
[Federal Register: June 16, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 116)]
[Proposed Rules]               
[Page 34071-34092]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr16jn08-20]                         


[[Page 34071]]

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

Part II





Environmental Protection Agency





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



40 CFR Parts 60 and 63



Standards of Performance for Portland Cement Plants; Proposed Rule


[[Page 34072]]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 60 and 63

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0877; FRL-8576-1]
RIN 2060-AO42

 
Standards of Performance for Portland Cement Plants

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The EPA is proposing amendments to the current Standards of 
Performance for Portland Cement Plants. The proposed amendments include 
revisions to the emission limits for affected facilities which commence 
construction, modification, or reconstruction after June 16, 2008. The 
proposed amendments also include additional testing and monitoring 
requirements for affected sources.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 15, 2008. If any 
one contacts EPA by June 26, 2008 requesting to speak at a public 
hearing, EPA will hold a public hearing on July 1, 2008. Under the 
Paperwork Reduction Act, comments on the information collection 
provisions must be received by the Office of Management and Budget 
(OMB) on or before July 16, 2008.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2007-0877, by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line 
instructions for submitting comments.
     E-mail: a-and-r-docket@epa.gov.
     Fax: (202) 566-1741.
     Mail: U.S. Postal Service, send comments to: EPA Docket 
Center (6102T), Standards of Performance (NSPS) for Portland Cement 
Plants Docket, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0877, 1200 Pennsylvania 
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460. Please include a total of two copies. 
In addition, please mail a copy of your comments on the information 
collection provisions to the Office of Information and Regulatory 
Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Attn: Desk Officer for 
EPA, 725 17th St., NW., Washington, DC 20503.
     Hand Delivery: In person or by courier, deliver comments 
to: EPA Docket Center (6102T), Standards of Performance (NSPS) for 
Portland Cement Plants Docket, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0877, EPA 
West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20004. 
Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of 
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of 
boxed information. Please include a total of two copies.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2007-0877. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included 
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at 
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information 
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be 
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose 
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you 
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://
www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site 
is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your 
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of 
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without 
going through http://www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be 
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is 
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you 
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name 
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any 
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to 
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA 
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid 
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of 
any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some 
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information 
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such 
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. 
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically 
in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center, 
Standards of Performance (NSPS) for Portland Cement Plants Docket, EPA 
West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The 
Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through 
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public 
Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the Docket 
Center is (202) 566-1742.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Keith Barnett, Office of Air 
Quality Planning and Standards, Sector Policies and Programs Division, 
Metals and Minerals Group (D243-02), Environmental Protection Agency, 
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, telephone number: (919) 541-5605; fax 
number: (919) 541-5450; e-mail address: barnett.keith@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The information presented in this preamble 
is organized as follows:

I. General Information
    A. Does this action apply to me?
    B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments to EPA?
    C. Where can I get a copy of this document?
    D. When would a public hearing occur?
II. Background Information on Subpart F
    A. What is the statutory authority for the proposed amendments 
to subpart F?
    B. What are the current Portland Cement Plant (PCP) NSPS?
III. Summary of the Proposed Amendments to Subpart F
IV. Rationale for the Proposed Amendments to Subpart F
    A. How is EPA proposing to change the emission limits for future 
affected facilities?
    B. How is EPA proposing to amend the testing requirements?
    C. How is EPA proposing to amend the monitoring requirements?
    D. Why are we not proposing to revise the other emission limits 
in the NSPS?
    E. What other changes are being proposed?
    F. What is EPA's sector-based approach and how is it relevant to 
this rulemaking?
    G. How is EPA addressing greenhouse gas emissions from the 
portland cement industry?
V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, Energy, and Economic Impacts of 
the Proposed Amendments to Subpart F
    A. What are the air quality impacts?
    B. What are the water quality impacts?
    C. What are the solid waste impacts?
    D. What are the secondary impacts?
    E. What are the energy impacts?
    F. What are the cost impacts?
    G. What are the economic impacts?
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With 
Indian Tribal Governments
    G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From 
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

[[Page 34073]]

    I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act
    J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address 
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income 
Populations

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    Categories and entities potentially regulated by this proposed rule 
include:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Category                     NAICS code \1\           Examples of regulated entities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry......................................          327310  Cement manufacturing.
Federal government............................  ..............  Not affected.
State/local/tribal government.................  ..............  Not affected.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ North American Industry Classification System.

    This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a 
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this 
action. To determine whether your facility would be regulated by this 
action, you should examine the applicability criteria in 40 CFR 60.60 
(subpart F). If you have any questions regarding the applicability of 
this proposed action to a particular entity, contact the person listed 
in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments to EPA?

    Do not submit information containing CBI to EPA through http://
www.regulations.gov or e-mail. Send or deliver information identified 
as CBI only to the following address: Roberto Morales, OAQPS Document 
Control Officer (C404-02), Office of Air Quality Planning and 
Standards, Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 
27711, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0877. Clearly mark the 
part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI 
information in a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside 
of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within 
the disk or CD-ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In 
addition to one complete version of the comment that includes 
information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain 
the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the 
public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in 
accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.

C. Where can I get a copy of this document?

    In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of 
this proposed action is available on the World Wide Web (WWW) through 
the Technology Transfer Network (TTN). Following signature, a copy of 
this proposed action will be posted on the TTN's policy and guidance 
page for newly proposed or promulgated rules at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/
oarpg. The TTN provides information and technology exchange in various 
areas of air pollution control.

D. When would a public hearing occur?

    If anyone contacts EPA requesting to speak at a public hearing by 
June 26, 2008, a public hearing will be held on July 1, 2008. Persons 
interested in presenting oral testimony or inquiring as to whether a 
public hearing is to be held should contact Mr. Keith Barnett, listed 
in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section, at least 2 days in 
advance of the hearing.

II. Background Information on Subpart F

A. What is the statutory authority for the proposed amendments to 
subpart F?

    New source performance standards (NSPS) implement Clean Air Act 
(CAA) section 111(b) and are issued for categories of sources which EPA 
has listed because they cause, or contribute significantly to, air 
pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health 
or welfare. The primary purpose of the NSPS is to attain and maintain 
ambient air quality by ensuring that the best demonstrated emission 
control technologies are installed as industrial infrastructure is 
modernized. Since 1970, the NSPS have been successful in achieving 
long-term emissions reductions in numerous industries by assuring cost-
effective controls are installed on new, reconstructed, or modified 
sources.
    Section 111 of the CAA requires that NSPS reflect the application 
of the best system of emission reductions achievable which, taking into 
consideration the cost of achieving such emission reductions, and any 
non-air quality health and environmental impact and energy 
requirements, the Administrator determines has been adequately 
demonstrated. See CAA section 111(a)(1). This level of control is 
commonly referred to as best demonstrated technology (BDT). In 
assessing whether a standard is achievable, EPA must account for 
routine operating variability associated with performance of the system 
on whose performance the standard is based. See National Lime Ass'n v. 
EPA, 627 F. 2d 416, 431-33 (D.C. Cir. 1980). Today's proposal considers 
all of these factors, including both short- and long-term operating 
variability associated with potential control technologies.
    Common sources of information as to what constitutes a best 
demonstrated technology, and for assessing that technology's level of 
performance, include best available control technology (BACT) 
determinations made as part of new source review, emissions limits that 
exist in State and Federal permits for recently permitted sources, and 
emissions test data for demonstrated control technologies collected for 
compliance demonstration or other purposes. EPA compares permit 
limitations and BACT determination data with actual performance test 
data to insure that permitting and BACT limitations are representative 
of actual performance and also to identify any site specific factors 
that could influence general applicability of the information to the 
entire source category. EPA also carefully examines test data to insure 
that control devices were properly designed and operated during the 
test.
    Section 111(b)(1)(B) of the CAA requires EPA to periodically review 
and revise these standards of performance, as necessary, to reflect 
improvements in methods for reducing emissions. We promulgated 
Standards of Performance For Portland Cement Plants (40 CFR part 60, 
subpart F) on December 23, 1971 (36 FR 24876). Since then, we have 
conducted three reviews of the standards (39 FR 20793, June 14, 1974; 
39 FR 39874, November 12, 1974; and 53 FR 50354, December 14, 1988).

B. What are the current Portland Cement Plant (PCP) NSPS?

    The PCP NSPS applies to new, modified, and reconstructed affected

[[Page 34074]]

facilities in the portland cement manufacturing industry that commenced 
construction, reconstruction, or modification after August 17, 1971. 
Affected facilities at PCP include the kiln, clinker cooler, raw mill 
system, finish mill system, raw mill dryer, raw material storage, 
clinker storage, finished product storage, conveyor transport points, 
bagging and bulk loading and unloading systems. Unless otherwise noted, 
the term ``new'' as used in this preamble includes newly constructed, 
modified or reconstructed units.

III. Summary of the Proposed Amendments to Subpart F

    The proposed amendments to subpart F of 40 CFR part 60 are 
summarized in Table 1 of this preamble.

               Table 1. Summary of the Proposed Amendments
------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Citation                         Proposed change
------------------------------------------------------------------------
60.62........................  Change the title of Sec.   60.62 to
                                standards. Revise paragraph (a)(1) to
                                include paragraph (a)(1)(i) which
                                specifies that the current emission
                                limit for particulate matter (PM)
                                applies to kilns constructed,
                                reconstructed, or modified after August
                                17, 1971 but on or before June 16, 2008.
                                Add a paragraph (a)(1)(ii) which limits
                                PM emissions for kilns that commence
                                construction, reconstruction, or
                                modification after June 16, 2008,
                                emissions to 0.086 pounds of PM per ton
                                (lb/ton) of clinker.
                               Revise paragraph (a)(2) to clarify that
                                the opacity limit does not apply to
                                kilns constructed, reconstructed, or
                                modified after August 17, 1971 but on or
                                before June 16, 2008 that use a bag leak
                                detection system or PM continuous
                                emission monitoring system.
                               Add paragraph (a)(3) which requires kilns
                                constructed, reconstructed, or modified
                                after June 16, 2008 to meet a nitrogen
                                oxides (NOX) emission limit of 1.50 lb/
                                ton of clinker on a 30-day, 24-hour
                                rolling average basis.
                               Add paragraph (a)(4) which requires kilns
                                constructed, reconstructed, or modified
                                after June 16, 2008 to meet either a
                                sulfur dioxide (SO2) emission limit of
                                1.33 lb/ton of clinker on a 30-day, 24-
                                hour rolling average basis or
                                demonstrate a 90-percent reduction in
                                SO2 emissions from the kiln.
                               Revise paragraph (b)(1) to include a
                                paragraph (b)(1)(i) which specifies that
                                the current PM limit applies to clinker
                                coolers constructed, reconstructed, or
                                modified after August 17, 1971 but on or
                                before June 16, 2008. Add a paragraph
                                (b)(1)(ii) which limits PM emissions
                                from clinker coolers constructed,
                                reconstructed, or modified after June
                                16, 2008 to 0.086 pounds of PM per ton
                                (lb/ton) of clinker.
                               Revise paragraph (b)(2) to clarify that
                                the opacity limit does not apply to
                                clinker coolers constructed,
                                reconstructed, or modified after August
                                17, 1971 but on or before June 16, 2008
                                that use a bag leak detection system or
                                PM continuous emission monitoring
                                system.
60.63........................  Revise paragraph (a) to correct
                                applicability term (``subpart'' instead
                                of ``part'') and add the word
                                ``clinker'' before the phrase
                                ``production rate'' to clarify that
                                daily recordkeeping requirement is for
                                clinker production rate.
                               Revise paragraph (b) to include paragraph
                                (b)(1) which specifies monitoring
                                requirements for kilns and clinker
                                coolers constructed, modified, or
                                reconstructed after August 17, 1971 but
                                on or before June 16, 2008. Paragraph
                                (b)(1)(i) contains the current
                                requirements for continuous opacity
                                monitoring systems (COMS). Paragraphs
                                (b)(1)(ii) and (iii) allow the source to
                                install a bag leak detection system or a
                                PM CEMS in lieu of a COMS. Also revise
                                paragraph (b) to include paragraph
                                (b)(2) which specifies monitoring
                                requirements for kilns and clinker
                                coolers constructed, modified, or
                                reconstructed or after June 16, 2008.
                                Paragraphs (b)(2)(i) and (ii) require
                                the source to install a bag leak
                                detection system or a PM continuous
                                emission monitoring system.
                               Revise paragraph (c) to clarify that the
                                alternative for visible emission
                                monitoring applies to the requirement in
                                paragraph (b)(1)(i) for a continuous
                                opacity monitoring system.
                               Add paragraph (f) to which specifies
                                installation and operation requirements
                                for bag leak detection systems.
                               Add paragraph (g) which specifies the
                                required installation, operation, and
                                maintenance procedures for a PM
                                continuous emission monitoring system.
                               Add paragraph (h) which specifies
                                requirements for weight measurement
                                system for clinker production from kilns
                                constructed, modified or reconstructed
                                on or after June 16, 2008.
                               Add paragraph (i) to require a NOX
                                continuous emission monitoring system
                                for each kiln subject to the NOX
                                emission limit.
                               Add paragraph (j) to require a SO2
                                continuous emission monitoring system
                                for each kiln subject to the SO2
                                emission limit.
                               Add paragraph (k) to require that NOX and
                                SO2 continuous emission monitoring
                                systems be installed, operated, and
                                maintained according to Performance
                                Specification 2 of Appendix B to part 60
                                and that monitors comply with quality
                                assurance requirements in Procedure 1 of
                                Appendix F to part 60.
                               Add paragraph (l) to require that NOX and
                                SO2 monitors record data during all
                                periods of operation.
                               Add paragraph (m) to require a continuous
                                exhaust flow rate monitoring system for
                                each kiln subject to the NOX or SO2
                                emissions limit.
                               Add paragraph (n) to require the use of
                                an electrostatic precipitator (ESP)
                                predictive model to monitor the
                                performance of ESPs controlling PM
                                emissions from kilns or clinker coolers.
60.64........................  Revise paragraph (b)(1) to add definition
                                of the term ``P'' in Equation 1 for new
                                kilns subject to PM emission limit in lb/
                                ton of clinker production.
                               Add paragraph (b)(5) to require repeat PM
                                performance tests (every 5 years) for
                                kilns and clinker coolers.
                               Add paragraph (b)(6) to require visible
                                emissions monitoring for sources other
                                than kilns and clinker coolers.
                               Add paragraph (c) which specifies
                                procedures for converting concentration
                                of NOX and SO2 to pounds per ton of
                                clinker produced (30 day rolling
                                average).
60.66........................  Update to specify authorities to be
                                retained by the Administrator.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 34075]]

