[Federal Register: December 2, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 231)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 72329-72348]
[DOCID:fr02de05-11]

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

Part II

Environmental Protection Agency

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

40 CFR Part 63

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

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[OAR-2002-0051; FRL-8003-6]
RIN 2060-AJ78

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

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule; amendments.

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

SUMMARY: On June 14, 1999, under the authority of section 112 of the
Clean Air Act (CAA), the EPA promulgated national emission standards
for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) for new and existing sources in
the portland cement manufacturing industry. On December 15, 2000, the
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (DC
Circuit) remanded parts of the NESHAP for the portland cement
manufacturing industry to EPA to consider, among other things, setting
maximum achievable control technology (MACT) floor standards for
hydrogen chloride (HCl), mercury, and total hydrocarbons (THC), and
beyond-the-floor standards for metal hazardous air pollutants (HAP).
This action provides EPA's proposed rule amendments in response to
those aspects of the court's remand.

DATES: Comments. Written comments must be received on or before January
17, 2006.
    Public Hearing. If anyone contacts the EPA requesting to speak at a
public hearing by December 12, 2005, a public hearing will be held
within approximately 15 days following publication of this notice in
the Federal Register.

ADDRESSES: Comments. Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No.
OAR-2002-0051, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.

Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
     Agency Web site: http://www.epa.gov/edocket. EDOCKET,

EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, is EPA's preferred
method for receiving comments. Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
     E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Postal Service, send comments to: EPA Docket
Center (6102T), Attention Docket ID No. OAR-2002-0051, 1200
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460. Please include a
duplicate copy, if possible.
     Hand Delivery: In person or by courier, deliver comments
to: EPA Docket Center (6102T), Attention Docket ID No. OAR-2002-0051,
1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Room B-108, Washington, DC 20004. Such
deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information. Please include a duplicate copy, if possible.
    We request that you also send a separate copy of each comment to
the contact person listed below (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
    Public Hearing. If a public hearing is held, it will be held at 10
a.m. at the EPA Facility Complex in Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina or at an alternate site nearby.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Keith Barnett, EPA, Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards, Emission Standards Division, Minerals
and Inorganic Chemicals Group (C504-05), Research Triangle Park, NC
27711; telephone number<PHONE_NUMBER>; facsimile number (919) 541-
5600; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Regulated Entities. Entities potentially
affected by this action are those that manufacture portland cement.
Regulated categories and entities include:

                   Table 1.--Regulated Entities Table
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Examples of regulated
             Category               NAICS \1\           entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry.........................        32731  Owners or operators of
                                                 portland cement
                                                 manufacturing plants.
State............................        32731  Owners or operators of
                                                 portland cement
                                                 manufacturing plants.
Tribal associations..............        32731  Owners or operators of
                                                 portland cement
                                                 manufacturing plants.
Federal agencies.................         None  None.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ North American Industry Classification System.

    This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this
action. This table lists the types of entities that may potentially be
regulated by this action. To determine whether your facility is
regulated by this action, you should carefully examine the
applicability criteria in 40 CFR 63.1340 of the rule. If you have
questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular
entity, consult the person listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section.
    Docket. The EPA has established an official public docket for this
action under Docket ID Number OAR-2002-0051. The official public docket
is the collection of materials that is available for public viewing
both electronically and in printed form. This docket is available
electronically through EPA Dockets at http://www.epa.gov/edocket. You

may access the docket electronically to submit or view public comments,
access the index of the contents of the official public docket, and
access those documents in the public docket that are available
electronically. Once in the system, select ``search'' and key in the
appropriate docket identification number.
    The docket is also available in printed form at EPA, 1301
Constitution Avenue, NW., Room B-102, Washington, DC. The EPA Docket
Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday
through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the
Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>. The telephone number for the EPA Docket
Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>. A reasonable fee may be charged for copying
docket materials.
    For public commenters, it is important to note that EPA's policy is
that public comments, whether submitted electronically or on paper,
will be made available for public viewing in EPA's electronic public
docket as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment
contains copyrighted material, confidential business information (CBI),
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statue.
Information claimed as CBI and other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute, will not be available for public viewing in
EPA's public docket. When EPA identifies a comment containing

copyrighted material, EPA will provide a reference to that material,
but not the material itself, in the version of the comments that is
placed in EPA's electronic public docket. The entire printed comment,
including the copyrighted material, will be available in the printed
public docket. Although not all docket materials may be available
electronically, you may still access any of the publicly available
docket material through the docket facility identified in this
document.
    Public comments submitted on computer disks that are mailed or
delivered to the docket will be transferred to EPA's electronic public
docket. Hardcopy public comments that are mailed or delivered to the
Docket will be scanned and placed in EPA's electronic public docket.
Where practical, physical objects will be photographed, and the
photograph will be placed in EPA's electronic public docket along with
a brief description written by the docket staff. Tips for preparing
your comments. You may submit comments electronically, by mail, by
facsimile, or through hand delivery/courier. To ensure proper receipt
by EPA, identify the appropriate docket identification number in the
subject line on the first page of your comment. Please ensure that your
comments are submitted within the specified comment period. Comments
received after the close of the comment period will be marked late. The
EPA is not required to consider these late comments.
    Our preferred method for receiving comments is electronically
through EPA Dockets at http://www.epa.gov/edocket. The system is an

anonymous access system, which means we will not know your identity, e-
mail address, or other contact information unless you provide it in the
body of your comment.
    In contrast to EPA's electronic public docket, our e-mail system is
not an anonymous access system. If you send an e-mail comment directly
to the Docket without going through EPA's electronic public docket, our
e-mail system automatically captures your e-mail address. E-mail
addresses that are automatically captured by our e-mail system are
included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public
docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket.
    If you submit an electronic comment, we recommend that you include
your name, mailing address, and an e-mail address or other contact
information in the body of your comment. Also include this contact
information on the outside of any disk or CD-ROM you submit, and in any
cover letter accompanying the disk or CD-ROM. This ensures that you can
be identified as the submitter of the comment and allows EPA to contact
you in case EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties
or needs further information on the substance of your comment. The
EPA's policy is that EPA will not edit your comment and any identifying
or contact information provided in the body of a comment will be
included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public
docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket. If EPA
cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot
contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your
comment.
    Submitting comments containing CBI. Do not submit information that
you consider to be CBI electronically through EDOCKET, regulations.gov,
or e-mail. Send or deliver information identified as CBI only to the
following address: OAQPS Document Control Office (C404-02), Attention:
Keith Barnett, EPA, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, Attention Docket
ID No. OAR-2002-0051. You may claim information that you submit to EPA
as CBI by marking any part or all of that information as CBI (if you
submit CBI on disk or CD-ROM, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as
CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the
specific information that is CBI). Information so marked will not be
disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part
2. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes
information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain
the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the
public docket.
    Worldwide Web (WWW). In addition to being available in the docket,
an electronic copy of today's proposal will also be available through
the http://WWW. Following the Administrator's signature, a copy of this action

will be posted on EPA's Technology Transfer Network (TTN) policy and
guidance page for newly proposed or promulgated rules at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/.
 The TTN at EPA's Web site provides information

and technology exchange in various areas of air pollution control.
    Public Hearing. Persons interested in presenting oral testimony or
inquiring as to whether a hearing is to be held should contact Ms.
Janet Eck, EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Emission
Standards Division, Coatings and Consumer Products Group (C539-03),
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, telephone number (919)
541-7946, e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>at least 2 days in
advance of the potential date of the public hearing. Persons interested
in attending the public hearing must also call Ms. Eck to verify the
time, date, and location of the hearing. The public hearing will
provide interested parties the opportunity to present data, views, or
arguments concerning these proposed emission standards.
    Outline. The information presented in this preamble is organized as
follows:

I. Background
II. Summary of the National Lime Association v. EPA Litigation
III. EPA's Proposed Response to the Remand
    A. Determination of MACT for Mercury Emissions
    B. Determination of MACT for HCl Emissions
    C. Determination of MACT for THC Emissions
    D. Evaluation of a Beyond-the-Floor Control Option for Non-
Volatile HAP Metal Emissions
IV. Other Issues on Which We are Seeking Comment
V. Summary of Environmental, Energy, and Economic Impacts
    A. What facilities are affected by the proposed amendment?
    B. What are the air quality impacts?
    C. What are the water quality impacts?
    D. What are the solid waste impacts?
    E. What are the energy impacts?
    F. What are the cost impacts?
    G. What are the economic impacts?
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism
    F. Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments
    G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
    H. Executive Order 13211, Actions That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

I. Background

    Section 112(d) of the CAA requires EPA to set emissions standards
for major stationary sources based on performance of the MACT. The MACT
standards for existing sources must be at least as stringent as the
average emissions limitation achieved by the best performing 12 percent
of existing sources or the best performing five sources for source
categories with less than 30 sources (CAA section 112(d)(3)(A) and
(B)). This level is called the MACT floor. For new sources, MACT
standards must be at least as stringent as the control level achieved
in practice by the best controlled similar

source (CAA section 112(d)(3)). The EPA also must consider more
stringent ``beyond-the-floor'' control options. When considering
beyond-the-floor options, EPA must consider not only the maximum degree
of reduction in emissions of HAP, but must take into account costs,
energy, and nonair environmental impacts when doing so.
    On June 14, 1999 (64 FR 31898), in accordance with these
provisions, EPA published the final rule entitled ``National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants From the Portland Cement
Manufacturing Industry'' (40 CFR part 63, subpart LLL).\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Cement kilns which burn hazardous waste are in a separate
class of source, since their emissions differ from portland cement
kilns as a result of the hazardous waste inputs. Rules for hazardous
waste-burning cement kilns are found at subpart EEE of part 63.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The legacy public docket for the final rule is Docket No. A-92-53.
The final rule provides protection to the public by requiring portland
cement manufacturing plants to meet emission standards reflecting the
performance of the MACT. Specifically, the final rule established MACT-
based emission limitations for particulate matter (as a surrogate for
non-volatile HAP metals), dioxins/furans, and for greenfield \2\ new
sources, THC (as a surrogate for organic HAP). We considered, but did
not establish limits for, THC for existing sources and HCl or mercury
for new or existing sources. In response to the mandate of the District
of Columbia Circuit arising from litigation summarized below in this
preamble, we are proposing emission limitations reflecting MACT for
these pollutants in today's action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ A new greenfield kiln is a kiln constructed prior to March
24, 1998 at a site where there are no existing kilns.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We have previously amended the Portland Cement NESHAP. Consistent
with the terms of a settlement agreement between the American Portland
Cement Alliance v. EPA, EPA adopted final amendments and clarifications
to the rule on April 5, 2002 (76 FR 16614), July 5, 2002 (67 FR 44766),
and December 6, 2002 (67 FR 72580). These amendments generally relate
to applicability, performance testing, and monitoring. In today's
action, we are also proposing to further amend the rule to re-insert
two paragraphs relating to the applicability of the portland cement new
source performance standards that were deleted in error in a previous
amendment.

