Federal Register, Volume 78 Issue 29 (Tuesday, February 12, 2013)

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 29 (Tuesday, February 12, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 10005-10054]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-31633]

[[Page 10005]]

Vol. 78

Tuesday,

No. 29

February 12, 2013

Part II

Environmental Protection Agency

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

40 CFR Parts 60 and 63

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for the
Portland Cement Manufacturing Industry and Standards of Performance for
Portland Cement Plants; Final Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 78 , No. 29 / Tuesday, February 12, 2013 /
Rules and Regulations

[[Page 10006]]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 60 and 63

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0817; FRL-9758-6]
RIN 2060-AQ93

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for the
Portland Cement Manufacturing Industry and Standards of Performance for
Portland Cement Plants

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: On July 18, 2012, the EPA proposed amendments to the National
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for the Portland Cement
Manufacturing Industry and the Standards of Performance for Portland
Cement Plants. This final action amends the national emission standards
for hazardous air pollutants for the Portland cement industry. The EPA
is also promulgating amendments with respect to issues on which it
granted reconsideration on May 17, 2011. In addition, the EPA is
amending the new source performance standard for particulate matter.
These amendments promote flexibility, reduce costs, ease compliance and
preserve health benefits. The amendments also address the remand of the
national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants for the
Portland cement industry by the United States Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit on December 9, 2011. Finally, the EPA is
setting the date for compliance with the existing source national
emission standards for hazardous air pollutants to be September 9,
2015.

DATES: This final rule is effective on February 12, 2013. The EPA is
setting the compliance date for existing open clinker storage piles to
be February 12, 2014.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0817. All documents in the docket are
listed in the http://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in
the index, some information is not publicly available, for example,
confidential business information 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
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center, EPA West
Building, 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: For questions about this final action,
contact Ms. Sharon Nizich, Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards; Sector Policies and Programs Division, Minerals and
Manufacturing Group (D243-04); Environmental Protection Agency;
Research Triangle Park, NC 27111; telephone number: (919) 541-2825; fax
number: (919) 541-5450; email address: nizich.sharon@epa.gov. For
information about the applicability of the NESHAP or NSPS contact Mr.
Patrick Yellin, Monitoring, Assistance and Media Programs Division
(2227A), Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington,
DC 20460; telephone number (202) 654-2970; email address
yellin.patrick@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Acronyms and Abbreviations. The following acronyms and
abbreviations are used in this document.

APCD air pollution control devices
CAA Clean Air Act
CBI confidential business information
CDX Central Data Exchange
CEMS continuous emission monitoring systems
CEDRI Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CISWI commercial and industrial solid waste incinerators
CMS continuous monitoring system
COMS continuous opacity monitoring system
CO2 carbon dioxide
CPMS continuous parametric monitoring system
D/F dioxins and furans
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
ESP Electrostatic Precipitators
ERT Electronic Reporting Tool
FR Federal Register
gr/dscf grains per dry standard cubic foot
HAP hazardous air pollutants
Hg mercury
HCl hydrogen chloride
ICR information collection request
Lb/ton pound per ton
MACT maximum achievable control technology
meHg methylmercury
NAICS North American Industry Classification System
NAS National Academy of Science
NESHAP National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
NHSM Nonhazardous Secondary Materials
NOX Nitrogen Oxides
NRC National Research Council
NSPS new source performance standards
NTTAA National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
oHAP Non-dioxin organic hazardous air pollutants
OMB Office of Management and Budget
PCA Portland Cement Association
PM particulate matter
ppm(v) (d,w) parts per million (by volume) (dry, wet)
RATA Relative Accuracy Test Audit
RfD reference dose
RIA regulatory impact analysis
RTC Response to Comment
RTO regenerative thermal oxidizers
SIP state implementation plan
SO2 Sulphur Dioxide
THC total hydrocarbons
tpy tons per year
TTN Technology Transfer Network
[micro]g/m³ micrograms per cubic meter
UPL Upper Prediction Limit
UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
TEOM Tapered Element Oscillating Microbalance
VCS voluntary consensus standards
WWW worldwide web

Background Information Document. On July 18, 2012 (77 FR 42368),
the EPA proposed to amend the Portland cement manufacturing industry
NESHAP and the Portland cement plant new source performance standards
(NSPS). In this action, we are taking final action on this proposal. A
summary of the public comments on the proposal and the EPA's responses
to those comments is available in Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-
0817.
Organization of this Document. The information presented in this
preamble is organized as follows:

I. General Information
A. Executive Summary
B. Does this action apply to me?
C. Where can I get a copy of this document?
D. Judicial Review
II. Background Information
A. What is the statutory authority for these amendments?
B. What actions preceded this final rule?
III. Summary of Final Amendments to Subpart LLL and Subpart F
A. Reconsideration of Standards
B. Continuously Monitored Parameters for Alternative Organic HAP
Standard (With THC Monitoring Parameter)
C. Allowing Sources With Dry Caustic Scrubbers To Comply With
HCl Standard Using Performance Tests
D. Alternative PM Limit
E. Coal Mills
F. NESHAP Compliance Date Extension for Existing Sources
G. Section 112 Eligibility To Be a New Source
H. Other Testing and Monitoring Revisions
I. Miscellaneous Amendments
J. Standards During Periods of Startup and Shutdown

[[Page 10007]]

K. Reporting for Malfunctions and Affirmative Defense for
Violation of Emission Standards During Malfunctions
L. What are the compliance dates of the standards?
M. Open Clinker Storage Piles
IV. Summary of Major Changes Since Proposal
A. PM Parametric Monitoring
B. Scaling for Continuous Parametric Monitoring of THC for
Alternative OHAP Standard
C. Work Practice Standard in Lieu of Numerical Emissions Limits
for Periods of Startup and Shutdown
V. Summary of Significant Comments and Responses
A. Amendments to Existing Source and New Source Standards for PM
Under CAA Sections 112(d) and 111(b)
B. Mercury Standard
C. Standards for Fugitive Emissions From Open Clinker Storage
Piles
D. September 9, 2015, Compliance Date for the Amended Existing
Source Standards
E. Eligibility to be a New Source Under NESHAP
VI. Summary of Cost, Environmental, Energy and Economic Impacts
A. What are the affected sources?
B. How did EPA evaluate the impacts of these amendments?
C. What are the air quality impacts?
D. What are the water quality impacts?
E. What are the solid waste impacts?
F. What are the secondary impacts?
G. What are the energy impacts?
H. What are the cost impacts?
I. What are the health effects of these pollutants?
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory 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
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
K. Congressional Review Act

I. General Information

A. Executive Summary

In this action the EPA is finalizing amendments to the NESHAP for
Portland cement plants and to the NSPS for Portland cement plants.
These amendments respond to petitions for reconsideration filed by the
Portland cement industry and to a decision by the United States Court
of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit). The EPA
is retaining the stack emission standards for mercury, hydrogen
chloride (HCl), and total hydrocarbons (THC) under the NESHAP, amending
the stack emission standard for particulate matter (PM) under the
NESHAP, and making a conforming amendment to the NSPS for PM. The
amendments also include provisions which account for commingled HAP
emissions from coal mills that are an integral part of the kiln,
establish a continuous monitoring regime for parametric monitoring of
PM, set work practice standards for startup and shutdown, and revise
the compliance date for the PM, mercury, HCl, THC and clinker storage
pile existing source standards under the NESHAP. The EPA is also
retaining the affirmative defense for civil penalties for violations of
emission limits occurring as a result of a malfunction.
These amendments are based on sound technical and legal
justifications, and result in cost savings and compliance flexibility
for the Portland cement industry. This result is consistent with
Executive Order 13563.
1. Purpose of the Regulatory Action
a. Need for the Regulatory Action
The EPA is amending the NESHAP for the Portland cement source
category and the NSPS for Portland cement plants issued under sections
112(d) and 111(b) of the Clean Air Act (CAA). The most significant
amendment is to the NESHAP and NSPS for PM, to correct monitoring
issues with the PM compliance regime as promulgated in the 2010 final
rule. As a result of this amendment, the EPA is also setting a
compliance date of September 9, 2015, for meeting the PM, mercury, HCl
and THC existing source NESHAP.
This final action also addresses the remand by the DC Circuit in
Portland Cement Ass'n v. EPA, 665 F. 3d 177 (DC Cir. 2011). In that
case, the court upheld all of the EPA's methodology for establishing
the Portland cement NESHAP, denied all petitions for review challenging
the NSPS, but also held that the EPA had arbitrarily denied
reconsideration of the NESHAP to take into account the effect of the
EPA's Nonhazardous Secondary Materials (NHSM) rule on the standards.
The NHSM rule, issued after the NESHAP was promulgated, had the effect
of reclassifying some cement kilns as commercial and industrial solid
waste incinerators (CISWI) and thus could have an effect on the
standards. The court also stayed the open storage clinker pile
standards.
We are also amending various implementation requirements to provide
more compliance flexibility for affected sources. In addition, the
amendments address the issues on which the EPA previously granted
reconsideration. See 76 FR 28318 (May 17, 2011).
b. Legal Authority for the Regulatory Action
These amendments implement sections 112(d) and 111(b) of the CAA.
Section 112 of the CAA establishes a regulatory process to address
emissions of hazardous air pollutants (HAP) from stationary sources.
After the EPA identifies categories of sources emitting one or more of
the HAP listed in section 112(b) of the CAA, section 112(d) requires
the EPA to promulgate technology-based NESHAP for those sources.
Section 112(i)(3)(A) requires that the compliance date for existing
sources shall be ``as expeditiou[s] as practicable,'' but not more than
3 years after a standard's effective date. 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.
2. Summary of Major Provisions
a. PM Emission Standards
As proposed, the EPA is amending the existing and new source PM
standards in the NESHAP to require manual stack testing in lieu of PM
continuous emission monitoring systems (CEMS) for compliance
determinations and requiring that a site-specific parametric operating
level be established using a PM continuous parametric monitoring system
(CPMS). We are changing the numeric emissions value of those standards
for existing sources to 0.07 pounds per ton (lb/ton) clinker based on
manual stack testing and 0.02 lb/ton clinker for new and reconstructed
sources based on manual stack testing. The PM standards under the NSPS
for modified sources are likewise amended to 0.07 lb/ton clinker based
on manual stack testing and 0.02 lb/ton clinker for new and
reconstructed sources based on manual stack testing.
b. Response to Remand
Consistent with the court's remand, the EPA has removed all of the
CISWI kilns from the database used to set the 2010 existing source
standards for PM,

[[Page 10008]]

mercury, HCl and THC. This analysis informed the level of the final
standards discussed immediately below.
c. Other Emissions Standards
As proposed, the EPA is changing the alternative organic HAP (oHAP)
standard from 9 parts per million (ppm) to 12 ppm. The EPA is not
changing the existing or new source standards for mercury, THC or HCl.
d. Standards During Startup and Shutdown
The EPA is amending the emission standards applicable during
periods of startup and shutdown from numerical standards to work
practice standards.
e. Compliance Dates for NESHAP
As proposed, the EPA is establishing a compliance date of September
9, 2015, for existing source standards for PM, mercury, HCl and THC.
The EPA is establishing February 12, 2014, as the compliance date for
the standards for existing open clinker storage piles. New source
standards continue to apply to all sources which commenced construction
or reconstruction after May 6, 2009.
f. Final Action on Reconsideration
The EPA is also taking final action on the remaining issues on
which it granted reconsideration on May 17, 2011.
3. Cost Impacts of These Amendments
We estimate that revising the means of demonstrating compliance for
the PM, alternative organic HAP standards and requiring work practices
for open clinker storage piles will save industry $52 million annually.
4. Summary of Final Standards
Table 1 shows the final standards for the Portland Cement
Manufacturing Industry NESHAP and the Portland Cement Plants NSPS.

Table 1--Existing and New Source Standards
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Existing source New source
Pollutant standard standard
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mercury......................... 55 lb/MM tons 21 lb/MM tons
clinker. clinker.
THC............................. 24 ppmvd.......... 24 ppmvd.
PM.............................. 0.07 lb/ton \a\ 0.02 lb/ton \b\
clinker (3-run clinker (3-run
test average). test average).
HCl............................. 3 ppmvd........... 3 ppmvd.
Organic HAP (alternative to 12 ppmvd.......... 12 ppmvd.
Total Hydrocarbons).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Also applies to NSPS modified sources.
\b\ Also applies to NSPS new and reconstructed sources.

B. Does this action apply to me?

Categories and entities potentially regulated by this final rule
include:

Table 2--Industrial Source Categories Affected by this NESHAP and NSPS
Final Action
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Examples of regulated
Category NAICS code \a\ entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry....................... 327310 Portland cement
manufacturing plants.
Federal government............. .............. Not affected.
State/local/tribal government.. .............. Portland cement
manufacturing plants.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ North American Industry Classification System.

Table 2 of this preamble 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 will be
regulated by this action, you should examine the applicability criteria
in 40 CFR 60.60 (subpart F) or in 40 CFR 63.1340 (subpart LLL). If you
have any questions regarding the applicability of this final action to
a particular entity, contact the appropriate person listed in the
preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

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

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

D. Judicial Review

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, judicial review of this final
action is available only by filing a petition for review in the court
by April 13, 2013. Under section 307(b)(2) of the CAA, the requirements
established by the final rule may not be challenged separately in any
civil or criminal proceedings brought by the EPA to enforce the
requirements.
Section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA further provides that ``[o]nly an
objection to a rule or procedure which was raised with reasonable
specificity during the period for public comment (including any public
hearing) may be raised during judicial review.'' This section also
provides a mechanism for the EPA to convene a proceeding for
reconsideration, ``[i]f the person raising an objection can demonstrate
to EPA that it was impracticable to raise such objection within [the
period for public comment] or if the grounds for such objection arose
after the period for public comment (but within the time specified for
judicial review) and if such objection is of central relevance to the
outcome of the rule.'' Any person seeking to make such a demonstration
to us should submit a Petition for Reconsideration to the Office of the
Administrator, U.S. EPA, Room 3000,

[[Page 10009]]

Ariel Rios Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460,
with a copy to both the person(s) listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section and the Associate General Counsel for the
Air and Radiation Law Office, Office of General Counsel (Mail Code
2344A), U.S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460.

II. Background Information

A. What is the statutory authority for these amendments?

Section 112 of the CAA establishes a regulatory process to address
emissions of HAP from stationary sources. After the EPA has identified
categories of sources emitting one or more of the HAP listed in section
112(b) of the CAA, section 112(d) requires us to promulgate NESHAP for
those sources. For ``major sources'' that emit or have the potential to
emit 10 tons per year (tpy) or more of a single HAP or 25 tpy or more
of a combination of HAP, these technology-based standards must reflect
the maximum reductions of HAP achievable (after considering cost,
energy requirements and non-air quality health and environmental
impacts) and are commonly referred to as maximum achievable control
technology (MACT) standards.
The statute specifies certain minimum stringency requirements for
MACT standards, which are referred to as ``floor'' requirements. See
CAA section 112(d)(3). Specifically, for new sources, the MACT floor
cannot be less stringent than the emission control that is achieved in
practice by the best controlled similar source. The MACT standards for
existing sources can be less stringent than standards for new sources,
but they cannot be less stringent than the average emission limitation
achieved by the best-performing 12 percent of existing sources (for
which the Administrator has emissions information) in the category or
subcategory (or the best-performing five sources for categories or
subcategories with fewer than 30 sources).
In developing MACT, we must also consider control options that are
more stringent than the floor. We may establish standards more
stringent than the floor based on the consideration of the cost of
achieving the emissions reductions, any non-air quality health and
environmental impacts, and energy requirements. See CAA section
112(d)(2).
Under section 112(i)(3)(A), compliance dates for existing sources
shall ``be as expeditiou[s] as practicable'', but in no event later
than 3 years after the date of publication of the final rule in the
Federal Register. The EPA may set a revised compliance date of a MACT
standard when amending that standard, see NRDC v. EPA, 489 F. 3d 1364,
1373-74 (D.C. Cir. 2007), but any such amended compliance date must
still establish ``compliance as expeditiously as practicable.''
Section 111(b) requires the EPA to set standards for emissions that
``reflect the degree of emission limitation achievable through the
application of the best system of emission reduction.'' See CAA section
111(a)(1). In contrast to the NESHAP floor setting process, NSPS
requires the EPA to take into account the ``cost of achieving''
emissions reductions, as well as health, environmental, and energy
considerations. Id.

B. What actions preceded this final rule?

The history of this final rule, commencing with the 1999 standards
and proceeding through the amendments issued in September 2009, is set
out in detail in 75 FR 54970 (Sept 9, 2010). The Portland Cement
Association (PCA) and several cement companies filed petitions for
reconsideration of aspects of those amendments (copies of the petitions
are in the Portland Cement Reconsideration docket, EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-
0817). On May 17, 2011, the EPA granted reconsideration of various
issues, and denied the petitions to reconsider as to the remaining
issues. See 76 FR 28318 (May 17, 2011). On December 9, 2011, the D.C.
Circuit issued an opinion upholding the NESHAP itself (as well as the
section 111 NSPS), but finding that the EPA had arbitrarily failed to
grant reconsideration to consider the effect of the EPA's NHSM rule on
the standards (76 FR 15456 (March 21, 2011)), The NHSM rule had the
effect of reclassifying some cement kilns as commercial and solid waste
incinerators. See Portland Cement Ass'n v. EPA, 665 F. 3d 177, 186-189
(D.C. Cir. 2011). The court did not stay any of the numerical emission
standards, but did stay the work practice standards for open clinker
storage piles pending the conclusion of the reconsideration process.
See 665 F. 3d at 194.
In this action, the EPA is responding to the court's remand. For
existing sources, the EPA had done so by removing all kilns classified
as CISWI units from the data used to establish the 2010 NESHAP
standards. The EPA then recalculated each of the floors based on this
dataset (the 2010 dataset minus CISWI units) and made beyond-the-floor
determinations based on the recalculated floors. The EPA believes that
this approach is properly responsive to the court's remand. See 665 F.
3d at 188 where the court referred favorably to this type of
recalculation. For new sources, EPA used the same data as used to
establish the 2010 floors--namely the performance of the best
controlled similar sources as required by section 112(d)(3).

III. Summary of Final Amendments to Subpart LLL and Subpart F

As discussed in the preamble of the proposed rule, 77 FR 42368, in
this final action the EPA is finalizing several amendments to Subpart
LLL and Subpart F. These amendments are summarized below.

A. Reconsideration of Standards

As noted above, EPA has responded to the action of the DC Circuit
by removing all CISWI cement kilns from the database used to establish
the existing source standards, and recalculating existing source floors
and standards from that revised database. As described in the preamble
of the proposal, the EPA had determined based on the final NHSM rule
that there are 24 cement kilns which combust solid waste. 77 FR 42372.
During the comment period, one company provided reliable information in
its comments regarding the materials it processes indicating that one
of these kilns is, in fact, a cement kiln (meaning that the EPA had
properly classified it as a cement kiln in the 2010 rulemaking).\1\
After reviewing the information provided, the EPA agrees that this
source should not be classified as a CISWI kiln and, therefore, should
not be removed from the Portland cement kiln database. We received no
other comments concerning the identification of cement kilns and CISWI
units. There are thus now 23 kilns identified as combusting solid waste
and therefore classified as CISWI units. As directed by the Court's
decision, we removed these 23 kilns from the database and recalculated
the floors. This calculation resulted in the same floors as proposed in
the July 2012 proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\ The company burns dried biosolids as a fuel which are not
classified as solid wastes. Refer to the Docket, No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2011-0817-0482.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Consistent with this analysis, the EPA is finalizing amendments to
the emission standards as follows:

[[Page 10010]]

1. PM Emission Standards
The EPA is revising several provisions of the emission standards
for PM as follows:
Changing the compliance basis for the PM standards from
continuous monitoring with a PM CEMS to a manual three run stack test,
amending the level and averaging time of the standard, and requiring a
continuous parametric monitoring system using a CPMS. As a consequence,
the EPA is also:
Amending PM standards under the NESHAP for existing
sources to 0.07 lb/ton clinker based on manual stack testing, and 0.02
lb/ton clinker for new and reconstructed sources based on manual stack
testing;
Amending PM standards under the NSPS for modified sources
to 0.07 lb/ton clinker based on manual stack testing and 0.02 lb/ton
clinker for new and reconstructed sources likewise based on manual
stack testing;
Requiring that sources establish a site-specific
parametric operating limit for PM, and requiring that the parametric
limit be continuously monitored using a PM CPMS;
Requiring that sources retest once a year to reset the PM
CPMS operating limit;
Adding a provision that, if a source exceeds that site-
specific parametric operating limit, it must conduct corrective action
including performing a Method 5 or 5I performance test within 45 days;
in addition, if the source exceeds that parametric limit four times in
a calendar year, the source is presumed to be in violation of the PM
emissions standard itself, subject to rebuttal by the source.
2. Mercury Standard
As proposed, the EPA is establishing a standard for mercury of 55
pounds per million (lb/MM) tons clinker for existing sources and is not
changing the emission standard (21 lb/MM tons clinker) for new sources.
The emission standard for existing sources is the same as the 2010
standard but is a beyond the floor standard.
3. Other Emissions Standards
As the Court requested, the EPA removed the CISWI units from the
database and re-calculated the standards for THC and HCl. The standards
remain the same as they were in the final 2010 rule. See also 76 FR
21149, 21152, and 21154 explaining why beyond the floor standards for
THC and HCl are not justified. The 2010 rules provide an alternative to
the THC standard whereby sources can meet a limit for non-dioxin
organic HAP by measuring those HAP directly rather than meeting the
standard for THC (a surrogate for non-dioxin organic HAP). As proposed,
the EPA is changing the level of the alternative non-dioxin organic HAP
standard from 9 ppm to 12 ppm. Table 3 summarizes the Final Existing
and New Source Standards

Table 3--Existing and New Source Standards \a\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Existing source New source
Pollutant standard standard
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mercury......................... 55 lb/MM tons 21 lb/MM tons
clinker. clinker.
THC............................. 24 ppmvd.......... 24 ppmvd.
PM.............................. 0.07 lb/ton 0.02 lb/ton
clinker (3-run clinker (3-run
test average). test average).
HCl............................. 3 ppmvd........... 3 ppmvd.
Organic HAP \b\................. 12 ppmvd.......... 12 ppmvd.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Standards for mercury and THC are based on a 30-day rolling average.
The standard for PM is based on a three-run test. If using a CEMS to
determine compliance with the HCl standard, the floor is also a 30-day
rolling average.
\b\ If the source opts to comply with the THC emission limit, this
standard does not apply.

B. Continuously Monitored Parameters for Alternative Organic HAP
Standard (With THC Monitoring Parameter)

In addition to amending the level of the alternative oHAP standard
(i.e., the standard whereby sources meet a standard for oHAP rather
than for THC), the EPA is amending the provisions for the site-specific
THC operating parameter for that alternative standard (where THC is a
site-specific parameter monitored continuously to show compliance with
the oHAP standard). The THC operating parameter is established based on
THC levels measured during the successful stack test where oHAP are
measured directly to demonstrate compliance. As amended, if compliance
source testing of oHAP averages a value that is 75 percent or less of
the emission limit for oHAP, the facility is allowed to establish a THC
parametric operating level corresponding to 75 percent of the oHAP
emission limit. We are adopting this provision to avoid penalizing
lower-emitting sources by burdening them with the most stringent
parametric operating levels. The EPA is adopting a similar provision
for continuous PM parametric monitoring, for the same reason (see
Section IV.A below). Sources which show oHAP emissions in compliance,
but greater than 75 percent of the standard, must establish the average
THC concentration measured during the 3-hour organic HAP test and use
that as the site-specific THC operating level. Thus, the parametric
monitoring level for THC will be the level corresponding to oHAP levels
of 75 percent of the standard or the THC level of the oHAP performance
test, whichever is higher.\2\ Compliance with the oHAP standard will be
shown as a ratio of three test runs during mill-on conditions and three
test runs during mill-off conditions, with the percentage of operating
time spent in each condition determining the ratio. The parametric
operating level will be set according to average THC values measured
during these same test runs, or to the default value of 75 percent of
the standard, as just explained. In addition, the EPA will allow
facilities to extend the testing time of the oHAP performance test if
they believe extended testing is required to adequately capture THC
variability over time. This final rule further requires that the stack
test for oHAP be repeated every 30 months to establish a new site-
specific THC parameter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\2\ If a source believes that monitoring non-methane THC rather
than total THC is a more reliable indicator of its oHAP emissions,
it can submit an alternative monitoring request pursuant to the
requirements of 40 CFR 63.8(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

The 2010 rule allows sources equipped with wet scrubbers to comply
with the HCl standard by means of periodic performance tests rather
than with continuous monitoring of HCl with a CEMS. Sources electing to
comply by means of stack tests must establish continuously monitored
parameters including liquid flow rate, pressure, and pH. Under this
final rule, kilns with dry scrubbers may also demonstrate

[[Page 10011]]

compliance with the HCl emissions limit by means of an initial and
periodic stack test rather than with continuous compliance monitoring
with an HCl CEMS. If a kiln equipped with a dry scrubber chooses this
alternative, this final rule requires that the sorbent injection rate
used during a successful performance test be recorded and then
continuously monitored to show that the injection rate remains at or
above the rate used during the performance test.
Where either wet or dry scrubbers are used, owners and operators
may also establish sulfur dioxide (SO2) as an operating
parameter, rather than, for example, sorbent injection rate, liquid
injection rate or pressure drop. If the owner or operator of a
scrubber-equipped kiln makes this choice, it must establish the
SO2 operating limit equal to the average of the HCl levels
recorded during the HCl performance test, and meet that operating limit
on a 30 day rolling average basis. If a source exceeds any established
parameter level, it must retest for HCl in order to verify compliance
with the HCl emissions standard and must verify or re-establish the
parametric monitoring levels as well.
At a minimum, a repeat performance test to confirm compliance with
the HCl emissions limit is required every 30 months.

D. Alternative PM Limit

The 2010 final rule established an alternative PM limit to
accommodate situations where kilns combine exhaust gas from various
operations. 77 FR 42382. The equation establishing the alternative
limit contained certain technical errors which the EPA proposed to
correct. As proposed, this final rule revises the alternative PM
equation so that it includes exhaust gas flows from all sources that
would potentially be combined, including exhausts from the kiln, the
alkali bypass, the coal mill, and the clinker cooler, for an existing
kiln. The EPA is thus finalizing the following equation:

PMalt = 0.0060 x 1.65 x (Qk + Qc +
Qab + Qcm)/(7000)

Where:

PMalt = The alternative PM emission limit for commingled
sources.
0.0060 = The PM exhaust concentration (grains per dry standard cubic
feet (gr/dscf)) equivalent to 0.07 lb per ton clinker where clinker
cooler and kiln exhaust gas are not combined.
1.65 = The conversion factor of lb feed per lb clinker.
Qk = The exhaust flow of the kiln (dscf/ton feed).
Qc = The exhaust flow of the clinker cooler (dscf/ton
feed).
Qab = The exhaust flow of the alkali bypass (dscf/ton
feed).
Qcm = The exhaust flow of the coal mill (dscf/ton feed).
7000 = The conversion factor for grains (gr) per lb.

If exhaust gases for any of the sources contained in the equation
are not commingled and are exhausted through a separate stack, their
value in the equation would be zero. The alternative PM equation for
new sources is identical to the existing source equation except the PM
exhaust concentration used in the equation is 0.002 gr/dscf, which is
equivalent to the new source PM limit of 0.02 lb/ton clinker.

E. Coal Mills

The EPA discussed at length in the preamble to the proposed rule a
potential regulatory regime to cover situations where a portion of the
kiln exhaust is ducted to the coal mill. See 77 FR 42383-85; see also
the regulatory text at 77 FR 42398, 42402-06, 42408-09. To assure that
cement kilns do not exhaust untreated HAP through coal mills, and to
assure accurate accounting of commingled emissions so that cement kilns
are not penalized for commingling emissions where it makes sense to do
so, the EPA is finalizing rules applicable to kiln/coal mill emissions
for two configurations. In one, a portion of the kiln exhaust is ducted
to a coal mill, and then the coal mill exhaust is commingled with
remaining kiln exhaust and discharged through the main kiln stack. In
the other, a portion of the kiln exhaust is routed through the coal
mill and discharged through the coal mill stack.
In the case of a coal mill that receives and discharges a portion
of the cement kiln exhaust, this final rule requires that the sum of
the mercury, THC and HCl in the kiln exhaust diverted to the coal mill,
and the kiln exhaust exhausted from the main kiln stack, must not
exceed the subpart LLL emission limits for each respective HAP or HAP
surrogate. The facility must document the contribution of the emissions
diverted to the coal mill. For mercury, the rule allows tests to be
performed downstream of the coal mill to take advantage of any mercury
removal that occurs in the coal mill air pollution control device, and
to avoid double counting emissions from mercury that becomes re-
entrained in the coal. For THC and HCl, the rule allows tests to be
performed upstream of the coal mill to avoid any THC or HCl that might
be emitted by the coal. For owners and operators who believe that the
impact of the testing location (upstream or downstream of the coal
mill) would not result in their exceeding the kiln mercury, THC or HCl
emissions limits and wish to conduct all their THC, HCl and mercury
testing at a single location, this final rule allows testing either
upstream or downstream of the coal mill. For sources complying with the
alternate organic HAP limit, the facility would not be required to test
for THC emissions, but would test for the organic HAP and add that
concentration to the remaining emission points to estimate their total
emissions for organic HAP.
A cement kiln that commingles emissions from its coal mill with all
other kiln exhaust emissions and discharges through a single stack
could simply meet the kiln emission limits. In the case of PM, the
additional flow from the coal mill would be accounted for in the
equation used to determine PM contributions from commingled flows. See
section D above. In this configuration, the source would also have the
option of monitoring and/or testing kiln exhaust gases prior to the
introduction of the coal mill exhaust gas, and testing the kiln gas
diverted to the coal mill. In this case this final rule requires that
the sum of the mercury, THC (or organic HAP if the source chooses the
alternative organic HAP limit), and HCl in the kiln exhaust diverted to
the coal mill plus the kiln exhaust measured in the main kiln exhaust
must not exceed the subpart LLL emission limits for each respective HAP
or HAP surrogate.
The same provisions for coal mills also apply to kilns equipped
with an alkali bypass. The one minor exception is that for PM, the
summed PM emissions from the kiln and alkali bypass must be equal to or
less than the PM limit in subpart LLL. Tests for PM from the alkali
bypass must be conducted downstream of the alkali bypass air pollution
control devices (APCD) to account for those emission reductions.
With regard to PM, the EPA stated at proposal that where a coal
mill receives and discharges a portion of the cement kiln exhaust, the
kiln owner operator would have to demonstrate compliance with the 40
CFR 60 subpart Y standard for PM. Although the subpart Y standard is
numerically higher than the subpart LLL PM standard, EPA assumed that
control would be to the same level because the subpart Y PM standard is
predicated on use of fabric filer control technology. 77 FR 42383/2.
However, a commenter pointed out accurately that this proposal
contravened the basic principle EPA indicated it was adopting here of
not allowing diverted kiln emissions to meet a more lenient standard
than required by the NESHAP,

[[Page 10012]]

and further indicated that EPA had failed to show that these diverted
PM emissions were controlled as required by section 112(d)(2) and (3)
of the Act. EPA agrees with this comment, and accordingly is indicating
in the final rule that commingled emissions in this situation would be
required to meet the subpart LLL NESHAP for PM. Because coal mill
stacks are controlled with fabric filters, we project that they can
meet the subpart LLL numeric standard without further controls. See 77
FR 42383. Coal mill stacks will be required to meet annual PM
performance testing and combine the measured emissions with PM
emissions from the separated alkali stack, bypass stack, and/or main
kiln as required in sections 60.62(b)(3), 63.1349 and 63.1350 of this
rule.
This final rule also states that sources equipped with an alkali
bypass stack or sources that exhaust kiln gases to a coal mill that
exhausts through a separate stack are not required to install CEMS on
these stacks. Instead of installing a CEMS, such sources may use the
results of the initial and subsequent performance test to demonstrate
compliance with the PM, THC, HCl and mercury emissions limits. Note
that for the main kiln exhaust, the CEMS requirements remain.
We expand on these monitoring provisions below.
1. Mercury
Although mercury from the kiln stack is monitored using a CEMS,
mercury emissions from the coal mill are based on a periodic
performance test and use of the gas flow rate to the coal mill.
Performance tests for mercury must be conducted annually unless and
until the tested mercury levels are below the method detection limits
for two consecutive years, after which tests may be conducted every 30
months. The performance test results must be summed with the emissions
from the kiln stack to determine compliance. The coal mill exhaust
mercury emissions are calculated on a mass basis using the measured
mercury concentration and the coal mill exhaust gas flow. The coal mill
exhaust flow is established using a continuous monitoring system (CMS),
or the design maximum flow rate. Mass mercury emissions from the coal
mill would be summed with the hourly mercury emissions from the kiln
measured by the mercury CEMS. Hourly mercury emissions are then summed
to calculate the rolling 30-day mass mercury emissions. This number is
then divided by the corresponding 30 days of clinker production to
determine the 30-day rolling average. This final rule provides
equations for summing emissions from the coal mill with the mercury
emissions from the kiln to determine continuous compliance. To see an
example calculation, see Section 4 of the Portland Cement
Reconsideration Technical Support Document (developed for the
proposal), docket item EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0817-0225.
2. THC and HCl
In this case, site specific kiln stack emission limits (to be
continuously monitored) are to be calculated taking into consideration
the volumetric exhaust gas flow rates and concentrations of all
applicable effluent streams (kiln stack, coal mill and alkali bypass)
for the kiln unit. In order to determine the flow rates and
concentrations of THC and HCl in the coal mill and alkali bypass
streams, the source must test every 30 months using the appropriate
test method. For HCl, the performance test must be performed using
Method 321 in Appendix A to 40 CFR Part 63. For measurement of THC,
Method 25A in Appendix A-7 to 40 CFR Part 60 is required. With these
data, the concentration of THC and HCl that must be monitored by the
kiln CEMS in order to demonstrate compliance with the kiln MACT limit
can be calculated using the equations in this final rule. As with
mercury, the coal mill flow rate used to calculate the allowable main
kiln stack THC and HCl concentrations can be based on a CMS, or on the
maximum design flow rate. The sum of the kiln CEMS and the maximum
emissions from the coal mill or alkali bypass must be at or below the
subpart LLL limits for THC and HCl. See Section 4 of Portland Cement
Reconsideration Technical Support Document (developed for the
proposal), docket item EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0817-0225, for an example
calculation.
Also, as a result of these revisions, the EPA is revising the
definition of kiln to include inline coal mills and adding a definition
of inline coal mill.

