[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 193 (Monday, October 5, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 62797-62798]
[FR Doc No: 2020-21887]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

[Docket No. FRA-20200027-N-26]

Proposed Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment
Request

AGENCY: Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), U.S. Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of information collection; request for comment.

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

SUMMARY: Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) and its
implementing regulations, FRA seeks approval of the Information
Collection Request (ICR) abstracted below. Before submitting this ICR
to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for approval, FRA is
soliciting public comment on specific aspects of the activities
identified below.

DATES: Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before
December 4, 2020.

ADDRESSES: Submit written comments on the ICR activities to Ms. Qiana
Swayne, Office of Railroad Policy and Development, Federal Railroad
Administration at email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or telephone: (202) 493-
6216. Please refer to the assigned OMB control number in any
correspondence submitted. FRA will summarize comments received in
response to this notice in a subsequent notice and include them in its
information collection submission to OMB for approval.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    The PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520, and its implementing regulations, 5
CFR part 1320, require Federal agencies to provide 60-days' notice to
the public to allow comment on information collection activities before
seeking OMB approval of the activities. See 44 U.S.C. 3506, 3507; 5 CFR
1320.8 through 1320.12. Specifically, FRA invites interested parties to
comment on the following ICR regarding: (1) Whether the information
collection activities are necessary for FRA to properly execute its
functions, including whether the activities will have practical
utility; (2) the accuracy of FRA's estimates of the burden of the
information collection activities, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used to determine the estimates; (3) ways
for FRA to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information
being collected; and (4) ways for FRA to minimize the burden of
information collection activities on the public, including the use of
automated collection techniques or other forms of information
technology. See 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A); 5 CFR 1320.8(d)(1).
    FRA believes that soliciting public comment may reduce the
administrative and paperwork burdens associated with the collection of
information that Federal regulations mandate. In summary, FRA reasons
that comments received will advance three objectives: (1) reduce
reporting burdens; (2) organize information collection requirements in
a ``user-friendly'' format to improve the use of such information; and
(3) accurately assess the resources expended to retrieve and produce
information requested. See 44 U.S.C. 3501.
    The summary below describes the ICR that FRA will submit for OMB
clearance as the PRA requires:

    Title: Design and Evaluation of a Robust Manual Locomotive
Operating Mode.
    OMB Control Number: 2130-0623.
    Abstract: The purpose of this study is to design and evaluate a
prototype locomotive operating mode that allows an engineer to
``manually'' control a train by providing a desired speed target while
the control system determines the throttle notch changes required. This
research addresses DOT's safety strategic goal. Information collected
from this research will be used by researchers and equipment designers
to evaluate the merit of a prototype display and control configuration
maximizing the use of both automation and human capabilities. The
information will also assist the Federal government in recommending
display design standards to the rail industry for future displays and
the results may help design future displays and controls for
locomotives. This ICR, which was previously approved by OMB, will be
extended as the study was not completed by the anticipated completion
date.
    Type of Request: Extension without change of a current information
collection.
    Affected Public: Railroad Engineers, College Student Volunteers.
    Respondent Universe: 20 Engineers/10 Volunteers.
    Frequency of Submission: Once.
    Reporting Burden:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Total annual
                                                     Number of     Average time    Total annual     dollar cost
                                                    respondents                    burden hours    equivalent *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Simulator Familiarity and Training--Engineers...              20               3              60       $1,935.60
Simulator Familiarity and Training--College                   10               3              30          360.00
 Students.......................................
Experimental Sessions in Simulator--Engineers...              20               6             120        3,871.20
Experimental Sessions in Simulator--College                   10               6              60          720.00
 Students.......................................
NASA-Task Load Index Questionnaire Completions--              20             0.1             1.3           43.23
 Engineers......................................
NASA-Task Load Index Questionnaire Completions--              10             0.1             0.7            8.04
 College Students...............................
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................              90            18.2             272        6,938.07
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Per the Bureau of Labor and Statistics, Occupational Employment and Wages, May 2019, (53-4011) Locomotive
  Engineers, the median hourly wage is $32.26 per hour. The minimum wage, as of September 2020, for
  Massachusetts is $12.00 per hour. Therefore, the cost would be $32.26 x 181.34 hours = $5,850.03 and $12.00 x
  90.67 hours = 1,088.04 for a total of $6,938.07. This is an estimated cost. The actual cost will vary based
  upon current locomotive engineer wages.

    Total Estimated Annual Responses: 90.
    Total Estimated Annual Burden: 272.
    Under 44 U.S.C. 3507(a) and 5 CFR 1320.5(b) and 1320.8(b)(3)(vi),
FRA informs all interested parties that a respondent is not required to
respond to, conduct, or sponsor a collection of information that does
not display a currently valid OMB control number.

    Authority: 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520.

Brett A. Jortland,
Deputy Chief Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2020-21887 Filed 10-2-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


ICR Supporting Statement

Information Collection Request for EPA Application Materials for the
Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act

OMB Control No. 2040-NEW, EPA ICR No. 2549.01

A.  Justification.

Explain the circumstances that make the collection of information
necessary.  Identify any legal or administrative requirements that
necessitate the collection.

The collection of information is necessary in order to receive
applications for credit assistance pursuant to section 5024 of the Water
Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (WIFIA) of 2014, 33 USC 3903.
The purpose of the WIFIA program is to provide Federal credit assistance
in the form of direct loans and loan guarantees to eligible clean water
and drinking water projects.

WIFIA requires that an eligible entity shall submit to the Administrator
an application at such time, in such manner, and containing such
information, as the Secretary or the Administrator may require to
receive assistance under WIFIA. In order to satisfy these requirements,
EPA must collect a letter of interest and an application from entities
seeking funding. The relevant section of WIFIA is attached hereto as
Exhibit A. EPA is publishing this notice to give entities an opportunity
to submit applications upon authorization of funding. This collection is
necessary to determine whether each proposed project meets
creditworthiness and other Federal requirements to receive WIFIA credit
assistance.

 2.	Indicate how, by whom, and for what purpose the information is to be
used.  Except for a new collection, indicate the actual use the agency
has made of the information received from the current collection.

The letter of interest and the application (attached as Exhibits B and
C) collected from loan applicants through this solicitation will be used
to evaluate applications for credit assistance under the WIFIA
eligibility requirements and selection criteria.

3.	Describe whether, and to what extent, the collection of information
involves the use of automated, electronic, mechanical, or other
technological collection techniques or other forms of information
technology, e.g. permitting electronic submission of responses, and the
basis for the decision for adopting this means of collection. Also
describe any consideration of using information technology to reduce
burden.

	The letter of interest form is available electronically. The letter of
interest and supporting narrative are submitted entirely via e-mail
only. The application is available electronically. It is submitted in
part electronically and in part via conventional mail, due to the size
of the application package. To reduce burden and to minimize the number
of copies required from the applicant, electronic versions of the
application are required via CD.

 4.	Describe efforts to identify duplication. Show specifically why any
similar information already available cannot be used or modified for use
for the purpose(s) described in item 2 above.

The letters of interest and applications will generally be project
specific and the information is not available elsewhere.

 5.	If the collection of information impacts small businesses or other
small entities (item 5 of the OMB form 83-1), describe the methods used
to minimize burden.

Eligible applicants under WIFIA include corporations, partnerships,
joint ventures, trusts, Federal, State, or local governmental entities,
agencies, or instrumentalities, tribal governments or consortium of
tribal governments, and state infrastructure financing authorities,
which could include small entities. Letters of interest and applications
are voluntary. EPA cannot minimize the burden to small entities, because
WRRDA requires all eligible entities to submit an application in order
to receive credit assistance. The relevant section of WRRDA is attached
hereto as Exhibit A.

 6.	Describe the consequence to federal program or policy activities if
the collection is not conducted or is conducted less frequently, as well
as any technical or legal obstacles to reducing burden.

If the collection is not conducted, EPA will be unable to satisfy the
statutory mandate to require the submission of applications. Therefore,
WIFIA credit assistance will not be available. In order to provide
credit assistance to eligible projects, which is the purpose of the
program, EPA must collect letters of interest and applications that
respond to the eligibility requirements and selection criteria.

 7.	Explain any special circumstances that would cause an information
collection to be conducted in a manner inconsistent with 5 CFR 1320.6:

There are no special circumstances. The collection of information is
conducted in a manner consistent with the guidelines in 5 CFR 1320.6.

8.	Efforts to consult with persons outside the agency to obtain their
views

On DATE OF PUBLICATION (Month, day, and year), Vol. No. _____, pages
__________ to __________, the Agency published the notice of information
collection and request for comments in the Federal Register. The
solicitation is attached as Exhibit D. ________ comments were received.

EPA will consult with persons outside the Agency to obtain their views
on the availability of data, frequency of recordkeeping, disclosure, or
reporting format, and on the data elements to be recorded, disclosed, or
reported.

 9.	Explain any decision to provide any payment or gift to respondents,
other than remuneration of contractors or grantees.

 No payments or gifts are provided to respondents.

10.	Describe any assurance of confidentiality provided to respondents
and the basis for the assurance in statute, regulation, or agency
policy.

EPA cannot offer an assurance of confidentiality to any applicant. The
applicant is directed to state if any information submitted in its
letter of interest, application, or any supplementary material may not
be released by the Agency upon request from a member of the public or
otherwise made publicly available. The applicant must identify the
confidential business information and provide reasons why such
information is confidential business information and should not be
released, including particulars as to any competitive harm which would
potentially result from the release of such information. The Agency will
handle requests from the public for release of information under its
standard Freedom of Information Act procedures.

11.	Provide additional justification for any questions of a sensitive
nature.

Questions of a sensitive nature are not found in this information
collection.

12.		Provide estimates of the hour burden of the collection of
information.

The Agency does not have any directly relevant prior experience on which
to base these estimates of the hour burden of the collection and the
annualized cost to respondents. Nevertheless, based on the number and
type of interested stakeholders that have contacted the Agency about
this program, the funding levels for the WIFIA program, and the EPA’s
application procedures, the EPA estimates that the burden will be as
follows, exclusive of the hours required for project development:

Letter of Interest:

Letter of Interest Burden per Application

Function	Legal	Manager	Technical	Clerical

Read application guidelines

1	1	1

Gather Information	 	 	10	5

Complete application form	 	 	 	1

Complete narrative	 	 	19

Review Application	5	5

Compile Application	 	 	 	2

TOTAL	5	6	30	9

Total number of unduplicated respondents: 20

Frequency of response: one per respondent

Annual hour burden per application: 50

Total annual burden hours: 1,000

	Application:

Application Burden per Application

 	Legal	Manager	Technical	Clerical

Read application guidelines

1	1	1

Gather Information	 	 	26	15

Complete application form	 	 	 	1

Complete narrative	 	 	30

Review Application	10	10

Compile Application	 	 	 	5

TOTAL	10	11	57	22

Total number of unduplicated respondents:  5

Frequency of response: one per respondent

Annual hour burden per application: 100

Total annual burden hours: 500

13.		Provide an estimate of the total annual cost burden to respondents
or recordkeepers resulting from the collection of information.

