated for primary capture of 
gaseous Hg. Section 2 is designated as a backup section for 
determination of vapor-phase Hg breakthrough. Section 3 is 
designated for quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) purposes. 
Section 3 must be spiked with a known amount of gaseous Hg\0\ prior 
to sampling and later analyzed to determine the spike (and hence 
sample) recovery efficiency.

[[Page 55044]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR09SE10.005

    6.1.3 Gaseous Hg\0\ Sorbent Trap Spiking System. A known mass of 
gaseous Hg\0\ must be spiked onto section 3 of each sorbent trap 
prior to sampling. Any approach capable of quantitatively delivering 
known masses of Hg\0\ onto sorbent traps is acceptable. Several 
technologies or devices are available to meet this objective. Their 
practicality is a function of Hg mass spike levels. For low levels, 
NIST-certified or NIST-traceable gas generators or tanks may be 
suitable, but will likely require long preparation times. A more 
practical, alternative system, capable of delivering almost any mass 
required, employs NIST-certified or NIST-traceable Hg salt solutions 
(e.g., Hg(NO3)2). With this system, an aliquot 
of known volume and concentration is added to a reaction vessel 
containing a reducing agent (e.g., stannous chloride); the Hg salt 
solution is reduced to Hg\0\ and purged onto section 3 of the 
sorbent trap by using an impinger sparging system.
    6.1.4 Sample Analysis Equipment. Any analytical system capable 
of quantitatively recovering and quantifying total gaseous Hg from 
sorbent media is acceptable provided that the analysis can meet the 
performance criteria in Table 12B-1 in Section 9 of this performance 
specification. Candidate recovery techniques include leaching, 
digestion, and thermal desorption. Candidate analytical techniques 
include ultraviolet atomic fluorescence (UV AF); ultraviolet atomic 
absorption (UV AA), with and without gold trapping; and in-situ X-
ray fluorescence (XRF).

7.0 Reagents and Standards

    Only NIST-certified or NIST-traceable calibration gas standards 
and reagents must be used for the tests and procedures required 
under this performance specification. The sorbent media may be any 
collection material (e.g., carbon, chemically treated filter, etc.) 
capable of quantitatively capturing and recovering for subsequent 
analysis, all gaseous forms of Hg in the emissions from the intended 
application. Selection of the sorbent media must be based on the 
material's ability to achieve the performance criteria contained in 
this method as well as the sorbent's vapor phase Hg capture 
efficiency for the emissions matrix and the expected sampling 
duration at the test site.

8.0 Performance Specification Test Procedure

    8.1 Installation and Measurement Location Specifications.
    8.1.1 Selection of Monitoring Site. Sampling site information 
should be obtained in accordance with Method 1 in appendix A-1 to 
this part. Place the probe inlet at a point or location in the stack 
(or vent) downstream of all pollution control equipment and 
representative of the stack gas concentration of Hg. A location that 
has been shown to be free of stratification for Hg or, 
alternatively, SO2 is recommended. An estimation of the 
expected stack Hg concentration is required to establish a target 
sample flow rate, total gas sample volume, and the mass of Hg\0\ to 
be spiked onto section 3 of each sorbent trap.
    8.1.2 Pre-sampling Spiking of Sorbent Traps. Based on the 
estimated Hg concentration in the stack, the target sample rate and 
the target sampling duration, calculate the expected mass loading 
for section 1 of each sorbent trap (see Section 12.1 of this 
performance specification). The pre-sampling spike to be added to 
section 3 of each sorbent trap must be within  50 
percent of the expected section 1 mass loading. Spike section 3 of 
each sorbent trap at this level, as described in Section 6.1.3 of 
this performance specification. For each sorbent trap, keep a record 
of the mass of Hg\0\ added to section 3. This record must include, 
at a minimum, the identification number of the trap, the date and 
time of the spike, the name of the analyst performing the procedure, 
the method of spiking, the mass of Hg \0\ added to section 3 of the 
trap ([mu]g), and the supporting calculations.
    8.1.3 Pre-monitoring Leak Check. Perform a leak check with the 
sorbent traps in place in the sampling system. Draw a vacuum in each 
sample train. Adjust the vacuum in each sample train to ~15'' Hg. 
Use the gas flow meter to determine leak rate. The leakage rate must 
not exceed 4 percent of the target

[[Page 55045]]

sampling rate. Once the leak check passes this criterion, carefully 
release the vacuum in the sample train, then seal the sorbent trap 
inlet until the probe is ready for insertion into the stack or duct.
    8.1.4 Determination of Flue Gas Characteristics. Determine or 
measure the flue gas measurement environment characteristics (gas 
temperature, static pressure, gas velocity, stack moisture, etc.) in 
order to determine ancillary requirements such as probe heating 
requirements (if any), sampling rate, proportional sampling 
conditions, moisture management, etc.
    8.2 Monitoring.
    8.2.1 System Preparation and Initial Data Recording. Remove the 
plug from the end of each sorbent trap and store each plug in a 
clean sorbent trap storage container. Remove the stack or duct port 
cap and insert the probe(s) with the inlet(s) aligned perpendicular 
to the stack gas flow. Secure the probe(s) and ensure that no 
leakage occurs between the duct and environment. Record initial data 
including the sorbent trap ID, start time, starting gas flow meter 
readings, initial temperatures, set points, and any other 
appropriate information.
    8.2.2 Flow Rate Control. Set the initial sample flow rate at the 
target value from section 8.1.1 of this performance specification. 
Then, for every operating hour during the sampling period, record 
the date and time, the sample flow rate, the gas flow meter reading, 
the stack temperature (if needed), the flow meter temperatures (if 
needed), temperatures of heated equipment such as the vacuum lines 
and the probes (if heated), and the sampling system vacuum readings. 
Also, record the stack gas flow rate and the ratio of the stack gas 
flow rate to the sample flow rate. Adjust the sampling flow rate to 
maintain proportional sampling, i.e., keep the ratio of the stack 
gas flow rate to sample flow rate within  25 percent of 
the reference ratio from the first hour of the data collection 
period (see section 12.2 of this performance specification). The 
sample flow rate through a sorbent trap monitoring system during any 
hour (or portion of an hour) that the unit is not operating must be 
zero.
    8.2.3 Stack Gas Moisture Determination. If data from the sorbent 
trap monitoring system will be used to calculate Hg mass emissions, 
determine the stack gas moisture content using a continuous moisture 
monitoring system or other means acceptable to the Administrator, 
such as the ones described in Sec.  75.11(b) of this chapter. 
Alternatively, for combustion of coal, wood, or natural gas in 
boilers only, a default moisture percentage from Sec.  75.11(b) of 
this chapter may be used.
    8.2.4 Essential Operating Data. Obtain and record any essential 
operating data for the facility during the test period, e.g., the 
barometric pressure for correcting the sample volume measured by a 
dry gas meter to standard conditions. At the end of the data 
collection period, record the final gas flow meter reading and the 
final values of all other essential parameters.
    8.2.5 Post-monitoring Leak Check. When the monitoring period is 
completed, turn off the sample pump, remove the probe/sorbent trap 
from the port and carefully re-plug the end of each sorbent trap. 
Perform a leak check with the sorbent traps in place, at the maximum 
vacuum reached during the monitoring period. Use the same general 
approach described in section 8.1.3 of this performance 
specification. Record the leakage rate and vacuum. The leakage rate 
must not exceed 4 percent of the average sampling rate for the 
monitoring period. Following the leak check, carefully release the 
vacuum in the sample train.
    8.2.6 Sample Recovery. Recover each sampled sorbent trap by 
removing it from the probe and seal both ends. Wipe any deposited 
material from the outside of the sorbent trap. Place the sorbent 
trap into an appropriate sample storage container and store/preserve 
it in an appropriate manner.
    8.2.7 Sample Preservation, Storage, and Transport. While the 
performance criteria of this approach provide for verification of 
appropriate sample handling, it is still important that the user 
consider, determine, and plan for suitable sample preservation, 
storage, transport, and holding times for these measurements. 
Therefore, procedures in recognized voluntary consensus standards 
such as those in ASTM D6911-03 ``Standard Guide for Packaging and 
Shipping Environmental Samples for Laboratory Analysis'' should be 
followed for all samples.
    8.2.8 Sample Custody. Proper procedures and documentation for 
sample chain of custody are critical to ensuring data integrity. 
Chain of custody procedures in recognized voluntary consensus 
standards such as those in ASTM D4840-99 ``Standard Guide for Sample 
Chain-of-Custody Procedures'' should be followed for all samples 
(including field samples and blanks).
    8.3 Relative Accuracy (RA) Test Procedure
    8.3.1 For the initial certification of a sorbent trap monitoring 
system, a RA Test is required. Follow the basic RA test procedures 
and calculation methodology described in Sections 8.4.1 through 
8.4.7 and 12.4 of PS 12A in this appendix, replacing the term 
``CEMS'' with ``sorbent trap monitoring system''.
    8.3.2 Special Considerations. The type of sorbent material used 
in the traps must be the same as that used for daily operation of 
the monitoring system; however, the size of the traps used for the 
RA test may be smaller than the traps used for daily operation of 
the system. Spike the third section of each sorbent trap with 
elemental Hg, as described in section 8.1.2 of this performance 
specification. Install a new pair of sorbent traps prior to each 
test run. For each run, the sorbent trap data must be validated 
according to the quality assurance criteria in Table 12B-1 in 
Section 9.0, below.
    8.3.3 Acceptance Criteria. The RA of the sorbent trap monitoring 
system must be no greater than 20 percent of the mean value of the 
RM test data in terms of units of [mu]g/scm. Alternatively, if the 
RM concentration is less than or equal to 5.0 [mu]g/scm, then the RA 
results are acceptable if the absolute difference between the means 
of the RM and sorbent trap monitoring system values does not exceed 
1.0 [mu]g/scm.

9.0 Quality Assurance and Quality Control (QA/QC)

    Table 12B-1 summarizes the QA/QC performance criteria that are 
used to validate the Hg emissions data from a sorbent trap 
monitoring system. Failure to achieve these performance criteria 
will result in invalidation of Hg emissions data, except where 
otherwise noted.

           Table 12B-1--Qa/QC Criteria for Sorbent Trap Monitoring System Operation and Certification
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
     QA/QC test or specification         Acceptance criteria           Frequency         Consequences if not met
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pre-monitoring leak check............  <=4% of target sampling  Prior to monitoring....  Monitoring must not
                                        rate.                                             commence until the
                                                                                          leak check is passed.
Post-monitoring leak check...........  <=4% of average          After monitoring.......  Invalidate the data
                                        sampling rate.                                    from the paired traps
                                                                                          or, if certain
                                                                                          conditions are met,
                                                                                          report adjusted data
                                                                                          from a single trap
                                                                                          (see Section
                                                                                          12.7.1.3).
Ratio of stack gas flow rate to        Hourly ratio may not     Every hour throughout    Invalidate the data
 sample flow rate.                      deviate from the         monitoring period.       from the paired traps
                                        reference ratio by                                or, if certain
                                        more than                             conditions are met,
                                        25%..                                             report adjusted data
                                                                                          from a single trap
                                                                                          (see Section
                                                                                          12.7.1.3).
Sorbent trap section 2 breakthrough..  <=5% of Section 1 Hg     Every sample...........  Invalidate the data
                                        mass.                                             from the paired traps
                                                                                          or, if certain
                                                                                          conditions are met,
                                                                                          report adjusted data
                                                                                          from a single trap
                                                                                          (see Section
                                                                                          12.7.1.3).

[[Page 55046]]

Paired sorbent trap agreement........  <=10% Relative           Every sample...........  Either invalidate the
                                        Deviation (RD) if the                             data from the paired
                                        average concentration                             traps or report the
                                        is > 1.0 [mu]g/m\3\.                              results from the trap
                                       <=20% RD if the average                            with the higher Hg
                                        concentration is <=                               concentration.
                                        1.0 [mu]g/m\3\.
                                       Results also acceptable
                                        if absolute difference
                                        between concentrations
                                        from paired traps is
                                        <= 0.03 [mu]g/m\3\.
Spike Recovery Study.................  Average recovery         Prior to analyzing       Field samples must not
                                        between 85% and 115%     field samples and        be analyzed until the
                                        for each of the 3        prior to use of new      percent recovery
                                        spike concentration      sorbent media.           criteria has been met.
                                        levels.
Multipoint analyzer calibration......  Each analyzer reading    On the day of analysis,  Recalibrate until
                                        within       before analyzing any     successful
                                        10% of true value and    samples.
                                        r\2\>=0.99.
Analysis of independent calibration    Within  10%  Following daily          Recalibrate and repeat
 standard..                             of true value.           calibration, prior to    independent standard
                                                                 analyzing field          analysis until
                                                                 samples.                 successful.
Spike recovery from section 3 of both  75-125% of spike amount  Every sample...........  Invalidate the data
 sorbent traps.                                                                           from the paired traps
                                                                                          or, if certain
                                                                                          conditions are met,
                                                                                          report adjusted data
                                                                                          from a single trap
                                                                                          (see Section
                                                                                          12.7.1.3).
Relative Accuracy....................  RA <=20.0% of RM mean    RA specification must    Data from the system
                                        value; or if RM mean     be met for initial       are invalid until a RA
                                        value <=5.0 [mu]g/scm,   certification.           test is passed.
                                        absolute difference
                                        between RM and sorbent
                                        trap monitoring system
                                        mean values <=1.0
                                        [mu]g/scm.
Gas flow meter calibration...........  An initial calibration   At 3 settings prior to   Recalibrate meter at 3
                                        factor (Y) has been      initial use and at       settings to determine
                                        determined at 3          least quarterly at one   a new value of Y.
                                        settings; for mass       setting thereafter.
                                        flow meters, initial
                                        calibration with stack
                                        gas has been
                                        performed. For
                                        subsequent
                                        calibrations, Y within
                                         5% of
                                        average value from the
                                        most recent 3-point
                                        calibration.
Temperature sensor calibration.......  Absolute temperature     Prior to initial use     Recalibrate; sensor may
                                        measured by sensor       and at least quarterly   not be used until
                                        within       thereafter.              specification is met.
                                        1.5% of a reference
                                        sensor.
Barometer calibration................  Absolute pressure        Prior to initial use     Recalibrate; instrument
                                        measured by instrument   and at least quarterly   may not be used until
                                        within  10   thereafter.              specification is met.
                                        mm Hg of reading with
                                        a NIST-traceable
                                        barometer.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

