Portland Cement Reconsideration

Technical Support Document

June 15, 2012

Table of Contents

  TOC \o "1-2" \h \z \u    HYPERLINK \l "_Toc328469201"  1.	Introduction
  PAGEREF _Toc328469201 \h  1

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc328469202"  2.	Outdoor Clinker Storage Pile Work
Practice Standard Development	  PAGEREF _Toc328469202 \h  1

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc328469203"  2.1	Control Measure Results	  PAGEREF
_Toc328469203 \h  2

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc328469204"  2.2	Emission Standard Results	  PAGEREF
_Toc328469204 \h  3

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc328469205"  3.	Continuously Monitored Parameters for
Alternative Organic HAP Standard (with THC Monitoring Parameter)
PAGEREF _Toc328469205 \h  4

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc328469206"  4.	Coal Mills	  PAGEREF _Toc328469206 \h
 5

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc328469207"  5.	Allowing Sources With Dry Caustic
Scrubbers to Comply With HCl Standard Using Performance Tests.	  PAGEREF
_Toc328469207 \h  10

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc328469208"  6.	PM Standard for Modified Sources
Under the NSPS	  PAGEREF _Toc328469208 \h  11

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc328469209"  7.	Alternative PM Limit	  PAGEREF
_Toc328469209 \h  12

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc328469210"  8.	MACT Floor Development	  PAGEREF
_Toc328469210 \h  12

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc328469211"  8.1	Hydrogen Chloride (HCl)	  PAGEREF
_Toc328469211 \h  13

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc328469212"  8.2	Mercury (Hg)	  PAGEREF _Toc328469212
\h  14

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc328469213"  8.3	Particulate Matter (PM)	  PAGEREF
_Toc328469213 \h  15

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc328469214"  8.4	Total Hydrocarbon (THC)	  PAGEREF
_Toc328469214 \h  16

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc328469215"  8.5	Organic HAP (oHAP)	  PAGEREF
_Toc328469215 \h  16

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc328469216"  9.	Impacts of Revised PM Standard
PAGEREF _Toc328469216 \h  17

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc328469217"  10.	Summary	  PAGEREF _Toc328469217 \h
18

List of Tables

  TOC \h \z \c "Table"    HYPERLINK \l "_Toc328469644"  Table 1: Summary
of 2012 Proposed NESHAP for Existing Sources	  PAGEREF _Toc328469644 \h
13

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc328469645"  Table 2: Summary of 2012 Proposed NESHAP
for New Sources	  PAGEREF _Toc328469645 \h  13

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc328469646"  Table 3. Impacts of Proposed Amendments
 PAGEREF _Toc328469646 \h  18

 Introduction

In response to two separate events, the EPA is proposing amendments to
the National Emission  Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP)
for the Portland cement industry (40 CFR part 63 subpart LLL) and to the
New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for Portland cement plants (40
CFR part 60 subpart F) issued under the Clean Air Act (CAA).

In response to industry petitions for administrative reconsideration to
reconsider the NESHAP standards and specific issues in the NESHAP, and
to reconsider the NSPS PM standards, the EPA granted reconsideration of
portions of the reconsideration petitions on May 17, 2011 (76 FR 28318).
The issues in the NESHAP on which EPA granted reconsideration include:
amendments to address the regulation of fugitive emissions from open
clinker piles, organic hazardous air pollutant (HAP) compliance
demonstration, applicability of standards to coal mills, requirements
for monitoring hydrochloric acid (HCl) when controlled using dry
scrubbers, , the equations used to calculate the PM limits, the
affirmative defense for malfunctions and specific issues relating to
startup, shutdown and malfunction standards. EPA also granted
reconsideration of the new source performance standards for particulate
matter (PM) emissions from modified sources.

The proposed amendments also respond to the D.C. Circuit’s opinion in
Portland Cement Ass’n v. EPA, 665 F. 3d 177 (D.C. Cir. 2011). In that
case, the court rejected all challenges to the methodology EPA used to
establish the NESHAP but remanded the NESHAP so that EPA could account
for the effects of EPA’s Non-Hazardous Secondary Materials (NHSM)
rule.

EPA is proposing to amend the NESHAP new and existing source standards
for PM, and to make corresponding amendments to the NSPS for PM. EPA is
also proposing to amend the alternative organic HAP limit in the NESHAP,
and to propose amendments regarding many of the issues listed above.  In
addition, we are proposing corrections and clarifications to the
rule’s testing and monitoring provisions.  Because the proposed
changes in the PM limits could affect compliance strategies for some
sources, EPA is proposing to extend the date for compliance with the
existing source NESHAP to September 9, 2015, two years from the
presently applicable compliance date.

This Technical Support Document contains pertinent data, calculations,
and discussions regarding new emissions and work practice standards
reflected in the proposal. For purposes of estimating cost and
environmental impacts of the proposed amendments, the data used in
estimating the impacts of the 2010 final rule were used with the
exception that 24 kilns (14 facilities) burning commercial and
industrial solid waste (CISWI kilns) were excluded. The modified data
set consist of 116 existing kilns and 16 new kilns at 86 plants

Outdoor Clinker Storage Pile Work Practice Standard Development

The Portland Cement Association (PCA) has stated that most Title V
permits contain provisions that reduced fugitive emissions from open
clinker piles. To confirm this and to gather information on the types of
measures required for outdoor storage piles, EPA reviewed 88 portland
cement manufacturing facilities’ permits.  Permits were first reviewed
to confirm the existence of outdoor clinker storage piles and to
identify the permit conditions addressing air emissions from these
storage piles.  EPA also examined these permits for provisions regarding
analogous types of piles, such as those for feed materials. Finally, EPA
reviewed permits to identify any facility-wide permit conditions
relating to fugitive dust, visible emissions or opacity requirements. It
was assumed that facility wide conditions apply to any outdoor storage
piles, unless the permit stated otherwise.

For the purposes of this review, “control measures” were considered
to be permit provisions requiring the facility to implement some
physical measure to control emissions relating to outdoor storage piles.
 Examples of control measures include:

Requirements for:

application of asphalt, oil, water, or other suitable chemicals

full or partial enclosure

wind barriers

moisture content

silt content

coverings

traffic on and around storage pile(s)

earthen berm and biological wind break

“Emission standards” were broken into three sub-categories, as
follows:

General duty requirements – any general requirement for the facility
to “prevent” fugitive dust / particulate emissions.

Example: The Permittee shall not cause, allow, or permit organic or
inorganic dust producing material to be stacked, piled, or otherwise
stored without taking reasonable precautions to prevent excessive
amounts of particulate matter from becoming airborne.

Visible emissions limitation – any requirement requiring the facility
not to allow visible emissions or fugitive dust / particulate to leave
the “facility property line.”

Example: Emissions of fugitive dust from any transport, handling,
construction or storage activity at this facility shall not be visible
in the atmosphere beyond the property line of the facility.

Example: The permittee shall maintain plant roads and grounds in the
vicinity of the source permitted herein in the following manner so that
dust will not leave the permittee’s property

Opacity limitations – any requirement specifying a numerical opacity
limit not to be exceeded.

Example: Opacity of an emission from any fugitive dust source shall not
be greater than 40% measured in accordance with EPA Reference Method 9.

Control Measure Results

The detailed results of the control measures review are presented in
Appendix I.  A summary of the results is presented below:

Outdoor clinker storage piles – 7 permits contained a specific control
measure

Outdoor storage piles – 16 permits contained a specific control
measure

Facility-wide permit conditions – 31 permits contained a facility-wide
control measure.

Emission Standard Results

The detailed results of the emission standards review are presented in
Appendix J.  A summary of the results is presented below:

Outdoor clinker storage piles – 8 permits contained specific emission
standards. The division of requirements is presented below:

Outdoor Clinker Storage Piles

General duty requirements	Visible emissions limitation	Opacity
limitations

1	1	6

Outdoor storage piles – 18 permits contained specific emission
standards. Please note that one facility had more than one type
(example: general duty and opacity) of requirement. The division of
requirements is presented below:

Outdoor Storage Piles

General duty requirements	Visible emissions limitation	Opacity
limitations

6	2	12

Facility-wide permit conditions – 77 permits contained facility-wide
emission standards. Please note that many facilities had more than one
type (example: general duty and opacity) of requirement. The division of
requirements is presented below:

Facility-wide Permit Conditions

General duty requirements	Visible emissions limitation	Opacity
limitations

27	31	59

Of the 88 permits reviewed in this analysis, 87 had either a control
measure or an emission standard (i.e., general duty requirement, visible
emission limit, or opacity limit) relating to fugitive dust /
particulate matter control from outdoor storage (assuming that
facility-wide conditions pertain to outdoor piles).  The permit reviewed
for one Ohio facility appeared to lack control measures or emissions
standards.

It is important to note that the state of Ohio does have fugitive dust
and opacity standards relating to fugitive emissions from storage piles
(refer to rule 3745-17-07(B) and 3745-17-08(B)).  However these
standards only apply to facilities located within certain designated
areas of the state.  For example, the other facility in Ohio evaluated
under this analysis has portions of its operations located in an area
required to implement these standards.