EPA estimates that the total annual cost burden to respondents will be
$1,489,594. This estimate includes the following:

For the letter of interest, EPA estimates 1,000 annual burden hours and
the annualized cost of those hours is $40,107.

For the application, EPA estimates 500 annual burden hours and the
annualized cost of those hours is $19,487.

In addition, applicants will be charged two fees:

An application fee will be due upon submission of the application. For
applications for projects serving small communities (population of not
more than 25,000 people), this application fee will be $25,000. For all
other applicants, this application fee will be $100,000. EPA assumes
that one applicant will be a small community. The annual application fee
will be $425,000.

A credit processing fee will be due upon loan closing, to reimburse
costs incurred by the EPA due to legal, financial, and other expert
contractor help. Due to the nature of this fee, the amount is expected
to vary between applicants. However, EPA estimates these costs as
approximately $200,000 per applicant, a portion of which may be waived
at the discretion of the EPA. The total credit processing fee for five
applicants will be approximately $1,000,000.

The cost of general expenses for submitting an application, such as
supplies, delivery charges, mailing, copying, and telecommunications,
will be $1,000. The total general expenses will be $5,000.

Note: EPA used the following median hourly wages from the May 2015
National Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates United States (
HYPERLINK "http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_nat.htm"
http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_nat.htm ) from the U.S. Bureau of
Labor Statistics to calculate the cost of the estimated burden hours:

Lawyers= $55.69

Management= $47.38

Engineers= $43.30

Office and Administrative Support= $15.96

14.	Provide estimates of annualized cost to the federal government.

	The estimated cost to the Federal government of this request for
letters of interest and applications is $325,150. This cost reflects
three components:

EPA will establish an evaluation process to review each of letter of
interest and application and to determine which projects will receive
WIFIA funding. This process includes technical, financial, and
management review of the letters of interest. Then, additional
technical, financial, and management review of the applications. EPA
estimates that this process will require the equivalent of five FTE per
year.

The estimated average annual cost for EPA personnel is $95,704 based on
the General Schedule (GS) 13, Step 05 level from the 2016 GS salary
table. The annual cost was then multiplied by the standard government
benefits multiplication factor of 1.6 to calculate an estimated annual
pay including benefits per FTE of $153,126. Therefore, the estimated
annualized cost for the evaluation team is $765,632. EPA plans to use
the application fees to offset these costs. Assuming one application
from a small community and four other applications per year, the total
fees collected will be $425,000. Consequently, the net estimated
annualized cost to the Federal Government for the evaluation team is
$340,632.

EPA will hire legal, financial, and other expert contractor support for
credit processing. These costs are estimated to be $200,000 per
application and are expected to be reimbursed in full by the applicants.
The net estimated annualized cost to the Federal Government for credit
processing is $0.

EPA will print application materials. EPA does not expect to need any
special equipment or support, other than printing. As noted above in
item 12, EPA expects 20 letters of interest and 5 applications. If each
letter of interest is 25 pages and each application is 50 pages, as
requested in the solicitation, EPA may need to print as many as 750
pages for staff involved in the evaluation process. EPA estimates up to
10 staff may need materials which adds up to a total of 7500 pages of
printing. EPA’s printing costs are approximately 2 cents per page,
which adds up to a total printing cost of $150.

Explain the reason for any program changes or adjustments reported in
items 13 or 14 of the OMB form 83-1.

This is a new information collection at EPA.

For collections of information whose results will be published, outline
plans for tabulation, and publication.

The letters of interest and applications collected for the WIFIA program
will not be published. EPA will maintain a publicly available list of
projects that have submitted letters of interest and applications to the
WIFIA program.

17.	If seeking approval to not display the expiration date for OMB
approval of the information collection, explain the reasons that display
would be inappropriate.

The Agency plans to display the expiration date for OMB approval of the
information collection on all instruments.

18.	Explain each exception to the certification statement identified in
item 19, "certification for paperwork reduction act submissions," of OMB
form 83-1.

The Agency is able to certify compliance with all provisions under Item
19 of OMB Form 83-I.”

 PAGE  1


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 235 (Friday, December 7, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 63146-63147]
[FR Doc No: 2018-26492]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 300

[EPA-HQ-SFUND-1987-0002; FRL-9987-15-Region 5]

National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan;
National Priorities List: Deletion of the Tomah Armory Landfill
Superfund Site

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule; notification of intent.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 5 is issuing
a Notice of Intent to Delete the Tomah Armory Landfill Superfund Site
(Tomah Armory Site), located in Tomah, Wisconsin, from the National
Priorities

List (NPL) and requests public comments on this proposed action. The
NPL, promulgated pursuant to Section 105 of the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) of
1980, as amended, is an appendix of the National Oil and Hazardous
Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP). EPA and the State of
Wisconsin, through the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
(WDNR), have determined that all appropriate response actions under
CERCLA, other than operation and maintenance, monitoring and five-year
reviews, have been completed. However, this deletion does not preclude
future actions under Superfund.

DATES: Comments must be received by January 7, 2019.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID no. EPA-HQ-
SFUND-1987-0002, by mail to Randolph Cano, NPL Deletion Coordinator,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 5 (SR-6J), 77 West Jackson
Boulevard, Chicago, IL 60604. Comments may also be submitted
electronically or through hand delivery/courier by following the
detailed instructions in the ADDRESSES section of the direct final rule
located in the ``Rules and Regulations'' section of this Federal
Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Randolph Cano, NPL Deletion
Coordinator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 5 (SR-6J), 77
West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, IL 60604,<PHONE_NUMBER>, email:
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the ``Rules and Regulations'' section of
today's Federal Register, we are publishing a direct final Notice of
Deletion of the Tomah Armory Superfund Site without prior Notice of
Intent to Delete because EPA views this as a noncontroversial revision
and anticipates no adverse comment. We have explained our reasons for
this deletion in the preamble to the direct final Notice of Deletion,
and those reasons are incorporated herein. If we receive no adverse
comment(s) on this deletion action, we will not take further action on
this Notice of Intent to Delete. If we receive adverse comment(s), we
will withdraw the direct final Notice of Deletion, and it will not take
effect. We will, as appropriate, address all public comments in a
subsequent final Notice of Deletion based on this Notice of Intent to
Delete. We will not institute a second comment period on this Notice of
Intent to Delete. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at
this time.
    For additional information, see the direct final Notice of Deletion
which is located in the ``Rules and Regulations'' section of this
Federal Register.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Chemicals,
Hazardous waste, Hazardous substances, Intergovernmental relations,
Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Superfund, Water
pollution control, Water supply.

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1321(d); 42 U.S.C. 9601-9657; E.O. 13626,
77 FR 56749, 3 CFR, 2013 Comp., p. 306; E.O. 12777, 56 FR 54757, 3
CFR, 1991 Comp., p. 351; E.O. 12580, 52 FR 2923, 3 CFR, 1987 Comp.,
p. 193.

    Dated: October 30, 2018.
Cathy Stepp,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. 2018-26492 Filed 12-6-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 66 (Wednesday, April 6, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 19913-19915]
[FR Doc No: 2022-07279]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP21-1187-000.
    Applicants: Eastern Gas Transmission and Storage, Inc.

    Description: Motion Filing: EGTS--Rate Case Motion Filing to be
effective 4/1/2022.
    Filed Date: 3/31/22.
    Accession Number: 20220331-5012.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 4/12/22.

    Docket Numbers: RP22-729-000.
    Applicants: Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Negotiated Rate Agreement
Filing--Morgan Stanley Capital Group to be effective 4/1/2022.
    Filed Date: 3/30/22.
    Accession Number: 20220330-5060.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 4/11/22.

    Docket Numbers: RP22-730-000.
    Applicants: Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Negotiated Rate Agreements
Filing--Sempra Gas & Power Marketing, LLC to be effective 4/1/2022.
    Filed Date: 3/30/22.
    Accession Number: 20220330-5062.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 4/11/22.

    Docket Numbers: RP22-731-000.
    Applicants: Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Negotiated Rate Agreements
Filing--Union Electric Company d/b/a Ameren Missouri to be effective 4/
1/2022.
    Filed Date: 3/30/22.
    Accession Number: 20220330-5063.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 4/11/22.

    Docket Numbers: RP22-732-000.
    Applicants: Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Antero Negotiated Rate
Agreement--176700_13 to be effective 4/1/2022.
    Filed Date: 3/30/22.
    Accession Number: 20220330-5134.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 4/11/22.

    Docket Numbers: RP22-733-000.
    Applicants: Northern Border Pipeline Company.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Negotiated Rate Agreement--
Sequent TL373F/101326 to be effective 4/1/2022.
    Filed Date: 3/30/22.
    Accession Number: 20220330-5143.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 4/11/22.

    Docket Numbers: RP22-734-000.
    Applicants: Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Negotiated Rate Agreements
Filing--Eco-Energy Natural Gas, LLC to be effective 4/1/2022.
    Filed Date: 3/30/22.
    Accession Number: 20220330-5163.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 4/11/22.

    Docket Numbers: RP22-735-000.
    Applicants: Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: United Energy FSS--263830 v.0
NR Agreement to be effective 4/1/2022.
    Filed Date: 3/30/22.
    Accession Number: 20220330-5167.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 4/11/22.

    Docket Numbers: RP22-736-000.
    Applicants: Alliance Pipeline L.P.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Negotiated Rates--Various Apr
1 2022 Capacity Releases to be effective 4/1/2022.
    Filed Date: 3/31/22.
    Accession Number: 20220331-5009.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 4/12/22.

    Docket Numbers: RP22-737-000.
    Applicants: Millennium Pipeline Company, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Negotiated Rate Amds--SWN, DTE
to be effective 4/1/2022.
    Filed Date: 3/31/22.
    Accession Number: 20220331-5011.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 4/12/22.

    Docket Numbers: RP22-738-000.
    Applicants: Gulf South Pipeline Company, LLC.
    Description: Compliance filing: Compliance Tariff Filing to Docket
No. CP22-1-000 to be effective 5/1/2022. 3/31/22.
    Accession Number: 20220331-5016.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 4/12/22.

    Docket Numbers: RP22-739-000.
    Applicants: Wyoming Interstate Company, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Transportation Agreement
Filing (Sequent Replacment TSA) to be effective 4/1/2022.
    Filed Date: 3/31/22.
    Accession Number: 20220331-5018.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 4/12/22.