10.0 Calibration and Standardization

    10.1 Gaseous and Liquid Standards. Only NIST certified or NIST-
traceable calibration standards (i.e., calibration gases, solutions, 
etc.) must be used for the spiking and analytical procedures in this 
performance specification.
    10.2 Gas Flow Meter Calibration. The manufacturer or supplier of 
the gas flow meter should perform all necessary set-up, testing, 
programming, etc., and should provide the end user with any 
necessary instructions, to ensure that the meter will give an 
accurate readout of dry gas volume in standard cubic meters for the 
particular field application.
    10.2.1 Initial Calibration. Prior to its initial use, a 
calibration of the flow meter must be performed. The initial 
calibration may be done by the manufacturer, by the equipment 
supplier, or by the end user. If the flow meter is volumetric in 
nature (e.g., a dry gas meter), the manufacturer, equipment 
supplier, or end user may perform a direct volumetric calibration 
using any gas. For a mass flow meter, the manufacturer, equipment 
supplier, or end user may calibrate the meter using a bottled gas 
mixture containing 12  0.5% CO2, 7  0.5% O2, and balance N2, or these same 
gases in proportions more representative of the expected stack gas 
composition. Mass flow meters may also be initially calibrated on-
site, using actual stack gas.
    10.2.1.1 Initial Calibration Procedures. Determine an average 
calibration factor (Y) for the gas flow meter, by calibrating it at 
three sample flow rate settings covering the range of sample flow 
rates at which the sorbent trap monitoring system typically 
operates. Either the procedures in section 10.3.1 of Method 5 in 
appendix A-3 to this part or the procedures in section 16 of Method 
5 in appendix A-3 to this part may be followed. If a dry gas meter 
is being calibrated, use at least five revolutions of the meter at 
each flow rate.
    10.2.1.2 Alternative Initial Calibration Procedures. 
Alternatively, the initial calibration of the gas flow meter may be 
performed using a reference gas flow meter (RGFM). The RGFM may be 
either: (1) A wet test meter calibrated according to section 10.3.1 
of Method 5 in appendix A-3 to this part; (2) A gas flow metering 
device calibrated at multiple flow rates using the procedures in 
section 16 of Method 5 in appendix A-3 to this part; or (3) A NIST-
traceable calibration device capable of measuring volumetric flow to 
an accuracy of 1 percent. To calibrate the gas flow meter using the 
RGFM, proceed as follows: While the sorbent trap monitoring system 
is sampling the actual stack gas or a compressed gas mixture that 
simulates the stack gas composition (as applicable), connect the 
RGFM to the discharge of the system. Care should be taken to 
minimize the dead volume between the sample flow meter being tested 
and the RGFM. Concurrently measure dry gas volume with the RGFM and 
the flow meter being calibrated for a minimum of 10 minutes at each 
of three flow rates covering the typical range of operation of the 
sorbent trap monitoring system. For each 10-minute (or longer) data 
collection period, record the total sample volume, in units of dry 
standard cubic meters (dscm),

[[Page 55047]]

measured by the RGFM and the gas flow meter being tested.
    10.2.1.3 Initial Calibration Factor. Calculate an individual 
calibration factor Yi at each tested flow rate from section 10.2.1.1 
or 10.2.1.2 of this performance specification (as applicable), by 
taking the ratio of the reference sample volume to the sample volume 
recorded by the gas flow meter. Average the three Yi values, to 
determine Y, the calibration factor for the flow meter. Each of the 
three individual values of Yi must be within 0.02 of Y. 
Except as otherwise provided in sections 10.2.1.4 and 10.2.1.5 of 
this performance specification, use the average Y value from the 
three level calibration to adjust all subsequent gas volume 
measurements made with the gas flow meter.
    10.2.2 Initial On-Site Calibration Check. For a mass flow meter 
that was initially calibrated using a compressed gas mixture, an on-
site calibration check must be performed before using the flow meter 
to provide data. While sampling stack gas, check the calibration of 
the flow meter at one intermediate flow rate typical of normal 
operation of the monitoring system. Follow the basic procedures in 
section 10.2.1.1 or 10.2.1.2 of this performance specification. If 
the onsite calibration check shows that the value of Yi, the 
calibration factor at the tested flow rate, differs by more than 5 
percent from the value of Y obtained in the initial calibration of 
the meter, repeat the full 3-level calibration of the meter using 
stack gas to determine a new value of Y, and apply the new Y value 
to all subsequent gas volume measurements made with the gas flow 
meter.
    10.2.3 Ongoing Quality Control. Recalibrate the gas flow meter 
quarterly at one intermediate flow rate setting representative of 
normal operation of the monitoring system. Follow the basic 
procedures in section 10.2.1.1 or 10.2.1.2 of this performance 
specification. If a quarterly recalibration shows that the value of 
Yi, the calibration factor at the tested flow rate, differs from the 
current value of Y by more than 5 percent, repeat the full 3-level 
calibration of the meter to determine a new value of Y, and apply 
the new Y value to all subsequent gas volume measurements made with 
the gas flow meter.
    10.3 Calibration of Thermocouples and Other Temperature Sensors. 
Use the procedures and criteria in section 10.3 of Method 2 in 
appendix A-1 to this part to calibrate in-stack temperature sensors 
and thermocouples. Calibrations must be performed prior to initial 
use and at least quarterly thereafter. At each calibration point, 
the absolute temperature measured by the temperature sensor must 
agree to within 1.5 percent of the temperature measured 
with the reference sensor, otherwise the sensor may not continue to 
be used.
    10.4 Barometer Calibration. Calibrate the barometer against 
another barometer that has a NIST-traceable calibration. This 
calibration must be performed prior to initial use and at least 
quarterly thereafter. At each calibration point, the absolute 
pressure measured by the barometer must agree to within 10 mm Hg of the pressure measured by the NIST-traceable 
barometer, otherwise the barometer may not continue to be used.
    10.5 Calibration of Other Sensors and Gauges. Calibrate all 
other sensors and gauges according to the procedures specified by 
the instrument manufacturer(s).
    10.6 Analytical System Calibration. See section 11.1 of this 
performance specification.

11.0 Analytical Procedures

    The analysis of the Hg samples may be conducted using any 
instrument or technology capable of quantifying total Hg from the 
sorbent media and meeting the performance criteria in section 9 of 
this performance specification.
    11.1 Analyzer System Calibration. Perform a multipoint 
calibration of the analyzer at three or more upscale points over the 
desired quantitative range (multiple calibration ranges must be 
calibrated, if necessary). The field samples analyzed must fall 
within a calibrated, quantitative range and meet the necessary 
performance criteria. For samples that are suitable for aliquotting, 
a series of dilutions may be needed to ensure that the samples fall 
within a calibrated range. However, for sorbent media samples that 
are consumed during analysis (e.g., thermal desorption techniques), 
extra care must be taken to ensure that the analytical system is 
appropriately calibrated prior to sample analysis. The calibration 
curve range(s) should be determined based on the anticipated level 
of Hg mass on the sorbent media. Knowledge of estimated stack Hg 
concentrations and total sample volume may be required prior to 
analysis. The calibration curve for use with the various analytical 
techniques (e.g., UV AA, UV AF, and XRF) can be generated by 
directly introducing standard solutions into the analyzer or by 
spiking the standards onto the sorbent media and then introducing 
into the analyzer after preparing the sorbent/standard according to 
the particular analytical technique. For each calibration curve, the 
value of the square of the linear correlation coefficient, i.e., 
r\2\, must be >= 0.99, and the analyzer response must be within 
10 percent of reference value at each upscale 
calibration point. Calibrations must be performed on the day of the 
analysis, before analyzing any of the samples. Following 
calibration, an independently prepared standard (not from same 
calibration stock solution) must be analyzed. The measured value of 
the independently prepared standard must be within 10 
percent of the expected value.
    11.2 Sample Preparation. Carefully separate the three sections 
of each sorbent trap. Combine for analysis all materials associated 
with each section, i.e., any supporting substrate that the sample 
gas passes through prior to entering a media section (e.g., glass 
wool, polyurethane foam, etc.) must be analyzed with that segment.
    11.3 Spike Recovery Study. Before analyzing any field samples, 
the laboratory must demonstrate the ability to recover and quantify 
Hg from the sorbent media by performing the following spike recovery 
study for sorbent media traps spiked with elemental mercury. Using 
the procedures described in sections 6.2 and 12.1 of this 
performance specification, spike the third section of nine sorbent 
traps with gaseous Hg\0\, i.e., three traps at each of three 
different mass loadings, representing the range of masses 
anticipated in the field samples. This will yield a 3 x 3 sample 
matrix. Prepare and analyze the third section of each spiked trap, 
using the techniques that will be used to prepare and analyze the 
field samples. The average recovery for each spike concentration 
must be between 85 and 115 percent. If multiple types of sorbent 
media are to be analyzed, a separate spike recovery study is 
required for each sorbent material. If multiple ranges are 
calibrated, a separate spike recovery study is required for each 
range.
    11.4 Field Sample Analyses. Analyze the sorbent trap samples 
following the same procedures that were used for conducting the 
spike recovery study. The three sections of each sorbent trap must 
be analyzed separately (i.e., section 1, then section 2, then 
section 3). Quantify the total mass of Hg for each section based on 
analytical system response and the calibration curve from section 
11.1 of this performance specification. Determine the spike recovery 
from sorbent trap section 3. The spike recovery must be no less than 
75 percent and no greater than 125 percent. To report the final Hg 
mass for each trap, add together the Hg masses collected in trap 
sections 1 and 2.

12.0 Calculations, Data Reduction, and Data Analysis

    12.1 Calculation of Pre-Sampling Spiking Level. Determine 
sorbent trap section 3 spiking level using estimates of the stack Hg 
concentration, the target sample flow rate, and the expected 
monitoring period. Calculate Mexp, the expected Hg mass 
that will be collected in section 1 of the trap, using Equation 12B-
1. The pre-sampling spike must be within 50 percent of 
this mass.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR09SE10.018

Where:

Mexp = Expected sample mass ([mu]g)
Qs = Sample flow rate (L/min)
ts = Expected monitoring period (min)
Cest = Estimated Hg concentration in stack gas ([micro]g/
m\3\)
10-3 = Conversion factor (m\3\/L)

    Example calculation: For an estimated stack Hg concentration of 
5 [mu]g/m\3\, a target sample rate of 0.30 L/min, and a monitoring 
period of 5 days:

[[Page 55048]]

Mexp = (0.30 L/min)(1440 min/day)(5 days)(10-3 m\3\/L)(5 
[mu]g/m\3\) = 10.8 [mu]g

    A pre-sampling spike of 10.8 [mu]g 50 percent is, 
therefore, appropriate.
    12.2 Calculations for Flow-Proportional Sampling. For the first 
hour of the data collection period, determine the reference ratio of 
the stack gas volumetric flow rate to the sample flow rate, as 
follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR09SE10.019

Where:

Rref = Reference ratio of hourly stack gas flow rate to 
hourly sample flow rate
Qref = Average stack gas volumetric flow rate for first 
hour of collection period (scfh)
Fref = Average sample flow rate for first hour of the 
collection period, in appropriate units (e.g., liters/min, cc/min, 
dscm/min)
K = Power of ten multiplier, to keep the value of Rref 
between 1 and 100. The appropriate K value will depend on the 
selected units of measure for the sample flow rate.

    Then, for each subsequent hour of the data collection period, 
calculate ratio of the stack gas flow rate to the sample flow rate 
using Equation 12B-3:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR09SE10.020

Where:

Rh = Ratio of hourly stack gas flow rate to hourly sample 
flow rate
Qh = Average stack gas volumetric flow rate for the hour 
(scfh)
Fh = Average sample flow rate for the hour, in 
appropriate units (e.g., liters/min, cc/min, dscm/min)
K = Power of ten multiplier, to keep the value of Rh 
between 1 and 100. The appropriate K value will depend on the 
selected units of measure for the sample flow rate and the range of 
expected stack gas flow rates.

    Maintain the value of Rh within 25 
percent of Rref throughout the data collection period.
    12.3 Calculation of Spike Recovery. Calculate the percent 
recovery of each section 3 spike, as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR09SE10.021

Where:

%R = Percentage recovery of the pre-sampling spike
M3 = Mass of Hg recovered from section 3 of the sorbent 
trap, ([mu]g)
Ms = Calculated Hg mass of the pre-sampling spike, from 
section 8.1.2 of this performance specification, ([mu]g)

    12.4 Calculation of Breakthrough. Calculate the percent 
breakthrough to the second section of the sorbent trap, as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR09SE10.022

Where:

%B = Percent breakthrough
M2 = Mass of Hg recovered from section 2 of the sorbent 
trap, ([mu]g)
M1 = Mass of Hg recovered from section 1 of the sorbent 
trap, ([mu]g)

    12.5 Calculation of Hg Concentration. Calculate the Hg 
concentration for each sorbent trap, using the following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR09SE10.023

Where:

C = Concentration of Hg for the collection period, ([mu]g/dscm)
M* = Total mass of Hg recovered from sections 1 and 2 of the sorbent 
trap, ([mu]g)
Vt = Total volume of dry gas metered during the 
collection period, (dscm). For the purposes of this performance 
specification, standard temperature and pressure are defined as 20 
[deg]C and 760 mm Hg, respectively.

    12.6 Calculation of Paired Trap Agreement. Calculate the 
relative deviation (RD) between the Hg concentrations measured with 
the paired sorbent traps:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR09SE10.024

Where:

RD = Relative deviation between the Hg concentrations from traps 
``a'' and ``b'' (percent)
Ca = Concentration of Hg for the collection period, for 
sorbent trap ``a'' ([mu]g/dscm)
Cb = Concentration of Hg for the collection period, for 
sorbent trap ``b'' ([mu]g/dscm)

    12.7 Calculation of Relative Accuracy. Calculate the relative 
accuracy as described in Section 12.4 of PS 12A in this appendix.
    12.8 Data Reduction. Typical monitoring periods for normal, day-
to-day operation of a sorbent trap monitoring system range from 
about 24 hours to 168 hours. For the required RA tests of the 
system, smaller sorbent traps are often used, and the ``monitoring 
period'' or time per run is considerably shorter (e.g., 1 hour or 
less). Generally speaking, to validate sorbent trap monitoring 
system data, the acceptance criteria for the following five QC 
specifications in Table 12B-1 above must be met for both traps: (a) 
the post-monitoring leak check; (b) the ratio of stack gas flow rate 
to sample flow rate; (c) section 2 breakthrough; (d) paired trap 
agreement; and (e) section 3 spike recovery.
    12.8.1 For routine day-to-day operation of a sorbent trap 
monitoring system, when both traps meet the acceptance criteria for 
all five QC specifications, the two measured Hg concentrations must 
be averaged arithmetically and the average value must be applied to 
each hour of the data collection period.
    12.8.2 To validate a RA test run, both traps must meet the 
acceptance criteria for all five QC specifications. However, as 
specified in Section 12.8.3 below, for routine day-to-day operation 
of the monitoring system, a monitoring period may, in certain 
instances, be validated based on the results from one trap.
    12.8.3 For the routine, day-to-day operation of the monitoring 
system, when one of the two sorbent trap samples or sampling systems 
either: (a) Fails the post-monitoring leak check; or (b) has 
excessive section 2 breakthrough; or (c) fails to maintain the 
proper stack flow-to-sample flow ratio; or (d) fails to achieve the 
required section 3 spike recovery, provided that the other trap 
meets the acceptance criteria for all four of these QC 
specifications, the Hg concentration measured by the valid trap may 
be multiplied by a factor of 1.111 and then used for reporting 
purposes. Further, if both traps meet the acceptance criteria for 
all four of these QC specifications, but the acceptance criterion 
for paired trap agreement is not met, the owner or operator may 
report the higher of the two Hg concentrations measured by the 
traps, in lieu of invalidating the data from the paired traps.
    12.8.4 Whenever the data from a pair of sorbent traps must be 
invalidated and no quality-assured data from a certified backup Hg 
monitoring system or Hg reference method are available to cover the 
hours in the data collection period, treat those hours in the manner 
specified in the applicable regulation (i.e., use missing data 
substitution procedures or count the hours as monitoring system down 
time, as appropriate).

13.0 Monitoring System Performance

    These monitoring criteria and procedures have been successfully 
applied to coal-fired utility boilers (including units with post-
combustion emission controls), having vapor-phase Hg concentrations 
ranging from 0.03 [mu]g/dscm to approximately 100 [mu]g/dscm.

14.0 Pollution Prevention [Reserved]

15.0 Waste Management [Reserved]

16.0 Alternative Procedures [Reserved]

17.0 Bibliography

    17.1 40 CFR Part 60, Appendix B, ``Performance Specification 2--
Specifications and Test Procedures for SO2 and 
NOX Continuous Emission Monitoring Systems in Stationary 
Sources.''
    17.2 40 CFR Part 60, Appendix B, ``Performance Specification 
12A--Specifications and Test Procedures for Total Vapor Phase 
Mercury Continuous Emission Monitoring Systems in Stationary 
Sources.''