In conclusion, it appears nearly all facilities evaluated have some sort
of standard relating to fugitive dust from storage piles.  However, for
general duty requirements it is difficult to determine the extent to
which a facility has actually complied with “preventative” measures.
 Additionally, facility-wide requirements were generally assumed to
apply to any outdoor storage piles, unless stated otherwise.
Facility-wide requirements are required by state rules and regulations,
which vary state to state.  Therefore, there is inherent uncertainty
regarding the intent of each state regulation and if/how it would apply
to storage piles. Although the degree to which any of the work practices
successfully prevent fugitive emissions will vary, if applied properly
various sources report emission reductions of 75 to over 90 percent
(Western Regional Air Partnership Fugitive Dust Handbook, September 7,
2006; USEPA, Technical Background Document on Control of Fugitive Dust
at Cement Manufacturing Facilities, 1998). These work practices have
also been identified and are promoted by air pollution control agencies
as effective fugitive dust control  measures (Pima County Department of
Environmental Quality, Dust Control Measures,    HYPERLINK
"http://www.deq.pima.gov/air/pdf/DustBrochures/Dust_Methods_Constr.PDF"
http://www.deq.pima.gov/air/pdf/DustBrochures/Dust_Methods_Constr.PDF ;
City of Albuquerque Environmental Health Department, Air Quality
Division, Fugitive Dust Control, 12//05,
http://www.cabq.gov/airquality/pdf/dustcontrolmethods.pdf).

Continuously Monitored Parameters for Alternative Organic HAP Standard
(with THC Monitoring Parameter)

EPA is proposing a revision to the alternative organic HAP limit from
the 2010 rule’s 9 ppm to 12 ppm based on the method detection
capabilities for Method 320 and Method 18, the two methods appropriate
for the compounds measured when determining compliance with the
alternative organic HAP limit. For the total organic HAP emissions data,
we applied the following procedure for determining an RDL for methods
used in measuring organic HAPs. We determined method detection
capabilities for Method 320 and Method 18 as appropriate for the various
compounds (e.g., Method 320 for aldehydes, Method 18 for arenes). We
believe that this approach is representative of procedures practiced by
the better performing testing companies and laboratories using the
reasonably applicable and sensitive analytical procedures. We determined
for each of the organic HAPs the expected method detection level for the
respective method based on internal experience and method capabilities
reported by testing companies. With these reported values, we identified
the resulting mean of the method detection levels as the representative
detection level (RDL) because it is characteristic of accepted source
emissions measurement performance. The following table summarizes those
findings.

Pollutant	Method used	RDL

ppmv, as measured	RDL

ppmv @7% O2 dry

Formaldehyde	Method 320	0.15	0.23

Acetaldehyde	“	1.50	2.34

Benzene	Method 18 (adsorbent tube)	0.04	0.08

Toluene	“	0.04	0.08

Styrene	“	0.04	0.08

Xylenes (m,p,o)	“	0.12	0.24

Napthalene	“	0.03	0.06

The second step in the process is to calculate 3xRDL for the sum or
total of the organic HAPs to compare with the emissions limit in the
final rule. This step is similar to calculation of a practical
quantitation limit in other NESHAP including the 2010 final portland
cement NESHAP.  See 75 FR at 54984. We use the multiplication factor of
3 to reduce the imprecision of the analytical method until the
imprecision in the field sampling reflects the relative method precision
as estimated by the ASME ReMAP study. That study indicates that such
relative imprecision remains a constant 10 to 20 percent over the range
of the method. For assessing a potential standard relative to
measurement method capabilities, if 3xRDL were less than the candidate
standard, we would conclude that the standard can be reliably measured.
If, on the other hand, the value equal to 3xRDL were greater than the
standard, we would conclude that the calculated standard could not be
measured reliably (or, put another way, failed to account adequately for
measurement variability). Where such was the case, we increase the
calculated standard level to the value equal to 3xRDL. This would result
in a standard where the method would produce measurement accuracy on the
order of 10 to 20 percent, similar to other EPA test methods and the
results found in the ASME ReMAP study.

We summed the RDLs adjusted for dilution and moisture as shown in the
table above. We determined 3xRDL for the sum of the adjusted pollutants
to be 11.2 ppmv @ 7 percent O2, dry. This value is greater than the
final 9 ppmv @ 7 percent O2, dry, in the final rule. As a result, we are
proposing to adjust the total organic HAP limit to 12 ppmv @ 7 percent
O2, dry.  At this level, we believe that currently available emissions
testing procedures and technologies provide the measurement certainty
sufficient for sources to reliably demonstrate compliance.  Section 10.5
below contains additional information regarding derivation of the
relevant RDLs.

Coal Mills

Cement kilns burn coal as their main fuel, and mill the coal before
firing it.  From the standpoint of air emissions, these coal mills are
sometimes physically distinct from the cement kiln, generating emissions
solely attributable to the coal mill and emitting exhaust through a
dedicated stack.  However, some kilns are configured so that coal mill
emissions are commingled with kiln exhaust and the emissions are
discharged through the main kiln stack.  Finally, there are some
configurations whereby kiln emissions are routed to the coal mill and
discharged through the coal mill stack.

First, EPA has promulgated new source performance standards (40 CFR Part
60 subpart Y) for coal mills. See 74 FR 51952 (October 8, 2009).  These
standards apply to coal mills, including coal mills at cement
manufacturing facilities, which emit through a dedicated stack.  These
standards do not apply to coal mills at cement facilities whose only
heat source is kiln exhaust. See section 60.251 (definition of indirect
thermal dryer).  This leaves at least partially ambiguous the regulatory
treatment of the situations where a kiln whose coal emissions are
discharged through the main kiln stack, and the coal mill whose
emissions which receives some exhaust from the cement kiln so that some
portion of the coal mill exhaust reflect cement kiln emissions.  Because
we did not address these issues in the 2010 final NESHAP for portland
cement kilns, we granted reconsideration in order to do so.  See 76 FR
at 28326.

A cement kiln which commingles emissions from its coal mill with all
other emissions and discharges through kiln emission points would have
to meet all of the NESHAP.  In the case of PM, the additional flow from
the coal mill would be accounted for in the equation used to determine
an alternate PM limit from commingled flows.  See section 7 below.

In the case of a coal mill which receives and discharges some of the
cement kiln exhaust, the regulatory concern is that this re-routing of
kiln exhaust not become a means of avoiding the NESHAP controls for
cement kiln HAP.

Our basic principle for this situation would be that the kiln
demonstrate that it is meeting all of the NESHAP standards for
pollutants not regulated under the subpart Y coal mill standard, that is
mercury, THC, and HCl.  Because the subpart Y standards contain a PM
standard predicated on use of fabric filter control technology, we do
not believe it necessary to account for diverted PM emissions.

We are proposing the following compliance mechanisms for the mercury,
THC, and HCl standards in this situation.

We are proposing that the sum of the kiln emissions and diverted kiln
emissions (i.e. the kiln exhaust diverted to the coal mill) must not
exceed the subpart LLL NESHAP emission limits for each respective HAP or
HAP surrogate. The proposed rule contains requirements to document the
contribution of the emissions diverted to the coal mill.  With respect
to THC and HCl, because coal may be a source of these emissions, we are
proposing that performance tests for THC and HCl be performed upstream
of the coal mill. For mercury, tests would be required downstream to
account for any mercury removal in the coal mill air pollution control
device (APCD), and to avoid double counting emissions of mercury from
mercury that becomes re-entrained in the coal which is then burned by
the cement kiln (which emissions are otherwise accounted for in the
NESHAP).

An analogous situation is when a cement kiln has an alkali bypass which
receives and exhausts emissions from the kiln.  We are proposing that
these emissions be subject to the same principle – the total
emissions of the kiln and alkali bypass must meet the subpart LLL
NESHAP – and would use the same monitoring procedures to document
compliance. The one (slight) exception is PM.  Because there is no
independent PM standard for an alkali bypass (unlike the situation for
coal mills, where subpart Y regulates PM emissions), the summed PM
emissions from the kiln and alkali bypass would have to be equal to or
less than the PM limit in the subpart LLL NESHAP. Tests for PM from the
alkali bypass would be downstream of the alkali bypass APCD to account
for those emission reductions.

a.	Mercury.  Although mercury from the main stack is monitored using a
CEMS, there is no need for such monitoring for the gas streams from the
coal mill.  The gas stream to the coal mill is small in comparison to
the kiln exhaust, operation of the coal mill is intermittent, and the
cost of requiring additional CEMS for coal mills would be overly
burdensome. Instead, we are proposing that performance tests for mercury
be conducted at such a coal mill once per year, and, as explained above,
that the tests be conducted downstream of the coal mill. The proposed
amendments require performance tests for mercury to be conducted using
either Methods 29 or 30B in Appendix A-8 to 40 CFR Part 60.  These
performance tests would be required annually until the tested mercury
levels are below the method detection limits for two consecutive years,
after which tests may be conducted every 30 months. If test results at
any time exceed the method detection limit, annual performance testing
would again be required until mercury levels are below the method
detection limit for two consecutive years. The results of the
performance test would then be summed with the emissions from the kiln
stack to determine compliance with the mercury emissions limit. Since
kiln stack emissions are measured continuously with a CEMS, the coal gas
emissions would need to be normalized on both a CEMS and production
basis (lb/MM ton clinker) in order to be summed with the kiln stack
emissions.  To do so, we are proposing that the flow rate to the coal
mill be continuously monitored. Using the results of the annual
performance test and the flow rate, the owner or operator would develop
a mercury hourly mass emission rate for the coal mill. Using the hourly
mass emissions rate and continuous flow rate, hourly mercury emissions
from the coal mill could be determined and summed with the mercury
emissions from the kiln to determine continuous compliance (the same
approach would be applied to a kiln with an alkali bypass that exhausts
to a separate stack):

((Qab×Cab)+(Qcm×Ccm)+(Qks×Cks))/P ≤ MACT Limit

Where:

Qab 	= 	Alkali bypass flow rate (volume/hr)

Cab 	= 	Alkali bypass concentration (lb/dscf)

Qcm	= 	Coal mill flow rate (volume /hr)

Ccm	= 	Coal mill concentration (lb/dscf)

Qks	= 	Kiln stack flow rate (volume /hr)

Cks	= 	Kiln stack concentration (lb/dscf)

P 	= 	Kiln production rate (million tons clinker/hr)

MACT Limit	= 	Limit for mercury (55 lb mercury/MM tons clinker)

Thus, if the normalized test results  at the coal mill control device
outlet shows mercury emissions of 10 lb/MM tons clinker, emissions from
the kiln would have to be less than 45 lb/MM tons of clinker to be in
compliance with the proposed mercury emissions limit.

