[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 138 (Wednesday, July 18, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 42368-42412]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-16166]



[[Page 42367]]

Vol. 77

Wednesday,

No. 138

July 18, 2012

Part II





Environmental Protection Agency





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





40 CFR Parts 60 and 63





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

  Federal Register / Vol. 77 , No. 138 / Wednesday, July 18, 2012 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 42368]]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 60 and 63

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0817; FRL-9692-9]
RIN 2060-AQ93


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

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rules on reconsideration.

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

SUMMARY: The EPA is proposing amendments to the National Emission 
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for the Portland cement industry 
for Portland cement plants issued under sections 112(d) of the Clean 
Air Act. Specifically, the EPA is proposing to amend the existing and 
new source standards for particulate matter (PM). The EPA is also 
proposing amendments with respect to issues on which it granted 
reconsideration on May 17, 2011. In addition, the EPA is proposing 
amendments to the new source performance standard for PM issued 
pursuant to section 111(b) of the Clean Air Act. These proposed 
amendments would promote flexibility, reduce costs, and ease compliance 
burdens. EPA is also addressing the remand of the emission standards in 
the NESHAP by the D.C. Circuit on December 9, 2011. Finally, the EPA is 
proposing to extend the date for compliance with the existing source 
national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants to September 
9, 2015.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 17, 2012. Any 
requests for a public hearing must be received by July 30, 2012. If the 
EPA holds a public hearing, the EPA will keep the record of the hearing 
open for thirty days after completion of the hearing to provide an 
opportunity for submission of rebuttal and supplementary information. 
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, comments on the information 
collection provisions are best assured of having full effect if the 
Office of Management and Budget receives a copy of your comments on or 
before August 17, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-
OAR-2011-0817, by one of the following methods:
     Federal Rulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. 
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.
     Agency Web site: http://www.epa.gov/oar/docket.html. 
Follow the instructions for submitting comments on the EPA Air and 
Radiation Docket Web site.
     Email: [email protected]. Include EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-
0817 in the subject line of the message.
     Fax: Fax your comments to: (202) 566-9744, Attention 
Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0817.
     Mail: Send your comments to: The EPA Docket Center (EPA/
DC), Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode: 2822T, 1200 
Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460, Attention: Docket ID 
Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0817. Please include a total of two copies. In 
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 
the EPA, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: In person or by courier, deliver 
comments to the EPA Docket Center, EPA West (Air Docket), Room 3334, 
1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460, Attention Docket ID 
Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0817. Such deliveries are only accepted during 
the Docket's normal hours of operation (8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday 
through Friday, excluding legal holidays), and special arrangements 
should be made for deliveries of boxed information. Please include two 
copies.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OAR-
2011-0817. The EPA policy is that all comments received will be 
included in the public docket without change and may be made available 
online at http://www.regulations.gov, 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 email. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site 
is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means the EPA will not know 
your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body 
of your comment. If you send an email comment directly to the EPA 
without going through http://www.regulations.gov, your email address 
will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that 
is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If 
you submit an electronic comment, the EPA recommends that you include 
your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and 
with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If the EPA cannot read your comment 
due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, 
the EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files 
should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption and 
be free of any defects or viruses. For additional information about the 
EPA public docket, visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
    Docket. The EPA has established a docket for this rulemaking under 
Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0817. All documents in the docket are 
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, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., 
Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone 
number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone 
number for the EPA Docket Center is (202) 566-1742. Note that 
information pertinent to the previous Portland cement rulemakings 
discussed in this document is contained in dockets EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0051 
and EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0877.
    Public Hearing. If a public hearing is held, it will begin at 10:00 
a.m. on August 2, 2012 and will be held at the EPA campus in Research 
Triangle Park, North Carolina, or at an alternate facility nearby. 
Persons interested in presenting oral testimony or inquiring as to 
whether a public hearing is to be held should contact Ms. Pamela 
Garrett, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Sector Policies 
and Programs Division, Metals and Minerals Group (D243-01), U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 
27711; email: [email protected]; telephone number: (919) 541-7966. 
Persons interested in presenting oral testimony or inquiring as to 
whether a public hearing is to be held should contact Ms. Garrett at 
least 2 days in advance of the potential date of the public hearing.

[[Page 42369]]


FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Sharon Nizich, Office of Air 
Quality Planning and Standards; Sector Policies and Programs Division, 
Minerals and Manufacturing Group (D243-04); Environmental Protection 
Agency; Research Triangle Park, NC 27111; telephone number: (919) 541-
2825; fax number: (919) 541-5450; email address: [email protected].

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

I. General Information
    A. Executive Summary
    B. Does this action apply to me?
    C. What should I consider as I prepare my comments to the EPA?
    D. Where can I get a copy of this document?
II. Background Information
    A. What is the statutory authority for these proposed 
amendments?
    B. What actions preceded this proposed rule?
III. Description of Proposed Amendments to Subpart LLL and Subpart F
    A. Reconsideration of Standards
    B. Mercury Standard
    C. THC Standard
    D. Proposed Amendments to Existing Source and New Source 
Standards for PM Under Section 112(d) and 111(b)
    E. Summary of Proposed Standards Resulting From Reconsideration
    F. Standards for Fugitive Emissions From Clinker Storage Piles
    G. Affirmative Defense to Civil Penalties for Exceedances 
Occurring During Malfunctions
    H. Continuously Monitored Parameters for Alternative Organic HAP 
Standard (With THC Monitoring Parameter)
    I. Allowing Sources With Dry Caustic Scrubbers to Comply With 
HCl Standard Using Performance Tests
    J. Alternative PM Limit
    K. Standards During Startup and Shutdown
    L. Coal Mills
    M. PM Standard for Modified Sources Under the NSPS
    N. Proposed NESHAP Compliance Date Extension for Existing 
Sources
    O. Eligibility to be a New Source
IV. Other Proposed Testing and Monitoring Revisions
V. Other Changes and Areas Where We Are Requesting Comment
VI. Summary of Cost, Environmental, Energy and Economic Impacts of 
Proposed Amendments
    A. What are the affected sources?
    B. How are the impacts for this proposal evaluated?
    C. What are the air quality impacts?
    D. What are the water quality impacts?
    E. What are the solid waste impacts?
    F. What are the secondary impacts?
    G. What are the energy impacts?
    H. What are the cost impacts?
    I. What are the health effects of these pollutants?
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and 
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With 
Indian Tribal Governments
    G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From 
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
    J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address 
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income 
Populations

I. General Information

A. Executive Summary

    The EPA is proposing amendments to the emissions standards for 
hazardous air pollutants (HAP) and to the performance standards for 
Portland cement plants. These proposed amendments respond to petitions 
for reconsideration filed by the Portland cement industry and to a 
decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of 
Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit). These amendments, which are consistent 
with the CAA, if adopted, will also provide less costly compliance 
options and compliance flexibilities, and thereby result in cost 
savings for the Portland cement industry. This result would also be 
consistent with Executive Order 13563. The proposed amendments include 
a new compliance date for the PM, mercury, HCl, and THC existing source 
standards.
(1) Purpose of the Regulatory Action
    a. Need for the Regulatory Action. The EPA is proposing amendments 
to the national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants 
(NESHAP) for the Portland cement source category and to the new source 
performance standards (NSPS) for Portland cement plants issued under 
sections 112(d) and 111(b) of the Clean Air Act (CAA). Section 112 of 
the CAA establishes a regulatory process to address emissions of HAP 
from stationary sources. After the EPA identifies categories of sources 
emitting one or more of the HAP listed in section 112(b) of the CAA, 
section 112(d) requires the EPA to promulgate technology-based NESHAP 
for those sources. Section 111 of the CAA requires that NSPS reflect 
the application of the best system of emission reductions achievable 
which, taking into consideration the cost of achieving such emission 
reductions, and any non-air quality health and environmental impact and 
energy requirements, the Administrator determines has been adequately 
demonstrated.
    This proposal addresses the remand by the D.C. Circuit in Portland 
Cement Ass'n v. EPA, 665 F. 3d 177 (D.C. Cir. 2011). In that case, the 
court upheld all of the EPA's methodology for establishing the Portland 
cement NESHAP, denied all petitions for review challenging the NSPS, 
but also held that the EPA had arbitrarily denied reconsideration of 
the NESHAP to take into account the effect of the EPA's Nonhazardous 
Secondary Materials (NHSM) rule on the standards. The NHSM rule, issued 
after the NESHAP was promulgated, had the effect of reclassifying some 
cement kilns as commercial and industrial solid waste incinerators 
(CISWI) and thus could have an effect on the standards.
    The proposal also addresses technical issues with respect to the 
standard for PM in both the NESHAP and the NSPS that have emerged since 
these rules' promulgation. We are proposing to amend the standard for 
PM, and also proposing to amend various implementation requirements in 
a way that would provide more compliance flexibilities. In addition, 
the proposal addresses the issues on which the EPA previously granted 
reconsideration.
    b. Legal Authority for the Regulatory Action. These proposed 
amendments implement sections 112(d) and 111(b) of the CAA.
(2) Summary of Major Proposed Provisions
    a. PM (PM) Emission Standards. The EPA is proposing changes to the 
emission standards for PM that potentially make available compliance 
alternatives unavailable under the promulgated existing source 
standards. The promulgated rule requires compliance to be demonstrated 
using a Continuous Emission Monitoring System (CEMS) (see section 
63.1348 (75 FR 55056)). Based on the information the EPA now has, we 
believe that it may be problematic for a PM CEMS to meet the mandated 
Performance Specification 11 (PS 11) correlation requirements complying 
with the promulgated PM standards. (See section III.D.) As a 
consequence, the EPA is proposing to amend the existing and new source 
PM standards in the NESHAP to require manual stack testing in lieu of 
PM CEMS for compliance determinations. An additional consequence of 
this

[[Page 42370]]

proposed change of compliance measurement methods is that the EPA is 
proposing to change the averaging time and numeric emissions value of 
those standards. The EPA is proposing amended PM standards under the 
NESHAP for existing sources of 0.07 pounds per ton (lb/ton) clinker 
based on manual stack testing, (from 0.04 lb/ton in the 2010 rule, 30-
day average with a PM CEMS) and 0.02 lb/ton clinker for new sources 
based on stack testing (from 0.01 lb/ton in the 2010 rule, 30-day 
average with a PM CEMS). The EPA is proposing amended PM standards 
under the NSPS for modified sources of 0.07 lb/ton clinker based on 
manual stack testing, (from 0.01 lb/ton in the 2010 rule, 30-day 
average with a PM CEMS) and 0.02 lb/ton clinker for new and 
reconstructed sources based on stack testing (from 0.01 lb/ton in the 
2010 rule, 30-day average with a PM CEMS). The EPA is further proposing 
that a site-specific parametric operating limit be established, that 
there be continuous monitoring of that parametric limit using a PM 
CPMS, that an exceedance of that site-specific operating limit be 
reported as a deviation, triggering corrective action including 
conducting a Method 5 performance test within 45 days. Further, 
multiple deviations from the parametric limit can constitute a 
violation of the emissions standard.
    b. Response to Remand. Consistent with the court's remand, the EPA 
has removed all the CISWI kilns from the database used to set the 2010 
existing source standards for PM, mercury, hydrochloric acid and total 
hydrocarbons (THC). The EPA then recalculated existing source floors 
for each of these pollutants, and determined what standards to propose 
in light of that analysis. This analysis informed the level of the 
proposed standards for PM just discussed. The resulting standards are 
discussed immediately below.
    c. Other Emissions Standards. The EPA is not proposing any changes 
to the existing source standards for mercury, total THC or hydrogen 
chloride (HCl). The reasons are set out in sections III A, B and C 
below.
    With respect to new source standards, under section 112(d)(3) of 
the CAA, new source floors can be based on the performance of the 
``best controlled similar source.'' A CISWI cement kiln is a similar 
source for purposes of this provision. The EPA, therefore, is not 
proposing to amend any of the new source floors or standards for 
mercury, THC or HCl where the best performing source in the database 
used to set the standards was a CISWI cement kiln.
    The EPA is also proposing to amend the alternative standard for 
organic HAP, whereby organic HAP are measured directly. To avoid a 
situation where the alternative organic standard level is lower than 
the practical quantitation limit of the relevant analytic methods, the 
EPA is proposing to increase the alternative organic HAP standard from 
9 parts per million (ppm) to 12 ppm. See additional discussion in 
section III.H below.
    d. Standards during Startup and Shutdown. In the final 2010 NESHAP, 
the EPA established specific numerical standards for startup and 
shutdown for each pollutant to be measured using a CEMS over an 
accumulative 7-day rolling average. Because raw materials (the source 
of most cement kiln air emissions) are not introduced into cement kilns 
during startup and shutdown, cement kilns' emissions during these 
periods should be appreciably lower than the level of the standards. 
The EPA is, therefore, proposing that sources monitor compliance with 
these standards via recordkeeping.
    e. Proposed Compliance Dates. The EPA is proposing that the 
compliance date for all existing source standards including standards 
for PM, mercury, HCl and THC, clinker piles and the standards for 
startup and shutdown be extended to September 9, 2015. The EPA believes 
that the proposed change to the PM standard makes possible compliance 
alternatives unavailable under the promulgated existing source 
standards) and that an extension until September 9, 2015, is the period 
in which these new compliance strategies can be implemented most 
expeditiously.
    f. The EPA is also taking action on the remaining issues on which 
it granted reconsideration on May 17, 2011.
(3) Costs and Benefits
    The following table 1 summarizes the costs and emissions reductions 
of this proposed action.

  Table 1--Costs and Emissions Reductions of Proposed Amendments Relative to the 2010 Rule \a\ \b\ \c\ \d\ \e\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Proposed amendment                 Capital cost     Annualized cost       Emissions  reduction
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Revised PM standard.........................      -$18,640,106       -$4,200,000  -135 tons/yr (emissions
                                                                                   increase).
Replace PM CEMS with PM CPMS................                 0        -7,980,000  0
                                             -------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total...................................       -18,640,106       -12,180,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ See section III below for further discussion of impacts of the proposed amendments.
\b\ Negative numbers indicate cost savings or emissions increase. All costs are in 2005 dollars.
\c\ We also estimate that there will be a one-time cost of $25,000 for each facility to develop the calculation
  that will allow them to demonstrate compliance during periods of startup and shutdown.
\d\ Emissions reductions are the total relative to the 2010 rule once full compliance is achieved in 2015.
\e\ Full compliance costs will not occur until September 9, 2015.

    The cost information in Table 1 is in 2005 dollars at a discount 
rate of 7 percent. The net change in annualized costs in 2015 is a 
$12.2 million savings compared to the 2010 rule. The EPA did not have 
sufficient information to quantify the overall change in benefits or 
costs for 2013 to 2015 that might arise due to the proposed change in 
compliance dates.
4. Summary of Proposed Standards
    The following Table 2 shows the proposed standards.

           Table 2--Proposed Existing and New Source Standards
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 Existing source
          Pollutant                 standard         New source standard
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mercury.....................  55 lb/MM tons         21 lb/MM tons
                               clinker.              clinker.
THC.........................  24 ppmvd............  24 ppmvd.

[[Page 42371]]

 
PM..........................  0.07 lb/ton clinker   0.02 lb/ton clinker
                               (3-run test           (3-run test
                               average).             average).
HCl.........................  3 ppmvd.............  3 ppmvd.
Organic HAP (alternative to   12 ppmvd............  12 ppmvd.
 Total Hydrocarbon).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Does this action apply to me?

    Categories and entities potentially regulated by this final rule 
include:

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

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

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

Submitting CBI
    Do not submit information containing CBI to the EPA through http://www.regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the 
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information on a disk or 
CD-ROM that you mail to the EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM 
as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the 
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one 
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as 
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information 
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. If 
you submit a CD-ROM or disk that does not contain CBI, mark the outside 
of the disk or CD-ROM clearly that it does not contain CBI. Information 
not marked as CBI will be included in the public docket and the EPA's 
electronic public docket without prior notice. Information marked as 
CBI will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set 
forth in 40 CFR part 2. Send or deliver information identified as CBI 
only to the following address: Roberto Morales, OAQPS Document Control 
Officer (C404-02), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 
27711, Attention Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0817.

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

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

II. Background Information

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

    Section 112 of the CAA establishes a regulatory process to address 
emissions of HAP from stationary sources. After the EPA has identified 
categories of sources emitting one or more of the HAP listed in section 
112(b) of the CAA, section 112(d) requires us to promulgate NESHAP for 
those sources. For ``major sources'' that emit or have the potential to 
emit 10 tons per year (tpy) or more of a single HAP or 25 tpy or more 
of a combination of HAP, these technology-based standards must reflect 
the maximum reductions of HAP achievable (after considering cost, 
energy requirements and non-air quality health and environmental 
impacts) and are commonly referred to as maximum achievable control 
technology (MACT) standards.
    The statute specifies certain minimum stringency requirements for 
MACT standards, which are referred to as ``floor'' requirements. See 
CAA section 112(d)(3). Specifically, for new sources, the MACT floor 
cannot be less stringent than the emission control that is achieved in 
practice by the best controlled similar source. The MACT standards for 
existing sources can be less stringent than standards for new sources, 
but they cannot be less stringent than the average emission limitation 
achieved by the best-performing 12 percent of existing sources (for 
which the Administrator has emissions information) in the category or 
subcategory (or the best-performing five sources for categories or 
subcategories with fewer than 30 sources.
    In developing MACT, we must also consider control options that are 
more stringent than the floor. We may establish standards more 
stringent than the floor based on the consideration of the cost of 
achieving the emissions reductions, any non-air quality health and 
environmental impacts, and energy requirements. See CAA section 
112(d)(2).\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Section 112(d)(7) states that ``[n]o other emission standard 
* * * under this section shall be interpreted, construed or applied 
to diminish or replace the requirements of a more stringent emission 
limitation or other applicable requirement established pursuant to 
section 7411 of this title, part C or D of this subchapter, or other 
authority of this chapter or a standard issued under State 
authority.'' This provision indicates that a section 112(d) standard 
does not ``trump'' any standard established under other authority 
which is more stringent. Section 112(d)(7) does not bar the EPA from 
amending section 112(d) standards to correct technical deficiencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 111(b) requires the EPA to set standards for emissions that 
``reflect the

[[Page 42372]]

degree of emission limitation achievable through the application of the 
best system of emission reduction.'' See CAA section 111(a)(1). In 
contrast to the NESHAP floor setting process, NSPS requires the EPA to 
take into account the ``cost of achieving'' emissions reductions, as 
well as health, environmental, and energy considerations. Id.

B. What actions preceded this proposed rule?

    The history of this proposed rule, commencing with the 1999 
standards and proceeding through the amendments issued in September 
2009, is set out in detail in 75 FR 54970 (Sept 9, 2010). Various 
parties filed petitions for reconsideration of aspects of those 
amendments. On May 17, 2011, the EPA granted reconsideration of various 
issues, and denied the petitions to reconsider as to the remaining 
issues. See 76 FR 28318 (May 17, 2011). On December 9, 2011, the D.C. 
Circuit issued an opinion upholding the NESHAP itself (as well as the 
section 111 NSPS), but found that the EPA had arbitrarily failed to 
grant reconsideration to consider the effect of the EPA's NHSM rule on 
the standards (76 FR 15456 (March 21, 2011)), which rule had the effect 
of reclassifying some cement kilns as commercial and solid waste 
incinerators. See Portland Cement Ass'n v. EPA, 665 F. 3d 177, 186-189 
(D.C. Cir. 2011). That court did not stay the standards for PM, 
mercury, HCl or THC, but did stay the standard for clinker piles 
pending the conclusion of the reconsideration process. See 665 F. 3d at 
194.
    In this action, the EPA is responding to the court's remand. For 
existing sources, the EPA is doing so by removing all kilns classified 
as commercial and industrial solid waste incinerators from the data 
used to establish the 2010 NESHAP standards. The EPA is then 
recalculating each of the floors based on this revised dataset and 
making beyond-the-floor determinations based on the recalculated 
floors. The EPA believes that this approach is fully responsive to the 
court's remand. See 665 F. 3d at 188 where the court referred favorably 
to this type of recalculation. For new sources, the EPA is basing 
floors on the performance of the best performing similar source.

III. Description of Proposed Amendments to Subpart LLL and Subpart F

A. Reconsideration of Standards

    As just noted, in Portland Cement Association v. EPA, the D.C. 
Circuit upheld all of the EPA's methodology for establishing the 
Portland cement NESHAP, but remanded the standards so that the EPA 
could account for the effects of the EPA's NHSM rule. This rule, 
adopted after promulgation of the Portland cement NESHAP, had the 
effect of reclassifying certain cement kilns as commercial and 
industrial incinerators because they combust ``solid waste'' as defined 
by that rule. See 665 F. 3d at 185-189.
    Applying that definition, the EPA has determined that there are 24 
cement kilns which combust solid waste. See 76 FR 28322 and Memorandum 
``Combustion in a Cement Kiln and Cement Kilns' Use of Tires as Fuel'' 
(April 25, 2011) (``April 25 memorandum''); see also 76 FR 80452 (Dec. 
23, 2011) where the EPA identified 23 of the 24 kilns as commercial 
incinerators as were identified in the April 25 memorandum. The 24th 
kiln was identified as a CISWI kiln after development of the April 25, 
2011, memorandum, but the addition of this kiln did not affect the 
calculations contained in the May 17, 2011 notice (CISWI Data Revisions 
since Reconsideration Proposal, docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0119). Although 
the EPA has proposed to reconsider certain narrow aspects of the NHSM 
rule, see 76 FR 80598 (Dec. 23, 2011), this count remains unchanged by 
any of the issues being considered in the reconsideration of the NHSM 
rule. This is because either the types of secondary materials being 
addressed in that reconsideration are not combusted by cement kilns or 
the EPA has already accounted for those materials in its April 25 
memorandum analysis. See 76 FR 28319 (May 17, 2011). Specifically, in 
the NHSM reconsideration proposal, the EPA proposed to clarify that 
clean cellulosic biomass and clean construction and demolition wood are 
not solid wastes when burned for energy recovery and that unused, off-
specification tires are not wastes when burned for energy recovery. The 
EPA's analysis underlying its April 25, 2011, memorandum already 
reflects that these non-hazardous secondary materials are not wastes 
when burned by cement kilns for energy recovery. The EPA expects the 
reconsideration of the NHSM rule to be completed before taking final 
action on this proposed rule and the EPA will account for any changes 
resulting from the reconsidered final NHSM rule when it takes final 
action here.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The EPA has also conducted a bounding analysis of potential 
floors by removing from the data base all cement kilns that burn any 
type of secondary material for energy recovery (so that there is no 
possibility that any CISWI kiln is in the bounding analysis 
database). Under this analysis, the existing source section 112 
floor for HCl was unchanged, the existing source floor for PM was 
essentially unchanged, the existing source floor for THC becomes 
more stringent (as in the April 25, 2011, analysis), and the 
existing source mercury floor increases from 55 lb/MM ton clinker to 
66 lb/MM ton clinker. However, even in this case, a beyond-the-floor 
mercury limit of 55 lb/MM tons clinker would be cost effective and 
the EPA would propose the same standards as under this proposal if 
this bounding analysis were used in place of the analysis described 
in the text. The EPA, thus, does not believe that the precise count 
of CISWI kilns will affect the outcome of this rulemaking. See 
Bounding Analysis for Portland Cement MACT Floors, May 14, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    1. Existing Source Floors. We removed the 24 CISWI kilns from the 
database used to establish existing source standards and recalculated 
floors for existing sources. Under this analysis, the existing source 
floor for mercury increased from 55 lb/million (MM) tons clinker to 58 
lb/MM tons clinker, the existing source floor for PM increased from 
0.04 lb/ton clinker to 0.05 lb/ton clinker, the existing source floor 
for THC decreased to 15 parts per million by volume, dry (ppmvd), and 
the existing source floor for HCl stayed the same at 3 ppmvd.
    As explained in section B below, the EPA is proposing to establish 
a beyond the floor standard for mercury of 55 lb/MM tons clinker. 
Moreover, for reasons independent of this analysis, the EPA is 
proposing to amend the existing and new source NESHAP for PM. See 
section D below. The EPA is not proposing to amend the HCl standard or 
the THC standard.
    2. New Source Standards. With respect to new source standards, the 
EPA does not believe that any reclassification and reanalysis is 
necessary under the court's opinion. New source floors can be based on 
the performance of ``the best controlled similar source'', as opposed 
to existing source floors which must reflect performance of sources 
``in the category or subcategory''. See CAA section 112(d)(3) and 
(d)(3)(A). A CISWI cement kiln is similar to a non-CISWI cement kiln 
since the device is a cement kiln. Equally important, burning secondary 
materials for energy recovery does not significantly alter a cement 
kiln's HAP emission profile. See 76 FR 28320 (May 17, 2011) 
(documenting both the basis for this conclusion and the cement 
industry's agreement with it).\3\ \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The EPA is thus not reopening the new source standards (with 
the exception of the PM standard, which the EPA is proposing to 
amend). We will take comment on whether CISWI cement kilns can be 
considered a ``similar source'' under section 112(d)(3) and whether 
retention of the 2010 new source standards on this basis is 
consistent with the D.C. Circuit's opinion. The EPA will not 
consider comments challenging the data and methodology for the new 
source standards since these are unchanged from the 2010 rule and 
the EPA is not reexamining any of these issues.
    \4\ If the EPA were to reconsider the new source standards by 
removing the 24 CISWI kilns from the database, then the mercury new 
source floor increased from 21 to 24 lb/MM tons clinker, the THC new 
source floor decreased from 24 to 11 parts per million by volume dry 
(ppmvd), and the PM and HCl new source floor stayed the same at 0.01 
lb/ton clinker and 3 ppmvd, respectively (see Memorandum, Revised 
Portland Cement NESHAP with CISWI kilns removed, March 21, 2011). 
However, as explained in the text, because CISWI cement kilns are 
``similar sources'' for purposes of establishing NESHAP new source 
standards, the EPA is not relying on this analysis here.

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

[[Page 42373]]

B. Mercury Standard

    1. New Source Standard. As explained above, the new source standard 
is based on the performance of the best performing similar source.
    2. Existing Source Standard. As noted above, the recalculated 
existing source floor is 58 lb/MM tons clinker produced. The EPA is 
proposing a beyond-the-floor standard of 55 lb/MM ton clinker produced, 
the level of the 2010 final standard. As described below, the only 
difference in cost between the two levels is the incremental cost of 
removing slightly more mercury, which is estimated at $2,000/lb of 
mercury removed. This is because the control equipment needed for 
mercury would not alter, would not need to be sized differently, and 
would need to perform on average nearly identically at either a 55 lb/
MM tons clinker or a 58 lb/MM tons clinker level. That is, in planning 
compliance, kilns would calibrate to achieve an average performance of 
34.1 lb/MM tons clinker for a standard of 58 lb/MM tons clinker, and 
31.7 for a standard of 55 lb/MM tons clinker, which translates to an 
additional reduction of 2.4 lb/MM tons of clinker per year. This 
equates to an estimated 180 pounds of nationwide mercury emissions per 
year, incremental to the recalculated floor. To achieve this additional 
reduction, we estimated an additional cost of approximately $355,000 
for the industry, the cost of purchasing additional carbon injection 
materials. This equates to a cost-effectiveness of $2,000/lb of mercury 
reduction per year. This is the incremental cost of going from the 
recalculated floor of 58 lb/MM tons clinker to the proposed 55 lb/MM 
tons clinker. Because this is the same level as the 2010 rule, there 
are no incremental costs or emissions impacts when compared to the 2010 
rule. See section 8.2, Portland Cement Reconsideration Technical 
Support Document. Moreover, this reduction is highly cost-effective. A 
cost effectiveness value of $2,000/lb. mercury is considerably less 
than values the EPA have found to be cost effective for removal of 
mercury in other air toxics rules. For example, in the National 
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Mercury Emissions from 
Mercury Cell Chlor-Alkali Plants, the cost effectiveness was found to 
be between $13,000 to $31,000 per pound for the individual facilities 
(see Supplemental proposed rule, 76 FR 13858 (March 14, 2011)). The EPA 
also does not see any adverse energy or non-air quality health or 
environmental consequences of a 55 lb/MM tons clinker beyond-the-floor 
standard.
    We are not proposing a beyond the floor level below 55 lb/MM tons 
clinker for the same reasons given in the 2010 final rule--in 
particular the possibility that a lower standard could force some kilns 
to find alternative sources of limestone, at enormous cost and 
disruption. See 75 FR 54980 (September 9, 2010).