Appendix F--[Amended]

0
8. Appendix F to 40 CFR part 60 is amended to add and reserve 
Procedures 3 and 4, and add Procedure 5, to read as follows:

Appendix F to Part 60--Quality Assurance Procedures

* * * * *

[[Page 55049]]

Procedure 3. [Reserved]

Procedure 4. [Reserved]

Procedure 5. Quality Assurance Requirements for Vapor Phase Mercury 
Continuous Emissions Monitoring Systems and Sorbent Trap Monitoring 
Systems Used for Compliance Determination at Stationary Sources

1.0 Applicability and Principle

    1.1 Applicability. The purpose of Procedure 5 is to establish 
the minimum requirements for evaluating the effectiveness of quality 
control (QC) and quality assurance (QA) procedures as well as the 
quality of data produced by vapor phase mercury (Hg) continuous 
emissions monitoring systems (CEMS) and sorbent trap monitoring 
systems. Procedure 5 applies to Hg CEMS and sorbent trap monitoring 
systems used for continuously determining compliance with emission 
standards or operating permit limits as specified in an applicable 
regulation or permit. Other QA/QC procedures may apply to other 
auxiliary monitoring equipment that may be needed to determine Hg 
emissions in the units of measure specified in an applicable permit 
or regulation.
    Procedure 5 covers the measurement of Hg emissions as defined in 
Performance Specification 12A (PS 12A) and Performance Specification 
12B (PS 12B) in appendix B to this part, i.e., total vapor phase Hg 
representing the sum of the elemental (Hg[deg], CAS Number 7439-97-
6) and oxidized (Hg+2) forms of gaseous Hg.
    Procedure 5 specifies the minimum requirements for controlling 
and assessing the quality of Hg CEMS and sorbent trap monitoring 
system data submitted to EPA or a delegated permitting authority. 
You must meet these minimum requirements if you are responsible for 
one or more Hg CEMS or sorbent trap monitoring systems used for 
compliance monitoring. We encourage you to develop and implement a 
more extensive QA program or to continue such programs where they 
already exist.
    You must comply with the basic requirements of Procedure 5 
immediately following successful completion of the initial 
performance test described in PS 12A or PS 12B in appendix B to this 
part (as applicable).
    1.2 Principle. The QA procedures consist of two distinct and 
equally important functions. One function is the assessment of the 
quality of the Hg CEMS or sorbent trap monitoring system data by 
estimating accuracy. The other function is the control and 
improvement of the quality of the CEMS or sorbent trap monitoring 
system data by implementing QC policies and corrective actions. 
These two functions form a control loop: When the assessment 
function indicates that the data quality is inadequate, the quality 
control effort must be increased until the data quality is 
acceptable. In order to provide uniformity in the assessment and 
reporting of data quality, this procedure explicitly specifies 
assessment methods for calibration drift, system integrity, and 
accuracy. Several of the procedures are based on those of PS 12A and 
PS 12B in appendix B to this part. Because the control and 
corrective action function encompasses a variety of policies, 
specifications, standards, and corrective measures, this procedure 
treats QC requirements in general terms to allow each source owner 
or operator to develop a QC system that is most effective and 
efficient for the circumstances.

2.0 Definitions

    2.1 Mercury Continuous Emission Monitoring System (Hg CEMS) 
means the equipment required for the determination of the total 
vapor phase Hg concentration in the stack effluent. The Hg CEMS 
consists of the following major subsystems:
    2.1.1 Sample Interface means that portion of the CEMS used for 
one or more of the following: sample acquisition, sample transport, 
sample conditioning, and protection of the monitor from the effects 
of the stack effluent.
    2.1.2 Hg Analyzer means that portion of the Hg CEMS that 
measures the total vapor phase Hg concentration and generates a 
proportional output.
    2.1.3 Data Recorder means that portion of the CEMS that provides 
a permanent electronic record of the analyzer output. The data 
recorder may provide automatic data reduction and CEMS control 
capabilities.
    2.2 Sorbent Trap Monitoring System means the total equipment 
required for the collection of gaseous Hg samples using paired 
three-partition sorbent traps as described in PS 12B in appendix B 
to this part.
    2.3 Span Value means the measurement range as specified for the 
affected source category in the applicable regulation and/or 
monitoring performance specification.
    2.4 Zero, Mid-Level, and High Level Values means the reference 
gas concentrations used for calibration drift assessments and system 
integrity checks on a Hg CEMS, expressed as percentages of the span 
value (see section 7.1 of PS 12A in appendix B to this part).
    2.5 Calibration Drift (CD) means the absolute value of the 
difference between the CEMS output response and either the upscale 
Hg reference gas or the zero-level Hg reference gas, expressed as a 
percentage of the span value, when the entire CEMS, including the 
sampling interface, is challenged after a stated period of operation 
during which no unscheduled maintenance, repair, or adjustment took 
place.
    2.6 System Integrity (SI) Check means a test procedure assessing 
transport and measurement of oxidized Hg by a Hg CEMS. In 
particular, system integrity is expressed as the absolute value of 
the difference between the CEMS output response and the reference 
value of either a mid- or high-level mercuric chloride 
(HgCl2) reference gas, as a percentage of span, when the 
entire CEMS, including the sampling interface, is challenged.
    2.7 Relative Accuracy (RA) means the absolute mean difference 
between the pollutant concentrations determined by a continuous 
monitoring system (e.g., Hg CEMS or sorbent trap monitoring system) 
and the values determined by a reference method (RM) plus the 2.5 
percent error confidence coefficient of a series of tests divided by 
the mean of the RM tests. Alternatively, for sources with an average 
RM concentration less than 5.0 micrograms per standard cubic meter 
([mu]g/scm), the RA may be expressed as the absolute value of the 
difference between the mean CEMS and RM values.
    2.8 Relative Accuracy Test Audit (RATA) means an audit test 
procedure consisting of at least nine runs, in which the accuracy of 
the total vapor phase Hg concentrations measured by a CEMS or 
sorbent trap monitoring system is evaluated by comparison against 
concurrent measurements made with a reference test method.
    2.9 Quarterly Gas Audit (QGA) means an audit procedure in which 
the accuracy of the total vapor phase Hg concentrations measured by 
a CEMS is evaluated by challenging the CEMS with a zero and two 
upscale reference gases.

3.0 QC Requirements

    3.1 Each source owner or operator must develop and implement a 
QC program. At a minimum, each QC program must include written 
procedures which should describe in detail, complete, step-by-step 
procedures and operations for each of the following activities (as 
applicable):
    (a) Calibration drift (CD) checks of Hg CEMS.
    (b) CD determination and adjustment of Hg CEMS.
    (c) Weekly system integrity check procedures for Hg CEMS.
    (d) Routine operation, maintenance, and QA/QC procedures for 
sorbent trap monitoring systems.
    (e) Routine and preventive maintenance procedures for Hg CEMS 
(including spare parts inventory).
    (f) Data recording, calculations, and reporting.
    (g) Accuracy audit procedures for Hg CEMS and sorbent trap 
monitoring systems including sampling and analysis methods.
    (h) Program of corrective action for malfunctioning Hg CEMS and 
sorbent trap monitoring systems.
    These written procedures must be kept on record and available 
for inspection by the responsible enforcement agency. Also, as noted 
in Section 5.2.4, below, whenever excessive inaccuracies of a Hg 
CEMS occur for two consecutive quarters, the source owner or 
operator must revise the current written procedures or modify or 
replace the CEMS or sorbent trap monitoring system to correct the 
deficiency causing the excessive inaccuracies.

4.0 Calibration Drift (CD) Assessment

    4.1 CD Requirement. As described in 40 CFR 60.13(d) and 63.8(c), 
source owners and operators of Hg CEMS must check, record, and 
quantify the CD at two concentration values at least once daily 
(approximately 24 hours) in accordance with the method prescribed by 
the manufacturer. The Hg CEMS calibration must, as minimum, be 
adjusted whenever the daily zero (or low-level) CD or the daily 
high-level CD exceeds two times the limits of the applicable PS in 
appendix B of this part.
    4.2 Recording Requirement for Automatic CD Adjusting CEMS. CEMS 
that

[[Page 55050]]

automatically adjust the data to the corrected calibration values 
(e.g., microprocessor control) must either be programmed to record 
the unadjusted concentration measured in the CD prior to resetting 
the calibration, if performed, or to record the amount of 
adjustment.
    4.3 Criteria for Excessive CD. If either the zero (or low-level) 
or high-level CD result exceeds twice the applicable drift 
specification in section 13.2 of PS 12A in appendix B to this part 
for five, consecutive, daily periods, the CEMS is out-of-control. If 
either the zero (or low-level) or high-level CD result exceeds four 
times the applicable drift specification in PS 12A during any CD 
check, the CEMS is out-of-control. If the CEMS is out-of-control, 
take necessary corrective action. Following corrective action, 
repeat the CD checks.
    4.3.1 Out-Of-Control Period Definition. The beginning of the 
out-of-control period is the time corresponding to the completion of 
the fifth, consecutive, daily CD check with a CD in excess of two 
times the allowable limit, or the time corresponding to the 
completion of the daily CD check preceding the daily CD check that 
results in a CD in excess of four times the allowable limit. The end 
of the out-of-control period is the time corresponding to the 
completion of the CD check following corrective action that results 
in the CD's at both the zero (or low-level) and high-level 
measurement points being within the corresponding allowable CD limit 
(i.e., either two times or four times the allowable limit in the 
applicable PS in appendix B).
    4.3.2 CEMS Data Status During Out-of-Control Period. During the 
period the CEMS is out-of-control, the CEMS data may not be used 
either to determine compliance with an emission limit or to meet a 
minimum data availability requirement specified in an applicable 
regulation or permit.

5.0 Data Accuracy Assessment

    5.1 Hg CEMS Audit Requirements. For each Hg CEMS, an accuracy 
audit must be performed at least once each calendar quarter. 
Successive quarterly audits must, to the extent practicable, be 
performed no less than 2 months apart. The audits must be conducted 
as follows:
    5.1.1 Relative Accuracy Test Audit (RATA). A RATA of the Hg CEMS 
must be conducted at least once every four calendar quarters, except 
as otherwise noted in section 5.1.4 of this appendix. Perform the 
RATA as described in section 8.5 of PS 12A in appendix B to this 
part. Calculate the results according to section 12.4 of PS 12A.
    5.1.2 Quarterly Gas Audit. A quarterly gas audit (QGA) may be 
conducted in three of four calendar quarters, but in no more than 
three quarters in succession. To perform a QGA, challenge the CEMS 
with a zero-level and two upscale level audit gases of known 
concentrations, first of elemental Hg and then of oxidized Hg, 
within the following ranges:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Audit point                          Audit range
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...................................  20 to 30% of span value.
2...................................  50 to 60% of span value.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Sequentially inject each of the three audit gases (zero and two 
upscale), three times each for a total of nine injections. Inject 
the gases in such a manner that the entire CEMS is challenged. Do 
not inject the same gas concentration twice in succession.
    Use elemental Hg and oxidized Hg (mercuric chloride, 
HgCl2) audit gases that are National Institute of 
Standards and Technology (NIST)-certified or NIST-traceable 
following an EPA Traceability Protocol. If audit gas cylinders are 
used, do not dilute gas when challenging the Hg CEMS. For each 
reference gas concentration, determine the average of the three CEMS 
responses and subtract the average response from the reference gas 
value. Calculate the measurement error at each gas level using 
Equation 12A-1 in section 8.2 of PS 12A.
    5.1.3 Relative Accuracy Audit (RAA). As an alternative to the 
QGA, a RAA may be conducted in three of four calendar quarters, but 
in no more than three quarters in succession. To conduct a RAA, 
follow the RATA test procedures in section 8.5 of PS 12A in appendix 
B to this part, except that only three test runs are required.
    5.1.4 Alternative Quarterly Audits. Alternative quarterly audit 
procedures may be used as approved by the Administrator for three of 
four calendar quarters. One RATA is required at least every four 
calendar quarters, except in the case where the affected facility is 
off-line (does not operate) in the fourth calendar quarter since the 
quarter of the previous RATA. In that case, the RATA must be 
performed in the quarter in which the unit recommences operation. 
Also, quarterly gas audits (or RAAs, if applicable) are not required 
for calendar quarters in which the affected facility does not 
operate.
    5.2 Sorbent Trap Monitoring System Audit Requirements. For each 
sorbent trap monitoring system, a RATA must be conducted at least 
once every four calendar quarters, except as otherwise noted in 
section 5.1.4 of this appendix. Perform the RATA as described in 
section 8.3 of PS 12B in appendix B to this part. Calculate the 
results according to section 12.4 of PS 12A.
    5.3 Excessive Audit Inaccuracy. If the results of a RATA, QGA, 
or RAA exceed the applicable criteria in section 5.3.3, the Hg CEMS 
or sorbent trap monitoring system is out-of-control. If the Hg CEMS 
or sorbent trap monitoring system is out-of-control, take necessary 
corrective action to eliminate the problem. Following corrective 
action, the source owner or operator must audit the CEMS or sorbent 
trap monitoring system using the same type of test that failed to 
meet the accuracy criterion. For instance, a RATA must always be 
performed following an out-of-control period resulting from a failed 
RATA. Whenever audit results show the Hg CEMS or sorbent trap 
monitoring system to be out-of-control, the owner or operator must 
report both the results of the failed test and the results of the 
retest following corrective action showing the CEMS to be operating 
within specifications.
    5.3.1 Out-Of-Control Period Definition. The beginning of the 
out-of-control period is the hour immediately following the 
completion of a RATA, RAA, QGA or system integrity check that fails 
to meet the applicable performance criteria in section 5.3.3, below. 
The end of the out-of-control period is the time corresponding to 
the completion of a subsequent successful test of the same type.
    5.3.2 Monitoring Data Status During Out-Of-Control Period. 
During the period the monitor is out-of-control, the monitoring data 
may not be used to determine compliance with an applicable emission 
limit or to meet a minimum data availability requirement in an 
applicable regulation or permit.
    5.3.3 Criteria for Excessive Audit Inaccuracy. Unless specified 
otherwise in an applicable regulation or permit, the criteria for 
excessive inaccuracy are:
    (a) For the RATA, the allowable RA in the applicable PS in 
appendix B (e.g., PS 12A or PS 12B).
    (b) For the QGA, 15 percent of the average audit 
value or 0.5 [micro]g/m\3\, whichever is greater.
    (c) For the RAA, 20 percent of the three run average 
or 10 percent of the applicable standard, whichever is 
greater.
    5.3.4 Criteria for Acceptable QC Procedures. Repeated excessive 
inaccuracies (i.e., out-of-control conditions resulting from the 
quarterly audits) indicates the QC procedures are inadequate or that 
the CEMS or sorbent trap monitoring system is incapable of providing 
quality data. Therefore, whenever excessive inaccuracies occur for 
two consecutive quarters, the source owner or operator must revise 
the QC procedures (see Section 3) or modify, repair, or replace the 
CEMS or sorbent trap monitoring system.

6.0 Reporting Requirements

    6.1 Data Assessment Report. At the reporting interval specified 
in the applicable regulation or permit, report for each Hg CEMS and/
or sorbent trap monitoring system the accuracy assessment results 
from Section 5, above. For Hg CEMS, also report the CD assessment 
results from Section 4, above. Report this information as a Data 
Assessment Report (DAR), and include the appropriate DAR(s) with the 
emissions report required under the applicable regulation or permit.
    6.2 Contents of the DAR. At a minimum, the DAR must contain the 
following information:
    6.2.1 Facility name and address including identification of 
source owner/operator.
    6.2.2 Identification and location of each Hg CEMS and/or sorbent 
trap monitoring system.
    6.2.3 Manufacturer, model, and serial number of each Hg CEMS 
and/or sorbent trap monitoring system.
    6.2.4 CD Assessment for each Hg CEMS, including the 
identification of out-of-control periods.
    6.2.5 System integrity check data for each Hg CEMS.
    6.2.6 Accuracy assessment for each Hg CEMS and/or sorbent trap 
monitoring system, including the identification of out-of-control 
periods. The results of all required RATAs, QGAs, RAAs, and audits 
of auxiliary equipment must be reported. If an accuracy audit shows 
a CEMS or sorbent trap monitoring system to be out-of-control, 
report both the audit results that caused the out-of-control period 
and the results of the retest following corrective action, showing 
the

[[Page 55051]]

monitoring system to be operating within specifications.
    6.2.6. Summary of all corrective actions taken when the Hg CEMS 
and/or sorbent trap monitoring system was determined to be out-of-
control.
    6.3 Data Retention. As required in 40 CFR 60.7(d) and 63.10(b), 
all measurements from CEMS and sorbent trap monitoring systems, 
including the quality assurance data required by this procedure, 
must be retained by the source owner for at least 5 years.

