[6560-50-P]

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 60 and 63

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0877; FRL-        ]

RIN 2060-AO42

Standards of Performance for Portland Cement Plants

AGENCY:  Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION:  Proposed rule.

SUMMARY:  The EPA is proposing amendments to the current Standards of
Performance for Portland Cement Plants.  The proposed amendments include
revisions to the emission limits for affected sources which commence
construction, modification, or reconstruction after [INSERT DATE OF
PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER].  The proposed amendments also
include additional testing and monitoring requirements for affected
sources.

DATES:  Comments must be received on or before [INSERT DATE 60 DAYS
AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. If any one contacts
EPA by [INSERT DATE 10 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL
REGISTER] requesting to speak at a public hearing, EPA will hold a
public hearing on [INSERT DATE 15 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION OF THIS
PROPOSED RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER].  Under the Paperwork Reduction
Act, comments on the information collection provisions must be received
by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) on or before [INSERT DATE
30 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER].

ADDRESSES:  Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0877, by one of the following methods:

http://www.regulations.gov:  Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.

E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Mail:  U.S. Postal Service, send comments to:  EPA Docket Center
(6102T), Standards of Performance (NSPS) for Portland Cement Plants
Docket, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0877, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW,
Washington, DC 20460.  Please include a total of two copies.  In
addition, please mail a copy of your comments on the information
collection provisions to the Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Attn:  Desk Officer for
EPA, 725 17th St., NW, Washington, DC 20503.

Hand Delivery:  In person or by courier, deliver comments to:  EPA
Docket Center (6102T), Standards of Performance (NSPS) for Portland
Cement Plants Docket, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0877, EPA West, Room
3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20004.  Such
deliveries are only accepted during the Docket’s normal hours of
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information.  Please include a total of two copies.

Instructions:  Direct your comments to Docket ID No.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0877.  EPA’s policy is that all comments received will
be included in the public docket without change and may be made
available online at 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 www.regulations.gov or
e-mail.  The www.regulations.gov website is an “anonymous access”
system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact
information unless you provide it in the body of your comment.  If you
send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through
www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be automatically captured
and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket
and made available on the Internet.  If you submit an electronic
comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact
information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you
submit.  If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties
and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to
consider your comment.  Electronic files should avoid the use of special
characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or
viruses.

Docket:  All documents in the docket are listed in the   HYPERLINK
"http://www.regulations.gov"  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 www.regulations.gov or in hard copy
at the EPA Docket Center, Standards of Performance (NSPS) for Portland
Cement Plants Docket, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW,
Washington, DC.  The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays.  The telephone
number for the Public Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone
number for the Docket Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Mr. Keith Barnett, Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards, Sector Policies and Programs Division,
Metals and Minerals Group (D243-02), Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address:    HYPERLINK
<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

I.	General Information

A.	Does this action apply to me?

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

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

D.	When would a public hearing occur?

E.	How is this document organized?

II.  Background Information on Subpart F

A.   What is the statutory authority for the proposed

     amendments to subpart F?

B.   What are the current portland cement plant (PCP) NSPS?

III. Summary of the Proposed Amendments to Subpart F

IV.  Rationale for the Proposed Amendments to Subpart F

A.  	How is EPA proposing to change the emission limits for future
affected facilities?

B.  	How is EPA proposing to amend the testing requirements?

C.  	How is EPA proposing to amend the monitoring requirements?

D.	Why are other emission limits in the NSPS not being revised?

E.	What other changes are being proposed?

F.	What is EPA’s sector-based approach and how is it relevant to this
rulemaking?

G.	How is EPA addressing greenhouse gas emissions from the portland
cement industry?

V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, Energy, and Economic Impacts of the
Proposed Amendments to Subpart F

A.   What are the air quality impacts?

B.	What are the water quality impacts?

C.	What are the solid waste impacts?

D.	What are the secondary impacts?

E.	What are the energy impacts?

F.	What are the cost impacts?

G.	What are the economic impacts?

VI.  Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A.   Executive Order 12866:  Regulatory Planning and Review

B.   Paperwork Reduction Act

C.   Regulatory Flexibility Act

D.   Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

E.   Executive Order 13132:  Federalism

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

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

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

I.   National Technology Transfer Advancement Act

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

I.  General Information

A.  Does this action apply to me?

	Categories and entities potentially regulated by this proposed rule
include:

Category	NAICS   code1	Examples of regulated entities

Industry....	327310	Cement manufacturing

Federal government...

Not affected.

State/local/tribal government...

Not affected.

1 North American Industry Classification System.

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

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

	Do not submit information containing CBI to EPA through
www.regulations.gov or e-mail.  Send or deliver information identified
as CBI only to the following address:  Roberto Morales, OAQPS Document
Control Officer (C404-02), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards,
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711,
Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0877.  Clearly mark the part or
all of the information that you claim to be CBI.  For CBI information in
a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or
CD-ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM
the specific information that is claimed as CBI.  In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed
as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.

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

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

D.  When would a public hearing occur?

	If anyone contacts EPA requesting to speak at a public hearing by
[INSERT DATE 10 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER],
a public hearing will be held on [INSERT DATE 15 DAYS AFTER DATE OF
PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER].  Persons interested in presenting
oral testimony or inquiring as to whether a public hearing is to be held
should contact Mr. Keith Barnett, listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section, at least 2 days in advance of the hearing.

II.  Background Information on Subpart F

A.  What is the statutory authority for the proposed amendments to
subpart F?

New source performance standards (NSPS) implement Clean Air Act (CAA)
section 111(b) and are issued for categories of sources which EPA has
listed because they cause, or contribute significantly to, air pollution
which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or
welfare.  The primary purpose of the NSPS is to attain and maintain
ambient air quality by ensuring that the best demonstrated emission
control technologies are installed as the industrial infrastructure is
modernized.  Since 1970, the NSPS have been successful in achieving
long-term emissions reductions in numerous industries by assuring
cost-effective controls are installed on new, reconstructed, or modified
sources.

Section 111 of the CAA requires that NSPS reflect the application of the
best system of emission reductions 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.  See CAA
section 111(a)(1).  This level of control is commonly referred to as
best demonstrated technology (BDT).  In assessing whether a standard is
achievable, EPA must account for routine operating variability
associated with performance of the system on whose performance the
standard is based.  See National Lime Ass’n v. EPA, 627 F. 2d 416,
431-33 (D.C. Cir. 1980).  This proposal considers all of these factors,
including both short- and long-term operating variability associated
with potential control technologies.

Common sources of information as to what constitutes a best demonstrated
technology, and for assessing that technology’s level of performance,
include best available control technology (BACT) determinations made as
part of new source review, emissions limits that exist in State and
Federal permits, and emissions test data for demonstrated control
technologies collected for compliance demonstration or other purposes.
Permit and BACT determination data are compared to actual performance
test data to insure they are representative of actual performance and to
identify any site specific factors that could influence the
applicability of the site information to the source category in general.
 Test data are scrutinized to insure the control device is properly
designed and operated during the test.

Section 111(b)(1)(B) of the CAA requires EPA to periodically review and
revise these standards of performance, as necessary, to reflect
improvements in methods for reducing emissions.  We promulgated
standards of performance for Portland Cement Plants (40 CFR part 60,
subpart F) on December 23, 1971 (36 FR 24876).  Since then, we have
conducted three reviews of the standards (39 FR 20793, June 14, 1974; 39
FR 39874, November 12, 1974; and 53 FR 50354, December 14, 1988.

B.  What are the current portland cement plant (PCP) NSPS?

The PCP NSPS applies to new, modified, and reconstructed affected
facilities in the portland cement manufacturing industry that commenced
construction, reconstruction, or modification after August 17, 1971.
Affected facilities at PCP include the kiln, clinker cooler, raw mill
system, finish mill system, raw mill dryer, raw material storage,
clinker storage, finished product storage, conveyor transport points,
bagging and bulk loading and unloading systems.  Unless otherwise noted,
the term “new” as used in this preamble includes newly constructed,
modified or reconstructed units.

III.    SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 Summary of the Proposed Amendments to
Subpart F

The proposed amendments to subpart F of 40 CFR part 60 are summarized in
Table 1 of this preamble.

Table 1.  Summary of the Proposed Amendments

Citation	Proposed change

60.62	Change the title of §60.62 to standards.  Revise paragraph (a)(1)
to include paragraph (a)(1)(i) which specifies that the current emission
limit for particulate matter (PM) applies to kilns constructed,
reconstructed, or modified after August 17, 1971 but on or before
[INSERT DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER].  Add a paragraph
(a)(1)(ii) which limits PM emissions for kilns that commence
construction, reconstruction, or modification after [INSERT DATE OF
PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], emissions to 0.086 pounds of PM
per ton (lb/ton) of clinker.

	Revise paragraph (a)(2) to clarify that the opacity limit does not
apply to kilns constructed, reconstructed, or modified after August 17,
1971 but on or before [INSERT DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL
REGISTER] that use a bag leak detection system or PM continuous emission
monitoring system.

	Add paragraph (a)(3) which requires kilns constructed, reconstructed,
or modified after [INSERT DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]
to meet a nitrogen oxides (NOx) emission limit of 1.50 lb/ton of clinker
on a 30-day, 24-hour rolling average basis.

	Add paragraph (a)(4) which requires kilns constructed, reconstructed,
or modified after [INSERT DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]
to meet either a sulfur dioxide (SO2) emission limit of 1.33 lb/ton of
clinker on a 30-day, 24-hour rolling average basis or demonstrate a
90-percent reduction in SO2 emissions from the kiln.  Add operating
limit requiring facilities complying with an SO2 percent reduction limit
to maintain a minimum scrubber pH.

	Revise paragraph (b)(1) to include a paragraph (b)(1)(i) which
specifies that the current PM limit applies to clinker coolers
constructed, reconstructed, or modified after August 17, 1971 but on or
before [INSERT DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER].  Add a
paragraph (b)(1)(ii) which limits PM emissions from clinker coolers
constructed, reconstructed, or modified after [INSERT DATE OF
PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] to 0.086 pounds of PM per ton
(lb/ton) of clinker.

	Revise paragraph (b)(2) to clarify that the opacity limit does not
apply to clinker coolers  constructed, reconstructed, or modified after
August 17, 1971 but on or before [INSERT DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE
FEDERAL REGISTER] that use a bag leak detection system or PM continuous
emission monitoring system.

60.63	Revise paragraph (a) to correct applicability term (“subpart”
instead of “part”) and add the word “clinker” before the phrase
“production rate” to clarify that daily recordkeeping requirement is
for clinker production rate.

	Revise paragraph (b) to include paragraph (b)(1) which specifies
monitoring requirements for kilns and clinker coolers constructed,
modified, or reconstructed after August 17, 1971 but on or before
[INSERT DATE OF PUBLICATION IN FEDERAL REGISTER].  Paragraph (b)(1)(i)
contains the current requirements for continuous opacity monitoring
systems (COMS).   Paragraphs (b)(1)(ii) and (iii) allow the source to
install a bag leak detection system or a PM CEMS in lieu of a COMS.
Also revise paragraph (b) to include paragraph (b)(2) which specifies
monitoring requirements for kilns and clinker coolers constructed,
modified, or reconstructed or after [INSERT DATE OF PUBLICATION IN
FEDERAL REGISTER].  Paragraphs (b)(2)(i) and (ii) requires the source to
install a bag leak detection system or a PM continuous emission
monitoring system.

	Revise paragraph (c) to clarify that the alternative for visible
emission monitoring applies to the requirement in paragraph (b)(1)(i)
for a continuous opacity monitoring system.

	Add paragraph (f) to which specifies installation and operation
requirements for bag leak detection systems.

	Add paragraph (g) which specifies the required installation, operation,
and maintenance procedures for a PM continuous emission monitoring
system.

	Add paragraph (h) which specifies requirements for weight measurement
system for clinker production from kilns constructed, modified or
reconstructed on or after [INSERT DATE OF PUBLICATION IN FEDERAL
REGISTER].

	Add paragraph (i) to require a NOx continuous emission monitoring
system for each kiln subject to the NOx emission limit.

	Add paragraph (j) to require a SO2 continuous emission monitoring
system for each kiln subject to the SO2 emission limit.

	Add paragraph (k) to require that NOX and SO2 continuous emission
monitoring systems be installed, operated, and maintained according to
Performance Specification 2 of Appendix B to part 60 and that monitors
comply with quality assurance requirements in Procedure 1 of Appendix F
to part 60.