For kilns also equipped with an alkali bypass, the same procedure as
that for the coal mill would apply. Where a portion of kiln gases are
diverted to a coal mill and to an alkali bypass, emissions from the coal
mill and alkali bypass would be tested, normalized, and summed and with
the mercury emissions from the kiln to determine compliance with the
emissions limit.

As stated above, the proposed amendments require performance tests for
mercury to be conducted using either Methods 29 or 30B in Appendix A-8
to 40 CFR Part 60. A cost of a single test would be $22,800 per year per
kiln and $45,600 if tests are done on the coal mill and alkali bypass.
The number of sources with separate stacks that would have to be tested
is not known. If it is assumed that one-half of the 133 kilns (67 kilns)
would require test on both the coal mill and alkali bypass, total
nationwide cost would be $3.1 million per year (45600*67). The capital
cost of a single flow meter would be $35,780 and $71,560 if installed on
the coal mill and alkali bypass stacks. Annualized cost for a single
flow meter is $11,275 and $22,550 for two. Nationwide, the capital cost
of flow meters would be $4.8 million (71560*67) with annualized cost of
$1.5 million (22550*67).

Qab+ Qcm+Qks) )≤MACT Limit

Where:

Qab 	= 	Alkali bypass flow rate (volume/hr)

Cab 	= 	Alkali bypass concentration (ppmvd)

Qcm	= 	Coal mill flow rate (volume /hr)

Ccm	= 	Coal mill concentration (ppmvd)

Qks	= 	Kiln stack flow rate (volume /hr)

Cks	= 	Kiln stack concentration (ppmvd)

MACT Limit	= 	Limit for THC or HCl (ppmvd)

This equation requires all values to be at or corrected to 7 % oxygen.

Cks≤((MACT Limit×(Qab+Qcm+Qks))-(Qab×Cab)-(Qcm×Ccm))/Qks

This equation is based on the following:

The total allowable mass emissions of THC and HCl for the kiln unit can
be determined with the sum of all flow rates (coal mill, alkali bypass,
and kiln stack) and the applicable MACT limit (THC or HCl)
concentration.  This yields the total allowable mass emissions per unit
of time for the kiln unit according to the MACT limits and the site
specific flow rates for the coal mill, alkali bypass, and kiln stack.

By testing the coal mill and alkali bypass streams for concentration and
flow rate, the actual mass of THC and HCl emitted per unit of time can
be determined.

Subtracting the actual mass emissions of THC and HCl leaving the coal
mill and alkali by pass from the total allowable mass emissions for the
kiln unit determines the remainder of allowable mass emissions that can
be emitted through the kiln stack.

With knowledge of the flow rate at the kiln stack (measured by CEMS) and
the allowable mass emissions (i.e. remainder) that can be emitted
through the kiln stack, a site specific concentration can be determined.
 The equation above provides a simplified approach to determining this
value.

As an illustration of how the site specific limit would be calculated,
we have provided the following example for calculating a site specific
THC emission limit. In this example, we assume a kiln stack, coal mill
and alkali bypass with the following volumetric flow rates and THC
concentrations:

Effluent

Stream	Flow Rate

(dscm/hr)	THC Concentration

(ppmvd)

(@ 7% O2)	Notes	MACT LIMIT

(ppmvd)

(@ 7% O2)

Alkali Bypass	Qab	38,233	Cab	56	Determined through test	24

Coal Mill	Qcm	57,349	Ccm	56	Determined through test

	Kiln Stack	Qks	286,746	Cks	TBD	Flow rate monitored by CEMS

With the simplified equation provided above, the THC value that must not
be exceeded in the kiln stack (verified with CEMS) is determined as
follows:

Cks≤((3024×(38,233+57,349+286,746))-(38,233×56)-(57,349×56))/286,74
6

Using the equation above, Cks is less than or equal to 13.3 ppmvd @ 7%
O2.  This site specific value would be monitored by a CEMS in order to
demonstrate compliance with the 24 ppmvd MACT limit for THC.

The proposal for THC and HCl is thus essentially the same as that for
mercury (except that concentrations are involved rather than
production-normalized mass): the flow-weighted averages of THC and HCl
must be less than or equal to the subpart LLL NESHAP.  The kiln stack
emissions are measured by a CEMS (for THC) or by other applicable means
(for HCl).  The flow-weighted contributions from other sources (the
alkali bypass and the kiln exhaust diverted to the coal mill) are
assessed by annual testing and applied continuously with flow being
measured continuously (explained further in the next paragraph).  As
noted above, the testing of the kiln exhaust diverted to the coal mill
would be conducted upstream of the coal mill for THC and HCl so that
only the kiln exhaust contribution is assessed.

To monitor compliance continuously, we are proposing that gas flow rate
from the coal mill and alkali bypass be monitored continuously and that
a parametric limit for gas flow be established during the annual
performance test. This flow rate measured during the annual performance
test would be the maximum flow rate allowed during the year. If a higher
flow rate is observed, the owner/operator would have to retest THC and
HCl to obtain a new flow-weighted concentration which would be summed
with the kiln main stack THC or HCl concentration to determine whether
the kiln is still in compliance. Because of this requirement, the
owner/operator should perform their test at a flow rate that would cover
the range of conditions expected. For HCl, the performance test would be
performed using Method 321 in Appendix A to 40 CFR Part 63. For
measurement of THC, Method 25A in Appendix A-7 to 40 CFR Part 60 would
be required. Annual cost of a single test would be $20,000 per kiln for
HCl and $8,000 for THC. Annual cost if tests are done on coal mill and
alkali bypass stacks would be $40,000 and $16,000 for HCl and THC,
respectively. The number of kilns with separate stacks that would have
to be tested is not known. If it is assumed that one-half of the 133
kilns would require the test, total nationwide cost would be $2.7
million per year (40000*67) for HCl and $1.1 million per year (16000*67)
for THC.

c.	PM.  As explained above, in the situation where a cement kiln diverts
some exhaust to an integrated coal mill, the coal mill would have to
meet the subpart Y standards, and the kiln would have to meet the
subpart LLL NESHAP standard but would not have to account for the
diverted exhaust in doing so.  In all other situations, PM contribution
from a coal mill (or from an alkali bypass) would be accounted for via
the equation discussed in section 7 below. If the alkali bypass
discharges separately, it would have to sum its PM emissions with those
from the main stack and the summed emissions would have to be less than
or equal to the subpart LLL NESHAP standard for PM.

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

The September 2010 final rule allows sources equipped with wet scrubbers
to comply with the HCl standard by means of periodic performance tests
rather than with continuous monitoring of HCl with a CEMS. Sources
electing to comply by means of stack tests must establish continuously
monitored parameters including liquid flow rate, pressure and pH and are
required to perform an initial compliance test using Method 321 and to
test every 30 months thereafter.

Industry commented that this compliance option should not be limited to
wet scrubber equipped units, but should also be available for units
equipped with dry caustic scrubbers, in part because some sources will
be equipped with dry scrubbers (due to water shortages) and should have
the same operating flexibilities as wet scrubber equipped kilns.

A recent review of data from a vendor of acid gas controls using a
standard hydrated lime and a high performance hydrated lime at a US
cement manufacturing plant, revealed that HCl removal from dry scrubbers
on kilns ranged from 90 to 95 percent HCl removal, depending on lime
injection rates (Lhoist North America, Cement Industry Experience, DSI
for Acid Gas Control, October 5, 2011). The results also showed the
plant could meet the 3 ppm HCl limit. EPA also evaluated HCl removal
efficiency using dry sprayer absorber with a fabric filter as part of
the electric utility generating (EGU) MACT rulemaking. Removal
efficiencies ranged from 95 percent to nearly 100 percent with an
average of about 99.8 percent (Hutson to Nizich, HCl control using
SDA/FF, November 29, 2011). In addition, information from the National
Lime Association
(http://www.lime.org/uses_of_lime/environmental/flue_gas.asp) and the
Institute for Clean Air Companies
(http://www.icac.com/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=3401)report HCl
emissions reductions using dry lime injection technology of 95 to 99
percent from coal-fired boilers in the electric utility industry, from
municipal waste-to-energy facilities and from other industries. In the
secondary aluminum industry, reductions in HCl emissions greater than 99
percent have been achieved (National Lime Association, Flue Gas
Desulfurization,
http://www.lime.org/uses_of_lime/environmental/flue_gas.asp).

Given these high reported removal efficiencies, we propose to extend the
same option provided to kilns equipped with wet scrubbers to dry
scrubber-equipped kilns.  EPA is proposing that dry scrubber-equipped
kilns have the same option as kilns equipped with wet scrubbers for
complying with the HCl limit by means of an initial and periodic stack
test rather than continuous compliance monitoring with a CEMS. The
proposed amendment would require that the lime injection rate used
during the performance test demonstrating compliance with the HCl limit
be recorded and then continuously monitored between performance tests to
show that the injection rate remains at or above the rate used during
the performance test. The number of sources that are likely to select
this alternative monitoring approach is not known and impacts were not
estimated.

EPA is also proposing additional alternatives for kilns that are
equipped with a dry or wet scrubber. Where either wet or dry scrubbers
are used, we are proposing that an owner or operator would have the
option of using sulfur dioxide (SO2) monitoring as a monitoring
parameter.  We are also proposing to reduce the frequency of stack
testing for scrubber-equipped kilns using SO2 monitors for parametric
monitoring. Under this alternative, SO2 would serve as an indicator of a
scrubber’s performance and not as a direct indicator of HCl emissions.
 Kilns equipped with dry or wet scrubbers that choose to use SO2
monitoring would need to conduct an initial performance test for HCl
while monitoring SO2 to establish an SO2 level that would indicate
compliance with the HCl limit. EPA is proposing that a performance test
be conducted again in five years, at which time the SO2 parameter could
be reset.  As alternatives to the required HCl CEMS monitoring
requirement, impacts were not estimated.

