4/25/2007 2:04 PM

Summary of Comments on December 20, 2006 Final Rule and Notice of
Reconsideration for the Portland Cement Manufacturing NESHAP

Table 1.  List Of Commenters

Docket Item	Commenter and Affiliation

OAR-2002-0051-1902.1	Caroline Choi, Progress Energy

OAR-2002-0051-1903.1	Trina L. Vielhauer, Florida Department of
Environmental Protection

OAR-2002-0051-1904.1	Andrew O'Hare, Portland Cement Association

OAR-2002-0051-1904.2	Attachment to OAR-2002-0051-1904.1

OAR-2002-0051-1904.3	Attachment to OAR-2002-0051-1904.1

OAR-2002-0051-1905.1	F.L. Streitman, Ash Grove Cement Company

OAR-2002-0051-1906.1	Lisa Cooper, Progress Materials, Inc.

OAR-2002-0051-1907.1	James S. Pew, Earth Justice

OAR-2002-0051-1907.2	Attachment to OAR-2002-0051-1907.1

OAR-2002-0051-1907.3	Attachment to OAR-2002-0051-1907.1

OAR-2002-0051-1907.4	Attachment to OAR-2002-0051-1907.1

OAR-2002-0051-1908.1	Terry Watson, Pozzi-Tech, Inc.

OAR-2002-0051-1909.1	Jim Sims, Western Business Roundtable

OAR-2002-0051-1910.1	Earth Justice (commenter's name not provided)

OAR-2002-0051-1913.1	James R. Roewer,  Utility Solid Waste Activity
Group

OAR-2002-0051-1914.1	James S. Pew, Earth Justice, w/ exhibits (same as
1907.1-1907.4)

OAR-2002-0051-1915.1	David Gossman, Gossman Consulting, Inc.

OAR-2002-0051-1915.2	Attachment to OAR-2002-0051-1915.1

OAR-2002-0051-1915.3	Attachment to OAR-2002-0051-1915.1

OAR-2002-0051-1915.4	Attachment to OAR-2002-0051-1915.13

OAR-2002-0051-1916.1	Craig S. Campbell, Lafarge North America, Inc.

OAR-2002-0051-1917.1, OAR-2002-0051-1920[1]*, OAR-2002-0051-1920[1].1*
Paul R. Pike, Ameren

OAR-2002-0051-1918	Myra Glover, Entergy Services, Inc.

OAR-2002-0051-1919	Pamela F. Faggert, Dominion Resources Services, Inc.

OAR-2002-0051-1921	A.A. Linero, Florida Department of Environmental
Protection

OAR-2002-0051-1921.1	Attachment to OAR-2002-0051-1921

OAR-2002-0051-1921.2	Attachment to OAR-2002-0051-1921

OAR-2002-0051-1921.3	Attachment to OAR-2002-0051-1921

* Duplicate copies of same comments entered in docket.

	Docket items OAR-2002-0051-1904.1 through -1904.3 were submitted by the
same commenter.  Item OAR-2002-0051-1904.1 consists of comments on the
reconsideration notice, which the commenter submitted under protest. 
The reasons for protesting the reconsideration notice and final rule are
provided in Item OAR-2002-0051-1904.2, which is a petition for EPA to
withdraw the new source standards for mercury and total hydrocarbons
(THC) specified in the final rule.  Item OAR-2002-0051-1904.3 is a
declaration prepared by a member of the organization represented by
Commenter OAR-2002-0051-1904.1.  The declaration discusses the impacts
of the final rule on a specific facility.

	Docket items OAR-2002-0051-1907.1 through -1907.4 were submitted by the
same commenter.  Item OAR-2002-0051-1907.1 is a petition for EPA to
reconsider certain requirements and aspects of the final rule; the other
three docket items were submitted as attachments to Item
OAR-2002-0051-1907.1.  Item OAR-2002-0051-1907.2 is the court decision
denying a contempt of court motion by the Sierra Club, which was
represented by Commenter OAR-2002-0051-1907.1.  Item
OAR-2002-0051-1907.3 consists of comments submitted by Commenter
OAR-2002-0051-1907.1 on the December 2, 2005 proposal of the Portland
Cement National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
(NESHAP).  Item OAR-2002-0051-1907.4 is an excerpt from comments
submitted on the Boilers NESHAP (40 CFR 63, subpart DDDDD) regarding
risk-based standards for threshold pollutants.

1.  Promulgation and Reconsideration Notice Procedures.

	Comment:  As part of a petition for EPA to immediately withdraw the
final rule, Commenter 1904.2 stated that EPA's use of the concurrent
reconsideration process is illegal and violates the rulemaking
procedures specified in §307(d) of the Clean Air Act (CAA).  The
commenter explained that the previous proposal on December 2, 2005 made
no mention of a possible mercury emission limit based on wet scrubber
control, a THC emission limit based on regenerative thermal oxidizer
(RTO) control, or operating limits on cement kiln dust (CKD) recycle
rates.  As a result, the public was not afforded the opportunity to
comment on the standards prior to promulgation.  Furthermore, public
comments on the December 2, 2005 proposal of the Portland Cement NESHAP
did not lay the groundwork for the final standards for mercury and THC;
therefore, EPA cannot argue that the final standards are a logical
outgrowth of the proposal.  Commenter 1905.1 agreed with Commenter
1904.2 on this issue and stated that the simultaneous publishing of the
final rule and the reconsideration notice was illegal.  The commenter
also concurred with Commenter 1904.2 that the new source emission
standards and requirements for CKD recycling in the final rule were not
mentioned in the proposal.  Commenter 1905.1 requested that EPA withdraw
the final rule and commence a notice and comment period consistent with
the Administrative Procedures Act and the Clean Air Act (CAA).  The
commenter also explained that his organization was participating in this
illegal process by submitting comments on the reconsideration notice. 
However, he was providing information on several issues for EPA to
consider when the Agency withdraws the final rule and formally proposes
the changes to the Portland Cement NESHAP. Commenter 1916.1 supported
the withdrawal petition stating that the standards for mercury and THC
were promulgated without providing due notice and the opportunity of
comment and are, thus, a violation of the CAA. 