IV. Rationale for the Proposed Amendments to Subpart F

A. How is EPA proposing to change the emission limits for future 
affected facilities?

    For ``new'' affected facilities constructed, modified, or 
reconstructed after June 16, 2008, we are proposing:
     To change the format of the PM emission limits from lb/ton 
of dry feed to lb/ton of clinker product;
     To reduce the PM emission limit for kilns from 0.3 lb/ton 
of dry feed to 0.086 lb/ton of clinker;
     To set a limit on NOX emissions from kilns of 
1.50 lb/ton of clinker; and
     To set a limit on SO2 emissions from kilns of 
1.33 lb/ton of clinker, or, in the alternative, demonstrate a reduction 
in SO2 emissions from the kiln of at least 90 percent;
     To reduce the PM emissions limit for clinker coolers from 
0.1 lb/ton dry feed to 0.086 lb/ton of clinker; and
     To add new monitoring options of a bag leak detector or PM 
continuous emission monitoring systems (CEMS) for kilns and clinker 
coolers to demonstrate compliance with the PM limits in lieu of the 
requirement for continuous opacity monitoring systems (COMS).
    The emission limits for affected facilities constructed, modified, 
or reconstructed before June 16, 2008 remain unchanged.
    In determining BDT we generally look at the controls and control 
performance of new sources. In the case of cement kilns we reviewed 
recently issued permits and BACT determinations issued by States to 
identify emissions limits more stringent than the current subpart F 
(and to understand if limits more stringent than those in subpart F are 
commonplace or rare, or cover additional air pollutants). We believe 
that the use of State permit data and BACT determination developed as 
part of new source review is appropriate because a BACT determination 
evaluates available controls, their performance, cost, and non-air 
environmental impacts. The main difference between those determinations 
and a BDT determination for purposes of a new source performance 
standard is that a BACT determination is made on a site-specific basis. 
Therefore, in evaluating BACT determinations, we have to account for 
any site-specific factors that may not be applicable to the source 
category as a whole. We have also reviewed data gathered in support of 
related rules involving the portland cement industry, notably the 
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for 
portland cement kilns issued pursuant to section 112 of the CAA, and 
the NESHAP for hazardous waste-burning Portland cement kilns, also 
implementing section 112 of the CAA.
    We also collected emissions test data from a number of sources. The 
emission test data is used to verify the achievable performance of the 
controls, and to evaluate whether or not the permit levels reviewed 
accurately reflect control device performance.
    Our review of permits and actual test data from portland cement 
sources, and discussions with industry representatives and State 
environmental agencies indicates that certain changes have occurred 
since the 1988 review of the NSPS, and that these changes are still 
continuing. We found that older, less energy efficient wet and long dry 
kilns are being replaced with preheater/precalciner kilns because 
preheater/precalciner kilns have superior energy efficiency and 
increased clinker capacity. According to the industry, all new kilns 
will be preheater/precalciner kilns. We confirmed this by reviewing a 
detailed listing of portland cement kilns which indicates that since 
2000 all kilns constructed or modernized are of the preheater/
precalciner design.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The information also revealed that recently built kilns are subject 
to more stringent limits on their emissions through State permitting 
processes than those currently in the PCP NSPS. In addition, many State 
permits contain emission limits for NOX and SO2, 
pollutants that are not regulated under the current NSPS. (See footnote 
1) Modern preheater/precalciner kilns and improved combustion process 
designs and add-on controls that greatly lower NOX emissions 
are increasingly being used to meet State permit limits. Our review of 
permits, BACT determinations, and emissions test data show that 
SO2 emissions are typically low as a result of the inherent 
scrubbing action of alkaline raw materials in the kiln and raw mill as 
well as the typically low sulfur content of raw materials and fuel. 
However, there are a few locations where the raw materials used in 
production of clinker contain high levels of sulfur. In these few 
situations, wet scrubbers or dry lime sprayers have been used to reduce 
SO2 emissions in order to meet State SO2 limits.
    Preheater/precalciner kilns have in-line raw mills, which means 
that the kiln exhaust gas is routed to the raw mill and then to the 
final PM control device. Therefore, the kiln and raw mill exhaust 
through the same stack. In order to maximize energy efficiency, 
facilities route as much clinker cooler exhaust as possible to the kiln 
(typically as tertiary air), and sometimes to the raw mill to recover 
heat from the clinker cooling operation. However, typically some 
portion of the clinker cooler gas flow exhausts directly to atmosphere 
through its own stack so that clinker coolers are one of the enumerated 
units covered by the NSPS, and one of the emission points addressed by 
these proposed amendments.
    As previously mentioned, older kilns are typically replaced with 
new preheater/precalciner kilns rather than being modified or 
reconstructed. However, because modified and reconstructed kilns are 
also subject to NSPS, we evaluated the situation where an existing kiln 
becomes subject to NSPS through modification or reconstruction. We 
identified only two instances since 1990 where an existing kiln was 
significantly modified rather than replaced with a new kiln, so we do 
not expect this to be a common occurrence. Moreover, in one such case a 
wet kiln was converted to a semi-dry process that included a preheater/
precalciner. Performance data from this kiln indicate that the 
emissions of SO2 and NOX are actually lower than 
would have been expected if the kiln had been replaced with a new 
preheater/precalciner kiln.\2\ Therefore, we expect that the emission 
limits proposed for new preheater/precalciner kilns would be applicable 
to this type of conversion. In the second case, a long dry kiln was 
shortened and a preheater/precalciner added. A modification of this 
type would be expected to use the same technology in the precalciner/
preheater section as a new preheater/precalciner kiln and the resulting 
modified kiln would basically be the same as a new kiln from the 
standpoint of criteria pollutant emissions control. Accordingly, EPA 
believes that the limits proposed today are appropriate for new, 
modified, and reconstructed kilns since the preheater/precalciner 
design will be utilized in each of these instances.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

1. Format of the Standard
    The current NSPS limits for PM are expressed on a pound of PM per 
ton (lb/ton) of dry feed input format. Emission limits are typically 
normalized to some type of production or raw material input value 
because this allows

[[Page 34076]]

comparison (and ultimately the ability to set a single standard) for 
different sized facilities. (A common example of normalization is 
expressing vehicle fuel economy in terms of miles of gasoline per 
vehicle mile traveled, e.g., miles per gallon.) The 1971 NSPS uses a 
pound of pollutant per ton dry feed basis as the normalizing parameter. 
In these proposed amendments we are adopting a new normalizing 
parameter of lb/ton of clinker--i.e., normalizing based on kiln output 
rather than input for sources constructed, reconstructed or modified 
after June 16, 2008.
    Adopting an output-based standard avoids rewarding a source for 
becoming less efficient, i.e., requiring more feed to produce a unit of 
product, therefore promoting the most efficient production processes. 
As an example, assume a cement kiln rated at 1.2 million tons per year 
(tpy) has a NOX emission limit of 1.5 lb/ton of clinker 
(output). The equivalent input-based limit would be 0.909 lb/ton of 
feed (on average 1.65 tons of feed produce one ton of clinker, so a 
kiln rated at 1.2 million tpy clinker uses 1.98 million tpy of feed). 
Under either an input- or output-based standard, the maximum allowed 
NOX emissions would be 900 tpy (1.5 lb/ton clinker x 1.2 
million tons clinker / 2000 = 900 tons = 0.909 lb/ton feed x 1.98 
million tons feed / 2000). However, if a facility has a less efficient 
kiln, for example it requires 1.7 tons of feed to produce one ton of 
clinker (so the feed input is now 2.04 million tons), this kiln would 
be allowed to emit 927 tpy of NOX (0.909 lb/ton feed x 2.04 
million tons feed / 2000) under the input-based standard of 0.909 lb/
ton of feed, but still only 900 lb per year of NOX under the 
1.5 lb/ton of clinker output-based standard.
    Over the short term, the measurement of kiln output is not as exact 
as the measure of kiln input. For this reason, we are basing compliance 
with the proposed NOX and SO2 emission limits on 
a 30 day rolling average. We believe this will alleviate the issues 
related to the inaccuracy of short-term output measurements. However, 
industry has requested the option to convert to an input-based standard 
to accommodate site-specific configurations and operational 
limitations.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    In the following discussions, emissions were typically reported as 
a concentration or per ton of feed. The BACT permit limits discussed 
were typically based on output. We have converted all the data to an 
output based standard using a conversion factor of 1.65 tons of input 
equals one ton of clinker. More information on conversion may be found 
in the technical support document (see footnote 1).
    We are specifically requesting comment on the benefits of an 
output-based standard, output measurement methods and their associated 
errors, provisions that would allow a site to convert to an input-based 
standard, any limitations we should impose on conversion, and the 
appropriate averaging times. Information on how conversions from input-
based emission limits and test data and/or concentration-based data to 
output-based limits and test data may be found in the Technical Support 
Document for the Portland Cement NSPS review (see footnote 1).
2. PM
    The most effective control devices to reduce PM emission from 
cement kilns and clinker coolers identified in the original NSPS were 
fabric filters and electrostatic precipitators (ESPs). These continue 
to be the most effective PM controls in use, capable of removing over 
99.9 percent of the PM from the exhaust gas. At the time of the 1988 
review, 17 new kilns that had become subject to the NSPS since the 1979 
review were controlled by fabric filters and 13 by ESPs. Of the 21 
clinker coolers with a separate exhaust stack that had become subject 
to the NSPS, 17 were controlled by fabric filters, and four were 
controlled by gravel bed filters. Gravel bed filters perform similarly 
to fabric filters except they use a moving bed of gravel to capture the 
particulate rather then cloth or membrane fabric. We do not expect new 
facilities to install gravel bed filters.
    Though ESPs and fabric filters have comparable removal efficiencies 
based on short-term tests, recently built new kilns have fabric filters 
as PM controls, and we expect this trend to continue. ESPs applied to 
cement kilns must be deenergized if the carbon monoxide (CO) or excess 
air levels rise above a preset critical level where an explosion could 
occur, which results in short periods of high emissions. The high 
resistivities of PM from a cement kiln require gas conditioning if an 
ESP is used. In addition, resistivity can change if the chemistry of 
the clinker changes. ESP performance can also be affected by the 
particle size distribution. Fabric filters are not affected by these 
factors, and fabric filters control generally to the same concentration 
irrespective of the PM loading at the filter inlet, though some 
variability in PM emissions from fabric filters does occur due to 
seepage and leakage.\4\ Therefore, we expect the long-term performance 
of a fabric filter to be superior to an ESP. For this reason, we 
believe that well-operated and maintained fabric filters are the best 
technology for control of PM emissions at portland cement kilns, and so 
are basing this part of the proposal on use of fabric filters for PM 
control.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    In assessing the level of performance constituting BDT (i.e. the 
level of performance achievable by well-operated and maintained fabric 
filters in this industry considering normal operating variability) we 
reviewed data on PM limits in eight recently issued permits for new 
cement kilns, all of which are equipped with fabric filters. The permit 
limits for PM for these kilns were in various units, but were converted 
to a lb/ton output basis. (see footnote 1) The PM limits ranged from 
0.093 to 0.28 lb/ton of clinker, and the average was 0.16 lb/ton. In 
order to determine if the permitted PM emissions limits were 
representative of actual performance we reviewed two data sets measured 
by EPA Reference Method 5 (40 CFR part 60, Appendix A-3). The first set 
was comprised of 21 emission tests of portland cement kilns equipped 
with fabric filters at various domestic locations which fabric filters 
were (reportedly) equipped with membrane bags. These PM emissions 
ranged from 0.0023 up to 0.4724 lb/ton of clinker with a median of 
0.1360 lb/ton. Fifteen of the 21 tests were below 0.16 lb/ton of 
clinker. All of the tests where the emissions were above 0.16 lb/ton of 
clinker, except one, were on kilns that were not preheater/precalciner 
kilns. The one test on a preheater/precalciner that was above 0.16 lb/
ton of clinker was on a kiln built in 1981. Therefore, we have reason 
to doubt that the data above 0.16 lb/ton of clinker are representative 
of the most current designs. We also reviewed 37 emissions tests for PM 
from Florida kilns equipped with fabric filters where the bag type was 
unknown. The range was 0.015 to 0.153 lb/ton of clinker, so all 31 
tests were below 0.16 lb/ton. Although these are single test results, 
and so are unlikely to reflect all the operating variability associated 
with air pollution control device performance, these data still suggest 
that a limit of 0.16 lb/ton of clinker is achievable by new cement 
kilns equipped with a fabric filter.
    We also evaluated the performance of fabric filters using membrane 
bag technology, generally considered the

[[Page 34077]]