PM Standard for Modified Sources Under the NSPS

Under the September 2010 final NESHAP, existing kilns are subject to the
NESHAP PM limit. If the kiln undergoes modification, it would continue
to be subject to the NESHAP PM limit, but would now be subject as well
to the NSPS limit for new sources. EPA believes that it is more
appropriate for modified kilns to meet the NESHAP PM limit for existing
sources and is proposing that existing kilns that are subject to the
NESHAP existing source emissions limit would continue to be subject to
that limit and not to the more stringent limit for new sources under the
NSPS.  EPA examined the cost that a modified kiln would incur if they
had to reduce emissions to the NSPS level and the amount of PM
reduction.  For an existing kiln to go from complying with a 0.07
lb/ton clinker limit to the new source limit of 0.02 lb/ton clinker ( a
reduction in long term average emissions of 0.01967 lb/ton), it was
assumed that the reduction would be achieved by changing out baghouse
bags every year rather than every 5 years.  For a 1.2 million ton/yr
kiln, annual baghouse cost would increase by $0.4 million/yr. The
reduction in PM emissions for this example kiln would be 12 tons/yr.
Thus a kiln would realize a modest reduction in PM emissions at a cost
of about $33,000 per ton of PM reduced (See Appendix G).

Alternative PM Limit

Some kilns combine kiln exhaust gas with exhaust gas from other unit
operations, such as the clinker cooler. The September 2010 final rule
sought to accommodate commingled flows from the kiln and clinker cooler
by providing a site specific PM limit and an equation for calculating
the limit. In its reconsideration petition, industry brought to EPA’s
attention, that other flows, such as coal mill exhausts and alkali
bypass exhaust flows in addition to the exhaust gas flow from the
clinker cooler can be commingled as well. Without an allowance for these
additional flows, the site specific PM limit is stricter than EPA
intended (since the PM concentration will be divided by a lower number
in the implementing equation), and penalizes the energy-saving practice
of commingling these flows. Although the form of the equation is
correct, the equation is not written to accommodate sources other than
exhaust gases from the clinker cooler. EPA is, therefore, proposing the
following revised equation corrected to includes exhaust gas flows for
all sources that would potentially be combined into a single exhaust gas
stream, including the kiln, alkali bypass, coal mill and clinker cooler:

PM alt  =  0.006 x 1.65 x (Qk + Qc + Qab + Qcm)/(7000)

Where:

PM alt is the alternative PM emission limit for commingled sources.

0.006 is the PM exhaust concentration (gr/dscf) equivalent to 0.070 lb
per ton clinker where clinker cooler and kiln exhaust gas are not
combined.

1.65 is the conversion factor of lb feed per lb clinker

Qk is the exhaust flow of the kiln (dscf/ton raw feed)

Qc is the exhaust flow of the clinker cooler (dscf/ton raw feed).

Qab is the exhaust flow of the alkali bypass (dscf/ton raw feed).

Qcm is the exhaust flow of the coal mill (dscf/ton raw feed).

7000 is the conversion factor for gr per lb.

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

MACT Floor Development

Applying the definition of solid waste developed in the NHSM rule, EPA
has determined that 24 cement kilns in the database which EPA used to
develop the 2010 final NESHAP are now identified as commercial
incinerators.  Even though applying the reclassified kiln designation
for the 24 kilns would have resulted in slightly different existing
source emission standards for mercury, THC and PM, EPA is not proposing
to amend the existing source standards for mercury and THC. The reasons
for this decision are presented in the preamble to the proposed rule.
EPA is proposing to revise the existing and new source PM standards.
Also as described above in section 3, the limit for the alternative
organic HAP limit (with parametric monitoring of THC) is being amended
to reflect the limits of detection in the available measurement
technology. The derivation of the limit for the alternative organic HAP
is described in section 10.5 below. A summary of the amended NESHAP for
existing sources is presented in Table 1.

Table   SEQ Table \* ARABIC  1 : Summary of 2012 Proposed NESHAP for
Existing Sources

Pollutant	Unit of Measure	2010 Final NESHAP	2012 Proposed NESHAP

Hydrogen Chloride	ppmvd	3	3

Mercury	lb/MM tons clinker	55	55

Particulate Matter	lb/ ton clinker	0.04	0.07

Total Hydrocarbon	ppmvd	24	24

Organic HAP	ppmvd	9	12

With respect to new source standards, EPA does not believe that any
reclassification and reanalysis is necessary under the court’s
opinion.  New source floors can be based on the performance of “the
best controlled similar source,” as opposed to existing source floors
which must reflect performance of sources “in the category or
subcategory.”  CAA section 112 (d) (3) and (d)(3)(A).  The changes to
the particulate matter (PM) and organic HAP (oHAP) standards are not
related to removal of the 23 kilns identified as incinerators.  These
changes are discussed below in the applicable sections.  A summary of
the amended NESHAP for new sources is presented in Table 2.

Table   SEQ Table \* ARABIC  2 : Summary of 2012 Proposed NESHAP for New
Sources

Pollutant	Unit of Measure	2010 Final NESHAP 	2012 Proposed NESHAP

Hydrogen Chloride	ppmvd	3	3

Mercury	lb/MM tons clinker	21	21

Particulate Matter	lb/MM tons clinker	0.01	0.02

Total Hydrocarbon	ppmvd	24	24

Organic HAP	ppmvd	9	12

Hydrogen Chloride (HCl)

a.	Existing Sources

The 2012 proposed HCl NESHAP for existing sources was developed by
removing any kilns from the 2010 Final data set that were identified as
commercial incinerators and adding in any new kilns that now fall into
the NESHAP pool (top 12 %).  The 2012 proposed HCl NESHAP for existing
sources was developed with this new pool of kilns using the UPL method
with pooled variance.  As shown in Appendix A, the 2012 result of the
UPL analysis for existing sources is less than three times the
representative method detection level.  As was done in the 2010 Final,
EPA is proposing to retain the current limit (3ppmvd) developed as three
times the highest method detection level.

b.	New Sources

As shown in Appendix B, the best performing kiln used to set the HCl
NEHSAP for new sources in the 2010 Final was not identified as a
commercial incinerator, so the same kiln was used for this analysis. As
such, there is no reason the new source standard would change.

Mercury (Hg)

a.	Existing Sources

EPA calculated the 99th confidence UPL for Hg after removing kilns from
the 2010 final data set that were identified as commercial incinerators
and replacing them with cement kilns to create the pool of best
performing 12 % of sources.  The UPL for existing sources was developed
with this new pool of kilns using the UPL method with pooled variance,
corrected for temporal autocorrelation with intraquarry variability.
This process was identical to that used in the 2010 final rule with the
exception of the kilns in the pool data set.  Appendix C contains the
calculations used to develop the 2012 proposed Hg NESHAP for existing
sources (58 lb/MM tons clinker).

As discussed in the preamble to the proposed rule, EPA is not proposing
to revise the mercury limit for existing sources.  We are proposing,
however, to adopt 55 lb/MM ton clinker as a beyond the floor standard.
This is the level of the 2010 final standard. Thus, in comparison to the
2010 rule, there would be no cost or emissions impacts.

The only difference in cost between the floor level of 58 lb/MM ton
clinker and the proposed beyond-the-floor standard of 55 lb/MM ton
clinker is the incremental cost of removing slightly more mercury. This
is because the control equipment needed for mercury (an activated carbon
injection [ACI] system) would not alter, would not need to be sized
differently, and would need to perform on average, nearly identically at
either a 55 lb/MM tons clinker or 58 lb/MM tons clinker level. That is,
in planning compliance, kilns would calibrate to achieve an average
performance of 34.1 lb/MM tons clinker for a standard of 58 lb/MM tons
clinker, and 31.7 for a standard of 55 lb/MM tons clinker, which
translates to an additional reduction of 2.4 lb/MM tons of clinker per
year. This equates to an estimated 180 pounds of nationwide mercury
emissions per year. To estimate the additional cost of going beyond the
floor, we assumed that the rate of carbon injection would be increased
to increase the mercury removal rate. The additional cost would then be
the increased usage of activated carbon. Under the 2010 rule, we based
the cost of compliance in part on an activated carbon injection rate of
3 pounds per million ACFM. Cost for an ACI system were developed for the
2010 final rule using costs from the state of New Jersey and the OAQPS
Cost Manual. See Docket items EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0051-1891, 1872, 3398 and
3457 for background information and an explanation of cost estimates.
The mercury reduction of 2.4 lb/MM tons of clinker is a 7 percent
reduction from the level needed for long term compliance and we
initially considered that the amount of carbon injected might also only
need to be increased by 7 percent, from 3 lb to 3.2 lb per million ACFM.
However, to allow for variability of removal effectiveness, pollutant
loading and other uncertainties, we estimated the additional cost using
an injection rate of 4 lb/ million ACFM.   To achieve this additional
reduction, we estimated an additional cost of approximately $355,000 for
the industry, to purchase additional carbon injection materials.  This
equates to a cost-effectiveness of $2,000/lb of mercury reduction per
year (see Appendix P).

b. 	New Sources

With respect to new source standards, as shown in Appendix D, applying
this same method to the new sources would produce a slightly less
stringent UPL (and we include this calculation for purposes of
information).  As discussed in preamble, EPA does not believe that any
reclassification and reanalysis for new sources is necessary under the
court’s opinion because new source floors can be based on the
performance of “the best controlled similar source.”  Therefore, EPA
is proposing to retain the new source Hg NESHAP developed under the 2010
Final (21 lb/MM tons clinker).