II. Summary of the National Lime Association v. EPA Litigation

    Following promulgation of the NESHAP for portland cement
manufacturing, the National Lime Association and the Sierra Club filed
petitions for review of the standards in the DC Circuit. The American
Portland Cement Alliance, although not a party to the litigation, filed
a brief with the court as amicus curiae. The court denied essentially
all of the petition of the National Lime Association, but granted part
of the Sierra Club petition.
    In National Lime Association v. EPA, 233 F. 3d 625 (DC Cir. 2000),
the court upheld EPA's determination of MACT floors for particulate
matter (PM) (as a surrogate for non-volatile HAP metals) and for
dioxin/furan. However, the court rejected EPA's determination that it
need not determine MACT floors for the remaining HAP emitted by these
sources, namely, mercury, other organic HAP (for which THC are a
surrogate), and HC1 (233 F. 3d at 633). The court specifically rejected
the argument that EPA was excused from establishing floor levels
because no ``technology-based pollution control devices'' exist to
control the HAP in question (Id. at 634). The court noted that EPA is
also specifically obligated to consider other pollution-reducing
measures including process changes, substitutions of materials inputs,
or other modifications (Id.). The court remanded the rule to EPA to set
MACT floor emission standards for HC1, mercury, and THC.
    The Sierra Club also challenged EPA's decision not to set beyond-
the-floor emission limits for mercury, THC, and non-volatile HAP metals
(for which PM is a surrogate). The court only addressed the absence of
beyond-the-floor emission limits for non-volatile HAP metals since EPA
was already being required to reconsider MACT floor emission standards
for mercury, THC, and HC1, and thus, by necessity, also must consider
whether to adopt beyond-the-floor standards for these HAP. The Sierra
Club argued, and the court agreed, that in considering beyond-the-floor
standards for non-volatile HAP metals, EPA considered cost and energy
requirements but did not consider nonair quality health and
environmental impacts as required by the CAA (Id. at 634-35). The court
also found EPA's analysis of beyond-the-floor standards deficient in
its assertion that there were no data to support fuel switching
(switching to natural gas) as a viable option of reducing emissions of
non-volatile HAP metals (Id. at 635).

III. EPA's Proposed Response to the Remand

A. Determination of MACT for Mercury Emissions

    During development of the original NESHAP for portland cement
manufacturing, we conducted MACT floor and beyond-the-floor analyses
for kiln and in-line kiln/raw mill mercury emissions (63 FR 14182,
March 24, 1998 and 64 FR 31898, June 14, 1999). Although considered a
metal HAP, mercury's volatile nature precludes its control through
application of typical PM controls such as fabric filters (FF) or
electrostatic precipitators (ESP). At the time of the original
rulemaking, we considered establishing an emission limit based on the
use of activated carbon injection because a form of this control
technology was demonstrated on medical waste incinerators and municipal
waste combustors and was being used at one cement plant to reduce
opacity from two non-hazardous waste (NHW) kilns. However, the
placement of the carbon injection system ahead of the kiln PM control
device (the configuration in use at these kilns) and the practice of
recycling the cement kiln dust (CKD) collected by the PM control device
back to the kiln, meant that the mercury was being revaporized and
ultimately emitted to the atmosphere. Thus, the carbon injection
systems alone did not control mercury emissions, and we concluded that
carbon injection in this configuration could not be used as a basis for
establishing a mercury emissions MACT floor for new or existing kilns
(63 FR 14202, March 24, 1999). Our conclusion that the single instance
of an activated carbon injection system used at a portland cement
plant, and the way in which it was used, could not provide the basis
for a MACT floor was not contested by the petitioners.
    We also conducted a beyond-the-floor analysis of using activated
carbon injection with an additional PM control device to reduce mercury
emissions. Costs for the system would include the cost of the carbon
injection system and an additional FF to collect the carbon separately
from the CKD. Based on the low levels of mercury emissions from
individual portland cement kilns, as well as the high cost per ton of
mercury removed by the carbon injection/FF system, we determined that
this beyond-the-floor option was not justified (63 FR 14202, March 24,
1998). The petitioners also did not take issue with this conclusion.
    We did receive comments on the proposed NESHAP for portland cement
manufacturing suggesting that fuel and/

or feed material switching or cleaning be considered as a means for
reducing mercury emissions. In our response to these comments, we
explained that feed and/or fossil-fuel switching or cleaning would be
considered beyond-the-floor options. We also stated that we lacked
data, and none were provided by the commenters, showing that such an
option would consistently decrease mercury emissions.
    As directed in the court remand, we have reconsidered the issue of
MACT floor standards for mercury. We still find that, for existing and
new kilns, the MACT floor for mercury is no additional emissions
reductions.
    We considered simply determining a floor based on the median of the
12 percent of kilns demonstrating the lowest mercury emissions during a
performance test. However, an emissions limit established by this
method would reflect emission levels resulting from fuels/raw materials
fortuitously available at the time of the performance test. These
levels could not be replicated by the source conducting the test and
could not be duplicated by other sources in the source category, unless
they had access to the same fuels and raw materials available at the
time of the emissions test (which of course, would never occur).
Therefore, we could not demonstrate that any emission limit developed
by this method would be achievable on a continuous basis without
limiting sources to the same fuels and raw materials available during
the performance test.
    We then examined the feasibility of using limits on the mercury
content of the fuel and feed to the kiln. Mercury air emissions from
portland cement manufacturing kilns originate from the feed materials
(e.g., limestone, clay, shale, and sand, among others) and fossil fuels
(e.g., coal, oil). In general, the amount of mercury emitted by a
portland cement manufacturing kiln is proportional to the amount of
mercury in the fuel and feed materials due to the volatile nature of
mercury at the temperatures encountered in a cement kiln.
    Based on available data, the only feed material that contributes to
mercury emissions is limestone, which is the main ingredient in
portland cement production. The mercury content of limestone has been
reported by the United States Geological Survey to range from 0.01 to
0.1 parts per million (ppm) and by the United States Bureau of Mines to
range from 0.02 to 2.3 ppm. We considered setting an upper bound based
on these data. However, we cannot say that these ranges actually cover
the entire range of mercury a source could encounter over time.
Therefore, we could not demonstrate that during a performance test a
source could meet an emission limit set using these data. In other
terms, we know of no way to quantify the variability of a cement kiln's
mercury emissions because of the constantly varying concentrations of
mercury in raw material inputs. See Mossville Environmental Action Now
v. EPA, 370 F. 3d 1232, 1241-42 (DC Cir. 2004) (EPA must account for
sources' variability in establishing MACT floors).
    We also are not sure that a consistent source of low-mercury raw
materials exists. We have no information to suggest the widespread
availability of low-mercury limestone deposits. As with other trace
materials in mineral deposits, mercury concentration varies widely
between deposits as well as within deposits.
    Due to this variability, and the lack of data showing the general
availability of low-mercury limestone, it is infeasible to set an
emission limit (floor or otherwise) based on switching to low-mercury
feed materials, or to establish some type of work practice mandating
use of raw material with some specified properties relating to mercury.
There are no data showing that a nationwide supply of low-mercury feed
materials exists, and even if it did, the cost of shipping feed
materials would preclude the use of this technique. Though costs may
not be considered in determining a MACT floor, portland cement plants
are typically located at or near a limestone quarry because the
economics of the portland cement industry require minimal
transportation costs. If we were to now require sources to ship raw low
mercury limestone over potentially long distances to reduce mercury
emissions, it would change the economics of the plant so significantly
that the plant would not be the same class or type of source compared
to facilities that happened to have low-mercury limestone located
nearby (or, at least, had happened on a vein of low mercury limestone
at the time of its performance test). Because limestone's composition
varies with location, limestone must be processed locally to be
profitable, portland cement plants must formulate the mixture of
limestone with other materials to attain the desired composition and
performance characteristics of their product, and access to limestone
is exclusive to each portland cement plant (i.e., no plant typically
can gain access to another plant's limestone). This exclusivity would
preclude plants from mining from a common, low-mercury limestone
quarry. In addition, we expect that even an individual cement kiln's
proprietary feed materials would experience significant mercury
variability (i.e., within-quarry natural variability), so as mentioned
previously, even the same kiln could not be expected to replicate its
own mercury emissions results.
    We also evaluated the possibility of setting a mercury standard for
greenfield new sources based on selection and blending of low-mercury
raw materials, similar to the method we used to establish a greenfield
limit on THC emissions based on the selection and blending of low-
organic containing feed materials (63 FR 14202, March 24, 1998).
However, the situation for mercury is different from the situation for
THC. In the case of THC, some facilities had already used the selection
of low-organic feed materials as a control technique, indicating that
this was a feasible technique and that access to suitable low-organic
materials exists for greenfield sources. This is not the case for using
the selection of a low-mercury feed material. Feed selection to control
mercury has not been used in the portland cement industry, and we have
found no data (nor has anyone supplied such data) to show that suitable
low-mercury feed materials exist for greenfield sites (or for any other
type of site). Metal concentrations in limestone (all metals, not just
mercury) vary widely both within-quarry and quarry-to-quarry. Given
this significant variation in concentration of metals in limestone for
a given area, we believe it is implausible to assume the existence of
any consistently low-mercury quarry sites.
    A secondary source of mercury emitted by portland cement kilns is
coal, which portland cement plants burn as their primary fuel, with
about 90 percent of the total United States kiln capacity using coal,
coke, or a combination of coal and coke as the primary fuel. The
remainder use natural gas, oil, or some type of nonhazardous waste
(such as tire derived fuel) as the primary fuel. The mercury content of
coal ranges from 0.0 to 1.3 micrograms per gram ([mu]g/g) with an
average of approximately 0.09 [mu]g/g. Using the mercury content of
coal, coal requirements per ton of feed, heat input requirements, and
the ratio of feed to clinker, we estimated the amount of mercury
entering model kilns from coal and compared it with the total mercury
input to kilns from feed materials. Based on average mercury
concentrations of feed materials and coal, the largest contribution of
mercury to kilns is from feed materials, which account for between 55
percent and 70 percent of