F. NESHAP Compliance Date Extension for Existing Sources

This final rule establishes that the compliance date for the
amended PM standard, and for the THC, mercury and HCl standards, for
existing sources for kilns, clinker coolers and raw material dryers is
September 9, 2015. This final rule also establishes February 12, 2014,
as the compliance date for the existing open clinker storage pile work
practice standards. A detailed discussion of these compliance dates can
be found in Section V.D. below.

G. Section 112 Eligibility To Be a New Source

The EPA is not changing the date for new source eligibility under
the NESHAP. Thus, a source that commenced construction or
reconstruction after May 6, 2009, would remain subject to the section
112 new source standards. A more detailed discussion of this topic can
be found below in Section V.E.

H. Other Testing and Monitoring Revisions

In this action we are finalizing the proposed corrections and
clarifications to the 2010 rule including changes to: Equations for
calculating rolling operating day emissions rates; procedures that
include extraneous wording; and cross references and typographical
errors in the rule.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\3\ We note that these changes required the agency to reprint
sections of regulatory text. See e.g. 63.1348(a)(3)(i). In
reprinting these passages, EPA has not reopened, reconsidered, or
otherwise reevaluated the substance of these provisions but rather
is only making the needed technical alteration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

For sources that are required to monitor HCl emissions with a CEMS,
we are revising the requirements for using HCl CEMS to define the span
value for this source category, to include quality assurance measures
for data collected under ``mill off'' conditions, and to clarify use of
performance specification (PS) 15. This final rule also removes from
the standard the oxygen correction factors for raw material dryers and
makes minor, non-substantive changes to the sections and paragraphs
below:
Section 60.62(d).
Section 60.63(b)(1)(i) and (ii), (b)(2), (f)(1), (2), (4),
(5), (h)(1) and (6) through (9) (i).
Section 60.64(b)(2).
Section 60.66.
Section 63.1340(b)(1) and (6) through (8).
Section 63.1346(a) and (c) through (e).
Section 63.1348(a)(2), (3)(i) through (iii), (a)(4)(i)(A),
(a)(4)(ii) and (iv).
Section 63.1348(b)(1)(i), (iii) and (iv).
Section 63.1348(b)(3), (5), (6)(i), (8) and (c)(2)(iv).
Section 63.1349(a), (b)(3), (d)(1) and (d)(2) and (e).
Section 63.1350(d)(1)(i) and (ii), (f), (f)(2)(i) and
(iii), (f)(3), (f)(4), (g)(1) and (2), (k), l(2), (m)(3), (m)(10) and
(11), (o) and (p).
Section 63.1352(b).
Section 63.1356.
In addition, we are adding requirements in section
63.1348(a), that

[[Page 10013]]

a cement kiln that becomes subject to the rule after having been
subject to the CISWI regulations, must meet all the initial compliance
testing requirements even if they were previously subject to Subpart
LLL.

I. Miscellaneous Amendments

We are also finalizing amendments to clarify various requirements
in this final rule including issues of applicability, treatment of
multiple sources that vent to a single stack, third party
certification, definitions and use of bag leak detection systems when
PM CPMS are in use.
For raw material, clinker or finished product storage bins, we have
clarified that the requirements of this final rule apply only at
facilities that are a major source (see section 63.1340(b)(6)) and that
affected sources that are subject to subpart OOO (standards for
nonmetallic mineral processing) are not subject to the requirements of
subpart LLL (see section 63.1340(c)).
With regard to the NSPS, to clarify the recordkeeping and reporting
requirement in section 60.65(a) to submit excess emission reports, we
have added to section 60.61 of the NSPS a definition of ``excess
emissions'' to mean ``with respect to this subpart, results of any
required measurements outside the applicable range (e.g., emissions
limitations, parametric operating limits) that is permitted by this
subpart. The values of measurements will be in the same units and
averaging time as the values specified in this subpart for the
limitations.'' To clarify what data are used in the calculation of
emissions, or used in the calculation of parametric levels that are
used to demonstrate continuous compliance, we added to this section a
definition of ``operating day'' to mean ``a 24-hour period beginning at
12:00 midnight during which the kiln operates at any time. For
calculating rolling 30-day average emissions, an operating day does not
include the hours of operation during startup or shutdown.'' The
definition for ``operating day'' in section 63.1341 of the NESHAP is
revised to be consistent with the above definition. We also became
aware that some raw material dryers may be used to dry materials other
than kiln feed and we have revised the definition of ``raw material
dryer'' in recognition of that fact.

J. Standards During Periods of Startup and Shutdown

In the 2010 final NESHAP, the EPA established separate standards
for periods of startup and shutdown which differ from the main
standards that apply during steady state operations. In this action,
based on comments received and the EPA's reconsideration of several
technical issues related to startup and shutdown, the EPA is adopting
work practices in place of these numerical standards. The rationale and
provisions for the work practice standards are discussed in detail in
section IV.C.
The EPA is also clarifying the operating conditions during which
these standards apply, including a definition of ``startup'' and
``shutdown''. Under the amended definition, startup begins when the
kiln's induced fan is turned on and fuel combustion is occurring in the
main burner of the kiln. Startup ends when feed has been continuously
fed to the kiln for at least 120 minutes or when the kiln feed rate
exceeds 60 percent of the kiln design limitation rate. Shutdown begins
when continuous feed to the kiln is halted and ends when continuous
kiln rotation ceases.
The startup and shutdown-related changes include:
Adding a definition of startup and shutdown in section
63.1341, as described;
Adding section 63.1346(f) describing work practice
standards to be met during periods of startup and shutdown;
Revising section 63.1347 to require that startup and
shutdown procedures be included in the facility's operation and
maintenance plan;
Adding section 63.1355(f) requiring records of each
startup and shutdown including the date, time and duration and the
quantity of feed and fuel added to the kiln during startup and
shutdown;
Adding section 63.1348(b)(9) requiring continuous
compliance by operating all air pollution control devices during
periods of startup and shutdown.

K. Reporting for Malfunctions and Affirmative Defense for Violation of
Emission Standards During Malfunctions

The EPA added to the September 9, 2010, final NESHAP rule an
affirmative defense to civil penalties for violations of emissions
limits that are caused by malfunctions. Various environmental advocacy
groups, as well as the PCA, indicated that there had been insufficient
notice of this provision. The EPA agreed and granted reconsideration.
See 76 FR 28325 (May 17, 2011). This action finalizes the EPA's
decision to retain the affirmative defense on reconsideration.
The EPA is retaining in the final NESHAP rule an affirmative
defense to civil penalties for violations of emission standards that
are caused by malfunctions. See 40 CFR 63.1341 (defining ``affirmative
defense'' to mean, in the context of an enforcement proceeding, a
response or defense put forward by a defendant, regarding which the
defendant has the burden of proof, and the merits of which are
independently and objectively evaluated in a judicial or administrative
proceeding). We are also revising some of the regulatory provisions
that specify the elements that are necessary to establish this
affirmative defense as proposed with minor changes from proposal
described later in this section. The source must prove by a
preponderance of the evidence that it has met all of the elements set
forth in section 63.1344. (See 40 CFR 22.24). The criteria are designed
in part to ensure that the affirmative defense is available only where
the event that causes a violation of the emission standard meets the
narrow definition of malfunction in 40 CFR 63.2 (sudden, infrequent,
not reasonably preventable and not caused by poor maintenance or
careless operation). For example, to successfully assert the
affirmative defense, the source must prove by a preponderance of the
evidence that the violation ``[w]as caused by a sudden, infrequent, and
unavoidable failure of air pollution control, process equipment, or a
process to operate in a normal or usual manner * * *.'' The criteria
also are designed to ensure that steps are taken to correct the
malfunction, to minimize emissions in accordance with section 63.1344
and to prevent future malfunctions.
Similar to actions taken in several other recent NESHAP amendments
(see National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants From
Secondary Lead Smelting, 77 FR 556, January 5, 2012, National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutant Emissions for Shipbuilding and
Ship Repair (Surface Coating), and National Emission Standards for Wood
Furniture Manufacturing Operations, 76 FR 72050, November 21, 2011),
the EPA included an affirmative defense in the 2010 final rule and is
retaining it in this rule (see section 63.1344). The affirmative
defense provisions give the EPA the flexibility to both ensure that its
emission standards are ``continuous'' as required by 42 U.S.C. Sec.
7602(k), and account for unplanned upsets and thus support the
reasonableness of the standard as a whole. In addition to the authority
cited in support of the affirmative defense in the preamble to the
proposed rule, the EPA notes that a recent court decision further
supports

[[Page 10014]]

the EPA's authority to promulgate an affirmative defense. The United
States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit recently upheld the EPA's
view that an affirmative defense provision is consistent with section
113(e) of the Clean Air Act. Luminant Generation Co. LLC v. United
States EPA, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 21223 (5th Cir. Oct. 12, 2012)
(upholding the EPA's approval of affirmative defense provisions in a
CAA State Implementation Plan). As discussed in the preamble to the
proposed rule (77 FR 42379), the EPA's view is that an affirmative
defense to civil penalties for exceedances of applicable emission
standards during periods of malfunction appropriately resolves an
underlying tension inherent in many types of air regulation, to ensure
continuous compliance while simultaneously recognizing that despite the
most diligent of efforts, emission limits may be exceeded under
circumstances beyond the control of the source. See generally, Virginia
v. Browner, 80 F.3d 869, 878 (4th Cir. 1996) (the EPA's interpretation
that resolved a tension within the CAA is reasonable). The EPA has used
its section 301(a)(1) authority to issue regulations necessary to carry
out the Act in a manner that appropriately balances these competing
concerns.
We are promulgating revisions to the affirmative defense provisions
in section 40 CFR 63.1344 as described at proposal (77 FR 42380) and
making some minor additional revisions. The phrase ``emission limit''
was changed to ``emission standards'' to reflect that the affirmative
defense could be applicable to certain work practice standards. The
phrase, ``Off-shift and overtime labor were used, to the extent
practicable to make these repairs'' was removed. The term
``notification'' to ``reporting'' was changed to reflect that the root
cause analysis required under affirmative defense would be submitted
with other periodic reporting. The term ``and monitoring'' was deleted
because monitoring malfunctions are defined differently than
malfunctions of process and control units and the affirmative defense
is intended to apply to malfunctions to affected units that cause a
failure to meet an emission standard. The word ``however'' was removed
to incorporate more plain language into the regulation. The phrase
``the respondent fails'' was removed and replaced with ``you fail'' to
incorporate more plain language into the regulation. The word ``its''
was replaced with ``your'' to incorporate more plain language into the
regulation. The phrase ``all of the'' was replaced with ``your'' also
to incorporate more plain language into the regulation. The phrase
``air pollution control practice'' was shortened to ``good practices''
to incorporate more plain language into the regulation. In addition,
the written report required when asserting an affirmative defense was
changed from a separate ``semiannual'' report to a report that is
submitted with the first periodic compliance, deviation report or
excess emission report due after the event.
We are finalizing the reporting and recordkeeping associated with
violations due to malfunctions as described at proposal (77 FR 42388)
and making some minor additional revisions as described below.
Revising section 63.1354(b)(vii) for reporting and
recordkeeping violations due to malfunctions. The phrase ``failure to
meet a standard'' was used to replace ``deviation'' in the requirement
to report violations of the standard. This was changed because the EPA
is not finalizing a definition of deviation in this subpart and the
term is not defined in the general provisions.
Revising section 63.1354(c) for reporting a failure to
meet a standard due to a malfunction. In addition, the phrase ``failure
to meet a standard'' was used to replace ``deviation'' in the
requirement to report violations of the standard. This was changed
because the EPA is not finalizing a definition of deviation in this
subpart and the term is not defined in the general provisions.
Revising section 63.1355(f) addressing recordkeeping
during startup and shutdown. The proposed recordkeeping requirement
applicable to startup and shutdown assumed that a numerical emission
standard was applicable during startup and shutdown. In finalizing the
work practice standards in 63.1346(f) there will no longer be a
numerical emission standard applicable during startup and shutdown. As
such the recordkeeping requirement must change to reflect the content
of the work practice standard. Records must be kept of the date, time
and duration of the periods when the work practice is applicable, as
well as the fuel and feed data to demonstrate compliance with the work
practice standard.

L. What are the compliance dates of the standards?

During the comment period, comments were received that confirmed
the need for additional compliance time, since the revised standards
can result in different compliance strategies relative to the 2010
final rule. Thus, as proposed, this final rule establishes the
compliance date for the amended existing source standards including
standards for PM, mercury, HCl and THC to be September 9, 2015. The
existing source compliance date for the requirements for open clinker
storage piles is February 12, 2014. New sources which commenced
construction or reconstruction after May 6, 2009, would remain subject
to the new source standards and a compliance date of February 12, 2013,
or startup, whichever is later.

M. Open Clinker Storage Piles

The EPA has added work practice requirements for open clinker
storage piles that will reduce fugitive dust emissions from these
sources. This final rule also contains a definition of open clinker
storage piles and requires that a source's operation and maintenance
plan include the steps the facility will take to minimize fugitive dust
emissions from open clinker storage piles. A detailed discussion of
these requirements can be found in section V.C below.

IV. Summary of Major Changes Since Proposal

A. PM Parametric Monitoring

Changes to PM Parametric Monitoring. The EPA proposed the use of PM
CPMS for continuous monitoring of PM emissions as a 30-day rolling
average established by identifying the average PM CPMS response
corresponding to the highest 1-hour PM compliance test. Failure to meet
this 30-day rolling average would result in retesting, and more than
four exceedances from the parametric limit in a year would be presumed
(subject to possibility of rebuttal by the source) to be a violation of
the emission standard itself. See 77 FR 42377. Industry commented that
this requirement would trigger unnecessary retests for many facilities,
especially for the lower-emitting sources. The issue of increased
compliance burden falling on the lower emitting sources is legitimate.
Sources with especially low PM limits in their performance test would
be most at risk of exceeding a parametric limit due to a few emission
spikes, even though they would still be operating well under the actual
PM compliance limit. We also received comment that the highest PM
performance test run may represent, in some circumstances, a number
higher than the PM emissions standard. To avoid this eventuality we
have changed the final rule to require setting the PM operating limit
equivalent to the average of the three PM performance tests, which
constitutes the demonstration of compliance with the standard. To avoid

[[Page 10015]]

penalizing lower emitting facilities, the EPA has modified the way PM
CPMS operating limits are established. Sources whose compliance with
the PM emission standard are shown to be 75 percent or below the
emission limit in the PM method 5 compliance test will set their PM
parametric operating limit to be a 30-day rolling average equivalent to
that 75 percent level. In a recent rule (76 FR 15736, March 21, 2011),
the EPA established 75 percent of the limit as a number that allows for
compliance flexibility and is simultaneously protective of the emission
standard, and the same technical basis is applicable here as well.
Sources whose compliance with the PM emission standard are above 75
percent of the emission limit will establish their operating limit as a
30-day rolling average equal to the average PM CPMS values recorded
during the PM compliance test. It should be noted that this provision
affects the allowable level of the parametric limit, but does not
change the PM emission limit that must be met.

B. Scaling for Continuous Parametric Monitoring of THC for Alternative
OHAP Standard

As explained in section III.B above, the EPA is adopting a scaling
approach for parametric monitoring of THC under the alternative organic
HAP standard which is conceptually similar to the one just discussed
for parametric monitoring of PM. This provision affects the allowable
level of the THC parametric limit, but does not change the oHAP
emission limit that must be met.
The EPA proposed the use of THC monitoring in conjunction with
organic HAP compliance testing to determine a parametric operating
limit option for monitoring continuous compliance with the alternative
organic HAP standard. In the proposed rule the organic HAP parametric
operating limit was established by correlating the highest of three
organic HAP test results with the corresponding average THC
concentration recorded by a parametric THC monitor. Industry commented
that this requirement would trigger unnecessary retests for many
facilities, especially for the best performing sources. Not wishing to
penalize those sources showing good performance, and simultaneously
wanting to be protective of the emission standard, the EPA is changing
the way parametric THC operating levels are established. Sources whose
compliance with the organic HAP emission standard are shown to be below
75 percent of the emission limit will set their operating limit to be a
30-day rolling average equivalent to that 75 percent level. Sources
whose compliance with the organic HAP emission standard are at or above
75 percent of the emission limit will establish their operating limit
as a 30-day rolling average equal to the average parametric THC values
recorded during the organic HAP compliance test. Sources with an in-
line kiln/raw mill will use the fraction of time the raw mill is on and
the fraction of time that the raw mill is off, and calculate this limit
as a weighted average of the THC levels measured during raw mill on and
raw mill off testing.

C. Work Practice Standard in Lieu of Numerical Emissions Limits for
Periods of Startup and Shutdown

Under section 112(h) of the Act, the EPA may adopt a work practice
standard in lieu of a numerical emission standard only if it is ``not
feasible in the judgment of the Administrator to prescribe or enforce
an emission standard for control of a hazardous air pollutant''. This
phrase is defined in the Act to apply to any situation ``in which the
Administrator determines that * * * the application of measurement
methodology to a particular class of sources is not practicable due to
technological and economic limitations.'' CAA section 112(h)(1) and
(2). In adopting numerical limits for startup and shutdown in the 2010
final NESHAP, the EPA rejected comments that it should adopt work
practices as a standard during startup and shutdown. This was largely
because the commenters had not addressed the issue of whether the
requirements of section 112(h) had been met. See docket item EPA-HQ-
OAR-2002-0051-3464, pp. 183-84. The EPA later denied petitions to
reconsider this issue on the grounds that the agency had already
provided ample opportunity for comment on the issue, which petitioners
had used. See 76 FR at 28323. The DC Circuit dismissed all challenges
to the startup and shutdown provisions in the NESHAP (665 F 3d at 189).
The EPA granted reconsideration on several technical issues related to
startup and shutdown--specifically, monitoring of mercury and PM during
startup and shutdown and having an HCl limit of zero for kilns not
equipped with CEMS (see 76 FR at 28325), but these issues are no longer
relevant based on the approach adopted in this final rule.
In the proposed reconsideration rule, the EPA proposed to retain
the numerical standards, but to use recordkeeping rather than
measurements to document compliance with the numerical standard. 77 FR
42382-83. EPA further solicited comment ``on whether the numeric
standards during startup and shutdown should be amended to provide work
practices'', and suggested what potential work practices might be. Id.
at 42383. Some commenters supported retention of numerical standards,
stating that nothing in the record supports a decision by the EPA that
numeric standards are not feasible to measure. However, these
commenters provided no supporting technical data. We also received
comments opposing numeric limits and supporting work practices in their
stead. Commenters stated that any numeric limit should be based on
actual data gathered during startup and shutdown, which the proposed
limits are not, and that measurement of emissions during startup and
shutdown poses significant technical problems, mainly based on CEMS
calibration issues, and the duration of startups and shutdowns.
Industry has presented information specific to the cement industry
to the EPA on technical issues associated with cement kilns measuring
PM, mercury, THC and HCl during periods of startup and shutdown. See
docket item EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0817-0237[1] and PCA Meeting 9-15-11
monitoring presentation in the docket for this rulemaking, as well as
their public comments. EPA has continued to evaluate these data. In
light of all of these public comments and further evaluation of the
data, the EPA has decided to establish work practice standards in lieu
of numeric standards during startup and shutdown periods. The EPA is
doing so because the application of measurement methodology is not
practicable for technological and economic reasons. See CAA section
112(h)(2)(B).
The operation of kilns at cement manufacturing plants is different
from many other sources. Kiln startups can last days, during which time
fuels are switched and temperatures and moisture conditions fluctuate
substantially. Also, cement kilns have two types of inputs--raw feed
that is changed into clinker in the kiln, and kiln fuel. The cement
kiln is sized to accommodate not just exhaust gas flow from combustion,
but the gases evolved from the calcination of limestone and moisture
that evaporates from the kiln feed. As a result of these factors, the
difference in gas flow characteristics of a cement kiln during steady
state operation and startup/shutdown is more pronounced than that for
other combustion source categories. In addition, cement kilns begin
introducing feed as part of the startup process which further
exacerbates the transient and fluctuating nature of these

[[Page 10016]]

operations not only because of the impact of this feed on the exhaust
gases, but because raw materials and fuels are introduced at opposite
ends of the kiln, which results in countercurrent flow of the solid
material in the kiln and kiln exhaust gas, increasing the turbulence,
transience and fluctuating conditions. The result is that conditions
change constantly when cement kilns are in startup or shutdown mode.
These conditions make stack measurements, both manual and continuous,
for this source category unreliable because the constant shifting in
conditions prevents any stack measurement from being representative of
anything but conditions at that precise moment. For that reason manual
stack tests, which take place over a period of a few hours, would not
be presenting accurate information, since they would not be reliably
measuring conditions across the duration of the test.
There is no way to craft a testing regime to compensate for these
testing issues at each kiln in a manner that can produce reliable and
replicable results. Such modifications would be specific to that
individual startup event--i.e. ad hoc and therefore not of general
applicability or utility in showing compliance. Continuous measurements
conducted during these periods for cement kilns are also subject to
inaccuracies resulting from these rapidly changing conditions. The
temperature changes of greater than one thousand degrees Fahrenheit,
flue gas moisture changes greater than 20 percent, and gas flow changes
over several thousand cubic feet per minute, as well as other factors
such as flue gas molecular weight swings, combine to create a complex
matrix of measurement variables not accounted for in a cement kiln CEMS
installation. That is, CEMS for PM, HCl, Hg, and THC are not able to
reliably accommodate all of these transient shifting variables when
measuring cement kiln startup and shutdown emissions. As noted above,
these issues are further exacerbated by the fact that cement kilns have
multiple inputs (fuel and feed), and the clinker production process
generates higher gas flows than would be expected based on just the
fuel inputs. This fact also means that flue gas flow rates cannot be
accurately calculated from fuel inputs alone.
The EPA regards situations where a measurement may yield a value
which is analytically suspect, which is the case for cement kilns
during startup and shutdown for the reasons just described, as being a
situation where measurement is not ``technologically practicable''
within the meaning of section 112(h)(2)(B) of the Act. Unreliable
measurements raise issues of practicability and of feasibility and
enforceability (see section 112(h)(1)).\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\4\ The application of measurement methodology during cement
kiln startup and shutdown would also not be ``practicable due to * *
* economic limitation'' within the meaning of section 112(h)(2)(B)
since it would just result in cost expended to produce analytically
suspect measurements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The EPA is not finalizing its proposed approach of setting
numerical emission limits for startup and shutdown and requiring that
sources certify compliance with those limits by keeping certain records
certifying that they used certain fuels and did not introduce feed into
the kiln. Under the proposal, sources would have had to certify
compliance with the standards for the various organics based on assumed
combustion conditions. As pointed out persuasively in the public
comments, combustion conditions during startup and shutdown are too
widely varying to either reliably measure or calculate emissions
because combustion conditions change widely during startup and
shutdown, sources indicated that they could not certify compliance
based on an assumed combustion condition. See docket item EPA-HQ-OAR-
2011-0817-0506, p. 11 (``Until ideal combustion conditions can be met
in the combustion chamber (adequate temperature and turbulence), the
combustion process will be incomplete. While this should not impact
fuel-derived hazardous air pollutants (chlorine and mercury), it will
impact the emissions of organics and possibly PM''). In light of the
measurement issues noted above and the fact that sources could not
certify compliance under the proposed approach, the EPA is not
finalizing the proposed approach of setting numerical limits for
startup and shutdown and allowing sources to certify compliance with
the limits by maintaining certain records.
Instead, for the reasons explained above, the EPA is establishing
work practice standards to demonstrate compliance with startup and
shutdown. The work practices that apply during startup and shutdown are
as follows:
During startup the kiln must initially use any one or
combination of the following clean fuels: Natural gas, synthetic
natural gas, propane, distillate oil, synthesis gas, and ultra-low
sulfur diesel until the kiln reaches a temperature of 1200 degrees
Fahrenheit.
Combustion of the primary kiln fuel may commence once the
kiln temperature reaches 1200 degrees Fahrenheit.
All air pollution control devices must be turned on and
operating prior to combusting any fuel.
You must keep records as specified in Sec. 63.1355 during
periods of startup and shutdown.
For the purpose of identifying when the kiln is in a startup/
shutdown mode and subject to work practices and when the kiln is
subject to numerical emission limits, we are defining the beginning and
ending of startup and shutdown. At proposal we defined startup as when
the kiln's induced fan is turned on and shutdown was defined as
beginning when feed to the kiln is halted. Commenters noted that a kiln
may have the induced draft (ID) fan operating even when the kiln is
completely shutdown, no fuel is being burned, and there is no potential
for emissions. Therefore, we changed the startup definition to be when
a shutdown kiln turns on the ID fan and begins firing fuel in the main
burner, because this is the point where the potential for emissions to
occur begins. Startup ends when feed is being continuously introduced
into the kiln for at least 120 minutes or until the feed rate exceeds
60 percent of the kiln design limitation rate. We added the duration/
load element to the definition of startup because during startup a kiln
must begin adding feed material to achieve steady state operation.
After feed is first introduced it requires up to two hours or
sufficient feed to achieve 60 percent of maximum operation to achieve a
representative steady-state condition. (See meeting notes, PCA November
28, 2012, in the docket for this rulemaking). Shutdown begins when
continuous feed to the kiln is halted and ends when the kiln rotation
ceases.
We believe these work practices, which include the requirement that
all air pollution control devices be operating, will ensure that
emissions during startup and shutdown will be lower than the standards
that apply during steady state operations, given use of cleaner fuels,
minimal raw material inputs, and operation of all control devices
during these periods. See 77 FR 42382 (noting that emissions during
startup and shutdown would be expected to be lower than during steady
state operations for these reasons).