Particulate Matter (PM)

a.	Existing Sources

The 2012 proposed PM NESHAP for existing sources was developed by
removing any kilns from the 2010 final data set that were identified as
commercial incinerators and adding in any cement kilns that now fall
into the NESHAP pool (top 12 %).  The 2012 proposed PM NESHAP for
existing sources was developed with this new pool of kilns using the UPL
method with pooled variance.  This process was identical to that used in
the 2010 final with the exception of the kilns in the pool data set.
Finally, in applying the UPL equation, EPA used m = 3 to be consistent
with the proposed requirement to determine compliance using a three run
Method 5 test rather than a 30 day rolling average. Appendix E contains
the calculations used to develop the 2012 proposed PM NESHAP for
existing sources (0.07 lb/MM tons clinker).

b.	New Sources

The best performing kiln used to set the PM NEHSAP for new sources in
the 2010 Final was not identified as a commercial incinerator, so the
same kiln was used for this analysis. We are proposing a standard of
0.02 lb./MM tons clinker rather than the 2010 final rule level of 0.01
lb/MM tons clinker  because a 3-run test will be used to determine
compliance rather than a 30-day rolling average, the calculation of the
UPL uses m = 3 rather than 30. Appendix F contains the calculations used
to develop the 2012 proposed PM NESHAP for new sources (0.02 lb/MM tons
clinker).

Total Hydrocarbon (THC)

a.	Existing Sources

The THC data for the 2010 standard consist of CEMS data for 15 kilns.
After removing the four CISWI kilns, nine kilns remain. Thus, the MACT
floor kilns consisted of 12 percent of these nine kilns, or two kilns.
The top two kilns were Suwannee and Holcim. When CISWI sources are
removed from the database for the 2010 standards, the existing source
floor for THC becomes more stringent from 24 parts per million by volume
(ppmv) to 15 ppmv, and the new source standard would drop from 24 ppmv
to 11 ppmv (see Appendix K). This change results from removing from the
database a CISWI cement kiln (the Lehigh Union Bridge kiln) with the
lowest daily average performance but with more associated variability
than the other kilns. However, notwithstanding this calculation, the EPA
is not proposing to reduce the level of either the new source and or
existing source THC standard.

With respect to existing source standards, EPA does not believe that the
existing floor level (15 ppmv) would be technically appropriate. It
omits the variability of the similar source with the best average
performance for THC (the Union Bridge kiln), and so may not be fully
representative of variability of best performing sources. If the
variability of the Union Bridge kiln is included along with the
variability of the two best performing cement kilns, and applied to the
two best performing cement kilns’ performance, the floor would be 24
ppm, which EPA is proposing as a floor (see Appendix O).

b.	New Sources

The basis for the new source standard was explained in the 2010 final
rule.  See 75 FR at 54981.  As a best controlled similar source, the new
source standard can continue to be based on the performance of this kiln
(the Lehigh Union Bridge kiln).  See the preamble to the proposed rule
for more discussion of the proposed THC standards.

Organic HAP (oHAP)

a. 	Existing and New Sources

For the total oHAP emissions data, EPA applied the following procedure
for determining a representative detection level (RDL) for test methods
used in measuring oHAPs. EPA determined method detection capabilities
for Method 320 and Method 18 as the most appropriate for the various
compounds (e.g., Method 320 for aldehydes, Method 18 for arenes) emitted
by kilns. EPA determined for each of the oHAPs the expected method
detection level for the respective method based on internal experience
and method capabilities reported by testing companies. With these
values, EPA identified the resulting mean of the method detection levels
as the RDL because it is characteristic of accepted source emissions
measurement performance. EPA summed the RDLs of each oHAP in the data
set and adjusted for dilution and moisture, then multiplied by three.
Appendix H contains the calculations used to develop the 2012 proposed
oHAP NESHAP for existing and new sources (12 ppmvd).

Impacts of Revised PM Standard

For PM, EPA is proposing to change the limit for existing sources from
0.04 lb/ton clinker to 0.07 lb/ton clinker. The PM limit for new sources
also would be changed to 0.02 lb/ton clinker from 0.01 lb/ton clinker.
The standard would be measured on a 3-run basis rather than on a 30-day
basis with a CEMS (see the final paragraph of this section).  The
proposed changes in the PM standards, while not considered significant
in absolute terms will result in a small increase in total nationwide
emissions.  As explained in the impacts analysis for the 2010 rule (see
Docket item EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0051-3438), emission reductions were
estimated by comparing baseline emissions to the long-term average
emissions of the MACT floor kilns. The average emissions, rather than
the emissions limit, must be used because to comply with the limit all
or most of the time, emissions need to be reduced to the average of the
MACT floor kilns. Under the 2010 rule, the average PM emissions from the
existing floor kilns were 0.02296 lb/ton clinker. Under the
reconsideration, the average PM emissions of the existing floor kilns is
0.02655 lb/ton clinker (see Appendix E). This is an increase of 0.00359
lb/ton clinker over the 2010 rule. The average emissions for new kilns
did not change, so there would be no change in emissions from new kilns.
In the 2010 rule, total clinker production from existing kilns was
75,355,116 tons per year. With an increase in PM emissions under the
proposed rule of 0.00359 lb/ton clinker compared to the 2010 rule,
nationwide emissions of PM would increase by 135 tons per year (0.00359
x 75,355,116/2000). These calculations are not so precise as to reliably
predict to the third decimal point to the right of zero, so this
difference should be viewed as suggesting a directional difference in
the standards.

	Kiln type	2010 rule	Proposed rule	Increment

Emissions limit (lb/ton clinker	Existing	0.04 (30-day average with a
CEMS)	0.07

(3-run stack test)	NA

MACT  average emissions for compliance (lb/ton clinker	Existing	0.02296
0.02655	0.00359

2010 baseline emissions (tons/yr)

10,326	10,326	NA

Nationwide emissions reduction (tons/yr)	Total	9,489	9,354	-135

Although the final measures that the industry will take to implement the
final standards will be site specific and cannot be accurately estimated
here, it is possible that the industry would now be able to use existing
PM control devices with less extensive modification rather than planned
under the 2010 standard or rather than replacing them. Compliance
strategies for the other HAPs, all of which involve some element of PM
control, also may be affected.  Cost savings from these alternatives
could be significant.  For example, we have performed a case study from
the data set used in the 2010 impacts analysis.  In this case study, the
21 ESP-equipped kilns no longer need to install membrane bags on a
downstream polishing FF, and one FF retains their standard fabric bags
rather than replacing them with membrane bags. The difference in annual
cost for PM control under this case study and the more stringent 2010
scenario is $18.6 million in capital cost and annualized cost of $4.2
million (see Appendix M). EPA believes this case study is a reasonable
type of bounding estimate.  Under this comparison, the annual cost of
compliance will be $4.2 million less than under the 2010 rule. Under
this comparison, the additional cost of reducing PM emissions to the
2010 rule level would be approximately $31,000 per ton of PM ($4.2
million/135 tons PM). Assuming that 1 percent of PM is HAP (Docket item
EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0051-3438), the cost effectiveness would be
approximately $3,000,000 per ton of HAP .

Because there are several substantial issues associated with the use of
PS 11 at low PM emissions concentrations and given the variable
emissions characteristics expected from Portland cement kilns, the EPA
is proposing to change the compliance basis for the PM standard from
CEMS-based to stack-test based (preamble section III.D discusses these
issues in detail).  That is, the performance test requirement for this
proposed rule would be an annual three run compliance test with the EPA
Method 5. The proposed rule would continue to require use of PM CEMS
equipment but, as explained below, that equipment would be used for
continuous parametric monitoring instead of for compliance with the
numerical PM emissions limit. Because the same equipment would be used,
the capital cost of the equipment for continuous parametric monitoring
and CEMS are the same. However, as part of the PS 11 calibration
requirements, at least 5, Method 5 tests are required. Omitting the need
for these multiple test runs will save the facility $60,000 per kiln
(each Method 5 test costs $15,000). At a savings of $60,000 per kiln,
nationwide savings for 133 new and existing kilns, would be $7.98
million per year.

Summary

Costs and emissions impacts for the proposed amendments
牡畳浭牡穩摥椠慔汢⸳ഠ慔汢–䕓⁑慔汢⩜
䄠䅒䥂⁃㌔⸕䤠灭捡獴漠牐灯獯摥䄠敭摮敭瑮慳倍潲
潰敳流湥浤湥ݴ慃楰慴潃瑳䄇湮慵楬敺潃瑳䔇業
獳潩獮删摥捵楴湯܇潌杮琠牥浩慰瑣⁳愨瑦牥㈠㄰⤵
܇潃污洠汩整瑳湩湡潭楮潴楲杮ഠ敍捲牵൹䡔ൃ
䍈൬汆睯洠瑥牥

2

3

4

5

7

8

˜

™

š

´

µ

¶

¸

¹

º

»

¼

½

Ù

Ú

Û

Ü

Þ

ß

,

»

H

œ

û

%

&

'

A

B

C

E

F

G

H

I

J

f

g

h

i

l

m

y

z

{

•

–

—

™

š

›

œ

ž

º

»

¼

½

À

Á

Ø

Ù

Ú

ô

j¸

j;

,ô

õ

ö

ø

ù

ú

û

ü

ý

j¬

j/

j

h

h

愀Ĥ摧涔²

愀Ĥ摧涔²

愀Ĥ摧涔²

愀Ĥ摧涔²

愀Ĥ摧涔²

愀Ĥ摧涔²

愀Ĥ摧涔²

h{

t	¬

t	¬

摧ׄÜЀ3摧૯¦Ѐ7摧涔²Ѐ3摧秋î

愀Ȥ摧涔²

愀Ȥ摧涔²

愀Ȥ摧涔²

愀Ĥ摧涔²⤍̀Ĥ␆ጁ碤᐀碤愀Ĥ摧ʧЀ3摧૯¦

愀Ȥ摧涔²

愀Ȥ摧涔²

yt

愀Ȥ摧涔²

yt

愀Ȥ摧涔²

yt

摧૯¦Ѐ摧涔²

yt

h

 hX

hX

hX

hX

h

h

h

葞ː摧᭯w

Total coal mill testing and monitoring

$4,794,520

$4,794,520

$3,055,200

$1,072,000

$2,680,000

$1,510,850

$8,318,050

0

Mercury beyond the floor b	0	$355,000	180 lb

Revised PM standard 	-$18,640,106 	-$4,200,000 	-135 tons/yr

Replace PM CEMS with PM CPMS 	0	-$7,980,000 	0

a Negative numbers indicate cost savings or emissions increase.

b Impacts presented in table are based on going from a limit of 58 to 55
lb Hg/MM tons clinker. If compared to the 2010 rule, the impacts of the
proposed rule are zero because the proposed mercury limit is the same as
in the mercury limit in the 2010 rule.