    Docket Numbers: RP22-740-000.
    Applicants: Kinetica Energy Express, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Negotiated Rate Agreement to
be effective 4/1/2022.
    Filed Date: 3/31/22.
    Accession Number: 20220331-5019.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 4/12/22.

    Docket Numbers: RP22-741-000.
    Applicants: Equitrans, L.P.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Update Initial Retainage Rate
4-1-2022 to be effective 4/1/2022.
    Filed Date: 3/31/22.
    Accession Number: 20220331-5021.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 4/12/22.

    Docket Numbers: RP22-742-000.
    Applicants: East Tennessee Natural Gas, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: 2022 ETNG Fuel Filing to be
effective 5/1/2022.
    Filed Date: 3/31/22.
    Accession Number: 20220331-5022.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 4/12/22.

    Docket Numbers: RP22-743-000.
    Applicants: El Paso Natural Gas Company, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Negotiated Rate Agreement
Update (Conoco Apr 22) to be effective 4/1/2022.
    Filed Date: 3/31/22.
    Accession Number: 20220331-5023.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 4/12/22.

    Docket Numbers: RP22-744-000.
    Applicants: Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Company, LP.
    Description: Compliance filing: Flow Through of Cash-Out Revenues
filed on 3-31-22 to be effective 5/1/2022.
    Filed Date: 3/31/22.
    Accession Number: 20220331-5024.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 4/12/22.

    Docket Numbers: RP22-745-000.
    Applicants: Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Company, LP.
    Description: Compliance filing: Flow Through of Penalty Revenues
Report filed 3-31-22 to be effective N/A.
    Filed Date: 3/31/22.
    Accession Number: 20220331-5025.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 4/12/22.

    Docket Numbers: RP22-746-000.
    Applicants: Equitrans, L.P.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Negotiated Rate Agreements--4/
1/2022 to be effective 4/1/2022.
    Filed Date: 3/31/22.
    Accession Number: 20220331-5027.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 4/12/22.

    Docket Numbers: RP22-747-000.
    Applicants: El Paso Natural Gas Company, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Negotiated Rate Agreement
Update (EOG Apr 22) to be effective 4/1/2022.
    Filed Date: 3/31/22.
    Accession Number: 20220331-5028.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 4/12/22.

    Docket Numbers: RP22-748-000.
    Applicants: Hardy Storage Company, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: RAM 2022 to be effective 5/1/
2022.
    Filed Date: 3/31/22.
    Accession Number: 20220331-5030.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 4/12/22.

    Docket Numbers:. RP22-749-000.
    Applicants: Pine Needle LNG Company, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: 2022 Annual Fuel and Electric
Power Tracker Filing to be effective 5/1/2022.
    Filed Date: 3/31/22.
    Accession Number: 20220331-5034.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 4/12/22.

    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211

and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on
or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date.
Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a
party to the proceeding.

Filings in Existing Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP21-1187-006.
    Applicants: Eastern Gas Transmission and Storage, Inc.
    Description: Submits tariff filing per 154.203: EGTS--Rate Case
Motion Filing (Revised Tariff Records) to be effective 4/1/2022.
    Filed Date: 03/31/2022.
    Accession Number: 20220331-5013.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 4/12/22.

    Docket Numbers: RP22-716-001.
    Applicants: Rockies Express Pipeline LLC.
    Description: Compliance filing: REX 2022-03-28 RP22-716 Amendment
to be effective N/A.
    Filed Date: 3/28/22.
    Accession Number: 20220328-5180.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 4/11/22.

    Any person desiring to protest in any the above proceedings must
file in accordance with Rule 211 of the Commission's Regulations (18
CFR 385.211) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified
comment date.
    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system
(https://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/search/fercgensearch.asp) by querying
the docket number.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: March 31, 2022.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-07279 Filed 4-5-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT:	Summary of Environmental and Cost Impacts of Proposed Revisions to Portland Cement New Source Performance Standards (40 CFR Part 60, subpart F)

FROM:	Mark Bahner, RTI

		Melissa Icenhour, RTI

	Mike Laney, RTI

	Keith Barnett, EPA

TO:	Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0877

DATE:	May 29, 2008

I. Introduction

To meet the requirements of section 111(b)(1)(B) of the CAA, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is currently conducting the fourth review of the new source performance standards (NSPS) for Portland Cement Plants (PCP). The PCP NSPS was promulgated on December 23, 1971 (40 CFR Part 60 subpart F, 36 FR 24876) and subsequently reviewed three times (39 FR 20793, June 14, 1974; 39 FR 39874, November 12, 1974; and 53 FR 50354, December 14, 1988). Subpart F requires new, modified, or reconstructed affected facilities at PCP to achieve emission levels that reflect the best demonstrated system of continuous emission reduction, considering cost, non-air quality health, environmental, and energy impacts. These emission levels, referred to as “best demonstrated technology (BDT),” are specified in subpart F.

The purpose of this memorandum is to document the methodology used to estimate the environmental and cost impacts associated with this NSPS review. The impacts in this memorandum are based on a projected number of 20 new kilns over the five year period following promulgation. Section II discusses the impacts of this NSPS review (scheduled for promulgation in 2009), including an overview of the proposed amendments resulting in impacts and the methodology used to develop the impact estimates.

II. Subpart F Impacts Estimated for 2009 Promulgation of NSPS Review

Affected Industry and Proposed Changes to Subpart F

The portland cement manufacturing industry is comprised of an estimated 105 cement plants capable of producing clinker and operating a total of approximately 178 kilns (PCA, 2007). Based on industry capacity expansion estimates (PCA, 2006), it is projected that by the fifth year following promulgation of the amendments, 20 new kilns will come on line and clinker production capacity will increase by approximately 24,000,000 tons.

To illustrate impacts of the proposed NSPS for cement manufacturing, impacts are calculated for a preheater/precalciner kiln having a clinker production capacity of 1,200,000 tons per year, which is considered representative of new preheater/precalciner kilns. Because of their energy efficiency and higher production capacity, all new kilns are expected to be preheater/precalciner kilns. Impacts are also estimated for the fifth year after promulgation, in which it is assumed that 20 new kilns, each producing 1,200,000 tons of clinker per year will have been built.

The current subpart F NSPS review is scheduled to be promulgated in 2009. The impacts of concern for the NSPS review are incremental impacts, specifically the difference in impacts associated with the current NSPS and the impacts associated with any changes in NSPS requirements resulting from the 2009 NSPS amendments. The impacts are determined over a period of five years following promulgation of the 2009 NSPS revisions. Thus, the affected facilities of concern are those installed from 2009 to 2013. Baseline represents the impacts associated with application of the current NSPS. The incremental impacts of the 2009 NSPS review are determined by comparison to the baseline impacts. Changes in requirements being proposed as part of the 2009 NSPS review that could result in significant incremental impacts include those summarized in Table 1.

Table 1. Summary of proposed changes to subpart F and type of incremental impacts.

Proposed rule change	Type of Incremental Impact

▪ A reduction in the PM stack emission limit for kilns from 0.5 lb of PM/ton of clinker (0.3 lb/ton of feed) to 0.086 lb of PM/ton of clinker. Costs to replace standard fabric bags with more expensive membrane bags. Emission reductions are also estimated.

▪ A reduction in the PM stack emission limit for clinker coolers from 0.17 lb of PM/ton of clinker (0.1 lb/ton of feed) to 0.086 lb of PM/ton of clinker.	Clinker coolers are already meeting the new limit, but the cost of bag leak detectors are estimated.

▪ Addition of a NOx limit of 1.5 lb NOx /ton clinker.	Costs to install SNCR. Emission reductions are also estimated.

▪ Addition of a SO2 limit of 1.33 lb SO2/ton clinker or 90% reduction of SO2 across the control device.	Costs to install alkaline wet scrubbers. Emission reductions are also estimated.

▪ Addition of bag leak detectors on all new baghouses.	Capital costs of installation and annual costs of operation.

▪ Addition of continuous NOx monitors on new kilns.	Capital costs of installation and annual costs of operation.

▪ Addition of continuous SO2 monitors on new kilns.	Capital costs of installation and annual costs of operation.

▪ Addition of continuous flow monitors on new kilns.	Capital costs of installation and annual costs of operation.

The air quality impacts and costs of the final amendments for portland cement manufacturing were calculated using the following assumptions:

Wet alkaline scrubbers will be installed on four new kilns for the control of SO2 emissions;

New kilns will be equipped with reverse air baghouses using membrane bags rather than fabric bags;

SNCR will be installed on all new kilns to control NOx emissions;

NOx monitors will be installed on all new kilns;

SO2 monitors will be installed on all new kilns; and

Bag leak detectors will be installed on baghouses on all new kilns and clinker coolers.

Air Quality Impacts

The various impacts on emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOx), sulfur dioxide (SO2) and particulate matter (PM) are calculated for different control options. These control options will be summarized in the discussion of air quality impacts, below. Direct air impact reductions will be calculated, and where appropriate, indirect air impacts will be calculated, such as the increase in emissions from additional electricity or fossil fuel require to power control devices, water quality impacts (e.g., from scrubbers), and solid waste impacts (e.g., from disposal of spent sorbents or catalysts).

Nitrogen Oxides (NOx)

EPA recently issued an alternative control techniques (ACT) document addressing the emissions and control of NOx from new cement kilns (EPA, 2007). Unless noted otherwise, this document is the source of the information on NOx emissions and controls presented here.

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. In recently built kilns, emissions of NOx are typically reduced through process controls such as burner design and staged combustion in the calciner (SCC). NOx emissions from kilns using process designs such as low NOx burners and SCC average about 2.5 lb/ton of clinker (EPA, 2007). Add-on controls used to reduce NOx emissions include selective noncatalytic reduction (SNCR) and selective catalytic reduction (SCR). In recent new source review procedures, states have determined best available control technology (BACT) to be SNCR in addition to well designed SCC and other process designs such as low NOx burners. In SNCR systems, ammonia, urea or another reagent is injected in the flue-gas into an appropriate temperature zone and at an appropriate ratio of ammonia to NOx. 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 high ratios, some ammonia may not react with NOx and will be emitted (ammonia slip). Another NOx control technology, SCR, is used in the electric utility industry to reduce NOx emissions from boilers and, to date has been used worldwide on three cement kilns. SCR is capable of reducing NOx emission by about 80 percent. Currently, SCR is not used on any cement kilns in the U.S.

Four options were evaluated for control of NOx emissions. The first option was to maintain the baseline of no limit and no additional control. The other three options are given in terms of pounds of NOx per ton of clinker (lb/ton clinker). The three options evaluated were 1.95 lb/ton clinker, 1.5 lb/ton clinker, and 0.5 lb/ton clinker.