most efficient type of fabric filter. Membrane bags have superior 
performance to the cloth bags that are part of the standard fabric 
filter design. Cloth bags capture PM in the interstices of the woven 
fabric and form a primary dust cake. Until the primary dust cake forms 
cloth bags are inefficient as filters. Therefore, each time the bag is 
cleaned emissions increase until the primary dust cake reforms. 
Emissions also occur when the pressure drop becomes so high that the PM 
migrates completely through the fabric. Membrane bags, in contrast, 
operate under the principle of surface filtration, i.e., the PM is 
captured on the surface of the bag. This results in more consistent 
performance (no need to build up a primary dust cake). In addition, at 
a constant airflow membrane bags reduce the average pressure drop 
across the fabric filter. However, membrane bags are more expensive 
than cloth bags.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    We reviewed 19 emission tests conducted on four portland cement 
kilns where we were able to establish that the facilities used fabric 
filters with membrane bags, and where the kilns had been built in the 
last 10 years, so we could be reasonably certain the control device was 
representative of the latest fabric filter design. Thirteen of those 
tests were on a cement kiln that burns hazardous waste. We believe 
there is no difference in the performance of a fabric filter for PM 
applied to a kilns that burn hazardous waste and those that do not 
because PM emissions are largely contributed by non-hazardous waste 
feed streams, and because fabric filters control PM emissions generally 
to the same concentration irrespective of the PM loading at the inlet 
(see 69 FR 21225 and 21233). The individual test results converted to 
an output basis ranged from 0.0023 to 0.10176 lb/ton of clinker with an 
average of 0.0357 lb/ton. In order to account for variability, we 
analyzed the statistical variation by calculating a standard deviation 
of the test averages, multiplying the standard deviation by the t value 
for the 95th or 99th percentile, and adding this value to the average 
of all the tests. The result was we determined that a level of 0.0830 
lb/ton of clinker represented an emissions limit that will not be 
exceeded 95 percent of the time and a level of 0.1025 lb/ton of clinker 
represented an emissions limit that will not be exceeded 99 percent of 
the time. EPA has also performed a different statistical analysis of 
the data from the hazardous waste-burning cement kiln equipped with a 
membrane fabric filter, applying to the data a so-called universal 
variability factor derived from the performance of the best performing 
(lowest emitting) PM performers equipped with fabric filters across the 
hazardous waste combustor source category. This variability factor 
quantifies both short-term and long-term operating variability, i.e., 
variability associated with the conditions of the individual compliance 
test and variability associated with the performance of the control 
equipment over time. See generally 72 FR 54878-79, September 27, 2007. 
(This approach is more sophisticated, since it accounts for both short-
term and long-term variability, whereas variability in the individual 
runs comprising the compliance tests (i.e., the 95th or 99th percentile 
of those data), is more a measure of short-term variability alone, see 
72 FR 54878). The standard under this analysis is 0.0069 gr/dscf 
corrected to 7 percent oxygen. See 71 FR 14669, March 23, 2006. Using a 
typical value of 54,000 dry standard cubic feet (dscf) of exhaust 
produced per ton of kiln feed and one ton of clinker producer per 1.65 
tons of feed, 0.0069 gr/dscf converts to 0.086 lb/ton of clinker. (see 
footnote 1)
    We are proposing this level as BDT for PM emitted by new portland 
cement kilns, as measured by EPA Reference Method 5 in 40 CFR part 60, 
Appendix A-3. Our analysis of individual stack results from the newer 
kilns equipped with membrane bag-equipped fabric filters confirms that 
the level is achievable, the level is between the 95th or 99th 
percentile of those data, and as just explained, this level accounts 
for all of the potential operating variability associated with 
operation of a membrane-bag fabric filter.
    We evaluated the costs of the different control levels discussed 
above. This evaluation, and all subsequent cost, environment, and 
energy impacts on a per kiln basis are based on a model preheater/
precalciner kiln with a rated capacity of 1.2 million tpy of clinker. 
The average capacity of kilns which were constructed beginning in 2000 
and were operating in 2006 was approximately 1.3 million tpy. We choose 
a model kiln with a capacity slightly lower than average to provide a 
more conservative cost estimate (smaller kilns tend to have a greater 
control cost per ton of capacity). The other kiln design specifications 
(flue gas flow rates, temperatures, etc.) may be found in the Technical 
Support Document (See Footnote 1).
    Based on our assessment that all new fabric filters with standard 
cloth bag will achieve a level of 0.16 lb/ton of clinker, and that new 
kilns would at least be equipped with this type of fabric filter, there 
are no costs or other impacts associated with meeting a PM emissions 
limit to 0.16 lb/ton of clinker. There are a variety of regulatory 
reasons that new kilns, on average, currently meet a 0.16 lb/ton of 
clinker PM limit, and we believe it is appropriate to use this level as 
the baseline in our cost analysis. We considered using a baseline of 
0.5 lb/ton of clinker (equivalent to the current NSPS). However, not 
only is this level inappropriate because it does not reflect current 
operating performance, but choosing 0.5 lb/ton of clinker as the 
baseline would not have changed our decision in any case.
    To achieve a level of 0.086 lb/ton of clinker, a new kiln with a 
capacity of 1.2 million tpy of clinker production may have to equip the 
fabric filter with more expensive membrane bags at an estimated capital 
cost of $1.3 million and at a total annualized cost of $176,000 per 
year. This includes additional operating and maintenance costs, and 
amortized capital costs. The estimated emission reduction over the 
baseline would be 44 tpy for the model kiln and the cost per ton of 
additional PM control is $3,969. This cost appears to be reasonable to 
EPA, given that it is well within the range of cost-effectiveness for 
total PM control accepted as reasonable for other stationary sources. 
See, e.g., 70 FR 9715, February 28, 2005 (cost effectiveness of $8,400 
per ton of total PM considered reasonable for proposed rule for 
electric utility steam generating units) and 71 FR 9876, February 27, 
2006, promulgating the proposed rule.
    We also analyzed the cost per ton of fine PM (PM of 2.5 micrometers 
or less) emissions reduction. Data from development of the PM National 
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) indicate that the majority of the 
adverse health effects from PM exposure are from exposure to fine PM 
(although exposure to coarse PM is likewise associated with health 
effects, see 71 FR 61184-85, October 17, 2006). As a result, EPA 
established a NAAQS for fine PM separate from the NAAQS for coarse PM. 
Based on data from EPA's Compilation of Emission Factors (AP-42), 45 
percent of the PM from a cement kiln fabric filter is fine PM. 
Therefore, the estimated emissions reduction of fine PM resulting from 
a total PM standard of 0.086 lb/ton of clinker is 19.8 tpy for the 
model kiln and the cost per ton of fine PM reduction is $8,819.
    In most cases there would be no non-air impacts associated with the

[[Page 34078]]

proposed standard because PM captured in the control device for a 
preheater/precalciner kiln is mainly raw materials which are recycled 
back to the kiln, rather then disposed of as solid waste. In the case 
of a kiln equipped with an alkali bypass, however, additional PM 
captured in the alkali bypass fabric filter would typically be disposed 
as a solid waste. This PM is high in alkali materials and cannot be 
recycled back to the kiln or mixed with the product. Based on data 
collected on amounts of solids generated by the PM controls, the solids 
from the alkali bypass are about 1 percent of total collected solids 
(i.e., 99 percent is collected in the main fabric filter and recycles 
to the kiln). Therefore, the amount of additional solid waste resulting 
from this proposed PM emissions limit would be expected to be minimal. 
We do not anticipate any adverse energy impacts because membrane bags 
reduce control device pressure drop and thus reduce energy use. Given 
the reasonable costs, and minimal solid waste impacts we are proposing 
a PM emissions level of 0.086 lb/ton of clinker as BDT.
    As previously noted, fabric filters are also the predominant 
control for another emission point, clinker coolers. Included in the 
1988 review of the NSPS were 12 PM emissions tests for clinker coolers 
where the coolers had separate stacks. One test was performed under 
abnormal operating conditions and so was not used in our analysis. The 
remaining 11 tests showed a PM emissions range of 0.008 to 0.05 lb/ton 
of feed, which converts to 0.013 up to 0.083 lb/ton of clinker.\6\ 
Tests on three clinker coolers associated with preheater/precalciner 
kilns built in the last 10 years using fabric filters for PM control 
showed a range of 0.0038 to 0.0094 lb/ton of feed which converts to 
0.0063 to 0.01551 lb/ton of clinker. Based on these test data, we 
believe that the current clinker cooler controls used on new sources 
can meet the same level of PM control as a kiln with membrane bags, 
i.e., 0.086 lb/ton of clinker. Since new facilities are already 
installing controls (usually fabric filters) capable of meeting the 
proposed clinker cooler limit of 0.086 lb/ton of clinker, the 
incremental costs of the proposed emissions limit would be very low or 
zero, as would any non-air environmental and energy impacts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    We considered proposing a limit below 0.086 lb/ton of clinker for 
clinker coolers, based on the emissions shown for the three newer 
facilities. Based on these data a limit of 0.0245 lb/ton of clinker 
(representing the 99th confidence interval) would be achievable for new 
sources. However, we believe that these limited data are not sufficient 
to support a lower PM limit for clinker coolers, since these data are 
unlikely to fully reflect control device operating variability. We are 
requesting comment, however, on the achievability of a lower PM 
emission limit for clinker coolers.
3. NOX \7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The current NSPS does not regulate the emissions of NOX. 
Concurrent with this 8-year review we are proposing an NSPS for 
NOX that would apply to kilns constructed, modified, or 
reconstructed after June 16, 2008. The high temperatures and oxidizing 
atmospheres required for cement manufacturing are favorable for 
NOX formation. In cement kilns, NOX emissions are 
formed during fuel combustion primarily by the oxidation of molecular 
nitrogen present in combustion air (referred to as thermal 
NOX) and the oxidation of nitrogen compounds in fuel 
(referred to as fuel NOX). Many States issuing construction 
and operating permits for new kilns have specified emission limits for 
NOX. EPA's BACT/RACT/LAER Clearinghouse database shows that 
for the period 2001 through 2007, 30 determinations for new, modified 
or reconstructed kilns included NOX limits. Emissions of 
NOX are typically reduced through process controls such as 
burner design (low-NOX burners) and staged combustion in the 
calciner (SCC). NOX emissions from kilns using process 
designs such as low NOX burners and SCC emit on average 
about 2.5 lb/ton of clinker. The exclusive add-on control used to 
reduce NOX emissions from kilns operating in the U.S. is 
selective noncatalytic reduction (SNCR). In recent Prevention of 
Significant Deterioration permits for portland cement kilns, States 
have determined BACT emission limits for NOX based on the 
use of SNCR in combination with well-designed SCC and other process 
designs such as low NOX burners. In SNCR systems, a reagent 
such as ammonia or urea is injected into the flue gas at a suitable 
temperature zone, typically in the range of 1,600 to 2,000 [deg]F and 
at an appropriate ratio of reagent to NOX. SNCR system 
performance depends on temperature, residence time, turbulence, oxygen 
content, and other factors specific to the given gas stream. On 
average, SNCR achieves approximately a 35 percent reduction in 
NOX at a ratio of ammonia-to-NOX of about 0.5 and 
a reduction of 63 percent at an ammonia-to-NOX ratio of 1.0. 
At the high ratios, including ratios above 1, some ammonia may not 
react with NOX and will be emitted. The unreacted ammonia is 
referred to as ammonia slip. It can also produce a visible stack plume 
when the ammonia forms ammonia chlorides. Under certain atmospheric 
conditions ammonia can also react with nitrates and sulfates, both of 
which can be available in cement kiln exhaust, to form fine PM 
emissions, see 69 FR 4583, January 30, 2004, and ammonia itself is a 
pollutant under the CAA. Limits on ammonia slip are often imposed by 
permits or design requirements, which in some instances constrain the 
NOX reduction achievable by an SNCR system.
    Another NOX control technology, SCR, is used in the 
electric utility industry to reduce NOX emissions from 
boilers and has been used worldwide on three cement kilns in Europe. 
SCR is capable of reducing NOX emissions by about 80 
percent. Though SCR is demonstrated in Europe, SCR has never been used 
on any cement kilns in the U.S. Uncertainties exist as to its specific 
performance level and catalyst plugging and fouling, which affects 
operating costs (see discussion below).
    One control option considered was to make to make no changes in the 
current NSPS and thus not regulate NOX emissions. However, 
we rejected that option because NOX is emitted by cement 
kilns, is currently controlled at most new cement kilns, and, based on 
our review of recently issued permits, demonstrated technologies are 
available to reduce NOX emissions considering costs and 
other impacts.
    In proposing a NOX emission limit, we reviewed recently 
issued permits, recent BACT determinations and recent emissions data 
for preheater/precalciner kilns to establish potential NOX 
control levels for evaluation. Most of the emission limits and test 
data are 30 day averages based on data from continuous emissions 
monitors. A first step in doing so is to establish a baseline from 
which control options can be evaluated. NOX emissions from 
three recently permitted preheater/precalciner kilns utilizing well-
designed and operated process designs including SCC, averaged 
NOX emissions of 1.62, 1.88 and 1.97 lb/ton

[[Page 34079]]

of clinker. These levels are achieved at kilns that are not equipped 
with additional add-on controls. While demonstrating the capabilities 
of kilns utilizing well-designed process controls including SCC but not 
add-on controls, these emission levels are not necessarily 
representative of what all new kilns would achieve even with similar 
process designs. Several factors can influence NOX 
emissions. Changes in the kiln feed rate, chemical composition, or 
moisture content of raw materials can cause kiln temperatures to vary, 
resulting in variation in NOX emissions. Raw materials from 
the same quarry can vary in chemical composition from day to day. 
Certain raw materials require higher temperatures and longer heating 
times to properly calcine the materials (referred to as burnability). 
For example, raw materials that contain high alkali content must be 
heated longer and at higher temperatures to volatilize and remove the 
alkali compounds. With higher temperatures and longer residence times, 
NOX emissions may increase. Based on data from equipment 
vendors and representatives from facilities with more difficult-to-burn 
raw materials, we believe that future well-designed and operated cement 
kilns, which will incorporate SCC and low-NOX burners, will 
meet a level of 2.5 lb/ton of clinker on average, without consideration 
of end-of-stack air pollution control. Therefore, we are using this 
level as the baseline level of control that would occur with no 
additional regulatory action. However, we know that in some 
applications the level achieved even when using low-NOX 
burners, indirect firing and well-designed SCC may be as high as 3 lb/
ton of clinker due to the reasons, such as burnability, discussed 
above.
    We considered choosing as baseline of a new preheater/precalciner 
kiln designed without SCC or low NOX burners, i.e., a 
completely uncontrolled kiln. For a variety of regulatory reasons, the 
newest kilns based on the most current designs of which we are aware 
all incorporate low NOX combustion technologies. Therefore 
we have no data to determine the appropriate NOX emission 
level for a new preheater/precalciner kiln that does not incorporate 
low-NOX burners and SCC. In addition, choosing 2.5 lb/ton of 
clinker as our baseline versus a higher number would not have changed 
our decision on the proposed NOX level.
    The second emissions level we evaluated was 1.95 lb/ton of clinker, 
which is the most common level established as BACT in recent permits 
for new cement kilns.\8\ As previously noted, some new kilns meet this 
level of control using low-NOX burners and SCC. However, we 
expect that, on average, new facilities would require only a modest 
SNCR removal efficiency of 22 percent SNCR to meet this level from the 
uncontrolled industry average 2.5 lb NOX/ton of clinker, 
which is well within the range demonstrated for SNCR control efficiency 
in this industry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The third control level we evaluated was 1.5 lb/ton of clinker, and 
was established based on our assessment of the best demonstrated 
performance utilizing optimal process design, including SCC, and SNCR 
taking into account variability of such factors as the burnability of 
raw material inputs, which can affect NOX emissions. Data on 
SNCR show a performance that ranges from approximately 20 to 80 percent 
NOX reduction. Since NOX levels of 1.62 to 1.97 
lb/ton of clinker are demonstrated for kilns using well-designed SCC, a 
level of 1.5 lb/ton of clinker would be easily achievable even with 
SNCR removal efficiencies in the lower range of demonstrated SNCR 
performance. Generally, SNCR performance (i.e., percentage removed) 
increases as uncontrolled NOX levels increase. For example, 
SNCR performance in which a reagent was injected into a flue gas at a 
temperature of 1,800 [deg]F, a 41 percent NOX removal 
efficiency was obtained at 70 parts per million (ppm); at 200 ppm the 
NOX removal efficiency increased to 54 percent. We estimate 
that for an SNCR with optimal injection configuration and reagent 
injection rate, a 50 percent NOX emission reduction 
represents a reasonable level of performance of SNCR over the long 
term. Although, as noted above, we are projecting that new kilns on 
average will have emissions of 2.5 lb/ton of clinker prior to the 
application of add-on controls, there may be some situations where 
specific raw materials properties, such as those affecting burnability, 
will result in higher uncontrolled NOX emissions. For this 
reason we assumed a maximum baseline of 3.0 lb/ton of clinker and 50 
percent emission reduction by SNCR to establish a 1.5 lb/ton of clinker 
control level. And where uncontrolled NOX emission levels 
achieved by process design are lower than the assumed maximum baseline 
of 0.3 lb/ton of clinker, the removal efficiency of SNCR can be lower 
and still achieve the 1.5 lb/ton of clinker limit. The levels of 
performance for SNCR are from single test results. By allowing 
compliance on a 30 day average, we are allowing more operating margin 
to assure we have accounted for normal operating variability.
    The results of this analysis showed that for both the 1.95 and 1.5 
lb/ton of clinker levels, the capital costs for the installation are 
the same, about $2.3 million. Annualized costs for the 1.95 level are 
$0.7 million and for the 1.5 level, $1.3 million. The annualized cost, 
including operating and maintenance costs, of control for the 1.5 level 
is higher than the annualized cost for the 1.95 level because a higher 
reagent injection rate would be required to reach the lower limit. 
Overall cost effectiveness at the 1.95 lb/ton of clinker level was 
approximately $2,000 per ton of NOX reduction and at the 1.5 
lb/ton of clinker level was approximately $2,100 per ton of 
NOX reduction. This level of cost effectiveness for both 
options compares favorably with the reference range of NOX 
control cost effectiveness ($200 to $2,800) considered highly cost 
effective in the Clean Air Interstate Rule. See 70 FR 25208, May 12, 
2005. Neither control option results in non-air environmental impacts. 
The energy impacts due to electrical demand of the SNCR system are not 
significant. Given the similarity of the cost effectiveness of both 
options, we are proposing the 1.5 lb/ton of clinker level as BDT.
    We also evaluated a control level of 0.5 lb/ton of clinker based on 
the performance of SCR. SCR is the process of adding ammonia or urea in 
the presence of a catalyst to selectively reduce NOX 
emissions from exhaust gases and has been used extensively on gas 
turbines, internal combustion engines, and fossil fired-fired utility 
boilers. The desired chemical reactions are identical with SNCR and 
SCR. However, SCR uses a catalyst, which allows the reactions to occur 
at a lower temperature. In SCR systems, ammonia is typically injected 
to produce an ammonia-to-NOX ratio of about 1.05 or 1.1 to 1 
to achieve a NOX reduction of 80 to 90 percent with an 
ammonia slip of 10 ppm. At a cement kiln, SCR can be installed either 
after the PM control device (a low-dust system) or before the PM 
control device (a high-dust system).
    As noted earlier, three cement kilns have used SCR, all in Europe. 
Despite the use of SCR on three kilns in Europe, there are several 
uncertainties as to whether they represent BDT. Of the three kilns in 
Europe using SCR, two are preheater kilns, and one kiln is a Polysius 
Lepol technology kiln, which is a traveling grate preheater kiln. None 
of the kilns using SCR are preheater/