the mercury. Contributions of mercury from coal account for between 30
percent (model precalciner kiln) and 45 percent (model wet kiln) of the
mercury input to kilns.
    We further examined the existence and availability of low-mercury
coal. In 1999, approximately 91 percent of the coal burned by the
electric utility industry was bituminous and subbituminous coal types.
Although bituminous and subbituminous coals are now believed to contain
less mercury than lignite on a heating value basis, the variability in
mercury across coal seams and within coal seams is too high to
establish one coal type or selected deposit(s) as a designated low-
mercury coal. Furthermore, mercury is not the only trace metal or
potential HAP present in coal. When levels of mercury in coal are
relatively low, concentrations of other HAP metals and other potential
pollutants (such as chlorine, fluorine, and sulfur compounds) may be
elevated. The availability of a low-mercury coal to the portland cement
industry is even more questionable given the pre-existing supply and
transportation relationship with electric utilities. For these reasons,
EPA does not consider the use of a low-mercury coal by the portland
cement industry a feasible practice, or that any standard based on such
a practice would be achievable over time due to constant,
uncontrollable variability.
    We also considered coal cleaning to reduce the mercury content of
coal. However, we have determined that typical coal cleaning is
effective for reducing mercury concentrations only in specific coals
and, at this time, cannot be considered a mercury control technique for
all coals. Advanced coal cleaning techniques are also being
investigated for improved mercury removal potential. Like conventional
cleaning techniques, the advanced cleaning techniques cannot be
considered a mercury control technique for all coals at this time.
(Study of Hazardous Air Pollutant Emissions from Electric Utility Steam
Generating Units--Final Report to Congress, Volume 1, February 1998,
pp. 13-36 and 13-37).
    We also investigated reducing fuel mercury content by requiring
facilities to switch to natural gas. Natural gas can contain trace
amounts of mercury when fired, but the level is so low that mercury
emissions due to natural gas combustion are essentially zero. Assuming
complete conversion to natural gas, we estimated the quantity of
natural gas that would be required to fuel the portland cement
manufacturing industry. Annual clinker production for each of the four
kiln types and average British thermal unit (Btu) requirements to
produce a ton of clinker for each of the kiln types were used to
project annual Btu's needed if the portland cement industry switched
completely to natural gas. Using an average heating value for natural
gas of 1,000 Btu/cubic feet (cu. ft.), the annual clinker production by
kiln type, and the average Btu requirements to produce a ton of clinker
for each kiln type, we estimated the total nationwide natural gas
requirement of the portland cement industry. Assuming a complete
conversion to natural gas (as would be necessary if EPA were to adopt a
standard reflecting mercury emission levels based on the use of natural
gas), the portland cement industry would consume approximately 370
billion cu. ft. of natural gas annually or 1.6 percent of the total
United States natural gas consumption (22.8 trillion cu. ft. in the
year 2000) and 3.9 percent of total industrial natural gas consumption
(9.6 trillion cu. ft.).
    Although United States natural gas reserves would likely be
adequate most of the time to handle a conversion by the portland cement
manufacturing industry to 100 percent natural gas under normal
conditions, supply is constrained by the number and production rate of
United States wells, which is the source of most of the United States
consumption of natural gas. Another obstacle to completely replacing
coal with natural gas is the inadequacy of the existing natural gas
infrastructure, including storage facilities, the pipeline distribution
system, and compression facilities. Natural gas pipelines are
relatively scarce in many United States areas compared to other
utilities and are not available in all areas in which portland cement
manufacturing plants are located. Even where pipelines provide access
to natural gas, supplies of natural gas may not be adequate at all
times. For example, it is common practice for industrial users to have
interruptible contracts for natural gas. An interruptible contract
means that the industrial users get the lowest priority for available
gas during periods of peak demand, such as the winter months.
    For these reasons, reducing fuel mercury content by requiring kilns
to switch to natural gas is not feasible on a national basis. We are
unable to identify any other potential low-mercury fuel that could
serve as the basis of a MACT floor for mercury.
    We also considered setting a floor based on a worst case scenario
of mercury in the fuel and feed material combined. However, even a
worst case estimate based on the available data would not ensure that a
source could consistently meet the standard because there may be
situations where a source has an excursion resulting from the inherent
variability of the feed/fuel mercury content. We could provide an
exception to the standard that would allow the source to exceed the
limit by showing its raw materials or fuel contained more mercury than
previously thought. However, the result of this approach would be that
we would be setting a worse-case standard that is simply a bureaucratic
exercise imposing costs (such as costs for permitting, monitoring, and
recordkeeping) with no emissions reductions.
    We are aware that in specific cases, a source has been able to
reduce emissions of mercury by making changes to some of their raw
materials. Facilities that are already purchasing materials used as
additives or a specific type of coal can make changes that reduce the
total mercury input to the kiln. However, as previously discussed,
these control techniques are site specific, and we do not believe they
can be used as the basis of a national rule. We are also aware that
some cement kilns purchase fly ash from utility boilers as an additive
feedstock. There is concern that as a result of controlling mercury in
utility boilers, the purchased fly ash may now have a higher mercury
content than is the current norm. The result would be that mercury
emissions reductions achieved by controlling utility boilers would be
offset by the release of this previously controlled mercury in a cement
kiln when the fly ash is used as an additive. At this time, we are
uncertain if the use of fly ash from utility boilers that are
controlling their mercury emissions will be significant. One possible
solution would be to ban the use of fly ash from a utility boiler that
is controlling mercury as an additive to cement kiln feed. We are
specifically soliciting comment on a potential ban, or any other
methods to address this issue.
    Thus, EPA has systematically evaluated all possible means of
developing a quantified floor standard for mercury emissions from these
sources, both emission control technology and front end feed and fuel
control. (See National Lime, 233 F. 3d at 634 (finding that EPA had
erred in examining only technological (i.e., back-end) controls in
considering a level for a mercury floor). We have also been unable to
devise any type of work

practice standard that would result in mercury emissions reductions.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Indeed, most of the options EPA considered are really
beyond-the-floor alternatives, because they reflect practices that
differ from those now in use by any existing source (including the
lowest emitters). (Coal switching, switching to natural gas, and raw
material switching are examples.) In EPA's view, a purported floor
standard which forces every source in a category to change its
practices is a beyond-the-floor standard. Such a standard may not be
adopted unless EPA takes into account costs, energy, and nonair
environmental impacts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It has been argued, however, that when considering floor standards,
the means of attaining those standards is legally irrelevant. All that
matters, the argument goes, is what emission level was measured in a
test result and that such a measurement, by definition, must be
considered to have been achieved in practice. The National Lime
Association and the subsequent Cement Kiln Recyclers Coalition v. EPA,
255 F. 3d 855 (DC Cir. 2001) decisions are said to mandate this result.
    The EPA disagrees. EPA's position is that ``achieved in practice''
means achievable over time, since sources are required to achieve the
standards at all times. 70 FR at 59436 (Oct. 12, 2005). This position
has strong support in the caselaw. Sierra Club v. EPA, 167 F. 3d 658,
665 (DC Cir. 1999); Mossville Environmental Action Now v. EPA, 370 F.
3d 1232, 1242 (DC Cir. 2004). Here, as just shown, there are no
standards which are consistently achievable over time because of
sources' inability to control inputs.
    Second, National Lime and CKRC did not involve facts where the
levels of performance reflected in performance tests are pure
happenstance (composition of HAP in raw materials and fossil fuel used
the day the test was conducted), but cannot be replicated or
duplicated. Put another way, these cases did not consider situations
where means of control are infeasible and where no source can duplicate
a quantified level of emissions due to uncontrollable variability of
raw materials and fuels. Indeed, the court has rejected standards based
on raw material substitution where this means of control is not
feasible. (See Sierra Club v. EPA, 353 F. 3d 976, 988 (DC Cir. 2004)
(``substitution of cleaner ore stocks was not * * * a feasible basis on
which to set emission standards. Metallic impurity levels are variable
and unpredictable both from mine to mine and within specific ore
deposits, thereby precluding ore-switching as a predictable and
consistent control strategy'').\4\ Moreover, the court has made clear
that since standards must be met continuously (i.e., any single test
can be a violation of the standard), MACT standards (including floor
standards) must reflect maximum daily variability a source can
experience in operation, including variability associated with HAP
concentrations in raw materials (Mossville Environmental Action Now v.
EPA, 370 F. 3d at 1242.) Here, as discussed above, that level of
variability is beyond the control of any source and thus, cannot be
accounted for in a floor standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Although this language arose in the context of a potential
beyond-the-floor standard, EPA believes that the principle stated is
generally applicable. The MACT standards are technology-based, and
if there is no technology (i.e., no available means) to achieve a
standard, i.e., for a source to achieve a standard whenever it is
tested (as the rules require), then the standard is not an
achievable one.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is argued further, however, that even if individual sources
(including those in the pool of best performing sources) cannot reduce
HAP concentrations in raw materials and fossil fuels, they may achieve
the same reductions by adding back-end pollution control. Applied here,
the argument would be that even though no sources (not even the lowest
emitters in the individual performance tests) can use fossil fuel or
raw material substitution to achieve emission levels for mercury, they
could achieve those levels by installing some type of back-end
pollution control technology such as activated carbon. The thrust of
this argument is essentially to impermissibly bypass the beyond-the-
floor factors set out in CAA section 112(d)(2) under the guise of
adopting a floor standard. (See note three above.) Suppose that EPA
were to adopt a floor standard dominated by emission levels reflecting
mercury concentrations present in a few sources' raw materials and
fossil fuels during their performance tests. Suppose further that no
source in the data base can achieve that floor standard without adding
considerable back-end control equipment (at great cost and great
additional energy utilization) because test results based on fossil
fuel and raw material levels are neither replicable nor duplicable. In
this situation, we believe that we would have improperly adopted a
beyond-the-floor standard. Because the standard is nominally a floor,
we would not have considered the beyond-the-floor factors (cost,
energy, and nonair impacts) set out in section 112(d)(2) of the CAA.
Yet the standard would force all sources, including those ``best
performing sources'' whose performance ostensibly is the basis for the
floor, to retrofit with control devices not presently in use. We can
take such action only if the standard is ``achievable'' under section
112(d)(2), meaning justified after considering cost, energy, and nonair
environmental impacts.
    We evaluated a mercury beyond-the-floor standard for new and
existing cement kilns based on use of activated carbon injection (ACI)
with an additional PM control device. The total capital cost of an ACI
system is estimated to range from $761,000 to $5.5 million per kiln.
The total annual costs of an ACI system are estimated to range from
$477,000 to $3.7 million per kiln. These costs include the carbon
injection system and an additional baghouse necessary to collect the
carbon separately from the CKD. The cost per ton of mercury reduction
for ACI applied to cement kilns ranges from $22.4 million to $56
million. The use of ACI for mercury control could also result in a co-
benefit of additional control of dioxins and furans. However, the
current NESHAP for portland cement mandates stringent levels of dioxin
emissions based on the floor level of control. Even if ACI further
reduces dioxin emissions to zero, the cost would be in the range of $2
billion to $7 billion per pound. Therefore, we do not consider the
dioxin emission reduction co-benefit to be significant.
    We also note that the application of ACI would generate additional
solid waste and increase energy use. We estimate that the per kiln
impacts would be 95 to 1,600 tons per year (tpy) of solid waste and
526,200 to 9.3 million kilowatt hours (kWhr) of electricity demand.
    Based on the relatively low levels of existing mercury emissions
from individual NHW cement kilns, the high costs (on both a dollars-
per-year and a dollars-per-ton basis) of reducing these emissions by
ACI, and the negative nonair environmental impacts, we are proposing
that this beyond-the-MACT-floor option for reducing mercury from new
and existing NHW kilns is not justified.

B. Determination of MACT for HCl Emissions

    In developing the 1999 Portland Cement NESHAP we concluded that no
add-on air pollution controls were being used whose performance could
be used as a basis for the MACT floor for existing portland cement
plants. For new source MACT, we identified two kilns that were using
alkaline scrubbers for the control of sulfur dioxide (SO2)
emissions. But we concluded that because these devices were operated
only intermittently, their performance could not be used as a basis for
the MACT floor for new sources. Alkaline scrubbers were then considered
for