7.0 Bibliography

    7.1 Calculation and Interpretation of Accuracy for Continuous 
Emission Monitoring Systems (CEMS). Section 3.0.7 of the Quality 
Assurance Handbook for Air Pollution Measurement Systems, Volume 
III, Stationary Source Specific Methods. EPA-600/4-77-027b. August 
1977. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Research and 
Development Publications, 26 West St. Clair Street, Cincinnati, OH 
45268.

PART 63--[AMENDED]

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

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

0
10. Section 63.14 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(54) to read as 
follows:

Sec.  63.14  Incorporations by reference.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (54) ASTM D6348-03, Standard Test Method for Determination of 
Gaseous Compounds by Extractive Direct Interface Fourier Transform 
Infrared (FTIR) Spectroscopy, incorporation by reference (IBR) approved 
for Sec.  63.1349(b)(4)(iii) of subpart LLL and table 4 to subpart DDDD 
of this part as specified in the subpart.
* * * * *

Subpart LLL--[Amended]

0
11. Section 63.1340 is revised to read as follows:

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

    (a) The provisions of this subpart apply to each new and existing 
portland cement plant which is a major source or an area source as 
defined in Sec.  63.2.
    (b) The affected sources subject to this subpart are:
    (1) Each kiln including alkali bypasses, except for kilns that burn 
hazardous waste and are subject to and regulated under subpart EEE of 
this part;
    (2) Each clinker cooler at any portland cement plant;
    (3) Each raw mill at any portland cement plant;
    (4) Each finish mill at any portland cement plant;
    (5) Each raw material dryer at any portland cement plant;
    (6) Each raw material, clinker, or finished product storage bin at 
any portland cement plant;
    (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;
    (8) Each bagging and bulk loading and unloading system at any 
portland cement plant; and
    (9) Each open clinker pile at any portland cement plant.
    (c) Crushers are not covered by this subpart regardless of their 
location.
    (d) If you are subject to any of the provisions of this subpart you 
are also subject to title V permitting requirements.

0
12. Section 63.1341 is amended by adding definitions for ``Affirmative 
defense,'' ``Clinker,'' ``Crusher,'' ``Enclosed storage pile,'' 
``Inactive clinker pile,'' ``New source,'' ``Operating day,'' 
``Sorbent,'' ``Total organic HAP'' and ``Totally enclosed conveying 
system transfer point'' in alphabetic order, and revising the 
definition of ``Kiln'' to read as follows:

Sec.  63.1341  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Affirmative defense means, 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.
* * * * *
    Clinker means the product of the process in which limestone and 
other materials are heated in the kiln and is then ground with gypsum 
and other materials to form cement.
* * * * *
    Crusher means a machine designed to reduce large rocks from the 
quarry into materials approximately the size of gravel.
* * * * *
    Enclosed storage pile means any storage pile that is completely 
enclosed in a building or structure consisting of a solid roof and 
walls.
* * * * *
    Inactive clinker pile is a pile of clinker material that has not 
been disturbed, removed, and/or added to as a result of loading, 
unloading, and/or transferring activities for 30 (thirty) consecutive 
days.
* * * * *
    Kiln means a device, including any associated preheater or 
precalciner devices, inline raw mills, or alkali bypasses that produces 
clinker by heating limestone and other materials for subsequent 
production of portland cement. Because the inline raw mill is 
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.
* * * * *
    New source means any source that commenced construction after May 
6, 2009, for purposes of determining the applicability of the kiln, 
clinker cooler and raw material dryer emissions limits for mercury, PM, 
THC, and HCl, and the requirements for open clinker storage piles.
* * * * *
    Operating day means any daily 24-hour period during which the kiln 
operates. For 30-day rolling averages, operating days include only days 
of normal operation and do not include periods of operation during 
startup or shutdown. For 7-day rolling averages, operating days include 
only days of operation during startup and shutdown and do not include 
periods of normal operation. Data attributed to an operating day 
includes all valid data obtained during the daily 24-hour period and 
excludes any measurements made when the kiln was not operating.
* * * * *
    Sorbent means activated carbon, lime, or any other type of material 
injected into kiln exhaust for the purposes of capturing and removing 
any hazardous air pollutant.
* * * * *
    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 of appendix A to this part or ASTM 
D6348-03. Only the measured concentration of the listed analytes that 
are present at concentrations exceeding one-half the quantitation limit 
of the analytical method are to be used in the sum. If any of the 
analytes are not detected or are detected at concentrations less than 
one-half the quantitation limit of the analytical method, the 
concentration of those analytes will be assumed to be zero for the 
purposes of calculating the total organic HAP for this subpart.
* * * * *
    Totally enclosed conveying system transfer point means a conveying

[[Page 55052]]

system transfer point that is enclosed on all sides, top, and bottom.
* * * * *

0
13. 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 piles?

    (a) General. The provisions in this section apply to each kiln and 
any alkali bypass associated with that kiln, clinker cooler, and raw 
material dryer. All dioxin D/F, HCl, and total hydrocarbon (THC) 
emission limits are on a dry basis. The D/F, HCl and THC limits for 
kilns are corrected to 7 percent oxygen except during periods of 
startup and shutdown. The raw material dryer THC limits are corrected 
to 19 percent oxygen except during startup and shutdown. During startup 
and shutdown no oxygen correction is applied. All (THC) emission limits 
are measured as propane. Standards for mercury, PM, and THC are based 
on a 30-day rolling average, except for periods of startup and 
shutdown, where the standard is based on a 7-day rolling average. The 
30-day and 7-day periods mean 30 and 7 consecutive operating days, 
respectively, where an operating day is any daily 24-hour period during 
which the kiln operates. Data attributed to an operating day includes 
all valid data obtained during the daily 24-hour period and excludes 
any measurements made when the kiln was not operating. If using a CEMS 
to determine compliance with the HCl standard, this standard is based 
on a 30-day rolling average, except for periods of startup and 
shutdown, where the standard is based on a 7-day rolling average. You 
must ensure appropriate corrections for moisture are made when 
measuring flowrates used to calculate particulate matter (PM) and 
mercury emissions.
    (b)(1) Kilns, clinker coolers, raw material dryers, raw mills, and 
finish mills. The emission limits for these sources are shown in table 
1 below.

      Table 1--Emissions Limits for Kilns (Rows 1-8), Clinker Coolers (Rows 9-12), Raw Material Dryers (Rows 13-15), Raw and Finish Mills (Row 16)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                   And the units of       The oxygen
                                   If your source is   And the operating   And if is located    Your emissions       the emissions     correction factor
                                                           mode is:                               limits are:         limit are:              is:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1..............................  An existing kiln..  Normal operation..  At a major or area  PM--0.04..........  lb/ton clinker....  NA.
                                                                           source.            D/F--0.2\1\.......  ng/dscm (TEQ).....  7 percent.
                                                                                              Mercury--55.......  lb/MM tons clinker  NA.
                                                                                              THC--242,3........  ppmvd.............  7 percent.
 2..............................  An existing kiln..  Normal operation..  At a major source.  HCl--3............  ppmvd.............  7 percent.
 3..............................  An existing kiln..  Startup and         At a major or area  PM--0.004.........  gr/dscf...........  NA.
                                                       shutdown.           source.            D/F--0.2\1\.......  ng/dscm (TEQ).....  NA.
                                                                                              Mercury--10.......  ug/dscm...........  NA.
                                                                                              THC--242,3........  ppmvd.............  NA.
 4..............................  An existing kiln..  Startup and         At a major source.  HCl--3\4\.........  ppmvd.............  NA.
                                                       shutdown.
 5..............................  A new kiln........  Normal operation..  At a major or area  PM--0.01..........  lb/ton clinker....  NA.
                                                                           source.            D/F--0.21.........  ng/dscm (TEQ).....  7 percent.
                                                                                              Mercury--21.......  lb/MM tons clinker  NA.
                                                                                              THC--242,3........  ppmvd.............  7 percent.
 6..............................  A new kiln........  Normal operation..  At a major source.  HCl--3\4\.........  ppmvd.............  7 percent.
 7..............................  A new kiln........  Startup or          At a major or area  PM--0.0008........  gr/dscf...........  NA.
                                                       shutdown.           source.            D/F--0.21.........  ng/dscm (TEQ).....  NA.
                                                                                              Mercury--4........  ug/dscm...........  NA.
                                                                                              THC--242,3........  ppmvd.............  NA.
 8..............................  A new kiln........  Startup and         At a major source.  HCl--3............  ppmvd.............  NA.
                                                       shutdown.
 9..............................  An existing         Normal operation..  At a major or area  PM--0.04..........  lb/ton clinker....  NA.
                                   clinker cooler.                         source.
10..............................  An existing         Startup and         At a major or area  PM--0.004.........  gr/dscf...........  NA.
                                   clinker cooler.     shutdown.           source.
11..............................  A new clinker       Normal operation..  At a major or area  PM--0.01..........  lb/ton clinker....  NA.
                                   cooler.                                 source.
12..............................  A new clinker       Startup and         At a major or area  PM--0.0008........  gr/dscf...........  NA.
                                   cooler.             shutdown.           source.
13..............................  An existing or new  Normal operation..  At a major or area  THC--242,3........  ppmvd.............  19 percent.
                                   raw material                            source.
                                   dryer.
14..............................  An existing or new  Startup and         At a major or area  THC--242,3........  ppmvd.............  NA.
                                   raw material        shutdown.           source.
                                   dryer.
15..............................  An existing or new  All operating       At a major source.  Opacity--10.......  percent...........  NA.
                                   raw material        modes.
                                   dryer.
16..............................  An existing or new  All operating       ..................  Opacity--10.......  percent...........  NA.
                                   raw or finish       modes.
                                   mill.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ If the average temperature at the inlet to the first particulate matter control device (fabric filter or electrostatic precipitator) during the D/F
  performance test is 400 [deg]F or less this limit is changed to 0.4 ng/dscm (TEQ).
\2\ Measured as propane.
\3\ Any source subject to the 24 ppmvd THC limit may elect to meet an alternative limit of 9 ppmvd for total organic HAP. If the source demonstrates
  compliance with the total organic HAP under the requirements of Sec.   63.1349 then the source's THC limit will be adjusted to equal the average THC
  emissions measured during the organic HAP compliance test.
\4\ If the kiln does not have a HCl CEM, the emissions limit is zero.

[[Page 55053]]

    (2) When there is an alkali bypass associated with a kiln, the 
combined PM emissions from the kiln or in-line kiln/raw mill and the 
alkali bypass stack are subject to the PM emissions limit. Existing 
kilns that combine the clinker cooler exhaust with the kiln exhaust for 
energy efficiency purposes and send the combined exhaust to the PM 
control device as a single stream may meet an alternative PM emissions 
limit. This limit is calculated using the equation 1 of this section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR09SE10.025

Where:

0.004 is the PM exhaust concentration (gr/dscf) equivalent to 0.04 
lb per ton clinker where clinker cooler and kiln exhaust gas are not 
combined.
1.65 is the conversion factor of lb feed per lb clinker
Qk is the exhaust flow of the kiln (dscf/ton raw feed)
Qc is the exhaust flow of the clinker cooler (dscf/ton 
raw feed).

    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] TR09SE10.026

Where:

0.0008 is the PM exhaust concentration (gr/dscf) equivalent to 0.01 
lb per ton clinker where clinker cooler and kiln exhaust gas are not 
combined
1.65 is the conversion factor of lb feed per lb clinker
Qk is the exhaust flow of the kiln (dscf/ton raw feed)
Qc is the exhaust flow of the clinker cooler (dscf/ton 
raw feed).

    (c) If clinker material storage and handling activities occur more 
than 1,000 feet from the facility property-line you must comply with 
the following:
    (1) Utilize a three-sided barrier with roof, provided the open side 
is covered with a wind fence material of a maximum 20 percent porosity, 
allowing a removable opening for vehicle access. The removable wind 
fence for vehicle access may be removed only during minor or routine 
maintenance activities, the creation or reclamation of outside storage 
piles, the importation of clinker from outside the facility, and 
reclamation of plant clean-up materials. The removable opening must be 
less than 50 percent of the total surface area of the wind fence and 
the amount of time must be minimized to the extent feasible.
    (2) Contain storage and handling of material that is immediately 
adjacent to the three-sided barrier within an area next to the 
structure with a wind fence on at least two sides, with at least a 5-
foot freeboard above the top of the storage pile to provide wind 
sheltering, and completely cover the material with an impervious tarp, 
revealing only the active disturbed portion during material loading and 
unloading activities.
    (3) Storage and handling of other active clinker material must be 
conducted within an area surrounded on three sides by a barrier or wind 
fences with one side of the wind fence facing the prevailing wind and 
at least a 5-foot freeboard above the top of the storage pile to 
provide wind sheltering. The clinker must remain completely covered at 
all times with an impervious tarp, revealing only the active disturbed 
portion during material loading and unloading activities. The barrier 
or wind fence must extend at least 20 feet beyond the active portion of 
the material at all times.
    (4) Inactive clinker material may be alternatively stored using a 
continuous and impervious tarp, covered at all times, provided records 
are kept demonstrating the inactive status of such stored material.
    (d) If clinker material storage and handling activities occur 1,000 
feet or less from the facility property-line these activities must be 
in an enclosed storage area that meets the emissions limits specified 
in Sec.  63.1345.

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

Sec.  63.1344  Affirmative defense for exceedance of emission limit 
during malfunction.

    In response to an action to enforce the standards set forth in 
paragraph Sec.  63.1343(b) you may assert an affirmative defense to a 
claim for civil penalties for exceedances of such standards that are 
caused by malfunction, as defined at 40 CFR 63.2. Appropriate penalties 
may be assessed, however, if the respondent fails to meet its burden of 
proving all of the requirements in the affirmative defense. The 
affirmative defense shall not be available for claims for injunctive 
relief.
    (a) To establish the affirmative defense in any action to enforce 
such a limit, the owners or operators of facilities must timely meet 
the notification requirements in paragraph (b) of this section, and 
must prove by a preponderance of evidence that:
    (1) The excess emissions:
    (i) Were caused by a sudden, short, infrequent, and unavoidable 
failure of air pollution control and monitoring equipment, process 
equipment, or a process to operate in a normal or usual manner, and
    (ii) Could not have been prevented through careful planning, proper 
design or better operation and maintenance practices; and
    (iii) Did not stem from any activity or event that could have been 
foreseen and avoided, or planned for; and
    (iv) Were not part of a recurring pattern indicative of inadequate 
design, operation, or maintenance; and
    (2) Repairs were made as expeditiously as possible when the 
applicable emission limitations were being exceeded. Off-shift and 
overtime labor were used, to the extent practicable to make these 
repairs; and
    (3) The frequency, amount and duration of the excess emissions 
(including any bypass) were minimized to the maximum extent practicable 
during periods of such emissions; and
    (4) If the excess emissions resulted from a bypass of control 
equipment or a process, then the bypass was unavoidable to prevent loss 
of life, severe personal injury, or severe property damage; and
    (5) All possible steps were taken to minimize the impact of the 
excess emissions 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; and
    (7) Your actions in response to the excess emissions were 
documented by properly signed, contemporaneous operating logs; and

[[Page 55054]]

    (8) At all times, the facility was operated in a manner consistent 
with good practices for minimizing emissions; and
    (9) The owner or operator has prepared a written root cause 
analysis to determine, correct, and eliminate the primary causes of the 
malfunction and the excess emissions resulting from the malfunction 
event at issue. The analysis shall also specify, using best monitoring 
methods and engineering judgment, the amount of excess emissions that 
were the result of the malfunction.
    (b) Notification. The owner or operator of the facility 
experiencing an exceedance of its emission limit(s) during a 
malfunction shall notify the Administrator by telephone or facsimile 
(FAX) transmission as soon as possible, but no later than two business 
days after the initial occurrence of the malfunction, if it wishes to 
avail itself of an affirmative defense to civil penalties for that 
malfunction. The owner or operator seeking to assert an affirmative 
defense shall also submit a written report to the Administrator within 
30 days of the initial occurrence of the exceedance of the standard in 
Sec.  63.1343(b) to demonstrate, with all necessary supporting 
documentation, that it has met the requirements set forth in paragraph 
(a) of this section.