[[Page 34080]]

precalciner kilns which are the only type of kiln that will be built in 
the U.S. Also, one of the European cement plants has switched back to 
using its SNCR system to compare the operational costs of the two 
systems to evaluate which technology is better and more economical. 
Because the experience with SCR on cement kilns is so limited, issues 
have been raised on SCR applicability to cement kilns. Because the 
optimum operating temperature for most SCR systems is between 600 and 
750 [deg]F, the ideal location of the SCR system would be downstream of 
the preheater cyclones and prior to the roller mill, which is also 
prior to the PM control device. This location results in the SCR system 
operating in a high-dust environment. One of the concerns with this 
location is catalyst plugging and fouling where the accumulation of 
dust blocks access to the catalyst pores resulting in reduced 
effectiveness and shortened life span. Because of the problem of 
catalyst plugging with high-dust SCR systems, a catalyst cleaning 
mechanism such as pressurized air nozzles or sonic horns is necessary. 
For more thorough cleaning, it is necessary to periodically remove each 
individual catalyst bed for cleaning using water or other solvent 
solutions. The resulting wastewater and solids generated during this 
cleaning process must be properly managed and disposed (an adverse non-
air impact associated with this technology's use). To move exhaust 
gases past or through the catalyst, there will be an additional 
pressure drop that may require that existing air-handling equipment, 
such as fans and blowers, be scaled up. Other concerns include the 
oxidation of SO2 to SO3 by the SCR catalyst, 
catalyst masking by CaSO4 formation and the generation of 
sulfuric acid mist, formation of ammonium sulfate which can foul 
downstream equipment, and alkali poisoning of catalysts and 
deactivation of catalyst. Eventually, a catalyst will reach the end of 
its useful life and need to be replaced with new catalyst elements. If 
not physically damaged, a catalyst can often be regenerated. If not, it 
must be properly managed and disposed. To avoid the issue of plugging 
and fouling created by a high dust environment, an SCR can be located 
downstream of the PM control device as a low-dust system. The 
disadvantage of a low-dust system is that the SCR system is no longer 
located in a suitable temperature range and the flue gas must be 
reheated at a significant cost in order for the injected ammonia to 
properly react with NOX in the gas stream. Reheating is 
typically accomplished using a natural gas burner. While the emissions 
impact of a gas burner would likely be minimal, the amount of energy 
use would be in the range of 500 to 600 billion Btu for a 1.2 million 
tpy kiln. If other less expensive fuels are used (such as coal), then 
emissions of other pollutants such as PM and SO2 may 
increase.
    EPA estimates the costs of installing an SCR system to be $5.7 
million in capital cost and $3.1 million annualized cost. The resulting 
average NOX emissions reduction would be 1,200 tpy over 
baseline, and the incremental NOX reduction over the 1.5 lb/
ton of clinker control level would be 600 tpy. The average cost 
effectiveness is approximately $2,500 per ton and the incremental cost 
effectiveness is approximately $3,000 per ton of NOX 
reduction. To determine the reasonableness of this cost effectiveness, 
we turned to the CAIR rule. Reference cost effectiveness for 
NOX controls ranged from $200 to $2,800 and, for marginal 
cost effectiveness, $1,400 to $3,000. Highly cost effective controls 
are considered to be those whose cost effectiveness tends toward the 
lower ends of the reference range. A cost effectiveness of $3,000 for 
SCR systems on a cement kiln is at or just above the range of average 
cost effectiveness. It should also be noted that there is considerable 
uncertainty in the SCR cost estimates due to the technical issues 
discussed above. If site specific factors relating to the raw materials 
do cause significant plugging and fouling, the costs calculated above 
may be biased low. In addition, SCR increases energy use due to the 
pressure drop across the catalyst, and as noted above, produces liquid 
and solid wastes that must be managed.
    Considering these potential technical operating difficulties with 
SCR in this industry, somewhat high cost effectiveness, the uncertainty 
of the costs estimates, and adverse non-air and energy implications, 
EPA is not proposing SCR as BDT for portland cement kilns. EPA solicits 
comment on this issue.
    We expect that all new kilns will be required to install SNCR 
systems to meet the 1.5 lb/ton of clinker NOX limit. One 
concern with the use of SNCR is the potential for condensable PM 
emissions. As explained above, under certain conditions the injected 
ammonia reacts to form condensable fine PM that is not captured by the 
fabric filter because it is emitted as a gas. We are requesting 
comments on the effect that ammonia slip from use of SNCR might have in 
the generation of condensable PM emissions, and what actions, if any, 
are available to mitigate those impacts.
4. SO2
    In the previous NSPS review, we declined to set SO2 
standards because there were no demonstrated add-on SO2 
control technologies applied to cement kilns (53 FR 50354, December 14, 
1988). Since that time at least two SO2 control technologies 
have been applied to cement kilns, wet scrubbers and lime injection. 
The proposed emission limit is based on a review of recent BACT 
determinations and emissions test data and takes into account the 
inherent scrubbing ability of the naturally alkaline raw materials used 
in the cement-manufacturing process (70 FR 72337, December 2, 2005).
    In a cement kiln, SO2 comes from two sources. The first 
is sulfur in the coal fuel (fuel SO2). Most fuel 
SO2 mixes with lime in the kiln and preheater and is not 
emitted into the atmosphere. The other and potentially more important 
source of SO2 is the raw materials (raw materials 
SO2). Sulfides or elemental sulfur in the raw materials may 
be oxidized to SO2 in the kiln system where sufficient 
oxygen is present. Through the inherent scrubbing ability of the 
alkaline raw materials, this SO2 is partially removed in the 
raw mill (50 to 70 percent removal). Raw mills typically operate about 
90 percent of the time when the kiln is operating.
    For most portland cement plants, the levels of sulfur in raw 
materials are low enough that most of the SO2 generated is 
removed by the natural scrubbing action of the kiln raw feed. However, 
in those instances where the sulfur content of raw materials is great 
due to the presence of pyritic sulfur, uncontrolled SO2 
emissions can be significant. Add-on controls may be necessary in those 
situations.
    Cement kilns faced with high SO2 emissions due to high 
sulfur levels in raw materials have used either wet scrubbers or lime 
injection for SO2 emission control. Wet scrubbers applied to 
cement kilns typically achieve at least a 90 percent or more reduction 
in SO2 emissions.\9\ A recently installed scrubber on a 
cement plant with high uncontrolled SO2 emissions due to 
high-sulfur raw materials was designed to achieve a 95 reduction in 
SO2 emissions.\10\ A 95 percent SO2 reduction is 
consistent with other information on the performance of scrubbers for 
SO2 removal.\11\ Assuming the wet scrubber is correctly 
sized (typically a liquid-to-gas

[[Page 34081]]

ratio of 30 gallons per 1,000 actual cubic feet per minute), the 
percent removal can vary based on inlet concentration (higher inlet 
concentrations result in a higher percent reduction) and scrubber pH.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Lime injection consists of injecting lime into a duct downstream of 
the preheater, or in some cases injecting lime into the first two 
preheater stages to remove SO2. At some facilities lime 
injection is only used when increases on SO2 emission above 
a specified level are detected, such as when the raw mill is down. The 
percent reduction in SO2 emissions is a function of the 
inlet SO2 concentrations and lime injection rates. 
Increasing either increases the percent reduction in SO2 
emissions. Dry lime systems can reportedly achieve an SO2 
emissions reduction of up to approximately 70 to 75 percent, though one 
vendor claims potential reductions of up to 90 percent.\12\ We 
evaluated three control options using three levels of uncontrolled 
SO2 emissions: low, moderate and high uncontrolled 
SO2 emissions. For examples of kilns with low uncontrolled 
sulfur emissions, we considered kilns operating in the State of 
Florida. Low uncontrolled sulfur emissions are typical of preheater/
precalciner kilns operating in Florida due to the very low amounts of 
sulfur in most of the available limestone.\13\ While making a 
determination that SO2 emissions of 0.20 lb/ton of clinker 
is BACT, Florida State officials expect actual emission levels of 0.01 
to 0.05 lb/ton of clinker as a result of the use of these low sulfur 
raw materials and self scrubbing of fuel SO2 by finely 
divided lime in the kiln and calciner.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    As noted above, high uncontrolled SO2 emissions can 
occur when pyritic sulfur is present in the raw materials and 
SO2 emissions are left uncontrolled. Where such cases have 
occurred, add-on controls have been used to reduce SO2 
emissions. Uncontrolled SO2 emissions of about 5,000 tpy 
were reported from a preheater/precalciner kiln where a wet scrubber 
was recently being added.\15\ At a reported production capacity of 
800,000 tpy,\16\ uncontrolled SO2 emissions would be about 
13 lb/ton of clinker. This is considered representative of a high 
uncontrolled SO2 emission level. A moderate uncontrolled 
SO2 emission rate of 1.3 lb/ton of clinker was selected and 
was based on the average of 18 data points for tested NSPS 
facilities.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    All of the SO2 emission levels discussed above are based 
on long term average performance, typically 30 days. New cement kilns 
with SO2 emission limits typically have continuous 
SO2 monitors. In reviewing CEM data we noted that the 
averaging period affects the achievable SO2 emission level. 
Longer averaging periods result in lower average SO2 levels 
(since variability tends to be averaged out with multiple measurements 
over time).
    The first control option we considered was no additional control of 
SO2 other than the inherent control achieved by the kiln and 
the raw mill. State BACT determinations usually identify inherent 
SO2 removal as BACT (reflecting that most of these kilns are 
located in areas with low sulfur raw materials). Although many kilns 
have low sulfur emissions, the obvious deficiency of this option is 
that some kilns would have moderate or high uncontrolled emissions of 
SO2, due to the presence of pyritic sulfur in their raw 
materials, which emissions would be readily controllable with air 
pollution control equipment which in fact is usually required in such 
instances.
    The second option considered was 1.33 lb/ton of clinker based on a 
recent BACT determination level for a kiln where uncontrolled 
SO2 emission levels were sufficiently high that an alkaline 
wet scrubber was installed to reduce SO2 emissions. This 
option, and the additional numerical limits discussed below are based 
on continuous compliance with a 30-day rolling average as measured 
using an SO2 continuous emissions monitor. The third option 
of 0.4 lb/ton of clinker represents the performance of a lime injection 
system applied to a kiln with a moderate level of sulfur in its raw 
materials. The fourth level evaluated was 0.2 lb/ton of clinker which 
was based on the lowest uncontrolled SO2 permit levels from 
recent BACT determinations, and represents a level where moderate and 
high sulfur kilns will require the use of a wet scrubber for 
SO2 control. Several kilns in Florida are permitted at this 
level where very small amounts of sulfur are present in the raw 
materials.
    We are proposing a limit for new kilns of 1.33 lb/ton of clinker, 
or alternatively, a 90 percent SO2 emissions reduction 
measured across the control device, such as an alkaline scrubber.\18\ 
The alternative of 90 percent reduction is to account of situation 
where the sulfur content of the raw materials is so high that, even 
with the most efficient SO2 control, a kiln cannot meet the 
1.33 lb/ton of clinker emissions limit. Design and performance data 
indicate the 90 percent control is continuously achievable for a well 
designed and operated wet scrubber.\19\ Compliance with the 90 percent 
reduction would be determined by continuously monitoring SO2 
at the control device inlet and outlet. Continuous monitoring of 
SO2 at the inlet and outlet is a positive demonstration that 
the standard is being continuously met.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    We estimate that reducing high uncontrolled SO2 
emissions to a level of 1.33 lb/ton of clinker results in a $28 million 
capital cost, an annual cost of $5 million, and a cost effectiveness of 
less than $1,000 per ton of SO2 removal.\20\ We consider 
this level of cost effectiveness to be reasonable as it falls at the 
lower end of the range of reference cost effectiveness for 
SO2 emission controls considered to be ``highly cost 
effective'' (for purposes of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D) in the CAIR 
rule). See 70 FR 25204 (May 12, 2005). Under this option, only kilns 
with moderate or high uncontrolled SO2 emission levels would 
likely need to install add-on controls. There are currently only five 
kilns out of 178 kilns in the U.S. where uncontrolled SO2 
emission levels required the addition of a wet scrubber. We estimate 
conservatively in costing this option that over the 5-year period 
following promulgation of these amendments, one out of every five new 
kilns would have uncontrolled SO2 emission levels sufficient 
to warrant the use of a scrubber to reduce SO2 emissions to 
the level of 1.33 lb/ton of clinker or, alternatively, demonstrate a 90 
percent reduction in SO2 emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    We rejected Options 3 and 4 because they would have resulted in 
cement kilns with moderate uncontrolled SO2 emission levels 
having to apply add-on