	Add paragraph (l) to require that NOX and SO2 monitors record data
during all periods of operation.

	Add paragraph (m) to require a continuous exhaust flow rate monitoring
system for each kiln subject to the NOx or SO2 emissions limit.

	Add paragraph (n) to specify pH monitoring requirements for sources
that comply with 90 percent reduction standard for SO2 emissions.

	Add paragraph (o) to require the use of an electrostatic precipitator
(ESP) predictive model to monitor the performance of ESPs controlling PM
emissions from kilns or clinker coolers.

60.64	Revise paragraph (b)(1) to add definition of the term “P” in
Equation 1 for new kilns subject to PM emission limit in lb/ton of
clinker production.

	Add paragraph (b)(5) to require repeat PM performance tests (every 5
years) for kilns and clinker coolers.

	Add paragraph b(6) to require visible emissions monitoring for sources
other than kilns and clinker coolers.

	Add paragraph (c) which specifies procedures for determining compliance
with SO2 emission reduction standard.

	Add paragraph (d) which specifies procedures for establishing pH
operating limit for kilns or clinker coolers that use a wet scrubber to
comply with the 90 percent reduction standard for SO2.

	Add paragraph (e) which specifies procedures for converting
concentration of NOx and SO2 to pounds per ton of clinker produced (30
day rolling average).

60.66	Update to specify authorities to be retained by the Administrator.

IV.  Rationale for the Proposed Amendments to Subpart F

A.  How is EPA proposing to change the emission limits for future
affected facilities?

For “new” affected facilities constructed, modified, or
reconstructed after [INSERT DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL
REGISTER], we are proposing:

To change the format of the PM emission limits for lb/ton of dry feed to
lb/ton of clinker product;

To reduce the PM emission limit for kilns from 0.3 lb/ton of dry feed to
0.086 lb/ton of clinker;

To set a limit on NOX emissions from kilns of 1.50 lb/ton of clinker;
and

To set a limit on SO2 emissions from kilns of 1.33 lb/ton, or, in the
alternative, demonstrate a reduction in SO2 emissions from the kiln of
at least 90 percent;

To reduce the PM emissions limit for clinker coolers from 0.1 lb/ton dry
feed to 0.086 lb/ton of cement product; and

To add new monitoring options of a bag leak detector or PM continuous
emission monitoring systems (CEMS) for kilns and clinker coolers to
demonstrate compliance with the PM limits in lieu of the requirement for
continuous opacity monitoring systems (COMS).

The emission limits for affected facilities constructed, modified, or
reconstructed before [INSERT DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL
REGISTER] remain unchanged.

	In determining BDT we generally look at the controls and control
performance of new sources.  In the case of cement kilns we reviewed
recently issued permits and BACT determinations issued by States to
identify emissions limits more stringent than the current subpart F (and
to understand if limits more stringent than subpart F are commonplace or
rare).  We believe that the use of State permit data and BACT
determination developed as part of new source review is appropriate
because a BACT determination evaluates available controls, their
performance, cost, and non-air environmental impacts.  The main
difference is that a BACT determination is made on a site-specific
basis.  Therefore, in evaluation BACT determination, we have to account
for any site-specific factors that may not be applicable to the source
category as a whole.  We have also reviewed data gathered in support of
related rules involving the portland cement industry, notably the
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for
portland cement kilns issued pursuant to section 112 of the CAA, and the
NESHAP for hazardous waste-burning Portland cement kilns, also
implementing section 112 of the CAA.

	We also collected emissions test data from a number of sources.  The
emission test data is used to verify the achievable performance of the
controls, and whether or not the permit levels reviewed accurately
reflect control device performance.  Our review of actual test data, not
surprisingly, indicates that certain changes have occurred, and
continue, in the portland cement manufacturing industry.  Our review of
permits as well as discussions with representatives from industry and
State environmental agencies confirmed our earlier information that
older, less energy efficient wet and long dry kilns are being replaced
with preheater/precalciner kilns because of their superior energy
efficiency and increased clinker capacity when compared to older wet
kilns and long dry kilns.  According to the industry, all new kilns will
be preheater/precalciner kilns.  We confirmed this by reviewing a
detailed plant kiln listing which indicates that since 2000 all kilns
constructed or modernized are the preheater/precalciner design.  These
kilns have in-line raw mills, which means that the kiln exhaust gas is
routed to the raw mill and then to the final PM control device.
Therefore, the kiln and raw mill exhaust through the same stack.  In
order to maximize energy efficiency, facilities route as much clinker
cooler exhaust as possible to the kiln (typically as tertiary air), and
sometimes to the raw mill to recover heat from the clinker cooling
operation.  However, typically some portion of the clinker cooler gas
flow exhausts directly to atmosphere through its own stack so that
clinker coolers are one of the enumerated units covered by the NSPS, and
one of the emission points addressed by these proposed amendments.

	The information also revealed (again, not surprisingly) that recently
built kilns are subject to more stringent limits on their emissions
through State permitting processes than those currently in the PCP NSPS.
 In addition, many State permits contain emission limits for NOX and
SO2, pollutants that are not regulated under the current NSPS.  Modern
preheater/precalciner kilns and improved combustion process designs and
add-on controls that greatly lower NOX emissions are increasingly being
used to meet State permit limits.  Our review of permits, BACT
determinations, and emissions test data show that SO2 emissions are
typically low as a result of the inherent scrubbing action of alkaline
raw materials in the kiln and raw mill as well as the typically low
sulfur content of raw materials and fuel. However, there are a few
locations where the raw materials used in production of clinker contain
high levels of sulfur.  In these few situations, wet scrubbers or dry
lime sprayers have been used to reduce SO2 emissions in order to meet
State SO2 limits.

As previously mentioned older kilns are typically replaced with new
preheater/precalciner kilns rather than modified or reconstructed.  We
identified only two instances since 1990 where an existing kiln was
significantly modified rather than replaced with a new kiln, so we do
not expect this to be a common occurrence.  Moreover, in one such case a
wet kiln was converted to a semi-dry process that included a
preheater/precalciner.  Performance data from this kiln indicate that
the emissions SO2 and NOx are actually lower than would have been
expected if the kiln had been replaced with a new preheater/precalciner
kiln.  Therefore, we expect that the emission limits proposed for new
preheater/precalciner kilns would be applicable to this type of
conversion.  In the second case, a long dry kiln was shortened and a
preheater/precalciner added.  A modification of this type would be
expected to use the same technology in the precalciner/preheater section
as a new preheater/precalciner kiln and the resulting modified kiln
would basically be the same as a new kiln from the standpoint of
criteria pollutant emissions control.

1.  Format of the Standard

The current NSPS limits for PM are expressed on a pound of PM per ton
(lb/ton) of dry feed input format.  Emission limits are typically
normalized to some type of production or raw material input value
because this allows comparison (standard-setting) for different sized
facilities.  (A common example of normalization is expressing vehicle
fuel economy in terms of miles of gasoline per vehicle mile traveled,
e.g. miles per gallon.)  The 1971 NSPS uses a pound of pollutant per ton
dry feed basis as the normalizing parameter.  In these proposed
amendments we are adopting a new normalizing parameter of lb/ton clinker
– i.e. normalizing based on kiln output rather than input for sources
constructed, reconstructed or modified after [INSERT DATE OF PUBLICATION
IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER].

	Adopting an output-based standard rewards sources for becoming more
efficient, i.e., producing more product per unit of raw material input,
therefore promoting the most efficient production processes.  For
example a 1.2 million tons per year (tpy) cement kiln with a 1.5 lb/ton
of clinker (output) NOX limit is going to be limited to 900 tpy of NOX
emissions regardless of its efficiency.  Conversely, if an input format
is used, the more inefficient the kiln, the greater the amount of NOX it
can emit for the same 1.2 million tpy of output.

	Over the short term, the measurement of kiln output is not as exact as
the measure of kiln input.  For this reason, we are basing compliance
with the proposed NOX and SO2 emission limits on a 30 day rolling
average.  We believe this will alleviate the issues related to the
inaccuracy of short-term output measurements.  However, industry has
requested the option to convert to an input-based standard to
accommodate site-specific configurations and operational limitations.

	We are specifically requesting comment on the benefits of an
output-based standard, output measurement methods and their associated
errors, provisions that would allow a site to convert to an input-based
standard, any limitations we should impose on conversion, and the
appropriate averaging times.

2.  PM

The most effective control devices to reduce PM emission from cement
kilns and clinker coolers identified in the original NSPS were fabric
filters and electrostatic precipitators (ESPs).  These continue to be
the most effective PM controls in use, capable of removing over 99.9
percent of the PM from the exhaust gas.  At the time of the 1988 review,
17 new kilns that had become subject to the NSPS since the 1979 review
were controlled by fabric filters and 13 by ESPs.  Of the 21 clinker
coolers with a separate exhaust stack that had become subject to the
NSPS, 17 were controlled by fabric filters, and four were controlled by
gravel bed filters.  (Gravel bed filters perform similarly to fabric
filters except they use a moving bed of gravel to capture the
particulate rather then cloth or membrane fabric.  Their use is not
common in this industry.)

	Though ESPs and fabric filters have comparable removal efficiencies
based on short-term tests, recently built new kilns have fabric filters
as PM controls, and we expect this trend to continue.  ESPs applied to
cement kilns must be deenergized if the carbon monoxide (CO) or excess
air levels rise above a preset critical level where an explosion could
occur, which results in short periods of high emissions.  The high
resistivities of PM from a cement kiln require gas conditioning if an
ESP is used.  In addition, resistivity can change if the chemistry of
the clinker changes.  ESP performance can also be affected by the
particle size distribution.  Fabric filters are not affected by these
factors, and fabric filters control generally to the same concentration
irrespective of the PM loading at the filter inlet, though some
variability in PM emissions from fabric filters does occur due to
seepage and leakage.  Therefore, we expect the long-term performance of
a fabric filter to be superior to an ESP.  For this reason, we believe
that well-operated and maintained fabric filters are the best technology
for control of PM emissions at portland cement kilns, and so are basing
this part of the proposal on use of fabric filters for PM control.

In assessing the level of performance constituting BDT (i.e. the level
of performance achievable by well-operated and maintained fabric filters
in the industry considering normal operating variability) we reviewed
data on PM limits in eight recently issued permits for new cement kilns,
all of which are equipped with fabric filters.  The permit limits for PM
for these kilns were in various units, but were converted to a lb/ton
output basis.  The PM limits ranged from 0.093 to 0.28 lb/ton of
clinker, and the average was 0.16 lb/ton.  In order to determine if the
permitted PM emissions limits were representative of actual performance
we reviewed two data sets.  The first was 21 emissions tests of portland
cement kilns equipped with fabric filters at various domestic locations
and reportedly equipped with membrane bags.  These PM emissions ranged
from 0.0023 lb/ton up to 0.4724 lb/ton with a median of 0.1360 lb/ton.
Fifteen of the 21 tests were below 0.16 lb/ton.  All of the tests where
the emissions were above 0.16 lb/ton except one were on kilns that were
not preheater/precalciner kilns.  The one test on a
preheater/precalciner that was above 0.16 lb/ton was a kiln built in
1981.  Therefore, we have reason to doubt that the data above 0.16
lb/ton are representative of the most current designs.  We also reviewed
37 emissions tests for PM from Florida kilns equipped with fabric
filters where the bag type was unknown.  The range was 0.015 to 0.153
lb/ton, so all 31 tests were below 0.16 lb/ton.  Although these are
single test results, and so are unlikely to reflect all the operating
variability associated with air pollution control device performance,
these data still suggest that a limit of 0.16 lb/ton is achievable by
new cement kilns equipped with a fabric filter.

