[Federal Register: June 16, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 116)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 34071-34092]
[DOCID:fr16jn08-20]

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

Part II

Environmental Protection Agency

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

40 CFR Parts 60 and 63

Standards of Performance for Portland Cement Plants; Proposed Rule

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 60 and 63

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0877; FRL-8576-1]
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 facilities which commence
construction, modification, or reconstruction after June 16, 2008. The
proposed amendments also include additional testing and monitoring
requirements for affected sources.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 15, 2008. If any
one contacts EPA by June 26, 2008 requesting to speak at a public
hearing, EPA will hold a public hearing on July 1, 2008. 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 July 16, 2008.

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
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://
www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site
is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going through http://www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center,
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<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The information presented in this preamble
is organized as follows:

I. General Information
    A. Does this action apply to me?
    B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments to EPA?
    C. Where can I get a copy of this document?
    D. When would a public hearing occur?
II. Background Information 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 we not proposing to revise the other emission limits
in the NSPS?
    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 code \1\           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 http://
www.regulations.gov or e-mail. Send or deliver information identified
as CBI only to the following address: Roberto Morales, OAQPS Document
Control Officer (C404-02), Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC
27711, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-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 World Wide 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
June 26, 2008, a public hearing will be held on July 1, 2008. 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 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). Today's 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 for recently permitted sources, and
emissions test data for demonstrated control technologies collected for
compliance demonstration or other purposes. EPA compares permit
limitations and BACT determination data with actual performance test
data to insure that permitting and BACT limitations are representative
of actual performance and also to identify any site specific factors
that could influence general applicability of the information to the
entire source category. EPA also carefully examines test data to insure
that control devices were 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. 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 Sec.   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 June 16, 2008.
                                Add a paragraph (a)(1)(ii) which limits
                                PM emissions for kilns that commence
                                construction, reconstruction, or
                                modification after June 16, 2008,
                                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 June 16, 2008 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 June 16, 2008 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 June 16, 2008 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.
                               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 June 16, 2008. Add a paragraph
                                (b)(1)(ii) which limits PM emissions
                                from clinker coolers constructed,
                                reconstructed, or modified after June
                                16, 2008 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 June 16, 2008
                                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 June 16, 2008. 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 June 16, 2008.
                                Paragraphs (b)(2)(i) and (ii) require
                                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 June 16, 2008.
                               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 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 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 June 16, 2008, we are proposing:
     To change the format of the PM emission limits from 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 of clinker, 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 clinker; 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 June 16, 2008 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 those in subpart F are
commonplace or rare, or cover additional air pollutants). 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 between those determinations
and a BDT determination for purposes of a new source performance
standard is that a BACT determination is made on a site-specific basis.
Therefore, in evaluating BACT determinations, 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 to evaluate whether or not the permit levels reviewed
accurately reflect control device performance.
    Our review of permits and actual test data from portland cement
sources, and discussions with industry representatives and State
environmental agencies indicates that certain changes have occurred
since the 1988 review of the NSPS, and that these changes are still
continuing. We found that older, less energy efficient wet and long dry
kilns are being replaced with preheater/precalciner kilns because
preheater/precalciner kilns have superior energy efficiency and
increased clinker capacity. According to the industry, all new kilns
will be preheater/precalciner kilns. We confirmed this by reviewing a
detailed listing of portland cement kilns which indicates that since
2000 all kilns constructed or modernized are of the preheater/
precalciner design.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Technical Support Document for Portland Cement NSPS Review.
May 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The information also revealed 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. (See footnote
1) 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.
    Preheater/precalciner 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.
    As previously mentioned, older kilns are typically replaced with
new preheater/precalciner kilns rather than being modified or
reconstructed. However, because modified and reconstructed kilns are
also subject to NSPS, we evaluated the situation where an existing kiln
becomes subject to NSPS through modification or reconstruction. 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 of SO2 and NOX are actually lower than
would have been expected if the kiln had been replaced with a new
preheater/precalciner kiln.\2\ 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. Accordingly, EPA
believes that the limits proposed today are appropriate for new,
modified, and reconstructed kilns since the preheater/precalciner
design will be utilized in each of these instances.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Lone Star's Unique Approach to Environmental Challenges.
O.P. Jepsen and B.P. Keefe, Fuller Company, Cement Industry
