[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 86 (Wednesday, May 6, 2009)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 21136-21192]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-10206]



[[Page 21135]]

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

Part III





Environmental Protection Agency





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



40 CFR Parts 60 and 63



National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants From the 
Portland Cement Manufacturing Industry; Proposed Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 86 / Wednesday, May 6, 2009 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 21136]]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 60 and 63

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0051; FRL-8898-1]
RIN 2060-AO15


National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants From the 
Portland Cement Manufacturing Industry

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing amendments to the current National Emission 
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) from the Portland 
Cement Manufacturing Industry. These proposed amendments would add or 
revise, as applicable, emission limits for mercury, total hydrocarbons 
(THC), and particulate matter (PM) from kilns and in-line kiln/raw 
mills located at a major or an area source, and hydrochloric acid (HCl) 
from kilns and in-line kiln/raw mills located at major sources. These 
proposed amendments also would remove the following four provisions in 
the current regulation: the operating limit for the average hourly 
recycle rate for cement kiln dust; the requirement that cement kilns 
only use certain type of utility boiler fly ash; the opacity limits for 
kilns and clinker coolers; and the 50 parts per million volume dry 
(ppmvd) THC emission limit for new greenfield sources. EPA is also 
proposing standards which would apply during startup, shutdown, and 
operating modes for all of the current section 112 standards applicable 
to cement kilns.
    Finally, EPA is proposing performance specifications for use of 
mercury continuous emission monitors (CEMS), which specifications would 
be generally applicable and so could apply to sources from categories 
other than, and in addition to, portland cement, and updating 
recordkeeping and testing requirements.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 6, 2009. If any one 
contacts EPA by May 21, 2009 requesting to speak at a public hearing, 
EPA will hold a public hearing on May 26, 2009. Under the Paperwork 
Reduction Act, comments on the information collection provisions are 
best assured of having full effect if the Office of Management and 
Budget (OMB) receives a copy of your comments on or before June 5, 
2009.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2002-0051, by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line 
instructions for submitting comments.
     E-mail: [email protected].
     Fax: (202) 566-9744.
     Mail: U.S. Postal Service, send comments to: EPA Docket 
Center (6102T), National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutant 
From the Portland Cement Manufacturing Industry Docket, Docket ID No. 
EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0051, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 
20460. Please include a total of two copies. In addition, please mail a 
copy of your comments on the information collection provisions to the 
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and 
Budget (OMB), Attn: Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th St., NW., 
Washington, DC 20503.
     Hand Delivery: In person or by courier, deliver comments 
to: EPA Docket Center (6102T), Standards of Performance (NSPS) for 
Portland Cement Plants Docket, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0877, EPA 
West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20004. 
Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of 
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of 
boxed information. Please include a total of two copies.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2002-0051. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included 
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at 
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information 
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be 
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose 
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you 
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site 
is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your 
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of 
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without 
going through http://www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be 
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is 
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you 
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name 
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any 
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to 
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA 
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid 
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of 
any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some 
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information 
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such 
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. 
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically 
in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center, 
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants from the 
Portland Cement Manufacturing Industry 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: [email protected].

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

I. General Information
    A. Does this action apply to me?
    B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments to EPA?
    C. Where can I get a copy of this document?
    D. When would a public hearing occur?
II. Background Information
    A. What is the statutory authority for these proposed 
amendments?
    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. Summary of Proposed Amendments to Subpart LLL
    A. Emissions Limits
    B. Operating Limits
    C. Testing and Monitoring Requirements
IV. Rationale for Proposed Amendments to Subpart LLL
    A. MACT Floor Determination Procedure for all Pollutants

[[Page 21137]]

    B. Determination of MACT for Mercury Emissions From Major and 
Area Sources
    C. Determination of MACT for THC Emissions From Major and Area 
Sources
    D. Determination of MACT for HCl Emissions From Major Sources
    E. Determination of MACT for PM Emissions From Major and Area 
Sources
    F. Selection of Compliance Provisions
    G. Selection of Compliance Dates
    H. Discussion of EPA's Sector Based Approach for Cement 
Manufacturing
    I. Other Changes and Areas Where We Are Requesting Comment
V. Comments on Notice of Reconsideration and EPA Final Action in 
Response To Remand
VI. Summary of Cost, Environmental, Energy, and Economic Impacts of 
Proposed Amendments
    A. What are the affected sources?
    B. How are the impacts for this proposal evaluated?
    C. What are the air quality impacts?
    D. What are the water quality impacts?
    E. What are the solid waste impacts?
    F. What are the secondary impacts?
    G. What are the energy impacts?
    H. What are the cost impacts?
    I. What are the economic impacts?
    J. What are the benefits?
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

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    Categories and entities potentially regulated by this proposed rule 
include:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           NAICS code
                Category                      \1\                    Examples of regulated entities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry................................       327310  Portland cement plants.
Federal government......................  ...........  Not affected.
State/local/tribal government...........  ...........  Portland cement 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 would be regulated by this 
proposed action, you should examine the applicability criteria in 40 
CFR 63.1340 (subpart LLL). If you have any questions regarding the 
applicability of this proposed action to a particular entity, contact 
the person listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT 
section.

B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments to EPA?

    Do not submit information containing CBI to EPA through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. Send or deliver information identified 
as CBI only to the following address: Roberto Morales, OAQPS Document 
Control Officer (C404-02), Office of Air Quality Planning and 
Standards, Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 
27711, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0051. Clearly mark the 
part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI 
information in a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside 
of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within 
the disk or CD-ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In 
addition to one complete version of the comment that includes 
information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain 
the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the 
public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in 
accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.

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

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

D. When and where would a public hearing occur?

    If anyone contacts EPA requesting to speak at a public hearing by 
May 21, 2009, a public hearing will be held on May 26, 2009. To request 
a public hearing contact Ms. Pamela Garrett, EPA, Office of Air Quality 
Planning and Standards, Sector Policy and Programs Division, Energy 
Strategies Group (D243-01), Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, telephone 
number 919-541-7966, e-mail address: [email protected] by the date 
specified above in the DATES section. Persons interested in presenting 
oral testimony or inquiring as to whether a public hearing is to be 
held should also contact Ms. Pamela Garrett at least 2 days in advance 
of the potential date of the public hearing.
    If a public hearing is requested, it will be held at 10 a.m. at the 
EPA Headquarters, Ariel Rios Building, 12th Street and Pennsylvania 
Avenue, Washington, DC 20460 or at a nearby location.

II. Background Information

A. What is the statutory authority for these proposed amendments?

    Section 112(d) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) requires EPA to set 
emissions standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAP) emitted by major 
stationary sources based on performance of the maximum achievable 
control technology (MACT). The MACT standards for existing sources must 
be at least as stringent as the average emissions limitation achieved 
by the best performing 12 percent of existing sources (for which the 
administrator has emissions information) or the best performing 5 
sources for source categories with less than 30 sources (CAA section 
112(d)(3)(A) and (B)). This level of minimum stringency is called the 
MACT floor. For new sources, MACT standards must be at least as 
stringent as the control level achieved in practice by the best 
controlled similar source (CAA section 112(d)(3)). EPA also must 
consider more stringent ``beyond-the-floor'' control options. When 
considering beyond-the-floor options, EPA must consider not only the 
maximum degree of reduction in

[[Page 21138]]

emissions of HAP, but must take into account costs, energy, and nonair 
environmental impacts when doing so.
    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 tons per year (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 source category was listed as a source category 
for regulation under this 1999 Strategy based on emissions of arsenic, 
cadmium, beryllium, lead, and polychlorinated biphenyls. 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 polychlorinated biphenyls (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 section 112(c)(3) and 112(k), EPA is thus proposing to set 
emissions standards for these metal HAP from portland cement 
manufacturing facilities that are area sources (using particulate 
matter as a surrogate). In this proposal, EPA is proposing PM standards 
for area sources based on performance of MACT.
    Section 112(c)(6) requires EPA to list, and to regulate under 
standards established pursuant to section 112(d)(2) or (d)(4), 
categories of sources accounting for not less than 90 percent of 
emissions of each of seven specific HAP: 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 112(d)(2) 
must reflect the performance of MACT. ``Portland cement manufacturing: 
non-hazardous waste kilns'' is listed as a source category for 
regulation under section 112(d)(2) pursuant to the section 112(c)(6) 
requirements due to emissions of polycyclic organic matter, mercury, 
and dioxin/furans (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, polycyclic organic 
matter, and polychlorinated biphenyls are subject to MACT).
    Section 129(a)(1)(A) of the Act 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'' 
(section 129(a)(1)(D)).\3\ Section 129 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.'' Section 129(g)(1). 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]. Section 129(g)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    In Natural Resources Defense Council v. EPA, 489 F. 3d 1250, 1257-
61 (D.C. 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 that rule, EPA defined the term ``commercial or 
industrial solid waste incineration unit'' to mean a combustion unit 
that combusts ``commercial or industrial waste.'' The rule defined 
``commercial or industrial waste'' to mean waste combusted at a unit 
that does not recover thermal energy from the combustion for a useful 
purpose. Under these definitions, only those units that combusted 
commercial or industrial waste and were not designed to, or did not 
operate to, recover thermal energy from the combustion would be subject 
to section 129 standards. The DC Circuit rejected the definitions 
contained in the CISWI Definitions Rule and interpreted the term 
``solid waste incineration unit'' in CAA section 129(g)(1) ``to 
unambiguously include among the incineration units subject to its 
standards any facility that combusts any commercial or industrial solid 
waste material at all--subject to the four statutory exceptions 
identified in [CAA section 129(g)(1).]'' NRDC v. EPA, 489 F.3d 1250, 
1257-58.
    In response to the Court's remand and vacatur of the CISWI 
Definitions rule, EPA has initiated a rulemaking to define which 
secondary materials are ``solid waste'' for purposes of subtitle D 
(non-hazardous waste) of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 
when burned in a combustion unit. See Advance Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking, 74 FR 41 (January 2, 2009) (soliciting comment on whether 
certain secondary materials used as alternative fuels or ingredients 
are solid wastes within the meaning of Subtitle D of the Resource 
Conservation and Recovery Act). That definition, in turn, would 
determine the applicability of section 129(a).
    This definitional rulemaking is relevant to this proceeding because 
some portland cement kilns combust secondary materials as alternative 
fuels. However, there is no federal regulatory interpretation of 
``solid waste'' for EPA to apply under Subtitle D of the Resource 
Conservation and Recovery Act, and EPA cannot prejudge the outcome of 
that pending rulemaking. Moreover, EPA has imperfect information on the 
exact nature of the secondary materials which portland cement kilns 
combust, such as information as to the provider(s) of the secondary 
materials, how much processing the secondary materials may have 
undergone, and other issues potentially relevant in a determination of 
whether these materials are to be classified as solid wastes. See 74 FR 
at 53-59. EPA therefore cannot reliably determine at this time if the 
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 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 section 112 
sources (i.e. subject to regulation under section 112). EPA notes, 
however, that the combustion of secondary materials as alternative 
fuels did not have any appreciable effect on the amount of HAP emitted 
by any source.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Development of the MACT Floors for the Proposed NESHAP for 
Portland Cement. April 15, 2009.

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

[[Page 21139]]

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).\5\ 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 \6\ new sources total THC as a surrogate for 
organic HAP. These standards were intended to be based on the 
performance of MACT pursuant to 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 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.
    \6\ 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 section 
112(d) standards for mercury, THC (except for greenfield new sources) 
and hydrochloric acid. 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. 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., Sierra Club v. EPA (Brick MACT), 479 F. 3d 875, 882-83 (DC 
Cir. 2007).\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ In the remainder of the opinion, the court in National Lime 
Ass'n upheld EPA's standards for particulate matter and dioxin (on 
grounds that petitioner had not properly raised arguments in its 
opening brief), upheld EPA's use of particulate matter as a 
surrogate for HAP metals, and remanded for further explanation EPA's 
choice of an analytic method for hydrochloric acid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 national 
emission standards for these HAP. The final amendments contain 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 worst-case operating conditions and exposure 
assumptions, would emit HCl at levels that would exceed that threshold 
level, allowing for an ample margin of safety.

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 but 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 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 is 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.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 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

[[Page 21140]]

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 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);
     EPA cannot ignore non-technology factors that reduce HAP 
emissions. 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 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 unintended 
is not a legal basis for excluding the source's performance from 
consideration. National Lime Ass'n, 233 F. 3d at 640.
    The Brick MACT decision also stated 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.
    The majority opinion in the Brick MACT case does not address the 
possibility of subcategorization to address differences in the HAP 
content of raw materials. However, in his concurring opinion Judge 
Williams stated that EPA's ability to create subcategories for sources 
of different classes, size, or type (section 112 (d)(1)) may provide a 
means out of the situation where the floor standards are achieved for 
some sources, but the same floors cannot be achieved for other sources 
due to differences in local raw materials whose use is essential. Id. 
at 884-85.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ ``What if meeting the `floors' is extremely or even 
prohibitively costly for particular plants because of conditions 
specific to those plants (e.g., adoption of the necessary technology 
requires very costly retrofitting, or the required technology 
cannot, given local inputs whose use is essential, achieve the 
`floor')? For these plants, it would seem that what has been 
`achieved' under Sec.  112(d)(3) would not be `achievable' under 
Sec.  112(d)(2) in light of the latter's mandate to EPA to consider 
cost. * * * [O]ne legitimate basis for creating additional 
subcategories must be the interest in keeping the relation between 
`achieved' and `achievable' in accord with common sense and the 
reasonable meaning of the statute. '' Id. at 884-85
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 is also relevant to this proposal. In Sierra 
Club v. EPA, 551 F. 3d 1019 (DC Cir. 2008) the court vacated the 
regulations contained in the General Provisions which exempt major 
sources from MACT 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 
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 does not contain specific provisions covering operation during 
SSM operating modes; rather it references the now-vacated rules in the 
General Provisions. As a result of the court decision, we are 
addressing them in this rulemaking. Discussion of this issue may be 
found in Section IV.G.

III. Summary of Proposed Amendments to Subpart LLL

    This section presents the proposed amendments to the Portland 
Cement NESHAP. In the section presenting the amended rule language, 
there is some language that it not amendatory, but is presented for the 
reader's convenience. We are not reopening or otherwise considering 
unchanged rule language presented for the reader's convenience, and 
will not accept comments on such language.

A. Emissions Limits

    We are proposing the following new emission limits in this action 
categorized below by their sources in a typical Portland cement 
production process.
Kilns and In-line Kiln/Raw Mills
    Mercury. For cement kilns or in-line kilns/raw mills an emissions 
limit of 43 lb/million(MM) tons clinker for existing sources and 14 lb/
MM tons clinker for new sources. Both proposed limits are based on a 30 
day rolling average.
    THC. For cement kilns or in-line kilns/raw mills an emissions limit 
of 7 parts per million by volume (ppmv) for existing sources and 6 ppmv 
for new sources, measured dry as propane and corrected to 7 percent 
oxygen, measured on a 30 rolling day average in each case. Because the 
proposed existing source standard would be more stringent than the new 
source standard of 50 ppmv contained in the 1999 final rule for 
greenfield new sources, we are also proposing to remove the 50 ppmv 
standard.
    As an alternative to the THC standard, we are proposing that the 
cement kilns or in-line kilns/raw mills can meet a standard of 2 ppmv 
total combined organic HAP for existing sources or 1 ppmv total organic 
HAP combined for new sources, measured dry and corrected to 7 percent 
oxygen. We believe this standard is equivalent to the proposed THC 
standard as discussed in section IV.C. The alternative standard would 
be based on organic HAP emission testing and concurrent THC CEMS 
measurements that would establish a site specific THC limit that would 
demonstrate compliance with the total organic HAP limit. The site 
specific THC limit would be measured as a 30 day rolling average.
    PM. For cement kilns or cement kilns/in-line raw mills an emissions 
limit of 0.085 pounds per ton (lb/ton) clinker for existing sources and 
0.080 lb/tons clinker for new sources. Kilns and kiln/in-line raw mills 
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) would 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.
    Opacity. We are proposing to remove all opacity standards for kilns 
and clinker coolers because these sources will be required to monitor 
compliance with the PM emissions limits by more accurate means.
    Hydrochloric Acid. For cement kilns or cement kilns/in-line raw 
mills an emissions limit of 2 ppmv for existing sources and 0.1 ppmv 
for new sources, measured dry and corrected to 7 percent oxygen. For 
facilities that are required to use a continuous emissions monitoring

[[Page 21141]]

system (CEMS), compliance would be based on a 30 day rolling average.
Clinker Coolers
    For clinker coolers a PM emissions limit of 0.085 lb/ton clinker 
for existing sources and 0.080 lb/tons clinker for new sources.
Raw Material Dryers
    THC. For raw materials dryers an emissions limit of 7 ppmv for 
existing sources and 6 ppmv for new sources, measured dry as propane 
and corrected to 7 percent oxygen, measured on a 30 day rolling 
average. Because the proposed existing source standard would be more 
stringent than the new source standard of 50 ppmv contained in the 1999 
final rule for Greenfield new sources, we are also proposing to remove 
the 50 ppmv standard.
    As an alternative to the THC standard, the raw material dryer can 
meet a standard of 2 ppmv total combined organic HAP for existing 
sources or 1 ppmv total organic HAP combined for new sources, measured 
dry and corrected to 7 percent oxygen. The alternative standard would 
be based on organic HAP emission testing and concurrent THC CEMS 
measurements that would establish a site specific THC limit that would 
demonstrate compliance with the total organic HAP limit. The site 
specific THC limit would be measured as a 30 day rolling average.

B. Operating Limits

    EPA is proposing to eliminate the restriction on the use of fly ash 
where the mercury content of the fly ash has been increased through the 
use of activated carbon. Given the proposed emission limitation for 
mercury, whereby kilns or cement kilns/in-line raw mills 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. For the same reason, EPA is proposing to 
remove 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.

C. Testing and Monitoring Requirements

    We are proposing the following changes in testing and monitoring 
requirements:
    Kilns and kiln/in-line raw mills would 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-8A to measure THC 
emissions for existing sources (new sources are already required to 
monitor THC with a CEM). Kilns and kiln/in-line raw mills meeting the 
organic HAP alternative to the THC limit would still be required to 
continuously monitor THC (based on the results of THC monitoring done 
concurrently with the Method 320 test), and would also be required to 
test emissions using EPA Method 320 or ASTM D6348-03 every five years 
to identify the organic HAP component of their THC emissions.
     Installation and operation of a bag leak detection system 
to demonstrate compliance with the PM emissions limit. If electrostatic 
precipitators (ESP) are used for PM control an ESP predictive model to 
monitor the performance of ESP controlling PM emissions from kilns 
would be required. As an alternative EPA is proposing that sources may 
use a PM CEMS that meets the requirements of PS-11. Though we are 
proposing the PM CEMS as an alternative compliance method, we are 
taking comment on requiring PM CEMS to demonstrate compliance.
     CEMS meeting the requirements of PS-15 would be required 
to demonstrate compliance with the HCl standard. 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 5 years.
    For clinker coolers, EPA is proposing use of a bag leak detection 
system to demonstrate compliance with the proposed PM emissions limit. 
If an ESP is used for PM control on clinker coolers, an ESP predictive 
model to monitor the performance of ESP controlling PM emissions from 
kilns would be required. As an alternative, EPA is proposing that a PM 
CEMS that meets the requirements of PS-11 may be used.
    Raw material dryers that are existing sources would be required to 
install and operate CEMS meeting the requirement of PS-8A to measure 
THC emissions. (New sources are already required to monitor THC with a 
CEM). Raw material dryers meeting the organic HAP alternative to the 
THC limit would still be required to continuously monitor THC (based on 
the results of THC monitoring done concurrently with the Method 320 
test), and would also be required to test emissions using EPA Method 
320 or ASTM D6348-03 every five years to identify the organic HAP 
component of their THC emissions.
    New or reconstructed raw material dryers and raw or finish mills 
would 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 
proposed rule.

IV. Rationale for Proposed Amendments to Subpart LLL

A. MACT Floor Determination Procedure for all Pollutants

    The MACT floor limits for each of the HAP and HAP surrogates 
(mercury, total hydrocarbons, HCl, and particulate matter) are 
calculated based on the performance of the lowest emitting (best 
performing) sources in each of the MACT pool sources. 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 performing source. The MACT floor limit is calculated from a 
formula that is a modified prediction limit, designed to estimate a 
MACT floor level that is achievable by the average of the best 
performing sources (i.e., those in the MACT pool) if the best 
performing sources were able to replicate the compliance tests in our 
data base. Specifically, the MACT floor limit is an upper prediction 
limit (UPL) calculated from: \10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ More details on the calculation of the MACT floor limits 
are given in the memorandum Development of The MACT Floors For The 
Proposed NESHAP for Portland Cement. April 15, 2009.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
UPL = xp + t * (VT)\0.5\

Where:

Xp = average of the best performing MACT pool sources,
t = Student's t-factor evaluated at 99 percent confidence, and
vT = total variance determined as the sum of the within-
source variance and the between-source variance.

The between-source variance is the variance of the average of the best 
performing source averages. The within-source variance is the variance 
of the MACT source average considering ``m'' number of future 
individual test runs used to make up the average to determine 
compliance. The value of ``m'' is used to reduce the variability to 
account for the lower variability when averaging of individual runs is 
used to determine compliance in the future. For example, if 30-day 
averages are used to

[[Page 21142]]

determine compliance (m=30), the variability based 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.

B. Determination of MACT for Mercury Emissions From Major and Area 
Sources

    The limits for existing and new sources we are proposing here apply 
to both area and major new sources. These limits would also apply to 
area sources consistent with section 112(c)(6) of the Act, as EPA 
determined in the original rule. See 63 FR at 14193.
1. Floor Determination
Selection of Existing Source Floor
    Cement kilns' emissions of mercury reflect exclusively the amounts 
of mercury in each kiln's feedstock and fuel inputs. The amounts of 
mercury in these inputs and their relative contributions to overall 
mercury kiln emissions vary by site. In many cases the majority of the 
mercury emissions result from the mercury present as a trace 
contaminant in the limestone, which typically comes from a proprietary 
quarry located adjacent to the plant. Limestone is the single largest 
input, by mass, to a cement kiln's total mass input, typically making 
up 80 percent of that loading. Mercury is also found as a trace 
contaminant in the other inputs to the kiln such as the additives that 
supply the required silica, alumina, and iron. Mercury is also present 
in the coal and petroleum coke typically used to fuel cement kilns.
    Based on our current information, mercury levels in limestone can 
vary significantly, both within a single quarry and between quarries. 
Since quarries are generally proprietary, this variability is inherent 
and site-specific. Mercury levels in additives and fuels likewise vary 
significantly, although mercury emissions attributable to limestone 
often dominate the total due to the larger amount of mass input 
contributed by limestone (see further discussion of this issue at Other 
Options EPA considered in Setting Floor for Mercury below).
    The first step in establishing a MACT standard is to determine the 
MACT floor. A necessary step in doing so is determining the amount of 
HAP emitted. In the case of mercury emitted by cement kilns, this is 
not necessarily a straightforward undertaking. Single stack 
measurements represent a snapshot in time of a source's emissions, 
always raising questions of how representative such emissions are of 
the source's emissions over time. This problem is compounded in the 
case of cement kilns, because cement kilns do not emit mercury 
uniformly. Our current data suggest that, for all kilns, the mercury 
content of the feed and fuels varies significantly from day-to-day. 
Because most cement kilns have no mercury emissions control, the 
variations in mercury inputs directly translate to a variability of 
mercury stack emissions. For modern preheater and preheater/precalciner 
kilns this problem is compounded because these kilns have in-line raw 
mills. With in-line raw mills, mercury is captured in the ground raw 
meal in the in-line raw mill and this raw meal (containing mercury) is 
returned as feed to the kiln. Mercury emissions may remain low during 
such recycling operations. However, as part of normal kiln operation 
raw mills must be periodically shut down for maintenance, and mercury-
containing exhaust gases from the kiln are then bypassed directly to 
the main air pollution control device resulting in significantly 
increased mercury emissions at the stack. The result is that at any 
given time, mercury emissions from such cement kilns are either low or 
high, but rarely in equilibrium, so that single stack tests are likely 
to either underestimate or overestimate cement kilns' performance over 
time. Put another way, we believe that single short term stack test 
data (typically a few hours) are probably not indicative of long term 
emissions performance, and so are not the best indicator of performance 
over time. With these facts in mind, we carefully considered 
alternatives other than use of single short-term stack test results to 
quantify kilns' performance for mercury.
    An alternative to short term stack test data would be to use 
mercury continuous monitoring data over a longer time period. Because 
no cement kilns in the United States have continuous mercury monitors, 
this option was not available. However, mercury is an element. 
Therefore, all the mercury that enters a kiln has to leave the kiln in 
some fashion. The available data indicate that almost no mercury leaves 
the kiln as part of the clinker (product). Therefore, our methodology 
assumes over the long term that all the mercury leaves the kiln as a 
stack emission with three exceptions:
    1. If instead of returning all particulate captured in the 
particulate control device to the kiln, the source instead removes some 
of it from the circuit entirely, i.e., the kiln does not reuse all 
(wastes some) cement kiln dust (CKD); or
    2. The kiln is equipped with an alkali bypass, which means all CKD 
captured in the alkali bypass PM control is wasted, and/or;
    3. If the kiln has a wet scrubber (usually for SO2 
control), the scrubber will remove some mercury which our methodology 
assumes will end up in the gypsum generated by the scrubber.
    Based on these facts we decided that the most accurate method 
available to us to determine long term mercury emissions performance 
was to do a total mass balance. We did so by obtaining data on all the 
kiln mercury inputs (i.e., all raw materials and all fuels) for a large 
group of kilns, and assuming all mercury that enters the kiln is 
emitted except for the three conditions noted above. Pursuant to 
letters mandating data gathering, issued under the authority of section 
114, we obtained 30 days of daily data on kiln mercury concentrations 
in each individual raw material, fuel, and CKD for 89 kilns (which 
represent 59 percent of total kilns), along with annual mass inputs and 
the amount of material collected in the PM control device (or alkali PM 
control device) that is wasted rather than returned to the kiln.
    These data were submitted to EPA as daily concentrations for the 
inputs, i.e., samples of all inputs were taken daily and analyzed daily 
for their mercury content. We took the daily averages, calculated a 
mean concentration, and multiplied the mean concentration by annual 
materials use to calculate an annual mercury emission for each of the 
89 kilns. If the facility wasted CKD, we subtracted out the annual 
mercury that left the system in the CKD. If the facility had a wet 
scrubber (the only control device currently in use among the sampled 
kilns with any substantial mercury capture efficiency), we subtracted 
out the annual mercury attributable to use of the scrubber. There are 
five cement kilns using wet scrubbers and EPA has removal efficiencies 
for four of these kilns (based on inlet/outlet testing conducted at 
EPA's request concurrent with the input sampling). We attributed a 
removal efficiency for the fifth kiln based on the average removal 
efficiency of the other four kilns.
    We acknowledge that an additional source of uncertainty in the mass 
balance methodology for estimating the capture efficiencies of wet 
scrubbers is the variability in the mercury speciation ratios 
(elemental to divalent). These ratios, which are dependent on the 
amount of chlorine present and other factors, would be expected to vary 
at different kilns. Only the soluble divalent mercury fraction will be

[[Page 21143]]

captured by a wet scrubber. We note, however, that mercury speciation 
would be expected to have little effect on mercury emissions in the 
case where wet scrubbers, or other add-on controls such as activated 
carbon injection (ACI), are not used, because for most facilities, 
mercury captured in the PM controls is returned to the kiln. In cases 
where some of the collected PM is wasted, we had 30 days of actual 
mercury content data for wasted material.
    For each kiln, we calculated an average annual emission factor, 
which is the average projected emission rate for each kiln. We did this 
by dividing calculated annual emissions by total inputs. We then ranked 
each kiln from lowest average emission factor to highest. The resulting 
emissions factors for 87 of the 89 ranged (relatively continuously) 
from 7 to 300 pounds of mercury per million tons of feed. Two kilns 
showed considerably higher numbers, approximately 1200 and 2000 pounds 
per ton of feed. These two facilities have atypically high mercury 
contents in the limestone in their proprietary quarries which are the 
most significant contributors to the high mercury emissions.
    Based on these data and ranking methodology, the existing source 
MACT floor would be the average of the lowest emitting 12 percent of 
the kilns for which we have data, which would be the 11 kilns with 
lowest emissions (as calculated), shown in Table 1.