beyond-the-floor controls. Using engineering assessments from similar
technology operated on municipal waste combustors and medical waste
incinerators, we estimated costs and emissions reductions. Based on the
costs of control and emissions reductions that would be achieved, we
determined that beyond-the-floor controls were not warranted (63 FR
14203, March 24, 1998).
    We reexamined establishing a floor for control of HCl emissions
from new portland cement sources. Since promulgation of the NESHAP, wet
or dry scrubbers have been installed and are operating at a minimum of
four portland cement plants.\5\ Only one of the plants has conducted
emissions tests for HCl using EPA Method 321 of appendix A to 40 CFR
part 63. All of the test results for HCl were below the detection
limits of 0.2 to 0.3 parts per million by volume (ppmv) for the
measurement method.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ None of these four kilns burn hazardous waste.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on the presence of continuously operated alkaline scrubbers
at portland cement plants, we believe that the performance of
continuously operated alkaline scrubbers represents MACT for new
sources, but we do not have sufficient test data to set an emission
level. As noted above, the one source tested had HCl emission levels
below the detection limit. However, we do not have data for the inlet
to the source's scrubber. In some cases, HCl emissions from cement
kilns with no add-on controls are below 1 ppmv, but can also be above
40 ppmv. We cannot determine if the low outlet concentration at the one
tested source is solely due to the performance of the control device,
or to a low inlet concentration. Therefore, we cannot state that any
new cement kiln can reduce HCl emissions to levels below detection.
    However, section 112(d)(3) of the CAA states that new source MACT
may be based on the performance of the best controlled similar source.
Alkaline scrubbers designed for control of SO2 routinely
achieve a 90 percent reduction in SO2 emissions when applied
to coal-fired boilers. Alkaline scrubbers are known to be more
effective in removing HCl than SO2. Therefore, it is
reasonable to assume that an alkaline scrubber can achieve a 90 percent
emission reduction of HCl if the inlet loadings are comparable to those
seen on coal-fired boilers. However, it is also known that the removal
efficiency of a scrubber can decrease as the inlet loading decreases.
For this reason, we evaluated the performance of alkaline scrubbers
applied to combustion of municipal solid waste, which has an HCl
emissions loading more similar to a cement kiln than a coal-fired
boiler. Based on an engineering assessment of HCl scrubbers used in
municipal waste combustion applications and on vendor design
information, we determined an alkaline scrubber could achieve a 15 ppmv
HCl outlet concentration at low HCl inlet loadings, or at least a 90
percent HCl emissions reduction at HCl inlet loadings of 100 ppmv or
greater. Therefore, we are proposing a new source MACT for HCl
emissions of 15 ppmv at the control device outlet, or a 90 percent HCl
emissions reduction measured across the scrubber.
    Note that we are not proposing to retroactively impose this
requirement on currently operating new sources. It will only apply to
new sources that commence construction after December 2, 2005.
Currently operating sources classified as new under the 1999 Portland
Cement NESHAP would be required to meet the same requirements as
existing sources.
    This approach is legally permissible and reasonable. The underlying
principle for having new sources meet stricter standards (in the case
of new source MACT standards, standards reflecting the performance of
the best controlled similar source) is that such sources are
essentially starting from scratch and, therefore, can most efficiently
utilize the best means of pollution control. They will not need to
retrofit. Sources classified as new under the 1999 Portland Cement
NESHAP are not in this position. They have already commenced
construction (and most likely started operating) and so are not in the
position of a source starting de novo. Consequently, the only new
sources for purposes of the proposed amendments are those commencing
construction or reconstruction after December 2, 2005. We note that the
position taken here is consistent with that proposed (and recently
finalized) for hazardous waste combustion sources. See 69 FR 21363,
April 20, 2004.
    In order to show compliance with the 15 ppmv emission limit, we are
proposing to require a performance test using one of the following EPA
methods:
    (1) Method 26/26A of Appendix A to 40 CFR part 60. Method 26A must
be used when HCl could be associated with PM (for example, the
association of HCl with water droplets emitted by sources controlled by
a wet scrubber); otherwise you may use Method 26.
    (2) Method 320 or 321 of Appendix A to 40 CFR part 63.
    (3) ASTM Method D6735-01, Standard Test Method for Measurement of
Gaseous Chlorides and Fluorides from Mineral Calcining Exhaust
Sources--Impinger Method, provided that specific provisions in 40 CFR
63.1349, paragraphs (b)(5)(iii)(A) through (F) are followed. These test
methods are consistent with the HCl test methods used in similar
standards. To determine compliance with the percent reduction
requirement we are proposing to require the source to test at the
scrubber inlet and outlet using one of the above methods and calculate
a percent reduction based on the concentration difference (corrected to
7 percent oxygen) divided by the inlet concentration and multiplied by
100.
    We also reexamined the MACT floor for existing sources. We first
considered setting the floor based on the performance of an alkaline
scrubber. However, because only four facilities currently have
operating alkaline scrubbers, the performance of alkaline scrubbers
would not be indicative of the median of the top 12 percent of the
source category. Therefore, we examined other alternatives that might
constitute a floor. Because HCl emissions originate from chlorine in
feed and fuel materials, we considered the use of feed/fuel selection
as a potential option to reduce the amount of chlorine entering the
kiln. Under this option, low-chlorine fuel and/or feed materials would
be used to lower HCl emissions from kilns. However, this option
presents the same problems previously discussed for using low-mercury
containing feed and fuels. We have no data indicating the widespread
availability of low-chlorine deposits of feed, or whether such deposits
even exist. As with other contaminants, concentrations are variable
between deposits as well as within deposits. The result is that
uniformly low-chlorine feed is not available on a widespread basis.
Furthermore, there is no information that a low-chlorine deposit of
feed materials is likely also to be low in mercury, other metal HAP, or
organic HAP material. Such limitations and uncertainties make this an
unrealistic option. We also considered the option of changing to a low-
chlorine fuel, such as natural gas. This option was also determined to
be infeasible due to limits on gas availability as previously discussed
in the mercury MACT determination \6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ As explained above, standards reflecting these control
practices (which we do not believe are feasible) would be beyond-
the-floor standards because they would force changes in practice by
all sources in the category, even the lowest emitters in the
performance tests.

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

    Another control technique we considered was a work practice control
based on the use of the kiln and PM control. Because the kiln and PM
control system contain large amounts of alkaline CKD, the kilns
themselves remove a significant amount of HCl (which reacts with the
CKD and is captured as particulate). See 69 FR 21259, April 20, 2004.
We considered setting an emission limit based on reported kiln HCl
emissions which reflects this natural scrubbing. However, this approach
has some of the limitations previously discussed regarding establishing
a floor for mercury. The HCl emissions at any one time are a function
of the chlorine content of the feed materials and fuel. We could not
state that the levels of HCl emissions from any one kiln could be
duplicated by other kilns, or by the tested kiln on a continuous basis.
We also have no data that would allow us to establish a typical percent
reduction in HCl emissions resulting from the alkaline environment in
the kiln.
    There are total HCl emissions reductions data for cement kilns that
fire hazardous waste (a separate class of cement kiln, as noted
earlier). These data indicate that 80 percent of the kilns achieve at
least a 95 percent reduction in total chlorine emissions at the kiln
outlet compared to the total chlorine in the feed material (69 FR
21259, April 20, 2004). However, the hazardous waste being burned in
the kiln has a significant amount of chlorine compared to the fuel and
feed materials of a cement kiln that does not burn hazardous waste. As
previously noted, the overall percent reduction of HCl goes down as the
total amount of HCl present is reduced. Therefore, the percent
reduction seen in kilns that burn hazardous waste is not applicable to
kilns that do not fire hazardous waste.
    It is nonetheless clear that all cement kilns will reduce emissions
of HCl due to the kilns' alkaline operating conditions. We cannot
measure the extent of emission reduction over time due to the types of
variability just discussed. Because we cannot set a numeric emission
limit and consequently cannot prescribe or enforce an emission standard
within the meaning of section 112(h) of the CAA, we are proposing a
floor for existing facilities as the work practice of operating the
cement kiln under normal operating conditions and operating a
particulate control device to capture HCl present in or adsorbed on the
kiln particulate and have added this language in 40 CFR 63.1344.
    We are proposing to allow existing sources and new sources
commencing construction before the publication date of the proposed
amendments 1 year after publication of the final amendments to be in
compliance with the amendment as proposed. The CAA requires compliance
with MACT standards ``as expeditiously as practicable,'' and in
virtually no case longer than 3 years after promulgation of the
standard (CAA section 112(i)(3)(A)). Because the proposed amendment
does not require the installation of a control device, we do not
believe a 3-year compliance date is the most expeditious compliance
date. We considered proposing a compliance date as the date the rule
amendment is promulgated as proposed. However, as discussed below, we
are proposing a compliance date of 1 year after publication of the
final amendments for the amended THC/carbon monoxide (CO) requirements.
We believe it is more reasonable to have one compliance date for all
the proposed rule amendments. We do not believe this decision will
measurably change the environmental benefits of the HCl standard.
    We also evaluated requiring the use of an alkaline scrubber as a
beyond-the-floor control option for existing sources. Based on the
estimated performance, annual HCl emissions reductions estimates range
from 12 tpy of HCl and 27 tpy of SO2, to 200 tpy of HCl and
600 tpy of SO2, per kiln. The total capital cost of
installing an alkaline scrubber on an existing kiln is estimated to
range from $1.1 to $5.1 million per kiln. The total annual cost is
estimated to range from $336,000 to $1.7 million per kiln (Docket No.
A-92-53). The cost per ton of HCl removed ranges from $8,500 to
$28,000. In addition, the beyond-the-floor option would result in per-
kiln nonair environmental impacts of 5,000 to 84,100 tons of scrubber
slurry for disposal, 4.7 to 107 million gallons of additional water
usage, and increased electricity use of 219,300 to 2.4 million kWhr. We
do not consider these costs and nonair environmental impacts reasonable
for the emissions reductions achieved.
    We are proposing a format of volume per volume concentration for
the emission limit. The specific units of the emission limit are ppmv
(corrected to 7 percent oxygen) or a percent reduction. These formats
have historically been used by EPA for many air emission standards and
are consistent with the format of the NESHAP for cement kilns that burn
hazardous waste. The concentration is corrected to 7 percent oxygen to
put concentrations measured in stacks with different oxygen
concentrations on a common basis, and because the typical range of
oxygen concentrations in cement kiln stack gas is from 5 to 10 percent
oxygen, we consider 7 percent representative. The HCl concentration or
percent reduction will be measured during an initial performance test
and at least every 5 years thereafter. During this test, you will
establish scrubber operating parameters, including pH and liquid-to-gas
ratio, and continuously monitor these parameters.
    The EPA also solicits comment on adopting alternative risk-based
emission standards for HCl pursuant to section 112(d)(4) of the CAA.
Both existing and new portland cement sources could be eligible for
such standards. The EPA is considering two possible approaches for
establishing such standards. Alternative risk-based standards would be
based on national exposure standards determined by EPA to ensure
protection of public health with an ample margin of safety and that do
not pose adverse environmental impacts.
    Under the first approach, dispersion modeling of representative
worst-case sources (or, preferably, all sources) within the portland
cement category would be conducted to establish a level for comparison
with the risk-based national standards. This would be done by
determining that the annual HCl emissions rate for a cement kiln's
emissions do not result in chronic human exposures which might exceed a
Hazard Quotient (HQ) of 1.0.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Noncancer risk assessments typically use a metric called the
Hazard Quotient (HQ) to assess risks of exposures to noncarcinogens.
The HQ is the ratio of a receptor's potential exposure (or modeled
concentration) to the health reference value or threshold level
(e.g., Reference Concentration) for an individual pollutant. The HQ
values less than 1.0 indicate that exposures are below the health
reference value or threshold level and, therefore, such exposures
are without appreciable risk of effects in the exposed population.
HQ values above 1.0 do not necessarily imply that adverse effects
will occur, but that the likelihood of such effects in a given
population increases as HQ values exceed 1.0. See http://www.epa.gov//ttn/atw/nata/gloss1.html
.