[[Page 34082]]

controls, either dry lime sprayers at a cost of approximately $6,000 
per ton of SO2 reduction under Option 3 or a wet scrubber at 
a cost of approximately $6,700 per ton of SO2 reduction 
under Option 4. (see footnote 20) Not only do these options result in a 
higher cost per ton of SO2 reduction than Option 2, but 
Options 3 and 4 would not be likely to achieve any significant 
additional SO2 emission reductions over Option 2 for kilns 
emitting high uncontrolled levels of SO2 because Option 2 
already represents a 90 percent emission reduction control for high 
sulfur raw materials.
    The proposed SO2 emissions limit of 1.33 lb/ton of 
clinker should not result in any non-air environmental impacts. Liquid 
waste from the scrubber can be dewatered and returned to the process. 
The resulting solids (gypsum) can be added to the clinker to produce 
cement. In cases where lime injection is used, the lime solids will be 
mixed in with the collected PM and returned to the process. There will 
be an energy impact as a result of increased electrical requirements to 
operate the control devices and, in the case of a wet scrubber, 
increased energy to operate the induced draft fans to overcome the wet 
scrubber pressure drop. These increases in energy use will be minimal 
compared to total kiln electrical energy demands.
    Currently only five kilns, or less than 3 percent of all kilns, are 
using wet scrubbers to control SO2 emissions. Since most new 
kilns will undoubtedly be located at existing cement plants where the 
amount of sulfur in limestone raw materials currently being used is low 
resulting in low uncontrolled SO2 emissions, they will 
likely achieve the proposed standard without the need for add-on air 
pollution controls. For the few new greenfield kilns that will be 
built, the presence or absence of pyritic sulfur limestone, which can 
result in high uncontrolled SO2 emissions, can be factored 
into any site selection decisions. The effect of the proposed limit 
will ensure that the typical performance of BDT control systems today 
is achieved for future affected kilns in those situations where the 
presence of pyritic sulfur raw materials would otherwise result in high 
uncontrolled SO2 emissions.
5. VOC/CO
    We are not proposing to establish limits for CO or volatile organic 
compound (VOC) emissions from cement kilns. VOC emissions from new 
cement kilns will mainly result from organics in the raw materials. 
Organic constituents in the raw materials can be driven off in the kiln 
preheater prior to reaching temperature zone that would result in 
combustion. All new cement kilns are currently subject to a continuous 
20 parts per million volume (ppmv) total hydrocarbon (THC) emissions 
limit--THC serving as a surrogate for non-dioxin HAP--by the Portland 
Cement NESHAP. See 71 FR 76530, December 20, 2006. Because most of the 
THC are also VOC, the THC limit also limits VOC, and serves as the 
baseline for the NSPS analysis. This limit is based on the best 
performance of the regenerative thermal oxidizer add-on control, which 
is the most effective VOC emission control available for this source 
category. Therefore we determined that no additional regulation of VOC 
emissions is feasible.
    EPA is currently reconsidering the Portland Cement NESHAP THC limit 
pursuant to section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA. See 71 FR 76553, December 
20, 2006. However, based on the information currently available to us, 
there is no reason to assume that the THC limit after reconsideration 
will not still represent BDT for this source category.
    Emissions of CO can come from two sources, unburned fuel from the 
precalciner and CO evolved from the raw materials by the same mechanism 
as the THC emissions. Unburned fuel represents an economic loss to the 
facility. Therefore, new precalciners are designed to combust fuel as 
efficiently as possible, and CO emissions from fuel combustion are 
minimized, regardless of any potential emission limit.
    Emissions of CO evolved from raw materials can be significant if 
there are substantial levels of organics in the raw material. The only 
control technology identified to reduce CO emissions is a regenerative 
thermal oxidizer (RTO) (which also would concurrently reduce any VOC 
emissions, as just discussed). However, as is the case for VOC, 
facilities with moderate or high levels of organic materials in the 
feed would emit THC at levels high enough that THC control would be 
required under the Portland Cement NESHAP. Therefore, the THC limit in 
the Portland Cement NESHAP also serves as the baseline of the CO 
analysis. As previously noted, the THC limit is based on the best 
performance of the regenerative thermal oxidizer add-on control, which 
is also the most effective CO emission control available for this 
source category. Therefore we determined that no additional regulation 
of CO emissions is feasible.
    We also noted that in no cases had add-on controls for CO (or VOC) 
been required as BACT under new source review.

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

    Subpart F currently requires PCP to conduct an initial performance 
test to demonstrate compliance with the PM emission limits. There is no 
requirement for repeat performance tests. Under the proposed 
amendments, new kilns would be required to conduct repeat performance 
tests every 5 years following the initial performance test, as is done 
for compliance with the MACT standard for PM for kilns at major sources 
(64 FR 31903, June 14, 1999), and existing kilns subject to the NSPS 
would be required to begin testing every five years. We are also 
requiring existing kilns subject to the NSPS to begin testing every 5 
years. We do not see this as a substantive change because the majority 
of kilns already have a similar testing requirement under the Portland 
Cement NESHAP, 40 CFR 63, subpart LLL.
    There are no NOX or SO2 compliance testing 
requirements; compliance is based on the use of a continuous emissions 
monitor (see below).

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

    We are proposing the use of a bag leak detection (BLD) system on 
fabric filters used to control PM emissions from new kilns and clinker 
coolers. We believe the use of BLD systems would be more effective in 
ensuring ongoing compliance with the PM limit than the current stack 
opacity limit in the current NSPS. Consequently, affected facilities 
under this rule would not be subject to an opacity standard to monitor 
compliance with the proposed PM standard. Bag leak detection systems 
must be installed and operated according to the proposed Sec.  60.63(f) 
requirements. If a new facility installs an ESP we are proposing to 
require use of an ESP predictive model to determine compliance. As with 
use of a bag leak detector, no opacity standard would apply.
    As an option, we are allowing a facility to install a PM CEMS in 
lieu of using a BDL or using an ESP predictive model. If a facility 
elects this option, the PM CEMS should be installed and operated in 
accordance with proposed Sec.  60.63(g).
    For existing sources that are currently subject to the NSPS, we are 
also providing an option to install a BLD to monitor compliance with 
the PM standard. We are also providing an option for any source subject 
to the NSPS PM limit to install a PM

[[Page 34083]]

continuous monitoring system (PM CEMS). For any source that installs a 
BLD or PM CEMS, the opacity standard would no longer apply.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    For all emission sources other than the kiln and clinker cooler 
that are subject to the 10 percent opacity standard, we are requiring 
that they meet the monitoring requirements for these sources contained 
in the Portland Cement NESHAP, 40 CFR part 63, subpart LLL.
    Under the proposed amendments, compliance with the emission limits 
for NOX and SO2 would be determined using 
continuous emissions monitoring systems (CEMS). This requirement is 
consistent with recent State permit requirements that require 
continuous monitoring for NOX and SO2. 
Requirements for the installation, operation, and calibration of each 
CEM, including minimum data requirements are specified in proposed 
Sec.  60.63(k) and (l). Kilns meeting the alternative SO2 
emission limit of 90 percent reduction would also be required to 
continuously monitor SO2 emissions at the scrubber inlet. 
The cost impacts shown in the preamble include all monitoring costs. 
(see footnote 20)

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

    The proposed revisions to the emission limits cover only the cement 
kiln and clinker cooler. The current NSPS also limits emissions from 
materials handling operations. These operations are potential emitters 
of PM, but do not emit other criteria pollutants.
    Emissions from materials handling points are typically fugitive 
emissions, though in some cases emissions are captured and exhausted 
through a stack. The current opacity limit for these operations is 10 
percent. We considered the possibility of setting a lower limit, but we 
do not have data to indicate that a lower limit is achievable or 
whether costs associated with a lower opacity limit are reasonable. We 
currently have no data to indicate that the current level is not what 
is being achieved in practice. We are requesting comment and any 
available data addressing capability, if any, to further reduce opacity 
and, if lower limits are feasible, what the associated costs would be.

E. What other changes are being proposed?

    As previously noted, cement kilns are potentially subject to both 
the NSPS and the Portland Cement NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart LLL). 
In Sec.  63.1356 of subpart LLL, we exempt any source subject to that 
subpart from applicable standards under the NSPS and the Metallic 
Minerals Processing NSPS (subpart OOO). That language was appropriate 
because the NSPS only regulated PM, and the PM limits in the NSPS and 
NESHAP were identical. This is no longer the case. As a result, we are 
proposing to insert language in both the NSPS and the NESHAP to state 
that when there are emissions standards for a specific pollutant that 
apply to an affected sources in both the NESHAP and the NSPS, the 
source should comply with the most stringent limit, and is not subject 
to the less stringent limit.

F. What is EPA's sector-based approach and how is it relevant to this 
rulemaking?

    In the National Academy of Science's 2004 report, ``Air Quality 
Management in the United States,'' the National Research Council (NRC) 
recommended to EPA that standard setting, planning and control strategy 
development be based on integrated assessments that consider multiple 
pollutants and those integrated assessments be conducted in a 
comprehensive and coordinated manner. With these recommendations, EPA 
began to move towards establishing multi-pollutant and sector-based 
approaches to managing emissions and air quality. These sector-based 
approaches essentially expand technical analyses on costs and benefits 
of particular technologies, and interactions of rules that regulate 
sources within facilities. The benefit of multi-pollutant and sector-
based analyses and approaches include the ability to identify optimum 
strategies, considering feasibility, costs, and benefits across all 
pollutant types--criteria, toxics and others--while streamlining 
administrative and compliance complexities and reducing conflicting and 
redundant requirements. With these recommendations, EPA's intent is to 
move toward multi-pollutant and sector-based approaches in managing 
emissions and air quality. One of the many ways we can address sector-
based approaches is by reviewing multiple regulatory programs together 
when ever possible. This approach should result in added certainty and 
easier implementation of control strategies for the sector under 
consideration.
    Multiple regulatory requirements currently apply to the cement 
industry sector. In an effort to facilitate sector-based approaches for 
the cement industry, EPA analyzed the interactions between the NSPS 
under review here and other regulatory requirements for portland cement 
facilities currently under review and/or reconsideration. The 
requirements analyzed would affect HAP and/or criteria pollutant 
emissions from cement kilns and comprise the NSPS, NESHAP 
reconsideration for mercury (Hg) and THC, area source NESHAP, and 
NESHAP technology review and residual risk. The results of our analyses 
are described below.
    The first interaction is the relationship between the NSPS VOC-CO 
standard and the NESHAP THC standard discussed above. As explained 
there, the 20 ppmv THC limit for new sources in the NESHAP will also 
control VOC and CO to the limit of technical feasibility.
    Another interaction relates to the more stringent PM emission limit 
under NSPS and the PM emissions limit for new sources under the NESHAP. 
We are proposing a limit of 0.086 lb/ton of clinker as compared to the 
current new source PM limit in the NESHAP of 0.5 lb/ton of clinker (0.3 
lb/ton of feed). This results in a situation where the MACT PM 
emissions limit for new sources is higher (less stringent) than the 
NSPS emissions limit. As a result, EPA will consider whether or not we 
should address the PM standard in the NESHAP as part of the ongoing 
reconsideration. At a minimum, and as just explained, we are proposing 
to place language in both the NESHAP and the NSPS making it clear that 
if a particular source has two different requirements for the same 
pollutant, they should comply with the most stringent emission limit, 
and are not subject to the less stringent limit.
    The proposed NSPS PM limit also has implications for the PM limit 
for area sources under the NESHAP. We currently have a requirement to 
extend the PM limit in the NESHAP to kilns located at area sources in 
order to meet our requirements to subject to regulation area sources 
accounting for 90 percent of the emissions of the HAP identified in our 
Urban Air Toxics Strategy.\22\ Having a different limit for kilns under 
NESHAP and NSPS has implications for the appropriate PM level to apply 
to new kilns located at area sources under the NESHAP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

[[Page 34084]]

ambient air concentrations of fine PM. While the Agency supports 
reducing condensable PM emissions, the amount of condensable PM 
captured by Method 5 (the PM compliance test method specified in the 
NSPS) is small relative to methods that specifically target condensable 
PM, such as Method 202 (40 CFR part 51, Appendix M). (It should be 
noted that all of the PM data previously discussed is based on the 
front half of the Method 5 train, so it does not include any 
condensable PM). Since promulgation of Method 202 in 1991, EPA has been 
working to overcome problems associated with the accuracy of Method 202 
and will promulgate improvements to the method in the future. In order 
to assist in future sector strategy development, we are specifically 
requesting comment on the levels of condensable PM emitted by the 
cement industry; any condensable PM emission test data collected using 
EPA Conditional Method 39, EPA Method 202 (40 CFR part 51, Appendix M), 
or their equivalent, factors affecting those condensable PM emissions, 
and potential controls.
    In addition to the current regulatory efforts, we are required 
under CAA section 112(f) to evaluate the residual risk for toxic air 
pollutants emitted by this source category and to perform a technology 
review for this source category under section 112(d)(6). As we consider 
any changes in the PM limits under MACT and generally available control 
technology (GACT), we will also consider the implication these may have 
in developing future requirements under residual risk and technology 
review.
    Another interaction with implications for the co-control of mercury 
is the proposed SO2 standard under the NSPS. As described 
above, the proposed standard for SO2 control is 1.33 lb/ton 
of clinker, or in the alternative, demonstration of a 90 percent 
SO2 emissions reduction measured across the control device, 
such as an alkaline scrubber. Under the NESHAP reconsideration, EPA may 
amend the MACT standard for Hg for new and existing sources. A facility 
that is considering adding a new source that may be subject to 
SO2 add-on control requirements will have to consider the 
interaction of their choice of SO2 and mercury controls. For 
example, a facility that determines a moderate level of SO2 
reduction would meet the SO2 emission limit (i.e. 70 percent 
or less) might consider using a lime injection system because it is 
lower cost. However, if the same facility would have to use some type 
of add-on control to meet the current new source Hg emission limit of 
41 micrograms per dry standard cubic meter (ug/dscm), then the cheapest 
overall alternative might be to use a wet scrubber for control of both 
SO2 and mercury.
    In general, we will ensure that our rulemaking recognizes that 
where monitoring is required, methods and reporting requirements should 
be consistent in the NSPS and NESHAP where the pollutants and emission 
sources have similar characteristics. As an example, we are proposing 
to add a requirement to the NSPS that a PM emissions compliance test on 
the kiln and clinker cooler be done every five years, as is currently 
required in the Portland Cement NESHAP for major sources, and we are 
incorporating the Portland Cement NESHAP monitoring requirements for 
sources other than kilns and clinker coolers into the NSPS.
    In order to better analyze future sector-based approaches for the 
U.S. cement industry, EPA is developing a dynamic techno-economic model 
of this industry. Using this model, EPA will be able to analyze 
emission reduction strategies for multiple pollutants, while taking 
into account plant-level economic and technical factors such as the 
type of kiln, associated capacity, location, cost of production, 
applicable controls and costs. For each of the emission reduction 
strategies under consideration, the model will be able to provide 
information on optimal (least cost) industry operation and cost-
effective controls, to meet the demand for cement and the emission 
reduction requirements over the time period of interest. More 
information on the model can be found in the rulemaking docket.
    We welcome comments and suggestions related to the potential uses 
of our techno-economic model as well in the interaction of this 
proposed NSPS and other regulatory requirements in the context of the 
sector-based considerations described above.