	Comment:  Commenter 1904.2 argued that EPA improperly initiated the
reconsideration process because reconsideration can proceed in response
to a request and objection by another person or entity, not by the
Agency itself.  The commenter further objected to the reconsideration
because it requests data to support standards that have already been
made final. 

	Comment:  Commenters 1903.1 and 1905.1 stated that the public comment
period for the reconsideration notice was inadequate.  Commenter 1903.1
pointed out that documents supporting the final rule became available in
the administrative record shortly before the December 20, 2006
publication date and that this did not allow adequate time for reviewing
those documents and formulating comments.  Commenter 1905.1 noted that
EPA has been unable to collect and analyze data for establishing an
appropriate standard in the 12 years the Agency has been working on the
Portland Cement NESHAP.  Therefore, it is disingenuous for the Agency to
expect industry to collect and analyze data needed to establish an
emission standard within the 60-day comment period.

2.  Legal Issues Related to EPA’s Interpretation of the CAA

	Comment:  Commenter 1907.1 objected to the final rule requiring work
practices rather than emission standards for mercury and THC.  The
commenter explained that the National Lime mandate (National Lime vs.
EPA, 233 F.3d 625 (D.C. Cir. 2000)) clearly requires EPA to set emission
standards.  The comment also cites §112(h) of the CAA which states that
"if it is not feasible. . .to prescribe or enforce an emission standard
for control of a hazardous air pollutant or pollutants, the agency may
in lieu thereof, promulgate a design, equipment, work practice, or
operational standard. . ."  The commenter acknowledged that §302(k) of
the Act includes work practice in the definition of emission standard,
but explained that §112(h) is more specific to §112 standards and that
if the definition of emission standard were to include work practices,
§112(h) would be meaningless. 

	Comment:  Commenter 1907.1 stated that the work practices for mercury
and THC could not satisfy the MACT floor requirements for emission
standards specified in §112(d)(3).  The commenter stated that work
practices do not reflect the emission levels achieved by the best
sources and have no connection to the best-performing 12 percent of
kilns.

	Comment:  Commenter 1907.1 stated that the CAA allows EPA to set work
practice standards only if setting an emission standard is infeasible. 
The commenter cited two situations where an emission standard is
infeasible:  (1) the HAP or pollutants cannot be emitted through a ". .
.  conveyance designed or constructed to emit or capture such pollutant
or . . . any requirement for, or use of, such a conveyance would be
inconsistent with any Federal, State, or local law. . ."; or (2) ". . .
the application of measurement methodology to a particular class of
sources is not practical due to technological and economic limitations."
  The commenter then stated that EPA cannot make either of these claims
with respect to the final Portland Cement NESHAP.  As a result, setting
work practice standards for mercury and THC is unlawful.

	Comment:  Commenter 1916.1 agreed with the proposed work practices to
limit THC emissions from existing kilns and believed it was a reasonable
approach for ensuring compliance. 

3.  Mercury Emission Limits

	Comment:  Commenter 1903.1 remarked that the final rule is a
significant improvement over previous proposals and demonstrates a
better, although incomplete, understanding of the mercury cycle within
the electric utility and cement manufacturing industries.  The commenter
noted that several states reported that emissions of mercury from cement
kilns exceed the mercury budget for coal-fired power plants in those
states. 

	Comment:  Commenters 1904.2, 1904.3, and 1916.1 stated that there is no
technical basis for concluding that the mercury emission limit for new
sources specified in the final rule can be met using any demonstrated
and available control technology. Commenter 1916.1 stated that EPA’s
prior conclusions on the infeasibility of establishing MACT floor and
beyond-the-floor levels for mercury due to variations in mercury content
of raw materials are still valid. Commenters 1904.2, 1905.1, and 1916.1
commented that EPA does not have data that demonstrate that the final
mercury emission limit can be achieved using a wet scrubber.
Commenters1904.2 and 1905.1 speculated that EPA incorrectly based the
mercury limit on studies from electric utility boilers and stated that
boilers and cement kilns differ in design and emission characteristics. 
For example, unlike cement kilns, boilers do not have significant levels
of alkaline materials which could adversely affect mercury removal by
wet scrubbers.  The commenters also stated that EPA acknowledged in the
Federal Register Notice for the final rule that the mercury data ". . .
are not only limited, but fail to definitively answer the critical
question of whether wet scrubbers are removing oxidized mercury and, if
so, to what extent."  Commenter 1905.2 added that additional inlet and
outlet data must be collected and reviewed before it can be determined
if the standards in the final rule are appropriate.  The commenter
offered to help EPA collect the needed data. Commenter 1916.1 stated
that EPA should obtain reliable data on mercury removal using wet
scrubbers or other existing methods before proceeding with a rulemaking.


	Comment:  Commenter 1904.3 explained that mercury emissions from cement
kilns consist of a mix of elemental and oxidized mercury; since
elemental mercury is not water soluble, a wet scrubber would have no
effect on elemental mercury emissions.  He further explained that the
relative proportion of elemental mercury in the exhaust stream is likely
to vary according to plant location.  The commenter also stated that he
is unaware of any Portland cement facility that has installed a wet
scrubber on a cement kiln to control mercury emissions; he explained
that wet scrubbers installed on cement kilns were designed for
controlling emissions of sulfur dioxide (SO2). 