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

    Also under this approach, the same risk-based national standards
would be established for each source category. The EPA has proposed a
substantially similar approach for HCl and total chlorine emissions
from hazardous waste-burning cement kilns (see proposed CAA section
112(d) standards at 69 FR 21305, April 20, 2004), and adopted similar
approaches (again for HCl) in CAA section 112(d) rules for lime kilns
(69 FR 394, January 5, 2004) and pulp and paper facilities (66 FR 3180,
January 12, 2001).
    In determining the appropriate risk-based standard on a national
basis, EPA

would use the reference concentration (RfC) for HCl that is currently
published in EPA's Integrated Risk Information System as the
denominator in the calculation of HQ mentioned in the previous
paragraph. The RfC is defined as an estimate of a continuous inhalation
exposure for a given duration to the human population (including
susceptible subgroups) that is likely to be without an appreciable risk
of adverse health effects over a lifetime. As such, HQ values at or
below 1.0 should be considered to provide public health protection with
an ample margin of safety and, thus, can be used to develop the
national risk-based emission standards. Due to data limitations
regarding the universe of cement kiln sources nationwide, EPA is not
currently able to conduct a national analysis to determine if all
cement kilns are emitting HCl at a rate that would meet the risk-based
standards. However, EPA is prepared to evaluate documentation submitted
in public comment.
    Under the second approach, the risk-based standards would be
developed on a source-by-source basis, with sources choosing whether to
seek an alternative risk-based limit. The risk-based standards would
consist of a nationally applicable, uniform algorithm--again using the
national exposure level for HCl just discussed. We would use this
algorithm to establish site-specific emission limitations based on
site-specific input from each source choosing to use this approach.
Such risk-based standards would provide a uniform level of risk
reduction. The EPA proposed this approach for hazardous waste
combustion sources (69 FR 21297, April 20, 2004) and adopted it for
industrial boilers (69 FR 55218, September 13, 2004).
    Sources would then calculate an HCl emission rate either by
applying values from a look-up table provided by EPA, applicable to
sources located in either flat or simple elevated terrain,\8\ or, if
the source is located in a different type of terrain, conduct a site-
specific compliance demonstration. Sources using look-up tables would
have to use the stack height and stack diameter from their kiln and the
distance between the stack and the property boundary. At this time, due
to data limitations regarding the universe of cement kiln sources
nationwide, EPA cannot develop look-up tables for this source category.
However, EPA is prepared to evaluate any information submitted in
public comment and, if appropriate, use it as the basis for developing
such look-up tables. If EPA is unable to develop look-up tables for the
final rule, only site-specific risk assessments could be used as the
basis for implementing this approach. For the site-specific
demonstration, a source may use any scientifically accepted, peer-
reviewed risk assessment methodology to calculate an annual average HCl
emission rate limit. To determine that emission rate limit, the site-
specific demonstration must: (1) Estimate long-term inhalation
exposures through estimation of annual or multiyear average ambient
concentrations; (2) estimate the inhalation exposure for the actual
individual most exposed to the facility's emissions from hazardous
waste combustors, considering locations where people reside and where
people congregate for work, school, or recreation; (3) use site-
specific, quality-assured data wherever possible; (4) use health-
protective default assumptions wherever site-specific data are not
available, and (5) contain adequate documentation of the data and
methods used for the assessment so that it is transparent and can be
reproduced by an experienced risk assessor and emissions measurement
expert.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Flat terrain is terrain that rises to a level not exceeding
one half the stack height within a distance of 50 stack heights.
Simple elevated terrain is terrain that rises to a level exceeding
one half the stack height, but that does not exceed the stack height
within a distance of 50 stack heights.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    These eligibility demonstrations would then be reviewed and
approved or disapproved by the permitting authority. Permitting
procedures, compliance demonstration requirements, and subsequent
compliance monitoring requirements would be established in a manner
similar to the proposed approach for hazardous waste combusters (69 FR
21302, April 20, 2004).

C. Determination of MACT for THC Emissions

    During the development of the 1999 Portland Cement NESHAP, EPA
identified no add-on air pollution control technology being used in the
portland cement industry whose performance could be used as a basis for
establishing a MACT floor for controlling THC emissions (the surrogate
for organic HAP) from existing sources. The EPA did identify two kilns
using a system consisting of a precalciner (with no preheater), which
essentially acts as an afterburner to combust organic material in the
feed. The precalciner/no preheater system was considered a possible
basis for a beyond-the-floor standard for existing kilns and as a
possible basis for a MACT floor for new kilns. However, this system was
found to increase fuel consumption relative to a preheater/precalciner
design, to emit six times as much SO2, two and one half
times as much oxides of nitrogen (NOX), and 1.2 times as
much carbon dioxide (CO2) as a preheater/precalciner kiln of
equivalent clinker capacity. Taking into account the adverse energy and
environmental impacts, we determined that the precalciner/no preheater
design did not represent MACT (63 FR 14202, March 24, 1998). We also
considered feed material selection for existing sources as a MACT floor
technology and concluded that this option is not available to existing
kilns, or to new kilns located at existing plants because these
facilities generally rely on existing raw material sources located
close to the source due to the cost of transporting the required large
quantities of feed materials. However, for new greenfield kilns, feed
material selection as achieved through appropriate site selection and
feed material blending is considered new source MACT (63 FR 14202,
March 24, 1998).
    We have reexamined MACT for THC for both new and existing
facilities. Since the publication of the final NESHAP, we have
promulgated standards for cement kilns that fire hazardous waste (40
CFR 63.1204(a)(5)) and proposed a revision to these standards (40 CFR
63.1220(a)(5)) (69 FR 21379, April 20, 2004). We are proposing to
incorporate the same standards in the Portland Cement NESHAP. The
proposed standards are shown in the following table:

                           Table 2.--Proposed THC/CO Emissions Limits for Cement Kilns
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Proposed emission limit
                                                                         ---------------------------------------
                                                                           ppmv THC \3\ \4\    Averaging period
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Existing kiln...................           No Alkali bypass \6\           20 or 100 ppmv CO   Hourly.
                                                                           \1\.
                                  w/bypass..........  Main \5\..........  No limit..........  N/A.
                                                      Alkali Bypass \6\.  10 or 100 ppmv CO   Hourly.
                                                                           \1\.
New kiln at an existing plant...           No Alkali Bypass \6\           20 or 100 ppmv CO   Hourly.
                                                                           \1\.
                                  w/bypass..........  Main \5\..........  No limit..........  N/A.
                                                      Alkali Bypass \6\.  10 or 100 ppmv CO   Hourly.
                                                                           \1\.
New kiln at greenfield facility.           No Alkali Bypass \6\           20 or (50 THC and   20 is hourly, 50
                                                                           100 ppmv CO) \2\.   is monthly.
                                  w/bypass..........  Main \5\..........  50 and............  Monthly.
                                                      Alkali Bypass \6\.  10 or 100 ppmv CO   Hourly.
                                                                           \1\.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Sources that choose to meet the hourly CO standard, must also meet the THC standard at performance test.
\2\ Sources that choose to meet the 50/100 standard, must also meet the 20 ppmv THC standard at performance
  test.
\3\ ppmv means parts per million on a dry volume basis.
\4\ Measured as propane and corrected to seven percent oxygen.
\5\ Main kiln stack.
\6\ Alternately, a facility may meet the alkali bypass standard if they use a midkiln gas sampling system that
  diverts a sample of kiln gas that contains levels of carbon dioxide or hydrocarbons representative of levels
  in the kiln.

    Our rationale for applying these standards to cement kilns firing
hazardous waste may be found beginning at 64 FR 52885, September 30,
1999. Essentially, the THC and CO standards guarantee that the kiln
will operate under good combustion conditions and will minimize
formation (and hence, emissions) of organic HAP. We believe that the
control of THC emissions from cement kilns which do not fire hazardous
waste should be no more difficult to control than emissions for kilns
that do fire hazardous waste because good combustion practices are
maintainable by either type of kiln, and the hazardous waste cement
kilns would be the more challenged in that regard. Therefore, cement
kilns that do not fire hazardous waste should be able to achieve the
same emission limits showing good combustion conditions as kilns that
fire hazardous waste. Both types of kilns use the same feedstock
materials and fossil fuels, and it would be expected that lack of any
hazardous waste feed for a NHW cement kiln should make it easier to
control the combustion process. Because we have no data upon which to
set a different standard, and because these levels are indicative of
good combustion in any case, the use of the standards for cement kilns
firing hazardous waste is appropriate here.
    The proposed standards have different limits based on the sampling
location. As noted above, the THC emission limits are based on good
combustion practices. However, even with good combustion organic
material in the limestone, feed material can be volatilized by the
gases at the cold end of the kiln where feed is introduced, resulting
in increased THC emissions. Therefore, measuring THC in the alkali
bypass or at the midpoint of the kiln using a midkiln gas sampling
system should result in a more accurate assessment of kiln combustion
conditions. For this reason, we are proposing different standards if an
alkali bypass or midkiln gas sampling system are available, and are
requiring THC and CO measurements be made in the alkali bypass or
midkiln gas sampling system, if available.
    We are proposing to use the term ``midkiln gas sampling system'' to
denote the situation where the source which does not have an alkali
bypass can take a sample of kiln gas that is representative of the CO
or THC levels in the kiln. We are allowing a midkiln gas sampling
system to be used if present on the kiln. We are not aware of any NWH
cement kiln that has a midkiln gas sampling system, but we are aware of
one cement kiln that burns hazardous waste that does. If a facility
does not have an alkali bypass or a midkiln gas sampling system, we are
not requiring that one be installed. In this case, the facility should
make THC or CO measurements in the main stack. However, we also do not
preclude a facility from installing a midkiln gas sampling system if
desired.
    The performance levels shown on the table above are for both new
and existing sources (with the exception of new greenfield kilns, which
have a 50 ppmv standard measured in the main stack as discussed below).
We believe that good combustion conditions are indicative of the
performance of the median of the best performing 12 percent of existing
sources. We have no data to show that good combustion conditions in a
new kiln result in any different level of performance than good
combustion conditions in an existing kiln.
    The promulgated standards for cement kilns that fire hazardous
waste also include a requirement that facilities electing to monitor CO
in lieu of THC must also meet the THC emission level during a THC
performance test. We are proposing to include this requirement in the
Portland Cement NESHAP. The reason for this requirement is that there
can be cases where low CO emissions may not be indicative of low THC
emissions. The purpose of the THC performance test is to definitely
establish that monitoring of CO for a specific facility will provide an
accurate surrogate for THC, and so assure that good combustion
conditions exist. We recognize for kilns with no alkali bypass or
midkiln gas sampling system, there is a possibility that organic
materials in the limestone feed could potentially result in high test
results. However, we believe that for the short duration of a THC
performance test, a facility could potentially use feed blending to
minimize the contribution of the feed material. (Note that though we
believe it is possible over the short term to obtain enough low organic
feed material to pass a performance test, we do not believe it is
possible to do so over the long term, except for greenfield kilns where
the limestone feed mine can be sited with limestone organic materials
content in mind.) However, the result of this requirement is that
during performance tests, some facilities will be required to
temporarily meet THC emission levels at the main stack that are below
the new source floor for greenfield kilns of 50 ppmv. Therefore, we are
specifically soliciting comment