G. How is EPA addressing greenhouse gas emissions from the portland 
cement industry?

    While CAA section 111(b)(1)(B) permits EPA, under appropriate 
circumstances, to add new standards of performance for additional 
pollutants concurrent with the 8-year review of existing standards, we 
are not at this time proposing performance standards for greenhouse 
gases (GHG) from cement kilns. Rather, for the reasons recently 
explained in the petroleum refineries NSPS final rule signed on April 
30, 2008, we believe that it is appropriate to consider issues related 
to the regulation of GHGs under the CAA through the advance notice of 
proposed rulemaking announced by the Administrator on March 27, 2008.

V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, Energy, and Economic Impacts of the 
Proposed Amendments to Subpart F

    In setting standards, the CAA requires us to consider alternative 
emission control approaches, taking into account the estimated costs as 
well as impacts on energy, solid waste, and other effects. We request 
comment on whether we have identified the appropriate alternatives and 
whether the proposed standards adequately take into consideration the 
incremental effects in terms of emission reductions, energy, and other 
effects. We will consider the available information in developing the 
final rule.
    We are presenting estimates of the impacts for the proposed 
amendments to 40 CFR part 60, subpart F that change the performance 
standards. The cost, environmental, and economic impacts presented in 
this section are expressed as incremental differences between the 
impacts of PCP complying with the proposed subpart F revisions and the 
baseline. The impacts are presented for new PCP affected facilities 
that commence construction, reconstruction, or modification over the 5 
years following promulgation of the revised NSPS. The analyses and the 
documents referenced below can be found in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2007-0877.
    In order to determine the incremental impacts of this proposed 
rule, we first estimated the number of new kilns that will begin 
operation over the 5-year period following promulgation of the final 
amendments. We estimate that 20 new kilns will be subject to the 
proposed amendments by the end of the 5th year after promulgation of 
the amendments representing approximately 24 million tpy of clinker 
capacity. (see footnote 20)

A. What are the air quality impacts?

    The proposed PM emission limit represents a lowering of the PM 
emission limit from 0.5 lb/ton of clinker production to 0.086 lb/ton of 
clinker. Out review of the performance of recently installed fabric 
filters indicates that typical new kiln PM emissions are approximately 
0.16 lb/ton of clinker rather than 0.5 lb/ton of clinker, the current 
NSPS limit. We estimate that the PM reduction per kiln as a result of 
the proposed PM emissions limits will be 44 tpy based on our 1.2 
million tpy model kiln, and 888 tpy nationally in the fifth year after 
promulgation of the standard. We estimate 45 percent (400

[[Page 34085]]

tpy) of the estimated PM reduction is PM fine.
    Under the proposed limit for NOX, we have estimated that 
the emission reduction for our 1.2 million tpy model kiln would be 600 
tpy. The projected national emissions reduction 5 years after 
promulgation of the final standards will be 12,000 tpy.
    Under the proposed limit for SO2, we estimated that a 
new kiln processing raw materials containing high levels of sulfur 
would be required to install an alkaline scrubber in order to comply 
with the proposed limit. For our model kiln, emissions of 
SO2 would be reduced by 7,410 tpy where high sulfur raw 
materials are being processed. We estimated that during the 5 years 
following promulgation of the final standard, four new kilns are 
expected to be required to install an alkaline scrubber to meet the 
proposed SO2 emission limit. The national emissions 
reduction 5 years after promulgation of the final standards will be 
29,640 tpy. This national emissions reduction may be less than 
estimated above if some kilns that would have to control SO2 
as a result of this proposed rule are required to apply wet scrubbers 
as a result of the current mercury emission requirements in the 
Portland Cement NESHAP (see further discussion in the cost impacts 
section).
    Under the proposed standards, new monitoring requirements would be 
added. Bag leak detectors would be required on fabric filters used to 
control new kilns and clinker coolers, and NOX and 
SO2 CEMS would be installed to monitor compliance of new 
kilns with the new NOX and SO2 emission limits. 
As a result of the shortened duration of excess emissions with the 
improved monitoring requirements we estimate potential excess emission 
reductions of 12.38 tpy for PM, 5.57 tpy for PM2.5, 108 tpy 
for NOX, and 9.36 tpy for SO2. For further detail 
on the methodology of these estimates, see Docket ID no. EPA-HQ-OAR-07-
0877.

B. What are the water quality impacts?

    No water quality impacts for the proposed amendments are 
anticipated. The requirements for new sources that might result in the 
use of alkaline scrubber to control SO2 will produce a 
scrubber slurry liquid waste stream. However, as noted above, we assume 
the scrubber slurry produced will be dewatered and added back into the 
cement-making process as gypsum. Water from the dewatering process will 
be recycled back to the scrubber.

C. What are the solid waste impacts?

    The potential for solid waste impacts are associated with greater 
PM control for new kilns and solids resulting from solids in scrubber 
slurry water. Little or no solid waste is expected from the generation 
of scrubber slurry because (as just explained for the scrubber water) 
it is assumed that the slurry will be dewatered and the solids added 
back to the process as gypsum to make cement. The PM captured in the 
kiln fabric filter (cement kiln dust) is essentially re-captured raw 
material and is recycled back to the kiln. Where equipped with an 
alkali bypass, captured PM is typically disposed of as solid waste. An 
alkali bypass is not required on all kilns. Where one is present, the 
amount of solid waste generated from the alkali bypass is minimal, 
usually about 1 percent of total cement kiln dust captured in control 
devices, because the bypass gas stream is a small percentage of total 
kiln exhaust gas flow and the bypass gas stream does not contact the 
feed stream in the raw mill. (see footnote 1)

D. What are the secondary impacts?

    Indirect or secondary air quality impacts include impacts that 
would result from the increased electricity usage associated with the 
operation of control devices (e.g., increased secondary emissions of 
criteria pollutants from power plants) as well as water quality and 
solid waste impacts that would occur as a result of these proposed 
revisions (which are minimal, as just discussed). We estimate that 
these proposed revisions would increase emissions of pollutants from 
utility boilers that supply electricity to the portland cement 
facilities. We estimate increase energy demand associated with the 
installation of scrubbers to control SO2 emissions. These 
increases are estimated to be 108 tpy of NOX, 56 tpy of CO, 
185 tpy of SO2 and about 5 tpy of PM at the end of the 5th 
year after promulgation. The increase in electricity usage for the 
pumps used in the SNCR system to deliver reagent to the kiln are 
negligible.

E. What are the energy impacts?

    Energy impacts consist of the electricity needed to operate control 
devices and other equipment that would likely be utilized to comply 
with the proposed standards. This proposal will likely result in the 
addition of alkaline scrubbers to certain kilns to reduce 
SO2 emissions. We estimate the additional national 
electrical demand to be 48 million kWhr per year by the end of the 5th 
year.

F. What are the cost impacts?

    Under the proposed amendments, the cost for new kilns are based on 
the use of NOX and SO2 continuous emissions 
monitors, bag leak detectors, SNCR for NOX control, and 
membrane bags in fabric filters. We estimate that four of the twenty 
new kilns will also need to install a wet scrubber to meet the proposed 
SO2 emissions limits (based on our estimates of where the 
plants will be located and the sulfur content of the limestone in those 
areas). The total capital cost per kiln is estimated to be $3,900,000 
kilns that are not required to install wet scrubbers and $32,000,000 
for kilns that are required to install wet scrubbers. The cumulative 
capital cost in the fifth year is estimated to be $190,000,000. The 
estimated total annualized cost per new kiln will be $1,500,000 for 
kilns that do not install wet scrubbers and $6,400,000 for those that 
do install wet scrubbers. National annualized costs will be 
$50,000,000.
    The national costs shown above are considered to be a conservative 
estimate because they do not include the potential impact of 
requirements for new sources in the Portland Cement NESHAP, which 
limits mercury emission form new kilns to 41 micrograms per dry 
standard cubic meter (See 71 FR 76518). In this final rule we estimated 
that seven of the new cement kilns expected in the next five years will 
need to install a wet scrubber to meet the mercury emissions limit, and 
we assessed the costs of those scrubbers as part of our analysis of the 
NESHAP. There are no data to positively determine if the four cement 
kilns we project here as needing wet scrubbers to meet the proposed 
SO2 emissions limit are among the seven kilns we projected 
as needing wet scrubbers to meet the mercury limit in the NESHAP. 
However, the available mercury test data for cement kilns that 
currently have wet scrubbers indicate that all five of these kilns, if 
they were new sources, would have to apply mercury controls to meet the 
current mercury limit in the Portland Cement NESHAP. These kilns are 
also located in areas where the raw materials sulfur content is high 
enough that, if they were new sources, they would also have to apply 
controls to meet the proposed NSPS SO2 emissions limit. 
Based on this, we believe it is reasonable to assume there will be some 
overlap, and the national costs for the proposed NSPS, emissions 
reductions, and energy impacts will be reduced.
    We are requesting comment on the size of model kiln used to assess 
the cost impacts shown above, our growth

[[Page 34086]]

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

G. What are the economic impacts?

    This proposal affects certain new and reconstructed/ modified 
affected facilities found at PCP as defined earlier in this preamble. 
We performed an economic impact analysis that estimates changes in 
prices and output for portland cement manufacturing nationally using 
the annual compliance costs estimated for this proposal. All estimates 
are for the fifth year after promulgation since this is the year for 
which the compliance cost impacts are estimated.
    Existing data on planned capacity expansions suggests 20 new kilns 
will be constructed in the next 5 years. (see footnote 1) EPA estimates 
up to four of these kilns may use high sulfur raw materials while the 
remaining 16 will likely use moderate or low sulfur raw materials.
    The engineering cost analysis suggests new kiln using high sulfur 
raw materials could potentially spend up to $6.4 million dollars per 
year to meet the selected control options for NOX, 
SO2, and PM (see Table 2 of this preamble). The average cost 
per ton of capacity is approximately $5. In contrast, new kilns using 
moderate or low sulfur raw materials could potentially spend $1.5 
million dollars per year. The average cost per ton of capacity is 
approximately $1.

                                           Table 2.--Model Plant Costs
                              [Clinker Capacity = 1.1 million metric tons per year]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                             Total annualized   New source  unit
                       Kiln type                          Number of kilns       costs  ($       cost  ($/metric
                                                          (5-year period)        million)      ton  of capacity)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
High sulfur raw materials..............................                  4               $6.4                 $5
Moderate or low sulfur raw materials...................                 16                1.5                  1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The USGS reports that the real price of cement per metric ton (2005 
dollars) has typically ranged between $75 and $100 since 1990. For high 
sulfur raw material kilns, this implies a sales test ratio between 5 to 
7 percent. For moderate/low sulfur raw material kilns, the sales test 
ratio is one to two percent. From 2000 to 2006, the Portland Cement 
Association (PCA, 2007) reports that the average operating profit rates 
for the industry ranged from 17 to 21 percent. If this profit data is 
representative of operating profit rates for new kilns, new kilns using 
high sulfur content raw materials could potentially have significantly 
reduced operating profits. As a result, companies may have the 
incentive to look for less expensive alternatives to meet the 
SO2 emission standards (e.g. lower sulfur content materials 
or technologies other than wet scrubbers). Although anecdotal evidence 
suggests these opportunities exist, EPA does not currently have 
sufficient information to do a formal evaluation of these alternatives.
    We also considered potential market-level changes in prices and 
consumption for multiple geographic markets anticipating entry of new 
kilns. The sales tests suggest long run cement price changes could 
range from one to seven percent, depending on the actual baseline 
market cement price and the type of kiln entering the market. Applying 
EPA's econometric estimate of the cement demand elasticity (-0.88) to 
these price changes, cement consumption could potentially fall between 
one to six percent.
    For more information, please refer to the economic impact analysis 
report that is in the docket for this proposed rule.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this 
action is a ``significant regulatory action'' because it may raise 
novel legal or policy issues. Accordingly, EPA submitted this action to 
OMB for review under Executive Order 12866, and any changes made in 
response to OMB recommendations have been documented in the docket for 
this action.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The information requirements in the proposed amendments have been 
submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 
under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The 
Information Collection Request (ICR) document prepared by EPA has been 
assigned EPA ICR number 2307.01.
    The proposed amendments to the NSPS for portland cement plants 
apply to affected facilities constructed, modified, or reconstructed 
after June 16, 2008. The owner or operator of a new kiln would be 
required to keep daily records of clinker production, conduct an 
initial performance test and repeat performance tests (PM), install and 
operate bag leak detection systems or PM CEMS for fabric filters used 
to meet the PM emission limit, and operate NOX and 
SO2 CEMS. These requirements are based on the recordkeeping 
and reporting requirements in the NSPS General Provisions (40 CFR part 
60, subpart A) which are mandatory for all operators subject to new 
source performance standards. These recordkeeping and reporting 
requirements are specifically authorized by section 114 of the CAA (42 
U.S.C. 7414). All information submitted to EPA pursuant to the 
recordkeeping and reporting requirements for which a claim of 
confidentiality is made is safeguarded according to EPA policies set 
forth in 40 CFR part 2, subpart B.
    The annual burden for this information collection averaged over the 
first 3 years of this ICR is estimated to total 4,428 labor-hours per 
year at a cost of $416,179 per year. The annualized capital costs are 
estimated at $59,035 per year and operation and maintenance costs are 
estimated at $73,852 per year. Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required 
to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a 
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's 
regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
    To comment on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy 
of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for 
minimizing respondent burden, EPA has established a public docket for 
this rule, which includes this ICR, under Docket ID number EPA-HQ-OAR-
2007-0877. Submit any comments related to the ICR for this proposed 
rule to EPA and OMB.