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

Sec.  63.1345  Emissions limits for affected sources other than kilns; 
in-line kiln/raw mills; clinker coolers; new and reconstructed raw 
material dryers; and raw and finish mills, and open clinker piles.

    The owner or operator of each new or existing raw material, 
clinker, or finished product storage bin; conveying system transfer 
point; bagging system; and bulk loading or unloading system; 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 ten percent.

    16. Section 63.1346 is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  63.1346  Operating limits for kilns.

    (a) The owner or operator of a kiln subject to a D/F emission 
limitation under Sec.  63.1343 must operate the kiln such that the 
temperature of the gas at the inlet to the kiln particulate matter 
control device (PMCD) and alkali bypass PMCD, if applicable, does not 
exceed the applicable temperature limit specified in paragraph (b) of 
this section. The owner or operator of an in-line kiln/raw mill subject 
to a D/F emission 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/shutdown when the 
temperature limit may be exceeded by no more than 10 percent.
    (2) When the raw mill of the in-line kiln/raw mill is not 
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 not 
operating, is not exceeded, except during periods of startup/shutdown 
when the temperature limit may be exceeded by no more than 10 percent.
    (3) If the in-line kiln/raw mill is equipped with an alkali bypass, 
the applicable temperature limit for the alkali bypass specified in 
paragraph (b) of this section and established during the performance 
test, with or without the raw mill operating, is not exceeded, except 
during periods of startup/shutdown when the temperature limit may be 
exceeded by no more than 10 percent.
    (b) The temperature limit for affected sources meeting the limits 
of paragraph (a) of this section or paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(3) of 
this section is determined in accordance with Sec.  63.1349(b)(3)(iv).
    (c) For an affected source subject to a D/F emission limitation 
under Sec.  63.1343 that employs sorbent injection as an emission 
control technique you must operate the sorbent injection system in 
accordance with paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of this section.
    (1) The three-hour rolling 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 three-hour rolling 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 three-hour rolling 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 emission 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 emission 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 must comply with a 
mercury limit specified in Sec.  63.1343, this paragraph no longer 
applies.

0
17. Section 63.1347 is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  63.1347  Operation and maintenance plan requirements.

    (a) You must prepare, for each affected source subject to the 
provisions of this subpart, a written operations and maintenance plan. 
The plan must be submitted to the Administrator for review and approval 
as part of the application for a part 70 permit and must include the 
following information:
    (1) Procedures for proper operation and maintenance of the affected 
source and air pollution control devices in order to meet the emission 
limits and operating limits of Sec. Sec.  63.1343 through 63.1348;
    (2) Corrective actions to be taken when required by paragraph Sec.  
63.1350(f)(3);

[[Page 55055]]

    (3) Procedures to be used during an inspection of the components of 
the combustion system of each kiln and each in-line kiln raw mill 
located at the facility at least once per year.
    (b) Failure to comply with any provision of the operations and 
maintenance plan developed in accordance with this section is a 
violation of the standard.

0
18. Section 63.1348 is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  63.1348  Compliance requirements.

    (a) Initial compliance requirements. For an affected source subject 
to this subpart, you must demonstrate initial compliance with the 
emissions standards and operating limits by using the test methods and 
procedures in Sec. Sec.  63.1349 and 63.7.
    (1) PM compliance. If you are subject to limitations on PM 
emissions under Sec.  63.1343(b), you must demonstrate initial 
compliance with the PM emissions standards by using the test methods 
and procedures in Sec.  63.1349(b)(1).
    (i) You must demonstrate initial compliance by conducting a 
performance test as specified in Sec.  63.1349(b)(1)(i).
    (ii) Compliance with the PM emissions standard must be determined 
based on the first 30 operating days you operate a PM CEMS.
    (2) Opacity compliance. If you are subject to the limitations on 
opacity under Sec.  63.1345, you must demonstrate initial compliance 
with the opacity emissions standards by using the performance test 
methods and procedures in Sec.  63.1349(b)(2). The maximum 6-minute 
average opacity exhibited during the performance test period must be 
used to determine whether the affected source is in initial compliance 
with the standard.
    (3) D/F compliance.
    (i) If you are subject to limitations on D/F emissions under Sec.  
63.1343(b), you must demonstrate initial compliance with the D/F 
emissions standards by using the performance test methods and 
procedures in Sec.  63.1349(b)(3). The owner or operator of a kiln with 
an in-line raw mill must demonstrate initial compliance by conducting 
separate performance tests while the raw mill is operating and the raw 
mill is not operating. The D/F concentration must be determined for 
each run and the arithmetic average of the concentrations measured for 
the three runs must be calculated to determine compliance.
    (ii) If you are subject to a D/F emission limitation under Sec.  
63.1343(b), you must demonstrate initial compliance with the 
temperature operating limits specified in Sec.  63.1344 by using the 
performance test methods and procedures in Sec.  63.1349(b)(3)(ii) 
through (b)(3)(iv). The average of the run temperatures will determine 
the applicable temperature limit.
    (iii) If activated carbon injection is used and you are subject to 
a D/F emission limitation under Sec.  63.1343(b), you must demonstrate 
initial compliance with the activated carbon injection rate operating 
limits specified in Sec.  63.1344 by using the performance test methods 
and procedures in Sec.  63.1349(b)(3)(v). The average of the run 
injection rates will determine the applicable injection rate limit.
    (iv) If activated carbon injection is used, you must also develop a 
carrier gas parameter during the 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.
    (4)(i) THC compliance. If you are subject to limitations on THC 
emissions under Sec.  63.1343(b), you must demonstrate initial 
compliance with the THC emissions standards by using the performance 
test methods and procedures in Sec.  63.1349(b)(4)(i). The average THC 
concentration obtained during the first 30 operating days must be used 
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 
initial compliance with the total organic HAP emissions standards by 
using the performance test methods and procedures in Sec.  
63.1349(b)(4)(iii) and (b)(4)(iv).
    (iii) If you are demonstrating initial compliance, you must conduct 
the separate performance tests as specified in Sec.  63.1349(b)(4)(iii) 
while the raw mill kiln is operating and while the raw mill of the kiln 
is not operating.
    (iv) The average total organic HAP concentration measured during 
the initial performance test specified by Sec.  63.1349(b)(4)(iii) must 
be used to determine initial compliance.
    (v) The average THC concentration measured during the initial 
performance test specified by Sec.  63.1349(b)(4)(iv) must be used to 
determine the site-specific THC limit. This limit should be a weighted 
average of the THC levels measured during raw mill on and raw mill off 
testing.
    (5) Mercury compliance. If you are subject to limitations on 
mercury emissions in Sec.  63.1343(b), you must demonstrate initial 
compliance with the mercury standards by using the performance test 
methods and procedures in Sec.  63.1349(b)(5). You must demonstrate 
initial compliance by operating a mercury CEMS or a sorbent trap based 
integrated monitor. The first 30 operating days of daily mercury 
concentration data must be used to determine initial compliance.
    (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 or 
tray tower, you must demonstrate initial compliance by conducting a 
performance test as specified in Sec.  63.1349(b)(6)(i). The HCl 
concentration must be determined for each run and the arithmetic 
average of the concentrations measured for the three runs must be 
calculated to determine compliance. You must also have established 
appropriate site-specific parameter limits.
    (ii) For an affected source that is not equipped with a wet 
scrubber or tray tower, you must demonstrate initial compliance by 
operating a CEMS as specified in Sec.  63.1349(b)(6)(ii). The average 
hourly HCl concentration obtained during the first 30 operating days 
must be used to determine initial compliance.
    (b) Continuous compliance requirements. You must demonstrate 
continuous 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(o).
    (ii) Except for periods of 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. Any period for 
which data collection is required and the operation of the CEMS is not 
otherwise exempt and for which the monitoring system is out-of-control 
and data are not available for required calculations constitutes a 
deviation from the monitoring requirements.

[[Page 55056]]

    (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 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. The owner or operator 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 PM 
emissions (lb/ton of clinker) or mercury (lb/MM tons of clinker) under 
Sec.  63.1343(b), you must demonstrate continuous compliance with the 
PM emissions standards by determining 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 demonstrate continuous 
compliance with the PM emissions standards by using the monitoring 
methods and procedures in Sec.  63.1350(b) and (d).
    (i) PM CEMS. You must demonstrate continuous compliance with the PM 
emissions standards by using the monitoring methods and procedures in 
Sec.  63.1350(b) for each affected source subject to PM emissions 
limitations. Continuous compliance is demonstrated by a 30-day rolling 
average PM emissions in lb/ton clinker, except for periods of startup 
and shutdown, where the compliance is demonstrated based on a 7-day 
rolling average.
    (3) Opacity compliance. If you are subject to the limitations on 
opacity under Sec.  63.1345, you must demonstrate continuous compliance 
with the opacity emissions standards by using the monitoring methods 
and procedures in Sec.  63.1350(f).
    (i) Continuous compliance is demonstrated by conducting specified 
visible emissions observations and follow up opacity readings, as 
indicated in Sec.  63.1350(f)(1) and (f)(2). The maximum 6-minute 
average opacity exhibited during the performance test period must be 
used to determine whether the affected source is in compliance with the 
standard. Corrective actions must be initiated within one hour of 
detecting visible emissions.
    (ii) COMS. If you install a COMS in lieu of conducting the daily 
visible emissions testing, you must demonstrate continuous compliance 
by operating and maintaining the COMS such that it meets the 
requirements of Sec.  63.1350(f)(4)(i).
    (iii) 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 continuous compliance by operating and maintaining the BLDS 
such that it meets the requirements of Sec.  63.1350(f)(4)(ii).
    (4) D/F compliance. If you are subject to a D/F emission limitation 
under Sec.  63.1343(b), you must demonstrate continuous compliance with 
the temperature operating limits specified in Sec.  63.1346 by using 
the installing, operating, and maintaining a continuous monitor to 
record the temperature of specified gas streams such that it meets the 
requirements of Sec.  63.1350(g). Continuous compliance is demonstrated 
by a 3-hour rolling average temperature.
    (5)(i) Activated carbon injection compliance. If activated carbon 
injection is used and you are subject to a D/F emission limitation 
under Sec.  63.1343(b), you must demonstrate continuous compliance with 
the activated carbon injection rate operating limits specified in Sec.  
63.1346 by installing, operating, and maintaining a continuous monitor 
to record the rate of activated carbon injection that meets the 
requirements of Sec.  63.1350(h)(1). Continuous compliance is 
demonstrated by a 3-hour rolling average injection rate.
    (ii) If you are subject to a D/F emission limitation under Sec.  
63.1343(b), you must demonstrate continuous compliance with the 
activated carbon injection system gas parameter by installing, 
operating, and maintaining a continuous monitor to record the gas 
parameter that meets the requirements of Sec.  63.1350(h)(2). 
Continuous compliance is demonstrated by a 3-hour rolling average of 
the parameter value.
    (6) THC compliance. If you are subject to limitations on THC 
emissions under Sec.  63.1343(b), you must demonstrate continuous 
compliance with the THC emissions standards by using the monitoring 
methods and procedures in Sec.  63.1350 (i) and (j). Continuous 
compliance is demonstrated by a 30-day rolling average THC 
concentration, except for periods of startup and shutdown, where the 
standard is based on a 7-day rolling average.
    (7) Mercury compliance. If you are subject to limitations on 
mercury emissions in Sec.  63.1343(b), you must demonstrate continuous 
compliance with the mercury standards by using the monitoring methods 
and procedures in Sec.  63.1350(k). Continuous compliance is 
demonstrated by a 30-day rolling average mercury emission rate in lb/MM 
tons clinker, except for periods of startup and shutdown, where the 
standard is based on a 7-day rolling average mercury concentration.
    (8) HCl compliance. If you are subject to limitations on HCl 
emissions under Sec.  63.1343(b), you must demonstrate continuous 
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 not equipped with a wet scrubber 
or tray tower, you must demonstrate continuous compliance by using the 
monitoring methods and procedures in Sec.  63.1350(l)(1). Continuous 
compliance is demonstrated by a 30-day rolling average HCl 
concentration, except for periods of startup and shutdown, where the 
standard is based on a 7-day rolling average.
    (ii) For an affected source that is equipped with a wet scrubber or 
tray tower, you must demonstrate continuous compliance by using the 
monitoring methods and procedures in Sec.  63.1350(l)(2). Continuous 
compliance is demonstrated by a 30-day rolling average of the required 
parameters, except for periods of startup and shutdown, where the 
standard is based on a 7-day rolling average.
    (c) Changes in operations.
    (1) If you plan to undertake a change in operations that may 
adversely affect compliance with an applicable standard, operating 
limit, or parametric monitoring value under this subpart, the source 
must conduct a performance test as specified in Sec.  63.1349(b).
    (2) In preparation for and while conducting a performance test 
required in Sec.  63.1349(b), you may operate under the planned 
operational change conditions for a period not to exceed 360 hours, 
provided that the conditions in (c)(2)(i) through (c)(2)(iv) of this 
section are met. You must submit temperature and other monitoring data 
that are recorded during the pretest operations.
    (i) You must provide the Administrator written notice at least 60 
days prior to undertaking an operational change that may adversely 
affect compliance with an applicable standard under this subpart for 
any source, or as soon as practicable where 60 days advance notice is 
not feasible. Notice provided under this paragraph must include a 
description of the planned change, the emissions standards that may be 
affected by the change, and a schedule for completion of the 
performance test required under paragraph (c)(1) of this section,

[[Page 55057]]

including when the planned operational change period would begin.
    (ii) The performance test results must be documented in a test 
report according to Sec.  63.1349(a).
    (iii) A test plan must be made available to the Administrator prior 
to performance testing, if requested.
    (iv) The performance test must be conducted completed within 360 
hours after the planned operational change period begins.
    (d) General duty to minimize emissions. At all times you must 
operate and maintain any affected source, including associated air 
pollution control equipment and monitoring equipment, in a manner 
consistent with safety and good air pollution control practices for 
minimizing emissions. Determination of whether such operation and 
maintenance procedures are being used will be based on information 
available to the Administrator which may include, but is not limited 
to, monitoring results, review of operation and maintenance procedures, 
review of operation and maintenance records, and inspection of the 
source.

0
19. Section 63.1349 is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  63.1349  Performance testing requirements.