on the necessity of retaining the requirement of a THC performance test
when a facility elects to monitor CO and the achievability of the THC
limits during testing, and further soliciting test data that may
support other emissions levels.
    We are not proposing any change to the current THC requirement for
new greenfield kilns of 50 ppmv measured in the main stack, because
this requirement was not challenged. We are not reconsidering this
requirement. However, we are including the 50 ppmv standard in the
proposed rule language to provide a complete picture of the THC
standards as a convenience to the reader.
    We are proposing that all of the THC/CO standards in the table
above be met on a continuous basis (based on an hourly average) and be
monitored using a continuous emissions monitor (CEM). For sources
electing to meet a THC standard, we are proposing to retain the
requirement that the monitor meet performance specification 8A
contained in appendix A of 40 CFR part 60 and to add the additional
quality assurance requirements contained in procedure 1 of appendix F
to 40 CFR part 63. We are proposing that continuous monitors for CO
must meet performance specification 4B contained in 40 CFR part 60 and
adding the additional quality assurance requirements contained in
procedure 1 of appendix F to 40 CFR part 63. These are the same
performance specification requirements contained in the NESHAP for
cement kilns that fire hazardous waste, and we consider these
requirements to be appropriate for NHW kilns. If a facility elects to
meet an alternative CO standard in lieu of a THC standard, we are
proposing that they do not have to continuously monitor for THC, but
must use EPA Method 25A in appendix A of 40 CFR part 60 to demonstrate
compliance with a THC standard every 5 years during a performance test.
    We are proposing to allow existing sources and new sources
commencing construction before the publication date of the proposed
amendments 1 year after publication of the final amendments to be in
compliance with the amendments as proposed. The CAA requires compliance
with MACT standards ``as expeditiously as practicable,'' and in
virtually no case longer than 3 years after promulgation of the
standard (CAA section 112(i)(3)(A)). Because the proposed standards do
not require the installation of a control device, we do not believe a
3-year compliance date is the most expeditious compliance date. We
believe 1 year is sufficient for a source to purchase, install, and
test a monitoring system. However, we are specifically soliciting
comment and supporting data on the proposed requirement.
    We also considered beyond-the-floor options for existing sources of
substituting raw materials with lower organic contents. However, except
for new greenfield kilns, we determined this beyond-the-floor option
was not feasible. As previously discussed, facilities are limited to
obtaining limestone (which contains the majority of the organic
material that contributes to THC emissions) from a co-located or a
nearby mine. It is not possible to set a national standard based on the
assumption that all affected sources will have access to limestone with
low organic content. In the case of a greenfield facility, this is not
the case because the mine site can be selected with the limestone
organic content as a criterion. As noted at proposal of the Portland
Cement NESHAP, selection of sites with low organic content limestone
has been used for at least two existing sites (63 FR 14202, March 24,
1998). However, this option is limited to new kilns at greenfield
facilities.
    At proposal of the Portland Cement NESHAP, we considered the use of
a precalciner/no preheater system as the basis for new source MACT and
the basis for a beyond-the-floor option for existing sources. However,
due to the adverse energy impacts and secondary air impacts, this
option was determined not to represent best control for new sources or
an acceptable beyond-the-floor alternative for existing sources (63 FR
14202, March 24, 1998).
    For the THC emission standard, we proposed to retain the volume per
volume concentration emission limit format. The specific units of the
emission limit are ppmv (as propane, corrected to 7 percent oxygen).
This emission limit format has historically been used by EPA for many
air emission standards. This format is consistent with the format of
the NESHAP for cement kilns that burn hazardous waste. The
concentration is corrected to 7 percent oxygen to put concentrations
measured in stacks with different oxygen concentrations on a common
basis, and because the typical range of oxygen concentrations in cement
kiln stack gas is from 5 to 10 percent oxygen, we consider 7 percent
representative. The THC or CO concentration can be monitored directly
with the CEM required by the proposed standard. The reference or
calibration gas for the CEM is propane, and the THC data analyzed in
the development of the proposed standard were referenced to propane.
Therefore, propane is the appropriate reference compound for
concentration data.
    For the 10 and 20 ppmv THC and 100 ppmv CO limits, we are proposing
to demonstrate compliance using a CEM and a 1-hour averaging period. If
a facility elects to continuously monitor CO, we are proposing to
require that the source also meet the THC limit during a 3-hour
performance test using EPA Method 25A. The reason for the THC
performance test requirement is to ensure that monitoring CO will be
representative of low THC emissions (and hence, good combustion
conditions, as explained earlier). We are proposing to retain the 1-
hour averaging period specified in the NESHAP for cement kilns that
burn hazardous waste.

D. Evaluation of a Beyond-the-Floor Control Option for Non-Volatile HAP
Metal Emissions

    In our MACT determination for PM (the surrogate for non-volatile
HAP metals), we concluded that well-designed and properly operated FF
or ESP designed to meet the new source performance standards (NSPS) for
portland cement plants represent the MACT floor technology for control
of PM from kilns and in-line kiln/raw mills. Because no technologies
were identified for existing or new kilns that would consistently
achieve lower emissions than the NSPS, EPA concluded that there was no
beyond-the-floor technology for PM emissions (63 FR 14199, March 24,
1998).
    In National Lime Association v. EPA, the court held that EPA had
failed to adequately document that substituting natural gas for coal
was an infeasible control option, and also had not assessed nonair
environmental impacts when considering beyond-the-floor standards for
HAP metals (233 F. 3d at 634-35). As a result, the court remanded the
beyond-the-floor determination for HAP metals for further consideration
by EPA.
    In our reexamination of a beyond-the-floor MACT control standard
for HAP metals, we considered both fuel switching and changing to feed
materials with a lower metals content. Both of these options suffer
from the problems previously discussed for using low-mercury fuels/feed
materials to reduce mercury emissions. These problems are that low-
metals fuels and feed are not universally available (Sierra Club v.
EPA, 353 F. 3d at 988 (substitution of alternative raw materials not
feasible, so ``EPA reasonably refused to set beyond-the-floor standards
* * * based on a requirement that smelters switch'' raw materials)). In
addition, we

determined that even if low-metals fuel/feeds were available, the cost
of requiring sources to use them would be unreasonable, indeed
prohibitive. More detailed information on this analysis may be found in
the docket for the proposed amendments. Because the cost of this
beyond-the-floor is prohibitive, we did not perform a detailed analysis
of the nonair environmental impacts. There should be no water quality
impacts for this option since no additional water is needed. Any
effects on solid waste generation would be expected to be minimal
because the same amount of CKD would be generated. Likewise, energy
implications are minimal because the same amount of energy use would
occur. Nonetheless, for reasons of the high costs relative to the
potential emissions reductions, EPA is not proposing a beyond-the-floor
standard based on material or fuel substitution, even if this were a
feasible alternative.

IV. Other Issues on Which We Are Seeking Comment

    On April 5, 2002, we amended the introductory text of 40 CFR
63.1353(a) to make it more clear that affected sources under the
Portland Cement NESHAP were not subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart F
(67 FR 16615, April 20, 2002). In making this change, we inadvertently
deleted paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of 40 CFR 63.1353. The language in
these paragraphs is still necessary for determining the applicability
of 40 CFR part 60, subpart F. We are proposing to reinstate these
paragraphs as originally written in the final rule.
    On April 5, 2002, we also amended 40 CFR 63.1340(c) to read as
follows:

    For portland cement plants with on-site nonmetallic mineral
processing facilities, the first affected source in the sequence of
materials handling operations subject to this subpart is the raw
material storage, which is just prior to the raw mill. Any equipment
of the on-site nonmetallic mineral processing plant which precedes
the raw material storage is not subject to this subpart. In
addition, the primary and secondary crushers of the on-site
nonmetallic mineral processing plant, regardless of whether they
precede the raw material storage, are not subject to this subpart.
Furthermore, the first conveyor transfer point subject to this
subpart is the transfer point associated with the conveyor
transferring material from the raw material storage to the raw mill.

    This amendment implemented part of a settlement agreement between
EPA and the Portland Cement Association (PCA), which was signed
September 7, 2001. However, the PCA has since brought to our attention
what they considered to be a misinterpretation of the amended rule text
for a specific facility in Pennsylvania. The facility in question has a
limestone raw materials storage area followed by conveyers and other
raw materials storage, all of which feed into a bin labeled ``raw mill
feed bin.'' The PCA claimed that the raw mill feed bin was the first
point subject to the Portland Cement NESHAP, not the limestone raw
materials storage area. We had interpreted the first point subject to
the Portland Cement NESHAP as the limestone raw materials storage area.
The PCA based their claim on the specific rule text ``raw material
storage, which is just prior to the raw mill'' and the use of the term,
``the first conveyor transfer point subject to this subpart,'' rather
than the term ``conveyers.'' They noted that the raw mill feed bin met
the definition of raw material storage because it contained raw
material, was ``just prior'' to the raw mill, and there was only one
conveyer between the raw mill feed bin and the raw mill. The PCA also
stated that during the negotiation, they had made it clear that this
was the proper interpretation of this language.
    In an effort to resolve this issue, we first reviewed the
documentation leading up to the settlement agreement. In a letter dated
December 27, 1999, the PCA's counsel wrote ``the final rule applies to
sources with on-site nonmetallic mineral processing facilities for
which the secondary crusher is located in the sequence of materials
handling operation at a point after the first transfer point associated
with the conveyer transferring material from raw material storage to
the raw mill'' (docket No. A-92-53). He noted that these sources ``are
required to comply with the standards under NSPS, 40 CFR part 60,
subpart OOO, for nonmetallic mineral processing operations.'' In the
last version of the settlement agreement, the section concerning the
revised rule language discussed above was titled ``applicability of the
final rule to crushers.'' Based on these documents, we do not see any
written evidence that the rule language had any purpose other than to
clarify that secondary crushers were not subject to the Portland Cement
NESHAP.
    In addition, we believe the PCA interpretation is not reasonable
when reading the entire final NESHAP. The paragraph also states that
``In addition, the primary and secondary crushers of the on-site
nonmetallic mineral processing plant, regardless of whether they
precede the raw material storage, are not subject to this subpart.'' If
a facility has a crusher after raw material storage, then the raw
material storage is not ``just prior'' to the raw mill based on the PCA
interpretation of the meaning of ``just prior.'' In addition, there
cannot be just one ``conveyer,'' there are two--the conveyer between
raw material storage and the crusher, and a conveyer between the
crusher and the raw mill. Given these facts, we believe that the rule
language as written is open to more than one interpretation.
    In our review, we also observed that the original Portland Cement
NSPS were promulgated in 1971. At that time, we established the
portland cement source category to include raw materials storage. We
interpret this to mean any storage that would be required by a typical
cement plant, regardless of any co-located nonmetallic minerals
operation. In 1985, we promulgated the Nonmetallic Minerals Operations
NSPS. In order to avoid potential overlap, we specifically stated in 40
CFR 60.670 that a source subject to the Portland Cement NSPS was not
subject to the Nonmetallic Minerals Operations NSPS. We further stated
that once any emission point source became subject to the Portland
Cement NSPS, all emission point sources that follow in the process are
exempt from the Nonmetallic Minerals Operations NSPS. The CAA
specifically states that, if possible, the NSPS and NESHAP source
categories should be the same (section 112(c)(1)). Based on that
requirement, we believe we should continue to include any raw materials
emissions source that would be potentially subject to the Portland
Cement NSPS as an affected source under the Portland Cement NESHAP.
    As an example, if we were to accept the PCA interpretation, two
storage bins at the facility in question, which have no connection with
the nonmetallic minerals operation, but are obviously part of the
portland cement plant, would not be covered by the Portland Cement
NESHAP, only because a nonmetallic minerals operation was present at
the same plant site. We do not believe that this result is sensible.
    We believe it is important to continue to cover all raw materials
storage and handling points under the Portland Cement NESHAP, the
source category to which these raw material storage operations relate.
Though these points may not be the majority of the emission inventory
at a particular facility, they could, in specific situations,
contribute significantly to a facility's fugitive PM emissions. We note
that the actual rule requirements are mainly for EPA Method 22 of 40
CFR part 60, appendix A, reporting and recordkeeping. Facilities
already have to perform daily EPA Method 22 observations on certain
equipment. We believe that the further requirement to make monthly to
annual observations of visible emissions from

materials handling points imposes a minor burden and contributes
significantly to reducing fugitive dust problems that may occur at
these types of facilities.
    We are soliciting comment on the best resolution of this issue. We
are considering (but are not limiting ourselves to) the following
options:
    (1) Changing the wording of 40 CFR 63.1340(c) to make it clear that
all raw materials storage and handling is covered by the NESHAP, but
that crushers (regardless of their location) are not.
    (2) Including crushers as an affected source in the Portland Cement
NESHAP and incorporating the current requirements applicable to
crushers contained in 40 CFR part 60, subpart OOO (and correspondingly,
exempting crushers covered by the Portland Cement NESHAP from 40 CFR
part 60, subpart OOO).