[[Page 10017]]

V. Summary of Significant Comments and Responses

A. Amendments to Existing Source and New Source Standards for PM Under
CAA Sections 112(d) and 111(b)

1. Changes to Level and Averaging Time of Existing Source NESHAP
The EPA proposed to amend the existing and new source standards for
PM. The floor for the existing source standards increased from 0.04 lb/
ton clinker to 0.05 lb/ton clinker as a result of removing CISWI kilns
from the database. See Section 8.3, Portland Cement Reconsideration
Technical Support Document, June 15, 2012, Docket item EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-
0817-0225; see also 77 FR 42372/3. Second, the EPA proposed to change
the compliance regime for the standard from use of PM CEMS to stack
testing, a consequence being that the standard would no longer be
expressed as a 30-day average but rather as the average of three test
runs. The EPA thus proposed to express the recalculated floor (i.e.
0.05 lb/ton clinker 30-day average resulting from the reanalysis) as
.07 lb/ton of clinker (average of three test runs). The 0.07 lb/ton
clinker standard expresses the recalculated floor (i.e. 0.05 lb/ton
clinker) as a not-to-exceed value based on stack testing, using the
Upper Prediction Limit equation to do so. See Portland Cement
Reconsideration Technical Support Document, June 15, 2012, Docket item
EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0817-0225.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\5\ One commenter inaccurately stated that the proposed rule
would essentially double the PM standard. As just explained, the
existing source floor (and standard) increased from 0.04 30-day
average to 0.05 lb/ton clinker 30-day average as a result of
removing CISWI kilns. As a not-to-exceed standard, that same level
is expressed as 0.07 lb/ton clinker, the higher level reflecting the
greater variability involved when basing the standard on the average
of the three test runs rather than on 30 days of measurements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The EPA further proposed to use CPMS for continuous parametric
monitoring. This system responds to changes in PM concentration and
generates a corresponding milliamp output signal. 77 FR 42376-77. The
proposed PM parametric level was correlated to the highest recorded
value during three test runs. A source would meet this site-specific
level on a 30-day rolling average. Failure to meet this 30-day rolling
average would result in retesting, and more than four deviations from
the parametric level in a year would be presumed (subject to
possibility of rebuttal by the source) to be a violation of the
emission standard itself. See 77 FR 42377.
Our proposal to change the compliance regime from use of CEMS to
stack tests reflected technical issues related to a PM CEMS'
reliability with measuring the Portland cement PM standard.
Specifically, the EPA discussed the reliability of measurements,
obtained using PM CEMS calibrated as required by the mandated PS 11,
below the level of the 2010 standard or the level of the recalculated
PM floor. See 77 FR 42374-76. The EPA's judgment at proposal was that
as a result of PM measurement uncertainties, ``this correlation will
not be technically or practically achievable for a significant number
of cement kiln sources.'' Id. at 42376.
One commenter challenged the necessity of amending the standard to
a stack test regime (apparently not realizing that the existing source
standard also changed as a result of removing CISWI kilns from the
database). First, the commenter maintained that the EPA has no
authority to voluntarily change a promulgated MACT standard to make the
standard less stringent, based on the language of section 112(d)(7).
The commenter further maintained that the EPA had not definitively
shown that PM CEMS calibrated pursuant to PS 11 could not be used to
reliably measure the Portland cement PM standard. Specifically, the
commenter stated that the various problems identified by the EPA at
proposal are amenable to resolution by testing longer and more often,
and argued that the EPA essentially admitted as much at proposal. The
commenter noted that other technical problems, like the difficulty of
accounting for varied particle sizes, could be resolved by using a beta
gauge CEMS. The commenter dismissed the EPA's technical reservations on
these issues as arbitrary speculation. The commenter also stated that
PM CEMS are already in successful use by cement plants both in this
country and overseas. The commenter further believed that the EPA could
resolve these technical issues by amending the PM CEMS Performance
Specification rather than by amending the averaging time of the PM
standard and changing its compliance basis.
In response, we note first that we do not accept the commenter's
legal argument based on section 112(d)(7). Section 112(d)(7) states
that ``[n]o other emission standard * * * under this section shall be
interpreted, construed or applied to diminish or replace the
requirements of a more stringent emission limitation or other
applicable requirement established pursuant to section 111 of this
title, part C or D of this subchapter, or other authority of this
chapter or a standard issued under State authority.'' Although the
commenter maintained that this provision unambiguously bars the EPA
from amending the promulgated NESHAP to make it less stringent, we
disagree. Indeed, it is hard to read the statutory language in such a
way. On its face, the provision indicates that a section 112(d)
standard does not supplant more stringent standards issued under some
authority other than section 112(d). Nor does the commenter's
interpretation make sense. It would bar the EPA from amending a section
112(d) standard that was technically deficient or incorrect. This
cannot have been Congress' intent when adopting the technology-based
section 112(d) MACT regime.\6\ Moreover, when Congress adopted anti-
backsliding provisions in the CAA, it did so explicitly. See CAA
sections 172(e); 110(l); and 193. There is no such explicit language in
section 112(d)(7). Thus, the EPA does not read section 112(d)(7) as
precluding amendments to MACT standards which result in numerically
less stringent standards, provided of course, that such standards are
technically justified and otherwise consistent with the requirements of
the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\6\ The commenter cites no legislative history to support its
reading, nor is EPA aware of any.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The commenter is also mistaken in asserting that sources can simply
utilize PM CEMS not correlated to PS 11. The PS 11 requirements apply
to all PM CEMS used by a cement kiln. See sections 63.1349(b)(1)(A) and
1350 (b)(1) from the 2010 final rule (75 FR 55057, 55059).\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\7\ It also makes no sense to use PM CEMS not subject to a
uniform calibration protocol. The results obtained would not be
comparable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

With regard to the technical issues raised by this commenter, the
EPA explained in detail at proposal the problems of correlating PM CEMS
under PS 11 at cement plants (see 77 FR 42374-42377). These obstacles
are not resolvable simply by measuring more often and longer, as the
commenter maintains. Extending the duration of the Method 5 test gives
this reference method additional opportunity to collect more sample
mass, but this is no guarantee that the time added to the test will
collect enough particulate mass to resolve detection issues, especially
when testing is conducted at the better performing (lower emitting)
sources. Longer test runs inherently increase the variability of the PM
CEMS data collected during the test, which may cause further
difficulties with the

[[Page 10018]]

correlation between instrument and reference method. Nor does
conducting a higher number of reference method tests resolve the
difficulties with PS 11 correlation created by greater uncertainty in
the reference method at low levels. Put another way, more tests with
high uncertainty and poor correlation do not improve the likelihood of
passing PS 11 as there is no expectation of improving the mathematical
relationship between the reference test and the instrument.
Furthermore, PS 11 section 8.6 requires a minimum number of fifteen
tests to develop a correlation curve, with no limit to the maximum
number. Considering more than 15 tests when developing the correlation
creates much difficulty in developing a precise mathematical
relationship. Sources are allowed to discard 5 runs for any reason they
wish, but must present at least 15 test runs for the correlation
calculation. Id. As a source increases the number of test runs beyond
20, any additional runs must be included in the correlation equation
and at that point the ability of a source to satisfy PS 11 becomes more
hampered with every test run.
The EPA noted that special problems are posed by the size and
variability of cement kiln-generated particulate. The EPA also noted
that the standard light-scintillation type of PM CEMS would likely
encounter higher variability for the same PM concentration, and have
difficulty satisfying correlation protocols as a result. The EPA noted
that beta gauge CEMS could potentially resolve at least some issues
related to cement particle variability but noted further that these
devices were largely untested in the cement industry, and none (so far
as the EPA is aware) has successfully completed a PS 11 certification.
See 77 FR 42375/3. The commenter maintains that the existence of beta
gauge CEMS resolves all questions as to their reliability in the cement
industry, but the EPA reiterates, as it did at proposal, that there
needs to be some assurance of the reliability of that methodology to
certify with PS 11 at low levels (as required by this final rule). That
information does not presently exist. The commenter states that the EPA
is being speculative as to potential difficulties with a different CEMS
technology, but relative to Portland cement sources, it would be
speculative to assume that beta gauge CEMS would successfully pass a PS
11 certification to reliably and quantifiably measure compliance with
the NESHAP, especially at the very low PM levels at some of the sources
in the cement source category.
The commenter also maintains that Tapered Element Oscillating
Microbalance (TEOM) devices could be used in place of light
scintillation PM CEMS. A TEOM is a device that uses a very thin,
tapered, element vibrating at a known frequency that has a first
principle relationship to the measurement of mass. Particles that
impact the element also impact the harmonic vibration of the sensor
which can be translated to a measurement of the particle mass. This is
a more direct approach to measuring the actual mass of PM in stack gas,
and has shown promise to operate very consistently at low levels in
laboratory conditions. Several TEOMs are currently used for monitoring
ambient PM levels at several non-cement, non-domestic industry
installations. TEOMs that are capable of measuring stack gas are not
currently available for sale in the U.S., though this may change in
future years. Even so, with a monitor capable of more direct mass
measurement of PM in stack gas, using PS 11 to certify one against
Method 5 may be problematic at low PM concentrations. The EPA currently
has no data to assess TEOM capabilities versus Method 5 at very low PM
concentrations such as those presented by the better performing sources
in this category. Were TEOM instrumentation commercially available, the
EPA would need to conduct a re-evaluation of PM CEMS technology that
included TEOM data to determine if this instrument could overcome the
challenges posed by calibration with Method 5 at the very low PM levels
emitted by some of the sources in the cement source category. As just
explained, it is not speculation, but rather legitimate engineering
caution that makes it appropriate not to require compliance with a rule
based on an untested measurement methodology.
The commenter further maintains that rather than amend the standard
to change the compliance test methodology and averaging time, the EPA
should revise PS 11 instead, evidently assuming that a revision can be
done rapidly. The commenter's assumption is mistaken. Performance
specification development is a process that takes multiple years and
involves data collection on types of technologies, field testing,
comparison to reference measurement methodology, workgroup and
stakeholder meetings, peer review, rule proposal and public comment
period, as well as comment response and final promulgation of the
Performance Specification. With the development of PA 12A for Mercury
CEMS, the EPA invested a budget in excess of one million dollars to
conduct technology and field studies, as well as to refine the
analytical techniques and work through stakeholder concerns prior to
proposal of the Performance Specification. The process from inception
to final promulgation took over 5 years to complete. PS 11, at issue
here, was over 3 years in development, from concept to final
promulgation, and involved a budget of $250,000. Based on this past
history, it is likely to result in a delay of 3 years or more were the
EPA to delay promulgation of this final rule until we could undertake
the process to research, propose and finalize solutions to PS 11 that
may ameliorate some of the issues vis-a-vis the cement industry now
present. Furthermore, such a process would not address the issues
relating to measurement uncertainties using Method 5 at low PM
concentration levels near its detection limit (i.e. below its practical
quantitation limit of 3 mg), and so there would remain significant
technological hurdles to clear before the EPA could require the use of
PM CEMS in respect to this final rule.
The commenter points to PM CEMS use by European cement kilns. This
is a misplaced comparison. The European calibration and certification
of this instrumentation is completely different than PS 11 requirements
developed by the EPA. European monitoring is certified in a laboratory
environment, and calibrated on site by the instrument vendor when
installed. The EPA has a long history of requiring CEMS installations
in the USA to meet more rigorous calibration and performance
specification certification through a series of comparisons to
reference Method 5 test measurements conducted on the stack with the
flue gas matrix at the facility, not in a controlled laboratory. For a
PM CEMS, this would be a correlation developed with Method 5 as
described in PS 11. The two certification regimes differ greatly in
approach and simply adapting European certification standards to USA
facilities does nothing to mitigate this difference.
In summary, the EPA has carefully considered the issue and it is
our engineering judgment that the PS 11 correlation will not be
technically or practically achievable for a significant number of
cement kiln sources. This is due to the combination of the low
emissions concentrations, PM CEMS measurement uncertainty factors, the
variability in composition of cement PM, and need for extraordinarily
long test runs to reduce Method 5 uncertainty to a level that provides
normal measurement confidence (i.e. greater than the 3 mg practical
quantitation level of Method 5), plus the

[[Page 10019]]

compounding uncertainties associated with source operational
variability. The EPA further recognizes that these problems in
developing PS 11 correlations are most likely to adversely affect the
lowest emitting sources in the category and are more likely to result
in violations of the rule more often for these sources than for sources
operating with higher PM emissions. This result would obviously be
environmentally counterproductive. We are therefore amending the
standard to be based on stack testing, and expressing the standard as a
not-to-exceed (i.e., stack test Method 5 or 5I) standard of 0.07 lb/ton
clinker.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\8\ Because the EPA believes that these same issues pertain to
measurements of the section 111(b) new source performance standard
for modified sources, and because further controls would be both
costly and not cost effective (see section V.A.3 below), the EPA is
adopting the same amendment for modified new sources under the NSPS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Additional responses regarding these issues, including responses to
issues raised in the comments from industry, are found in sections 3
and 4 of the Response to Comment document, which is found in the docket
for this rulemaking.
2. Issues Related to Use of CPMS for Parametric Monitoring
To document continuous compliance with the Method 5 standard (i.e.,
parametric monitoring designed to monitor proper operation of PM
controls), the EPA proposed that PM be monitored continuously using a
CPMS. See 77 FR 42376-77. The parametric limit was to reflect the
highest of the three method 5 test runs from the stack test, and would
be averaged over 30-days. The EPA further proposed corrective action
requirements in the event of exceeding the 30-day rolling average
parametric limit, and a rebuttable presumption that four such
exceedances in a calendar year showed a violation of the emission
standard itself.
With respect to the use of CPMS technology, the EPA has recognized
that PM CEMS technology cannot meet PS 11 requirements in all Portland
cement installations, yet the EPA has also recognized that PM CEMS
sensors are more sensitive and better at detecting small differences in
PM concentration than other technologies such as opacity monitors
(http://www.epa.gov/ttn/emc/cem/pmcemsknowfinalrep.pdf) In considering
the use of PM CEMS at Portland cement facilities we find that while
using PM CEMS technology for continuous quantitative measurement of PM
concentration as correlated to Method 5 with PS 11 is frequently not
achievable (as stated in the preceding subsection of this preamble),
using the same technology for continuous qualitative measurement of PM
emissions is practicable in every instance. Given the information we
have that shows PM CEMS technology to be more sensitive to in-stack PM
concentration differences than opacity monitors and nepheolmeters, the
EPA sees a distinct advantage in using these technologies for
continuous parametric PM monitoring, rather than measuring some other
parameter.
In using a PM CEMS as a CPMS to conduct continuous qualitative
monitoring of PM concentration in the stack, we are not interested in
specific output information from the instrument (e.g. lbs/ton clinker).
We only need to know that PM concentration increases or decreases. The
signal output from the instrument need not be correlated to PM
concentration through PS 11 trials to achieve this, but rather we can
accept the native signal output from the instrument, as is, in
milliamps, and track that signal to determine trends in PM emissions.
In this final rule we are requiring PM CPMS instruments to employ a 4-
20 milliamp output, which is a standard electronic signal output common
to many CEMS.\9\ With a PM CPMS the milliamp output would not represent
an opacity value, but like an opacity analyzer, the milliamps would
increase as PM concentration increases and decrease as PM concentration
decreases. We can then monitor the milliamp signal while conducting a
Method 5 performance test and correlate the average milliamp signal to
the average PM concentration during the testing. This relationship is
notably coarser in terms of understanding the precise PM concentration
in the stack, but the instrument's sensitivity to changing PM
concentration in the stack, and its changing milliamp signal output,
does not deteriorate and may still be employed to qualitatively monitor
PM emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\9\ For example, an opacity instrument uses a series of filters
to calibrate the analyzer and produce a ``percent opacity'' output.
Twenty five percent opacity likely correlates to a milliamp value
near eight milliamps, or 4 milliamps plus 25 percent of the
difference between 4 and 20 milliamps (again, 4 milliamps). Fifty
percent opacity would represent a signal near 12 milliamps, and so
on, with 20 milliamps representing a signal of 100 percent opacity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The EPA received numerous comments about our proposed PM CPMS
parametric monitoring approach. Industry commenters maintained that
sources would have to continually retest unnecessarily, since CPMS
measure an increase in PM CPMS values. This increase in PM CPMS values
would (or at least, could) denote a modest rise in PM emissions, but
actual stack emissions of PM could still be well below the limit. The
EPA recognizes this concern as creating additional burden for
facilities exhibiting good control of their PM emissions (see section
IV.A above), and, therefore, we have modified the process by which a
source would establish and comply with their PM CPMS operating limit in
this final rule. In doing so we considered scaling options for PM CPMS
signals, as they correspond with PM emissions, that were proposed by
industry but found the options presented were not protective enough of
the emission standard. After extensive analysis (see S. Johnson, memo
to docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0817, ''Establishing an Operating
Limit for PM CPMS'', November 2012), we are promulgating a scaling
factor of 75 percent of the emission limit as a benchmark. See section
IV.A above. As in the proposed rule, every source will need to conduct
an annual Method 5 test to determine compliance with the PM emissions
limit, and during this testing will also monitor their PM CPMS milliamp
output. Sources which emit PM less than 75 percent of their emission
limit will be able to scale their PM CPMS milliamp output to determine
where their PM CPMS would intersect 75 percent of their allowed PM
emissions, and set their operating level at that milliamp output. This
alleviates many re-testing concerns for sources that operate well below
the emission limit and provides them with greater operational
flexibility while still assuring continuous compliance with the PM
stack emission standard. It also creates an incentive for sources to
select high efficiency PM controls when sources are evaluating
potential compliance strategies.
For sources whose Method 5 compliance tests place them at or above
75 percent of the emission standard, their operating level will be the
average PM CPMS milliamp output during the three Method 5 test runs.
This means their operating level is the milliamp output that correlates
to their PM compliance determination, and not the highest average 1
hour run value that was in the proposed rule. Now that we are adopting
a scaling factor, we no longer believe that it is also appropriate to
establish the parametric limit based on the highest of the three runs
(which moreover, could reflect a level higher than the level of the
standard). Moreover, as noted below, we believe that on balance the 30
days of averaged

[[Page 10020]]

CPMS measurements provides ample operating cushion.
In a recent rule (76 FR 15736, March 21, 2011), the EPA established
75 percent of the limit as a number that allows for compliance
flexibility and is simultaneously protective of the emission standard.
In this final rule we are utilizing that value so as not to impose
unintended and costly retest requirements for the lowest emitting
sources and to provide for more cost effective, continuous, PM
parametric monitoring across the Portland cement sector. This approach
was selected from among many considered as it provides the greatest
amount of flexibility while demonstrating continuous compliance for
sources which are the lower emitters in the category and is also
effective in holding higher emitters to the emission standard. With
this parametric monitoring approach in place we expect sources to
evaluate control options that provide excellent PM emissions control
and provide them greater operational flexibility below the standard.
One commenter maintained that the use of a CPMS for parametric
monitoring would be ``egregious'' since the milliamp output of the CPMS
allowed a source to select operational parameters of tangential
relation to PM emissions and would therefore not provide useful
information as to proper PM control. The commenter also stated that
monitoring of opacity would be preferable. An industry commenter
likewise requested that continuous opacity monitors or bag leak
detectors be used rather than CPMS.
The EPA does not agree with these comments. First, the milliamp
output of the CPMS reliably and sensitively indicates increasing or
decreasing PM concentration in the stack. Where PM controls are
failing, the PM CPMS signal will indicate the increasing concentration
of PM in the stack. A source will need to monitor the trend from the PM
CPMS daily reading to maintain compliance with the 30-day emission
standard. Indeed, the EPA has sufficient confidence that four
exceedances of the CPMS continuous measurements is a presumptive
violation of the emission standard itself. Moreover, the CPMS is
considerably more sensitive than an opacity monitor or bag leak
detector at detecting fluctuations in PM level. An opacity monitor
determines the percent of a light signal that is occluded across the
stack diameter. Opacity analyzers operate on a zero to 100 percent
scale, meaning they are capable of registering PM that completely
occludes the far stack wall from the instrument light source. This
amount of PM is roughly equivalent to a complete failure of the
emission control device. A properly operating control device will emit
five percent opacity or less, which is barely visible to the naked eye
and on the low end of the opacity monitor capability. PM emissions that
increase opacity two percent at this level may well exceed the emission
standard, yet they only mildly deflect the opacity monitor output. This
same 2 percent opacity increase is capable of registering changes of
several milliamps on a PM CPMS when operating on the scale provided in
this final rule. With several decimal fractions available between each
milliamp to track signal output, and three or four milliamps
representing 1 percent opacity, the PM CPMS has a clear advantage in
low PM concentration measurement over continuous opacity monitoring
systems. Regarding baghouse leak detectors, the EPA has no information
that shows them operating on the same sensitivity level as PM CPMS
technology, and we do not require baghouse leak detection systems on
sources where PM CPMS are in use for this reason.
Industry commenters objected to the proposal that 4 calendar year
exceedances \10\ from the parametric limit would be a presumptive
violation of the emission standard. Again, the EPA does not agree.
First, the EPA may permissibly establish such a presumption by rule,
assuming there is a reasonable factual basis to do so. See Hazardous
Waste Treatment Council v. EPA, 886 F. 2d 355, 367-68 (DC Cir. 1989)
explaining that such presumptions can legitimately establish the
elements of the agency's prima facie case in an enforcement action.
Second, there is a reasonable basis here for the presumption that four
exceedances (i.e. increases over the parametric operating limit) in a
calendar year are a violation of the emission standard. The parametric
monitoring limit is established as a 30-day average of the averaged
test value in the performance test, or the 75th percentile value if
that is higher. In either instance, the 30-day averaging feature
provides significant leeway to the owner operator not to deviate from
the parametric operating level since the 30 measurements will
significantly dampen variability in the single measurement (average of
three test runs) that produced the parametric value. See 77 FR 42377/2
and sources there cited. The EPA acknowledges that the difference was
even greater between the parametric level and the emission standard in
the proposed rule (which was based on the highest measured test run).
The EPA believes that the 30-day averaging feature plus the 75-percent
scaling feature for the lower emitting sources now provides a
sufficient operating cushion. See 77 FR 42377.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\10\ In the proposed rule, the EPA referred to a measurement
higher than the parametric limit as a ``deviation'' and proposed a
definition of deviation. See 77 FR 42398. The EPA is not including
this terminology in this final rule. The term ``deviation'' is not
in the Portland cement NESHAP rules (which date back to 1998), and
has not proved necessary in practice. More important, the rule
itself states what the consequences of measurements which exceed a
parametric limit are (i.e. retesting, and in some instances, a
presumptive violation of the emission standard itself), so that no
further general regulatory provision (i.e. a generalized definition
of `deviation' or similar term) is necessary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Existing Source Beyond the Floor Determination
The EPA proposed to use the floor levels for PM as the standard,
rejecting more stringent standards on the grounds of poor cost
effectiveness (after considering non-air environmental impacts and
energy implications of a more stringent standard as well). See 77 FR
42376. One commenter argued that the EPA should adopt a beyond the
floor standard for PM, maintaining that such a standard was justified
under the factors set out in section 112 (d)(2).
The EPA disagrees, and is not adopting a beyond the floor standard.
After considering the cost of the emission reductions attributable to
such a standard, and the associated non-air and energy impacts of such
a standard, the EPA determines that the standard is not ``achievable''
within the meaning of section 112 (d)(2). Specifically, the EPA
estimates that a beyond the floor standard set at the level of the
original (2010 final rule) standard would only result in 138 tpy--
nationwide--of PM reduction (a value not questioned by any of the
commenters). See Final Portland Cement Reconsideration Technical
Support Document, December 20, 2012. We further estimate that the cost
of achieving this modest incremental reduction would be approximately
$37 million (the estimated cost savings attributable to the amended PM
standard (including savings attributable to ancillary PM controls
related to collection of PM from the control of Hg, THC, and HCl). See
Final Portland Cement Reconsideration Technical Support Document,
December 20, 2012, included in the rule docket, EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0817.
These total costs are high compared to the small nationwide emission
reductions, and the cost effectiveness of these reductions is
correspondingly high: approximately $268,000 per ton of PM removed.
This is significantly higher cost effectiveness for PM than the EPA has
accepted in other NESHAP

[[Page 10021]]

standards. See 76 FR 15704 (March 21, 2011) (rejecting $48,501 per ton
of PM as not cost effective for PM emitted by CISWI energy recovery
units); see also 72 FR 53814, 53826 (Sept. 20, 2007) (proposing (and
later accepting) cost effectiveness of $10,000 per ton for PM as
reasonable in determining Generally Available Control Technology, and
noting that the EPA had viewed cost effectiveness only as high as
approximately $31,000 per ton as reasonable under its Title II program
for mobile sources). A beyond the floor standard at the level of the
2010 standard would also involve slightly higher energy use, although
this is not a major factor in EPA's decision. EPA is therefore not
adopting a beyond the floor standard for PM at the level of the 2010
standard. A standard even more stringent would likewise not be
justified. See 76 FR 54988.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\11\ The commenter's argument that section 112 (d)(2)'s
requirement that the EPA consider ``the cost of achieving such
emission reduction'' limits the EPA to considerations of economic
achievability, and not cost effectiveness, is misplaced. See
Husqvarna AB v. EPA, 254 F. 3d 195, 200 (DC Cir. 2001) (cost
effectiveness properly considered in evaluating cost of compliance
under CAA section 213, a technology-based provision similar to
section 112 (d)(2)). The commenter's further argument that the
requirement in section 112 (d)(2) for standards to result in ``the
maximum degree of reduction in emissions of hazardous air pollutants
* * * achievable'' considering cost and other factors constrains the
EPA's ability to consider cost-effectiveness or otherwise balance
the statutory factors has likewise been rejected. See Sierra Club v.
EPA, 325 F. 3d 374, 378 (DC Cir. 2003) (the EPA was left with great
discretion in determining how to balance such factors when
considering technology-based standards which are to result in
maximum reductions achievable).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. New Source PM Standard Under Section 112(d)(3)
One commenter challenged the methodology the EPA used in the 2010
rulemaking to establish the new source floor and standard, maintaining
that for new plants, the EPA's floors must reflect the emission level
achieved by the single best performing kiln in the category, not the
best performing kiln for which the EPA happens to have emissions
information. See section 112(d)(3). The EPA did not reopen the
methodology by which new source floors for this industry are
determined. See 77 FR 42373 n. 3 (``The EPA will not consider comments
challenging the data and methodology for the new source standards since
these are unchanged from the 2010 rule and the EPA is not reexamining
any of these issues.'') In any case, if the issue is (against the EPA's
view) deemed to be reopened, CAA section 112(d)(3) indicates that new
source floors are to be based on ``the emission control that is
achieved in practice by the best controlled similar source, as
determined by the Administrator'' (emphasis supplied). This language
affords considerable discretion for the agency to base the NESHAP new
source floors on performance of sources for which the agency has
emissions information.

B. Mercury Standard

The EPA explained at proposal that reanalysis of the mercury floor,
after removing CISWI kilns, resulted in a floor of 58 lb/MM tons
clinker produced--slightly higher than the previously calculated floor
and standard of 55 lb/MM tons clinker produced. The EPA further
proposed to adopt 55 lb/MM tons clinker produced as a beyond-the-floor
standard. See 77 FR 42373. The new source standard was unchanged since
the standard was based on the performance of the best performing
similar source.
The EPA is adopting the standards as proposed. One commenter
challenged the appropriateness of adopting a beyond-the-floor standard,
not for the industry as a whole, but for itself. As to this individual
plant (Ash Grove, Durkee), the commenter maintained that the cost of
attaining the three additional lb/MM ton clinker produced reduction
(i.e., the difference between 58 and 55 lb/MM tons clinker produced)
was greater than the EPA estimated because it would require more than
just additional carbon in an activated carbon injection system to
achieve the incremental difference. According to the commenter, they
have performed extensive testing and the addition of activated carbon
per million actual cubic feet per minute of exhaust gas has little or
no impact on mercury emissions. The commenter states that for plants
such as Ash Grove's Durkee plant, there is no known add-on control
technology at this time that will assure achievement of the standard on
a continuous basis.
We note first that the commenter is somewhat over-estimating the
incremental reduction of mercury actually needed. To achieve the
emission standard, sources will need to operate their processes and
controls so that they can achieve the average emissions level used in
setting the existing source limit of 55 lb/MM ton--the so-called design
level. See e.g. 77 FR 42389/3 (estimating emissions attributable to
this final rule based on design levels); see also discussion of design
values in section VI.B below. That level is 31.7 lb/MM ton for the
standard of 55 lb/MM ton. See 75 FR 54976/3. The average for the 58 lb/
MM ton is 34.1 lb/MM ton. The additional reduction needed is therefore
2.4 lb/MM tons, not 3 lb/MM tons as stated by the commenter.
As the EPA has acknowledged repeatedly, due to the high levels of
mercury in their limestone, mercury emissions from the Ash Grove Durkee
plant are not typical of other plants in the industry. See, e.g. 75 FR
54978-79. As a result, this plant faces a particularly great challenge
in meeting the mercury standard, whether the standard is 55 or 58 lb/MM
tons. Because of their unique situation, we do not believe that the
difficulties this facility is having in meeting the mercury standards
can be generalized to the rest of the industry. Section 112(d)(2) of
the Act posits an industry-wide standard. Having said this, our cost
analysis conducted for the 2009 proposal and 2010 final rule assumed
that this plant would have to install multiple control systems in order
to meet the limit for mercury. See Docket item EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0051-
3438. Therefore, if in this particular case the activated carbon
injection (ACI) system cannot achieve the small additional reductions
required, then the facility has other mercury control options available
such as further dust shuttling, or treating cement kiln dust to remove
mercury. Dust shuttling entails moving dust from within the kiln to
other parts of the process and is considered a closed loop process,
thereby not causing any waste impacts. In addition, any costs
associated with dust shuttling have already been accounted for in the
cost estimates the EPA has developed for this particular facility.
The commenter alluded to control performance data that it shared
with the EPA. We note that the commenter has provided pilot scale data
as part of the 2010 rulemaking (see Docket item EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0051-
2073), but has not provided data on the effects of increasing carbon
injection on mercury emissions for a full scale facility. We note that
in the electric utility industry, where there is significantly more
experience with ACI, it is well established that higher carbon
injection rates increase mercury removal (Sjostrom, S.; Durham, M.;
Bustard, J. Martin, C.; ``Activated Carbon Injection for Mercury
Control: Overview'', FUEL, 89, 6, 1320 (2010)). There is no data to
indicate that ACI systems in the cement industry would behave
differently than those in the utility industry. Given the lack of data
on the efficacy of increasing carbon injection rates on mercury removal
for full scale cement operations, we cannot conclude that increasing
carbon injection is not a

[[Page 10022]]

reasonable approach for increasing mercury removal efficiency.

C. Standards for Fugitive Emissions From Open Clinker Storage Piles

The EPA proposed that cement kilns control fugitive emissions from
open clinker storage piles, defined at proposal as ``any clinker
storage pile that is not completely enclosed in a building or
structure''. These piles would be controlled through the use of work
practices which minimized emissions by means of (among others) partial
enclosure, damping down the pile by chemical or physical means or
shielding piles from wind. These work practices were drawn from permits
for existing cement kilns, and every cement kiln appears to already be
utilizing some type of work practice to minimize fugitive emissions
from open clinker storage piles. See 77 FR 42378. Cement kiln sources
were allowed to select from among the specified work practices and
choose those most suitable for its operations.
For both new and existing sources, the NESHAP is amended to require
that one or more of the control measures identified in the rule be used
to minimize fugitive dust emissions from open clinker storage piles.
The work practices would apply to open clinker storage piles regardless
of the quantity of clinker or the length of time that the clinker pile
is in existence.
In addition, the owner or operator must include as part of their
operations and maintenance plan (required in Sec. 63.1347) the
location of their open clinker storage piles and the fugitive dust
control measures as specified in this rule that will be implemented to
control fugitive dust emissions from open clinker piles. We agree with
comments received that the list of allowed work practices reflects all
of the available practices documented in cement kiln facility operating
permits to control clinker storage pile fugitive emissions. The size,
type and duration of a clinker pile may warrant different types of work
practices. The final rule requires that one or more of a variety of
work practices need to be employed, recognizing that the source will
use the work practices that will be effective for the particular piles.
Thus, the EPA has revised the list of work practices to be consistent
with those listed in the proposal preamble. These are: Use of partial
enclosures, using a water spray or fogging system, applying appropriate
dust suppression agents, using a wind barrier and using a tarp.
Commenters also requested that the EPA allow other work practices if
approved by the delegated authority. Our regulations already provide
procedures for sources to seek approval of alternative work practices.
See section 112(h)(3) as implemented by 40 CFR 63.8(f).
Several industry commenters stated that the definition of clinker
pile is problematic as proposed because it was not limited by size or
duration. Commenters note that it is not uncommon for small amounts of
clinker to be dropped, or to fall off a front-loader onto the ground
when being moved from a kiln to a storage location or from such a
location to the grinding mill. Because these are small amounts of
clinker, it is also not uncommon that these small quantities of clinker
will remain where they were dropped and may not be picked up or removed
until the necessary manpower becomes available; in some cases this
could be multiple days. Another industry commenter noted that because
of the short-term duration of temporary clinker stockpiles, the use of
work practices similar to those proposed for clinker storage piles is
not feasible. The industry trade association suggested the following
definition: ``Open clinker storage pile means an outdoor, unenclosed
accumulation of clinker on the ground, which contains in excess of
50,000 tons of clinker, and is utilized for a continuous period in
excess of 180 days.'' Under this suggested approach, only a clinker
storage pile meeting this definition would be subject to the work
practice standards.
We are not adopting this approach. We believe that the potential to
emit may be different at different sites for a variety of reasons such
as weather and traffic conditions. Nor did the commenter provide
information indicating that open clinker storage piles of less than
50,000 tons or stored for less than 180 days are unlikely to produce
fugitive emissions. Indeed, as a result of weather, traffic or other
conditions, smaller piles stored for shorter periods have the evident
potential to emit substantial levels of fugitive emissions. Nor is any
such uniformly applicable distinction based on duration evident.
Clinker piles can be temporary but be replaced by a new pile at the
same (or nearby) location a few days later, with no essential
difference in fugitive emissions.
Nonetheless, we believe that the commenter is correct that spills
are unavoidable, and that work practices designed for non-temporary
piles cannot feasibly be applied in such circumstances. The commenter
is also correct that work practices used for non-temporary piles would
be misapplied to temporary piles attributable to cleaning storage
structures. For these reasons, the definition of ``open storage pile''
excludes these types of piles. Specifically, the definition of open
clinker storage pile does not include temporary piles of clinker that
are the result of accidental spillage or temporary use of outdoor
storage while clinker storage buildings are being cleaned. This final
rule defines ``temporary'' to mean piles that remain in place for 3
days or less from their generation (3 days accommodating weekend
scheduling). This is sufficient time to either pick these spills up
(the applicable work practice for these spills) or to cover them to
prevent fugitive emissions.
These final amendments will result in a cost savings to the
industry as compared to the 2010 rule. As a result of requiring work
practices instead of enclosures, we estimate that there will be a
savings of $8.25 million annually. See Final Portland Cement
Reconsideration Technical Support Document, December 20, 2012, in this
rulemaking docket.

D. September 9, 2015, Compliance Date for the Amended Existing Source
Standards

The EPA proposed to establish September 9, 2015, as the compliance
date for the amended existing source NESHAP standards. The basic reason
for the proposed compliance date was that the proposed change in the PM
standard made possible different compliance alternatives for all of the
stack emission standards, and that it could legitimately take two years
from the original compliance date to implement these new compliance
strategies. See 77 FR 42385-87. Further, the amended compliance date
would apply to all of the stack emission standards due to the
interrelatedness of the standards: the mercury, THC and HCl standards
all typically involve some element of PM generation and capture and so
the controls must be integrated with PM control strategies. Id. at
42386.
The record for this final rule supports the need for the September
9, 2015 compliance date. With respect to PM control, as the EPA
explained at proposal, plants now have the option of retaining
electrostatic precipitators (ESP) with modification or downstream
polishing baghouses, rather than replacing ESP with baghouses. Plants
may also size baghouses differently (with or without incorporation of
upstream or downstream polishing elements). The various types of
sorbent injection strategies to control organics, mercury and HCl, are
affected by the PM limits (and vice versa). Based on the facts of this
record for this source

[[Page 10023]]

category, the type, size and aggressiveness of the controls for these
HAP, as well as the PM controls, are not only interdependent but can
all change as a result of the amended PM standard. In addition, the
amended alternative oHAP standard affords additional compliance
alternatives for control of non-dioxin organic HAP, including
alternatives to use of Residual Thermal Oxidizers. See generally, Final
Portland Cement Reconsideration Technical Support Document, section
3.1, December 2012, in the docket for this rulemaking.
Determining, developing, installing, testing and otherwise
implementing a different comprehensive HAP control regime takes time.
Specifically, plants will need to conduct engineering studies,
determine the most cost-effective control strategy, seek contract bids,
purchase equipment, install and test the new equipment. Below is an
estimate of a timeline for a cement kiln to undertake these steps.