	Comment:  Commenter 1904.3 stated that oxidized mercury captured by a
wet scrubber would be in slurry form, which must be disposed.  He also
explained that oxidized mercury is volatile and could be released to the
atmosphere through evaporation when handling the slurry.  He was unaware
of any studies that addressed the issue of the volatilization of mercury
from scrubber slurry. 

	Comment:  Commenter 1903.1 commented that the mercury emission limit
specified in the final rule, which is based on the use of wet scrubbers
for control, is comparable to the emission limit required by the German
Federal Environmental Office for mercury emissions from cement kilns. 
The commenter suggested that kilns in Germany may be able to achieve the
emission limit by removing some of the CKD from the PM control device or
raw meal and bypassing the CKD to the clinker product.  The commenter
suggested that EPA consider a similar alternative to this emission limit
for new kilns that are not equipped with wet scrubbers.  Specifically,
the final rule should allow facilities to average their mercury
emissions over all modes of raw mill operation, possibly on a monthly
basis, to meet the emission limit.  The commenter also stated that the
averaging time and emission limit could later be revised once issues
concerning CKD bypassing are resolved.  The commenter also recommended
that EPA conduct further research on this issue and encourage discussion
to determine the feasibility of this process modification for cement
plants. 

	Comment:  Commenter 1915.1 stated that while greater control of mercury
emissions from most cement kilns is likely, applying the measure of
“best performing,” based on one source or several to the entire
industry is not reasonable given all the variations in the physical and
chemical systems at all the plants. 

	Comment:  Commenter 1903.1 pointed out the recent submittals to the
Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) indicate that two cement plants reported
significant reductions in mercury emissions between 2004 and 2005.  The
commenter suggested EPA investigate the basis for those emissions
reductions as part of their reconsideration of the final Portland Cement
NESHAP. 

	Comment:  Commenter 1903.1 suggested that EPA require more
representative monitoring of mercury emissions from Portland cement
plants, such as the periodic use of Method 324 (sorbent traps), based on
mercury emission profiles and raw material practices.

	Comment:  Commenter 1915.1 stated that a 3 – 9 hour kiln stack test
will not provide an accurate or representative picture of long-term
mercury emissions because the rate at which mercury is emitted from
cement kilns is constantly changing. The commenter stated that even a
week-long test cannot reliably represent long term (1 year) emissions.
The commenter provided an attachment that provided further explanation
of this mercury testing issue. 

4.  Beyond the Floor Determinations for Mercury 

	Comment:  Commenter 1907.1 stated that EPA must reconsider its refusal
to set beyond-the-floor standards for mercury for existing sources.  The
commenter stated that, in evaluating beyond-the-floor technologies, it
is unlawful for EPA to ignore technologies that are not demonstrated
control technologies for the cement industry.  The commenter references
technologies identified in comments submitted on the December 2, 2005
proposal of the Portland Cement NESHAP.  The commenter stated that
§112(d)(2) of the CAA requires beyond-the-floor standards to reflect
the maximum degree of reduction that is achievable without limiting the
standards to technologies that have been demonstrated in the regulated
industry.  The commenter stated that, instead of basing its conclusions
regarding the beyond-the-floor analysis on what is achievable, EPA based
its conclusions on what is justified; the commenter stated that doing so
is unlawful. 

	Comment:  Commenter 1907.1 commented that EPA's rejection of activated
carbon injection (ACI) as a beyond-the-floor control for mercury based
on cost-effectiveness is unlawful and arbitrary based on the reasons the
same commenter provided in comments on the December 2, 2005 proposal. 
The commenter also disagreed with EPA's argument that ACI is not
cost-effective based on increased energy use and solid waste generation.
 The commenter stated that EPA failed to specify what the energy
increase would be and why that level of increase supports its conclusion
regarding ACI.  The commenter also stated that EPA did not specify how
much additional solid waste would be generated and why it is preferable
to release mercury to the atmosphere rather than to treat it as solid
waste and keep it out of the environment. 

	Comment:  Commenter 1907.1 commented that EPA's beyond-the-floor
assessment of ACI does not account for the other HAP and pollutants that
would be removed from the exhaust stream using ACI.  The commenter
explained that ACI also removes polychlorinated biphenyls, polycyclic
organic matter, and benzene.  Consequently, the cost-effectiveness of
ACI should include reductions of these pollutants, in addition to
mercury, dioxins, and THC.  The commenter added that EPA’s
cost-effectiveness determination assumes that an ACI device has to be
purchased separately for each pollutant controlled, when, in fact, one
device reduces all of the above-listed pollutants.  Commenter 1907.1
also disagreed with EPA's conclusion that the amount of THC removed by
ACI (30 to 117 tons/yr per kiln) is small.  The commenter stated that
even 30 tons/yr is significant. 

5.  Mercury Floor Determinations, New Sources

	Comment:  Commenter 1910.1 disagreed with EPA's conclusion that the wet
scrubbers constitute the floor for controlling mercury from new cement
kilns.  The commenter explained that the CAA requires the standards for
new sources to be based on the best performing similar source, and that
EPA has not demonstrated that a wet scrubber-controlled kiln represents
the best performing source.  The commenter added that EPA admits that
kilns not equipped with wet scrubbers are achieving lower emission
levels than are wet scrubber-controlled kilns.  The commenter noted that
several factors affect mercury emissions, including fuel type, raw
materials, kiln design, and control device design. Therefore, it is
irrational to assume that the single best-performing kiln is one that is
equipped with a wet scrubber. 