We also evaluated the performance of fabric filters using membrane bag
technology, generally considered the most efficient type of fabric
filter.  Membrane bags have superior performance to the cloth bags that
are part of the standard fabric filter design.  Cloth bags capture PM in
the interstices of the woven fabric and form a primary dust cake.  Until
the primary dust cake forms cloth bags are inefficient as filters.
Therefore, each time the bag is cleaned emissions increase until the
primary dust cake reforms.  Emissions also occur when the pressure drop
becomes so high the PM migrates completely through the fabric.  Membrane
bags operate under the principal of surface filtration, i.e., the PM is
captured on the surface of the bag.  This results in more consistent
performance (no need to build up a primary dust cake).  In addition, at
a constant airflow membrane bags reduce the average pressure drop across
the fabric filter.  However, membrane bags are more expensive than cloth
bags.  We reviewed 19 emission tests at four facilities where we were
able to establish that the facilities used fabric filters with membrane
bags, and where the kilns had been built in the last 10 years, so we
could be reasonably certain the control device was representative of the
latest fabric filter design.  Thirteen of those tests were on a cement
kiln that burns hazardous waste.  We believe there is no difference in
the performance of a fabric filter applied to a kilns that burn
hazardous waste and those that do not because PM emissions are largely
contributed by non-hazardous waste feed streams, and fabric filters
control PM emissions generally to the same concentration irrespective of
the PM loading at the inlet (69 FR 21225 and 21233).  The individual
test results ranged from 0.0023 to 0.10176 lb/ton with an average of
0.0357 lb/ton.  In order to account for variability, we analyzed the
statistical variation and determined that a level of 0.0830 lb/ton
represented an emissions limit that will not be exceeded 95 percent of
the time and a level of 0.1025 lb/ton represented an emissions limit
that will not be exceeded 99 percent of the time.  EPA has also
performed a different statistical analysis of the data from the
hazardous waste-burning cement kiln equipped with a membrane fabric
filter, applying to the data a so-called universal variability factor
derived from the performance of the best performing (lowest emitting) PM
performers equipped with fabric filters across the hazardous waste
combustor source category.  This variability factor quantifies both
short-term and long-term operating variability, i.e., variability
associated with the conditions of the individual compliance test and
variability associated with the performance of the control equipment
over time.  See generally 72 FR 54878-79, September 27, 2007.  (This
approach is more sophisticated, since it accounts for both short-term
and long-term variability, whereas variability in the individual runs
comprising the compliance tests (i.e., the 95th or 99th percentile of
those data), is more a measure of short-term variability alone, see 72
FR 54878).  The standard under this analysis is 0.0069 gr/dscf corrected
to 7 percent oxygen.  See 71 FR 14669, March 23, 2006.  Using a typical
value of 54,000 dry standard cubic feet (dscf) of exhaust produced per
ton of kiln feed and one ton of clinker producer per 1.65 tons of feed,
0.0069 gr/dscf converts to 0.086 lb/ton of clinker.

We are proposing this level as BDT for PM emitted by new portland cement
kilns.  Our analysis of individual stack results from the newer kilns
equipped with membrane bag-equipped fabric filters confirms that the
level is achievable, the level is between the 95th or 99th percentile of
those data, and as just explained, this level accounts for all of the
potential operating variability associated with operation of a
membrane-bag fabric filter.

We evaluated the costs of the different control levels discussed above.
Based on our assessment that all new fabric filters with standard cloth
bag will achieve a level of 0.16 lb/ton of clinker, and that new kilns
would at least be equipped with this type of fabric filter, there are no
costs or other impacts associated with changing the PM emissions limit
to 0.16 lb/ton.   There are a variety of regulatory reasons that new
kilns, on average, currently meet a 0.16 lb/ton PM limit, and we believe
it is appropriate to use this level as the baseline in our cost
analysis.  We considered using a baseline of 0.5 lb/ton (equivalent to
the current NSPS).  However, not only is this level inappropriate
because it does not reflect current operating performance, but choosing
0.5 lb/ton as the baseline would not have changed our decision in any
case.  To achieve a level of 0.086 lb/ton, a new kiln with a capacity of
1.2 million TPY of clinker production may have to equip the fabric
filter with more expensive membrane bags at an estimated capital cost of
$1.3 million and at a total annualized cost of $176,000 per year.  This
includes additional operating and maintenance costs, and amortized
capital costs.  The estimated emission reduction would be 44 tpy and the
cost per ton of additional PM control is $3,969.

We also analyzed the cost per ton of fine PM (PM of 2.5 micrometers or
less) emissions reduction.  Data from development of the PM National
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) indicate that the majority of the
adverse health effects from PM exposure are from exposure to fine PM.
As a result, EPA established a separate NAAQS for fine PM.  Based on
data from EPA’s Compilation of Emission Factors (AP-42), 45 percent of
the PM from a cement kiln fabric filter is fine PM.  Therefore, the
emissions reduction of fine PM resulting from a total PM standard of
0.086 lb/ton clinker is 19.8 tpy and the cost per ton of fine PM
reduction is $8,819.  This cost appears to be reasonable to EPA, given
that it is well within the range of cost-effectiveness for PM control
accepted as reasonable for other stationary sources.  See, e.g. 72 FR
54879, December 27, 2007 (cost effectiveness of $15,000 ton of PM
considered reasonable for area source electric arc furnaces).  Note that
the discussion above only includes primary PM, and does not include
secondary PM. (See below for a discussion of secondary PM.)

In most cases there would be no non-air impacts because PM captured in
the control device for a preheater/precalciner kiln is mainly raw
materials which are recycled back to the kiln, rather then disposed of
as solid waste.  In the case of a kiln equipped with an alkali bypass,
however, additional PM captured in the alkali bypass fabric filter would
typically be disposed as a solid waste.  Based on data collected on
amounts of solids generated by the PM controls, the solids from the
alkali bypass are about 1 percent of total collected solids (i.e., 99
percent is collected in the main fabric filter and recycles to the
kiln).  Therefore, the amount of additional solid waste resulting from
this proposed PM emissions limit would be expected to be minimal.  We do
not anticipate any adverse energy impacts because membrane bags reduce
control device pressure drop and thus reduce energy use.  Given the
reasonable costs, and minimal solid waste impacts we are proposing a PM
emissions level of 0.086 lb/ton as BDT.

In these proposed amendments, we are continuing to assess compliance
based on the filterable PM collected in the front half of the standard
EPA Method 5 train as under the existing rule, and under most standards
for PM.  We are not including condensable particulate, which typically
passes through the Method 5 filter, and all of the PM test data
previously discussed do not include any condensable particulate.  This
particulate can exit the stack in a gaseous form, but can react in the
atmosphere to form fine particles (so-called secondary PM discussed
below).  We have insufficient data to assess if the cement industry is a
significant source of condensable PM.  None of the test data we
evaluated include condensable PM.  We are specifically requesting
comment on the levels of condensable PM emitted by the cement industry;
any condensable PM emission test data collected using EPA Conditional
Method 39, EPA Method 202 (40 CFR part 51, Appendix M), or their
equivalent, factors affecting those emissions, and potential controls.

	As previously noted, fabric filters are the predominant control for
clinker coolers.  Included in the 1988 review of the NSPS were 12 PM
emissions tests for clinker coolers where the coolers had separate
stacks.  One test was performed under abnormal operating conditions and
so was not used in our analysis.  The remaining 11 tests showed a PM
emissions range of 0.008 to 0.05 lb/ton feed, which converts to 0.013 up
to 0.083 lb/ton clinker.  Tests on three clinker coolers associated with
preheater/precalciner kilns built in the last 10 years using fabric
filters for PM control showed a range of 0.0038 to 0.0094 lb/ton feed
which converts to 0.0063 to 0.01551 lb/ton clinker.  Based on these test
data, we believe that the current clinker cooler controls used on new
sources can meet the same level of PM control as a kiln with membrane
bags, i.e. 0.086 lb/ton.  Since new facilities are already installing
controls capable of meeting the proposed clinker cooler limit of 0.086,
the incremental costs of the proposed emissions limit would be very low
or zero, as would any non-air environmental and energy impacts.

	We considered proposing a limit below 0.086 lb/ton for clinker coolers,
based on the emissions shown for the three newer facilities.  Based on
these data a limit of 0.0245 lb/ton clinker (representing the 99th
confidence interval) would be achievable for new sources.  However, we
believe that these limited data are not sufficient to support a lower PM
limit for clinker coolers using this limited data set, which are
unlikely to fully reflect control device operating variability.  We are
requesting comment on the achievability of a lower PM emission limit for
clinker coolers.

3.  NOX

The current NSPS does not regulate the emissions of NOX. Concurrent with
this 8-year review we are proposing an NSPS for NOX that would apply to
kilns constructed, modified, or reconstructed after [INSERT DATE OF
PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER].  The high temperatures and
oxidizing atmospheres required for cement manufacturing are favorable
for NOX formation.  In cement kilns, NOX emissions are formed during
fuel combustion primarily by the oxidation of molecular nitrogen present
in combustion air (referred to as thermal NOX) and the oxidation of
nitrogen compounds in fuel (referred to as fuel NOX).  Many States
issuing construction and operating permits for new kilns have specified
emission limits for NOX.  EPA’s BACT/RACT/LAER Clearinghouse database
shows that for the period 2001 through 2007, 30 determinations for new,
modified or reconstructed kilns included NOX limits.  Emissions of NOX
are typically reduced through process controls such as burner design
(low-NOX burners) and staged combustion in the calciner (SCC).  NOX
emissions from kilns using process designs such as low NOX burners and
SCC emit on average about 2.5 lb/ton of clinker.  The add-on control
used to reduce NOX emissions from kilns operating in the U.S. is
selective noncatalytic reduction (SNCR).  In Europe, selective catalytic
reduction (SCR) has been used to reduce NOX emissions from a few cement
kilns.  In recent Prevention of Significant Deterioration permits for
portland cement kilns, States have determined BACT emission limits for
NOX based on the use of SNCR in combination with well-designed SCC and
other process designs such as low NOX burners.  In SNCR systems, a
reagent such as ammonia or urea is injected into the flue gas at a
suitable temperature zone, typically in the range of 1,600 to 2,000°F
and at an appropriate ratio of reagent to NOX.  SNCR system performance
depends on temperature, residence time, turbulence, oxygen content, and
other factors specific to the given gas stream.  On average, SNCR
achieves approximately a 35 percent reduction in NOX at a ratio of
ammonia-to-NOx of about 0.5 and a reduction of 63 percent at an
ammonia-to-NOx ratio of 1.0.  At the high ratios, including ratios above
1, some ammonia may not react with NOX and will be emitted.  The
unreacted ammonia is referred to as ammonia slip.  Ammonia may have a
detectable odor at or above 5 parts per million (ppm).  It can also
produce a visible stack plume when the ammonia forms ammonia chlorides.
Under certain atmospheric conditions ammonia can also react with
nitrates and sulfates, both of which can be available in cement kiln
exhaust, to form fine PM emissions.  Limits on ammonia slip are often
imposed by permits or design requirements, which in some instances
constrain the NOX reduction achieved by an SNCR system.

Another NOX control technology, SCR, is used in the electric utility
industry to reduce NOX emissions from boilers and has been used
worldwide on three cement kilns in Europe.  SCR is capable of reducing
NOX emissions by about 80 percent.  Though SCR is demonstrated in
Europe, SCR has never been used on any cement kilns in the U.S.
Uncertainties exist as to its specific performance level and catalyst
plugging and fouling, which affects operating costs.  (See discussion
below).

One control option considered was to make to make no changes in the
current NSPS and not regulate NOX emissions.  However, we rejected that
option because, NOX is unquestionably emitted by cement kilns, is
currently controlled at most new cement kilns, and, based on our review
of recently issued permits, demonstrated technologies are available to
reduce NOX emissions considering costs and other impacts.

In proposing a NOX emission limit, we reviewed recently issued permits,
recent BACT determinations and recent emissions data for
preheater/precalciner kilns to establish potential NOX control levels
for evaluation.  A first step in doing so is to establish a baseline
from which control options can be evaluated.  NOX emissions from three
recently permitted preheater/precalciner kilns utilizing well-designed
and operated process designs including SCC, averaged NOX emissions of
1.62, 1.88 and 1.97 lb/ton of clinker.  These levels are achieved at
kilns that are not equipped with additional add-on controls. While
demonstrating the capabilities of kilns utilizing well- designed process
controls including SCC, (i.e. kilns that are not equipped with add-on
controls) these emission levels are not necessarily representative of
what all new kilns would achieve even with similar process designs.
Several factors can influence NOX emissions.  Changes in the kiln feed
rate, chemical composition, or moisture content of raw materials can
cause kiln temperatures to vary with significant variation in NOX
emissions. Even raw materials from the same quarry can vary in chemical
composition from day to day.  Burnability is an issue where certain raw
materials require higher temperatures and longer heating times to
properly calcine the materials.  For example, raw materials that contain
high alkali content must be heated longer and at higher temperatures to
volatilize and remove the alkali compounds.  With higher temperatures
and longer residence times, NOX emissions may increase.  Based on data
from equipment vendors and representatives from facilities with more
difficult-to-burn raw materials, we believe that future well-designed
and operated cement kilns, which will incorporate SCC and low-NOx
burners, will meet a level of 2.5 lb/ton of clinker on average, without
consideration of end-of-stack air pollution control.  Therefore, we are
using this level as the baseline level of control that would occur with
no additional regulatory action.  However, we know that in some
applications the level achieved even when using low-NOX burners,
indirect firing and well-designed SCC may be as high as 3 lb/ton of
clinker due to the reasons, such as burnability, discussed above.