Technical Conference, IEEE-IAS/PCA, 2001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 (and ultimately the ability to set a single standard) 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 of clinker--i.e., normalizing based on kiln output
rather than input for sources constructed, reconstructed or modified
after June 16, 2008.
    Adopting an output-based standard avoids rewarding a source for
becoming less efficient, i.e., requiring more feed to produce a unit of
product, therefore promoting the most efficient production processes.
As an example, assume a cement kiln rated at 1.2 million tons per year
(tpy) has a NOX emission limit of 1.5 lb/ton of clinker
(output). The equivalent input-based limit would be 0.909 lb/ton of
feed (on average 1.65 tons of feed produce one ton of clinker, so a
kiln rated at 1.2 million tpy clinker uses 1.98 million tpy of feed).
Under either an input- or output-based standard, the maximum allowed
NOX emissions would be 900 tpy (1.5 lb/ton clinker x 1.2
million tons clinker / 2000 = 900 tons = 0.909 lb/ton feed x 1.98
million tons feed / 2000). However, if a facility has a less efficient
kiln, for example it requires 1.7 tons of feed to produce one ton of
clinker (so the feed input is now 2.04 million tons), this kiln would
be allowed to emit 927 tpy of NOX (0.909 lb/ton feed x 2.04
million tons feed / 2000) under the input-based standard of 0.909 lb/
ton of feed, but still only 900 lb per year of NOX under the
1.5 lb/ton of clinker output-based standard.
    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.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ E-mail, H. Ybanez, Holcim, Inc to K. Barnett, EPA, February
27, 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the following discussions, emissions were typically reported as
a concentration or per ton of feed. The BACT permit limits discussed
were typically based on output. We have converted all the data to an
output based standard using a conversion factor of 1.65 tons of input
equals one ton of clinker. More information on conversion may be found
in the technical support document (see footnote 1).
    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. Information on how conversions from input-
based emission limits and test data and/or concentration-based data to
output-based limits and test data may be found in the Technical Support
Document for the Portland Cement NSPS review (see footnote 1).
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. We do not expect new
facilities to install gravel bed filters.
    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.\4\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Technical Support Document for HWC MACT Standards--Volume I:
Description of Source Categories, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. September 2005, Section 3.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In assessing the level of performance constituting BDT (i.e. the
level of performance achievable by well-operated and maintained fabric
filters in this 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. (see footnote 1) 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 measured
by EPA Reference Method 5 (40 CFR part 60, Appendix A-3). The first set
was comprised of 21 emission tests of portland cement kilns equipped
with fabric filters at various domestic locations which fabric filters
were (reportedly) equipped with membrane bags. These PM emissions
ranged from 0.0023 up to 0.4724 lb/ton of clinker with a median of
0.1360 lb/ton. Fifteen of the 21 tests were below 0.16 lb/ton of
clinker. All of the tests where the emissions were above 0.16 lb/ton of
clinker, 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 of clinker was on a kiln built in 1981. Therefore, we have reason
to doubt that the data above 0.16 lb/ton of clinker 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 of clinker, 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 of clinker 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 that the PM
migrates completely through the fabric. Membrane bags, in contrast,
operate under the principle 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.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Cement Americas ``Optimizing Kiln Operations by Improving
Baghouse Performance'' November 2001, pp. 1-5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We reviewed 19 emission tests conducted on four portland cement
kilns 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 for PM
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 because fabric filters control PM emissions generally
to the same concentration irrespective of the PM loading at the inlet
(see 69 FR 21225 and 21233). The individual test results converted to
an output basis ranged from 0.0023 to 0.10176 lb/ton of clinker with an
average of 0.0357 lb/ton. In order to account for variability, we
analyzed the statistical variation by calculating a standard deviation
of the test averages, multiplying the standard deviation by the t value
for the 95th or 99th percentile, and adding this value to the average
of all the tests. The result was we determined that a level of 0.0830
lb/ton of clinker represented an emissions limit that will not be
exceeded 95 percent of the time and a level of 0.1025 lb/ton of clinker
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. (see
footnote 1)
    We are proposing this level as BDT for PM emitted by new portland
cement kilns, as measured by EPA Reference Method 5 in 40 CFR part 60,
Appendix A-3. 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. This evaluation, and all subsequent cost, environment, and
energy impacts on a per kiln basis are based on a model preheater/
precalciner kiln with a rated capacity of 1.2 million tpy of clinker.
The average capacity of kilns which were constructed beginning in 2000
and were operating in 2006 was approximately 1.3 million tpy. We choose
a model kiln with a capacity slightly lower than average to provide a
more conservative cost estimate (smaller kilns tend to have a greater
control cost per ton of capacity). The other kiln design specifications
(flue gas flow rates, temperatures, etc.) may be found in the Technical
Support Document (See Footnote 1).
    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 meeting a PM emissions
limit to 0.16 lb/ton of clinker. There are a variety of regulatory
reasons that new kilns, on average, currently meet a 0.16 lb/ton of
clinker 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 of clinker (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 of clinker as the
baseline would not have changed our decision in any case.
    To achieve a level of 0.086 lb/ton of clinker, 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 over the
baseline would be 44 tpy for the model kiln and the cost per ton of
additional PM control is $3,969. This cost appears to be reasonable to
EPA, given that it is well within the range of cost-effectiveness for
total PM control accepted as reasonable for other stationary sources.
See, e.g., 70 FR 9715, February 28, 2005 (cost effectiveness of $8,400
per ton of total PM considered reasonable for proposed rule for
electric utility steam generating units) and 71 FR 9876, February 27,
2006, promulgating the proposed rule.
    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
(although exposure to coarse PM is likewise associated with health
effects, see 71 FR 61184-85, October 17, 2006). As a result, EPA
established a NAAQS for fine PM separate from the NAAQS for coarse 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 estimated emissions reduction of fine PM resulting from
a total PM standard of 0.086 lb/ton of clinker is 19.8 tpy for the
model kiln and the cost per ton of fine PM reduction is $8,819.
    In most cases there would be no non-air impacts associated with the