[[Page 34087]]

See ADDRESSES section at the beginning of this document for where to 
submit comments to EPA. Send comments to OMB at the Office of 
Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 
725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Office for 
EPA. Since OMB is required to make a decision concerning the ICR 
between 30 and 60 days after June 16, 2008, a comment to OMB is best 
assured of having its full effect if OMB receives it by July 16, 2008. 
The final rule will respond to any OMB or public comments on the 
information collection requirements contained in this proposal.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency 
to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to 
notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative 
Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the 
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, 
small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
    For purposes of assessing the impact of this rule on small 
entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business whose parent 
company has no more than 750 employees (as defined by Small Business 
Administration (SBA) size standards); (2) a small governmental 
jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school 
district, or special district with a population of less than 50,000; 
and (3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise 
which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its 
field.
    After considering the economic impact of this proposed rule on 
small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. We estimate 
that up to 7 of the 44 existing PCP are small entities which would not 
incur any impacts under these proposed amendments unless an affected 
facility is constructed, modified, or reconstructed. Based on our 
economic analysis, 20 new kilns may be constructed during the next five 
years. One of these kilns may be operated by a PCP that is classified 
as small entities according to the SBA small business size standards. 
Of these 20 kilns, this small entity is expected to incur an annualized 
compliance cost of between 1.0 and 2.0 percent of sales to comply with 
the proposed action.
    Although this proposed rule will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities, EPA nonetheless has 
tried to reduce the impact of this rule on small entities by selection 
proposed emission level based on highly cost effective controls and 
specifying monitoring requirements that are the minimum to insure 
compliance. In the case where there are overlapping standards between 
this NSPS and the Portland Cement NESHAP, we have exempted source from 
the least stringent requirement thereby eliminating overlapping 
monitoring, testing and reporting requirements by proposing that the 
source comply with only the more stringent of the standards. We 
continue to be interested in the potential impacts of the proposed rule 
on small entities and welcome comments on issues related to such 
impacts.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) of 1995, Public 
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the 
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal 
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA 
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit 
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that 
may result in expenditures by State, local, and tribal governments, in 
the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any 
one year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement 
is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify 
and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt 
the least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative 
that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 
do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, 
section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least 
costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative if the 
Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that 
alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory 
requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small 
governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under 
section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must 
provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling 
officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely 
input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant 
Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and 
advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory 
requirements.
    EPA has determined that this rule does not contain a Federal 
mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for 
State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private 
sector in any one year. As discussed earlier in this preamble, the 
estimated expenditures for the private sector in the fifth year after 
promulgation are $50 million. Thus, this rule is not subject to the 
requirements of section 202 and 205 of the UMRA. In addition, EPA has 
determined that this proposed action contains no regulatory 
requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small 
governments. This rule contains no requirements that apply to such 
governments, imposes no obligations upon them, and would not result in 
expenditures by them of $100 million or more in any one year or any 
disproportionate impacts on them. Therefore, this proposed action is 
not subject to the requirements of section 203 of the UMRA.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), requires EPA 
to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely 
input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory 
policies that have federalism implications.'' ``Policies that have 
federalism implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include 
regulations that have ``substantial direct effects on the States, on 
the relationship between the national government and the States, or on 
the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels 
of government.''
    This proposed rule does not have federalism implications. It will 
not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship 
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution 
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, 
as specified in Executive Order 13132. None of the affected facilities 
are owned or operated by State governments. Thus, Executive Order 13132 
does not apply to this proposed rule.
    In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent with EPA 
policy to promote communications between EPA and State and local 
governments, EPA specifically solicits comment on this proposed action 
from State and local officials.

[[Page 34088]]

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

    Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination 
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), 
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful 
and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory 
policies that have tribal implications.'' This proposed rule does not 
have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. It 
will not have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the 
relationship between the Federal government and Indian tribes, or on 
the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal 
government and Indian tribes, as specified in Executive Order 13175. 
The proposed rule imposes requirements on owners and operators of 
specified industrial facilities and not tribal governments. Thus, 
Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this proposed rule. EPA 
specifically solicits additional comment on this proposed rule from 
tribal officials.

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

    EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying to those 
regulatory actions that concern health or safety risks, such that the 
analysis required under section 5-501 of the Order has the potential to 
influence the regulation. This action is not subject to Executive Order 
13045 because it is based solely on technology performance.

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

    This rule is not a ``significant energy action'' as defined in 
Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 
28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not likely to have a significant 
adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. Further, 
we have concluded that this proposed rule is not likely to have any 
adverse energy effects. This proposal will result in the addition of 
alkaline scrubbers to certain kilns to reduce SO2 emissions. 
We estimate the additional electrical demand to be 6.9 million kWhr per 
year by the end of the 5th year.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law No. 104-113 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) 
directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS) in its 
regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with 
applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards 
are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, 
sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or 
adopted by VCS bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through 
OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and 
applicable VCS.
    This proposed rulemaking involves technical standards. EPA proposes 
to use the VCS ASME PTC 19.10-1981, ``Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses,'' 
for its manual methods of measuring the content of the exhaust gas. 
These parts of ASME PTC 19.10-1981 are acceptable alternatives to EPA 
Methods 3B, 6, 6A, 7, and 7C. This standard is available from the 
American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME), Three Park Avenue, New 
York, NY 10016-5990.
    While the Agency has identified 12 other VCS as being potentially 
applicable to this rule, we have decided not to use these VCS in this 
rulemaking. The use of these VCS would have been impractical because 
they do not meet the objectives of the standards cited in this rule. 
See the docket for this rule for the reasons for these determinations.
    Under 40 CFR 60.13(i) of the NSPS General Provisions, a source may 
apply to EPA for permission to use alternative test methods or 
alternative monitoring requirements in place of any required testing 
methods, performance specifications, or procedures in the final rule 
and amendments.
    EPA welcomes comments on this aspect of this proposed rulemaking 
and specifically invites the public to identify potentially applicable 
voluntary consensus standards and to explain why such standards should 
be used in this regulation.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental 
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes 
Federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision 
directs Federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and 
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission 
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high 
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, 
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income 
populations in the United States. EPA has determined that the proposed 
amendments will not have disproportionately high and adverse human 
health or environmental effects on minority or low-income populations 
because they would increase the level of environmental protection for 
all affected populations without having any disproportionately high and 
adverse human health or environmental effects on any population, 
including any minority or low-income population. These proposed 
standards would reduce emissions of PM, NOX, and 
SO2 from all new, reconstructed, or modified affected 
facilities at PCP, decreasing the amount of such emissions to which all 
affected populations are exposed.

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 60

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, 
Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental 
relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

40 CFR Part 63

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control.

    Dated: May 30, 2008.
Stephen L. Johnson,
Administrator.
    For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, of the 
Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as follows:

PART 60--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for part 60 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart A--[Amended]

    2. Section 60.17 is amended by revising paragraph (h)(4) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  60.17  Incorporations by reference.

* * * * *
    (h) * * *
    (4) ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10-1981, Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses [Part 
10, Instruments and Apparatus], IBR approved for Sec.  60.63(i)(2) and 
(i)(4) of subpart F, Tables 1 and 3 of subpart EEEE, Tables 2 and 4 of 
subpart FFFF, Table 2 of subpart JJJJ, and Sec. Sec.  60.4415(a)(2) and 
60.4415(a)(3) of subpart KKKK of this part.
* * * * *

[[Page 34089]]

Subpart F--[Amended]

    3. Section 60.62 is amended as follows:
    a. Revising the section heading.
    b. Revising paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2)
    c. Adding paragraphs (a)(3) and (a)(4);
    d. Revising paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2); and
    e. Adding paragraph (d) to read as follows:


Sec.  60.62  Standards.

    (a) * * *
    (1) Contain particulate matter (PM) in excess of:
    (i) 0.15 kg per metric ton of feed (dry basis) to the kiln (0.30 lb 
per ton) if construction, reconstruction, or modification of the kiln 
commences after August 17, 1971 but on or before June 16, 2008.
    (ii) 0.086 pound per ton of clinker if construction, 
reconstruction, or modification of the kiln commences after June 16, 
2008.
    (2) Exhibit greater than 20 percent opacity, except that this 
opacity limit does not apply to a kiln subject to the PM limit in 
paragraph (a)(1)(i) of this section that uses a bag leak detection 
system, ESP predictive model, or a PM continuous emission monitoring 
system.
    (3) Exceed 1.50 pounds of nitrogen oxide (NOX) per ton 
of clinker on a 30-day rolling average if construction, reconstruction, 
or modification of the kiln commences after June 16, 2008.
    (4) For sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions from a kiln for 
which construction, reconstruction, or modification commences after 
June 16, 2008:
    (i) Exceed 1.33 pounds per ton of clinker on a 30-day rolling 
average; or
    (ii) The owner or operator must reduce SO2 emissions 
exiting the kiln by 90 percent or greater.
    (b) * * *
    (1) Contain PM in excess of:
    (i) 0.050 kg per metric ton of feed (dry basis) to the kiln (0.10 
lb per ton) if construction, reconstruction, or modification of the 
clinker cooler commenced after August 17, 1971 but on or before June 
16, 2008.
    (ii) 0.086 pound per ton of clinker if construction, 
reconstruction, or modification of the clinker cooler commences after 
June 16, 2008.
    (2) Exhibit 10 percent opacity, or greater, except that this 
opacity limit does not apply to a clinker cooler subject to the PM 
limit in paragraph (b)(1)(i) of this section that uses a bag leak 
detection system, ESP predictive model or PM continuous emission 
monitoring system.
* * * * *
    (d) If an affected facility subject to this subpart has a different 
emission limit or requirement for the same pollutant under another 
regulation in title 40 of this chapter, the owner or operator of the 
affected facility must comply with the most stringent emission limit or 
requirement and is not subject to the less stringent requirement.
    4. Section 60.63 is amended by:
    a. Revising paragraph (a);
    b. Revising paragraph (b);
    c. Revising the first sentence in paragraph (c);
    d. Adding paragraphs (f) through (n) to read as follows:


Sec.  60.63  Monitoring of operations.

    (a) The owner or operator of any portland cement plant subject to 
the provisions of this subpart shall record the daily clinker 
production rates and kiln feed rates.
    (b) The owner or operator of a kiln or clinker cooler must monitor 
PM emissions according to the applicable requirements in paragraph 
(b)(1) or (2) of this section.
    (1) For a kiln or clinker cooler that that was constructed, 
reconstructed, or modified after August 17, 1971 but on or before June 
16, 2008, the owner or operator must:
    (i) Install, calibrate, maintain, and operate in accordance with 
Sec.  60.13 a continuous opacity monitoring system (COMS) to measure 
the opacity of emissions discharged into the atmosphere from any kiln 
or clinker cooler except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section. 
Each owner or operator of an affected kiln or clinker cooler for which 
the performance test required under Sec.  60.8 has been completed on or 
prior to December 14, 1988, must install the COMS within 180 days after 
December 14, 1988. The COMS must be installed on each stack of any 
multiple stack control device for emissions from any kiln or clinker 
cooler. If there is a separate bypass stack installed, the owner or 
operator also must install, calibrate, maintain, and operate a COMS on 
each bypass stack in addition to the main control device stack; or
    (ii) Install, operate, and maintain a bag leak detection system on 
each fabric filter used to control PM emissions according to the 
procedures in paragraph (f) of this section; or
    (iii) Install, operate, and maintain an instrument for continuously 
monitoring and recording the concentration of PM emissions into the 
atmosphere according to the requirements in paragraph (g) of this 
section.
    (2) For a kiln or clinker cooler that is constructed, modified, or 
reconstructed or after June 16, 2008, the owner or operator must:
    (i) Install, operate, and maintain a bag leak detection system on 
each fabric filter used to control PM emissions according to the 
requirements in paragraph (f) of this section; and
    (ii) Monitor the performance of any electrostatic precipitator 
(ESP) used to control PM emissions according to the requirements in 
paragraph (o) of this section; or
    (iii) Install, operate, and maintain an instrument for continuously 
monitoring and recording the concentration of PM emissions into the 
atmosphere according to the requirements in paragraph (g) of this 
section.
    (c) Each owner or operator of a kiln or clinker cooler that was 
constructed, reconstructed, or modified on or before June 16, 2008 
using a positive-pressure fabric filter with multiple stacks, or a 
negative-pressure fabric filter with multiple stacks, or an 
electrostatic precipitator with multiple stacks may, instead of 
installing the COMS required by paragraph (b)(1)(i) of this section, 
monitor visible emissions at least once per day by using a certified 
visible emissions observer.* * *
* * * * *
    (f) The owner or operator must install, operate, and maintain the 
bag leak detection system according to paragraphs (f) (1) through (3) 
of this section.
    (1) Each bag leak detection system must meet the specifications and 
requirements in paragraphs (f)(1) (i) through (viii) of this section.
    (i) The bag leak detection system must be certified by the 
manufacturer to be capable of detecting PM emissions at concentrations 
of 1 milligram per dry standard cubic meter (0.00044 grains per actual 
cubic foot) or less.
    (ii) The bag leak detection system sensor must provide output of 
relative PM loadings. The owner or operator shall continuously record 
the output from the bag leak detection system using electronic or other 
means (e.g., using a strip chart recorder or a data logger).
    (iii) The bag leak detection system must be equipped with an alarm 
system that will sound when the system detects an increase in relative 
particulate loading over the alarm set point established according to 
paragraph (f)(1)(iv) of this section, and the alarm must be located 
such that it can be heard by the appropriate plant personnel.
    (iv) In the initial adjustment of the bag leak detection system, 
you must establish, at a minimum, the baseline output by adjusting the 
sensitivity

[[Page 34090]]