We considered choosing as baseline of a new preheater/precalciner kiln
designed without SCC or low NOx burners, i.e. a completely uncontrolled
kiln.  For a variety of regulatory reasons, the newest kilns based on
the most current designs of which we are aware all incorporate low NOx
combustion technologies.  Therefore we have no data to determine the
appropriate NOx emission level for a new preheater/precalciner kiln that
does not incorporate low-NOx burners and SCC.  In addition, choosing 2.5
lb/ton as our baseline versus a higher number would not have changed our
decision on the proposed NOX level.

The second control we evaluated was 1.95 lb/ton clinker, which is the
most common level established as BACT in recent permits for new cement
kilns.  As previously noted, some new kilns meet this level of control
using low-NOx burners and SCC.  However, we expect that, on average, new
facilities would require only a modest SNCR removal efficiency of 22
percent SNCR to meet this level from the uncontrolled industry average
2.5 lb NOX/ton of clinker, which is well within the range demonstrated
for SNCR in this industry.

The third control level we evaluated was 1.5 lb/ton clinker, and was
established based on our assessment of the best demonstrated performance
utilizing optimal process design, including SCC, and SNCR taking into
account variability of such factors as the burnability of raw material
inputs, which can affect NOX emissions.  Data on SNCR show a performance
that ranges from approximately 20 to 80 percent NOX reduction.  Since
NOX levels of 1.62 to 1.97 lb/ton of clinker are demonstrated for kilns
using well-designed SCC, a level of 1.5 lb/ton would be easily
achievable even with SNCR removal efficiencies in the lower range of
demonstrated SNCR performance.  Generally, SNCR performance (i.e.
percentage removed) increases as uncontrolled NOX levels increase.  For
example, SNCR performance in which a reagent was injected into a flue
gas at a temperature of 1,800°F, a 41 percent NOX removal efficiency
was obtained at a 70 ppm; at 200 ppm the NOX removal efficiency
increased to 54 percent.  We estimate that for an SNCR with optimal
injection configuration and reagent injection rate, a 50 percent NOX
emission reduction represents a reasonable level of performance of SNCR
over the long term.  Although, as noted above, we are projecting that
new kilns on average will have emissions of 2.5 lb/ton prior to the
application of add-on controls, there may be some situations where
specific raw materials properties, such as those affecting burnability,
will result in higher uncontrolled NOX emissions.  For this reason we
assumed a maximum baseline of 3.0 lb/ton and 50 percent emission
reduction by SNCR to establish a 1.5 lb/ton control level.  And in
practice where uncontrolled NOX emission levels achieved by process
design are lower than the maximum baseline, the removal efficiency of
SNCR can be lower and still achieve the 1.5 limit.

The results of this analyses showed that for both the 1.95 and 1.5
lb/ton levels, the capital costs for the installation are the same,
about $2.3 million.  Annualized costs for the 1.95 level are $0.7
million and for the 1.5 level, $1.3 million.  The annualized cost of
control for the 1.5 level is higher than the annualized cost for the
1.95 level because a higher reagent injection rate would be required to
reach the lower limit. Overall cost effectiveness at the 1.95 lb/ton
level was approximately $2,000 per ton of NOX reduction and at the 1.5
lb/ton level was approximately $2,100 per ton of NOX reduction. This
level of cost effectiveness for both options compares favorably with the
reference range of NOX control cost effectiveness ($200 to $2,800)
considered reasonable in the Clean Air Interstate Rule.  See 70 FR
25208, May 12, 2005.  Controls with a cost effectiveness at the lower
end of the reference range were considered to be highly effective.
Neither control option results in non-air environmental impacts.  The
energy impacts due to electrical demand of the SNCR system are not
significant.  Given the similarity of the cost effectiveness of both
options, we are proposing the 1.5 lb/ton level as BDT.

We also evaluated a control level of 0.5 lb/ton of clinker based on the
performance of SCR.  SCR is the process of adding ammonia or urea in the
presence of a catalyst to selectively reduce NOX emissions from exhaust
gases and has been used extensively on gas turbines, internal combustion
engines, and fossil fired-fired utility boilers.  The desired chemical
reactions are identical with SNCR and SCR.  However, SCR uses a
catalyst, which allows the reactions to occur at a lower temperature.
In SCR systems, ammonia is typically injected to produce an
ammonia-to-NOx ratio of about 1.05 or 1.1 to 1 to achieve a NOX
reduction of 80 to 90 percent with an ammonia slip of 10 ppm.  At a
cement kiln, SCR can be installed either after the PM control device (a
low-dust system) or before the PM control device (a high-dust system).

As noted earlier, three cement kilns have used SCR, all in Europe.
Despite the use of SCR on three kilns in Europe, there are several
uncertainties as to whether they represent BDT.  Of the three kilns in
Europe using SCR, two are preheater kilns, and one kiln is a Polysius
Lepol technology kiln, which is a traveling grate preheater kiln.  None
of the kilns using SCR are preheater/precalciner kilns which are the
only type of kiln that will be built in the U.S.  Also, one of the
European cement plants has switched back to using its SNCR system to
compare the operational costs of the two systems to evaluate which
technology is better and more economical.  Because the experience with
SCR on cement kilns is so limited, issues have been raised on SCR
applicability to cement kilns.  Because the optimum operating
temperature for most SCR systems is between 600 and 750°F, the ideal
location of the SCR system would be downstream of the preheater cyclones
and prior to the roller mill, which is also prior to the PM control
device.  This location results in the SCR system operating in a
high-dust environment.  One of the concerns with this location is
catalyst plugging and fouling where the accumulation of dust blocks
access to the catalyst pores resulting in reduced effectiveness and
shortened life span.  Because of the problem of catalyst plugging with
high-dust SCR systems, a catalyst cleaning mechanism such as pressurized
air nozzles or sonic horns is necessary.  For more thorough cleaning, it
is necessary to periodically remove each individual catalyst bed for
cleaning using water or other solvent solutions.  The resulting
wastewater and solids generated during this cleaning process must be
properly managed and disposed (an adverse non-air impact associated with
this technologies use).  To move exhaust gases past or through the
catalyst, there will be an additional pressure drop that may require
that existing air-handling equipment, such as fans and blowers, be
scaled up.  Other concerns include the oxidation of SO2 to SO3 by the
SCR catalyst, catalyst masking by CaSO4 formation and the generation of
sulfuric acid mist, formation of ammonium sulfate which can foul
downstream equipment, and alkali poisoning of catalysts and deactivation
of catalyst.  Eventually, a catalyst will reach the end of its useful
life and need to be replaced with new catalyst elements.  If not
physically damaged, a catalyst can often be regenerated.  If not, it
must be properly managed and disposed.  To avoid the issue of plugging
and fouling created by a high dust environment, an SCR can be located
downstream of the PM control device as a low-dust system.  The
disadvantage of a low-dust system is that the SCR system is no longer
located in a suitable temperature range and the flue gas must be
reheated at a significant cost in order for the injected ammonia to
properly react with NOX in the gas stream.  Reheating is typically
accomplished using a natural gas burner.  While the emissions impact of
a gas burner would likely be minimal, the amount of energy use would be
in the range of 400 to 500 trillion Btu for a 1.2 million tpy kiln.  If
other less expensive fuels are used (such as coal), then emissions of
other pollutants such as PM and SO2 may increase.

EPA estimates the costs of installing an SCR system to be $5.7 million
in capital cost and $3.1 million annualized cost.  The resulting average
NOX emissions reduction would be 1,200 tpy over baseline, and the
incremental NOX reduction over the 1.5 lb/ton control level would be 600
tpy.  The average cost effectiveness is approximately $2,500 per ton and
the incremental cost effectiveness is approximately $3,000 per ton of
NOX reduction.  To determine the reasonableness of this cost
effectiveness, we turned to the CAIR rule.  Reference cost effectiveness
for NOX controls ranged from $200 to $2,800 and, for marginal cost
effectiveness, $1,400 to $3,000.  Highly cost effective controls are
considered to be those whose cost effectiveness tends toward the lower
ends of the reference range.  A cost effectiveness of $3,000 for SCR
systems on a cement kiln is at or just above the range of average cost
effectiveness.  It should also be noted that there is considerable
uncertainty in the SCR cost estimates due to the technical issues
discussed above.  If site specific factors relating to the raw materials
do cause significant plugging and fouling, the costs calculated above
may be biased low.  In addition, SCR increases energy use due to the
pressure drop across the catalyst, and as noted above, produces liquid
and solid wastes that must be managed.

	Considering these potential technical operating difficulties with SCR
in this industry, somewhat high cost effectiveness, the uncertainty of
the costs estimates, and adverse non-air and energy implications, EPA is
not proposing SCR as BDT for portland cement kilns.  EPA solicits
comment on this issue.

We expect that all new kilns will be required to install SNCR systems to
meet the 1.5 lb/ton NOX limit.  One concern with the use of SNCR is the
potential for secondary PM emissions.  As explained above, under certain
conditions the injected ammonia reacts to form condensable fine PM that
is not captured by the fabric filter because it is emitted as a gas.  We
are requesting comments on the effect that ammonia slip from use of SNCR
might have in the generation of condensable PM emissions, and what
actions, if any, are available to mitigate those impacts.

4.  SO2

	In the previous NSPS review, we declined to set SO2 standards because
there were no demonstrated add-on SO2 control technologies applied to
cement kilns (53 FR 50354, December 14, 1988).  Since that time at least
two SO2 control technologies have been applied to cement kilns, wet
scrubbers and lime injection.  The proposed emission limit is based on a
review of recent BACT determinations and emissions test data and takes
into account the inherent scrubbing ability of the naturally alkaline
raw materials used in the cement-manufacturing process (70 FR 72337,
December 2, 2005).

	In a cement kiln, SO2 comes from two sources.  The first is sulfur in
the coal fuel (fuel SO2).  Most fuel SO2 mixes with lime in the kiln and
preheater and is not emitted into the atmosphere.  The other and
potentially more important source of SO2 is the raw materials (raw
materials SO2).  Sulfides or elemental sulfur in the raw materials may
be oxidized to SO2 in the kiln system where sufficient oxygen is
present.  Through the inherent scrubbing ability of the alkaline raw
materials, this SO2 is partially removed in the raw mill (50 to 70
percent removal).  Raw mills typically operate about 90 percent of the
time when the kiln is operating.

	For most portland cement plants, the levels of sulfur in raw materials
are low enough that most of the SO2 generated is removed by the natural
scrubbing action of the kiln raw feed. However, in those instances where
the sulfur content of raw materials is great due to the presence of
pyritic sulfur, uncontrolled SO2 emissions can be significant.  Add-on
controls may be necessary in those situations.

	Cement kilns faced with high SO2 emissions due to high sulfur levels in
raw materials have used either wet scrubbers or lime injection for SO2
emission control.  All of the SO2 wet scrubbers applied to cement kilns
achieve at least a 90 percent or more reduction in SO2 emissions. A
recently installed scrubber on a cement plant with high uncontrolled SO2
emissions due to high-sulfur raw materials was designed to achieve a 95
reduction in SO2 emissions.  A 95 percent SO2 reduction is consistent
with other information on the performance of scrubbers for SO2 removal.
Assuming the wet scrubber is correctly sized (typically a liquid-to-gas
ratio of 30 gallons per 1,000 actual cubic feet per minute), the percent
removal can vary based on inlet concentration (higher inlet
concentrations result in a higher percent reduction) and scrubber pH.