                       Table 1--Mercury MACT Floor
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Mercury emissions
                      Kiln code                        (lb/MM ton feed)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1233................................................                7.14
1650................................................               10.83
1589................................................               11.11
1302................................................               14.51
1259................................................               15.16
1315................................................               15.41
1248................................................               18.09
1286................................................               21.12
1435................................................               22.89
1484................................................               22.89
1364................................................               23.92
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                          MACT--Existing kilns
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average: lb/MM tons feed (lb/MM tons clinker).......         16.6 (27.4)
Variability (t*vT\0.5\).............................                9.52
99th percentile: lb/MM tons feed (lb/MM tons                     26 (43)
 clinker)...........................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                             MACT--New kilns
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average: lb/MM tons feed (lb/MM tons clinker).......          7.1 (11.8)
Variability (t*vT\0.5\).............................                 1.3
99th percentile: lb/MM tons feed (lb/MM tons                    8.4 (14)
 clinker)...........................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The average emission rate for these kilns is 16.6 pounds per 
million tons (lb/MM) tons feed (27.4 lb/MM tons clinker). The emission 
rate of the single lowest emitting source is 7.1 lb/MM tons feed (11.8 
lb/MM tons clinker).
    As previously discussed above, we account for variability in 
setting floors, not only because variability is an element of 
performance, but because it is reasonable to assess best performance 
over time. Here, for example, we know that the 11 lowest emitting kiln 
emission estimates are averages, and that the actual emissions will 
vary over time. If we do not account for this variability, we would 
expect that even the kilns that perform better than the floor on 
average would potentially exceed the floor emission levels a 
significant part of the time--meaning that their performance was 
assessed incorrectly in the first instance.
    For the 11 lowest emitting kilns, we calculated a daily emission 
rate using the daily concentration values and annual materials inputs 
divided by each kiln's operating days.\11\ The results are shown in 
Table 1 and represent the average performance of each kiln over the 30-
day period. We then calculated the average performance of the 11 lowest 
emitting kilns (17 lb/MM tons of feed) and the variances of the daily 
emission rates for each kiln which is a direct measure of the 
variability of the data set. This variability includes the day-to-day 
variability in the total mercury input to each kiln and variability of 
the sampling and analysis methods over the 30-day period, and it 
includes the variability resulting from site-to-site differences for 
the 11 lowest emitters. We calculated the MACT floor (26 lb/MM tons 
feed) based on the UPL (upper 99th percentile) as described earlier 
from the average performance of the 11 lowest emitting kilns, Students 
t-factor, and the total variability, which was adjusted to account for 
the lower variability when using 30 day averages.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ In the daily calculations, we treated the CKD removal as if 
it was a control device, and applied the overall percent reduction 
rather that using the daily CKD concentration value. We used this 
approach because if we used daily CKD removal values, some days 
showed negative mercury emissions rates. This is because of the 
mercury recycling issues discussed above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA also has some information which tends to corroborate the 
variability factor used to calculate the floor for mercury. These data 
are not emissions data; they are data on the total mercury content of 
feed materials over periods of 12 months or longer. Because mercury 
emissions correlate with mercury content of feed materials, we believe 
an analysis of the variability of the feed materials is an accurate 
surrogate for the variability of mercury emissions over time. These 
long term data are from multiple kilns from a single company that are 
not ranked among the lowest emitters, but are nonetheless germane as a 
crosscheck on variability of mercury content of feed materials 
(including whether 30 days of sampling, coupled with statistically 
derived variability of that data set and a 99th percentile, adequately 
measures that variability).
    One way of comparing the variability among different data sets with 
different average values is to calculate and compare the relative 
standard deviations (RSD), which is the standard deviation divided by 
the mean, of each set. If the RSD are comparable, then one can conclude 
that the variability among the data sets is comparable. The results of 
such an analysis are given in Table 2 below. The long term data 
represent long term averages of feed material mercury content based on 
12 months of data or more, whereas the MACT data sets are for 30 
consecutive days of data. The RSD of the long term data range from 0.29 
to 1.05, and the RSD of the MACT floor kilns range from 0.10 to 0.89. 
This comparison suggests that our method of calculating variability in 
the proposed floor based on variances/99th percentile UPL appears to 
adequately encompass sources' long-term variability.

[[Page 21144]]



     Table 2--Comparison of Long-Term Kiln Feed Mercury Concentration at Essroc Plants With the Feed Mercury
                                   Concentration Data for the MACT Floor Kilns
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           PPM Hg in feed
                                     --------------------------
                Kiln                                 Standard       RSD                     Source
                                          Mean      deviation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1248 \a\............................        0.021        0.002         0.10  MACT floor kiln.\b\
1589 \a\............................        0.021        0.002         0.10  MACT floor kiln.
1435................................        0.012        0.002         0.16  MACT floor kiln.
1484................................        0.012        0.002         0.16  MACT floor kiln.
1233................................        0.011        0.002         0.16  MACT floor kiln.
1650................................        0.025        0.005         0.22  MACT floor kiln.
Speed...............................        0.055        0.016         0.29  Essroc.\c\
1286................................        0.006        0.002         0.32  MACT floor kiln.
1364................................        0.006        0.002         0.32  MACT floor kiln.
San Juan............................        0.322        0.108         0.34  Essroc.
Bessemer............................        0.021        0.007         0.35  Essroc.
Logansport..........................        0.022        0.008         0.37  Essroc.
Naz III.............................        0.016        0.010         0.61  Essroc.
Naz I...............................        2.974        1.838         0.62  Essroc.
1302................................        0.006        0.004         0.68  MACT floor kiln.
1315................................        0.006        0.004         0.68  MACT floor kiln.
Martinsburg.........................        0.023        0.017         0.89  Essroc.
1259................................        0.008        0.007         0.89  MACT floor kiln.
Picton..............................        0.075        0.078         1.05  Essroc.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Same feed sample applied to multiple kilns at the plant.
\b\ MACT floor kilns' variabilities are all based on approximately 30 days of data.
\c\ Essroc kiln's variabilities are all based on 12 months to three years of data.

    We are proposing to express the floor as a 30-day rolling average 
for the following two reasons. First, as explained earlier, daily 
variations in mercury emissions at the stack for all kilns with in-line 
raw mills is greater than daily variability of mercury levels in 
inputs. This is because mercury is emitted in high concentrations 
during mill-off conditions, but in lower concentrations when mercury is 
recycled to the kiln via the raw mill (`mill-on'). We believe that 30 
days is the minimum averaging time that allows for this mill-on/mill-
off variation.
    Second, a 30-day rolling average is tied to our proposed 
implementation regime, which in turn is based on the means by which the 
data used to generate the standard were developed. As explained above, 
the proposed floor reflects 30 days of sampling which are averaged, 
corresponding to the proposed 30-day averaging period. EPA is also 
proposing to monitor compliance by means of daily monitoring via a 
CEMS, so that the proposed implementation regime likewise mirrors the 
means by which the underlying data were gathered and used in developing 
the standard.
    Critical to this variability calculation is the assumption that EPA 
is adequately accounting for variable mercury content in kiln 
inputs.\12\ As noted, we did so based on 30 days of continuous sampling 
of all kiln inputs, plus use of a further statistical variability 
factor (based on that data set) and use of the 99th percentile UPL. The 
30-day averaging time in the standard is a further means of accounting 
for variability, and accords with the data and methodology EPA used to 
develop the floor level.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Since only five kilns have stack control devices, 
variability of performance of these controls (wet scrubbers), 
although important, plays a less critical role in this analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We solicit comment on the accuracy and appropriateness of this 
analysis. The most pertinent information would of course be additional 
data of raw material and fuel mercury contents and usage to specific 
kilns (especially data from sampling over a longer period than 30 
days).\13\ EPA also expressly solicits further information regarding 
potential substitutability of non-limestone kiln inputs and whether 
kilns actually utilize inputs other than those reflected in the 30-day 
sampling effort comprising EPA's present data base for mercury, and if 
so, what mercury levels are in these inputs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Some advance commenters have posited a larger variability 
factor to reflect the historic known variation in mercury content in 
limestone and other inputs, as reflected in various geological 
surveys. However, at issue is not variability for the source 
category as a whole, but specific sources' variability. So any 
resort to information not coming directly from a best performer's 
own operating history must be accompanied by an explanation of its 
relevance for best performer's variability in order to be considered 
relevant. See Brick MACT, 479 F. 3d at 881-82.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Selection of New Source Floor
    Based on Table 1, the average associated with the single lowest 
emitting kiln is 7 lb/MM tons feed (12 lb/MM tons clinker). Applying 
the UPL formula discussed earlier based on the daily emissions for the 
best performing kiln, we calculated its 99th percentile UPL of 
performance, which results in a new source MACT level of 8.4 lb/MM tons 
feed (14 lb/MM tons clinker).
    Because this new source floor is expressed on a different basis 
than the standard EPA promulgated in December 2006, which was a 41 
[micro]g/dscm not to be exceeded standard, it is difficult to directly 
compare the new source floor proposed in this action to the December 
2006 standard. The December 2006 new source mercury emissions limit was 
based on the performance of wet scrubber-equipped cement kilns. In our 
current analysis these wet scrubber-equipped kilns were among the 
lowest emitting kilns, but not the lowest emitting kiln used to 
establish this proposed new source limit. Based on this fact, we 
believe this proposed new source floor (and standard, since EPA is not 
proposing a beyond-the-floor standard) is approximately 30 percent 
lower than the December 2006 standard.
Other Options EPA Considered in Setting Floors for Mercury
    EPA may create subcategories which distinguish among ``classes, 
types, and sizes of sources''. Section 112(d)(1). EPA has carefully 
considered that possibility

[[Page 21145]]

in considering potential standards for mercury emitted by portland 
cement kilns. Were EPA to do so, each subcategory would have its own 
floor and standard, reflecting performance of the sources within that 
subcategory. EPA may create a subcategory applicable to a single HAP, 
rather than to all HAP emitted by the source category, if the facts 
warrant (so that, for example, a subcategory for kilns emitting 
mercury, but a single category for kilns emitting HCl, is legally 
permissible with a proper factual basis). 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.
    The subcategorization possibilities for mercury which we considered 
are the type of kiln, presence of an inline raw mill, practice of 
wasting cement kiln dust, mercury concentration of limestone in the 
kiln's proprietary quarry, or geographic location. Mercury emissions 
are not affected by kiln type (i.e., wet or dry, pre-calcining or not) 
because none of these distinctions have a bearing on the amount of 
mercury inputted to the kiln or emitted by it. In contrast, the 
presence of an in-line raw mill affects mercury emissions in the short 
term because the in-line raw mill tends to collect mercury in the 
exhaust gas and transfer it to the kiln feed. However, since (as 
discussed above) the raw mill must be shut down periodically for 
maintenance while the kiln continues to operate, all or most of the 
collected mercury simply gets emitted during the raw mill shutdown and 
total mercury emissions over time are not changed.
    The practice of wasting cement kiln dust does affect emissions. 
This practice means that a portion of the material collected on the PM 
control device is removed from the kiln system, rather than recycled to 
the kiln. Some of the mercury condenses on the PM collected on the PM 
control device, so wasting CKD also removes some mercury from the kiln 
system (and therefore it is not emitted). However, since this practice 
could be considered to ``control'' mercury, subcategorization by CKD 
wasting would be the same as subcategorizing by control device, which 
is not permissible. See 69 FR at 403 (Jan. 5, 2004).
    There is no variation in kiln location (i.e., geographical 
distinction) which would justify subcategorization. We examined the 
geographical distribution of mercury emissions and total mercury and 
found no correlation. For example, no one region of the country has 
kilns that tend to be all low- or high-emitting kilns.
    We also rejected subcategorization by total mercury inputs. 
Subcategorization by this method would inevitability result in a 
situation where kilns with higher total mercury inputs would have 
higher emission limits. Total mercury inputs are correlated with 
mercury emissions. So a facility that currently has lower mercury 
inputs could potentially simply substitute a higher mercury raw 
material without any requirement to control the additional mercury. In 
addition, fuels and other additives are non-captive \14\ situations, 
and thus do not readily differentiate kilns by ``size, class, or 
type''. Finally, because of the direct correlation of mercury emissions 
and mercury inputs, subcategorization by total mercury inputs could 
potentially be viewed as a similar situation to subcategorization by 
control device.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ `Non-captive' means these materials do not necessarily come 
from the facility's proprietary quarry and the facility has choices 
for the source of these materials.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The subcategorization option that we believe is most pertinent 
would be to subcategorize by the facility's proprietary limestone 
quarry. All cement plans have a limestone quarry located adjacent to or 
very close to the cement plant. This quarry supplies limestone only to 
its associated plant, and is not accessible to other plants. Typically 
quarries are developed to provide 50 to 100 years of limestone, and the 
cement kiln is located based on the location of the quarry. See 70 FR 
at 72333. For this reason, we believe that a facility's proprietary 
quarry is an inherent part of the process such that the kiln and the 
quarry together can be viewed as the affected source. Also, the amount 
of mercury in the proprietary quarry can significantly affect mercury 
emission because (as noted above) limestone makes up about 80 percent 
of the total inputs to the kiln. Thus, kilns with mercury above a given 
level might be considered a different type or class of kiln because 
their process necessarily requires the use of that higher-mercury 
input.
    The facts, however, do not obviously indicate sharp disparities in 
limestone mercury content that readily differentiate among types of 
sources. Figure 1 presents the average mercury contents of the 
proprietary quarries on the 89 kilns in EPA's present data base.

[[Page 21146]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06MY09.052

    These data, as we presently evaluate them, do not readily support a 
subcategorization approach--putting aside for the moment the high 
mercury limestone kilns (at the far right of the distribution tail in 
Figure 1) which are discussed separately. As shown in Figure 1, mercury 
levels in limestone are more of a continuum with no immediately evident 
breakpoints (again, putting aside the high-mercury limestone kilns). 
More important, kilns with quarries with varied mercury content can and 
do have similar mercury emissions, and in many instances, limestone 
mercury is not the dominant source of mercury in the kilns' emissions 
notwithstanding that limestone is the principal volumetric input. Thus 
for about 55 percent of the kilns (49 of 89), non-limestone mercury 
accounted for greater than 50 percent of the kiln's mercury 
emissions.\15\ For nearly 70 percent of the kilns (62 of 89), limestone 
mercury accounted for at least one-third of total mercury emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ In certain instances, percentages of non-limestone mercury 
are high because limestone mercury content was low. However, in many 
instances, non-limestone mercury contributions exceeded those from 
limestone even where limestone mercury contribution was relatively 
high. See Table 3.

                          Table 3--Origins of Mercury in Portland Cement Manufacturing
                                        [Sorted by limestone percent] \a\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Limestone
                                                      mercury       Percent Hg      Percent Hg      Percent Hg
             Random number kiln code               concentration  from limestone  from other raw    from fuels
                                                       (ppb)            \a\          materials
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1629............................................          652.92              92               8               0
1647............................................           40.88              89               5               7
1581............................................           96.73              88               9               3
1376............................................           27.43              87               5               8
1609............................................         1120.75              87              13               0
1688............................................           27.43              87               5               8
1690............................................           27.43              87               5               8
1339............................................           21.00              84               8               9
1324............................................           21.30              83               1              16
1693............................................           21.72              80               7              13
1692............................................           20.23              79              13               8
1419............................................           20.92              77              16               8
1248............................................           20.92              76              17               6
1302............................................            6.24              76               7              17
1686............................................           51.21              76              19               6
1239............................................           59.40              74              17               8

[[Page 21147]]

 
1315............................................            6.24              74               7              19
1265............................................           12.18              73              16              11
1251............................................           20.92              70              16              13
1592............................................           46.99              68              11              21
1650............................................           24.92              68               3              28
1643............................................           22.02              67               1              33
1674............................................           22.02              67               1              32
1225............................................           46.99              66              11              23
1268............................................           16.97              65               4              31
1226............................................           21.45              64              11              26
1589............................................           20.92              64              30               5
1200............................................           86.65              63               5              32
1218............................................           86.65              63               5              32
1415............................................           20.00              63              29               7
1439............................................           46.99              63              11              27
1421............................................           13.00              62              27              11
1435............................................           11.56              62              25              13
1463............................................           12.18              62              13              25
1484............................................           11.56              62              25              13
1481............................................           39.12              60              35               5
1337............................................           57.17              59              17              24
1375............................................           20.67              59              21              20
1448............................................           57.17              59              17              24
1615............................................           20.67              58              21              21
1259............................................            8.31              57              23              20
1327............................................           20.67              57              21              23
1604............................................           20.00              55              22              23
1256............................................           21.63              54              41               5
1294............................................           21.63              54              41               5
1343............................................           21.63              54              41               5
1350............................................           21.63              54              41               5
1220............................................           21.54              53              40               6
1635............................................           21.23              52              41               7
1638............................................           39.00              48               3              48
1233............................................           11.31              46              41              14
1240............................................           21.23              44               3              53
1331............................................           16.93              44              12              44
1417............................................           39.00              44               3              53
1594............................................           16.93              42              12              46
1371............................................           20.10              40              16              44
1619............................................           20.10              40              16              43
1660............................................           16.93              39              11              50
1443............................................           20.00              38              57               5
1396............................................           20.43              35              61               4
1436............................................           20.10              35              15              50
1286............................................            5.67              33               2              65
1364............................................            5.67              32               2              66
1582............................................           24.59              30              13              57
1591............................................           24.59              30              13              57
1655............................................           24.59              30              13              57
1253............................................           12.94              29              60              11
1323............................................           12.94              29              60              11
1390............................................           12.94              29              60              11
1639............................................           12.94              29              60              11
1663............................................           12.94              29              60              11
1308............................................            6.15              27               1              72
1520............................................           19.86              27              34              38
1521............................................            6.15              27               1              72
1536............................................           10.65              27               0              73
1246............................................           20.00              26              65               9
1316............................................           20.00              26              65               9
1559............................................            5.00              26              19              55
1335............................................           20.30              25              55              21
1437............................................           21.20              25              50              25
1597............................................           21.20              25              49              26
1219............................................           11.25              20              71               8
1560............................................           11.09              18              76               5
1494............................................            5.22              17              54              28

[[Page 21148]]

 
1610............................................          163.39              17              10              73
1530............................................            5.22              15              53              32
1630............................................           22.60              15              84               2
1538............................................            8.42              10              89               1
1356............................................            8.23               8              91               1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ The combined percentages of limestone, other raw materials, and fuels add to 100 percent.

    These data seem to indicate that although quarry mercury content is 
important, other non-proprietary inputs can and do affect mercury 
emissions as well, often to an equal or greater extent. Quarries with 
similar limestone mercury content can and do have very different 
mercury emissions. These facts, plus the general continuum in the 
limestone mercury data, seem to mitigate against subcategorizing on 
this basis for the great bulk of industry sources.
    Moreover, as stated above, subcategorization is limited by the CAA 
to size, class, or type of source. Both EPA and advance industry 
commenters \16\ applied various statistical analyses to the mercury 
limestone quarry data set and these analyses indicated that there could 
be populations of quarries that were statistically different. However, 
it is unclear to us that a statistical difference in a population is 
necessarily the same as a distinction by size, class, or type. More 
compelling facts, at least in our present thinking, are the apparent 
continuum of limestone mercury levels, and the fact that limestone 
mercury levels are less of a driver of mercury emission levels than one 
would expect if this is to be the basis for subcategorization across a 
broad set of the facilities. EPA is also concerned that 
subcategorization by quarry mercury content may allow some higher-
emitting facilities to do relatively less for compliance were they to 
be part of a separate subcategory where mercury levels of best 
performers were comparatively high. (Of course, these levels could be 
reduced by adopting standards reflecting beyond-the-floor 
determinations.) Conversely, the case could occur where a lower emitter 
might be subject to a greater degree of control than a high emitter. 
For example, if we were to establish a subcategory at 20 ppb mercury in 
the limestone, kilns at just below the 20 ppb level might be required 
to apply mercury controls while kilns just above the 20 ppb level, 
which would likely include kilns that would determine the floor level 
of control, would have to do nothing to meet the mercury standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See Minutes of March 19, 2006 meeting between 
representative of the Portland Cement Association and E. Craig, 
USEPA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Much of this analysis, however, does not apply to the kilns at the 
far end of the distribution, especially the two facilities shown in 
Figure 1 which have the highest quarry mercury contents which quarries 
appear to be outliers from the general population. These sources' 
mercury emissions are related almost entirely to the limestone mercury 
content, not to other inputs.
    However, EPA is not proposing to create a separate subcategory for 
these high mercury sources. We note that if we set up a separate 
subcategory for these facilities, even if we proposed a beyond-the-
floor standard based on the best estimated performance of control for 
these two facilities, their emissions limit would potentially be 500 to 
800 lb/MM tons clinker, which is well above any other kiln, even when 
uncontrolled, in our data base, and 8 to 13 times the floor established 
for other existing sources (assuming no further subcategorization). 
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. (See section IV.4 for 
further discussion of mercury health effects.) Mercury is one of the 
pollutants identified for special control under the Act's air toxics 
provision (see section 112c(6)), and kilns in a high-mercury 
subcategory, no matter how well controlled, would still be allowed to 
emit large amounts (at least pending a section 112(f) residual risk 
determination)).
    EPA is also mindful of the holding of Brick MACT and other 
decisions that EPA must account for raw material HAP contributions in 
establishing MACT floors, and the fact that raw materials may be 
proprietary or otherwise not obtainable category-wide does not relieve 
EPA of that obligation. See, e.g. 479 F. 3d at 882-83.
    There are also competing considerations here. The concurring 
opinion in Brick MACT supports subcategorization in situations 
involving sources' dependence on high-HAP raw materials to avoid 
situations where a level of performance achieved by some sources proves 
unachievable by other sources even after application of best 
technological controls, viewing such sources as of a different type 
than others in the source category. 479 F. 3d at 884-85. A further 
consideration is that one of the high mercury kilns here has 
voluntarily entered into an enforceable agreement to install activated 
carbon (the best control technology currently available so far as is 
known) to control its mercury emissions and this agreement appears to 
have the support of directly affected stakeholders (local citizen 
groups, regional and state officials).\17\ The company is poised to 
begin installation of the control technology. However, neither EPA nor 
the company believe that this source could physically achieve the level 
of the mercury floor derived from a single source category approach 
(i.e., the no subcategorization approach proposed above) using 
activated carbon alone. We do not currently have any data on the 
possibility that this site may have portions of its existing quarry 
that have lower mercury content, or if the site could apply different 
mercury controls in addition to ACI to meet the proposed limit. Closure 
of this kiln and possibly other high mercury emitting kilns is a 
possible consequence of a single standard without subcategories.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Minutes of meeting between EPA and representatives of Ash 
Grove Cement. February 27, 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA repeats that it is not proposing for mercury any subcategories 
for

[[Page 21149]]

mercury for the reasons discussed above. Nonetheless, this remains an 
issue EPA intends to evaluate carefully based on public comment, and 
expressly solicits comment addressing all aspects of determinations 
whether or not to subcategorize. These comments should address not only 
the issue of a high-mercury subcategory (addressing plants in the 
upward right-hand tail of the distributional curve in Figure 1), but 
other sources as well. EPA also solicits comment regarding non-
limestone inputs to cement kilns, and whether there is any potential 
basis for considering a valid subcategorization approach involving such 
materials.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ One of these high-mercury sources suggested that because it 
is an area source, EPA develop a mercury standard for it based upon 
Generally Available Control Technology (GACT) rather than MACT. See 
section 112(d)(5) of the Act. Aside from questions about whether use 
of activated carbon is a generally available control technology 
here, EPA has already determined that all cement kilns' mercury 
emissions are subject to MACT under authority of section 112(c)(6). 
See 63 FR at 14193.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Other Alternatives Considered for Mercury Standard
    EPA is proposing to rank sources by emission level in determining 
which are best performing. We also considered another option of ranking 
best performers based on their relative mercury removal efficiency, and 
presenting a standard so-derived as an alternative to the standard 
based on ranking by lowest emissions. The MACT floor for new sources is 
to be based on the performance of the ``best controlled'' similar 
source, and the term ``control'' can be read to mean control 
efficiency. It can also be argued that the critical terms of section 
112 (d)(3)--``best controlled'' (new)/``best performing'' (existing)--
do not specify whether ``best'' is to be measured on grounds of control 
efficiency or emission level. See Sierra Club v. EPA, 167 F.3d 658, 661 
(''average emissions limitation achieved by the best performing 12 
percent of units' * * * on its own says nothing about how the 
performance of the best units is to be calculated''). Existing source 
floors determined and expressed in terms of control efficiency are also 
arguably consistent with the requirement that the floor for existing 
sources reflect ``average emission limitation achieved'', since 
``emission limitation'' includes standards which limit the ``rate'' of 
emissions on a continuous basis--something which percent reduction 
standards would do. CAA section 302(k). There are also instances where 
Congress expressed performance solely in terms of numerical limits, 
rather than performance efficiency, suggesting that Congress was aware 
of the distinction and capable of delineating it. See CAA section 
129(a)(4).\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See also section 112(i)(5)(A), which allows sources that 
achieve early reductions based on measured rates of removal 
efficiency a reprieve from MACT.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    There are also arguments that percent reduction standards are not 
legally permissible. The Brick MACT opinion states, arguably in dicta, 
that best performers are those emitting the least HAP (see 479 F. 3d at 
880 (``section [112 (d)(3)] requires floors based on emission levels 
actually achieved by best performers (those with the lowest emission 
levels)'').\20\ More important, the opinion stresses that raw material 
inputs must be accounted for in determining MACT floors. Id. at 882-83. 
A problem with a percent reduction standard here is that it would 
downplay the role of HAP inputs on emissions by allowing more HAP to be 
emitted provided a given level of removal efficiency reflecting the 
average of best removal efficiencies is achieved. For these reasons, 
EPA is not proposing an alternative standard for mercury expressed as 
percent reduction reflecting the average of the best removal 
efficiencies. EPA solicits comment on this alternative from both a 
legal and policy standpoint, however.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ The issue of whether best performers can be based on 
source's removal efficiency was not presented in Brick MACT, or any 
of the other decided cases.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Beyond the Floor Determination
    We are not proposing any beyond-the-floor standards for mercury. 
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 the proposed 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. For 
reasons discussed further below we believe that all but the latter 
option (add-on controls) are either cost prohibitive or too site 
specific to serve as the basis of a national potential beyond the floor 
standard. For that reason, we estimated the cost and incremental 
reduction in mercury emissions associated with installing another 
control device in series to the other controls. The add-on controls 
considered included a wet scrubber and ACI. Because ACI is less costly 
and is expected to have a higher removal efficiency as well as being 
potentially capable of removing elemental mercury (using halogenated 
carbon) which a scrubber cannot remove, we selected ACI as the beyond-
the-floor control option (i.e., the kiln would now have an additional 
ACI system in series with the wet scrubber/ACI system required to meet 
the MACT floors for mercury, THC, and HCl).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    We estimated the costs and emission reductions for a 1.2 million 
tpy kiln as it would be representative of the impacts of other kilns. 
Annualized costs for an additional ACI system would be $1.254 million 
per year. The quantity of mercury leaving the upstream controls would 
be an estimated 3.3 lb/yr. Assuming a 90 percent control efficiency, 
the additional ACI system would remove about 3.0 lb/yr of mercury for a 
cost-effectiveness of approximately $420,000 per lb of mercury 
reduction. A 90 percent removal efficiency may be optimistic given the 
lower level of mercury entering the device and a removal efficiency on 
the order of 70 percent is more likely. At this efficiency, the 
additional mercury controlled would be 2.3 lb/yr for a cost 
effectiveness of approximately $540,000 per pound of mercury removed. 
At either control efficiency, we believe cost of between $420,000 and 
$540,000 per pound of mercury removed is not justified and we are 
therefore not selecting this beyond-the-floor option.
    There are two potential feasible process changes that have the 
potential to affect mercury emissions. These are removing CKD from the 
kiln system and substituting raw materials, including fly ash, or 
fossil fuels with lower-mercury inputs. Although substituting low-
mercury materials and fuel may be feasible for some facilities, this 
alternative would depend on site-specific circumstances and, therefore, 
must be evaluated on a site-by-site basis and EPA's current view is 
that it would not be a uniformly applicable (or quantifiable) control 
measure on which a national standard could be based (although as noted 
earlier, EPA is expressly soliciting quantified comment regarding 
potential substitutability of non-limestone kiln inputs). In addition, 
in the case of substitution of lower

[[Page 21150]]

mercury inputs, we believe that mandating lower mercury materials (such 
as a ban on fly ash containing mercury as a raw material) would not 
result in mercury reduction beyond those achieved at the floor level of 
control.
    Based on material balance data (feed and fuel usage, control device 
catch recycling and wasting, and mercury concentrations) that we 
gathered with our survey of 89 kilns, 58 percent of kilns waste some 
amount of CKD while 42 percent waste none. Among kilns that waste CKD, 
the percentage reduction in mercury emissions by wasting CKD ranged 
from 0.13 percent to 82 percent, with an average of 16.5 percent and 
median of 7 percent. For kilns that waste some CKD, CKD as a percentage 
of total feed ranges from 0.16 percent to 13.7 percent, with a mean of 
4.5 percent. Any additional emission reductions that can be achieved by 
wasting CKD depend on several site-specific factors including:
     The concentration of mercury in raw feed and fuel 
materials.
     The concentration of mercury in the CKD.
     The amount of CKD already being wasted.
     The dynamics of mercury recirculation and accumulation--
Internal loops for mercury exist between the control device and kiln 
feed storage and the kiln for long dry and wet kilns. For preheater and 
precalciner kilns, there is usually an additional internal loop 
involving the in-line raw mill. These internal loops and the 
distribution of mercury throughout the process are not predictable and 
can only be determined empirically.
     Mercury speciation may affect the extent to which mercury 
accumulates in the CKD, with particulate and oxidized mercury more 
likely to accumulate while elemental mercury is likely emitted and not 
affected by CKD wasting.
    Reducing mercury emissions through the wasting of CKD may be 
feasible for some kilns that do not already waste CKD or by wasting 
additional CKD for some kilns that already practice CKD wasting. 
However the degree to which CKD can be used to reduce mercury emissions 
cannot be accurately estimated due to several factors. For example, 
increasing the amount of CKD wasted would result in a reduction in the 
mercury concentration of the CKD, so that, over time, the effectiveness 
of wasting CKD decreases. We do not have long-term data to quantify the 
relationship between amount of CKD wasted, CKD mercury concentration 
and emissions.
    The ability to reduce mercury emissions by wasting more CKD also is 
affected by the mercury species present. The particulate and oxidized 
species of mercury can accumulate in CKD, but not the elemental form. 
Therefore wasting CKD will not necessarily control elemental mercury. 
We do not have data that would allow us to quantify the effect of 
mercury speciation. By wasting CKD, additional raw materials would be 
required to replace the CKD as well as additional fuel to calcine the 
additional raw materials, thereby offsetting to some extent the 
benefits of wasting CKD. There is the further potential consideration 
of additional waste generation, an adverse cross-media impact EPA is 
required to consider is making beyond-the-floor determinations. The 
interaction of these factors is complex and has not been adequately 
studied.
    One cement plant has investigated the potential to reduce mercury 
emissions by wasting CKD. This facility, using mercury CEMS and 
material balance information, estimated that wasting 100 percent of CKD 
when the raw mill is off (about 19,000 tons of CKD or 16 percent of 
total baghouse catch, or 1 percent of total feed) would reduce mercury 
emissions by about 4 percent. This facility did not estimate the 
reductions in mercury emissions by wasting more CKD. As with the 
potential to reduce mercury emissions using raw materials substitution, 
the effectiveness of CKD wasting in reducing emissions may provide 
cement plants the ability to reduce mercury emissions but the degree of 
reduction will have to be determined on a site-by-site basis.
    Because the degree to which mercury emissions can be reduced by 
material substitutions or through the wasting of CKD are site specific, 
these process-related work practices were not considered as beyond-the-
floor options.
    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 are proposing a mercury emission limit based 
on the MACT floor level of control.