proposed standard 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. This PM is high in alkali materials and cannot be
recycled back to the kiln or mixed with the product. 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 of clinker as BDT.
    As previously noted, fabric filters are also the predominant
control for another emission point, 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
of feed, which converts to 0.013 up to 0.083 lb/ton of clinker.\6\
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 of feed which converts to
0.0063 to 0.01551 lb/ton of 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 of clinker. Since new facilities are already
installing controls (usually fabric filters) capable of meeting the
proposed clinker cooler limit of 0.086 lb/ton of clinker, the
incremental costs of the proposed emissions limit would be very low or
zero, as would any non-air environmental and energy impacts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Portland Cement Plants--Background Information for Proposed
Revisions to Standards. EPA-450/3-85-003a, May 1985. pp. 4-9 to 4-13
and C-2 to C-5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We considered proposing a limit below 0.086 lb/ton of clinker for
clinker coolers, based on the emissions shown for the three newer
facilities. Based on these data a limit of 0.0245 lb/ton of 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, since these data are
unlikely to fully reflect control device operating variability. We are
requesting comment, however, on the achievability of a lower PM
emission limit for clinker coolers.
3. NOX \7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Information on NOX emissions from preheater/
precalciner kilns, factors affecting NOX emissions,
process controls that reduce NOX emissions, staged
combustion, selective noncatalytic reduction, selective catalytic
reduction and more can be found in the EPA publication ``Alternative
Control Techniques Document Update--NOX Emissions from
New Cement Kilns, EPA-453/R-07-006, November 2007, and is available
on EPA's Technology Transfer Network at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/
oarpg.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 June 16, 2008. 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 exclusive add-on control used to
reduce NOX emissions from kilns operating in the U.S. is
selective noncatalytic reduction (SNCR). 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 [deg]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. 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, see 69 FR 4583, January 30, 2004, and ammonia itself is a
pollutant under the CAA. Limits on ammonia slip are often imposed by
permits or design requirements, which in some instances constrain the
NOX reduction achievable 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 thus not regulate NOX emissions. However,
we rejected that option because NOX is 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. Most of the emission limits and test
data are 30 day averages based on data from continuous emissions
monitors. 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 but not
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,
resulting in variation in NOX emissions. Raw materials from
the same quarry can vary in chemical composition from day to day.
Certain raw materials require higher temperatures and longer heating
times to properly calcine the materials (referred to as burnability).
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 of
clinker as our baseline versus a higher number would not have changed
our decision on the proposed NOX level.
    The second emissions level we evaluated was 1.95 lb/ton of clinker,
which is the most common level established as BACT in recent permits
for new cement kilns.\8\ 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 control efficiency
in this industry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Memorandum from M. Bahner, RTI, to M. Laney, RTI, and K.
Barnett, EPA, Review of Three BACT Analyses, October 10, 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The third control level we evaluated was 1.5 lb/ton of 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 of clinker 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 [deg]F, a 41 percent NOX removal
efficiency was obtained at 70 parts per million (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 of clinker 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 of clinker and 50
percent emission reduction by SNCR to establish a 1.5 lb/ton of clinker
control level. And where uncontrolled NOX emission levels
achieved by process design are lower than the assumed maximum baseline
of 0.3 lb/ton of clinker, the removal efficiency of SNCR can be lower
and still achieve the 1.5 lb/ton of clinker limit. The levels of
performance for SNCR are from single test results. By allowing
compliance on a 30 day average, we are allowing more operating margin
to assure we have accounted for normal operating variability.
    The results of this analysis showed that for both the 1.95 and 1.5
lb/ton of clinker 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,
including operating and maintenance costs, 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 of clinker level was
approximately $2,000 per ton of NOX reduction and at the 1.5
lb/ton of clinker 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 highly cost
effective in the Clean Air Interstate Rule. See 70 FR 25208, May 12,
2005. 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 of clinker 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 [deg]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 technology's 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 500 to 600 billion 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 of clinker 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 of clinker NOX limit. One
concern with the use of SNCR is the potential for condensable 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. Wet scrubbers applied to