	Lime injection consists of injecting lime into a duct downstream of the
preheater, or in some cases injecting lime into the first two preheater
stages to remove SO2.  At some facilities lime injection is only used
when increases on SO2 emission above a specified level are detected,
such as when the raw mill is down.  The percent reduction in SO2
emissions is a function of the inlet SO2 concentrations and lime
injection rates.  Increasing either increases the percent reduction in
SO2 emissions.  Dry lime systems can reportedly achieve a SO2 emissions
reduction of up to approximately 70 to 75 percent, though one vendor
claims potential reductions of up to 90 percent.  We evaluated three
control options using three levels of uncontrolled SO2 emissions: low,
moderate and high uncontrolled SO2 emissions.  For examples of kilns
with low uncontrolled sulfur emissions, we considered kilns operating in
the State of Florida.  Low uncontrolled sulfur emissions are typical of
preheater/precalciner kilns operating in Florida due to the very low
amounts of sulfur in most of the available limestone.  While making a
determination that SO2 emissions of 0.20 lb/ton of clinker is BACT,
Florida State officials expect actual emission levels of 0.01 to 0.05
lb/ton of clinker as a result of the use of these low sulfur raw
materials and self scrubbing of fuel SO2 by finely divided lime in the
kiln and calciner.

As noted above, high uncontrolled SO2 emissions can occur when pyritic
sulfur is present in the raw materials and SO2 emissions are left
uncontrolled.  Where such cases have occurred, add-on controls have been
used to reduce SO2 emissions. Uncontrolled SO2 emissions of about 5,000
tpy were reported from a preheater/precalciner kiln where a wet scrubber
was recently being added.  At a reported production capacity of 800,000
tpy, uncontrolled SO2 emissions would be about 13 lb/ton of clinker.
This is considered representative of a high uncontrolled SO2 emission
level.  A moderate uncontrolled SO2 emission rate of 1.3 lb/ton of
clinker was selected and was based on the average of 18 data points for
tested NSPS facilities.

All of the SO2 emission levels discussed above are based on long term
average performance, typically 30 days.  New cement kilns with SO2
emission limits typically have continuous SO2 monitors.  In reviewing
CEM data we noted that the averaging period affects the achievable SO2
emission level.  Longer averaging periods result in lower average SO2
levels.

The first control option we considered was no additional control of SO2
other than the inherent control achieved by the kiln and raw mill.
State BACT determinations usually identify inherent SO2 removal as BACT
(reflecting that most of these kilns are located in areas with low
sulfur raw materials).  Although many kilns have low sulfur emissions,
the obvious deficiency of this option is that some kilns would have
moderate or high uncontrolled emissions of SO2, due to the presence of
pyritic sulfur in their raw materials, that would be readily
controllable with air pollution control equipment which is usually
required in such instances.

The second option considered was 1.33 lb/ton of clinker  based on a
recent BACT determination level for a kiln where uncontrolled SO2
emission levels were sufficiently high that an alkaline wet scrubber was
installed to reduce SO2 emissions.  The third option of 0.4 lb/ton
represents the performance of a lime injection system applied to a kiln
with a moderate level of sulfur in its raw materials.  This level is
also the average of permit SO2 limits from recent BACT determinations
which ranged from 0.06 to 1.33 lb/ton of clinker, with many being in the
range of 0.2 to 0.3 lb/ton of clinker.  The fourth level evaluated was
0.2 lb/ton which was based on the lowest uncontrolled SO2 permit levels
from recent BACT determinations, and represents a level where moderate
and high sulfur kilns will require the use of a wet scrubber for SO2
control.  Several kilns in Florida are permitted at this level where
very small amounts of sulfur are present in the raw materials.

We are proposing a limit for new kilns of 1.33 lb/ton of clinker, or
alternatively, demonstration of a 90 percent SO2 emissions reduction
measured across the control device, such as an alkaline scrubber.
Reducing high uncontrolled SO2 emissions to a level of 1.33 lb/ton
results in a $28 million capital cost, an annual cost of $5 million, and
a cost effectiveness of less than $1,000 per ton of SO2 removal.  We
consider this level of cost effectiveness to be reasonable as it falls
within the range of reference cost effectiveness for SO2 emission
controls considered to be “highly cost effective” (for purposes of
CAA section 110(a)(2)(D) in the CAIR rule).  Under this option, only
kilns with moderate or high uncontrolled SO2 emission levels would
likely need to install add-on controls. There are currently only five
kilns out of 178 kilns in the U.S. where uncontrolled SO2 emission
levels required the addition of a wet scrubber.  We estimate
conservatively in costing this option that over the 5-year period
following promulgation of these amendments, one out of every five new
kilns would have uncontrolled SO2 emission levels sufficient to warrant
the use of a scrubber to reduce SO2 emissions to the level of 1.33
lb/ton of clinker or, alternatively, demonstrate a 90 percent reduction
in SO2 emissions.

We rejected Options 3 and 4 because they would have resulted in cement
kilns with moderate uncontrolled SO2 emission levels having to apply
add-on controls, either dry lime sprayers at a cost of approximately
$6,300 per ton of SO2 reduction under Option 3 or a wet scrubber at a
cost of approximately $6,700 per ton of SO2 reduction under Option 4.
These costs are far outside the reference range of average costs per
tons of SO2 controlled for BACT determinations ($400 to $2,100) used in
the CAIR as a measure of “highly cost effective controls”.  Also,
Options 3 and 4 would not be likely to achieve any significant
additional SO2 emission reductions over Option 2 for kilns emitting high
uncontrolled levels of SO2 because Option 2 already represents a 90
percent emission reduction control for high sulfur raw materials.

The proposed SO2 emissions limit of 1.33 lb/ton should not result in any
non-air environmental impacts.  Liquid waste from the scrubber can be
dewatered and returned to the process.  The resulting solids (gypsum)
can be added to the clinker to produce cement.  In cases where lime
injection is used, the lime solids will be mixed in with the collected
PM and returned to the process.  There will be an energy impact as a
result of increased electrical requirements to operate the control
devises and, in the case of a wet scrubber, increased energy to operate
the induced draft fans to overcome the wet scrubber pressure drop.
These increases in energy use will be minimal compared to total kiln
electrical energy demands.

Currently only five kilns, or less than 3 percent of all kilns, are
using wet scrubbers to control SO2 emissions.  Since most new kilns will
undoubtedly be located at existing cement plants where the amount of
sulfur in limestone raw materials currently being used is low resulting
in low uncontrolled SO2 emissions, they will likely achieve the proposed
standard without the need for add-on air pollution controls.  For the
few new greenfield kilns that will be built, the presence or absence of
pyritic sulfur limestone which can result in high uncontrolled SO2
emissions, can be factored into any site selection decisions.  The
effect of the proposed limit will ensure that the typical performance of
BDT control systems today is achieved for future affected kilns in those
situations where the presence of pyritic sulfur raw materials would
otherwise result in high uncontrolled SO2 emissions.

5.  VOC/CO

	We are not proposing to establish limits for CO or volatile organic
compound (VOC) emissions from cement kilns.  VOC emissions from new
cement kilns will mainly result from organics in the raw materials.
Organic constituents in the raw materials can be driven off in the kiln
preheater prior to reaching temperature zone that would result in
combustion.  New cement kilns are currently subject to a continuous 20
ppm total hydrocarbon (THC) emissions limit - THC serving as a surrogate
for non-dioxin HAP -- by the Portland Cement NESHAP.  See 71 FR 76530,
December 20, 2006.  Because most of the THC are also VOC, the THC limit
also limits VOC.  This limit is based on the floor level of maximum
achievable control technology (MACT), which does not consider costs.
The current level is based on the best performance of the regenerative
thermal oxidizer add-on control, which is the most effective VOC
emission control available for this source category.  Therefore the
current NESHAP limit will result in the application of BDT and no
additional regulation of VOC emissions is necessary (or likely
feasible).

EPA is currently reconsidering the Portland Cement NESHAP THC limit
pursuant to section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA.  See 71 FR 76553, December
20, 2008.  However, based on the information currently available to us,
there is no reason to assume that the THC limit after reconsideration
will not still represent BDT for this source category.

Emissions of CO can come from two sources, unburned fuel from the
precalciner and CO evolved from the raw materials by the same mechanism
as the THC emissions.  Unburned fuel represents an economic loss to the
facility.  Therefore, new precalciners are designed to combust fuel as
efficiently as possible, and CO emissions from fuel combustion are
minimized, regardless of any potential emission limit.

Emissions of CO evolved from raw materials can be significant if there
are substantial organics in the raw material.  The only control
technology identified to reduce CO emissions is a regenerative thermal
oxidizer (RTO) (which also would concurrently reduce any VOC emissions).
 We evaluated the cost of applying this technology to cement kilns with
moderate (62.5 ppm VOC, 8 lb/ton clinker) organic raw materials and high
(600 ppm VOC, 15 lb/ton clinker CO) organic raw materials.  The
respective costs were approximately $370 to $890 per ton of CO and VOC
reduction combined.

However, as is the case for VOC, facilities with moderate or high levels
of organic materials in the feed would emit THC at levels high enough
that THC control would be required under the Portland Cement NESHAP.
This would also be expected to reduce CO emissions since CO and VOC
emissions are co-controlled by a RTO.  Therefore, we concluded that it
is not necessary to set a limit for CO emissions under the NSPS.  We
also noted that in no cases had add-on controls for CO (or VOC) been
required as BACT under new source review.

B.  How is EPA proposing to amend the testing requirements?

1.  Repeat Testing for Future Affected Facilities

Subpart F currently requires PCP to conduct an initial performance test
to demonstrate compliance with the PM emission limits.  There is no
requirement for repeat performance tests. Under the proposed amendments,
new kilns would be required to conduct repeat performance tests every 5
years following the initial performance test, as is done for compliance
with the MACT standard for PM for kilns at major sources (64 FR 31903,
June 14, 1999), and existing kilns subject to the NSPS would be required
to begin testing every five years.  If the owner or operator of a new
kiln elects to comply with the proposed SO2 standard by demonstrating a
90 percent reduction across the control device, repeat performance tests
would be required every 5 years following the initial test.  We are also
requiring existing kilns subject to the NSPS to begin testing every 5
years.  We do not see this as a substantive change because the majority
of kiln already have a similar testing requirement under the Portland
Cement NESHAP, 40 CFR 63 subpart LLL.

2.  Continuous Emissions Monitoring for NOX and SO2

Under the proposed amendments, compliance with the emission limits for
NOX and SO2 would be determined using continuous emissions monitoring
systems (CEMS).  This requirement is consistent with recent State permit
requirements that require continuous monitoring for NOX and SO2.
Requirements for the installation, operation, and calibration, including
minimum data requirements are specified in proposed §60.63(k) and (l).

C.  How is EPA proposing to amend the monitoring requirements?

We are proposing the use of a bag leak detection (BLD) system on
baghouses used to control PM emissions from new kilns and clinker
coolers.  We believe the use of BLD systems would be more effective in
ensuring ongoing compliance with the PM limit than the current stack
opacity limit.  Bag leak detection systems must be installed and
operated according to the proposed §60.63(f) requirements.

If a source installs a BLD system, the opacity standard would no longer
apply.  The opacity standard is an indicator that the PM control device
is operating properly, and that the PM standard is being met.  Because
we now are requiring a direct measurement that the PM standard is being
met, the opacity standard becomes unnecessary.  If a new facility
installs an ESP we are proposing to require use of an ESP predictive
model to determine compliance.  As with use of a bag leak detector, the
opacity standard would no longer apply.

For existing sources that are currently subject to the NSPS, we are also
providing an option to install a BLD to monitor compliance with the PM
standard.  We are also providing an option for any source subject to the
NSPS PM limit to install a PM continuous monitoring system (PM CEMS).
For any source that installs a BLD or PM CEMS, the opacity standard
would no longer apply.

For all emission sources other than the kiln and clinker cooler that are
subject to the 10 percent opacity standard, we are requiring that they
meet the monitoring requirements for these sources contained in the
Portland Cement NESHAP, 40 CFR 63 subpart LLL.

D.  Why are the other emission limits in the NSPS not being revised?

	The proposed revisions to the emission limits cover only the cement
kiln and clinker cooler.  The current NSPS also limits emissions from
materials handling operations.  These operations are potential emitters
of PM, but do not emit other criteria pollutants.

	Materials handling points are typically fugitive emissions, though in
some cases emissions are captured and exhausted through a stack.  The
current opacity limit for these operations is 10 percent.  We considered
the possibility of setting a lower limit, but we do not have data to
indicate that a lower limit is achievable or whether costs associated
with a lower opacity limit are reasonable.  We currently have no data to
indicate that the current level is not what is being achieved in
practice.  We are requesting comment and any available data addressing
capability, if any, to further reduce opacity and, if lower limits are
feasible, what the associated costs would be.	We have also elected not
to revise the current opacity limit for new cement kilns of 20 percent,
or the clinker cooler opacity limit of 10 percent.  As previously noted,
new kilns and clinker coolers would be required to install and operate
BLDS, use a predictive model (in the case of ESPs), or install and
operate PM CEMS to insure continuous compliance with the PM emissions
limit, and as a result it is not necessary that they have an opacity
limit.  Therefore, there is no need to revise the current limit in the
rule.