C. Determination of MACT for THC Emissions From Major and Area Sources

    The limits for existing and new sources we are proposing here apply 
to both area and major new sources. We have applied these limits to 
area sources consistent with section 112(c)(6). See 63 FR 14193 (THC as 
a surrogate for the 112(c)(6) HAP polycyclic organic matter and 
polychlorinated biphenyls, plus determination to control all THC 
emissions from the source category under MACT standards).
1. Floor Determination
Selection of Existing Source Floor
    For reasons previously discussed in the initial proposal of the 
Portland Cement NESHAP (63 FR 14197, March 24, 1998), we are proposing 
to use THC as a surrogate for non-dioxin organic HAP that are emitted 
from the kiln (as is the current rule). The THC data used to develop 
the MACT floor were obtained from 12 kilns using CEMS to continuously 
measure the concentration of THC exiting each kiln's stack. Only kilns 
1 (regenerative thermal oxidizer (RTO)) and kilns 11 and 12 (ACI) have 
emissions controls which remove or destroy THC. We also obtained THC 
data from manual stack tests, typically based on 3 one hour runs per 
test. The CEMS data are superior to the results of a single stack test 
for characterizing the long term performance and in determining the 
best performing kilns with respect to THC emissions for several 
reasons. The manual stack test is of short duration and only represents 
a snapshot in time; consequently, it provides no information on the 
variability in emissions over time due to changes in raw material feed 
or in kiln operating conditions. In contrast, the CEMS data include 
measurements that range from 31 consecutive days to almost 900 days of 
operation for the various kilns. This extended duration of the CEMS 
test data gives us confidence that for any particular kiln CEMS data 
will capture the variability associated with the long-term THC 
emissions data, and thus give the most accurate representation of a 
source's performance. In addition, a MACT standard based on CEMS data 
would be consistent with the way we are proposing to implement the THC 
emission limit (i.e., by requiring continuous monitoring with a THC 
CEMS).
    In order to set MACT floors we are ranking the kilns based on the 
average THC emissions levels (in ppmv) achieved (i.e., each kiln's 
averaged performance, averaged over the number of available 
measurements. This ranking is shown in Table 4.

[[Page 21151]]



                                Table 4.--Summary of THC CEMS Data and MACT Floor
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Number of
                Kiln                   Average      readings         Kiln type             In-line raw mill
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kiln 1.............................          4.0           35  Preheater/precalciner  Yes.
Kiln 2.............................          5.6          695  Wet..................  No.
Kiln 3.............................          6.8          692  Long dry.............  No.
Kiln 4.............................          6.8           31  Preheater/precalciner  Yes.
Kiln 5.............................         11.1          702  Long dry.............  No.
Kiln 6.............................         23.7          470  Preheater/precalciner  No.
Kiln 7.............................         45.0          742  Preheater/precalciner  Yes.
Kiln 8.............................         51.6          774  Preheater/precalciner  Yes.
Kiln 9.............................         51.9          843  Preheater/precalciner  Yes.
Kiln 10............................         62.8          880  Preheater/precalciner  Yes.
Kiln 11 and Kiln 12 Combined.......        748.1          790  Wet..................  No.
Existing Source Average (ppmvd at            4.8
 7% O2, propane).
Variability (t*vT\0.5\)............          1.9
Existing Source 99th percentile                7
 (ppmvd at 7% O2, propane).
New Source Average (ppmvd at 7% O2,          4.0
 propane).
Variability (t*vT\0.5\)............          1.5
New Source 99th percentile (ppmvd              6
 at 7% O2, propane).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The average performance of the best performing 12 percent of kilns 
(2 kilns) is 4.8 ppmvd THC (a daily average expressed as propane at 7 
percent oxygen). We calculated variability based on the variances in 
the performance of the two lowest emitting kilns. This includes day-to-
day variability at the same kiln, variability among the two lowest 
emitting kilns, and because one dataset included 695 daily 
measurements, it represents long term variability at a single kiln. We 
calculated the MACT floor (7 ppmvd) based on the UPL (upper 99th 
percentile) as described earlier from the average performance of the 2 
lowest emitting kilns, Student's t-factor, and the total variability, 
which was adjusted to account for the lower variability when using 30 
day averages.
    In this case the proposed new and existing source MACT floors are 
almost identical because the best performing 12 percent of kilns (for 
which we have emissions information) is only two sources. The reason we 
look to the best performing 12 percent of sources is that the cement 
kiln source category consists of 30 or more kilns. Section 112(d)(3)(A) 
of the Clean Air Act provides that standards for existing sources shall 
not be less stringent than ``the average emission limitation achieved 
by the best performing 12 percent of the existing sources (for which 
the Administrator has emissions information), * * * in the category or 
subcategory for categories and subcategories with 30 or more sources.'' 
A plain reading of the above statutory provisions is to apply the 12 
percent rule in deriving the MACT floor for those categories or 
subcategories with 30 or more sources. The parenthetical ``(for which 
the Administrator has emissions information)'' in section 112(d)(3)(A) 
modifies the best performing 12 percent of existing sources, which is 
the clause it immediately follows.
    However, in cases where there are 30 or more sources but little 
emission data this results in only a few kilns setting the existing 
source floor with the result that the new and existing source MACT 
floors are almost identical. In contrast, if this source category had 
less than 30 sources, we would be required to use the top five best 
performing sources, rather than the two that comprise the top 12 
percent. Section 112 (d)(3)(B).
    We are seeking comment on whether, with the facts of this 
rulemaking, we should consider reading the intent of Congress to allow 
us to consider five sources rather than just two. First, it seems 
evident that Congress was concerned that floor determinations should 
reflect a minimum quantum of data: At least data from five sources for 
source categories of less than 30 sources (assuming that data from five 
sources exist). Second, it does not appear that this concern would be 
any less for source categories with 30 or more sources. The concern, in 
fact, would appear to be greater.\22\ We note further that if we were 
to use five sources as best THC performers here, the existing source 
floor would be 10 ppmvd. We are specifically requesting comment on 
interpretive and factual issues relating to the proposed THC floors, 
and also reiterate requests for further THC performance data, 
especially from kilns equipped with CEMs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ As noted, basing the proposed existing source THC floor on 
data from two sources (i.e. 12 percent of the 15 sources for which 
we have CEM data) largely eliminates the distinction between new and 
existing source THC floors. Yet this is an important statutory 
distinction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Selection of New Source MACT Floor
    The new source MACT floor would be the best performing similar 
source accounting for variability, which would be 6 ppmvd. We used the 
same procedure in estimating variability for the new source based on 
the 35 observations reported.
Alternative Organic HAP Standards
    EPA is also proposing 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 rare 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. A previous study that compared total organic HAP to THC found 
that the organic HAP was 23 percent of the THC. We also analyzed 
additional data submitted during the development of this proposed rule 
that included simultaneous measure of organic HAP species and THC. Data 
were available from tests at five facilities, and the organic HAP 
averaged 24 percent of the THC. Based on these analyses, we are 
proposing an equivalent alternative

[[Page 21152]]

emission limit for organic HAP species of 2 ppmv (i.e., 24 percent of 
the 7 ppmv MACT standard for THC) for existing sources and 1 ppmvd for 
new 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 were identified 
in an earlier analysis of the organic HAP concentrations in THC in 
which the average concentration of organic HAP in THC was 23 percent.
Other Options Considered
    We also examined the THC results to determine if subcategorization 
by type of kiln was warranted and concluded that the data were 
insufficient for determining that a distinguishable difference in 
performance exists based on the type of kiln. The top performing kilns 
in Table 4 include various types: wet, long dry, and preheater/
precalciner kilns; older (wet kilns) and newer (precalciner kilns); and 
those with and without in-line raw mills. Although the type of kiln and 
the design and operation of its combustion system may have a minor 
effect on THC emissions, the composition of the feed and the presence 
of organic compounds in the feed materials apparently have a much 
larger effect. For example, organic compounds in the feed materials may 
volatilize and be emitted before the feed material reaches the high 
temperature combustion zone of the kiln where they would have otherwise 
been destroyed.
    We also evaluated creating separate subcategories for kilns with 
in-line raw mills and those without. With an in-line raw mill kiln, 
exhaust is used to dry the raw materials during the grinding of the raw 
meal. This drying step can result in some organic material being 
volatilized, thus increasing the THC emissions in the kiln exhaust. 
This means that kilns with in-line raw mills would, on average, have 
higher emissions than kilns without in-line raw mills. The existence, 
or absence, of a raw mill is believed to have a distinct effect on 
emissions of THC, as one would expect. It is difficult to generalize 
that difference because the effect of the raw mill will vary based on 
the specific organic constituents of the raw materials. In tests at one 
facility, THC emissions, on average, were 35 percent higher with the 
raw mill on than when the raw mill was off.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ E-mail and attachments. B. Gunn, National Cement Company of 
Alabama to K. Barnett. USEPA. March 12, 2009. THC Mill on/Mill Off 
Variability.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This physical difference could justify subcategorization based on 
the presence of an in-line raw mill. There are also potential policy 
reasons for doing so. By not subcategorizing, use of in-line raw mills 
may be discouraged because, to meet a THC standard, in-line raw mill-
equipped kilns would potentially have to utilize an RTO. Use of RTOs 
has various significant adverse environmental consequences, including 
increase in emissions of criteria pollutants, and significant extra 
energy utilization with attendant increases in carbon dioxide 
(CO2) gas emissions.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ Summary of Environmental and Cost Impacts of Proposed 
Revisions to Portland Cement NESHAP (40 CFR Part 63, subpart LLL), 
April 15, 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA has performed floor calculations for subcategories of kilns 
with and without in-line raw mills. The result of that calculation, 
where we were using the top 12 percent, was that the floor for kilns 
with in-line raw mills was actually lower than the floor for those 
without, which is atypical: sources with in-line raw mills will 
typically have higher emissions because of the extra volatilization. We 
believe this result is the artifact of the small data set used to 
calculate the existing source MACT floor. Based on these results, we 
have concluded that the current data are not sufficient to allow us to 
subcategorize by the presence of an in-line raw mill, but would 
consider subcategorizing if additional data become available. We are 
specifically requesting comment on subcategorization by the presence or 
absence of an in-line raw mill and requesting data on this issue.
2. Beyond the Floor Determination
    Practices and technologies that are available to cement kilns to 
control emissions of organic HAP include raw materials material 
substitution, ACI systems and limestone scrubber and RTO. We do not 
think it is appropriate to develop a beyond-the-floor control option 
based on material substitution here because substitution options are 
site specific.
    We examined the use of either ACI systems or RTO (with a dedicated 
wet scrubber) \25\ as the basis for potential beyond-the-floor THC 
standards for existing and new sources. (We did not examine other 
beyond-the-floor regulatory options for existing or new sources because 
there are no controls that would, on average, generate a greater THC 
reduction than a combination of a wet scrubber/RTO.) These technologies 
are currently in limited use in the source category. At one facility, 
activated carbon is injected into the flue gas and collected in the PM 
control device. The activated carbon achieved a THC emissions reduction 
of approximately 50 percent, and the collected carbon is then injected 
into the kiln in a location that insures destruction of the collected 
THC. The THC emissions from this facility are the highest for any 
facility for which we have data due to very unusual levels of organic 
material in the limestone and may not be representative of the 
performance that can be achieved by kilns with more typical THC 
emissions.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ A wet scrubber is needed as a pretreatment step before 
gases are amenable to destruction in an RTO.
    \26\ The same facility that uses ACI has a second control scheme 
for THC consisting of a wet scrubber/RTO in series. However, due to 
operational problems, this system has not operated more than a few 
months at a time and data from it are not representative of the 
performance of these control devices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ACI has been demonstrated in other source categories, such as 
various types of waste incinerators including municipal waste 
incinerators, to reduce dioxin/furan by over 95 percent.\27\ The actual 
performance of ACI systems on cement kiln THC emissions are expected to 
be less than that achieved on dioxin/furan emissions as kiln flue gases 
are a mixture of volatile and semi-volatile organic compounds, which 
vary according to the organic constituents of raw materials. We have 
therefore conservatively estimated that ACI systems can reduce THC 
emissions by 75 to 80 percent. A second facility has a continuously 
operated limestone scrubber followed by an RTO. This facility has been 
emission tested and showed volatile organic compound (VOC), which are 
essentially the same as THC, emission levels of 4 ppmv (at 7 percent 
oxygen), and currently has a permit limit for VOC of approximately 9 
ppmv. The RTO has a guaranteed destruction efficiency of 98 percent of 
the combined emissions of carbon monoxide and THC. Based on this 
information, we believe this facility represents the best possible 
control performance to reduce THC emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ (Chi and Chang, Environmental Science and Technology, vol. 
39, issue 20, October 2005; Roeck and Sigg, Environmental 
Protection, January 1996).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In assessing the potential beyond-the-floor options for THC, we 
first determined that most existing kilns would have to install an ACI 
system for control of THC and/or mercury. A few kilns would be expected 
to install an RTO in order to get the THC proposed reductions. To 
evaluate the feasibility of

[[Page 21153]]

beyond-the-floor controls, we assumed that a kiln already expected to 
install an ACI system would install in series an RTO including a wet 
scrubber upstream of the RTO to protect the RTO. We estimated the costs 
and emission reductions for a 1.2 million tpy kiln as the cost 
effectiveness of the beyond-the-floor option would be similar for all 
kilns. Annualized costs for an additional RTO system would be $3.8 
million per year. The quantity of THC leaving the upstream controls 
would be an estimated 18 tpy. At higher THC concentrations, for example 
15 ppmv and above, an RTO will have a removal efficiency of about 98 
percent. This mass of THC leaving the device upstream of and entering 
the RTO is equivalent to a THC concentration of about 3 ppmv. At this 
low level, an RTO's removal efficiency is expected to be no better than 
50 percent. At a 50 percent control efficiency, the RTO would reduce 
THC emission by about 9 tpy for a cost-effectiveness of approximately 
$411,000 per ton of THC removal. If the organic HAP fraction of the THC 
is 24 percent, 2 tpy of organic HAP would be removed at a cost 
effectiveness of approximately $1.7 million per ton of organic HAP 
removed. At a cost effectiveness of $411,000 per ton of THC and $1.7 
million per ton of organic HAP, we believe the cost of the additional 
emission reduction is not justified (this is a far higher level than 
EPA has deemed justified for non-dioxin organic HAP in other MACT 
standards, for example). In addition to the high cost of control, the 
additional energy requirements, 7.1 million kwh/yr and 81,000 MMBtu/yr, 
would be significant. Increased CO2 emissions attributable 
to this energy use would be on the order of 9,900 tpy per source.\28\ 
The additional energy demands would also result in increased emissions 
of NOX (20 tpy), CO, (8 tpy), SO2 (27 tpy), and 
PM10 (1 tpy) per source. Because of the high costs and minimal 
reductions in THC and organic HAP as well as the secondary impacts and 
additional energy requirements, we are not selecting this beyond-the-
floor option.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ Summary of Environmental and Cost Impacts of Proposed 
Revisions to Portland Cement NESHAP (40 CFR Part 63, subpart LLL), 
April 15, 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Therefore we are proposing for cement kilns an existing source THC 
emissions limit of 7 ppmvd and a new source limit of 6 ppmvd, measured 
as propane and corrected to 7 percent oxygen. We are also proposing for 
an alternative equivalent organic HAP emissions limit of 2 ppmvd for 
existing kilns and 1 ppmvd for new kilns.
THC Standard for Raw Material Dryers
    Some plants may dry their raw materials in separate dryers prior to 
or during grinding. See 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 
are also proposing to set the THC emission limit of materials dryers at 
7 ppmvd (existing sources) and 6 ppmvd (new sources).
    The current NESHAP has an emissions limit of 50 ppmvd for new 
greenfield sources. The limit is less stringent than the proposed 
changes in the THC emissions limits for new (as well as existing) 
sources. For that reason, we are proposing to remove the 50 ppmvd 
emissions limit for this rule.

D. Determination of MACT for HCl Emissions From Major Sources

    In developing the MACT floor for HCl, we collected over 40 HCl 
emissions measurements from stack tests based on EPA Methods 321 and 
26. Studies have suggested that Method 26 is biased significantly low 
due to a scrubbing effect in the front half of the sampling train (see 
63 FR at 14182). Because of this bias, we used the HCl data measured at 
27 kilns using Method 321 in determining the proposed floors for 
existing and new sources. The data in ppmv corrected to 7 percent 
oxygen (O2) were ranked by emissions level and the top 12 
percent (4 kilns) lowest emitting kilns identified.\29\ The top 4 kilns 
were limited to major sources, and to sources where we had a minimum of 
three test runs to allow us to account for variability in setting the 
floor. (Note that neither of these decisions significantly changed the 
final result of the floor calculation). These emissions data are shown 
in Table 5. The average of the four lowest emitting kilns is 0.31 
ppmvd. The variability for the 4 lowest emitting kilns includes the 
run-to-run variability of three runs for each stack test and the 
variability across the 4 lowest emitting kilns.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ \\ EPA notes that this floor determination, like the one 
for THC discussed in the preceding section, raises the issue of 
whether a floor determination for source categories with 30 sources 
or greater should be based on the performance of less than five 
sources. As discussed above, the literal language of section 112 
(d)(3)(A) supports basing the floor on the average performance of 
the best performing 12 per cent of sources, even where the total 
number of such sources is less than five. We solicited comment on 
that issue in the preceding section and repeat the solicitation 
here.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We calculated the MACT floor (2 ppmvd) based on the upper 99th 
percentile UPL from the average performance of the 4 lowest emitting 
kilns and their variances as described earlier. If we had used the five 
lowest emitting kilns that calculated floor would be 5 ppmvd.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ Development of the MACT Floors for the Proposed NESHAP for 
Portland Cement, April 15, 2009.

                         Table 5--HCl MACT Floor
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 HCl
                                                              emissions
                            Kiln                             (ppmvd @ 7%
                                                                 O2)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1..........................................................         0.02
2..........................................................         0.02
3..........................................................         0.22
4, 5 (one stack) \a\.......................................         0.97
6..........................................................         1.21
7..........................................................         1.32
8..........................................................         1.76
9..........................................................         1.95
10.........................................................         2.57
11.........................................................         2.57
12.........................................................         4.30
13.........................................................         7.15
14.........................................................         9.84
15.........................................................        11.06
16.........................................................        12.83
17.........................................................        12.83
18.........................................................        13.60
19.........................................................        15.65
20.........................................................        18.54
21.........................................................        18.93
22.........................................................        19.19
23.........................................................        19.86
24.........................................................        28.28
25.........................................................        33.06
26.........................................................        34.68
27.........................................................        56.14
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                             MACT--Existing
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average (Top 4)............................................         0.31
Variability (t*vT\0.5\)....................................         1.94
99th percentile............................................            2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                MACT--New
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average....................................................         0.02
Variability (t*vT\0.5\)....................................         0.12
99th percentile............................................          0.1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Because these two kilns exhaust through a single stack they were
  treated as a single source for the HCl floor determination.

     MACT for new kilns is based on the performance of the lowest 
emitting kiln. The average HCl emissions for the lowest emitting kiln 
in this data set is 0.02 ppmv. Using the same statistical technique to 
apply run-to-run variability for that kiln's emissions data, the HCl 
MACT floor for new kilns is 0.14 ppmvd at 7 percent O2.

[[Page 21154]]

    For facilities that do not use wet scrubbers to meet the HCl limit, 
these standards would be based on a 30-day rolling average, consistent 
with the proposed use of CEMS (i.e., continuous measurements) for 
compliance. See section E below.
    It should be noted that these emission limits, as well as many of 
the data from the lowest-emitting kilns, are below the published 
detection level of the test method (EPA test method 321) as it 
currently exists for one specific path length and test condition. As 
discussed further in section IV.I., EPA believes these source-supplied, 
recent data and detection limits are correct, and EPA is proposing to 
revise the detection limit for Method 321 in light of this data.
Beyond the Floor Standard for HCl
    Based on the HCl emissions data, most kilns (both existing and new) 
would have to install limestone scrubbers in order to comply with the 
proposed floors for HCl. Scrubbers are expected to reduce HCl emissions 
by an average of at least 99 percent. Scrubbers added to reduce HCl 
emissions will also reduce emissions of SO2 and will remove 
oxidized mercury as well.
    In examining a beyond-the-floor option for HCl, we evaluated the 
use of a more efficient HCl scrubber.\31\ We assumed a spray chamber 
scrubber is sufficient to meet the MACT floor, and that scrubber is 
expected to remove HCl at an efficiency of 99 percent (as just noted). 
However, we estimate that a packed-bed scrubber would have removal 
efficiency greater than a spray chamber due to its increased surface 
area and opportunity for contact between the scrubbing liquid and the 
acid gases. We estimated the costs and emission reductions for a 1.2 
million tpy kiln as the cost-effectiveness results would be similar for 
all kilns. Annual costs for a packed bed scrubber for a 1.2 million tpy 
kiln would be approximately $2.2 million.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ We could identify no other control options for acid gas 
removal that would consistently achieve emissions reduction beyond 
the floor level of control.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Assuming a control efficiency of 99.9 percent, the incremental 
emission reduction using the beyond-the-floor packed-bed scrubber, that 
is, the reduction in HCl emissions after initial control by the MACT 
floor control (a spray chamber scrubber), would be about 2.4 tpy. At an 
annual cost of $2.2 million, the cost effectiveness is $929,000 per ton 
of HCl removed. Adverse non-air quality impacts, such as energy costs, 
water impacts, and solid waste impacts would be expected to be similar 
for both the floor and beyond-the-floor level of control. See Impacts 
memorandum, Table 7. Considering the high costs, high cost 
effectiveness and small additional emissions reduction (and adverse 
cross-media impacts), we do not believe that a beyond-the-floor 
standard for HCl is justified.
Other Alternatives for HCl Standards
    One option to HCl standards that we considered would be to set a 
standard that used SO2 as a surrogate for HCl. The reason to 
allow this option would be that some kilns already have SO2 
controls and monitors. Acid gas controls that remove SO2 
also remove HCl at equal or greater efficiency.\32\ However, we are not 
proposing this option because we have no data to demonstrate a direct 
link between HCl emissions and SO2 emissions--that is--it is 
unclear that ranking best HCl performers based on SO2 
emissions would in fact identify lowest emitters or best controlled HCl 
sources. We are requesting comment on the efficacy of using 
SO2 as a surrogate for HCl, and data demonstrating that 
SO2 is or is not a good surrogate for HCl.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ Institute of Clean Air Companies. Acid Gas/SO2 
Control Technologies. Wet Scrubbers. http://www.icac.com/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=3401
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We also considered the possibility of proposing a health-based 
standard for HCl. Section 112(d)(4) allows the Administrator to set a 
health-based standard for a limited set of HAP: ``pollutants for which 
a health threshold has been established''. EPA may consider that 
threshold, with an ample margin of safety, in establishing standards 
under section 112 (d). In the 2006 rule, EPA determined that HCl was a 
``health threshold pollutant'' and relied on this authority in 
declining to establish a standard for HCl. 71 FR at 76527-29. We are 
taking comment on a health-based standard.
    However, we are not proposing a health-based standard here. The 
choice to propose a MACT standard, and not a health-based standard, is 
based on the fact that, in addition to the direct effect of reducing 
HCl emissions, setting a MACT standard for HCl is anticipated to result 
in a significant amount of control for other pollutants emitted by 
cement kilns, most notably SO2 and other acid gases, along 
with condensable PM, ammonia, and semi-volatile compounds. For example, 
the additional reductions of SO2 alone attributable to the 
proposed MACT standard for HCl are estimated to be 126,000 tpy in the 
fifth year following promulgation of the HCl standard.\33\ These are 
substantial reductions considering the low number of facilities. 
Although MACT standards may only address HAP, not criteria pollutants, 
Congress fully expected MACT standards to have the collateral benefit 
of controlling criteria pollutants as well, and viewed this as an 
important benefit of the air toxics program.\34\ It therefore is 
appropriate that EPA consider such benefits in determining whether to 
exercise its discretionary section 112 (d)(4) authority.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ Summary of Environmental and Cost Impacts of Proposed 
Revisions to Portland Cement NESHAP (40 CFR Part 63, subpart LLL), 
April 15, 2009.
    \34\ See S. Rep. No. 101-228, 101st Cong. 1st sess. at 172.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Though this is not our preferred approach for the reasons discussed 
above, we request comment on a health-based standard for HCl and other 
information on HCl health and environmental effects we should consider. 
Commenters should also address the issue of other environmental 
benefits which might result from control of HCl at a MACT level, 
including control of other acid gases and control of secondary PM 
(i.e., PM condensing from acid gases). We will consider these comments 
in making an ultimate determination as to whether to adopt a health-
based standard for HCl.
    Finally, we determined that even if we opted to set a health-based 
standard, we would still need to set a numerical emission limit given 
that section 112(d)(4) requires that an actual emission standard be in 
place. In order to determine this level, we conducted a risk analysis 
of 68 facilities using a screening level dispersion model (AERSCREEN). 
Utilizing site specific stack parameters and worst-case meteorological 
conditions, AERSCREEN predicted the highest long term ground level 
concentration surrounding each facility. The results of this analysis 
indicated that an emission limit of 23 ppmv or less would result in no 
exceedances of the RfC for HCl with a margin of safety.\35\ Although, 
as discussed above, EPA is not proposing a health-based standard, EPA 
solicits comment on the level of 23 ppmv (as a not-to-exceed standard) 
should EPA decide to pursue the option of a health-based standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. Determination of MACT for Non-Volatile Metals Emissions From Major 
and Area Sources

    PM serves as a surrogate for non-volatile metal HAP (a 
determination upheld in National Lime Ass'n, 233 F. 3d at 637-39). 
Existing and new major sources are presently subject to a PM

[[Page 21155]]

limit of 0.3 lb/ton of feed which is equivalent to 0.5 lb/ton clinker. 
EPA is proposing to amend this standard, and also is proposing PM 
standards for existing and new area source cement kilns. In all 
instances, EPA is proposing to revise these limits because they do not 
appear to represent MACT, but rather a level which is achievable by the 
bulk of the industry. See 63 FR at 14198. This is not legally 
permissible. Brick MACT, 479 F. 3d at 880-81.
    For this proposal, we 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 floor.
    As for the previous floors discussed above, we calculated the 
variances of each lowest emitting kiln and accounted for variability by 
determining the 99th percentile UPL as described earlier. The average 
performance for each of the lowest emitting kilns was generally based 
on the average of 3 runs which comprise a stack test. Consequently, the 
variability represents the short term variability at a kiln (e.g., a 3 
hour stack test period) and the variability across the 6 lowest 
emitting kilns. (This analysis is consistent with the way we would 
propose to determine compliance, i.e., conduct 3 runs to perform a 
stack test.) For the lowest emitting kiln (whose performance was used 
to establish the proposed new source floor), there were only 3 runs and 
the results of these runs were relatively close together, a 
circumstance which would lead to an inaccurate (and inadequate) 
estimation of the kiln's long term variability were these data to be 
used for that purpose. However, we know the 6 lowest emitting kilns are 
equipped with fabric filters that are similar with respect to 
performance because they are similar in design and operation, and the 
larger dataset provides a much better estimate of the variability 
associated with a properly operated fabric filter of this design. 
Consequently, for the proposed new source floor, we used the average 
performance of the lowest emitting kiln and the variability associated 
with the best fabric filters to assess the lowest emitting kiln's 
variability.
    The emissions for the top six kilns ranged from 0.005 to 0.008 lb/
ton clinker. Accounting for variability as described above, we 
calculated an existing source MACT floor of 0.085 lb/ton clinker. For 
new kilns, the limit is based on the best lowest emitting kiln, which 
has emissions of 0.005 lb/ton clinker. Accounting for variability 
results in a calculated new source MACT floor of 0.080 lb/ton clinker. 
These PM emissions data are summarized in Table 6.