	Comment:  Commenter 1910.1 stated that EPA did not base the mercury
emission standard for new kilns on the best-performing wet
scrubber-controlled kiln.  The commenter stated that, to derive the
emission limit, EPA added a variability factor to the mean mercury
emission concentration for a wet scrubber-controlled kiln but did not
provide an explanation for why emissions from the single best-performing
kiln would vary to that extent. 

r (μg/dscm) standard, is unlawful and arbitrary.   The commenter stated
that the floor for new sources must reflect the best-performing single
source and that EPA lacks the authority to grant exemptions to the floor
requirement. 

6.  Limitations on Coal Fly Ash in Cement Kilns

	

	Comment:  Several commenters (1902.1, 1908.1, 1913.1, 1916.1, 1917.1,
and 1918) agreed with EPA's decision to not impose a blanket prohibition
on the use of coal fly ash in Portland cement kilns.  Commenters 1902.1
and 1913.1 pointed out that fly ash is not the sole or principal source
of mercury entering the kiln and cited a memorandum in the
administrative record that indicates that 60 to 70 percent of mercury
introduced to cement kilns originates with limestone.  The commenters
noted that other feedstocks also contribute to mercury in cement kilns
and that there is considerable variability in the concentrations of
mercury in those feedstocks.  The commenters also stated that the use of
fly ash as a feedstock in cement kilns has several environmental
benefits that would not be realized if fly ash were banned from use as a
Portland cement feedstock.  The benefits include:  reduced emissions of
THC, sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides (NOx), and carbon monoxide
(CO); avoided landfill disposal of fly ash; reduced cement plant power
and fuel consumption; and avoided energy consumption and air emissions
associated with the quarrying, mining, and transporting of shale or
clay. 

	Comment:  Commenter 1907.1 stated that EPA's rejection of the ban on
using utility fly ash as a beyond-the-floor standard is unlawful and
arbitrary.  The commenter explained that §112(d)(2) of the CAA requires
beyond-the-floor standards to reflect the maximum degree of reduction
that is achievable, considering cost and other factors, and not the
degree of reduction that EPA believes is justified in light of those
factors.  The commenter stated that EPA admits that is does not know the
costs of such a measure.  The commenter added that EPA's consideration
of the increase amounts of boiler fly ash that must be disposed as
further justification for rejecting the fly ash ban is arbitrary because
EPA does not explain why it is preferable to emit mercury to the
atmosphere than to dispose of the fly ash.  The commenter noted that fly
ash can be used in concrete without having to pass through a cement
kiln.  The commenter also questioned EPA's assertion that banning fly
ash would result in increased use of raw materials, or why the
undetermined level of additional mining to obtain those raw materials
would be a worse problem than emitting the mercury to the atmosphere. 

	Comment:  Several commenters (1902.1, 1908.1, 1909.1, 1913.1, 1917.1,
1918, and 1919) objected to the prohibition on the use of fly ash from
utility boilers equipped with ACI or other sorbent injection controls
for mercury.  Commenters 1902.1, 1913.1, 1917.1, 1918, and 1919 objected
to EPA imposing the ban without providing advance notice or the
opportunity for public comment.  The commenters also stated that, in
adopting the ban, EPA did not account for the adverse impacts the ban is
likely to have.  The commenters argued that most utilities have
committed to EPA to increase the beneficial use of fly ash, as part of
the Agency's Coal Combustion Products Partnership.  However, the ban
will likely result in fly ash being disposed in landfills and will make
it difficult for utilities to meet the goals for fly ash that EPA and
the utility industry have agreed upon.  Commenters 1908.1 and 1909.1
concurred that the ban will encourage land disposal.  Commenter 1908.1
also stated that the ban would discourage resource recovery, and
Commenter 1909.1 stated that the ban would discourage the conservation
of virgin raw materials and energy that result from the use of fly ash. 
Commenter 1909.1 commented that the ban dismisses consideration of the
benefits of using fly ash without a strong scientific basis for doing
so.  Commenters 1902.1 and 1913.1 also objected to the inflexibility of
the ban.  The commenters stated that the ban allows no exceptions,
regardless of any emission controls in place.  The commenters
acknowledged that the ban allows cement producers to demonstrate no
increase in mercury emissions over baseline, but the producers are more
likely to switch feedstocks rather than attempt to show that mercury
emissions do not increase following the use of sorbent-treated fly ash. 
Commenter 1908.1 stated that requiring cement plants to demonstrate no
increase in mercury emissions from the use of fly ash from boilers with
sorbent injection will kill the market for fly ash.  The commenter
explained that it takes decades to establish a successful supply chain,
and the ban on using fly ash from sorbent injection systems will disrupt
the supply chain between coal combustion product suppliers and the
cement industry.  The same commenter stated that providing an edge to
other raw materials will result in the demise of fly ash as a feed stock
for cement production.  The commenter encouraged EPA to conduct further
research on the uses and effects of sorbents and other technologies for
mercury control; such an effort will facilitate reaching the goal of at
least 50 percent utilization of fly ash. Commenter 1917.1 noted that EPA
acknowledged that its ban on sorbent-injected fly ash was based in part
on the fact that widespread use of sorbent-injection technologies is
still many years in the future and industry would be able to adapt to
the ban. According to the commenter, EPA did not consider 1) facilities
located in states, such as Illinois, that have chosen to regulate
mercury earlier than EPA or 2) facilities that will want to test various
technologies which may include some version of sorbent-injection
control. Commenter 1919 stated that the prohibition gives no
consideration to kilns that may have very effective mercury control
technology already installed, such as, scrubbers or PM controls. The
commenter also stated that even if it can be demonstrated that use of
such fly ash would not increase mercury emissions, that hurdle will add
to the cost of the fly ash such that the kiln owner/operator may choose
other feedstock, which may contain higher levels of mercury. 