E.  What other changes are being proposed?

	 As previously noted, cement kilns are potentially subject to both the
NSPS and the Portland Cement NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart LLL).  In
§63.1356 of subpart LLL, we exempt any source subject to that subpart
from applicable standards under the NSPS and the Metallic Minerals
Processing NSPS (subpart OOO).  That language was appropriate because
the NSPS only regulated PM, and the PM limits in the NSPS and NESHAP
were identical.  This is no longer the case.  As a result, we are
proposing to insert language in both the NSPS and the NESHAP to state
that when there are emissions standards for a specific pollutant that
apply to an affected sources in both the NESHAP and the NSPS, the source
should comply with the most stringent limit, and is not subject to the
less stringent limit.

F. What is EPA’s sector-based approach and how is it relevant to this
rulemaking?

	In the National Academy of Science’s 2004 report, “Air Quality
Management in the United States,” the National Research Council (NRC)
recommended to EPA that standard setting, planning and control strategy
development be based on integrated assessments that consider multiple
pollutants and those integrated assessments be conducted in a
comprehensive and coordinated manner.  With these recommendations, EPA
began to move towards establishing multi-pollutant and sector-based
approaches to managing emissions and air quality.  These sector-based
approaches essentially expand technical analyses on emission reduction
benefits and disbenefits of particular technologies, and interactions of
rules that regulate sources within facilities.  The benefit of
multi-pollutant and sector-based analyses and approaches include the
ability to identify optimum strategies, considering feasibility, costs,
and benefits across all pollutant types – criteria, toxics and others
-- while streamlining administrative and compliance complexities and
reducing conflicting and redundant requirements.  With these
recommendations, EPA’s intent is to move toward multi-pollutant and
sector-based approaches in managing emissions and air quality.  One of
the many ways we can address sector-based approaches is by reviewing
multiple regulatory programs together when ever possible.  This approach
should result in added certainty and easier implementation of control
strategies for the sector under consideration.

	Multiple regulatory requirements currently apply to the cement industry
sector.  In an effort to facilitate sector-based approaches for the
cement industry, EPA analyzed the interactions between the NSPS under
review here and other regulatory requirements for Portland cement
facilities currently under review and/or reconsideration.  The
requirements analyzed would affect HAP and/or criteria pollutant
emissions from cement kilns and comprise the NSPS, NESHAP
reconsideration for mercury (Hg) and THC, area source NESHAP, and NESHAP
technology review and residual risk.  The results of our analyses are
described below.

The first interaction is the relationship between the NSPS VOC-CO
standard and the NESHAP THC standard discussed above.  As explained
there, the 20 ppm THC limit for new sources in the NESHAP will also
control VOC and CO to the limit of technical feasibility.

Another interaction seen in this analysis relates to the more stringent
PM emission limit under NSPS and the PM emissions limit for new sources
under the NESHAP.  We are proposing a limit of 0.086 lb/ton clinker as
compared to the current new source PM limit in the NESHAP of 0.5 lb/ton
clinker (0.3 lb/ton feed).  This results in a situation where the MACT
PM emission limit for new sources is higher than the NSPS emissions
limit.  As a result, EPA will consider whether or not we should address
the PM standard in the NESHAP as part of the Hg and THC reconsideration.
 At a minimum, and as just explained, we plan to place language in both
the NESHAP and the NSPS making it clear that if a particular source has
two different requirements for the same pollutant, they should comply
with the most stringent emission limit, and are not subject to the less
stringent limit.

The proposed NSPS PM limit also has implications for the PM limit for
area sources under NESHAP.  We currently have a requirement to extend
the PM limit in the NESHAP to kilns located at area sources in order to
meet our requirements to subject to regulation area sources accounting
for 90 percent of the emissions of the HAP identified in our Urban Air
Toxics Strategy.  Having a different limit for kilns under NESHAP and
NSPS has implications for the appropriate PM level to apply to new kilns
located at area sources under the NESHAP.

In addition to the current regulatory efforts, we are required under CAA
section 112(f) to evaluate the residual risk for toxic air pollutants
emitted by this source category and to perform a technology review for
this source category under section 112(d)(6).  As we consider any
changes in the PM limits under MACT and generally available control
technology (GACT), we will also consider the implication these may have
in developing future requirements under residual risk and technology
review.

	Another interaction with implications for the co-control of Hg is the
new SO2 standard under the NSPS.  As described above, proposed BDT for
SO2 control is a limit for new kilns of 1.33 lb/ton of clinker, or
alternatively, demonstration of a 90 percent SO2 emissions reduction
measured across the control device, such as an alkaline scrubber.  Under
the NESHAP reconsideration EPA will likely amend the MACT standard for
Hg for new and existing facilities.  A facility that is considering a
new source that may be subject to SO2 add-on control requirements will
have to consider the interaction of their choice of SO2 and Hg controls.
 For example, a facility that determines a moderate level of SO2
reduction would meet the SO2 emission limit (i.e. 70 percent or less)
might consider using a lime injection system because it is lower cost.
However, if the same facility would have to use some type of add-on
control to meet the current new source Hg emission limit of 41
micrograms per dry standard cubic meter (ug/dscm), then the cheapest
overall alternative might be to use a wet scrubber for co-current SO2
and Hg control.  In general, we will ensure that our rulemaking
recognizes that where monitoring is required, methods and reporting
requirements should be consistent in the NSPS and NESHAP where the
pollutants and emission sources have similar characteristics.  As an
example, we are proposing to add a requirement to the NSPS that a PM
emissions compliance test on the kiln and clinker cooler be done every
five years, as is currently required in the Portland Cement NESHAP for
major sources, and we are incorporating the Portland Cement NESHAP
monitoring requirements for sources other than kilns and clinker coolers
into the NSPS.  To the extent that is possible we will consolidate those
requirements.

In order to analyze sector-base related approaches for the cement
industry, EPA is developing a dynamic techno-economic model of the U.S.
cement industry.  This model is being designed to analyze emission
reduction strategies for multiple pollutants, while taking into account
plant-level economic and technical factors such as the type of kiln,
associated capacity, location, cost of production, applicable controls
and costs.  By considering various emission reduction strategies, the
model can provide information on optimal industry operation and
determine the most cost-effective controls to meet the demand for cement
and the emission reduction requirements for a given time period of
interest.  More information on the model can be found in the rulemaking
docket.

We welcome comments and suggestions related to the potential uses of our
techno-economic model as well in the inter-rulemaking analysis and
sector-based considerations described above.

G.  How is EPA addressing greenhouse gas emissions from the portland
cement industry?

	While CAA section 111(b)(1)(B) permits EPA, under appropriate
circumstances, to add new standards of performance for additional
pollutants concurrent with the 8-year review of existing standards, for
the reasons set forth below, we decline to propose performance standards
for greenhouse gases (GHG) from cement kilns as part of this 8-year
review cycle.  Although greenhouse gases are air pollutants under the
CAA (see State of Massachusetts v. EPA, 127 S. Ct. 1438 (2007)), EPA
firmly believes that the issue of their control must be addressed in a
coordinated, holistic manner rather than on a case-by-case basis.  The
regulation of GHG raises numerous issues that are not well suited to
initial resolution in a rulemaking directed at an individual source
category.  EPA will shortly issue an Advance Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (ANPR) discussing comprehensively how the various CAA
provisions interrelate with respect to greenhouse gases, how the CAA’s
provisions could be used across source categories and entire industry
sectors for GHG control, and potential policy implications of these
potential approaches.  The notice will include a specific section
addressing GHG from the portland cement industry sector.  EPA therefore
intends to deal with the issue in the context of the forthcoming ANPR.

V.  Summary of Cost, Environmental, Energy, and Economic Impacts of the
Proposed Amendments to Subpart F

In setting standards, the CAA requires us to consider alternative
emission control approaches, taking into account the estimated costs as
well as impacts on energy, solid waste, and other effects.  We request
comment on whether we have identified the appropriate alternatives and
whether the proposed standards adequately take into consideration the
incremental effects in terms of emission reductions, energy, and other
effects of these alternatives.  We will consider the available
information in developing the final rule.

We are presenting estimates of the impacts for the proposed amendments
to 40 CFR part 60, subpart F that change the performance standards.  The
cost, environmental, and economic impacts presented in this section are
expressed as incremental differences between the impacts of PCP
complying with the proposed subpart F revisions and the current NSPS
requirements of subpart F (i.e., baseline).  The impacts are presented
for new PCP affected facilities that commence construction,
reconstruction, or modification over the 5 years following promulgation
of the revised NSPS.  The analyses and the documents referenced below
can be found in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0877.

In order to determine the incremental impacts of this proposed rule, we
first estimated the number of new kilns that will begin operation over
the 5-year period following promulgation of the final amendments.  We
estimate that 20 new kilns will be subject to the proposed amendments by
the end of the 5th year after promulgation of the amendments
representing approximately 24 million tpy of clinker capacity.

A.  What are the air quality impacts?

	The proposed PM emission limit represents a lowering of the PM emission
limit from 0.5 lb/ton clinker production to 0.086 lb/ton.  Out review of
the performance of recently installed fabric filters indicates that
typical new kiln PM emissions are approximately 0.16 lb/ton rather then
0.5 lb/ton, the current NSPS limit.  We estimate that the PM reduction
per kiln as a result of the proposed PM emissions limits will be 44 tpy
per kiln, and 888 tpy nationally in the fifth year after promulgation of
the standard.  This represents a reduction in PM fine emissions of
approximately 400 tpy.

Under the proposed limit for NOX, we have estimated that the emission
reduction for a typical new kiln would be 600 tpy. The emissions
reduction 5 years after promulgation of the final standards will be
12,000 tpy.

Under the proposed limit for SO2, we estimated that a new kiln
processing raw materials containing high levels of sulfur would be
required to install an alkaline scrubber in order to comply with the
proposed limit.  For such a new kiln, emissions of SO2 would be reduced
by 7,410 tpy.  We estimated that during the 5 years following
promulgation of the final standard, four new kilns are expected to be
required to install an alkaline scrubber to meet the proposed SO2
emission limit.  The emissions reduction 5 years after promulgation of
the final standards will be 29,640 tpy.

B.  What are the water quality impacts?

	No water quality impacts for the proposed amendments are anticipated.
The requirements for new sources that might result in the use of
alkaline scrubber to control SO2 will produce a scrubber slurry liquid
waste stream.  However, we assume the scrubber slurry produced will be
dewatered and added back into the cement-making process as gypsum.
Water from the dewatering process will be recycled back to the scrubber.

C.  What are the solid waste impacts?

	The potential for solid waste impacts are associated with greater PM
control for new kilns and solids resulting from solids in scrubber
slurry water.  Little or no solid waste is expected from the generation
of scrubber slurry because it is assumed that the slurry will be
dewatered and the solids added back to the process as gypsum to make
cement.  The PM captured in the kiln baghouse (cement kiln dust) is
considered raw materials and are recycled back to the kiln.  Where
equipped with an alkali bypass, captured PM is typically disposed of as
solid waste.  An alkali bypass is not required on all kilns.  Where one
is present, the amount of solid waste generated from the alkali bypass
is minimal, usually about 1 percent of total cement kiln dust captured
in control devices, because the bypass gas stream is a small percentage
of total kiln exhaust gas flow and the bypass gas stream does not
contact the feed stream in the raw mill.

D.  What are the secondary impacts?

Indirect or secondary air quality impacts include impacts that would
result from the increased electricity usage associated with the
operation of control devices (e.g., increased secondary emissions of
criteria pollutants from power plants) as well as water quality and
solid waste impacts that would occur as a result of these proposed
revisions.  We estimate that these proposed revisions would increase
emissions of pollutants from utility boilers that supply electricity to
the portland cement facilities.  We estimate increase energy demand
associated with the installation of scrubbers to control SO2 emissions.
These increases are estimated to be 15 tpy of NOX, 8 tpy of CO, 26 tpy
of SO2 and about 1 tpy of PM at the end of the 5th year after
promulgation.  The increase in electricity usage for the pumps used in
the SNCR system to deliver reagent to the kiln are negligible.