    (a) Performance test results must be documented in complete test 
reports that contain the information required by paragraphs (a)(1) 
through (a)(10) of this section, as well as all other relevant 
information. As described in Sec.  63.7(c)(2)(i), the site-specific 
plan to be followed during performance testing must be made available 
to the Administrator prior to testing, if requested.
    (1) A brief description of the process and the air pollution 
control system;
    (2) Sampling location description(s);
    (3) A description of sampling and analytical procedures and any 
modifications to standard procedures;
    (4) Test results;
    (5) Quality assurance procedures and results;
    (6) Records of operating conditions during the performance test, 
preparation of standards, and calibration procedures;
    (7) Raw data sheets for field sampling and field and laboratory 
analyses;
    (8) Documentation of calculations;
    (9) All data recorded and used to establish parameters for 
monitoring; and
    (10) Any other information required by the performance test method.
    (b)(1) PM emissions tests.
    (i)(A) If you are subject to the limitations on emissions of PM, 
you must install, operate, calibrate, and maintain a PM CEMS in 
accordance with the requirements in Sec.  63.1350(b).
    (B) You must determine, record, and maintain a record of the 
accuracy of the volumetric flow rate monitoring system according to the 
procedures in Sec.  63.1350(m)(5).
    (C) The initial compliance test must be based on the first 30 
operating days in which the affected source operates using a CEMS. 
Hourly PM concentration and stack gas volumetric flow rate data must be 
obtained.
    (ii) You must determine the clinker production rate using the 
methods in Sec.  63.1350(d).
    (iii) The emission rate, E, of PM (lb/ton of clinker) must be 
computed for each run using equation 3 of this section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR09SE10.027

Where:

E = emission rate of particulate matter, lb/ton of clinker 
production;
Cs = concentration of particulate matter, gr/scf;
Qs = volumetric flow rate of effluent gas, where 
Cs and Qs are on the same basis (either wet or 
dry), scf/hr;
P = total kiln clinker production rate, ton/hr; and
K = conversion factor, 7000 gr/lb.

    (iv) When there is an alkali bypass associated with a kiln, the 
main exhaust and alkali bypass of the kiln must be tested 
simultaneously and the combined emission rate of particulate matter 
from the kiln and alkali bypass must be computed for each computed for 
each run using equation 4 of this section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR09SE10.028

Where:

Ec = combined emission rate of particulate matter from 
the kiln or in-line kiln/raw mill and bypass stack, lb/ton of kiln 
clinker production;
Csk = concentration of particulate matter in the kiln or 
in-line kiln/raw mill effluent gas, gr/scf;
Qsk = volumetric flow rate of kiln or in-line kiln/raw 
mill effluent gas, where Csk and Qsk are on 
the same basis (either wet or dry), scf/hr;
Csb = concentration of particulate matter in the alkali 
bypass gas, gr/scf;
Qsb = volumetric flow rate of alkali bypass effluent gas, 
where Csb and Qsb are on the same basis 
(either wet or dry), scf/hr;
 P = total kiln clinker production rate, ton/hr; and
K = conversion factor, 1000 g/kg (7000 gr/lb).

    (2) Opacity tests. If you are subject to limitations on opacity 
under this subpart, you must conduct opacity tests in accordance with 
Method 9 of appendix A-4 to part 60 of this chapter. The duration of 
the Method 9 performance test must be 3 hours (30 6-minute averages), 
except that the duration of the Method 9 performance test may be 
reduced to 1 hour if the conditions of paragraphs (b)(2)(i) through 
(b)(2)(ii) of this section apply. For batch processes that are not run 
for 3-hour periods or longer, compile observations totaling 3 hours 
when the unit is operating.
    (i) There are no individual readings greater than 10 percent 
opacity;
    (ii) There are no more than three readings of 10 percent for the 
first 1-hour period.
    (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. The owner or 
operator of a kiln or in-line kiln/raw mill equipped with an alkali 
bypass must conduct simultaneous performance tests of the kiln or in-
line kiln/raw mill exhaust and the alkali bypass. However, the owner or 
operator of an in-line kiln/raw mill 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.
    (i) Each performance test must consist of three separate runs 
conducted under representative conditions. The duration of each run 
must be at least 3 hours, and the sample volume for each run must be at 
least 2.5 dscm (90 dscf).
    (ii) The temperature at the inlet to the kiln or in-line kiln/raw 
mill PMCD, and, where applicable, the temperature at the inlet to the 
alkali bypass PMCD must be continuously recorded during the period of 
the Method 23 test, and the continuous temperature record(s) must be 
included in the performance test report.
    (iii) Hourly average temperatures must be calculated for each run 
of the performance test.
    (iv) The run average temperature must be calculated for each run, 
and the average of the run average temperatures must be determined and 
included in the performance test report and will determine the 
applicable temperature limit in accordance with Sec.  63.1344(b).
    (v)(A) If sorbent injection is used for D/F control, the rate of 
sorbent injection to the kiln or in-line kiln/raw mill exhaust, and 
where applicable, the rate of sorbent injection to the alkali bypass 
exhaust, must be continuously recorded during the period of the Method 
23 test in accordance with the conditions in Sec.  63.1350(m)(9), and 
the continuous injection rate record(s) must be included

[[Page 55058]]

in the performance test report. Sorbent injection rate parameters must 
be determined in accordance with paragraphs (b)(3)(vi) of this section.
    (B) The performance test report must include the brand and type of 
sorbent used during the performance test.
    (C) The owner or operator must 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, the owner or operator must 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, the owner or operator must 
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) The run average sorbent injection rate must be calculated for 
each run and the average of the run average injection rates must be 
determined and included in the performance test report and will 
determine the applicable injection rate limit in accordance with Sec.  
63.1344(c)(1).
    (4)(i) THC CEMS relative accuracy test.
    (A) If you are subject to limitations on THC emissions, you must 
operate a continuous emissions monitoring system (CEMS) in accordance 
with the requirements in Sec.  63.1350(1). For the purposes of 
conducting the accuracy and quality assurance evaluations for CEMS, the 
THC span value (as propane) is 50 ppmvd. You demonstrate compliance 
with a RATA when the accuracy between the CEMS and the test audit is 
within 20 percent or when the test audit results are within 10 percent 
of the standard
    (B) The initial compliance test must be based on the first 30 
operating days of operation in which the affected source operates using 
a CEMS.
    (ii) Total organic HAP emissions tests. Instead of conducting the 
performance test specified in paragraph (b)(4)(i) of this section, you 
may conduct a performance test to determine emissions of total organic 
HAP by following the procedures in paragraphs (b)(4)(iii) through 
(b)(4)(iv) of this section.
    (iii) Method 320 of appendix A to this part or ASTM D6348-03 
(incorporated by reference--See Sec.  63.14) must be used 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.
    (iv) At the same time that you are conducting the performance test 
for total organic HAP, you must also determine THC emissions by 
operating a CEMS in accordance with the requirements of Sec.  
63.1350(j). The duration of the performance test must be 3 hours and 
the average THC concentration (as calculated from the 1-minute 
averages) during the 3-hour test must be calculated.
    (5) Mercury emissions tests. If you are subject to limitations on 
mercury emissions, you must operate a mercury CEMS in accordance with 
the requirements of Sec.  63.1350(k). The initial compliance test must 
be based on the first 30 operating days in which the affected source 
operates using a CEMS. Hourly mercury concentration and stack gas 
volumetric flow rate data must be obtained. If you use a sorbent trap 
monitoring system, daily data must be obtained with each day assumed to 
equal the daily average of the sorbent trap collection period covering 
that day.
    (i) If you are using a mercury CEMS, you must install, operate, 
calibrate, and maintain an instrument for continuously measuring and 
recording the exhaust gas flow rate to the atmosphere according to the 
requirements in Sec.  63.1350(k)(4).
    (ii) The emission rate must be computed by dividing the average 
mercury emission rate by the clinker production rate during the same 
30-day rolling period using the equation 5 of this section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR09SE10.029

Where:

E = emission rate of mercury, lb/million tons of clinker production;
Cs = concentration of mercury, g/scm;
Qs = volumetric flow rate of effluent gas, where 
Cs and Qs are on the same basis (wet or dry), 
scm/hr;
P = total kiln clinker production rate, million ton/hr; and
K = conversion factor, 1000 g/kg (454 g/lb).

    (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, or tray 
tower, 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) .
    (B) You must establish site specific parameter limits by using the 
CPMS required inSec.  63.1350(l)(1). 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.
    (ii)(A) If the source is not controlled by a wet scrubber, you must 
operate a CEMS in accordance with the requirements of Sec.  
63.1350(l)(1). The initial performance test must be the first 30 
operating days you use the CEMS.
    (B) The initial compliance test must be based on the 30 operating 
days in which the affected source operates using a CEMS. Hourly HCl 
concentration and stack gas volumetric flow rate data must be obtained.
    (c) Performance test frequency. Except as provided in Sec.  
63.1348(b), performance tests are required for affected sources that 
are subject to a dioxin, total organic HAP, or HCl, emissions limit and 
must be repeated every 30 months except for pollutants where that 
specific pollutant is monitored using CEMS.
    (d) Performance test reporting requirements.
    (1) You must submit the information specified in paragraphs 
(d)(1)(i) and (d)(2) of this section no later than 60 days following 
the initial performance test. All reports must be signed by the 
facility's manager.
    (i) The initial performance test data as recorded under paragraph 
(b) of this section.
    (ii) The values for the site-specific operating limits or 
parameters established pursuant to paragraphs (b)(3), (b)(4)(iii), 
(b)(5)(ii), and (b)(6)(i) of this section, as applicable, and a 
description, including sample calculations, 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 this subpart, you must 
submit the relative accuracy test audit data and performance test data, 
except opacity data, to EPA by successfully submitting the data 
electronically to 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) Performance tests must be conducted 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

[[Page 55059]]

necessary to determine the conditions of performance tests.
    20. Section 63.1350 is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  63.1350  Monitoring requirements.

    (a) All continuous monitoring data for periods of startup and 
shutdown must be compiled and averaged separately from data gathered 
during periods of normal operation.
    (b) PM monitoring requirements for sources using PM CEMS.
    (1) For a kiln or clinker cooler subject to emissions limitation on 
particulate matter emissions in Sec.  63.1343(b) and using a PM CEMS, 
you must install and operate a continuous emissions monitor in 
accordance with Performance Specification 11 of appendix B and 
Procedure 2 of appendix F to part 60 of this chapter. The performance 
test method and the correlation test method for Performance 
Specification 11 must be Method 5 or Method 5i of appendix A to Part 60 
of this chapter. You must also develop an emissions monitoring plan in 
accordance with paragraphs (o)(1) through (o)(4) of this section.
    (2) You must perform Relative Response Audits annually and Response 
Correlation Audits every 3 years.
    (3) If you are using a PM CEMS, you must install, operate, 
calibrate, and maintain an instrument for continuously measuring and 
recording the exhaust gas flow rate to the atmosphere according to the 
requirements in paragraphs (n)(1) through (n)(10) of this section.
    (4) In order to calculate the 30-day or 7-day rolling average, 
collect readings at least every 15 minutes. Sum the hourly data to 
daily data and then into a 30-day rolling average. You must use all 
data, except those recorded during monitoring system malfunctions, 
repairs associated with monitoring system malfunctions, or required 
monitoring system quality assurance or control activities, in 
calculations.
    (c) [Reserved]
    (d) Clinker production monitoring requirements. If you are subject 
to an emissions limitation on particulate matter, mercury, 
NOX, or SO2 emissions (lb/ton of clinker), you 
must:
    (1) Determine hourly clinker production by one of two methods:
    (i) Install, calibrate, maintain, and operate a permanent weigh 
scale system to measure and record weight rates in tons-mass per hour 
of the amount of clinker produced. The system of measuring hourly 
clinker production must be maintained within 5 percent 
accuracy.
    (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. This ratio must 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.
    (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 within 30 days of 
the effective 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) Record the daily clinker production rates and kiln feed rates; 
and
    (4) Develop an emissions monitoring plan in accordance with 
paragraphs (o)(1) through (o)(4) of this section.
    (e) [Reserved]
    (f) Opacity monitoring requirements. If you are subject to a 
limitation on opacity under Sec.  63.1345, you must conduct required 
emissions monitoring in accordance with the provisions of paragraphs 
(f)(1)(i) through (f)(1)(vii) of this section and in accordance with 
the operation and maintenance plan developed in accordance with Sec.  
63.1347. You must conduct emissions monitoring in accordance with 
paragraphs (f)(2)(i) through (f)(2)(iii) of this section and in 
accordance with the operation and maintenance plan developed in 
accordance with (p)(1) through (p)(4) of this section. You must also 
develop an opacity emissions monitoring plan in accordance with 
paragraphs (o)(1) through (o)(4) and paragraph (o)(5), if applicable, 
of this section.
    (1)(i) You must conduct a monthly 10-minute visible emissions test 
of each affected source in accordance with Method 22 of appendix A-7 to 
part 60 of this chapter. The performance test must be conducted while 
the affected source is in operation.
    (ii) If no visible emissions are observed in six consecutive 
monthly tests for any affected source, the owner or operator may 
decrease the frequency of performance testing from monthly to semi-
annually for that affected source. If visible emissions are observed 
during any semi-annual test, you must resume performance testing of 
that affected source on a monthly basis and maintain that schedule 
until no visible emissions are observed in six consecutive monthly 
tests.
    (iii) If no visible emissions are observed during the semi-annual 
test for any affected source, you may decrease the frequency of 
performance testing from semi-annually to annually for that affected 
source. If visible emissions are observed during any annual performance 
test, the owner or operator must resume performance testing of that 
affected source on a monthly basis and maintain that schedule until no 
visible emissions are observed in six consecutive monthly tests.
    (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 five 6-minute averages of opacity 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) The requirement to conduct Method 22 visible emissions 
monitoring under this paragraph do not apply to any totally enclosed 
conveying system transfer point, regardless of the location of the 
transfer point. ``Totally enclosed conveying system transfer point'' 
must mean a conveying system transfer point that is enclosed on all 
sides, top, and bottom. 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 have the option to 
conduct a Method 22 performance test, of appendix A-7 to part 60 of 
this chapter, according to the requirements of paragraphs (f)(1)(i) 
through (f)(1)(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.
    (vii) If visible emissions from a building are monitored, the 
requirements of paragraphs (f)(1)(i) through (f)(1)(iv) of this section 
apply to the monitoring of the building, and you must also test visible 
emissions from each side, roof, and vent of the building for at least 
10 minutes.
    (2)(i) For a raw mill or finish mill, you must monitor opacity by 
conducting daily visual emissions observations of the mill sweep and 
air separator