	Comment:  Commenters 1902.1 and 1913.1 suggested amending §63.1344(g)
to exempt a facility from the ban if the facility is already subject to
a mercury emissions standard.  They also noted that, if §63.1344(g)
were amended as they suggested, §63.1350(o) also would have to be
amended to ensure consistency with the amended §63.1344(g).  The effect
of the amendments suggested by these commenters would be to eliminate
the need for sources that are already controlled for mercury to conduct
additional testing, demonstrations, and certifications to comply with
the rule. Although objecting to the ban on the use of fly ash where ACI
was used to remove mercury, commenter 1919 recommended that if EPA
proceeds with the prohibition, they should allow the kiln owner/operator
to use fly ash treated with ACI without conducting costly demonstrations
provided the kiln is already subject to a mercury standard. 

	Comment:  Commenters 1902.1 and 1913.1 disagreed with EPA's conclusion
that new technologies are either available now or under development that
would still allow utilities that use sorbent injection for mercury
removal to provide fly ash for use in cement kilns.  The commenters
stated that those technologies have not been broadly tested, and
therefore should not be used to justify the ban on sorbent treated fly
ash. 

	Comment:  One commenter (1903.1) stated that, in addition to sorbent
injection, the final rule should have addressed other control measures
used by power plants that can increase the mercury content of fly ash. 
The commenter pointed out that low-NOx burners, separate overfire air
(SOFA), reburn, and selective catalytic reduction (SCR), all of which
are used for controlling NOx emissions, can also enhance the mercury
content of fly ash.  The commenter explained that low-NOx burners, SOFA,
and reburn reduce the level of carbon burnout, resulting in high
loss-on-ignition fly ash that has a higher carbon content; the higher
carbon content increases mercury adsorption by the fly ash and could
result in higher mercury emissions when the fly ash is combusted in a
cement kiln.  Another commenter (1906.1) concurred with Commenter 1903.1
that the use of high loss-on-ignition fly ash can increase mercury
emissions from cement kilns.  Regarding the use of SCR for NOx control,
Commenters 1903.1 and 1921.1 explained that SCR can oxidize mercury to a
form that is more likely to be adsorbed by fly ash.  Commenter 1903.1
suggested that the final rule be amended to require more comprehensive
mercury emissions measurements and removal strategies for the use of fly
ash from power plants that use those NOx control methods. Commenter
1921.1 noted that activated carbon filter beds (as opposed to ACI) have
been demonstrated in the U.S. for the removal of mercury from processes
such as coal gasification. The commenter urges EPA to consider the use
of SCR and activated carbon filter beds for mercury control. 

	Comment:  Two commenters (1904.1 and 1916.1) commented that the
recordkeeping requirements associated with the fly ash certification
requirements are too burdensome.  Commenter 1904.1 explained that some
facilities receive numerous shipments of fly ash on a daily basis.  The
commenter suggested requiring only an initial certification, then annual
certifications afterwards.  A new certification would also be required
following a change in supply from a fly ash that did not originate from
a sorbent-injected control system to a fly ash obtained from a source
that does employ sorbent injection for mercury removal. Commenter 1916.1
recommended that an initial certification was sufficient as long as the
source of the fly ash does not change it treatment methodology and that
a recertification would be necessary whenever the sources or treatment
method was altered.

7.  Cement Kiln Dust Recycling

	Comment:  Two commenters (1904.1 and 1905.1) objected to the
requirements for recycling CKD specified in §63.1344(h).  Commenter
1904.1 stated that CKD is removed from the kiln system as a means of
regulating the alkali content of the clinker and resulting cement.  He
stated that the CKD recycling requirements are based on the assumption
that the CKD recycling rate is constant, whereas the CKD removal rate
varies with changes in the chemistry of the raw materials fed to the
kiln.  The commenter also noted that alkali specification for cement has
changed over the years, resulting in changes in CKD recycling practices.
 The commenter also pointed out that CKD is not recycled in
preheater/precalciner kilns, while facilities with long dry or long wet
kilns return CKD as a component of the raw material mix.  For these
reasons, the requirement for CKD recycling specified in §63.1344(h) is
not practical.  

	Comment:  Commenter 1905.1 explained that, when required, CKD is
removed through the alkali bypass system, which removes up to 30 percent
of the kiln combustion gas from the exhaust to reduce alkali chlorides
and sulfates in the clinker.  Since kilns combust about 40 to 50 percent
of the fuel, a maximum of 15 percent of the mercury in the combustion
gas can be removed by the alkali bypass system.  Because of this and the
high kiln temperature, only a small amount of mercury is present in the
CKD.  Furthermore, it is nearly impossible to quantify the mass of CKD
removed on an hourly basis because the CKD removal rates depends on
several dynamic process parameters, such as kiln exit velocities, feed
fineness, and the condition of the emission control device.  Therefore,
it is unrealistic to expect a facility to control these factors and to
establish a maximum CKD recycle rate during the performance test.  The
commenter reiterated that these issues could have been discussed and
resolved if there had been a notice and comment period prior to
finalizing this requirement. 