Time Needed To Prepare for Compliance
[Docket item EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0817-0505-A1]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steps in preparing for compliance Time period
------------------------------------------------------------------------
New engineering study............. January-April 2013.
Selection of technology providers. April-August 2013.
Technology procurement............ August-December 2013.
Detailed technology design and January-June 2014.
final engineering.
Equipment fabrication and June-December 2014.
permitting.
Construction and tying into January-May 2015.
existing operation.
Technology commissioning.......... June-August 2015.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

One commenter, sharply opposing any change in compliance date,
maintained that all of this reasoning is hypothetical and that such a
consequential extension could not legitimately rest on speculation. The
EPA disagrees that this analysis is speculative. First, the EPA's
engineering judgment is that the changes in the PM standard and
alternative oHAP standard, open up different compliance alternatives
from those under the 2010 rule. The EPA has indicated what those
alternatives can be, and the time needed to determine, purchase,
install and test them. Comments from the affected industry are
consistent with the EPA's engineering judgment as to the type of
different compliance approaches now available for existing sources.
The EPA's engineering determinations as to the time needed for
cement kilns to implement a different multi-HAP control strategy here
are moreover consistent with the agency's long-standing analysis (i.e.
analysis not specific to the cement industry) of the time needed to
install multipollutant control systems. See US EPA, Engineering and
Economic Factors Affecting the Installation of Control Technologies for
Multipollutant Strategies, EPA-600/R-02/073, October 2002) (cited at 77
FR 42386). Therefore, the EPA estimated that it is normal for the
development and implementation of new compliance measures to take
between 15-27 months for single control systems, and longer for systems
involving multiple controls for HAP and criteria pollutants, as is the
case here.
The record to this rule also contains a survey of 92 of the 97
domestic cement kilns currently in operation. These survey results
document, on a kiln by kiln basis, alternative engineering strategies
now available to these kilns as a result of the amended PM standard and
also documents the time each kiln estimates would be needed to carry
out these new compliance strategies. See Comments of PCA, Appendix D
(EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0817-0505). For example, kiln B \12\ has the option of
modifying its ESP system using a hybrid ESP/baghouse filter system, or
of using a cyclone upstream of the ESP. Steps needed to implement these
possibilities include main stack evaluation, cooler stack testing, and
evaluation, vendor/contractor selection, final design, equipment
procurement and fabrication, startup and commissioning, and
demonstrating compliance. The plant has already commenced some of these
steps, but provides reasonable time estimates for why it would take
until September 2015 to complete them. Kiln Q \13\ expects to be able
to retain its ESP system (whereas it could not under the 2010 final
rule), but needs to resize its dust conveying system, upgrade the ESP,
and utilize a larger activated carbon injection system differently from
planned (since an ESP will not capture mercury as would a baghouse).
Steps involved in developing and implementing a system include
reviewing the structural integrity of the existing ESP, obtaining
proposals on ESP upgrades, relocating an existing stack adjacent to the
existing ESP, complete stack design, order equipment for ESP upgrades,
order a new stack, contract construction, perform necessary
construction, modify the ESP as needed, evaluate CEMS performance and
conduct stack testing and make any adjustments to the integrated
control system. Again, reasonable timelines for carrying out these
steps are provided.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\12\ For competitiveness reasons, kilns in this survey are
identified by letter. The survey results are consistent with the
EPA's engineering understanding and judgment, and the EPA has no
reason to dispute the overall survey results (although some details
may be open to question).
\13\ These examples were chosen at random by the EPA from the
survey information provided in the comment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Neither the EPA nor the industry has said definitively what each
kiln will do and how long it will take. Until the standards are
finalized, no such definitive pronouncement is possible. However, the
record is quite specific that additional control strategies are now
possible; what the range of those new control strategies are; that the
strategies are interrelated so that the standards for PM, organics,
mercury and HCl are all implicated; and the time needed to carry out
the various strategies. Thus, the commenter is mistaken that the record
regarding the need for a compliance date of September 2015 is merely
conjectural.
The EPA solicited comment on the possibility of a shorter extension
for the stack emission standards, noting that by virtue of the 2010
final rule, the industry was not starting from scratch but could
already undertake compliance steps. See 77 FR 42386/3. The survey
results referred to above confirm that this is the case, since a number
of plants (to their credit) indicated that they have taken preliminary
steps toward compliance such as conducting stack testing, and testing
various control strategies (e.g., survey results for kilns A, F and G).
Nonetheless, many commenters made the evident point that this
preliminary work could only go so far when there was uncertainty about

[[Page 10024]]

the final standard and uncertainty around which standard would
determine their final control strategy. Moreover, even those plants
which had begun preliminary compliance steps indicated (with specific
timelines provided) that the remaining work would legitimately stretch
through the summer of 2015.
This same record refutes those comments maintaining that an even
longer compliance extension is needed. Not only is this inconsistent
with the EPA's own estimates, but the industry survey results document
that no further time is needed. See CAA section 112(i)(3)(A)
(compliance with CAA section 112(d) standards to be as expeditious as
practicable). Therefore, the EPA is revising the compliance date for
existing sources for PM, THC, HCl, and Hg to be September 9, 2015.
However, the EPA is establishing February 12, 2014, as the
compliance date for the standards for existing open clinker piles.
These standards are not inter-related to the stack emission standards,
and so need not be on the same timeline. The work practices we are
adopting as the standards reflect practices already in place throughout
the entire industry. The time needed to come into compliance
consequently is to establish a reporting and recordkeeping apparatus,
and in some instances to obtain approval (after appropriate
demonstration) to use work practices not enumerated in the standard.
The EPA estimates that these various steps should not exceed twelve
months. Since section 112(i)(3)(A) requires compliance to be as
expeditious as practicable, the EPA is establishing a 12 month
compliance period for these standards.
A compliance date for an amended standard must still be ``as
expeditiou[s] as practicable'' and not more than 3 years. We believe a
compliance extension is appropriate where, as here, for the stack
emission standards, the amended result in a compliance regime differs
from the initial rule and additional time is needed to develop,
install, and implement the controls needed to meet the amended
standard. The EPA has shown that to be the case here, as explained
above.
The Sierra Club in its comments also argued that the EPA could not
change the 2013 compliance date in the 2010 final rule as a matter of
law. The commenter rests this argument on CAA sections 112(d)(7) and
112(i)(3)(A). We have responded above to the argument based on section
112(d)(7). Section 112(d)(7) simply is not an anti-backsliding
provision (or, at the least, does not have to be interpreted that way).
CAA Section 112(i)(3)(A) states in relevant part:
``[a]fter the effective date of any emissions standard, limitation
or regulation * * * the Administrator shall establish a compliance date
or dates for each category or subcategory of existing sources, which
shall provide for compliance as expeditiously as practicable, but in no
event later than 3 years after the effective date of such standard''.
In NRDC v. EPA (Plywood MACT), 489 F. 3d 1364, 1373-74 (D.C. Cir.
2007) the court held that ``only the effective date of Section 112
emissions standards matters when determining the maximum compliance
date.'' 489 F. 3d at 1373 (emphasis original). The EPA, therefore,
lacked authority to extend the compliance date when it was only
adjusting reporting terms. Id. at 1374. The opinion implies, however,
that the EPA may reset the compliance date when the EPA amends the
actual standard, as here. If the statute provided an absolute bar on
the EPA extending an effective date, there was no reason for the court
to distinguish the situation where the EPA amends some ancillary
feature of the rule from the situation where the EPA amends the actual
standard.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\14\ Sierra Club maintains that because the revisions to the PM
standard leave that standard nearly as stringent as the 2010
standard, all that has effectively changed is the standard's
averaging time. Sierra Club likens this situation to the amendments
to ancillary provisions like reporting at issue in Plywood MACT.
This is incorrect. First, as explained in section V.A. above, the
standard did increase numerically as a result of removing commercial
incinerators from the database. Portland Cement Reconsideration
Technical Support Document, June 15, 2012, Docket item EPA-HQ-OAR-
2011-0817-0225. Second, although the amended PM standard is
relatively as stringent as the 2010 standard (75 FR 54988/2 and 77
FR 42389/3), it nonetheless affords different compliance options for
all of the standards, as explained above and in further detail in
the Response to Comment document. The standard allows flexibility
for those days when emissions increase as a result of normal
operating variability, without significantly affecting the long-term
average performance for PM and affords different compliance
opportunities as a result. Nor does the commenter consider the
amendment to the alternative oHAP standard, which amendment likewise
affords new compliance opportunities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The reason it makes sense for the EPA to have the authority to
reestablish a compliance date when it amends a MACT standard is
evident. In a technology-based regime like section 112(d), if the
technology basis of the standard changes with a change of the standard,
it takes time to adopt the revised controls. This result fits the
statutory text.
Where the EPA has amended an existing source MACT standard, the
compliance date for that amended standard must be as expeditious as
practicable, and no later than 3 years from its effective date. Sierra
Club argues that the original standard (the one that has been amended)
must nonetheless take effect, but that standard no longer exists. It
has been amended. Moreover, the result of Sierra Club's approach would
force sources to install one technology and rip it out in short order
to install another. Congress cannot have mandated this result. See PCA
v. EPA, 655 F. 3d at 189 (staying NESHAP standards for clinker piles--
that is, effectively extending their compliance date--because ``the
standards could likely change substantially. Thus, industry should not
have to build expensive new containment structures until the standard
is finally determined.'') ^{15 16} Moreover, in the extreme
case where the initial standard was outright technically infeasible by
any source (and was amended by the EPA to correct this defect), Sierra
Club's reading would leave sources with literally no legitimate
compliance option.\17\ Technology-based standards simply do not work
this way.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\15\ In a variant of this argument, Sierra Club maintains that
in a situation where the compliance date for an initial existing
source MACT standard has not yet passed and the EPA amended that
standard to make it more stringent, the EPA would nonetheless leave
the predecessor less stringent standard in place and require
compliance with it. Although this situation has not arisen, the EPA
would presumably be governed by the same principle noted by the PCA
court: is the technology basis for the standard changing in such a
way as to require more time for compliance and in a way that negates
the compliance strategy of the initial rule. (Of course, if the
compliance date of a standard has already occurred and a standard is
later amended, that compliance date would not change retroactively.)
\16\ Sierra Club maintains that PCA is distinguishable because
it involved a standard which the EPA was compelled to change. First,
the comment is factually mistaken. The EPA had granted
reconsideration of the clinker pile standards but had not indicated
that the standards would be amended. See 76 FR 28325/1 (May 17,
2011). Nor did the court indicate that the pile standards must
change. Rather, ``[b]ecause EPA will now be receiving comments for
the first time, the standards could likely change substantially.''
655 F. 3d at 189 (emphasis supplied). Thus, the court effectively
reset the compliance date because of a potential future change in
the rule which could result in a compliance regime which differed
from that in the 2010 final rule. This is directly parallel to the
situation now presented by the amended PM and alternative oHAP
standards.
\17\ An example is the startup and shutdown standard for HCl in
the 2010 final rule. The EPA established this standard as zero on
the mistaken assumption that no chlorine could be present in the
kiln during there periods. See 76 FR 28325 (granting consideration
on this basis). The commenter's approach would leave this
technically infeasible standard and its compliance date in place
without recourse.

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

[[Page 10025]]

E. Eligibility To Be a New Source Under NESHAP

CAA section 112(a)(4) states that a new source is a stationary
source if ``the construction or reconstruction of which is commenced
after the Administrator first proposes regulations under this section
establishing an emissions standard applicable to such source.'' As we
explained previously, there is some ambiguity in the language ``first
proposes'' and such language could refer to different dates in
different circumstances, such as the first time the Agency proposes any
standards for the source category, the first time the Agency proposes
standards under a particular rulemaking record for the source category,
or the first time the Agency proposes a particular standard.
In the proposed reconsideration rule, the EPA proposed to retain
May 6, 2009, as the date which determines new source eligibility and
solicited comment on this issue. Industry commenters stated that we
should change the date for determining new source status from May 9,
2009 to July 18, 2012, the date of the proposed reconsideration rule.
In support, they asserted that they will not know what the final
standards are until we finalize the reconsideration rule. We disagree
with the commenters' suggestion and are retaining the May 6, 2009 date
as the date that determines whether a source is a new source under CAA
section 112(a)(4).
As we explained at proposal, it is reasonable to retain the May 6,
2009 date as the date the Agency ``first proposed'' standards for this
source category. This is the date that EPA first proposed these
standards under this particular rulemaking record. Today's action is a
reconsideration action, and although it revises the particulate matter
new source standard, it is premised on the same general rulemaking
record. It is thus reasonable to view the date EPA ``first proposes''
standards to be the May 2009 date. Further, industry commenters
essentially advocate an approach whereby any time the Agency changes a
new source standard, in any way, on reconsideration, the new source
trigger date would change. Such a result is not consistent with
Congress' intent in defining the term ``new source'' in section
112(a)(4), to be the date the Agency ``first proposes'' standards.
Furthermore, EPA notes that the new source standards finalized today
are ones that will be met, in our view, using the same or similar
control technologies as would be used to meet the standards issued in
May 2010, and commenters have not disputed this conclusion. See 77 FR
42387.

VI. Summary of Cost, Environmental, Energy and Economic Impacts

A. What are the affected sources?

As noted in the proposed rule, the EPA estimates that by 2013 there
will be 100 Portland cement manufacturing facilities located in the
U.S. and Puerto Rico that are expected to be affected by this final
rule, and that approximately 5 of those facilities are new greenfield
facilities. All these facilities will operate 156 cement kilns and
associated clinker coolers. Of these kilns, 23 are CISWI kilns. These
have been removed from our data set used to establish existing source
floors. Based on capacity expansion data provided by the PCA, by 2013
there will be 16 kilns and their associated clinker coolers subject to
NESHAP new source emission limits for PM, mercury, HCl and THC, and 7
kilns and clinker coolers subject to the amended NSPS for nitrogen
oxide and SO2. Some of these new kilns will be built at
existing facilities and some at new greenfield facilities.

B. How did the EPA evaluate the impacts of these amendments?

For these final amendments, we determined whether additional
control measures, work practices and monitoring requirements would be
required by cement manufacturing facilities to comply with the amended
rules, incremental to the 2010 final standards (since any other
comparison would result in double counting). For any additional control
measure, work practice or monitoring requirement we determined the
associated capital and annualized cost that would be incurred by
facilities required to implement the measures. Finally, we considered
the extent to which any facility in the industry would find it
necessary to implement any of the additional measures in order to
comply with these final amendments. Using this approach, we assessed
potential impacts from the proposed revisions.
These final amendments to the 2010 rule are expected to result in
lower costs for the Portland cement industry. The final amendment to
the PM standard affords alternative, less costly compliance
opportunities for existing sources. See section V.D above. These could
be utilizing existing PM control devices rather than replacing them
(for example, retaining an ESP or a smaller baghouse), or supplementing
existing PM control rather than replacing it (putting polishing
controls ahead of the primary PM control device, for instance).
Compliance strategies for the other HAP, all of which involve some
element of PM control, also may be affected. Cost savings from these
alternatives could be significant. There are also potential cost
savings associated with the amended oHAP alternative standard (which
now may be a viable compliance alternative for some sources since
issues of reliable analytic measurement have been resolved). Following
proposal, industry submitted kiln specific information on likely
changes in compliance strategy resulting from the proposed amendments
so that we are now better able to estimate potential savings resulting
from the final amendments. Based on an industry survey of 18 Portland
cement facilities (20 kilns) after proposal (see Docket item EPA-HQ-
OAR-2011-0817-0505, Appendix D), it appears that the amendments may
have the following effects, which may result in savings in capital and
annual costs associated with implementing control technologies for
these pollutants:
Regenerative thermal oxidizers (RTO) may not need to be
installed due to the amended oHAP alternative.
Carbon injection rates may be lowered or not required for
THC control.
Existing PM controls (ESP and baghouse) may not need to be
replaced, but may instead be upgraded.
Additional PM controls may not have to be implemented.
Polishing and hybrid filter configurations may be
implemented instead of total replacements.
There are also certain costs, and cost savings, associated with
other provisions of the final amendments. There may be a difference in
costs of stack testing for PM and use of a CPMS, rather than use of a
PM CEMS. In addition, there are cost savings when changing from a PM
CEMS compliance demonstration to a CPMS demonstration. For example as
part of the PS 11 calibration requirements, a minimum of 15 Method 5
test runs are required to develop a correlation curve, with no limit to
the maximum number of test runs. Omitting the need for these multiple
test runs will save the facility a minimum of $20,000 per kiln (each
Method 5 test costs $5,000). At a savings of $20,000 per kiln,
nationwide savings for 133 new and existing kilns, would be $2.7
million per year. However, the CPMS is the same type of device as a PM
CEMS, so the capital cost of the CPMS would not be significantly
different than the CEMS device.
The final revisions to the alternative organic HAP standard (from 9
ppm to 12 ppm, reflecting the analytic method practical quantitation
limit) would allow more sources to select this compliance alternative
and demonstrate compliance without needing to install

[[Page 10026]]

very expensive and energy-intensive RTO. In addition, providing
parametric monitoring flexibilities (not present in the 2010 final
rule) will provide lower costs for the better-performing sources in the
industry. See section IV.B above. We have quantified these savings (see
Final Portland Cement Reconsideration Technical Support Document,
December 20, 2012, Section 3).
The revisions to the standard for open clinker storage piles codify
current fugitive dust control measures already required by most states,
so no impacts are expected. These final standards would be
significantly less expensive than the controls for open piles in the
2010 final rule, which required enclosures in all instances. We
estimate that the savings to industry over the 2010 rule will be $8.25
million annually. See Final Portland Cement Reconsideration Technical
Support Document, December 20, 2012, in this rulemaking docket.
We have estimated the additional industry cost associated with the
affirmative defense to civil penalties provisions. We estimate the
additional cost is $3,258 per year for the entire industry. See
Supporting Statement in the docket.
One of the final revisions would allow sources that control HCl
with dry scrubbers to use periodic performance testing and parametric
monitoring rather than monitoring compliance with an HCl CEMS. This
will provide those sources with additional flexibility in complying
with the HCl standard.
The revision to the alternative PM emissions limit provisions
merely recognizes that sources other than the clinker cooler may
combine their exhaust with the kiln exhaust gas and corrects the
equation for calculating the alternative limit. Therefore, there should
be no impacts from this revision.
The amendments provide for work practices rather than numerical
standards during periods of startup and shutdown. The work practice
standards reflect common industry practices, so there should be no
costs associated with them. There should also be substantial savings
associated with the work practices.
At an annual cost of about $51,000 per year ($22,800 per Method 30B
test for mercury + $8,000 per year for Method 25A test for THC +
$20,000 per year for Method 321 test for HCl), the final revisions for
new testing and monitoring of coal mills that use kiln exhaust gases to
dry coal and exhaust through a separate stack are not expected to have
significant impacts.
The revisions would make existing kilns that undergo a
modification, as defined by NSPS, subject to a PM standard of 0.07 lb/
ton clinker, 3-run average. There may be less costly compliance
alternatives under the amended standard, similar to alternatives
available under the amended existing source NESHAP for PM.

C. What are the air quality impacts?

In these final amendments, emission limits for mercury, THC and HCl
are unchanged from the 2010 rule. Thus, there is no change in emissions
from the 2010 rule for these HAP and HAP surrogates. The alternative
HAP organic standard is being amended to 12 ppm, which is the analytic
method practical quantitation limit based on the performance test
method detection limit of 4 ppm. The impact on emission levels due to
this change is not clear since measuring below the quantitation limit
does not yield a value with enough certainty to represent the actual
level. Thus, a measurement below 12 ppm could very well actually be 12
ppm or something less. For PM, the limit for existing sources changes
from 0.04 lb/ton clinker 30-day average to 0.07 lb/ton clinker based on
stack testing. The PM limit for new sources also changed: To 0.02 lb/
ton clinker stack test from 0.01 lb/ton clinker 30-day average. The
final changes in the PM standards, while not significant in absolute
terms, may result in a small increase in total nationwide emissions by
allowing slightly more variability, although, as noted at proposal, we
estimate that design values will be essentially identical under the
2010 and this final standard. 77 FR 42389. As explained in the impacts
analysis for the 2010 rule (see Docket item EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0051-3438),
emission reductions were estimated by comparing baseline emissions to
the long-term average emissions of the MACT floor kilns. As a practical
matter, plants operate to comply with this lower average emissions
level (the so-called design level), rather than the emissions limit, so
that on those days where there is normal operating variability they do
not exceed the emissions limit. See 77 FR 42386-87. Under the 2010
rule, the average PM emissions from the existing floor kilns were
0.02296 lb/ton clinker. Under the amended standard, the average PM
emissions of the existing floor kilns is calculated to be 0.02655 lb/
ton clinker although, as noted, this difference is less than the normal
analytic variability in PM measurement methods and so must be viewed as
directional rather than precisely quantitative. The average emissions
for new kilns did not change as we believe new sources will have to
adopt identical control strategies as under the promulgated standards.
We, therefore, are not estimating an emission increase from new kilns.
For existing kilns, with an increase in PM emissions under this final
rule of 0.00359 lb/ton clinker compared to the 2010 rule, nationwide
emissions of PM would increase by 138 tons per year (0.00359 x
76,664,662/2000). Thus, the EPA estimates that the main effect of this
final rule for PM will be to provide flexibility for those days when
emissions increase as a result of normal operating variability, but
would not significantly alter long-term average performance for PM.
Nonetheless, as explained in section V.D above, this change does allow
for changes in compliance strategies in the form of types, sizes and
sequencing of treatment trains.
Emission reductions under the 2010 rule and this final rule, in
2015, are compared in Table 4.

Table 4--Comparison of Nationwide PM Emissions From 2010 Rule to Final Rule In 2015
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kiln type 2010 rule Final rule Increment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emissions limit (lb/ton clinker.. Existing........... 0.04............... 0.07............... NA
(30-day average (3-run stack test).
with a CEMS).
MACT average emissions for Existing........... 0.02296............ 0.02655............ 0.00359
compliance (lb/ton clinker.
2010 baseline emissions (CISWI ................... 11,433............. 11,433............. NA
kilns removed) (tons/yr).
Nationwide emissions reduction Total.............. 10,540............. 10,402............. -138
(tons/yr).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 10027]]

One commenter noted that the compliance extension will result in two
additional years of HAP emissions at pre-standard levels, noting
especially the emission of PM, noting further that fine PM
(PM2.5) is causally associated with mortality and serious
morbidity effects at a population level. See, e.g., 77 FR 38909 (June
29, 2012). We note first that these rules are technology-based, not
risk-based, and that there are compelling reasons to amend the PM
standard and to establish new compliance dates for existing sources as
a result of technological limitations with the 2010 rule PM standard,
and the new compliance opportunities afforded as a result of the
amendment to that standard. See section V.D above. We also question the
commenter's premise that all of the predicted emission reductions and
benefits would accrue if the existing source CEM-based PM standards
took effect in September 2013. As explained at length in section V.A
above and in other comment responses, PM CEMS would not reliably
measure the level of the PM standard in many instances. One cannot
assume the full range of emission reductions (and consequent health
benefits) would accrue in the real world if the emission measurements
themselves are uncertain. Thus, in a meaningful sense, today's
amendments result in a regime where the required emission reductions
will be reliably measured, so that the rule's health benefits will
reliably occur.

D. What are the water quality impacts?

At proposal, we believed that none of the amendments being proposed
would have significant impacts on water quality and that to the extent
that the revision affecting dry caustic scrubbers encourages their use,
some reduction in water consumption may occur although we had no
information upon which to base a quantified estimate. We received no
comments questioning this assessment. Further, in reviewing the
industry survey information on the impacts of the proposed changes,
only 1 of the 20 kilns for which information was provided was
considering the addition of a wet scrubber, although it was also
evaluating a dry scrubber (see docket item EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0817-0505,
Appendix D, kiln S). Therefore, we continue to believe that these final
amendments will not significantly impact water quality.

E. What are the solid waste impacts?

None of the amendments being finalized with this final rule are
expected to have any solid waste impacts.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\18\ Although dust shuttling is likely to be one element of
mercury compliance strategy, the amount of dust shuttling would not
increase incremental to the 2010 final rule since the standards for
new and existing sources are the same in the 2010 final rule and
these amendments. Moreover, as explained in section V.B above, even
with respect to the high mercury feed source, dust shuttling entails
moving dust from within the kiln to other parts of the process and
is considered a closed loop process, thereby not causing any waste
impacts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

F. What are the secondary impacts?

Indirect or secondary air quality impacts include impacts that will
result from the increased electricity usage associated with the
operation of control devices as well as water quality and solid waste
impacts (which were just discussed) that will occur as a result of
these amendments. Because we are finalizing revisions that slightly
reduce the stringency of the existing source emission limits for PM
from the promulgated 2010 limits, we project that some facilities will
alter their strategy for complying with the standards for the four
pollutants to achieve compliance at a lower cost than possible under
the original standard. The survey results discussed in section V.D
above confirm the EPA's engineering judgment. Other facilities in the
survey that were not able to meet the THC limit or the alternative
organic HAP limit in the 2010 rule were considering the installation of
RTO. Because some of these facilities may now meet the limit without
the installation of an RTO, we have estimated a reduction of 24,702
tons per year less CO2 emissions being emitted to the
atmosphere (equivalent to 2 less RTO's being installed). As a result of
the organic HAP limit being revised from 9 ppm to 12 ppm, these sources
responded that they now had other less costly alternatives. The
additional compliance time was also cited as a factor that would gives
sources the additional time they needed to consider other HAP control
alternatives to RTO. As the industry survey highlights, these types of
determinations will be made for each facility based on site-specific
characteristics such as process type, equipment age, existing air
pollution controls, raw material and fuel characteristics, economic
factors and others. In general, this survey indicates that the
combination of the revised limits for PM and organic HAP as well as the
September 2015 compliance date will give sources the opportunity to
develop less costly and less aggressive compliance strategies. We do
not have enough information to quantify the impact of overall secondary
impacts, (with the exception of the CO2 reductions noted
above), but we believe the impacts would in fact be reduced relative to
the 2010 rule since less energy is expected to be needed for facilities
that can retain and upgrade their current controls, instead of for
example, installing additional controls in series.

G. What are the energy impacts?

As discussed in the preceding section, because of the final
revisions to the PM emission limits, the organic HAP limits and the
compliance date extension, some facilities will develop more cost
effective and less energy intensive compliance strategies. For three of
the facilities (five kilns) that were part of the industry survey, all
five kilns required significant changes to meet the 2010 THC standard,
in part because they were not pursuing the alternative organic HAP
alternative standard due to analytic measurement uncertainties. See
docket item EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0817-0505, Appendix D (kilns A, C and D,
and F and G). Prior to the proposed revisions, all five of the kilns
were considering RTO as a control option as well as other options
including catalytic ceramic filtration, a relatively new technology and
as yet, not completely demonstrated technology for the cement industry.
In response to the survey of what changes, if any, the facilities would
make in response to the proposed revisions, all three facilities
indicated that the amended organic HAP limit or the September 2015
compliance date allowed them to consider the use of less capital
intensive alternatives and to continue testing alternatives for THC
reduction other than the highly energy-intensive RTO for the five kilns
involved. Although we cannot accurately predict for the entire industry
the extent to which these site-specific compliance strategies may
affect energy demands, the industry survey results indicate a trend
toward less energy intensive strategies than RTO, and as noted above,
we predict a reduction in CO2 emissions due to less energy
use as a result of two fewer kilns installing RTOs.

H. What are the cost impacts?

Under the cost scenario discussed above, we estimate that there
could be savings of approximately $52 million associated with
alternative compliance strategies for meeting amended PM standards,
making corresponding adjustments in compliance strategies for the
organic HAP and requiring work practice for open clinker storage piles.
Table 5 summarizes the costs and emissions reductions of this final
action.

[[Page 10028]]

Table 5--Summary of the Costs and Emission Reductions of the Final Amendments to the Portland Cement
Manufacturing Industry NESHAP Relative to the 2010 Rule \a\ \b\ \c\ \d\ \e\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PM emissions PM emissions
Proposed amendment Annualized cost reduction 2010 rule reduction 2012 rule Emission change tpy
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Revised PM, oHAP standard.... ($42.2 million) 10,540 tons......... 10,402 tons......... 138 increase.
\f\.
Replace PM CEMS with PM CPMS. ($2.7 million). 0...................
Coal Mill Testing............ $1.3 million... 0...................
Open clinker storage pile ($8.25 million) 0...................
work practices.
-----------------
Total.................... ($51.85
million).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Parentheses indicate cost savings. All costs are in 2005 dollars.
\b\ We also estimate that there will be a one-time cost of $25,000 for each facility to revise their operation
and maintenance plan to include procedures to minimize emissions during periods of startup and shutdown.
\c\ Emissions reductions are the total once full compliance is achieved in 2015.
\d\ Full compliance costs will not occur until September 9, 2015.
\e\ Note emission reductions published in the 2010 rule included CISWI kilns, but the reductions in this table
reflect reductions since CISWI kilns were removed from the database.
\f\ Includes cost savings due to revised PM standard.

The cost information in Table 5 is in 2005 dollars at a discount rate
of 7 percent. The EPA did not have sufficient information to quantify
the overall change in benefits or impacts in emissions for 2013 to
2015.
With regard to the coal mill monitoring requirements in this
action, sources with integral coal mills that exhaust through a
separate exhaust would potentially incur a capital cost of $36,000 to
install a continuous flow meter. The annualized cost of a flow meter is
$11,000. Because this final rule allows the use of maximum design flow
rate instead of installing flow meters, we believe that most facilities
will take advantage of this and will not incur these costs. Annual
testing at these coal mills for mercury, THC and HCl will cost about
$51,000 ($22,800 per Method 30B test for mercury + $8,000 per year for
Method 25A test for THC + $20,000 per year for Method 321 test for
HCl). Using information supplied by the industry (see docket item EPA-
HQ-OAR-2011-0817-0612), approximately 26 facilities would be affected
by these requirements for an annual cost of $1.3 million. Costs for
coal mills to meet the PM limits for this NESHAP are not included,
since all equipment and monitoring are in place to meet requirements of
Subpart Y and thus are not considered additional costs.
With the final change to PM CPMS instead of CEMS, it is estimated
that the elimination of the PS correlation tests will result in a
savings of $20,000 per kiln.