In choosing these NOx emission limit options, recently issued permits, recent BACT determinations and recent emissions data for preheater/precalciner kilns were reviewed. At 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 were measured for Titan America-Pennsuco, in Medley, FL, Little Giant Cement in Harleyville, SC, and CEMEX in Santa Cruz, CA (Bahner, 2008a). These kilns are not equipped with additional add-on controls. However, based on data from equipment vendors and other 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. This level is the baseline level of control that would occur with no additional regulatory action.

The second control evaluated was 1.95 lb/ton clinker, which is a common level established as BACT in recent permits for new sources (Bahner, 2007). As previously noted, some new facilities meet this level of control using low-NOx burners and SCC. However, we expect that, on average, new facilities would require a SNCR removal efficiency of 22 percent SNCR to meet this level, which is well within the range demonstrated for SNCR.

The third control level evaluated was 1.5 lb/ton clinker, and was established based on our assessment of the best demonstrated performance of SNCR. Data on SNCR show a performance that ranges from approximately 20 to 80 percent NOx reduction. We estimate that about 50 percent NOx emission reductions represents a reasonable level of performance of SNCR over the long term. Though new kilns on average will have emissions of 2.5 lb/ton prior to the application of add-on controls, there may be some situations where specific raw materials properties will result in higher NOx emissions. For this reason we assumed a maximum baseline of 3.0 lb/ton and 50 percent emission reduction by SNCR to establish a 1.5 lb/ton control level. Data available for Suwannee American Cement Company, which operates with SNCR, indicated an average NOX value of 1.44 lb/ton, and a calculated 99th percentile 30-day rolling average value of 1.58 lb/ton (Bahner, 2008a).

The fourth option evaluated was 0.5 lb/ton of clinker based on the performance of SCR. There are currently no operating SCR systems on cement kilns in the United States, so SCR currently is not demonstrated in the U.S.

Table 2 shows the NOx annual reductions achieved for each option, for a single kiln producing 1,200,000 tons per year (tpy) of clinker, and nationwide for 20 kilns, each producing 1,200,000 tpy of clinker. Emissions reductions are presented both cumulatively from the baseline and incrementally compared to the next less-stringent measure. For example, for the four emission limit options of 2.5, 1.95, 1.5 and 0.5 lb/ton of clinker, the decreases in lb/ton of clinker relative to the next less stringent option are 0, 0.55, 0.45 and 1 lb/ton, respectively. In contrast the total reductions (relative to the 2.5 lb/ton baseline level) are 0, 0.55, 1, and 2 lb/ton, respectively. Table 2 also presents both the incremental and total emission reductions for a single kiln producing 1.2 million tpy of clinker. As an example of how these reductions are calculated, for a 1.2 million tpy kiln emitting at 1.5 lb/ton (Option 3) versus 2.5 lb/ton (Option 1), the total reduction would be 600 tons (i.e., 2.5 lb/ton minus 1.5 lb/ton, or 1.0 lb/ton, times 1.2 million tpy, or 1.2 million pounds, or 600 tons). Table 2 also has annual nationwide reductions, based on 20 new kilns operating at 1.2 million tpy each over the 5-yr period after promulgation,. Nationwide emission reductions are calculated incrementally (i.e., compared to the next most stringent option) and in total (compared to the baseline, Option 1).

Table 2. Options considered for NOx reductions from kilns.

Option	Emission Factors, per ton of clinker	Per Kiln Reductions

(@1.2 million tpy kiln production)	Annual Nationwide Reductions

(based on 20 kilns of 1.2 million tpy each)

	Emission Limit

(lb/ton)	Incremental Reduction

(lb/ton)	Total

Reduction

(lb/ton)	Incremental

Reduction

(tons)	Total

Reduction (tons)	Incremental

(tons)	Total

(tons)

1	2.5	0	0	0	0	0	0

2	1.95	0.55	0.55	330	330	6,600	6,600

3	1.5	0.45	1	270	600	5,400	12,000

4	0.5	1	2	600	1,200	12,000	24,000

Particulate Matter (PM)

All new kilns are expected to use fabric filters for PM control. Fabric filters are the most common PM control technology used for portland cement processes. In selecting the proposed PM emission limit for new kilns, three control options were considered that represented the emissions limits achievable for fabric filters applied to cement kilns. One option was the current level of 0.3 lb/ton of feed (which is equivalent to 0.5 lb/ton of clinker).

The second option was to set a new level that was equivalent to PM levels established as part of recent BACT determinations. These levels range from 0.09 to 0.28 lb/ton of clinker with an average of 0.16 lb/ton of clinker. The second option was chosen as the average value of 0.16 lb/ton of clinker. Current fabric filter designs for new preheater/precalciner kilns routinely achieve this level (Bahner, 2008b).

The third PM control level considered was 0.086 lb/ton clinker. This is the level equivalent to the currently proposed new source level for cement kilns that fire hazardous waste. In order to evaluate control device that are representative of the latest fabric filter design, 19 emission tests conducted on four portland cement kilns controlled by fabric filters with membrane bags, where the kilns had been built in the last 10 years, were reviewed,.  Thirteen of those tests were on a cement kiln that burns hazardous waste.  No difference is expected 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.  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, statistical variation was analyzed 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.  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.  The emission test results and results of the statistical analysis are presented in Attachment 5.

A different statistical analysis of the data from the hazardous waste-burning cement kiln equipped with a membrane fabric filter was performed, 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 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).  Using this approach, a value of 0.0069 gr/dscf, corrected to 7 percent oxygen, was calculated.  (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 is equivalent to 0.086 lb/ton of clinker. At this control level, more expensive membrane-coated bags would be needed to replace standard fabric bags in the fabric filter.

Table 3 shows the PM reductions that can be achieved under each option for a single model producing 1,200,000 tons per year (tpy) of clinker, and nationwide for twenty kilns, each producing 1,200,000 tpy of clinker. Emissions reductions are presented both cumulatively from the baseline if possible, and incrementally compared to the next less-stringent measure.

Table 3. Options considered for PM reductions from kilns.

Option	Emission Factors, per ton of clinker	Per Kiln Emission Reduction

(@1.2 million tpy kiln production)

	Nationwide Emission Reductions

(based on 20 kilns of

1.2 million tpy each)

	Emission Limit

(lb/ton)	Incremental Reduction

(lb/ton)	Total Reduction (lb/ton)	Incremental

Reduction

(tpy)	Total

(tpy)	Incremental (tpy)	Total

(tpy)

1	0.5	0	0	0	0	0	0

2	0.16	0.34	0.34	204	204	4,080	4,080

3	0.086	0.074	0.414	44.4	248.4	888	4968

Sulfur Dioxide (SO2)

Based on reviews of recent BACT determinations and permits, control technologies that were not being used at the time of the previous NSPS review are now being used to control SO2 emissions from cement kilns. As a result, wet scrubbers and lime injection were evaluated as potential control technologies for portland cement operations. The proposed emission limit takes into account the inherent scrubbing ability of the naturally alkaline raw materials used in the cement manufacturing process.

Sulfur dioxide from a cement kiln comes from the oxidation of sulfur from two sources. The first is sulfur in the fuel, which mixes with lime in the kiln and preheater with little or no SO2 emitted into the atmosphere from this source. The other source of SO2 is the raw materials, which may be oxidized to SO2 in the kiln system when mixed with sufficient oxygen.

For most portland cement plants, the levels of sulfur in raw materials are sufficiently low and most of the SO2 generated is removed by the natural scrubbing action of the kiln raw feed. In instances where the sulfur content of raw materials is higher, uncontrolled SO2 emissions can be significant. In those situations, add-on controls may be necessary to prevent high SO2 emissions.

The first type of SO2 control equipment considered is alkaline scrubbers. They are capable of achieving a 90 to 95 percent reduction in SO2 emissions on cement kilns (Bahner and Laney, 2008). The difference between SO2 emissions before and after the scrubber at the Lehigh Cement plant in Davenport, Iowa was approximately 96 percent (Bahner, 2008c; Bahner and Laney, 2008).

The second type of SO2 control equipment is lime injection, which 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. Dry lime systems typically achieve an emission reduction of approximately 70 percent (NESCAUM, 2005), although there are systems that can achieve 90 percent. (Bahner and Laney, 2008).

Four options were evaluated for control of SO2 emissions. The first option was to maintain the baseline of no SO2 emission limit, and the other three options include an emission limit of SO2 in pounds per ton of clinker (lb/ton clinker). Air quality impacts under each of the control options depend on the sulfur content of the raw materials. Raw materials containing high levels of sulfur are likely to result in high SO2 emissions unless controls are applied.

High uncontrolled SO2 emissions associated with high sulfur raw materials were based on examples where facilities have applied wet scrubbers for SO2 control and were assumed to emit uncontrolled SO2 at a level of 13 lb/ton. Uncontrolled SO2 emissions of 1.3 lb/ton of clinker (0.8 lb/ton of feed) represent a moderate emission level. The moderate uncontrolled SO2 emission level was based on the averages of 18 data points for tested NSPS facilities and was assumed to represent moderate raw material sulfur levels (Heath, 1996). Low uncontrolled SO2 emissions from low sulfur raw materials are based on examples from Florida where kilns emit uncontrolled SO2 at levels of 0.2 lb/ton clinker or less (Bahner, 2008c).

The first control option was no additional control of SO2 other than the inherent control achieved by the kiln and raw mill. State BACT determinations usually identify inherent SO2 removal as BACT. The second option selected was 1.33 lb/ton clinker which represents a recent BACT determination level of a facility (TXI, Midlothian, TX) with high sulfur raw materials that applied an alkaline wet scrubber for SO2 control (FL DEP, 2005). The third option evaluated was 0.4 lb/ton clinker, which is based on the average of SO2 permit limits from recent BACT determinations which ranged from 0.06 to 1.33 lb/ton of clinker (Bahner, 2007). The fourth option evaluated was 0.2 lb/ton clinker which is typically specified in Florida for kilns with low sulfur raw materials and is one of the lowest levels from recent BACT determinations.

The proposed SO2 emission limit for new kilns is 1.33 lb/ton of clinker, or alternatively, demonstration of a 90 percent SO2 emissions reduction measured across the control device, such as an alkaline scrubber as BDT. Option 1 would have allowed kilns with high sulfur raw materials, several of which are currently controlled with wet scrubbers, to emit significant amounts of SO2.

Table 4 shows the SO2 reductions that can be achieved by a wet scrubber that gets a SO2 emission reduction of 95 percent under option 1 and 2 for high sulfur kiln input materials. The emission reduction is the same under options 3 and 4.

Table 4. Options considered for SO2 reductions for kilns with high-sulfur inputs.