(range) and the averaging period of the device, the alarm set points, 
and the alarm delay time.
    (v) Following initial adjustment, you shall not adjust the 
averaging period, alarm set point, or alarm delay time without approval 
from the Administrator or delegated authority except as provided in 
paragraph (f)(1)(vi) of this section.
    (vi) Once per quarter, you may adjust the sensitivity of the bag 
leak detection system to account for seasonal effects, including 
temperature and humidity, according to the procedures identified in the 
site-specific monitoring plan required by paragraph (c)(2) of this 
section.
    (vii) You must install the bag leak detection sensor downstream of 
the fabric filter.
    (viii) Where multiple detectors are required, the system's 
instrumentation and alarm may be shared among detectors.
    (2) You must develop and submit to the Administrator or delegated 
authority for approval a site-specific monitoring plan for each bag 
leak detection system. You must operate and maintain the bag leak 
detection system according to the site-specific monitoring plan at all 
times. Each monitoring plan must describe the items in paragraphs 
(f)(2) (i) through (vi) of this section.
    (i) Installation of the bag leak detection system;
    (ii) Initial and periodic adjustment of the bag leak detection 
system, including how the alarm set-point will be established;
    (iii) Operation of the bag leak detection system, including quality 
assurance procedures;
    (iv) How the bag leak detection system will be maintained, 
including a routine maintenance schedule and spare parts inventory 
list;
    (v) How the bag leak detection system output will be recorded and 
stored; and
    (vi) Corrective action procedures as specified in paragraph (f)(3) 
of this section. In approving the site-specific monitoring plan, the 
Administrator or delegated authority may allow owners and operators 
more than 3 hours to alleviate a specific condition that causes an 
alarm if the owner or operator identifies in the monitoring plan this 
specific condition as one that could lead to an alarm, adequately 
explains why it is not feasible to alleviate this condition within 3 
hours of the time the alarm occurs, and demonstrates that the requested 
time will ensure alleviation of this condition as expeditiously as 
practicable.
    (3) For each bag leak detection system, you must initiate 
procedures to determine the cause of every alarm within 1 hour of the 
alarm. Except as provided in paragraph (f)(2)(vi) of this section, you 
must alleviate the cause of the alarm within 3 hours of the alarm by 
taking whatever corrective action(s) are necessary. Corrective actions 
may include, but are not limited to the following:
    (i) Inspecting the fabric filter for air leaks, torn or broken bags 
or filter media, or any other condition that may cause an increase in 
PM emissions;
    (ii) Sealing off defective bags or filter media;
    (iii) Replacing defective bags or filter media or otherwise 
repairing the control device;
    (iv) Sealing off a defective fabric filter compartment;
    (v) Cleaning the bag leak detection system probe or otherwise 
repairing the bag leak detection system; or
    (vi) Shutting down the process producing the PM emissions.
    (g) The owner or operator of a kiln or clinker cooler using a PM 
continuous emission monitoring system (CEMS) to demonstrate compliance 
with the emission limit in Sec.  60.62 (a) or (b) must install, 
certify, operate, and maintain the CEMS as specified in paragraphs (g) 
(1) through (3) of this section.
    (1) The owner or operator must conduct a performance evaluation of 
the PM CEMS according to the applicable requirements of Sec.  60.13, 
Performance Specification 11 of Appendix B of part 60, and Procedure 2 
of Appendix F to part 60.
    (2) During each relative accuracy test run of the CEMS required by 
Performance Specification 11 of Appendix B to part 60, PM and oxygen 
(or carbon dioxide) data must be collected concurrently (or within a 
30-to 60-minute period) during operation of the CEMS and when 
conducting performance tests using the following test methods:
    (i) For PM, Method 5 or 5B of Appendix A-5 to part 60 or Method 17 
of Appendix A-6 to part 60.
    (ii) For oxygen (or carbon dioxide), Method 3, 3A, or 3B of 
Appendix A-2 to part 60, as applicable.
    (3) Procedure 2 of Appendix F to part 60 for quarterly accuracy 
determinations and daily calibration drift tests. The owner or operator 
must perform Relative Response Audit's annually and Response 
Correlation Audits every 3 years.
    (h) The owner or operator of a kiln constructed, modified or 
reconstructed on or after June 16, 2008 must install, calibrate, 
maintain and operate a permanent weigh scale system, or use another 
method approved by the Administrator, to measure and record weight 
rates in tons-mass per hour of the amount of clinker produced. The 
system of measuring hourly clinker production must be maintained within 
5 percent accuracy.
    (i) Each owner or operator subject to the NOX emissions 
limit for a kiln in Sec.  60.62(a)(3) shall install, operate, 
calibrate, and maintain an instrument for continuously monitoring and 
recording the concentration by volume of NOX emissions into 
the atmosphere.
    (j) Each owner or operator subject to the SO2 emissions 
limit in Sec.  60.62(a)(4) for a kiln shall install, operate, 
calibrate, and maintain an instrument for continuously monitoring and 
recording the concentration by volume of SO2 emissions into 
the atmosphere. If complying with the alternative 90 percent 
SO2 emissions reduction emission limit, you must also for 
continuously monitor and record the concentration by volume of 
SO2 emissions at the wet scrubber inlet.
    (k) The owner or operator of each CEMS required under paragraphs 
(i) and (j) of this section, shall install, operate, and maintain each 
monitoring system according to Performance Specification 2 (40 CFR part 
60, appendix B) and the requirements in paragraphs (k) (1) through (5) 
of this section.
    (1) The span value of each NOX monitor shall be set at 
125 percent of the maximum estimated hourly potential NOX 
emission concentration that translates to the applicable emission limit 
at full clinker production capacity.
    (2) The owner or operator shall conduct performance evaluations of 
each NOX monitor according to the requirements in Sec.  
60.13(c) and Performance Specification 2 of Appendix B to part 60. The 
owner or operator shall use Methods 7, 7A, 7C, 7D, or 7E of appendix A-
4 to part 60 for conducting the relative accuracy evaluations. The 
method ASME PTC 19.10-1981, ``Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses,'' 
(incorporated by reference--see Sec.  60.17) is an acceptable 
alternative to EPA Method 7 or 7C of Appendix A-4 to part 60.
    (3) The span value for the SO2 monitor must be set at 
125 percent of the maximum estimated hourly potential SO2 
emission concentration that translates to the applicable emission limit 
at full clinker production capacity.
    (4) The owner or operator must conduct performance evaluations of 
each SO2 monitor according to the requirements in Sec.  
60.13(c) and Performance Specification 2 of Appendix B to part 60. The 
owner or

[[Page 34091]]

operator shall use Methods 6, 6A, or 6C of Appendix A-4 to part 60 for 
conducting the relative accuracy evaluations. The method ASME PTC 
19.10-1981, ``Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses,'' (incorporated by 
reference--see Sec.  60.17) is an acceptable alternative to EPA Method 
6 or 6A of Appendix A-4 to part 60.
    (5) The owner or operator must comply with the quality assurance 
requirements in Procedure 1 of Appendix F to part 60 for each monitor, 
including quarterly accuracy determinations for monitors, and daily 
calibration drift tests.
    (l) The owner or operator of each CEMS required under paragraphs 
(i) and (j) of this section must operate the monitoring system and 
record data during all periods of operation of the affected facility 
including periods of startup, shutdown, malfunction, except for 
continuous monitoring system breakdowns, repairs, calibration checks, 
and zero and span adjustments.
    (1) The owner or operator must obtain emission data for at least 18 
hours in at least 22 out of 30 successive kiln operating days. For each 
valid hour, the owner or operator also must obtain valid exhaust flow 
rate data, as specified in paragraph (m)(6) of this section.
    (2) The owner or operator must meet the requirements of Sec.  
60.13(h) when determining the 1-hour averages of emissions data needed 
to meet the minimum data requirements specified in paragraph (l)(1) of 
this section.
    (m) Each owner or operator of a kiln subject to the NOX 
emissions limit in Sec.  60.62(a)(3) or the SO2 emissions 
limit in Sec.  60.62(a)(4)(i) or (ii) must install, operate, calibrate, 
and maintain an instrument for continuously measuring and recording the 
exhaust flow rate to the atmosphere according to the requirements in 
paragraphs (m)(1) through (9) of this section.
    (1) The owner or operator must install each sensor of the flow rate 
monitoring system in a location that provides representative 
measurement of the exhaust gas flow rate at the sampling location of 
the NOX and SO2 CEMS, taking into account the 
manufacturer's recommendations.
    (2) The flow rate monitoring system must be designed to measure the 
exhaust flow rate over a range that extends from a value of at least 20 
percent less than the lowest expected exhaust flow rate to a value of 
at least 20 percent greater than the highest expected exhaust flow 
rate.
    (3) The flow rate monitoring system must have a minimum accuracy of 
5 percent of the flow rate or greater.
    (4) The flow rate monitoring system must be equipped with a data 
acquisition and recording system that is capable of recording values 
over the entire range specified in paragraph (l)(2) of this section.
    (5) The signal conditioner, wiring, power supply, and data 
acquisition and recording system for the flow rate monitoring system 
must be compatible with the output signal of the flow rate sensors used 
in the monitoring system.
    (6) The flow rate monitoring system must be designed to complete a 
minimum of one cycle of operation for each successive 15-minute period. 
To have a valid hour of data, the flow rate monitoring system must 
measure and record at least three of four equally-spaced data values 
(or at least 75 percent of the total number of values) for each hour 
(not including startup, shutdown, malfunction, or out-of-control 
periods).
    (7) The owner or operator must perform an initial calibration of 
the flow rate monitoring system according to manufacturer's 
recommendations.
    (8) The owner or operator must check the accuracy of the monitoring 
system at least once per year according to manufacturer's 
recommendations.
    (9) The owner or operator must operate the flow rate monitoring 
system and record data during all periods of operation of the affected 
facility including periods of startup, shutdown, malfunction, except 
for monitoring system breakdowns, repairs, and calibration checks.
    (n) You must monitor the performance of any ESP specified in 
paragraph (b)(2)(ii) of this section in accordance with the 
requirements in paragraph (o)(1) through (5) of this section.
    (1) You must calibrate the ESP predictive model with each PM 
control device used to comply with the applicable PM emissions limit in 
Sec.  60.62(a)(ii) or (b)(ii) operating under normal conditions. In 
cases when a wet scrubber is used in combination with an ESP to comply 
with the PM emissions limit, the daily average liquid-to-gas flow rate 
for the wet scrubber must be maintained at 90 percent of average ratio 
measured during all test run intervals for the performance test 
conducted according to paragraph (o)(1) of this section.
    (2) You must develop a site-specific monitoring plan that includes 
a description of the ESP predictive model used, the model input 
parameters, and the procedures and criteria for establishing monitoring 
parameter baseline levels indicative of compliance with the PM 
emissions limit. You must submit the site-specific monitoring plan for 
approval by the permitting authority. For reference purposes in 
preparing the monitoring plan, see the OAQPS ``Compliance Assurance 
Monitoring (CAM) Protocol for an Electrostatic Precipitator (ESP) 
Controlling Particulate Matter (PM) Emissions from a Coal-Fired 
Boiler.'' This document is available from the U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency (U.S. EPA); Office of Air Quality Planning and 
Standards; Sector Policies and Programs Division; Measurement Policy 
Group (D243-02), Research Triangle Park, NC 27711. This document is 
also available on the Technology Transfer Network (TTN) under Emission 
Measurement Center Continuous Emission Monitoring.
    (3) You must run the ESP predictive model using the applicable 
input data each boiler operating day and evaluate the model output for 
the preceding boiler operating day excluding periods of affected source 
startup, shutdown, or malfunction. If the values for one or more of the 
model parameters exceed the applicable baseline levels determined 
according to your approved site-specific monitoring plan, you must 
initiate investigation of the relevant equipment and control systems 
within 24 hours of the first discovery of a model parameter deviation 
and take the appropriate corrective action as soon as practicable to 
adjust control settings or repair equipment to return the model output 
to within the applicable baseline levels.
    (4) You must record the ESP predictive model inputs and outputs and 
any corrective actions taken. The record of corrective action taken 
must include the date and time during which the model output values 
exceeded the applicable baseline levels, and the date, time, and 
description of the corrective action.
    (5) If after 7 consecutive days a model parameter continues to 
exceed the applicable baseline level, then you must conduct a new PM 
performance test according to paragraph (o)(1) of this section. This 
new performance test must be conducted within 60 days of the date that 
the model parameter was first determined to exceed its baseline level 
unless a wavier is granted by the permitting authority.
    5. Section 60.64 is amended by:
    a. Revising paragraph (b) introductory text and paragraph (b)(1); 
and
    b. Adding paragraphs (b)(5) and (b)(6); and
    c. Adding paragraph (c).


Sec.  60.64  Test methods and procedures.

* * * * *

[[Page 34092]]

    (b) The owner or operator must determine compliance with the PM 
standard in Sec.  60.62(a)(1) as follows:
    (1) The emission rate (E) of PM must be computed for each run using 
the Equation 1 of this section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP16JN08.000

Where:

E = emission rate of particulate matter, kg/ metric ton (lb/ton) of 
kiln feed;
Cs = concentration of particulate matter, g/dscm (gr/dscf);
Qsd = volumetric flow rate of effluent gas, dscm/hr (dscf/hr);
P = total kiln feed (dry basis) rate, metric ton/ hr (ton/hr). For 
kilns constructed, modified or reconstructed on or after June 16, 
2008, p = total kiln clinker production rate; and
K = conversion factor, 1000 g/kg (7000 gr/lb).
* * * * *
    (5) The owner or operator of a kiln (including any associated 
alkali bypass and clinker cooler) that is constructed, modified or 
reconstructed on or after June 16, 2008, must conduct a performance 
test every 5 years following the initial performance test. Kilns 
(including any associated alkali bypass and clinker cooler) 
constructed, reconstructed, or modified after August 17, 1971, but on 
or before June 16, 2008, must conduct a performance test every 5 years.
    (6) Any sources other than kilns (including associated alkali 
bypass and cooler) subject to the 10 percent opacity limit must follow 
the appropriate monitoring procedures in Sec.  63.1350 of this chapter.
    (c) The owner or operator must calculate and record the 30-day 
rolling emission rate of NOX and SO2 as the total 
of all hourly emissions data for a cement kiln in the preceding 30 
days, divided by the total tons of clinker produced in that kiln during 
the same 30-day period using Equation 2 of this section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP16JN08.001

Where:

E = emission rate of NOX or SO2, kg/metric ton 
(lb/ton) of clinker production;
Cs = concentration of NOX or SO2, g/dscm (gr/
dscf);
Qsd = volumetric flow rate of effluent gas, dscm/hr (dscf/hr);
P = total kiln clinker production rate, metric ton/hr (ton/hr); and
K = conversion factor, 1000 g/kg (7000 gr/lb).

    6. Section 60.66 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  60.66  Delegation of authority.

    (a) This subpart can be implemented and enforced by the U.S. EPA or 
a delegated authority such as a State, local, or tribal agency. You 
should contact your U.S. EPA Regional Office to find out if this 
subpart is delegated to a State, local, or tribal agency within your 
State.
    (b) In delegating implementation and enforcement authority to a 
State, local, or tribal agency, the approval authorities contained in 
paragraphs (b)(1) through (4) of this section are retained by the 
Administrator of the U.S. EPA and are not transferred to the State, 
local, or tribal agency.
    (1) Approval of an alternative non-opacity emission standard.
    (2) Approval of a major change to test methods under Sec.  60.8(b). 
A ``major change to test method'' is defined in 40 CFR 63.90.
    (3) Approval of a major change to monitoring under Sec.  60.13(i). 
A ``major change to monitoring'' is defined in 40 CFR 63.90.
    (4) Approval of a major change to recordkeeping/reporting under 
Sec.  60.7(b) through (f). A ``major change to recordkeeping/
reporting'' is defined in 40 CFR 63.90.

PART 63--[AMENDED]

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

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

Subpart LLL--[Amended]

    8. Section 63.1356 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  63.1356  Sources with multiple emission limits.

    If an affected facility subject to this subpart has a different 
emission limit or requirement for the same pollutant under another 
regulation in title 40 of this chapter, the owner or operator of the 
affected facility must comply with the most stringent emission limit or 
requirement and is exempt from the less stringent requirement.

 [FR Doc. E8-12619 Filed 6-13-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