C. THC Standard

    The THC data for the 2010 standard consist of CEMS data for 15 
kilns. After removing the four CISWI kilns, nine kilns remain. Thus, 
the MACT floor kilns consisted of 12 percent of these nine kilns, or 
two kilns. The top two kilns were Suwannee and Holcim. As explained 
above, when CISWI sources are removed from the database for the 2010 
standards, the existing source floor for THC becomes more stringent 
from 24 ppmvd to 15 ppmvd, and the new source standard would drop from 
24 ppmvd to 11 ppmvd. This change results from removing from the 
database a CISWI cement kiln (the Lehigh Union Bridge kiln) with the 
lowest daily average performance but with more associated variability 
than the other kilns with the next highest daily average performance. 
See also 76 FR 28322 (May 17, 2011) n. 11 and 665 F. 3d at 188. 
However, notwithstanding this calculation, the EPA is not proposing to 
reduce the level of either the new source or the existing source THC 
standard.
    1. New Source Standard. As just explained, the new source standard 
can be based on performance of a ``best controlled similar source'', so 
there is no reason under the statute or the court's remand to amend the 
new source THC standard. The standard is also technically appropriate. 
See 75 FR 54981 (September 9, 2010) (explaining basis for the THC new 
source standard, which discussion is summarized below for the readers' 
convenience). Removing the CISWI Union Bridge kiln as the best 
performing new source would leave the Suwannee kiln as the lowest 
emitter based on its daily average THC emissions. See Portland Cement 
Reconsideration Technical Support Document (TSD), section 8.4, which is 
available in this rulemaking docket. This kiln has higher average 
emissions than the Union Bridge kiln (that is, its daily average 
emissions are higher than the Union Bridge kiln). This kiln thus emits 
more THC than the Union Bridge kiln, so the EPA identified the kiln 
emitting less THC on average--the Union Bridge kiln--to be the best 
performer. The Suwannee kiln has less measured variability than the 
Union Bridge kiln, but also has hundreds of fewer observations. For 
this reason, the EPA considered the Union Bridge kiln to be more 
representative of variability, and used its 99th percentile performance 
as the measure of performance of the best performing similar source in 
establishing the new source standard. See 75 FR 54981 (September 9, 
2010).\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ For purposes of comparing the relative variability of the 
THC CEMS data for each of the kilns in our THC data set, we used the 
ratio of the 99th percentile for each kiln divided by its daily 
average. A ratio of 1.0 indicates no variability. As the ratio 
increases, variability increases. See Portland Cement 
Reconsideration TSD, section 8.4, which is available in this 
rulemaking docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. Under the calculation described above, the existing source floor 
would be reduced from 24 ppmvd to 15 ppmvd. Subject to any comments the 
EPA receives on this proposed action, the EPA believes that such a 
floor level would not be technically appropriate. It omits the 
variability of the similar source with the best average performance for 
THC (the Union Bridge kiln), and so may not be fully representative of 
variability of best performing sources. As noted above, cement kiln HAP 
emissions are not appreciably affected by burning secondary materials 
for energy recovery so the Union Bridge's variability is representative 
of cement kiln variability. In addition, as noted above, the number of 
daily observations for the Union Bridge kiln is among the most robust 
in the database, containing over 3 times the number of observations as 
the next best performing cement kiln. Thus, there is a ``demonstrated 
relationship'' between the variability of the Union Bridge kiln and the 
variability of the best performing sources in the existing source floor 
pool. Sierra Club v. EPA, 479 F. 3d 875, 882 (D.C. Cir. 2007). The EPA 
consequently believes it is technically justified to consider the

[[Page 42374]]

Union Bridge kiln's variability in estimating the variability of the 
best performing cement kilns for THC emissions.
    If the variability of the Union Bridge kiln is included along with 
the variability of the two best performing cement kilns, and applied to 
the two best performing cement kilns' performance, the floor would be 
24 ppm, which the EPA is proposing as a floor. See Portland Cement 
Reconsideration TSD, section 8.4. This is the level of the 2010 
standard.
    3. Beyond the floor standards. The EPA is not proposing a beyond 
the floor THC standard for existing cement kiln sources. The reasons 
given in the rulemaking remain valid. See 75 54983 (September 9, 2010); 
74 FR 21153 (May 6, 2009). We especially note that a more stringent 
standard for THC would force the increased use of energy-intense 
control technologies like regenerative thermal oxidizers (RTO) which 
have negative environmental implications, notably increased emission of 
carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases, as well as 
increased emissions of nitrogen oxide (NOX), carbon 
monoxide, sulfur dioxide (SO2) and PM10. See 74 
FR 21153 (May 6, 2009).\6\ These devices are also extremely costly and 
not cost-effective. See 74 FR 21153 (May 6, 2009). For a description of 
the costs, energy requirements and environmental impacts of RTO, see 
Summary of Environmental and Cost Impacts for Final Portland Cement 
NESHAP and NSPS, August 6, 2010, docket no. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0051-3438. 
For all these reasons, the EPA does not consider a beyond-the-floor 
standard for THC to be justified under section 112(d)(2). Consequently, 
the EPA is not proposing a beyond-the-floor standard for THC for 
existing sources.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The EPA estimates that each thermal oxidizer emits an added 
increment of 0.02 tons of CO2 for each ton of clinker 
produced. A typical kiln producing 1.2 million tons of clinker per 
year and controlled by an RTO would emit an additional 24,000 tons 
of CO2 per year. See RTO Secondary Impacts, May 16, 2012, 
in this rulemaking docket.
    \7\ The EPA is also proposing to amend the alternative standard 
for organic HAP under which organic HAP is measured directly. See 
section I below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Proposed Amendments to Existing Source and New Source Standards for 
PM Under Section 112(d) and 111(b)

    Based largely on developments which have occurred after the EPA 
granted reconsideration on certain aspects of the NESHAP \8\, the EPA 
is proposing revisions to the testing and monitoring methods used to 
demonstrate continuous compliance with the existing and new source PM 
emissions standards and is proposing changes to the averaging time, 
level, and compliance demonstration for those standards. The EPA has 
also removed all CISWI kilns from the data base used to establish the 
standards for PM and used this revised data base in determining the 
level of the standard, consistent with the court's remand. We explain 
these proposed changes below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ On November 15, 2011, Holcim (US) Inc., a domestic cement 
company, submitted a petition for reconsideration to the EPA 
requesting that the EPA reconsider and stay the NESHAP PM standard. 
The basis for the petition was CEMS data for PM from four of 
Holcim's kilns (some of which are either waste-burning or hazardous 
waste burning). Petition pp. 5-6. This information was collected 
commencing in January 2011. Since the information in the petition 
was gathered outside the time period mandated by section 
307(d)(7)(B) of the Act--even assuming it was impractical to raise 
the objection during the public comment period, the grounds arose 
outside the time period for judicial review which ended in November 
2010. Thus, the EPA believes that it is not compelled to grant this 
petition. Moreover, as discussed in the text below, because the EPA 
is proposing to no longer use a CEMS-based regime for the PM 
standard, the Holcim information is no longer of direct relevance in 
setting the level of the PM standard. A further issue with the data 
is that they were not obtained using CEMS calibrated according to 
PS-11, the protocol specified in the rule. Accordingly, the EPA is 
not basing its proposal of a revised PM standard on these data. The 
EPA is not, however, taking final action on the Holcim petition at 
this time, but intends to do so in conjunction with the issuance of 
the final reconsideration rule.
     On January 17 2012, LaFarge Cement submitted a petition for 
reconsideration containing no new data or information but arguing 
that the Holcim petition justified reconsideration of the standards. 
The EPA believes that this petition is subsumed by the Holcim 
petition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In comments to the 2009 proposal, industry commenters maintained 
that there were several problems with implementing the monitoring 
requirements to demonstrate compliance using a PM CEMS and with the 
requirements to conduct a periodic audit of the PM CEMS in accordance 
with Performance Specification (PS) 11 of appendix B and Procedure 2 of 
appendix F to part 60. The EPA responded to these comments in the 2010 
final rule. See 75 FR 55007 (September 9, 2010); NESHAP Response to 
Comment Document pp. 163-166. Since that time, the Portland cement 
industry has identified further technical issues associated with the 
current PM CEMS technology in satisfying PS 11 correlation requirements 
that have emerged as the industry has attempted to develop a CEMS-based 
compliance strategy for PM pursuant to the 2010 NESHAP.
    1. PS 11. The EPA has continued to review the application of PM 
CEMS in relation to the procedures and acceptance criteria of PS 11, 
the protocol mandated by the promulgated rule. See section 
63.1350(b)(1). PS 11 is structured differently than other PS that apply 
to validating the performance of gaseous pollutant CEMS. This is 
primarily because the pollutant, PM, is defined entirely by the test 
method specified by regulation to measure it. As the industry 
commenters note, there are no independent standard reference materials 
for PM concentrations as there are for gaseous pollutants (e.g., NIST 
traceable compressed gases for validating SO2 or 
NOX instrumental measurements). The only reference standard 
for determining the PM concentration in an air or stack gas sample is 
the reference test method. In the case of the Portland cement NESHAP 
(and NSPS), the rule specifies the EPA Method 5 for measuring 
filterable PM concentration or mass rate (e.g., in mg/dscm or lb/hr).
    PS 11 provides procedures and acceptance criteria for validating 
the performance of several types of PM CEMS technologies. Although 
there are multiple instrument and data reporting operational 
performance checks in PS 11 that are similar in concept to those for 
gaseous pollutant CEMS, there is the principal PM CEMS performance 
requirement that is distinctly different. That requirement is the 
development of a site-specific PM CEMS correlation or mathematical 
response curve. There is a key procedural element to developing that 
correlation. That is, PS 11 requires that the source conduct multiple 
stack test runs using an EPA PM test method (e.g., Method 5) and 
simultaneously collect corresponding PM CEMS output data. PS 11, 
section 8.6, requires at least five test runs at each of three 
different operating (i.e., low, mid, and high PM concentration) 
conditions that range from 25 to 100 percent of allowable emissions, if 
possible, for a total of 15 or more test runs. Then the source must use 
the test method data and the corresponding PM CEMS output data to 
develop an equation (i.e., a calculated linear or nonlinear curve) that 
will be used to define the relationship between the PM CEMS output and 
the test method measured PM concentrations. Each site-specific 
correlation must meet several PS 11 acceptance criteria including 
limits on confidence interval and tolerance interval equating to 25 percent of the applicable emissions limit.
    2. Discussion of Technical Issues. A particular challenge in 
applying PM CEMS to source emissions monitoring is in measuring the 
very low PM concentrations associated with a low applicable emissions 
limits for PM precisely enough to meet the PS 11 correlation 
requirements. In addition to

[[Page 42375]]

measurement uncertainty inherent in PM CEMS data, the measurement 
uncertainty associated with the reference test method (e.g., Method 5) 
is a significant contributor to successful development of a PM CEMS 
correlation regardless of the type of PM CEMS used.
    As noted above, PS 11 specifies acceptable criteria for a 
correlation directly related to the applicable emissions limit. The 
Portland cement NESHAP PM emissions limit for existing sources of 0.04 
lb/ton of clinker equates to 5 to 8 mg/dscm, depending on production 
rate (assuming a typical total gas flow rate per clinker production 
rate). For a PM CEMS set up to measure compliance with a 5 to 8 mg/dscm 
equivalent limit, the inherent uncertainty associated with a 1 hour 
Method 5 measurement (0.6 to 1.2 mg/dscm) would constitute 
more than half of the 25 percent of the applicable PS 11 
acceptance threshold (i.e., 1.2 to 2.0 mg/dscm) of the mid-
level PS 11 correlation test (i.e. the correlation for the middle of 
the three PS 11 correlation points).
    Although one can improve the method detection capabilities of the 
Method 5 or other filterable PM test method by increasing sampling 
volume and run time, uncertainties in measurement would remain. For 
example to achieve a practical quantitation limit of 1 mg/dscm, one 
would need to conduct a test run of 6 hours or longer. The measurement 
uncertainty associated with a 6-hour Method 5 test runs at this 
concentration would be 0.01 to 0.2 mg/dscm. At this level, 
the uncertainty associated with the PM test method measurements alone 
would be about half of the correlation limit allowed in PS 11. The PS 
11 correlation calculations would also have to account for any PM CEMS 
measurement uncertainty.
    Factoring in the inherent PM CEMS response variability and the 
uncertainty associated with the representative sampling (e.g., PM and 
flow stratification), we agree with commenters that trying to satisfy 
PS 11 at such low concentrations using 1 hour Method 5 test runs could 
be problematic. The same issue arises for the new source standard 
because of the lower limit of the new source standard.
    The industry also argued that the variable raw feed material and 
chemical additives used in cement production will lead to changes in 
particle size, refractive index, particle density, and other physical 
characteristics of the particulate in the exhaust stream. This is 
important, according to the comments, because correlations developed 
for the light scatter and scintillation PM CEMS technology may be 
adversely affected by these physical changes in particles irrespective 
of changes in mass emissions rates or concentrations.
    In developing the 2010 final rule, the EPA assumed that cement 
kilns would be using light-scatter or scintillation PM CEMS.\9\ The 
output or response of these light based detectors is a function of the 
index of refraction or photoelectric effects and the size distribution 
of the particles in the exhaust stream. In addition to being more 
sensitive than opacity monitors, light based detectors provide several 
degrees of design freedom not applicable to opacity monitors. PM CEMS 
manufacturers account for characteristics such as light wavelength, 
scattering angle, and solid angle of detection in designing instruments 
with desired response features. These types of PM CEMS can be reliably 
calibrated per PS 11 where the relative characteristics (e.g., 
distribution of size, shape, and constituents) of the PM in the exhaust 
remain relatively constant. Such may be the case, for example, where 
the PM being measured is predominantly combustion ash from burning 
fossil fuels in a boiler or an electricity generating unit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ US EPA, CEMS Cost Model, July 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The dominant sources of PM from a cement kiln are not from fuel 
combustion but from processing raw materials. Cement kilns process 
mostly limestone with naturally occurring variability in component 
percentages. See 74 FR 21142 (May 6, 2009); 75 FR 54977 (September 9, 
2010). Cement kiln operators also add other chemical additives in 
variable concentrations to produce certain product characteristics. See 
74 FR 21142. As noted in the EPA's technology background documents 
(e.g., http://www.epa.gov/ttn/emc/cem/pmcemsknowfinalrep.pdf and http://www.epa.gov/ttn/emc/cem/r4703-02-07.pdf), the correlations developed 
for light-scatter or scintillation PM CEMS devices may be adversely 
affected when there are changes in the particle structure, size, and 
other physical characteristics of the emissions. These changes in 
emissions characteristics can occur with the variability inherent in 
the composition of fuels and raw feed materials, with use of mixed 
multiple fuels, or with addition of chemical additives in various 
proportions.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Memorandum, from C. Oldham to B. Schell, Particulate Matter 
Continuous Emission Monitoring System (PM CEMS) Capabilities, June 
13, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This is an issue of special import for cement kilns. One can expect 
significant variations in particle size distribution and other particle 
characteristics in Portland cement kiln exhaust because of the 
complicating effects of variable content feed materials and chemical 
additives. That means that correlations developed for one set of 
conditions may not apply with changes in feed materials or under other 
operating conditions (e.g., different chemical additives).
    The EPA has investigated whether PM CEMS that work on principles 
other than light scattering could effectively measure cement kiln PM 
and be calibrated per PS 11 requirements. There is at least one other 
PM CEMS technology, beta attenuation PM CEMS, also referred to as beta 
gauge technology that is much less sensitive to changes in particle 
characteristics than are light based detectors. The beta attenuation PM 
CEMS extracts a sample for the stack gas and collects the PM on a 
filter tape. The device periodically advances the tape from the 
sampling mode to an area where the sample is exposed to Beta radiation. 
The detector measures the amount of beta radiation emitted by the 
sample and that amount can be directly related to the mass of PM on the 
filter.
    The majority of PM CEMS devices used to date by cement kilns are 
based on light scatter or scintillation detection. We understand that a 
few Portland cement operators have applied beta attenuation devices. 
Since the EPA premised the rule on use of a different type of PM CEMS, 
since there is minimal operating experience with beta gauge PM CEMS in 
this industry, and because we are not aware that the experience 
includes a beta gauge PM CEMS calibrated per PS 11, the EPA believes 
that some type of research effort involving testing would be needed 
before predicating a PM standard on use of a beta gauge PM CEMS. Such 
an effort is likely to take several years to implement.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ We also note that PS 11 provides for means to minimize the 
effects of changing particle sizes, for example by developing 
multiple correlation curves, each of which requires 15 Method 5 test 
runs. The EPA did not consider such an approach in promulgating the 
rule and again, further technical work is needed to ascertain if 
such an approach would yield reliable results.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    These issues exacerbate the uncertainties of calibrating PM CEMS at 
the level of the 2010 p.m. standards noted above. Using data from 
longer Method 5 test runs will improve the probability of a PM CEMS 
meeting PS 11 correlation requirements but will also raise practicality 
concerns potentially without completely resolving the problems. Given 
the combination of the low emissions concentrations PM CEMS measurement

[[Page 42376]]

uncertainty factors discussed above, the variability in composition of 
cement PM, and need for extraordinarily long test runs to reduce Method 
5 uncertainty to a level that compensates sufficiently for the PM CEMS 
measurement uncertainty, the EPA believes that this correlation will 
not be technically or practically achievable for a significant number 
of cement kiln sources.
    3. A monitoring approach alternative to PM CEMS and PS 11. To 
address technical issues associated with PM CEMS meeting PS 11 
correlation requirements at low PM emissions concentrations from cement 
kilns and the potentially variable PM emissions characteristics 
expected from Portland cement kilns, the EPA is proposing to change the 
compliance basis for the PM emissions limit from PM CEMS and the 30-day 
average emissions calculation. For monitoring continuous compliance, 
the rule would require PM CEMS equipment but, as explained below, that 
equipment would be used for continuous parametric monitoring rather 
than for direct measure of compliance with the numerical PM emissions 
limit.
    The EPA is proposing to change the means of demonstrating 
compliance from PM CEMS to Method 5 stack testing. In applying Method 
5, PM is withdrawn isokinetically from the source and collected on a 
glass fiber filter maintained at a temperature of 120  14 
[deg]C (248  25[deg]F). The PM mass, which includes any 
material that condenses at or above the filtration temperature, is 
determined gravimetrically after the removal of uncombined water. 
Compliance with the numerical emissions limit is then based on an 
average of three 2-hour test runs rather than a 30-day average 
determined from PM CEMS data. The numerical level of the standard would 
change to reflect the different averaging period. See 75 FR 54988 
(September 9, 2010) (explaining that more measurements of a properly 
designed and operated control device decreases measured variability 
since there are likely to be more measurements at the mean of 
performance); see also 75 FR 54975 (September 9, 2010) (explaining how 
this phenomenon is reflected in the Upper Prediction Limit (UPL) 
equation used to project variability, since the m term (i.e., the 
number of measurements) in the equation becomes larger with more 
observations resulting in a larger denominator and hence lower ultimate 
level). By changing from a 30-day average with potentially 720 hourly 
values to a three-run test average producing three test run values, we 
reviewed and revised the calculation of the PM emissions floor and 
standard, and consistent with the court's remand, removed all CISWI 
kilns from the database in doing so. In calculating the PM MACT floor, 
the best performing kilns used in the analysis changed as a result of 
removing the kilns identified as CISWI kilns.
    In addition, we realized that in the original analysis PM emissions 
data for a single kiln were inadvertently treated as test results for 
three different kilns. After making that correction and after 
eliminating kilns identified as CISWI, the number of kilns in the data 
set was reduced from 45 kilns to 28 kilns. Therefore, the best 
performing 12 percent was represented by four kilns. As a result of 
removing the CISWI kilns, two kilns which were not best performers in 
the 2010 dataset are now best performers. See TSD section 8.3 and 
Appendices E and F.
    As in the 2009 proposal, we used individual test run data from our 
best performing kilns and calculated the 99th confidence UPL. Rather 
than using m = 30 in the equation as we did in the 2010 final rule 
where compliance was based on a 30 day rolling average, see 75 FR 54988 
(September 9, 2010), we used m = 3 consistent with the proposed 
requirement to determine compliance using a three run Method 5 test. 
Under this analysis, we determined the revised proposed PM MACT floor 
to be 0.07 lb/ton clinker produced when based on the three run Method 5 
test. Beyond-the-floor standards do not appear to be justified for the 
same reasons given in the 2010 final rule. See 75 FR 54988 (September 
9, 2010). We are, therefore, proposing this emissions limit for the 
kiln and clinker cooler and an initial and annual compliance test using 
Method 5 to demonstrate compliance.
    These issues affecting the existing source PM limit also apply to 
the new source PM limit. Based on this revised compliance regime, the 
new source floor would change from 0.01 lb/ton clinker produced, to 
0.02 lb/ton clinker produced, based on a three run average from a 
Method 5 stack test. See Portland Cement Reconsideration TSD, section 
8.3. The best performing kiln used to set the MACT floor for new 
sources in the 2010 rule was a cement kiln, not a CISWI kiln, so the 
same kiln was used for this analysis. The difference is that because a 
3-run test would be used to determine compliance rather than a 30-day 
rolling average, the calculation of the 99th confidence UPL used m = 3 
rather than 30, which results in a floor of 0.02 lb/ton clinker. The 
EPA is not proposing a beyond-the-floor standard for the reasons given 
at 75 FR 54988 (September 9, 2010).
    As indicated above, the EPA is further proposing to use PM CEMS 
technology for continuous parametric monitoring of the proposed PM 
standards. The EPA has developed requirements for continuously 
monitoring operating parameters in instances where compliance is based 
on non-continuous measurements, as would now be the case for PM. This 
implements section 114(a)(3) of the CAA which requires major sources to 
use enhanced monitoring for compliance certifications. The EPA's 
historic approach has been to require monitoring of a control device 
operating condition (e.g., electrical power, water flow rate, pH) the 
limit of which is based on a periodic compliance test with the 
compliance test method. The use of a continuous parametric monitoring 
system (CPMS) based on PM CEMS technology (PM CPMS) is a significant 
step closer to direct measurement of emissions in units of the 
emissions limit and an improvement over less direct monitoring of a 
process control device conditions.
    Specifically, this proposal recognizes the value of PM monitoring 
technology sensitive to changes in PM emissions concentrations and use 
of such a tool to assure continued good operation of PM control 
equipment. This approach avoids the PM CEMS calibration (i.e., PS 11 
correlation) issues that can be exacerbated for Portland cement 
installations. PM CEMS technology can be effective in monitoring 
control device performance (see, e.g., 77 FR 9371 (February 16, 2012)) 
where the EPA established PM CPMS parametric operating limits for 
electricity generating units).
    As a result, this proposed rule would require the installation and 
operation of a PM CPMS for parametric monitoring associated with the 
proposed PM standard. The source owner would not have to meet PS 11 
requirements but would have to prepare and submit for approval, if 
requested by a permitting authority, a site-specific monitoring plan to 
apply sound practices for installing, calibrating and operating the PM 
CPMS.
    Current PM CPMS have an operating principle based on in-stack or 
extractive light scatter, light scintillation or beta attenuation. The 
source owner or operator would need to examine the fuel and process 
conditions of his stack as well as the capabilities of these devices 
before selecting a particular CPMS technology. The reportable 
measurement output from the PM CPMS may be expressed as milliamps, 
stack

[[Page 42377]]

concentration or other raw data signal. For the purposes of this 
proposed rule, the source owner would establish an operating limit 
based on the highest PM CPMS hourly value collected during the most 
recent PM compliance test (or other stack tests accepted as a 
legitimate basis for compliance, as explained below). The source would 
collect PM CPMS data continuously and calculate a 30 operating day 
rolling average PM CPMS output value from the hourly PM CPMS data 
collected during process operating hours and compare that average to 
the site specific operating limit. For these reasons (i.e., 30 days to 
mitigate the effects of measurement and emissions variability and using 
the highest hourly average from the stack testing), the EPA believes 
that use of the PM CPMS for parametric monitoring should not pose the 
same technical issues as those underlying the proposed decision to base 
compliance on PM CEMS measurements.
    We are proposing a number of consequences if the kiln PM monitoring 
parameter is exceeded. First, the source owner will have 48 hours to 
conduct an inspection of the control device and to take action to 
restore the controls if necessary and 45 days to conduct a new PM 
Method 5 compliance test to verify ongoing compliance with the PM 
limit. Within 60 days complete the emissions sampling, sample analyses 
and verification that the source is in compliance with the emissions 
limit in accordance with the test procedures in either section 60.64 or 
63.1349(b)(1). Also, determine an operating limit based on the PM CPMS 
data collected during the performance test. Compare the recalculated 
operating limit with the existing operating limit and, as appropriate, 
adjust the numerical operating limit to reflect compliance performance. 
Adjustments may include applying the most recently established highest 
of the three test run hourly averages or combining the data collected 
over multiple performance tests to establish a more representative 
value. Apply the reverified or adjusted operating limit value from that 
time forward.
    Second, the EPA is proposing that this proposed rule limit the 
number of deviations of the site-specific CPMS limit leading to follow 
up performance tests in any 12-month process operating period and an 
excess of this number be considered to be a violation of the standard. 
This presumption could be rebutted by the source, but would require 
more than a Method 5 test to do so (e.g., results of physical 
inspections). This additional information is necessary since a Method 5 
test could not be conducted following the discovery of deviations and 
would not necessarily represent conditions identical to those when the 
deviations occurred. The basis for this part of the proposal is that 
the site-specific CPMS limit could represent an emissions level higher 
than the proposed numerical emissions limit since the PM CPMS operating 
limit corresponds to the highest of the three runs collected during the 
Method 5 performance test. Second, the PM CPMS operating limit reflects 
a 30-day average that should represent an actual emissions level lower 
than the three test run numerical emissions limit since variability is 
mitigated over time. See 75 FR 54988 (September 9, 2010); 54975-76. 
Consequently, we believe that there should be few if any deviations 
from the 30-day parametric limit and there is a reasonable basis for 
presuming that deviations that lead to multiple performance tests to 
represent poor control device performance and to be a violation of the 
standard.
    Therefore, the EPA is proposing that PM CPMS deviations leading to 
more than four required performance tests in a 12-month process 
operating period to be presumed a violation of this standard, subject 
to the source's ability to rebut that presumption with information 
about process and control device operations in addition to the Method 5 
performance test results.
    Finally, the EPA is proposing that the NSPS for PM established 
pursuant to section 111(bb) also be revised so that these limits are no 
longer CEMS-based and reflect the resulting different numerical values 
and averaging times. Although the NSPS for PM rests on a justification 
independent of the NESHAP PM standard (see PCA v. EPA, 665 F. 3d at 
192-93), the technical issues associated with the use of PM CEMS in 
this industry are common to both standards and the proposed amendments, 
therefore, appear appropriate for the NSPS as well. The EPA believes 
that these proposed requirements represent Best Demonstrated Available 
Technology for new cement kilns given that the standards remain 
predicated on the performance of the best industry performers and the 
costs remain those already found to be reasonable. See id. at 191-92 
discussing and upholding the EPA's NSPS for PM.

E. Summary of Proposed Standards Resulting From Reconsideration

    The EPA is proposing the following revised MACT standards:

   Table 3--Proposed Existing and New Source Floors and Standards \a\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Existing source       New source
            Pollutant                  standard            standard
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mercury.........................  55 lb/MM tons       21 lb/MM tons
                                   clinker.            clinker.
THC.............................  24 ppmvd..........  24 ppmvd.
PM..............................  0.07 lb/ton         0.02 lb/ton
                                   clinker (3-run      clinker (3-run
                                   test average).      test average).
HCl.............................  3 ppmvd...........  3 ppmvd.
Organic HAP.....................  12 ppmvd..........  12 ppmvd.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Standards for mercury and THC are based on a 30-day rolling average.
  The standard for PM is based on a three run test. If using a CEMS to
  determine compliance with the HCl standard, the floor is also a 30-day
  rolling average. Organic HAP standards are discussed in section H
  below.

F. Standards for Fugitive Emissions From Clinker Storage Piles

    In the September 2010 rule, the agency established work practice 
requirements to reduce fugitive emissions from outdoor clinker storage 
piles. The agency had information that these storage piles emit HAP in 
the form of fugitive PM containing HAP metals, so that regulation of 
these sources was necessary. Because the emissions in question were 
fugitive dusts for which measurement was not feasible, the agency 
adopted work practices as the standard, specifically the work practice 
standards and opacity emissions limits contained in California's South 
Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 1156 as amended on March 6, 
2009. Because there were only two plants which we could state 
definitively had open storage piles and both were complying with Rule 
1156, we believed that the regulatory standards under Rule 1156 
constituted the floor level of control. The current promulgated work 
practices consist of providing varying

[[Page 42378]]

degrees of enclosures or barriers to prevent wind erosion of the 
storage piles. See generally 75 FR 54989 (September 9, 2010).
    In their reconsideration petition, the cement industry maintained 
that the EPA did not provide sufficient notice of the standards it 
might adopt for clinker storage piles. We agreed and granted 
reconsideration. See 76 FR 28325 (May 17, 2011). The D.C. Circuit 
stayed the standard pending the conclusion of the EPA's 
reconsideration. See 665 F. 3d at 189.
    Industry also noted, correctly, that more than two plants are 
potentially affected by clinker pile standards, so that the California 
rule is not necessarily a floor level of control. To evaluate which 
work practices are currently used in the industry, we requested data 
from the industry on currently used work practices. We also undertook a 
review of state permits to determine the level of controls to which 
open clinker piles are currently subject. Based on this information, 
the EPA is proposing to amend the work practices for clinker storage 
piles.
1. What is a clinker pile?
    Clinker storage is necessary to allow near continuous kiln 
operation and intermittent grinding and processing of the clinker. 
Clinker storage is also necessary in the event of unplanned or planned 
kiln shutdowns. Cement plants use silos, domes or other enclosure for 
clinker storage. Additional clinker storage may also be necessary to 
accommodate extended shutdown periods for kiln maintenance and/or 
market conditions. When the conventional enclosed storage is not 
adequate, clinker may be stored in outdoor piles. Unlike automated 
systems for drawing down clinker from enclosed silos, these temporary 
outdoor storage piles are drawn down using equipment such as front end 
loaders or other reclaiming equipment. Outdoor clinker storage may be 
temporary, lasting a few days or weeks and up to several months. There 
are also open clinker piles that have been in existence for years and 
are essentially permanent.
2. What are the proposed standards?
    We are proposing amended standards that will control HAP metal 
emissions from open clinker piles. Because the emissions are fugitive, 
we are proposing work practices instead of an emissions limit since it 
is ``not feasible to prescribe or enforce an emission standard'' for 
these emissions because, as fugitive emissions, they are not ``emitted 
through a conveyance designed and constructed to emit or capture such 
pollutant''. See CAA section 112 (h)(2)(A). The work practices would 
apply to any open clinker piles regardless of the quantity of clinker 
or the length of time that the clinker pile is in existence.
    According to industry stakeholders, virtually all Title V permits 
oblige cement plant operators to ``minimize'' fugitive emissions 
including those from open clinker piles. See Portland Cement 
Reconsideration TSD, section 2, which is available in this rulemaking 
docket. Our examination of relevant permits indicates that some permits 
establish an opacity limit not to be exceeded in conjunction with 
materials management. Others contain a ``no visible emissions'' 
limitation at the fence line of the facility. Industry stakeholders 
state that to minimize fugitive emissions from open clinker piles, 
plants employ a number of practices, the most common being to use water 
sprays to form a concrete-like crust on the exposed surface of the 
clinker pile. Clinker has cement like properties and when exposed to 
water will hydrate and harden. The crust formed by this practice is 
very effective at reducing fugitive emissions as long as the pile is 
not disturbed. Another common practice is to cover clinker piles with 
tarps, which may be held down with tires, which effectively minimizes 
fugitive emissions. Some plants also use foam sprays on the exposed 
surface of the pile, forming a coating which reduces or prevents 
fugitive emissions.
    Based on our review of 88 state Title V permits, all but one permit 
required one or a combination of the following control measures to 
reduce fugitive emissions generally: Work practices, opacity or visible 
emission limits, prohibitions against open clinker piles and some type 
of general duty requirements to minimize fugitive dust emissions. Eight 
of the permits contained requirements specific to open or outdoor 
clinker piles. Eighteen permits contained standards that restricted 
emissions more generally from outdoor storage piles including opacity 
and visible emissions limits and general duty requirements to not 
produce PM or dust emissions at the property line. Seventy-seven 
permits contained facility-wide restrictions that applied to a variety 
of fugitive sources at the cement facilities (e.g. roads, storage, raw 
materials). In only one permit was it not clear that there were 
requirements to minimize fugitive dust emissions.
    With the exception of total enclosure of all open clinker piles, 
the EPA believes that the control measures in the permits are equally 
effective in reducing fugitive emissions. These measures are, 
therefore, consistent with section 112(d) controls and reflect a level 
of performance analogous to a MACT floor. See CAA section 112(h)(1) (in 
promulgating work practices, the EPA is to adopt standards ``which in 
the Administrator's judgment [are] consistent with section (d) or (f) 
of this section.'') The option of full enclosures, somewhat analogous 
to a beyond-the-floor standard under section 112(d)(2), would be 
extremely costly with minimum associated emissions reductions 
incremental to the measures already undertaken (which already reduce 
most or all of the fugitive emissions from these piles). The EPA, 
therefore, is not proposing to mandate such a practice. Industry cost 
estimates for a full enclosure with a capacity of 50,000 tons of 
clinker range from $10-$25 million in capital cost and $400,000-
$500,000 annual operating cost (See Portland Cement Association, 
Clinker Piles, September 7, 2011, available in the rulemaking docket). 
We also are not proposing opacity or visible emission standards, for 
several reasons. If work practices are properly implemented, we believe 
fugitive emissions, including visible emissions, from clinker piles 
will be effectively controlled. Such emission limits would also be 
redundant with work practice requirements. Moreover, in many cases, the 
temporary, short-term nature of clinker piles would make it impractical 
to implement an emissions monitoring program that would be more 
effective than the proposed work practices.
    We are proposing that one or more of the following control measures 
be used when adding clinker to a pile, during on-going clinker storage, 
and when reclaiming the clinker for processing, to minimize to the 
greatest extent practicable fugitive dust emissions from open clinker 
storage piles: Locating the source inside a partial enclosure (such as 
a three sided structure with tarp), installing and operating a water 
spray or fogging system, applying appropriate chemical dust suppression 
agents on the pile, use of a wind barrier or use of a tarp. The owner 
or operator must select, from the list provided, the control measure or 
combination of control measures that are most appropriate for the site 
conditions. We are allowing the owner or operator to select the most 
appropriate control measure or combination of measures for their 
situation.
    We are proposing that the owner or operator must include as part of 
their operations and maintenance plan (required in Sec.  63.1347) the 
fugitive dust

[[Page 42379]]

control measures that they will implement to control fugitive dust 
emissions from open clinker piles. These control measures would apply 
to the addition of clinker to the pile, on-going clinker storage and 
reclaiming the clinker for processing.
    We are proposing the same standards for new sources as existing 
sources. In the case of a clinker storage pile, there is no essential 
difference between `new' and `existing'. These piles generally reflect 
temporary storage situations, and are not analogous to building a one-
time stationary structure where there are opportunities for newly-
constructed entities that do not exist for existing entities. The EPA 
consequently is proposing the same standards for both.