Option	Emission Limit

(lb/ton clinker)	Control	Annual Emissions (@1.2 million tpy kiln production)

(tons)	Annual Reductions (tons)

1	Baseline (13)	None	7,800	0

2	1.33	Wet scrubber	390	7,410

Table 5 shows the SO2 reductions that can be achieved by option for medium sulfur kiln input materials. For option 2, no additional control is necessary because the uncontrolled emission level is below the SO2 limit of 1.33 lb/ton. Under option 3, a less costly lime injection system that gets 70 percent removal is capable of meeting the limit of 0.4 lb/ton. A wet scrubber would be required under option 4.

Table 5. Options considered for SO2 reductions for kilns with medium-sulfur inputs.

Option	Emission Limit

(lb/ton clinker)	Control	Annual Emissions

(@1.2 million tpy kiln production)

(tons)	Reductions (tons)	Emission Level After Control

(lb/ton clinker)

1	Baseline (1.3)	None	780	0	1.3

2	1.33	No reduction necessary	780	0	1.3

3	0.4	Dry lime scrubber (DLS) (70%)	234	546	0.39

4	0.2	Wet scrubber (WS) (95%)	39	741	0.065

For kilns with uncontrolled emissions (due to low sulfur input materials, combined with the natural scrubbing effect of alkali materials in the kiln) below 0.2 lb/ton, no controls for SO2 will be necessary. The baseline SO2 emissions from a kiln producing 1.2 million tons per year would be 120 tpy (i.e., 1.2 million tons per year times 0.2 lb/ton).

It is estimated that, nationwide, four kilns will be using high-sulfur raw materials in the five years following promulgation. The emission reductions in the fifth year will be 7,410 tpy times 4 kilns = 29,640 tpy.

VOC and CO

Emissions of CO and unburned hydrocarbons (VOC/THC) are due to incomplete oxidation. Methods to address these pollutants include more complete oxidation either in the burner area (e.g. with higher levels and better placement of the introduction of excess air) or by more complete oxidation in a downstream control device, such as a regenerative thermal oxidizer (RTO, where the “regenerative” portion of the description refers to recovery of heat that would otherwise be lost in the oxidation process). The VOC/THC from raw materials can be significant if there are substantial organics in the raw material. The only control technology identified to reduce CO emission is an RTO (which also would concurrently reduce any VOC emissions). Activated carbon injection (ACI) into a particulate control device can be used to control VOC/THC (but not CO).

The proposed amendments will not contain limits for CO or VOC emissions from cement kilns. VOC emission from new cement kilns will mainly result from organics in the raw materials. Organic constituents in the raw material can be driven off in the kiln preheater prior to reaching a temperature zone that would result in combustion. New cement kilns are currently subject to a 20 ppmv total hydrocarbon (THC) emissions limit by the Portland Cement NESHAP.  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.

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.

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.

Secondary Impacts

Secondary air quality impacts will result from the increased electrical demands of control equipment required to comply with the final amendments. The secondary impacts in this memorandum will include impacts of additional electricity consumption and the pollution from that consumption, water pollution, and solid waste impacts. The addition of add-on controls, such as scrubbers, will increase electricity demands. The electricity demand for pumping the reagent in an SNCR system are negligible. The additional electricity usage by an alkaline scrubber for a 1.2 million ton per year plant are as follows (see input parameters for wet scrubber in cost section):

Scrubber	-	12,075,355 kWh/yr

The emission factors used to estimate increased emissions of NOx, CO, SO2, and PM10 from the increased electricity demand are as follows (Docket item IV-B-25, Docket A-94-52):

NOx	-	0.00446 lb/kWhr

CO	-	0.00231 lb/kWhr

SO2	-	0.00765 lb/kWhr

PM10	-	2.25(10-4) lb/kWhr

Increases in secondary emissions resulting from the increased electrical demand of an alkaline scrubber for a new 1,200,000 ton/yr kiln are summarized in Table 6.

Table 6. Secondary emissions for a 1,200,000 tpy kiln.

Control	Increased Electrical Demand

(kWh/yr)	Increased Emissions (tons/yr) for 1.2M Ton/Yr Kiln

NOx	CO	SO2	PM10

Wet Scrubber	12,075,355	26.9	13.9	46.2	1.4

The total nationwide increase in emissions from the increased electrical demands of scrubbers installed on four new kilns for the fifth year following promulgation are presented in Table 7.

Table 7. Nationwide secondary emissions.

Controls and number of systems	Increased Electrical Demand

(kWh/yr)	Nationwide Increased Emissions (tons/yr)

NOx	CO	SO2	PM10

Scrubbers (on 4 kilns)	48,301,420	108	56	185	5

Water Quality Impacts

The use of alkaline scrubbers will result in increased consumption of water (for makeup water and production of the scrubber slurry). For a new 1,200,000 ton/yr kiln, the additional water requirement is estimated at 97,000,000 gallons per year (see input parameters for wet scrubber in cost section). No water quality impacts are associated with the use of SNCR systems. Based on the use of scrubbers on a total of four new kilns over the 5-year period following promulgation, total water requirements at the end of the fifth year will be approximately 388 million gallons.

D. Solid Waste Impacts

Additional solid waste will result from the disposal of scrubber slurry. For a new 1,200,000 ton/yr kiln, the additional solid waste generated as a result of the addition of the scrubber is estimated at 84,101 tons per year (Docket item II-B-67, Docket No. A-92-53). However, the waste from the scrubber contains synthetic gypsum and is typically dewatered and returned to the process where it is mixed with clinker in the finish mill. The result is that the waste is not disposed of in a landfill. No solid waste impacts are anticipated with the use of an SNCR system. The total additional solid waste generated at the end of the fifth year following promulgation of the amendments will be an estimated 336,000 tons from the scrubber slurry of four scrubbers.

The additional solid waste generated from baghouses, in the form of cement kiln dust, as a result of the more stringent PM requirement will be 44.4 tons/yr for a 1,200,000 ton/yr kiln. This material is typically considered product and is returned to the kiln or mixed with the cement.

E. Energy Impacts

The use of alkaline scrubbers on new kilns will increase electricity consumption. The additional electricity required for an alkaline scrubber added onto a new 1,200,000 ton/yr kiln is estimated at 12,075,355 kWh/yr.  For the 5-year period following promulgation, the additional electricity demand associated with the installation of scrubbers on four new kilns will be 48,301,420 kWh.

Cost Impacts

NOx Emissions

Four options were evaluated for control of NOx emissions. The first option was to maintain the baseline of no NOx limits. The other three options are given in terms of pounds of NOx per ton of clinker (lb/ton clinker). The three options evaluated were 1.95 lb/ton clinker, 1.5 lb/ton clinker, and 0.5 lb/ton clinker.

Costs were evaluated for all four options. Costs for SNCR and SCR were derived from Alternative Control Techniques Document Update – NOx Emissions from New Cement Kilns (EPA, 2007). Capital costs for SNCR systems ranged from $0.78 to $2.88 per ton of clinker produced. An average of $1.76 per ton of clinker was used to estimate capital costs. For the 1.95 lb/ton NOx option, an operating cost of $0.51 per ton of clinker was used to calculate annual costs. For the higher removal efficiency necessary to meet the 1.5 lb/ton NOx limit, more reagent would be required to meet the limit resulting in higher operating costs. An average annual cost of $1.01 per ton of clinker was used to estimate annual costs to meet the Option 3 limit of 1.5 lb of NOx /ton of clinker. The average capital costs for SCR were determined to be $4.57 per ton of clinker while an average of $2.50 per ton of clinker was used to estimate annual operating costs for SCR.

The results of this analyses showed that the overall annualized cost of control for both the 1.95 and the 1.5 levels were approximately $2,000 per ton of NOx reduction. Given the similarity of costs, Option 3 (1.5 lb/ton clinker) was chosen as BDT.

Assuming a kiln with a clinker capacity of 1,200,000 tons, the capital cost of the SNCR is $2,112,000 and the annual operating cost is $1,212,000.

Under the proposed amendments, compliance with the emission limits for NOx will be determined using continuous emissions monitoring systems. Continuous flow rate monitors will also be required to determine compliance. The capital/startup costs for NOx and flow rate CEMS are $140,951 and $35,780, respectively. Annual operations and maintenance costs for NOx and flow rate CEMS are $41,809 and $13,864, respectively. All costs are derived from the CEMS Cost Model and include a capital recovery factor of 0.1424 (equipment life of 10 years and a yearly interest rate of 7%). Attachment 2 is the output file from the CEMS Cost Model for NOx CEMS. Attachment 3 is the output file from the CEMS cost Model for flow rate CEMS.

Including the cost of CEMS, the annual operating and maintenance cost per kiln is $1,267,673 and the total capital cost per kiln is $2,288,731 for SNCR. Assuming that 20 new kilns will install SNCR to comply with the NOx emission limit, the total annualized cost is an estimated $25.4 million. Total capital cost over the 5-year period following promulgation is an estimated $45.8 million.

Table 8 shows the costs and potential reductions associated with each of the four options for NOx control.

Table 8. Costs and cost effectiveness of NOx emission limits for 1,200,000 ton/yr kiln.

Option	1

(Baseline)	2

(1.95 lb/ton clinker)	3

(1.5 lb/ton clinker)	4

(0.5 lb/ton clinker)

Capital cost, $million	0	2.3	2.3	5.7

Annualized cost, $million/yr	0	0.7	1.3	3.1

Total NOx reduction (tpy)	0	330	600	1,200

Total C/E ($/ton NOx)	0	2,023	2,113	2,546

Particulate Matter (PM) Emissions

The costs of reverse air baghouses and standard fabric bags (for Options 1 and 2) were derived from the EPA Air Pollution Control Cost Manual. The capital costs of non-membrane bags and a baghouse are estimated to be $4.78 per ton of clinker and annual operating costs are estimated to be $1.67 per ton of clinker. The total costs for a baghouse using standard fabric bags on a kiln with a capacity of 1,200,000 tons of clinker is estimated to be $5,731,163 for capital cost and $2,004,710 for annual cost.

The costs of reverse air baghouses and membrane bags (for Option 3) were also derived from the EPA Air Pollution Control Cost Manual. The capital costs of membrane bags and a reverse air baghouse are estimated to be $5.89 per ton of clinker and annual operating costs are estimated to be $1.82 per ton of clinker. The total cost for a baghouse with membrane bags on a kiln with a capacity of 1,200,000 tons of clinker is estimated to be $7,065,703 for capital cost and $2,180,919 for annual costs.

Because it is assumed that all options would use a reverse air baghouse, the incremental cost of using membrane bags is the difference between the cost of Options 1 and 2 and Option 3. Therefore, the incremental costs are estimated as $1,334,540 for capital cost and $176,209 for annual costs.