                         Table 6--PM MACT Floor
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  PM
                                                              emissions
                            Kiln                               (lb/ton
                                                               clinker)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1..........................................................        0.005
2..........................................................       0.0075
3..........................................................       0.0075
4..........................................................       0.0081
5..........................................................       0.0108
6..........................................................       0.0232
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                             MACT--Existing
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average....................................................        0.010
Variability (t*vT\0.5\)....................................        0.075
99th percentile............................................        0.085
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                MACT--New
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average....................................................        0.005
Variability (t*vT\0.5\)....................................        0.075
99th percentile............................................        0.080
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA is also proposing to set a PM standard based on MACT for 
existing and new area source cement kilns. 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 is proposing that this standard reflect MACT, rather than GACT, 
because there is no essential difference between area source and major 
source cement kilns with respect to emissions 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 sources 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 proposed PM standard, and have 
developed common PM limits based on MACT for both major and area 
sources.
Consideration of Beyond-the-Floor Standards
    There is very little difference in the proposed floor levels for PM 
for either new or existing sources, and we believe that a well-
performing baghouse represents the best performance for PM. To evaluate 
beyond-the-floor controls, we examined the feasibility of replacing an 
existing ESP or baghouse with a new baghouse equipped with membrane 
bags which might result in a slightly better performance for PM 
(reflected in the modest increment between the proposed floors for new 
and existing sources). We estimated the costs and emission reductions 
for a 1.2 million tpy kiln. The cost-effectiveness results will be 
similar for all kilns. Under the MACT floor, baseline emissions of 0.34 
lb/ton of clinker are reduced to 0.085 lb/ton of clinker, a reduction 
in PM emissions of 51 tpy. Further reducing emissions down to the 
proposed PM limit for new sources would incrementally reduce emissions 
by an additional 3 tpy. The annualized cost of a baghouse with membrane 
bags would be $1.73 million per year, or a cost effectiveness of 
$576,000/ton of PM (far greater than any PM reduction EPA has ever 
considered achievable under section 112(d)(2) or warranted under other 
provisions of the Act which allow consideration of cost). Assuming that 
the metal HAP portion of total PM is 1 percent, the cost effectiveness 
would be about $58 million per ton of metal HAP. Based on these costs 
and the small resulting emission reductions, we believe a PM beyond-
the-floor standard is not justified for existing sources and not 
technically feasible for new sources.
Other Standards for PM
    Emissions from fabric filters or ESP are typically measured as a 
concentration (grains per dry standard cubic feet) and then converted 
to the desired format using standard conversions (54,000 dry cubic feet 
per minute of exhaust gas per ton of feed, 1.65 tons of feed per ton of 
clinker). All of the data used to set the proposed PM emissions limit 
were converted in that fashion. Therefore, the basis of the proposed PM 
standard is actually a concentration level. There are certain cases 
where this conversion must be adjusted, however. Some kilns and kiln/
in-line raw mills 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

[[Page 21156]]

exhaust. However, there need to be different conversion factors from 
concentration to mass per unit clinker. In the case where clinker 
cooler gas is combined with the kiln exhaust the standard would need to 
be adjusted to allow for the increased gas flow. If this allowance is 
not made, then the effective level of the PM standard would be reduced 
(the result being that the proposed standard would not properly reflect 
best performing kilns' performance, and also discouraging use of a 
desirable energy efficiency measure). See 73 FR at 64090-91 (Oct. 28, 
2008). Therefore, we are proposing that facilities that combine the 
kiln and clinker cooler gas flows prior to the PM control would be 
allowed to convert the equivalent concentration standards (which are 
0.0067 or 0.0063 lb/ton clinker for new and existing sources, 
respectively) to a lb/ton clinker standard using their combined gas 
flows (dry standard cubit feet per ton of feed). It should be noted 
that this provision will not result in any additional PM emissions to 
the atmosphere compared to the same kiln if it did not combine the 
clinker cooler and kiln exhaust, and may actually decrease emissions 
slightly due to improvements in overall process efficiency.
    In addition to proposing to amend the PM standard for kilns we are 
proposing to similarly amend 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 Standards of 
Performance for Portland Cement Plants (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. Therefore, we 
are proposing as MACT the same PM emissions limits for both clinker 
coolers and kilns.
    In sum, because we believe that the costs of a beyond-the-floor 
standard for PM are not justified, we are proposing a PM standard for 
existing kilns and clinker coolers of 0.085 lb/ton of clinker, and for 
new kilns and clinker coolers of 0.080 lb/ton of clinker.

F. Selection of Compliance Provisions

    For compliance with the mercury emissions standards we are 
proposing to require continuous or integrated monitoring (either 
instrument based or sorbent trap based). As explained earlier in this 
preamble, we do not believe that short term emission tests provide a 
good indication of long term mercury emissions from cement kilns. We 
considered the option of requiring cement kilns to measure and analyze 
mercury content of all inputs to the kiln, as was done to gather the 
data used to develop the proposed standards. However, that data 
gathering was done based on a daily analysis of all inputs to the kiln. 
If we were to make that the compliance option and require daily 
analyses, the cost would be comparable to the cost of a mercury 
monitoring system. If we were to allow less frequent analyses to reduce 
costs, then we are concerned that the accuracy may be reduced (and the 
standard would no longer be implemented in the same manner as it was 
developed). In addition, in order to meet the proposed mercury emission 
limits, we anticipate that many facilities will install add-on 
controls, which will create another variable that would make the 
measurement of mercury content of inputs (instead of continuous or 
integrated stack measurement) significantly less accurate. In order to 
determine an outlet emissions rate based on input measurements, the 
control device would have to be tested under various operating 
conditions to insure that the removal efficiency could be accurately 
calculated, and continuous monitoring of control device parameters 
(i.e. parametric monitoring) would be necessary. Given issues related 
to input monitoring, and the cost associated with control device 
monitoring, plus a desire to implement the standard in a manner 
consistent with its means of development, we believe that a continuous 
or integrated mercury measure at the stack is the preferred option, and 
are proposing that sources demonstrate compliance with mercury 
monitoring systems that meet either the requirements of PS-12A or PS-
12B.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ Information related to the development of Performance 
Specifications 12A and 12B can be found in dockets EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-
0056 and EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0164.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We are not aware of any cement kilns in the U.S. that have 
continuous mercury monitoring systems. However, there are numerous 
utility boilers that have installed and certified mercury CEMS. We see 
no technical basis to say that these continuous mercury monitoring 
systems will not work as well on a cement kiln as they do on a utility 
boiler. In addition, we are aware that there are 34 cement kilns that 
have operating continuous mercury monitors in Germany.\37\ There were 
problems in the application of continuous mercury monitoring systems 
when they were first installed on these German cement kilns, but their 
performance has been improved so they now provide acceptable 
performance. We are requesting comment on the feasibility of applying 
mercury continuous monitoring systems to cement kilns in the United 
States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ E-mail and attachment. M. Bernicke, Federal Environment 
Agency to A. Linero, Florida Department of Environmental Protection. 
February 8, 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Generally, we propose and promulgate monitoring system performance 
specifications and performance test methods in accordance with their 
development, independent of publication of source category emissions 
control regulations. There are circumstances dictating that we publish 
such measurement procedures and requirements simultaneously with an 
emissions regulation because of integral technical relationships 
between the standard and the monitoring performance specifications and 
test methods and because such a combination is convenient and cost-
effective. Such combined publication also allows commenters to prepare 
comprehensive comments on not only the performance specifications or 
test methods but also on their specific applications. In today's 
notice, we are reproposing to amend 40 CFR part 60, appendix B by 
adding Performance Specification 12A--Specifications and Test 
Procedures For Total Vapor Phase Mercury Continuous Emission Monitoring 
Systems in Stationary Sources. We are also proposing to amend 40 CFR 
part 60, appendix B by adding Performance Specification 12B--
Specifications and Test Procedures For Monitoring Total Vapor Phase 
Mercury Emissions from Stationary Sources Using a Sorbent Trap 
Monitoring System, and proposing to amend 40 CFR part 60 Appendix F by 
adding Procedure 5--Quality Assurance Requirements for Vapor Phase 
Mercury Continuous Monitoring Systems Used at Stationary Sources for 
Compliance Determination.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ Notwithstanding the connections between the performance 
specifications and this proposal, the mercury monitoring performance 
specifications remain technically independent from the proposed 
standards, as they exist independent of the proposed standard (see 
following paragraph in text above). Furthermore, EPA has adopted, 
and would continue to adopt such specifications and protocols, 
whether or not it were amending the NESHAP for portland cement 
kilns.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We previously promulgated versions of these performance 
specifications with the Clean Air Mercury Rule (CAMR). On March 14, 
2008, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit issued 
its mandate vacating CAMR on other grounds not related to these 
performance specifications. We are reproposing these performance 
specifications today. We also want to make clear that these performance 
specifications are generally applicable,

[[Page 21157]]

i.e. apply wherever mercury CEMS are required and so are not limited in 
applicability to portland cement kilns.
    In PS-12A, we refer to and apply a span value, a Hg concentration 
that is constant and related (i.e., twice) to the applicable emissions 
limit. The span value is used in assessing the mercury CEMS performance 
and in defining calibration standards. We expect that mercury emissions 
from these facilities to be highly variable including short term 
periods of concentrations exceeding the span value. We request comment 
on whether the proposed approach for establishing CEMS calibration 
ranges and assessing performance will adequately assure the accuracy of 
the reported average emissions that might include measurements at 
concentrations above the span value. If not, what alternative 
approaches should we consider?
    For demonstrating compliance with the proposed THC emissions limit 
we are proposing the use of a CEMS meeting the requirements of PS-8A. 
This requirement already exists for new kilns. There are existing kilns 
that already have THC CEMS, and indeed, EPA used CEMS data from these 
kilns as the basis for the proposed standards. As previously noted, 
changes in raw materials can materially affect THC emissions without 
any obvious indication that emissions have changed. For this reason, 
and to be consistent with the means by which EPA developed the proposed 
standard, we believe (subject to consideration of public comment) a 
CEMS is necessary to insure continuous compliance.
    If a source chooses to comply with the proposed alternative 
equivalent organic HAP emissions limit,\39\\\ rather than the THC 
limit, we are not proposing the use of a continuous monitor to directly 
measure total organic HAP. We are instead proposing to use EPA Method 
320 to determine the actual organic HAP content of the THC at a 
specific facility. Thereafter, compliance would be measured based on 
the facility's THC measurement at the time of the Method 320 test for 
organics. The proposed rule thus provides that THC is measured 
concurrently, using a CEM, at the time of a Method 320 test and that if 
the Method 320 test indicates compliance with the alternative organic 
HAP standard, then the THC emissions measured using a CEMS would become 
that facility's THC limit. That THC limit would have to be met based on 
a 30-day average, which (as noted) would be measured with a CEM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ We assume that sources would do so if they cannot meet the 
(proposed) THC standard of 7 ppmvd for existing sources and 6 ppmvd 
for new sources, but can demonstrate that their organic HAP 
emissions are lower than the (alternative) MACT limit for organics 
(or, put the other way, that their THC emissions contain more than 
the normal amount of non-HAP organics).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For demonstrating compliance with the proposed PM emissions limit, 
we are proposing the installation and operation of a bag leak detection 
(BLD) system, along with stack testing using EPA method 5 conducted at 
a frequency of five years. If an ESP is used for PM control, an ESP 
predictive model to monitor the performance of ESP controlling PM 
emissions from kilns would be required, as well as a stack performance 
test conducted at a frequency of five years. As an alternative a PM 
CEMS that meets the requirements of PS-11 may be used. We are also 
proposing to eliminate the current requirement of using an opacity 
monitor to demonstrate continuous requirement with a PM standard for 
kilns and clinker coolers as use of an opacity monitor would be 
superfluous under the monitoring regimes we are proposing (an issue 
discussed further in the following paragraph).
    We previously proposed use of BLD systems for PM as part of our 
review of the Portland Cement Standards for Performance under section 
111 of the Act (73 FR 34072, June 16, 2008). Our rationale for 
extending the requirement to existing kilns is that given the stringent 
level of the proposed PM emissions limits, we do not believe that 
opacity is an accurate indicator of compliance with the proposed PM 
emissions limit. As just noted, were we to adopt this requirement, we 
would also remove the opacity standard and opacity continuous 
monitoring requirements for any source that uses a PM CEMS or bag leak 
detector to determine compliance with a PM standard. (Some opacity 
requirements, such as those for materials handling operations, would 
remain in place.)
    As also just noted, we are also proposing to allow the use of a PM 
CEMS as an alternative to the BLD to determine compliance. However, we 
are specifically soliciting comment on making the use of a PM CEMS a 
requirement. We note that in the original 1999 rule we included a 
requirement that kilns and clinker install and maintain a PM CEMS to 
demonstrate compliance with the PM emissions limit, but we deferred 
compliance with that requirement until EPA had developed the necessary 
performance specification for a PM CEMS. See 64 FR at 31903-04. These 
performance specifications are now available. In addition, continuous 
monitors give a far better measure of sources' performance over time 
than periodic stack tests. Moreover, as discussed below, we do not 
believe that use of a PM CEMS would increase the stringency of the 
standard. Therefore, we are soliciting comment on the option of 
requiring use of PM CEMS to monitor compliance with a PM standard.
    For demonstrating compliance with the HCl emissions limit we are 
proposing the use of a CEMS that meets the requirements of PS-15 if the 
source does not use a limestone wet scrubber for HCl control. As with 
mercury and THC, HCl emissions can be significantly affected by inputs 
to the kiln without any visible indications. For this reason we believe 
that a continuous method of compliance is warranted, with one 
exception. If the source uses a limestone wet scrubber for HCl control, 
we believe that HCl emissions will be minimal even if kiln inputs 
change because limestone wet scrubbers are highly efficient in removing 
HCl. For this reason we are proposing to require sources using a 
limestone wet scrubber to perform an initial compliance test using EPA 
Test Method 321, and to test every 5 years thereafter. These EPA Test 
Method 321 testing requirements would also apply to sources using CEMS. 
In addition, for sources with in-line raw mills that are not using a 
wet scrubber for HCl control, we are proposing to require testing with 
raw mill on and raw mill off. Our review of the available data where a 
kiln was tested with raw mill on/raw mill off indicated that the change 
in raw mill operating conditions had a significant influence on HCl 
emissions.\40\ We are specifically requesting comment on our assumption 
that a wet scrubber will consistently maintain a low level of HCl 
emissions, even if feed conditions change, and thus that it is 
appropriate to use a short term performance test rather then a 
continuous monitor for kilns that install wet scrubbers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ E-mail and attachments from K. Barnett to J. Pew, 
Earthjustice. September 2, 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One option we considered would be to require SO2 
monitoring in lieu of HCl monitoring. The reason to allow this option 
would be that some kilns already have SO2 monitors, and this 
monitoring technology is less expensive and more mature than HCl 
monitors. If a source is using a wet scrubber for HCl control, then 
indication that the scrubber is removing SO2 is also a 
positive indication that HCl is being removed. However, we are not 
proposing this because we have no data to demonstrate a direct link 
between HCl emissions and SO2 emissions. For example, if a 
source has a scrubber-equipped kiln and notes

[[Page 21158]]

an SO2 emissions increase, is the increase due to a drop-off 
in scrubber performance or to an increase in sulfur compounds in the 
raw materials? If it is simply a change in raw materials' sulfur 
content, then the change may have no relevance to HCl emissions. If the 
SO2 emission increase is due to a reduction in scrubber 
efficiency, then the change in SO2 emission might mean that 
HCl emissions have changed. We are requesting comment on the efficacy 
of using SO2 as a surrogate for HCl for purposes of 
monitoring compliance, and data demonstrating whether SO2 is 
a good surrogate for HCl for this purpose.
    One issue in using a CEMS to measure compliance with these proposed 
standards is whether the use of a continuous monitor results in an 
increase in the stringency of the standard, if that standard was 
developed based on short term emissions tests or other data and is a 
not-to-exceed standard. As explained earlier, EPA obtained mercury data 
from thirty daily samples of fuel and raw materials and used 
statistical techniques to account for further variability in inputs, 
operation, and measurement. The proposed hydrogen chloride emissions 
limits were derived using statistical techniques to account for 
variability in components such as fuel and raw material, process 
operation, and measurement procedures. The proposal would require 
direct, continuous measurement of mercury and, for those facilities not 
using a wet scrubber as a control device, hydrogen chloride. Compliance 
with these emissions limits for these facilities is determined by 
assessing the 30-day average emissions with the appropriate emissions 
limit. With respect to mercury, as explained in section IV.B.1. above, 
not only do continuous monitoring and 30-day averaging accord well with 
the means used to gather these underlying data, but continuous 
monitoring and 30-day averaging are needed because cement kilns do not 
emit mercury in relatively equal amounts day-by-day but, due to the 
mill-on/mill-off phenomenon, in varying small and large amounts. With 
respect to hydrogen chloride, use of a 30-day average provides a way to 
account for the potential short-term variability inherent in values 
obtained from continuous data collection and analysis, so that CEM-
based compliance, in combination with 30-day averaging, does not make 
the proposed standard more stringent than a not-to-exceed standard 
based on stack testing. Therefore, subject to consideration of public 
comment, we believe the use of continuous monitoring techniques for 
mercury and HCl, in combination with 30-day averaging times, is 
appropriate.

G. Selection of Compliance Dates

    For existing sources we are proposing 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 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.
    In the December 2006 rule amendments we included operating 
requirements relating to the amount of cement kiln dust wasted versus 
dust recycled, and also a requirement that the source certify that any 
fly ash used as a raw material did not come from a boiler using sorbent 
to remove mercury from the boiler's exhaust. These provisions are 
unnecessary should EPA adopt the proposed standards, and EPA is 
proposing to remove them. Removal of these requirements would take 
effect once the affected source is required to comply with a numerical 
mercury limit.
    For new sources, the compliance date will be the date of 
publication of the final rule or startup, whichever is later. In 
determining the proposal date that determines if a source is existing 
or new, we are retaining the date of December 5, 2005 for HCl, THC, and 
mercury, i.e., any source that commenced construction after December 5, 
2005, is a new source for purposes of the emission standards changed in 
these amendments. For PM, we are proposing that the date that 
determines if a source is existing or new will be May 6, 2009.
    In proposing this determination, we considered three possible 
dates, including March 24, 1998; December 5, 2005; and the proposal 
date of these amendments. 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. 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).
    We believe that the section 112(a)(4) definition can be read to 
apply pollutant-by-pollutant, and can further be read to apply to the 
rulemaking record under which a standard is developed. The evident 
intent of the definition plus the substantive new source provisions is 
that it is technically more challenging and potentially more costly to 
retrofit a control system to an existing source than to incorporate 
controls when a source is initially designed. See 71 FR at 76540-541. 
If, for example, we were to choose March 24, 1998, as the date to 
delineate existing versus new sources, then numerous kilns that would 
be required to meet new source standards would have to retrofit 
controls that they could not have reasonably anticipated at the time 
the source was originally designed.\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ Two other provisions of the Act are pertinent here as well. 
Section 112(i)(1) requires preconstruction review for, among other 
sources, all new sources subject to a new source standard. Such 
preconstruction review would be impossible if new sources included 
sources which began operation pursuant to an historic new source 
standard, which standard was later amended. Such a source would, of 
course, have already been operating. In addition, section 111(a)(2) 
defines ``new source'' as a stationary source ``the construction or 
reconstruction of which is commenced after the publication of 
regulations (or, if earlier,) ``proposed regulations prescribing a 
standard of performance under this section.'' Such standard must be 
reviewed periodically at least every 8 years. EPA's longstanding 
interpretation of this provision is that only sources commencing 
construction (or which are reconstructed) after the date of a 
revised new source performance standard would be subject to that 
revised standard. There seems no evident reason to interpret the 
section 112(a)(4) definition differently from the section 111(a)(2) 
definition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We also considered selecting the proposal date of these amendments 
as the date that delineates new and existing sources but, for HAP other 
than PM, rejected that option. The mercury and THC standards being 
proposed here arise out of the rulemaking proposed on December 2, 2005. 
This notice is issued in response to petitions for reconsideration of 
the standards from that rulemaking. The proposed standard for HCl 
likewise arises out of the rulemaking proposed in December 2, 2005 and 
its reconsideration, where EPA proposed standards for HCl. See 70 FR at 
72335-37. Thus, it is reasonable to view the December 2, 2005, proposal 
as the date on which EPA first proposed standards for HCl as part of 
this rulemaking. We are soliciting comment on the appropriate date to 
regard the standards for THC and HCl as being ``first proposed.''
    For PM, the choices are the 1998 date on which EPA proposed PM 
standards, or the date of this proposal (the first

[[Page 21159]]

date EPA proposed revision to the PM standard, based on a new 
rulemaking record). Subject to consideration of public comment, we 
believe the appropriate date is the date of this proposal. See 71 FR at 
76540-41 (applying new source standards to sources which began 
operation many years in the past is inconsistent with idea that new 
source standards may be more stringent because they can be implemented 
at time of initial design of the source, thus avoiding retrofit 
expense).

H. Discussion of EPA's Sector-Based Approach for Cement Manufacturing

What is a 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.
Portland Cement Sector-Based Approach
    Multiple regulatory requirements currently apply to the cement 
industry sector. 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. The requirements analyzed affect HAP and/or 
criteria pollutant emissions from cement kilns and cover the NESHAP 
reconsideration, area source NESHAP, NESHAP technology review and 
residual risk, and the New Source Performance Standard (NSPS) revision. 
The results of our analyses are described below.
    The first relationship is the interaction between the NESHAP THC 
standard and the co-benefits for VOC and carbon monoxide (CO) control. 
The THC limit for new sources in the NESHAP will also control VOC and 
CO to the limit of technical feasibility. For this reason the proposed 
NSPS relies on the THC NESHAP limit for new sources to represent best 
demonstrated technology (BDT) for VOC and CO for this source category. 
See 73 FR 34082.
    Another interaction relates to the more stringent PM emission limit 
being proposed under the NESHAP reconsideration. As noted, there is a 
legal requirement to regulate listed urban HAP metals from area source 
cement kilns under section 112(c)(3), and we are proposing PM standards 
for area source cement kilns pursuant to that obligation.\42\ In 
addition, we are required under CAA section 112(f) to evaluate the 
residual risk for toxic air pollutants emitted by this source category 
and to perform a technology review for this source category under 
section 112(d)(6). Revisions to the PM standard for new and existing 
major sources under the NESHAP will maximize environmental benefits due 
to the achievement of greater PM emission reductions and will also 
reduce the possibility for additional control requirements as we 
consider the implication these revisions have in developing future 
requirements under residual risk and technology review increasing 
certainty to this sector.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ Memo from K. Barnett, EPA to Sharon Nizich, EPA. Extension 
of Portland Cement NESHAP PM limits to Area Sources. May 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To reduce conflicting and redundant requirements for the cement 
industry regarding the control of PM emissions, EPA is proposing to 
place language in both the NESHAP and the NSPS making it clear that if 
a particular source has two different requirements for the same 
pollutant, they are to comply with the most stringent emission limit, 
and are not subject to the less stringent limit.
    Another issue being addressed as part of our cement sector strategy 
is condensable PM. Particulate emissions consist of both a filterable 
fraction and a condensable fraction. The condensable fraction exists as 
a gas in an exhaust stream and condenses to form particulate once the 
gas enters the ambient air. In this rulemaking, AP-42 emission factors 
were used to calculate emission reductions of PM2.5 
filterable due to the PM standard.\43\ There are insufficient data to 
assess if the cement industry is a significant source of condensable 
PM. The measurement of condensable PM is important to EPA's goal of 
reducing ambient air concentrations of PM2.5. While the 
Agency supports reducing condensable PM emissions, the amount of 
condensable PM captured by Method 5 (the PM compliance test method 
specified in the NSPS) is small relative to methods that specifically 
target condensable PM, such as Method 202 (40 CFR part 51, Appendix M). 
Since promulgation of Method 202 in 1991, EPA has been working to 
overcome problems associated with the accuracy of Method 202 and has 
proposed improvements to Method 202 on March 25, 2009 (74 FR 12970). 
EPA expects promulgation of these improvements within a year. Barring 
promulgation of these improvements, EPA has identified already-approved 
procedures to be conducted in conjunction with Method 202; these 
procedures reduce the impact of potential problems in accounting for 
the condensable portion of PM2.5.\44\ The condensable 
portion of PM will become important as the PM2.5 
implementation rule, which requires consideration of both the 
filterable and condensable portions of PM2.5 for state 
implementation plan, new source review, and prevention of significant 
deterioration decisions, begins implementation on January 1, 2011. (see 
72 FR 20586, April 25, 2007.) In order to assist in future sector 
strategy development, we are considering any data available on the 
levels of condensable PM emitted by the cement industry; any 
condensable PM emission test data collected using EPA Conditional 
Method 39, EPA Method 202 (40 CFR part 51, Appendix M), or their 
equivalent, factors affecting those condensable PM emissions, and 
potential controls. We welcome submission of these data, as well as 
comments and suggestions on whether or how to include the condensable 
portion of PM2.5 in the PM emissions limit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ AP-42, Fifth Edition, Volume I Chapter 11: Mineral Products 
Industry. Section 11.6 January 1995 p. 11.6-15.
    \44\ See response to the third question of Frequently Asked 
Questions for Method 202, available at www.epa.gov/ttn/emc/methods/method202.html#amb.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Another benefit of evaluating regulatory requirements across 
pollutants in the context of a sector approach is addressing the 
relationship between the regulatory requirements for SO2, 
mercury, and HCl emissions. Although SO2 emission reductions 
would be required in the proposed NSPS, mercury and HCl emissions 
reduction are required in the Portland Cement NESHAP reconsideration. 
The integrated analysis of these regulatory requirements showed that 
alkaline wet scrubbers achieve emission reductions for SO2, 
mercury, and HCl from cement kilns. This control technology maximizes 
the co-benefits of emission

[[Page 21160]]

reductions while minimizing cost. For example, a new facility that 
under the NSPS determines a moderate level of SO2 reduction 
might consider using a lime injection system because it is lower cost. 
However, if the same facility would have to use some type of add-on 
control to meet the NESHAP new source mercury and/or HCl emission 
limits, instead of considering each standard in isolation, would 
determine that the most cost effective overall alternative might be to 
use a wet scrubber for controlling SO2, mercury, and/or HCl. 
By coordinating requirements at the same time, the facility can 
determine which control technology minimizes the overall cost of air 
pollution control and can avoid stranded costs associated with 
piecemeal investments in individual control equipment for 
SO2, mercury, and/or HCl.
    The integrated sector-based analysis for the cement industry also 
showed that SO2 emission reductions from existing sources 
are possible as co-benefits if wet scrubbers are employed to control 
either mercury and/or HCl from existing sources under the NESHAP. We 
evaluated the co-benefits of the use of wet scrubbers in reducing 
SO2 and the effects on PM2.5 and PM2.5 
nonattainment areas (NAA), including the co-benefits of reducing 
SO2 in mandatory Federal Class I areas (Class I areas).\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ Areas designated as mandatory Class I Federal areas are 
those national parks exceeding 6,000 acres, wilderness areas and 
national memorial parks exceeding 5,000 acres, and all international 
parks which were in existence on August 7, 1977. Visibility has been 
identified as an important value in 156 of these areas. See 40 CFR 
part 81, subpart D.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Another interaction addressed in the context of the sector approach 
is monitoring requirements. To ensure that our sector strategy reduces 
administrative and compliance complexities associated with complying 
with multiple regulations, our rulemaking recognizes that where 
monitoring is required, methods and reporting requirements should be 
consistent in the NSPS and NESHAP where the pollutants and emission 
sources have similar characteristics.
New Source Review and the Cement Sector-Based Approach
    The proposed MACT requirements for cement facilities have a 
potential to result in emissions reductions of air pollutants that are 
regulated under the CAA's major new source review (NSR) program. 
Specifically, operating a wet scrubber to meet MACT requirements for 
mercury and/or HCl at a portland cement plant has the added 
environmental benefit of reducing large amounts of SO2, a 
regulated NSR pollutant. For a typical wet scrubber, with a 90 percent 
removal efficiency for SO2, this could result in an annual 
reduction of thousands of tons of SO2 from an uncontrolled 
kiln (reduction will vary greatly depending on the type and age of the 
kiln, sulfur content of feed materials, and fuel type). These 
collateral SO2 and other criteria pollutant emissions 
reductions resulting from the application of MACT may be considered for 
``netting'' and ``offsets'' purposes under the major NSR program.
    The term ``netting'' refers to the process of considering certain 
previous and prospective emissions changes at an existing major source 
over a contemporaneous period to determine if a ``net emissions 
increase'' will result from a proposed modification. If the ``net 
emissions increase'' is significant, then major NSR applies. Section 
173(a)(1)(A) of the Act requires that a major source or major 
modification planned in a nonattainment area obtain emissions offsets 
as a condition for approval. These offsets are generally obtained from 
existing sources located in the vicinity of the proposed source and 
must offset the emissions increase from the new source or modification 
and provide a net air quality benefit.
    An emissions reduction must be ``surplus,'' among other things, to 
be creditable for NSR netting and offset purposes. Typically emission 
reduction required by the CAA are not considered surplus. For example, 
emissions reductions already required by an NSPS, or those that are 
relied upon in a State implementation plan (SIP) for criteria pollutant 
attainment purposes (e.g., Reasonable Available Control Technology, 
reasonable further progress, or an attainment demonstration), are not 
creditable for NSR offsets (or netting) since this would be ``double 
counting'' the reductions. Also, any emissions reductions already 
counted in previous major modification ``netting'' may not be used as 
offsets. However, emissions reductions that are in excess of, or 
incidental to the MACT standards, are not precluded from being surplus 
even though they result from compliance with a CAA requirement. 
Therefore, provided such reductions are not being double counted, they 
may qualify as surplus and can be used either as netting credits at the 
source or be sold as emissions offsets to other sources in the same 
non-attainment area provided the reductions meet all otherwise 
applicable CAA requirements for being a creditable emission reduction 
for use as an offset or for netting purposes.
    Since SO2 is presumed a PM2.5 precursor in 
all prevention of significant deterioration and nonattainment areas 
unless a state specifically demonstrates that it is not a precursor, 
SO2 may be used as a emission reduction credit for either 
SO2 or PM2.5, at an offset ratio is 40-to-1 (40 
tons of SO2 to 1 ton of PM2.5) See 72 FR 28321-
28350 (May 16, 2008).
    Given that many states have concerns over a lack of direct 
PM2.5 emissions offsets for areas that are designated 
nonattainment for PM2.5, cement plants that generate 
creditable reductions of SO2 from applying MACT controls may 
realize a financial benefit if they can sell the emissions credits as 
SO2 and/or PM2.5 offsets. It is difficult to 
quantify the exact financial benefit, since offset prices are market 
driven and vary widely in the U.S.
National Ambient Air Quality Standards
    Portland cement kilns emit several pollutants regulated under the 
NAAQS, including PM2.5, SO2, NOX, and 
precursors to ozone. In addition, several pollutants emitted from 
cement kilns are transformed in the atmosphere into PM2.5, 
including SO2, NOX, and VOC. Emissions of 
NOX and VOC are also precursors to ozone. Thus, 
implementation of the Cement NESHAP, which could lead to substantial 
reductions in criteria pollutants and precursor emissions as co-
benefits, could help areas around the country attain these NAAQS.
    Screening analyses showed that 23 cement facilities were located in 
24hr PM2.5 NAA and 39 facilities in Ozone NAA. Control 
strategies for reducing emissions of THC, mercury, HCl, and PM from 
cement plants under the Cement NESHAP have the co-benefits of reducing 
SO2 and direct PM2.5 emissions. These co-benefits 
could provide states with emission reductions for areas required to 
have attainment plans.
Regional Haze, Reasonable Progress, and the Cement Sector-Based 
Strategy
    The Cement NESHAP can also have an impact on regional haze. Under 
section 169A of the CAA, States must develop SIPs to address regional 
haze. The purpose of the regional haze program is the prevention of any 
future, and the remedying of any existing, impairment of visibility in 
mandatory Class I areas which impairment results from manmade air 
pollution under the regional haze regulations, the first Regional Haze 
SIPs were due in December 2007 (40 CFR 51.308(b)); these SIP submittals 
must address several key elements, including Best Available Retrofit 
Technology (BART),