G. Affirmative Defense to Civil Penalties for Exceedances Occurring 
During Malfunctions

    In response to comments, the EPA added to the September 9, 2010, 
final rule an affirmative defense to civil penalties for exceedances of 
emissions limits that are caused by malfunctions. Various environmental 
advocacy groups, as well as the Portland Cement Association (PCA), 
indicated that there had been insufficient notice of this provision. 
The EPA agreed and granted reconsideration. See 76 FR 28325 (May 17, 
2011). We are proposing to retain the affirmative defense on 
reconsideration. This provision seeks to balance a tension, inherent in 
many types of air regulation, to ensure adequate compliance while 
simultaneously recognizing that despite the most diligent of efforts, 
emission limits may be exceeded under circumstances beyond the control 
of the source. The EPA must establish emission standards that ``limit 
the quantity, rate, or concentration of emissions of air pollutants on 
a continuous basis.'' See 42 U.S.C. 7602(k) (defining ``emission 
limitation and emission standard''). See generally Sierra Club v. EPA, 
551 F.3d 1019, 1021 (D.C. Cir. 2008) Thus, the EPA is required to 
ensure that section 112 emissions limitations are continuous. The 
affirmative defense for malfunction events meets this requirement by 
ensuring that even where there is a malfunction, the emission 
limitation is still enforceable through injunctive relief. Although 
``continuous'' limitations, on the one hand, are required, there is 
also case law indicating that in many situations it is appropriate for 
the EPA to account for the practical realities of control technology. 
For example, in Essex Chemical v. Ruckelshaus, 486 F.2d 427, 433 (D.C. 
Cir. 1973), the D.C. Circuit acknowledged that in setting standards 
under CAA section 111 ``variant provisions'' such as provisions 
allowing for upsets during startup, shutdown and equipment malfunction 
``appear necessary to preserve the reasonableness of the standards as a 
whole and that the record does not support the `never to be exceeded' 
standard currently in force.'' See also, Portland Cement Association v. 
Ruckelshaus, 486 F.2d 375 (D.C. Cir. 1973). Though intervening case law 
such as Sierra Club v. EPA and the CAA 1977 amendments undermine the 
relevance of these cases today, they support the EPA's view that a 
system that incorporates some level of flexibility is reasonable. The 
affirmative defense simply provides for a defense to civil penalties 
for excess emissions that are proven to be beyond the control of the 
source. By incorporating an affirmative defense, the EPA has formalized 
its approach to upset events. In a Clean Water Act setting, the Ninth 
Circuit required this type of formalized approach when regulating 
``upsets beyond the control of the permit holder.'' Marathon Oil Co. v. 
EPA, 564 F.2d 1253, 1272-73 (9th Cir. 1977); see also, Mont. Sulphur & 
Chem. Co. v. United States EPA, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 1056 (Jan 19, 
2012) (rejecting industry argument that reliance on the affirmative 
defense was not adequate). But see, Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Costle, 590 
F.2d 1011, 1057-58 (D.C. Cir. 1978) (holding that an informal approach 
is adequate). The affirmative defense provisions give the EPA the 
flexibility to both ensure that its emission limitations are 
``continuous'' as required by 42 U.S.C. Sec.  7602(k), and account for 
unplanned upsets and thus support the reasonableness of the standard as 
a whole.
    Petitions filed by environmental advocacy groups question the EPA's 
authority to promulgate the affirmative defense arguing, among other 
things, that the affirmative defense is inconsistent with the 
provisions of CAA sections 113(e) and 304(b) governing penalty 
assessment and citizen suits, respectively. The EPA's view is that the 
affirmative defense is not inconsistent with CAA section 113(e) or 304. 
Section 304 gives district courts' jurisdiction ``to apply appropriate 
civil penalties.'' Section 113(e)(1) identifies the factors that the 
Administrator or a court shall take into consideration in determining 
the amount of a penalty to be assessed, once it has been determined 
that a penalty is appropriate. The affirmative defense regulatory 
provision is not relevant to the amount of any penalty to be assessed. 
If a court determines that the affirmative defense elements have been 
established, then a penalty is not appropriate and penalty assessment 
pursuant to the section 113(e)(1) factors does not occur.
    In exercising its authority under section 112 to establish emission 
standards (at a level that meets the stringency requirements of section 
112), the EPA necessarily defines conduct that constitutes a violation. 
The EPA view is that the affirmative defense is part of the emission 
standard and defines two categories of violation. If there is a 
violation of the emission standard and the source demonstrates that all 
the elements of the affirmative defense are met, only injunctive relief 
is available. All other violations of the emission standard are subject 
to injunctive relief and penalties. A citizen suit claim under section 
304 allows citizens to commence a civil action against any person 
alleged to be in violation of ``an emission standard or limitation 
under this chapter.'' The CAA, however, allows the EPA to establish 
such ``enforceable emission limitations.'' Thus, the citizen suit 
provision clearly contemplates enforcement of the standards that are 
defined by the EPA. As a result, where the EPA defines its emissions 
limitations and enforcement measures to allow a source the opportunity 
to prove its entitlement to a lesser degree of violation (not subject 
to penalties) in narrow, specified circumstances, as the EPA did here, 
penalties are not ``appropriate'' under section 304.
    The EPA solicits comments on this issue of the EPA's authority to 
promulgate an affirmative defense. The EPA's view is that an 
affirmative defense to civil penalties for exceedances of applicable 
emission standards during periods of malfunction appropriately balances 
competing concerns. On the one hand, citizen enforcers are concerned 
about additional complications in their enforcement actions. On the 
other hand, industrial sources are concerned about being penalized for 
violations caused by malfunctions that they could not have prevented 
and were otherwise appropriately handled (as reflected in the 
affirmative defense criteria). The EPA has used its section 301(a)(1) 
authority to issue regulations necessary to carry out the Act in a 
manner that appropriately balances these competing concerns. However, 
the EPA also solicits comment on alternatives to, or variations on, the 
affirmative defense provisions promulgated in the 2010 final rule.
    In its petition for reconsideration, the PCA expressed support for 
the affirmative defense, but maintains that

[[Page 42380]]

``the affirmative defense process that EPA codified in the final rules 
is cumbersome and will be exceedingly difficult for facilities to 
employ.'' The EPA is soliciting comment on the terms and condition of 
the affirmative defense. In recent rules promulgated under section 112 
and 129, the EPA has revised certain terms and conditions of the 
affirmative defense in response to concerns raised by various 
commenters. The EPA is proposing to adopt those same revisions in this 
proposed rule. The EPA is proposing to revise the affirmative defense 
language to delete ``short'' from section 63.1344(a)(1)(i), because 
other criteria in the affirmative defense require that the source 
assure that the duration of the excess emissions ``were minimized to 
the maximum extent practicable.'' The EPA is also proposing to delete 
the term ``severe'' in the phrase ``severe personal injury'' in 
63.1344(a)(4) because we do not think it is appropriate to make the 
affirmative defense available only when bypass was unavoidable to 
prevent severe personal injury. In addition, the EPA is proposing to 
revise section 63.1344(a)(8) to add ``consistent with good air 
pollution control practice for minimizing emissions.'' The EPA is also 
proposing to revise the language of 63.1344(a)(9) to clarify that the 
purpose of the root cause analysis is to determine, correct and 
eliminate the primary cause of the malfunction. The root cause analysis 
itself does not necessarily require that the cause be determined, 
corrected or eliminated. However, in most cases, the EPA believes that 
a properly conducted root cause analysis will have such results. 
Further, the EPA is proposing to revise 63.1344(b) to state that 
``[t]he owner or operator seeking to assert an affirmative defense 
shall submit a written report to the Administrator in a semiannual 
report with all necessary supporting documentation, that it has met the 
requirements set forth in section 63.1354(c) of this subpart.'' This 
report must be included in the first semiannual report, required by 
section 63.1354(b)(9), after the initial occurrence of the violation of 
the relevant standard. If the semiannual report is due less than 45 
days after the initial occurrence of the violation, the affirmative 
defense report may be included in the second semiannual report due 
after the initial occurrence of the violation of the relevant standard. 
See proposed regulatory text for other proposed minor wording changes 
to improve clarity.

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

    In the September 2010 final rule, the EPA promulgated an 
alternative standard for non-dioxin organic HAP, based on measuring the 
organic HAP itself rather than the THC surrogate. Section 63.1343(b)(1) 
provides two options for meeting a standard for organic HAP. One is to 
meet a THC standard of 24 ppmvd; the other is to meet a limit of 9 
ppmvd of total organic HAP. This equivalent alternative standard is 
intended to provide additional flexibility in determining compliance, 
and it would be appropriate for those cases in which methane and ethane 
comprise a disproportionately high amount of the organic compounds in 
the feed because these non-HAP compounds could be emitted and would be 
measured as THC. The specific organic compounds that are to be measured 
to determine compliance with the equivalent alternative standard are 
benzene, toluene, styrene, xylene (ortho-, meta-, and para-), 
acetaldehyde, formaldehyde and naphthalene. Compliance with the 
equivalent alternative standard under the September 2010 standard will 
be determined through organic HAP emissions testing using EPA Method 18 
or 320, as appropriate for the compound of interest. The 2010 rule 
further requires that each source complying with the alternative 
standard establish a site-specific THC limit to be met continuously. 
The site-specific THC limit will be measured as a 30 day rolling 
average, with an annual compliance test requirement. It would be 
correlated with the organic HAP limit and is therefore not tied to the 
THC standard of 24 ppmvd. We granted reconsideration on the level of 
this site-specific THC limit used as a continuously monitored parameter 
for those sources selecting the alternative HAP compliance method. See 
76 FR 28318 (May 17, 2011).
    Since THC includes compounds that are not considered to be 
hazardous, either of the two standards are considered to be reasonable.
    While the September 2010 final rule required an organic HAP limit 
of 9 ppmvd, a recent review of the method detection limits used to 
measure organic HAP revealed that three times the representative method 
detection level (3*RMDL) is actually 12 ppmvd, therefore, we propose to 
revise the alternative organic HAP limit to 12 ppmvd. As discussed in 
the final rule, the expected measurement imprecision for an emissions 
value at or near the method detection level is about 40 to 50 percent 
and decreases to a consistent 10 to 15 percent for values that are 
three times the method detection level. See 75 FR 54984 (September 9, 
2010); see also section D above. Thus, measured values less than three 
times the representative method detection level are highly uncertain 
and therefore not reasonable for compliance determinations. The 3*RMDL 
of 12 ppmvd was determined as follows: we determined method detection 
capabilities for Method 320 and Method 18 as appropriate for the 
various compounds (e.g., Method 320 for aldehydes, Method 18 for 
aromatic hydrocarbons (arenes)). This approach is consistent with 
procedures practiced by the better performing testing companies and 
laboratories using sensitive analytical procedures. We determined for 
each of the organic HAP the expected method detection level for the 
respective method based on internal experience and method capabilities 
reported by testing companies. With these reported values, we 
identified the resulting mean of the method detection levels, adjusted 
them for dilution and moisture, summed them, and then multiplied the 
sum by three to determine the representative detection level (RDL). The 
resulting RDL value was found to be 11.2 ppmvd @ 7 percent oxygen 
(O2), dry. This value is greater than the final 9 ppmvd @ 7 
percent O2, dry, in the final rule. We are, therefore, 
proposing to adjust the total organic HAP limit to 12 ppmvd @ 7 percent 
O2, dry (rounded up from the 11.2 ppm RDL). At this level, 
we believe that currently available emissions testing procedures and 
technologies can be used to provide measurements of sufficient 
certainty for sources to demonstrate compliance. A detailed discussion 
of the use of the RDL to arrive at the proposed organic HAP limit is 
found in the Portland Cement Reconsideration TSD, section 3, which can 
be found in the docket for this rulemaking.
    A consequence of this analysis is that the accuracy of the analytic 
methods for organic HAP appear to be insufficient to allow sources to 
scale up their site-specific THC limit based on the degree to which the 
measured organic HAP levels were below the organic HAP limit--the 
organic HAP limit, even as proposed to be revised, is at the reliable 
limit of detection as just explained. Therefore, this proposed rule 
retains the provision whereby the site-specific THC operating parameter 
is established at the same time the performance test is conducted for 
organic HAP. If the site-specific THC operating parameter is

[[Page 42381]]

exceeded, then the kiln would have to be retested to determine 
compliance with the organic HAP limit. This proposed rule would further 
require that the tests for organic HAP and THC be repeated annually to 
establish a new annual site-specific THC parameter reflecting the 
organic HAP level. We also are proposing, similar to the PM compliance 
test procedure, that the highest 1-hour average THC concentration 
measured during the 3-hour organic HAP test, be used as the site-
specific THC parameter, and are allowing facilities to extend the 
testing time (or number of tests) if they believe extended testing is 
required to adequately capture THC variability over time. The EPA 
specifically solicits comment on the changes on the organic HAP limit. 
In addition, we solicit comment on if it would it be appropriate to 
allow sources to scale up their site-specific THC limit based on the 
degree to which the measured organic HAP levels are below the organic 
HAP limit.

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

    To demonstrate compliance with the HCl emissions limit, the 
September 2010 final rule allows sources equipped with wet scrubbers to 
comply with the HCl standard by means of periodic performance tests 
rather than with continuous monitoring of HCl with a CEMS (see Sec.  
63.1349(b)(6)). We reasoned that a source that uses a limestone wet 
scrubber for HCl control will have minimal HCl emissions even if kiln 
inputs change because limestone wet scrubbers are more efficient in 
removing HCl than they are required to be, to meet the standard. 
Sources electing to comply by means of stack tests must establish 
continuously monitored parameters including liquid flow rate, pressure 
and pH. Sources using a limestone wet scrubber are required to perform 
an initial compliance test using Method 321 in Appendix A to 40 CFR 
part 63 and to test every 30 months thereafter.
    In their petition, industry stakeholders indicated that this 
compliance option should not be limited to wet scrubber equipped units, 
but should also be available for units equipped with caustic scrubbers, 
in part because some sources will be equipped with dry scrubbers (due 
to water shortages) and should have the same operating flexibilities as 
wet scrubber equipped kilns.
    A recent review of data from a vendor of acid gas controls using a 
standard hydrated lime and a high performance hydrated lime at a U.S. 
cement manufacturing plant, revealed that HCl removal from dry 
scrubbers on kilns ranged from 90 to 95 percent HCl removal, depending 
on lime injection rates (Lhoist North America, Cement Industry 
Experience, DSI for Acid Gas Control, October 5, 2011). The results 
also showed the plant could meet the 3 ppm HCl limit. The EPA also 
evaluated HCl removal efficiency using dry sprayer absorber with a 
fabric filter as part of the electric utility generating MACT 
rulemaking. Removal efficiencies ranged from 95 percent to nearly 100 
percent with an average of about 99.8 percent (Hutson to Nizich, HCl 
control using SDA/FF, November 29, 2011). In addition, information from 
the National Lime Association (http://www.lime.org/uses_of_lime/environmental/flue_gas.asp) and the Institute for Clean Air Companies 
(http://www.icac.com/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=3401) report HCl 
emissions reductions using dry lime injection technology of 95 to 99 
percent from coal-fired boilers in the electric utility industry, from 
municipal waste-to-energy facilities and from other industries. In the 
secondary aluminum industry, reductions in HCl emissions greater than 
99 percent have been achieved (National Lime Association, Flue Gas 
Desulfurization, http://www.lime.org/uses_of_lime/environmental/flue_gas.asp).
    Given these high reported removal efficiencies, we propose to 
extend the same option provided to kilns equipped with wet scrubbers to 
dry scrubber-equipped kilns. Thus, kilns with either type of scrubber 
could demonstrate compliance with the HCl limit by means of an initial 
and periodic stack test rather than with continuous compliance 
monitoring with a CEMS. In order to assure that the dry lime injection 
equipment is operated effectively between tests, the proposed amendment 
would require that the lime injection rate used during the performance 
test demonstrating compliance with the HCl limit be recorded and then 
continuously monitored between performance tests to show that the 
injection rate remains at or above the rate used during the performance 
test.
    We are also proposing an additional alternative for all kilns 
equipped with a dry or wet scrubber (and, under this proposal, could 
therefore do periodic HCl performance testing and parametric 
monitoring). Where either wet or dry scrubbers are used, we are 
proposing that an owner or operator would have the option of using 
SO2 monitoring as a continuously monitored parameter for 
purposes of compliance monitoring. Because HCl is a water-soluble 
compound and because it has a large acid dissociation constant (i.e., 
HCl is a strong acid), it will be more rapidly and readily removed than 
SO2 from a gas stream treated with either caustic sorbents 
(e.g., lime, limestone) or plain water. We acknowledge that at proposal 
(see 74 FR 21154, May 6, 2009) we rejected setting a standard (as 
opposed to a continuously monitored parameter) that used SO2 
as a surrogate for HCl because we had no data that demonstrated a 
direct link between HCl emissions and SO2 emissions. 
However, pilot-scale tests by the EPA at its Multi-pollutant Control 
Research Facility support the use of the more easily measured 
SO2 as a surrogate for HCl where either wet or dry scrubbers 
are used. See Docket item EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0234-3893. Further, we are 
aware that there are existing kilns equipped with SO2 CEMS 
and that this monitoring technology is less expensive and more mature 
than HCl CEMS. Thus, we are proposing that SO2 is an 
indicator for HCl compliance, and that monitoring the emissions of 
SO2 will provide a reliable indication of HCl removal, 
making SO2 monitoring an appropriate parameter for 
monitoring continuing compliance.
    Owners or operators of kilns equipped with dry or wet scrubbers 
that choose to use SO2 monitoring would need to conduct an 
initial performance test for HCl and establish the SO2 
operating limit equal to the highest 1 hour average recorded during the 
HCl performance test, so that there is an indication of proper 
operation of the HCl control device. The owner or operator of a kiln 
controlled using either a dry or wet scrubber that chooses to monitor 
SO2 would not be required to also establish continuously 
monitored parameters reflecting the performance test results, such as 
lime injection rate for a dry scrubber and liquid flow rate, pressure 
and pH for a wet scrubber. Deviation from any established parameter 
level or established SO2 operating level would trigger a 
requirement to retest for HCl in order to verify compliance with the 
HCl limits and to verify or re-establish the parameter levels.
    At a minimum, a repeat performance test to confirm compliance with 
the HCl emissions limit and to reset the SO2 limit and 
monitoring parameters is required every 5 years. We are requesting 
comment on the efficacy of continuously monitoring SO2 as a 
continuously monitored parameter in lieu of continuously monitoring HCl 
control device parameters, and also solicit comment on testing every 30 
months for HCl for purposes of

[[Page 42382]]

monitoring compliance with the HCl emissions limit.

J. Alternative PM Limit

    Some kilns combine kiln exhaust gas with exhaust gas from other 
unit operations, such as the clinker cooler, as an energy saving 
practice. The September 2010 final rule sought to accommodate 
commingled flows from the kiln and clinker cooler by providing a site 
specific PM limit. See section 63.1343(b)(2). In its reconsideration 
petition, the PCA pointed out, however, that other flows besides the 
exhaust gas flow from the clinker cooler can be commingled as well. The 
petitioner provided the example of coal mill exhaust and exhaust from 
an alkali by-pass as instances of additional flows that can be 
commingled with the exhaust gas flow from the kiln. The petitioner 
observed that without an allowance for these additional flows, the site 
specific PM limit is stricter than the EPA intended (since the PM 
concentration will be divided by a lower number in the implementing 
equation), and penalizes the energy-saving practice of commingling 
these flows.
    The agency agreed with the petitioner that the alternative PM 
equations for existing and new sources contained in the final rule do 
not adequately account for commingled exhaust gas flows from sources 
other than the clinker cooler, and granted reconsideration for this 
reason. See 76 FR 28325 (May 17, 2011). We believe that although the 
form of the equation is correct, the equation is not written to 
accommodate sources other than exhaust gases from the clinker cooler. 
We are proposing to revise the equation so that it includes exhaust gas 
flows for all potential sources that would potentially be combined, 
including exhausts from the kiln, the alkali bypass, the coal mill, and 
the clinker cooler, for an existing kiln, the EPA is proposing the 
following equation:

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

Where:

PMalt = The alternative PM emission limit for commingled 
sources.
0.006 = The PM exhaust concentration (gr/dscf) equivalent to 0.07 lb 
per ton clinker where clinker cooler and kiln exhaust gas are not 
combined.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Note that this figure would change correspondingly if the 
EPA were to amend the existing source PM standard. The same is true 
of the PM term in the new source equation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1.65 = The conversion factor of lb feed per lb clinker.
Qk = The exhaust flow of the kiln (dscf/ton raw feed).
Qc = The exhaust flow of the clinker cooler (dscf/ton raw 
feed).
Qab = The exhaust flow of the alkali bypass (dscf/ton raw 
feed).
Qcm = The exhaust flow of the coal mill (dscf/ton raw 
feed).
7000 = The conversion factor for grains (gr) per lb.

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

K. Standards During Startup and Shutdown

    In the final NESHAP, the EPA established separate standards for 
startup and shutdown which differ from the main standards. These 
standards require kilns to meet numerical limits for each pollutant 
regulated by the rule, each standard to be measured using a CEMS over 
an accumulative 7-day rolling average. 75 FR 54991 (September 9, 2010). 
Industry petitioned the EPA to reconsider these standards claiming lack 
of notice, but the EPA denied these petitions because the agency had 
already provided ample opportunity for comment which petitioners had 
used. See 76 FR 28323 (May 17, 2011). The D.C. Circuit dismissed all 
challenges to these startup and shutdown provisions (see 665 F 3d at 
189). The EPA did grant reconsideration on several technical issues 
related to startup and shutdown--certain aspects of CEM-based 
monitoring of mercury and PM during startup and shutdown--issues which 
would be moot if the EPA adopts the approach proposed below--and having 
an HCl limit of zero for kilns not equipped with CEMS (see 76 FR 28325 
(May 17, 2011)).
    The EPA is proposing to retain the startup and shutdown standards 
for mercury and THC, to amend the startup and shutdown standards for PM 
to be consistent with the proposed numeric levels in this proposal, and 
to amend the level of the startup and shutdown standard for HCl to be 3 
ppm in all circumstances.
    The EPA is further proposing to clarify that startup begins when 
the kiln's induced fan is turned on and continues until continuous raw 
material feed is introduced into the kiln. Shutdown begins when feed to 
the kiln is halted. Thus, during startup and shutdown, as defined, a 
kiln would not be firing coal or coke and would not be introducing feed 
material into the kiln continuously. HAP emissions from cement kilns 
are attributable almost entirely to one or the other of these feeds, 
with raw materials contributing the great preponderance. In addition, 
kilns burn fuels during startup and shutdown which are cleaner than 
coal and coke (natural gas is used for the most of the startup). Thus, 
HAP emissions during startup and shutdown necessarily should be far 
less than the numerical limits in the standards since the kiln will not 
be introducing raw materials, and will be burning fuels which are 
cleaner than its normal fuels.
    Accordingly, the EPA is further proposing to change the means of 
monitoring for compliance with the startup and shutdown standards. 
Rather than require monitoring by a CEM or by stack testing, the EPA is 
proposing that a source keep records of the volumes of fuels introduced 
into the kiln during startup and shutdown to verify that raw materials 
are not introduced into the kiln, although, by definition, if raw 
materials are introduced continuously into the kiln, the kiln is not 
operating in startup and shutdown and the monitoring requirements of 
the main standards would therefore apply. Kiln owners and operators 
would then make conservative assumptions as to the combustion 
efficiency of the kiln so as to reasonably estimate destruction of 
organics, and include mass balance calculations showing that the 
startup/shutdown standards would not be exceeded.
    These proposed recordkeeping requirements would serve as the basis 
for compliance monitoring. The EPA believes that these proposed 
recordkeeping requirements are both sufficient to yield reliable 
information for the startup and shutdown periods, and to establish a 
source's compliance or non-compliance with the startup and shutdown 
standards. The EPA also believes that this proposed requirement would 
satisfy the requirements of 40 CFR section 70.6(c)(1) which requires 
that Title V permits shall contain ``monitoring * * * requirements 
sufficient to assure compliance with the terms and conditions of the 
permit.''
    The EPA is further proposing that the standard for HCl during 
startup and shutdown be 3 ppmvd under all circumstances, and thus is 
proposing to eliminate the current provision that the startup and 
shutdown standard be zero for kilns measuring compliance by means other 
than a CEM. As shown in the petitions for reconsideration, HCl can be 
formed even when normal fuels and raw materials are not being

[[Page 42383]]

introduced into the kiln (for example, from residual chlorides in the 
kiln refractory). See PCA Petition for Reconsideration Exh. 1. 
Consequently, the promulgated limit of zero is technically 
inappropriate, and the EPA is proposing to amend it to 3 ppmvd, the 
same standard which applies in all other operating modes. Monitoring 
during startup and shutdown would be accomplished by recordkeeping, as 
explained above.
    The EPA also solicits comment on whether the numeric standards 
during startup and shutdown should be amended to provide work 
practices, rather than numeric standards. Work practices could require 
operation of emission control devices during startup and shutdown, 
minimizing the time periods of startup/shutdown, and following 
manufacturer's best practices. We rejected work practices for startup 
and shutdown periods in the 2010 final rule because the commenters 
requesting such standard failed to demonstrate why it is ``not feasible 
* * * to prescribe or enforce an emission standard'' for mercury, THC, 
PM and HCl during startup and shutdown at cement kilns, within the 
meaning of section 112(h) of the Act. See NESHAP from the Portland 
Cement Manufacturing Industry Response to Comments Received on Proposed 
Rule Published on May 6, 2009, 74 FR 21135, August 6, 2010 at p. 184.

L. Coal Mills

    Cement kilns burn coal as their main fuel, and mill the coal before 
firing it. From the standpoint of air emissions, these coal mills are 
sometimes physically distinct from the cement kiln, generating 
emissions solely attributable to the coal mill and emitting exhaust 
through a dedicated stack. However, some kilns are configured so that 
coal mill emissions are commingled with kiln exhaust and the emissions 
are discharged through the main kiln stack. Finally, there are some 
configurations whereby kiln emissions are routed to the coal mill and 
discharged through the coal mill stack. This part of the preamble 
discusses the regulatory treatment of these different scenarios.
    First, the EPA has promulgated new source performance standards (40 
CFR part 60 subpart Y) for coal mills. See 74 FR 51952 (October 8, 
2009). These standards apply to coal mills, including coal mills at 
cement manufacturing facilities, which emit through a dedicated stack. 
Subpart Y standards do not apply to coal mills at cement facilities 
whose only heat source is kiln exhaust. See section 60.251(j) 
(definition of indirect thermal dryer). This leaves ambiguous, or 
partially ambiguous, the regulatory treatment of the second and third 
situations mentioned above: A kiln whose coal emissions are discharged 
through the main kiln stack, and the coal mill which receives some 
exhaust from the cement kiln so that some portion of the coal mill 
exhaust can reflect cement kiln emissions. Because we did not address 
these issues in the 2010 final NESHAP for Portland cement kilns, we 
granted reconsideration in order to do so. See 76 FR 28326 (May 17, 
2011).
    A cement kiln which commingles emissions from its coal mill with 
all other emissions and discharges through kiln emission points would 
have to meet all of the NESHAP. In the case of PM, the additional flow 
from the coal mill would be accounted for in the equation used to 
determine PM contributions from commingled flows. See section K above.
    In the case of a coal mill which receives and discharges some of 
the cement kiln exhaust, the regulatory concern is that this re-routing 
of kiln exhaust not result in uncontrolled HAP emissions.
    Our basic principle for this situation could be that the kiln 
demonstrate that it is meeting all of the NESHAP standards for 
pollutants not regulated under the subpart Y coal mill standard, that 
is mercury, THC and HCl. Because the subpart Y standards contain a PM 
standard predicated on use of fabric filter control technology, we do 
not believe it necessary to account for diverted PM emissions.
    We are soliciting comment on the following compliance mechanism for 
the mercury, THC and HCl standards in this situation: The sum of the 
mercury, THC and HCl in the kiln exhaust diverted to the coal mill, and 
the kiln exhaust exhausted in the main kiln stack, must not exceed the 
subpart LLL NESHAP emission limits for each respective HAP or HAP 
surrogate. Under this approach, the rule could contain requirements to 
document the contribution of the emissions diverted to the coal mill. 
With respect to THC and HCl, because coal may be a source of these 
emissions, we are soliciting comment on a requirement that performance 
tests for THC and HCl be performed upstream of the coal mill. For 
mercury, we are soliciting comment on a requirement that tests be 
required downstream to account for any mercury removal in the coal mill 
air pollution control device (APCD), and to avoid double counting 
emissions of mercury from mercury that becomes re-entrained in the 
coal, which is then burned by the cement kiln (which emissions are 
otherwise accounted for in the NESHAP).
    We note further that an analogous situation is when a cement kiln 
has an alkali bypass which receives and exhausts emissions from the 
kiln. We are proposing that these emissions be subject to controls 
reflecting the same principle--the total emissions of the kiln and 
alkali bypass must meet the subpart LLL NESHAP. We are also proposing 
to use the same monitoring procedures to document compliance. The one 
(slight) exception is for PM. Because there is no independent PM 
standard for an alkali bypass (unlike the situation for coal mills, 
where subpart Y regulates PM emissions), the summed PM emissions from 
the kiln and alkali bypass would have to be equal to or less than the 
PM limit in the subpart LLL NESHAP. Tests for PM from the alkali bypass 
would be downstream of the alkali bypass APCD to account for those 
emission reductions. Though we are not proposing the coal mill 
requirements in this action, we have placed the appropriate regulatory 
text in the proposed rule language to allow comment on actual rule 
language.
    We expand on these monitoring provisions below.
    1. Mercury. Although mercury from the main stack is monitored using 
a CEMS, there is no need for such monitoring for the gas streams from 
the coal mill. The gas stream to the coal mill is small in comparison 
to the kiln exhaust, operation of the coal mill is intermittent, and 
the cost of requiring additional CEMS for coal mills would be overly 
burdensome. Instead, the performance tests for mercury could be 
conducted at such a coal mill once per year, and, as explained above, 
that the tests be conducted downstream of the coal mill. Performance 
tests for mercury could be conducted using either Methods 29 or 30B in 
Appendix A-8 to 40 CFR Part 60. These performance tests could be 
required annually until the tested mercury levels are below the method 
detection limits for two consecutive years, after which tests may be 
conducted every 30 months. If test results at any time exceed the 
method detection limit, annual performance testing could again be 
required until mercury levels are below the method detection limit for 
two consecutive years. The results of the performance test could then 
be summed with the emissions from the kiln stack to determine 
compliance with the mercury emissions limit. Since kiln stack emissions 
are measured continuously with a CEMS, the coal gas emissions could be 
normalized on both a CEMS and production basis (lb/MM ton

[[Page 42384]]

clinker) in order to be summed with the kiln stack emissions. To do so, 
the flow rate to the coal mill could be continuously monitored. Using 
the results of the annual performance test and the continuous flow rate 
from the coal mill, the owner or operator could develop a mercury 
hourly mass emission rate for the coal mill. Hourly mercury emissions 
from the coal mill could be summed with the mercury emissions from the 
kiln to determine continuous compliance as follows:

((QabxCab) + (QcmxCcm) + (QksxCks))/P <= MACT Limit

Where:

Qab = Alkali bypass flow rate (volume/hr)

Cab = Alkali bypass concentration (lb/dscf)
Qcm = Coal mill flow rate (volume/hr)
Ccm = Coal mill concentration (lb/dscf)
Qks = Kiln stack flow rate (volume/hr)
Cks = Kiln stack concentration (lb/dscf)
P = Kiln production rate (million tons clinker/hr)
MACT Limit = Limit for mercury (55 lb mercury/MM tons clinker)

    This equation requires all values to be at or corrected to 7 
percent O2.
    Thus, if the normalized test results at the coal mill control 
device outlet shows mercury emissions of 10 lb/MM tons clinker, 
emissions from the kiln should be less than 45 lb/MM tons of clinker to 
be in compliance with the proposed kiln mercury emissions limit. See 
section 63.1350(k)(5).
    For kilns also equipped with an alkali bypass, the same procedure 
as that for the coal mill would apply. Where a portion of kiln gases 
are diverted to a coal mill and to an alkali bypass, emissions from the 
coal mill and alkali bypass would be tested, normalized and summed and 
with the mercury emissions from the kiln to determine compliance with 
the emissions limit.
    2. THC and HCl. Because THC and HCl are concentration-based limits, 
the compliance demonstration could differ in certain details from the 
procedure described above for the production based limits for mercury. 
Kiln stack emission limits (to be continuously monitored) could be 
calculated taking into consideration the volumetric exhaust gas flow 
rates and concentrations of all applicable effluent streams (kiln 
stack, coal mill, and alkali bypass) for the kiln unit as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP18JY12.000


Where:

Qab = Alkali bypass flow rate (volume/hr)
Cab = Alkali bypass concentration (ppmvd)
Qcm = Coal mill flow rate (volume/hr)
Ccm = Coal mill concentration (ppmvd)e
Qks = Kiln stack flow rate (volume/hr)
Cks = Kiln stack concentration (ppmvd)
MACT Limit = Limit for THC or HCl (ppmvd)

This equation requires all values to be at or corrected to 7 percent 
O2.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ The proposed approach is conceptually similar to that for 
PM from multiple sources discussed in K. above--an equation which 
accounts for the flow-weighted concentration of PM from all sources.