V. Summary of Environmental, Energy, and Economic Impacts

A. What Facilities Are Affected by the Proposed Amendments?

    We estimate that there are approximately 118 cement plants
currently in operation. These 118 plants have a total of 210 cement
kilns. We estimate that five new kilns will be subject to the proposed
amendments by the end of the 5th year after promulgation of the
amendments. We assumed that all new kilns would be at brownfield sites,
because this assumption avoids an underestimation of costs for THC
monitoring.

B. What Are the Air Quality Impacts?

    The variation in hydrocarbon emissions from kilns makes it
difficult to quantify impacts on a national basis with any accuracy.
Reported hydrocarbon emission test results range from less than 1 ppmv
dry basis (at 7 percent oxygen) to over 140 ppmv dry basis (Docket A-
92-53) measured at the main kiln
    For 52 kilns tested for hydrocarbon emissions (Docket A-92-53),
approximately 25 percent had emissions of hydrocarbons that exceeded
the proposed 20 ppmv THC limit at the main stack. The average
hydrocarbon emissions for the kilns exceeding 20 ppmv was 62.5 ppmv.
Based on a model kiln producing 650,000 tpy of clinker, emissions
reductions as a result of the standard would vary depending on the
combustion practices in use. Kilns operating at or just above the 20
ppmv main stack limit would experience little or no emissions
reductions as a result of the proposed emissions limits. For an
existing kiln exceeding the proposed 20 ppmv emissions limit and
currently emitting near the average hydrocarbon level of 62.5 ppmv, the
improvement in combustion practices would result in a reduction of
about 141 tpy for a 650,000 tpy kiln. A kiln with poor combustion
practices and emitting at the highest reported hydrocarbon level of 142
ppmv would experience emissions reductions of over 403 tpy.
    The proposed HCl emissions limits are based on current operation
practices, and we are not able to quantify emissions reductions for
existing sources. For new sources for which we are proposing a
quantified standard, we estimate the emissions reductions for a typical
new kiln to be 107 tpy per kiln. Based on five new kilns becoming
subject to the final NESHAP, the emissions reductions will be 535 tpy
of HCl in 5 years.
    The proposed HCl standards for new sources will also result in
concurrent control of SO2 emissions. The SO2
emissions reductions for a typical new kiln will be 322 tpy. The
emissions reductions 5 years after promulgation of the final standards
will be 1,610 tpy. Note that we have determined that reducing
SO2 emissions also results in a reduction in fine particle
emissions because some SO2 is converted to sulfates in the
atmosphere. Therefore, the proposed HCl standards will also result in a
reduction in emissions of fine PM.
    In addition to the direct air emissions impacts, there will be
secondary air impacts that result in the increased electrical demand
generated by new sources' control equipment. These emissions will be an
increase in emissions of pollutants from utility boilers that supply
electricity to the portland cement facilities. We estimate these
increases to be 11 tpy of NOX, 6 tpy of CO, 19 tpy of
SO2, and 0.55 tpy of PM at the end of the 5th year after
promulgation.

C. What Are the Water Quality Impacts?

    There should be no water quality impacts for the proposed
amendments. The requirement for new sources to use alkaline scrubbers
to control HCl will produce a scrubber slurry liquid waste stream.
However, we are assuming the scrubber slurry produced will be dewatered
and disposed of as solid waste. Water from the dewatering process will
be recycled back to the scrubber.

D. What Are the Solid Waste Impacts?

    The only solid waste impact will be the generation of scrubber
slurry that is assumed to be dewatered and disposed of as solid waste.
The amount of solid waste produced is estimated as 228,000 tpy in the
5th year after promulgation of the amendments.

E. What Are the Energy Impacts?

    Requiring new kilns to install and operate alkaline scrubbers will
result in increased energy use due to the electrical requirements for
the scrubber and increased fan pressure drops. We estimate the
additional electrical demand to be 4.9 million kWhr per year by the end
of the 5th year.

F. What Are the Cost Impacts?

    The proposed rule amendments would require all existing sources
(area and major) to install and operate monitors (if not already
present) and perform performance tests. In our cost analysis, we
assumed that all existing facilities would elect to meet the
alternative CO emission limits. Therefore, the impacts include the
costs to install and operate a CO monitor and the cost for a
performance test to measure THC every 5 years. We estimated a range of
annualized capital costs based on 3 percent and 7 percent social
discount factors.
    The total capital cost for existing sources is estimated to be
$159,545 per kiln (2003 dollars), and $33.5 million nationally, based
on 210 operating kilns. The total annualized cost per kiln is estimated
to range from $37,500 to $41,700 depending on the discount factor.
Total national annualized costs are estimated to range from $7.9
million to $8.8 million.
    The cost estimates above assume all kilns will have to install a CO
monitor. This assumption may significantly overestimate the costs
because CO monitors may already be installed at some existing kilns,
either as a requirement under a State permit or as a means of
optimizing combustion control. In addition, the estimates above do not
take into account any reduced fuel costs resulting from improved
combustion management.
    The costs for new sources include the CO monitor, an alkaline wet
scrubber, and THC and performance tests. The total capital cost per
kiln is estimated to be $2.3 million. The cumulative capital cost in
the fifth year is estimated to be $11.5 million. The estimated total
annualized cost per new kiln will range from $741,300 to $800,800.
National annualized costs will range from $3.7 million to $4.0 million.

G. What Are the Economic Impacts?

    The EPA conducted an economic analysis of the proposed amendments
to the NESHAP which have cost

implications. These are the requirements to test for THC and monitor
for THC or CO for new and existing kilns or in-line raw mill/kilns, and
the cost to install and operate a wet scrubbing system for new kilns or
in-line raw mill/kilns. The EPA assessed earlier portland cement
regulations with greater per source costs, and those costs did not have
a significant effect on the cost of goods produced. Since the
conditions that produced those conclusions still exist today, EPA
asserts these new regulations will not have a discernible impact on the
portland cement market.
    We note that the highest cost per kiln resulting from the proposed
amendments will be the cost of alkaline scrubbers for new kilns. This
additional requirement represents less than 1.5 percent of the expected
revenue stream for a typical new kiln. We do not consider this to be
economically significant.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), EPA
must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant'' and,
therefore, subject to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review and
the requirements of the Executive Order. The Executive Order defines
``significant regulatory action'' as one that is likely to result in a
rule that may:
    (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or
adversely affect in a material way, the economy, a sector of the
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or
communities;
    (2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another agency;
    (3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants,
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients
thereof; or
    (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in
the Executive Order.
    It has been determined that the proposed amendments are not a
``significant regulatory action'' under the terms of Executive Order
12866 and is, therefore, not subject to OMB review.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The information collection requirements in the existing rule were
submitted to and approved by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44
U.S.C. 3501, et seq., and assigned OMB control No. 2060-0416. An
Information Collection Request (ICR) document was prepared by EPA (ICR
No. 1801.02) and a copy may be obtained from Susan Auby by mail at
Office of Environmental Information, Collection Strategies Division
(2822T), U.S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington DC 20460,
by e-mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>. A copy
may also be downloaded from the Internet at http://www.epa.gov/icr.

    The information collection requirements in this proposed rule have
been submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The
Information Collection Request (ICR) document prepared by EPA has been
assigned EPA ICR number 1801.05.
    The information requirements are based on notification,
recordkeeping, and reporting requirements in the NESHAP General
Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A), which are mandatory for all
operators subject to national emission standards. These recordkeeping
and reporting requirements are specifically authorized by section 114
of the CAA (42 U.S.C. 7414). All information submitted to the EPA
pursuant to the recordkeeping and reporting requirements for which a
claim of confidentiality is made is safeguarded according to Agency
policies set forth in 40 CFR part 2, subpart B.
    These requirements include installation of a continuous monitor at
all existing sources and a performance test to measure THC, and the
requirement for new sources to a performance test to measure HC. We
expect these additional requirements to affect 118 facilities over the
first 3 years. The estimated annual average burden is outlined below.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Total annual
                 Affected entity                    Total hours     Labor costs      O&M costs      Total costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry........................................          15,413        $983,325        $791,800      $2,500,000
Implementing Agency.............................             502          30,037              NA          48,037
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources
expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or
provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time
needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize
technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and
verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and
disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to
comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements;
train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information;
search data sources; complete and review the collection of information;
and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
    To comment on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy
of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for
minimizing respondent burden, including the use of automated collection
techniques, EPA has established a public docket for the proposed
amendments, which includes this ICR, under Docket ID No. OAR-2002-0051.
Submit any comments related to the ICR for the proposed amendments to
EPA and OMB. See ADDRESSES section at the beginning of this notice for
where to submit comments to EPA. Send comments to OMB at the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget,
725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Office for
EPA. Since OMB is required to make a decision concerning the ICR
between 30 and 60 days after December 2, 2005, a comment to OMB is best
assured of having its full effect if OMB receives it by January 3,
2006. The final rule will respond to any OMB or public comments on the
information collection requirements contained in the proposed
amendments.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency
to prepare

a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and
comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act
or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. Small entities include small businesses, small organizations,
and small governmental jurisdictions.
    For purposes of assessing the impact of today's proposed rule
amendments on small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small
business that has fewer than 750 employees; (2) a small governmental
jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school
district or special district with a population of less than 50,000; and
(3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is
independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.
    After considering the economic impacts of today's proposed rule
amendments on small entities, I certify that this action will not have
a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. The small entities directly regulated by the proposed rule
amendments are small businesses. We determined there are six or seven
small businesses in this industry out of a total of 44. Each small
business operates a single plant with one or more kilns. The total
annualized cost per kiln is estimated to range from $37,500 to $41,700
depending on the discount factor. The revenue for the entire small
business sector is estimated to be around $260 million (2003 dollars).
The compliance cost is estimated to be less than 0.3 percent of small
business revenue. For new sources, which will incur higher costs
because new kilns must install alkaline scrubbers for control of HC1
emissions, the cost of control is estimated to be less than 1.5 percent
of the expected revenue from a new kiln. We currently do not have any
information on plans for small businesses to build new kilns.
    Although the proposed rule amendments will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, EPA
nonetheless has tried to reduce the impact of the proposed amendments
on small entities. The proposed emission standards are representative
of the floor level of emissions control, which is the minimum level of
control allowed under the CAA. Further, the costs of required
performance testing and monitoring have been minimized by specifying
emissions limits and monitoring parameters in terms of surrogates for
HAP emissions, which are less costly to measure. The EPA is also
allowing affected firms up to 1 year from the effective date of the
final rule amendments to comply, which could lessen capital
availability concerns.
    We continue to be interested in the potential impacts of the
proposed rule amendments on small entities and welcome comments on
issues related to such impacts.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that
may result in expenditures to State, local, and tribal governments, in
the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any
1 year. Before promulgating a rule for which a written statement is
needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify and
consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the
least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative that
achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 do
not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover,
section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least
costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative if the
Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that
alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory
requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small
governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under
section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must
provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling
officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely
input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant
Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and
advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory
requirements.
    The EPA has determined that the proposed rule amendments do not
contain a Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100
million or more for State, local, and tribal governments, in the
aggregate, or the private sector in any 1 year, nor do the amendments
significantly or uniquely impact small governments, because they
contain no requirements that apply to such governments or impose
obligations upon them. Thus, today's proposed rule amendments are not
subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.