I. What are the health effects of these pollutants?

In this section, we provide a qualitative description of benefits
associated with reducing exposure to PM2.5, HCl and mercury.
Controls installed to reduce HAP would also reduce ambient
concentrations of PM2.5 as a co-benefit. Reducing exposure
to PM2.5 is associated with significant human health
benefits, including avoiding mortality and morbidity from
cardiovascular and respiratory illnesses. Researchers have associated
PM2.5 exposure with adverse health effects in numerous
toxicological, clinical and epidemiological studies (U.S. EPA,
2009).\19\ When adequate data and resources are available and a
regulatory impact analysis (RIA) is required, the EPA generally
quantifies several health effects associated with exposure to
PM2.5 (e.g., U.S. EPA, 2011).\20\ These health effects
include premature mortality for adults and infants, cardiovascular
morbidities such as heart attacks, hospital admissions and respiratory
morbidities such as asthma attacks, acute and chronic bronchitis,
hospital and emergency department visits, work loss days, restricted
activity days and respiratory symptoms. Although the EPA has not
quantified certain outcomes including adverse effects on birth weight,
pre-term births, pulmonary function and other cardiovascular and
respiratory effects, the scientific literature suggests that exposure
to PM2.5 is also associated with these impacts (U.S. EPA,
2009). PM2.5 also increases light extinction, which is an
important aspect of visibility (U.S. EPA, 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\19\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2009.
Integrated Science Assessment for Particulate Matter (Final Report).
EPA-600-R-08-139F. National Center for Environmental Assessment-RTP
Division. Available on the Internet at http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=216546.
\20\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2011.
Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Federal Implementation Plans to
Reduce Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone in
27 States; Correction of SIP Approvals for 22 States. Office of Air
and Radiation, Research Triangle Park, NC. Available on the Internet
at http://www.epa.gov/airtransport/pdfs/FinalRIA.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

HCl is a corrosive gas that can cause irritation of the mucous
membranes of the nose, throat and respiratory tract. Brief exposure to
35 ppm causes throat irritation, and levels of 50 to 100 ppm are barely
tolerable for 1 hour.\21\ The greatest impact is on the upper
respiratory tract; exposure to high concentrations can rapidly lead to
swelling and spasm of the throat and suffocation. Most seriously
exposed persons have immediate onset of rapid breathing, blue coloring
of the skin and narrowing of the bronchioles. Exposure to HCl can lead
to RADS, a chemically- or irritant-induced type of asthma. Children may
be more vulnerable to corrosive agents than adults because of the
relatively smaller diameter of their airways. Children may also be more
vulnerable to gas exposure because of increased minute ventilation per
kilograms and failure to evacuate an area promptly when exposed. HCl
has not been classified for carcinogenic effects.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\21\ Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR).
Medical Management Guidelines for Hydrogen Chloride. Atlanta, GA:
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Available online at
http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/mmg/mmg.asp?id=758&tid=147#bookmark02.
\22\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 1995.
Integrated Risk Information System File of Hydrogen Chloride.
Research and Development, National Center for Environmental
Assessment, Washington, DC. This material is available
electronically at http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0396.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mercury in the environment is transformed into a more toxic form,
methylmercury (MeHg). Because mercury is a persistent pollutant, MeHg
accumulates in the food chain, especially the tissue of fish. When
people consume these fish, they consume MeHg. In 2000, the National

[[Page 10029]]

Academy of Science (NAS) Study was issued which provides a thorough
review of the effects of MeHg on human health (National Research
Council (NRC), 2000).\23\ Many of the peer-reviewed articles cited in
this section are publications originally cited in the MeHg Study. In
addition, the EPA has conducted literature searches to obtain other
related and more recent publications to complement the material
summarized by the NRC in 2000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\23\ National Research Council (NRC). 2000. Toxicological
Effects of Methylmercury. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In its review of the literature, the NAS found neurodevelopmental
effects to be the most sensitive and best documented endpoints and
appropriate for establishing an oral reference dose (RfD) (NRC, 2000);
in particular NAS supported the use of results from neurobehavioral or
neuropsychological tests. The NAS report noted that studies in animals
reported sensory effects as well as effects on brain development and
memory functions and support the conclusions based on epidemiology
studies. The NAS noted that their recommended endpoints for an RfD are
associated with the ability of children to learn and to succeed in
school. They concluded the following: ``The population at highest risk
is the children of women who consumed large amounts of fish and seafood
during pregnancy. The committee concludes that the risk to that
population is likely to be sufficient to result in an increase in the
number of children who have to struggle to keep up in school.''
The NAS summarized data on cardiovascular effects available up to
2000. Based on these and other studies, the NRC concluded that
``Although the data base is not as extensive for cardiovascular effects
as it is for other end points (i.e. neurologic effects) the
cardiovascular system appears to be a target for MeHg toxicity in
humans and animals.'' The NRC also stated that ``additional studies are
needed to better characterize the effect of methylmercury exposure on
blood pressure and cardiovascular function at various stages of life.''
Additional cardiovascular studies have been published since 2000.
The EPA did not to develop a quantitative dose-response assessment for
cardiovascular effects associated with MeHg exposures, as there is no
consensus among scientists on the dose-response functions for these
effects. In addition, there is inconsistency among available studies as
to the association between MeHg exposure and various cardiovascular
system effects. The pharmacokinetics of some of the exposure measures
(such as toenail mercury levels) are not well understood. The studies
have not yet received the review and scrutiny of the more well-
established neurotoxicity data base.
The Mercury Study \24\ noted that MeHg is not a potent mutagen but
is capable of causing chromosomal damage in a number of experimental
systems. The NAS concluded that evidence that human exposure to MeHg
caused genetic damage is inconclusive; they note that some earlier
studies showing chromosomal damage in lymphocytes may not have
controlled sufficiently for potential confounders. One study of adults
living in the Tapaj[oacute]s River region in Brazil (Amorim et al.,
2000) reported a direct relationship between MeHg concentration in hair
and DNA damage in lymphocytes; as well as effects on chromosomes.\25\
Long-term MeHg exposures in this population were believed to occur
through consumption of fish, suggesting that genotoxic effects (largely
chromosomal aberrations) may result from dietary, chronic MeHg
exposures similar to and above those seen in the Faroes and Seychelles
populations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\24\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 1997.
Mercury Study Report to Congress, EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0234-3054.
December. Available on the Internet at http://www.epa.gov/hg/report.htm.
\25\ Amorim, M.I.M., D. Mergler, M.O. Bahia, H. Dubeau, D.
Miranda, J. Lebel, R.R. Burbano, and M. Lucotte. 2000. Cytogenetic
damage related to low levels of methyl mercury contamination in the
Brazilian Amazon. An. Acad. Bras. Science. 72(4): 497-507.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Although exposure to some forms of mercury can result in a decrease
in immune activity or an autoimmune response (ATSDR, 1999), evidence
for immunotoxic effects of MeHg is limited (NRC, 2000).\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\26\ Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR).
1999. Toxicological Profile for Mercury. U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services, Public Health Service, Atlanta, GA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Based on limited human and animal data, MeHg is classified as a
``possible'' human carcinogen by the International Agency for Research
on Cancer (IARC, 1994) and in Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS)
(U.S. EPA, 2002).^{27 28} The existing evidence supporting the
possibility of carcinogenic effects in humans from low-dose chronic
exposures is tenuous. Multiple human epidemiological studies have found
no significant association between mercury exposure and overall cancer
incidence, although a few studies have shown an association between
mercury exposure and specific types of cancer incidence (e.g., acute
leukemia and liver cancer) (NRC, 2000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\27\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2002.
Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) on Methylmercury. National
Center for Environmental Assessment. Office of Research and
Development. Available online at http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0073.htm.
\28\ International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). 1994.
IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans
and their Supplements: Beryllium, Cadmium, Mercury, and Exposures in
the Glass Manufacturing Industry. Vol. 58. Jalili, H.A., and A.H.
Abbasi. 1961. Poisoning by ethyl mercury toluene sulphonanilide. Br.
J. Indust. Med. 18(Oct.):303-308 (as cited in NRC 2000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

There is also some evidence of reproductive and renal toxicity in
humans from MeHg exposure. However, overall, human data regarding
reproductive, renal and hematological toxicity from MeHg are very
limited and are based on either studies of the two high-dose poisoning
episodes in Iraq and Japan or animal data, rather than epidemiological
studies of chronic exposures at the levels of interest in this
analysis.

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
action is a ``significant regulatory action'' because it raises novel
legal or policy issues. Accordingly, the EPA submitted this action to
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under Executive
Orders 12866 and 13563 (76 3821, January 21, 2011) and any changes made
in response to OMB recommendations have been documented in the docket
for this action. An RIA was prepared for the September 2010 final rule
and can be found at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/regdata/RIAs/portlandcementfinalria.pdf. http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/regdata/RIAs/portlandcementfinalria.pdf.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

The information collection requirements in this final rule have
been submitted for approval to the OMB under the Paperwork Reduction
Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.
The Information Collection Request (ICR) document prepared by the
EPA has been assigned the EPA ICR number 1801.11 for the NESHAP; there
are no additional recordkeeping and reporting requirements for the
NSPS. The information requirements are based on notification,
recordkeeping and reporting requirements in the NESHAP

[[Page 10030]]

General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A), which are mandatory for
all operators subject to national emissions standards. These
recordkeeping and reporting requirements are specifically authorized by
CAA section 114 (42 U.S.C. 7414). All information submitted to the EPA
pursuant to the recordkeeping and reporting requirements for which a
claim of confidentiality is made is safeguarded according to agency
policies set forth in 40 CFR part 2, subpart B.
We are finalizing new paperwork requirements for the Portland
Cement Manufacturing source category in the form of a requirement to
incorporate work practices for periods of startup and shutdown and
fugitive dust control measures for clinker piles into their existing
operations and maintenance plan.
This final rule also includes new paperwork requirements for
recordkeeping of malfunctions, as described in 40 CFR 63.454(g)
(conducted in support of the affirmative defense provisions, as
described in 40 CFR 63.456).
When a malfunction occurs, sources must report the event according
to the applicable reporting requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subpart
LLL. An affirmative defense to civil penalties for violations of
emission limits that are caused by malfunctions is available to a
source if it can demonstrate that certain criteria and requirements are
satisfied. The criteria ensure that the affirmative defense is
available only where the event that causes a violation of the emission
limit meets the narrow definition of malfunction in 40 CFR 63.2
(sudden, infrequent, not reasonable preventable and not caused by poor
maintenance and or careless operation) and where the source took
necessary actions to minimize emissions. In addition, the source must
meet certain notification and reporting requirements. For example, the
source must prepare a written root cause analysis and submit a written
report to the Administrator documenting that it has met the conditions
and requirements for assertion of the affirmative defense.
The EPA is adding the paperwork and recordkeeping associated with
the affirmative defense to civil penalties for malfunctions to the
estimate of burden in the ICR. To provide the public with an estimate
of the relative magnitude of the burden associated with an assertion of
the affirmative defense position adopted by a source, the EPA has
provided administrative adjustments to the ICR that show what the
notification, recordkeeping and reporting requirements associated with
the assertion of the affirmative defense might entail. The EPA's
estimate for the required notification, reports and records for any
individual incident, including the root cause analysis, totals $3,258,
and is based on the time and effort required of a source to review
relevant data, interview plant employees and document the events
surrounding a malfunction that has caused a violation of an emissions
limit. The estimate also includes time to produce and retain the record
and reports for submission to the EPA. The EPA provides this
illustrative estimate of this burden because these costs are only
incurred if there has been a violation and a source chooses to take
advantage of the affirmative defense.
Given the variety of circumstances under which malfunctions could
occur, as well as differences among sources' operation and maintenance
practices, we cannot reliably predict the severity and frequency of
malfunction-related excess emissions events for a particular source. It
is important to note that the EPA has no basis currently for estimating
the number of malfunctions that would qualify for an affirmative
defense. Current historical records would be an inappropriate basis, as
source owners or operators previously operated their facilities in
recognition that they were exempt from the requirement to comply with
emissions standards during malfunctions. Of the number of excess
emissions events reported by source operators, only a small number
would be expected to result from a malfunction (based on the definition
above), and only a subset of violations caused by malfunctions would
result in the source choosing to assert the affirmative defense. Thus,
we expect the number of instances in which source operators might be
expected to avail themselves of the affirmative defense will be
extremely small. For this reason, we estimate no more than two such
occurrences per year for all sources subject to subpart LLL over the 3-
year period covered by this ICR. We expect to gather information on
such events in the future and will revise this estimate as better
information becomes available.
We estimate 86 facilities will be subject to all final standards.
The remaining 14 facilities will only be subject to the open clinker
pile standards in this action. The annual monitoring, reporting and
recordkeeping cost for this source (averaged over the first three years
after the effective date of the standards) for these amendments to
subpart LLL is estimated to be $352,814 per year for the industry. This
includes 496 labor hours per year at a total labor cost of $47,806 per
year, and total non-labor capital and operation and maintenance costs
of $305,008 per year. This estimate includes reporting and
recordkeeping associated with the requirements for open clinker storage
piles. The total burden to the federal government (averaged over the
first three years after the effective date of the standard) as a result
of these amendments is estimated to be 263 hours per year at a total
labor cost of $11,885 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 the
EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act 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 based on the size definition for
the affected NAICS code (327310), as defined by the Small Business
Administration 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.
We estimate that 3 of the 26 existing Portland cement entities are
small entities and comprise 3 plants. After considering the economic
impacts of this final rule on small entities, I certify that this
action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Of the three affected small entities, all are
expected to incur an annual compliance cost of less than 1.0 percent of
sales to comply with these amendments to the 2010 final rule
(reflecting potential controls on piles, which are likely to have lower
cost when compared to the 2010 rule requirements because these plants
already have requirements for

[[Page 10031]]

control of open clinker storage piles in their title V permits).
Although this final rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities, the EPA nonetheless
adopted amendments which should reduce the impact of this final rule on
small entities. For example, we are expanding the provision that allows
periodic HCl performance tests as an alternative to HCl CEMS for
sources equipped with wet scrubbers to also apply to those sources that
use dry scrubbers. This final rule also adds an option for sources
using wet or dry scrubbers for HCl control to use SO2 as a
monitored parameter. If these sources already have a CEMS for
SO2, then this will provide operational flexibility.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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, there is an actual savings to
the industry of $52 million per year. Thus, this final rule is not
subject to the requirements of section 202 and 205 of the UMRA. This
final action is also not subject to the requirements of section 203 of
the UMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements that might
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. This final action
contains no requirements that apply to such governments, imposes no
obligations upon them, and will not result in expenditures by them of
$100 million or more in any one year or any disproportionate impacts on
them.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

This final action 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 action.

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

This action may have tribal implications, as specified in Executive
Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). The EPA is aware of one
tribally owned Portland cement facility currently subject to subpart
LLL and that will be subject to this final rule. The provisions of this
final rule are not expected to impose new substantial direct compliance
costs on Tribal governments since the same control technologies that
are necessary under the current NESHAP will be needed to meet the final
emissions limits. The EPA has tried to reduce the impact of this final
rule on Tribal owned facilities. For example, we are expanding the
provision that allows periodic HCl performance tests as an alternative
to HCl CEMS for sources equipped with wet scrubbers to also apply to
those sources that use dry sorbent injection (i.e., dry scrubbing
systems). This final rule adds an option for sources using wet or dry
scrubbers for HCl control to use SO2 as a monitored
parameter. If these sources already have a CEMS for SO2,
then this will provide operational flexibility.

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

The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23,
1997) as applying to those regulatory actions that concern health or
safety risks, such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of
the Executive 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 final action is not a ``significant energy action'' as defined
in Executive Order 13211 (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. The amendments do not require the use
of additional controls as compared to the 2010 rule and may allow the
industry to reduce its cost of compliance by increasing the industry's
flexibility to institute different and less costly control strategies
than under the 2010 rule.

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 the EPA to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS) in its
regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with
applicable law or otherwise impractical. VCS are technical standards
(e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures and
business practices) that are developed or adopted by VCS bodies. NTTAA
directs the EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the
agency decides not to use available and applicable VCS.
This final rulemaking does not involve technical standards.
Therefore, the EPA is not considering the use of any voluntary
consensus standards.

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

Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629 (February 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.
An analysis of demographic data was prepared for the 2010 final
rule and can be found in the docket for that rulemaking (See docket
item EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0051-3415). The impacts of the 2010 rule, which
assumed full compliance, are expected to be unchanged as a result of
this action. Therefore, beginning from the date of full compliance, the
EPA has determined that this final rule will not have
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority or low-income populations because it increases 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 populations. In addition, the full benefits of this final rule
will not result until 2015 due to the final amended compliance date but
the demographic analysis showed that the average of populations in
close proximity to the sources, and thus most likely to be affected by
the sources, were similar in demographic composition to national
averages.

K. Congressional Review Act

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801, et seq., as added by
the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996,
generally provides that, before a rule may take effect, the agency
promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy
of the rule, to each House of the

[[Page 10032]]

Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. The EPA
will submit a report containing this final rule and other required
information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives and
the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of
the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot take effect until
60 days after it is published in the Federal Register. This action is
not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This final rule
will be effective on February 12, 2013.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

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

Dated: December 20, 2012.
Lisa P. Jackson,
Administrator.

For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, of the
Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 60--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 60 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 23 U.S.C. 101; 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.

Subpart F--[AMENDED]

0
2. Section 60.61 is amended by adding paragraphs (e) and (f) to read as
follows:

Sec. 60.61 Definitions.

* * * * *
(e) Excess emissions means, with respect to this subpart, results
of any required measurements outside the applicable range (e.g.,
emissions limitations, parametric operating limits) that is permitted
by this subpart. The values of measurements will be in the same units
and averaging time as the values specified in this subpart for the
limitations.
(f) Operating day means a 24-hour period beginning at 12:00
midnight during which the kiln operates at any time. For calculating
rolling 30-day average emissions, an operating day does not include the
hours of operation during startup or shutdown.
* * * * *

0
3. Section 60.62 is amended by:
0
a. Removing and reserving paragraph (a)(1)(i), revising paragraph
(a)(1)(ii) and adding paragraph (a)(1)(iii);
0
b. Removing and reserving paragraph (a)(2);
0
c. Revising paragraphs (b)(1)(i) and (ii);
0
d. Removing paragraph (b)(2);
0
e. Redesignating paragraphs (b)(3) and (4) as (b)(2) and (3);
0
f. Revising newly designated paragraph (b)(3); and
0
g. Revising paragraph (d).
The revisions read as follows:

Sec. 60.62 Standards.

(a) * * *
(1) * * *
(ii) 0.02 pound per ton of clinker if construction or
reconstruction of the kiln commenced after June 16, 2008.
(iii) Kilns that have undergone a modification may not discharge
into the atmosphere any gases which contain PM in excess of 0.07 pound
per ton of clinker.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(1) * * *
(i) 0.02 pound per ton of clinker if construction or reconstruction
of the clinker cooler commences after June 16, 2008.
(ii) 0.07 pound per ton of clinker if the clinker cooler has
undergone a modification.
* * * * *
(3) If the kiln has a separated alkali bypass stack and/or an
inline coal mill with a separate stack, you must combine the PM
emissions from the bypass stack and/or the inline coal mill stack with
the PM emissions from the main kiln exhaust to determine total PM
emissions.
* * * * *
(d) If you have an affected source subject to this subpart with a
different emissions limit or requirement for the same pollutant under
another regulation in title 40 of this chapter, you must comply with
the most stringent emissions limit or requirement and are not subject
to the less stringent requirement.

0
4. Section 60.63 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (b)(1)(i) and (ii);
0
b. Adding paragraph (b)(1)(iii);
0
c. Revising paragraphs (b)(2) and (3);
0
d. Removing paragraph (b)(4);
0
e. Revising paragraphs (c) through (f);
0
f. Revising paragraph (g) introductory text;
0
g. Revising paragraph (g)(2);
0
h. Revising paragraph (h) introductory text;
0
i. Revising paragraphs (h)(1) and (6);
0
j. Revising paragraph (h)(7) introductory text;
0
k. Revising paragraph (h)(8) introductory text;
0
l. Revising paragraph (h)(9);
0
m. Revising paragraph (i) introductory text; and
0
n. Revising paragraph (i)(1) introductory text and (i)(1)(i).
The revisions and addition read as follows:

Sec. 60.63 Monitoring of operations.

* * * * *
(b) * * *
(1) * * *
(i) Install, calibrate, maintain, and operate a permanent weigh
scale system to measure and record weight rates of the amount of
clinker produced in tons of mass per hour. The system of measuring
hourly clinker production must be maintained within 5
percent accuracy or
(ii) Install, calibrate, maintain, and operate a permanent weigh
scale system to measure and record weight rates of the amount of feed
to the kiln in tons of mass per hour. The system of measuring feed must
be maintained within 5 percent accuracy. Calculate your
hourly clinker production rate using a kiln specific feed-to-clinker
ratio based on reconciled clinker production rates determined for
accounting purposes and recorded feed rates. This ratio should be
updated monthly. Note that if this ratio changes at clinker
reconciliation, you must use the new ratio going forward, but you do
not have to retroactively change clinker production rates previously
estimated.
(iii) For each kiln operating hour for which you do not have data
on clinker production or the amount of feed to the kiln, use the value
from the most recent previous hour for which valid data are available.
(2) Determine, record, and maintain a record of the accuracy of the
system of measuring hourly clinker production rates or feed rates
before initial use (for new sources) or by the effective compliance
date of this rule (for existing sources). During each quarter of source
operation, you must determine, record, and maintain a record of the
ongoing accuracy of the system of measuring hourly clinker production
rates or feed rates.
(3) If you measure clinker production directly, record the daily
clinker production rates; if you measure the kiln feed rates and
calculate clinker production, record the daily kiln feed and clinker
production rates.
(c) PM Emissions Monitoring Requirements. (1) For each kiln or
clinker cooler subject to a PM emissions limit in Sec. 60.62, you must
demonstrate compliance through an initial performance test. You will
conduct your performance test using Method 5 or Method 5I at appendix
A-3 to part 60 of this chapter. You must also monitor continuous
performance through use of

[[Page 10033]]

a PM continuous parametric monitoring system (PM CPMS).
(2) For your PM CPMS, you will establish a site-specific operating
limit. If your PM performance test demonstrates your PM emission levels
to be below 75 percent of your emission limit you will use the average
PM CPMS value recorded during the PM compliance test, the milliamp
equivalent of zero output from your PM CPMS, and the average PM result
of your compliance test to establish your operating limit equivalent to
75 percent of the standard. If your PM compliance test demonstrates
your PM emission levels to be at or above 75 percent of your emission
limit you will use the average PM CPMS value recorded during the PM
compliance test demonstrating compliance with the PM limit to establish
your operating limit. You will use the PM CPMS to demonstrate
continuous compliance with your operating limit. You must repeat the
performance test annually and reassess and adjust the site-specific
operating limit in accordance with the results of the performance test.
(i) Your PM CPMS must provide a 4-20 milliamp output and the
establishment of its relationship to manual reference method
measurements must be determined in units of milliamps.
(ii) Your PM CPMS operating range must be capable of reading PM
concentrations from zero to a level equivalent to two times your
allowable emission limit. If your PM CPMS is an auto-ranging instrument
capable of multiple scales, the primary range of the instrument must be
capable of reading PM concentration from zero to a level equivalent to
two times your allowable emission limit.
(iii) During the initial performance test or any such subsequent
performance test that demonstrates compliance with the PM limit, record
and average all milliamp output values from the PM CPMS for the periods
corresponding to the compliance test runs (e.g., average all your PM
CPMS output values for three corresponding 2-hour Method 5I test runs).
(3) Determine your operating limit as specified in paragraphs
(c)(4)(i) through (c)(5) of this section. If your PM performance test
demonstrates your PM emission levels to be below 75 percent of your
emission limit you will use the average PM CPMS value recorded during
the PM compliance test, the milliamp equivalent of zero output from
your PM CPMS, and the average PM result of your compliance test to
establish your operating limit. If your PM compliance test demonstrates
your PM emission levels to be at or above 75 percent of your emission
limit you will use the average PM CPMS value recorded during the PM
compliance test to establish your operating limit. You must verify an
existing or establish a new operating limit after each repeated
performance test. You must repeat the performance test at least
annually and reassess and adjust the site-specific operating limit in
accordance with the results of the performance test.
(4) If the average of your three Method 5 or 5I compliance test
runs are below 75 percent of your PM emission limit, you must calculate
an operating limit by establishing a relationship of PM CPMS signal to
PM concentration using the PM CPMS instrument zero, the average PM CPMS
values corresponding to the three compliance test runs, and the average
PM concentration from the Method 5 or 5I compliance test with the
procedures in (c)(4)(i)(A) through (D) of this section.
(i) Determine your PM CPMS instrument zero output with one of the
following procedures.
(A) Zero point data for in-situ instruments should be obtained by
removing the instrument from the stack and monitoring ambient air on a
test bench.
(B) Zero point data for extractive instruments should be obtained
by removing the extractive probe from the stack and drawing in clean
ambient air.
(C) The zero point can also can be obtained by performing manual
reference method measurements when the flue gas is free of PM emissions
or contains very low PM concentrations (e.g., when your process is not
operating, but the fans are operating or your source is combusting only
natural gas) and plotting these with the compliance data to find the
zero intercept.
(D) If none of the steps in paragraphs (c)(4)(i)(A) through (C) of
this section are possible, you must use a zero output value provided by
the manufacturer.
(ii) Determine your PM CPMS instrument average in milliamps, and
the average of your corresponding three PM compliance test runs, using
equation 1.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12FE13.000

Where:

X1 = The PM CPMS data points for the three runs constituting the
performance test,
Y1 = The PM concentration value for the three runs constituting the
performance test, and
n = The number of data points.

(iii) With your PM CPMS instrument zero expressed in milliamps,
your three run average PM CPMS milliamp value, and your three run
average PM concentration from your three PM performance test runs,
determine a relationship of lb/ton-clinker per milliamp with equation
2.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12FE13.001

Where:

R = The relative lb/ton clinker per milliamp for your PM CPMS.
Y1 = The three run average PM lb/ton clinker.
X1 = The three run average milliamp output from you PM CPMS.
z = the milliamp equivalent of your instrument zero determined from
(c)(4)(i) of this section.

(iv) Determine your source specific 30-day rolling average
operating limit using the lb/ton-clinker per milliamp value from
Equation 2 above in Equation 3, below. This sets your operating limit
at the PM CPMS output value corresponding to 75 percent of your
emission limit.

[[Page 10034]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12FE13.002

Where:

Ol = The operating limit for your PM CPMS on a 30-day
rolling average, in milliamps.
L = Your source emission limit expressed in lb/ton clinker.
z = Your instrument zero in milliamps, determined from (1)(i).
R = The relative lb/ton-clinker per milliamp for your PM CPMS, from
Equation 2.

(5) If the average of your three PM compliance test runs is at or
above 75 percent of your PM emission limit you must determine your
operating limit by averaging the PM CPMS milliamp output corresponding
to your three PM performance test runs that demonstrate compliance with
the emission limit using Equation 4.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12FE13.003

Where:

X1 = The PM CPMS data points for all runs i.
n = The number of data points.
Oh = Your site specific operating limit, in milliamps.

(6) To determine continuous compliance, you must record the PM CPMS
output data for all periods when the process is operating, and use all
the PM CPMS data for calculations when the source is not out-of-
control. You must demonstrate continuous compliance by using all
quality-assured hourly average data collected by the PM CPMS for all
operating hours to calculate the arithmetic average operating parameter
in units of the operating limit (milliamps) on a 30 operating day
rolling average basis, updated at the end of each new kiln operating
day. Use Equation 5 to determine the 30 kiln operating day average.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12FE13.004

Where:

Hpvi = The hourly parameter value for hour i.
n = The number of valid hourly parameter values collected over 30
kiln operating days.

(7) Use EPA Method 5 or Method 5I of appendix A to part 60 of this
chapter to determine PM emissions. For each performance test, conduct
at least three separate runs under the conditions that exist when the
affected source is operating at the highest load or capacity level
reasonably expected to occur. Conduct each test run to collect a
minimum sample volume of 2 dscm for determining compliance with a new
source limit and 1 dscm for determining compliance with an existing
source limit. Calculate the average of the results from three
consecutive runs to determine compliance. You need not determine the
particulate matter collected in the impingers (``back half'') of the
Method 5 or Method 5I particulate sampling train to demonstrate
compliance with the PM standards of this subpart. This shall not
preclude the permitting authority from requiring a determination of the
''back half'' for other purposes.
(8) For PM performance test reports used to set a PM CPMS operating
limit, the electronic submission of the test report must also include
the make and model of the PM CPMS instrument, serial number of the
instrument, analytical principle of the instrument (e.g. beta
attenuation), span of the instruments primary analytical range,
milliamp value equivalent to the instrument zero output, technique by
which this zero value was determined, and the average milliamp signals
corresponding to each PM compliance test run.
(d) You must install, operate, calibrate, and maintain a CEMS
continuously monitoring and recording the concentration by volume of
NOX emissions into the atmosphere for any kiln subject to
the NOX emissions limit in Sec. 60.62(a)(3). If the kiln
has an alkali bypass, NOX emissions from the alkali bypass
do not need to be monitored, and NOX emission monitoring of
the kiln exhaust may be done upstream of any commingled alkali bypass
gases.
(e) You must install, operate, calibrate, and maintain a CEMS for
continuously monitoring and recording the concentration by volume of
SO2 emissions into the atmosphere for any kiln subject to
the SO2 emissions limit in Sec. 60.62(a)(4). If you are
complying with the alternative 90 percent SO2 emissions
reduction emissions limit, you must also continuously monitor and
record the concentration by volume of SO2 present at the wet
scrubber inlet.
(f) The NOX and SO2 CEMS required under
paragraphs (d) and (e) of this section must be installed, operated and
maintained according to Performance Specification 2 of appendix B of
this part and the requirements in paragraphs (f)(1) through (5) of this
section.
(1) The span value of each NOX CEMS monitor must be set
at 125 percent of the maximum estimated hourly potential NOX
emission concentration that translates to the applicable emissions
limit at full clinker production capacity.
(2) You must conduct performance evaluations of each NOX
CEMS monitor according to the requirements in Sec. 60.13(c) and
Performance Specification 2 of appendix B to this part. You must use
Methods 7, 7A, 7C, 7D, or 7E of appendix A-4 to this part 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 Method 7 or
7C of appendix A-4 to this part.
(3) The span value for the SO2 CEMS monitor is the
SO2 emission concentration that corresponds to 125 percent
of the applicable emissions limit at full clinker production capacity

[[Page 10035]]

and the expected maximum fuel sulfur content.
(4) You must conduct performance evaluations of each SO2
CEMS monitor according to the requirements in Sec. 60.13(c) and
Performance Specification 2 of appendix B to this part. You must use
Methods 6, 6A, or 6C of appendix A-4 to this part 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 Method 6 or 6A of appendix A-4
to this part.
(5) You must comply with the quality assurance requirements in
Procedure 1 of appendix F to this part for each NOX and
SO2 CEMS, including quarterly accuracy determinations for
monitors, and daily calibration drift tests.
(g) For each CPMS or CEMS required under paragraphs (c) through (e)
of this section:
* * * * *
(2) You may not use data recorded during the monitoring system
malfunctions, repairs associated with monitoring system malfunctions,
or required monitoring system quality assurance or control activities
in calculations used to report emissions or operating levels. A
monitoring system malfunction is any sudden, infrequent, not reasonably
preventable failure of the monitoring system to provide valid data.
Monitoring system failures that are caused in part by poor maintenance
or careless operation are not malfunctions. An owner or operator must
use all the data collected during all other periods in reporting
emissions or operating levels.
* * * * *
(h) You must install, operate, calibrate, and maintain instruments
for continuously measuring and recording the stack gas flow rate to
allow determination of the pollutant mass emissions rate to the
atmosphere for each kiln subject to the PM emissions limits in Sec.
60.62(a)(1)(ii) and (iii) and (b)(1)(i) and (ii), the NOX
emissions limit in Sec. 60.62(a)(3), or the SO2 emissions
limit in Sec. 60.62(a)(4) according to the requirements in paragraphs
(h)(1) through (10), where appropriate, 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/or SO2 CEMS, taking into account the
manufacturer's recommendations. The flow rate sensor is that portion of
the system that senses the volumetric flow rate and generates an output
proportional to that flow rate.
* * * * *
(6) The flow rate monitoring system must be designed to measure a
minimum of one cycle of operational flow for each successive 15-minute
period.
(7) The flow rate sensor must be able to determine the daily zero
and upscale calibration drift (CD) (see sections 3.1 and 8.3 of
Performance Specification 2 in appendix B to this part for a discussion
of CD).
* * * * *
(8) You must perform an initial relative accuracy test of the flow
rate monitoring system according to section 8.2 of Performance
Specification 6 of appendix B to this part, with the exceptions noted
in paragraphs (h)(8)(i) and (ii) of this section.
* * * * *
(9) You must verify the accuracy of the flow rate monitoring system
at least once per year by repeating the relative accuracy test
specified in paragraph (h)(8) of this section.
* * * * *
(i) Development and Submittal (Upon Request) of Monitoring Plans.
To demonstrate compliance with any applicable emissions limit through
performance stack testing or other emissions monitoring (including PM
CPMS), you must develop a site-specific monitoring plan according to
the requirements in paragraphs (i)(1) through (4) of this section. This
requirement also applies to you if you petition the EPA Administrator
for alternative monitoring parameters under Sec. 60.13(3)(i). If you
use a bag leak detector system (BLDS), you must also meet the
requirements specified in paragraph Sec. 63.1350(m)(10) of this
chapter.
(1) For each continuous monitoring system (CMS) required in this
section, you must develop, and submit to the permitting authority for
approval upon request, a site-specific monitoring plan that addresses
paragraphs (i)(1)(i) through (iii) of this section. You must submit
this site-specific monitoring plan, if requested, at least 30 days
before the initial performance evaluation of your CMS.
(i) Installation of the CMS sampling probe or other interface at a
measurement location relative to each affected process unit such that
the measurement is representative of control of the exhaust emissions
(e.g., on or downstream of the last control device);
* * * * *

0
5. Section 60.64 is revised to read as follows:

Sec. 60.64 Test methods and procedures.