	Comment:  Commenter 1904.1 stated that the requirement for CKD
recycling specified in §63.1344(h) could be interpreted to require
complete removal of CKD from the kiln system.  Since many facilities
recycle CKD in the manufacturing process as a raw material, the
exclusion of CKD from recycling would create an unnecessary solid waste
problem and adversely affect the energy efficiency of the process. 

	Comment:  Commenter 1904.1 stated that the requirement for CKD removal
specified in §63.1344(h) is unclear.  The commenter stated that the
explanation for this requirement in the preamble to the final rule
states that CKD must be removed "at the point product quality is
adversely affected."  The commenter was unsure if the "point" referenced
is a point in time, point in the cement manufacturing process, or a
point in the continuum of cement product chemistry.   The commenter also
stated that the term "product quality" is unclear because the provision
does not specify the standard (e.g., American Society for Testing and
Materials [ASTM] standard) upon which product quality is based.

	Comment:  Commenter 1915.1 stated that EPA needs to understand that the
removal of CKD from the recycling loop is critical to the control of
mercury emissions. The commenter stated that EPA’s generalized
pressure for industries to recycle waste materials, as applied to
Portland cement manufacturing, has created environmental problems. The
commenter stated that mercury in CKD is a relatively nontoxic and
semi-inert waste material in which low levels of mercury are fixed and
do not leach out. 

8.  THC Emission Limits

	Comment:  Commenters 1904.2, 1905.1, and 1916.1 objected to EPA basing
the standards for THC emissions from new or reconstructed sources on the
performance of a single cement kiln controlled with an RTO and scrubber
in series. The commenters stated that additional data are needed to
determine an appropriate standard for cement kilns. The commenters also
cited the Federal Register Notice for the final rule, which states that
the final emission limit ". . . might not be achievable for kilns with
varying levels of carbon monoxide in their exhaust gas" and that ". . .
the percent reduction achievable by an RTO is dependent on the inlet
concentration of organics." 

	Comment:  Commenter1916.1 stated that had EPA proposed the THC limit of
20 ppmv based on the application of scrubber/RTO technology, a thorough
evaluation of the facts would have revealed that this technology had met
with considerable operational and maintenance problems at both
facilities listed by EPA as using this technology. The commenter also
stated that a standard established on a single point of reference is not
scientifically rational and does not guarantee a standard that can be
complied with. According to the commenter, EPA’s admission that the
operation of an RTO is impacted by several factors that are site
specific is evidence that they acted hastily in establishing a standard
based on a technology that has not been demonstrated to work in all
applications. 

	Comment:  Commenter1916.1 stated that EPA’s new standards have
created significant uncertainty and potential harm for projects
involving the expansion of operations at two of their cement
manufacturing facilities. According to the commenter, the new standards
will require them to either delay construction until the issue is
resolved, or spend a significant amount of money to engineer scrubbing
and RTO technologies regardless of whether they are necessary. Their
current permitting/NSR requirements do not require the installation of
wet scrubbing or RTO technologies. The commenter stated that requiring
scrubber/RTO technology may cause the projects to be economically
infeasible. 

	Comment:  Commenter 1905.1 stated that the costs and energy consumption
associated with using RTOs to control THC would be very high.  The
commenter cited EPA's estimates of the cost effectiveness using RTOs for
organic HAP ($398,000 per ton) and energy consumption (99.7 billion
British thermal units [Btus] per year.  The commenter commented that
work practice standards for THC, as are currently required for existing
sources, would be more appropriate for new sources also. Commenter
1916.1 stated that EPA’s estimate of scrubber/RTO costs were flawed
citing capital cost for wet scrubbers similar to those used in the two
facilities referenced by EPA are $18-25 million for a nominal 1 million
ton/yr kiln (rather than EPA’s estimate of $10.7 million). According
to the commenter, RTO costs are in the $15-20 million range for a 1
million ton/yr kiln. The commenter stated that capital costs are at
least 3-4 times higher than estimated by EPA. 

	Comment:  Commenter 1903.1 suggested that EPA investigate the use of
SCR as a control for THC and dioxin/furan emissions from cement kilns. 
The commenter also noted that SCR can reduce mercury to a form that is
more readily collected in CKD and removed through subsequent bypass
strategies.  The commenter also suggested that EPA consider catalytic
fabric filters as an option for controlling dioxin/furan emissions from
cement kilns. 

9.  Beyond the Floor Determinations for THC

	Comment:  Commenter 1907.1 stated that EPA must reconsider its refusal
to set beyond-the-floor standards for THC emissions from existing
sources.  The commenter stated that §112(d)(2) of the CAA requires
beyond-the-floor standards to reflect the maximum degree of reduction
that is achievable.  The commenter stated that, instead of basing its
conclusions regarding the beyond-the-floor analysis on what is
achievable, EPA based its conclusions on what is justified; the
commenter stated that doing so is unlawful. 

	Comment:  Commenter 1907.1 stated that EPA's decision to not require
ACI or RTO on existing kilns based on costs is unexplained and
irrational.  The commenter explained that, by using THC as a surrogate
for non-dioxin organic HAP, EPA cannot look past THC when determining
cost effectiveness.  The commenter stated that EPA's estimates of the
THC cost effectiveness of RTO ($20,000 per ton) and ACI ($5,000 per ton)
are reasonable and within the range of cost effectiveness EPA has found
acceptable in other rulemakings. 

	Comment:  Commenter 1907.1 stated that EPA did not explain its
estimates of cost effectiveness for organic HAP and that those estimates
are not supported by the record.  The commenter added that attempting to
evaluate cost effectiveness for all non-dioxin organic HAP on a single
cost-per-ton basis is irrational because it does not consider the types,
relative amounts, and toxicity of the pollutants emitted by cement
kilns. 