    In order to determine the flow rates and concentrations of THC and 
HCl in the coal mill and alkali bypass streams, the source could test 
annually using the appropriate test method and could monitor the flow 
rate of the kiln stack with CMS. For HCl, the performance test could be 
performed using Method 321 in Appendix A to 40 CFR Part 63. For 
measurement of THC, Method 25A in Appendix A-7 to 40 CFR Part 60 could 
be required. With these data, the concentration of THC and HCl that 
must be monitored in the CEMS in order to demonstrate compliance with 
the kiln MACT limit under this proposal can be calculated by solving 
for Cks (kiln stack concentration) from the equation above, as shown:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP18JY12.001

    This equation is based on the following:
     The total allowable mass emissions of THC and HCl for the 
kiln unit can be determined with the sum of all flow rates (coal mill, 
alkali bypass and kiln stack) and the applicable NESHAP limit (THC or 
HCl) concentration. This yields the total allowable mass emissions per 
unit of time for the kiln unit according to the MACT limits and the 
site specific flow rates for the coal mill, alkali bypass and kiln 
stack.
     By testing the coal mill and alkali bypass streams for 
concentration and flow rate, the actual mass of THC and HCl emitted per 
unit of time can be determined.
     Subtracting the actual mass emissions of THC and HCl 
leaving the coal mill and alkali by pass from the total allowable mass 
emissions for the kiln unit determines the remainder of allowable mass 
emissions that can be emitted through the kiln stack.
     With knowledge of the flow rate at the kiln stack 
(measured by CMS) and the allowable mass emissions (i.e. remainder) 
that can be emitted through the kiln stack, a site specific 
concentration can be determined. The equation above provides a 
simplified approach to determining this value.
    The following example indicates how compliance could be 
demonstrated. In this example, we assume a kiln stack, coal mill and 
alkali bypass with the following volumetric flow rates and THC 
concentrations:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Effluent stream                   Flow
                                  THC concentration      Notes     MACT LIMIT
                                         rate
                                       (ppmvd)                       (ppmvd)
                                      (dscm/hr)
                                       (@7% O2)                     (@7% O2)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alkali Bypass................  Qab....          38,233  Cab....              56  Determined                   24
                                                                                  through test.
Coal Mill....................  Qcm....          57,349  Ccm....              56  Determined
                                                                                  through test.
Kiln Stack...................  Qks....         286,746  Cks....               ?  Flow rate
                                                                                  monitored by
                                                                                  CMS.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 42385]]

    With the simplified equation provided above, the THC value that 
must not be exceeded in the kiln stack (verified with CEMS) is 
determined as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP18JY12.002

    Using the equation above, Cks is less than or equal to 13.3 ppmvd @ 
7 percent O2. This value could be monitored by a CEMS in 
order to demonstrate compliance with the NESHAP limit--i.e., to 
demonstrate that the summed values are less than or equal to the 
standard of 24 ppmvd.
    The requirements for THC and HCl could be essentially the same as 
that for mercury (except that limits are concentration based as opposed 
to production-normalized mass based): the flow-weighted averages of THC 
and HCl could be less than or equal to the subpart LLL NESHAP. The kiln 
stack emissions are measured by a CEMS (for THC) or by other applicable 
means (for HCl). The flow-weighted contributions from other sources 
(the alkali bypass and the kiln exhaust diverted to the coal mill) 
could be assessed by annual testing and applied continuously with flow 
being measured continuously (explained further in the next paragraph). 
As noted above, testing of the kiln exhaust diverted to the coal mill 
could be conducted upstream of the coal mill for THC and HCl so that 
only the kiln exhaust contribution is assessed.
    To monitor compliance continuously, the gas flow rate from the coal 
mill could be monitored continuously. This flow rate measured during 
the annual performance test could be the maximum flow rate allowed 
during the year. If a higher flow rate is observed, the owner/operator 
could retest THC and HCl to obtain a new flow-weighted concentration 
which would be summed with the kiln main stack THC or HCl concentration 
to determine whether the kiln is still in compliance. Because of this 
requirement, the owner/operator should perform their test at a flow 
rate that would cover the range of conditions expected.
    3. PM. As explained above, in the situation where a cement kiln 
diverts some exhaust to an integrated coal mill, the coal mill could 
meet the subpart Y standards, and the kiln could meet the subpart LLL 
NESHAP standard but would not have to account for the diverted exhaust 
in doing so. In all other situations, PM contribution from a coal mill 
(or from an alkali bypass) could be accounted for via the equation 
discussed in section J above. If the alkali bypass discharges 
separately, it would have to sum its PM emissions with those from the 
main stack and the summed emissions would have to be less than or equal 
to the subpart LLL NESHAP standard for PM.
    As a result of this revision, we would also include a revised 
definition of ``kiln'' to clarify that coal mills using kiln exhaust 
gases in their operation are considered to be an integral part of the 
kiln (and hence subject to these standards). We would also include a 
definition for ``in-line coal mill'' for those coal mills using kiln 
exhaust gases in their process. The definition would exclude coal mills 
with a heat source other than the kiln or coal mills using exhaust 
gases from the clinker cooler.

M. PM Standard for Modified Sources Under the NSPS

    The EPA adopted the level of the new source standard under the 
NESHAP as the NSPS for both new and modified kilns and clinker coolers. 
See 75 FR 54996 (September 9, 2010). As the PCA noted in its 
reconsideration petition, there need not be functional equivalence 
between the NESHAP and NSPS PM limits for modified kilns and clinker 
coolers. The PCA also noted that the NSPS for modified kilns and 
clinker coolers could have associated costs which need to be accounted 
for pursuant to CAA section 111(a)(1). Since such kilns and clinker 
coolers would not be subject to the section 112(d) new source standard, 
any costs for such modified kilns and clinker coolers to control PM to 
the new source limit could not be attributed to the section 112(d) new 
source limit. In addition, the PCA noted that existing Portland cement 
kilns cannot be assumed to find ways to avoid triggering the NSPS 
modification criteria when making physical or operational changes due 
to the stringency of the newly adopted standards for PM.
    The EPA believes that the PCA's arguments on this point have merit. 
Under the September 2010 final NESHAP, existing kilns and clinker 
coolers are subject to the PM limit of 0.04 lb/ton clinker. If the kiln 
or clinker cooler undergoes modification, it would continue to be 
subject to 0.04 lb/ton limit, but would now be subject as well to the 
NSPS limit of 0.01 lb/ton clinker. Notwithstanding that there are 
independent justifications under section 111 that could justify this 
result (see PCA v. EPA, 665 F 3d at 190-91), the EPA believes, subject 
to consideration of comment, that it is more appropriate for modified 
kilns and clinker coolers to meet the NESHAP PM limit for existing 
sources. We are proposing that existing kilns and clinker coolers that 
are subject to the NESHAP existing source emissions limit would 
continue to be subject to that limit and not to the more stringent 
limit for new sources under the NSPS. This would be a limit of 0.07 lb 
per ton clinker, three-run average based on Method 5 stack testing as 
explained in section D above. The parametric monitoring using a CPMS 
would likewise apply, as would the requirement of annual stack tests. 
We have justified the PM standard for modified kilns and clinker 
coolers under section 111 and need not repeat that rationale here. See 
PCA v. EPA, 655 F. 3d at 190-91. This analysis continues to apply when 
the standards are based on stack tests rather than CEMS and no longer 
use a 30-day averaging period. The EPA also finds that the costs of 
meeting the incrementally more stringent proposed new source limit of 
0.02 lb/ton clinker (three-run average) are not justified for modified 
kilns and clinker coolers. For an existing kiln to reduce emissions 
from 0.07 to 0.02 lb/ton clinker would result in a modest reduction in 
PM emissions at a cost of more than $21,000 per ton of PM reduced (the 
extra cost being attributable to more frequent replacement of bags) and 
greater still if sources are able to comply with the proposed limit by 
using controls other than a fabric filter or different types of fabric 
filters.

N. Proposed NESHAP Compliance Date Extension for Existing Sources

    Under section 112 (i)(a)(3) of the Act, the EPA may reset 
compliance dates for section 112 (d) emission standards if the EPA 
amends the standards themselves (as opposed to amending some ancillary 
feature of the standards relating to implementation). See NRDC v. EPA, 
489 F. 3d 1364, 1373-74 (D.C. Cir. 2007).

[[Page 42386]]

Such a resetting would be appropriate if the standards are changed in 
such a way as to warrant more time for compliance, either to develop 
necessary controls or to otherwise significantly alter control 
strategy. Cf. PCA v. EPA, 655 F. 3d at 189. (Staying NESHAP standards 
for clinker piles because ``the standards could likely change 
substantially. Thus, industry should not have to build expensive new 
containment structures until the standard is finally determined''). The 
EPA believes that may be the case here. Subject to consideration of 
public comment, the proposed amendments to the PM standard could 
significantly alter compliance strategies for all of the regulated HAP. 
The EPA is accordingly proposing that the compliance date for the PM, 
THC, mercury and HCl standards for existing sources for kilns, clinker 
coolers and raw material dryers be extended until September 10, 2015, a 
2-year extension of the current compliance date.\14\ We believe that 
this date would require compliance ``as expeditiously as practicable'' 
as required by section 112 (i)(3)(A) of the Act.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ This date would be approximately 2 years and 10 months from 
the December 20, 2012, signature date for final action called for in 
the draft settlement agreement between EPA and PCA. See 77 FR 27055 
(May 8, 2012).
    \15\ If the EPA were to adopt a THC standard of 15 ppmvd (see 
section III.C.2 above), an extension of 3 years from the date of 
final action would be needed since many kilns' control strategies 
for organics controlled would be fundamentally altered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA is proposing to amend the standards for PM, changing the 
compliance regime from CEMS-based to stack-test based, changing the 
averaging time for compliance, and changing the level of the standard. 
These proposed changes, in and of themselves, may occasion the need for 
additional time to study the possibility of different control 
strategies than are available under the 2010 final rule.
    The EPA believes that different compliance strategies may now be 
available. The 2010 PM standard is achievable but requires the most 
advanced fabric filters, membrane bags, frequent bag replacement and 
maintenance. See Docket item EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0051-3438. The proposed 
standard of 0.07 lb/ton of clinker (3-run stack test) may be achievable 
by other means. Potential compliance strategies include use of 
electrostatic precipitators (ESP) (or an ESP with a polishing baghouse 
or cyclone), or using a different type of baghouse. Baghouses could, 
for example, be sized smaller, could use cloth rather than membrane 
bags, or could use other variants The proposed change in the PM limit 
may also allow some sources to comply using their existing PM control 
device. As a result, they may be able to cancel a planned upgrade to 
membrane fabric filters or a replacement of their existing device with 
a new one. The PM standard also applies to clinker coolers, and sources 
may be able to meet the 0.07 lb/ton clinker standard with an existing 
control device for a clinker cooler. See PCA, The Impact of a Change in 
the Cement NESHAP PM limit on Compliance Strategies and Schedules, 
April 9, 2012; and PCA letter, Implications of Altered PM Limit on PCA 
Technology Analysis, May 24, 2012. We note that in the database for the 
2010 standards, six cement kilns with ESP already were meeting the 0.07 
lb/ton clinker standard for PM which we are proposing here. See 
Portland Cement Reconsideration TSD, Section 9. The proposal to amend 
the standard for PM has implications for all of the standards, not just 
those for PM. The standards for mercury, HCl and THC all rely (or may 
rely) on control strategies involving injection and removal of added 
particulates, whether in the form of activated carbon, or dry or wet 
sorbent injectant. See Docket item EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0051-3438, section 
2. A change in the PM standard thus affects these collateral PM control 
strategies as well. For example, it may be possible for a single PM 
control device to meet the proposed 0.07 lb/ton clinker standard and 
also control the auxiliary PM collected from control of the other HAP, 
making polishing filters unnecessary.\16\ Conversely, a central 
baghouse to meet a 0.07 lb/ton clinker standard may be sized smaller, 
but this may necessitate adding polishing filters to capture PM from 
control of the other HAP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ The EPA did not believe this possible under the 2010 PM 
standard, and costed polishing filters in all instances. See EPA-HQ-
OAR-2002-0051-3438.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    New compliance strategies require time to implement. New 
engineering studies are needed, potential suppliers identified, and a 
new bidding/procurement process undertaken. Significant plant redesign, 
in the form of new ductwork and new fan design, and changes in the main 
control equipment may be needed. See U.S. EPA, Engineering and Economic 
Factors Affecting the Installation of Control Technologies for 
Multipollutant Strategies, October 2002. Depending on the type of 
control, this normally requires 15-27 months. Multiple control systems 
will take longer. Id. Installation of controls at cement kilns normally 
occurs during winter months (to coincide with kiln outages during low 
production seasons). Putting this together, it tentatively appears that 
summer of 2015 would be an expeditious compliance date, and the EPA is 
proposing to extend the existing source compliance date until September 
9, 2015.
    The EPA also solicits comment on a shorter extension. The industry 
here is not starting from scratch. There should be on-going planning to 
meet the standards promulgated in 2010 which could shorten the time 
needed to come into compliance with these proposed revised standards 
(should the EPA adopt them). Moreover, as explained below, we calculate 
that sources will need to design controls to meet virtually the same 
average performance for PM under the proposed standard of 0.07 lb/ton 
clinker (Method 5) as they would under the promulgated standard of 0.04 
lb/ton clinker (30-day average). Again, this could dovetail with on-
going compliance efforts and shorten the time needed to come into 
compliance with a revised standard. Consequently, the EPA solicits 
comment on a compliance extension until September 2014 (1 year from the 
current compliance date). This type of extension would recognize that 
additional time for compliance is needed, and accommodate cement kilns' 
operating cycle (leaving winter months for control equipment 
deployment), but recognize that the industry is not starting from 
scratch. Commenters should take into account that individual sources 
could still apply to permit writers for an additional extension of one 
year under section 112 (i)(3)(B) in instances where it is not possible 
to install control equipment within the specified period.
    Notwithstanding that we believe that the proposed PM standard may 
create new and lower cost opportunities for compliance, we believe the 
overall emission reductions from the standard to be roughly the same 
(except that full compliance will not occur until September 9, 2015 as 
noted below). We believe that sources will still need to design to meet 
essentially the same daily average as they would under the 2010 
standard. That is, sources do not design to meet a standard, but rather 
to meet a level comfortably lower. They do so in order to provide a 
compliance margin on those days where emissions rise due to inherent 
and uncontrollable variability. See Docket item EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0051-
3438, section 2. The difference is too small to be reliably quantified. 
We have recalculated a design value (i.e. the level to which kilns 
would design to meet the existing source standard) under the proposal.

[[Page 42387]]

The calculated design value, which reflects the average PM emissions 
from the sources used to establish the floor in this proposed rule, 
would be 0.02655 lb/ton clinker vs. a calculated design value of 
0.02296 lb/ton clinker under the final rule. See Portland Cement 
Reconsideration TSD section 9. These calculations are not so precise as 
to reliably predict to the third decimal point to the right of zero, so 
this difference should be viewed as suggesting a directional difference 
in the standards. Viewed as a type of bounding, directional difference, 
the difference in design values would be approximately 1.7 percent.

               Table 4--Comparison of Nationwide PM Emissions From 2010 Rule to This Proposed Rule
                                                [TSD, section 9]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   2010 rule                 Proposed rule           Increment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emissions limit (lb/ton clinker.........  0.04 30-day average.......  0.07 average of three one-              NA
                                                                       hour stack tests.
MACT average emissions for compliance     0.02296...................  0.02655...................         0.00359
 (lb/ton clinker.
2010 baseline emissions (tons/yr).......  10,326....................  10,326....................              NA
Nationwide emissions reduction (tons/yr)  9,489.....................  9,354.....................            -135
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the proposed revisions, full compliance would occur in 
September, 2015, along with the costs and benefits associated with full 
compliance. However, because facilities will begin installing or 
retrofitting controls prior to the full compliance date, the full 
benefits and costs would be phased-in over 2 years with the full 
benefits and costs realized by 2015.

O. Eligibility To Be a New Source

    The EPA is not proposing a new date for new source eligibility. 
Thus, a source which commenced construction, modification, or 
reconstruction after May 6, 2009, would remain subject to the new 
source standard. Section 112(a)(4) of the Act defines a new source as a 
stationary source ``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.'' 
The EPA views the new source compliance date trigger (the date the EPA 
``first proposes regulations * * *.'') to be the date the rulemaking 
record under which a standard is developed is proposed. See 74 FR 21158 
(May 6, 2009). (This interpretation was not challenged in the 
underlying rulemaking and the EPA is not reopening it here, but rather 
is applying it.) Here the key record information is what new sources 
would need to do to comply and whether there is any change. It is the 
EPA's initial technical judgment that new sources would have to adopt 
the same control strategy--use of the same size fabric filter with 
membrane bags--under an amended standard of 0.02 lb/ton clinker (stack 
test) as they would under the promulgated standard of 0.01 lb/ton 
clinker (30-day average). A standard of 0.02 lb/ton clinker (stack 
test) remains very stringent and cannot be met (in the EPA's view) 
without using appropriately optimized baghouses and membrane bags. If 
this is correct (and the EPA solicits comment on the issue), then new 
sources would not need additional time and would follow through on 
their present control strategies. We also have performed the same type 
of analysis regarding the design value to which new sources would need 
to design under this proposal, reflecting the average performance of 
the best performing similar source. We believe that there would be no 
change, corroborating our engineering judgment that new sources will 
adopt the same control strategy under the proposed standard as under 
the promulgated standard. See Portland Cement Reconsideration TSD 
section 9. Consequently, the EPA is not proposing to alter the new 
source eligibility date of May 6, 2009.

IV. Other Proposed Testing and Monitoring Revisions

    Following the September 2010 promulgation of the final rule, we 
found the following errors and omissions in the testing and monitoring 
provisions and are proposing to correct them.
     Equations for calculating rolling operating day emissions 
rates.
     Definition or procedures that include extraneous wording.
     Incorrect units in equations.
     Cross references and typographical errors in the rule.

We are proposing revisions that will clarify that data collected as 
part of relative accuracy test audits and performance tests are to be 
submitted to the EPA using their Electronic Reporting Tool. For sources 
that are required to monitor HCl emissions with a CEMS, we are revising 
the requirements for using HCl CEMS to define the span value for this 
source category, to include quality assurance measures for data 
collected under ``mill off'' conditions, and to clarify use of PS 15.

    In the September 9, 2010, final rule we noted that raw material 
dryers have high O2 contents due to their inherent operation 
characteristics (and not due to the addition of dilution air). 
Referencing the raw material dryer standard to 7 percent O2 
would actually result in a more stringent standard than for cement 
kilns. For example, given the typical O2 contents of kiln 
exhaust (7 to 12 percent), a kiln just meeting the THC limit of 24 
ppmvd would have an actual stack measurement of approximately 16 to 24 
ppmvd. If the raw material dryer standard is referenced to the same 
O2 level, they would have to meet a measured THC limit of 
approximately 3 ppmvd. For this reason, we referenced the O2 
level of the standard for raw materials dryers to 19 percent 
O2, which is the typical O2 level found in the 
exhaust of these devices. However industry commented that, due to these 
high O2 contents, the inherit measurement errors present in 
O2 monitors causes high variability in the correction 
factor, even with a 19 percent reference value, and in some cases 
results in a negative factor. Given these errors and the fact that raw 
materials dryers operate at such high O2 concentrations 
during normal operation we are removing the O2 correction 
factors for raw material dryers.
    The EPA is also proposing minor, non-substantive changes to the 
provisions listed below. These changes are largely for ease of 
readability or clarity, and do not reopen, reassess or otherwise 
reconsider these provisions' substance. The minor editorial and 
clarifying changes were made in the following sections and paragraphs:
     Section 60.62(d).
     Section 60.63(b)(1)(i) and (ii), (b)(2), (f)(1), (2), (4), 
(5), (h)(1) and (6) through (9), (i).

[[Page 42388]]

     Section 60.64(b)(2).
     Section 60.66.
     Section 63.1340(b)(6) through (8).
     Section 63.1346(a) and (c) through (e).
     Section 63.1348(a)(2), (3)(i) through (iii), (a)(4)(i)(A), 
(a)(4)(ii) and (iv).
     Section 63.1348(b)(1)(i), (iii) and (iv).
     Section 63.1348(b)(3), (5), (6)(i), (8) and (c)(2)(iv).
     Section 63.1349(a), (b)(3), (d)(1) and (d)(2) and (e).
     Section 63.1350(d)(1)(i) and (ii), (f), (f)(2)(i) and 
(iii), (f)(3), (f)(4), (g)(1) and (2), (k), (m)(10) and (11), (o) and 
(p).
     Section 63.1352(b).
     Section 63.1356.

V. Other Changes and Areas Where We Are Requesting Comment

    We are also proposing amendments to clarify various requirements in 
this proposed rule including issues of applicability, treatment of 
multiple sources that vent to a single stack, third party 
certification, definitions, startup/shutdown reporting requirements, 
malfunctions and use of bag leak detection systems when PM CPMS are in 
use. We are also proposing to revise the definition of raw material 
dryer to clarify that they may be used for removing the moisture from 
materials other than kiln feed.
    The EPA is proposing to amend 63.1354(c) for reporting startup, 
shutdown and malfunctions when sources fail to meet a standard. We are 
proposing language that requires sources that deviate from a standard 
during startup, shutdown or malfunction to report the information 
concerning such events in semi-annual compliance reports. We are 
proposing that the report must contain the number, duration and cause 
of such events (including unknown cause, if applicable), list the 
affected source or equipment, the date and time that each event started 
and stopped, an estimate of the volume of each regulated pollutant 
emitted over the emission limit for which the source failed to meet a 
standard, and a description of the method used to estimate the 
emissions.
    We note that while malfunction events may also be reported under 
provisions related to assertion of an affirmative defense, this 
separate malfunction reporting requirement is not redundant of the 
affirmative defense reporting requirement because reporting of 
malfunctions under the affirmative defense is not mandatory and would 
occur only if a source chooses to take advantage of the affirmative 
defense.
    Changes to recordkeeping requirements. The EPA is also proposing to 
amend section 63.1355(f) for recordkeeping for events of startup and 
shutdown. Currently (f) requires a record of the occurrence and 
duration of each startup or shutdown. The EPA is proposing to refine 
this requirement based on the requirements applicable during periods of 
startup and shutdown. Given that some affected sources under subpart 
LLL are subject to a different standard during startup and shutdown, it 
will be important to know when such startup and shutdown periods begin 
and end in order to determine compliance with the appropriate standard. 
Thus, the EPA is proposing to require that affected sources subject to 
emission standards during startup or shutdown that differs from the 
emission standard that applies at all other times (i.e., mercury and 
PM) must record the occurrence and duration of such periods. The EPA is 
also proposing to add a requirement that sources record an estimate of 
the volume of emissions over the standard if the affected source fails 
to meet a standard during either startup or shutdown, and record the 
estimating technique.
    The EPA is also proposing to amend (g)(1) to obtain similar 
information on malfunction events. Currently this paragraph requires 
the creation and retention of a record of the occurrence and duration 
of each malfunction of process, air pollution control and monitoring 
equipment. The EPA is proposing that this requirement apply only to 
malfunctions that cause a failure to meet an applicable standard and is 
requiring that the source record date and time of the malfunction 
rather than ``occurrence.'' The EPA is also proposing to add to (g) the 
requirement that sources keep records that include a list of the 
affected source or equipment, an estimate of the volume of each 
regulated pollutant emitted over the standard for which the source 
failed to meet a standard, and a description of the method used to 
estimate the emissions. The EPA is proposing to require that sources 
keep records of this information to ensure that there is adequate 
information to determine compliance during malfunction events, to allow 
the EPA to determine the severity of the failure to meet the standard, 
and to provide data that may document how the source met the general 
duty to minimize emissions during recorded malfunction events.

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

A. What are the affected sources?

    As noted in the promulgated rule, the EPA estimates that by 2013 
there will be 100 Portland cement manufacturing facilities located in 
the U.S. and Puerto Rico that are expected to be affected by that rule, 
and, that approximately 5 of those facilities are complete new 
greenfield facilities. All these facilities will operate 158 cement 
kilns and associated clinker coolers. Of these kilns, 24 are CISWI 
kilns and have been removed from our data set used to establish 
existing source floors. Based on capacity expansion data provided by 
the PCA, by 2013 there will be 16 kilns and their associated clinker 
coolers subject to NESHAP new source emission limits for mercury, HCl 
and THC, and seven kilns and clinker coolers subject to the amended 
NSPS for NOX and SO2. Some of these new kilns 
will be built at existing facilities and some at new greenfield 
facilities.

B. How are the impacts for this proposal evaluated?

    For these proposed amendments, we determined whether additional 
control measures, work practices and monitoring requirements would be 
required by cement manufacturing facilities to comply with the proposed 
amendments. For any additional control measure, work practice or 
monitoring requirement we determined the associated capital and 
annualized cost that would be incurred by facilities required to 
implement the measures. Finally, we considered the extent to which any 
facility in the industry would find it necessary to implement the 
additional measures in order to comply with the proposed amendments. 
Using this approach, we assessed potential impacts from the proposed 
revisions.
    These proposed amendments affect the 2010 rule and are expected to 
result in lower costs for the Portland cement industry. We are 
evaluating the impacts of these proposed amendments relative to the 
impacts estimated for the 2010 final rule. As explained in section N 
above, the proposed amendment to the PM standard affords alternative 
compliance opportunities for existing sources which are less costly. 
These could be utilizing existing PM control devices rather than 
replacing them (for example, retaining an ESP or a smaller baghouse), 
or supplementing existing PM control rather than replacing it (putting 
polishing controls ahead of the primary PM control device). Compliance 
strategies for the other

[[Page 42389]]

HAP, all of which involve some element of PM control, also may be 
affected. Cost savings from these alternatives could be significant. 
For example, we have performed a case study from the data set used in 
the 2010 impacts analysis. Under this proposed rule, an estimated 21 
ESP-equipped kilns no longer need to install membrane bags on a 
downstream polishing Fabric Filter (FF), and one FF retain their 
standard fabric bags rather than replacing them with membrane bags. The 
difference in annual cost for PM control under the proposal scenario 
and the more stringent 2010 scenario is $4.2 million per year. That is, 
under this proposed rule, the annual cost of compliance will be $4.2 
million less than under the 2010 rule under this scenario (see Portland 
Cement Reconsideration TSD, section 9). The EPA is not presently able 
to further quantify potential costs of the proposed changes to the 
emission standards. This is because the agency lacks the site-specific 
information necessary to make the engineering determinations as to how 
individual sources may choose to comply. There are also certain costs, 
and cost savings, associated with other aspects of the proposal. There 
may be a minor difference in costs of stack testing for PM and use of a 
CPMS, rather than use of a PM CEMS. However, since the PM CEMS would be 
calibrated based on stack testing, and the CPMS is the same type of 
device as a PM CEMS, the EPA does not believe there is any significant 
cost difference between these provisions.
    The proposed revisions to the alternative organic HAP standard 
(from 9 ppm to 12 ppm, reflecting the analytic method practical 
quantitation limit) would not require additional controls or 
monitoring. The EPA accordingly does not estimate that there would be 
any cost (or emission reduction benefit) associated with this proposal.
    The proposed revisions for open clinker storage piles codify 
current fugitive dust control measures already required by most states, 
thus no impacts are expected. These proposed standards would be 
significantly less expensive than the controls for open piles in the 
2010 final rule, which required enclosures.
    Although we are reproposing the affirmative defense provisions, 
impacts were not accounted for in the 2010 rulemaking. Thus, we have 
estimated the additional industry burden associated with the 
affirmative defense provisions. We estimate the additional cost is 
$3,142 per year for the entire industry. See Supporting Statement in 
the docket. One of the proposed revisions would allow sources that 
control acid gases, including HCl, with dry caustic scrubbers to use 
periodic performance testing and parameter monitoring rather than with 
HCl CEMS. This will provide those sources with additional flexibility 
in complying with the HCl standards. The proposed revision to the 
alternative PM emissions limit provisions merely recognizes that 
sources other than the clinker cooler may combine their exhaust with 
the kiln exhaust gas and corrects the equation for calculating the 
alternative limit. Therefore, there should be no impacts from this 
proposed revision. The proposal to use recordkeeping as the monitoring 
mechanism for the startup and shutdown standards should also result in 
cost savings because facilities in the industry already keep records on 
feed and fuel usage and they will not have to install and operate CEMS 
for these periods. CEMS for monitoring all HAP or HAP surrogates could 
cost each facility $569,000 in capital cost and annualized costs of 
$198,000. See EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0051-3438.
    The proposed revisions for new testing and monitoring of coal mills 
that use kiln exhaust gases to dry coal and exhaust through a separate 
stack are not expected to have significant impacts. The proposed 
revision would make existing kilns that undergo a modification, as 
defined by NSPS, subject to the NESHAP PM standard for existing source 
rather than the PM limit for new sources. This proposed revision is 
correcting an inadvertent conflict between the two rules and will not 
result in any impacts.