(a) In conducting the performance tests and relative accuracy tests
required in Sec. 60.8, you must use reference methods and procedures
and the test methods in appendix A of this part or other methods and
procedures as specified in this section, except as provided in Sec.
60.8(b).
(b)(1)You must demonstrate compliance with the PM standards in
Sec. 60.62 using EPA method 5 or method 5I.
(2) Use Method 9 and the procedures in Sec. 60.11 to determine
opacity.
(3) Any sources other than kilns (including associated alkali
bypass and clinker cooler) that are subject to the 10 percent opacity
limit must follow the appropriate monitoring procedures in Sec.
63.1350(f), (m)(1)through (4), (10) and (11), (o), and (p) of this
chapter.
(c) Calculate and record the rolling 30 kiln operating day average
emission rate daily of NOX and SO2 according to
the procedures in paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of this section.
(1) Calculate the rolling 30 kiln operating day average emissions
according to equation 6:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12FE13.005

[[Page 10036]]

Where:

E30D = 30 kiln operating day average emission rate of
NOX or SO2, lb/ton of clinker.
Ci = Concentration of NOX or SO2
for hour i, ppm.
Qi = Volumetric flow rate of effluent gas for hour i,
where
Ci and Qi are on the same basis (either wet or
dry), scf/hr.
P = 30 days of clinker production during the same time period as the
NOX or SO2 emissions measured, tons.
k = Conversion factor, 1.194 x 10\-7\ for NOX and 1.660 x
10\-7\ for SO2, lb/scf/ppm.
n = Number of kiln operating hours over 30 kiln operating days.

(2) For each kiln operating hour for which you do not have at least
one valid 15-minute CEMS data value, use the average emissions rate
(lb/hr) from the most recent previous hour for which valid data are
available.
(d)(1) Within 60 days after the date of completing each performance
test (see Sec. 60.8) as required by this subpart you must submit the
results of the performance tests conducted to demonstrate compliance
under this subpart to the EPA's WebFIRE database by using the
Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI) that is
accessed through the EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX) (http://www.epa.gov/cdx). Performance test data must be submitted in the file
format generated through use of the EPA's Electronic Reporting Tool
(ERT) (see http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/index.html). Only data
collected using test methods on the ERT Web site are subject to this
requirement for submitting reports electronically to WebFIRE. Owners or
operators who claim that some of the information being submitted for
performance tests is confidential business information (CBI) must
submit a complete ERT file including information claimed to be CBI on a
compact disk, flash drive or other commonly used electronic storage
media to the EPA. The electronic media must be clearly marked as CBI
and mailed to U.S. EPA/OAPQS/CORE CBI Office, Attention: WebFIRE
Administrator, MD C404-02, 4930 Old Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703. The
same ERT file with the CBI omitted must be submitted to the EPA via CDX
as described earlier in this paragraph. At the discretion of the
delegated authority, you must also submit these reports, including the
CBI, to the delegated authority in the format specified by the
delegated authority. For any performance test conducted using test
methods that are not listed on the ERT Web site, you must submit the
results of the performance test to the Administrator at the appropriate
address listed in Sec. 63.13.
(2) Within 60 days after the date of completing each CEMS
performance evaluation test as defined in Sec. 63.2, you must submit
relative accuracy test audit (RATA) data to the EPA's CDX by using
CEDRI in accordance with paragraph (d)(1) of this section. Only RATA
pollutants that can be documented with the ERT (as listed on the ERT
Web site) are subject to this requirement. For any performance
evaluations with no corresponding RATA pollutants listed on the ERT Web
site, you must submit the results of the performance evaluation to the
Administrator at the appropriate address listed in Sec. 63.13.
(3) For PM performance test reports used to set a PM CPMS operating
limit, the electronic submission of the test report must also include
the make and model of the PM CPMS instrument, serial number of the
instrument, analytical principle of the instrument (e.g. beta
attenuation), span of the instruments primary analytical range,
milliamp value equivalent to the instrument zero output, technique by
which this zero value was determined, and the average milliamp signals
corresponding to each PM compliance test run.
(4) All reports required by this subpart not subject to the
requirements in paragraphs (d)(1) and (2) of this section must be sent
to the Administrator at the appropriate address listed in Sec. 63.13.
The Administrator or the delegated authority may request a report in
any form suitable for the specific case (e.g., by commonly used
electronic media such as Excel spreadsheet, on CD or hard copy). The
Administrator retains the right to require submittal of reports subject
to paragraph (d)(1) and (2) of this section in paper format.

0
6. Section 60.65 is revised to read as follows:

Sec. 60.65 Recordkeeping and reporting requirements.

(a) Each owner or operator required to install a CPMS or CEMS under
sections Sec. 60.63(c) through (e) shall submit reports of excess
emissions. The content of these reports must comply with the
requirements in Sec. 60.7(c). Notwithstanding the provisions of Sec.
60.7(c), such reports shall be submitted semiannually.
(b) Each owner or operator of facilities subject to the provisions
of Sec. 60.63(c) through (e) shall submit semiannual reports of the
malfunction information required to be recorded by Sec. 60.7(b). These
reports shall include the frequency, duration, and cause of any
incident resulting in deenergization of any device controlling kiln
emissions or in the venting of emissions directly to the atmosphere.
(c) The requirements of this section remain in force until and
unless the Agency, in delegating enforcement authority to a State under
section 111(c) of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7411, approves reporting
requirements or an alternative means of compliance surveillance adopted
by such States. In that event, affected sources within the State will
be relieved of the obligation to comply with this section, provided
that they comply with the requirements established by the State.

0
7. Section 60.66 is amended by revising paragraph (b) introductory text
to read as follows:

Sec. 60.66 Delegation of authority.

* * * * *
(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.
* * * * *

PART 63--NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS
FOR SOURCE CATEGORIES

0
8. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart LLL--[Amended]

0
9. Section 63.1340 is amended by revising paragraphs (b)(1), (b)(6)
through (9), and (c) to read as follows:

Sec. 63.1340 What parts of my plant does this subpart cover?

* * * * *
(b) * * *:
(1) Each kiln including alkali bypasses and inline coal mills,
except for kilns that burn hazardous waste and are subject to and
regulated under subpart EEE of this part;
* * * * *
(6) Each raw material, clinker, or finished product storage bin at
any portland cement plant that is a major source;
(7) Each conveying system transfer point including those associated
with coal preparation used to convey coal from the mill to the kiln at
any portland cement plant that is a major source;
(8) Each bagging and bulk loading and unloading system at any
portland cement plant that is a major source; and

[[Page 10037]]

(9) Each open clinker storage pile at any portland cement plant.
(c) Onsite sources that are subject to standards for nonmetallic
mineral processing plants in subpart OOO, part 60 of this chapter are
not subject to this subpart. Crushers are not covered by this subpart
regardless of their location.
* * * * *

0
10. Section 63.1341 is amended by:
0
a. Removing definitions of ``Enclosed storage pile,'' and ``Inactive
clinker pile'';
0
b. Adding a definition for ``In-line coal mill,'' ``Open clinker
storage pile,'' ``Startup,'' and ``Shutdown'' in alphabetical order;
and
0
c. Revising definitions for ``Kiln,'' ``New source,'' ``Operating
day,'' ``Raw material dryer,'' and ``Total organic HAP,''.
The additions and revisions read as follows:

Sec. 63.1341 Definitions.

* * * * *
In-line coal mill means those coal mills using kiln exhaust gases
in their process. Coal mills with a heat source other than the kiln or
coal mills using exhaust gases from the clinker cooler are not an in-
line coal mill.
* * * * *
Kiln means a device, including any associated preheater or
precalciner devices, inline raw mills, inline coal mills or alkali
bypasses that produces clinker by heating limestone and other materials
for subsequent production of portland cement. Because the inline raw
mill and inline coal mill are considered an integral part of the kiln,
for purposes of determining the appropriate emissions limit, the term
kiln also applies to the exhaust of the inline raw mill and the inline
coal mill.
* * * * *
New source means any source that commenced construction or
reconstruction after May 6, 2009, for purposes of determining the
applicability of the kiln, clinker cooler and raw material dryer
emissions limits for mercury, PM, THC, and HCl.
* * * * *
Open clinker storage pile means a clinker storage pile on the
ground for more than three days that is not completely enclosed in a
building or structure.
Operating day means any 24-hour period beginning at 12:00 midnight
during which the kiln operates for any time. For calculating the
rolling 30-day average emissions, kiln operating days do not include
the hours of operation during startup or shutdown.
* * * * *
Raw material dryer means an impact dryer, drum dryer, paddle-
equipped rapid dryer, air separator, or other equipment used to reduce
the moisture content of feed or other materials.
* * * * *
Shutdown means the cessation of kiln operation. Shutdown begins
when feed to the kiln is halted and ends when continuous kiln rotation
ceases.
* * * * *
Startup means the time from when a shutdown kiln first begins
firing fuel until it begins producing clinker. Startup begins when a
shutdown kiln turns on the induced draft fan and begins firing fuel in
the main burner. Startup ends when feed is being continuously
introduced into the kiln for at least 120 minutes or when the feed rate
exceeds 60 percent of the kiln design limitation rate, whichever occurs
first.
* * * * *
Total organic HAP means, for the purposes of this subpart, the sum
of the concentrations of compounds of formaldehyde, benzene, toluene,
styrene, m-xylene, p-xylene, o-xylene, acetaldehyde, and naphthalene as
measured by EPA Test Method 320 or Method 18 of appendix A to this part
or ASTM D6348-03 \1\ or a combination of these methods, as appropriate.
If measurement results for any pollutant are reported as below the
method detection level (e.g., laboratory analytical results for one or
more sample components are below the method defined analytical
detection level), you must use the method detection level as the
measured emissions level for that pollutant in calculating the total
organic HAP value. The measured result for a multiple component
analysis (e.g., analytical values for multiple Method 18 fractions) may
include a combination of method detection level data and analytical
data reported above the method detection level. The owner or operator
of an affected source may request the use of other test methods to make
this determination under paragraphs 63.7(e)(2)(ii) and (f) of this
part.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\ When using ASTM D6348-03, the following conditions must be
met:
(1) The test plan preparation and implementation in the Annexes
to ASTM D6348-03, Sections A1 through A8 are mandatory; (2) For ASTM
D6348-03 Annex A5 (Analyte Spiking Technique), the percent R must be
determined for each target analyte (see Equation A5.5); (3) For the
ASTM D6348-03 test data to be acceptable for a target analyte
percent R must be 70 percent >= R <= 130 percent; and (4) The
percent R value for each compound must be reported in the test
report and all field measurements corrected with the calculated
percent R value for that compound using the following equation:
Reported Result = The measured concentration in the stack divided by
the calculated percent R value and then the whole term multiplied by
100.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *

0
11. Section 63.1343 is revised to read as follows:

Sec. 63.1343 What standards apply to my kilns, clinker coolers, raw
material dryers, and open clinker storage piles?

(a) General. The provisions in this section apply to each kiln and
any alkali bypass associated with that kiln, clinker cooler, raw
material dryer, and open clinker storage pile. All D/F, HCl, and total
hydrocarbon (THC) emissions limit are on a dry basis. The D/F, HCl, and
THC limits for kilns are corrected to 7 percent oxygen. All THC
emissions limits are measured as propane. Standards for mercury and THC
are based on a rolling 30-day average. If using a CEMS to determine
compliance with the HCl standard, this standard is based on a rolling
30-day average. You must ensure appropriate corrections for moisture
are made when measuring flow rates used to calculate mercury emissions.
The 30-day period means 30 consecutive kiln operating days excluding
periods of startup and shutdown. All emissions limits for kilns,
clinker coolers, and raw material dryers currently in effect that are
superseded by the limits below continue to apply until the compliance
date of the limits below, or until the source certifies compliance with
the limits below, whichever is earlier.
(b) Kilns, clinker coolers, raw material dryers, raw mills, and
finish mills. (1) The emissions limits for these sources are shown in
Table 1 below. PM limits for existing kilns also apply to kilns that
have undergone a modification as defined in subpart A of part 60 of
title 40.

[[Page 10038]]

Table 1--Emissions Limits for Kilns, Clinker Coolers, Raw Material Dryers, Raw and Finish Mills
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And the units of the The oxygen correction
If your source is a And the operating And if is located at Your emissions emissions limit are: factor is:
(an): mode is: a: limits are:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1................. Existing kiln........ Normal operation.... Major or area source PM \1\ 0.07......... lb/ton clinker...... NA.
D/F \2\ 0.2......... ng/dscm (TEQ)....... 7 percent.
Mercury 55.......... lb/MM tons clinker.. NA.
THC 3 4 24.......... ppmvd............... 7 percent.
2................. Existing kiln........ Normal operation.... Major source........ HCl 3............... ppmvd............... 7 percent.
3................. Existing kiln........ Startup and shutdown Major or area source Work practices...... NA.................. NA.
(63.1346(f))........
4................. New kiln............. Normal operation.... Major or area source PM 0.02............. lb/ton clinker...... NA.
D/F \2\ 0.2......... ng/dscm (TEQ)....... 7 percent.
Mercury 21.......... lb/MM tons clinker.. NA
THC 3 4 24.......... ppmvd............... 7 percent.
5................. New kiln............. Normal operation.... Major source........ HCl 3............... ppmvd............... 7 percent.
6................. New kiln............. Startup and shutdown Major or area source Work practices...... NA.................. NA.
(63.1346(f))........
7................. Existing clinker Normal operation.... Major or area source PM 0.07............. lb/ton clinker...... NA.
cooler.
8................. Existing clinker Startup and shutdown Major or area source Work practices...... NA.................. NA.
cooler. (63.1348(b)(9)).....
9................. New clinker cooler... Normal operation.... Major or area source PM 0.02............. lb/ton clinker...... NA.
10................ New clinker cooler... Startup and shutdown Major or area source Work practices...... NA.................. NA.
(63.1348(b)(9)).....
11................ Existing or new raw Normal operation.... Major or area source THC 3 4 24.......... ppmvd............... NA.
material dryer.
12................ Existing or new raw Startup and shutdown Major or area source Work practices...... NA.................. NA.
material dryer. (63.1348(b)(9)).....
13................ Existing or new raw All operating modes. Major source........ Opacity 10.......... percent............. NA.
or finish mill.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The initial and subsequent PM performance tests are performed using Method 5 or 5I and consist of three 1-hr tests.
\2\ If the average temperature at the inlet to the first PM control device (fabric filter or electrostatic precipitator) during the D/F performance test
is 400 [deg]F or less this limit is changed to 0.40 ng/dscm (TEQ).
\3\ Measured as propane.
\4\ Any source subject to the 24 ppmvd THC limit may elect to meet an alternative limit of 12 ppmvd for total organic HAP.

(2) When there is an alkali bypass and/or an inline coal mill with
a separate stack associated with a kiln, the combined PM emissions from
the kiln and the alkali bypass stack and/or the inline coal mill stack
are subject to the PM emissions limit. Existing kilns that combine the
clinker cooler exhaust and/or coal mill exhaust with the kiln exhaust
and send the combined exhaust to the PM control device as a single
stream may meet an alternative PM emissions limit. This limit is
calculated using Equation 1 of this section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12FE13.006

Where:

PMalt = Alternative PM emission limit for commingled
sources.
0.006 = The PM exhaust concentration (gr/dscf) equivalent to 0.070
lb per ton clinker where clinker cooler and kiln exhaust gas are not
combined.
1.65 = The conversion factor of ton feed per ton clinker.
Qk = The exhaust flow of the kiln (dscf/ton feed).
Qc = The exhaust flow of the clinker cooler (dscf/ton
feed).
Qab = The exhaust flow of the alkali bypass (dscf/ton
feed).
Qcm = The exhaust flow of the coal mill (dscf/ton feed).
7000 = The conversion factor for grains (gr) per lb.

For new kilns that combine kiln exhaust and clinker cooler gas the
limit is calculated using the Equation 2 of this section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12FE13.007

Where:

PMalt = Alternative PM emission limit for commingled
sources.
0.002 = The PM exhaust concentration (gr/dscf) equivalent to 0.020
lb per ton clinker where clinker cooler and kiln exhaust gas are not
combined.
1.65 = The conversion factor of ton feed per ton clinker.
Qk = The exhaust flow of the kiln (dscf/ton feed).
Qc = The exhaust flow of the clinker cooler (dscf/ton
feed).
Qab = The exhaust flow of the alkali bypass (dscf/ton
feed).
Qcm = The exhaust flow of the coal mill (dscf/ton feed).
7000 = The conversion factor for gr per lb.

(c) Open clinker storage pile. The owner or operator of an open
clinker storage pile must prepare, and operate in accordance with, the
fugitive dust emissions control measures, described in their operation
and maintenance plan (see Sec. 63.1347 of this subpart), that is
appropriate for the site conditions as specified in paragraphs (c)(1)
through

[[Page 10039]]

(3) of this section. The operation and maintenance plan must also
describe the measures that will be used to minimize fugitive dust
emissions from piles of clinker, such as accidental spillage, that are
not part of open clinker storage piles.
(1) The operation and maintenance plan must identify and describe
the location of each current or future open clinker storage pile and
the fugitive dust emissions control measures the owner or operator will
use to minimize fugitive dust emissions from each open clinker storage
pile.
(2) For open clinker storage piles, the operations and maintenance
plan must specify that one or more of the following control measures
will be used to minimize to the greatest extent practicable fugitive
dust from open clinker storage piles: Locating the source inside a
partial enclosure, installing and operating a water spray or fogging
system, applying appropriate chemical dust suppression agents, use of a
wind barrier, compaction, use of tarpaulin or other equally effective
cover or use of a vegetative cover. You must select, for inclusion in
the operations and maintenance plan, the fugitive dust control measure
or measures listed in this paragraph that are most appropriate for site
conditions. The plan must also explain how the measure or measures
selected are applicable and appropriate for site conditions. In
addition, the plan must be revised as needed to reflect any changing
conditions at the source.
(3) Temporary piles of clinker that result from accidental spillage
or clinker storage cleaning operations must be cleaned up within 3
days.
(d) Emission limits in effect prior to September 9, 2010. Any
source defined as an existing source in Sec. 63.1351, and that was
subject to a PM, mercury, THC, D/F, or opacity emissions limit prior to
September 9, 2010, must continue to meet the limits shown in Table 2 to
this section until September 9, 2015.

0
12. Section 63.1344 is revised to read as follows:

Sec. 63.1344 Affirmative Defense for Violation of Emission Standards
During Malfunction.

In response to an action to enforce the standards set forth in
Sec. 63.1343(b) and (c) and Sec. 63.1345 and you may assert an
affirmative defense to a claim for civil penalties for violations of
such standards that are caused by malfunction, as defined at 40 CFR
63.2. Appropriate penalties may be assessed if you fail to meet your
burden of proving all of the requirements in the affirmative defense.
The affirmative defense shall not be available for claims for
injunctive relief.
(a) Assertion of affirmative defense. To establish the affirmative
defense in any action to enforce such a standard, you must timely meet
the reporting requirements in paragraph (b) of this section, and must
prove by a preponderance of evidence that:
(1) The violation:
(i) Was caused by a sudden, infrequent, and unavoidable failure of
air pollution control equipment, process equipment, or a process to
operate in a normal or usual manner; and
(ii) Could not have been prevented through careful planning, proper
design or better operation and maintenance practices; and
(iii) Did not stem from any activity or event that could have been
foreseen and avoided, or planned for; and
(iv) Was not part of a recurring pattern indicative of inadequate
design, operation, or maintenance; and
(2) Repairs were made as expeditiously as possible when a violation
occurred; and
(3) The frequency, amount, and duration of the violation (including
any bypass) were minimized to the maximum extent practicable; and
(4) If the violation resulted from a bypass of control equipment or
a process, then the bypass was unavoidable to prevent loss of life,
personal injury, or severe property damage; and
(5) All possible steps were taken to minimize the impact of the
violation on ambient air quality, the environment, and human health;
and
(6) All emissions monitoring and control systems were kept in
operation if at all possible, consistent with safety and good air
pollution control practices; and
(7) All of the actions in response to the violation were documented
by properly signed, contemporaneous operating logs; and
(8) At all times, the affected source was operated in a manner
consistent with good practices for minimizing emissions; and
(9) A written root cause analysis has been prepared, the purpose of
which is to determine, correct, and eliminate the primary causes of the
malfunction and the violation resulting from the malfunction event at
issue. The analysis shall also specify, using best monitoring methods
and engineering judgment, the amount of any emissions that were the
result of the malfunction.
(b) Report. The owner or operator seeking to assert an affirmative
defense shall submit a written report to the Administrator with all
necessary supporting documentation, that it has met the requirements
set forth in paragraph (a) of this section. This affirmative defense
report shall be included in the first periodic compliance, deviation
report or excess emission report otherwise required after the initial
occurrence of the violation of the relevant standard (which may be the
end of any applicable averaging period). If such compliance, deviation
report or excess emission report is due less than 45 days after the
initial occurrence of the violation, the affirmative defense report may
be included in the second compliance, deviation report or excess
emission report due after the initial occurrence of the violation of
the relevant standard.

0
13. Section 63.1345 is revised to read as follows:

Sec. 63.1345 Emissions limits for affected sources other than kilns;
clinker coolers; new and reconstructed raw material dryers.

The owner or operator of each new or existing raw material,
clinker, or finished product storage bin; conveying system transfer
point; bagging system; bulk loading or unloading system; raw and finish
mills; and each existing raw material dryer, at a facility which is a
major source subject to the provisions of this subpart must not cause
to be discharged any gases from these affected sources which exhibit
opacity in excess of 10 percent.

0
14. Section 63.1346 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (a) introductory text;
0
b. Revising paragraph (a)(1);
0
c. Revising paragraphs (c) through (f); and
0
d. Adding paragraph (g)
The revisions read as follows:

Sec. 63.1346 Operating limits for kilns.

(a) The owner or operator of a kiln subject to a D/F emissions
limitation under Sec. 63.1343 must operate the kiln such that the
temperature of the gas at the inlet to the kiln PM control device
(PMCD) and alkali bypass PMCD, if applicable, does not exceed the
applicable temperature limit specified in paragraph (b) of this
section. The owner or operator of an in-line kiln/raw mill subject to a
D/F emissions limitation under Sec. 63.1343 must operate the in-line
kiln/raw mill, such that:
(1) When the raw mill of the in-line kiln/raw mill is operating,
the applicable temperature limit for the main in-line kiln/raw mill
exhaust, specified in paragraph (b) of this section and established
during the performance test when the raw mill was operating, is not
exceeded, except during periods of startup and shutdown when the

[[Page 10040]]

temperature limit may be exceeded by no more than 10 percent.
* * * * *
(c) For an affected source subject to a D/F emissions limitation
under Sec. 63.1343 that employs sorbent injection as an emission
control technique for D/F control, you must operate the sorbent
injection system in accordance with paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of this
section.
(1) The rolling three-hour average activated sorbent injection rate
must be equal to or greater than the sorbent injection rate determined
in accordance with Sec. 63.1349(b)(3)(vi).
(2) You must either:
(i) Maintain the minimum activated carbon injection carrier gas
flow rate, as a rolling three-hour average, based on the manufacturer's
specifications. These specifications must be documented in the test
plan developed in accordance with Sec. 63.7(c), or
(ii) Maintain the minimum activated carbon injection carrier gas
pressure drop, as a rolling three-hour average, based on the
manufacturer's specifications. These specifications must be documented
in the test plan developed in accordance with Sec. 63.7(c).
(d) Except as provided in paragraph (e) of this section, for an
affected source subject to a D/F emissions limitation under Sec.
63.1343 that employs carbon injection as an emission control technique
you must specify and use the brand and type of sorbent used during the
performance test until a subsequent performance test is conducted,
unless the site-specific performance test plan contains documentation
of key parameters that affect adsorption and the owner or operator
establishes limits based on those parameters, and the limits on these
parameters are maintained.
(e) For an affected source subject to a D/F emissions limitation
under Sec. 63.1343 that employs carbon injection as an emission
control technique you may substitute, at any time, a different brand or
type of sorbent provided that the replacement has equivalent or
improved properties compared to the sorbent specified in the site-
specific performance test plan and used in the performance test. The
owner or operator must maintain documentation that the substitute
sorbent will provide the same or better level of control as the
original sorbent.
(f) No kiln may use as a raw material or fuel any fly ash where the
mercury content of the fly ash has been increased through the use of
activated carbon, or any other sorbent, unless the facility can
demonstrate that the use of that fly ash will not result in an increase
in mercury emissions over baseline emissions (i.e., emissions not using
the fly ash). The facility has the burden of proving there has been no
emissions increase over baseline. Once the kiln is in compliance with a
mercury emissions limit specified in Sec. 63.1343, this paragraph no
longer applies.
(g) During periods of startup and shutdown you must meet the
requirements listed in (g)(1) through (4) of this section.
(1) During startup you must use any one or combination of the
following clean fuels: natural gas, synthetic natural gas, propane,
distillate oil, synthesis gas (syngas), and ultra-low sulfur diesel
(ULSD) until the kiln reaches a temperature of 1200 degrees Fahrenheit.
(2) Combustion of the primary kiln fuel may commence once the kiln
temperature reaches 1200 degrees Fahrenheit.
(3) All air pollution control devices must be turned on and
operating prior to combusting any fuel.
(4) You must keep records as specified in Sec. 63.1355 during
periods of startup and shutdown.

0
15. Section 63.1347 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(1) to read as
follows:

Sec. 63.1347 Operation and maintenance plan requirements.

(a) * * *
(1) Procedures for proper operation and maintenance of the affected
source and air pollution control devices in order to meet the emissions
limits and operating limits, including fugitive dust control measures
for open clinker piles, of Sec. Sec. 63.1343 through 63.1348. Your
operations and maintenance plan must address periods of startup and
shutdown;
* * * * *

0
16. Section 63.1348 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (a) introductory text and (a)(1) and (2);
0
b. Adding two sentences to paragraph (a)(3)(i);
0
c. Revising paragraph (a)(3)(ii);
0
d. Revising paragraphs (a)(3)(iii) and (iv);
0
e. Revising paragraphs (a)(4) through (8);
0
f. Revising paragraph (b); and
0
g. Revising paragraph (c)(2)(iv).
The revisions and additions read as follows:

Sec. 63.1348 Compliance requirements.

(a) Initial Performance Test Requirements. For an affected source
subject to this subpart, you must demonstrate compliance with the
emissions standards and operating limits by using the test methods and
procedures in Sec. Sec. 63.1349 and 63.7. Any cement kiln that has
been subject to the requirements of subpart CCCC or subpart DDDD of 40
CFR Part 60, and is now electing to cease burning nonhazardous solid
waste and become subject to this subpart, must meet all the initial
compliance testing requirements each time it becomes subject to this
subpart, even if it was previously subject to this subpart.
NOTE to paragraph (a): The first day of the 30 operating day
performance test is the first day after the compliance date following
completion of the field testing and data collection that demonstrates
that the CPMS or CEMS has satisfied the relevant CPMS performance
evaluation or CEMS performance specification (e.g., PS 2, 12A, or 12B)
acceptance criteria. The performance test period is complete at the end
of the 30th consecutive operating day. See Sec. 63.1341 for definition
of operating day and Sec. 63.1348(b)(1) for the CEMS operating
requirements. The source has the option of performing the compliance
test earlier then the compliance date if desired.
(1) PM Compliance. If you are subject to limitations on PM
emissions under Sec. 63.1343(b), you must demonstrate compliance with
the PM emissions standards by using the test methods and procedures in
Sec. 63.1349(b)(1).
(2) Opacity Compliance. If you are subject to the limitations on
opacity under Sec. 63.1345, you must demonstrate compliance with the
opacity emissions standards by using the performance test methods and
procedures in Sec. 63.1349(b)(2). Use the maximum 6-minute average
opacity exhibited during the performance test period to determine
whether the affected source is in compliance with the standard.
(3) * * *
(i) * * * The owner or operator of a kiln with an in-line raw mill
must demonstrate compliance by conducting separate performance tests
while the raw mill is operating and while the raw mill is not
operating. Determine the D/F TEQ concentration for each run and
calculate the arithmetic average of the TEQ concentrations measured for
the three runs to determine continuous compliance.
(ii) If you are subject to a D/F emissions limitation under Sec.
63.1343(b), you must demonstrate compliance with the temperature
operating limits specified in Sec. 63.1346 by using the performance
test methods and procedures in Sec. 63.1349(b)(3)(ii) through
(b)(3)(iv). Use the arithmetic average of the temperatures measured
during the

[[Page 10041]]

three runs to determine the applicable temperature limit.
(iii) If activated carbon injection is used and you are subject to
a D/F emissions limitation under Sec. 63.1343(b), you must demonstrate
compliance with the activated carbon injection rate operating limits
specified in Sec. 63.1346 by using the performance test methods and
procedures in Sec. 63.1349(b)(3)(v).
(iv) If activated carbon injection is used, you must also develop a
carrier gas parameter (either the carrier gas flow rate or the carrier
gas pressure drop) during the initial performance test and updated
during any subsequent performance test conducted under Sec.
63.1349(b)(3) that meets the requirements of Sec. 63.1349(b)(3)(vi).
Compliance is demonstrated if the system is maintained within +/- 5
percent accuracy during the performance test determined in accordance
with the procedures and criteria submitted for review in your
monitoring plan required in section 63.1350(p).
(4)(i) THC Compliance. If you are subject to limitations on THC
emissions under Sec. 63.1343(b), you must demonstrate compliance with
the THC emissions standards by using the performance test methods and
procedures in Sec. 63.1349(b)(4)(i). You must use the average THC
concentration obtained during the first 30 kiln operating days after
the compliance date of this rule to determine initial compliance.
(ii) Total Organic HAP Emissions Tests. If you elect to demonstrate
compliance with the total organic HAP emissions limit under Sec.
63.1343(b) in lieu of the THC emissions limit, you must demonstrate
compliance with the total organic HAP emissions standards by using the
performance test methods and procedures in Sec. 63.1349(b)(7.
(iii) If you are demonstrating initial compliance, you must conduct
the separate performance tests as specified in Sec. 63.1349(b)(7)
while the raw mill of the inline kiln/raw mill is operating and while
the raw mill of the inline kiln/raw mill is not operating.
(iv) The average total organic HAP concentration measured during
the separate initial performance test specified by Sec. 63.1349(b)(7)
must be used to determine initial compliance.
(v) The average THC concentration measured during the initial
performance test specified by Sec. 63.1349(b)(4) must be used to
determine the site-specific THC limit. Using the fraction of time the
inline kiln/raw mill is on and the fraction of time that the inline
kiln/raw mill is off, calculate this limit as a weighted average of the
THC levels measured during raw mill on and raw mill off testing using
one of the two approaches in Sec. 63.1349(b)(7)(vii) or (viii)
depending on the level of organic HAP measured during the compliance
test.
(5) Mercury Compliance. If you are subject to limitations on
mercury emissions in Sec. 63.1343(b), you must demonstrate compliance
with the mercury standards by using the performance test methods and
procedures in Sec. 63.1349(b)(5). You must demonstrate compliance by
operating a mercury CEMS or a sorbent trap based CEMS. Compliance with
the mercury emissions standard must be determined based on the first 30
operating days you operate a mercury CEMS or sorbent trap monitoring
system after the compliance date of this rule.
(i) In calculating a 30 operating day emissions value using an
integrating sorbent trap CEMS, assign the average Hg emissions
concentration determined for an integrating period (e.g., 7 day sorbent
trap monitoring system sample) to each relevant hour of the kiln
operating days spanned by each integrated sample. Calculate the 30 kiln
operating day emissions rate value using the assigned hourly Hg
emissions concentrations and the respective flow and production rate
values collected during the 30 kiln operating day performance test
period. Depending on the duration of each integrated sampling period,
you may not be able to calculate the 30 kiln operating day emissions
value until several days after the end of the 30 kiln operating day
performance test period.
(ii) For example, a sorbent trap monitoring system producing an
integrated 7-day sample will provide Hg concentration data for each
hour of the first 28 kiln operating days (i.e., four values spanning 7
days each) of a 30 operating day period. The Hg concentration values
for the hours of the last 2 days of the 30 operating day period will
not be available for calculating the emissions for the performance test
period until at least five days after the end of the subject period.
(6) HCl Compliance. If you are subject to limitations on HCl
emissions under Sec. 63.1343(b), you must demonstrate initial
compliance with the HCl standards by using the performance test methods
and procedures in Sec. 63.1349(b)(6).
(i) For an affected source that is equipped with a wet scrubber,
tray tower or dry scrubber, you may demonstrate initial compliance by
conducting a performance test as specified in Sec. 63.1349(b)(6)(i).
You must determine the HCl concentration for each run and calculate the
arithmetic average of the concentrations measured for the three runs to
determine compliance. You must also establish appropriate site-specific
operational parameter limits.
(ii) For an affected source that is not equipped with a wet
scrubber, tray tower or dry scrubber, you must demonstrate initial
compliance by operating a CEMS as specified in Sec. 63.1349(b)(6)(ii).
You must use the average of the hourly HCl values obtained during the
first 30 kiln operating days that occur after the compliance date of
this rule to determine initial compliance.
(7) Commingled Exhaust Requirements. If the coal mill exhaust is
commingled with kiln exhaust in a single stack, you may demonstrate
compliance with the kiln emission limits by either:
(i) Performing required emissions monitoring and testing on the
commingled coal mill and kiln exhaust, or
(ii) Perform required emission monitoring and testing of the kiln
exhaust prior to the reintroduction of the coal mill exhaust, and also
testing the kiln exhaust diverted to the coal mill. All emissions must
be added together for all emission points, and must not exceed the
limit per each pollutant as listed in S63.1343(b).
(b) Continuous Monitoring Requirements. You must demonstrate
compliance with the emissions standards and operating limits by using
the performance test methods and procedures in Sec. Sec. 63.1350 and
63.8 for each affected source.
(1) General Requirements. (i) You must monitor and collect data
according to Sec. 63.1350 and the site-specific monitoring plan
required by Sec. 63.1350(p).
(ii) Except for periods of startup and shutdown, monitoring system
malfunctions, repairs associated with monitoring system malfunctions,
and required monitoring system quality assurance or quality control
activities (including, as applicable, calibration checks and required
zero and span adjustments), you must operate the monitoring system and
collect data at all required intervals at all times the affected source
is operating.
(iii) You may not use data recorded during monitoring system
malfunctions, repairs associated with monitoring system malfunctions,
or required monitoring system quality assurance or control activities
in calculations used to report emissions or operating levels. A
monitoring system malfunction is any