E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism

    Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), requires EPA
to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely
input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory
policies that have federalism implications.'' ``Policies that have
federalism implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include
regulations that have ``substantial direct effects on the States, on
the relationship between the national government and the States, or on
the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels
of government.''
    The proposed rule amendments do not have federalism implications.
The proposed rule amendments will not have substantial direct effects
on the States, on the relationship between the national government and
the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among
the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order
13132, because State and local governments do not own or operate any
sources that would be subject to the proposed rule amendments. Thus,
Executive Order 13132 does not apply to the proposed rule amendments.
    In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent with EPA
policy to promote communications between EPA and State and local
governments, EPA specifically solicits comment on the proposed rule
amendments from State and local officials.

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

    Executive Order 13175 entitled ``Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), requires
EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely
input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies
that have tribal implications.'' The proposed rule amendments do not
have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175,
because tribal governments do not own or operate any sources subject to
today's action. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to the
proposed rule amendments.

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

    Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any
rule that: (1) Is determined to be ``economically significant'' as
defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental
health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a
disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets
both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health or
safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the
planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and
reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.
    The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those
regulatory actions that are based on health or safety risks, such that
the analysis required under section 5-501 of the Executive Order has
the potential to influence the rule. The proposed rule amendments are
not subject to Executive Order 13045 because they are based on
technology performance and not on health or safety risks.

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

    The proposed rule amendments are not subject to Executive Order
13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because they are not a significant
regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act (NTTAA) of 1995, Public Law No. 104-113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note)
directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS) in its
regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with
applicable law or otherwise impractical. The VCS are technical
standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling
procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by
VCS bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through OMB,
explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and
applicable VCS.
    The proposed rule amendments involve technical standards. The EPA
proposes to cite Method 25A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A; Performance
Specification (PS) 4B of 40 CFR part 60, appendix B; and ASTM Method
D6735-01 (as an alternative to EPA Methods 26/26A, 320, and 321).
    Consistent with the NTTAA, EPA conducted searches to identify VCS
in addition to these EPA methods. No applicable VCS were identified for
PS 4B and ASTM Method D6735-01.
    The standard ASTM D6735-01, ``Standard Test Method for Measurement
of Gaseous Chlorides and Fluorides from Mineral Calcining Exhaust
Sources--Impinger Method,'' is cited as an acceptable alternative to
EPA Method 320 to measure hydrogen chloride emissions from mineral
calcining exhaust sources for the purposes of the final NESHAP,
provided that the additional requirements described in paragraphs
(b)(5)(iii)(A) through (F) of 40 CFR 63.1349 are followed. Also, ASTM
D6735-01 is itself a VCS.
    In addition to the VCS EPA cites in the proposed rule amendments,
the search for emissions measurement procedures identified two
additional VCS. The EPA determined that both of the standards
identified for measuring air emissions or surrogates subject to
emissions standards in the proposed amendments were impractical
alternatives to EPA test methods. Therefore, EPA does not intend to
adopt these standards for this purpose. The reasons for this
determination for the two methods can be found in Docket ID No. OAR-
2002-0051.
    Section 63.1349 of 40 CFR part 63 lists the EPA testing methods
included in the proposed rule amendments. Under 40 CFR 63.7(f) and
63.8(f) of subpart A of the General Provisions, a source may apply to
EPA for permission to use alternative test methods or alternative
monitoring requirements in place of any of the EPA testing methods,
performance specifications, or procedures.
    The EPA welcomes comments on this aspect of the proposed rulemaking
and, specifically, invites the public to identify potentially-
applicable VCS and to explain why such standards should be used in the
proposed rule amendments.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, and Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: November 21, 2005.
Stephen L. Johnson,
Administrator.
    For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, part
63 of the Code of the Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as
follows:

PART 63--[AMENDED]

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

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

Subpart LLL--[AMENDED]

    1. Section 63.1341 is amended by adding the following definition in
alphabetical order to read as follows:

Sec.  63.1341  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Midkiln gas sampling system means a device which the Administrator
determines on a case-by-case basis diverts a sample of kiln gas that
contains levels of carbon monoxide (CO) or hydrocarbons representative
of the levels in the kiln.
* * * * *
    2. Section 63.1342 is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  63.1342  Standards: General.

    Table 1 to this subpart provides cross references to the 40 CFR
part 63, subpart A, general provisions, indicating the applicability of
the general provisions requirements to subpart LLL.
    3. Section 63.1343 is amended by:
    a. Revising paragraph (a);
    b. Adding paragraphs (b)(4) through (b)(6);
    c. Revising paragraph (c)(4);
    d. Adding paragraphs (c)(5) and (c)(6);
    e. Revising paragraphs (e) introductory text and (e)(2); and
    f. Adding paragraph (e)(3) and (f) to read as follows:

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

    (a) General. The provisions in this section apply to each kiln,
each in-line kiln/raw mill, and any alkali bypass associated with that
kiln or in-line kiln/raw mill. All gaseous and D/F emission limits are
on a dry basis, corrected to 7 percent oxygen. All total hydrocarbon
(THC) emission limits are measured as propane. The block averaging
periods to demonstrate compliance are hourly for 100 parts per million
by volume (ppmv) CO limit and both the 10 and 20 ppmv total hydrocarbon
(THC) limits, and monthly for 50 ppmv THC limits.
    (b) * * *
    (4)(i) Contain more than 20 ppmv THC from the main stack if the
source has no alkali bypass or midkiln gas sampling system; or
    (ii) Contain more than 100 ppmv CO in the main stack if the source
has no alkali bypass or midkiln gas sampling system. However, the
source must demonstrate during the performance test that the main stack
gas contains no more than 20 ppmv THC.

    (5)(i) Contain more than 10 ppmv THC in the alkali bypass or
midkiln gas sampling system; or
    (ii) Contain more than 100 ppmv CO in the alkali bypass or midkiln
gas sampling system. However, the source must demonstrate during the
performance test that the alkali bypass or midkiln gas sampling system
gas contains no more than 10 ppmv THC.
    (6) Contain more than 15 ppmv hydrogen chloride (HCl) if the source
is a new or reconstructed source that commenced construction after
December 2, 2005, unless the source demonstrates a 90 percent reduction
in HCl emissions measured across an add-on control device, such as an
alkaline scrubber. New sources that commenced construction prior to
December 2, 2005, must meet the operating limits specified in Sec.
63.1344(f).
* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (4)(i) Contain more than 20 ppmv THC in the main stack if there is
no alkali bypass or midkiln gas sampling system; or
    (ii) Contain more than 50 ppmv THC and 100 ppmv CO in the main
stack gas if there is no alkali bypass or midkiln gas sampling system.
However, the source must demonstrate during the performance test that
the main stack gas contains no more than 20 ppmv THC.
    (5)(i) Contain more than 50 ppmv THC in the main stack and 10 ppmv
THC in the alkali bypass or midkiln gas sampling system, or
    (ii) Contain more than 50 ppmv THC in the main stack and 100 ppmv
CO in the alkali bypass or midkiln gas sampling system. However, the
source must demonstrate during the performance test that the alkali
bypass or midkiln gas sampling system contains no more than 10 ppmv
THC.
    (6) Contain more than 15 ppmv HCl if the source is a new source
that commenced construction after December 2, 2005, unless the source
demonstrates a 90 percent reduction in HCl emissions measured across an
add-on control device, such as an alkaline scrubber. New sources that
commenced construction prior to December 2, 2005 must meet the
operating limits specified in Sec.  63.1344(f).
* * * * *
    (e) Greenfield/area sources. No owner or operator of a greenfield
kiln or a greenfield in-line kiln/raw mill at a facility that is an
area source subject to the provisions of this subpart shall cause to be
discharged into the atmosphere from these affected sources any gases
which:
* * * * *
    (2)(i) Contain more than 20 ppmv THC in the main stack if there is
no alkali bypass or midkiln gas sampling system; or
    (ii) Contain more than 50 ppmv THC and a 100 ppmv CO in the main
stack. However, the source must demonstrate at performance test that
the main stack gas contains no more than 20 ppmv THC.
    (3)(i) Contain more than 50 ppmv THC in the main stack and 10 ppmv
THC from the alkali bypass or midkiln gas sampling system; or
    (ii) Contain 50 ppmv THC in the main stack and 100 ppmv CO in the
alkali bypass or midkiln gas sampling system. However, the source must
demonstrate at its performance test that the alkali bypass or midkiln
gas sampling system contains no more than 10 ppmv THC limit.
    (f) Existing, reconstructed, or new brownfield/area sources. No
owner or operator of an existing, reconstructed, or new brownfield kiln
or an existing, reconstructed, or new brownfield in-line kiln/raw mill
at a facility that is an area source subject to the provisions of this
subpart shall cause to be discharged into the atmosphere any gases
which:
    (1)(i) Contain more than 20 ppmv THC in the main stack if the
source has no alkali bypass or midkiln gas sampling system; or
    (ii) Contain more than 100 ppmv CO if the source has no alkali
bypass or midkiln gas sampling system. However, the source must
demonstrate at performance test that the gas in the main stack contains
no more than 20 ppmv THC.
    (2)(i) Contain more than 10 ppmv THC in the alkali bypass or
midkiln gas sampling system; or
    (ii) Contain 100 ppmv CO in the alkali bypass or midkiln gas
sampling system. However, the source must demonstrate at performance
test that the gas in the alkali bypass or midkiln gas sampling system
contains no more than 10 ppmv THC.
    4. Section 63.1344 is amended by adding paragraph (f) to read as
follows:

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

* * * * *
    (f) Existing kilns and in-line kilns/raw mills must continuously
operate the cement kiln under normal operating conditions and operate a
particulate control device to capture HCl present in or adsorbed on the
kiln particulate, including particulate in the alkali bypass (if
present).
    5. Section 63.1349 is amended by:
    a. Revising paragraph (b) introductory text;
    b. Revising paragraph (b)(4);
    c. Adding paragraphs (b)(5) and (b)(6);
    d. Revising paragraph (c); and
    e. Removing paragraph (f) to read as follows:

Sec.  63.1349  Performance testing requirements.

* * * * *
    (b) Performance tests to demonstrate initial compliance with this
subpart shall be conducted as specified in paragraphs (b)(1) through
(6) of this section.
* * * * *
    (4) The owner or operator of an affected source subject to
limitations on emissions of THC shall demonstrate initial compliance
with the THC limit as follows:
    (i) If the owner or operator elects not to meet the alternative CO
emission limit of 100 ppmv, they must demonstrate compliance with the
appropriate THC emissions limit by operating a continuous emission
monitor in accordance with Performance Specification 8A of appendix B
to part 60 of this chapter and meet the quality assurance procedures
specified in procedure 1 of appendix F to this part.
    (ii) If the source elects to comply with a THC emission limit by
meeting the alternative CO emissions limit, they must demonstrate
compliance by operating a continuous emission monitor in accordance
with Performance Specification 4B of appendix B to part 60 of this
chapter and meet the quality assurance procedures specified in
procedure 1 of appendix F to this part. They must also demonstrate
compliance with the appropriate THC emissions limit during the
performance test using EPA Method 25A of appendix A to part 60 of this
chapter. They must calibrate with propane and report the THC results as
propane.
    (iii) The duration of the performance test(s) shall be 3 hours, and
the average THC/CO concentration during the 3-hour performance test
shall be calculated. The owner or operator of an in-line kiln/raw mill
shall demonstrate initial compliance by conducting separate performance
tests while the raw mill of the in-line kiln/raw mill is under normal
operating conditions and while the raw mill of the in-line kiln/raw
mill is not operating.
    (5) To determine compliance with an emission limit for HCl you must
use one of the following test methods:
    (i) Method 26/26A of appendix A to part 60 of this chapter. Method
26A must be used when HCl could be associated with PM (for example, the

association of HCl with water droplets emitted by sources controlled by