E.  What are the energy impacts?

Energy impacts consist of the electricity needed to operate control
devices and other equipment that would be required under the proposed
rule.  This proposal will result in the addition of alkaline scrubbers
to certain kilns to reduce SO2 emissions.  We estimate the additional
electrical demand to be 6.9 million kWhr per year by the end of the 5th
year.

F.  What are the cost impacts?

	Under the proposed amendments, the cost for new kilns are based on the
use of NOX and SO2 monitors, bag leak detectors, SNCR for NOX control,
and membrane bags in baghouses.  We estimate that four of the twenty new
kilns will also be required to install a wet scrubber to meet the
proposed SO2 emissions limits.  The total capital cost per kiln is
estimated to be $3,900,000 kilns that are not required to install wet
scrubbers and $32,000,000 for kilns that are required to install wet
scrubbers.  The cumulative capital cost in the fifth year is estimated
to be $190,000,000.  The estimated total annualized cost per new kiln
will be $1,500,000 for kilns that do not install wet scrubbers and
$6,400,000 for those that do install wet scrubbers.  National annualized
costs will be $50,000,000.

G.  What are the economic impacts?

This proposal affects certain new and reconstructed/ modified affected
facilities found at PCP as defined earlier in this preamble.  We
performed an economic impact analysis that estimates changes in prices
and output for Portland cement manufacturing nationally using the annual
compliance costs estimated for this proposal.  All estimates are for the
fifth year after promulgation since this is the year for which the
compliance cost impacts are estimated.

Existing data on planned capacity expansions suggests 20 new kilns will
be constructed in the next 5 years.  EPA estimates up to four of these
kilns may use high sulfur raw materials while the remaining 16 will
likely use moderate or low sulfur raw materials.

The engineering cost analysis suggests new kiln using high sulfur raw
materials could potentially spend up to $6.4 million dollars per year to
meet the selected control options for NOx, SO2, and PM (see Table 2 of
this preamble).  The average cost per ton of capacity is approximately
$5.  In contrast, new kilns using moderate or low sulfur raw materials
could potentially spend $1.5 million dollars per year.   The average
cost per ton of capacity is approximately $1.

Table 2.  Model Plant Costs (Clinker Capacity =1.1 million metric tons
per year)

Kiln Type	Number of Kilns (5-Year Period)	Total Annualized Costs
($Million)	New Source Unit Cost ($/metric ton of capacity)

High Sulfur Raw Materials	4	$6.4	$5

Moderate or Low Sulfur Raw Materials	16	$1.5	$1

The USGS reports that the real price of cement per metric ton (2005
dollars) has typically ranged between $75 and $100 since 1990 (see
Figure 1).  For high sulfur raw material kilns, this implies a sales
test ratio between 5 to 7 percent. For moderate/low sulfur raw material
kilns, the sales test ratio is one to two percent. From 2000 to 2006,
the Portland Cement Association (PCA, 2007) reports that the average
operating profit rates for the industry ranged from 17 to 21 percent.
If this profit data is representative of operating profit rates for new
kilns, new kilns using high sulfur content raw materials could
potentially significantly reduce their operating profit rates.  As a
result, companies may have the incentive to look for less expensive
alternatives to meet the SO2 emission standards (e.g. lower sulfur
content materials or technologies other than wet scrubbers).  Although
anecdotal evidence suggests these opportunities exist, EPA does not
currently have sufficient information to do a formal evaluation of these
alternatives.

We also considered potential market-level changes in prices and
consumption for multiple geographic markets anticipating entry of new
kilns. The sales tests suggest long run cement price changes could range
from one to seven percent, depending on the actual baseline market
cement price and the type of kiln entering the market.  Applying EPA’s
econometric estimate of the cement demand elasticity (–0.88) to these
price changes, cement consumption could potentially fall between one to
six percent.

For more information, please refer to the economic impact analysis
report that is in the public docket for this proposed rule.

VI.  Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A.  Executive Order 12866:  Regulatory Planning and Review

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
action is a “significant regulatory action” because it may raise
novel legal or policy issues.  Accordingly, EPA submitted this action to
OMB for review under Executive Order 12866, and any changes made in
response to OMB recommendations have been documented in the docket for
this action.

B.  Paperwork Reduction Act

The information requirements in the proposed amendments have been
submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.  The
Information Collection Request (ICR) prepared by EPA has been assigned
EPA ICR number [XXXX.XX}.

The proposed amendments to the NSPS for portland cement plants apply to
affected facilities constructed, modified, or reconstructed after
[INSERT DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER].  The owner or
operator of a new kiln would be required to keep daily records of
clinker production, conduct an initial performance test and repeat
performance tests (PM), install and operate bag leak detection systems
or PM CEMS for baghouses used to meet the PM emission limit, and operate
NOx and SO2 CEMS.  These requirements are based on the recordkeeping and
reporting requirements in the NSPS General Provisions (40 CFR part 60,
subpart A) which are mandatory for all operators subject to new source
performance standards.  These recordkeeping and reporting requirements
are specifically authorized by section 114 of the CAA (42 U.S.C. 7414).
All information submitted to EPA pursuant to the recordkeeping and
reporting requirements for which a claim of confidentiality is made is
safeguarded according to EPA policies set forth in 40 CFR part 2,
subpart B.

	The annual burden for this information collection averaged over the
first 3 years of this ICR is estimated to total 28,265 labor-hours per
year at a cost of $2,559,363 per year.  The annualized capital costs are
estimated at $53,861 per year and operation and maintenance costs are
estimated at $64,820 per year.  Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).

	An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently
valid OMB control number.  The OMB control numbers for EPA’s
regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9.

To comment on the Agency’s need for this information, the accuracy of
the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing
respondent burden, EPA has established a public docket for this rule,
which includes this ICR, under Docket ID number EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0877.
Submit any comments related to the ICR for this proposed rule to EPA and
OMB.  See ADDRESSES section at the beginning of this document for where
to submit comments to EPA.  Send comments to OMB at the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725
17th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Office for EPA.
Since OMB is required to make a decision concerning the ICR between 30
and 60 days after [INSERT DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER],
a comment to OMB is best assured of having its full effect if OMB
receives it by [INSERT DATE 30 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL
REGISTER].  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 (RFA) generally requires an agency to
prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice
and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure
Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.  Small entities include small businesses, small organizations,
and small governmental jurisdictions.

	For purposes of assessing the impact of today’s proposed revisions to
subpart F on small entities, small entity is defined as:  (1) a small
business whose parent company has no more than 750 employees (as defined
by Small Business Administration (SBA) size standards); (2) a small
governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town,
school district, or special district with a population of less than
50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit
enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant
in its field.

After considering the economic impact of today’s proposed action on
small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.  We estimate
that up to 7 of the 44 existing PCP are small entities which would not
incur any impacts under these proposed amendments unless an affected
facility is constructed, modified, or reconstructed.  Based on our
economic analysis, 20 new kilns may be constructed during the next 5
years.  One of these kilns may be operated by a PCP that is classified
as small entities according to the SBA small business size standards.
Of these 20 kilns, this small entity is expected to incur an annualized
compliance cost of between 1.0 and 2.0 percent of sales to comply with
the proposed action.

Although this proposed action would not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities, EPA nonetheless has
tried to reduce the impact of this proposed action on small entities by
selection proposed emission level based on highly cost effective
controls and specifying monitoring requirements that are the minimum to
insure compliance.  In the case where there are overlapping standards
between this NSPS and the Portland Cement NESHAP, we have exempted
source form the least stringent requirement thereby eliminated
overlapping monitoring, testing and reporting requirements.  We continue
to be interested in the potential impacts of this proposed action on
small entities and welcome comments on issues related to such impacts.

D.  Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) of 1995, Public Law
104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal
governments and the private sector.  Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit
analysis, for proposed and final rules with “Federal mandates” that
may result in expenditures by State, local, and tribal governments, in
the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any
1 year.  Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement
is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify
and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt
the least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative
that achieves the objectives of the rule.  The provisions of section 205
do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law.  Moreover,
section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least
costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative if the
Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that
alternative was not adopted.  Before EPA establishes any regulatory
requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small
governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under
section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan.  The plan must
provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling
officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely
input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant
Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and
advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory
requirements.

EPA has determined that this proposed action does not contain a Federal
mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for
State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private
sector in any one year.  As discussed earlier in this preamble, the
estimated expenditures for the private sector in the fifth year after
promulgation are $50 million.  Thus, this proposed action is not subject
to the requirements of section 202 and 205 of the UMRA.  In addition,
EPA has determined that this proposed action contains no regulatory
requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small
governments.  This proposed action contains no requirements that apply
to such governments, imposes no obligations upon them, and would not
result in expenditures by them of $100 million or more in any one year
or any disproportionate impacts on them.  Therefore, this proposed
action is not subject to the requirements of section 203 of the UMRA.

E.  Executive Order 13132:  Federalism

Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), requires EPA to
develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input
by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies
that have federalism implications.”  “Policies that have federalism
implications” is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations
that have “substantial direct effects on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government.”

This proposed 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 proposed action.

In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent with EPA policy
to promote communications between EPA and State and local governments,
EPA specifically solicits comment on this proposed action from State and
local officials.

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

Executive Order 13175, entitled “Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), requires
EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure "meaningful and timely
input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that
have tribal implications."  This proposed action does not have tribal
implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175.  It will not have
substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the relationship
between the Federal government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities between the Federal government and Indian
tribes, as specified in Executive Order 13175.  The proposed rule
imposes requirements on owners and operators of specified industrial
facilities and not tribal governments.  Thus, Executive Order 13175 does
not apply to this proposed action.

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

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

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

This rule is not a “significant energy action” as defined in
Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not likely to have a significant
adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy.  Further,
we have concluded that this proposed rule is not likely to have any
adverse energy effects.  This proposal will result in the addition of
alkaline scrubbers to certain kilns to reduce SO2 emissions.  We
estimate the additional electrical demand to be 6.9 million kWhr per
year by the end of the 5th year.

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 EPA to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS) in its regulatory
activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical.  Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling
procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by VCS
bodies.  NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through OMB,
explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and applicable
VCS.

	This proposed rulemaking involves technical standards.  EPA has decided
to use the VCS ASME PTC 19.10-1981, “Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses,”
for its manual methods of measuring the content of the exhaust gas.
These parts of ASME PTC 19.10-1981 are acceptable alternatives to EPA
Methods 3B, 6, 6A, 7, and 7C.  This standard is available from the
American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME), Three Park Avenue, New
York, NY 10016–5990.

	While the Agency has identified 12 VCS as being potentially applicable
to this rule, we have decided not to use these VCS in this rulemaking.
The use of these VCS would have been impractical because they do not
meet the objectives of the standards cited in this rule.  See the docket
for this rule for the reasons for these determinations.

	Under 40 CFR 60.13(i) of the NSPS General Provisions, a source may
apply to EPA for permission to use alternative test methods or
alternative monitoring requirements in place of any required testing
methods, performance specifications, or procedures in the final rule and
amendments.

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

Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes Federal
executive policy on environmental justice.  Its main provision directs
Federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by
law, to make environmental justice part of their mission by identifying
and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse
human health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and
activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the
United States.  EPA has determined that the proposed amendments would
not have disproportionately high and adversehuman health or
environmental effects on minority or low-income populations because they
would increase the level of environmental protection for all affected
populations without having any disproportionately high and adverse human
health or environmental effects on any population, including any
minority or low-income population.  These proposed standards would
reduce emissions of PM, NOX, and SO2 from all new, reconstructed, or
modified affected facilities at PCP, decreasing the amount of such
emissions to which all affected populations are exposed.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 60

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

Dated:

Stephen L. Johnson,

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:

§60.17  Incorporations by reference.

*  *  *  *  *

	(h)  *  *  *

	(4)  ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10–1981, Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses [Part
10, Instruments and Apparatus], IBR approved for §60.63(i)(2) and
(i)(4) of subpart F, Tables 1 and 3 of subpart EEEE, Tables 2 and 4 of
subpart FFFF, Table 2 of subpart JJJJ, and §§60.4415(a)(2) and
60.4415(a)(3) of subpart KKKK of this part.

*  *  *  *  *

Subpart F--[AMENDED]

3.  The title of §60.62 is revised to read “Standards” instead of
“Standards for particulate matter”.

4.  Section 60.62 is amended by:

a.  Revising paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) and adding paragraphs (a)(3)
and (a)(4);

b.  Revising paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2); and

c.  Adding paragraph (d) to read as follows:

§60.62  Standards.