[[Page 55060]]

particulate matter control devices (PMCD) of these affected sources in 
accordance with the procedures of Method 22 of appendix A-7 to part 60 
of this chapter. The duration of the Method 22 performance test must be 
6 minutes.
    (ii) Within 24 hours of the end of the Method 22 performance test 
in which visible emissions were observed, the owner or operator must 
conduct a follow up Method 22 performance test of each stack from which 
visible emissions were observed during the previous Method 22 
performance test.
    (iii) If visible emissions are observed during the follow-up Method 
22 performance test required by paragraph (a)(5)(ii) of this section 
from any stack from which visible emissions were observed during the 
previous Method 22 performance test required by paragraph (a)(5)(i) of 
the section, you must conduct a visual 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) Corrective actions. If visible emissions are observed during 
any Method 22 visible emissions test conducted under paragraphs (f)(1) 
or (f)(2) of this section, you must initiate, within one-hour, the 
corrective actions specified in the site specific operating and 
maintenance plan provisions 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 continuous opacity monitoring system 
(COMS) or bag leak detection system (BLDS).
    (i) If the owner or operator chooses to install a COMS in lieu of 
conducting the daily visual 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 visual 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) D/F monitoring requirements. If you are subject to an emissions 
limitation on D/F emissions, you must comply with the monitoring 
requirements of paragraphs (g)(1) through (g)(6) and paragraphs (m)(1) 
through (m)(4) of this section to demonstrate continuous compliance 
with the D/F emissions standard. You must also develop an emissions 
monitoring plan in accordance with paragraphs (p)(1) through (p)(4) of 
this section.
    (1) You must install, calibrate, maintain, and continuously operate 
a continuous monitor to record the temperature of the exhaust gases 
from the kiln, in-line kiln/raw mill, and alkali bypass, if applicable, 
at the inlet to, or upstream of, the kiln, in-line kiln/raw mill and/or 
alkali bypass PMCDs.
    (i) The temperature recorder response range must include zero and 
1.5 times the average temperature established according to the 
requirements in Sec.  63.1349(b)(3)(iv).
    (ii) The calibration reference for the temperature measurement must 
be a National Institute of Standards and Technology calibrated 
reference thermocouple-potentiometer system or alternate reference, 
subject to approval by the Administrator.
    (iii) The calibration of all thermocouples and other temperature 
sensors must be verified at least once every three months.
    (2) You must monitor and continuously record the temperature of the 
exhaust gases from the kiln, in-line kiln/raw mill, and alkali bypass, 
if applicable, at the inlet to the kiln, in-line kiln/raw mill and/or 
alkali bypass PMCD.
    (3) The required minimum data collection frequency must be one 
minute.
    (4) Each hour, calculate the three-hour average temperature for the 
previous 3 hours of process operation using all of the one-minute data 
available (i.e., the CMS is not out-of-control.)
    (5) When the operating status of the raw mill of the in-line kiln/
raw mill is changed from off to on or from on to off, the calculation 
of the three-hour rolling average temperature must begin anew, without 
considering previous recordings.
    (h) Monitoring requirements for sources using sorbent injection. If 
you are subject to an operating limit on D/F emissions that employs 
carbon injection as an emission control technique, you must comply with 
the additional monitoring requirements of paragraphs (h)(1) and (h)(2) 
and paragraphs (m)(1) through (m)(4) and (m)(9) of this section. You 
must also develop an emissions monitoring plan in accordance with 
paragraphs (p)(1) through (p)(4) of this section.
    (1) Install, operate, calibrate, and maintain a continuous monitor 
to record the rate of activated carbon injection. The accuracy of the 
rate measurement device must be 1 percent of the rate being 
measured.
    (i) Verify the calibration of the device at least once every three 
months.
    (ii) Each hour, calculate the three-hour rolling average activated 
carbon injection rate for the previous 3 hours of process operation 
using all of the one-minute data available (i.e., the CMS is not out-
of-control.)
    (iii) When the operating status of the raw mill of the in-line 
kiln/raw mill is changed from off to on or from on to off, the 
calculation of the three-hour rolling average activated carbon 
injection rate must begin anew, without considering previous 
recordings.
    (2)(i) Install, operate, calibrate, and maintain a continuous 
monitor to record the activated carbon injection system carrier gas 
parameter (either the carrier gas flow rate or the carrier gas pressure 
drop) established during the D/F performance test in accordance with 
Sec.  63.1349(b)(3).
    (ii) Each hour, calculate the three-hour rolling average of the 
selected parameter value for the previous 3 hours of process operation 
using all of the one-minute data available (i.e., the CMS is not out-
of-control.)
    (i) THC Monitoring Requirements. If you are subject to an emissions 
limitation on THC emissions, you must comply with the monitoring 
requirements of paragraphs (i)(1) and (i)(2) and (m)(1) through (m)(4) 
of this section. You must also develop an emissions monitoring plan in 
accordance with paragraphs (p)(1) through (p)(4) of this section.
    (1) You must install, operate, and maintain a THC continuous 
emission monitoring system in accordance with Performance Specification 
8 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) For sources equipped with an alkali bypass stack, instead of 
installing a CEMS, you may use the results of the initial or subsequent 
performance test to demonstrate compliance with the THC emission limit.
    (j) Total organic HAP monitoring requirements. If you are complying 
with the total organic HAP emissions limits, you must continuously 
monitor THC according to paragraph (i)(1) and (2) or

[[Page 55061]]

in accordance with Performance Specification 15 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. You must operate and maintain each CEMS according to 
the quality assurance requirements in Procedure 1 of appendix F in part 
60 of this chapter. In addition, your must follow the monitoring 
requirements in paragraphs (m)(1) through (m)(4) of this section. You 
must also develop an emissions monitoring plan in accordance with 
paragraphs (p)(1) through (p)(4) of this section.
    (k) Mercury monitoring requirements. If you have a kiln or in-line 
kiln/raw mill 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 of 
appendix B to part 60 of this chapter or a sorbent trap-based 
integrated monitoring system in accordance with Performance 
Specification 12B of appendix B to part 60 of this chapter. You must 
continuously monitor mercury according to paragraphs (k)(1) through 
(k)(3) and (m)(1) through (m)(4) of this section. You must also develop 
an emissions monitoring plan in accordance with paragraphs (p)(1) 
through (p)(4) of this section.
    (1) The span value for any Hg CEMS must include the intended upper 
limit of the mercury concentration measurement range during normal 
``mill on'' operation which may be exceeded during ``mill off'' 
operation or other short term conditions lasting less than 24 
consecutive kiln operating hours. However, the span should be at least 
equivalent to approximately two times the emissions standard and it may 
be rounded to the nearest multiple of 10 [mu]g/m\3\ of total mercury.
    (2) You must operate and maintain each Hg CEMS or sorbent trap-
based integrated monitoring system according to the quality assurance 
requirements in Procedure 5 of appendix F to part 60 of this chapter.
    (3) Relative accuracy testing of mercury monitoring systems under 
Performance Specification 12A, Performance Specification 12B, or 
Procedure 5 must be at normal operating conditions with the raw mill 
on.
    (4) If you use a mercury CEMS, you must install, operate, 
calibrate, and maintain an instrument for continuously measuring and 
recording the exhaust gas flow rate to the atmosphere according to the 
requirements in paragraphs (n)(1) through (n)(10) of this section.
    (l) HCl Monitoring Requirements. If you are subject to an emissions 
limitation on HCl emissions in Sec.  63.1343, you must continuously 
monitor HCl according to paragraph (l)(1) and (2) and paragraphs (m)(1) 
through (m)(4) of this section. You must also develop an emissions 
monitoring plan in accordance with paragraphs (p)(1) through (p)(4) of 
this section.
    (1) Continuously monitor compliance with the HCl limit by operating 
a continuous emission monitor in accordance with Performance 
Specification 15 of appendix B to part 60 of this chapter. You must 
operate and maintain each CEMS according to the quality assurance 
requirements in Procedure 1 of 40 CFR 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 Performance Specification 15, 
or
    (2) Install, operate, and maintain a CMS to monitor wet scrubber 
parameters as specified in paragraphs (m)(5) and (m)(7) of this 
section.
    (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 (n)(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 (m)(11) that are applicable to you.
    (1) The CMS must complete a minimum of one cycle of operation for 
each successive 15-minute period. You must have a minimum of four 
successive cycles of operation to have a valid hour of data.
    (2) You must conduct all monitoring in continuous operation at all 
times that the unit is operating.
    (3) Determine the 3-hour block average of all recorded readings.
    (4) Record the results of each inspection, calibration, and 
validation check.
    (5) Liquid flow rate monitoring requirements. If you have an 
operating limit that requires the use of a flow measurement device, you 
must meet the requirements in paragraphs (m)(5)(i) through (iv) of this 
section.
    (i) Locate the flow sensor and other necessary equipment in a 
position that provides a representative flow.
    (ii) Use a flow sensor with a measurement sensitivity of 2 percent 
of the flow rate.
    (iii) Reduce swirling flow or abnormal velocity distributions due 
to upstream and downstream disturbances.
    (iv) Conduct a flow sensor calibration check at least semiannually.
    (6) Specific pressure monitoring requirements. If you have an 
operating limit that requires the use of a pressure measurement device, 
you must meet the requirements in paragraphs (m)(6)(i) through (vi) of 
this section.
    (i) Locate the pressure sensor(s) in a position that provides a 
representative measurement of the pressure.
    (ii) Minimize or eliminate pulsating pressure, vibration, and 
internal and external corrosion.
    (iii) Use a gauge with a minimum tolerance of 1.27 centimeters of 
water or a transducer with a minimum tolerance of 1 percent of the 
pressure range.
    (iv) Check pressure tap pluggage daily.
    (v) Using a manometer, check gauge calibration quarterly and 
transducer calibration monthly.
    (vi) Conduct calibration checks any time the sensor exceeds the 
manufacturer's specified maximum operating pressure range or install a 
new pressure sensor.
    (7) Specific pH monitoring requirements. If you have an operating 
limit that requires the use of a pH measurement device, you must meet 
the requirements in paragraphs (m)(7)(i) through (iii) of this section.
    (i) Locate the pH sensor in a position that provides a 
representative measurement of scrubber effluent pH.
    (ii) Ensure the sample is properly mixed and representative of the 
fluid to be measured.
    (iii) Check the pH meter's calibration on at least two points every 
8 hours of process operation.
    (8) [Reserved]
    (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.
    (i) Locate the device in a position(s) that provides a 
representative measurement of the total sorbent injection rate.
    (ii) Install and calibrate the device in accordance with 
manufacturer's procedures and specifications.
    (iii) At least annually, calibrate the device in accordance with 
the manufacturer's procedures and specifications.

[[Page 55062]]

    (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 bag leak detection system as specified in 
paragraphs (m)(10)(i) through (viii) of this section.
    (i) You must install and operate a bag leak detection system for 
each exhaust stack of the fabric filter.
    (ii) Each bag leak detection system 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 bag leak detection system must be certified by the 
manufacturer to be capable of detecting particulate matter emissions at 
concentrations of 10 or fewer milligrams per actual cubic meter.
    (iv) The bag leak detection system sensor must provide output of 
relative or absolute particulate matter loadings.
    (v) The bag leak detection system must be equipped with a device to 
continuously record the output signal from the sensor.
    (vi) The bag leak detection system must be equipped with an alarm 
system that will alert an operator automatically when an increase in 
relative particulate matter emissions over a preset level 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 bag leak detection 
system must be installed in each baghouse compartment or cell.
    (viii) Where multiple bag leak detectors are required, the system's 
instrumentation and alarm may be shared among detectors.
    (11) For each BLDS, the owner or operator must initiate procedures 
to determine the cause of every alarm within 8 hours of the alarm. The 
owner or operator must alleviate the cause of the alarm within 24 hours 
of the alarm by taking whatever corrective action(s) are necessary. 
Corrective actions may include, but are not limited to the following:
    (i) Inspecting the fabric filter for air leaks, torn or broken bags 
or filter media, or any other condition that may cause an increase in 
PM emissions;
    (ii) Sealing off defective bags or filter media;
    (iii) Replacing defective bags or filter media or otherwise 
repairing the control device;
    (iv) Sealing off a defective fabric filter compartment;
    (v) Cleaning the bag leak detection system probe or otherwise 
repairing the bag leak detection system; or
    (vi) Shutting down the process producing the PM emissions.
    (n) Continuous emissions rate monitoring system. You must install, 
operate, calibrate, and maintain instruments, according to the 
requirements in paragraphs (n)(1) and (2) of this section, for 
continuously measuring and recording the pollutant per mass flow rate 
to the atmosphere from sources subject to an emissions limitation that 
has a pounds per ton of clinker unit.
    (1) You 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 mercury or PM 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.
    (2) The flow rate monitoring system must be designed to measure the 
exhaust flow rate over a range that extends from a value of at least 20 
percent less than the lowest expected exhaust flow rate to a value of 
at least 20 percent greater than the highest expected exhaust flow 
rate.
    (3) The flow rate monitoring system must have a minimum accuracy of 
5 percent of the flow rate or greater.
    (4) The flow rate monitoring system must be equipped with a data 
acquisition and recording system that is capable of recording values 
over the entire range specified in paragraph (n)(1) of this section.
    (5) The signal conditioner, wiring, power supply, and data 
acquisition and recording system for the flow rate monitoring system 
must be compatible with the output signal of the flow rate sensors used 
in the monitoring system.
    (6) The flow rate monitoring system must be designed to complete a 
minimum of one cycle of operation for each successive 15-minute period.
    (7) The flow rate sensor must have provisions 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 Part 60 of this chapter 
for a discussion of CD).
    (i) Conduct the CD tests at two reference signal levels, zero 
(e.g., 0 to 20 percent of span) and upscale (e.g., 50 to 70 percent of 
span).
    (ii) The absolute value of the difference between the flow monitor 
response and the reference signal must be equal to or less than 3 
percent of the flow monitor span.
    (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 Part 60 of the chapter with the 
exceptions in paragraphs (n)(8)(i) and (n)(8)(ii) of this section.
    (i) The relative accuracy test is to evaluate the flow rate 
monitoring system alone rather than a continuous emission rate 
monitoring system.
    (ii) The relative accuracy of the flow rate monitoring system shall 
be no greater than 10 percent of the mean value of the reference method 
data.
    (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 (n)(8).
    (10) You must operate the flow rate monitoring system and record 
data during all periods of operation of the affected facility including 
periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction, except for periods of 
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).
    (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 (n)(1) through (n)(6) of this section.
    (1) The Administrator will not approve averaging periods other than 
those specified in this section, unless you document, using data or 
information, that the longer averaging period will ensure that 
emissions do not exceed levels achieved during the performance test 
over any increment of time equivalent to the time required to conduct 
three runs of the performance test.
    (2) If the application to use an alternate monitoring requirement 
is approved, you must continue to use the original monitoring 
requirement until approval is received to use another monitoring 
requirement.
    (3) You must submit the application for approval of alternate 
monitoring requirements no later than the notification of performance 
test. The

[[Page 55063]]

application must contain the information specified in paragraphs 
(m)(3)(i) through (iii) of this section:
    (i) Data or information justifying the request, such as the 
technical or economic infeasibility, or the impracticality of using the 
required approach;
    (ii) A description of the proposed alternative monitoring 
requirement, including the operating parameter to be monitored, the 
monitoring approach and technique, the averaging period for the limit, 
and how the limit is to be calculated; and
    (iii) Data or information documenting that the alternative 
monitoring requirement would provide equivalent or better assurance of 
compliance with the relevant emission standard.
    (4) The Administrator will notify you of the approval or denial of 
the application within 90 calendar days after receipt of the original 
request, or within 60 calendar days of the receipt of any supplementary 
information, whichever is later. The Administrator will not approve an 
alternate monitoring application unless it would provide equivalent or 
better assurance of compliance with the relevant emission standard. 
Before disapproving any alternate monitoring application, the 
Administrator will provide:
    (i) Notice of the information and findings upon which the intended 
disapproval is based; and
    (ii) Notice of opportunity for you to present additional supporting 
information before final action is taken on the application. This 
notice will specify how much additional time is allowed for you to 
provide additional supporting information.
    (5) You are responsible for submitting any supporting information 
in a timely manner to enable the Administrator to consider the 
application prior to the performance test. Neither submittal of an 
application, nor the Administrator's failure to approve or disapprove 
the application relieves you of the responsibility to comply with any 
provision of this subpart.
    (6) The Administrator may decide at any time, on a case-by-case 
basis that additional or alternative operating limits, or alternative 
approaches to establishing operating limits, are necessary to 
demonstrate compliance with the emission standards of this subpart.
    (p) Development and submittal (upon request) of monitoring plans. 
If you demonstrate compliance with any applicable emission 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 (n) of this 
section and Sec.  63.8(f). If you use a BLDS, you must also meet the 
requirements specified in paragraph (o)(5) of this section.
    (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 (o)(1)(i) through (iii) of this section. You must submit 
this site-specific monitoring plan, if requested, at least 60 days 
before your 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);
    (ii) Performance and equipment specifications for the sample 
interface, the pollutant concentration or parametric signal analyzer, 
and the data collection and reduction systems; and
    (iii) Performance evaluation procedures and acceptance criteria 
(e.g., calibrations).
    (2) In your site-specific monitoring plan, you must also address 
paragraphs (o)(2)(i) through (iii) of this section.
    (i) Ongoing operation and maintenance procedures in accordance with 
the general requirements of Sec.  63.8(c)(1), (c)(3), and (c)(4)(ii);
    (ii) Ongoing data quality assurance procedures in accordance with 
the general requirements of Sec.  63.8(d); and
    (iii) Ongoing recordkeeping and reporting procedures in accordance 
with the general requirements of Sec.  63.10(c), (e)(1), and (e)(2)(i).
    (3) You must conduct a performance evaluation of each CMS in 
accordance with your site-specific monitoring plan.
    (4) You must operate and maintain the CMS in continuous operation 
according to the site-specific monitoring plan.
    (5) BLDS monitoring plan. Each monitoring plan must describe the 
items in paragraphs (o)(5)(i) through (v) of this section. At a 
minimum, you must retain records related to the site-specific 
monitoring plan and information discussed in paragraphs (m)(1) through 
(4), (m)(10) and (m)(11) of this section for a period of 5 years, with 
at least the first 2 years on-site;
    (i) Installation of the BLDS;
    (ii) Initial and periodic adjustment of the BLDS, including how the 
alarm set-point will be established;
    (iii) Operation of the BLDS, including quality assurance 
procedures;
    (iv) How the BLDS will be maintained, including a routine 
maintenance schedule and spare parts inventory list;
    (v) How the BLDS output will be recorded and stored.
0
21. Section 63.1351 is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  63.1351  Compliance dates.