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

  PAGE   \* MERGEFORMAT  ii

  PAGE   \* MERGEFORMAT  18


[Federal Register: May 10, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 90)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 26582-26587]
[DOCID:fr10my07-20]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 122 and 412

[EPA-HQ-OW-2005-0036; FRL-8311-4]
RIN 2040-AE92

Proposed Revised Compliance Dates Under the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System Permit Regulations and Effluent
Limitations Guidelines and Standards for Concentrated Animal Feeding
Operations

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA proposes to extend certain compliance dates in the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permitting
requirements and Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards (ELGs)
for concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) while EPA works to
complete rulemaking to respond to the decision of the Second Circuit
Court of Appeals in Waterkeeper Alliance et al. v. EPA, 399 F.3d 486
(2nd Cir. 2005). The sole purpose of this proposed rule is to address
timing issues associated with the Agency's response to the Waterkeeper
decision.
    This proposal would revise the dates established in the 2003 CAFO
rule and later modified by a rule published in the Federal Register on
February 10, 2006, by which facilities newly defined as CAFOs are
required to seek permit coverage and by which all permitted CAFOs are
required to develop and implement their nutrient management plans
(NMPs). EPA is proposing to extend the date by which operations defined
as CAFOs as of April 14, 2003, that were not defined as CAFOs prior to
that date, must seek NPDES permit coverage, from July 31, 2007, to
February 27, 2009. EPA is also proposing to amend the date by which
operations that become defined as CAFOs after April 14, 2003, due to
operational changes that would not have made them a CAFO prior to April
14, 2003, and that are not new sources, must seek NPDES permit
coverage, from July 31, 2007, to February 27, 2009. Finally, EPA is
proposing to extend the deadline by which permitted CAFOs are required
to develop and implement NMPs, from July 31, 2007, to February 27,
2009.

DATES: Comments on this proposed action must be received on or before
June 11, 2007.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-
2005-0036 by one of the following methods
    (1) http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for

submitting comments.
    (2) E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-
2005-0036.
    (3) Mail: Send the original and three copies of your comments to:
Water Docket, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail code 2822T, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, Attention Docket ID No.
OW-2005-0036.
    (4) Hand Delivery: Deliver your comments to: EPA Docket Center, EPA
West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC,
Attention Docket ID No. OW-2005-0036. Such deliveries are only accepted
during the Docket's normal hours of operation and special arrangements
should be made for deliveries of boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2005-
0036. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in
the public docket without change and may be made available online at

http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,

unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to
be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail.

The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system,

which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information
unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-
mail comment directly to EPA without going through http://www.regulations.gov

your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part
of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available
on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends
that you include your name and other contact information in the body of
your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read
your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional
information about EPA's public docket visit the EPA Docket Center
homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.

    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the
http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some

information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Water Docket in the EPA

Docket Center, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone
number for the Public Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone
number for the Water Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rebecca Roose, Water Permits Division,
Office of Wastewater Management (4203M), Environmental Protection
Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information
    A. Does This Action Apply to Me?
    B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?
II. Background
    A. The Clean Water Act
    B. History of Actions to Address CAFOs Under the NPDES
Permitting Program
    C. Status of EPA's Response to the Waterkeeper Decision
    D. History of CAFO Compliance Dates
III. This Proposed Rule
    A. Application Deadline for Newly Defined CAFOs
    B. Deadline for Nutrient Management Plans
IV. Rationale for This Action
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. General Information

A. Does This Action Apply to Me?

    This action applies to concentrated animal feeding operations
(CAFOs) as defined in section 502(14) of the Clean Water Act and in the
NPDES regulations at 40 CFR 122.23. The following table provides a list
of standard industrial codes for operations covered under this revised
rule.

                              Table 1.--Entities Potentially Regulated by This Rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Standard
                                                                              North American       industrial
                Category                   Examples of regulated entities     industry code      classification
                                                                                (NAIC)              code
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal, State, and Local Government:
Industry................................  Operators of animal production
                                           operations that meet the
                                           definition of a CAFO:
                                            Beef cattle feedlots                       112112               0211
                                             (including veal).
                                            Beef cattle ranching and                   112111               0212
                                             farming.
                                            Hogs..........................              11221               0213
                                            Sheep.........................             11241,               0214
                                                                                11242
                                            General livestock except dairy              11299               0219
                                             and poultry.
                                            Dairy farms...................              11212               0241
                                            Broilers, fryers, and roaster               11232               0251
                                             chickens.
                                            Chicken eggs..................              11231               0252
                                            Turkey and turkey eggs........              11233               0253
                                            Poultry hatcheries............              11234               0254
                                            Poultry and eggs..............              11239               0259
                                            Ducks.........................             112390               0259
                                            Horses and other equines......              11292               0272
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 EPA is now aware
could potentially be regulated by this action. Other types of entities
not listed in the table could also be regulated. To determine whether
your facility may be regulated under this rulemaking, you should
carefully examine the applicability criteria in 40 CFR 122.23. 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.

B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?

    1. Submitting Confidential Business Information. Do not submit this
information to EPA through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark

the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI
information in a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside
of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within
the disk or CD-ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In
addition to one complete version of the comment that includes
information claimed as CBI, a

copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as
CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information
so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures
set forth in 40 CFR Part 2.
    2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments. It will be helpful if you
follow these guidelines as you prepare your written comments:
    i. Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
    ii. Follow directions--The Agency may ask you to respond to
specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
    iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and
substitute language for your requested changes.
    iv. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information
and/or data that you used.
    v. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
    vi. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and
suggest alternatives.
    vii. Explain your views as clearly as possible.
    viii. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified.

II. Background

A. The Clean Water Act

    Congress passed the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (1972),
also known as the Clean Water Act (CWA), to ``restore and maintain the
chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation's waters.''
33 U.S.C. 1251(a). Among its core provisions, the CWA established the
NPDES permit program to authorize and regulate the discharge of
pollutants from point sources to waters of the U.S. 33 U.S.C. 1342. EPA
has issued comprehensive regulations that implement the NPDES program
at 40 CFR Part 122. The Act also provided for the development of
technology-based and water quality-based effluent limitations that are
imposed through NPDES permits to control the discharge of pollutants
from point sources. CWA Section 301(a) and (b).

B. History of Actions To Address CAFOs Under the NPDES Permitting
Program

    EPA's regulation of wastewater and manure from CAFOs dates from the
1970s. EPA initially issued national effluent limitations guidelines
and standards for feedlots on February 14, 1974, (39 FR 5704) and NPDES
CAFO regulations on March 18, 1976 (41 FR 11458).
    In February 2003, EPA revised these regulations. 68 FR 7176 (the
``2003 CAFO rule''). The 2003 CAFO rule required owners or operators of
all CAFOs\1\ to seek coverage under an NPDES permit, unless they
demonstrated no potential to discharge. CAFO industry organizations
(American Farm Bureau Federation, National Pork Producers Council,
National Chicken Council, and National Turkey Federation (NTF),
although NTF later withdrew its petition) and environmental groups
(Waterkeeper Alliance, Natural Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club,
and American Littoral Society) filed petitions for judicial review of
certain aspects of the 2003 CAFO rule. This case was brought before the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. On February 28, 2005, the
court ruled on these petitions and upheld most provisions of the 2003
rule but vacated and/or remanded others. Waterkeeper Alliance et al. v.
EPA, 399 F.3d 486 (2nd Cir. 2005) (hereafter referred to as
Waterkeeper). Notably, the court vacated the requirement that all CAFOs
apply for NPDES permit coverage unless a CAFO demonstrates no potential
to discharge. The court also remanded the rule for failing to require
incorporation of the terms of CAFOs' NMPs into their permits and for
failing to prescribe public review and comment and permitting authority
approval of the terms of the NMPs. Other provisions were remanded for
further clarification and analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ To improve readability in this preamble, reference is made
to ``CAFOs'' as well as ``owners and operators of CAFOs.'' No change
in meaning is intended.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Status of EPA's Response to the Waterkeeper Decision