Bag leak detectors are used to monitor changes in particulate matter emission rates within baghouses. A change in emission rate usually indicates a bag leak or another type of failure within the baghouse. Costs were estimated using the CEMS Cost Model, assuming that each baghouse has 5 compartments and there is a separate sensor in each compartment. It was assumed that the same bag leak detector could be used for the clinker cooler baghouse as for the kiln baghouse, so the costs were estimated using 10 sensors. The capital/startup cost for bag leak detector CEMS is $93,719. Annual operations and maintenance costs for bag leak detector CEMS are $34,748. All costs are derived from the CEMS Cost Model and include a capital recovery factor of 0.1424 (equipment life of 10 years and a yearly interest rate of 7%). Attachment 4 is the output file from the CEMS Cost Model for bag leak detectors.

Including the cost of the bag leak detector, the annual operating and maintenance cost per kiln is $210,957 and the total capital cost per kiln is $1,428,253 for reverse air baghouses equipped with membrane bags and a bag leak detector for each kiln/clinker cooler combination. Assuming that 20 new kilns and clinker coolers will install reverse air baghouses to comply with the PM emission limit, the total annualized incremental cost is an estimated $4.2 million. Total capital incremental cost over the 5-year period following promulgation is an estimated $28.6 million.

The incremental PM reductions between baseline and Option 3 are estimated to be 44 tons per year. This equals a cost effectiveness of approximately $3,900 per ton of PM reduction. The incremental fine PM reductions (PM less than 2.5 microns in diameter) between baseline and Option 3 are estimated to be 20 tons per year. This equates to a cost effectiveness of approximately $9,000 per ton of fine PM reduction.

SO2 Emissions

Four options were evaluated for control of SO2 emissions. The first option was to maintain the current limit and the other three options include an emission rate of SO2 in pounds per ton of clinker (lb/ton clinker). Control costs and cost reductions for the three emission rates were evaluated based on varying levels of sulfur in the raw materials. Low uncontrolled SO2 emissions from low sulfur raw materials were based on examples from Florida where kilns emit uncontrolled SO2 at levels of 0.2 lb/ton clinker or less. High uncontrolled SO2 emissions associated with high sulfur raw materials were based on examples where facilities had applied wet scrubbers for SO2 control and were assumed to emit uncontrolled SO2 at a level of 13 lb/ton. Uncontrolled SO2 emissions of 1.3 lb/ton represent a moderate emission level. Moderate uncontrolled SO2 emissions were based on the averages of 18 data points for tested NSPS facilities and were assumed to represent moderate raw material sulfur levels.

The first control option considered was no additional control of SO2 other than the inherent control achieved by the kiln and raw mill. State BACT determinations usually identify inherent SO2 removal as BACT. The second option evaluated was an SO2 limit of 1.33 lb/ton clinker which represents a recent BACT determination level of a facility with high sulfur raw materials that applied an alkaline wet scrubber for SO2 control. The third option evaluated was a limit of 0.4 lb/ton clinker, which is based on the average of SO2 permit limits from recent BACT determinations, ranging from 0.06 to 1.33 lb/ton of clinker. The fourth option evaluated was 0.2 lb/ton clinker which is representative of permit limits specified in Florida for kilns with low sulfur raw materials and is one of the lowest levels from recent BACT determinations.

Under the proposed amendments, the SO2 emission limit for new kilns will be 1.33 lb/ton of clinker, or alternatively, demonstration of a 90 percent SO2 emissions reduction measured across the control device, such as an alkaline scrubber as BDT. Option 1 was rejected because this would allow kilns with high sulfur raw materials, several of which are currently controlled with wet scrubbers, to emit significant amounts of SO2. Controlling the high sulfur kilns to a level of 1.33 lb/ton results in a cost per ton of SO2 removed of less than $1000 per ton of SO2 removal.

Options 3 and 4 were rejected because they would have resulted in cement kilns using moderate sulfur content raw materials installing add-on controls at a cost of over $6,000 per ton of SO2 reduction. Also, Options 3 and 4 would not be likely to achieve any significant additional SO2 emission reductions over Option 2 for high sulfur kilns because Option 2 already represents at least a 90 percent emission reduction control for high sulfur raw materials.

Costs for the use of wet alkaline scrubbers on kilns are based on detailed cement industry estimates of retrofitting an existing 804,000 ton per year preheater/precalciner kiln with a wet alkaline scrubber (Zephyr, 2002). The industry cost estimates incorporated costing procedures from the EPA Air Pollution Control Cost Manual. To adapt the industry costs to our new 1,200,000 ton per year kiln, costs were scaled up to account for the difference in exhaust gas flow rates and modified to reflect installation on a new kiln rather than a retrofit. Costs were also updated using Chemical Engineering cost index and a credit applied for the use of the gypsum produced by the scrubber. Scrubbers produce a slurry containing synthetic gypsum, which can be reused in the production of portland cement. A scrubber on a 1.2 million ton/yr kiln is estimated to produce 84,101 ton/yr of gypsum (Docket Item II-B-67, Docket no. A-92-53). Using current estimates from the United States Geological Survey (USGS), the price of gypsum was estimated at $8.26 per ton. Actual costs to purchase gypsum for the production of cement are probably higher primarily due to transportation costs. Assuming that all synthetic gypsum can be reused in the production process, each scrubber has a credit for recycled gypsum of $694,674 per year.

Input parameters and annual cost inputs used in estimating costs are shown in Table 9. Total capital investment for a wet alkaline scrubber installed on a 1,200,000 ton/yr kiln is approximately $28,101,000 and total annual cost, including annualized capital (using 7% interest and a 20-year equipment life), operating costs, and the recycled gypsum credit is approximately $4,913,000. Capital and annual cost for a wet alkaline scrubber on a 1,200,000 ton/yr kiln are shown in Table 10.

Under the proposed amendments, compliance with the emission limits for SO2 will be determined using continuous emissions monitoring systems. Continuous flow rate monitors will also be required to determine compliance. The capital/startup costs for SO2 and flow rate CEMS are $143,135 and $35,780, respectively. Annual operations and maintenance costs for SO2 and flow rate CEMS are $42,326 and $13,864, respectively. All costs are derived from the CEMS Cost Model and include a capital recovery factor of 0.1424 (equipment life of 10 years and a yearly interest rate of 7%). Attachment 1 is the output file from the CEMS Cost Model for SO2 CEMS. Attachment 3 is the output file from the CEMS cost Model for flow rate CEMS.

Including the cost of CEMS, the annual operating and maintenance cost per kiln is $4,969,000 and the total capital cost per kiln is $28,280,000 for alkaline scrubbers. Assuming that four new kilns will install an alkaline scrubber to comply with the SO2 emission limit, the total annualized cost of scrubbers is an estimated $19.9 million. Total capital cost over the 5-year period following promulgation is an estimated $113 million.

The cost of the alkaline wet scrubber is only dependent on the size of the kiln so the costs are identical for any control option that would require the use of alkaline scrubbers, assuming that the scrubber was operated at its highest efficiency.

The amount of SO2 reduction is based on the alkaline scrubber having a removal efficiency of 95% and baseline emissions of 7,800 tons for raw materials with high sulfur content (and high uncontrolled SO2 emissions) and 780 tons for raw materials with moderate sulfur content (and moderate uncontrolled SO2 emissions). It is estimated that alkaline wet scrubbers will result in reductions of 7,410 tpy SO2 for kilns using raw materials with high sulfur content and 741 tpy SO2 for raw materials with moderate sulfur content. The resulting cost effectiveness is approximately $670 per ton of SO2 removed for raw materials with high sulfur content and $6,700 per ton of SO2 removed for raw materials with moderate sulfur content.

Because lime injection may be used to reduce SO2 emissions in certain instances, costs were estimated for a lime injection system for a 1,200,000 ton/yr kiln. Costs are derived from the same source as the wet scrubber costs (Zephyr 2002). Input parameters and annual cost inputs used in estimating costs are shown in Table 11. Total capital investment for lime injection installed on a 1,200,000 ton/yr kiln is approximately $6,997,000 and total annual cost, including annualized capital (using 7% interest) and operating costs is approximately $3,168,000. These costs are shown in Table 12.

Including the cost of CEMS, the annual operating and maintenance cost per kiln is $3,224,000 and the total capital cost per kiln is $7,176,000 for lime injection.

The amount of SO2 reduction is based on lime injection having a removal efficiency of 70% and baseline emissions of 780 tons for raw materials with moderate sulfur content. It is estimated that alkaline wet scrubbers will result in reductions of 540 tpy SO2 for raw materials with moderate sulfur content. The resulting cost effectiveness is $5,970 per ton of SO2 removed for raw materials with moderate sulfur content.

Table 13 shows the costs and potential reductions associated with each of the four options for SO2 control.

Table 9. Wet alkaline scrubber input parameters for new kiln model.

INPUT PARAMETERS:

-- Clinker production rate, tons/yr	1,200,000

-- Process operating hours, hr/yr	7,920

-- Inlet waste gas temperature (oF):	400

-- Inlet waste gas pressure (atm.):	1

-- Pollutant in waste gas:	SO2

-- pollutant emissions, lb/yr	14,475,811

-- pollutant concentration, ppmv	905

-- pollutant molecular weight	64

-- Waste gas molecular weight (lb/lb-mole):	28.85

-- Solvent molecular weight (lb/lb-mole):	18

-- Inlet waste gas flowrate (acfm):	330,276.91

-- Scrubber gas pressure drop (in. water):	17

--Additional system pressure drop (FF and ducts), in. water	10

-- Liquid pressure drop for pump (ft of H2O):	60

-- Slurry flow rate, gpm	19,817

-- Outlet gas temperature, F	140

-- Makeup water flow, gpm	105

-- Limestone consumption, tons/hr	5.4060

-- Estimated control efficiency, percent	95

-- Electricity consumption, kw

	       scrubber and system fans	1105.0

	       limestone preparation	162.2

       cooler vent air to stack	257.4

ANNUAL COST INPUTS:

	Operating factor (hr/yr):	7,920

Operating labor rate ($/hr):	22.5

Maintenance labor rate ($/hr):	24.75

Operating labor factor (hr/sh):	2.5

Maintenance labor factor (hr/sh):	2.5

Electricity price ($/kWhr):	0.062

Limestone, $/ton	5

Solvent (water) price ($/1000 gal):	0.2

Overhead rate (fraction):	0.6

Annual interest rate (fraction):	0.07

Control system life (years):	20

Capital recovery factor (system):	0.0944

Taxes, insurance, admin. factor:	0.04

Credit for gypsum ($/ton)	8.26

Gypsum recycled (tons/yr)	84,101

Table 10. Wet alkaline scrubber capital and annual costs for new kiln model.