cement kilns typically achieve at least a 90 percent or more reduction
in SO2 emissions.\9\ 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.\10\ A 95 percent SO2 reduction is
consistent with other information on the performance of scrubbers for
SO2 removal.\11\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Summary of Cement Kiln Wet Scrubber and Lime Injection
Design and Performance Data, May 2, 2008.
    \10\ PSD Application for Lehigh Mason City, 9/02.
    \11\ Assessment of Control Technology Options for BART-Eligible
Sources, March 2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 an SO2
emissions reduction of up to approximately 70 to 75 percent, though one
vendor claims potential reductions of up to 90 percent.\12\ 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.\13\ 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.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Summary of Cement Kiln Wet Scrubber and Lime Injection
Design and Performance Data, May 2, 2008.
    \13\ Technical Evaluation, Preliminary Determination, Draft BACT
Determination, Sumter Cement Company. Florida Department of
Environmental Protection, December 21, 2005.
    \14\ Technical Evaluation, Preliminary Determination, Draft BACT
Determination, Sumter Cement Company. Florida Department of
Environmental Protection, December 21, 2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.\15\ At a reported production capacity of
800,000 tpy,\16\ 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.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ PSD Application for Lehigh Mason City, 9/02.
    \16\ PCA, U.S. and Canadian Portland Cement Industry, Plant
Information Summary, December 31, 2006.
    \17\ Memorandum, E. Heath, RTI, to J. Wood, EPA:OAQPS:ESD:MICG,
April 9, 1996, Summary of impacts of control options on model kilns
and clinker coolers. Item no. II-B-67, Docket no. A-92-53.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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
(since variability tends to be averaged out with multiple measurements
over time).
    The first control option we considered was no additional control of
SO2 other than the inherent control achieved by the kiln and
the 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, which emissions would be readily controllable with air
pollution control equipment which in fact 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. This
option, and the additional numerical limits discussed below are based
on continuous compliance with a 30-day rolling average as measured
using an SO2 continuous emissions monitor. The third option
of 0.4 lb/ton of clinker represents the performance of a lime injection
system applied to a kiln with a moderate level of sulfur in its raw
materials. The fourth level evaluated was 0.2 lb/ton of clinker 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, a 90 percent SO2 emissions reduction
measured across the control device, such as an alkaline scrubber.\18\
The alternative of 90 percent reduction is to account of situation
where the sulfur content of the raw materials is so high that, even
with the most efficient SO2 control, a kiln cannot meet the
1.33 lb/ton of clinker emissions limit. Design and performance data
indicate the 90 percent control is continuously achievable for a well
designed and operated wet scrubber.\19\ Compliance with the 90 percent
reduction would be determined by continuously monitoring SO2
at the control device inlet and outlet. Continuous monitoring of
SO2 at the inlet and outlet is a positive demonstration that
the standard is being continuously met.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ Section 111(b) specifically indicates that standards may be
expressed as numerical limits or as percent reductions.
    \19\ Summary of Cement Kiln Wet Scrubber and Lime Injection
Design and Performance Data, May 29, 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We estimate that reducing high uncontrolled SO2
emissions to a level of 1.33 lb/ton of clinker 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.\20\ We consider
this level of cost effectiveness to be reasonable as it falls at the
lower end of 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). See 70 FR 25204 (May 12, 2005). 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ Summary of Environmental and Cost Impacts of Proposed
Revisions to Portland Cement New Source Performance Standards, May
29, 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 $6,000
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. (see footnote 20) Not only do these options result in a
higher cost per ton of SO2 reduction than Option 2, but
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 of
clinker 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 devices 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. All new cement kilns are currently subject to a continuous
20 parts per million volume (ppmv) 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, and serves as the
baseline for the NSPS analysis. This limit 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 we determined that no additional regulation of VOC
emissions is 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, 2006. 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 levels of 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, as just discussed). 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. Therefore, the THC limit in
the Portland Cement NESHAP also serves as the baseline of the CO
analysis. As previously noted, the THC limit is based on the best
performance of the regenerative thermal oxidizer add-on control, which
is also the most effective CO emission control available for this
source category. Therefore we determined that no additional regulation
of CO emissions is feasible.
    We also noted that in no cases had add-on controls for CO (or VOC)
been required as BACT under new source review.