    On June 30, 2006, EPA published a proposed rule in response to the
Waterkeeper decision. 71 FR 37744. EPA proposed to revise several
aspects of the Agency's regulations governing discharges from CAFOs. In
summary, EPA proposed to require only owners or operators of those
CAFOs that discharge or propose to discharge to seek coverage under a
permit. Second, EPA proposed to require CAFOs seeking coverage under a
permit to submit their NMP with their application for an individual
permit or, for general permit coverage, with their notice of intent to
be authorized to discharge under a general permit. Permitting
authorities would be required to review the NMP and provide the public
with an opportunity for meaningful public review and comment.
Permitting authorities would also be required to incorporate terms of
the NMP as NPDES permit conditions. The proposed rule also addressed
the remand of issues for further clarification and analysis. These
issues concern the applicability of water-quality based effluent
limitations (WQBELs); the record supporting new source performance
standards for swine, poultry, and veal CAFOs; and the record support
for ``best conventional technology'' effluent limitations guidelines
for pathogens. The proposed rule reflected the dates for compliance as
revised in February 2006; i.e., July 31, 2007, for permit application
by newly defined CAFOs and NMP development and implementation by all
permitted CAFOs. The public comment period for the June 2006 CAFO
proposal closed on Aug. 29, 2006. EPA will respond to these comments
when it takes final action on the June 30, 2006, proposed rule.
    In this action, EPA is proposing, and accepting comment only on, a
change to the date by which certain operations must seek coverage under
an NPDES permit and the date by which all permitted CAFOs must develop
and implement their NMPs.\2\ In part because of extensive and widely
divergent public comment on the array of issues raised by the court,
EPA will not complete a final rule revising the 2003 CAFO rule before
the current compliance dates of July 31, 2007, and is, therefore,
proposing to revise this compliance date. Though EPA describes them
here for context, the proposed provisions in the June 2006 proposed
rule in response to Waterkeeper are beyond the scope of this current
proposal, and EPA is not taking comment on these provisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Note that in response to the Waterkeeper decision, EPA
proposed a variation to the ``develop and implement'' language of
the June 2006 proposal which stated that a CAFO operator must submit
an NMP with its permit application or NOI and that it must be
implemented upon permit coverage. 71 FR 37744.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. History of CAFO Compliance Dates

    The 2003 CAFO rule amended the definition of ``CAFO'' to add
facilities that had not previously been defined as CAFOs (in the 1976
regulations). 40 CFR 122.23(b). Operations newly defined as CAFOs in
the 2003 CAFO rule included veal operations, swine weighing less than
55 pounds, chicken and layer operations using other than liquid manure
handling systems, and animal feeding operations (AFOs) that were

previously not defined as CAFOs because they discharged only in the
event of a 25-year/24-hour storm. CAFOs in these categories that were
in existence when the 2003 CAFO rule took effect (April 14, 2003)
represent the group of CAFOs that were initially subject to a February
13, 2006, deadline for permit application. 68 FR 7267. In addition,
other existing facilities that became defined as CAFOs under the
revised CAFO definitions in the 2003 CAFO rule include so-called ``new
dischargers'' that subsequent to the effective date of the 2003 CAFO
rule became CAFOs due to changes in their operations, where such
changes would not have made the operation a CAFO prior to April 14,
2003. This second group of facilities was initially required to seek
permit coverage by April 13, 2006, or 90 days after becoming defined as
a CAFO, whichever date is later. 68 FR 7268. Thus, each of these groups
of CAFOs were allowed three years from the 2003 rule to seek permit
coverage when EPA issued the 2003 CAFO rule.
    EPA reasoned in the 2003 CAFO rule, and reiterated in the 2006 date
change rule, that allowing newly regulated entities three years to come
into compliance was consistent with Congressional intent, as expressed
in the 1972 Clean Water Act with respect to newly established point
sources. Moreover, the Agency stated that the three year timeframe was
necessary for States authorized to administer the NPDES permit program
to provide permit coverage for CAFOs that were not previously required
to be permitted and to revise State regulatory programs. 68 FR 7204.
    In addition to the requirements to seek permit coverage, the 2003
CAFO rule also required all permitted CAFOs to develop and implement
NMPs by December 31, 2006. EPA believed that this date was reasonable
given that operations would have had a little over three and a half
years from the issuance of the 2003 rule to develop and implement an
NMP. This timeframe allowed States to update their NPDES programs and
issue permits to reflect the NMP requirements of the 2003 CAFO rule. It
also provided flexibility for permitting authorities to establish
permit schedules based on specific circumstances, including
prioritization of nutrient management plan development and
implementation based on site-specific water quality risks and the
available infrastructure for development of NMPs.
    These timing considerations were affected by the Waterkeeper
decision. On February 10, 2006, prior to the Agency's proposed rule
responding to the Waterkeeper decision, EPA promulgated a limited rule
to revise each of the compliance dates in the 2003 CAFO rule that were
affected by the decision (referred to as the ``2006 date rule''). 71 FR
6978. Specifically, EPA extended the dates for those newly defined
CAFOs described above to seek NPDES permit coverage and the date by
which all CAFOs must develop and implement NMPs. EPA revised these
dates in order to: (1) Provide the Agency sufficient time to take final
action on the regulatory revisions with respect to the Waterkeeper
decision; and (2) require NMPs to be submitted at the time of the
permit application, consistent with the court's decision. It was
necessary for EPA to revise the dates separately from addressing the
rest of the issues raised by the Waterkeeper decision because EPA had
not completed the proposed rule responding to the Waterkeeper decision
prior to the dates by which newly defined CAFOs were required to seek
permit coverage.

III. This Proposed Rule

    This notice proposes to amend the section detailing when operations
defined as CAFOs as of April 14, 2003, that were not defined as CAFOs
prior to that date, must seek NPDES permit coverage, as well as the
section detailing when, due to operational changes, operations that
would not have become CAFOs under the prior rule become CAFOs under the
2003 rule. Second, EPA is proposing to extend the deadline by which
permitted CAFOs are required to develop and implement NMPs. This
proposed rule would not modify or otherwise affect any other existing
regulatory provisions, nor does it reopen the comment period on the
proposed rule to respond to the Waterkeeper decision published on June,
30, 2006. 71 FR 37744.

A. Application Deadline for Newly Defined CAFOs

    EPA is proposing to extend the date by which operations defined as
CAFOs as of April 14, 2003, that were not defined as CAFOs prior to
that date, must seek NPDES permit coverage, from July 31, 2007, to
February 27, 2009. EPA is also proposing to amend the date by which
operations that became defined as CAFOs after April 14, 2003, or that
will become CAFOs due to operational changes that would not have made
them a CAFO prior to April 14, 2003, and that are not new sources, must
seek NPDES permit coverage, from July 31, 2007, to February 27, 2009.
    This proposed rule would not affect the applicable time for seeking
permit coverage for newly constructed CAFOs not subject to new source
performance standards (NSPS) or for new source CAFOs subject to NSPS
that discharge or propose to discharge, even those in categories that
were added to the definition of a CAFO in the 2003 CAFO rule. These
CAFOs that discharge or propose to discharge are required by 40 CFR
122.21(a) and 123.23(g)(3)(i) and (4) to seek NPDES permit coverage at
least 180 days prior to the time that they commence operating, and
these provisions were unaffected by the 2006 date rule.
    This proposed rule would not supersede State requirements. States
may choose to require CAFOs to obtain NPDES permits in advance of the
dates set in the federal NPDES regulations, pursuant to the authority
reserved to States under section 510 of the Clean Water Act to adopt
requirements more stringent than those that apply under federal law.
Further, CAFOs that are already permitted, e.g., CAFOs that existed
prior to the effective date of the 2003 CAFO rule and as such have been
required to seek NPDES permit coverage even before EPA issued the 2003
CAFO rule, continue to be required to maintain permit coverage pursuant
to section 122.23(h).
    EPA is also proposing to correct a typographical error that was
created in the 2006 date rule. In that rule, 40 CFR 122.23(g)(1) as
promulgated in the 2003 CAFO rule (which provides that existing
operations defined as CAFOs prior to April 14, 2003, must seek permit
coverage by the effective date of the 2003 rule) was inadvertently
replaced with 40 CFR 122.23(g)(2) (which provides extended compliance
dates for operations defined as CAFOs as of April 14, 2003, but were
not defined as CAFOs prior to that date). Because the ``(2)'' was
erroneously printed as ``(1)'', section 122.23(g)(1) was overwritten
and section 122.23(g)(2) was incorrectly left unchanged. As a result,
the current rule contains two provisions applicable to ``Operations
defined as CAFOs as of April 14, 2003, who were not defined as CAFOs
prior to that date'' with conflicting dates. EPA is proposing to
restore the original section 122.23(g)(1) as promulgated in 2003, and
to revise the date in section 122.23(g)(2) to reflect this proposal.

B. Deadline for Nutrient Management Plans

    EPA is proposing to extend the deadline by which permitted CAFOs
are required to develop and implement NMPs, from July 31, 2007, to
February 27, 2009. This proposal would revise all references to the
date by which CAFOs must develop and implement NMPs

currently in Parts 122 and 412. Thus, this proposal would revise the
deadlines established in 40 CFR 122.21(i)(1)(x), 122.42(e)(1),
412.31(b)(3), and 412.43(b)(2).
    This proposal would not supersede State requirements, nor would it
affect CAFOs operating under existing permits so long as those permits
remain in effect. If their existing permits require development and
implementation of an NMP, currently permitted CAFOs must develop and
implement their NMPs in accordance with the terms of their current
permit, or their applicable state requirements. This proposed rule also
would not affect the applicable land application limitations and
requirements for all CAFOs subject to the new source performance
standards under 40 CFR 412.35 and 40 CFR 412.46. Upon permit coverage,
new sources must meet all relevant land application requirements.