[[Page 21161]]

Reasonable Progress, and long-term strategies. Screening analyses 
showed that there are 14 cement facilities within a distance of 50 km 
Class 1 Areas.
    A potential benefit for cement facilities utilizing wet scrubbers 
to comply with this rule is a level of certainty for satisfying a 
facility's BART requirements for SO2 under the regional haze 
program. This rule may establish a framework for States to include 
certain control measures or other requirements in their regional haze 
SIPs where such a program would be ``better than BART.'' A facility 
must comply with BART as expeditiously as practicable but no later than 
5 years after the regional haze SIP is approved. A state may be able to 
rely on this rule to satisfy the BART requirements for a NESHAP 
affected source utilizing a wet scrubber if (1) the compliance date for 
a source subject to this NESHAP falls within the BART compliance 
timeframe, (2) the proposed controls are more cost effective than the 
controls that would constitute BART, and (3) the visibility benefits of 
the controls are at least as effective as BART.
    States may also allow sources to ``average'' emissions across any 
set of BART-eligible emissions units within a fence-line, provided the 
emissions reductions from each pollutant being controlled for BART are 
equal to those reductions that would be obtained by simply controlling 
each of the BART-eligible units that constitute the BART-eligible 
source (40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)). This averaging technique may also be 
advantageous to cement facilities subject to this NESHAP that also have 
BART-subject sources.
    Under the regional haze rule, States may develop an alternative 
``better than BART'' program in lieu of source-by-source BART. The 
alternative program must achieve greater reasonable progress than BART 
would toward the national visibility goal. The alternative program may 
allow more time for compliance than source-by-source BART would have 
allowed. Any reductions relied on for a better than BART analysis must 
be surplus as of the baseline year the State relies on for purposes of 
developing its regional haze SIP (i.e., 2002) and can include 
reductions from non-BART and BART sources.\46\ Visibility analyses must 
verify that the alternative program, on average, gets greater 
visibility improvement than BART and that no degradation in visibility 
on the best days occurs (40 CFR 51.308(e)(3)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ November 18, 2002 memo from EPA's Office of Air Quality 
Planning and Standards entitled ``2002 Base Year Emission Inventory 
SIP Planning: 8-hr Ozone, PM2.5, and Regional Haze 
Programs.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA believes that emissions units at cement sources found to be 
subject to BART and that will be required to install controls or 
otherwise achieve emissions reductions per the regional haze 
regulations can benefit from this Cement NESHAP to potentially satisfy 
the regional haze requirements. EPA will need to demonstrate that the 
implementation of the cement NESHAP will result in SO2 
emissions reductions and related visibility improvements that are 
greater than reductions achieved through the application of BART 
controls. If EPA demonstrates that the SO2 emissions 
reductions and visibility and air quality improvements resulting from 
the rule are better than BART, this demonstration, when incorporated 
into the Regional Haze SIP, may be anticipated to fulfill federal 
regulatory requirements associated with SO2 BART 
requirements for cement facilities.
    Additionally, the level of control achieved through the Cement 
NESHAP may contribute toward, and possibly achieve, the visibility 
improvements needed to satisfy the reasonable progress requirements of 
the regional haze rule for cement facilities through the first Regional 
Haze planning period. States can submit the relevant regional haze SIP 
amendments once this rule becomes final.
Health Benefits of Reducing Emissions From Portland Cement Kilns
    Implementation of the Cement NESHAP, which could lead to 
substantial reductions in PM2.5, SO2, and toxic 
air pollutants, could reduce numerous health effects.
    Section VI.G of this preamble provides a summary of the monetized 
human health benefits of this proposed regulation based on the 
Regulatory Impact Analysis available in this docket that includes more 
detail regarding the costs and benefits of this proposed regulation.
    As mentioned before, Portland cement kilns emit several criteria 
pollutants with known human health effects, including PM2.5, 
SO2, NOX, and precursors to ozone. Exposure to 
PM2.5 is associated with significant respiratory and cardiac 
health effects, such as premature mortality, chronic bronchitis, 
nonfatal heart attacks, hospital admissions, emergency department 
visits, asthma attacks, and work loss days.\47\ Exposure to 
SO2 and NOX is associated with increased 
respiratory effects, including asthma attacks, hospital admissions, and 
emergency department visits. Exposure to ozone is associated with 
significant respiratory health effects, such as premature mortality, 
hospital admissions, emergency department visits, acute respiratory 
symptoms, school loss days.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ USEPA, Air Quality Criteria for Particulate matter, chapter 
9.2 (October 2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, Portland cement kilns emit toxic air pollutants, 
including mercury and HCl. Potential exposure routes to mercury 
emissions include both inhalation and subsequent ingestion through the 
consumption of fish containing methylmercury. 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 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.\48\ HCl is an upper respiratory irritant at 
relatively low concentrations and may cause damage to the lower 
respiratory tract at higher concentrations.\49\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ For more information see http://www.epa.gov/mercury/about.htm.
    \49\ For more information see http://www.epa.gov/oppt/aegl/pubs/tsd52.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Other Changes and Areas Where We are Requesting Comment

Startup, Shutdown and Malfunction
    The cement kiln source category is presently exempt from compliance 
with the generally applicable section 112 standards during periods of 
startup, shutdown and malfunction. See Table 1 to subpart LLL of Part 
63, which cross-references the exemption found in the General 
Provisions (see, e.g., 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) (exemption from non-opacity 
emission standards) and (h)(1) (exemption from opacity and visible 
emission standards)). With respect to those exemptions, we note that on 
December 19, 2008, in a decision addressing a challenge to the 2002, 
2004, and 2006 amendments to those

[[Page 21162]]

provisions, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit 
vacated the SSM exemption. Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F. 3d 1019 (D.C. 
Cir. 2008). Industry petitioners have filed petitions for re-hearing, 
asking the Court to re-consider its decision. The Court has not yet 
acted on these petitions.
    EPA recognizes that there are different modes of operation for any 
stationary source, and those modes generally include start-up, normal 
operations and shut-down. EPA also recognizes that malfunctions may 
occur. EPA further recognizes that the Clean Air Act does not require 
EPA to set a single emission standard under section 112(d) that applies 
during all operating periods. See Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F. 3d at 
1027. In light of this decision, EPA is proposing not to apply the SSM 
exemption to the emission standards proposed in this rule. Rather, EPA 
is proposing that the proposed standards described above apply during 
both normal operations and periods of startup, shut-down, and 
malfunction. For the same reason, EPA is further proposing that the SSM 
exemption not apply to the other section 112 standard applicable to 
cement kilns, for dioxins (see sections 63.1343(b)(3) and (c)(3)), 
which standard is not otherwise addressed or reopened in this proposed 
rule.
    We base this proposal on the emissions information available to us 
at this time. See CAA 112(d)(3)(A) (standards are based on the average 
emission limitation achieved by the best performing 12 percent of 
sources ``for which the Administrator has emissions information''). 
Specifically, our emissions database has no data showing that emissions 
during periods of startup, shut-down, and malfunction are different 
than during normal operation.
    We believe that startup and shutdown are both somewhat controlled 
operating modes for cement kilns (although occurring over different 
time periods) so that emissions during these operating modes may not be 
significantly different from those during normal operation. However, we 
recognize that shutdowns can vary (planned or emergency) and that 
startups can occur from a cold or a hot kiln, but we currently lack 
data on HAP emissions that occur during these modes of operation. We 
further recognize that malfunction conditions are largely unanticipated 
occurrences for which control strategies are mainly reactive.
    EPA requests comment on the proposed approach to addressing 
emissions during start-up, shutdown and malfunction and the proposed 
standards that would apply during these periods. EPA specifically 
requests that commenters provide data and any supporting documentation 
addressing emissions during start-up, shut-down and malfunctions. If 
based on the data and information received in response to comments, EPA 
were to set different standards for periods of start-up, shutdown or 
malfunction, EPA asks for comment on the level of specificity needed to 
define these periods to assure clarity regarding when standards for 
those periods apply.
    Data used to set existing source floors. The emissions standards 
included in the proposed rule were calculated using the emissions 
information available to the Administrator, in accordance with EPA's 
interpretation of the requirements of section 112(d)(3) of the Act. In 
developing this proposed rule, we specifically sought data from as many 
kilns as possible, given the time constraints when we began our data 
collection process. Given that there are 152 kilns in this source 
category, the 12 percent representing the best performing kilns would 
be 19 kilns. However, in some cases we have emission data from as few 
as 12 cement kilns, which means that existing source floors were 
proposed using as few as 2 kilns (although we are soliciting comment on 
an alternative interpretation that would allow EPA to base floors on a 
minimum of five sources' performance in all instances where those data 
exist). EPA expects that more emissions information from other kilns, 
both with and without similar process and control characteristics, 
would lead to a better characterization of emissions from the entire 
population of cement kilns, as well as a better description of intra-
source, inter-source, and test method variability, and that statistical 
techniques can be employed to provide the expected distribution of 
emissions for the cement kiln population. EPA thus requests commenters 
to provide additional emissions information on cement kilns' 
performance.
    HCl Test Data and Methods. In some instances, the emissions 
standards included in the proposed rule were calculated using emissions 
information provided to EPA that appears to be below detection levels 
established more than 15 years ago. More specifically, Method 321 as it 
currently exists identifies a practical lower quantification range for 
hydrogen chloride from 1000 to 5000 parts per billion for a specific 
path length and test conditions. Many of the best performing sources 
with respect to HCl emissions report both values and detection levels 
below 1000 parts per billion. It is not surprising that detection 
levels should decrease as improvements in analytical methods occur over 
time, and EPA is proposing to revise the detection limits in Method 321 
to reflect these improvements. While EPA believes lower detection 
levels are achievable, EPA did not receive the emissions information 
and other data necessary to assess independently the detection levels, 
some as low as 20 parts per billion, achieved and reported by sources.
    Without additional data or detection limit calculations, EPA could 
maintain the old detection limit, accept the source-provided limit, or 
modify the source-provided limit to an expected new acceptable level. 
Selection of an appropriate detection limit is no trivial matter, as 
the detection limit could impact how the available data would be used 
in average emissions calculations. EPA could choose not to use any data 
below the detection limit in calculations. EPA could also choose to set 
all data below the detection limit at a value corresponding to one-half 
the detection limit for average calculation purposes, reasoning that 
any amount of emissions between zero and the detection limit could 
occur when the detection limit is recorded. Indeed, this approach, 
setting all data below the detection limit at a value corresponding to 
one-half the detection limit, was chosen by the sources that provided 
emissions information to EPA. EPA could also set all data below the 
detection limit at a value corresponding to the detection limit, or to 
zero, for average calculation purposes. Finally, EPA could apply 
statistical techniques to available emissions information both above 
and below the detection limit to provide the expected distribution of 
HCl emissions for the cement kiln population. A further issue, with any 
of these possible approaches, would be to assess sources' operating 
variability.
    EPA based the HCl emissions limitations contained in the proposal 
using the source-provided detection limits and setting all data below 
the detection limit at a value corresponding to the detection limit for 
average calculation purposes. Should EPA receive additional emissions 
information sufficient to calculate detection limits from already-
received data or emissions information including detection limit 
calculations from other sources, EPA would be able to ascertain and 
revise, if necessary, the new detection limits and to calculate a 
different HCl standard.
    EPA requests additional HCl emissions information, including such 
information as needed to calculate detection limits, as well as 
detection

[[Page 21163]]

limit calculations. Moreover, EPA requests comments on which way, if 
any, to set the emission detection limit and to handle emissions 
information below the detection limit for use in this rule. For those 
commenters who believe EPA's proposed emission detection limit may not 
be suitable, EPA requests commenters to provide their views of 
acceptable detection limits and processes to calculate averages from 
data that are below the detection limit, as well as examples of sample 
calculations using those processes. We are also requesting comment on 
the same issues relating to the use of a CEMS meeting the requirements 
of PS-15 to measure HCl emissions.
Potential Regulation of Open Clinker Piles
    In the current rule, we regulate enclosed clinker storage 
facilities, but not open clinker piles. We are aware of two facilities 
where a facility has stored clinker in open piles, and fugitive 
emissions from those piles have reportedly resulted in measurable 
emissions of hexavalent chromium.\50\ However, we do not have 
information to evaluate the extent of emission potential from 
unenclosed clinker storage facilities. We are requesting 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. Based on comments received, we may (or may not) take action 
to regulate these open piles in the final action on this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \50\ \\ Information on the study of hexavalent chromium 
emissions believed to result from clinker piles and the rules 
adopted by the South Coast Air Quality Management District may be 
found at http://www.aqmd.gov/RiversideCement/RiversideCement.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Submission of Emissions Test Results to EPA. Compliance test data 
are necessary for many purposes including compliance determinations, 
development of emission factors, and determining annual emission rates. 
EPA has found it burdensome and time consuming to collect emission test 
data because of varied locations for data storage and varied data 
storage methods.
    One improvement that has occurred in recent years is the 
availability of stack test reports in electronic format as a 
replacement for bulky paper copies.
    In this action, we are taking a step to improve data accessibility 
for stack tests (and in the future continuous monitoring data). 
Portland cement sources will have the option of submitting to WebFIRE 
(an EPA electronic data base), an electronic copy of stack test reports 
as well as process data. Data entry requires only access to the 
Internet and is expected to be completed by the stack testing company 
as part of the work that it is contracted to perform. This option would 
become available as of December 31, 2011.
    Please note that the proposed option to submit source test data 
electronically to EPA would not require any additional performance 
testing. In addition, when a facility elects to submit performance test 
data to WebFIRE, there would be no additional requirements for data 
compilation; instead, we believe industry would greatly benefit from 
improved emissions factors, fewer information requests, and better 
regulation development as discussed below. Because the information that 
would be reported is already required in the existing test methods and 
is necessary to evaluate the conformance to the test methods, 
facilities would already be collecting and compiling these data. One 
major advantage of electing to submit source test data through the 
Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT), which was developed with input from 
stack testing companies (who already collect and compile performance 
test data electronically), is that it would provide a standardized 
method to compile and store all the documentation required by this 
proposed rule. Another important benefit of submitting these data to 
EPA at the time the source test is conducted is that these data will 
substantially reduce the effort involved in data collection activities 
in the future. This results in a reduced burden on both affected 
facilities (in terms of reduced manpower to respond to data collection 
requests) and EPA (in terms of preparing and distributing data 
collection requests). Finally, another benefit of electing to submit 
these data to WebFIRE electronically is that these data will greatly 
improve the overall quality of the existing and new emissions factors 
by supplementing the pool of emissions test data upon which emissions 
factors are based and by ensuring that data are more representative of 
current industry operational procedures. A common complaint we hear 
from industry and regulators is that emissions factors are out-dated or 
not representative of a particular source category. Receiving recent 
performance test results would ensure that emissions factors are 
updated and more accurate. In summary, receiving these test data 
already collected for other purposes and using them in the emissions 
factors development program will save industry, State/local/tribal 
agencies, and EPA time and money.
    As mentioned earlier, the electronic data base that will be used is 
EPA's WebFIRE, which is a Web site accessible through EPA's technology 
transfer network (TTN). The WebFIRE website was constructed to store 
emissions test data for use in developing emission factors. A 
description of the WebFIRE data base can be found at http://cfpub.epa.gov/oarweb/index.cfm?action=fire.main. The ERT will be able 
to transmit the electronic report through EPA's Central Data Exchange 
(CDX) network for storage in the WebFIRE data base. Although ERT is not 
the only electronic interface that can be used to submit source test 
data to the CDX for entry into WebFIRE, it makes submittal of data very 
straightforward and easy. A description of the ERT can be found at 
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/ert_tool.html. The ERT can be used to 
document the conduct of stack tests data for various pollutants 
including PM, mercury, and HCl. Presently, the ERT does not handle 
dioxin/furan stack test data, but the tool is being upgraded to handle 
dioxin/furan stack test data. The ERT does not currently accept opacity 
data or CEMS data.
    EPA specifically requests comment on the utility of this electronic 
reporting option and the burden that owners and operators of portland 
cement facilities estimate would be associated with this option.
    Definition of affected source. In the final amendments published on 
December 20, 2006, we indicated that we were changing paragraph (c) in 
Sec.  63.1340 to clarify that crushers were part of the affected source 
for this rule (71 FR 76532). However, we omitted the rule language 
changes to that paragraph. This language has been added to this 
proposed rule.

V. Comments on Notice of Reconsideration and EPA Final Action in 
Response To Remand

    As previously noted, EPA received comments on the notice of 
reconsideration and the final action taken in December 2006. A summary 
of

[[Page 21164]]

these comments is available in the docket for this rulemaking.\51\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \51\ Summary of Comments on December 20, 2006 Final Rule and 
Notice of Reconsideration. April 15, 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We are not responding to these comments in this proposed action. We 
will provide responses to these comments, and other comments received 
on these proposed amendments, when we take final action on this 
proposal.

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

A. What are the affected sources?

    There are currently 93 portland cement manufacturing facilities 
located in the U.S. and Puerto Rico that we expect to be affected by 
these proposed amendments. In 2005, these facilities operated 163 
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 20 new kilns and associated clinker 
coolers will be built in the five years after the promulgation of final 
standards representing 24 million tpy of clinker capacity. Some of 
these new kilns will be built at existing facilities and some at new 
greenfield facilities. The location of the kiln (greenfield or 
currently existing facility) has no bearing on our estimated cost and 
environmental impacts. We based new kiln impacts on a 1.2 million tpy 
clinker kiln. This kiln is the smallest size anticipated for new kilns 
based on kilns built in the last five years or currently under 
construction. Using the smallest anticipated kiln size provides a 
conservative estimate of costs because control costs per unit of 
capacity tend to be higher for smaller kilns.

B. How are the impacts for this proposal evaluated?

    For these proposed Portland Cement NESHAP amendments, the 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 may be selected to comply with the regulation. This 
is conducted 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 proposed 
regulation.
    For the Portland Cement NESHAP, EPA also employs 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.\52\ This 
model will be revised based on peer review comments and comments on 
this proposed rule and will be used to develop the cost and economic 
impacts of the final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \52\ See Industrial Sector Integrated Solutions Model dated 
December 23, 2008 and Review of ISIS Documentation Package dated 
April 15, 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 proposed rule in 
a given year (i.e., 2018, based on 2005 dollars) while ISIS evaluates 
impacts of compliance dynamically over time (i.e., 2013-2018). 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, and 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. Overall, we anticipate the total control costs 
from the Engineering Analysis to be higher than that of ISIS. With 
higher cost estimates serving as the basis for the Economic Impact 
Analysis along with other modeling differences, we expect the results 
presented from the EIA model will be higher in impact than those 
presented by ISIS.
    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

C. What are the air quality impacts?

    For the proposed Portland Cement NESHAP, EPA estimated the emission 
reductions that would occur due to the implementation of the proposed 
emission limits. EPA estimated emission reductions based on the control 
technologies selected by the engineering analysis. These emission 
reductions are based on 2005 emission baselines.
    Under the proposed limit for mercury, we have estimated that the 
emissions reductions would be 13,800 lb/yr for existing kilns. Based on 
our 1.2 million tpy model kiln, mercury emissions would be reduced by 
120 lb/yr for each new kiln, or about 2,400 lb/yr 5 years after 
promulgation of the final standards.
    Under the proposed limits for THC, we have estimated that the 
emissions reductions would be 13,000 tpy for existing kilns, which 
represent an organic HAP reduction of 3,100 tpy. For new kilns, THC 
emissions would be reduced by 50 tpy per kiln or about 920 tpy 5 years 
after promulgation of the final standard. This represents an organic 
HAP reduction of 192 tpy.
    Under the proposed limit for HCl, we have estimated that emissions 
would be reduced by 2,700 tpy for existing kilns. Emissions of HCl from 
new kilns would be 45 tpy per kiln or 900 tpy 5 years after 
promulgation of the final standards.
    The proposed emission limits for PM represent a lowering of the PM 
limit from 0.5 lb/ton of clinker to 0.085 lb/ton

[[Page 21165]]

of clinker for existing kilns and for new kilns, a lowering to 0.080 
lb/ton of clinker. We have estimated that PM emissions would be reduced 
by 10,600 tpy for existing kilns. For new kilns, emission reductions 
would be 150 tpy per kiln, or about 3,100 tpy 5 years after 
promulgation of the final standards.
    The proposed 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 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 1,600 tpy, 7,300 
tpy, and 107,000 tpy, respectively. Total reduction in SO2 
emissions from existing kilns would be an estimated 116,000 tpy. A new 
1.2 million tpy kiln equipped with a scrubber will reduce 
SO2 emissions by 1,000 tpy on average or about 20,000 tpy in 
the fifth year after promulgation of the final standards.
    These controls will also reduce emissions of secondary 
PM2.5 (and coarse PM (PM10-2.5) as well). This is 
PM that results from atmospheric transformation processes of precursor 
gases, including SO2.
    In addition to this traditional estimation of emission reductions, 
EPA employed the ISIS model to estimate emission reductions. 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 
11,400 lbs of mercury, 11,670 tons of THC, 2,780 tons of HCl, 10,530 
tons of PM and 160,000 tons of SO2 compared to total 
emissions in 2005. More information on the ISIS model and results can 
be found in the ISIS TSD and in a Technical Memo to the docket.

D. 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 that currently 
use wet scrubbers in this industry report no water releases at any 
time. However, the use of scrubbers could create potential for water 
release due to system purges. We are requesting comment and data on 
water quality impacts, on what, if any, regulations might apply, and if 
we should add any requirements to this rule to prevent or control these 
purges. The addition of scrubbers will increase water usage by about 
2,700 million gallons per year. For a new 1.2 million tpy kiln, water 
usage will be 36 million gallons per year or 720 million gallons per 
year 5 years after promulgation of the final standards.
    We note that some preproposal 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, we are not 
mandating the use of wet scrubber technology in these regulations, and 
we believe that sufficient alternative controls exist for mercury and 
acid gas controls that this issue would not preclude a facility from 
meeting these proposed emissions limits. However, we are also 
soliciting comment on this issue.

E. 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. 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 would 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 required on all kilns. Where one 
is present, the amount of solid waste generated from the alkali bypass 
is minimal, usually about 1 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 would be disposed of as solid waste. An estimated 120,000 tpy 
of solid waste would be generated from the use of ACI systems on 
existing kilns. Each new kiln equipped with an ACI system would be 
expected to generate 1,800 tons of solid waste per kiln or, assuming 14 
of the 20 new kilns would add ACI systems, about 25,000 tpy in the 
fifth year after promulgation of the final standards.
    In addition to the solid waste impacts described above, there is a 
potential for an increase in solid waste if a facility elects to 
control mercury emission 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 would 
be essentially wasting either raw materials or product. So we 
anticipate this option will not be used if the amount of CKD wasted 
would 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.
    We are requesting comment on the potential for increases in solid 
waste generation, on what, if any regulations might apply, and if we 
should add any requirements to this rule to prevent or control the 
potential additional solid waste requirements.

F. What are the secondary impacts?

    Indirect or secondary air quality impacts include impacts that 
would 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 would occur as a result of 
these proposed revisions. We estimate these proposed revisions would 
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 existing kilns are estimated to 
be 1,600 tpy of NOX, 800 tpy of CO, 2,700 tpy of 
SO2 and about 80 tpy of PM. For new kilns (assuming that of 
the 20 new kilns to start up in the 5 years following promulgation of 
the final standard 20 will add alkaline scrubbers, 2 will add an RTO, 
14 will install ACI systems, and 20 will install membrane bags instead 
of cloth bags in their baghouses), increases in secondary air 
pollutants are

[[Page 21166]]

estimated to be 410 tpy of NOX, 210 tpy of CO, 690 tpy of 
SO2 and 20 tpy of PM. We also estimated increases of 
CO2 to be 775,000 tpy (existing kilns) and 200,000 tpy (new 
kilns).

G. What are the energy impacts?

    The addition of alkaline scrubbers, ACI systems, and RTO added to 
comply with the proposed 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 705 million 
kWhr per year and the natural gas use to be 600,000 MMBtu per year for 
existing kilns. For new kilns, assuming of the 20 new kilns to start up 
in the 5 years following promulgation of the final standard that 20 
will add alkaline scrubbers, 2 will add an RTO, and 14 will install ACI 
systems, the electrical demand is estimated to be 180 million kWhr per 
year and the natural gas use to be 160,000 MMBtu per year.

H. What are the cost impacts?

    Under the proposed amendments, existing kilns are expected to add 
one or more control devices to comply with the proposed emission 
limits. In addition, each kiln would be required to install CEMS to 
monitor mercury, THC and HCl while bag leak detectors (BLDs) would be 
required to monitor performance of all baghouses.
    We performed two separate cost analyses for this proposed rule. In 
the engineering cost analysis, we estimated the cost of the proposed 
amendments based on the type of control device that was assumed to be 
necessary to comply with the proposed emission standards. Based on 
baseline emissions of mercury, THC, HCl and PM for each kiln and the 
removal efficiency necessary to comply with the proposed emission limit 
for each HAP, an appropriate control device was identified. In 
assigning control devices to each kiln where more than one control 
device would be capable of reducing emissions of a particular HAP below 
the limit, we assumed that the least costly control would be installed. 
For example, if a kiln could use either a scrubber or ACI to comply 
with the proposed limit for mercury, it was assumed that ACI would be 
selected over a scrubber because an ACI system would be less costly. 
ACI also is expected to achieve a higher removal efficiency than a 
scrubber for mercury. In some instances, a more expensive technology 
was considered appropriate because the selected control reduced 
emissions of multiple pollutants. For example, even though ACI would be 
less costly than a scrubber for controlling mercury, if the kiln also 
had to reduce HCl emissions, we assumed that a scrubber would be 
applied to control HCl as well as mercury because ACI would 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 and/or mercury. For the same kiln, a 
scrubber would also be required to reduce HCl emissions. In this case 
we would allocate the cost of the control to controlling HCl emissions, 
not to the cost of controlling mercury emissions. In addition, once we 
assigned a particular control device, in most cases we assumed mercury 
and THC emissions reductions would 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 and HCl, we assumed the 
controlled facility would emit at the average level necessary to meet 
the standard (i.e., we assumed for PM that the controlled facility 
would emit at 0.01 lb/ton clinker, the average emission level, not 
0.085 lb/ton clinker, the actual emissions limit), because the proposed 
emissions levels are extremely low.
    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 would 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.
    Table 8 presents the resulting add-on controls each approach 
estimated was necessary to meet the proposed emissions limits.

                                    Table 8--Control Installation Comparison
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     LSW      ACI    LWS+ACI    RTO       MB       FF     WS+RTO
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Engineering Analysis.............................        5       36      111        0       35        5       12
ISIS Model.......................................        7       34      107       10       17        0       11
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the engineering analysis we estimated the total capital cost of 
installing alkaline scrubbers and ACI systems for mercury control, 
including monitoring systems, would be $72 million with an annualized 
cost of $28 million. The estimated capital cost of installing ACI 
systems and RTO/scrubbers to reduce THC emissions would be $322 million 
with annualized cost of $103 million. The capital cost of adding 
scrubbers for the control of HCl is estimated to be $692 million with 
an annualized cost of $109 million. The capital cost of adding membrane 
bags to existing baghouse and the replacement of ESP's with baghouses 
would be $54 million with annualized cost of $17 million. The total 
capital cost for the proposed amendments would be an estimated $1.14 
billion with an annualized cost of $256 million.
    The estimated emission control capital cost per new 1.2 million tpy 
kiln is $17.6 million and the annualized costs are estimated at $1.25 
million for mercury control, $1.3 million for THC control, $1.8 million 
for HCl control and $270,000 for PM control. National annualized cost 
by the end of the fifth year will be an estimated $92.4 million.
    In the ISIS results, we are not able to separate costs by pollutant 
because the model does an overall optimization of the production and 
air pollution control costs. The total annual costs of the ISIS model 
are $222 million in 2013. These impacts assume that in 2013 nine new 
kilns are installed and net four kilns are retired. These retirements 
include two kilns that we have determined may close due to not being 
able to meet the mercury emission limits due to unusually high mercury 
contents in their proprietary quarries (i.e., the mercury content of 
the raw material at limestone quarries).