CAPITAL COSTS:

Equipment costs, $

	-- Limestone handling, milling, and emission control	1,079,519

-- Scrubber with fans	5,721,834

-- Scrubber stack	985,427

-- Bypass, preheater, and cooler vent ductwork; cooler	1,909,821

      vent fan and damper

	-- Sludge handling and material disposal system	279,734

-- Building and building permit	1,227,015

-- Contingency (20% of equipment costs)	2,240,670

-- Total (base)	7,081,087

            Chemical Engineering Plant Cost Index September 2002	400.9

            Chemical Engineering Plant Cost Index September 2007	528.2

     '   (escalated)	9,329,584

     Instrumentation (10% of equipment cost)	932,958

     Sales tax (5% of equipment cost)	466,479

     Freight (5% of equipment cost)	466,479

Purchased Equipment Cost (PEC):	11,195,501

Direct installation costs, $

	-- Foundation and supports (12% of PEC)	1,343,460

-- Handling and erection (60% of PEC)	6,717,300

-- Electrical (10% of PEC)	1,119,550

-- Piping (30% of PEC)	3,358,650

-- Insulation and Ductwork (2% of PEC)	223,910

-- Painting (2% of PEC)	223,910

-- Total	12,986,781

Site preparation cost, $	200,000

Indirect installation costs, $

-- Engineering (20% of PEC)	2,239,100

-- Construction and field expenses (5% of PEC)	559,775

-- Contractor fees (5% of PEC)	559,775

-- Start-up (1% of PEC)	111,955

-- Performance test (1% of PEC)	111,955

-- Contingencies (3% of PEC)	335,865

-- Total	3,918,425

Total Capital Investment ($):	28,100,706

Table 10 (continued)

ANNUAL COSTS:

	Operating labor	55,688

Supervisory labor	8,353

Maintenance labor	61,256

Maintenance materials	61,256

Replacement parts (5% of PEC)	559,775

Electricity (fan and pumps)	669,016

Electricity (limestone preparation)	79,656

Limestone	214,079

Solvent (makeup water)	9,950

Overhead	111,932

Taxes, insurance, administrative	1,124,028

Capital recovery	2,652,508

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

	Total Annual Cost	5,607,497

Credit for recycled gypsum	694,674

Total Annual Cost w/ gypsum credit	4,912,823

Table 11. Lime injection input parameters for new kiln model.

INPUT PARAMETERS:

	-- Clinker production rate, tons/yr	1,200,000

-- Process operating hours, hr/yr	7,920

-- Pollutant in waste gas:	SO2

-- pollutant emissions, lb/yr	14,475,811

-- pollutant molecular weight	64

-- Solvent molecular weight (lb/lb-mole):	18

-- Liquid pressure drop for pump (ft of H2O):	60

-- Makeup water flow, gal/yr	97,383,410

-- Slurry flow rate, gpm	4,099

-- Slaked lime consumption, tons/yr	25,057

-- Estimated control efficiency, percent	60

-- Electricity consumption, kw	66.0

	ANNUAL COST INPUTS:

	Operating factor (hr/yr):	7,920

Operating labor rate ($/hr):	22.5

Maintenance labor rate ($/hr):	24.75

Operating labor factor (hr/sh):	2.5

Maintenance labor factor (hr/sh):	2

Electricity price ($/kWhr):	0.062

Slaked lime, $/ton	65

Solvent (water) price ($/1000 gal):	0.2

Overhead rate (fraction):	0.6

Annual interest rate (fraction):	0.07

Control system life (years):	15

Capital recovery factor (system):	0.1098

Taxes, insurance, admin. factor:	0.04

Table 12. Lime injection capital and annual costs for new kiln model.

CAPITAL COSTS:

Equipment costs, $

-- Limestone handling system (main and bypass)	1,271,519

-- Injection system (main and bypass)	762,911

-- Building permit	190,728

-- Contingency (20% of equipment costs)	445,032

-- Total (base)	2,670,189

            Chemical Engineering Plant Cost Index September 2002	400.9

            Chemical Engineering Plant Cost Index September 2007	528.2

     '   (escalated)	3,518,069

     Instrumentation (10% of equipment cost)	351,807

     Sales tax (5% of equipment cost)	175,903

     Freight (5% of equipment cost)	175,903

Purchased Equipment Cost (PEC):	4,221,683

Direct installation costs, $

-- Foundation and supports (8% of PEC)	337,735

-- Handling and erection (14% of PEC)	591,036

-- Electrical (4% of PEC)	168,867

-- Piping (2% of PEC)	84,434

-- Insulation and Ductwork (1% of PEC)	42,217

-- Painting (1% of PEC)	42,217

-- Total	1,266,505

Site preparation cost, $	200,000

Indirect installation costs, $

-- Engineering (10% of PEC)	422,168

-- Construction and field expenses (5% of PEC)	211,084

-- Contractor fees (10% of PEC)	422,168

-- Start-up (2% of PEC)	84,434

-- Performance test (1% of PEC)	42,217

-- Contingencies (3% of PEC)	126,650

-- Total	1,308,722

	Total Capital Investment ($):	6,996,909

	ANNUAL COSTS:

Operating labor	55,688

Supervisory labor	8,353

Maintenance labor	49,005

Maintenance materials	49,005

Replacement parts (5% of PEC)	211,084

Electricity (pumps)	1,622

Slaked lime	1,628,678

Solvent (makeup water)	19,477

Overhead	97,230

Taxes, insurance, administrative	279,876

Capital recovery	768,223

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

	Total Annual Cost	3,168,241

Table 13. Costs of SO2 emission limits for 1,200,000 ton/yr kiln.*

Option	1

(Baseline)	2

(1.33 lb/ton clinker)	3

(0.4 lb/ton clinker)	4

(0.2 lb/ton clinker)

Capital cost

   	High sulfur

   	Moderate sulfur

   	Low sulfur

0

$28,280,000 (WS)

0

0

$28,280,000 (WS)

$7,176,000 (DLS)

0

$28,280,000 (WS)

$28,280,000 (WS)

0

Annualized cost

   	High sulfur

   	Moderate sulfur

   	Low sulfur

0

$4,969,000

0

0

$4,969,000

$3,224,000

0

$4,969,000

$4,969,000

0

Total SO2 reduction

	High sulfur

 	Moderate sulfur

 	Low sulfur

0

7,410 tpy

0

0

7,410 tpy

540 tpy

0

7,410 tpy

741 tpy

0

Total Cost Effectiveness

	High sulfur

	Moderate sulfur

	Low sulfur

0

663 $/ton SO2

0

0

671 $/ton SO2

5,970 $/ton SO2

0

671 $/ton SO2

6,706 $/ton SO2

0

* Costs include monitoring costs.

WS = alkaline wet scrubber

DLS = lime injection

G. Summary of Impacts

Environmental and cost impacts for the proposed amendments on a model plant basis are summarized in Table 14. Nationwide impacts in the 5th year following promulgation are summarized in Table 15.

Table 14. Cost and environmental impacts of proposed amendments for a 1,200,000 ton/yr kiln.

Pollutant	Cost ($)*	Emission Reduction (tpy)	Secondary Impacts

	Capital	Annual

Increase in electricity demand (kWh/yr)	Increase in water usage (gpy) Increase in solid waste (tpy)	Increase in emissions of NOx (tpy) Increase in emissions of CO (tpy)	Increase in emissions of SO2 (tpy) Increase in emissions of PM10 (tpy)

NOx	2,289,000	1,268,000	600	Negligible	0	0	0	0	0	0

PM	1,428,000	211,000	44.4	Negligible	0	44.4	0	0	0	0

SO2	28,280,000	4,969,000	7,410	12,075,355	97,000,000	84,101	26.9	13.9 46.2	1.4

*Includes monitoring costs.

Table 15. Nationwide cost and environmental impacts of proposed amendments.

Pollutant	Cost ($)*	Emission Reduction (tpy)	Secondary Impacts

	Capital	Annual

Increase in electricity demand (kWh/yr)	Increase in water usage (gpy) Increase in solid waste (tpy)	Increase in emissions of NOx (tpy) Increase in emissions of CO (tpy)	Increase in emissions of SO2 (tpy) Increase in emissions of PM10 (tpy)

NOx	45,800,000	25,400,000	12,000	Negligible	0	0	0	0	0	0

PM	28,600,000	4,200,000	890	Negligible	0	890	0	0	0	0

SO2	113,000,000	19,900,000	29,640	48,301,000	388,000,000	336,400	108	56 185	5

TOTAL	187,400,000	49,500,000

*Includes monitoring cost.H. References

Bahner, M. 2007. Review of Three BACT Analyses. October 10, 2007.

Bahner, M. 2008a. Review and Analysis of NOx Data for Four Cement Kilns. April 1, 2008.

Bahner, M. 2008b. Analysis of Particulate Matter Test Results:  2003 Survey, and Florida Kilns. March 31, 2008.

Bahner, M. 2008c. Summary of Cement Kiln Wet Scrubber and Lime Injection Design and Performance Data. May 2, 2008.

M. Bahner, and M. Laney 2008. Summary of Cement Kiln Wet Scrubber and Lime Injection Design and Performance Data, May 2, 2008.

CEMS Cost Model. CEMS.XLS.   HYPERLINK "http://www.epa.gov/ttn/emc/cem.html"  http://www.epa.gov/ttn/emc/cem.html . Accessed March, 2008.

Heath, E. 1996. Summary of Inputs of Control Options on Model Kilns and Clinker Cooler. Docket Item II-B-67, Docket A-92-53. April 19, 1996.

Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FL DEP). 2005. Technical Evaluation Preliminary Determination Draft BACT Determinations Sumter Cement Company, Sumter County, Florida, New Portland Cement Plant. DEP File No. 1190041-001-AC (PSD-FL-358). Available at:   HYPERLINK "http://www.dep.state.fl.us/air/permitting/construction/sumter/TEPD358.p df"  http://www.dep.state.fl.us/air/permitting/construction/sumter/TEPD358.pd f .

Laney, M., D. Green and K Barnett 2006. Summary of Environmental and Cost Impacts of Final Amendments to Portland Cement NESHAP, December 8, 2006, Docket item EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0051-1891.

Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management (NESCAUM) in Partnership with the Mid-Atlantic/Northeast Visibility Union. 2005. Assessment of Control Technology Options for BART-Eligible Sources. Steam Electric Boilers, Industrial Boilers, Cement Plants and Paper and Pulp Facilities. March 2005.

Portland Cement Association. 2006. Capacity Expansion Estimates. October 13, 2006.

Portland Cement Association. 2007. U.S. and Canadian Portland Cement Industry Plant Information Summary December 31, 2006.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2007. Alternative Control Technologies Document Update - NOx Emissions from New Cement Kilns, November 2007.