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

    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. 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 kilns already have a similar testing requirement under the Portland
Cement NESHAP, 40 CFR 63, subpart LLL.
    There are no NOX or SO2 compliance testing
requirements; compliance is based on the use of a continuous emissions
monitor (see below).

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

    We are proposing the use of a bag leak detection (BLD) system on
fabric filters 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 in the current NSPS. Consequently, affected facilities
under this rule would not be subject to an opacity standard to monitor
compliance with the proposed PM standard. Bag leak detection systems
must be installed and operated according to the proposed Sec.  60.63(f)
requirements. 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, no opacity standard would apply.
    As an option, we are allowing a facility to install a PM CEMS in
lieu of using a BDL or using an ESP predictive model. If a facility
elects this option, the PM CEMS should be installed and operated in
accordance with proposed Sec.  60.63(g).
    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.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ Note that we are not proposing to change the requirements
in paragraph Sec.  60.63(b). These requirements are in the proposed
Sec.  60.63(b)(1)(i) and are reprinted as a convenience to the
reader.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 part 63, subpart LLL.
    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 of each
CEM, including minimum data requirements are specified in proposed
Sec.  60.63(k) and (l). Kilns meeting the alternative SO2
emission limit of 90 percent reduction would also be required to
continuously monitor SO2 emissions at the scrubber inlet.
The cost impacts shown in the preamble include all monitoring costs.
(see footnote 20)

D. Why are we not proposing to revise the other emission limits in the
NSPS?

    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.
    Emissions from 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.

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 Sec.  63.1356 of subpart LLL, we exempt any source subject to that
subpart from applicable standards under the NSPS and the Metallic
Minerals Processing NSPS (subpart OOO). That language was appropriate
because the NSPS only regulated PM, and the PM limits in the NSPS and
NESHAP were identical. 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 costs and benefits
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 ppmv THC limit for new sources in the NESHAP will also
control VOC and CO to the limit of technical feasibility.
    Another interaction 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 of clinker as compared to the
current new source PM limit in the NESHAP of 0.5 lb/ton of clinker (0.3
lb/ton of feed). This results in a situation where the MACT PM
emissions limit for new sources is higher (less stringent) 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 ongoing
reconsideration. At a minimum, and as just explained, we are proposing
to place language in both the NESHAP and the NSPS making it clear that
if a particular source has two different requirements for the same
pollutant, they 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 the 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.\22\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ Memo from K. Barnett, EPA to Sharon Nizich, EPA. Extension
of Portland Cement NESHAP PM limits to Area Sources. May 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Another issue being addressed as part of our cement sector strategy
is condensable PM. There are insufficient data to assess if the cement
industry is a significant source of condensable PM. The measurement of
condensable PM is important to EPA's goal of reducing