C. What are the air quality impacts?

    In these proposed amendments, emission limits for mercury, THC and 
HCl are unchanged from the 2010 rule. Thus, we expect no change in 
emissions from the 2010 rule for these HAP and HAP surrogates. The 
alternative HAP organic standard would be amended to 12 ppm, but as 
this reflects the practical quantitative limit of detection, it is not 
clear if additional emissions are associated with the proposed standard 
since a lower standard would not be measured reliably.
    For PM, the limit for existing sources would change from 0.04 lb/
ton clinker to 0.07 lb/ton clinker. The PM limit for new sources also 
would be changed to 0.02 lb/ton clinker from 0.01 lb/ton clinker. The 
standard would be measured on a 3-run basis rather than on a 30-day 
basis with a CEMS. The proposed changes in the PM standards, while not 
considered significant in absolute terms, may result in a small 
increase in total nationwide emissions by allowing slightly more 
variability, although we estimate that design values will be 
essentially identical under the 2010 and proposed standard. See section 
III.N above. As explained in the impacts analysis for the 2010 rule 
(see Docket item EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0051-3438), emission reductions were 
estimated by comparing baseline emissions to the long-term average 
emissions of the MACT floor kilns. The average emissions, rather than 
the emissions limit, must be used because to comply with the limit all 
or most of the time, emissions need to be reduced to the average of the 
MACT floor kilns. Under the 2010 rule, the average PM emissions from 
the existing floor kilns were 0.02296 lb/ton clinker. Under the 
reconsideration, the average PM emissions of the existing floor kilns 
is calculated to be 0.02655 lb/ton clinker although, as noted, this 
difference is less than the normal analytic variability in PM 
measurement methods and so must be viewed as directional rather than 
precisely quantitative. The average emissions for new kilns did not 
change and we believe new sources will have to adopt identical control 
strategies as under the promulgated standards. We, therefore, are not 
estimating an emission increase from new kilns. For existing kilns, 
with an increase in PM emissions under the proposed rule of 0.00359 lb/
ton clinker compared to the 2010 rule, nationwide emissions of PM would 
increase by 135 tons per year (0.00359 x 75,355,116/2000). Thus, the 
EPA estimates that the main effect of this proposed rule for PM will be 
to provide flexibility for those days when emissions increase as a 
result of normal operating variability, but would not significantly 
alter long-term average performance for PM.
    Emission reductions under the 2010 rule and the proposed rule, in 
2015, are compared in Table 5.

[[Page 42390]]



             Table 5--Comparison of Nationwide PM Emissions From 2010 Rule to Proposed Rule in 2015
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Kiln type            2010 rule          Proposed rule        Increment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emissions limit (lb/ton clinker).  Existing...........  0.04 (30-day         0.07 (3-run stack                NA
                                                         average with a       test).
                                                         CEMS).
MACT average emissions for         Existing...........  0.02296............  0.02655............         0.00359
 compliance (lb/ton clinker).
2010 baseline emissions (tons/yr)  ...................  10,326.............  10,326.............              NA
                                                       ---------------------------------------------------------
    Nationwide emissions           Total..............  9,489..............  9,354..............            -135
     reduction (tons/yr).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The EPA did not have sufficient information to quantify the overall 
change in emissions for 2013 to 2015 that might arise due to the 
proposed change in compliance dates. The EPA encourages comment on all 
aspects of our analysis.

D. What are the water quality impacts?

    None of the amendments being proposed will have significant impacts 
on water quality. To the extent that the proposed revision affecting 
dry caustic scrubbers encourages their use, some reduction in water 
consumption may occur although we have no information upon which to 
base an estimate.

E. What are the solid waste impacts?

    None of the amendments being proposed today are expected to have 
any solid waste impacts.

F. What are the secondary impacts?

    Indirect or secondary air quality impacts include impacts that will 
result from the increased electricity usage associated with the 
operation of control devices as well as water quality and solid waste 
impacts (which were just discussed) that will occur as a result of 
these proposed revisions. Because we are proposing revisions that 
reduce the stringency of the existing source emission limits PM from 
the promulgated 2010 limits, we believe that some facilities may be 
able to alter their strategy for complying with the standards for the 
four pollutants to achieve compliance at a lower cost than possible 
under the original standard. These types of determinations will be made 
for each facility based on site-specific characteristics such as 
process type, equipment age, existing air pollution controls, raw 
material and fuel characteristics, economic factors and others. 
Therefore, we are not able to reliably predict secondary impacts for 
individual facilities or for the industry as a whole.

G. What are the energy impacts?

    As discussed in the preceding section, because of the proposed 
revisions to the PM emission limits, some facilities may be able to 
develop more cost effective compliance strategies. However, we cannot 
accurately predict the extent to which these site-specific compliance 
strategies may increase or decrease energy demands.

H. What are the cost impacts?

    Under the cost scenario discussed above, we estimate that there 
could be savings of $12.2 million associated with alternative 
compliance strategies for meeting amended PM standards and making 
corresponding adjustments in compliance strategies for the other HAP. 
Table 6 summarizes the costs and emissions reductions of this proposed 
action.

       Table 6--Costs and Emissions Reductions of Proposed Amendments Relative to the 2010 Rule a b c d e
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Annualized
              Proposed amendment                 Capital cost        cost              Emissions reduction
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Revised PM standard...........................    -$18,640,106     -$4,200,000  -135 tons/yr (emissions
                                                                                 increase)
Replace PM CEMS with PM CPMS..................               0      -7,980,000  0
                                               --------------------------------
    Total.....................................     -18,640,106     -12,180,000  ................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ See section III below for further discussion of impacts of the proposed amendments.
\b\ Negative numbers indicate cost savings or emissions increase. All costs are in 2005 dollars.
\c\ We also estimate that there will be a one-time cost of $25,000 for each facility to develop the calculation
  that will allow them to demonstrate compliance during periods of startup and shutdown.
\d\ Emissions reductions are the total relative to the 2010 rule once full compliance is achieved in 2015.
\e\ Full compliance costs will not occur until September 9, 2015.


The cost information in Table 6 is in 2005 dollars at a discount rate 
of 7 percent. The EPA did not have sufficient information to quantify 
the overall change in benefits or impacts in emissions for 2013 to 
2015.

    Though we are not proposing the coal mill monitoring requirements 
in this action, if we required it, sources with integral coal mills 
that exhaust through a separate exhaust could potentially incur a 
capital cost of $36,000 to install a continuous flow meter. The 
annualized cost of a flow meter is $11,000. We do not have information 
on the number of such coal mills in the industry that would allow us to 
calculate nationwide costs. We also estimate that there will be a one-
time cost of $25,000 for each facility to develop the calculation that 
will allow them to demonstrate compliance during periods of startup and 
shutdown. With the proposed change to PM CPMS instead of CEMS, it is 
estimated that the elimination of the PS correlation tests will result 
in a savings of $60,000 per kiln.

I. What are the health effects of these pollutants?

    In this section, we provide a qualitative description of benefits 
associated with reducing exposure to PM2.5, HCl and mercury. 
Controls installed to reduce HAP would also

[[Page 42391]]

reduce ambient concentrations of PM2.5 as a co-benefit. 
Reducing exposure to PM2.5 is associated with significant 
human health benefits, including avoiding mortality and morbidity from 
cardiovascular and respiratory illnesses. Researchers have associated 
PM2.5 exposure with adverse health effects in numerous 
toxicological, clinical and epidemiological studies (U.S. EPA, 
2009).\17\ When adequate data and resources are available and an RIA is 
required, the EPA generally quantifies several health effects 
associated with exposure to PM2.5 (e.g., U.S. EPA, 
2011).\18\ These health effects include premature mortality for adults 
and infants, cardiovascular morbidities such as heart attacks, hospital 
admissions, and respiratory morbidities such as asthma attacks, acute 
and chronic bronchitis, hospital and emergency department visits, work 
loss days, restricted activity days, and respiratory symptoms. Although 
the EPA has not quantified certain outcomes including adverse effects 
on birth weight, pre-term births, pulmonary function and other 
cardiovascular and respiratory effects, the scientific literature 
suggests that exposure to PM2.5 is also associated with 
these impacts (U.S. EPA, 2009). PM2.5 also increases light 
extinction, which is an important aspect of visibility (U.S. EPA, 
2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2009. 
Integrated Science Assessment for Particulate Matter (Final Report). 
EPA-600-R-08-139F. National Center for Environmental Assessment-RTP 
Division. Available on the Internet at http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=216546.
    \18\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2011. 
Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Federal Implementation Plans to 
Reduce Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone in 
27 States; Correction of SIP Approvals for 22 States. Office of Air 
and Radiation, Research Triangle Park, NC. Available on the Internet 
at http://www.epa.gov/airtransport/pdfs/FinalRIA.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Hydrogen chloride (HCl) is a corrosive gas that can cause 
irritation of the mucous membranes of the nose, throat and respiratory 
tract. Brief exposure to 35 ppm causes throat irritation, and levels of 
50 to 100 ppm are barely tolerable for 1 hour.\19\ The greatest impact 
is on the upper respiratory tract; exposure to high concentrations can 
rapidly lead to swelling and spasm of the throat and suffocation. Most 
seriously exposed persons have immediate onset of rapid breathing, blue 
coloring of the skin and narrowing of the bronchioles. Exposure to HCl 
can lead to RADS, a chemically- or irritant-induced type of asthma. 
Children may be more vulnerable to corrosive agents than adults because 
of the relatively smaller diameter of their airways. Children may also 
be more vulnerable to gas exposure because of increased minute 
ventilation per kilograms and failure to evacuate an area promptly when 
exposed. Hydrogen chloride has not been classified for carcinogenic 
effects.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). 
Medical Management Guidelines for Hydrogen Chloride. Atlanta, GA: 
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Available online at 
http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/mmg/mmg.asp?id=758&tid=147#bookmark02.
    \20\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 1995. 
Integrated Risk Information System File of Hydrogen Chloride. 
Research and Development, National Center for Environmental 
Assessment, Washington, DC. This material is available 
electronically at http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0396.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mercury in the environment is transformed into a more toxic form, 
methylmercury (MeHg). Because mercury is a persistent pollutant, MeHg 
accumulates in the food chain, especially the tissue of fish. When 
people consume these fish, they consume MeHg. In 2000, the NAS Study 
was issued which provides a thorough review of the effects of MeHg on 
human health (NRC, 2000).\21\ Many of the peer-reviewed articles cited 
in this section are publications originally cited in the MeHg Study. In 
addition, the EPA has conducted literature searches to obtain other 
related and more recent publications to complement the material 
summarized by the NRC in 2000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ National Research Council (NRC). 2000. Toxicological 
Effects of Methylmercury. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In its review of the literature, the National Academy of Science 
(NAS) found neurodevelopmental effects to be the most sensitive and 
best documented endpoints and appropriate for establishing an oral 
reference dose (RfD) (National Research Council (NRC), 2000); in 
particular NAS supported the use of results from neurobehavioral or 
neuropsychological tests. The NAS report noted that studies in animals 
reported sensory effects as well as effects on brain development and 
memory functions and support the conclusions based on epidemiology 
studies. The NAS noted that their recommended endpoints for an RfD are 
associated with the ability of children to learn and to succeed in 
school. They concluded the following: ``The population at highest risk 
is the children of women who consumed large amounts of fish and seafood 
during pregnancy. The committee concludes that the risk to that 
population is likely to be sufficient to result in an increase in the 
number of children who have to struggle to keep up in school.''
    The NAS summarized data on cardiovascular effects available up to 
2000. Based on these and other studies, the NRC concluded that 
``Although the data base is not as extensive for cardiovascular effects 
as it is for other end points (i.e. neurologic effects) the 
cardiovascular system appears to be a target for MeHg toxicity in 
humans and animals.'' The NRC also stated that ``additional studies are 
needed to better characterize the effect of methylmercury exposure on 
blood pressure and cardiovascular function at various stages of life.''
    Additional cardiovascular studies have been published since 2000. 
The EPA did not to develop a quantitative dose-response assessment for 
cardiovascular effects associated with MeHg exposures, as there is no 
consensus among scientists on the dose-response functions for these 
effects. In addition, there is inconsistency among available studies as 
to the association between MeHg exposure and various cardiovascular 
system effects. The pharmacokinetics of some of the exposure measures 
(such as toenail mercury levels) are not well understood. The studies 
have not yet received the review and scrutiny of the more well-
established neurotoxicity data base.
    The Mercury Study \22\ noted that MeHg is not a potent mutagen but 
is capable of causing chromosomal damage in a number of experimental 
systems. The NAS concluded that evidence that human exposure to MeHg 
caused genetic damage is inconclusive; they note that some earlier 
studies showing chromosomal damage in lymphocytes may not have 
controlled sufficiently for potential confounders. One study of adults 
living in the Tapaj[oacute]s River region in Brazil (Amorim et al., 
2000) reported a direct relationship between MeHg concentration in hair 
and DNA damage in lymphocytes; as well as effects on chromosomes.\23\ 
Long-term MeHg exposures in this population were believed to occur 
through consumption of fish, suggesting that genotoxic effects (largely 
chromosomal aberrations) may result from dietary, chronic MeHg 
exposures similar to and above those seen in the Faroes and Seychelles 
populations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 1997. 
Mercury Study Report to Congress, EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0234-3054. 
December. Available on the Internet at http://www.epa.gov/hg/report.htm.
    \23\ Amorim, M.I.M., D. Mergler, M.O. Bahia, H. Dubeau, D. 
Miranda, J. Lebel, R.R. Burbano, and M. Lucotte. 2000. Cytogenetic 
damage related to low levels of methyl mercury contamination in the 
Brazilian Amazon. An. Acad. Bras. Science. 72(4): 497-507.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although exposure to some forms of mercury can result in a decrease 
in

[[Page 42392]]

immune activity or an autoimmune response (ATSDR, 1999), evidence for 
immunotoxic effects of MeHg is limited (NRC, 2000).\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). 
1999. Toxicological Profile for Mercury. U.S. Department of Health 
and Human Services, Public Health Service, Atlanta, GA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on limited human and animal data, MeHg is classified as a 
``possible'' human carcinogen by the International Agency for Research 
on Cancer (IARC, 1994) and in IRIS (U.S. EPA, 2002).25 26 
The existing evidence supporting the possibility of carcinogenic 
effects in humans from low-dose chronic exposures is tenuous. Multiple 
human epidemiological studies have found no significant association 
between mercury exposure and overall cancer incidence, although a few 
studies have shown an association between mercury exposure and specific 
types of cancer incidence (e.g., acute leukemia and liver cancer) (NRC, 
2000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2002. 
Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) on Methylmercury. National 
Center for Environmental Assessment. Office of Research and 
Development. Available online at http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0073.htm.
    \26\ International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). 1994. 
IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans 
and their Supplements: Beryllium, Cadmium, Mercury, and Exposures in 
the Glass Manufacturing Industry. Vol. 58. Jalili, H.A., and A.H. 
Abbasi. 1961. Poisoning by ethyl mercury toluene sulphonanilide. Br. 
J. Indust. Med. 18(Oct.):303-308 (as cited in NRC 2000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this 
action is a ``significant regulatory action'' because it raises novel 
legal or policy issues. Accordingly, the EPA submitted this action to 
the OMB for review under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 (76 3821, 
January 21, 2011) and any changes made in response to OMB 
recommendations have been documented in the docket for this action. A 
RIA was prepared for the September 2010 final rule and can be found at: 
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/regdata/RIAs/portlandcementfinalria.pdf. 
The benefits, cost and economic analysis for the first year of full 
compliance for the 2010 final rule are expected to be little changed 
for the first year of full compliance 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 prepared by the EPA has been assigned the EPA ICR number 
1801.10 for the NESHAP and 1051.12 for the NSPS. The information 
requirements are based on notification, recordkeeping and reporting 
requirements in the NESHAP General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart 
A), which are mandatory for all operators subject to national emissions 
standards. These recordkeeping and reporting requirements are 
specifically authorized by CAA section 114 (42 U.S.C. 7414). All 
information submitted to the EPA pursuant to the recordkeeping and 
reporting requirements for which a claim of confidentiality is made is 
safeguarded according to agency policies set forth in 40 CFR part 2, 
subpart B.
    We are proposing new paperwork requirements for the Portland Cement 
Manufacturing source category in the form of a requirement to 
incorporate fugitive dust control measures for clinker piles into their 
existing operations and maintenance plan. We are also proposing to use 
recordkeeping as the means of monitoring compliance with the startup 
and shutdown standards.
    For this proposed rule, the EPA is also proposing to add an 
affirmative defense to the estimate of burden in the ICR. To provide 
the public with an estimate of the relative magnitude of the burden 
associated with an assertion of the affirmative defense position 
adopted by a source, the EPA has provided administrative adjustments to 
this ICR to show what the notification, recordkeeping and reporting 
requirements associated with the assertion of the affirmative defense 
might entail. The EPA's estimate for the required notification, reports 
and records for any individual incident, including the root cause 
analysis, totals $3,142 and is based on the time and effort required of 
a source to review relevant data, interview plant employees, and 
document the events surrounding a malfunction that has caused an 
exceedance of an emissions limit. The estimate also includes time to 
produce and retain the record and reports for submission to the EPA. 
The EPA provides this illustrative estimate of this burden because 
these costs are only incurred if there has been a violation and a 
source chooses to take advantage of the affirmative defense.
    Given the variety of circumstances under which malfunctions could 
occur, as well as differences among sources' operation and maintenance 
practices, we cannot reliably predict the severity and frequency of 
malfunction-related excess emissions events for a particular source. It 
is important to note that the EPA has no basis currently for estimating 
the number of malfunctions that would qualify for an affirmative 
defense. Current historical records would be an inappropriate basis, as 
source owners or operators previously operated their facilities in 
recognition that they were exempt from the requirement to comply with 
emissions standards during malfunctions. Of the number of excess 
emissions events reported by source operators, only a small number 
would be expected to result from a malfunction (based on the definition 
above), and only a subset of excess emissions caused by malfunctions 
would result in the source choosing to assert the affirmative defense. 
Thus we believe the number of instances in which source operators might 
be expected to avail themselves of the affirmative defense will be 
extremely small.
    With respect to the Portland Cement Manufacturing source category, 
the emissions controls are operational before the associated emission 
source(s) commence operation and remain operational until after the 
associated emission source(s) cease operation. Also, production 
operations would not proceed or continue if there is a malfunction of a 
control device and the time required to shut down production operations 
(i.e., on the order of a few hours or a day) is small compared to the 
averaging time of the emission standards (i.e., monthly averages). 
Thus, we believe it is unlikely that a control device malfunction would 
cause an exceedance of any emission limit. Therefore, sources within 
this source category are not expected to have any need or use for the 
affirmative defense and we believe that there is no burden to the 
industry for the affirmative defense provisions in this proposed rule.
    We expect to gather information on such events in the future and 
will revise this estimate as better information becomes available. We 
estimate 86 regulated entities are currently subject

[[Page 42393]]

to subpart LLL and will be subject to all proposed standards. The 
annual monitoring, reporting and recordkeeping burden for this 
collection (averaged over the first 3 years after the effective date of 
the standards) for these amendments to subpart LLL is estimated to be 
$352,814 per year. This includes 496 labor hours per year at a total 
labor cost of $47,806 per year, and total non-labor capital and 
operation and maintenance costs of $305,008 per year. This estimate 
includes reporting and recordkeeping associated with the proposed 
requirements for startup and shutdown and outdoor clinker piles. The 
total burden for the federal government (averaged over the first 3 
years after the effective date of the standard) is estimated to be 263 
hours per year at a total labor cost of $11,885 per year. Burden is 
defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required 
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a 
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for the 
EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
    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, the EPA has established a public docket 
for this proposed rule, which includes this ICR, under Docket ID number 
EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0817. Submit any comments related to the ICR to the EPA 
and OMB. See the ADDRESSES section at the beginning of this notice for 
where to submit comments to the EPA. Send comments to OMB at the Office 
of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 
725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Office for 
the EPA. Since OMB is required to make a decision concerning the ICR 
between 30 and 60 days after July 18, 2012, a comment to OMB is best 
assured of having its full effect if OMB receives it by August 17, 
2012. 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 depending on the size definition 
for the affected NAICS code, as defined by the Small Business 
Administration size standards; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction 
that is a government of a city, county, town, school district or 
special district with a population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small 
organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is 
independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.
    We estimate that 3 of the 26 existing Portland cement entities are 
small entities. After considering the economic impacts of this proposed 
rule on small entities, I certify that this action will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
Of the three affected small entities, all are expected to incur an 
annual compliance cost of less than 1.0 percent of sales to comply with 
this proposed rule (reflecting potential controls on piles, which are 
likely to have lower cost when compared to the 2010 rule requirements 
because these plants already have requirements for control of piles in 
their Title V permits).
    Although this proposed rule will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities, the EPA nonetheless 
has tried to reduce the impact of this proposed rule on small entities. 
For example, we are proposing to expand the provision that allows 
periodic HCl performance tests as an alternative to CEMS for sources 
equipped with wet scrubbers to also apply to those sources that use dry 
sorbent injection. This proposed rule would add an option for sources 
using wet or dry scrubbers for HCl control that also use a CEMS for 
SO2. These sources would now have the option of using their 
SO2 CEMS in conjunction with a periodic stack test to 
demonstrate compliance with the HCl standard. We continue to be 
interested in the potential impacts of the proposed rule on small 
entities and welcome comments on issues related to such impacts.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    This action does not contain a federal mandate under the provisions 
of Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 
U.S.C. 1531-1538 for state, local or tribal governments or the private 
sector. The action imposes no enforceable duties on any state, local or 
tribal governments or the private sector. Thus, this action is not 
subject to the requirements of sections 202 or 205 of the UMRA.
    This proposed rule is also not subject to the requirements of 
section 203 of UMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements that 
might significantly or uniquely affect small governments because it 
contains no requirements that apply to such governments nor does it 
impose obligations upon them.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

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

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

    This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in 
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). Under the 
provisions of this proposed rule, there may be an increase in mercury 
emissions and metal HAP emissions although any increase will be minimal 
because the same control technology that is necessary under the current 
NESHAP will be needed to meet the proposed emissions limits. The more 
stringent limitations of fugitive dust emissions from open clinker 
piles may result in decreased risk to Indian tribal populations. Thus, 
Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.
    The EPA specifically solicits additional comment on this proposed 
action from tribal officials.

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

    The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 
1997) as applying to those regulatory actions that concern health or 
safety risks, such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of 
the Executive Order has the potential to influence the regulation.

[[Page 42394]]

This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is based 
solely on technology performance.

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

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

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

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

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

    Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629) (February 16, 1994) establishes 
federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision 
directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and 
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission 
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high 
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, 
policies and activities on minority populations and low-income 
populations in the United States.
    An analysis of demographic data was prepared for the 2010 final 
rule and can be found in the docket for that rulemaking (EPA-docket no. 
EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0051-3415). The impacts of the 2010 rule, which assumed 
full compliance, are expected to be unchanged as a result of this 
action. Therefore, beginning from the date of full compliance, the EPA 
has determined that this proposed rule will not have disproportionately 
high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or 
low-income populations because it does not affect the level of 
protection provided to human health or the environment. The full 
benefits of this proposed rule will not result until 2015 due to the 
proposed amended compliance date. The EPA has determined that the 
proposed amended compliance date will not result in disproportionately 
high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or 
low-income populations because the demographic analysis showed that the 
average of populations in close proximity to the sources, and thus most 
likely to be affected by the sources, were similar in demographic 
composition to national averages.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Parts 60 and 63

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

    Dated: June 22, 2012.
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:  42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart A--[Amended]

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


Sec.  60.17  Incorporations by reference.

* * * * *
    (h) * * *
    (4) ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10-1981, Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses [Part 
10, Instruments and Apparatus] (issued August 31, 1981), IBR approved 
for Sec.  60.56c(b) of subpart Ec, Sec.  60.63(f) of subpart F, Sec.  
60.106(e) of subpart J, Sec.  60.104a(d), (h), (i) and, (j), Sec.  
60.105a(d), (f), and (g), Sec.  60.106a(a), and Sec.  60.107a(a), (c), 
(d), and (e) of subpart Ja, tables 1 and 3 of subpart EEEE, tables 2 
and 4 of subpart FFFF, table 2 of subpart JJJJ, Sec.  60.4415(a) of 
subpart KKKK, Sec.  60.2145(s) and, (t), Sec.  60.2710(s) (t), and (w), 
Sec.  60.2730(q), Sec.  60.4900(b), Sec.  60.5220(b), tables 1 and 2 to 
subpart LLLL, tables 2 and 3 to subpart MMMM, Sec.  60.5406(c) and 
Sec.  60.5413(b).
* * * * *

Subpart F--[Amended]

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


Sec.  60.61  Definitions.

* * * * *
    (e) Excess emissions means, with respect to this subpart, results 
of any required measurements outside the applicable range (e.g., 
emissions limitations, parametric operating limits) that is permitted 
by this subpart. The values of measurements will be in the same units 
and averaging time as the values specified in this subpart for the 
limitations.
    (f) Operating day means a 24-hour period beginning at 12:00 
midnight during which the kiln operates at any time. For calculating 
rolling 30-day average emissions, an operating day does not include the 
hours of operation during startup or shutdown.
    4. Section 60.62 is amended by:
    a. Revising paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2);
    b. Adding paragraph (a)(1)(iii)
    c. Removing paragraph (b)(1)(i);
    d. Redesignating paragraph (b)(1)(ii) as paragraph (b)(1)(i);
    e. Revising paragraph (b)(1);
    f. Removing paragraph (b)(2);
    g. Redesignating paragraphs (b)(3) and (4) as (2) and (3);
    h. Revising paragraph (d);
    The revisions and deletion read as follows:


Sec.  60.62  Standards.

    (a) * * *
    (1) Contain particulate matter (PM) in excess of:
    (i) [Reserved]
    (ii) 0.02 pound per ton of clinker if construction or 
reconstruction of the kiln commenced after June 16, 2008.
    (iii) Kilns that have undergone a modification may not discharge 
into the atmosphere any gases which contain PM in excess of 0.07 pound 
per ton of clinker.
    (2) [Reserved]
* * * * *
    (b) On and after the date on which the performance test required to 
be conducted by Sec.  60.8 is completed, you may not discharge into the 
atmosphere

[[Page 42395]]

from any clinker cooler any gases which:
    (1) Contain PM in excess of:
    (i) 0.02 pound per ton of clinker if construction or reconstruction 
of the clinker cooler commences after June 16, 2008.
    (ii) Clinker coolers that have undergone a modification may not 
discharge into the atmosphere any gases which contain PM in excess of 
0.07 pound per ton of clinker.
* * * * *
    (d) If you have an affected source subject to this subpart with a 
different emissions limit or requirement for the same pollutant under 
another regulation in title 40 of this chapter, you must comply with 
the most stringent emissions limit or requirement and are not subject 
to the less stringent requirement.
    5. Section 60.63 is amended by:
    a. Revising paragraphs (b)(1)(i) and (b)(1)(ii);
    b. Adding paragraph (b)(1)(iii);
    c. Revising paragraphs (b)(2) and (b)(3);
    d. Removing paragraph (b)(4);
    e. Revising paragraphs (c) through (f);
    f. Revising paragraph (g) introductory text;
    g. Revising paragraph (g)(2);
    h. Revising paragraph (h) introductory text;
    i. Revising paragraphs (h)(1) and (h)(6);
    j. Revising paragraph (h)(7) introductory text;
    k. Revising paragraph (h)(8) introductory text;
    l. Revising paragraph (h)(9);
    m. Revising paragraph (i) introductory text; and
    n. Revising paragraph (i)(1) and (i)(1)(i).
    The revisions, addition, and deletions read as follows:


Sec.  60.63  Monitoring of operations.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (i) Install, calibrate, maintain, and operate a permanent weigh 
scale system to measure and record weight rates of the amount of 
clinker produced in tons of mass per hour. The system of measuring 
hourly clinker production must be maintained within 5 
percent accuracy or
    (ii) Install, calibrate, maintain, and operate a permanent weigh 
scale system to measure and record weight rates of the amount of feed 
to the kiln in tons of mass per hour. The system of measuring feed must 
be maintained within 5 percent accuracy. Calculate your 
hourly clinker production rate using a kiln specific feed-to-clinker 
ratio based on reconciled clinker production rates determined for 
accounting purposes and recorded feed rates. This ratio should be 
updated monthly. Note that if this ratio changes at clinker 
reconciliation, you must use the new ratio going forward, but you do 
not have to retroactively change clinker production rates previously 
estimated.
    (iii) For each kiln operating hour for which you do not have data 
on clinker production or the amount of feed to the kiln, use the value 
from the most recent previous hour for which valid data are available.
    (2) Determine, record, and maintain a record of the accuracy of the 
system of measuring hourly clinker production rates or feed rates 
before initial use (for new sources) or by the effective compliance 
date of this rule (for existing sources). During each quarter of source 
operation, you must determine, record, and maintain a record of the 
ongoing accuracy of the system of measuring hourly clinker production 
rates or feed rates.
    (3) If you measure clinker production directly, record the daily 
clinker production rates; if you measure the kiln feed rates and 
calculate clinker production, record the daily kiln feed and clinker 
production rates.
    (c) PM Emissions Monitoring Requirements. (1) For each kiln or 
clinker cooler subject to a PM emissions limit in Sec.  60.62, you must 
demonstrate compliance through an initial performance test and you must 
monitor continuous performance through use of a PM continuous 
parametric monitoring system (PM CPMS).
    (2) For your PM CPMS, you will establish a site-specific operating 
limit corresponding to the highest 1-hour average PM CPMS output value 
recorded during the performance test demonstrating compliance with the 
PM limit. You will conduct your performance test using Method 5 at 
appendix A-3 to part 60 of this chapter. You will use the PM CPMS to 
demonstrate continuous compliance with your operating limit. You must 
repeat the performance test annually and reassess and adjust the site-
specific operating limit in accordance with the results of the 
performance test.
    (d) You must install, operate, calibrate, and maintain a CEMS 
continuously monitoring and recording the concentration by volume of 
NOX emissions into the atmosphere for any kiln subject to 
the NOX emissions limit in Sec.  60.62(a)(3). If the kiln 
has an alkali bypass, NOX emissions from the alkali bypass 
do not need to be monitored, and NOX emission monitoring of 
the kiln exhaust may be done upstream of any commingled alkali bypass 
gases.
    (e) You must install, operate, calibrate, and maintain a CEMS for 
continuously monitoring and recording the concentration by volume of 
SO2 emissions into the atmosphere for any kiln subject to 
the SO2 emissions limit in Sec.  60.62(a)(4). If you are 
complying with the alternative 90 percent SO2 emissions 
reduction emissions limit, you must also continuously monitor and 
record the concentration by volume of SO2 present at the wet 
scrubber inlet.
    (f) The NOX and SO2 CEMS required under 
paragraphs (d) and (e) of this section must be installed, operated and 
maintained according to Performance Specification 2 of appendix B of 
this part and the requirements in paragraphs (f)(1) through (5) of this 
section.
    (1) The span value of each NOX CEMS monitor must be set 
at 125 percent of the maximum estimated hourly potential NOX 
emission concentration that translates to the applicable emissions 
limit at full clinker production capacity.
    (2) You must conduct performance evaluations of each NOX 
CEMS monitor according to the requirements in Sec.  60.13(c) and 
Performance Specification 2 of appendix B to this part. You must use 
Methods 7, 7A, 7C, 7D, or 7E of appendix A-4 to this part for 
conducting the relative accuracy evaluations. The method ASME PTC 
19.10-1981, ``Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses,'' (incorporated by 
reference--see Sec.  60.17) is an acceptable alternative to Method 7 or 
7C of appendix A-4 to this part.
    (3) The span value for the SO2 CEMS monitor is the 
SO2 emission concentration that corresponds to 125 percent 
of the applicable emissions limit at full clinker production capacity 
and the expected maximum fuel sulfur content.
    (4) You must conduct performance evaluations of each SO2 
CEMS monitor according to the requirements in Sec.  60.13(c) and 
Performance Specification 2 of appendix B to this part. You must use 
Methods 6, 6A, or 6C of appendix A-4 to this part for conducting the 
relative accuracy evaluations. The method ASME PTC 19.10-1981, ``Flue 
and Exhaust Gas Analyses,'' (incorporated by reference--see Sec.  
60.17) is an acceptable alternative to Method 6 or 6A of appendix A-4 
to this part.
    (5) You must comply with the quality assurance requirements in 
Procedure 1 of appendix F to this part for each NOX and 
SO2 CEMS, including quarterly accuracy determinations for 
monitors, and daily calibration drift tests.