	Comment:  Commenter 1907.1 disagreed with EPA's argument that
beyond-the-floor controls for THC are not justified based on increased
energy use and solid waste generation.  The commenter stated that EPA
failed to explain why the use of ACI or RTO technology is unachievable
or unjustified. 

	Comment:  Commenter 1907.1 stated that EPA's rejection of optimized
combustion control as the basis for beyond-the-floor standards is
arbitrary and unlawful.  The commenter stated that EPA used the lack of
data as the basis for rejecting this option, but the intent of Congress
was for EPA to consider what is achievable and not to base such
decisions on the lack of data without attempting to collect the data. 

	Comment:  Commenter 1907.1 questioned EPA's decision to reject carbon
coke technology based on the Agency's rationale that the technology is
not used in the U.S. and that the Agency has already considered RTO
technology.  The commenter stated that the CAA does not even suggest
that these reasons can be used for rejecting a beyond-the-floor
technology. 

10.  THC Floor Determinations, New Sources

	Comment:  Commenter 1910.1 disagreed that RTOs or 20 parts per million
(ppm) constitute the floor for controlling THC from new cement kilns. 
The commenter noted that several factors other than the use of RTOs can
affect THC emissions, including the use of clean fuels and the
maintenance of good combustion conditions.  In addition, EPA did not
attempt to demonstrate that superior THC performance is not being
achieved by kilns that are not controlled with RTOs. 

	Comment:  Commenter 1910.1 stated that EPA did not base the THC
emission standard for new kilns on the best-performing RTO-controlled
kiln.  Instead, EPA set the floor for new kilns at a level associated
with RTO use in other industries and does not explain why that level is
a reasonable estimate of the emissions achieved by the best-performing
cement kiln.  The commenter added that EPA did not provide data
demonstrating that the 20 ppm level reflects the emission levels from an
RTO-controlled kiln.  Finally, the commenter remarked that the single
best-performing kiln may be achieving lower emission levels through the
use of cleaner raw materials or good combustion practices. 

	Comment:  Commenter 1910.1 commented on the alternative THC emission
limit of 98 percent reduction from uncontrolled levels for new kilns. 
The alternative limit is based on the emission reduction required by
permit for the best-performing source.  The commenter stated that EPA
did not clarify if the basis for that limit is an RTO-controlled kiln
and did not demonstrate that the 98 percent reduction accurately
reflects the performance of the best-performing kiln. 

11.  Standards for HCl

	Comment:  Commenter 1907.1 stated that EPA must reconsider its decision
to not set emission standards for HCl.  The commenter explained that EPA
concluded that it has the authority to decline to set emission standards
under §112(d)(4).  However, §112(d)(4) allows EPA to consider an ample
margin of safety in establishing emission standards when there is an
established health threshold for the regulated pollutant.  The commenter
rejects EPA's claim that there is an established health threshold for
HCl.  The commenter cites the preamble to the final rule in which EPA
states that the data are inadequate for determining if HCl is
carcinogenic; therefore, EPA is unable to identify a threshold below
which HCl does not cause cancer. 

	Comment:  Commenter 1907.1 rejected the threshold for non-cancer
effects for HCl identified by EPA.  The commenter explained that EPA's
threshold for HCl derives from a 1998 rulemaking that was based on a
single animal study, considered only respiratory effects, and identified
a lowest observed level of adverse effects, which is not the same as a
threshold below which adverse effects do not occur.  Furthermore, the
commenter stated that EPA has acknowledged that HCl does damage human
health, and therefore does cause adverse health effects, in its
statement that organisms are able to repair some amount of corrosive
damage of the type caused by HCl. 

	Comment:  Commenter 1907.1 rejects EPA's reliance on information
provided by the Portland Cement Association (PCA) to justify its
assessment of the risks associated with HCl emissions.  The commenter
stated that PCA has a strong financial interest in avoiding compliance
with HCl standards, and therefore, cannot be considered unbiased. 
Although EPA stated that their objective in evaluating risk was to ". .
. assure that emissions from every source in the source category result
in exposures not causing adverse effects. . .," the commenter concluded
that EPA has not demonstrated that there will be no adverse effects for
every source in the source category.  The commenter pointed out that the
PCA analysis was based on modeling of two-thirds of the industry
(67 plants) and 112 kilns, and that even EPA has acknowledged that
there is no basis for concluding that those 67 plants are representative
of the entire industry.  The commenter also stated that the PCA study
did not demonstrate that HCl emission concentrations for the modeled
kilns are below the reference concentration because the modeling was
based largely on default values rather than plant-specific data.  The
commenter questioned the representativeness of the default values.  

	Comment:  Commenter 1907.1 stated that EPA has not demonstrated that
there is an ample margin of safety associated with the risk from HCl
emissions.  The commenter explained that the modeling was based on
background HCl concentrations from samples taken in 1991 to 1994 in
Michigan and from 1996 to 1999 in Kentucky, but EPA does not demonstrate
that those concentrations are representative of background
concentrations in the vicinity of cement kilns and that the
concentrations have not increased since 1994 and 1999.  The commenter
pointed out that the background data show a trend of increasing HCl
concentrations and stated that EPA should have applied the same
variability analysis to the HCl data as the Agency applies to emissions
data when setting emission standards.  The commenter also commented that
the assessment of background levels for determining the short-term
hazard quotient for HCl suffers from a limited sample size and
variability; because of this lack of adequate data, EPA cannot use the
PCA assessment to demonstrate that an ample margin of safety has been
provided. 