ambient air concentrations of fine PM. While the Agency supports
reducing condensable PM emissions, the amount of condensable PM
captured by Method 5 (the PM compliance test method specified in the
NSPS) is small relative to methods that specifically target condensable
PM, such as Method 202 (40 CFR part 51, Appendix M). (It should be
noted that all of the PM data previously discussed is based on the
front half of the Method 5 train, so it does not include any
condensable PM). Since promulgation of Method 202 in 1991, EPA has been
working to overcome problems associated with the accuracy of Method 202
and will promulgate improvements to the method in the future. In order
to assist in future sector strategy development, 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 condensable PM emissions,
and potential controls.
    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 mercury
is the proposed SO2 standard under the NSPS. As described
above, the proposed standard for SO2 control is 1.33 lb/ton
of clinker, or in the alternative, demonstration of a 90 percent
SO2 emissions reduction measured across the control device,
such as an alkaline scrubber. Under the NESHAP reconsideration, EPA may
amend the MACT standard for Hg for new and existing sources. A facility
that is considering adding 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 mercury 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 control of both
SO2 and mercury.
    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.
    In order to better analyze future sector-based approaches for the
U.S. cement industry, EPA is developing a dynamic techno-economic model
of this industry. Using this model, EPA will be able 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. For each of the emission reduction
strategies under consideration, the model will be able to provide
information on optimal (least cost) industry operation and cost-
effective controls, to meet the demand for cement and the emission
reduction requirements over the 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 interaction of this
proposed NSPS and other regulatory requirements in the context of the
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, we
are not at this time proposing performance standards for greenhouse
gases (GHG) from cement kilns. Rather, for the reasons recently
explained in the petroleum refineries NSPS final rule signed on April
30, 2008, we believe that it is appropriate to consider issues related
to the regulation of GHGs under the CAA through the advance notice of
proposed rulemaking announced by the Administrator on March 27, 2008.

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. 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
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. (see footnote 20)

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 of clinker production to 0.086 lb/ton of
clinker. Out review of the performance of recently installed fabric
filters indicates that typical new kiln PM emissions are approximately
0.16 lb/ton of clinker rather than 0.5 lb/ton of clinker, 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 based on our 1.2
million tpy model kiln, and 888 tpy nationally in the fifth year after
promulgation of the standard. We estimate 45 percent (400

tpy) of the estimated PM reduction is PM fine.
    Under the proposed limit for NOX, we have estimated that
the emission reduction for our 1.2 million tpy model kiln would be 600
tpy. The projected national 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 our model kiln, emissions of
SO2 would be reduced by 7,410 tpy where high sulfur raw
materials are being processed. 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 national emissions
reduction 5 years after promulgation of the final standards will be
29,640 tpy. This national emissions reduction may be less than
estimated above if some kilns that would have to control SO2
as a result of this proposed rule are required to apply wet scrubbers
as a result of the current mercury emission requirements in the
Portland Cement NESHAP (see further discussion in the cost impacts
section).
    Under the proposed standards, new monitoring requirements would be
added. Bag leak detectors would be required on fabric filters used to
control new kilns and clinker coolers, and NOX and
SO2 CEMS would be installed to monitor compliance of new
kilns with the new NOX and SO2 emission limits.
As a result of the shortened duration of excess emissions with the
improved monitoring requirements we estimate potential excess emission
reductions of 12.38 tpy for PM, 5.57 tpy for PM2.5, 108 tpy
for NOX, and 9.36 tpy for SO2. For further detail
on the methodology of these estimates, see Docket ID no. EPA-HQ-OAR-07-
0877.