[[Page 42396]]

    (g) For each CPMS or CEMS required under paragraphs (c) through (e) 
of this section:
* * * * *
    (2) You may not use data recorded during the monitoring system 
malfunctions, repairs associated with monitoring system malfunctions, 
or required monitoring system quality assurance or control activities 
in calculations used to report emissions or operating levels. A 
monitoring system malfunction is any sudden, infrequent, not reasonably 
preventable failure of the monitoring system to provide valid data. 
Monitoring system failures that are caused in part by poor maintenance 
or careless operation are not malfunctions. An owner or operator must 
use all the data collected during all other periods in reporting 
emissions or operating levels.
* * * * *
    (h) You must install, operate, calibrate, and maintain instruments 
for continuously measuring and recording the stack gas flow rate to 
allow determination of the pollutant mass emissions rate to the 
atmosphere for each kiln subject to the PM emissions limits in Sec.  
60.62(a)(1) (ii) and (b)(1)(ii), the NOX emissions limit in 
Sec.  60.62(a)(3), or the SO2 emissions limit in Sec.  
60.62(a)(4) according to the requirements in paragraphs (h)(1) through 
(10), where appropriate, of this section.
    (1) The owner or operator must install each sensor of the flow rate 
monitoring system in a location that provides representative 
measurement of the exhaust gas flow rate at the sampling location of 
the NOX and/or SO2 CEMS, taking into account the 
manufacturer's recommendations. The flow rate sensor is that portion of 
the system that senses the volumetric flow rate and generates an output 
proportional to that flow rate.
* * * * *
    (6) The flow rate monitoring system must be designed to measure a 
minimum of one cycle of operational flow for each successive 15-minute 
period.
    (7) The flow rate sensor must be able to determine the daily zero 
and upscale calibration drift (CD) (see sections 3.1 and 8.3 of 
Performance Specification 2 in appendix B to this part for a discussion 
of CD).
* * * * *
    (8) You must perform an initial relative accuracy test of the flow 
rate monitoring system according to section 8.2 of Performance 
Specification 6 of appendix B to this part, with the exceptions noted 
in paragraphs (h)(8)(i) and (ii) of this section.
* * * * *
    (9) You must verify the accuracy of the flow rate monitoring system 
at least once per year by repeating the relative accuracy test 
specified in paragraph (h)(8) of this section.
* * * * *
    (i) Development and Submittal (Upon Request) of Monitoring Plans. 
If you demonstrate compliance with any applicable emissions limit 
through performance stack testing or other emissions monitoring 
(including PM CPMS), you must develop a site-specific monitoring plan 
according to the requirements in paragraphs (i)(1) through (4) of this 
section. This requirement also applies to you if you petition the EPA 
Administrator for alternative monitoring parameters under paragraph (h) 
of this section and Sec.  63.8(f). If you use a bag leak detector 
system (BLDS), you must also meet the requirements specified in 
paragraph Sec.  63.1350(m)(10) of this chapter.
    (1) For each continuous monitoring system (CMS) required in this 
section, you must develop, and submit to the permitting authority for 
approval upon request, a site-specific monitoring plan that addresses 
paragraphs (i)(1)(i) through (iii) of this section. You must submit 
this site-specific monitoring plan, if requested, at least 30 days 
before the initial performance evaluation of your CMS.
    (i) Installation of the CMS sampling probe or other interface at a 
measurement location relative to each affected process unit such that 
the measurement is representative of control of the exhaust emissions 
(e.g., on or downstream of the last control device);
* * * * *
    6. Section 60.64 is amended to read as follows:


Sec.  60.64  Test methods and procedures

    (a) In conducting the performance tests and relative accuracy tests 
required in Sec.  60.8, you must use reference methods and procedures 
and the test methods in appendix A of this part or other methods and 
procedures as specified in this section, except as provided in Sec.  
60.8(b).
    (b) You must demonstrate compliance with the PM standards in Sec.  
60.62 according to paragraphs (b)(1)(i) through (iv) of this section.
    (1)(i) In using a PM CPMS to demonstrate compliance, you must 
establish your PM CPMS operating limit and determine compliance with it 
according to paragraphs (b)(1)(ii) through (iv) of this section.
    (ii) During the initial performance test or any such subsequent 
performance test that demonstrates compliance with the PM limit, record 
all hourly average output values (e.g., milliamps, stack concentration, 
or other raw data signal) from the PM CPMS for the periods 
corresponding to the test runs (e.g., three 1-hour average PM CPMS 
output values for three 1-hour test runs).
    (iii) Determine your operating limit as the highest 1-hour average 
PM CPMS output value recorded during the performance test. You must 
verify an existing or establish a new operating limit after each 
repeated performance test.
    (iv) To determine continuous compliance, you must record the PM 
CPMS output data for all periods when the process is operating and the 
PM CPMS is not out-of-control. You must demonstrate continuous 
compliance by using all quality-assured hourly average data collected 
by the PM CPMS for all operating hours to calculate the arithmetic 
average operating parameter in units of the operating limit (e.g., 
milliamps, PM concentration, raw data signal) on a 30 operating day 
rolling average basis, updated at the end of each new kiln operating 
day. Use Equation 2 to determine the 30 kiln operating day average.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP18JY12.003

Where:

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


[[Page 42397]]


    (2) Use Method 9 and the procedures in Sec.  60.11 to determine 
opacity.
    (3) Any sources other than kilns (including associated alkali 
bypass and clinker cooler) that are major sources as defined in Sec.  
63.2 of this chapter and that are subject to the 10 percent opacity 
limit must follow the appropriate monitoring procedures in Sec.  
63.1350(f), (m)(1)through(m)(4), (m)(10) through (11), (o), and (p) of 
this chapter.
    (c) Calculate and record the rolling 30 kiln operating day average 
emission rate daily of NOX and SO2 according to 
the procedures in paragraphs (i) through (ii) of this section.
    (i) Calculate the rolling 30 kiln operating day average emissions 
according to equation 3:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP18JY12.004


Where:

E30D = 30 kiln operating day average emission rate of 
NOX or SO2, lb/ton of clinker;
Ci = Concentration of NOX or SO2 
for hour i, ppm;
Qi = volumetric flow rate of effluent gas for hour i, 
where
Ci and Qi are on the same basis (either wet or 
dry), scf/hr;
Pi = total kiln clinker produced during production hour 
i, ton/hr; and
k = conversion factor, 1.194 x 10-7 for NOX 
and 1.660 x 10-7 for SO2.
n = number of kiln operating hours over 30 kiln operating days, n = 
1 to 720.

    (ii) For each kiln operating hour for which you do not have at 
least one valid 15-minute CEMS data value, use the average emissions 
rate (lb/hr) from the most recent previous hour for which valid data 
are available.
    (d)(1) Within 60 days after the date of completing each performance 
test(see Sec.  60.8) as required by this subpart you must submit the 
results of the performance tests conducted to demonstrate compliance 
under this subpart to the EPA's WebFIRE database by using the 
Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI) that is 
accessed through the EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX)(www.epa.gov/cdx). Performance test data must be submitted in the file format 
generated through use of the EPA's Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) (see 
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/index.html). Only data collected using 
test methods on the ERT Web site are subject to this requirement for 
submitting reports electronically to WebFIRE. Owners or operators who 
claim that some of the information being submitted for performance 
tests is confidential business information (CBI) must submit a complete 
ERT file including information claimed to be CBI on a compact disk or 
other commonly used electronic storage media (including, but not 
limited to, flash drives) to the EPA. The electronic media must be 
clearly marked as CBI and mailed to U.S. EPA/OAPQS/CORE CBI Office, 
Attention: WebFIRE Administrator, MD C404-02, 4930 Old Page Rd., 
Durham, NC 27703. The same ERT file with the CBI omitted must be 
submitted to the EPA via CDX as described earlier in this paragraph. At 
the discretion of the delegated authority, you must also submit these 
reports, including the confidential business information, to the 
delegated authority in the format specified by the delegated authority.
    (2) Within 60 days after the date of completing each CEMS 
performance evaluation test (see Sec.  60.13), you must submit the 
relative accuracy test audit data electronically into the EPA's Central 
Data Exchange by using the Electronic Reporting Tool as mentioned in 
paragraph (d)(1) of this section. Only data collected using test 
methods compatible with ERT are subject to this requirement to be 
submitted electronically to the EPA's CDX.
    (3) All reports required by this subpart not subject to the 
requirements in paragraphs (d)(1) and (2) of this section must be sent 
to the Administrator at the appropriate address listed in Sec.  63.13. 
The Administrator or the delegated authority may request a report in 
any form suitable for the specific case (e.g., by commonly used 
electronic media such as Excel spreadsheet, on CD or hard copy). The 
Administrator retains the right to require submittal of reports subject 
to paragraph (d)(1) and (2) of this section in paper format.
    7. Section 60.65 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  60.65  Recordkeeping and reporting requirements.

    (a) Each owner or operator required to install a CPMS or CEMS under 
sections Sec.  60.63(c)-(e) shall submit reports of excess emissions. 
The content of these reports must comply with the requirements in Sec.  
60.7(c). Notwithstanding the provisions of Sec.  60.7(c), such reports 
shall be submitted semiannually.
    (b) Each owner or operator of facilities subject to the provisions 
of Sec.  60.63(c)-(e) shall submit semiannual reports of the 
malfunction information required to be recorded by Sec.  60.7(b). These 
reports shall include the frequency, duration, and cause of any 
incident resulting in deenergization of any device controlling kiln 
emissions or in the venting of emissions directly to the atmosphere.
    (c) The requirements of this section remain in force until and 
unless the Agency, in delegating enforcement authority to a State under 
section 111(c) of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7411, approves reporting 
requirements or an alternative means of compliance surveillance adopted 
by such States. In that event, affected sources within the State will 
be relieved of the obligation to comply with this section, provided 
that they comply with the requirements established by the State.
    8. Section 60.66 is amended by revising paragraph (b) introductory 
text to read as follows:


Sec.  60.66  Delegation of authority.

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

PART 63--[AMENDED]

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

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

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


Sec.  63.14  Incorporations by reference.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (54) ASTM D6348-03, Standard Test Method for Determination of 
Gaseous Compounds by Extractive Direct Interface Fourier Transform 
Infrared (FTIR) Spectroscopy, approved 2003, IBR approved for Sec.  
63.1349(b) of subpart LLL, table 4 to subpart DDDD, and table 8 of 
subpart HHHHHHH of this part.
* * * * *

Subpart LLL--[Amended]

    11. Section 63.1340 is amended by
    a. Revising paragraphs (b)(6) through (b)(9); and

[[Page 42398]]

    b. Revising paragraph (c).
    The revisions read as follows:


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

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (6) Each raw material, clinker, or finished product storage bin at 
any portland cement plant that is a major source;
    (7) Each conveying system transfer point including those associated 
with coal preparation used to convey coal from the mill to the kiln at 
any portland cement plant that is a major source;
    (8) Each bagging and bulk loading and unloading system at any 
portland cement plant that is a major source; and
    (9) Each open clinker storage pile at any portland cement plant.
    (c) Onsite sources that are subject to standards for nonmetallic 
mineral processing plants in subpart OOO, part 60 of this chapter are 
not subject to this subpart. Crushers are not covered by this subpart 
regardless of their location.
* * * * *
    12. Section 63.1341 is amended by:
    a. Deleting definitions of ``Enclosed storage pile,'' and 
``Inactive clinker pile;''
    b. Adding a definition for ``Deviation,'' ``In-line coal mill,'' 
``Open clinker storage pile,'' and ``Startup and shutdown;'' in 
alphabetical order and
    c. Revising definitions for ``Kiln,'' ``New source,'' ``Operating 
day,'' ``Raw material dryer,'' and ``Total organic HAP,'' in 
alphabetical order.
    The deletions, additions and revisions read as follows:


Sec.  63.1341  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Deviation means any instance in which an affected source subject to 
this subpart, or an owner or operator of such a source: (i) Fails to 
meet any requirement or obligation established by this subpart 
including, but not limited to, any emission limit, operating limit, 
work practice standard, or monitoring requirement; or (ii) Fails to 
meet any term or condition that is adopted to implement an applicable 
requirement in this subpart and that is included in the operating 
permit for any affected source required to obtain such a permit. A 
deviation is not always a violation.
* * * * *
    In-line coal mill means those coal mills using kiln exhaust gases 
in their process. Coal mills with a heat source other than the kiln or 
coal mills using exhaust gases from the clinker cooler are not an in-
line coal mill.
* * * * *
    Kiln means a device, including any associated preheater or 
precalciner devices, inline raw mills, inline coal mills or alkali 
bypasses that produces clinker by heating limestone and other materials 
for subsequent production of portland cement. Because the inline raw 
mill and inline coal mill are considered an integral part of the kiln, 
for purposes of determining the appropriate emissions limit, the term 
kiln also applies to the exhaust of the inline raw mill and the inline 
coal mill.
* * * * *
    New source means any source that commenced construction after May 
6, 2009, for purposes of determining the applicability of the kiln, 
clinker cooler and raw material dryer emissions limits for mercury, PM, 
THC, and HCl.
* * * * *
    Open clinker storage pile means any clinker storage pile that is 
not completely enclosed in a building or structure.
    Operating day means any 24-hour period beginning at 12:00 midnight 
during which the kiln operates for any time. For calculating the 
rolling 30-day average emissions, kiln operating days do not include 
the hours of operation during startup or shutdown.
* * * * *
    Raw material dryer means an impact dryer, drum dryer, paddle-
equipped rapid dryer, air separator, or other equipment used to reduce 
the moisture content of feed or other materials.
* * * * *
    Startup and shutdown means the periods of kiln operation that do 
not include normal operations. Startup begins when the kiln's induced 
fan is turned on and continues until continuous feed is introduced into 
the kiln. Shutdown begins when feed to the kiln is halted.
* * * * *
    Total organic HAP means, for the purposes of this subpart, the sum 
of the concentrations of compounds of formaldehyde, benzene, toluene, 
styrene, m-xylene, p-xylene, o-xylene, acetaldehyde, and naphthalene as 
measured by EPA Test Method 320 or Method 18 of appendix A to this part 
or ASTM D6348-03 or a combination of these methods, as appropriate. 
When using ASTM D6348-03, the following conditions must be met: (1) The 
test plan preparation and implementation in the Annexes to ASTM D6348-
03, Sections A1 through A8 are mandatory; (2) For ASTM D6348-03 Annex 
A5 (Analyte Spiking Technique), the percent (%) R must be determined 
for each target analyte (see Equation A5.5); (3) For the ASTM D6348-03 
test data to be acceptable for a target analyte, %R must be 70% >= R <= 
130%; and (4) The %R value for each compound must be reported in the 
test report and all field measurements corrected with the calculated %R 
value for that compound using the following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP18JY12.014


If measurement results for any pollutant are reported as below the 
method detection level (e.g., laboratory analytical results for one or 
more sample components are below the method defined analytical 
detection level), you must use the method detection level as the 
measured emissions level for that pollutant in calculating the total 
organic HAP value. The measured result for a multiple component 
analysis (e.g., analytical values for multiple Method 18 fractions) may 
include a combination of method detection level data and analytical 
data reported above the method detection level. The owner or operator 
of an affected source may request the use of other test methods to make 
this determination under paragraphs 63.7(e)(2)(ii) and (f) of this 
part.
* * * * *
    13. Section 63.1343 is revised to read as follows:


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

    (a) General. The provisions in this section apply to each kiln and 
any alkali bypass associated with that kiln, clinker cooler, and raw 
material dryer. All D/F, HCl, and total hydrocarbon (THC) emissions 
limit are on a dry basis. The D/F, HCl, and THC limits for kilns are 
corrected to 7 percent oxygen. All THC emissions limits are measured as 
propane. Standards for mercury and THC are based on a rolling 30-day

[[Page 42399]]

average. If using a CEMS to determine compliance with the HCl standard, 
this standard is based on a rolling 30-day average. You must ensure 
appropriate corrections for moisture are made when measuring flow rates 
used to calculate mercury emissions. The 30-day period means 30 
consecutive kiln operating days excluding periods of startup and 
shutdown. All emissions limits for kilns, clinker coolers, and raw 
material dryers currently in effect that are superseded by the limits 
below continue to apply until the compliance date of the limits below, 
or until the source certifies compliance with the limits below, 
whichever is earlier.
    (b) Kilns, clinker coolers, raw material dryers, raw mills, and 
finish mills.
    (1) The emissions limits for these sources are shown in Table 1 
below. PM limits for existing kilns also apply to kilns that have 
undergone a modification as defined in subpart A of part 60 of title 
40.

                             Table 1--Emissions Limits for Kilns, Clinker Coolers, Raw Material Dryers, Raw and Finish Mills
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                              The oxygen
                                      And the operating    And if is located at                                     And the units of the      correction
     If your source is a (an):             mode is:                 a:             Your emissions  limits are:      emissions limit are:        factor
                                                                                                                                             percent is:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Existing kiln..................  Normal operation.....  Major or area source  PM \1\ 0.07...................  lb/ton clinker............           NA
                                                                                 D/F \2\ 0.2...................  ng/dscm...................            7
                                                                                 Mercury 55....................  lb/MMtons clinker.........           NA
                                                                                 THC \3\ \4\ 24................  ppmvd.....................            7
2. Existing kiln..................  Normal operation.....  Major source........  HCl 3.........................  ppmvd.....................            7
3. Existing kiln..................  Startup and shutdown.  Major or area source  PM 0.04.......................  gr/dscf...................           NA
                                                                                 D/F 0.2.......................  ng/dscm (TEQ).............           NA
                                                                                 Mercury 10....................  ug/dscm...................           NA
                                                                                 THC 24........................  ppmvd.....................           NA
4. Existing kiln..................  Startup and shutdown.  Major source........  HCl 3.........................  ppmvd.....................           NA
5. New kiln.......................  Normal operation.....  Major or area source  PM 0.02.......................  lb/ton clinker............           NA
                                                                                 D/F \1\ 0.2...................  ng/dscm...................            7
                                                                                 Mercury 21....................  lb/MM tons clinker........           NA
                                                                                 THC \3\ \4\ 24................  ppmvd.....................            7
6. New kiln.......................  Normal operation.....  Major source........  HCl 3.........................  ppmvd.....................            7
7. New kiln.......................  Startup and shutdown.  Major or area source  PM 0.0008.....................  gr/dscf...................           NA
                                                                                 D/F 0.2.......................  ng/dscm (TEQ).............           NA
                                                                                 Mercury 4.....................  ug/dscm...................           NA
                                                                                 THC 24........................  ppmvd.....................           NA
8. New kiln.......................  Startup and shutdown.  Major source........  HCl 3.........................  ppmvd.....................           NA
9. Existing clinker cooler........  Normal operation.....  Major or area source  PM 0.07.......................  lb/ton clinker............           NA
10. Existing clinker cooler.......  Startup and shutdown.  Major or area source  PM 0.004......................  gr/dscf...................           NA
11. New clinker cooler............  Normal operation.....  Major or area source  PM 0.02.......................  lb/ton clinker............           NA
12. New clinker cooler............  Startup and shutdown.  Major or area source  PM 0.0008.....................  gr/dscf...................           NA
13. Existing or new raw material    Normal operation.....  Major or area source  THC \3\ \4\ 24................  ppmvd.....................           NA
 dryer.
14. Existing or new raw material    Startup and shutdown.  Major or area source  THC 24........................  ppmvd.....................           NA
 dryer.
15. Existing or new raw or finish   All operating modes..  Major source........  Opacity 10....................  percent...................           NA
 mill.
16. Open clinker storage piles....  All operating modes..  Major or area source  Work practices (63.1343(c))...  NA........................           NA
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The initial and subsequent PM performance tests are performed using Method 5 and consists of three 1-hr tests.
\2\ If the average temperature at the inlet to the first PM control device (fabric filter or electrostatic precipitator) during the D/F performance test
  is 400 [deg]F or less this limit is changed to 0.040 ng/dscm.
\3\ Measured as propane.
\4\ Any source subject to the 24 ppmvd THC limit may elect to meet an alternative limit of 12 ppmvd for total organic HAP.

    (2) When there is an alkali bypass associated with a kiln, the 
combined PM emissions from the kiln and the alkali bypass stack are 
subject to the PM emissions limit. Existing kilns that combine the 
clinker cooler exhaust and/or coal mill with the kiln exhaust for 
energy efficiency purposes and send the combined exhaust to the PM 
control device as a single stream may meet an alternative PM emissions 
limit. This limit is calculated using equation 1 of this section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP18JY12.005


    Where:

PMalt = Alternative PM emission limit for commingled 
sources.
0.006 = The PM exhaust concentration (gr/dscf) equivalent to 0.070 
lb per ton clinker where clinker cooler and kiln exhaust gas are not 
combined.
1.65 = The conversion factor of lb feed per lb clinker.
Qk = The exhaust flow of the kiln (dscf/ton raw feed).
Qc = The exhaust flow of the clinker cooler (dscf/ton feed).
Qab = The exhaust flow of the alkali bypass (dscf/ton feed).
Qcm = The exhaust flow of the coal mill (dscf/ton feed).
7000 = The conversion factor for grains (gr) per lb.
    For new kilns that combine kiln exhaust and clinker cooler gas 
the limit is calculated using the equation 2 of this section:

[[Page 42400]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP18JY12.006



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

    (c) Open Clinker Piles. The owner or operator of an open clinker 
pile must prepare and operate in accordance with the fugitive dust 
emissions control measures, described in their operation and 
maintenance plan (see Sec.  63.1347 of this subpart), that is 
appropriate for the site conditions as specified in paragraphs (c)(1) 
and (2) of this paragraph.
    (1) The operations and maintenance plan must identify and describe 
the fugitive dust emissions control measures the owner or operator will 
use to minimize fugitive dust emissions from each open clinker storage 
pile.
    (2) For open clinker storage piles, the operations and maintenance 
plan must specify that one or more of the following control measures 
will be used to minimize to the greatest extent practicable fugitive 
dust from open clinker storage piles: Locating the source inside a 
partial enclosure, installing and operating a water spray or fogging 
system, applying appropriate chemical dust suppression agents on the 
source, use of a wind barrier, compaction, or use of a vegetative 
cover. The owner or operator must select, for inclusion in the 
operations and maintenance plan, the fugitive dust control measure or 
measures listed in this paragraph that are most appropriate for site 
conditions. The plan must also explain how the measure or measures 
selected are applicable and appropriate for site conditions. In 
addition, the plan must be revised as needed to reflect any changing 
conditions at the source.
    (d) Emission limits in effect prior to September 9, 2010. Any 
source defined as an existing source in Sec.  63.1351, and that was 
subject to a PM, mercury, THC, D/F, or opacity emissions limit prior to 
September 9, 2010, must continue to meet the limits shown in Table 2 to 
this section until September 9, 2015.
* * * * *
    14. Section 63.1344 is amended by revising the section heading and 
revising the section to read as follows:


Sec.  63.1344  Affirmative defense for violation of emissions limit 
during malfunction.

    In response to an action to enforce the standards set forth in 
paragraph Sec.  63.1343(b) you may assert an affirmative defense to a 
claim for civil penalties for violations of such standards that are 
caused by malfunction, as defined at 40 CFR 63.2. Appropriate penalties 
may be assessed, however, if the respondent fails to meet its burden of 
proving all of the requirements in the affirmative defense. The 
affirmative defense shall not be available for claims for injunctive 
relief.
    (a) To establish the affirmative defense in any action to enforce 
such a standard, you must timely meet the notification requirements in 
paragraph (b) of this section, and must prove by a preponderance of 
evidence that:
    (1) The violation:
    (i) Was caused by a sudden, infrequent, and unavoidable failure of 
air pollution control and monitoring equipment, process equipment, or a 
process to operate in a normal or usual manner, and
    (ii) Could not have been prevented through careful planning, proper 
design or better operation and maintenance practices; and
    (iii) Did not stem from any activity or event that could have been 
foreseen and avoided, or planned for; and
    (iv) Was not part of a recurring pattern indicative of inadequate 
design, operation, or maintenance; and
    (2) Repairs were made as expeditiously as possible when a violation 
occurred. Off-shift and overtime labor were used, to the extent 
practicable to make these repairs; and
    (3) The frequency, amount and duration of the violation (including 
any bypass) were minimized to the maximum extent practicable; and
    (4) If the violation resulted from a bypass of control equipment or 
a process, then the bypass was unavoidable to prevent loss of life, 
personal injury, or severe property damage; and
    (5) All possible steps were taken to minimize the impact of the 
violation on ambient air quality, the environment and human health; and
    (6) All emissions monitoring and control systems were kept in 
operation if at all possible consistent with safety and good air 
pollution control practices; and
    (7) Your actions in response to the violation were documented by 
properly signed, contemporaneous operating logs; and
    (8) At all times, the affected source was operated in a manner 
consistent with good air pollution control practice for minimizing 
emissions; and
    (9) A written root cause analysis has been prepared, the purpose of 
which is to determine, correct, and eliminate the primary causes of the 
malfunction and the violation resulting from the malfunction event at 
issue. The analysis shall also specify, using best monitoring methods 
and engineering judgment, the amount of any emissions that were the 
result of the malfunction.
    (b) Report. The owner or operator seeking to assert an affirmative 
defense shall submit a written report to the Administrator with all 
necessary supporting documentation, that it has met the requirements 
set forth in paragraph (a) of this section. This affirmative defense 
report shall be included in the semiannual report required by section 
63.1354(b)(9). The affirmative defense report shall be included in the 
first semiannual, deviation report or excess emission report otherwise 
required after the initial occurrence of the violation of the relevant 
standard (which may be the end of any applicable averaging period). If 
such compliance, deviation report or excess the semiannual report is 
due less than 45 days after the initial occurrence of the violation, 
the affirmative defense report may be included in the second semiannual 
compliance, deviation report or excess emission report due after the 
initial occurrence of the violation of the relevant standard.
    15. Section 63.1345 is amended by revising the section heading and 
revising the section to read as follows:


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

    The owner or operator of each new or existing raw material, 
clinker, or finished product storage bin; conveying system transfer 
point; bagging system; bulk loading or unloading system; raw and finish 
mills; and each existing raw material dryer, at a facility which is a 
major source subject to the provisions of this subpart must not cause 
to be discharged any gases from these affected sources which exhibit 
opacity in excess of 10 percent.
    16. Section 63.1346 is amended by:

[[Page 42401]]

    a. Revising paragraph (a) introductory text;
    b. Revising paragraph (a)(1); and
    c. Revising paragraphs (c) through (f).
    The revisions read as follows:


Sec.  63.1346  Operating limits for kilns.

    (a) The owner or operator of a kiln subject to a D/F emissions 
limitation under Sec.  63.1343 must operate the kiln such that the 
temperature of the gas at the inlet to the kiln PM control device 
(PMCD) and alkali bypass PMCD, if applicable, does not exceed the 
applicable temperature limit specified in paragraph (b) of this 
section. The owner or operator of an in-line kiln/raw mill subject to a 
D/F emissions limitation under Sec.  63.1343 must operate the in-line 
kiln/raw mill, such that:
    (1) When the raw mill of the in-line kiln/raw mill is operating, 
the applicable temperature limit for the main in-line kiln/raw mill 
exhaust, specified in paragraph (b) of this section and established 
during the performance test when the raw mill was operating, is not 
exceeded, except during periods of startup/shutdown when the 
temperature limit may be exceeded by no more than 10 percent.
* * * * *
    (c) For an affected source subject to a D/F emissions limitation 
under Sec.  63.1343 that employs sorbent injection as an emission 
control technique you must operate the sorbent injection system in 
accordance with paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of this section.
    (1) The rolling three-hour average activated sorbent injection rate 
must be equal to or greater than the sorbent injection rate determined 
in accordance with Sec.  63.1349(b)(3)(vi).
    (2) You must either:
    (i) Maintain the minimum activated carbon injection carrier gas 
flow rate, as a rolling three-hour average, based on the manufacturer's 
specifications. These specifications must be documented in the test 
plan developed in accordance with Sec.  63.7(c), or
    (ii) Maintain the minimum activated carbon injection carrier gas 
pressure drop, as a rolling three-hour average, based on the 
manufacturer's specifications. These specifications must be documented 
in the test plan developed in accordance with Sec.  63.7(c).
    (d) Except as provided in paragraph (e) of this section, for an 
affected source subject to a D/F emissions limitation under Sec.  
63.1343 that employs carbon injection as an emission control technique 
you must specify and use the brand and type of sorbent used during the 
performance test until a subsequent performance test is conducted, 
unless the site-specific performance test plan contains documentation 
of key parameters that affect adsorption and the owner or operator 
establishes limits based on those parameters, and the limits on these 
parameters are maintained.
    (e) For an affected source subject to a D/F emissions limitation 
under Sec.  63.1343 that employs carbon injection as an emission 
control technique you may substitute, at any time, a different brand or 
type of sorbent provided that the replacement has equivalent or 
improved properties compared to the sorbent specified in the site-
specific performance test plan and used in the performance test. The 
owner or operator must maintain documentation that the substitute 
sorbent will provide the same or better level of control as the 
original sorbent.
    (f) No kiln may use as a raw material or fuel any fly ash where the 
mercury content of the fly ash has been increased through the use of 
activated carbon, or any other sorbent, unless the facility can 
demonstrate that the use of that fly ash will not result in an increase 
in mercury emissions over baseline emissions (i.e., emissions not using 
the fly ash). The facility has the burden of proving there has been no 
emissions increase over baseline. Once the kiln must comply with a 
mercury emissions limit specified in Sec.  63.1343, this paragraph no 
longer applies.
    17. Section 63.1347 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(1) to read 
as follows:


Sec.  63.1347  Operation and maintenance plan requirements.