[[Page 10042]]

sudden, infrequent, not reasonably preventable failure of the
monitoring system to provide valid data. Monitoring system failures
that are caused in part by poor maintenance or careless operation are
not malfunctions. You must use all the data collected during all other
periods in assessing the operation of the control device and associated
control system.
(iv) Clinker Production. If you are subject to limitations on
mercury emissions (lb/MM tons of clinker) under Sec. 63.1343(b), you
must determine the hourly production rate of clinker according to the
requirements of Sec. 63.1350(d).
(2) PM Compliance. If you are subject to limitations on PM
emissions under Sec. 63.1343(b), you must use the monitoring methods
and procedures in Sec. 63.1350(b) and (d).
(3) Opacity Compliance. If you are subject to the limitations on
opacity under Sec. 63.1345, you must demonstrate compliance using the
monitoring methods and procedures in Sec. 63.1350(f) based on the
maximum 6-minute average opacity exhibited during the performance test
period. You must initiate corrective actions within one hour of
detecting visible emissions above the applicable limit.
(i) COMS. If you install a COMS in lieu of conducting the daily
visible emissions testing, you must demonstrate compliance using a COMS
such that it is installed, operated, and maintained in accordance with
the requirements of Sec. 63.1350(f)(4)(i).
(ii) Bag leak determination system (BLDS). If you install a BLDS on
a raw mill or finish mill in lieu of conducting the daily visible
emissions testing, you must demonstrate compliance using a BLDS that is
installed, operated, and maintained in accordance with the requirements
of Sec. 63.1350(f)(4)(ii).
(4) D/F Compliance. If you are subject to a D/F emissions
limitation under Sec. 63.1343(b), you must demonstrate compliance
using a CMS that is installed, operated and maintained to record the
temperature of specified gas streams in accordance with the
requirements of Sec. 63.1350(g).
(5)(i) Activated Carbon Injection Compliance. If you use activated
carbon injection to comply with the D/F emissions limitation under
Sec. 63.1343(b), you must demonstrate compliance using a CMS that is
installed, operated, and maintained to record the rate of activated
carbon injection in accordance with the requirements Sec.
63.1350(h)(1).
(ii) If you use activated carbon injection to comply with the D/F
emissions limitation under Sec. 63.1343(b), you must demonstrate
compliance using a CMS that is installed, operated and maintained to
record the activated carbon injection system gas parameter in
accordance with the requirements of Sec. 63.1350(h)(2).
(6) THC Compliance. (i) If you are subject to limitations on THC
emissions under Sec. 63.1343(b), you must demonstrate compliance using
the monitoring methods and procedures in Sec. 63.1350(i) and (j).
(ii) THC must be measured either upstream of the coal mill or in
the coal mill stack.
(7) Mercury Compliance. (i) If you are subject to limitations on
mercury emissions in Sec. 63.1343(b), you must demonstrate compliance
using the monitoring methods and procedures in Sec. 63.1350(k). If you
use an integrated sorbent trap monitoring system to determine ongoing
compliance, use the procedures described in Sec. 63.1348(a)(5) to
assign hourly mercury concentration values and to calculate rolling 30
operating day emissions rates. Since you assign the mercury
concentration measured with the sorbent trap to each relevant hour
respectively for each operating day of the integrated period, you may
schedule the sorbent trap change periods to any time of the day (i.e.,
the sorbent trap replacement need not be scheduled at 12:00 midnight
nor must the sorbent trap replacements occur only at integral 24-hour
intervals).
(ii) Mercury must be measured either upstream of the coal mill or
in the coal mill stack.
(8) HCl Compliance. If you are subject to limitations on HCl
emissions under Sec. 63.1343(b), you must demonstrate compliance using
the performance test methods and procedures in Sec. 63.1349(b)(6).
(i) For an affected source that is not equipped with a wet
scrubber, tray tower or a dry sorbent injection system, you must
demonstrate compliance using the monitoring methods and procedures in
Sec. 63.1350(l)(1).
(ii) For an affected source that is equipped with a wet scrubber,
tray tower or a dry sorbent injection system, you may demonstrate
compliance using the monitoring methods and procedures in Sec.
63.1350(l)(2).
(iii) HCl may be measured either upstream of the coal mill or in
the coal mill stack.
(iv) As an alternative to paragraph (b)(8)(ii) of this section, you
may use an SO2 CEMS to establish an SO2 operating
level during your initial and repeat HCl performance tests and monitor
the SO2 level using the procedures in Sec. 63.1350(l)(3).
(9) Startup and Shutdown Compliance. In order to demonstrate
continuous compliance during startup and shutdown, all air pollution
control devices must be operating.
(c) * * *
(2) * * *
(iv) The performance test must be completed within 360 hours after
the planned operational change period begins.
* * * * *

0
17. Section 63.1349 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (a) introductory text;
0
b. Revising paragraph (b)(1);
0
c. Revising paragraph (b)(3) introductory text;
0
d. Revising paragraphs (b)(3)(v) and (vi);
0
e. Revising paragraphs (b)(4), (5), and (6);
0
f. Adding paragraph (b)(7) and (8); and
0
g. Revising paragraphs (c), (d)(1) introductory text, (d)(1)(ii),
(d)(2), and (e).
The revisions and additions read as follows:

Sec. 63.1349 Performance testing requirements.

(a) You must document performance test results in complete test
reports that contain the information required by paragraphs (a)(1)
through (10) of this section, as well as all other relevant
information. As described in Sec. 63.7(c)(2)(i), you must make
available to the Administrator prior to testing, if requested, the
site-specific test plan to be followed during performance testing. For
purposes of determining exhaust gas flow rate to the atmosphere from an
alkali bypass stack or a coal mill stack, you must either install,
operate, calibrate and maintain an instrument for continuously
measuring and recording the exhaust gas flow rate according to the
requirements in paragraphs Sec. 63.1350(n)(1) through (10) of this
subpart or use the maximum design exhaust gas flow rate. For purposes
of determining the combined emissions from kilns equipped with an
alkali bypass or that exhaust kiln gases to a coal mill that exhausts
through a separate stack, instead of installing a CEMS on the alkali
bypass stack or coal mill stack, you may use the results of the initial
and subsequent performance test to demonstrate compliance with the
relevant emissions limit.
* * * * *
(b)(1) PM emissions tests. The owner or operator of a kiln subject
to limitations on PM emissions shall demonstrate initial compliance by
conducting a performance test using Method 5 or Method 5I at appendix
A-3 to part 60 of this chapter. You must

[[Page 10043]]

also monitor continuous performance through use of a PM continuous
parametric monitoring system (PM CPMS).
(i) For your PM CPMS, you will establish a site-specific operating
limit. If your PM performance test demonstrates your PM emission levels
to be below 75 percent of your emission limit you will use the average
PM CPMS value recorded during the PM compliance test, the milliamp
equivalent of zero output from your PM CPMS, and the average PM result
of your compliance test to establish your operating limit. If your PM
compliance test demonstrates your PM emission levels to be at or above
75 percent of your emission limit you will use the average PM CPMS
value recorded during the PM compliance test to establish your
operating limit. You will use the PM CPMS to demonstrate continuous
compliance with your operating limit. You must repeat the performance
test annually and reassess and adjust the site-specific operating limit
in accordance with the results of the performance test.
(A) Your PM CPMS must provide a 4-20 milliamp output and the
establishment of its relationship to manual reference method
measurements must be determined in units of milliamps.
(B) Your PM CPMS operating range must be capable of reading PM
concentrations from zero to a level equivalent to three times your
allowable emission limit. If your PM CPMS is an auto-ranging instrument
capable of multiple scales, the primary range of the instrument must be
capable of reading PM concentration from zero to a level equivalent to
three times your allowable emission limit.
(C) During the initial performance test or any such subsequent
performance test that demonstrates compliance with the PM limit, record
and average all milliamp output values from the PM CPMS for the periods
corresponding to the compliance test runs (e.g., average all your PM
CPMS output values for three corresponding 2-hour Method 5I test runs).
(ii) Determine your operating limit as specified in paragraphs
(b)(1)(iii) through (iv) of this section. If your PM performance test
demonstrates your PM emission levels to be below 75 percent of your
emission limit you will use the average PM CPMS value recorded during
the PM compliance test, the milliamp equivalent of zero output from
your PM CPMS, and the average PM result of your compliance test to
establish your operating limit. If your PM compliance test demonstrates
your PM emission levels to be at or above 75 percent of your emission
limit you will use the average PM CPMS value recorded during the PM
compliance test to establish your operating limit. You must verify an
existing or establish a new operating limit after each repeated
performance test. You must repeat the performance test at least
annually and reassess and adjust the site-specific operating limit in
accordance with the results of the performance test.
(iii) If the average of your three Method 5 or 5I compliance test
runs is below 75 percent of your PM emission limit, you must calculate
an operating limit by establishing a relationship of PM CPMS signal to
PM concentration using the PM CPMS instrument zero, the average PM CPMS
values corresponding to the three compliance test runs, and the average
PM concentration from the Method 5 or 5I compliance test with the
procedures in (a)(1)(iii)(A) through (D) of this section.
(A) Determine your PM CPMS instrument zero output with one of the
following procedures.
(1) Zero point data for in-situ instruments should be obtained by
removing the instrument from the stack and monitoring ambient air on a
test bench.
(2) Zero point data for extractive instruments should be obtained
by removing the extractive probe from the stack and drawing in clean
ambient air.
(3) The zero point may also be established by performing manual
reference method measurements when the flue gas is free of PM emissions
or contains very low PM concentrations (e.g., when your process is not
operating, but the fans are operating or your source is combusting only
natural gas) and plotting these with the compliance data to find the
zero intercept.
(4) If none of the steps in paragraphs (a)(1)(iii)(A)(1) through
(3) of this section are possible, you must use a zero output value
provided by the manufacturer.
(B) Determine your PM CPMS instrument average in milliamps, and the
average of your corresponding three PM compliance test runs, using
equation 3.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12FE13.008

Where:

X1 = The PM CPMS data points for the three runs
constituting the performance test.
Y1 = The PM concentration value for the three runs
constituting the performance test.
n = The number of data points.

(C) With your instrument zero expressed in milliamps, your three
run average PM CPMS milliamp value, and your three run PM compliance
test average, determine a relationship of lb/ton-clinker per milliamp
with Equation 4.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12FE13.009

Where:

R = The relative lb/ton-clinker per milliamp for your PM CPMS.
Y1 = The three run average lb/ton-clinker PM
concentration.
X1 = The three run average milliamp output from you PM
CPMS.
z = The milliamp equivalent of your instrument zero determined from
(b)(1)(iii)(A).

(D) Determine your source specific 30-day rolling average operating
limit using the lb/ton-clinker per milliamp value from Equation 4 in
Equation 5, below. This sets your operating limit at the PM CPMS output
value corresponding to 75 percent of your emission limit.

[[Page 10044]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12FE13.010

Where:

(iv) If the average of your three PM compliance test runs is at or
above 75 percent of your PM emission limit you must determine your
operating limit by averaging the PM CPMS milliamp output corresponding
to your three PM performance test runs that demonstrate compliance with
the emission limit using Equation 6.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12FE13.011

Where:

X1 = The PM CPMS data points for all runs i.
n = The number of data points.
Oh = Your site specific operating limit, in milliamps.

(v) To determine continuous operating compliance, you must record
the PM CPMS output data for all periods when the process is operating,
and use all the PM CPMS data for calculations when the source is not
out-of-control. You must demonstrate continuous compliance by using all
quality-assured hourly average data collected by the PM CPMS for all
operating hours to calculate the arithmetic average operating parameter
in units of the operating limit (milliamps) on a 30 operating day
rolling average basis, updated at the end of each new kiln operating
day. Use Equation 7 to determine the 30 kiln operating day average.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12FE13.012

Where:

Hpvi = The hourly parameter value for hour i.
n = The number of valid hourly parameter values collected over 30
kiln operating days.

(vi) For each performance test, conduct at least three separate
test runs under the conditions that exist when the affected source is
operating at the highest load or capacity level reasonably expected to
occur. Conduct each test run to collect a minimum sample volume of 2
dscm for determining compliance with a new source limit and 1 dscm for
determining compliance with an existing source limit. Calculate the
average of the results from three consecutive runs, including
applicable sources as required by (D)(viii), to determine compliance.
You need not determine the particulate matter collected in the
impingers (``back half'') of the Method 5 or Method 5I particulate
sampling train to demonstrate compliance with the PM standards of this
subpart. This shall not preclude the permitting authority from
requiring a determination of the ``back half'' for other purposes.
(vii) For PM performance test reports used to set a PM CPMS
operating limit, the electronic submission of the test report must also
include the make and model of the PM CPMS instrument, serial number of
the instrument, analytical principle of the instrument (e.g. beta
attenuation), span of the instruments primary analytical range,
milliamp value equivalent to the instrument zero output, technique by
which this zero value was determined, and the average milliamp signals
corresponding to each PM compliance test run.
(viii) When there is an alkali bypass and/or an inline coal mill
with a separate stack associated with a kiln, the main exhaust and
alkali bypass and/or inline coal mill must be tested simultaneously and
the combined emission rate of PM from the kiln and alkali bypass and/or
inline coal mill must be computed for each run using Equation 8 of this
section.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12FE13.013

Where:

EC = Combined hourly emission rate of PM from the kiln
and bypass stack and/or inline coal mill, lb/ton of kiln clinker
production.
EK = Hourly emissions of PM emissions from the kiln, lb.
EB = Hourly PM emissions from the alkali bypass stack,
lb.
EC = Hourly PM emissions from the inline coal mill stack,
lb.
P = Hourly clinker production, tons.

(ix) The owner or operator of a kiln with an in-line raw mill and
subject to limitations on PM emissions shall demonstrate initial
compliance by conducting separate performance tests while the raw mill
is under normal operating conditions and while the raw mill is not
operating.
* * * * *

[[Page 10045]]

(3) D/F Emissions Tests. If you are subject to limitations on D/F
emissions under this subpart, you must conduct a performance test using
Method 23 of appendix A-7 to part 60 of this chapter. If your kiln or
in-line kiln/raw mill is equipped with an alkali bypass, you must
conduct simultaneous performance tests of the kiln or in-line kiln/raw
mill exhaust and the alkali bypass. You may conduct a performance test
of the alkali bypass exhaust when the raw mill of the in-line kiln/raw
mill is operating or not operating.
* * * * *
(v)(A) If sorbent injection is used for D/F control, you must
record the rate of sorbent injection to the kiln exhaust, and where
applicable, the rate of sorbent injection to the alkali bypass exhaust,
continuously during the period of the Method 23 test in accordance with
the conditions in Sec. 63.1350(m)(9), and include the continuous
injection rate record(s) in the performance test report. Determine the
sorbent injection rate parameters in accordance with paragraphs
(b)(3)(vi) of this section.
(B) Include the brand and type of sorbent used during the
performance test in the performance test report.
(C) Maintain a continuous record of either the carrier gas flow
rate or the carrier gas pressure drop for the duration of the
performance test. If the carrier gas flow rate is used, determine,
record, and maintain a record of the accuracy of the carrier gas flow
rate monitoring system according to the procedures in appendix A to
part 75 of this chapter. If the carrier gas pressure drop is used,
determine, record, and maintain a record of the accuracy of the carrier
gas pressure drop monitoring system according to the procedures in
Sec. 63.1350(m)(6).
(vi) Calculate the run average sorbent injection rate for each run
and determine and include the average of the run average injection
rates in the performance test report and determine the applicable
injection rate limit in accordance with Sec. 63.1346(c)(1).
(4) THC emissions test. (i) If you are subject to limitations on
THC emissions, you must operate a CEMS in accordance with the
requirements in Sec. 63.1350(i). For the purposes of conducting the
accuracy and quality assurance evaluations for CEMS, the THC span value
(as propane) is 50 ppmvd and the reference method (RM) is Method 25A of
appendix A to part 60 of this chapter.
(ii) Use the THC CEMS to conduct the initial compliance test for
the first 30 kiln operating days of kiln operation after the compliance
date of the rule. See 63.1348(a).
(iii) If kiln gases are diverted through an alkali bypass or to a
coal mill and exhausted through a separate stack, you must calculate a
kiln-specific THC limit using Equation 9:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12FE13.014

Where:

Cks = Kiln stack concentration (ppmvd).
Qab = Alkali bypass flow rate (volume/hr).
Cab = Alkali bypass concentration (ppmvd).
Qcm = Coal mill flow rate (volume/hr).
Ccm = Coal mill concentration (ppmvd).
Qks = Kiln stack flow rate (volume/hr).

(iv) THC must be measured either upstream of the coal mill or the
coal mill stack.
(v) Instead of conducting the performance test specified in
paragraph (b)(4)of this section, you may conduct a performance test to
determine emissions of total organic HAP by following the procedures in
paragraphs (b)(7) of this section.
(5) Mercury Emissions Tests. If you are subject to limitations on
mercury emissions, you must operate a mercury CEMS or a sorbent trap
monitoring system in accordance with the requirements of Sec.
63.1350(k). The initial compliance test must be based on the first 30
kiln operating days in which the affected source operates using a
mercury CEMS or a sorbent trap monitoring system after the compliance
date of the rule. See Sec. 63.1348(a).
(i) If you are using a mercury CEMS or a sorbent trap monitoring
system, you must install, operate, calibrate, and maintain an
instrument for continuously measuring and recording the exhaust gas
flow rate to the atmosphere according to the requirements in Sec.
63.1350(k)(5).
(ii) Calculate the emission rate using Equation 10 of this section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12FE13.015

Where:

E30D = 30-day rolling emission rate of mercury, lb/MM
tons clinker.
Ci = Concentration of mercury for operating hour i,
[mu]g/scm.
Qi = Volumetric flow rate of effluent gas for operating
hour i, where Ci and Qi are on the same basis
(either wet or dry), scm/hr.
k = Conversion factor, 1 lb/454,000,000 [mu]g.
n = Number of kiln operating hours in a 30 kiln operating day
period.
P = 30 days of clinker production during the same time period as the
mercury emissions measured, million tons.

(6) HCl emissions tests. For a source subject to limitations on HCl
emissions you must conduct performance testing by one of the following
methods:
(i)(A) If the source is equipped with a wet scrubber, tray tower or
dry scrubber, you must conduct performance testing using Method 321 of
appendix A to this part unless you have installed a CEMS that meets the
requirements Sec. 63.1350(l)(1). For kilns with inline raw mills,
testing should be conducted for the raw mill on and raw mill off
conditions.
(B) You must establish site specific parameter limits by using the
CPMS required in Sec. 63.1350(l)(1). For a wet scrubber or tray tower,
measure and record the pressure drop across the scrubber and/or liquid
flow rate and pH in intervals of no more than 15 minutes during the HCl
test. Compute and record the 24-hour average pressure drop, pH, and
average scrubber water flow rate for each sampling run in which the
applicable emissions limit is met. For a dry scrubber, measure and
record the sorbent injection rate in intervals of no more than 15
minutes during the HCl test. Compute and record the 24-hour average
sorbent injection rate and average sorbent injection rate for each
sampling run in which the applicable emissions limit is met.
(ii)(A) If the source is not controlled by a wet scrubber, tray
tower or dry sorbent injection system, you must operate a CEMS in
accordance with the requirements of Sec. 63.1350(l)(1). See Sec.
63.1348(a).
(B) The initial compliance test must be based on the 30 kiln
operating days that occur after the compliance date of this rule in
which the affected source operates using a HCl CEMS. Hourly HCl
concentration data must be obtained according to Sec. 63.1350(l).
(iii) As an alternative to paragraph (b)(6)(i)(B) of this section,
you may choose to monitor SO2 emissions using a CEMS in
accordance with the

[[Page 10046]]

requirements of Sec. 63.1350(l)(3). You must establish an
SO2 operating limit equal to the highest 1 hour average
recorded during the HCl stack test. This operating limit will apply
only for demonstrating HCl compliance.
(iv) If kiln gases are diverted through an alkali bypass or to a
coal mill and exhausted through a separate stack, you must calculate a
kiln-specific HCl limit using Equation 11:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12FE13.016

Where:

(7) Total Organic HAP Emissions Tests. Instead of conducting the
performance test specified in paragraph (a)(4) of this section, you may
conduct a performance test to determine emissions of total organic HAP
by following the procedures in paragraphs (a)(7)(i) through (v) of this
section.
(i) Use Method 320 of appendix A to this part, Method 18 of
Appendix A of part 60, ASTM D6348-03 or a combination to determine
emissions of total organic HAP. Each performance test must consist of
three separate runs under the conditions that exist when the affected
source is operating at the representative performance conditions in
accordance with Sec. 63.7(e). Each run must be conducted for at least
1 hour.
(ii) At the same time that you are conducting the performance test
for total organic HAP, you must also determine a site-specific THC
emissions limit by operating a THC CEMS in accordance with the
requirements of Sec. 63.1350(j). The duration of the performance test
must be at least 3 hours and the average THC concentration (as
calculated from the 1-minute averages) during the 3-hour test must be
calculated. You must establish your THC operating limit and determine
compliance with it according to paragraphs (a)(7)(vii)through (viii)of
this section. It is permissible to extend the testing time of the
organic HAP performance test if you believe extended testing is
required to adequately capture THC variability over time.
(iii) If your source has an in-line kiln/raw mill you must use the
fraction of time the raw mill is on and the fraction of time that the
raw mill is off and calculate this limit as a weighted average of the
THC levels measured during raw mill on and raw mill off testing.
(iv) If your organic HAP emissions are below 75 percent of the
organic HAP standard and you determine your operating limit with
paragraph (b)(7)(vii) of this section your THC CEMS must be calibrated
and operated on a measurement scale no greater than 180 ppmvw, as
carbon, or 60 ppmvw as propane.
(v) Your THC CEMS measurement scale must be capable of reading THC
concentrations from zero to a level equivalent to two times your
highest THC emissions average determined during your performance test,
including mill on or mill off operation. Note: This may require the use
of a dual range instrument to meet this requirement and paragraph
(b)(7)(iv) of this section.
(vi) Determine your operating limit as specified in paragraphs
(a)(7)(vii) and (viii) of this section. If your organic HAP performance
test demonstrates your average organic HAP emission levels are below 75
percent of your emission limit (9 ppmv) you will use the average THC
value recorded during the organic HAP performance test, and the average
total organic HAP result of your performance test to establish your
operating limit. If your organic HAP compliance test results
demonstrate your average organic HAP emission levels are at or above 75
percent of your emission limit, your operating limit is established as
the average THC value recorded during the organic HAP performance test.
You must establish a new operating limit after each performance test.
You must repeat the performance test no later than 30 months following
your last performance test and reassess and adjust the site-specific
operating limit in accordance with the results of the performance test.
(vii) If the average organic HAP results for your three Method 18
and/or Method 320 performance test runs are below 75 percent of your
organic HAP emission limit, you must calculate an operating limit by
establishing a relationship of THC CEMS signal to the organic HAP
concentration using the average THC CEMS value corresponding to the
three organic HAP compliance test runs and the average organic HAP
total concentration from the Method 18 and/or Method 320 performance
test runs with the procedures in (a)(7)(vii)(A) and (B) of this
section.
(A) Determine the THC CEMS average values in ppmvw, and the average
of your corresponding three total organic HAP compliance test runs,
using Equation 12.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12FE13.017

Where:

x = The THC CEMS average values in ppmvw.
Xi= The THC CEMS data points for all three runs i.
Yi= The sum of organic HAP concentrations for test runs i. and
n = The number of data points.

(B) You must use your three run average THC CEMS value, and your
three run average organic HAP concentration from your three Method 18
and/or Method 320 compliance tests to determine the operating limit.
Use equation 13 to determine your operating limit in units of ppmvw
THC, as propane.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12FE13.018

[[Page 10047]]

Where:

Tl = The 30-day operating limit for your THC CEMS, ppmvw.
Y1 = The average organic HAP concentration from Eq. 12,
ppmv.
X1 = The average THC CEMS concentration from Eq. 12,
ppmvw.

(viii) If the average of your three organic HAP performance test
runs is at or above 75 percent of your organic HAP emission limit, you
must determine your operating limit using Equation 14 by averaging the
THC CEMS output values corresponding to your three organic HAP
performance test runs that demonstrate compliance with the emission
limit. If your new THC CEMS value is below your current operating
limit, you may opt to retain your current operating limit, but you must
still submit all performance test and THC CEMS data according to the
reporting requirements in paragraph (d)(1) of this section.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12FE13.019

Where:

X1 = The THC CEMS data points for all runs i.
Y1 = The organic HAP total value for runs i.
n = The number of data points.
Th = Your site specific operating limit, in ppmvw THC.

(ix) If your kiln has an inline kiln/raw mill, you must conduct
separate performance tests while the raw mill is operating (``mill
on'') and while the raw mill is not operating (``mill off''). Using the
fraction of time the raw mill is on and the fraction of time that the
raw mill is off, calculate this limit as a weighted average of the THC
levels measured during raw mill on and raw mill off compliance testing
with Equation 15.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12FE13.020

Where:

R = Operating limit as THC, ppmvw.
y = Average THC CEMS value during mill on operations, ppmvw.
t = Percentage of operating time with mill on.
x = Average THC CEMS value during mill off operations, ppmvw.
(1-t) = Percentage of operating time with mill off.

(x) To determine continuous compliance with the THC operating
limit, you must record the THC CEMS output data for all periods when
the process is operating and the THC CEMS is not out-of-control. You
must demonstrate continuous compliance by using all quality-assured
hourly average data collected by the THC CEMS for all operating hours
to calculate the arithmetic average operating parameter in units of the
operating limit (ppmvw) on a 30 operating day rolling average basis,
updated at the end of each new kiln operating day. Use Equation 16 to
determine the 30 kiln operating day average.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12FE13.021

Where:

Hpvi = The hourly parameter value for hour i, ppmvw.
n = The number of valid hourly parameter values collected over 30
kiln operating days.

(xi) Use EPA Method 18 or Method 320 of appendix A to part 60 of
this chapter to determine organic HAP emissions. For each performance
test, conduct at least three separate runs under the conditions that
exist when the affected source is operating at the highest load or
capacity level reasonably expected to occur. If your source has an in-
line kiln/raw mill you must conduct three separate test runs with the
raw mill on, and three separate runs under the conditions that exist
when the affected source is operating at the highest load or capacity
level reasonably expected to occur with the mill off. Conduct each
Method 18 test run to collect a minimum target sample equivalent to
three times the method detection limit. Calculate the average of the
results from three runs to determine compliance.
(xii) If the THC level exceeds by 10 percent or more your site-
specific THC emissions limit, you must
(A) As soon as possible but no later than 30 days after the
exceedance, conduct an inspection and take corrective action to return
the THC CEMS measurements to within the established value; and
(B) Within 90 days of the exceedance or at the time of the annual
compliance test, whichever comes first, conduct another performance
test to determine compliance with the organic HAP limit and to verify
or re-establish your site-specific THC emissions limit.
(8) HCl Emissions Tests with SO2 Monitoring. If you
choose to monitor SO2 emissions using a CEMS to demonstrate
HCl compliance, follow the procedures in (b)(8)(i) through (ix) of this
section and in accordance with the requirements of Sec. 63.1350(l)(3).
You must establish an SO2 operating limit equal to the
average of the SO2 emissions recorded during the HCl stack
test. This operating limit will apply only for demonstrating HCl
compliance.
(i) Use Method 321 of appendix A to this part to determine
emissions of HCl. Each performance test must consist of three separate
runs under the conditions that exist when the affected source is
operating at the representative performance conditions in accordance
with Sec. 63.7(e). Each run must be conducted for at least one hour.
(ii) At the same time that you are conducting the performance test
for HCl, you must also determine a site-specific SO2
emissions limit by

[[Page 10048]]

operating an SO2 CEMS in accordance with the requirements of
Sec. 63.1350(l). The duration of the performance test must be three
hours and the average SO2 concentration (as calculated from
the 1-minute averages) during the 3-hour test must be calculated. You
must establish your SO2 operating limit and determine
compliance with it according to paragraphs (b)(8)(vii) and (viii)of
this section.
(iii) If your source has an in-line kiln/raw mill you must use the
fraction of time the raw mill is on and the fraction of time that the
raw mill is off and calculate this limit as a weighted average of the
SO2 levels measured during raw mill on and raw mill off
testing.
(iv) Your SO2 CEMS must be calibrated and operated
according to the requirements of Sec. 60.63(f).
(v) Your SO2 CEMS measurement scale must be capable of
reading SO2 concentrations consistent with the requirements
of Sec. 60.63(f), including mill on or mill off operation.
(vi) If your kiln has an inline kiln/raw mill, you must conduct
separate performance tests while the raw mill is operating (``mill
on'') and while the raw mill is not operating (``mill off''). Using the
fraction of time the raw mill is on and the fraction of time that the
raw mill is off, calculate this limit as a weighted average of the THC
levels measured during raw mill on and raw mill off compliance testing
with Equation 17.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12FE13.022

Where:

R = Operating limit as SO2, ppmvw.
y = Average SO2 CEMS value during mill on operations,
ppmvw.
t = Percentage of operating time with mill on, expressed as a
decimal.
x = Average SO2 CEMS value during mill off operations,
ppmvw.
t-1 = Percentage of operating time with mill off, expressed as a
decimal.

(vii) To determine continuous compliance with the SO2
operating limit, you must record the SO2 CEMS output data
for all periods when the process is operating and the SO2
CEMS is not out-of-control. You must demonstrate continuous compliance
by using all quality-assured hourly average data collected by the
SO2 CEMS for all operating hours to calculate the arithmetic
average operating parameter in units of the operating limit (ppmvw) on
a 30 operating day rolling average basis, updated at the end of each
new kiln operating day. Use Equation 18 to determine the 30 kiln
operating day average.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12FE13.023

Where:

Hpvi = The hourly parameter value for hour i, ppmvw.
n = The number of valid hourly parameter values collected over 30
kiln operating days.