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, as noted above, 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 (as just explained for the scrubber water)
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 fabric filter (cement kiln dust) is essentially re-captured raw
material and is 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. (see footnote 1)

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 (which are minimal, as just discussed). 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 108 tpy of NOX, 56 tpy of CO,
185 tpy of SO2 and about 5 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 likely be utilized to comply
with the proposed standards. This proposal will likely result in the
addition of alkaline scrubbers to certain kilns to reduce
SO2 emissions. We estimate the additional national
electrical demand to be 48 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 continuous emissions
monitors, bag leak detectors, SNCR for NOX control, and
membrane bags in fabric filters. We estimate that four of the twenty
new kilns will also need to install a wet scrubber to meet the proposed
SO2 emissions limits (based on our estimates of where the
plants will be located and the sulfur content of the limestone in those
areas). 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.
    The national costs shown above are considered to be a conservative
estimate because they do not include the potential impact of
requirements for new sources in the Portland Cement NESHAP, which
limits mercury emission form new kilns to 41 micrograms per dry
standard cubic meter (See 71 FR 76518). In this final rule we estimated
that seven of the new cement kilns expected in the next five years will
need to install a wet scrubber to meet the mercury emissions limit, and
we assessed the costs of those scrubbers as part of our analysis of the
NESHAP. There are no data to positively determine if the four cement
kilns we project here as needing wet scrubbers to meet the proposed
SO2 emissions limit are among the seven kilns we projected
as needing wet scrubbers to meet the mercury limit in the NESHAP.
However, the available mercury test data for cement kilns that
currently have wet scrubbers indicate that all five of these kilns, if
they were new sources, would have to apply mercury controls to meet the
current mercury limit in the Portland Cement NESHAP. These kilns are
also located in areas where the raw materials sulfur content is high
enough that, if they were new sources, they would also have to apply
controls to meet the proposed NSPS SO2 emissions limit.
Based on this, we believe it is reasonable to assume there will be some
overlap, and the national costs for the proposed NSPS, emissions
reductions, and energy impacts will be reduced.
    We are requesting comment on the size of model kiln used to assess
the cost impacts shown above, our growth

estimates, and the control cost estimates, including any appropriate
cost credits for replacement of purchased gypsum with synthetic gypsum
produced by wet scrubbers.

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. (see footnote 1) 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]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                             Total annualized   New source  unit
                       Kiln type                          Number of kilns       costs  ($       cost  ($/metric
                                                          (5-year period)        million)      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. 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 have significantly
reduced operating profits. 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 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) document prepared by EPA has been
assigned EPA ICR number 2307.01.
    The proposed amendments to the NSPS for portland cement plants
apply to affected facilities constructed, modified, or reconstructed
after June 16, 2008. The owner or operator of a new kiln 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 fabric filters 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 4,428 labor-hours per
year at a cost of $416,179 per year. The annualized capital costs are
estimated at $59,035 per year and operation and maintenance costs are
estimated at $73,852 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 June 16, 2008, a comment to OMB is best
assured of having its full effect if OMB receives it by July 16, 2008.
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 this rule on small
entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business whose parent
company has no more than 750 employees (as defined by Small Business
Administration (SBA) size standards); (2) a small governmental
jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school
district, or special district with a population of less than 50,000;
and (3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise
which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its
field.
    After considering the economic impact of this proposed rule on
small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. We estimate
that up to 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 five
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 rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities, EPA nonetheless has
tried to reduce the impact of this rule on small entities by 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 from
the least stringent requirement thereby eliminating overlapping
monitoring, testing and reporting requirements by proposing that the
source comply with only the more stringent of the standards. We
continue to be interested in the potential impacts of the proposed rule
on small entities and welcome comments on issues related to such
impacts.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) 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
one 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 rule does not contain a Federal
mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for
State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private
sector in any one year. As discussed earlier in this preamble, the
estimated expenditures for the private sector in the fifth year after
promulgation are $50 million. Thus, this rule 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 rule 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 rule does not have federalism implications. It will
not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government,
as specified in Executive Order 13132. None of the affected facilities
are owned or operated by State governments. Thus, Executive Order 13132
does not apply to this proposed rule.
    In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent with EPA
policy to promote communications between EPA and State and local
governments, EPA specifically solicits comment on this proposed action
from State and local officials.

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

    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 rule 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 rule. EPA
specifically solicits additional comment on this proposed rule from
tribal officials.

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

    EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying to those
regulatory actions that concern health or safety risks, such that the
analysis required under section 5-501 of the Order has the potential to
influence the regulation. This 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