    (a) * * *
    (1) Procedures for proper operation and maintenance of the affected 
source and air pollution control devices in order to meet the emissions 
limits and operating limits, including fugitive dust control measures 
for open clinker piles, of Sec. Sec.  63.1343 through 63.1348. Your 
operation and maintenance plan must address periods of startup and 
shutdown;
* * * * *
    18. Section 63.1348 is amended by:
    a. Revising paragraph (a) introductory text;
    b. Removing paragraphs (a)(1)(i) and (ii);
    c. Revising paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(6);
    d. Revising paragraph (b); and
    e. Revising paragraph (c)(2)(iv).
    The revisions read as follows:


Sec.  63.1348  Compliance requirements.

    (a) Initial Performance Test Requirements. For an affected source 
subject to this subpart, you must demonstrate compliance with the 
emissions standards and operating limits by using the test methods and 
procedures in Sec. Sec.  63.1349 and 63.7.

    Note: The first day of the 30 operating day performance test is 
the first day following completion of the field testing and data 
collection that demonstrates that the CPMS or CEMS has satisfied the 
relevant CPMS performance evaluation or CEMS performance 
specification (e.g., PS 2, 12A, or 12B) acceptance criteria. The 
performance test period is complete at the end of the 30th 
consecutive operating day. See Sec.  63.1341 for definition of 
operating day and Sec.  63.1348(b)(1) for the CEMS operating 
requirements.

    (1) PM Compliance. If you are subject to limitations on PM 
emissions under Sec.  63.1343(b), you must demonstrate compliance with 
the PM emissions standards by using the test methods and procedures in 
Sec.  63.1349(b)(1).
    (2) Opacity Compliance. If you are subject to the limitations on 
opacity under Sec.  63.1345, you must demonstrate compliance with the 
opacity emissions standards by using the performance test methods and 
procedures in Sec.  63.1349(b)(2). Use the maximum 6-minute average 
opacity exhibited during the performance test period to determine 
whether the affected source is in compliance with the standard.
    (3) D/F Compliance.
    (i) If you are subject to limitations on D/F emissions under Sec.  
63.1343(b), you must demonstrate compliance with the D/F emissions 
standards by using the performance test methods and procedures in Sec.  
63.1349(b)(3). The owner or operator of a kiln with an in-line raw mill 
must demonstrate compliance by conducting separate performance tests 
while the raw mill is operating and while the raw mill is not 
operating. Determine the D/F concentration for each run and calculate 
the arithmetic average of the concentrations measured for the three 
runs to determine continuous compliance.
    (ii) If you are subject to a D/F emissions limitation under Sec.  
63.1343(b), you must demonstrate compliance with the temperature 
operating limits specified in Sec.  63.1346 by using the performance 
test methods and procedures in Sec.  63.1349(b)(3)(ii) through 
(b)(3)(iv). Use the arithmetic average of the temperatures measured 
during the three runs to determine the applicable temperature limit.
    (iii) If activated carbon injection is used and you are subject to 
a D/F emissions limitation under Sec.  63.1343(b), you must demonstrate 
compliance with the activated carbon injection rate operating limits 
specified in Sec.  63.1346

[[Page 42402]]

by using the performance test methods and procedures in Sec.  
63.1349(b)(3)(v). The average of the run injection rates will determine 
the applicable injection rate limit.
    (iv) If activated carbon injection is used, you must also develop a 
carrier gas parameter (either the carrier gas flow rate or the carrier 
gas pressure drop) during the initial and updated during any subsequent 
performance test conducted under Sec.  63.1349(b)(3) that meets the 
requirements of Sec.  63.1349(b)(3)(vi). Compliance is demonstrated if 
the system is maintained within +/- 5 percent accuracy during the 
performance test determined in accordance with the procedures and 
criteria submitted for review in your monitoring plan required in 
section 63.1350(p).
    (4)(i) THC Compliance.
    (A) If you are subject to limitations on THC emissions under Sec.  
63.1343(b), you must demonstrate compliance with the THC emissions 
standards by using the performance test methods and procedures in Sec.  
63.1349(b)(4)(i). You must use the average THC concentration obtained 
during the first 30 kiln operating days after the compliance date of 
this rule to determine initial compliance.
    (B) For sources equipped with an alkali bypass stack or that 
exhaust kiln gases to a coal mill that exhausts through a separate 
stack, instead of installing a CEMS, you may use the results of the 
initial and subsequent performance test to demonstrate compliance with 
the THC emissions limit.
    (ii) Total Organic HAP Emissions Tests. If you elect to demonstrate 
compliance with the total organic HAP emissions limit under Sec.  
63.1343(b) in lieu of the THC emissions limit, you must demonstrate 
compliance with the total organic HAP emissions standards by using the 
performance test methods and procedures in Sec.  63.1349(b)(4)(iii) and 
(b)(4)(iv).
    (iii) If you are demonstrating initial compliance, you must conduct 
the separate performance tests as specified in Sec.  63.1349(b)(4)(iii) 
while the raw mill kiln is operating and while the raw mill of the kiln 
is not operating.
    (iv) The average total organic HAP concentration measured during 
the separate initial performance test specified by Sec.  
63.1349(b)(4)(iii) must be used to determine initial compliance.
    (v) The average THC concentration measured during the initial 
performance test specified by Sec.  63.1349(b)(4)(iv) must be used to 
determine the site-specific THC limit. Using the fraction of time the 
raw mill is on and the fraction of time that the raw mill is off, 
calculate this limit as a weighted average of the THC levels measured 
during raw mill on and raw mill off testing.
    (5) Mercury Compliance. If you are subject to limitations on 
mercury emissions in Sec.  63.1343(b), you must demonstrate compliance 
with the mercury standards by using the performance test methods and 
procedures in Sec.  63.1349(b)(5). You must demonstrate compliance by 
operating a mercury CEMS or a sorbent trap based CEMS. Compliance with 
the mercury emissions standard must be determined based on the first 30 
operating days you operate a mercury CEMS after the compliance date of 
this rule.
    In calculating a 30 operating day emissions value using an 
integrating sorbent trap CEMS, assign the average Hg emissions 
concentration determined for an integrating period (e.g., 7 day sorbent 
trap sample) to each relevant hour of the kiln operating days spanned 
by each integrated sample. Calculate the 30 kiln operating day 
emissions rate value using the assigned hourly Hg emissions 
concentrations and the respective flow and production rate values 
collected during the 30 kiln operating day performance test period. 
Depending on the duration of each integrated sampling period, you may 
not be able to calculate the 30 kiln operating day emissions value 
until several days after the end of the 30 kiln operating day 
performance test period.
    For example, a sorbent trap CEMS producing an integrated 7-day 
sample will provide Hg concentration data for each hour of the first 28 
kiln operating days (i.e., four values spanning 7 days each) of a 30 
operating day period. The Hg concentration values for the hours of the 
last 2 days of the 30 operating day period will not be available for 
calculating the emissions for the performance test period until at 
least five days after the end of the subject period.
    (6) HCl Compliance. If you are subject to limitations on HCl 
emissions under Sec.  63.1343(b), you must demonstrate initial 
compliance with the HCl standards by using the performance test methods 
and procedures in Sec.  63.1349(b)(6).
    (i) For an affected source that is equipped with a wet scrubber, 
tray tower or dry scrubber, you must demonstrate initial compliance by 
conducting a performance test as specified in Sec.  63.1349(b)(6)(i). 
You must determine the HCl concentration for each run and calculate the 
arithmetic average of the concentrations measured for the three runs to 
determine compliance. You must also have established appropriate site-
specific operational parameter limits.
    (ii) For an affected source that is not equipped with a wet 
scrubber, tray tower or dry scrubber, you must demonstrate initial 
compliance by operating a CEMS as specified in Sec.  63.1349(b)(6)(ii). 
You must use the average of the hourly HCl concentration obtained 
during the first 30 kiln operating days that occur after the compliance 
date of this rule to determine initial compliance.
    (iii) For sources equipped with an alkali bypass stack or that 
exhaust kiln gases to a coal mill that exhausts through a separate 
stack, instead of installing a CEMS, you may use the results of the 
initial and subsequent performance test to demonstrate compliance with 
the HCl emissions limit.
    (iv) As an alternative to paragraph (i), you may use an 
SO2 CEMS to establish an SO2 operating level 
during your initial and repeat HCl performance tests as specified in 
Sec.  63.1349(b)(6)(iii).
    (b) Continuous Monitoring Requirements. You must demonstrate 
compliance with the emissions standards and operating limits by using 
the performance test methods and procedures in Sec. Sec.  63.1350 and 
63.8 for each affected source.
    (1) General Requirements.
    (i) You must monitor and collect data according to Sec.  63.1350 
and the site-specific monitoring plan required by Sec.  63.1350(p).
    (ii) Except for periods of monitoring system malfunctions, repairs 
associated with monitoring system malfunctions, and required monitoring 
system quality assurance or quality control activities (including, as 
applicable, calibration checks and required zero and span adjustments), 
you must operate the monitoring system and collect data at all required 
intervals at all times the affected source is operating.
    (iii) You may not use data recorded during monitoring system 
malfunctions, repairs associated with monitoring system malfunctions, 
or required monitoring system quality assurance or control activities 
in calculations used to report emissions or operating levels. A 
monitoring system malfunction is any sudden, infrequent, not reasonably 
preventable failure of the monitoring system to provide valid data. 
Monitoring system failures that are caused in part by poor maintenance 
or careless operation are not malfunctions. You must use all the data 
collected during all other periods in assessing the operation of the 
control device and associated control system.

[[Page 42403]]

    (iv) Clinker Production. If you are subject to limitations on PM 
emissions (lb/ton of clinker) or mercury (lb/MM tons of clinker) under 
Sec.  63.1343(b), you must determine the hourly production rate of 
clinker according to the requirements of Sec.  63.1350(d).
    (2) PM Compliance. If you are subject to limitations on PM 
emissions under Sec.  63.1343(b), you must use the monitoring methods 
and procedures in Sec.  63.1350(b) and (d).
    (3) Opacity Compliance. If you are subject to the limitations on 
opacity under Sec.  63.1345, you must demonstrate compliance using the 
monitoring methods and procedures in Sec.  63.1350(f) based on the 
maximum 6-minute average opacity exhibited during the performance test 
period. You must initiate corrective actions within one hour of 
detecting visible emissions above the applicable limit.
    (i) COMS. If you install a COMS in lieu of conducting the daily 
visible emissions testing, you must demonstrate compliance using a COMS 
such that it is installed, operated, and maintained in accordance with 
the requirements of Sec.  63.1350(f)(4)(i).
    (ii) Bag leak determination system (BLDS). If you install a BLDS on 
a raw mill or finish mill in lieu of conducting the daily visible 
emissions testing, you must demonstrate compliance using a BLDS that is 
installed, operated, and maintained in accordance with the requirements 
of Sec.  63.1350(f)(4)(ii).
    (4) D/F Compliance. If you are subject to a D/F emissions 
limitation under Sec.  63.1343(b), you must demonstrate compliance 
using a CMS that is installed, operated and maintained to record the 
temperature of specified gas streams in accordance with the 
requirements of Sec.  63.1350(g).
    (5)(i) Activated Carbon Injection Compliance. If you use activated 
carbon injection to comply with the D/F emissions limitation under 
Sec.  63.1343(b), you must demonstrate compliance using a CMS that is 
installed, operated, and maintained to record the rate of activated 
carbon injection in accordance with the requirements Sec.  
63.1350(h)(1).
    (ii) If you use activated carbon injection to comply with the D/F 
emissions limitation under Sec.  63.1343(b), you must demonstrate 
compliance using a CMS that is installed, operated and maintained to 
record the activated carbon injection system gas parameter in 
accordance with the requirements Sec.  63.1350(h)(2).
    (6)  THC Compliance. (i) If you are subject to limitations on THC 
emissions under Sec.  63.1343(b), you must demonstrate compliance using 
the monitoring methods and procedures in Sec.  63.1350(i) and (j).
    (ii) For sources equipped with an alkali bypass stack or that 
exhaust kiln gases to a coal mill that exhausts through a separate 
stack, instead of installing a CEMS, you may use the results of the 
initial and subsequent performance test to demonstrate compliance with 
the THC emissions limit. THC must be measured upstream of the coal 
mill.
    (7) Mercury Compliance. If you are subject to limitations on 
mercury emissions in Sec.  63.1343(b), you must demonstrate compliance 
using the monitoring methods and procedures in Sec.  63.1350(k).
    If you use an integrated sorbent trap Hg CEMS to determine ongoing 
compliance, use the procedures described in Sec.  63.1348(a)(5) to 
assign hourly mercury concentration values and to calculate rolling 30 
operating data emissions rates. Since you assign the mercury 
concentration measured with the sorbent trap to each relevant hour 
respectively for each operating day of the integrated period, you may 
schedule the sorbent change periods to any time of the day (i.e., the 
sorbent trap replacement need not be scheduled at 12:00 midnight nor 
must the sorbent trap replacements occur only at integral 24-hour 
intervals).
    (8) HCl Compliance. If you are subject to limitations on HCl 
emissions under Sec.  63.1343(b), you must demonstrate compliance using 
the performance test methods and procedures in Sec.  63.1349(b)(6).
    (i) For an affected source that is not equipped with a wet 
scrubber, tray tower or a dry sorbent injection system, you must 
demonstrate compliance using the monitoring methods and procedures in 
Sec.  63.1350(l)(1).
    (ii) For an affected source that is equipped with a wet scrubber, 
tray tower or a dry sorbent injection system, you must demonstrate 
compliance using the monitoring methods and procedures in Sec.  
63.1350(l)(2).
    (iii) For sources equipped with an alkali bypass stack or that 
exhaust kiln gases to a coal mill that exhausts through a separate 
stack, instead of installing a CEMS, you may use the results of the 
initial and subsequent performance test to demonstrate compliance with 
the HCl emissions limit.
    (iv) As an alternative to paragraph (ii), you may use an 
SO2 CEMS to establish an SO2 operating level 
during your initial and repeat HCl performance tests and monitor the 
SO2 level using the procedures in Sec.  63.1350(l)(3).
    (c) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (iv) The performance test must be completed within 360 hours after 
the planned operational change period begins.
* * * * *
    19. Section 63.1349 is amended by:
    a. Revising paragraph (a) introductory text;
    b. Revising paragraph (b)(1);
    c. Revising paragraph (b)(3) introductory text;
    d. Revising paragraphs (b)(3)(v) and (b)(3)(vi);
    e. Revising paragraphs (b)(4), (b)(5), and (b)(6); and
    f. Revising paragraphs (c), (d) and (e).
    The revisions read as follows:


Sec.  63.1349  Performance testing requirements.

    (a) You must document performance test results in complete test 
reports that contain the information required by paragraphs (a)(1) 
through (a)(10) of this section, as well as all other relevant 
information. As described in Sec.  63.7(c)(2)(i), you must make 
available to the Administrator prior to testing, if requested, the 
site-specific test plan to be followed during performance testing.
* * * * *
    (b)(1) PM Emissions Tests.
    (i) The owner or operator of a kiln subject to limitations on PM 
emissions shall demonstrate initial compliance by conducting a 
performance test as specified in paragraphs (b)(1)(ii) of this section.
    (A) In using a PM CPMS to demonstrate compliance, you must 
establish your PM CPMS operating limit and determine compliance with it 
according to paragraphs (b)(1)(i)(B) through (D) and (b)(1)(ii) and 
(iii) of this section.
    (B) During the initial performance test or any such subsequent 
performance test that demonstrates compliance with the PM limit, record 
all hourly average output values (e.g., milliamps, stack concentration, 
or other raw data signal) from the PM CPMS for the periods 
corresponding to the test runs (e.g., three 1-hour average PM OK CPMS 
output values for three 1-hour test runs).
    (C) Determine your operating limit as the highest 1-hour average PM 
CPMS output value recorded during the performance test. You must verify 
an existing or establish a new operating limit after each repeated 
performance test. You must repeat the performance test annually and 
reassess and adjust the site-specific operating limit in accordance 
with the results of the performance test.
    (D) To determine continuous compliance, you must record the PM

[[Page 42404]]

CPMS output data for all periods when the process is operating and the 
PM CPMS is not out-of-control. You must demonstrate continuous 
compliance by using all quality-assured hourly average data collected 
by the PM CPMS for all operating hours to calculate the arithmetic 
average operating parameter in units of the operating limit (e.g., 
milliamps, PM concentration, raw data signal) on a 30 operating day 
rolling average basis, updated at the end of each new kiln operating 
day. Use Equation 3 to determine the 30 kiln operating day average.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP18JY12.007

Where:

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

    (ii) Use EPA Method 5 of appendix A to part 60 of this chapter to 
determine PM emissions. For each performance test, conduct three 
separate runs under the conditions that exist when the affected source 
is operating at the highest load or capacity level reasonably expected 
to occur. Conduct each test run to collect a minimum sample volume of 2 
dscm for determining compliance with a new source limit and 1 dscm for 
determining compliance with a existing source limit. Calculate the 
average of the results from three runs to determine compliance. You 
need not determine the PM collected in the impingers (``back half'') of 
the Method 5 particulate sampling train to demonstrate compliance with 
the PM standards of this subpart. This shall not preclude the 
permitting authority from requiring a determination of the ``back 
half'' for other purposes.
    (iii) When there is an alkali bypass associated with a kiln, the 
main exhaust and alkali bypass of the kiln must be tested 
simultaneously and the combined emission rate of PM from the kiln and 
alkali bypass must be computed for each run using equation 4 of this 
section. For purposes of calculating the combined kiln and alkali 
bypass emissions, you may use the results of the initial and subsequent 
Method 5 performance test for the alkali bypass, instead of installing 
a CEMS, to demonstrate compliance with the PM emissions limit.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP18JY12.008

Where:

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

    (iv) The owner or operator of a kiln with an in-line raw mill and 
subject to limitations on PM emissions shall demonstrate initial 
compliance by conducting separate performance tests while the raw mill 
is under normal operating conditions and while the raw mill is not 
operating.
* * * * *
    (3) D/F Emissions Tests. If you are subject to limitations on D/F 
emissions under this subpart, you must conduct a performance test using 
Method 23 of appendix A-7 to part 60 of this chapter. If your kiln or 
in-line kiln/raw mill is equipped with an alkali bypass, you must 
conduct simultaneous performance tests of the kiln or in-line kiln/raw 
mill exhaust and the alkali bypass. You may conduct a performance test 
of the alkali bypass exhaust when the raw mill of the in-line kiln/raw 
mill is operating or not operating.
* * * * *
    (v)(A) If sorbent injection is used for D/F control, you must 
record the rate of sorbent injection to the kiln exhaust, and where 
applicable, the rate of sorbent injection to the alkali bypass exhaust, 
continuously during the period of the Method 23 test in accordance with 
the conditions in Sec.  63.1350(m)(9), and include the continuous 
injection rate record(s) in the performance test report. Determine the 
sorbent injection rate parameters in accordance with paragraphs 
(b)(3)(vi) of this section.
    (B) Include the brand and type of sorbent used during the 
performance test in the performance test report.
    (C) Maintain a continuous record of either the carrier gas flow 
rate or the carrier gas pressure drop for the duration of the 
performance test. If the carrier gas flow rate is used, determine, 
record, and maintain a record of the accuracy of the carrier gas flow 
rate monitoring system according to the procedures in appendix A to 
part 75 of this chapter. If the carrier gas pressure drop is used, 
determine, record, and maintain a record of the accuracy of the carrier 
gas pressure drop monitoring system according to the procedures in 
Sec.  63.1350(m)(6).
    (vi) Calculate the run average sorbent injection rate for each run 
and determine and include the average of the run average injection 
rates in the performance test report and determine the applicable 
injection rate limit in accordance with Sec.  63.1346(c)(1).
    (4)(i) THC Emissions Test.
    (A) If you are subject to limitations on THC emissions, you must 
operate a continuous emissions monitoring system (CEMS) in accordance 
with the requirements in Sec.  63.1350(i). For the purposes of 
conducting the accuracy and quality assurance evaluations for CEMS, the 
THC span value (as propane) is 50 ppmvd and the reference method (RM) 
is Method 25A of appendix A to part 60 of this chapter.
    (B) Use the THC CEMS to conduct the initial compliance test for the 
first 30 kiln operating days of kiln operation after the compliance 
date of the rule. See 63.1348(a).
    (C) If kiln gases are diverted through an alkali bypass or to a 
coal mill and exhausted through a separate stack, you must calculate a 
kiln-specific THC limit using equation 5:

[[Page 42405]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP18JY12.009

Where:

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

    (D) For sources equipped with an alkali bypass stack or that 
exhaust kiln gases to a coal mill that exhausts through a separate 
stack, instead of installing a CEMS, you may use the results of the 
initial and subsequent performance test to demonstrate compliance with 
the THC emissions limit. THC must be measured upstream of the coal 
mill.
    (ii) Total Organic HAP Emissions Tests. Instead of conducting the 
performance test specified in paragraph (b)(4)(i) of this section, you 
may conduct a performance test to determine emissions of total organic 
HAP by following the procedures in paragraphs (b)(4)(iii) through 
(b)(4)(iv) of this section.
    (iii) Use Method 320 of appendix A to this part, Method 18 of 
Appendix A of part 60, ASTM D6348-03 or a combination to determine 
emissions of total organic HAP. Each performance test must consist of 
three separate runs under the conditions that exist when the affected 
source is operating at the representative performance conditions in 
accordance with Sec.  63.7(e). Each run must be conducted for at least 
1 hour. You must conduct the performance test while the raw mill of the 
kiln is operating and while the raw mill of the kiln is not operating.
    (iv) At the same time that you are conducting the performance test 
for total organic HAP, you must also determine a site-specific THC 
emissions limit by operating a CEMS in accordance with the requirements 
of Sec.  63.1350(j). The duration of the performance test must be 3 
hours and the highest 1-hour average THC concentration (as calculated 
from the 1-minute averages) during the 3-hour test must be calculated. 
Using the fraction of time the raw mill is on and the fraction of time 
that the raw mill is off, calculate this limit as a weighted average of 
the THC levels measured during raw mill on and raw mill off testing.
    (v) You must repeat the performance test for organic HAP according 
to paragraph (b)(4)(iii) and (iv) of this section no later than 12 
months after your last test to confirm compliance with the organic HAP 
emissions limit and to re-establish your site-specific THC emissions 
limit.
    (vi) If the THC level exceeds by 10 percent or more your site-
specific THC emissions limit, you must
    (A) As soon as possible but no later than 30 days after the 
exceedance, conduct an inspection and take corrective action to return 
the THC CEMS measurements to within the established value; and
    (B) Within 90 days of the exceedance or at the time of the annual 
compliance test, whichever comes first, conduct another performance 
test to determine compliance with the organic HAP limit and to verify 
or re-establish your site-specific THC emissions limit.
    (5) Mercury Emissions Tests. If you are subject to limitations on 
mercury emissions, you must operate a mercury CEMS in accordance with 
the requirements of Sec.  63.1350(k). The initial compliance test must 
be based on the first 30 kiln operating days in which the affected 
source operates using a mercury CEMS after the compliance date of the 
rule. See Sec.  63.1348(a).
    (i) If you are using a mercury CEMS or a sorbent trap monitoring 
system, you must install, operate, calibrate, and maintain an 
instrument for continuously measuring and recording the exhaust gas 
flow rate to the atmosphere according to the requirements in Sec.  
63.1350(k)(5).
    (ii) Calculate the emission rate using the equations 6 of this 
section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP18JY12.010

Where:

E30D = 30-day rolling emission rate of mercury, lb/MM 
tons clinker;
Ci = Concentration of mercury for operating hour i, 
[mu]g/scm;
Qi = Volumetric flow rate of effluent gas for operating 
hour i, where Cs and Qs are on the same basis 
(either wet or dry), scm/hr;
K = Conversion factor, 1 lb/454,000,000 [mu]g;
n = Number of kiln operating hours in a 30 kiln operating day 
period, n = 1 to 720.

    (6) HCl Emissions Tests. For a source subject to limitations on HCl 
emissions you must conduct performance testing by one of the following 
methods:
    (i)(A) If the source is equipped with a wet scrubber, tray tower or 
dry scrubber, you must conduct performance testing using Method 321 of 
appendix A to this part unless you have installed a CEMS that meets the 
requirements Sec.  63.1350(l)(1).
    (B) You must establish site specific parameter limits by using the 
CPMS required in Sec.  63.1350(l)(1). For a wet scrubber or tray tower, 
measure and record the pressure drop across the scrubber and/or liquid 
flow rate and pH in intervals of no more than 15 minutes during the HCl 
test. Compute and record the 24-hour average pressure drop, pH, and 
average scrubber water flow rate for each sampling run in which the 
applicable emissions limit is met. For a dry scrubber, measure and 
record the sorbent injection rate in intervals of no more than 15 
minutes during the HCl test. Compute and record the 24-hour average 
sorbent injection rate and average sorbent injection rate for each 
sampling run in which the applicable emissions limit is met.
    (ii)(A) If the source is not controlled by a wet scrubber, tray 
tower or dry sorbent injection system, you must operate a CEMS in 
accordance with the requirements of Sec.  63.1350(l)(1). See Sec.  
63.1348(a).
    (B) The initial compliance test must be based on the 30 kiln 
operating days that occur after the compliance date of this rule in 
which the affected source operates using a HCl CEMS. Hourly HCl 
concentration data must be obtained according to Sec.  63.1350(l).
    (iii) As an alternative to paragraph (i), you may choose to monitor 
SO2 emissions using a CEMS in accordance with the 
requirements of Sec.  63.1350(l)(3). You must establish an 
SO2 operating limit equal to the highest 1 hour average 
recorded during the HCl stack test. This operating limit will apply 
only for demonstrating HCl compliance.
    (iv) If kiln gases are diverted through an alkali bypass or to a 
coal mill and

[[Page 42406]]

exhausted through a separate stack, you must calculate a kiln-specific 
HCl limit using equation 7:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP18JY12.011

Where:

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

    (c) Performance Test Frequency. Except as provided in Sec.  
63.1348(b), performance tests are required at regular intervals for 
affected sources that are subject to a dioxin or HCl emissions limit 
and must be repeated every 30 months except for pollutants where that 
specific pollutant is monitored using CEMS. Tests for PM and total 
organic HAP are repeated every 12 months.
    (d) Performance Test Reporting Requirements.
    (1) You must submit the information specified in paragraphs (d)(1) 
and (d)(2) of this section no later than 60 days following the initial 
performance test. All reports must be signed by a responsible official.
    (i) The initial performance test data as recorded under paragraph 
(b) of this section.
    (ii) The values for the site-specific operating limits or 
parameters established pursuant to paragraphs (b)(3), (b)(4)(iii), 
(b)(5)(ii), and (b)(6)(i) of this section, as applicable, and a 
description, including sample calculations, of how the operating 
parameters were established during the initial performance test.
    (2) As of December 31, 2011 and within 60 days after the date of 
completing each performance evaluation or test, as defined in Sec.  
63.2, conducted to demonstrate compliance with any standard covered by 
this subpart, you must submit the relative accuracy test audit data and 
performance test data, except opacity data, to the EPA by successfully 
submitting the data electronically to the EPA's Central Data Exchange 
(CDX) by using the Electronic Reporting Tool(ERT) (see http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/ert_tool.html/).
    (e) Conditions of performance tests. Conduct performance tests 
under such conditions as the Administrator specifies to the owner or 
operator based on representative performance of the affected source for 
the period being tested. Upon request, you must make available to the 
Administrator such records as may be necessary to determine the 
conditions of performance tests.
    20. Section 63.1350 is amended by:
    a. Revising paragraphs (a) through (d);
    b. Revising paragraph (f) introductory text;
    c. Revising paragraphs (f)(1)(iv) through (f)(1)(vi);
    d. Revising paragraphs (f)(2)(i) and (f)(2)(iii);
    e. Revising paragraphs (f)(3) and (f)(4);
    f. Revising paragraph (g)(1) introductory text;
    g. Revising paragraphs (g)(2) and (g)(4);
    h. Revising paragraph (h)(1)(ii);
    i. Revising paragraphs (i)(1) and (i)(2);
    j. Adding paragraph (i)(3);
    k. Revising paragraph (k);
    l. Revising paragraph (l);
    m. Revising paragraph (m) introductory text;
    n. Revising paragraph (m)(7)(i);
    o. Revising introductory text for paragraphs (m)(9);
    p. Revising paragraph (m)(10), and paragraph (m)(11)(v);
    q. Revising introductory text for paragraphs (n), (o), and (p);
    r. Removing and reserving paragraph (n)(3); and
    s. Revising introductory text for paragraphs (p)(1), (p)(2), and 
(p)(5).
    The revisions read as follows:


Sec.  63.1350  Monitoring requirements.

    (a)(1) Following the compliance date, the owner or operator must 
demonstrate compliance with this subpart on a continuous basis by 
meeting the requirements of this section.
    (2) All continuous monitoring data for periods of startup and 
shutdown must be compiled and averaged separately from data gathered 
during other operating periods.
    (3) For each existing unit that is equipped with a CMS, maintain 
the average emissions or the operating parameter values within the 
operating parameter limits established through performance tests.
    (4) Any instance where the owner or operator fails to comply with 
the continuous monitoring requirements of this section is a deviation.
    (b) PM Monitoring Requirements.
    (1)(i) PM CPMS. You will use a PM CPMS to establish a site-specific 
operating limit corresponding to the results of the performance test 
demonstrating compliance with the PM limit. You will conduct your 
performance test using Method 5 at appendix A-3 to part 60 of this 
chapter. You will use the PM CPMS to demonstrate continuous compliance 
with this operating limit. You must repeat the performance test 
annually and reassess and adjust the site-specific operating limit in 
accordance with the results of the performance test.
    (ii) To determine continuous compliance, you must record the PM 
CPMS output data for all periods when the process is operating and the 
PM CPMS is not out-of-control. You must demonstrate continuous 
compliance by using all quality-assured hourly average data collected 
by the PM CPMS for all operating hours to calculate the arithmetic 
average operating parameter in units of the operating limit (e.g., 
milliamps, PM concentration, raw data signal) on a 30 operating day 
rolling average basis, updated at the end of each new kiln operating 
day.
    (iii) For any deviation of the 30 process operating day PM CPMS 
average value from the established operating parameter limit, you must
    (A) Within 48 hours of the deviation, visually inspect the APCD;
    (B) If inspection of the APCD identifies the cause of the 
deviation, take corrective action as soon as possible, and return the 
PM CPMS measurement to within the established value; and
    (C) Within 45 days of the deviation or at the time of the annual 
compliance test, whichever comes first, conduct a PM emissions 
compliance test to determine compliance with the PM emissions limit and 
to verify or re-establish the CPMS operating limit. You are not 
required to conduct additional testing for any deviations that occur 
between the time of the original deviation and the PM emissions 
compliance test required under this paragraph.
    (iv) PM CPMS deviations from the operating limit leading to more 
than four required performance tests in a 12-month process operating 
period (rolling monthly) constitute a separate violation of this 
subpart.