I. What are the economic impacts?

    EPA employed both a partial-equilibrium economic model and the

[[Page 21167]]

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 4 percent higher with the NESHAP, or 
$3.30 per metric ton, while annual domestic production may fall by 8 
percent, or 7 million tons per year. Because of higher domestic prices, 
imports are expected to rise by 2 million metric tons per year.
    As domestic production falls, cement industry revenues are 
projected to decline by 4 percent, or $340 million. Overall, net 
production costs also fall by $140 million with compliance cost 
increases ($240 million) offset by cost reductions associated with 
lower cement production. Operating profits fall by $200 million, or 16 
percent. Other projected impacts include reduced demand for labor. 
Employment falls by approximately 8 percent, or 1,200 employees. EPA 
identified six domestic plants with negative operating profits and 
significant utilization changes that could temporarily idle until 
market demand conditions improve. The plants are small capacity plants 
with unit compliance costs close to $5 per ton and $50 million total 
change in operating profits. Since these plants account for 
approximately 2.5 percent of domestic capacity, a decision to 
permanently shut down these plants would reduce domestic supply and 
lead to additional projected market price increases.\53\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \53\ In addition to the six plants identified that could 
temporarily idle or permanently shut down, there are two plants that 
are at risk of closure because they may not be able to meet the 
existing source mercury emissions limit, even if they apply the best 
controls. We did not assume they would close in this analysis 
because there may be site-specific mercury control alternative that 
would allow them to remain open.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The estimated domestic social cost of the proposed amendments is 
$684 million. There is an estimated $89 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 $370 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 estimate cement demand to drop 1.9 percent 
in 2013 or 2.5 million tons with an average annual drop in demand at 
1.5 percent or 2.2 million tons per year during the 2013-2018 time 
period. The drop in demand will affect the level of imports, and 
imports are likely to rise slightly over the policy horizon. In 2013, 
imports rise 1.39 percent or 0.44 million tons with an annual average 
of 0.39 percent or 0.13 million tons per year throughout 2013-2018. 
ISIS estimates the average national price for portland cement in the 
2013-2018 time period to be 1.2 percent higher with the NESHAP, or 
$0.96 per metric ton. However, some markets could see an increase by up 
to 6.7 percent. Total annualized control cost for the proposed NESHAP 
amendments is projected to be $222 million in 2013.
    With respect to the baseline case in 2013, ISIS identified a net 
retirement of 2.4 million tons of capacity. The retirements affect 4 
kilns at 4 facilities. As a result of the proposed NESHAP amendments, 
the cost to produce a ton of cement (production, imports, 
transportation and control technology) increases from $56.11 per ton at 
baseline to $57.47 per ton as a result of these proposed amendments 
($1.36/ton), resulting in an increase of about 2.7 percent over the 
analysis period of 2013 to 2018. With respect to baseline in 2013 ISIS 
projects the revenue of the cement industry to fall by 1.2 percent or 
about $91 million. More information on this model can be found in the 
ISIS TSD and in a Technical Memo to the docket.

J. What are the benefits?

    We estimate the monetized co-benefits of this proposed NESHAP to be 
$4.4 billion to $11 billion (2005$, 3 percent discount rate) in the 
year of full implementation (2013); 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.\54\ The 
benefits at a 7 percent discount rate are $4.0 billion to $9.7 billion 
(2005$) \55\. A summary of the monetized benefits estimates at discount 
rates of 3 percent and 7 percent is in Table 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \54\ 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.
    \55\ Using alternate emission reductions generated by the ISIS 
model, the benefits results are similar to those shown here. 
Although the ISIS model estimates different emission reductions, the 
increased SO2 reductions offset the fewer 
PM2.5 reductions. More information on the health benefits 
estimated for the ISIS results can be found in the ISIS TSD.

          Table 9--Summary of the Monetized Benefits Estimates for the Proposed Portland Cement NESHAP
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Emission     Total monetized benefits     Total monetized benefits
                Pollutant                   reductions   (millions of 2005 dollars,   (millions of 2005 dollars,
                                              (tons)          3% discount) \1\         7 percent discount) \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Direct PM2.5.............................        6,300  $1,200 to $2,800...........  $1,000 to $2,500.
PM2.5 precursors.........................      140,000  $3,300 to $8,000...........  $3,000 to $7,200.
                                          ----------------------------------------------------------------------
    Grand total.......................................  $4,400 to $11,000..........  $4,000 to $9,700.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ All estimates are for the analysis year (full implementation, 2013), and are rounded to two significant
  figures so numbers may not sum across rows. PM2.5 precursors reflect emission reductions of SOX. All fine
  particles are assumed to have equivalent health effects, and the monetized benefits incorporate the conversion
  from precursor emissions to ambient fine particles.

    These benefits estimates are the monetized human health co-benefits 
of reducing cases of morbidity and premature mortality among 
populations exposed to PM2.5 from installing controls to 
limit hazardous air pollutants (HAPs), such as mercury, hydrochloric 
acid, and hydrocarbons. We generated estimates that represent the total 
monetized human health benefits (the sum of premature mortality and 
morbidity) of reducing PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursor 
emissions. We base the estimate of human health benefits derived from 
the PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursor emission reductions 
on the approach and methodology laid out in the TSD that accompanied 
the RIA for

[[Page 21168]]

the revision to the National Ambient Air Quality Standard for Ground-
level Ozone (NAAQS), March 2008 with three changes explained below.
    For context, it is important to note that in quantifying PM 
benefits the magnitude of the results 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 proposed NESHAP we cite two key empirical studies, 
one based on the American Cancer Society cohort study \56\ and the 
extended Six Cities cohort study.\57\ 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \56\ 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.
    \57\ Laden et al., 2006. ``Reduction in Fine Particulate Air 
Pollution and Mortality.'' American Journal of Respiratory and 
Critical Care Medicine. 173: 667-672.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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. One of the 
key differences between the method used in this analysis of PM-
cobenefits and the methods used in recent RIAs is that, in addition to 
technical updates, we removed the assumption regarding thresholds in 
the health impact function. Based on our review of the body of 
scientific literature, we prefer the no-threshold model. EPA's draft 
Integrated Science Assessment (2008), which is currently being reviewed 
by EPA's Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee, 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. It is important to note 
that while CASAC provides advice regarding the science associated with 
setting the National Ambient Air Quality Standards, typically other 
scientific advisory bodies provide specific advice regarding benefits 
analysis.
    Using the threshold model at 10 [mu]g/m\3\ without the two 
technical updates, we estimate the monetized benefits to be $3.1 
billion to $6.5 billion (2005$, 3 percent discount rate) and $2.8 
billion to $5.9 billion (2005$, 7 percent discount rate) in the year of 
full implementation. Approximately 75 percent of the difference between 
the old methodology and the new methodology for this rule is due to 
removing thresholds with 25 percent due to the two technical updates, 
but this percentage would vary depending on the combination of emission 
reductions from different sources and PM2.5 precursor 
pollutants. For more information on the updates to the benefit-per-ton 
estimates, please refer to the RIA for this proposed rule that is 
available in the docket.
    The question of whether or not to assume a threshold in calculating 
the co-benefits associated with reductions in PM2.5 is an 
issue that affects the benefits calculations not only for this rule but 
for many future EPA rulemakings and analyses. Due to these 
implications, we solicit comment on appropriateness of both the no-
threshold and threshold model for PM benefits analysis.
    To generate the benefit-per-ton estimates, we used a model to 
convert emissions of direct PM2.5 and PM2.5 
precursors into changes in PM2.5 air quality and another 
model to estimate the changes in human health based on that change in 
air quality. Finally, the monetized health benefits were divided by the 
emission reductions to create the benefit-per-ton estimates. Even 
though all fine particles are assumed to have equivalent health 
effects, the benefit-per-ton estimates vary between precursors because 
each ton of precursor reduced has a different propensity to form 
PM2.5. For example, SOX has a lower benefit-per-
ton estimate than direct PM2.5 because it does not form as 
much PM2.5, thus the exposure would be lower, and the 
monetized health benefits would be lower.
    This analysis does not include the type of detailed uncertainty 
assessment found in the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS RIA because we lack 
the necessary air quality input and monitoring data to run the benefits 
model. However, the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS benefits analysis 
provides an indication of the sensitivity of our results to the use of 
alternative concentration response functions, including those derived 
from the PM expert elicitation study.
    The social costs of this rulemaking are estimated at $694 million 
(2005$) in the year of full implementation, and the benefits are 
estimated at $4.4 billion to $11 billion (2005$, 3 percent discount 
rate) for that same year. The benefits at a 7 percent discount rate are 
$4.0 billion to $9.7 billion (2005$). Thus, net benefits of this 
rulemaking are estimated at $3.7 billion to $11 billion (2005$, 3 
percent discount rate); 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 the two estimates we present above. The 
net benefits at a 7 percent discount rate are $3.3 billion to $9.0 
billion (2005$). 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.
    It should be noted that the benefits estimates provided above do 
not include benefits from improved visibility, coarse PM emission 
reductions, or other hazardous air pollutants such as mercury and 
hydrochloric acid, 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. We do not have sufficient information or modeling 
available to provide such estimates for this rulemaking.
    For more information, please refer to the RIA for this proposed 
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 Executive Order 12866, and any 
changes made in response to OMB recommendations have been documented in 
the docket for this action.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The information collection requirements in this proposed rule have 
been submitted for approval to the OMB under the Paperwork Reduction 
Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The Information Collection Request (ICR) 
document

[[Page 21169]]

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 would become subject to the limits and 
associated compliance provisions in the current rule. New compliance 
provisions for mercury would remove the current requirement for an 
initial performance test coupled with monitoring of the carbon 
injection rate. Instead, plants would measure mercury emissions by 
calculating a 30-day average from continuous or integrated monitors. 
Records of all calculations and data would be required. New compliance 
procedures would also apply to area sources subject to a PM limit in a 
format of lbs/ton of clinker. The owner or operator would be required 
to install and operate a weight measurement system and keep daily 
records of clinker production instead of the current requirement to 
install and operate a PM CEMS. The owner or operator would be required 
to conduct an initial PM performance test and repeat performance tests 
every 5 years. Cement plants also would 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 44,656 labor-hours per 
year at a cost of $4.1 million per year. The average annualized capital 
costs are estimated at $53.7 million per year and average operation and 
maintenance costs are estimated at $174,000 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. To comment on the Agency's 
need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden 
estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, 
EPA has established a public docket for this proposed rule, which 
includes this ICR, under Docket ID number EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0051. Submit 
any comments related to the ICR for this proposed rule to EPA and OMB. 
See ADDRESSES section at the beginning of this document for where to 
submit comments to EPA. Send comments to OMB at the Office of 
Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 
725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Office for 
EPA. Since OMB is required to make a decision concerning the ICR 
between 30 and 60 days after May 6, 2009, a comment to OMB is best 
assured of having its full effect if OMB receives it by June 5, 2009. 
The final rule will respond to any OMB or public comments on the 
information collection requirements contained in this proposal.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act generally requires an agency to 
prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice 
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 (as defined by Small Business 
Administration (SBA) size standards for the portland cement industry, 
NAICS 327310); (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.
    After considering the economic impact of this proposed rule on 
small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. We estimate 
that up to 4 of the 44 existing portland cement plants are small 
entities. One of the entities burns hazardous waste in its kiln and is 
not impacted by this proposed rule.
    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 two small entities (including a tribal government) 
would have an annualized cost of between 1 percent and 3 percent of 
sales. One small business would have an annualized cost of 4.8 percent 
of sales. All three affected facilities are projected to continue to 
operate under with-regulation conditions.
    EPA also evaluated small business impacts using the ISIS model. 
There are a total of 7 kilns identified to be associated with small 
business facilities affected by this proposal. ISIS identified one of 
these kilns to retire in 2013 as a result of the proposed NESHAP. A 
second kiln reduces its utilization by 56 percent in 2013 but recovers 
later in the 2013 to 2018 time frame as the demand increases. All the 
remaining small business kilns operate at full capacity throughout the 
2013 to 2018 time frame.
    Although this proposed rule will not impact a substantial number of 
small entities, EPA nonetheless has tried to reduce the impact of this 
proposed rule on small entities by setting the proposed 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 proposing that the source comply 
with only the more stringent of the standards. We continue to be 
interested in the potential impacts of this proposed rule on small 
entities and welcome comments on issues related to such impacts.

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 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.

[[Page 21170]]

    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.
    Consistent with the intergovernmental consultation provisions of 
section 204 of the UMRA, EPA has already initiated consultations with 
the governmental entities affected by this rule. 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 proposed action contains 
regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect 
small governments because one of the facilities affected by the 
proposed rule is tribally owned. EPA consulted with tribal officials 
early in the process of developing this regulation to permit them to 
have meaningful and timely input into its development. EPA directly 
contacted the facility in question to insure it was apprised 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 specific concern, and we are assuming that they have 
the same concerns as those expressed by the other non-tribally owned 
facilities during the development of this proposed rule.
    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 proposed rule, and has 
concluded that the costs will fall mainly on the private sector 
(approximately $273 million). EPA estimates that an additional facility 
owned by a tribal government will incur approximately $2.1 million in 
costs per year. Furthermore, we think 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.

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.''
    This proposed rule does not have federalism implications. It will 
not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship 
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution 
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, 
as specified in Executive Order 13132. None of the affected facilities 
are owned or operated by State governments. Thus, Executive Order 13132 
does not apply to this proposed rule.
    In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent with EPA 
policy to promote communications between EPA and State and local 
governments, EPA specifically solicits comment on this proposed action 
from State and local officials.

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 proposed regulation and develops a tribal summary impact statement.
    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 
proposed 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 permit them to have meaningful and timely 
input into its development. EPA directly contacted the facility in 
question to insure it was apprised of this rulemaking and potential 
implications. This facility indicated that 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 expressed by the other non-tribally owned facilities 
during the development of this proposed rule.
    EPA specifically solicits additional comments on this proposed 
action from tribal officials.

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

    EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying to those 
regulatory actions that concern health or safety risks, such that the 
analysis required under section 5-501 of the Order has the potential to 
influence the regulation. This proposed 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 proposed rule is not a ``significant energy action'' as 
defined in Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (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 proposed rule is not likely to have any 
adverse energy effects. This proposal will result in the addition of 
control equipment and monitoring systems for existing and new sources. 
We estimate the additional electrical demand to be 784 million kWhr per 
year and the natural gas use to be 672 million cubic feet for existing 
sources. At the end of the fifth year following promulgation, 
electrical demand from new sources will be 180 million kWhr per year 
and natural gas use will be 171 million cubic feet.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law

[[Page 21171]]

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. VCS are 
technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, 
sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or 
adopted by VCS bodies. NTTAA directs 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.
    This proposed rulemaking involves technical standards. EPA proposes 
to 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 D6348-03, 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, %R 
must be 70 <=%R <=130. If the %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 %R 
value for each compound must be reported in the test report, and all 
field measurements must be corrected with the calculated %R value for 
that compound by using the following equation: Reported Result = 
Measured Concentration in the Stack x 100) / %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, 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.
    EPA welcomes comments on this aspect of the proposed rulemaking 
and, specifically, invites the public to identify potentially-
applicable voluntary consensus standards and to explain why such 
standards should be used in this regulation.

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

    Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 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 these 
proposed amendments will not have disproportionately high and adverse 
human health or environmental effects on minority or low-income 
populations because they would increase 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 
population. These proposed standards would reduce emissions of mercury, 
THC, HCl, and PM from portland cement plants located at major and area 
sources, decreasing the amount of such emissions to which all affected 
populations are exposed.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Parts 60 and 63

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

    Dated: April 21, 2009.
Lisa P. Jackson,
Administrator.
    For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, of the 
Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as follows:

PART 60--[AMENDED]

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

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

Appendix B--[Amended]

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

Appendix B to Part 60--Performance Specifications

* * * * *

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 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 mass concentration 
units of micrograms per dry standard cubic meter ([mu]g/dscm).
    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 mass concentration in 
[micro]g/dscm (regardless of speciation) of vapor phase Hg, and 
recording that concentration on a wet or dry basis. Particle bound 
Hg is not included in the measurements.
    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 
Clean Air Act section 114, the operator to conduct CEMS performance 
evaluations at other times besides the initial test to evaluate the 
CEMS performance. See Sec.  60.13(c).

2.0 Summary of Performance Specification

    Procedures for measuring CEMS relative accuracy, linearity, and 
calibration errors are outlined. CEMS installation and measurement 
location specifications, and data reduction procedures are included. 
Conformance of the CEMS with the Performance Specification is 
determined.

3.0 Definitions

    3.1 Continuous Emission Monitoring System (CEMS) means the total 
equipment required for the determination of a pollutant 
concentration. The system consists of the following 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

[[Page 21172]]

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 upper limit of the intended Hg 
concentration measurement range. The span value is a value equal to 
two times the emission standard.
    3.6 Linearity means the absolute value of the difference between 
the concentration indicated by the Hg analyzer 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. A linearity test procedure is performed to document 
the linearity of the Hg CEMS at three or more points over the 
measurement range.
    3.7 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.
    3.8 Relative Accuracy (RA) means the absolute mean difference 
between the pollutant concentration(s) determined by the CEMS and 
the value 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 sources with an average 
RM concentration less than 5.0 [mu]g/dscm, 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 zero and a high level value. The high level value 
must be approximately two times the Hg concentration corresponding 
to the emission standard level for the stack gas under the 
circumstances existing as the stack gas is sampled. A lower high 
level value may be used, provided that the measured values do not 
exceed 95 percent of the high level value.
    6.1.2 The CEMS design should also provide for the determination 
of CE at a zero value (zero to 20 percent of the span value) and at 
an upscale value (between 50 and 100 percent of the high-level 
value).
    6.2 Reference Gas Delivery System. The reference gas delivery 
system must be designed so that the flowrate of reference gas 
introduced to the CEMS is the same at all three challenge levels 
specified in Section 7.1, and at all times exceeds the flow 
requirements of the CEMS.
    6.3 Other equipment and supplies, as needed by the applicable 
reference method used. 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)-certified or 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. Since the Hg 
CEMS sample system normally extracts gas from a single point in the 
stack, use a location that has been shown to be free of 
stratification for Hg or alternatively, SO2 and 
NOX through concentration measurement traverses for those 
gases. 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 listed 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 from the effluent 
exhaust. The equivalent duct diameter is calculated as per 40 CFR 
part 60, appendix A, Method 1.
    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.
    8.2 RM Measurement Location and Traverse Points. Refer to 
Performance Specification 2 (PS 2) of this appendix. The RM and CEMS 
locations need not be immediately adjacent.
    8.3 Linearity Test Procedure. 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. Sequentially inject each of 
at least three reference gases (zero, mid-level, and high level) for 
each Hg species. Record the CEMS response and subtract the reference 
value from the CEMS value, and express the absolute value of the 
difference as a percentage of the span value (see example data sheet 
in Figure 12A-1). For each reference gas, the absolute value of the 
difference between the CEMS response and the reference value shall 
not exceed 5 percent of the span value. If this specification is not 
met, identify and correct the problem before proceeding.
    8.4 7-Day CD Test Procedure.
    8.4.1 CD Test Period. While the affected facility is operating 
at more than 50 percent of normal load, 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 procedure given in 
Sections 8.4.2 through 8.4.3. The 7 consecutive unit operating days 
need not be 7 consecutive calendar days. Use either Hg[deg] or 
HgCl2 standards for this test.
    8.4.2 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.
    8.4.3 Conduct the CD test using the zero gas specified and 
either the mid-level or high-level point specified in Section 7.1. 
Introduce the reference gas to the CEMS. Record the CEMS response 
and subtract the reference value from the CEMS value, and express 
the absolute value of the difference as a percentage of the span 
value (see example data sheet in Figure 12A-1). For the reference 
gas, the absolute value of the difference between the CEMS response 
and the reference value shall not exceed 5 percent of the span 
value. If this specification is not met, identify and correct the 
problem before proceeding.
    8.5 RA Test Procedure.
    8.5.1 RA Test Period. Conduct the RA test according to the 
procedure given in Sections 8.5.2 through 8.6.6 while the affected 
facility is operating at normal full load, or as specified in an 
applicable subpart. The RA test may be conducted during the CD test 
period.
    8.5.2 RM. Unless otherwise specified in an applicable subpart of 
the regulations, use Method 29, Method 30A, or Method 30B in 
appendix A 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. The filterable portion of the sample 
need not be included when making comparisons to the CEMS results. 
When Method 29, Method

[[Page 21173]]

30B, or ASTM D6784-02 is used, conduct the RM test runs with paired 
or duplicate sampling systems. 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 
to this part shall also be obtained during the RA test.
    8.5.3 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. 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.
    8.5.4 Number and Length of RM and Tests. 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 shall 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 Method 30A use a minimum 
sample time of 30 minutes.

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

    8.5.5 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 30A, Method 30B, or ASTM D6784-02 is 
used, compare each CEMS value against the corresponding average of 
the paired RM values.
    8.5.6 Paired RM Outliers.
    8.5.6.1 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 
criteria should be flagged as a data quality problem. 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 two paired data points as 
follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06MY09.054

Where: Ca and Cb are concentration values 
determined from each of the two samples, respectively.

    8.5.6.2 A 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 [micro]gm/m\3\. If the mean Hg 
concentration is less than or equal to 1.0 [micro]gm/m\3\, the RD 
must be <=20 percent. 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.
    8.5.7 Calculate the mean difference between the RM and CEMS 
values in the units of micrograms per cubic meter ([micro]gm/m\3\), 
the standard deviation, the confidence coefficient, and the RA 
according to the procedures in Section 12.0.
    8.6 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 RD tests and 
the RA tests 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 performance of the CEMS 
meets the performance criteria.

9.0 Quality Control [Reserved]

10.0 Calibration and Standardization [Reserved]

11.0 Analytical Procedure

    Sample collection and analysis are concurrent (see Section 8.0). 
Refer to the RM employed for specific analytical procedures.

12.0 Calculations and Data Analysis

    Summarize the results on a data sheet similar to Figure 2-2 for 
PS 2.
    12.1 Consistent Basis. All data from the RM and CEMS must be 
compared in units of [micro]gm/m\3\, 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, use Equation 12A-2 to make 
the appropriate corrections to the Hg concentrations.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06MY09.055

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 the arithmetic mean of the 
difference, d, of a data set as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06MY09.056

Where: n = Number of data points.

    12.3 Standard Deviation. Calculate the standard deviation, 
Sd, as follows:

[[Page 21174]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06MY09.057

Where:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06MY09.082


    12.3 Confidence Coefficient (CC). Calculate the 2.5 percent 
error confidence coefficient (one-tailed), CC, as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06MY09.058

    12.4 RA. Calculate the RA of a set of data as follows:
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06MY09.059
    
Where:

[bond]d [bond] = Absolute value of the mean differences (from 
Equation 12A-3).
[bond]CC [bond] = Absolute value of the confidence coefficient (from 
Equation 12A-5).
RM = Average RM value.

13.0 Method Performance

    13.1 Linearity. Linearity is assessed at zero-level, mid-level 
and high-level values as given below using standards for both Hg \0\ 
and HgCl2. The mean difference between the indicated CEMS 
concentration and the reference concentration value for each 
standard shall be no greater than 5 percent of the span value.
    13.2 CD. The CD shall not exceed 5 percent of the span value on 
any of the 7 days of the CD test.
    13.3 RA. The RA of the CEMS must be no greater than 10 percent 
of the mean value of the RM test data in terms of units of [micro]g/
dscm. Alternatively, (1) if the mean RM is less than 10.0 [micro]g/
dscm, then the RA of the CEMS must be no greater than 20 percent, or 
(2) if the mean RM is less than 5.0 [micro]gm/m\3\, the results are 
acceptable if the absolute value of the difference between the mean 
RM and CEMS values does not exceed 1.0 [micro]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 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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2............................................................     12.706
3............................................................      4.303
4............................................................      3.182
5............................................................      2.776
6............................................................      2.571
7............................................................      2.447
8............................................................      2.365
9............................................................      2.306
10...........................................................      2.262
11...........................................................      2.228
12...........................................................      2.201
13...........................................................      2.179
14...........................................................      2.160
15...........................................................      2.145
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--Linearity and CE Determination
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Reference Gas value    CEMS measured value
                         Date                   Time               [mu]gm/m\3\            [mu]gm/m\3\        Absolute difference    CE (% of span value)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Zero level      .....................  .....................  .....................  .....................  .....................  .....................
                .....................  .....................  .....................  .....................  .....................  .....................
                .....................  .....................  .....................  .....................  .....................  .....................
                .....................  .....................  .....................  .....................  .....................  .....................
Mid level       .....................  .....................  .....................  .....................  .....................  .....................
                .....................  .....................  .....................  .....................  .....................  .....................
                .....................  .....................  .....................  .....................  .....................  .....................
                .....................  .....................  .....................  .....................  .....................  .....................

[[Page 21175]]

 
High level      .....................  .....................  .....................  .....................  .....................  .....................
                .....................  .....................  .....................  .....................  .....................  .....................
                .....................  .....................  .....................  .....................  .....................  .....................
                .....................  .....................  .....................  .....................  .....................  .....................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 
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 (Hg0, CAS Number 7439-97-6) and gaseous 
forms of oxidized Hg (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 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 mass 
concentration in [micro]g/dscm (regardless of speciation) of vapor 
phase Hg.
    1.2.2 This specification is not designed to evaluate an 
installed sorbent trap monitoring system's performance over an 
extended period of time nor does it identify specific techniques and 
auxiliary procedures to assess the system's performance. The source 
owner or operator, however, is responsible to calibrate, maintain, 
and operate the monitoring system properly. The Administrator may 
require, under Clean Air Act section 114, the operator to conduct 
performance evaluations at other times besides the initial test to 
evaluate the CEMS performance. See Sec.  60.13(c).

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 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 (STMS) means the total 
equipment required for the collection of paired trap gaseous Hg 
samples using paired three-partition sorbent traps. Refer to Method 
30B in this subpart for a complete description of the needed 
equipment.
    3.2 Relative Accuracy (RA) means the absolute mean difference 
between the pollutant concentration(s) determined by the CMS and the 
value 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 STMS and RM values. It is used to assess the bias 
of the STMS.
    3.3 Relative Deviation (RD) means the absolute difference of the 
analyses of a paired set of traps divided by the sum of those 
analyses, expressed as a percentage. It is used to assess the 
precision of the STMS.
    3.4 Spike Recovery means the amount of Hg mass measured from the 
spiked trap section as a percentage of the amount spiked. It 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 STMS Equipment Specifications.
    6.1.1 Sampling System. The equipment described in Method 30B in 
appendix A-8 to this subpart shall 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 sampling 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 QA/QC purposes where this section shall be spiked 
with a known amount of gaseous Hg\0\ prior to sampling and later 
analyzed to determine recovery efficiency.

[[Page 21176]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06MY09.053

    6.1.3 Gaseous Hg0 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, makes use of 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 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) analysis.

7.0 Reagents and Standards

    Only NIST-certified or NIST-traceable calibration gas standards 
and reagents shall 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 shall 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 Sampling Site. Sampling site information 
should be obtained in accordance with Method 1 in appendix A-1 to 
this part. Identify a monitoring location representative of source 
Hg emissions. Locations shown to be free of stratification through 
measurement traverses for Hg or other gases such as SO2 
and NOx may be one such approach. 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 (for an example calculation, see 
Section 12.1 of this performance specification). The pre-sampling 
spike to be added to section 3 of each sorbent trap shall 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 Hg0 added to section 
3. This record shall 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 
Hg0 added to section 3 of the trap ([mu]g), and the 
supporting calculations.
    8.1.3 Pre-test 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 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 Sample Collection.
    8.2.1 Prepare to Sample. 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). 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

[[Page 21177]]

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, as measured by the certified flow monitor, 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 shall 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 certified 
continuous moisture monitoring system.
    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-test Leak Check. When sampling 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 sampling 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 data collection 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 such as those in ASTM D6911B03 ``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 such as in ASTM D4840B99 (reapproved 
2004) ``Standard Guide for Sample Chain-of- Custody Procedures'' 
should be followed for all samples (including field samples and 
blanks).

8.3 Sorbent Trap Monitoring System RATA Procedures

    For the initial certification of a sorbent trap monitoring 
system, a RATA is required. For ongoing QA purposes, the RATA must 
be repeated annually. To the extent practicable, the annual RATAs 
should be performed in the same quarter of the calendar year.
    8.3.1 Reference Methods. Acceptable Hg reference methods for the 
RATA of a sorbent trap system include ASTM D6784-02 (the Ontario 
Hydro Method), Method 29 in appendix A-8 to this part, Method 30A in 
appendix A-8 to this part, and Method 30B in appendix A-8 to this 
part. When the Ontario Hydro Method or Method 29 is used, paired 
sampling trains are required. To validate an Ontario Hydro or Method 
29 test run, the relative deviation (RD), calculated according to 
Section 11.6 of this performance specification, must not exceed 10 
percent, when the average concentration is greater than 1.0 [mu]g/
m\3\. If the average concentration is <= 1.0 [mu]g/m\3\, 
the RD must not exceed 20 percent. The RD results are also 
acceptable if the absolute difference between the Hg concentrations 
measured by the paired trains does not exceed 0.03 [mu]g/m\3\. If 
the RD criterion is met, the run is valid. For each valid run, 
average the Hg concentrations measured by the two trains (vapor 
phase Hg, only).
    8.3.2 Special Considerations. A minimum of 9 valid runs are 
required for each RATA. If more than 9 runs are performed, a maximum 
of three runs may be discarded. The time per run must be long enough 
to collect a sufficient mass of Hg to analyze. The type of sorbent 
material used by the traps must be the same as for daily operation 
of the monitoring system; however, the size of the traps used for 
the RATA 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 shall be validated 
according to the quality assurance criteria in Table 12B-1 in 
section 9.0. Calculate the relative accuracy (RA) of the STMS, on a 
[mu]g/dscm basis, according to sections 12.2 through 12.5 of 
Performance Specification 2 in appendix B to this part. The RA of 
the STMS must be no greater than 10 percent of the mean value of the 
RM test data in terms of units of [mu]g/dscm. Alternatively, (1) if 
the mean RM is less than 10.0 [mu]g/dscm, then the RA of the STMS 
must be no greater than 20 percent, or (2) if the RM is less than 
2.0 [mu]g/dscm, then the RA results are acceptable if the absolute 
difference between the means of the RM and STMS values does not 
exceed 0.5 [mu]g/dscm.