(a)  *  *  *

	(1)  Contain particulate matter (PM) in excess of:

	(i)  0.15 kg per metric ton of feed (dry basis) to the kiln (0.30 lb
per ton) if construction, reconstruction, or modification of the kiln
commences after August 17, 1971 but on or before [INSERT DATE OF
PUBLICATION IN FEDERAL REGISTER].

 	(ii)  0.086 pound per ton of clinker if construction, reconstruction,
or modification of the kiln commences after [INSERT DATE OF PUBLICATION
IN FEDERAL REGISTER].

	(2)  Exhibit greater than 20 percent opacity., except that this opacity
limit does not apply to a kiln subject to the PM limit in paragraph
(a)(1)(i) of this section that uses a bag leak detection system, ESP
predictive model, or a PM continuous emission monitoring system.

(3)  Exceed 1.50 pounds of nitrogen oxide (NOX) per ton of clinker on a
30-day rolling average if construction, reconstruction, or modification
of the kiln commences after [INSERT DATE OF PUBLICATION IN FEDERAL
REGISTER].

	(4)  For sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions from a kiln for which
construction, reconstruction, or modification commences after [INSERT
DATE OF PUBLICATION IN FEDERAL REGISTER]:

	(i)  Exceed 1.33 pounds per ton of clinker on a 30-day rolling average;
or

	(ii)  The owner or operator must reduce SO2 emissions exiting the kiln
by 90 percent or greater.  If the owner or operator complies with the 90
percent emission reduction standard for SO2 using a wet scrubber, the 30
day rolling average of the pH of the water (or scrubbing liquid) exiting
scrubber must not fall below the control device operating parameter
limit established during the performance test.

	(b)  *  *  *

 	(1)  Contain PM in excess of:

	(i)  0.050 kg per metric ton of feed (dry basis) to the kiln (0.10 lb
per ton) if construction, reconstruction, or modification of the clinker
cooler commenced after August 17, 1971 but on or before [INSERT DATE OF
PUBLICATION IN FEDERAL REGISTER].

	(ii)  0.086 pound per ton of clinker if construction, reconstruction,
or modification of the clinker cooler commences after [INSERT DATE OF
PUBLICATION IN FEDERAL REGISTER].

	(2)  Exhibit 10 percent opacity, or greater., .except that this opacity
limit does not apply to a clinker cooler subject to the PM limit in
paragraph (b)(1)(i) of this section that uses a bag leak detection
system, ESP predictive model or PM continuous emission monitoring
system.

*  *  *  *  *

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

	5.  Section 60.63 is amended by:

	a.  Revising paragraph (a);

	b.  Revising paragraph (b);

	c.  Revising the first sentence in paragraph (c);

	d.  Adding paragraphs (f) through (o) to read as follows:

§60.63  Monitoring of operations.

(a)  The owner or operator of any portland cement plant subject to the
provisions of this subpart shall record the daily clinker production
rates and kiln feed rates.

(b)	The owner or operator of a kiln or clinker cooler must monitor PM
emissions according to the applicable requirements in paragraph (b)(1)
or (2) of this section.

	(1)  For a kiln or clinker cooler that that was constructed,
reconstructed, or modified after August 17, 1971 but on or before
[INSERT DATE OF PUBLICATION IN FEDERAL REGISTER], the owner or operator
must:

(i)	Install, calibrate, maintain, and operate in accordance with §60.13
a continuous opacity monitoring system (COMS) to measure the opacity of
emissions discharged into the atmosphere from any kiln or clinker cooler
except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section.  Each owner or
operator of an affected kiln or clinker cooler for which the performance
test required under §60.8 has been completed on or prior to December
14, 1988, must install the COMS  within 180 days after December 14,
1988.  The COMS must be installed on each stack of any multiple stack
control device for emissions from any kiln or clinker cooler.  If there
is a separate bypass stack installed, the owner or operator also must
install, calibrate, maintain, and operate a COMS on each bypass stack in
addition to the main control device stack; or

 (ii)  Install, operate, and maintain a bag leak detection system on
each baghouse used to control PM emissions according to the procedures
in paragraph (f) of this section; or

(iii)  Install, operate, and maintain an instrument for continuously
monitoring and recording the concentration of PM emissions into the
atmosphere according to the requirements in paragraph (g) of this
section.

(2)	For a kiln or clinker cooler that is constructed, modified, or
reconstructed or after [INSERT DATE OF PUBLICATION IN FEDERAL REGISTER],
the owner or operator must:

(i)  Install, operate, and maintain a bag leak detection system on each
baghouse used to control PM emissions according to the requirements in
paragraph (f) of this section; and

(ii)  Monitor the performance of any electrostatic precipitator (ESP)
used to control PM emissions according to the requirements in paragraph
(o) of this section; or

(iii)  Install, operate, and maintain an instrument for continuously
monitoring and recording the concentration of PM emissions into the
atmosphere according to the requirements in paragraph (g) of this
section.

(c)  Each owner or operator of a kiln or clinker cooler that was
constructed, reconstructed, or modified on or before [INSERT DATE OF
PUBLICATION IN FEDERAL REGISTER],using a positive-pressure fabric filter
with multiple stacks, or a negative-pressure fabric filter with multiple
stacks, or an electrostatic precipitator with multiple stacks may,
instead of installing the COMS required by paragraph (b)(1)(i) of this
section, monitor visible emissions at least once per day by using a
certified visible emissions observer. *  *  *

*  *  *  *  *

(f)  The owner or operator must install, operate, and maintain the bag
leak detection system according to paragraphs (f)(1) through (3) of this
section.

(1)  Each bag leak detection system must meet the specifications and
requirements in paragraphs (f)(1)(i) through (viii) of this section.

(i)  The bag leak detection system must be certified by the manufacturer
to be capable of detecting PM emissions at concentrations of 1 milligram
per dry standard cubic meter (0.00044 grains per actual cubic foot) or
less.

(ii)  The bag leak detection system sensor must provide output of
relative PM loadings.  The owner or operator shall continuously record
the output from the bag leak detection system using electronic or other
means (e.g., using a strip chart recorder or a data logger).

(iii)  The bag leak detection system must be equipped with an alarm
system that will sound when the system detects an increase in relative
particulate loading over the alarm set point established according to
paragraph (f)(1)(iv) of this section, and the alarm must be located such
that it can be heard by the appropriate plant personnel.

(iv)  In the initial adjustment of the bag leak detection system, you
must establish, at a minimum, the baseline output by adjusting the
sensitivity (range) and the averaging period of the device, the alarm
set points, and the alarm delay time.

(v)  Following initial adjustment, you shall not adjust the averaging
period, alarm set point, or alarm delay time without approval from the
Administrator or delegated authority except as provided in paragraph
(f)(1)(vi) of this section.

(vi)  Once per quarter, you may adjust the sensitivity of the bag leak
detection system to account for seasonal effects, including temperature
and humidity, according to the procedures identified in the
site-specific monitoring plan required by paragraph (c)(2) of this
section.

(vii)  You must install the bag leak detection sensor downstream of the
fabric filter.

(viii)  Where multiple detectors are required, the system’s
instrumentation and alarm may be shared among detectors.

(2)  You must develop and submit to the Administrator or delegated
authority for approval a site-specific monitoring plan for each bag leak
detection system.  You must operate and maintain the bag leak detection
system according to the site-specific monitoring plan at all times.
Each monitoring plan must describe the items in paragraphs (f)(2)(i)
through (vi) of this section.

(i)  Installation of the bag leak detection system;

(ii)  Initial and periodic adjustment of the bag leak detection system,
including how the alarm set-point will be established;

(iii)  Operation of the bag leak detection system, including quality
assurance procedures;

(iv)  How the bag leak detection system will be maintained, including a
routine maintenance schedule and spare parts inventory list;

(v)  How the bag leak detection system output will be recorded and
stored; and

(vi)  Corrective action procedures as specified in paragraph (f)(3) of
this section.  In approving the site-specific monitoring plan, the
Administrator or delegated authority may allow owners and operators more
than 3 hours to alleviate a specific condition that causes an alarm if
the owner or operator identifies in the monitoring plan this specific
condition as one that could lead to an alarm, adequately explains why it
is not feasible to alleviate this condition within 3 hours of the time
the alarm occurs, and demonstrates that the requested time will ensure
alleviation of this condition as expeditiously as practicable.

(3)  For each bag leak detection system, you must initiate procedures to
determine the cause of every alarm within 1 hour of the alarm.  Except
as provided in paragraph (f)(2)(vi) of this section, you must alleviate
the cause of the alarm within 3 hours of the alarm by taking whatever
corrective action(s) are necessary.  Corrective actions may include, but
are not limited to the following:

(i)  Inspecting the fabric filter for air leaks, torn or broken bags or
filter media, or any other condition that may cause an increase in PM
emissions;

(ii)  Sealing off defective bags or filter media;

(iii)  Replacing defective bags or filter media or otherwise repairing
the control device;

(iv)  Sealing off a defective fabric filter compartment;

(v)  Cleaning the bag leak detection system probe or otherwise repairing
the bag leak detection system; or

(vi)  Shutting down the process producing the PM emissions.

(g)	The owner or operator of a kiln or clinker cooler using a PM
continuous emission monitoring system (CEMS) to demonstrate compliance
with the emission limit in §60.62(a) or (b) must install, certify,
operate, and maintain the CEMS as specified in paragraphs (g)(1) through
(3) of this section.

(1)  The owner or operator must conduct a performance evaluation of the
PM CEMS according to the applicable requirements of §60.13, Performance
Specification 11 of Appendix B of part 60, and Procedure 2 of Appendix F
to part 60.

(2)  During each relative accuracy test run of the CEMS required by
Performance Specification 11 of Appendix B to part 60, PM and oxygen (or
carbon dioxide) data must be collected concurrently (or within a 30-to
60-minute period) during operation of the CEMS and when conducting
performance tests using the following test methods:

(i)  For PM, Method 5 or 5B of Appendix A-5 to part 60 or Method 17 of
Appendix A-6 to part 60.

(ii)  For oxygen (or carbon dioxide), Method 3, 3A, or 3B of Appendix
A-2 to part 60, as applicable.

(3)  Procedure 2 of Appendix F to part 60 for quarterly accuracy
determinations and daily calibration drift tests.   The owner or
operator must perform Relative Response Audit’s annually and Response
Correlation Audits every 3 years.

	(h)  The owner or operator of a kiln constructed, modified or
reconstructed on or after [INSERT DATE OF PUBLICATION IN FEDERAL
REGISTER] must install, calibrate, maintain and operate a permanent
weigh scale system, or use another method approved by the Administrator,
to measure and record weight rates in tons-mass per hour of the amount
of clinker produced.  The system of measuring hourly clinker production
must be maintained within ±5 percent accuracy.

(i)  Each owner or operator subject to the NOX emissions limit for a
kiln in §60.62(a)(3) shall install, operate, calibrate, and maintain an
instrument for continuously monitoring and recording the concentration
by volume of NOX emissions into the atmosphere.

(j)  Each owner or operator subject to the SO2 emissions limit in
§60.62(a)(4) for a kiln shall install, operate, calibrate, and maintain
an instrument for continuously monitoring and recording the
concentration by volume of SO22 emissions into the atmosphere.

	(k)  The owner or operator of each CEMS required under paragraphs (i)
and (j) of this section, shall install, operate, and maintain each
monitoring system according to Performance Specification 2 (40 CFR part
60, appendix B) and the requirements in paragraphs (k)(1) through (5) of
this section.

	(1)  The span value of each NOX monitor shall be set at 125 percent of
the maximum estimated hourly potential NOX emission concentration that
translates to the applicable emission limit at full clinker production
capacity.

	(2)  The owner or operator shall conduct performance evaluations of
each NOX monitor according to the requirements in §60.13(c) and
Performance Specification 2 of Appendix B to part 60.  The owner or
operator shall use Methods 7, 7A, 7C, 7D, or 7E of appendix A-4 to part
60 for conducting the relative accuracy evaluations.  The method ASME
PTC 19.10-1981, “Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses,” (incorporated by
reference-see §60.17) is an acceptable alternative to EPA Method 7 or
7C of Appendix A-4 to part 60.

(3)  The span value for the SO2 monitor must be set at 125 percent of