	Comment:  Commenter 1907.1 remarked that the discussion of background
HCl levels in the PCA study does not account for co-located sources of
HCl.  The commenter stated that Portland cement plants are often located
near other emission sources and some may be located near areas of high
populations.  He cited a few examples, including Midlothian, Texas,
where there are three cement plants that operate 11 kilns; another
example is that of a TXI plant that is located adjacent to a steel mill
and automobile shredding facility.

	Comment:  Commenter 1907.1 disagreed with the assumption in the Tier II
analysis by PCA that all cement plants are located in rural areas and
pointed out that many kilns are located near residential developments. 
As a result, the analysis does not satisfy EPA's criterion of
demonstrating an ample margin of safety for the individual with the
highest exposure. 

	Comment:  Commenter 1907.1 disagreed with EPA's conclusion that HCl
emissions from cement kilns would not result in adverse environmental
effects.  The commenter stated that neither EPA nor PCA performed a
formal ecological risk assessment, but instead based their conclusions
on a limited review of publications in the literature to determine if
there would be a reasonable expectation for serious or widespread
adverse effects to natural resources.   The commenter stated that EPA
conceded that the research on the ecological effects of HCl consisted of
a single animal study which used only one dose and had limited
toxicological measurements.  The commenter also stated that EPA's
assessment of the effects of HCl on plants consisted only of a statement
concerning chronic exposure to 600 micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m3). 
He noted that the Agency did not provide the basis for the 600 μg/m3
value, explain why a lower exposure level would not cause adverse
effects, evaluate the effects on different types of plants, or evaluate
the effects on any of the actual animal species that are exposed to HCl.
 Finally, the commenter noted that the PCA analysis does not claim that
there would be no adverse impacts, but rather any deleterious effects
are likely to be localized rather than widespread. 

12.  Compliance Dates

	Comment:  Commenters 1904.1 and 1905.1 stated that the final rule is
unclear regarding the compliance dates for the CKD recycle rate
provision for existing sources specified in §63.1344(h), the CKD
recycle rate provision for new and reconstructed sources specified in
§63.1344(i), and the ban on the use of fly ash from boilers controlled
with sorbent injection specified in §63.1344(g).  The commenters
suggested that the compliance for §§63.1344(g) and (h) should be one
year, which would  be consistent with the compliance dates for existing
sources to meet the good combustion practices requirement specified in
§63.1344(f).  Commenter 1904.1 suggested that the compliance date for
new and reconstructed kilns to meet the CKD recycle provision of
§63.1344(i) should be the same as the compliance date for meeting the
standards for mercury and THC emissions, which is December 21, 2009. 

13.  Impacts of Final Rule

	Comment:  Commenters 1904.2, 1904.3, and 1905.1 stated that the
concurrent final rule and reconsideration notice also could cause
serious financial harm to companies that are building or planning to
build new sources to comply with the final emission limits.  The
commenters described one case in which a cement manufacturer is planning
to build a new facility on a Tribal Territory.  The reservation in
question has high unemployment and a chronic water shortage.  To comply
with the final rule, the company will be required to install a wet
scrubber on the new kiln.  The company expects to spend $7.7 million by
the end of 2007 on planning, engineering, and initial payments on
construction of the scrubber.  That is, by the time that EPA expects to
make a final decision on the reconsideration, the company will have
already spent $7.7 million towards complying with the final standard for
mercury.  The company would incur comparable expenses in 2007 on
installing an RTO to comply with the THC standard.  By the end of 2008,
the company is expected to spend approximately $37 million on emission
controls for the kiln.  The RTO is expected to consume 282 million cubic
feet of natural gas per year and would impair the fuel efficiency of the
plant.  These expenses will place the new plant at a competitive
disadvantage.  Commenter 1904.2 explained that the company has no choice
but to initiate steps to install the scrubber and RTO, citing
Section 112(g)(2)(B) of the CAA, which prohibits construction or
reconstruction of a major source of HAP unless EPA or the state
determines that the applicable emission limit will be met; and
§§63.5(d) and (e) of the General Provisions to part 63, which specify
that permit applicants must demonstrate that new or reconstructed
sources can meet the applicable standard, or EPA or the state must
determine that a violation of the standard will not occur.  Because
these limits are under reconsideration, EPA may later decide to amend or
rescind them.  Under such a scenario, a company would be unable to
recover expenditures on control equipment or process modifications that
might no longer be required or might not be adequate to meet amended
standards.  Commenter 1904.3 also stated that the scrubber is expected
to require 58.5 million gallons of water per year and could limit the
available of water on the reservation for other purposes because of the
scarcity of water there.   

	



 

!

(

)

,

.

/

5

>

?

B

D

E

K

L

Z

a

b

e

e

g

h

n

w

x

{

}

~

„

…

£

¬



°

²

³

¹

º

ß

è

é

ì

î

ï

õ

ö



 

(

/

0

3

5

6

=

E

F

I

K

L

R

S

a

h

i

l

n

o

v

~

~



‚

„

…

‹

Œ

š

¡

¢

¥

§

¨

®

°

±

¸

¹

¼

¾

¿

Å

Æ

õ

ö

ý

þ

kd

h

 hÒ

h

h

h

h

h

h

3r 2005 and may be faced with a similar dilemma of having to decide
whether to delay construction or invest significant capital into
controls that may not be needed for compliance.   The same commenter
pointed out that there is a shortage of cement in the U.S. and that the
delays in construction that are likely to result from EPA's action are
likely to increase foreign competitors' share of the U.S. market for
cement. 

 PAGE   

 PAGE   2 