    (a) Except as noted in paragraph (b) of this section, the 
compliance date for an owner or operator of an existing affected source 
subject to the provisions of this subpart is June 14, 2002.
    (b) The compliance date for existing sources with the PM, mercury, 
THC, and HCl emissions limits in Sec.  63.1343(b) which became 
effective in November 8, 2010 will be September 9, 2013.
    (c) Except as noted in paragraph (d) of this section, the 
compliance date for an owner or operator of an affected source subject 
to the provisions of this subpart that commences new construction or 
reconstruction after March 24, 1998, is June 14, 1999, or upon startup 
of operations, whichever is later.
    (d) The compliance date for new sources with the PM, mercury, THC, 
and HCl emissions limits in Sec.  63.1343(b) is November 8, 2010 or 
startup, whichever is later.

0
22. Section 63.1352 is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  63.1352  Additional test methods.

    (a) If you are conducting tests to determine the rates of emission 
of HCl from kilns and associated bypass stacks at portland cement 
manufacturing facilities, for use in applicability determinations under 
Sec.  63.1340, you may use Method 320 or Method 321 of appendix A of 
this part.
    (b) Owners or operators conducting tests to determine the rates of 
emission of specific organic HAP from raw material dryers, kilns and 
in-line kiln/raw mills 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
23. Section 63.1354 is amended by adding paragraphs (b)(9)(vi) and (c) 
to read as follows:

Sec.  63.1354  Reporting requirements.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (9) * * *

[[Page 55064]]

    (vi) Monthly rolling average mercury, THC, PM, and HCl (if 
applicable) emissions levels in the units of the applicable emissions 
limit for each kiln, clinker cooler, and raw material dryer.
* * * * *
    (c) The semiannual report required by paragraph (b)(9) of this 
section must include the number, duration, and a brief description for 
each type of malfunction which occurred during the reporting period and 
which caused or may have caused any applicable emission limitation to 
be exceeded. 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
24. Section 63.1355 is amended by revising paragraphs (e) and paragraph 
(f) and adding paragraph (g) to read as follows:

Sec.  63.1355  Recordkeeping requirements.

* * * * *
    (e) You must keep records of the daily clinker production rates and 
kiln feed rates.
    (f) You must keep records of the occurrence and duration of each 
startup or shutdown.
    (g)(1) You must keep records of the occurrence and duration of each 
malfunction of operation (i.e., process equipment) or the air pollution 
control and monitoring equipment.
    (2) You must keep records of actions taken during periods of 
malfunction to minimize emissions in accordance with Sec.  63.1348(d) 
including corrective actions to restore malfunctioning process and air 
pollution control and monitoring equipment to its normal or usual 
manner of operation.

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

Sec.  63.1356  Sources with multiple emission limits or monitoring 
requirements.

    If an affected facility subject to this subpart has a different 
emission 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 emission limit or 
requirement and is exempt from the less stringent requirement.

0
26. Table 1 to Subpart LLL of Part 63 is revised to read as follows:

                     Table 1 to Subpart LLL of Part 63--Applicability of General Provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Citation                     Requirement       Applies to subpart LLL          Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
63.1(a)(1)-(4).....................  Applicability.........  Yes...................
63.1(a)(5).........................  ......................  No....................  [Reserved].
63.1(a)(6)-(8).....................  Applicability.........  Yes...................
63.1(a)(9).........................  ......................  No....................  [Reserved].
63.1(a)(10)-(14)...................  Applicability.........  Yes...................
63.1(b)(1).........................  Initial Applicability   No....................  Sec.   63.1340 specifies
                                      Determination.                                  applicability.
63.1(b)(2)-(3).....................  Initial Applicability   Yes...................
                                      Determination.
63.1(c)(1).........................  Applicability After     Yes...................
                                      Standard Established.
63.1(c)(2).........................  Permit Requirements...  Yes...................  Area sources must obtain
                                                                                      Title V permits.
63.1(c)(3).........................  ......................  No....................  [Reserved].
63.1(c)(4)-(5).....................  Extensions,             Yes.                    ...........................
                                      Notifications.
63.1(d)............................  ......................  No....................  [Reserved].
63.1(e)............................  Applicability of        Yes...................
                                      Permit Program.
63.2...............................  Definitions...........  Yes...................  Additional definitions in
                                                                                      Sec.   63.1341.
63.3(a)-(c)........................  Units and               Yes...................
                                      Abbreviations.
63.4(a)(1)-(3).....................  Prohibited Activities.  Yes...................
63.4(a)(4).........................  ......................  No....................  [Reserved].
63.4(a)(5).........................  Compliance date.......  Yes...................
63.4(b)-(c)........................  Circumvention,          Yes...................
                                      Severability.
63.5(a)(1)-(2).....................  Construction/           Yes...................
                                      Reconstruction.
63.5(b)(1).........................  Compliance Dates......  Yes...................
63.5(b)(2).........................  ......................  No....................  [Reserved].
63.5(b)(3)-(6).....................  Construction Approval,  Yes...................
                                      Applicability.
63.5(c)............................  ......................  No....................  [Reserved].
63.5(d)(1)-(4).....................  Approval of             Yes...................
                                      Construction/
                                      Reconstruction.
63.5(e)............................  Approval of             Yes...................
                                      Construction/
                                      Reconstruction.
63.5(f)(1)-(2).....................  Approval of             Yes...................
                                      Construction/
                                      Reconstruction.
63.6(a)............................  Compliance for          Yes...................
                                      Standards and
                                      Maintenance.
63.6(b)(1)-(5).....................  Compliance Dates......  Yes...................
63.6(b)(6).........................  ......................  No....................  [Reserved].
63.6(b)(7).........................  Compliance Dates......  Yes...................
63.6(c)(1)-(2).....................  Compliance Dates......  Yes...................
63.6(c)(3)-(4).....................  ......................  No....................  [Reserved].
63.6(c)(5).........................  Compliance Dates......  Yes...................
63.6(d)............................  ......................  No....................  [Reserved].

[[Page 55065]]

63.6(e)(1)-(2).....................  Operation &             No....................  See Sec.   63.1348(d) for
                                      Maintenance.                                    general duty requirement.
                                                                                      Any reference to Sec.
                                                                                      63.6(e)(1)(i) in other
                                                                                      General Provisions or in
                                                                                      this subpart is to be
                                                                                      treated as a cross-
                                                                                      reference to Sec.
                                                                                      63.1348(d).
63.6(e)(3).........................  Startup, Shutdown       No....................
                                      Malfunction Plan.
63.6(f)(1).........................  Compliance with         No....................  Compliance obligations
                                      Emission Standards.                             specified in subpart LLL.
63.6(f)(2)-(3).....................  Compliance with         Yes...................
                                      Emission Standards.
63.6(g)(1)-(3).....................  Alternative Standard..  Yes...................
63.6(h)(1).........................  Opacity/VE Standards..  No....................  Compliance obligations
                                                                                      specified in subpart LLL.
63.6(h)(2).........................  Opacity/VE Standards..  Yes...................
63.6(h)(3).........................  ......................  No....................  [Reserved].
63.6(h)(4)-(h)(5)(i)...............  Opacity/VE Standards..  Yes...................
63.6(h)(5)(ii)-(iv)................  Opacity/VE Standards..  No....................  Test duration specified in
                                                                                      subpart LLL.
63.6(h)(6).........................  Opacity/VE Standards..  Yes...................
63.6(h)(7).........................  Opacity/VE Standards..  Yes...................
63.6(i)(1)-(14)....................  Extension of            Yes...................
                                      Compliance.
63.6(i)(15)........................  ......................  No....................  [Reserved].
63.6(i)(16)........................  Extension of            Yes...................
                                      Compliance.
63.6(j)............................  Exemption from          Yes...................
                                      Compliance.
63.7(a)(1)-(3).....................  Performance Testing     Yes...................  Sec.   63.1349 has specific
                                      Requirements.                                   requirements.
63.7(b)............................  Notification..........  Yes...................
63.7(c)............................  Quality Assurance/Test  Yes...................
                                      Plan.
63.7(d)............................  Testing Facilities....  Yes...................
63.7(e)(1).........................  Conduct of Tests......  No....................  See Sec.   63.1349(e). Any
                                                                                      reference to 63.7(e)(1) in
                                                                                      other General Provisions
                                                                                      or in this subpart is to
                                                                                      be treated as a cross-
                                                                                      reference to Sec.
                                                                                      63.1349(e).
63.7(e)(2)-(4).....................  Conduct of tests......  Yes...................
63.7(f)............................  Alternative Test        Yes...................
                                      Method.
63.7(g)............................  Data Analysis.........  Yes...................
63.7(h)............................  Waiver of Tests.......  Yes...................
63.8(a)(1).........................  Monitoring              Yes...................
                                      Requirements.
63.8(a)(2).........................  Monitoring............  No....................  Sec.   63.1350 includes
                                                                                      CEMS requirements.
63.8(a)(3).........................  ......................  No....................  [Reserved].
63.8(a)(4).........................  Monitoring............  No....................  Flares not applicable.
63.8(b)(1)-(3).....................  Conduct of Monitoring.  Yes...................
63.8(c)(1)-(8).....................  CMS Operation/          Yes...................  Temperature and activated
                                      Maintenance.                                    carbon injection
                                                                                      monitoring data reduction
                                                                                      requirements given in
                                                                                      subpart LLL.
63.8(d)............................  Quality Control.......  Yes, except for the
                                                              reference to the SSM
                                                              Plan in the last
                                                              sentence.
63.8(e)............................  Performance Evaluation  Yes...................
                                      for CMS.
63.8(f)(1)-(5).....................  Alternative Monitoring  Yes...................  Additional requirements in
                                      Method.                                         Sec.   63.1350(l).
63.8(f)(6).........................  Alternative to RATA     Yes...................
                                      Test.
63.8(g)............................  Data Reduction........  Yes...................
63.9(a)............................  Notification            Yes...................
                                      Requirements.
63.9(b)(1)-(5).....................  Initial Notifications.  Yes...................
63.9(c)............................  Request for Compliance  Yes...................
                                      Extension.
63.9(d)............................  New Source              Yes...................
                                      Notification for
                                      Special Compliance
                                      Requirements.
63.9(e)............................  Notification of         Yes...................
                                      Performance Test.
63.9(f)............................  Notification of VE/     Yes...................  Notification not required
                                      Opacity Test.                                   for VE/opacity test under
                                                                                      Sec.   63.1350(e) and (j).
63.9(g)............................  Additional CMS          Yes...................
                                      Notifications.
63.9(h)(1)-(3).....................  Notification of         Yes...................
                                      Compliance Status.
63.9(h)(4).........................  ......................  No....................  [Reserved].
63.9(h)(5)-(6).....................  Notification of         Yes...................
                                      Compliance Status.
63.9(i)............................  Adjustment of           Yes...................
                                      Deadlines.
63.9(j)............................  Change in Previous      Yes...................
                                      Information.

[[Page 55066]]

63.10(a)...........................  Recordkeeping/          Yes...................
                                      Reporting.
63.10(b)(1)........................  General Recordkeeping   Yes...................
                                      Requirements.
63.10(b)(2)(i)-(ii)................  General Recordkeeping   No....................  See Sec.   63.1355(g) and
                                      Requirements.                                   (h).
63.10(b)(2)(iii)...................  General Recordkeeping   Yes...................
                                      Requirements.
63.10(b)(2)(iv)-(v)................  General Recordkeeping   No....................
                                      Requirements.
63.10(b)(2)(vi)-(ix)...............  General Recordkeeping   Yes...................
                                      Requirements.
63.10(c)(1)........................  Additional CMS          Yes...................  PS-8A supersedes
                                      Recordkeeping.                                  requirements for THC CEMS.
63.10(c)(1)........................  Additional CMS          Yes...................  PS-8A supersedes
                                      Recordkeeping.                                  requirements for THC CEMS.
63.10(c)(2)-(4)....................  ......................  No....................  [Reserved].
63.10(c)(5)-(8)....................  Additional CMS          Yes...................  PS-8A supersedes
                                      Recordkeeping.                                  requirements for THC CEMS.
63.10(c)(9)........................  ......................  No....................  [Reserved].
63.10(c)(10)-(15)..................  Additional CMS          Yes...................  PS-8A supersedes
                                      Recordkeeping.                                  requirements for THC CEMS.
63.10(d)(1)........................  General Reporting       Yes...................
                                      Requirements.
63.10(d)(2)........................  Performance Test        Yes...................
                                      Results.
63.10(d)(3)........................  Opacity or VE           Yes...................
                                      Observations.
63.10(d)(4)........................  Progress Reports......  Yes...................
63.10(d)(5)........................  Startup, Shutdown,      No....................  See Sec.   63.1354(c) for
                                      Malfunction Reports.                            reporting requirements.
                                                                                      Any reference to Sec.
                                                                                      63.10(d)(5) in other
                                                                                      General Provisions or in
                                                                                      this subpart is to be
                                                                                      treated as a cross-
                                                                                      reference to Sec.
                                                                                      63.1354(c).
63.10(e)(1)-(2)....................  Additional CMS Reports  Yes...................
63.10(e)(3)........................  Excess Emissions and    Yes...................  Exceedances are defined in
                                      CMS Performance                                 subpart LLL.
                                      Reports.
63.10(f)...........................  Waiver for              Yes...................
                                      Recordkeeping/
                                      Reporting.
63.11(a)-(b).......................  Control Device          No....................  Flares not applicable.
                                      Requirements.
63.12(a)-(c).......................  State Authority and     Yes...................
                                      Delegations.
63.13(a)-(c).......................  State/Regional          Yes...................
                                      Addresses.
63.14(a)-(b).......................  Incorporation by        Yes...................
                                      Reference.
63.15(a)-(b).......................  Availability of         Yes...................
                                      Information.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Appendix A to Part 63--[Amended]

0
27. Section 1.3.2 of Method 321 of Appendix A to Part 63--Test Methods 
is revised to read as follows:

Appendix A to Part 63--Test Methods

* * * * *

Test Method 321--Measurement of Gaseous Hydrogen Chloride Emissions at 
Portland Cement Kilns by Fourier Transform Infrared (FTIR) Spectroscopy

* * * * *
    1.3.2 The practical lower quantification range is usually higher 
than that indicated by the instrument performance in the laboratory, 
and is dependent upon (1) the presence of interfering species in the 
exhaust gas (notably H2O), (2) the optical alignment of 
the gas cell and transfer optics, and (3) the quality of the 
reflective surfaces in the cell (cell throughput). Under typical 
test conditions (moisture content of up to 30 percent, 10 meter 
absorption path length, liquid nitrogen-cooled IR detector, 0.5 
cm-1 resolution, and an interferometer sampling time of 
60 seconds) a typical lower quantification range for HCl is 0.1 to 
1.0 ppm.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2010-21102 Filed 9-8-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P