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 sorbent trap monitoring 
systems. 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 Systems
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
     QA/QC test or specification         Acceptance criteria           Frequency         Consequences if not met
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pre-test leak check..................  <=4% of target sampling  Prior to sampling......  Sampling shall not
                                        rate.                                             commence until the
                                                                                          leak check is passed.
Post-test leak check.                  <=4% of average          After sampling.........  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        No more than 5% of the   Every hour throughout    Invalidate the data
 sample flow rate.                      hourly ratios or 5       data collection period.  from the paired traps
                                        hourly ratios                                     or, if certain
                                        (whichever is less                                conditions are met,
                                        restrictive) may                                  report adjusted data
                                        deviate from the                                  from a single trap.
                                        reference ratio by                                (see Section 12.7.1.3)
                                        more than 
                                        25%.
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 21178]]

 
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 <=1.0                            concentration.
                                        [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 shall 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 10%   before analyzing any     successful.
                                        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       75-125% of spike amount  Every sample...........  Invalidate the data
 sorbent trap.                                                                            from the paired traps
                                                                                          or, if certain
                                                                                          conditions are met,
                                                                                          report adjusted data
                                                                                          from a single trap.
                                                                                          (see Section 12.7.1.3)
RATA.................................  RA <=10.0% of RM mean    For initial              Data from the system
                                        value; or (1) RA         certification and        are invalidated until
                                        <=20.0% if RM mean       annually thereafter.     a RATA is passed.
                                        value <=10.0 [mu]g/
                                        dscm; or (2) if RM
                                        mean value <=2.0 [mu]g/
                                        dscm, then absolute
                                        difference between RM
                                        mean value and STMS
                                        <=0.5 [mu]g/dscm.
Gas flow meter calibration...........  Calibration factor (Y)   At three settings prior  Recalibrate the meter
                                        within 5%    to initial use and at    at three orfice
                                        of average value from    least quarterly at one   settings to determine
                                        the most recent 3-       setting thereafter.      a new value of Y.
                                        point calibration.       For mass flow meters,
                                                                 initial calibration
                                                                 with stack gas is
                                                                 required.
Temperature sensor calibration.......  Absolute temperature     Prior to initial use     Recalibrate. Sensor may
                                        measured by sensor       and at least quarterly   not be used until
                                        within 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.) shall 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 shall 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. You may either follow 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. 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, you may perform the initial calibration of the gas 
flow meter 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), 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

[[Page 21179]]

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.
    10.2.1.4 Initial On-Site Calibration Check. For a mass flow 
meter that was initially calibrated using a compressed gas mixture, 
an on-site calibration check shall be performed before using the 
flow meter to provide data for this part. 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.
    10.2.1.5 Ongoing Quality Assurance. 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 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. Calibrate against a NIST-traceable barometer. 
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 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 shall 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) shall 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 
10.1 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 sample 
duration. First, calculate the expected Hg mass that will be 
collected in section 1 of the trap. The pre-sampling spike must be 
within 50 percent of this mass.
    Example calculation: For an estimated stack Hg concentration of 
5 [micro]g/m\3\, a target sample rate of 0.30 L/min, and a sample 
duration of 5 days:
    (0.30 L/min) (1440 min/day) (5 days) (10-\3\ m\3\/
liter) (5 [micro]g/m\3\) = 10.8 [micro]g
    A pre-sampling spike of 10.8 [micro]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] TP06MY09.060

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-2:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06MY09.061

Where:

Rh = Ratio of hourly stack gas flow rate to hourly sample 
flow rate

[[Page 21180]]

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] TP06MY09.062

Where:

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

    12.4 Calculation of Breakthrough. Calculate the percent 
breakthrough to the second section of the sorbent trap, as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06MY09.063

Where:

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

    12.5 Calculation of Hg Concentration. Calculate the Hg 
concentration for each sorbent trap, using the following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06MY09.064

Where:

C = Concentration of Hg for the collection period, ([micro]g/dscm)
M* = Total mass of Hg recovered from sections 1 and 2 of the sorbent 
trap, ([micro]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] TP06MY09.065

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 Data Reduction.
    12.7.1 Sorbent Trap Monitoring Systems. Typical data collection 
periods for normal, day-to-day operation of a sorbent trap 
monitoring system range from about 24 hours to 168 hours. For the 
required RATAs of the system, smaller sorbent traps are often used, 
and the data collection time per run is considerably shorter (e.g., 
1 hour or less). Generally speaking, the acceptance criteria for the 
following five QA specifications in Table 1 above must be met to 
validate a data collection period: (a) The post-test 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.
    12.7.1.1 When both traps meet the acceptance criteria for all 
five QA specifications, the two measured Hg concentrations shall be 
averaged arithmetically and the average value shall be applied to 
each hour of the data collection period.
    12.7.1.2 To validate a RATA run, both traps must meet the 
acceptance criteria for all five QA specifications. However, as 
discussed in Section 12.7.1.3 below, for normal day-to-day operation 
of the monitoring system, a data collection period may, in certain 
instances, be validated based on the results from one trap.
    12.7.1.3 For the routine, day-to-day operation of the monitoring 
system, when one of the traps either: (a) Fails the post-test 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 QA 
specifications, the Hg concentration measured by the valid trap may 
be multiplied by a factor of 1.111 and used for reporting purposes. 
Further, if both traps meet the acceptance criteria for all four of 
these QA 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.
    12.7.1.4 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 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 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 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).''

Appendix F--[Amended]

    2a. Appendix F to 40 CFR part 60 is amended to add Procedure 5 to 
read as follows:

Appendix F to Part 60--Quality Assurance Procedures

* * * * *

Procedure 5. Quality Assurance Requirements for Vapor Phase Mercury 
Continuous Emission 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 and the quality 
of data produced by vapor phase mercury (Hg) continuous emission 
monitoring system (CEMS). Procedure 5 applies to Hg CEMS used for 
continuously determining compliance with emission standards or 
operating permit limits as specified in an applicable regulation or 
permit. Other QC

[[Page 21181]]

procedures may apply to diluent (e.g., O2) monitors and 
other auxiliary monitoring equipment included with your CEMS to 
facilitate Hg measurement or determination of Hg concentration in 
units specified in an applicable regulation (e.g., Procedure 1 of 
this appendix for O2 CEMS).
    Procedure 5 covers the instrumental measurement of Hg as defined 
in Performance Specification 12A of appendix B to this part which is 
total vapor phase Hg representing the sum of elemental Hg (Hg\0\, 
CAS Number 7439B97B6) and oxidized forms of gaseous Hg (Hg\+2\).
    Procedure 5 specifies the minimum requirements for controlling 
and assessing the quality of Hg CEMS 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 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 of PS-12A.
    1.2 Principle. The QA procedures consist of two distinct and 
equally important functions. One function is the assessment of the 
quality of the CEMS data by estimating accuracy. The other function 
is the control and improvement of the quality of the CEMS 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 the assessment methods for response 
drift, system integrity, and accuracy. Several of the procedures are 
based on those of Performance Specification 12A (PS-12A) in appendix 
B of this part. Procedure 5 also requires the analysis of audit 
samples concurrent with certain reference method (RM) analyses as 
specified in the applicable RMs.
    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 Continuous Emission Monitoring System (CEMS) means the total 
equipment required for the determination of a pollutant 
concentration.
    2.2 Span Value means the upper limit of the intended Hg 
concentration measurement range that is specified for the affected 
source categories in the applicable monitoring PS and/or regulatory 
subpart.
    2.3 Zero, Mid-Level, and High Level Values means the CEMS 
response values related to the source specific span value. 
Determination of zero, mid-level, and high level values is defined 
in the appropriate PS in appendix B to this part (e.g., PS-12A).
    2.4 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.
    2.5 System Integrity (SI) Check means the absolute value of the 
difference between the CEMS output response and the reference value 
of either a mid-level or high-level mercuric chloride 
(HgCl2) reference gas, expressed as a percentage of the 
reference value, when the entire CEMS, including the sampling 
interface, is challenged.
    2.6 Relative Accuracy (RA) means the absolute mean difference 
between the pollutant concentration(s) determined by the CEMS and 
the value 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 sources with an average 
RM concentration less than 5.0 [mu]g/dscm, the RA may be expressed 
as the absolute value of the difference between the mean CEMS and RM 
values.

3.0 QC Requirements

    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:
    1. Calibration of Hg CEMS.
    2. CD determination and adjustment of Hg CEMS.
    3. SI Check procedures for Hg CEMS.
    3. Preventive maintenance of Hg CEMS (including spare parts 
inventory).
    4. Data recording, calculations, and reporting.
    5. Accuracy audit procedures including sampling and analysis 
methods.
    6. Program of corrective action for malfunctioning Hg CEMS.
    As described in Section 5.2, whenever excessive inaccuracies 
occur for two consecutive quarters, the source owner or operator 
must revise the current written procedures or modify or replace the 
Hg CEMS to correct the deficiency causing the excessive 
inaccuracies.
    These written procedures must be kept on record and available 
for inspection by the responsible enforcement agency.

4. CD Assessment

    4.1 CD Requirement. As described in 40 CFR 60.13(d) and 63.8(c), 
source owners and operators of 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 CEMS calibration must, at 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 Monitors. 
Monitors that automatically adjust the data to the corrected 
calibration values (e.g., microprocessor control) must be programmed 
to record the unadjusted concentration measured in the CD prior to 
resetting the calibration, if performed, or 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 the applicable PS in appendix B 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 the PS in appendix B 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 CDs 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 in 
calculating emission compliance nor be counted towards meeting 
minimum data availability as required and described in the 
applicable subpart.
    4.4 Data Recording and Reporting. As required in 40 CFR 60.7(d) 
and 63.10----, all measurements from the CEMS must be retained on 
file by the source owner for at least 2 years. However, emission 
data obtained on each successive day while the CEMS is out-of-
control may not be included as part of the minimum daily data 
requirement of the applicable subpart nor be used in the calculation 
of reported emissions for that period.

5. Data Accuracy Assessment

    5.1 Auditing Requirements. Each CEMS must be audited at least 
once each calendar quarter. Successive quarterly audits shall occur 
no closer than 2 months. The audits shall be conducted as follows:
    5.1.1 Relative Accuracy Test Audit (RATA). The RATA must be 
conducted at least once every four calendar quarters, except as 
otherwise noted in section 5.1.4 of this appendix. Conduct the RATA 
as described for the RA test procedure in the applicable PS in 
appendix B (e.g., PS 12A). In addition, analyze the appropriate 
performance audit samples as described in the applicable reference 
methods.
    5.1.2 Gas Audit (GA). If applicable, a GA may be conducted in 
three of four calendar quarters, but in no more than three quarters 
in succession.

[[Page 21182]]

    To conduct a GA: (1) Challenge the CEMS with an audit gas of 
known concentration at two points within the following ranges:

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

    Challenge the Hg CEMS three times at each audit point, and use 
the average of the three responses in determining accuracy. If using 
audit gas cylinders, do not dilute gas from audit cylinder when 
challenging the Hg CEMS.
    The monitor should be challenged at each audit point for a 
sufficient period of time to assure adsorption-desorption of the Hg 
CEMS sample transport surfaces has stabilized.
    (2) Operate each monitor in its normal sampling mode, i.e., pass 
the audit gas through all filters, scrubbers, conditioners, and 
other monitor components used during normal sampling, and as much of 
the sampling probe as is practical. At a minimum, the audit gas 
should be introduced at the connection between the probe and the 
sample line.
    (3) 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.
    The difference between the actual concentration of the audit gas 
and the concentration indicated by the monitor is used to assess the 
accuracy of the CEMS.
    5.1.3 Relative Accuracy Audit (RAA). The RAA may be conducted 
three of four calendar quarters, but in no more than three quarters 
in succession. To conduct a RAA, follow the procedure described in 
the applicable PS in appendix B for the relative accuracy test, 
except that only three sets of measurement data are required. 
Analyses of performance audit samples are also required.
    The relative difference between the mean of the RM values and 
the mean of the CEMS responses will be used to assess the accuracy 
of the CEMS.
    5.1.4 Other Alternative Audits. Other alternative 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 shall be 
performed in the quarter in which the unit recommences operation. 
Also, gas audits are not required for calendar quarters in which the 
affected facility does not operate.
    5.2 Excessive Audit Inaccuracy. If the RA, using the RATA, GA, 
or RAA exceeds the criteria in section 5.2.3, the Hg CEMS is out-of-
control. If the Hg CEMS is out-of-control, take necessary corrective 
action to eliminate the problem. Following corrective action, the 
source owner or operator must audit the CEMS with a RATA, GA, or RAA 
to determine if the CEMS is operating within the specifications. A 
RATA must always be used following an out-of-control period 
resulting from a RATA. The audit following corrective action does 
not require analysis of performance audit samples. If audit results 
show the CEMS to be out-of-control, the CEMS operator shall report 
both the audit showing the CEMS to be out-of-control and the results 
of the audit following corrective action showing the CEMS to be 
operating within specifications.
    5.2.1 Out-Of-Control Period Definition. The beginning of the 
out-of-control period is the time corresponding to the completion of 
the sampling for the RATA, RAA, or GA. The end of the out-of-control 
period is the time corresponding to the completion of the sampling 
of the subsequent successful audit.
    5.2.2 CEMS Data Status During Out-Of-Control Period. During the 
period the monitor is out-of-control, the CEMS data may not be used 
in calculating emission compliance nor be counted towards meeting 
minimum data availability as required and described in the 
applicable subpart.
    5.2.3 Criteria for Excessive Audit Inaccuracy. Unless specified 
otherwise in the applicable subpart, the criteria for excessive 
inaccuracy are:
    (1) For the RATA, the allowable RA in the applicable PS in 
appendix B.
    (2) For the GA, 15 percent of the average audit 
value or 5 ppm, whichever is greater.
    (3) For the RAA, 15 percent of the three run average 
or 7.5 percent of the applicable standard, whichever is 
greater.
    5.3 Criteria for Acceptable QC Procedure. Repeated excessive 
inaccuracies (i.e., out-of-control conditions resulting from the 
quarterly audits) indicates the QC procedures are inadequate or that 
the Hg CEMS 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 or replace the Hg CEMS.

6. Calculations for Hg CEMS Data Accuracy

    6.1 RATA RA Calculation. Follow the equations described in 
Section 12 of appendix B, PS 12A to calculate the RA for the RATA. 
The RATA must be calculated in units of concentration or the 
applicable emission standard.
    6.2 RAA Accuracy Calculation. Use Equation 1-1 to calculate the 
accuracy for the RAA. The RAA must be calculated in units of 
concentration or the applicable emission standard.
    6.3 GA Accuracy Calculation. Use Equation 1-1 to calculate the 
accuracy for the GA, which is calculated in units of the appropriate 
concentration (e.g., [mu]g/m \3\). Each component of the CEMS must 
meet the acceptable accuracy requirement.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06MY09.066

Where:

A=Accuracy of the CEMS, percent.
Cm=Average CEMS response during audit in units of 
applicable standard or appropriate concentration.
Ca=Average audit value (GA certified value or three-run 
average for RAA) in units of applicable standard or appropriate 
concentration.
    6.4 Example Accuracy Calculations. Example calculations for the 
RATA, RAA, and GA are available in Citation 1.

7. Reporting Requirements

    At the reporting interval specified in the applicable 
regulation, report for each Hg CEMS the accuracy results from 
Section 6 and the CD assessment results from Section 4. Report the 
drift and accuracy information as a Data Assessment Report (DAR), 
and include one copy of this DAR for each quarterly audit with the 
report of emissions required under the applicable subparts of this 
part.
    As a minimum, the DAR must contain the following information:
    1. Source owner or operator name and address.
    2. Identification and location of each Hg CEMS.
    3. Manufacturer and model number of each Hg CEMS.
    4. Assessment of Hg CEMS data accuracy and date of assessment as 
determined by a RATA, RAA, or GA described in Section 5, including 
the RA for the RATA, the A for the RAA or GA, the RM results, the 
audit gas certified values, the CEMS responses, and the calculations 
results as defined in Section 6. If the accuracy audit results show 
the CEMS to be out-of-control, the CEMS operator shall report both 
the audit results showing the CEMS to be out-of-control and the 
results of the audit following corrective action showing the CEMS to 
be operating within specifications.
    5. Results from performance audit samples described in Section 5 
and the applicable RM's.
    6. Summary of all corrective actions taken when CEMS was 
determined out-of-control, as described in Sections 4 and 5.
    An example of a DAR format is shown in Figure 1.

8. Bibliography

    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.

Figure 1--Example Format for Data Assessment Report

Period ending date-----------------------------------------------------

Year-------------------------------------------------------------------

Company name-----------------------------------------------------------

Plant name-------------------------------------------------------------

Source unit no.--------------------------------------------------------

CEMS manufacturer------------------------------------------------------

Model no.--------------------------------------------------------------

CEMS serial no.--------------------------------------------------------

CEMS type (e.g., extractive)-------------------------------------------

CEMS sampling location (e.g., control device outlet)-------------------

    CEMS span values as per the applicable regulation:

    I. Accuracy assessment results (complete A, B, or C below for 
each Hg CEMS). If the

[[Page 21183]]

quarterly audit results show the Hg CEMS to be out-of-control, 
report the results of both the quarterly audit and the audit 
following corrective action showing the Hg CEMS to be operating 
properly.
    A. Relative accuracy test audit (RATA) for ---- (e.g., Hg in 
[mu]g/m\3\).
    1. Date of audit ----.
    2. Reference methods (RM) used ---- (e.g., Method 30B).
    3. Average RM value ---- (e.g., [mu]g/m\3\).
    4. Average CEMS value ----.
    5. Absolute value of mean difference [d] ----.
    6. Confidence coefficient [CC] ----.
    7. Percent relative accuracy (RA) ---- percent.
    8. Performance audit sample results:
    a. Audit lot number (1) ---- (2) ----.
    b. Audit sample number (1) ---- (2) ----.
    c. Results ([mu]g/m\3\) (1) ---- (2) ----.
    d. Actual value ([mu]g/m\3\)* (1) ---- (2) ----.
    e. Relative error* (1) ---- (2) ----.
    B. Cylinder gas audit (GA) for ---- (e.g., Hg in [mu]g/m\3\).

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                               Audit point  Audit point
                                    1            2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Date of audit.............  ...........  ...........  ...............
2. Mercury gas generator or    ...........  ...........  ...............
 cylinder ID number.
3. Date of certification.....  ...........  ...........  ...............
4. Type of certification.....  ...........  ...........  (e.g., Interim
                                                          EPA
                                                          Traceability
                                                          Protocol for
                                                          Elemental or
                                                          Oxidized
                                                          Mercury Gas
                                                          Generators).
5. Audit gas value...........  ...........  ...........  (e.g., [mu]g/
                                                          m\3\).
6. CEMS response value.......  ...........  ...........  (e.g., [mu]g/
                                                          m\3\).
7. Accuracy..................  ...........  ...........  Percent.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    C. Relative accuracy audit (RAA) for ---- (e.g., Hg in [mu]g/
m\3\).
    1. Date of audit ----.
    2. Reference methods (RM) used ---- (e.g., Method 30B).
    3. Average RM value ---- (e.g., [mu]g/m\3\).
    4. Average CEMS value ----.
    5. Accuracy ---- percent.
    6. EPA performance audit results:
    a. Audit lot number (1) ---- (2) ----.
    b. Audit sample number (1) ---- (2) ----.
    c. Results (Hg in [mu]g/m\3\) (1) ---- (2) ----.
    d. Actual value ([mu]g/m\3\) *(1) ---- (2) ----.
    e. Relative error * (1) ---- (2) ----.
    * To be completed by the Agency.
    D. Corrective action for excessive inaccuracy.
    1. Out-of-control periods.
    a. Date(s) ----.
    b. Number of days ----.

    2. Corrective action taken ----.
    3. Results of audit following corrective action. (Use format of 
A, B, or C above, as applicable.)
    II. Calibration drift assessment.
    A. Out-of-control periods.
    1. Date(s) ----.
    2. Number of days ----.

    B. Corrective action taken ----.

PART 63--[AMENDED]

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

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

Subpart LLL--[Amended]

    4. Section 63.1340 is amended to read as follows:
    a. By revising paragraph (a);
    b. By revising paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(8); and
    c. By revising paragraph (c).


Sec.  63.1340  Applicability and designation of affected sources.

    (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) * * *
    (1) Each kiln and each in-line kiln/raw mill, including alkali 
bypasses, except for kilns and in-line kiln/raw mills 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; and
    (8) Each bagging and bulk loading and unloading system at any 
portland cement plant.
    (c) Crushers are not covered by this subpart regardless of their 
location.
* * * * *
    5. Section 63.1341 is amended by adding definitions for 
``Clinker,'' ``Crusher,'' ``New source'' and ``Total organic HAP'' in 
alphabetic order to read as follows:


Sec.  63.1341  Definitions.

* * * * *
    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.
* * * * *
    New source means any source that commences construction after 
December 2, 2005, for purposes of determining the applicability of the 
kiln in-line raw mill/kiln, clinker cooler and raw material dryer 
emissions limits for mercury, THC, and HCl. New source means any source 
that commences construction after May 6, 2009 for purposes of 
determining the applicability of the kiln in-line raw mill/kiln AND 
clinker cooler emissions limits for PM.
* * * * *
    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.
* * * * *
    6. Section 63.1343 is amended to read as follows:
    a. By revising paragraph (a);
    b. By revising paragraph (b) introductory text;
    c. By revising paragraph (b)(1);
    d. By adding paragraphs (b)(4) through (b)(6);

[[Page 21184]]

    e. By revising paragraph (c) introductory text;
    f. By revising paragraphs (c)(1), (c)(4) and (c)(5);
    g. By adding paragraph (c)(6); and
    h. By removing paragraphs (d) and (e).


Sec.  63.1343  Standards for kilns and in-line kiln/raw mills.

    (a) General. The provisions in this section apply to each kiln, 
each in-line kiln/raw mill, and any alkali bypass associated with that 
kiln or in-line kiln/raw mill. All dioxin furan (D/F) and total 
hydrocarbon (THC) emission limits are on a dry basis, corrected to 7 
percent oxygen. The owner/operator shall ensure appropriate corrections 
for moisture are made when measuring flowrates used to calculate D/F 
and THC emissions. All (THC) emission limits are measured as propane. 
Standards for mercury and THC are based on a 30-day rolling average. If 
using a CEM to determine compliance with the HCl standard, this 
standard is based on a 30-day rolling average.
    (b) Existing kilns located at major or area sources. No owner or 
operator of an existing kiln or an existing in-line kiln/raw mill 
located at a facility that is subject to the provisions of this subpart 
shall cause to be discharged into the atmosphere from these affected 
sources, any gases which:
    (1) Contain particulate matter (PM) in excess of 0.085 pounds per 
ton of clinker. When there is an alkali bypass associated with a kiln 
or in-line kiln/raw mill, the combined PM emissions from the kiln or 
in-line kiln/raw mill and the alkali bypass stack are subject to this 
emission limit. Kiln, or in-line kiln/raw mills 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 following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06MY09.067

Where: 0.0067 is the PM exhaust concentration equivalent to 0.085 lb 
per ton clinker where clinker cooler and kiln exhaust gas are not 
combined.

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)
* * * * *
    (4) Contain THC in excess of 7 ppmv or total organic HAP in excess 
of 2 ppmv from the main exhaust of the kiln or in-line kiln/raw mill. 
If a source elects to demonstrate compliance with the total organic HAP 
limit in lieu of the THC limit, then they may meet a site specific THC 
limit based on a 30-day average and on the level of THC measured during 
the performance test demonstrating compliance with the organic HAP 
limit.
    (5) Contain mercury (Hg) in excess of 43 lb per million tons of 
clinker. When there is an alkali bypass associated with a kiln or in-
line kiln/raw mill, the combined Hg emissions from the kiln or in-line 
kiln/raw mill and the alkali bypass are subject to this emission limit.
    (6) Contain hydrogen chloride (HCl) in excess of 2 ppmv from the 
main exhaust of the kiln or in-line kiln/raw mill if the kiln or in-
line kiln/raw mill is located at a major source of HAP emissions.
    (c) New or reconstructed kilns located at major or area sources. No 
owner or operator of a new or reconstructed kiln or new or 
reconstructed inline kiln/raw mill located at a facility subject to the 
provisions of this subpart shall cause to be discharged into the 
atmosphere from these affected sources any gases which:
    (1) Contain PM in excess of 0.080 pounds per ton of clinker. When 
there is an alkali bypass associated with a kiln or in-line kiln/raw 
mill, the combined PM emissions from the kiln or in-line kiln/raw mill 
and the alkali bypass stack are subject to this emission limit. Kiln, 
or in-line kiln/raw mills 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 
following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06MY09.068

Where: 0.0063 is the PM exhaust concentration equivalent to 0.080 lb 
per ton clinker where clinker cooler and kiln exhaust gas are not 
combined.

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)
* * * * *
    (4) Contain THC in excess of 6 ppmv, or total organic HAP in excess 
of 1 ppmv, from the main exhaust of the kiln, or main exhaust of the 
in-line kiln/raw mill. If a source elects to demonstrate compliance 
with the total organic HAP limit in lieu of the THC limit, then they 
may meet a site specific THC limit based a 30-day average and the on 
the level of THC measured during the performance test demonstrating 
compliance with the organic HAP limit.
    (5) Contain Hg from the main exhaust of the kiln, or main exhaust 
of the in-line kiln/raw mill, in excess of 14 lb/million tons of 
clinker. When there is an alkali bypass associated with a kiln, or in-
line kiln/raw mill, the combined Hg emissions from the kiln or in-line 
kiln/raw mill and the alkali bypass are subject to this emission limit.
    (6) Contain HCl in excess of 0.1 ppmv from the main exhaust of the 
kiln, or main exhaust of the in-line kiln/raw mill if the kiln or in-
line kiln/raw mill is located at a major source of HAP emissions.
    7. Section 63.1344 is amended to read as follows:
    a. By revising paragraph (c) introductory text,
    b. By revising paragraphs (d) and (e); and
    c. By removing paragraphs (f), (g), (h) and (i).


Sec.  63.1344  Operating limits for kilns and in-line kiln/raw mills.

* * * * *
    (c) The owner or operator of an affected source subject to a D/F 
emission limitation under Sec.  63.1343 that employs carbon injection 
as an emission control technique must operate the carbon injection 
system in accordance with paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of this section.
* * * * *
    (d) Except as provided in paragraph (e) of this section, the owner 
or operator of an affected source subject to a D/F emission limitation 
under Sec.  63.1343 that employs carbon injection as an emission 
control technique must specify and use

[[Page 21185]]

the brand and type of activated carbon 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) The owner or operator of an affected source subject to a D/F 
emission limitation under Sec.  63.1343 that employs carbon injection 
as an emission control technique may substitute, at any time, a 
different brand or type of activated carbon provided that the 
replacement has equivalent or improved properties compared to the 
activated carbon specified in the site-specific performance test plan 
and used in the performance test. The owner or operator must maintain 
documentation that the substitute activated carbon will provide the 
same or better level of control as the original activated carbon.
    8. Section 63.1345 is amended by revising paragraph (a) 
introductory text and paragraph (a)(1) to read as follows:


Sec.  63.1345  Standards for clinker coolers.

    (a) No owner or operator of a new or existing clinker cooler at a 
facility which is a major source or an area source subject to the 
provision of this subpart shall cause to be discharged into the 
atmosphere from the clinker cooler any gases which:
    (1) Contain PM in excess of 0.085 lb per ton of clinker for 
existing sources or 0.080 lb per ton of clinker for new sources.
* * * * *
    9. Section 63.1346 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  63.1346  Standards for raw material dryers.

    (a) Raw material dryers that are located at facilities that are 
major sources can not discharge to the atmosphere any gases which:
    (1) Exhibit opacity greater then 10 percent; or
    (2) Contain THC in excess of 7 ppmv (existing sources) or 6 ppmv 
(new sources), on a dry basis as propane corrected to 7 percent oxygen 
based on a 30-day rolling average
    (b) Raw Material dryers located at a facility that is an area 
source must not discharge to the atmosphere any gases which contain THC 
in excess of 7 ppmv (existing sources) or 6 ppmv (new sources), on a 
dry basis as propane corrected to 7 percent oxygen based on a 30-day 
rolling average. If a source elects to demonstrate compliance with the 
total organic HAP limit in lieu of the THC limit, then they may meet a 
site specific THC limit based on a 30-day average and on the level of 
THC measured during the performance test demonstrating compliance with 
the organic HAP limit.
    10. Section 63.1349 is amended to read as follows:
    a. By revising paragraph (b) introductory text;
    b. By revising paragraphs (b)(1) introductory text, (b)(1)(ii), 
(iii), (iv) and (vi);
    c. By revising paragraphs (b)(3)(iii) and (v), (b)(4) and (b)(5);
    d. By adding paragraph (b)(6);
    e. By revising paragraph (c); and
    f. By adding paragraphs (f) and (g).


Sec.  63.1349  Performance testing requirements.