US EPA. EPA Air Pollution Cost Control Manual: Sixth Edition: Section 6: Particulate Matter Controls: Chapter 1: Baghouses and Filters. Document Number EPA/452/B-02-001. December 1998.

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency 2002. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. EPA Air Pollution Control Cost Manual, Sixth Edition, EPA/452/B-02-001. January 2002.

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Atmospheric Programs. Output-Based Regulations: A Handbook for Air Regulators. August, 2004.

United States Geological Survey. USGS 2006 Minerals Yearbook. Gypsum. Nov. 2007.

Zephyr Environmental Corporation. PSD Application for Lehigh Mason City. September 2002.

Attachment 1

SO2 Monitor Cost

Output from the EPA CEMS Cost Model

Attachment 1

Summary of CEMS

Analyzers

BEFORE	AFTER

	   CO

0	0

	   SO2

0	1

	   NOX

0	0

	   HCl

0	0

	   Mercury (and CO2/O2)

0	0

	   CO2

0	0

	   O2

0	0

	   THC

0	0

	Monitors

   OPACITY

0	0

	   FLOW

0	0

	   PM (beta gauge)

0	0

	   PM (light scattering; insitu)

0	0

	   PM (light scattering; extractive)

0	0

	Bag leak detector

   Number of fabric filters to be monitored=

0	0

	   Number of sensors=

0	0

	Summary of Costs

First Costs	Labor	Test	ODCs	Total

    Planning	2,534	0	352	2,886

    Select Equipment	10,941	0	3,067	14,008

    Support Facilities	0	0	19,065	19,065

    Purchase CEMS Hardware	0	0	64,978	64,978

    Install and Check CEMS	4,818	0	11,979	16,797

    Performance Specification Tests	2,129	7,526	503	10,157

    QA/QC Plan	2,570	11,981	692	15,244

	22,993	19,507	100,635	143,135

Annual Costs

    Day-to-Day Activities	5,532	0	1,000	6,532

    Annual RATA	885	7,156	0	8,041

    PM Monitor RCA	0	0	0	0

    PM Monitor RRA	0	0	0	0

    Cylinder Gas Audits (ACA/SVA for PM)	1,284	0	1,069	2,353

    Recordkeeping and Reporting	1,253	0	160	1,413

    Annual QA & O&M Review and Update	2,074	0	1,530	3,604

    Capital Recovery	3,274	2,778	14,330	20,382

    Total w/o capital recovery	11,029	7,156	3,759	21,944

    Total with capital recovery	14,303	9,934	18,089	42,326

Attachment 2

NOx Monitor Cost

Output from the EPA CEMS Cost Model

Attachment 2

Summary of CEMS

Analyzers

BEFORE	AFTER

	   CO

0	0

	   SO2

0	0

	   NOX

0	1

	   HCl

0	0

	   Mercury (and CO2/O2)

0	0

	   CO2

0	0

	   O2

0	0

	   THC

0	0

	Monitors

   OPACITY

0	0

	   FLOW

0	0

	   PM (beta gauge)

0	0

	   PM (light scattering; insitu)

0	0

	   PM (light scattering; extractive)

0	0

	Bag leak detector

   Number of fabric filters to be monitored=

0	0

	   Number of sensors=

0	0

	Summary of Costs

First Costs	Labor	Test	ODCs	Total

    Planning	2,534	0	352	2,886

    Select Equipment	10,941	0	3,067	14,008

    Support Facilities	0	0	19,065	19,065

    Purchase CEMS Hardware	0	0	62,794	62,794

    Install and Check CEMS	4,818	0	11,979	16,797

    Performance Specification Tests	2,129	7,526	502.5	10,157

    QA/QC Plan	2,570	11,981	692	15,244

	22,993	19,507	98,451	140,951

Annual Costs

    Day-to-Day Activities	5,532	0	1,000	6,532

    Annual RATA	885	7,156	0	8,041

    PM Monitor RCA	0	0	0	0

    PM Monitor RRA	0	0	0	0

    Cylinder Gas Audits (ACA/SVA for PM)	1,284	0	1,069	2,353

    Recordkeeping and Reporting	1,253	0	160	1,413

    Annual QA & O&M Review and Update	2,074	0	1,324	3,398

    Capital Recovery	3,274	2,778	14,019	20,071

    Total w/o capital recovery	11,029	7,156	3,553	21,738

    Total with capital recovery	14,303	9,934	17,572	41,809

Attachment 3

Flow Rate Monitor Cost

Output from the EPA CEMS Cost Model

Attachment 3

Summary of CEMS

Analyzers

BEFORE	AFTER

	   CO

0	0

	   SO2

0	0

	   NOX

0	0

	   HCl

0	0

	   Mercury (and CO2/O2)

0	0

	   CO2

0	0

	   O2

0	0

	   THC

0	0

	Monitors

   OPACITY

0	0

	   FLOW

0	1

	   PM (beta gauge)

0	0

	   PM (light scattering; insitu)

0	0

	   PM (light scattering; extractive)

0	0

	Bag leak detector

   Number of fabric filters to be monitored=

0	0

	   Number of sensors=

0	0

	Summary of Costs

First Costs	Labor	Test	ODCs	Total

    Planning	806	0	0	806

    Select Equipment	1,709	0	293	2,002

    Support Facilities	0	0	1,000	1,000

    Purchase CEMS Hardware	0	0	19,080	19,080

    Install and Check CEMS	1,037	0	690	1,727

    Performance Specification Tests	77	440	0	517

    QA/QC Plan	2,306	7,650	692	10,647

	5,934	8,090	21,755	35,780

Annual Costs

    Day-to-Day Activities	691	0	0	691

    Annual RATA	0	0	0	0

    PM Monitor RCA	0	0	0	0

    PM Monitor RRA	0	0	0	0

    Cylinder Gas Audits (ACA/SVA for PM)	0	0	0	0

    Recordkeeping and Reporting	5,448	0	40	5,488

    Annual QA & O&M Review and Update	1,409	0	1,180	2,589

    Capital Recovery	845	1,152	3,098	5,095

    Total w/o capital recovery	7,548	0	1,220	8,768

    Total with capital recovery	8,394	1,152	4,318	13,864

Attachment 4

Bag Leak Detector Cost

Output from the EPA CEMS Cost Model

Attachment 4

Summary of CEMS

Analyzers

BEFORE	AFTER

	   CO

0	0

	   SO2

0	0

	   NOX

0	0

	   HCl

0	0

	   Mercury (and CO2/O2)

0	0

	   CO2

0	0

	   O2

0	0

	   THC

0	0

	Monitors

   OPACITY

0	0

	   FLOW

0	0

	   PM (beta gauge)

0	0

	   PM (light scattering; insitu)

0	0

	   PM (light scattering; extractive)

0	0

	Bag leak detector

   Number of fabric filters to be monitored=

0	2

	   Number of sensors=

0	10

	Summary of Costs

First Costs	Labor	Test	ODCs	Total

    Planning	1,711	0	352	2,063

    Select Equipment	6,346	0	643	6,989

    Support Facilities	0	0	3,950	3,950

    Purchase CEMS Hardware	0	0	66,568	66,568

    Install and Check CEMS	484	0	12,927	13,411

    Performance Specification Tests	0	0	0	0

    QA/QC Plan	739	0	0	739

	9,279	0	84,440	93,719

Annual Costs

    Day-to-Day Activities	2,822	0	0	2,822

    Annual RATA	0	0	0	0

    PM Monitor RCA	0	0	0	0

    PM Monitor RRA	0	0	0	0

    Cylinder Gas Audits (ACA/SVA for PM)	0	0	0	0

    Recordkeeping and Reporting	946	0	0	946

    Annual QA & O&M Review and Update	384	0	17,250	17,634

    Capital Recovery	1,321	0	12,024	13,346

    Total w/o capital recovery	4,152	0	17,250	21,402

    Total with capital recovery	5,473	0	29,274	34,748

Attachment 5

Statistical Analyses of Cement Kiln PM Data

PH/PC Kilns built since 1997-Fabric Filters with Membrane Bags

Attachment 5

 hM

  hM

  hM

  hM

\

_

S

V

Z

’

¸

º

h”

 h

h

h

˜

˜

˜

˜

hM

 hðZ

hM

hM

  hðZ

hM

hM

 hðZ

hM

  hM

  hM

 hM

  hM

Ò

愀Ĥ摧⥇

âÿA

瑹㜸

âÿA

瑹㜸

âÿA

瑹搯¨

 hl

摧⥇

葠ÿ摧㜸

葠¥摧㜸

葠ÿ摧㜸

葠¥摧㜸

葠ÿ摧㜸

葠¥摧㜸

葠ÿ摧㜸

葠¥摧㜸

gd¼+

gd

gd¼+

kd

kd·

:

kd©

kd

Kiln, December 5, 2003	0.00072	12.72	0.0092

Ash Grove, Chanute	Kiln, September 8, 2004	0.0022	12.72	0.0280

Ash Grove, Chanute	Kiln, September 9, 2004	0.0007	12.72	0.0089

Ash Grove, Chanute	Kiln, November 15, 2005	0.0074	12.72	0.0941

Ash Grove, Chanute	Kiln, November 15, 2005	0.008	12.72	0.1018

Ash Grove, Chanute	Kiln, November 15, 2005	0.0026	12.72	0.0331

Ash Grove, Chanute	Kiln, November 16, 2005	0.0042	12.72	0.0534

Ash Grove, Chanute	Kiln, November 16, 2005	0.0031	12.72	0.0394

Ash Grove, Chanute	Kiln, November 16, 2005	0.0032	12.72	0.0407

Ash Grove, Chanute	Kiln, November 17, 2005	0.0025	12.72	0.0318

Ash Grove, Chanute	kiln, November 17, 2005	0.001	12.72	0.0127

Ash Grove, Chanute	Kiln, November 17, 2005	0.0016	12.72	0.0204

Lehigh Cement, Union Bridge, MD	Kiln (Mill On)

	0.0023

Lehigh Cement, Union Bridge, MD	Kiln (Mill Off)

	0.0045

Lafarge Cement, Sugar Creek, MO	Kiln (Mill On)

	0.0046

Lafarge Cement, Sugar Creek, MO	Kiln (Mill Off)

	0.0317

Holcim, Devil's Slide, UT	Kiln, Mill On (October 2002)

	0.0391

Holcim, Devil's Slide, UT	Kiln, Mill Off (October 2002)

	0.0584

	Minumim	0.0023

	Maximum	0.10176

	Average	0.035732126

	Standard Deviation	0.028721542

	99th Percertile	0.102538433

	95th Percentile	0.082979063

	Median	0.0318

 PAGE

 PAGE   1

May 29, 2008

May 14, 2008