(viii) Use EPA Method 321 of appendix A to part 60 of this chapter
to determine HCl emissions. For each performance test, conduct at least
three separate runs under the conditions that exist when the affected
source is operating at the highest load or capacity level reasonably
expected to occur. If your source has an in-line kiln/raw mill you must
conduct three separate test runs with the raw mill on, and three
separate runs under the conditions that exist when the affected source
is operating at the highest load or capacity level reasonably expected
to occur with the mill off.
(ix) If the SO2 level exceeds by 10 percent or more your
site-specific SO2 emissions limit, you must
(A) As soon as possible but no later than 30 days after the
exceedance, conduct an inspection and take corrective action to return
the SO2 CEMS measurements to within the established value.
and
(B) Within 90 days of the exceedance or at the time of the annual
compliance test, whichever comes first, conduct another performance
test to determine compliance with the HCl limit and to verify or re-
establish your site-specific SO2 emissions limit.
(c) Performance Test Frequency. Except as provided in Sec.
63.1348(b), performance tests are required at regular intervals for
affected sources that are subject to a dioxin, organic HAP or HCl
emissions limit and must be repeated every 30 months except for
pollutants where that specific pollutant is monitored using CEMS. Tests
for PM are repeated every 12 months.
(d) Performance Test Reporting Requirements. (1) You must submit
the information specified in paragraphs (d)(1) and (2) of this section
no later than 60 days following the initial performance test. All
reports must be signed by a responsible official.
* * * * *
(ii) The values for the site-specific operating limits or
parameters established pursuant to paragraphs (b)(1), (3), (6), and (7)
of this section, as applicable, and a description, including sample
calculations, of how the operating parameters were established during
the initial performance test.
(2) As of December 31, 2011 and within 60 days after the date of
completing each performance evaluation or test, as defined in Sec.
63.2, conducted to demonstrate compliance with any standard covered by
this subpart, you must submit the relative accuracy test audit data and
performance test data, except opacity data, to the EPA by successfully
submitting the data electronically to the EPA's Central Data Exchange
(CDX) by using the Electronic Reporting Tool(ERT) (see http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/ert_tool.html/).
(e) Conditions of performance tests. Conduct performance tests
under such conditions as the Administrator specifies to the owner or
operator based on representative performance of the affected source for
the period being tested. Upon request, you must make available to the
Administrator such records as may be necessary to determine the
conditions of performance tests.

0
18. Section 63.1350 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (a) through (d);
0
b. Revising paragraph (f) introductory text;

[[Page 10049]]

0
c. Revising paragraphs (f)(1)(iv) through (f)(1)(vi);
0
d. Revising paragraphs (f)(2)(i) and (f)(2)(iii);
0
e. Revising paragraphs (f)(3) and (f)(4);
0
f. Revising paragraph (g)(1) introductory text;
0
g. Revising paragraphs (g)(2) and (g)(4);
0
h. Revising paragraph (h)(1)(ii);
0
i. Revising paragraphs (i)(1) and (i)(2);
0
j. Revising paragraph (k);
0
k. Revising paragraph (l);
0
l. Revising paragraph (m) introductory text;
0
m. Revising paragraphs (m)(3) and (m)(7)(i);
0
n. Revising introductory text for paragraphs (m)(9) and (m) (10);
0
o. Revising paragraph (m)(10)(i) through (m)(10)(vii), and paragraph
(m)(11)(v);
0
p. Revising introductory text for paragraphs (n), (o), and (p);
0
q. Removing and reserving paragraph (n)(3); and
0
r. Revising introductory text for paragraphs (p)(1), (p)(2), and
(p)(5).
The revisions and additions read as follows:

Sec. 63.1350 Monitoring requirements.

(a)(1) Following the compliance date, the owner or operator must
demonstrate compliance with this subpart on a continuous basis by
meeting the requirements of this section.
(2) All continuous monitoring data for periods of startup and
shutdown must be compiled and averaged separately from data gathered
during other operating periods.
(3) For each existing unit that is equipped with a CMS, maintain
the average emissions or the operating parameter values within the
operating parameter limits established through performance tests.
(4) Any instance where the owner or operator fails to comply with
the continuous monitoring requirements of this section is a violation.
(b) PM monitoring requirements. (1)(i) PM CPMS. You will use a PM
CPMS to establish a site-specific operating limit corresponding to the
results of the performance test demonstrating compliance with the PM
limit. You will conduct your performance test using Method 5 or Method
5I at appendix A-3 to part 60 of this chapter. You will use the PM CPMS
to demonstrate continuous compliance with this operating limit. You
must repeat the performance test annually and reassess and adjust the
site-specific operating limit in accordance with the results of the
performance test using the procedures in Sec. 63.1349(b)(1) (i)
through (vi) of this subpart. You must also repeat the test if you
change the analytical range of the instrument, or if you replace the
instrument itself or any principle analytical component of the
instrument that would alter the relationship of output signal to in-
stack PM concentration.
(ii) To determine continuous compliance, you must use the PM CPMS
output data for all periods when the process is operating and the PM
CPMS is not out-of-control. You must demonstrate continuous compliance
by using all quality-assured hourly average data collected by the PM
CPMS for all operating hours to calculate the arithmetic average
operating parameter in units of the operating limit (milliamps) on a 30
operating day rolling average basis, updated at the end of each new
kiln operating day.
(iii) For any exceedance of the 30 process operating day PM CPMS
average value from the established operating parameter limit, you must:
(A) Within 48 hours of the exceedance, visually inspect the APCD;
(B) If inspection of the APCD identifies the cause of the
exceedance, take corrective action as soon as possible and return the
PM CPMS measurement to within the established value; and
(C) Within 30 days of the exceedance or at the time of the annual
compliance test, whichever comes first, conduct a PM emissions
compliance test to determine compliance with the PM emissions limit and
to verify or re-establish the PM CPMS operating limit within 45 days.
You are not required to conduct additional testing for any exceedances
that occur between the time of the original exceedance and the PM
emissions compliance test required under this paragraph.
(iv) PM CPMS exceedances leading to more than four required
performance tests in a 12-month process operating period (rolling
monthly) constitute a presumptive violation of this subpart.
(2) [Reserved]
(c) [Reserved]
(d) Clinker production monitoring requirements. In order to
determine clinker production, you must:
(1) Determine hourly clinker production by one of two methods:
(i) Install, calibrate, maintain, and operate a permanent weigh
scale system 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, or
(ii) Install, calibrate, maintain, and operate a permanent weigh
scale system to measure and record weight rates in tons-mass per hour
of the amount of feed to the kiln. The system of measuring feed must be
maintained within 5 percent accuracy. Calculate your hourly
clinker production rate using a kiln-specific feed to clinker ratio
based on reconciled clinker production determined for accounting
purposes and recorded feed rates. Update this ratio monthly. Note that
if this ratio changes at clinker reconciliation, you must use the new
ratio going forward, but you do not have to retroactively change
clinker production rates previously estimated.
(iii) [Reserved]
(2) Determine, record, and maintain a record of the accuracy of the
system of measuring hourly clinker production (or feed mass flow if
applicable) before initial use (for new sources) or by the effective
compliance date of this rule (for existing sources). During each
quarter of source operation, you must determine, record, and maintain a
record of the ongoing accuracy of the system of measuring hourly
clinker production (or feed mass flow).
(3) If you measure clinker production directly, record the daily
clinker production rates; if you measure the kiln feed rates and
calculate clinker production, record the hourly kiln feed and clinker
production rates.
(4) Develop an emissions monitoring plan in accordance with
paragraphs (p)(1) through (p)(4) of this section.
* * * * *
(f) Opacity Monitoring Requirements. If you are subject to a
limitation on opacity under Sec. 63.1345, you must conduct required
opacity monitoring in accordance with the provisions of paragraphs
(f)(1)(i) through (vii) of this section and in accordance with your
monitoring plan developed under Sec. 63.1350(p). You must also develop
an opacity monitoring plan in accordance with paragraphs (p)(1) through
(4) and paragraph (o)(5), if applicable, of this section.
(1) * * *
(iv) If visible emissions are observed during any Method 22
performance test, of appendix A-7 to part 60 of this chapter, you must
conduct 30 minutes of opacity observations, recorded at 15-second
intervals, in accordance with Method 9 of appendix A-4 to part 60 of
this chapter. The Method 9 performance test, of appendix A-4 to part 60
of this chapter, must begin within 1 hour of any observation of visible
emissions.
(v) Any totally enclosed conveying system transfer point,
regardless of the location of the transfer point is not required to
conduct Method 22 visible emissions monitoring under this

[[Page 10050]]

paragraph. The enclosures for these transfer points must be operated
and maintained as total enclosures on a continuing basis in accordance
with the facility operations and maintenance plan.
(vi) If any partially enclosed or unenclosed conveying system
transfer point is located in a building, you must conduct a Method 22
performance test, of appendix A-7 to part 60 of this chapter, according
to the requirements of paragraphs (f)(1)(i) through (iv) of this
section for each such conveying system transfer point located within
the building, or for the building itself, according to paragraph
(f)(1)(vii) of this section.
* * * * *
(2)(i) For a raw mill or finish mill, you must monitor opacity by
conducting daily visible emissions observations of the mill sweep and
air separator PM control devices (PMCD) of these affected sources in
accordance with the procedures of Method 22 of appendix A-7 to part 60
of this chapter. The duration of the Method 22 performance test must be
6 minutes.
* * * * *
(iii) If visible emissions are observed during the follow-up Method
22 performance test required by paragraph (f)(2)(ii) of this section
from any stack from which visible emissions were observed during the
previous Method 22 performance test required by paragraph (f)(2)(i) of
the section, you must then conduct an opacity test of each stack from
which emissions were observed during the follow up Method 22
performance test in accordance with Method 9 of appendix A-4 to part 60
of this chapter. The duration of the Method 9 test must be 30 minutes.
(3) If visible emissions are observed during any Method 22 visible
emissions test conducted under paragraphs (f)(1) or (2) of this
section, you must initiate, within one-hour, the corrective actions
specified in your operation and maintenance plan as required in Sec.
63.1347.
(4) The requirements under paragraph (f)(2) of this section to
conduct daily Method 22 testing do not apply to any specific raw mill
or finish mill equipped with a COMS or BLDS.
(i) If the owner or operator chooses to install a COMS in lieu of
conducting the daily visible emissions testing required under paragraph
(f)(2) of this section, then the COMS must be installed at the outlet
of the PM control device of the raw mill or finish mill and the COMS
must be installed, maintained, calibrated, and operated as required by
the general provisions in subpart A of this part and according to PS-1
of appendix B to part 60 of this chapter.
(ii) If you choose to install a BLDS in lieu of conducting the
daily visible emissions testing required under paragraph (f)(2) of this
section, the requirements in paragraphs (m)(1) through (m)(4), (m)(10)
and (m)(11) of this section apply.
(g) * * *
(1) You must install, calibrate, maintain, and continuously operate
a CMS to record the temperature of the exhaust gases from the kiln and
alkali bypass, if applicable, at the inlet to, or upstream of, the kiln
and/or alkali bypass PMCDs.
* * * * *
(2) You must monitor and continuously record the temperature of the
exhaust gases from the kiln and alkali bypass, if applicable, at the
inlet to the kiln and/or alkali bypass PMCD.
* * * * *
(4) Calculate the rolling three-hour average temperature using the
average of 180 successive one-minute average temperatures. See Sec.
63.1349(b)(3).
* * * * *
(h) * * *
(1) * * *
(ii) Each hour, calculate the three-hour rolling average activated
carbon injection rate for the previous three hours of process
operation. See Sec. 63.1349(b)(3).
* * * * *
(i) * * *
(1) You must install, operate, and maintain a THC continuous
emission monitoring system in accordance with Performance Specification
8A of appendix B to part 60 of this chapter and comply with all of the
requirements for continuous monitoring systems found in the general
provisions, subpart A of this part. The owner or operator must operate
and maintain each CEMS according to the quality assurance requirements
in Procedure 1 of appendix F in part 60 of this chapter.
(2) Performance tests on alkali bypass and coal mill stacks must be
conducted using Method 25A in appendix A to 40 CFR part 60 and repeated
annually.
* * * * *
(k) Mercury Monitoring Requirements. If you have a kiln subject to
an emissions limitation on mercury emissions, you must install and
operate a mercury continuous emissions monitoring system (Hg CEMS) in
accordance with Performance Specification 12A (PS 12A) of appendix B to
part 60 of this chapter or an integrated sorbent trap monitoring system
in accordance with Performance Specification 12B (PS 12B) of appendix B
to part 60 of this chapter. You must monitor mercury continuously
according to paragraphs (k)(1) through (5) of this section. You must
also develop an emissions monitoring plan in accordance with paragraphs
(p)(1) through (4) of this section.
(1) You must use a span value for any Hg CEMS that represents the
mercury concentration corresponding to approximately two times the
emissions standard and may be rounded up to the nearest multiple of 5
[micro]g/m\3\ of total mercury or higher level if necessary to include
Hg concentrations which may occur (excluding concentrations during in-
line raw ``mill off'' operation). As specified in PS 12A, Section
6.1.1, the data recorder output range must include the full range of
expected Hg concentration values which would include those expected
during ``mill off'' conditions. Engineering judgments made and
calculations used to determine the corresponding span concentration
from the emission standard shall be documented in the site-specific
monitoring plan and associated records.
(2) In order to quality assure data measured above the span value,
you must use one of the two options in paragraphs (k)(2)(i) and (ii) of
this section.
(i) Include a second span that encompasses the Hg emission
concentrations expected to be encountered during ``mill off''
conditions. This second span may be rounded to a multiple of 5
[micro]g/m\3\ of total mercury. The requirements of PS 12A, shall be
followed for this second span with the exception that a RATA with the
mill off is not required.
(ii) Quality assure any data above the span value established in
paragraph (k)(1) of this section using the following procedure. Any
time two consecutive one-hour average measured concentration of Hg
exceeds the span value you must, within 24 hours before or after,
introduce a higher, ``above span'' Hg reference gas standard to the Hg
CEMS. The ``above span'' reference gas must meet the requirements of PS
12A, Section 7.1, must be of a concentration level between 50 and 150
percent of the highest hourly concentration measured during the period
of measurements above span, and must be introduced at the probe. Record
and report the results of this procedure as you would for a daily
calibration. The ``above span'' calibration is successful if the value
measured by the Hg CEMS is within 20 percent of the certified value of
the reference gas. If the value measured by the Hg CEMS exceeds 20
percent of the

[[Page 10051]]

certified value of the reference gas, then you must normalize the one-
hour average stack gas values measured above the span during the 24-
hour period preceding or following the ``above span'' calibration for
reporting based on the Hg CEMS response to the reference gas as shown
in equation 19:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12FE13.024

Only one `above span' calibration is needed per 24 hour period.

(3) You must operate and maintain each Hg CEMS or an integrated
sorbent trap monitoring system according to the quality assurance
requirements in Procedure 5 of appendix F to part 60 of this chapter.
During the RATA of integrated sorbent trap monitoring systems required
under Procedure 5, you may apply the appropriate exception for sorbent
trap section 2 breakthrough in (k)(3)(i) through (iv) of this section:
(i) For stack Hg concentrations >1 [micro]g/dscm, <=10% of section
1 mass;
(ii) For stack Hg concentrations <=1 [micro]g/dscm and >0.5
[micro]g/dscm, <=20% of section 1 mass;
(iii) For stack Hg concentrations <=0.5 [micro]g/dscm and >0.1
[micro]g/dscm, <=50% of section 1 mass; and
(iv) For stack Hg concentrations <=0.1 [micro]g/dscm, no
breakthrough criterion assuming all other QA/QC specifications are met.
(4) Relative accuracy testing of mercury monitoring systems under
PS 12A, PS 12B, or Procedure 5 must be conducted at normal operating
conditions. If a facility has an inline raw mill, the testing must
occur with the raw mill on.
(5) If you use a Hg CEMS or an integrated sorbent trap monitoring
system, you must install, operate, calibrate, and maintain an
instrument for continuously measuring and recording the exhaust gas
flow rate to the atmosphere according to the requirements in paragraphs
(n)(1) through (10) of this section. If kiln gases are diverted through
an alkali bypass or to a coal mill and exhausted through separate
stacks, you must account for the mercury emitted from those stacks by
following the procedures in (k)(5)(i) through (iv) of this section:
(i) Develop a mercury hourly mass emissions rate by conducting
annual performance tests using Method 29, or Method 30B, to measure the
concentration of mercury in the gases exhausted from the alkali bypass
and coal mill.
(ii) On a continuous basis, determine the mass emissions of mercury
in lb/hr from the alkali bypass and coal mill exhausts by using the
mercury hourly emissions rate, the exhaust gas flow rate and hourly
mercury emission rate to calculate hourly mercury emissions in lb/hr.
(iii) Sum the hourly mercury emissions from the kiln, alkali bypass
and coal mill to determine total mercury emissions. Using hourly
clinker production, calculate the hourly emissions rate in pounds per
ton of clinker to determine your 30 day rolling average.
(iv) If mercury emissions from the coal mill are below the method
detection limit for two consecutive annual performance tests, you may
reduce the frequency of the performance tests of coal mills to once
every 30 months. If the measured mercury concentration exceeds the
method detection limit, you must revert to testing annually until two
consecutive annual tests are below the method detection limit.
(6) If you operate an integrated sorbent trap monitoring system
conforming to PS 12B, you may use a monitoring period at least 24 hours
but no longer than 168 hours in length. You should use a monitoring
period that is a multiple of 24 hours (except during relative accuracy
testing as allowed in PS 12B).
(l) HCl Monitoring Requirements. If you are subject to an emissions
limitation on HCl emissions in Sec. 63.1343, you must monitor HCl
emissions continuously according to paragraph (l)(1) or (2) and
paragraphs (m)(1) through (4) of this section or, if your kiln is
controlled using a wet or dry scrubber or tray tower, you alternatively
may parametrically monitor SO2 emissions continuously
according to paragraph (l)(3) of this section. You must also develop an
emissions monitoring plan in accordance with paragraphs (p)(1) through
(4) of this section.
(1) If you monitor compliance with the HCl emissions limit by
operating an HCl CEMS, you must do so in accordance with Performance
Specification 15 (PS 15) of appendix B to part 60 of this chapter, or,
upon promulgation, in accordance with any other performance
specification for HCl CEMS in appendix B to part 60 of this chapter.
You must operate, maintain, and quality assure a HCl CEMS installed and
certified under PS 15 according to the quality assurance requirements
in Procedure 1 of appendix F to part 60 of this chapter except that the
Relative Accuracy Test Audit requirements of Procedure 1 must be
replaced with the validation requirements and criteria of sections
11.1.1 and 12.0 of PS 15. If you install and operate an HCl CEMS in
accordance with any other performance specification for HCl CEMS in
appendix B to part 60 of this chapter, you must operate, maintain and
quality assure the HCl CEMS using the procedure of appendix F to part
60 of this chapter applicable to the performance specification. You
must use Method 321 of appendix A to part 63 of this chapter as the
reference test method for conducting relative accuracy testing. The
span value and calibration requirements in paragraphs (l)(1)(i) and
(ii) of this section apply to HCl CEMS other than those installed and
certified under PS 15.
(i) You must use a span value for any HCl CEMS that represents the
intended upper limit of the HCl concentration measurement range during
normal inline raw ``mill on'' operation. The span value should be a
concentration equivalent to approximately two times the emissions
standard and it may be rounded to the nearest multiple of 5 ppm of HCl.
The HCl CEMS data recorder output range must include the full range of
expected HCl concentration values which would include those expected
during ``mill off'' conditions. Engineering judgments made and
calculations used to determine the corresponding span concentration
from the emission standard shall be documented in the site-specific
monitoring plan and associated records.
(ii) In order to quality assure data measured above the span value,
you must use one of the two options in paragraphs (l)(1)(ii)(A) and (B)
of this section.
(A) Include a second span that encompasses the HCl emission
concentrations expected to be

[[Page 10052]]

encountered during ``mill off'' conditions. This second span may be
rounded to a multiple of 5 [mu]g/m\3\ of total HCl. The requirements of
the appropriate HCl monitor performance specification, shall be
followed for this second span with the exception that a RATA with the
mill off is not required.
(B) Quality assure any data above the span value established in
paragraph (1)(1)(i) of this section using the following procedure. Any
time the average measured concentration of HCl exceeds or is expected
to exceed the span value for greater than two hours you must, within a
period 24 hours before or after the `above span' period, introduce a
higher, `above span' HCl reference gas standard to the HCl CEMS. The
`above span' reference gas must meet the requirements of the applicable
performance specification and be of a concentration level between 50
and 100 percent of the highest hourly concentration measured during the
period of measurements above span, and must be introduced at the probe.
Record and report the results of this procedure as you would for a
daily calibration. The `above span' calibration is successful if the
value measured by the HCl CEMS is within 20 percent of the certified
value of the reference gas. If the value measured by the HCl CEMS is
not within 20 percent of the certified value of the reference gas, then
you must normalize the stack gas values measured above span as
described in paragraph (l)(1)(ii)(C) below. If the `above span'
calibration is conducted during the period when measured emissions are
above span and there is a failure to collect the required minimum
number of data points in an hour due to the calibration duration, then
you must determine the emissions average for that missed hour as the
average of hourly averages for the hour preceding the missed hour and
the hour following the missed hour.
(C) In the event that the `above span' calibration is not
successful (i.e., the HCl CEMS measured value is not within 20 percent
of the certified value of the reference gas), then you must normalize
the one-hour average stack gas values measured above the span during
the 24-hour period preceding or following the `above span' calibration
for reporting based on the HCl CEMS response to the reference gas as
shown in Equation 20:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12FE13.025

Only one `above span' calibration is needed per 24-hour period.

(2) Install, operate, and maintain a CMS to monitor wet scrubber or
tray tower parameters, as specified in paragraphs (m)(5) and (7) of
this section, and dry scrubber, as specified in paragraph (m)(9) of
this section.
(3) If the source is equipped with a wet or dry scrubber or tray
tower, and you choose to monitor SO2 emissions, monitor
SO2 emissions continuously according to the requirements of
Sec. 60.63(e) through (f) of part 60 subpart F of this chapter. If
SO2 levels increase above the 30-day rolling average
SO2 operating limit established during your performance
test, you must:
(i) As soon as possible but no later than 48 hours after you exceed
the established SO2 value conduct an inspection and take
corrective action to return the SO2 emissions to within the
operating limit; and
(ii) Within 60 days of the exceedance or at the time of the next
compliance test, whichever comes first, conduct an HCl emissions
compliance test to determine compliance with the HCl emissions limit
and to verify or re-establish the SO2 CEMS operating limit.
(m) Parameter Monitoring Requirements. If you have an operating
limit that requires the use of a CMS, you must install, operate, and
maintain each continuous parameter monitoring system (CPMS) according
to the procedures in paragraphs (m)(1) through (4) of this section by
the compliance date specified in Sec. 63.1351. You must also meet the
applicable specific parameter monitoring requirements in paragraphs
(m)(5) through (11) that are applicable to you.
* * * * *
(3) Determine the 1-hour block average of all recorded readings.
* * * * *
(7) * * *
(i) Locate the pH sensor in a position that provides a
representative measurement of wet scrubber or tray tower effluent pH.
* * * * *
(9) Mass Flow Rate (for Sorbent Injection) Monitoring Requirements.
If you have an operating limit that requires the use of equipment to
monitor sorbent injection rate (e.g., weigh belt, weigh hopper, or
hopper flow measurement device), you must meet the requirements in
paragraphs (m)(9)(i) through (iii) of this section. These requirements
also apply to the sorbent injection equipment of a dry scrubber.
* * * * *
(10) Bag leak detection monitoring requirements. If you elect to
use a fabric filter bag leak detection system to comply with the
requirements of this subpart, you must install, calibrate, maintain,
and continuously operate a BLDS as specified in paragraphs (m)(10)(i)
through (viii) of this section.
(i) You must install and operate a BLDS for each exhaust stack of
the fabric filter.
(ii) Each BLDS must be installed, operated, calibrated, and
maintained in a manner consistent with the manufacturer's written
specifications and recommendations and in accordance with the guidance
provided in EPA-454/R-98-015, September 1997.
(iii) The BLDS must be certified by the manufacturer to be capable
of detecting PM emissions at concentrations of 10 or fewer milligrams
per actual cubic meter.
(iv) The BLDS sensor must provide output of relative or absolute PM
loadings.
(v) The BLDS must be equipped with a device to continuously record
the output signal from the sensor.
(vi) The BLDS must be equipped with an alarm system that will alert
an operator automatically when an increase in relative PM emissions
over a preset level is detected. The alarm must be located such that
the alert is detected and recognized easily by an operator.
(vii) For positive pressure fabric filter systems that do not duct
all compartments of cells to a common stack, a BLDS must be installed
in each baghouse compartment or cell.
* * * * *
(11) * * *
(v) Cleaning the BLDS probe or otherwise repairing the BLDS; or
* * * * *
(n) Continuous Flow Rate Monitoring System. You must install,
operate, calibrate, and maintain instruments, according to the
requirements in

[[Page 10053]]

paragraphs (n)(1) through (10) of this section, for continuously
measuring and recording the stack gas flow rate to allow determination
of the pollutant mass emissions rate to the atmosphere from sources
subject to an emissions limitation that has a pounds per ton of clinker
unit.
* * * * *
(o) Alternate Monitoring Requirements Approval. You may submit an
application to the Administrator for approval of alternate monitoring
requirements to demonstrate compliance with the emission standards of
this subpart, except for emission standards for THC, subject to the
provisions of paragraphs (o)(1) through (6) of this section.
* * * * *
(p) Development and Submittal (Upon Request) of Monitoring Plans.
If you demonstrate compliance with any applicable emissions limit
through performance stack testing or other emissions monitoring, you
must develop a site-specific monitoring plan according to the
requirements in paragraphs (p)(1) through (4) of this section. This
requirement also applies to you if you petition the EPA Administrator
for alternative monitoring parameters under paragraph (o) of this
section and Sec. 63.8(f). If you use a BLDS, you must also meet the
requirements specified in paragraph (p)(5) of this section.
(1) For each CMS required in this section, you must develop, and
submit to the permitting authority for approval upon request, a site-
specific monitoring plan that addresses paragraphs (p)(1)(i) through
(iii) of this section. You must submit this site-specific monitoring
plan, if requested, at least 30 days before your initial performance
evaluation of your CMS.
* * * * *
(2) In your site-specific monitoring plan, you must also address
paragraphs (p)(2)(i) through (iii) of this section.
* * * * *
(5) BLDS Monitoring Plan. Each monitoring plan must describe the
items in paragraphs (p)(5)(i) through (v) of this section. At a
minimum, you must retain records related to the site-specific
monitoring plan and information discussed in paragraphs (m)(1) through
(4), (m)(10) and (11) of this section for a period of 5 years, with at
least the first 2 years on-site;
* * * * *

0
19. Section 63.1351 is amended by revising paragraphs (c) and (d) and
adding paragraph (e) to read as follows:

Sec. 63.1351 Compliance dates.

* * * * *
(c) The compliance date for existing sources for all the
requirements that became effective on February 12, 2013, except for the
open clinker pile requirements will be September 9, 2015.
(d) The compliance date for new sources is February 12, 2013, or
startup, whichever is later.
(e) The compliance date for existing sources with the requirements
for open clinker storage piles in Sec. 63.1343(c) is February 12,
2014.

0
20. Section 63.1352 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as
follows:

Sec. 63.1352 Additional test methods.

* * * * *
(b) Owners or operators conducting tests to determine the rates of
emission of specific organic HAP from raw material dryers, and kilns at
Portland cement manufacturing facilities, solely for use in
applicability determinations under Sec. 63.1340 of this subpart are
permitted to use Method 320 of appendix A to this part, or Method 18 of
appendix A to part 60 of this chapter.

0
21. Section 63.1353 is amended by adding paragraph (b)(6) to read as
follows:

Sec. 63.1353 Notification Requirements.

* * * * *
(b) * * *
(6) Within 48 hours of an exceedance that triggers retesting to
establish compliance and new operating limits, notify the appropriate
permitting agency of the planned performance tests. The notification
requirements of Sec. Sec. 63.7(b) and 63.9(e) do not apply to
retesting required for exceedances under this subpart.

0
22. Section 63.1354 is amended by:
0
a. Removing and reserving paragraphs (b)(4) and (5);
0
b. Revising paragraph (b)(9)(vi);
0
c. Adding paragraph (b)(9)(vii); and
0
d. Revising paragraph (c).
The revisions read as follows:

Sec. 63.1354 Reporting requirements.

* * * * *
(b) * * *
(9) * * *
(vi) For each PM, HCl, Hg, and THC CEMS or Hg sorbent trap
monitoring system, within 60 days after the reporting periods, you must
submit reports to the EPA's WebFIRE database by using the Compliance
and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI) that is accessed through
the EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX) (www.epa.gov/cdx). You must use
the appropriate electronic reporting form in CEDRI or provide an
alternate electronic file consistent with the EPA's reporting form
output format. For each reporting period, the reports must include all
of the calculated 30-operating day rolling average values derived from
the CEMS or Hg sorbent trap monitoring systems.
(vii) In response to each violation of an emissions standard or
established operating parameter limit, the date, duration and
description of each violation and the specific actions taken for each
violation including inspections, corrective actions and repeat
performance tests and the results of those actions.
* * * * *
(c) Reporting a failure to meet a standard due to a malfunction.
For each failure to meet a standard or emissions limit caused by a
malfunction at an affected source, you must report the failure in the
semi-annual compliance report required by Sec. 63.1354(b)(9). The
report must contain the date, time and duration, and the cause of each
event (including unknown cause, if applicable), and a sum of the number
of events in the reporting period. The report must list for each event
the affected source or equipment, an estimate of the volume of each
regulated pollutant emitted over the emission limit for which the
source failed to meet a standard, and a description of the method used
to estimate the emissions. The report must also include a description
of actions taken by an owner or operator during a malfunction of an
affected source to minimize emissions in accordance with Sec.
63.1348(d), including actions taken to correct a malfunction.

0
23. Section 63.1355 is amended by revising paragraphs (f) and (g)(1)
and adding paragraph (h) to read as follows:

Sec. 63.1355 Recordkeeping Requirements.

* * * * *
(f) You must keep records of the date, time and duration of each
startup or shutdown period for any affected source that is subject to a
standard during startup or shutdown that differs from the standard
applicable at other times, and the quantity of feed and fuel used
during the startup or shutdown period.
(g)(1) You must keep records of the date, time and duration of each
malfunction that causes an affected source to fail to meet an
applicable standard; if there was also a monitoring malfunction, the
date, time and duration of the monitoring malfunction; the record must
list the affected source or equipment, an estimate of the volume of
each regulated pollutant emitted over the standard for which the source
failed to meet a standard, and a description of

[[Page 10054]]

the method used to estimate the emissions.
* * * * *
(h) For each exceedance from an emissions standard or established
operating parameter limit, you must keep records of the date, duration
and description of each exceedance and the specific actions taken for
each exceedance including inspections, corrective actions and repeat
performance tests and the results of those actions.

0
24. Section 63.1356 is revised to read as follows:

Sec. 63.1356 Sources with multiple emissions limit or monitoring
requirements.

If an affected facility subject to this subpart has a different
emissions 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 emissions limit
or requirement and is exempt from the less stringent requirement.

0
25. Section 63.1357 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) to
read as follows:

Sec. 63.1357 Temporary, conditioned exemption from particulate matter
and opacity standards.

(a) * * *
(1) Any PM and opacity standards of part 60 or part 63 of this
chapter that are applicable to cement kilns and clinker coolers.
(2) Any permit or other emissions or operating parameter or other
limitation on workplace practices that are applicable to cement kilns
and clinker coolers to ensure compliance with any PM and opacity
standards of this part or part 60 of this chapter.
* * * * *

0
26. Table 3 to Subpart LLL of Part 63 is revised by revising the
entries for 63.6(e)(3), 63.7(b), and 63.9(e) to read as follows:

Table 3--To Subpart LLL of Part 63--Applicability of General Provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applies to Subpart
Citation Requirement LLL Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * * * *
63.6(e)(3)............. Startup, Shutdown No................ Your operations and maintenance plan must
Malfunction Plan. address periods of startup and shutdown.
See Sec. 63.1347(a)(1).

* * * * * * *
63.7(b)................ Notification period.... Yes............... Except for repeat performance test caused
by an exceedance. See Sec.
63.1353(b)(6)

* * * * * * *
63.9(e)................ Notification of Yes............... Except for repeat performance test caused
performance test. by an exceedance. See Sec.
63.1353(b)(6)

* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2012-31633 Filed 2-11-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P