* * * * *
    (b) Performance tests to demonstrate initial compliance with this 
subpart shall be conducted as specified in paragraphs (b)(1) through 
(b)(6) of this section.
    (1) The owner or operator of a kiln subject to limitations on PM 
emissions that is not equipped with a PM CEMS shall demonstrate initial 
compliance by conducting a performance test as specified in paragraphs 
(b)(1)(i) through (b)(1)(iv) of this section. The owner or operator of 
an in-line kiln/raw mill subject to limitations on PM emissions that is 
not equipped with a PM CEMS shall demonstrate initial compliance by 
conducting separate performance tests as specified in paragraphs 
(b)(1)(i) through (b)(1)(iv) of this section while the raw mill of the 
in-line kiln/raw mill is under normal operating conditions and while 
the raw mill of the in-line kiln/raw mill is not operating. The owner 
or operator of a clinker cooler subject to limitations on PM emissions 
shall demonstrate initial compliance by conducting a performance test 
as specified in paragraphs (b)(1)(i) through (b)(1)(iii) of this 
section. The owner or operator shall determine the opacity of PM 
emissions exhibited during the period of the Method 5 (40 CFR part 60, 
appendix A-3) performance tests required by paragraph (b)(1)(i) of this 
section as required in paragraphs (b)(1)(v) through (vi) of this 
section. The owner or operator of a kiln or in-line kiln/raw mill 
subject to limitations on PM emissions that is equipped with a PM CEMS 
shall demonstrate initial compliance by conducting a performance test 
as specified in paragraph (b)(1)(vi) of this section.
* * * * *
    (ii) The owner or operator must install, calibrate, maintain and 
operate a permanent weigh scale system, or use another method approved 
by the Administrator, 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. The owner or operator shall determine, record, and 
maintain a record of the accuracy of the system of measuring hourly 
clinker 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, the owner or operator shall 
determine, record, and maintain a record of the ongoing accuracy of the 
system of measuring hourly clinker production. The use of a system that 
directly measures kiln feed rate and uses a conversion factor to 
determine the clinker production rate is an acceptable method.
    (iii) The emission rate, E, of PM (lb/ton of clinker) shall be 
computed for each run using equation 3 of this section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06MY09.069

Where:

E = emission rate of particulate matter, kg/metric ton (lb/ton) of 
clinker production;
Cs = concentration of particulate matter, g/dscm (gr/
dscf);
Qsd = volumetric flow rate of effluent gas, dscm/hr 
(dscf/hr);
P = total kiln clinker production rate, metric ton/hr (ton/hr); and
K = conversion factor, 1000 g/kg (7000 gr/lb).

    (iv) Where there is an alkali bypass associated with a kiln or in-
line kiln/raw mill, the main exhaust and alkali bypass of the kiln or 
in-line kiln/raw mill shall be tested simultaneously and the combined 
emission rate of particulate matter from the kiln or in-line raw mill 
and alkali bypass shall be computed for each run using equation 4 of 
this section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06MY09.070


[[Page 21186]]


Where:

Ec = combined emission rate of particulate matter from 
the kiln or in-line kiln/raw mill and bypass stack, kg/metric ton 
(lb/ton) of kiln clinker production;
Csk = concentration of particulate matter in the kiln or 
in-line kiln/raw mill effluent gas, g/dscm (gr/dscf);
Qsdk = volumetric flow rate of kiln or in-line kiln/raw 
mill effluent gas, dscm/hr (dscf/hr);
Csb = concentration of particulate matter in the alkali 
bypass gas, g/dscm (gr/dscf);
Qsdb = volumetric flow rate of alkali bypass effluent 
gas, dscm/hr (dscf/hr);
P = total kiln clinker production rate, metric ton/hr (ton/hr); and
K = conversion factor, 1000 g/kg (7000 gr/lb).
* * * * *
    (vi) The owner or operator of a kiln or in-line kiln/raw mill 
subject to limitations on emissions of PM that is equipped with a PM 
CEMS shall install, operate, calibrate, and maintain the PM CEMS in 
accordance with Performance Specification 11 (40 CFR part 60, appendix 
B). Compliance with the PM emissions standard shall be determined by 
calculating the average of 3 hourly average PM emission rates in lb/ton 
of clinker using Equation 3 or 4 of this section. The owner or operator 
of an in-line kiln/raw mill shall conduct separate performance tests 
while the raw mill of the in-line kiln/raw mill is under normal 
operating conditions and while the raw mill of the in-line kiln/raw 
mill is not operating. The owner or operator shall continuously measure 
kiln feed rate, volumetric flow rate, and clinker production during the 
period of the test. The owner or operator shall determine, record, and 
maintain a record of the accuracy of the volumetric flow rate 
monitoring system according to the procedures in appendix A to part 75 
of this chapter.
* * * * *
    (3) * * *
    (iii) Hourly average temperatures must be calculated for each run 
of the test.
* * * * *
    (v) If activated carbon injection is used for D/F control, the rate 
of activated carbon injection to the kiln or in-line kiln/raw mill 
exhaust, and where applicable, the rate of activated carbon injection 
to the alkali bypass exhaust, must be continuously recorded during the 
period of the Method 23 test, and the continuous injection rate 
record(s) must be included in the performance test report. In addition, 
the performance test report must include the brand and type of 
activated carbon used during the performance test and a continuous 
record of either the carrier gas flow rate or the carrier gas pressure 
drop for the duration of the test. The system of measuring carrier gas 
flow rate or carrier gas pressure drop must be maintained within +/- 5 
percent accuracy. If the carrier gas flow rate is used, the owner or 
operator shall 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 shall determine, record, 
and maintain a record of the accuracy of the carrier gas pressure drop 
monitoring system according to the procedures in appendix A to part 75 
of this chapter. Activated carbon injection rate parameters must be 
determined in accordance with paragraphs (b)(3)(vi) of this section.
* * * * *
    (4)(i) The owner or operator of an affected source subject to 
limitations on emissions of THC shall demonstrate initial compliance 
with the THC limit by operating a continuous emission monitor in 
accordance with Performance Specification 8A (40 CFR part 60, appendix 
B). The duration of the performance test shall be 24 hours. The owner 
or operator shall calculate the daily average THC concentration (as 
calculated from the hourly averages obtained during the performance 
test). The owner or operator of an in-line kiln/raw mill shall 
demonstrate initial compliance by conducting separate performance tests 
while the raw mill of the in-line kiln/raw mill is under normal 
operating conditions and while the raw mill of the in-line kiln/raw 
mill is not operating.
    (ii) As an alternative to complying with the THC limit, the owner 
or operator may comply with the limits for total organic HAP, as 
defined in Sec.  63.1341, by following the procedures in (b)(4)(ii) 
through (b)(4)(vi) of this section.
    (iii) The owner or operator of a kiln complying with the 
alternative emissions limits for total organic HAP in Sec.  63.1343 
shall demonstrate initial compliance by conducting a performance test 
as specified in paragraphs (b)(4)(ii) through (b)(4)(vi) of this 
section. The owner or operator of an in-line kiln/raw mill complying 
with the emissions limits for total organic HAP in Sec.  63.1343 shall 
demonstrate initial compliance by conducting separate performance tests 
as specified in paragraphs (b)(4)(ii) through (b)(4)(vi) of this 
section while the raw mill of the in-line kiln/raw mill is under normal 
operating conditions and while the raw mill of the in-line kiln/raw 
mill is not operating.
    (iv) Method 320 of appendix A to this part or ASTM D6348-03 shall 
be used to determine emissions of total organic HAP. Each performance 
test shall 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 shall 
be conducted for at least 1 hour. The average of the three runs shall 
be used to determine initial compliance. The owner or operator shall 
determine, record, and maintain a record of the accuracy of the 
volumetric flow rate monitoring system according to the procedures in 
appendix A to part 75 of this chapter.
    (v) At the same time that the owner or operator is determining 
compliance with the emissions limits for total organic HAP, the owner 
or operator shall also determine THC emissions by operating a 
continuous emission monitor in accordance with Performance 
Specification 8A of appendix B to part 60 of this chapter. The duration 
of the test shall be 3 hours, and the average THC concentration (as 
calculated from the 1-minute averages) during the 3-hour test shall be 
calculated. The THC concentration measured during the initial 
performance test for total organic HAP will be used to monitor 
compliance subsequent to the initial performance test.
    (vi) Emissions tests to determine compliance with total inorganic 
HAP limits shall be repeated annually, beginning 1 year from the date 
of the initial performance tests.
    (5) The owner or operator of a kiln or in-line kiln/raw mill 
subject to an emission limitation for mercury in Sec.  63.1343 shall 
demonstrate initial compliance with the mercury limit by complying with 
the requirements of (b)(5)(i) through (b)(5)(vi) of this section.
    (i) Operate a continuous emission monitor in accordance with 
Performance Specification 12A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix B or a 
sorbent trap based integrated monitor in accordance with Performance 
Specification 12B of 40 CFR part 60, appendix B. The duration of the 
performance test shall be a calendar month. For each calendar month in 
which the kiln or in-line kiln/raw mill operates, hourly mercury 
concentration data, stack gas volumetric flow rate data shall be 
obtained. The owner or operator shall determine, record, and maintain a 
record of the accuracy of the volumetric flow rate monitoring system 
according to the procedures in appendix A to part 75 of this chapter. 
The owner or operator of an in-line kiln/raw mill shall demonstrate 
initial compliance by

[[Page 21187]]

operating a continuous emission monitor while the raw mill of the in-
line kiln/raw mill is under normal operating conditions and while the 
raw mill of the in-line kiln/raw mill is not operating.
    (ii) Owners or operators using a mercury CEMS 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.  60.63(m) of this chapter.
    (iii) The owner or operator shall determine compliance with the 
mercury limitations by dividing the average mercury concentration by 
the clinker production rate during the same calendar month using the 
Equation 3 of this section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06MY09.071

Where:

E = emission rate of mercury, kg/metric ton (lb/million tons) of 
clinker production;
Cs = concentration of mercury, g/dscm (g/dscf);
Qsd = volumetric flow rate of effluent gas, dscm/hr 
(dscf/hr);
P = total kiln clinker production rate, metric ton/hr (million ton/
hr); and
K = conversion factor, 1000 g/kg (454 g/lb).

    (6) The owner or operator of an affected source subject to 
limitations on emissions of HCl shall demonstrate initial compliance 
with the HCl limit by one of the following methods:
    (i) If your source is equipped with a wet scrubber such as a spray 
tower, packed bed, or tray tower, use Method 321 of appendix A to this 
part. A repeat test must be performed every 5 years to demonstrate 
continued compliance.
    (ii) If your source is not controlled by a wet scrubber, you must 
operate a continuous emission monitor in accordance with Performance 
Specification 15 of appendix B of part 60. The duration of the 
performance test shall be 24 hours. The owner or operator shall 
calculate the daily average HCl concentration (as calculated from the 
hourly averages obtained during the performance test). The owner or 
operator of an in-line kiln/raw mill shall demonstrate initial 
compliance by conducting separate performance tests while the raw mill 
of the in-line kiln/raw mill is under normal operating conditions and 
while the raw mill of the in-line kiln/raw mill is not operating.
    (c) Except as provided in paragraph (e) of this section, 
performance tests are required for existing kilns or in-line kiln/raw 
mills that are subject to a PM, THC, HCl or mercury emissions limit and 
must be repeated every 5 years except for pollutants where that 
specific pollutant is monitored using a CEMS.
* * * * *
    (f) The owner or operator of an affected facility shall submit the 
information specified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(4) of this 
section no later than 60 days following the initial performance test. 
All reports shall be signed by the facilities manager.
    (1) The initial performance test data as recorded under Sec.  
60.56c(b)(1) through (b)(14), as applicable.
    (2) The values for the site-specific operating parameters 
established pursuant to Sec.  60.56c(d), (h), or (j), as applicable, 
and a description, including sample calculations, of how the operating 
parameters were established during the initial performance test.
    (3) For each affected facility as defined in Sec.  60.50c(a)(3).
    (4) That uses a bag leak detection system, analysis and supporting 
documentation demonstrating conformance with EPA guidance and 
specifications for bag leak detection systems in Sec.  60.57c(h).
    (g) For affected facilities, as defined in Sec.  60.50c(a)(3) and 
(4), that choose to submit an electronic copy of stack test reports to 
EPA's WebFIRE data base, as of December 31, 2011, the owner or operator 
of an affected facility shall enter the test data into EPA's data base 
using the Electronic Reporting Tool located at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/ert_tool.html.
    11. Section 63.1350 is amended to read as follows:
    a. By revising paragraph (a)(4)(i), (a)(4)(iv), (a)(4)(vi) and 
(vii);
    b. By revising paragraph (c)(1) and (2) introductory text;
    c. By revising paragraph (d)(1) and (2) introductory text;
    d. By revising paragraph (e) introductory text;
    e. By revising paragraph (g) introductory text;
    f. By revising paragraph (h) introductory text;
    g. By revising paragraph (h)(2) through (h)(4);
    h. By revising paragraph (k);
    i. By revising paragraphs (m) introductory text;
    j. By revising paragraphs (n),(o) and (p); and
    k. By adding paragraphs (q) and (r).


Sec.  63.1350  Monitoring requirements.

    (a) * * *
    (4) * * *
    (i) The owner or operator must conduct a monthly 20-minute visible 
emissions test of each affected source in accordance with Method 22 of 
appendix A-7 to part 60 of this chapter. The test must be conducted 
while the affected source is in operation.
* * * * *
    (iv) If visible emissions are observed during any Method 22 test, 
of appendix A-7 to part 60, the owner or operator 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 test, of appendix A-4 to part 
60, must begin within 1 hour of any observation of visible emissions.
* * * * *
    (vi) If any partially enclosed or unenclosed conveying system 
transfer point is located in a building, the owner or operator of the 
portland cement plant shall have the option to conduct a Method 22 
test, of appendix A-7 to part 60, according to the requirements of 
paragraphs (a)(4)(i) through (iv) of this section for each such 
conveying system transfer point located within the building, or for the 
building itself, according to paragraph (a)(4)(vii) of this section.
    (vii) If visible emissions from a building are monitored, the 
requirements of paragraphs (a)(4)(i) through (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 20 
minutes. The test must be conducted under normal operating conditions.
* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (1) Except as provided in paragraph (c)(2) of this section, the 
owner or operator shall install, calibrate, maintain, and continuously 
operate a continuous opacity monitoring system (COMS) located at the 
outlet of the PM control device to continuously monitor the opacity. 
The COMS shall be installed, maintained, calibrated, and operated as 
required by subpart A, general provisions of this part, and according 
to PS-1 of appendix B to part 60 of this chapter.

[[Page 21188]]

    (2) The owner or operator of a kiln or in-line kiln/raw mill 
subject to the provisions of this subpart using a fabric filter with 
multiple stacks or an electrostatic precipitator with multiple stacks 
may, in lieu of installing the continuous opacity monitoring system 
required by paragraph (c)(1) of this section, monitor opacity in 
accordance with paragraphs (c)(2)(i) through (ii) of this section. If 
the control device exhausts through a monovent, or if the use of a COMS 
in accordance with the installation specifications of PS-1 of appendix 
B to part 60 of this chapter is not feasible, the owner or operator 
must monitor opacity in accordance with paragraphs (c)(2)(i) through 
(ii) of this section.
* * * * *
    (d)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (d)(2) of this section, the 
owner or operator shall install, calibrate, maintain, and continuously 
operate a COMS located at the outlet of the clinker cooler PM control 
device to continuously monitor the opacity. The COMS shall be 
installed, maintained, calibrated, and operated as required by subpart 
A, general provisions of this part, and according to PS-1 of appendix B 
to part 60 of this chapter.
    (2) The owner or operator of a clinker cooler subject to the 
provisions of this subpart using a fabric filter with multiple stacks 
or an electrostatic precipitator with multiple stacks may, in lieu of 
installing the continuous opacity monitoring system required by 
paragraph (d)(1) of this section, monitor opacity in accordance with 
paragraphs (d)(2)(i) through (ii) of this section. If the control 
device exhausts through a monovent, or if the use of a COMS in 
accordance with the installation specifications of PS-1 of appendix B 
to part 60 of this chapter is not feasible, the owner or operator must 
monitor opacity in accordance with paragraphs (d)(2)(i) through (ii) of 
this section.
* * * * *
    (e) The owner or operator of a raw mill or finish mill shall 
monitor opacity by conducting daily visual emissions observations of 
the mill sweep and air separator PMCD of these affected sources in 
accordance with the procedures of Method 22 of appendix A-7 to part 60 
of this chapter. The Method 22 test, of appendix A-7 to part 60, shall 
be conducted while the affected source is operating at the 
representative performance conditions. The duration of the Method 22 
test, of appendix A-7 to part 60, shall be 6 minutes. If visible 
emissions are observed during any Method 22 test, of appendix A-7 to 
part 60, the owner or operator must:
* * * * *
    (g) The owner or operator of an affected source subject to an 
emissions limitation on D/F emissions that employs carbon injection as 
an emission control technique shall comply with the monitoring 
requirements of paragraphs (f)(1) through (f)(6) and (g)(1) through 
(g)(6) of this section to demonstrate continuous compliance with the D/
F emissions standard.
* * * * *
    (h) The owner or operator of an affected source subject to a 
limitation on THC emissions under this subpart shall comply with the 
monitoring requirements of paragraphs (h)(1) through (h)(3) of this 
section to demonstrate continuous compliance with the THC emission 
standard:
* * * * *
    (2) For existing facilities complying with the THC emissions limits 
of Sec.  63.1343, the 30-day average THC concentration in any gas 
discharged from the main exhaust of a kiln, or in-line kiln/raw mill, 
must not exceed their THC emissions limit, reported as propane, 
corrected to seven percent oxygen.
    (3) For new or reconstructed facilities complying with the THC 
emission limits of Sec.  63.1343, the 30-day average THC concentration 
in any gas discharged from the main exhaust of a kiln or in-line kiln/
raw mill must not exceed their THC emission limit, reported as propane, 
corrected to 7 percent oxygen.
    (4) For new or reconstructed facilities complying with the THC 
emission limits of Sec.  63.1346, any daily average THC concentration 
in any gas discharged from a raw material dryer must not exceed their 
THC emission limit, reported as propane, corrected to 7 percent oxygen.
* * * * *
    (k) The owner or operator of an affected source subject to a 
particulate matter standard under Sec.  63.1343 using a fabric filter 
for PM control must install, operate, and maintain a bag leak detection 
system according to paragraphs (k)(1) through (k)(3) of this section.
    (1) Each bag leak detection system must meet the specifications and 
requirements in paragraphs (k)(1)(i) through (k)(1)(viii) of this 
section.
    (i) The bag leak detection system must be certified by the 
manufacturer to be capable of detecting PM emissions at concentrations 
of 1 milligram per dry standard cubic meter (0.00044 grains per actual 
cubic foot) or less.
    (ii) The bag leak detection system sensor must provide output of 
relative PM loadings. The owner or operator shall continuously record 
the output from the bag leak detection system using electronic or other 
means (e.g., using a strip chart recorder or a data logger).
    (iii) The bag leak detection system must be equipped with an alarm 
system that will sound when the system detects an increase in relative 
particulate loading over the alarm set point established according to 
paragraph (k)(1)(iv) of this section, and the alarm must be located 
such that it can be heard by the appropriate plant personnel.
    (iv) In the initial adjustment of the bag leak detection system, 
you must establish, at a minimum, the baseline output by adjusting the 
sensitivity (range) and the averaging period of the device, the alarm 
set points, and the alarm delay time.
    (v) Following initial adjustment, you shall not adjust the 
averaging period, alarm set point, or alarm delay time without approval 
from the Administrator or delegated authority except as provided in 
paragraph (k)(1)(vi) of this section.
    (vi) Once per quarter, you may adjust the sensitivity of the bag 
leak detection system to account for seasonal effects, including 
temperature and humidity, according to the procedures identified in the 
site-specific monitoring plan required by paragraph (k)(2) of this 
section.
    (vii) You must install the bag leak detection sensor downstream of 
the fabric filter.
    (viii) Where multiple detectors are required, the system's 
instrumentation and alarm may be shared among detectors.
    (2) You must develop and submit to the Administrator or delegated 
authority for approval a site-specific monitoring plan for each bag 
leak detection system. You must operate and maintain the bag leak 
detection system according to the site-specific monitoring plan at all 
times. Each monitoring plan must describe the items in paragraphs 
(k)(2)(i) through (k)(2)(vi) of this section. At a minimum you must 
retain records related to the site-specific monitoring plan and 
information discussed in paragraphs (k)(2)(i) through (k)(2)(vi) of 
this section for a period of 2 years on-site and 3 years off-site;
    (i) Installation of the bag leak detection system;
    (ii) Initial and periodic adjustment of the bag leak detection 
system, including how the alarm set-point will be established;

[[Page 21189]]

    (iii) Operation of the bag leak detection system, including quality 
assurance procedures;
    (iv) How the bag leak detection system will be maintained, 
including a routine maintenance schedule and spare parts inventory 
list;
    (v) How the bag leak detection system output will be recorded and 
stored; and
    (vi) Corrective action procedures as specified in paragraph (k)(3) 
of this section. In approving the site-specific monitoring plan, the 
Administrator or delegated authority may allow owners and operators 
more than 3 hours to alleviate a specific condition that causes an 
alarm if the owner or operator identifies in the monitoring plan this 
specific condition as one that could lead to an alarm, adequately 
explains why it is not feasible to alleviate this condition within 3 
hours of the time the alarm occurs, and demonstrates that the requested 
time will ensure alleviation of this condition as expeditiously as 
practicable.
    (3) For each bag leak detection system, you must initiate 
procedures to determine the cause of every alarm within 1 hour of the 
alarm. Except as provided in paragraph (k)(2)(vi) of this section, you 
must alleviate the cause of the alarm within 3 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.
    (4) The owner or operator of a kiln or clinker cooler using a PM 
continuous emission monitoring system (CEMS) to demonstrate compliance 
with the particulate matter emission limit in Sec.  63.1343 must 
install, certify, operate, and maintain the CEMS as specified in 
paragraphs (p)(1) through (p)(3) of this section.
* * * * *
    (m) The requirements under paragraph (e) of this section to conduct 
daily Method 22 testing shall not apply to any specific raw mill or 
finish mill equipped with a continuous opacity monitoring system (COMS) 
or bag leak detection system (BLDS). If the owner or operator chooses 
to install a COMS in lieu of conducting the daily visual emissions 
testing required under paragraph (e) 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. The 6-minute average opacity for any 6-minute block 
period must not exceed 10 percent. If the owner or operator chooses to 
install a BLDS in lieu of conducting the daily visual emissions testing 
required under paragraph (e) of this section, the requirements in 
paragraphs (k)(1) through (k)(3) of this section apply to each BLDS.
* * * * *
    (n) The owner or operator of a kiln or in-line kiln raw mill shall 
install and operate a continuous emissions monitor in accordance with 
Performance Specification 12A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix B or a 
sorbent trap-based integrated monitor in accordance with Performance 
Specification 12B of 40 CFR part 60, appendix B. The owner or operator 
shall operate and maintain each CEMS according to the quality assurance 
requirements in Procedure 4 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix F.
    (o) The owner or operator of any portland cement plant subject to 
the PM limit (lb/ton of clinker) for new or existing sources in Sec.  
63.1343(b) or (c) shall:
    (1) Install, calibrate, maintain and operate a permanent weigh 
scale system, or use another method approved by the Administrator, 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. The owner or 
operator shall determine, record, and maintain a record of the accuracy 
of the system of measuring hourly clinker 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, the 
owner or operator shall determine, record, and maintain a record of the 
ongoing accuracy of the system of measuring hourly clinker production. 
The use of a system that directly measures kiln feed rate and uses a 
conversion factor to determine the clinker production rate is an 
acceptable method.
    (2) Record the daily clinker production rates and kiln feed rates.
    (p) The owner or operator of a kiln or clinker cooler using a PM 
continuous emission monitoring system (CEMS) to demonstrate compliance 
with the particulate matter emission limit in Sec.  63.1343 or Sec.  
63.1345 must install, certify, operate, and maintain the CEMS as 
specified in paragraphs (p)(1) through (p)(3) of this section.
    (1) The owner or operator must conduct a performance evaluation of 
the PM CEMS according to the applicable requirements of Sec.  60.13, 
Performance Specification 11 of appendix B of part 60, and Procedure 2 
of appendix F to part 60.
    (2) During each relative accuracy test run of the CEMS required by 
Performance Specification 11 of appendix B to part 60, PM and oxygen 
(or carbon dioxide) data must be collected concurrently (or within a 
30- to 60-minute period) during operation of the CEMS and when 
conducting performance tests using the following test methods:
    (i) For PM, Method 5 or 5B of appendix A-5 to part 60 or Method 17 
of appendix A-6 to part 60.
    (ii) For oxygen (or carbon dioxide), Method 3, 3A, or 3B of 
appendix A-2 to part 60, as applicable.
    (3) Procedure 2 of appendix F to part 60 for quarterly accuracy 
determinations and daily calibration drift tests. The owner or operator 
must perform Relative Response Audits annually and Response Correlation 
Audits every 3 years.
    (q) The owner or operator of an affected source subject to 
limitations on emissions of HCl shall:
    (1) Continuously monitor compliance with the HCl limit by operating 
a continuous emission monitor in accordance with Performance 
Specification 15 of part 60, appendix B. The owner or operator shall 
operate and maintain each CEMS according to the quality assurance 
requirements in Procedure 1 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix F, or
    (2) Monitor your wet scrubber parameters as specified in 40 CFR 
part 63, subpart SS.
    (r) The owner or operator complying with the total organic HAP 
emissions limits of Sec.  63.1343 shall continuously monitor THC 
according to paragraphs (r)(1) through (r)(2) of this section to 
demonstrate continuous compliance with the emission limits for total 
organic HAP.
    (1) Install, operate and maintain a THC continuous emission 
monitoring system in accordance with Performance Specification 8A, of 
appendix B to part

[[Page 21190]]

60 of this chapter and comply with all of the requirements for 
continuous monitoring found in the general provisions, subpart A of the 
part. The owner or operator shall operate and maintain each CEMS 
according to the quality assurance requirements in Procedure 1 of 40 
CFR part 60, appendix F.
    (2) Calculate the 3-hour average THC concentration as the average 
of three successive 1-hour average THC readings. The 3-hour average THC 
concentration shall not exceed the average THC concentration 
established during the initial performance tests for total organic HAP.
    12. Section 63.1351 is amended by revising paragraph (d) and adding 
paragraphs (e) and (f) to read as follows:


Sec.  63.1351   Compliance dates.

* * * * *
    (d) The compliance date for a new source which commenced 
construction after December 2, 2005, and before December 20, 2006 to 
meet the THC emission limit of 6 ppmvd or the mercury standard of 14 
lb/MM tons clinker will be December 21, 2009, or the effective date of 
these amendments, whichever is later.
    (e) The compliance data for existing sources with the revised PM, 
mercury, THC, and HCl emissions limits will be 3 years from the 
effective data of these amendments.
    (f) The compliance date for new sources not subject to paragraph 
(d) of this section will be the effective date of the final rule or 
startup, whichever is later.
    13. Section 63.1354 is amended by adding paragraph (b)(9)(vi) to 
read as follows:


Sec.  63.1354   Reporting requirements.

* * * * *
    (b)(9) * * *
    (vi) Monthly rolling average mercury concentration for each kiln 
and in-line kiln/raw mill.
* * * * *
    14. Section 63.1355 is amended by revising paragraph (e) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  63.1355   Recordkeeping requirements.

* * * * *
    (e) You must keep records of the daily clinker production rates and 
kiln feed rates for area sources.
* * * * *
    15. 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.
    16. 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
                                        Determination.                                    specifies
                                                                                          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 Permit  Yes....................
                                        Program.
63.2.................................  Definitions............  Yes....................  Additional definitions
                                                                                          in Sec.   63.1341.
63.3(a)-(c)..........................  Units and Abbreviations  Yes....................
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 21191]]

 
63.6(e)(1)-(2).......................  Operation & Maintenance  Yes....................
63.6(e)(3)...........................  Startup, Shutdown        Yes....................
                                        Malfunction Plan.
63.6(f)(1)...........................  Compliance with          No.....................
                                        Emission Standards.
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.....................
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 Compliance  Yes....................
63.6(i)(15)..........................  .......................  No.....................  [Reserved].
63.6(i)(16)..........................  Extension of Compliance  Yes....................
63.6(j)..............................  Exemption from           Yes....................
                                        Compliance.
63.7(a)(1)-(3).......................  Performance Testing      Yes....................  Sec.   63.1349 has
                                        Requirements.                                     specific requirements.
63.7(b)..............................  Notification...........  Yes....................
63.7(c)..............................  Quality Assurance/Test   Yes....................
                                        Plan.
63.7(d)..............................  Testing Facilities.....  Yes....................
63.7(e)(1)-(4).......................  Conduct of Tests.......  Yes....................
63.7(f)..............................  Alternative Test Method  Yes....................
63.7(g)..............................  Data Analysis..........  Yes....................
63.7(h)..............................  Waiver of Tests........  Yes....................
63.8(a)(1)...........................  Monitoring Requirements  Yes....................
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
                                        Maintenance.                                      activated carbon
                                                                                          injection monitoring
                                                                                          data reduction
                                                                                          requirements given in
                                                                                          subpart LLL.
63.8(d)..............................  Quality Control........  Yes....................
63.8(e)..............................  Performance Evaluation   Yes....................
                                        for CMS.
63.8(f)(1)-(5).......................  Alternative Monitoring   Yes....................  Additional requirements
                                        Method.                                           in 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 Notification  Yes....................
                                        for Special Compliance
                                        Requirements.
63.9(e)..............................  Notification of          Yes....................
                                        Performance Test.
63.9(f)..............................  Notification of VE/      Yes....................  Notification not
                                        Opacity Test.                                     required 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 Deadlines  Yes....................
63.9(j)..............................  Change in Previous       Yes....................
                                        Information.
63.10(a).............................  Recordkeeping/Reporting  Yes....................
63.10(b).............................  General Requirements...  Yes....................
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,       Yes....................
                                        Malfunction Reports.
63.10(e)(1)-(2)......................  Additional CMS Reports.  Yes....................

[[Page 21192]]

 
63.10(e)(3)..........................  Excess Emissions and     Yes....................  Exceedances are defined
                                        CMS Performance                                   in 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 to Part 63--[Amended]

    17. 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 pathlength, 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. E9-10206 Filed 5-5-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P