[[Page 42407]]

    (2) Kilns equipped with an alkali bypass. If kiln gases are 
diverted through an alkali bypass, you must account for the PM emitted 
from the alkali bypass stack by following the procedures in (b)(2)(i) 
through (v) of this section:
    (i) You must install, operate, calibrate, and maintain an 
instrument for continuously measuring and recording the exhaust gas 
flow rate to the atmosphere from the alkali bypass stack according to 
the requirements in paragraphs (n)(1) through (n)(10) of this section.
    (ii) Develop a PM emissions factor by conducting annual performance 
tests using Method 5 to measure the concentration of PM in the gases 
exhausted from the alkali bypass stack.
    (iii) On a continuous basis, determine the mass emissions of PM in 
pounds per hour from the alkali bypass exhaust by using the PM 
emissions factor and the continuously measured exhaust gas flow rates.
    (iv) Sum the hourly PM emissions from the kiln and alkali bypass to 
determine total hourly PM emissions. Using hourly clinker production, 
calculate the hourly emissions rate in pounds per ton of clinker to 
determine your 30 day rolling average.
    (v) If you monitor compliance using a PM CPMS, you must determine 
compliance according to paragraphs (b)(3)(v)(A) through (C) of this 
section:
    (A) Conduct an annual performance test using Method 5 to determine 
total PM emissions from the alkali bypass and kiln.
    (B) To determine continuous compliance, you must establish your PM 
CPMS operating limit according to paragraph (b)(1) of this section.
    (C) You must establish the maximum exhaust gas flow rate for the 
alkali bypass during your annual performance test. You must 
continuously monitor the flow rate until the next performance test. If 
there is a deviation of the monitored flow rate from the maximum 
established during your last performance test by more than 10 percent, 
you must retest the kiln and alkali bypass to determine compliance.
    (c) [Reserved]
    (d) Clinker Production Monitoring Requirements. If you are subject 
to an emissions limitation on PM or mercury emissions (lb/ton of 
clinker), you must:
    (1) Determine hourly clinker production by one of two methods:
    (i) Install, calibrate, maintain, and operate a permanent weigh 
scale system to measure and record weight rates in tons-mass per hour 
of the amount of clinker produced. The system of measuring hourly 
clinker production must be maintained within 5 percent 
accuracy, or
    (ii) Install, calibrate, maintain, and operate a permanent weigh 
scale system to measure and record weight rates in tons-mass per hour 
of the amount of feed to the kiln. The system of measuring feed must be 
maintained within 5 percent accuracy. Calculate your hourly 
clinker production rate using a kiln specific feed to clinker ratio 
based on reconciled clinker production determined for accounting 
purposes and recorded feed rates. Update this ratio monthly. Note that 
if this ratio changes at clinker reconciliation, you must use the new 
ratio going forward, but you do not have to retroactively change 
clinker production rates previously estimated.
    (iii) [Reserved]
    (2) Determine, record, and maintain a record of the accuracy of the 
system of measuring hourly clinker production (or feed mass flow if 
applicable) before initial use (for new sources) or by the effective 
compliance date of this rule (for existing sources). During each 
quarter of source operation, you must determine, record, and maintain a 
record of the ongoing accuracy of the system of measuring hourly 
clinker production (or feed mass flow).
    (3) If you measure clinker production directly, record the daily 
clinker production rates; if you measure the kiln feed rates and 
calculate clinker production, record the daily kiln feed and clinker 
production rates.
    (4) Develop an emissions monitoring plan in accordance with 
paragraphs (p)(1) through (p)(4) of this section.
    (e) [Reserved]
    (f) Opacity Monitoring Requirements. If you are subject to a 
limitation on opacity under Sec.  63.1345, you must conduct required 
opacity monitoring in accordance with the provisions of paragraphs 
(f)(1)(i) through (f)(1)(vii) of this section and in accordance with 
your monitoring plan developed under Sec.  63.1350(p). You must also 
develop an opacity monitoring plan in accordance with paragraphs (p)(1) 
through (p)(4) and paragraph (o)(5), if applicable, of this section.
    (1) * * *
    (iv) If visible emissions are observed during any Method 22 
performance test, of appendix A-7 to part 60 of this chapter, you must 
conduct 30 opacity observations in accordance with Method 9 of appendix 
A-4 to part 60 of this chapter. The Method 9 performance test, of 
appendix A-4 to part 60 of this chapter, must begin within 1 hour of 
any observation of visible emissions.
    (v) The requirement to conduct Method 22 visible emissions 
monitoring under this paragraph do not apply to any totally enclosed 
conveying system transfer point, regardless of the location of the 
transfer point. The enclosures for these transfer points must be 
operated and maintained as total enclosures on a continuing basis in 
accordance with the facility operations and maintenance plan.
    (vi) If any partially enclosed or unenclosed conveying system 
transfer point is located in a building, you must conduct a Method 22 
performance test, of appendix A-7 to part 60 of this chapter, according 
to the requirements of paragraphs (f)(1)(i) through (f)(1)(iv) of this 
section for each such conveying system transfer point located within 
the building, or for the building itself, according to paragraph 
(f)(1)(vii) of this section.
* * * * *
    (2)(i) For a raw mill or finish mill, you must monitor opacity by 
conducting daily visible emissions observations of the mill sweep and 
air separator PM control devices (PMCD) of these affected sources in 
accordance with the procedures of Method 22 of appendix A-7 to part 60 
of this chapter. The duration of the Method 22 performance test must be 
6 minutes.
* * * * *
    (iii) If visible emissions are observed during the follow-up Method 
22 performance test required by paragraph (f)(2)(ii) of this section 
from any stack from which visible emissions were observed during the 
previous Method 22 performance test required by paragraph (f)(2)(i) of 
the section, you must then conduct an opacity test of each stack from 
which emissions were observed during the follow up Method 22 
performance test in accordance with Method 9 of appendix A-4 to part 60 
of this chapter. The duration of the Method 9 test must be 30 minutes.
    (3) If visible emissions are observed during any Method 22 visible 
emissions test conducted under paragraphs (f)(1) or (f)(2) of this 
section, you must initiate, within one hour, the corrective actions 
specified in your operation and maintenance plan as required in Sec.  
63.1347.
    (4) The requirements under paragraph (f)(2) of this section to 
conduct daily Method 22 testing do not apply to any specific raw mill 
or finish mill equipped with a COMS or BLDS.
    (i) If the owner or operator chooses to install a COMS in lieu of 
conducting the daily visible emissions testing required under paragraph 
(f)(2) of this section, then the COMS must be installed at the outlet 
of the PM control device of the raw mill or finish mill and the COMS 
must be installed, maintained,

[[Page 42408]]

calibrated, and operated as required by the general provisions in 
subpart A of this part and according to PS-1 of appendix B to part 60 
of this chapter.
    (ii) If you choose to install a BLDS in lieu of conducting the 
daily visible emissions testing required under paragraph (f)(2) of this 
section, the requirements in paragraphs (m)(1) through (m)(4), (m)(10) 
and (m)(11) of this section apply.
    (g) * * *
    (1) You must install, calibrate, maintain, and continuously operate 
a CMS to record the temperature of the exhaust gases from the kiln and 
alkali bypass, if applicable, at the inlet to, or upstream of, the kiln 
and/or alkali bypass PMCDs.
* * * * *
    (2) You must monitor and continuously record the temperature of the 
exhaust gases from the kiln and alkali bypass, if applicable, at the 
inlet to the kiln and/or alkali bypass PMCD.
* * * * *
    (4) Calculate the rolling three-hour average temperature using the 
average of 180 successive one-minute average temperatures. See Sec.  
63.1349(b)(3).
* * * * *
    (h) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (ii) Each hour, calculate the three-hour rolling average activated 
carbon injection rate for the previous 3 hours of process operation. 
See Sec.  63.1349(b)(3).
* * * * *
    (i) * * *
    (1) You must install, operate, and maintain a THC continuous 
emission monitoring system in accordance with Performance Specification 
8A of appendix B to part 60 of this chapter and comply with all of the 
requirements for continuous monitoring systems found in the general 
provisions, subpart A of this part. The owner or operator must operate 
and maintain each CEMS according to the quality assurance requirements 
in Procedure 1 of appendix F in part 60 of this chapter.
    (2) For sources equipped with an alkali bypass stack or that 
exhaust kiln gases to a coal mill that exhausts through a separate 
stack, instead of installing a CEMS, you may use the results of the 
initial and subsequent performance test to demonstrate compliance with 
the THC emissions limit.
    (3) Performance tests on alkali bypass and coal mill stacks must be 
conducted using Method 25A in appendix A to 40 CFR part 60 and repeated 
annually.
* * * * *
    (k) Mercury Monitoring Requirements. If you have a kiln subject to 
an emissions limitation on mercury emissions, you must install and 
operate a mercury continuous emissions monitoring system (Hg CEMS) in 
accordance with Performance Specification 12A (PS 12A) of appendix B to 
part 60 of this chapter or a sorbent trap-based integrated monitoring 
system in accordance with Performance Specification 12B (PS 12B) of 
appendix B to part 60 of this chapter. You must monitor mercury 
continuously according to paragraphs (k)(1) through (k)(5) of this 
section. You must also develop an emissions monitoring plan in 
accordance with paragraphs (p)(1) through (p)(4) of this section.
    (1) You must use a span value for any Hg CEMS that represents the 
mercury concentration corresponding to approximately two times the 
emissions standard rounded up to the nearest multiple of 5 [micro]g/
m\3\ of total mercury. As specified in PS 12A, Section 6.1.1, the data 
recorder output range must include the full range of expected Hg 
concentration values which would include those expected during ``mill 
off'' conditions.
    (2) In order to quality assure data measured above the span value, 
you must use one of the options in paragraphs (k)(2)(i) through 
(k)(2)(iii) below.
    (i) Include a second span that encompasses the Hg emission 
concentrations expected to be encountered during ``mill off'' 
conditions. This second span may be rounded to a multiple of 5 
[micro]g/m\3\ of total mercury. The requirements of PS-12A, shall be 
followed for this second span with the exception that a RATA with the 
mill off is not required.
    (ii) Conduct an additional `above span' daily calibration using a 
Hg reference gas standard at a concentration level between 50 and 85 
percent of the highest hourly Hg concentration expected during ``mill 
off'' conditions. The `above span' reference gas must meet the 
requirements of PS 12A, Section 7.1 and be introduced at the probe. The 
`above span' calibration is successful if the value measured by the Hg 
CEMS is within 20 percent of the certified value of the reference gas. 
Record and report the results of this procedure as you would for a 
daily calibration.
    (iii) If you choose not to conduct an additional daily calibration, 
then quality assure any data above the span value established in 
paragraph (k)(1) of this section using the following procedure. Any 
time the one hour average measured concentration of Hg exceeds the span 
value you must, within 24 hours, introduce a higher, `above span' Hg 
reference gas standard to the Hg CEMS. The `above span' reference gas 
must meet the requirements of PS 12A, Section 7.1, must be of a 
concentration level greater than 80 percent of the highest hourly 
concentration measured during the period of measurements above span, 
and must be introduced at the probe. Record and report the results of 
this procedure as you would for a daily calibration. The `above span' 
calibration is successful if the value measured by the Hg CEMS is 
within 20 percent of the certified value of the reference gas. If the 
value measured by the Hg CEMS exceeds 20 percent of the certified value 
of the reference gas, then you must normalize the one-hour average 
stack gas values measured above the span during the 24-hour period 
preceding the `above span' calibration for reporting based on the Hg 
CEMS response to the reference gas as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP18JY12.012

    (3) You must operate and maintain each Hg CEMS or sorbent trap-
based integrated monitoring system according to the quality assurance 
requirements in Procedure 5 of appendix F to part 60 of this chapter.
    (4) Relative accuracy testing of mercury monitoring systems under 
PS 12A, PS 12B, or Procedure 5 must be conducted at normal operating 
conditions with the raw mill on.
    (5) If you use a Hg CEMS or a sorbent trap-based integrated 
monitoring system, you must install, operate, calibrate, and maintain 
an instrument for continuously measuring and recording the exhaust gas 
flow rate to the atmosphere according to the requirements in paragraphs 
(n)(1) through (n)(10) of this section. If kiln gases are diverted 
through an alkali bypass or to a coal mill and exhausted through 
separate stacks, you must account for the mercury emitted from

[[Page 42409]]

those stacks by following the procedures in (k)(5)(i) through (v) of 
this section:
    (i) You must install, operate, calibrate, and maintain an 
instrument for continuously measuring and recording the exhaust gas 
flow rate to the atmosphere according to the requirements in paragraphs 
(n)(1) through (n)(10) of this section.
    (ii) Develop a mercury hourly mass emissions rate by conducting 
annual performance tests using Method 29 to measure the concentration 
of mercury in the gases exhausted from the alkali bypass and coal mill.
    (iii) On a continuous basis, determine the mass emissions of 
mercury in pounds per hour from the alkali bypass and coal mill 
exhausts by using the mercury hourly emissions rate and the 
continuously measured exhaust gas flow rates.
    (iv) Sum the hourly mercury emissions from the kiln, alkali bypass 
and coal mill to determine total mercury emissions. Using hourly 
clinker production, calculate the hourly emissions rate in pounds per 
ton of clinker to determine your 30 day rolling average.
    (v) If mercury emissions from the coal mill are below the method 
detection limit for two consecutive annual performance tests, you may 
reduce the frequency of the performance tests of coal mills to once 
every 30 months. If the measured mercury concentration exceeds the 
method detection limit, you must revert to testing annually until two 
consecutive annual tests are below the method detection limit.
    (6) If you operate an integrated sampling Hg CEMS conforming to PS 
12B, you may use a monitoring period from 24 hours to 168 hours in 
length. You should use a monitoring period that is a multiple of 24 
hours (except during relative accuracy testing as allowed in PS 12B).
    (l) HCl Monitoring Requirements. If you are subject to an emissions 
limitation on HCl emissions in Sec.  63.1343, you must monitor HCl 
emissions continuously according to paragraph (l)(1) or (2) and 
paragraphs (m)(1) through (m)(4) of this section or, if your kiln is 
controlled using a wet or dry scrubber or tray tower, you alternatively 
may monitor SO2 emissions continuously according to 
paragraph (l)(3) of this section. You must also develop an emissions 
monitoring plan in accordance with paragraphs (p)(1) through (p)(4) of 
this section.
    (1) If you monitor compliance with the HCl emissions limit by 
operating an HCl CEMS, you must do so in accordance with Performance 
Specification 15 (PS 15) of appendix B to part 60 of this chapter, or, 
upon promulgation, in accordance with any other performance 
specification for HCl CEMS in appendix B to part 60 of this chapter. 
You must operate, maintain, and quality assure an HCl CEMS installed 
and certified under PS 15 according to the quality assurance 
requirements in Procedure 1 of appendix F to part 60 of this chapter 
except that the Relative Accuracy Test Audit requirements of Procedure 
1 must be replaced with the validation requirements and criteria of 
sections 11.1.1 and 12.0 of PS 15. If you install and operate an HCl 
CEMS in accordance with any other performance specification for HCl 
CEMS in appendix B to part 60 of this chapter, you must operate, 
maintain and quality assure the HCl CEMS using the procedure of 
appendix F to part 60 of this chapter applicable to the performance 
specification. You must use Method 321 of appendix A to part 63 of this 
chapter as the reference test method for conducting relative accuracy 
testing. The span value and calibration requirements in paragraphs 
(l)(1)(i) and (l)(1)(ii) below apply to HCl CEMS other than those 
installed and certified under PS 15.
    (i) You must use a span value for any HCl CEMS that represents the 
intended upper limit of the HCl concentration measurement range during 
normal ``mill on'' operation. The span value should be equivalent to 
approximately two times the emissions standard and it may be rounded to 
the nearest multiple of 5 ppm of HCl. The HCl CEMS data recorder output 
range must include the full range of expected HCl concentration values 
which would include those expected during ``mill off'' conditions.
    (ii) In order to quality assure data measured above the span value, 
you must use one of the two options in paragraphs (l)(1)(ii)(A) and 
(l)(1)(ii)(B) below.
    (A) Conduct an additional `above span' daily calibration using a 
HCl reference gas standard at a concentration level between 50 and 85 
percent of the highest hourly HCl concentration expected during ``mill 
off'' conditions. The `above span' reference gas must meet the 
requirements of the applicable performance specification and be 
introduced at the probe. The `above span' calibration is successful if 
the value measured by the HCl CEMS is within 20 percent of the 
certified value of the reference gas. If the value measured by the HCl 
CEMS is not within 20 percent of the certified value of the reference 
gas, then you must normalize the stack gas values measured above span 
as described in paragraph (l)(1)(ii)(C) below. Record and report the 
results of this procedure as you would for a daily calibration.
    (B) If you choose not to conduct an additional calibration on a 
daily basis, then quality assure any data above the span value 
established in paragraph (l)(1)(i) of this section using the following 
procedure. Any time the average measured concentration of HCl exceeds 
or is expected to exceed the span value for greater than two hours you 
must, within a period 24 hours before or after the `above span' period, 
introduce a higher, `above span' HCl reference gas standard to the HCl 
CEMS. The `above span' reference gas must meet the requirements of the 
applicable performance specification and be of a concentration level 
greater than or equal to 80 percent of the highest hourly concentration 
measured during the period of measurements above span, and must be 
introduced at the probe. Record and report the results of this 
procedure as you would for a daily calibration. The `above span' 
calibration is successful if the value measured by the HCl CEMS is 
within 20 percent of the certified value of the reference gas. If the 
value measured by the HCl CEMS is not within 20 percent of the 
certified value of the reference gas, then you must normalize the stack 
gas values measured above span as described in paragraph (l)(1)(ii)(C) 
below. If the `above span' calibration is conducted during the period 
when measured emissions are above span and there is a failure to 
collect the required minimum number of data points in an hour due to 
the calibration duration, then you must determine the emissions average 
for that missed hour as the average of hourly averages for the hour 
preceding the missed hour and the hour following the missed hour.
    (C) In the event that the `above span' calibration is not 
successful (i.e., the HCl CEMS measured value is not within 20 percent 
of the certified value of the reference gas), then you must normalize 
the one-hour average stack gas values measured above the span during 
the 24-hour period preceding or following the `above span' calibration 
for reporting based on the HCl CEMS response to the reference gas as 
follows:

[[Page 42410]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP18JY12.013

    (2) Install, operate, and maintain a CMS to monitor wet scrubber or 
tray tower parameters, as specified in paragraphs (m)(5) and (m)(7) of 
this section, and dry scrubber, as specified in paragraph (m)(8) of 
this section.
    (3) If the source is equipped with a wet or dry scrubber or tray 
tower, and you choose to monitor SO2 emissions, monitor 
SO2 emissions continuously according to the requirements of 
Sec.  60.63(e) through (f) of part 60 subpart F of this chapter. If 
SO2 levels increase above the 1 hour average SO2 
operating limit established during your performance test, you must
    (i) As soon as possible but no later than 48 hours after you 
deviate from the established SO2 value conduct an inspection 
and take corrective action to return the SO2 emissions to 
within the operating limit; and
    (ii) Within 60 days of the deviation or at the time of the next 
compliance test, whichever comes first, conduct an HCl emissions 
compliance test to determine compliance with the HCl emissions limit 
and to verify or re-establish the SO2 CEMS operating limit.
    (m) Parameter Monitoring Requirements. If you have an operating 
limit that requires the use of a CMS, you must install, operate, and 
maintain each continuous parameter monitoring system (CMS) according to 
the procedures in paragraphs (m)(1) through (4) of this section by the 
compliance date specified in Sec.  63.1351. You must also meet the 
applicable specific parameter monitoring requirements in paragraphs 
(m)(5) through (m)(11) that are applicable to you.
* * * * *
    (7) * * *
    (i) Locate the pH sensor in a position that provides a 
representative measurement of wet scrubber or tray tower effluent pH.
* * * * *
    (9) Mass Flow Rate (for Sorbent Injection) Monitoring Requirements. 
If you have an operating limit that requires the use of equipment to 
monitor sorbent injection rate (e.g., weigh belt, weigh hopper, or 
hopper flow measurement device), you must meet the requirements in 
paragraphs (m)(9)(i) through (iii) of this section. These requirements 
also apply to the sorbent injection equipment of a dry scrubber.
* * * * *
    (10) Bag leak detection monitoring requirements. If you elect to 
use a fabric filter bag leak detection system to comply with the 
requirements of this subpart, you must install, calibrate, maintain, 
and continuously operate a BLDS as specified in paragraphs (m)(10)(i) 
through (viii) of this section.
    (i) You must install and operate a BLDS for each exhaust stack of 
the fabric filter.
    (ii) Each BLDS must be installed, operated, calibrated, and 
maintained in a manner consistent with the manufacturer's written 
specifications and recommendations and in accordance with the guidance 
provided in EPA-454/R-98-015, September 1997.
    (iii) The BLDS must be certified by the manufacturer to be capable 
of detecting PM emissions at concentrations of 10 or fewer milligrams 
per actual cubic meter.
    (iv) The BLDS sensor must provide output of relative or absolute PM 
loadings.
    (v) The BLDS must be equipped with a device to continuously record 
the output signal from the sensor.
    (vi) The BLDS must be equipped with an alarm system that will alert 
an operator automatically when an increase in relative PM emissions 
over a preset level is detected. The alarm must be located such that 
the alert is detected and recognized easily by an operator.
    (vii) For positive pressure fabric filter systems that do not duct 
all compartments of cells to a common stack, a BLDS must be installed 
in each baghouse compartment or cell.
* * * * *
    (11) * * *
    (v) Cleaning the BLDS probe or otherwise repairing the BLDS; or
* * * * *
    (n) Continuous Flow Rate Monitoring System. You must install, 
operate, calibrate, and maintain instruments, according to the 
requirements in paragraphs (n)(1) through (10) of this section, for 
continuously measuring and recording the stack gas flow rate to allow 
determination of the pollutant mass emissions rate to the atmosphere 
from sources subject to an emissions limitation that has a pounds per 
ton of clinker unit.
* * * * *
    (3) [Reserved]
* * * * *
    (o) Alternate Monitoring Requirements Approval. You may submit an 
application to the Administrator for approval of alternate monitoring 
requirements to demonstrate compliance with the emission standards of 
this subpart, except for emission standards for THC, subject to the 
provisions of paragraphs (o)(1) through (o)(6) of this section.
* * * * *
    (p) Development and Submittal (Upon Request) of Monitoring Plans. 
If you demonstrate compliance with any applicable emissions limit 
through performance stack testing or other emissions monitoring, you 
must develop a site-specific monitoring plan according to the 
requirements in paragraphs (p)(1) through (4) of this section. This 
requirement also applies to you if you petition the EPA Administrator 
for alternative monitoring parameters under paragraph (o) of this 
section and Sec.  63.8(f). If you use a BLDS, you must also meet the 
requirements specified in paragraph (p)(5) of this section.
    (1) For each CMS required in this section, you must develop, and 
submit to the permitting authority for approval upon request, a site-
specific monitoring plan that addresses paragraphs (p)(1)(i) through 
(iii) of this section. You must submit this site-specific monitoring 
plan, if requested, at least 30 days before your initial performance 
evaluation of your CMS.
* * * * *
    (2) In your site-specific monitoring plan, you must also address 
paragraphs (p)(2)(i) through (iii) of this section.
* * * * *
    (5) BLDS Monitoring Plan. Each monitoring plan must describe the 
items in paragraphs (p)(5)(i) through (v) of this section. At a 
minimum, you must retain records related to the site-specific 
monitoring plan and information discussed in paragraphs (m)(1) through 
(4), (m)(10) and (m)(11) of this section for a period of 5 years, with 
at least the first 2 years on-site;
* * * * *
    21. Section 63.1351 is amended by:
    a. Revising paragraphs (c) and (d); and
    b. Adding paragraph (e).
    The revisions and addition read as follows:


Sec.  63.1351  Compliance dates.

* * * * *
    (c) The compliance date for existing sources for all the 
requirements that become effective on [DATE 60 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION 
OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register] will be September 9, 2015.].

[[Page 42411]]

    (d) The compliance date for new sources is May 6, 2009 or startup, 
whichever is later.
    (e) The compliance date for existing and new sources with the 
requirements for open clinker storage piles in Sec.  63.1343(c) is 
[DATE 180 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE Federal 
Register] or startup, whichever is later.
    22. Section 63.1352 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  63.1352  Additional test methods.

* * * * *
    (b) Owners or operators conducting tests to determine the rates of 
emission of specific organic HAP from raw material dryers, and kilns at 
Portland cement manufacturing facilities, solely for use in 
applicability determinations under Sec.  63.1340 of this subpart are 
permitted to use Method 320 of appendix A to this part, or Method 18 of 
appendix A to part 60 of this chapter.
    23. Section 63.1353 is amended by adding paragraph (b)(6) to read 
as follows:


Sec.  63.1353  Notification Requirements.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (6) Within 48 hours of a deviation that triggers retesting to 
establish compliance and new operating limits, notify the appropriate 
permitting agency of the planned performance tests. The notification 
requirements of Sec.  63.7(e) and 63.9(e) do not apply to retesting 
required for deviations under this subpart.
* * * * *
    24. Section 63.1354 is amended by:
    a. Removing and reserving paragraphs (b)(4) and (5);
    b. Revising paragraph (b)(9)(vi);
    c. Adding paragraph (b)(9)(vii); and
    d. Revising paragraph (c).
    The revisions, addition, and deletion read as follows:


Sec.  63.1354  Reporting requirements.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (9) * * *
    (vi) For each PM, HCl, Hg, and THC CEMS or Hg sorbent trap 
monitoring system, within 60 days after the reporting periods, you must 
submit reports to EPA's WebFIRE database by using the Compliance and 
Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI) that is accessed through 
EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX) (www.epa.gov/cdx). You must use the 
appropriate electronic reporting form in CEDRI or provide an alternate 
electronic file consistent with EPA's reporting form output format. For 
each reporting period, the reports must include all of the calculated 
30-operating day rolling average values derived from the CEMS or Hg 
sorbent trap monitoring systems.
    (vii) In response to each deviation from an emissions standard or 
established operating parameter limit, the date, duration and 
description of each deviation and the specific actions taken for each 
deviation including inspections, corrective actions and repeat 
performance tests and the results of those actions.
* * * * *
    (c) Reporting deviations due to startup, shutdown or malfunctions. 
For each deviation from a standard or emission limit caused by a 
startup, shutdown, or malfunction at an affected source, you must 
report the deviation in the semi-annual compliance report required by 
63.1354(b)(9). The report must contain the date, time and duration, and 
the cause of each event (including unknown cause, if applicable), and a 
sum of the number of events in the reporting period. The report must 
list for each event the affected source or equipment, an estimate of 
the volume of each regulated pollutant emitted over the emission limit 
for which the source failed to meet a standard, and a description of 
the method used to estimate the emissions. The report must also include 
a description of actions taken by an owner or operator during a 
malfunction of an affected source to minimize emissions in accordance 
with Sec.  63.1348(d), including actions taken to correct a 
malfunction.
* * * * *
    25. Section 63.1355 is amended by:
    a. Revising paragraphs (f) and (g)(1); and
    b. Adding paragraph (h).

The revisions read as follows:


Sec.  63.1355  Recordkeeping requirements.

* * * * *
    (f) The date, time and duration of each startup or shutdown which 
causes the source to exceed any applicable emission limitation, and 
(f)(i) through (iii) of this section;
    (i) The date, time, and duration of each startup or shutdown 
period, for any affected source that is subject to an emission standard 
during startup or shutdown that differs from the emission standard 
applicable at other times.
    (ii) The quantity and type of raw feed and fuel used during the 
startup or shutdown period.
    (iii) An estimate of the volume of each regulated pollutant emitted 
over the emission limit during startup or shutdown, with a description 
of the method used to estimate emissions.
    (g)(1) The date, time and duration of each malfunction that causes 
an affected source to fail to meet an applicable standard; if there was 
also a monitoring malfunction, the date, time and duration of the 
monitoring malfunction; the record must list the affected source or 
equipment, an estimate of the volume of each regulated pollutant 
emitted over the standard for which the source failed to meet a 
standard, and a description of the method used to estimate the 
emissions.
* * * * *
    (h) For each deviation from an emissions standard or established 
operating parameter limit, you must keep records of the date, duration 
and description of each deviation and the specific actions taken for 
each deviation including inspections, corrective actions and repeat 
performance tests and the results of those actions.
* * * * *
    26. Section 63.1356 is amended by revising the section heading and 
the section text to read as follows:


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

    If an affected facility subject to this subpart has a different 
emissions limit or requirement for the same pollutant under another 
regulation in title 40 of this chapter, the owner or operator of the 
affected facility must comply with the most stringent emissions limit 
or requirement and is exempt from the less stringent requirement.
    27. Section 63.1357 is amended by:
    a. Revising paragraph (a)(1); and
    b. Revising paragraph (a)(2).
    The revisions read as follows:


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

    (a) * * *
    (1) Any PM and opacity standards of part 60 or part 63 of this 
chapter that are applicable to cement kilns and clinker coolers.
    (2) Any permit or other emissions or operating parameter or other 
limitation on workplace practices that are applicable to cement kilns 
and clinker coolers to ensure compliance with any PM and opacity 
standards of this part or part 60 of this chapter.
* * * * *
    28. Table 1 to Subpart LLL of Part 63 is revised by revising the 
entries for 63.6(e)(3), 63.7(b), and 63.9(e) to read as follows:

[[Page 42412]]



                     Table 1 to Subpart LLL of Part 63--Applicability of General Provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Citation                     Requirement         Applies to  Subpart LLL          Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
63.6(e)(3).........................  Startup, Shutdown       No.........................  Startup and shutdown
                                      Malfunction Plan.                                    plans addressed in
                                                                                           Sec.   63.1347.
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
63.7(b)............................  Notification period...  Yes........................  Except for repeat
                                                                                           performance test
                                                                                           caused by a
                                                                                           deviation. See Sec.
                                                                                           63.1353(b)(6).
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
63.9(e)............................  Notification of         Yes........................  Except for repeat
                                      performance test.                                    performance test
                                                                                           caused by a
                                                                                           deviation. See Sec.
                                                                                           63.1353(b)(6).
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2012-16166 Filed 7-17-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P