IV. Rationale for This Action

    At the time of the 2006 date rule, EPA believed that July 31, 2007,
would allow sufficient time for the Agency to complete the rulemaking
to address the Waterkeeper decision. EPA also reasoned that the basis
for these revised dates was generally consistent with the approach
taken by Congress in the 1972 Clean Water Act, as explained when
setting the compliance dates in the 2003 CAFO rule. 68 FR 7204. EPA
anticipated that the dates established in the 2006 date rule provided
sufficient time to ensure compliance with the NPDES regulations within
a reasonable timeframe consistent with the dates established in the
2003 CAFO rule. 71 FR 6980-81.
    The amount of time needed to revise the rule in response to the
Waterkeeper decision has been greater than EPA anticipated at the time
it promulgated the 2006 date rule. At that time, EPA had not yet
proposed revisions to the CAFO rule and could only surmise what the
public response to the proposal would be. In light of comments received
and after further consideration of the proposed rule, EPA is continuing
to explore the best method of implementing the Waterkeeper decision. To
avoid any potential conflict with existing deadlines that precede the
publication of the final rule, it is appropriate to propose this
rulemaking to change the dates at issue.
    In comments on the proposed 2006 date rule, commenters asserted
that the proposed deadlines would not offer CAFOs sufficient time to
submit permit applications, including NMPs, that will comply with the
regulatory revisions the Agency is planning to address in its response
to the Waterkeeper decision. Other commenters expressed the view that
EPA needed to take into consideration the time necessary for States to
make conforming revisions to State programs following EPA's regulatory
revisions. See docket ID EPA-HQ-OW-2005-0036. Commenters reiterated
these concerns in comments on the 2006 proposed CAFO rule in response
to Waterkeeper. See docket ID EPA-HQ-OW-2005-0037. This proposed rule
balances the need to address the concerns raised by commenters with the
interest of having the regulatory requirements implemented in a timely
fashion. In EPA's view, this proposal would also provide sufficient
time for newly defined facilities to review the revised duty to apply
requirements to determine whether they need to seek permit coverage.
Finally, it would provide time for permitting authorities to identify
the necessary procedures for reviewing NMPs and incorporating them into
general permits. Taking into account the time EPA needs to complete the
rule in response to Waterkeeper, as well as the period of time after
the final rule is promulgated to allow States, the regulated community,
and other stakeholders the opportunity to adjust to the new regulatory
requirements, EPA believes that extending the dates to February 27,
2009, is reasonable.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
proposed rule is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and is
therefore not subject to review under the Executive Order. As discussed
above, the purpose of this proposed rule is solely to address timing
issues associated with the Agency's response to the Waterkeeper court
ruling on petitions for review challenging portions of the 2003 CAFO
rule. After considering the economic impacts of this proposed rule on
small entities in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.), I certify that this action will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
since the effect of the proposal, if implemented, is solely to extend
certain deadlines related to NPDES CAFO permitting. Additionally, this
proposed rule would not affect small governments, as the permitting
authorities are state or federal agencies. We continue to be interested
in the potential impacts of the proposed rule on small entities and
welcome comments on issues related to such impacts. EPA has determined
that this proposed rule does not contain a Federal mandate that may
result in expenditures of $100 million or more for State, local, and
tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector in any one
year. In addition, this action does not significantly or uniquely
affect small governments. Thus, this proposed rule is not subject to
sections 202, 203, or 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1999
(Pub. L. 104-4). In addition, this proposed rule does not have Tribal
implications as specified in Executive Order 13175 (63 FR 67249,
November 9, 2000) because it will neither impose substantial direct
compliance costs on tribal governments, nor preempt Tribal law. This
proposed rule will not have federalism implications, as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) because it will
not impose substantial direct compliance costs on State or local
governments, nor will it preempt State law. Thus, the requirements of
sections 6(b) and 6(c) of the Executive Order do not apply to this
rule. This proposed rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045
because it is not economically significant as defined under E.O. 12866,
and because the Agency does not have reason to believe the
environmental health and safety risks addressed by this action present
a disproportionate risk to children. This proposed rule is not subject
to Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) which establishes
federal executive policy on environmental justice. EPA has determined
that this proposed rule will not have disproportionately high and
adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or low-income
populations because it does not affect the level of protection provided
to human health or the environment. This proposed rule is not subject
to Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations that
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001), because it is not a significant regulatory action
under Executive Order 12866. This proposed rule does not involve
technical standards; thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) do not apply. This proposed rule does not impose any new
information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). However, the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) has previously approved the information
collection requirements contained in the existing regulations at 40 CFR
Parts 9, 122, 123, and 412 under

the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
and has assigned OMB control number 2040-0250. The EPA ICR number for
the original set of regulations is 1989.02.

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 122

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Confidential business information, Hazardous substances, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Water pollution control.

40 CFR Part 412

    Environmental protection, Feedlots, Livestock, Waste treatment and
disposal, Water pollution control.

    Dated: May 3, 2007.
Stephen L. Johnson,
Administrator.
    For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Environmental
Protection Agency proposes to amend 40 CFR parts 122 and 412 as
follows:

PART 122--EPA ADMINISTERED PERMIT PROGRAMS: THE NATIONAL POLLUTANT
DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM

    1. The authority citation for part 122 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority: The Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.

Sec.  122.21  [Amended]

    2. In Sec.  122.21 paragraph (i)(1)(x), the date ``July 31, 2007''
is revised read ``February 27, 2009''.
    3. Section 122.23 is amended by revising paragraphs (g)(1), (g)(2),
and (g)(3)(iii) to read as follows:

Sec.  122.23  Concentrated animal feeding operations (applicable to
State NPDES programs, see Sec.  123.25).

* * * * *
    (g) * * *
    (1) Operations defined as CAFOs prior to April 14, 2003. For
operations that are defined as CAFOs under regulations that are in
effect prior to April 14, 2003, the owner or operator must have or seek
to obtain coverage under an NPDES permit as of April 14, 2003, and
comply with all applicable NPDES requirements, including the duty to
maintain permit coverage in accordance with paragraph (h) of this
section.
    (2) Operations defined as CAFOs as of April 14, 2003, that were not
defined as CAFOs prior to that date. For all operations defined as
CAFOs as of April 14, 2003, that were not defined as CAFOs prior to
that date, the owner or operator of the CAFO must seek to obtain
coverage under an NPDES permit by a date specified by the Director, but
no later than February 27, 2009.
    (3) * * *
    (iii) If an operational change that makes the operation a CAFO
would not have made it a CAFO prior to April 14, 2003, the operation
has until February 27, 2009, or 90 days after becoming defined as a
CAFO, whichever is later.
* * * * *

Sec.  122.42  [Amended]

    4. In Sec.  122.42 paragraph (e)(1), the two dates ``July 31,
2007'' are revised read ``February 27, 2009''.

PART 412--CONCENTRATED ANIMAL FEEDING OPERATIONS (CAFO) POINT
SOURCE CATEGORY

    5. The authority citation for part 412 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1311, 1314, 1316, 1317, 1318, 1342, 1361.

Sec.  412.31  [Amended]

    6. In Sec.  412.31 paragraph (b)(3), the date ``July 31, 2007'' is
revised to read ``February 27, 2009''.

Sec.  412.43  [Amended]

    7. In Sec.  412.43 paragraph (b)(2), the date ``July 31, 2007'' is
revised to read ``February 27, 2009''.

 [FR Doc. E7-9027 Filed 5-9-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


2~ V set, \ N ° PATTOM BOOE~ S~ F 5~

as 5/ 245 ~ 3 ~ wss~ a~ taibc~ qs~ o~ r \\. ( affc~\ orman. III 202 457 5270 Cnorrflan apatsonboggs. corn January 31. 2003 BY COURIER Mr. Wardner C. Penberthy Director. Chemical Control Division Office ofPrevention. Pesticides and Toxic Substances Environmental Protection Agency 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue. NW ( 7405M) Washington. DC 20460 Re: Eth~ leneDichloride ECA Dear Mr. Penberthy:

Enclosed is an Enforceable Consent Agreement for ethylene dichloride ( the ~ ECA~) signed by all HAP Task Force Participants.

You will note three minor manuscript amendments. Borden Chemicals and Plastics Operating Limited Partnership has been eliminated as a test sponsor as it is no longer a producer of ethylene dichloride ( EDC). The address provided for The Dow Chemical Company on page 14 was amended to conform to the signature page. The date ofthe Agreement has been changed to January 2003.

It is our understanding that the final version ofthe document reflecting these minor changes. when signed by the Assistant Administrator for Pesticides and Toxic Substances. will be the final binding Enforceable Consent Agreement. Please do not hesitate to contact Peter Voytek ( 540 837 1602) or me should you have any questions.

Very truly yours.

W. Caffey N" orman. III Enclosure cc: Richard W. Leukroth. Ph. D. ( w/ out enclosure) John E. Schaeffer. Ph. D. ( w/ enclosure) Peter E. Voytek. Ph. D. ( w/ out enclosure)

Wash gion DC No er VHg a Ds as Denver B u~ 2sr Ar a~ e RECEIVED OPPT NCIC 2003 MAR11 4: 52PM OPPT 2003 0010 0003 ControHed Correspondence For CHEMICAL CONTROL DIVISION CONTROL NO: CCD 0300014 ORIG. DUE DATE: 02/ 03/ 2003 FILE CODE:

STATUS: EO CORR 127 GENERAL CORR EPA OFFICES ( EO)

PENDING CORRES. DATE: RECEIVED DATE: ASSIGNED DATE: CLOSED DATE: 01/ 31/ 2003 02/ 03/ 2003 02/ 03/ 2003 FROM: ORG: SALUTATION: CONSTITUENT:

TO: TO ORG: SUBJECT:

ASSIGNED: W. CAFFEY NORMAN, lU PATTON BOGGS WARD PENBERTHY ETHYLENE DICHLORIDE ECA Chemical Information & Testing Branch COPIES OF INCOMING PROVIDED TO:

SIGNATURE: CCD COMMENTS: ORIGINAL OF PACKAGE GIVEN TOJOHN SCHAEFER 2/ 3/ 03 CCD INSTRUCTIONS:

( Untitled)